Sourcing External Technology for Innovation
Overview: In today’s environment there is tremendous emphasis placed on innovation in order for firms to better differentiate themselves and the products and services they offer. In response, companies are continuously looking for ways to innovate more quickly and more effectively both within and often beyond their core markets and product lines. This has resulted in the concept of “open innovation” where firms realize that all components of an innovation do not need to come from within, that they can accelerate their own efforts or perhaps even broaden the scope of their own efforts by sourcing a part of the required technology externally. In this paper, we explore the various ways that firms are sourcing external technology to bolster their own innovation process. Our research across multiple business segments identified a number of practices that we were able to assemble into a topology. The topology provides a framework that can be used to categorize a variety of methodologies and the organizational structures utilized to source external technology for innovation.
Key Concepts; open Innovation, corporate growth, sourcing external technology, strategic alliance, external collaboration, strategic planning, technology scouting
Chief Technology Officers are under constant pressure to continuously innovate with greater efficiency. Today’s fast paced business environment requires firms to explore the use of external sources of technology to augment in-house R&D. During the last decade, the use of external research and development resources has significantly increased. This trend was documented by Henry Chesbrough in his book “Open Innovation” and has been observed in the IRI External Technology Directors Network. It is also a hot conference topic as evidenced by multiple conferences and workshops[i].
While external relationships are an effective method for increasing innovation, they create dependencies new to most firms. Companies struggle to find a balance between what they must own vs. what they must source through collaboration, partnering, alliances, JVs, venturing or acquisition. With ownership, one controls activities and intellectual property rights. With external sourcing, one is sharing but not controlling activities, and may have to negotiate the use of intellectual property to meet both firms’ business needs.
The role of R&D management changes once firms enter the external sourcing arena. In this environment, research managers lead a cultural shift away from insular concepts such as the “not-invented-here syndrome” and into an open innovation mindset that encourages researchers to see the world as their technology base. Research managers no longer see external innovation as a threat, but as a risk management vehicle that allows the firm to manage costs and share development risks. As the external innovation process unfolds, the internal staff is reenergized with new ideas, new resources and a new way of looking at the world.
Exploring this new world requires a framework, a way of looking at this “outside-in” view. There are a variety to choose from. Deb Chatterji, the former Chief Technology Officer of BOC Group, developed a theoretical model for using external alliances to meet internal needs[ii]. Nelson Sims outlined tools and metrics Eli Lilly & Company uses to manage their portfolio of external relationships[iii]. Managers at Roche break their external sourcing efforts into the four-stage “Want, Find, Get and Manage” Framework[iv]. This simple but effective framework asks managers to describe:
· "Want" - What external resource(s) does the firm want to access from the outside world to meet its strategic intent?
· "Find" - What mechanisms will the firm use to find these external resources?
· “Get” – What processes will the firm use to plan, structure and negotiate an agreement to access the resources?
· "Manage" – What tools, metrics and management techniques will the firm use to implement the relationship?
This article focuses on the “Want”. Our goal is to describe how IRI firms identify what they “Want” to source externally.
Sourcing versus Outsourcing
In the course of our research on the subject of sourcing external technology for innovation, the authors uncovered a great deal of information on the somewhat related subject of outsourcing R&D. For the purposes of this paper, we have defined the latter as a deliberate action taken by companies to obtain R&D externally instead of, or as a substitute for, using their own internal R&D department. These actions are often cost driven and are outside the scope of this paper. The subject of the current paper, external sourcing of innovation, is done for the purpose of supplementing rather than substituting external research for one’s internal R&D department. For more reading on the subject of outsourcing R&D please consider the designated references.V
To understand how firms successfully identify the “Want”, interviews were conducted with representatives of twenty one IRI companies (See Figure 1 for a list of participating companies). Participants represented a cross section of industry sectors including life sciences, petrochemical, chemical, health care, personal care, consumer, paper, food, electronic, aerospace, research services, transportation, and Federal laboratories. Each interviewee was selected because of his/her central role in sourcing external technology for innovation and using collaborative research agreements to meet technology commercialization goals. In addition, we conducted a questionnaire survey of twenty five companies and held an interactive Special Interest Session attended by 40 IRI members.
Our findings fall into three general areas: (1) Traditional strategic planning activities interfere with “Want” identification (2) there are lessons learned from external innovation leaders, and (3) sourcing activities can be expressed in a topology as a series of levels.
