In recent years, I have received several requests from private companies and some public entities to create and/or improve innovation management within their institutions.
This note shows some elements to consider for this, without becoming a detailed manual, for which a prioritized analysis or diagnosis would be required.
The model or system to follow
There are several elements that have been spreading over the years, both at the level of public policies, innovation ecosystems, and different actors. Among them, we have the triple helix, university-business link, open innovation, innovation ecosystems, UNE 166002, ISO 56002, among the main ones.
Triple Helix: The link between three actors, the company, the academy, and the state is promoted; each takes their own role and the actors feed each other on their strengths, in addition to trying to close gaps or weaknesses through the different relationships.
Open innovation: since its launch and dissemination it has been promoted by several companies where the participation of different actors from various sectors is promoted, including those that do not show a connection or relationship with the company that uses this model. In Latin America in recent years, it has been spreading from various fronts, even with intensive use for corporate ventures.
Innovation Ecosystems: model that prioritizes the geographical relationship for the promotion of interrelationships between its actors or participants, from different sectors or a group of sectors, size of entities, people, public organizations and/or private, academic, civil society, among others. From public policies, they have been highly supported by different governments and/or multilateral or international cooperation funds.
UNE 166002 and ISO 56002: ISO 56002 has its origins in different standards, but it is fundamentally based on UNE 166002, both on "Innovation Management", both are important and have been used intensively and increasingly by various actors. , companies and institutions dedicated to R+D+i.
Other tools Compatibility or Incompatibility?
For several years, many hours have been dedicated to the implementation of tools, methodologies, frameworks, among others, to promote innovation or to support its management.
However, in a group of people, using one or another tool means, erroneously, that innovation is already taking place.
To better understand some tools or models used for innovation management, we can present one of Gartner's graphs, which are widely used due to the value of their content and analysis
Among the most outstanding data is to see how the use of Idea Challenges, Innovation Workshops, hackathons, open innovation are already used almost massively, as a kind of commodity of innovation. On the other hand, readers will surely have participated in or led workshops or sessions on “design thinking”, which is also in the process of becoming massive in its use.
In addition, we can see several other elements, where it is worth seeing, such as ISO 56000 has been growing in its use and adoption, as well as innovation ecosystems.
With this brief analysis, but above all, from our own experience, in order to implement an innovation system or improve its management, we consider that ISO 560000 or UNE 166000 are those on which a company could base itself and achieve an adequate understanding of the operation of an innovation system, to then design, implement, maintain or perhaps improve a system that could already be in operation.
It is important to mention both systems, they are not incompatible with other models or forms, far from it, with the use of different tools, but on the contrary, it helps the versatility of the innovation system.
From Mertz Peru, with the experience of dozens of years of its partners, staff and consultants, on the use of various tools, we can implement or improve the management of innovation systems, having IP-Thinking and IP.
Contact us at firstname.lastname@example.org to do a diagnosis.