1. Maturity Models of Open
Innovation
Wim Vanhaverbeke

2. Goal
• Create a model that captures the evolution of
mastery in working with open innovation
• Help diagnose where companies currently
operate, and what is needed for the next step

3. Moving from “Open Innovation”
to True Open Innovation
Frank Mattes
http://innovationmanagement.se/2012/10/08/
moving-from-open-innovation-to-true-openinnovation/ww.innovationmanagement.se

4. Difference # 1: Embedding
• Strategically embedded OI
– true OI is a deliberate choice
• Organizationally embedded OI
– Openness is not woven into the organizational fabric of the
whole firm.
• Cultural embedded OI
– True OI is part of the corporate culture and present in all formal
and informal cultural traits (e.g. metrics, leadership style, talent
development processes, communication style)

5. Difference # 2: Proactivity
• True OI has a proactive mindset which
becomes manifests in the planning processes.
• start the planning process with an
opportunity-based thinking.
– “How much can we leverage our existing
innovation manpower?”
– explored and turned into roadmaps and R&D
projects.

6. Difference # 3:
The rigor in pursuing openness
• extends the firm’s innovation ecosystem as far as it
makes sense
• Use your partners to reach out further

7. Open Innovation maturity model
with four stages (1/2)
• Stage I: Experimentation.
–
–
–
–
initiatives driven by single Business Units
a project-based resource allocation
pilot runs with selected new open approaches to innovation.
60% of firms are in this stage (Forrester).
• Stage II: Commitment.
–
–
–
–
–
CxO support for OI
formal resources are reserved for OI
the first steps towards organizational embedding
preliminary cost-benefit analyses
30% of firms are in this stage (Forrester).

8. Open Innovation maturity model
with four stages (2/2)
• Stage III: Sustainable state.
–
–
–
–
–
a CxO mandate for OI
significant formal resources allocated to OI
solid cost-benefit analyses in place
continuous use of new open approaches to innovation.
9% of firms have achieved this stage (Forrester).
• Stage IV: Full integration.
– final stage of OI maturity is characterized by the traits of stage III
plus
– cultural embedding of OI
– well-defined and well-managed innovation networks,
– seamless integration of Enterprise 2.0 and Open Innovation
– Shareholder Value justification of the investment in Open
Innovation.
– Maximal 1% of the firms are in this stage (Forrester).

9. IJIM - 2011
ENKEL, BELL & HOGENKAMP

10. Framework for open innovation
maturity
• Framework for open innovation maturity is a
combination of core elements of open innovation
processes and five maturity levels
– Open innovation processes include climate for
innovation, partnership capacity, and internal
processes
– Maturity levels include initial/arbitrary, repeatable,
defined, managed and optimizing
• Open innovation processes at different maturity
levels are associated with specific
organizational behaviors

12. Climate for innovation
•
•
• management “walks the walk”
• strategy encouraged by management
• strategic success sharing
• regulated success sharing
• continuous adjustment of targets
• written OI strategy
• targets setOI-based assessment
and communicated
•
• success sharing champions awarded based on OI targets
by management
•
• initiative taken in whole
• targets based on strategy encourage initiative taking
• champions
• verbal management support
organization
• assessment•partly OI based
scouts•assignedfocus on external
• informal success sharing
wide
• champions appointed
• targets at lower levels
opportunities
• screening by champions
• informal assessment
• individual
little initiative taking initiatives
• arbitrary screening
accidental opportunity spotting

13. Partnership capacity
•
both standardization and
specification
• satisfaction of partners
• focus, endurance in partnerships monitored
•
• short during partnerships tools used,along value chain
• partnering diversity clear ownership
• partial standardization • selection encourages on
• management actively criteria based
proactive
• behavioural guidelines
satisfaction of partnersstrategy
• sharing of partnership expertise
• Diversity among few partners diverse partners
• specific forms,
few, informal partnerships
• previously used partners network
•
informal standardization, no plan diverse network expansion
• selection based on network experience
• strategy based selection
satisfy own organization
• training through example partnering
• training in setting
few, dominant forms
•
•
•
•
•
•
• selection based on
affection-based collaboration;
• affection individual initiatives
arbitrary partnering,and experience;
• skills through experience

14. Internal processes
•
•
•
•
•
•
• internal and external information
gathering
• linking initiatives
• contacting via central position
• communication via intranet
• centralized reporting • network facilities
• start-up shared facilities
• regular meetings
• OI integrated in budget
• structural budget
• opening facilities
knowledge accessible in database
• project• owners facilitate intraorganizational
• low level monitoring
• on demand budget for meeting commitments in place
•
knowledge monitoring process
• limited sharingoccasional inter-department sharing
• of facilities
knowledge sharing
• win-win contracts
• start process monitoring of results
• reputation-based commitment
absorption
encouraged
informal communication•of initiatives of•knowledge activelyon IP
long-term view
• Knowledge • managers monitor progress
informally shared in team
commitment based solely on friendships
• results thrown ‘over the wall’
knowledge not shared • trust-based IP and legal attitude
• strict IP conditions
individual absorption
no identification of results
protective legal system

15. An immature OI company

16. An mature OI company

17. Questions
• What would you add or change to each stage?
• Are there missing stages, based on your
experience?
• Where would you place your organization on
this scale at this time?
• Where do you hope to be in one year?