Figure 1 Companies Participating in Roundtable Sessions on Sourcing External Technology for Innovation
Traditional strategic planning activities interfere with “Want” identification
The traditional strategic planning process interferes with “Want” identification because it is introspective. Planning begins with an inventory of internal resources and develops a plan given those resources. Missing is an inventory of external resources that the firm can access. This insight is captured in the “Want” equation (see Figure 2). It challenges the concept of traditional planning and opens a doorway to understanding what the firm really “Wants”.
Figure 2 – The “Want” equation broadens managers’ thinking. It asks them to create a more valuable market offering by adding complementary external resources to their in-place resource base.
We will define our terms. The variable A represents the firm's existing 'assets' including its production equipment, core capabilities, intellectual assets, resources and perhaps even its market presence. The variable B represents assets that are complementary to the firm’s resource base and are only available externally. The variable C represents the new product or market offering that goes beyond what the firm is able to deliver utilizing its existing 'assets' alone. C is a more valuable commercial result that comes from combining the firm's existing 'assets' (the A) with those sourced externally (the B). This simple equation makes a simple point. If the firm does not access external technology (i.e. there is no B) then C will be limited to what can be achieved using existing capabilities and assets. In other words, C is determined by A.
All of the companies we interviewed create more valuable product offerings by adding external resources to varying degrees (the B) to their in-place resource base. This equation also illustrates the limitations of technology sourcing and outsourcing approaches based on categorizing competencies in terms of technology maturity and/or competitive impact. Such approaches, while useful for assessing skills and opportunities within the realm of known A's and B's, suffer from the tendency to limit thinking and thus managements’ attention is diverted away from opportunities outside of their existing competency base. This hinders managements’ ability to identify unusual and discontinuous growth opportunitiesvi.
Finally, determining more valuable offerings (C) enabled by external resources (B), and identifying the needed external resources is an iterative affair. The more the firm knows about what the customer wants, the more it knows about enabling external resources. However, enabling external resources allows managers to envision new customer offerings that were unthinkable when the firm relied solely on internal resources (A).
Many companies in our study describe resistance to open innovation. Each year, managers allocate limited resources against high value opportunities. Dynamic tensions exist between the forces pushing for change and the desire to defend the current model. Business unit managers are uncomfortable when plans diverge too far from the established boundaries. They operate best in the incremental zone, focused on clearly defined targets. This “asset management” mindset locks in evolutionary thinking and excludes revolutionary ideas. These men and women are not at fault. Companies train people to think internally. Concepts such as core competency, six sigma and stage gates are introspective, or at best highly biased towards conventional solutions and incrementalism. By institutionalizing these processes into the firm, the traditional planning cycle is tightly linked to A. As a result, C is largely predetermined.
The goal of the A + B =C equation is to find new value that the firm cannot identify using traditional planning processes. Internal resources (A) retain their prominent role and integrate with external resources (B) to enable a visionary market offering (C) that was unthinkable just yesterday. When the organization purposefully moves in this direction, senior executives require project managers to redefine C as a variable, enabled by A and B. This is an uncomfortable change for some managers because C is ill defined, the variable B is fuzzy and A is the only known quantity.
Disruptive growth requires disruptive change to the planning process. Senior managers must force planners to include B, and think their way to a more valuable C. The traditional system is no longer tenable. If this year’s plan, looks like last years plan, that looks like the plan before that; incrementalism is likely.
Lessons from the leaders on sourcing external technology for innovation
Although we will describe practices leading companies use to determine their “Wants”, we do not want to mislead the reader. This story is being written as we speak. What we identify as a good practice today will seem quaint in just a few years. This section is written in that spirit.
The first “good practice” is re-energizing the planning process by explicitly including “B” as an available resource base. This is the beginning of the cultural shift. Employees are encouraged to identify the external resources that will allow them to accomplish their goals quickly and cost effectively. One major firm has a section in its project planning document that identifies external resources needed for success. P&G has 50 Technology Entrepreneurs that work inside the business units identifying the “Wants” and helping managers “Find” external resources. Air Products and Chemicals Inc. asks its Technology Partnerships group to work with each business unit and identify a “top problems” list of key technology needs. Once the list is accepted, the firm budgets dollars to “Find” and “Get” external solutions. In 2004, IBM held a series of 10 deep dive workshops to uncover new opportunities and insights that will shape global business and society. The sessions were held around the globe and included IBM researchers, consultants and subject matter experts. The goal is to discover the “Want” by predicting major societal trends. The activities of P&G, Air Products and Chemicals Inc. and IBM are more than planning processes, they are cultural intervention tools that encourage employees to create value by looking externally for components of innovation.
