Вы находитесь на странице: 1из 18

c 


 
         
  

         [click for Part II, Part III]

 
     
    

 !" #$
  %&' 
 #  ( ) 
$*$% +,
 '

Innovation is the key to sustainable competitive advantage, and its pursuit is the holy grail of
most companies with global ambitions. Innovation comes naturally to most small,
entrepreneurial companies because it is vital to their survival and growth. Innovation in large
companies presents more significant challenges, since they tend to be more financially driven
and less tolerant of risk. In this paper, we look at this issue and how three companies, Danfoss1,
Hewlett-Packard2, and Qualcomm3, have stimulated innovation in a relatively short time period
by harnessing the power of the business plan competition, a concept that was leveraged from the
world of entrepreneurship.

 
  

The power and impact of entrepreneurship is becoming increasingly evident. In February 2008,
a report released by MIT and the Kauffman Foundation4 on the impact of entrepreneurship
arising out of MIT alone revealed stunning results. Nearly 26,000 currently existing companies
have been founded by MIT alumni. These companies have created approximately 3.3 million
jobs and generated approximately $2 trillion dollars in annual revenue. To put this achievement
in perspective, as a standalone economy these companies would comprise the world¶s 11th
largest economy, positioned behind Brazil and ahead of Russia. It is readily apparent that
entrepreneurship is a powerful engine that is driving economic growth.

 !     

Corporations are continually seeking organic growth by building new businesses and
reinvigorating existing ones, looking to innovations in products, business models, processes, and
customer experiences as the source of growth. Many of them are looking for new practices to
spur innovation. Innovation and intrapreneurship (i.e., the entrepreneurial spirit to create new
businesses within existing organizations) have become mantras often expressed by top
management.5 They look enviously at the often explosive growth created by entrepreneurs and
wonder how they can harness this powerful force for their company¶s benefit, with the goal of
opening new markets, refreshing existing products and being more globally competitive.

           

While companies want to innovate and become more entrepreneurial, they face five major
obstacles in attempting to do so:
1.? ˜ &-. A As documented by Clayton Christensen6= companies with
existing revenue streams are reluctant to risk cannibalizing them by creating new
products whose market performance is uncertain. As a result, new ideas are not pursued
with the same passion applied by entrepreneurs when starting a new venture.
2.?  

/-   0  A As highlighted in Howard Anderson¶s work in
articles such as ³Why Big Companies Can¶t Invent.´7, the traditional model of research in
large companies is failing for structural reasons. Henry Chesbrough agrees and offers
other solutions8, but the point remains that with large corporations, structural inhibitors to
innovation are commonplace.
3.? %  &$  -    
 A Mature companies have investors with
large amounts of deployed capital who value and expect predictable, consistent financial
results. As could be deduced by logic and evidenced in the experience at 3M
Corporation, this expectation conflicts with the inherently unpredictable and disruptive
nature of innovation.9
4.? R*&#1Traditionally, the employees of large, mature companies are trained
and expected to manage existing businesses rather than to create new businesses. They
gain proficiency in the practices of gaining market share, adding incremental new product
features, and leveraging and optimizing existing competitive advantages. Entrepreneurs,
on the other hand, learn to create new markets, to create entirely new products, and to
build competitive advantage from a clean canvas.
5.? $ *2 )$& A In large companies, failure is often not well received.
Career advancement most often results from the careful management of successes and
avoiding association with conspicuous failures, for which the penalties can be severe. As
in scientific laboratories, entrepreneurial ventures use experimentation and failure as an
important part of the innovation process. There are large potential financial and personal
rewards, and correspondingly high risks, associated with entrepreneurial ventures. In
large companies, the potential upside financial benefits are not commensurate with the
downside career risk that can accompany failure, a situation that inhibits the pursuit of
innovation.

