Entrepreneurial thinking is described as one of the most relevant skills for the 21st-century workforce (Bacigalupo, Kampylis, Punie, & Brande, 2016). And for that reason it has become an integral criteria in many prescriptive regulations for (higher) education and in increasing numbers also explicitly and implicitly part of curricula (Saavedra & Opfer, 2012). As opposed to entrepreneurship, entrepreneurial thinking is not necessarily bound to entrepreneurs (to be); it is an essential skill for ‘strengthening human capital, employability and competitiveness’ (Bacigalupo et al., 2016).
A few weeks ago entrepreneur Valer Pop, CEO of LifeSense Group told his startup story to us at the High Tech Campus. After having a successfull career at Holst Centre, Valer decided to start his business with just a small idea: solving unwanted urine loss. He was working on this idea at Holst Centre, but after meeting co-founder Julia Veldhuijzen, Valer and she decided to start up their own business and create specialized medical underwear to help 400 million women worldwide. Early on in the process they gathered an advisor board consisting of 100 women and involved them in the creation process, in both opinion polls and experiments. Right now, LifeSense’s product Carin is an international success. LifeSense’s goal for this year it to be the fastest growing medical company in Europe. Now that’s a goal.
Many of our students work on innovation projects for SME. When asked to organize an ‘open innovation session’, students enthousiastically start to read details about open innovation, open sessions and different ways of creating an open innovation-mindset within SME. We usually point them to the excellent work of Lee et al (2010), an article that points out that SME usually prefer to be open in the exploitative stage of an innovation process (rather then the explorative stage of innovation) and that they prefer sharing risks with strong ties such as competitors, clients and suppliers.
On November 23, I had the honor of giving a talk at the NRC Live event for Education. I was scheduled immediately after Bert van der Zwaan, rector magnificus at the University of Utrecht. Van der Zwaan launched his book that day: the result of sabbatical he and his wife took in 2015. During that sabbatical they traveled the world and tried to speak with as many educational visionaries as possible. It led to the work: The University in 2040, does it still exist?
As part of a simulation game on innovation management we have been running at universities and in corporate training programs for over 4 years now, we have developed an integrative model for dealing with innovation management on a daily basis. Innovation Management is a strategic activity that isn’t necessarily needed to implement throughly for every company. Mostly large companies have included structured processes that include administrative stages to following the (large number of) project that are in progress and to be able to follow-up on them and calculate the effect of innovation management in general. For smaller companies however, that is not general practice: having such a formal process in place simply doesn’t weigh up to cost efficiencies will generate. But for them, innovation management is just as important – but they rather use a toolkit than a formal process. Our 8 Types of Innovation Processes model is a simple design that makes it easy to bridge the gap between a formal process and the tools available.
The book is thin and comprehensible. In fact, it read like a weblog post enriched with interesting personal thoughts of the author and beautiful examples from his own perspective. What I most liked is the fact that it takes another approach then we’re used to see: the book is a random list of thinking methods that could be used when dealing with innovation as an entrepreneur. The list is not categorized, nor is there a structured process that guides you through the book, nor an analysis or an advice. And therefore it is mostly an inspirational book and a homage to disruptive, non-incremental or structured thinking; the fuzzy front-end of innovation. A non-methodological list of methods. Both an obeisance for the entrepreneurial-minded free-thinkers and experienced managers looking for a solution to create passion and change in an innovation team.
As a member of ISPIM, we’re proud to be part of the ISPIM 2016 Conference in Porto again.
Organised by ISPIM, and supported by ANI – Agência Nacional de Inovação (the National Innovation Office of Portugal), this event is for innovation researchers, industry executives, thought leaders and policy makers.
Understand the latest innovation management thinking in 50+ workshops, keynotes, tours and discussions
Broadcast your insights to 500 innovation experts from 50 countries
Get feedback, get published and share understanding
During a course we developed at Avans University this winter, we asked students to gather relevant business cases on innovation and entrepreneurship in order to analyse them and prepare discussions around organization design. The course was based on the following model:
A while ago I sat down with Machiel Wetselaar & David van Dinther to create a list of innovation methodologies for a course we’re developing. Up to now we’ve gathered 71 different methodologies for implementing innovation in your organization. We are still looking for ways to categorize them, but for now we’ve based our categorization on the maturity of the organization.
We’re pretty sure there are many more methodologies out there. Please drop a comment if you would like one or more methodologies included in this overview. The list is almost random.
Remember me? I’m a Silly Valley serial entreprenerd. I’m well-known for using startup jargon, which I learned from Forbes, Fortune and TechCrunch. Shall I share my story with you? Beware: this small piece of text contains 73 jargon words.
When I was 16 I launched my first B-to-B business. Some FFF helped me to leverage my first MVP and both an incubator and accelerator thought that monetizing the Business Model would disruptexisting markets using our bleeding edge technology and lead to ROI quickly. In the beginning the business was just ramen-profitable, but by pivoting our way through the first months, iterated the profit model to a B-to-Cmarket, we created traction, penetrated new markets and gathered the low hanging fruit. Read more →