Obviously, innocentive is taking this concept one step higher by making innovation players penetrate into the world of open innovation. With systems like in innocentive and the like, innovation is no longer carried out by the sole representatives of research and development departments, but is actually open to external players. In the course of this presentation I gave examples of solved challenges at Solvay (a Belgian chemical manufacturer) and the BOGO (buy one get one) light bulb mentioned in Time magazine this month. As I said in my presentation, I do not think that ideagoras will take the jobs of people such as those who were listening to the conference. More importantly, I think this will change the way that they work. They are increasingly challenged by their management be it at Thales or anywhere else, in order to produce better results and make innovation more directly profitable to the entire company. Ideagoras are a step forward in the right direction. Internal ideagoras to start with are there to ensure that people are talking to one another and that they have exploited internal competencies to the full. But external ideagoras are taking thingsfurther and they come as a complement to internal r&d. I do not believe in full innovation and product development outsourcing. It would be silly as it would deprive a company from its competitive advantage and its ability to improve and evolve its product and service lines. I believe in ideagoras coming on top of internal processes. It may even be grabbing something in the regions of 10 to 15% of current r&d budgets if all goes well. Actually, it is possible that these 10-15% will not go to one particular ideagora, but to several of them as companies will want to spread risk across different services and different communities, and they will want to use their different business models and processes.

A spin-off of Eli Lilly, innocentive is a system of crowdsourcing, where "problems are waiting for a solution". With innocentive, seekers are asking questions and they are waiting for solvers to post their answers to their challenges. Other business models exist such as yet2.com, which is devoted to bringing "solutions in need of a problem". I can't think that the two models are mutually exclusive. As a matter of fact, I think they have a lot in common, and that they could be combined for greater benefit. It seems that it is the route chosen by Procter & Gamble which seem to be clients of many an ideagora.

At the end of the day, the distinction between technologically-driven innovation (solutions in need of a problem), and business-driven innovation (problems in search of a solution) is the real gist of the problem, and one which we addressed through the joint innovation programme methodology described in our White Paper. It all hinges on the need to describe innovation and what it means, and the absolute necessity to define objectives, which need to be smart (specific, measurable, achievable, realistic and time-bound) objectives.

I enjoyed this presentation thoroughly, and I am looking forward to the next iteration of the technical leadership programme at Thales University.

At Cisco France's request I wrote this brief article (see per below) on the role that innovation can play in customer relationships. This article will be published shortly in the client publication, which is entitled Ciscomag. In order to write this article, I used the material developed for a previous interview carried out in September 2007 for NextTimes, which is the Orange equivalent of Ciscomag for Orange Business Services (click here to read the September issue of NextTimes, the article being on page 2).

I have added a few recent references to this core material. The main purpose of this article is to lay the stress on our clients' requests for outsourcing and how they evolve. This is not the only goal however. In a recent article entitled, "is innovative outsourcing a pipe dream" (that title in itself in fact is causing an issue, because one wonders whether the journalist is referring to innovative outsourcing, i.e. outsourcing done differently, versus innovation within outsourcing, which is in fact the true subject), Stephanie Overby describes how difficult it is to execute on an innovation strategy within outsourcing. In essence, the future outsourced client wants his or her savings delivered (standard outsourcing savings being 20% on average, in this kind of contracts), and the vendor is therefore making a lot of promises with regard to innovation, which according to Stephanie Overby will seldom if ever be implemented. As soon as the contract is signed, the outsourcing service provider is caught in the daily woes of delivery and has literally no bandwidth left for innovation implementation. In many cases, Overby is right - and that was the case for the December client mentioned in my article (client name will remain hidden).

However, innovation in outsourcing is in my mind not a pipe-dream and here are the reasons why I think we can add a few nuances to Overby's conclusions. There is a case in my eyes for a halo effect (re. the halo effect blog and the book), i.e we are adding several causes which are not actually linked to one another. Besides, there is also a confusion between the relevance of a strategic objective and the quality of its execution:

There may be other points, but these are the main ones. Other details are available within our White Paper on innovation which describes our approach minutely.

Joint innovation: creating an "amazing" client relationship

Innovation has been on top of the technology agenda for a few years now. The end of the early 2000 Internet bubble has forced companies to take it into account in their strategies. As a consequence it is no longer viewed as a low priority and necessary evil, and it has now become an integral part of growth and sustainability. As a consequence, Technology vendors are also evolving their service offerings in order to propose more new technologies, and innovative service approaches too. Even in financially-driven outsource deals, clients are now demanding that innovation be a significant part of the process.