Leadership’s role in making the cultural shift is essential. A common theme that emerged from our interviews was the need for senior management to be visible, committed and relentless in their drive to support external innovation. A. G. Lafley, the CEO of Procter & Gamble set a visionary tone of “We will acquire 50% of our innovations from outside of P&G”. P&G executives foster that change by proudly describing the process as, “replacing the not-invented-here syndrome with the proudly-found-elsewhere approach”. Vikki Pachera, HP’s Vice President of global alliances and global development[v]ii describes how HP applies their $4 billion R&D investment carefully and partners for the rest of their innovation. This process includes use of "a strategic map, a business plan and a governance system" for these key partners. Gus Watanabe, Eli Lilly’s recently retired Executive Vice President of Science and Technology, called it “Research without Walls”. He reminded Lilly researchers that “they are one small part of a global research community that is pursuing biomedical innovation”[vi]ii. Nabil Sakkab, Senior Vice President, P&G, was instrumental in developing P&G’s “Connect + Develop” strategy. He stated that, “there are 1.5 million people who know about my business. I want them on my team”. The cultural change message is simple but powerful. By tapping into the global research community, companies leverage the value of their R&D organization far beyond anything they could generate internally.
Words are a necessary, but not sufficient condition for effecting cultural change. The real communication between management and employees is a dialog of actions. Colgate-Palmolive managers developed processes for evaluating opportunities and crafting collaborative agreements. For example, employees use a “desktop analysis” sheet as a first cut evaluation of an opportunity. The evaluation criteria are listed in (Figure 3). This sheet is more than an analysis. It is a message to employees that says, “accessing external technology is OK, and here are the criteria management will use to evaluate the opportunity”.
Figure 3 – Colgate encourages its employees to carryout an analysis of an external opportunity by applying these evaluation criteria.
Implementation can be done in a variety of ways. One firm redesigned its project planning forms to include a section on external technology that will allow the project team to complete its tasks quicker and at less cost. Another firm sets turn-around-time goals for responding to technology offerings from outside parties. In this case, managements’ belief is that a prompt response, either negative or positive, will lead external firms to view the company as the first place to bring new technology. In a similar fashion Eli Lilly has instituted a variety of internal infrastructural systems such as their Office of Alliance Management and the use of 'relationship managers' to facilitate their external relationships. The objective is to be seen as the 'partner of choice' by providers of technology. A similar approach has been described for Genentech, where 'Alliance Engineering' is seen as a key mechanism for innovation and growth.ix
Inviting the outside world in requires adjustments to the infrastructure that go beyond the “Want” phase. Many companies align processes along the key elements of the Want-Find-Get-Manage model. Thus the definition of the need (or want) can be done in the business planning cycle which feeds a process for identifying gaps and key technology needs. Processes vary for the Find activity. For large companies this may be both internal as well as external in scope.
Firms engage companies such as Innocentive, NineSigma, YourEncore, Yet2.com and others to assist in the “Find” stage.x Others employ processes such as the Alliance Framework to plan, structure and negotiate joint development agreements in the “Get” stage. Some firms support the “Manage” stage by providing team members in both firms with publicly available tools, metrics and management techniques to integrate the two firms’ resources into a functioning whole.
Thus, one price of participating in this new world is that firms must add responsibilities to established groups such as the legal, intellectual property and business development groups. As just one example, the legal organization and the technology group must cooperate to link external sourcing activities to clearly defined legal agreements. Confidentiality agreements, Material Transfer agreements and Joint Development Agreements provide opportunities for firms to work together within limits. It is critical that technical and legal employees work together to craft agreements that cover all relevant collaborative activities. It is crucial that the activities in the collaboration are in-phase with the legal agreements and all employees understand the terms (the limits) of the agreements. Companies open themselves up to risk when the behaviors of the technical staffs are out of phase with the legal agreements.
Many companies use I/T tools to capture and track information from external programs. This can include web-enabled tools for knowledge management that minimize the need for re-work while maximizing information transfer and sharing. All of this comes at a cost. All of it is necessary to gain the benefits of external technology.