This resulting situation creates a dilemma within large companies. The innovation that is
necessary for growth is inhibited by the very nature of the enterprise. The question is how to
meet this challenge. Described here are three case studies in which major corporations have
experimented with repurposing a proven technique from academic and other entrepreneurial
environments A the business plan competition A to promote innovation and ³entrepreneurial
spirit.´


   "     c 

Business plan competitions first started in the early 1980¶s with the University of Texas at
Austin Business School¶s Moot Corp® competition10, built to emulate the existing moot court
competition of its law school. In 1989, Moot Corp became a national competition, and others
began to emerge in business schools around the world. Today, the MIT $100K Entrepreneurship
Competition11 is celebrating its 20th year. It has attracted thousands of participants and has
resulted in the creation of more than 120 companies. They have over $10B in aggregate market
capitalization, have raised over $700 million in venture capital funding, and have created over
2,500 jobs. The business plan competition concept has been embraced outside the halls of
academia and has many close cousins run by various private and public organizations.12

Where the business plan competition has been adopted, the benefits are typically threefold:

1.?   3 ) 4The competitions can create new ventures as a result of the
motivation created through financial or recognition incentives.
2.? ˜  *% 0   A The competitions serve as both motivators and
tools to enhance overall business acumen and entrepreneurial behaviors.
3.? 
4˜
  A The competition can be a platform whereby people
with different skills and the common goal of creating a new venture can meet and
become partners. The resulting social and professional networks enhance the ability of
individuals to realize their goals.

Continue readingPart II: Three Case Studies, or Part III: Lessons Learned and Conclusions.

This article has been written jointly by 


 (MIT Entrepreneurship Center), 
  (Qualcomm),  #$
  (Danfoss Ventures) and #  (Hewlett
Packard). It belongs to a series of 3 articles on the subject of Driving Innovation In Large
Corporations.


? ¦         
 
  


 




? 0 
           
 
 
 

  
 =      
    
 


 0


?        
 =    =  
  
 

  


? 
 ¦   0 ¦ 
 

       

  
=
    
  


 &   

1.? Danfoss is a Danish manufacturer of valves and fluid handling components for HVAC
and industrial applications with approximately $5B in annual revenue
(www.danfoss.com).
2.? Hewlett-Packard Co. is a global provider of IT products and services, with 2008 revenues
of $118B (www.hp.com).
3.? Qualcomm is a developer of advanced wireless technologies, products and services with
2008 revenues of approximately $11B (www.qualcomm.com).
4.? http://www.kauffman.org/newsroom/mit-entrepreneurs.aspx
5.? The 12 Different Ways for Companies to Innovate. Mohanbir Sawhney, Robert C.
Wolcott and Inigo Arroniz, MIT Sloan Management Review, Spring 2006 Vol. 47 No. 3
6.? ³Innovator¶s Dilemma: When New Technologies Cause Great Firms to Fail´, Harvard
Business School Press, 1997.
7.? Reference MIT Technology Review, May 2004.
8.? ³Open Innovation´, Harvard Business School Press, 2006.
9.? See BusinessWeek, June 11, 2007, ³At 3M, A Struggle between Efficiency and
Creativity´
10.?http://www.mootcorp.org/
11.?http://mit100k.org/
12.?The best known example may well be the X-Prize competition (www.xprize.org)

Ô  Ô 
Ô# $  #
#% 
%Ô &     & ' $  (&$ &Ô  $ 
  ) *+  ,$
 ,
*  Ô$*)-&   ,Ô$
% '% (&
  , ! 
  &  *c
  
- 
?

? ?
c  
 
         
  

  $ [click for Part I, Part III]

 
     
    

 !" #$
  %&' 
 #  ( ) 
$*$% +,
 '

The following table summarizes the three corporate business plans we will review. Each
competition was independently created to uniquely reflect the goals and culture of their
respective host companies.
  &   & 

Danfoss has become a mature company operating in mature markets. Entrepreneurship and
radical innovation, formerly hallmarks of the company, have been on the wane. In an attempt to
change this trend, the company¶s CEO sponsored a number of initiatives before the idea of an
internal business plan competition emerged. ³Man on the Moon´, inspired by MIT¶s $50K
competition5, was started in 2004 and has since become an annual event.