But how can we ensure that we are all talking about the same kind of innovation? There is a strong requirement for vendors to elicit the requirement for innovation in conjunction with their clients and develop a heuristic of creativity which will enable both vendors and clients to reap the benefits of innovation. In order to address these issues, it is required that we take a bit of hindsight and apply a very methodical approach. Paradoxically, innovation and methodology are less antagonistic as it may seem at first sight. In the first place, one has to elicit the definition of an innovation requirement and translate it into a solution. This is why Orange Business Services has developed its joint innovation approach and a whole range of methods and tools in order to make joint innovation happen.

At the end of December 2007, a large worldwide industrialist was hosting a meeting in London and inviting us there. The welcome speech of the head of sourcing started with a very open proposal: "We want this relationship to be an amazing relationship". When we were first invited at that client meeting we already knew what to expect. Innovation was the main reason for this large International manufacturer to terminate its current outsourcing contract with an incumbent supplier, three years only after it was originally awarded and despite the fact that its original duration was five years. This case is not isolated and is a sign that enterprises have become more mature in the way that they handle outsourcing and also with regard to the benefit they can expect from innovation with such constraints.

This change, we had measured time and time again, and also during a survey led by Orange on a panel of 600 Executives last summer (2007): 46% of respondents were saying that a joint innovation programme was a must-have, and 39% were declaring that it was a good thing. The focus of outsourcing has shifted away from being simply a way of reducing costs; now companies are recognising that outsourcers are partners and a great source of new business ideas. IT and communications are frequently integral to new services in sectors like financial services, media and retail, and so major technology partners, such as outsourcers, are taking a more dynamic role in their customers' innovation process. Outsourcers, by working closely with customers, have become the catalyst for developing 21^st century solutions to existing business problems. Outsourcing is not just a chance to update existing technologies with new ones, although continuous improvement is an important part of the contract. It gives you the opportunity to set up the next iteration of your business model.

The joint innovation concept

Success depends on harnessing innovation between the two parties. Orange Business Services has an established and proven joint innovation program that helps to combine the innovations generated by Orange Labs, the experience of Orange's professional services who work closely with customers in diverse sectors, and the customers who know more about their own businesses than anyone else.

Sometimes people view innovation as the generation, prioritization and development of radically new ideas. But whether it's incremental or disruptive, innovation always benefits from experimentation that involved customers and partners. Analyst Forrester believes that these ‘innovation networks' are growing in importance. Its research found that three quarters of CEOs across all verticals now view external collaboration as indispensable to innovation.

Orange has worked with diverse companies to develop and co-market new solutions. With AXA, Orange jointly developed a remote blood pressure monitoring solution for patients suffering from chronic high blood pressure. For London Waste, Orange developed a routing system to prevent rubbish lorries entering zones where lorries are prohibited. And for EADS and the design of its A340M aircraft, Orange Labs used an in-house 3D modelling tool in an innovative application: it merged it into its web conferencing tool so airplane engineers in multiple locations could view 3D models in a collaborative environment without having to fly to face-to-face meetings.

All of these companies have benefited from joint innovation. The program helps Orange customers to think beyond the typical boundaries of product development and at new ways of conducting their businesses, either at the operational level or in order to develop new services.

Joint innovation program

The Orange joint innovation program can be divided into two parts. The first is dedicated to uncovering potential business opportunities and high-level design of potential technical solutions. This joint innovation assessment (JIA) is where Orange evaluates the innovation context, environment and new ideas.

The JIA will present a series of prioritised innovation opportunities, which can then be carried forward to a pilot. Of course, not all ideas will lead to real projects. It's normal for ideas deemed sound at the outset to be excluded later on.

But the joint innovation program doesn't stop with assessments and the prioritisation of good ideas. The main benefit in engaging in that kind of process is about delving into actual project development in conjunction with Orange Business Services. This will typically involve piloting innovations within a controlled environment and if this is successful, the customized solution can be prototyped and brought to market. Orange Business Services will dedicate time and resources to the project in order to ensure that it delivers business benefits for its clients. The ultimate stage of joint innovation is about the generation of a new business model as was the case with lens manufacturer Essilor and the development of the Orange video goggles which are now sold in all Orange outlets in France. One does not need to invent a new business model to start a joint innovation program but this option shows how serious Orange Business Services is about innovating jointly with its clients.

As I explained in a previous post on his blog, my gifts for the New Year is now available for download at www.visionarymarketing.com. Here is the introductory text again for those who have missed the previous entry.

"If you have always wanted to know everything about innovation but were too afraid to ask, rest assured because Visionary Marketing will bring this information to you in a few days.