A Topology for Sourcing External Technology
Our research suggests that companies operate at a series of different levels as they source external technology. There is no “one best level”. Rather, there is a level that is appropriate for the firm given its current industrial position and future business intent. Moreover, different business units within the same firm or even different projects within the same business unit may be at different levels due to the nature of the business and overall objectives of the program. Our goal in this section is to outline a topology of levels and help managers determine the appropriate level for their firm or SBU.
The topology is summarized in Figure 4. Each level is driven by the nature of the firm’s business, its internal research capabilities, and the level of resources it can devote to external technology acquisition. The topology does not lay out a set of ‘hard and fast’ rules, but rather a framework that can be used to categorize approaches and the organization structures required to carry out their external innovation objectives. While Figure 4 implies external sourcing activities as a series of discrete levels, in reality most firms (and business units within firms) are operating at multiple levels simultaneously. The levels are described in order of increasing complexity and sophistication.xi
Figure 4 Approached Sourcing of External Technology for Innovation Can be Thought of as a Series of Approaches or Levels
The activities that characterize Cost and Supply Chain Management (Level 1) are focused on supplier relationships that provide the firm with support in the areas of materials, equipment and services. This level is commonly found in industries with high product development costs, particularly those with significant fixed costs associated with infrastructure, equipment and process development. A major motivation of this approach is cost control achieved by combining internal resources with the resources of key suppliers.
Specific areas of emphasis (the “Want”) of a Level 1 external innovation program tend to be incremental in nature. They focus on modifying existing products or processes to meet current market needs. Since the resulting partnerships are driven by short or immediate term business needs, these relationships are typically managed at the functional and business level rather than through a centralized office of external innovation. Sponsorship of Level 1 relationships is handled by the responsible business unit and may be highly intermingled with existing commercial supplier relationships.
Level 1 activity is often used to modify and/or develop new products on a 'first mover' basis. This advantage is short-lived because the supplier’s business model requires them to offer the outputs of the collaboration to others. Often those others include competitors and firms in the same or similar businesses as the Level 1 external innovator. This leads to rapid proliferation throughout the industry. Level 1 partnerships typically produce outputs such as trade secrets and know-how, but little tangible intellectual property, or if IP is generated, rights are allocated between partners in such a way that the supplier is free to offer the innovation more broadly after a specific lead time or triggering event.
The next level in the external sourcing topology is Strategic Partnering with customers, institutions and suppliers. Level 2 relationships move the firm forward in the value chain by collaborating with key customers, or backward in the value chain by collaborating with suppliers of raw materials, equipment or technology. Firms can also move laterally in these Level 2 relationships by collaborating with businesses who occupy a similar space in the value chain but offer different products and services.
The focus of Level 2 partnerships (the “Want”) varies but includes specific market needs, development skills and market access. The management structure of Level 2 relationships depends on the nature of the work, the legal structure of the collaboration and the specific work program. Funding is typically handled within the context of the regular R&D business planning process. The work-product may include new products and service offerings, the generation of intellectual property and strategically driven outputs such as trained personnel and access to new markets. While development of strategic relationships is a motivator for Level 2 firms, the relationships themselves are driven by short term business needs or the desire to forge a longer-term relationship based on the existence of a portfolio of short-term needs.
Level 3 describes firms that create Extended External Networks. These networks are characterized by the widespread use of multiple companies or institutions for products or product ideas. Such approaches are found in industries with complicated innovation cycles and R&D programs with low success rates. Examples include companies whose marketplace position is determined by their ability to identify new drug candidates, agrochemicals, new materials, catalysts, routes to new materials and complex devices. This approach is common in the pharmaceutical industry where identification of early drug candidates and the acquisition of the underpinning intellectual property is a requirement for the continual development of therapeutics.
Level 3 “Wants” are determined by specific areas of business activity, such as identifying therapeutic candidates, new catalysts or other materials. An explicit output is the development of intellectual property. The complexity of external relationships in Level 3 companies is such that multiple partnership structures are used including Joint Development Agreements, license agreements and joint ventures. Level 3 companies need significantly higher level of infrastructure to support their activities than Level 1 or 2 companies. Thus centralized business development groups, licensing groups and in some cases ‘relationship managers’ are common. These partnerships are driven at a higher business and technical level. Some Level 3 companies create separate funding sources to assure program continuity and enable flexibility beyond the limitations of an annual budget planning process.
