We’ve had a lot of postings recently on the topic of creativity, and I’d like to jump back to the topic of Open Innovation. Henry Chesbrough in his book Open Innovation talks about the link between the length of Development Cycles and the willingness (or lack thereof) of firms to adopt a more open approach to innovation.

I think it is illuminating to consider another axis: the length of Product Life Cycles. There are products with a short development cycle and a short life cycle, such as music videos. And there are products with a short development cycle and a long life cycle, such as Hula Hoops and Barbie dolls (this is the quadrant we’d like to be in!!!) And there are products with long development and long life cycles, such as rocket engines and pharmaceuticals. The tough quadrant to be in is that with long development cycles and short life cycles.

I’ve provided a simple illustration:

Consider the characteristics of the Long-Long quadrant. These firms need to build in processes and procedures that will encourage employees to hang around long enough to support their products, both through the development and through the support of the product’s life. So this is where we find pension plans, lots of training, expectations that employees will build their entire careers within the firm.

Contrast that to creating music videos or films. The team is made up of contractors thrown together for a quick product development. Most contributors are not even considered employees. So of course there is significantly more human interaction and idea sharing among product teams.

Clearly those on the lower left quadrant of the graph are more likely to use some forms of open innovation, while those on the upper right are most resistant.

I’ve drawn a jagged red line, which I believe is advancing upwards and to the right. That’s the open innovation frontier.

I expect that we’ll see a fairly rapid advance of that frontier, and I’ll be commenting on examples from the “long-long” industries as I find them.