Our good friend Brice Auckenthaler (founder and general manager of Experts-Consulting, a leading edge Innovation Consultancy group based in Paris, France) has been kind enough to let us publish the first few sheets from his brand new book to come: Imagination 3.0. Although the official release of Imagination 3.0 will take place in late January, you will be able to read and download the first few pages of this new unmissable opus in a few days from now.

Brice is undoubtedly our best expert in innovation and his and his team's ability cover the entire spectrum of innovation, from creativity to making the rubber meet the road. Their references encompass major players as Nestlé and Thalys, Maserati, Mc Donald's, Ferrari, Kraft, Coca Cola, Société Générale and others. Their footprint is International (Europe, USA, Asia, South America, China, Australia etc.) and their teams multi-cultural. Their capabilities extend from benchmarking, interviews and research, scenario planning [brand architecture and brand stretching], to brand & innovation committees on the new brand assets, new initiatives for product launches."

access the online section of visionarymarketing dedicated to Brice's new opus

My pitch started with a little quiz, asking participants to name a few innovative companies in their eyes. Naming them was not enough, they also had to tell me why they were deemed innovative, and also whether this 'innovativeness' was sustainable. This little exercise was far less innocuous than it seemed. By asking this simple question, we very quickly, in less than one hour, put our fingers on all the questions surrounding the difficulty to define, nurture, and deploy sustainable innovation in and outside the enterprise.

This exchange was extremely fruitful, because all of the participants had already thought about these problems, and they could easily relate to most of them. The rest of the presentation was more standard, and consisted of a capability statement of what Orange business services is able to do in terms of joint innovation with its clients, mainly in the large projects business unit, to which I belong. I gave examples of what in my eyes, and in the eyes of our clients, innovation means when it comes to large projects and outsourcing. I was also able to show the audience my innovation wiki repository, and interesting and passionate discussions were Triggered around the genesis and definition of wiki webs, the perspectives that collaboration is making possible in the enterprise, and the expected results. I was able to reuse some of my examples and materials which are developed either at Paris University (click here) or the Paris graduate school of management (click here).

The presentation lasted four hours, and we were also able to exchange quite a few business cards in the process. In the evening, I was invited at a special cocktail party, where INSEAD alumni and current students were present, and were welcoming prospective students who had come to the school in order to investigate with regard to the executive MBA. This exchange was very exciting, very open and very pleasant, and it gave us an opportunity to exchange on business, on the course, on our lives and experience. To sum it up in a few words, I really liked everything about the school. The people and the recruitment process is just outstanding. People from all over the world where there, and the quality of our exchanges was absolutely dazzling. I am looking forward to another session at INSEAD soon, probably next year.

It all started with a virus. I know it, I was there! By there I don't only mean that five-star hotel near the Rockfeller Centre in NYC in April 2001, barely a few months from the dreaded day, at this super event hosted by Don Peppers with speakers like M Gladwell and Seth Godin himself. I'm talking about 'there' as being on the Internet, i.e. nowhere at all in fact, when Seth had decided that everyone had to spread the ideavirus themselves and were granted the author's permission (that's permission marketing for you) to post the e-book wherever they wanted. And so I did. And it's still there after all these years.

• read the ideavirus online by finding the link on the visionarymarketing.com home page or click Seth's head to download
  

The permission was granted and never withdrawn. It pays to be an Internet fiend.

And a few months ago, my rss feed reader warned me that Webpronews's Lee Miller had written an article about one of Godin's latest appearances. The beat still goes on. OK, there might be a wee bit of story-telling behind this, and it's also difficult to tell the difference between story-telling and hype (after all, now Rosenzweig's halo effect can help you make this out for yourself). But when Miller summarises Godin's approach in four steps, one feels that, despite the weird commentary, he has definitely hit a nail:

Godin's bottom line is more of a "revolving circle," as opposed to other redundant repetitiveness:
1. Be remarkable (at it's base, "remarkable" means "something to mention")
2. Tell a story that makes people feel good
3. When they feel good, they'll spread the word about why (remarking about it)
4. And then they'll give you permission to market to them

And this is why I still point people at the ideavirus. Ok it may seem strange and packed with - neatly crafted - neologisms but it is so in synch with the way that ideas are passed (not just on the web). Recently, I used Godin's ideavirus theme to spread the word internally about my joint innovation programme. 'If I can have a good idea in front of my clients, then here is the result and come and grab it from my wiki website'. And it worked, even though people were surprised that I could give away my material so easily. Godin was right in that showing others what you've done brings more rewards than it brings problems.

Godin's approach is more than a gimmick. It seems superficial and the praise about 'littlemissmatched.com' may appear exaggerated but still, the concept geared towards the sharing of ideas and impressions is at the heart of Internet Marketing and Marketing 2.0 and it's here to live.

