QUESTIONS:

1. Challenge: Describe your challenge, including all relevant information.

2. Selection: In your own words, briefly describe the tool you selected (e.g., what it is and

why you selected it for your challenge -- including any appropriate video lecture  references).

3. Application: Describe how you applied the tool you selected to your challenge (e.g., what

you did and how the tool was applied effectively or ineffectively).

4. Insight: Describe the insight you gained from applying the tool you selected to your

challenge (e.g., how an insight affected your thinking about the challenge and about  design thinking more broadly).

5. Approach: Describe what you might do differently next time -- applying the same tool you

selected or a different one -- and the reason(s) why.

ANSWERS

1. CHALLENGE

I work within an innovation area inside a multinational company. I am responsible for  the innovation management. In my career I have always worked with innovation and  creativity, using different methodologies in different contexts, as small companies,  universities and now in a multinational company. When I started working with  innovation (around 7 years ago) we were just starting talking about open innovation in  practice inside companies, it was not so common, at least here in Brazil. But, it became  bigger, open innovation during the years become like a must have methodology for  companies and one year ago, I was facing this challenge, how to work with open  innovation inside a multinational company where the culture is completely close, but  on the other hand they believe in innovation? So, I started reading and thinking a lot,  and I saw that a lot of big companies were investing in open innovation with startups. I  decided that this was a good way to start and I did a benchmarking in other companies  who have done it. Ok, everything planned, but the big challenge was how to convince  and implement it in our not so innovative and close culture?

2. SELECTION

I presented all the data to our team and the board and then we decided together that  It was not only an open innovation action, but also an opportunity to start a cultural  transformation where we could also learn a lot. We knew that we probably would failed  in some points, but in the other hand, again, we were seeing it as an opportunity to  learn. Then we decided that the best option was to do a learning launch.

3. APPLICATION

With everything planned and chosen, we started a process, which we called OPEN  STARTUPS. Normally, a process like this between a big company and startups, takes  around 6 month as we discovered when we did our benchmarking. Then as we have

decided to do a learning launch, we cut this time to the half and less. Therefore, we  launched in a platform the open startup process by showing our main objectives, for  example, energy efficiency in our field, artificial intelligence for our market. Then the  interested startups had to submit their solutions by saying why they could help us to  achieve the specific challenge/objectives we put into the platform.     The submission section stayed open only for 1 month (normally is 2 or 3 months). Then  we put together an interdisciplinary team and decided the criteria we would have in  order to choose the startups and it was: the link with our objectives, the product of the  startup, the business case possible and the startup structure/team (experiences before  to start the business, graduation, etc). Forty startups submitted their projects and then  we decided that 10 could go to the next phase.     Those 10 participate into 2 days workshops with us understanding how our company  works and what they could offer effectively. We divided the 10 startups, giving two for  each one of the 5 employees of the innovation team of the company. They started giving  orientations to them and answering their questions about our market, clients and  process during 1 month and half.     Finally, we did what we called a demoday, a moment where the startups presented their  solutions and products to our board, some managers and coordinators. After that, we  did an internal meeting evaluating the companies and seeing which one was the winner  and would have the possibility to make business with us, but also won a prize in money.  Of course, the evaluation follow some criteria in order to be fair and effective. With the  startup chosen, they start planning with the specific area, which will use the solution,  for example, the solution of the startup was a new tool for our maintenance area, and  then they could negotiate directly with them. That was the end of the process.

We consider that the learning launch tool was applied effectively, what was not  completely effectively was our approach to the startups. We can consider that our  objectives were achieved, because we did the open startup process until the end, and  we learned a lot in order to do a better one next time and we had the start of our cultural  transformation as I mentioned before. The board approved the idea to do a learning  launch in other projects, because they saw it was not just a waste of money as they  thought before, but it was a necessary part of a process when we were talking about  innovation and something that has never happened before.

4. INSIGHT

As I mentioned, after this learning launch we change completely our approach to our  projects, all innovation projects with deals with something completely new pass through  this. We already saved some money by doing it. Our projects now, go to the approval  phase only with a learning launch done before. The main insight I can say is “fail faster  to succeed better” and “work smarter, not harder” those are phrases that now we use  a lot here.

5. APPROACH

In the next time I will do a process as the Open Startups, probably I will do a Mind  Mapping before, and I explain why. One of the mistakes we committed was to training  only the startups but not our managers on how to evaluate the startups, for example,  by explaining how the ecosystem of a startup usually works. If we have done a Mind  Mapping before and tested some hypothesis, probably we have realized about this  matter. What happened here was that the winner startup in start negotiating with the  maintenance area, let the manager ask them to develop other things beside their  project, then the project become bigger and far from the focus from what the startup  really offer. In the end, the negotiation was not effectively, because the startups and  the manager realized that it was not possible.     The startup was about to start developing something different and almost lost their core  business. Maybe, if we have trained the managers before, we would not get lost at this  part. The idea of a process like this is to accelerate a startup not to make them go to the  beginning and if the startup were chosen, something great to offer they had.