The original objectives of the competition were to stimulate cultural change that embraced
entrepreneurial skills and behaviors. It was eventually discovered that great business ideas were
emerging from the competition, which now includes radical business innovation as a goal. The
competition has created additional deal flow for the corporate venturing unit and has helped to
identify employees with entrepreneurial talents for their most promising new ventures. Man on
the Moon and related activities are coordinated and sponsored by the Danfoss Ventures
department. Danfoss Ventures reports directly to a group of the Danfoss C-level executives and
is led by the CEO.

The competition is open to all Danfoss employees. Competitors retain the responsibilities of
their normal jobs while competing on a spare time basis. The competition seeks proposals of
three types: (1) those that create an entirely new line of business; (2) those creating new
businesses adjacent to current lines; and (3) improvements to existing business with either a 5-
10X improvement in features and performance or cost reductions of >50%. Each year a specific
theme is chosen based on challenges the company is expected to face in the coming years. For
example, the 2008 competition theme was ³Buildings of the future.´ The theme in 2004 was ³Oil
at $100 per barrel.´ These themes are only suggestions, and any proposal consistent with
company strategy is invited.

Employees compete in teams of 4-5 people created during an initial selection period. Functional
and personal diversity within the teams is strongly encouraged. Teams apply for participation by
submitting a summary of their business proposal and a description of each team member¶s skills
and anticipated contributions. Based on a one-page summary, about 12 teams are chosen to
compete in the first round. During this phase, the focus is on strengthening the ability of the
teams to articulate their value proposition through a strong one-minute elevator pitch. A one-day
networking, training, and team building event kicks off this first phase. After a six-week
development period, a two-page executive summary and a ten-minute pitch are presented to a
jury of Danfoss senior executives and external judges, who choose the five teams that advance to
the competition¶s second phase.

During this next six-week phase, the focus shifts to business concept development. The teams
work to build a strong business model, incorporating customer insights and commitment,
financial forecasts, and a solid understanding of the resources required for execution. Instruction
in entrepreneurship and business acumen is provided as the competing teams finalize their
entries through a mix of live training classes and online courses, as well as coaching from
Danfoss Ventures.

The second round culminates in a ten-minute presentation to Danfoss Ventures¶ Investment


Committee (the CEO, COO, CFO and divisional presidents), which selects two proposals based
on the criteria of market potential, market entry strategy, value proposition sustainability, and the
quality of the presentation. A winner and runner up are chosen. Both teams are awarded the
opportunity to attend the MIT¶s one-week Entrepreneurship Development Program at MIT.

The participants receive development resources for needed travel, market analysis, demos,
patents, and consultants. In the initial stages, the costs for these services average $10-12K per
team. In latter stages of development, this can increase to over $100K. Teams are allowed to use
internal and external resources. Possibly the most valuable resource arises from leveraging the
global resources of the Danfoss Group and its 23K employees. The competition has minimal
formal rules to allow for creativity and to encourage initiative.

One incentive to participate is increased visibility among company executives. The competition
is a valuable career development opportunity. At the conclusion of the competiton, participants
can choose to pursue a more entrepreneurial path within Danfoss. Approximately 10% of
participants shift their career focus in the company and embark on a new path within venturing
or new business creation. For many other participants, the commercialization of their idea is the
most important reward.

Danfoss Ventures accepts the most promising of the competition¶s business proposals for further
investigation towards the ultimate goal of launching them as new businesses. Team members
have the option of participation in this incubation phase. Each proposal is developed using
established corporate venturing processes, which ultimately lead to a decision to either incubate
as stand-alone businesses, integrate into existing businesses, spin out, or reject. To date, two
ventures have been funded in incubation, three have been funded and formally launched as new
businesses inside existing businesses, and on average one proposal is spun out after every other
year of the competition.

     
  

c #
.    

HP¶s Flashpoint business plan competition began as a grass roots initiative from the inspiration
of a member of the company¶s new business creation team. Inspired by the MIT $50K
competition, he set out to create a corporate business plan competition that could deliver the
business and organizational benefits of those commonly held in academic programs. The
competitions are run entirely by volunteers under the sponsorship of the Chief Technology
Officer and a senior executive responsible for technology and product development.