Mark my word, in ten years' time, when you will visit this website and blog, you will still download the ideavirus and go 'wow!'

The climax of that presentation was an interactive session where we asked attendees to show us their vision of innovation through a survey which contained 4 main sets of questions: 1) about our clients' views on the lifespan of innovation (from short to long term, what I have also called the 'innometer') 2) about our clients' 3 most important business issues where innovation could play a role 3) about the 3 main technologies which were on our clients' radar screen in order to solve their business issues (hence question 2) 4) about how favourable or unfavourable our clients were with regard to working jointly with one of their vendor. But it was no ordinary old fashioned paper-based survey, nor even was it a plain-vanilla online Internet survey.

Orange labs had designed a real-time digitally-enabled paper-based survey for us. What is it then? The paper-based survey - available here - was not printed on ordinary paper but using a special grid. The systems worked with a set of Logitech digital pens linked to a bluetooth-enabled smart phone. Each time a client was filling in the form by ticking the boxes (two for each question, i.e. their vision for today and for tomorrow) and eventually ticking the send button at the end of the form, the data from that questionnaire was sent to a server (based in Grenoble, France) and crunched by the application and then sent back to an Internet page which was used to display the results in near real-time (in actual fact, the pages were refreshed every other minute). With this system, we were able to analyse the results in front of our clients and reflect their vision for innovation in real-time.

The system wasn't just designed for the survey, but also to show what we are able to do at Orange and Orange Labs for the benefit of our clients. Rather than just go at length about how beneficial our processes are and so on and so forth, we thought that showing an example of what can be achieved concretely was actually much more tale-telling. This kind of paper-form digitalisation is - by the way - being implemented with some of our clients, including a large European bank at this very moment. The potential for such tools is really extraordinary. No training and no special hardware are required nor awkward on-screen sign-off for instance. Plus each set of responses can be tracked to its original page and intelligent character recognition (ICR) can also be used (we could have had 'other please state' boxes in that survey for instance. In this particular instance, we chose not to, so that we wouldn't have to ask our attendees to form their letters correctly - a must in ICR - as it was really impractical in such a session. Imagine all the possible and almost endless applications in field-force automation for instance.

The Innovation survey results (available here in pdf format) were very interesting too (statistically unrepresentative but the experience could be extended to wider representative samples at a later stage). These results can be used as basic assumptions, as we will see, they are mostly consistent with some of the feedback we have already had from direct conversations with clients).

important notice: please note that in this analysis we only compiled the first eighteen responses to the survey

Question 1 was about the time to implement new ideas, and especially, our clients' preferred target time-frame for such innovation implementation.
The responses we had in that instance were completely consistent with previous direct feedback we had time and time again, and which can be summed up by the tag line 'leading edge, not bleeding edge'. Clients are looking after innovations which they can implement rather fast in their organisations. This, by the way, is also consistent with IT management cycles, which are set around 3 years on average. The timeframe for change implementation is therefore bound to be less than 3 years, and this is reflected very well in our results since we received no answers for item 4. As to the today/tomorrow comparison, there are practically no differences between both sets of responses, except that maybe the focus is even more on short term implementation in the future (we would have to complement this survey with a representative sample if we wanted to know more about this).

Question number 2 was not about technologies. Instead, it was about our clients' 3 (max.) main business priorities (hence the number of responses which is above 18). This is an interesting result too. As it appears that today's focus is on CRM and collaboration in the workplace, it really seems that the workplace of the future is on the agenda for tomorrow. And we know for certain that plans are underway (in Paris and other cities) in order to revise the daily commuting plans and find new innovative ways to favour telework and innovative working practices (reduction of carbon emission and public transport overload are the main incentives in that respect)

Question 3 was dedicated to the technologies that our clients were considering for the resolution of today's and tomorrow's business issues (re. question 2). On top of today's agenda, IP services on top of telephony over IP and it's true that such services (including seamless collaboration over TOIP are now possible because most enterprises have either implemented TOIP or are currently in the process of either rolling it out or designing new projects for it. Number 2 technology for today is undoubtedly blogs and wikis in the workplace. Then come a number of other technologies such as nfc/remote tracking and tracing (that one came as a surprise) and telepresence which has been heavily promoted recently (namely by Cisco - check their webpage here). And telepresence actually comes first in tomorrow's list with 7 votes and then we'll find 4 other technologies, one of which being the very promising content-based routing/semantic web.

Responses to question 4 at last, were like music to our ears as they confirmed our clients' willingness to take part in a team with one of their vendors. It proves once more that clients are not just seeking prices and that when a vendor is offering value added, clients are willing to follow new rules and open their books to take their fair share of the benefit of collaboration.

And that's Marketing 2.0 for you ...