QUESTIONS : 1 . Challenge : Describe your challenge , including all relevant information . 2 . Selection : In your own words , briefly describe the tool you selected ( e.g. , what it is and why you selected it for your challenge -- including any appropriate video lecture references ) . 3 . Application : Describe how you applied the tool you selected to your challenge ( e.g. , what you did and how the tool was applied effectively or ineffectively ) . 4 . Insight : Describe the insight you gained from applying the tool you selected to your challenge ( e.g. , how an insight affected your thinking about the challenge and about design thinking more broadly ) . 5 . Approach : Describe what you might do differently next time -- applying the same tool you selected or a different one -- and the reason(s ) why . ANSWERS 1 . CHALLENGE I work within an innovation area inside a multinational company . I am responsible for the innovation management . In my career I have always worked with innovation and creativity , using different methodologies in different contexts , as small companies , universities and now in a multinational company . When I started working with innovation ( around 7 years ago ) we were just starting talking about open innovation in practice inside companies , it was not so common , at least here in Brazil . But , it became bigger , open innovation during the years become like a must have methodology for companies and one year ago , I was facing this challenge , how to work with open innovation inside a multinational company where the culture is completely close , but on the other hand they believe in innovation ? So , I started reading and thinking a lot , and I saw that a lot of big companies were investing in open innovation with startups . I decided that this was a good way to start and I did a benchmarking in other companies who have done it . Ok , everything planned , but the big challenge was how to convince and implement it in our not so innovative and close culture ? 2 . SELECTION I presented all the data to our team and the board and then we decided together that It was not only an open innovation action , but also an opportunity to start a cultural transformation where we could also learn a lot . We knew that we probably would failed in some points , but in the other hand , again , we were seeing it as an opportunity to learn . Then we decided that the best option was to do a learning launch . 3 . APPLICATION With everything planned and chosen , we started a process , which we called OPEN STARTUPS . Normally , a process like this between a big company and startups , takes around 6 month as we discovered when we did our benchmarking . Then as we have decided to do a learning launch , we cut this time to the half and less . Therefore , we launched in a platform the open startup process by showing our main objectives , for example , energy efficiency in our field , artificial intelligence for our market . Then the interested startups had to submit their solutions by saying why they could help us to achieve the specific challenge / objectives we put into the platform . The submission section stayed open only for 1 month ( normally is 2 or 3 months ) . Then we put together an interdisciplinary team and decided the criteria we would have in order to choose the startups and it was : the link with our objectives , the product of the startup , the business case possible and the startup structure / team ( experiences before to start the business , graduation , etc ) . Forty startups submitted their projects and then we decided that 10 could go to the next phase . Those 10 participate into 2 days workshops with us understanding how our company works and what they could offer effectively . We divided the 10 startups , giving two for each one of the 5 employees of the innovation team of the company . They started giving orientations to them and answering their questions about our market , clients and process during 1 month and half . Finally , we did what we called a demoday , a moment where the startups presented their solutions and products to our board , some managers and coordinators . After that , we did an internal meeting evaluating the companies and seeing which one was the winner and would have the possibility to make business with us , but also won a prize in money . Of course , the evaluation follow some criteria in order to be fair and effective . With the startup chosen , they start planning with the specific area , which will use the solution , for example , the solution of the startup was a new tool for our maintenance area , and then they could negotiate directly with them . That was the end of the process . We consider that the learning launch tool was applied effectively , what was not completely effectively was our approach to the startups . We can consider that our objectives were achieved , because we did the open startup process until the end , and we learned a lot in order to do a better one next time and we had the start of our cultural transformation as I mentioned before . The board approved the idea to do a learning launch in other projects , because they saw it was not just a waste of money as they thought before , but it was a necessary part of a process when we were talking about innovation and something that has never happened before . 4 . INSIGHT As I mentioned , after this learning launch we change completely our approach to our projects , all innovation projects with deals with something completely new pass through this . We already saved some money by doing it . Our projects now , go to the approval phase only with a learning launch done before . The main insight I can say is “ fail faster to succeed better ” and “ work smarter , not harder ” those are phrases that now we use a lot here . 5 . APPROACH In the next time I will do a process as the Open Startups , probably I will do a Mind Mapping before , and I explain why . One of the mistakes we committed was to training only the startups but not our managers on how to evaluate the startups , for example , by explaining how the ecosystem of a startup usually works . If we have done a Mind Mapping before and tested some hypothesis , probably we have realized about this matter . What happened here was that the winner startup in start negotiating with the maintenance area , let the manager ask them to develop other things beside their project , then the project become bigger and far from the focus from what the startup really offer . In the end , the negotiation was not effectively , because the startups and the manager realized that it was not possible . The startup was about to start developing something different and almost lost their core business . Maybe , if we have trained the managers before , we would not get lost at this part . The idea of a process like this is to accelerate a startup not to make them go to the beginning and if the startup were chosen , something great to offer they had .