The first three levels can be viewed in 3 dimensional space (Figure 5). The first dimension is a cost dimension dominated by Level 1 activities. The second dimension is market access represented by Level 2 activities. The third dimension is pipeline growth and idea access. This model has advantages in that it allows one to consider the importance of the various Levels in a given partnership thus allowing the optimization of the mixture of processes, behaviors and resources appropriate for the firm’s circumstances. For example, external innovation in circumstances that require both significant cost sensitivity and need for a high degree of pipeline and idea access could be good candidate for off-shoring to lower cost geographies. Need for pipeline and idea access with increased market view are good candidates for internet portal services mentioned above while cost and market access dominated partnerships are best handled by a tightly managed gate structure.
Figure 5 External Sourcing of Technology for Innovation as Dimensions of Cost, Access and Pipeline Factors.
The most advanced level is called Integrated External Innovation or Level N.xii These relationships are characterized by a high degree of integration of external innovation throughout the organization and clearly defined processes to manage these interactions. Identifying what the firm “Wants” is driven by long term strategy as well as short term needs. These firms use sophisticated methodologies such as gap analysis, technology road-mapping, competitive intelligence, databases and patent mapping to identify external collaboration possibilities from both the strategic, top-down view, as well as the operational, ‘bottom-up’ view.
Level N companies use information technology tools to track external innovation proposals, alliance metrics, milestone deadlines as well as overall contract management. Senior Scientists sit on review boards and assess the validity of proposed projects and have significant authority to act within defined strategic boundaries or objectives. The collaborative activities in these companies benefit from senior executive sponsorship as well as their active engagement. Top executives set specific external innovation targets and insist that employees view the outside world as a source of innovation. The business drivers for Level N companies include strategic issues that necessitate multiple sources of innovation, a fast pace of innovation as well as a leadership vision that sets expectations around truly discontinuous innovations. These companies have organizations specifically charged with managing external innovation and separate funds independently managed for such purposes or, at a minimum, they implement flexibility in funding mechanisms so that external innovation is not held hostage to an annual planning process.
The outputs of the external innovation programs for Level N companies include capabilities, intellectual property, and products. The difference between Level N and the previous levels is that Level N firms use external partnerships and alliances to significantly impact the business results of the enterprise. Level N innovators may have partnerships with strategic suppliers such as in Levels 1 and 2, but the goals are strategically aligned and long-term. These companies often form relationships with start-up companies and other non-traditional partners. In some cases the Venture Capital Community may be used to gain access to novel technologies, capabilities and gain a window into future business directions via VC deal flow in their areas of strategic interest.
The enumeration of levels does not imply the superiority of one level over another. Rather, these levels are a continuum that describes the trends we observed in different companies. Figure 6 shows that as the Level of External Innovation increases, an increasing level of infrastructure supports the effort. Higher level external innovators display a significantly greater degree of centralization of external innovation activities with strategically driven objectives determined by senior leadership. However, this centralization can be misleading. Expertise resides in each business unit. The centralized functions tend toward staff functions such as legal, intellectual property, and tax organization. The “Want”, “Find” and “Get” activities of business development and external research personnel often residing inside the business units those employees support. This link between centralized staff functions and business unit expertise balances the need for close contact with the marketplace with staff personnel efficiency requirements. Figure 6 illustrates that as the External Innovation Level increases so do degree of infrastructure, as well as issues of culture and management support.
Figure 6 – Firms move through a series of different levels as they source external technology. There is no “one best level”. Rather, there is a level that is appropriate for the firm given its current industrial position and future business intent
Effective leaders encourage their organization to incorporate external
sourcing of technology for innovation into the fabric of the firm. They articulate
visionary goals that highlight the importance of combining internal and
external resources to achieve growth. Effective leaders create a
culture conducive to external innovation. They set a tone that
encourages thinking beyond their familiar and current set of internal
resources (A's) to consider what new marketplace offerings (C's) are
possible when newly available external resources (B’s) are used. These leaders reward employees for effectively using external resources. They create an infrastructure to support the activity. That infrastructure includes tool, metrics and management techniques that support each step of the "Want, Find, Get, Manage" process.
Building external thinking into the firm requires change. The firm must review the new product development processes, the supply chain, the strategic planning process, the reward system, the technology roadmap and multiple other systems for their ability to incorporate external innovation. Scientists begin to see external innovation as a good thing that helps them succeed rather than as a threat to their technical leadership. Companies in our study pursued this vision by building alliances from existing strengths, and seeking external resources that complemented their in-place technology platforms, supply chains and channels to markets.