The competition has been held twice. It seeks to teach and promote entrepreneurial behaviors
such as passion, resourcefulness, flexibility, and skillful promotion. It also aims to improve
overall business acumen and presentation skills, particularly among the scientific and
engineering community. The first competition, Flashpoint 2006, offered an opportunity to benefit
from that competition experience but made no advance commitment to the incubation of winning
proposals. The second competition, Flashpoint 2.0, focused on a specific business area of
strategic importance to HP. Teams were challenged to develop business proposals targeting that
area of business. $200K in incubation funding was offered as the top prize. This proved to be a
far more attractive competition structure, and participation doubled as teams found the lure of
seed funding a compelling attraction.

HP employees compete in Flashpoint in teams of 3-5 people. After registering, the teams create
two-page executive summaries, a simple format that presents a low barrier to entry. Since it is a
primary goal of Flashpoint to teach business planning skills, it is important to attract potential
competitors who do not already possess those skills. The executive summaries are distributed to
an internal network of business planners and managers for judging, using a template that grades
on a variety of criteria.6 Each summary is graded by multiple judges, whose scores are averaged
to select 10-15 proposals which advance to the next stage of the competition, during which full
business plans are developed.

A Flashpoint web portal was created, through which employees can access information about the
competition as well as a variety of resources on innovation, entrepreneurship, business planning,
presentation skills, and company strategy. Competitors who progress to the second (semifinal)
round are provided with a coach, typically a business manager with experience in business plan
writing. Teams are provided with a business plan template describing each required section of
their submission. Business plans must be no longer than ten pages including all text, graphics,
and supporting materials. The plan must be accompanied by a brief PowerPoint pitch of no more
than seven slides. Three months are allotted for business plan writing. Brevity in the plan and
presentation are required as a way to encourage clarity and focus. Teams learn that they must be
able to present a compelling picture in just a few minutes, and they are encouraged to develop a
strong elevator statement as a means of distilling their messages.

Three finalist teams are selected by a panel of judges including company executives, venture
capitalists, and business school professors, who meet to review all of the business plans. The
judging criteria employed in the semi-final round include the overall quality of the business plan
document, business attractiveness, addressability by HP, technical feasibility, and the perceived
ability of the team to successfully incubate and launch the proposed business. To address this last
criterion, teams are interviewed by at least one of the judges, who then presents her findings to
the rest of the panel. The three finalist teams are given one month to hone their plans and
presentations in advance of the final judging, which takes place at a formal banquet. Each team
presents a ten minute pitch, followed by a Q&A session with the judging panel of senior
executives who select the winning entry.

A variety of incentives is offered to participants. Volunteers receive certificates and trophies


acknowledging their service. The banquet event held at the end of the competition offers
competitors and participants an opportunity to be recognized by senior executives in a lively
social atmosphere. In addition to the incubation funding, members attend MIT¶s one-week
Entrepreneurship Development Program at MIT.

Flashpoint has proven to be a widely popular event that attracts participants from every part of
HP¶s business and geographic locations. Through the competition¶s web portal and the
competing team¶s own websites, blogs, and wiki pages, all behind HP¶s firewall, employees
follow the progress of the competitors and access the professional development materials
provided. During the final stages of the competition, the Flashpoint webpage is routinely in the
top ten internal websites in terms of daily visitors. Team blogs have proven to be an effective
way of engaging direct participation by employees as they offer suggestions and volunteer
assistance. Surveys show a high level of enthusiasm for the competition and a strong desire to
participate in future rounds.

˜  
  
+  ,

Qualcomm created its internal business plan competition, Qualcomm Venture Fest (QVF),
in 2006 to add a formal selection mechanism to its online idea management system, the
Qualcomm Innovation Network (QIN). There are four main objectives behind QVF:

1.? Develop entrepreneurial leaders (most important) who can articulate ideas into plans,
build a coalition of support, and execute expediently and frugally
2.? Promote the company¶s culture of shared responsibility for innovation
3.? Discover potential breakthrough opportunities for the company
4.? Experiment with management innovation practices (e.g. collective intelligence, self-
forming teams, and internal markets).

QVF is managed by a small team of experienced new business development professionals


housed in corporate R&D. The QVF management team reports on a dotted-line basis to the
company¶s CEO, who champions the program.

QVF is a yearly competition open to all full-time employees. Each competition has either an
internal or external ³opportunity identification´ theme. For example, QVF¶09 had an internal
³Fusion´ theme, seeking new combinations of existing products and capabilities while QVF¶10
has an ³Out Sight´ theme, seeking external innovations that can be enhanced by Qualcomm.

To compete in QVF, an employee submits a short business plan summary into a section of the
company¶s QIN web tool. The submission period is open for approximately six months. The
down-selection process for the 10-15 finalists consists of two rounds of ´collective intelligence´
mechanisms lasting four to six weeks.7

When an employee¶s business plan summary is selected to be a finalist, he or she must recruit a
diverse team of 3A10 volunteers. The teams undergo a three month ³Boot Camp´ on a spare-time
basis. The Boot Camp includes a series of core and elective courses (~40 hours over three
months) in corporate entrepreneurship and innovation. The core courses are taught by specialist
consultants and university professors. The elective courses are taught by internal subject matter
experts in fields such as financial analysis and intellectual property. The teams entering the QVF
Boot Camp are provided with a micro-fund, which can be used for internal or external expenses
such as demo equipment, market research, and expert consulting. Teams also recruit a VP-level
mentor and expert advisors, similar to the process followed by a start-up company.

Teams prepare a full business plan for 20-minute presentations, including Q&A, to the judges,
who include the CEO, President, CFO, COO and CTO. The judges select the top three prizes
among the finalist teams and announce the winners at an all-employee finale event.

The key incentive for participants in QVF is the opportunity to work on real business plans. The
program offers a uniquely contextual educational, networking, and mentorship opportunity in the
key principles of corporate entrepreneurship, including the art of discovering breakthrough
concepts, and moving them forward through internal and external networking and early-stage
bootstrapping. QVF also offers competitors unique visibility in the company and official
recognition for their efforts. Finally, there is a genuine chance that the proposed venture will
become a reality in some form, and that selected team members will continue to work on their
project after the competition¶s conclusion. This has been the case with several QVF concepts.

The top three teams are granted a second round of modest seed funding to take them through a
more in-depth proof-of-concept or diligence phase. The remaining teams do not have this
guarantee of seed funding but many have been successful in securing funding through existing
departmental innovation budgets. Executive judges are kept abreast of developments and receive
periodic updates so they can determine the ultimate home for the various teams, whether inside
an existing business unit or in a temporary incubator like corporate R&D. Expectations are set
that not all teams will succeed in securing funding or reaching market launch.

Results of the QVF have been promising. Participation has increased 50% y/y. The number of
team members in the finalist teams in nearly 100. The QVF Boot Camp is producing high quality
business plans and well trained future corporate entrepreneurial leaders. About 75% of the
business plans receive funding for proof-of-concept activities. Ultimately, about 20% are
implemented as new businesses with continued involvement from their original champions.
Some plans also become incorporated into existing projects or result in the filing of significant IP
for future use. The most prominent success to date is the Zeebo wireless gaming console A a
disruptive gaming solution targeting emerging markets recently launched in Brazil and Mexico.8


 ˜ 
  
Continue reading Part III: Lessons Learned and Conclusions, or go back to Part I: Challenges
Faced by Large Corporations.

This article has been written jointly by 


 (MIT Entrepreneurship Center), 
  (Qualcomm),  #$
  (Danfoss Ventures) and #  (Hewlett
Packard). It belongs to a series of 3 articles on the subject of Driving Innovation In Large
Corporations.