Sourcing external technology for innovation requires a fundamental change in employee thinking. The “Not Invented Here” syndrome is replaced with the “Invented Anywhere” approach. Managers responsible for collaborative projects learn to share power and control with their counterparts in the partner firm. However, change brings friction. In this environment of off-shoring, some employees may resist if they believe external firms are doing their jobs. However, more and more employees are embracing open innovation. They see the benefits of utilizing a world of resources and benefit from the resulting growth.
J. Stewart Witzeman, Ph.D. is Director of Technology Strategy for Eastman Chemical Company.
Gene Slowinski, Ph.D. is the Director of Strategic Alliance Research at Rutgers University Business School and the Managing Partner of the Alliance Management Group Inc., Gladstone NJ.
Ryan Dirkx, Ph.D. is the Director of Research and Development, Arkema Inc, Altuglas International Worldwide.
Lawrence Gollob, Ph.D. is Director of R&D and Technology Licensing for the Chemical Division of Georgia-Pacific Corporation.
John Tao, Ph.D. is the Corporate Director, Technology Partnerships for Air Products and chemicals Inc.
Susan Ward, Ph.D. is founder and President of ITECS.
Salvatore J. Miraglia, Jr. is Sr. Vice President - Technology for The Timken Company.
[i] Open Innovation: The New Imperative for Creating and Profiting from Technology
by Henry William Chesbrough, Harvard Business School Press, March 1, 2003. Conferences include IBF in Boston 2003, G8 Working group on Research Assessment at AAAS (Oct 29, 2002), IRI Fall Meeting in San Jose, CA (26 October 2001), Workshop report published by National Academy Press ISBN O-309-06827-4. The IIR’s Cooperative External Research Alliances Conference (April 27, 1999), Commercial Development Association and Institute of International Research’s Market]Focused Commercial Development Conference (June 12, 1997), Institute of International Research Conference on Leveraging Technology for Growth and Product Development in R&D (January 22, 1997), at CoDevelopment 2005 conference in Phoenix, AZ , at EyeforChem COF 2002 in Philadelphia, PA
[ii] Chatterji, Deb, 1996, “Accessing External Sources of Technology” Research - Technology Management, March/April Vol. 39.
[iii] Nelson Sims, Roger Harrison and Anton Gueth, “Managing Alliance at Lilly”, In Vivo (June, 2001), pp. 71-77.
[iv] Reinventing Corporate Growth: Implementing the Transformational Growth Model, September, 2005, Gene Slowinski, Alliance Management Group Press, Gladstone, NJ.
[v] "Outsourcing Innovation" Business Week, March 21, 2005, Peter Engardia and Bruce Einhorn
vi Harris, R. C., Insinga, R.C., Morone, J., Werle, M. J. (1996). The Virtual R&D Laboratory. Research-Technology Management, 39n2, 32-36. Jonash, Ronald S. (1996). Strategic Technology Leveraging. Research-Technology Management, 39n2, 19-25. Probert, D., Insinga, Radnor, M. (2003). Technology Roadmapping: Frontier Experiences from industry-academia. Research-Technology Management, 46n2, 26-30. 'Third Generation R&D' P.A. Roussel, K.N. Saad, T. J. Erickson. Harvard Business Press, 1991
vii "More than mere partners, Global Allies are Key to HP", Ken Spencer Brown, Investor’s Business Daily; January 10, 2004 Section A6
[vi]ii Presentation by Sidney Taurel, Chairman, President and CEO of Eli Lilly and Company at the 13th annual Pharmaceutical Strategic Alliance Conference, September, 2003, New York City.
ix Ransom, M. A. 'Creating and Sustaining a Dedicated Alliance Mangement Function: Why, What and How?, CoDev 2005 Fourth International MRT/PDMA Congress on Co-Developing Products with Partners, Supplier & Customers, January 24, 2005 p 109; Morse, A. "Alliance Engineering" The Deal, April 5, 2004 p10-13;
x A Better Way to R&D by Michael Ranor and Jill Panetta, MD, Harvard Business School Press, March 2005
xi For a similar approach to the management of Intellectual Capital, see J Davis and S Harrison Edison in the Boardroom, how leading companies realize value from their intellectual assets. (New York, John Wiley and Sons, 2001)
xii We have chosen to use level N in this model rather than Level 4 to emphasize the point that this is a discontinuous approach, leading often to discontinuous or transformational growth.