? ¦         
 
  


 




? 0 
           
 
 
 

  
 =      
    
 


 0


?        
 =    =  
  
 

  


? 
 ¦   0 ¦ 
 

       

  
=
    
  


 &   

1.? http://www.danfoss.com/
2.? http://www.hp.com/
3.? http://www.qualcomm.com/
4.? Entrepreneurship Development Program, MIT-Sloan
(http://entrepreneurship.mit.edu/edp.php)
5.? Now the $100K Business Plan Competition.
6.? Criteria incude the clear identification of a target customer set, a quantified value
proposition, preliminary financial assumptions, and clarity of presentation.
7.? Mechanisms include peer and expert ratings and a decision market game.
8.? Zeebo (http://zeeboinc.com/)

Ô  Ô 
Ô# $  #
#% 
%Ô &     & ' $  (&$ &Ô  $ 
  ) *+  ,$
 ,
*  Ô$*)-&   ,Ô$
% '% (&
  , ! 
  &  *c
  
- 
?

? ?
c  
 
         
  

  Ô   [click for Part I; Part II]

 
     
    

 !" #$
  %&' 
 #  ( ) 
$*$% +,
 '

In each of the case we reviewed in Part II, for a relatively low cost the Corporate Business Plan
Competition (CBPC) has a high impact on improving the innovation culture, the skills of the
organization and even producing tangible results from new lines of business. Will this happen in
every case? The answer is clearly no, and so we look at the characteristics that first make an
organization a good candidate for such a competition:

1.? Is innovation fundamental to your company¶s business strategy?


2.? Does the CEO believe this and aggressively push for innovation?
3.? Is your company willing to take a long term view of innovation programs?
4.? Will a CBPC complement existing innovation programs in your company today?
5.? Is your organization willing to make a significant investment in a CBPC program?
(>$500K out of pocket plus a material time commitment of senior executives)
6.? Will your company take seriously ideas that come out of such a competition?
7.? Is there an identified champion who is passionate about running such a CBPC program?

If your company fits this profile, then the lessons learned from our case studies would indicate
the following are key design points for a successful CBPC:

1.?   Ô/ 0 The objectives of the CBPC need to be clear and directly
related to the overall strategy of the company. As such, they should be consistent with
the objectives that have been met by successful traditional independent business plan
competitions, as well as being an effective catalyst to change corporate culture. As
mentioned earlier, traditional business plan competitions offer three main benefits:
creation of new companies, fostering of skill development and building of cross-
functional teams. Importantly, it will take even longer to create new companies in a
corporate setting: perhaps a few years because of the additional challenges in that
environment.
2.? $ $     In our case studies and other analysis, this is the most critical
aspect for success of a CBPC. It is easy to criticize a corporate business plan
competition, and it will likely be a target for incremental managers who do not want their
homeostasis threatened or resources reallocated from lower risk projects. The only
solution is to have active and committed support from the very top. Since there will be
failures before successes, CEO advocacy is critical.
3.? $ '  It is imperative that sufficient resources are committed to the
program. The first and most visible will be the incentive for the winners. Is it
meaningful to them? Does it show commitment from the company? If not, everyone
may be polite but they will notice it, no matter what the decibel level of the cheerleading.
In addition, there must be sufficient resources to run the operations of the program for
items like the web portal, programs and market research, which requires microfunding.
In our cases, we found a budget of at least $500K was necessary to have a positive
impact. Finally, is there an agreement or understanding on how other non-monetary
company resources will be allowed to be used for the competition? Will the employees
be encouraged and given time to do this, even if it takes place after hours? Will other
company resources be made available? Will executives willingly and gladly spend
meaningful time judging, mentoring or helping the teams? This is necessary to back up
the objectives and strong top-level support for the program.
4.? - 
  A solid plan must be developed that involves careful scheduling to fit with
and not disrupt the schedule of the company¶s core businesses. In addition, the plan
should include a web site for communicating the program broadly, consistently and at
low cost. An outreach component of the plan must also be developed to generate the
awareness and excitement needed to create deal flow for the program. Of course, the
overall plan needs to involve the key stakeholders at the appropriate time and level and
have their participation locked in on their schedules. The plan should be updated
annually. We have also found it valuable to produce a theme for each year, but it should
be a guideline and not a restriction.
5.? Ô  &  
 j Entrepreneurship is a creative problem-solving skill,
and if the competition becomes a fill in the blanks exercise without forcing the
participants to be creative, the proper skills will not be developed. Initiative and
commitment to creatively break through walls should be encouraged. Danfoss has
explicitly designed this lack of ³too much detail´ as one of the explicit guidelines in their
competition.
6.? $   1 In each instance, the CBPC takes strange, unpredictable and
sometimes scary turns and twists. It is therefore essential to have a visible, respected,
passionate and committed team to lead the execution. The team will have to make
adjustments to navigate through choppy waters, especially in the early years, but in the
end it will be great leadership training.
7.? $   
  In reviewing the factors for success, having good
mentors/coaches was very important, which seemed obvious. It was less obvious that
having a high quality web site with information, tools and communications capability
was extremely important as well A and potentially even more important. In the case of
our three companies, this helped to tie together disparate geographic groups and foster
cross-disciplinary teams. It was also important since much of the work had to be done
after hours.
8.? 1$  There needs to be a clear strategy and concrete plan for what happens
when the competition is over, and the exit strategy must be embraced by the executives,
the organizers and the participants. Without it, the CBPC will become an event rather
than part of an integrated innovation plan. Consequently, its value will be dramatically
reduced and its longer-term impact will be disappointing.
9.? %  /
 In our competitions, if expertise was lacking
internally and even times when it was present, the willingness to engage outsiders to help
in evaluating new ideas was critical. Beyond generating new thinking and discussion --
which is the essence of innovation A this commitment sends a clear message that the
company is open to ideas and scrutiny of their efforts by outsiders. Another corporate
business plan competition is now planning to take this a step further, opening its CBPC to
outside participants. This will be based on the model of the MIT $100K competition,
where outsiders can participate as long as there is one central player from the sponsoring
organization. With a strong foundation from the other items on this checklist, this
development can inject new thinking into the company. CBPC designers should consider
incorporating this new feature.
10.?  % .   
  True innovation involves a
process of mutation that at first might seem crazy, but it expands the boundaries and
ultimately might (or might not) turn into a valuable innovation. Out-of-the-box thinking
should be celebrated, and entrants who ³fail´ should be given credit and encouraged to
determine what was learned in the process. Failure to encourage such learning may cut
off a valuable line of thinking that could produce breakthrough innovation. History
shows us that the much maligned Apple Newton product failure was a seed that
ultimately contributed to the DNA of the game-changing iPod and iPhone products.

When looking at these three examples and others the authors have reviewed, it is clear that
CBPC, as traditional business plan competitions have proven outside the corporate structure, can
be a powerful program to promote innovation. It is not, however, a silver bullet in all situations.
At best it is a valuable tool in a more comprehensive tool box that corporations should use to
achieve their innovation goals. If you choose to use this tool, consider carefully the ten points of
guidance we have recommended in this paper and your benefits could be remarkably like they
have been for the good venture capitalists who get 5X or more return on their money. However,
it is important to note that a venture capitalist approaches this process from a long-term
perspective. The innovation process is like a plum tree that at first drops many green, hard,
inedible plums to the ground. Unless you are willing to wait, you may miss the tasty, ripe plums
that the tree will eventually produce. Implementers of CBPCs must likewise have patience to see
the full rewards of their efforts and investment.

Go back to Part I: Challenges Faced by Large Corporations or Part II: Three Case Studies.

This article has been written jointly by 


 (MIT Entrepreneurship Center), 
  (Qualcomm),  #$
  (Danfoss Ventures) and #  (Hewlett
Packard). It belongs to a series of 3 articles on the subject of Driving Innovation In Large
Corporations.


? ¦         
 
  


 




? 0 
           
 
 
 

  
 =      
    
 


 0


?        
 =    =  
  
 

  

? 
 ¦   0 ¦ 
 

       

  
=
    
  


Вам также может понравиться