Documente Academic
Documente Profesional
Documente Cultură
innovation
The Bio to BiT experiment at STMicroelectronics
by Enrico Scaroni
Breaking into existing markets through innovative technologies and solutions: is it a straightforward question of "migrating"
skills and technologies from a more to a less advanced market? Or is there more to it than that? How can an outsider break
into and succeed in unknown territory? What learning routes and initiatives for generating new knowledge must be embarked
upon? What are the necessary conditions for launching and sustaining them? And how are the processes of "innovative
exploration" governed?
The story of STMicroelectronics’ Bio to Bit programme can help us answer these questions and identify and specify some of
the central questions connected with the processes of innovation.
• The various programmes must find several sponsors from among ST’s Management Teams, which shall be required to
co-finance them and provide the core participants necessary for launching them.
The second is that error (and hence experimentation) must be considered as a vital resource for developing learning and
hence "new knowledge". The ability continuously to design/implement experiments and
learn from mistakes must be built quickly by the exploration groups.
The Catalyst Team is the only permanent structure of the project. Its main functions are as follows:
• To formulate the macro-design of the programmes;
• To attract internal sponsors and build the necessary resources for their launch and initial development;
• To support the exploration groups involved in the programmes by:
o Transferring methodological and process know-how;
o Providing opportunities and instruments for sharing experiences;
o Constructing and activating skills networks capable of facilitating the development of ideas and proposals;
o Identifying domains for experimentation and setting them in motion;
o Building a "protection network" for safeguarding the volunteers in the event of errors or failures;
o Taking appropriate action to prevent possible conflict with commitments deriving from ordinary duties;
o Promoting continuously among the Management of ST the results in progress obtained by the work groups.
• If necessary, re-orienting the work of the groups in the directions that appear to be most coherent with the strategic assets
of ST;
• Attracting and involving the Divisional Management with the results in progress of the programmes, with a view to
ensuring their acceptance of the final proposals.
Defining the first programme model The task of defining the first programme model took the Catalyst Team
approximately five months. The initial proposal was presented to the various Management Teams of ST and reviewed
several times in order to take account of their specific indications. In July 2006, a hypothesis was reached which met with the
agreement of the Management of Technological R&D and the Management of ST Italia. The proposal involved four main
phases:
1.Generating a broad portfolio of ideas and grouping them into different "exploratory missions";
2.Exploring the domain extensively, developing ideas into Business Concepts, and initial selection thereof;
3.Strengthening the business concepts and subjecting them to a second selection process;
4.Further development of the remaining Business Concepts and their "sale" or release to the Management Teams
interested;
• A group of "voluntary" explorers, with a wide variety of skills, totalling 30-50 members;
• The willingness of the Management to authorise each “explorer” to dedicate at least 5-10% of his/her work time to
taking part in the programme;
• Four Innovation Labs, i.e. intensive work sessions lasting three days and constituting structural elements of the
programme, which must open and close each phase;
• The intervals between the Innovation Labs are dedicated to developing the various "exploratory missions", managed
autonomously and on a self-organising basis by small, dedicated groups, assisted by the Catalyst Team according to an
agreed support plan.
In the Lab, two methodological pillars took shape: the principle of "attracting and integrating skills" and the approach by
"iterative/recursive cycles".
Thirty-five technicians and executives of high potential and diverse origin took part in the Design Lab. The Lab was divided into
three modules. The first was dedicated to identifying key elements and phases in the innovative/exploratory processes. The aim
of the second was to formulate proposals for possible "exploration domains". The third took the form of an "Innovation Fair":
within the framework of the Lab, the participants, in small groups, set up various "display stands" from which they presented their
proposed "domains" and programme model. About twenty high-level managers of ST were invited to the fair. As in a real trade
fair, the "public" was free to move among the various stands and ask for explanations and information. The fair was a big
success and this had a highly motivating impact on the participants.
The Lab closed with a debriefing. The Catalyst Team and groups analysed the results achieved and the overall experience of the
Design Lab. Out of the eight domains presented at the fair, it was decided to pursue two of them. The programme models
formulated by the groups were then examined, and the strengths common to the various proposals were identified. The model
drawn up by the Catalyst Team was then presented and its macro-design was re-shaped. Lastly, assessments were made of the
Lab and the methodologies used: almost all the participants expressed
a very positive opinion and a strong interest in taking part in any innovative exploration programmes.
Chart 6
Programme development
The first Innovation Lab
The first Innovation Lab was held on the day after the conference.
The opening day was dedicated entirely to generating new ideas. By making repeated use of a variety of techniques, about 120
ideas were produced and outlined. They were not assessed, analysed or discussed.
The next day was dedicated to building the platforms and work groups. The participants were divided into small groups. Each
group was given the entire portfolio of ideas generated the previous day and was tasked with identifying a moderate number of
groups or clusters of ideas. No instructions were given regarding the grouping criteria to adopt; the groups worked in parallel. The
various hypotheses were then discussed in a plenary session. At the end of a long and arduous session, sufficient consensus was
reached on five platforms:
• In vivo. Systems and devices to be implanted, introduced or positioned in or on the human body;
• In vitro. Systems and devices for laboratory diagnostics;
• Easy Lab. Systems and devices (chiefly diagnostic) which can be worn, carried around, or integrated into commonly used objects;
• WeFit. Systems and devices for monitoring the physical fitness of healthy, active people;
• Demetra. Environmental monitoring systems (water, air, light, food).
After defining and describing the platforms and re-clustering the ideas (20 to 35 ideas per platform), work started on building the
groups. Each participant was left free to choose his/her own reference platform.
The Lab closed with the "platform groups" planning their "first knowledge creation cycle". First of all, each group described the
distinguishing features of each idea/product taken into consideration. The outcome is a chart, in which a first major transition is
made: from "product idea" to "business concept". At this stage, however, the description of the concept is still primitive and
incomplete, and is not backed up by any objective evidence. Starting from an analysis of the individual "concept charts", each
group defines its own general research/experimentation plan, and similarly, by integrating the various platform plans, draws up
an overall work plan for the first cycle (up to the second Innovation Lab). The Catalyst Team draws upon this to define its own
assistance and support programme. This stage reveals the first evidence of the effectiveness of the platform and domain
concepts; many of the activities/needs envisaged at individual concept level are common to or at least broadly overlap those
expressed by others; the same applies when we go up by one level of logic and consider the different platforms. Not only do we
obtain major synergies and operational economies but, perhaps more importantly, we are able to maintain and expand the scope
for variety and transferability, which later prove to play an essential role in the evolution/transformation of the concepts and
platforms. The first Innovation Lab marked the start of the operational activities of the programme. From this moment on, Bio to
Bit, while remaining a cohesive unit, gradually diverged into different "stories", each linked with the evolution of the various
innovation platforms and respective work groups. While taking into account the individual peculiarities expressed by each group,
it was still possible, after the fact, to trace the emergence of a common general model of development.
The focus of this cycle can be defined as the "search for fields for experimentation and legitimisation".
Main activities. At this point, each group focused its attention on the concepts considered to be the most robust and promising:
1 or 2 of these remained for each platform. It soon became apparent that we had reached a limit threshold: for further development
and any significant advance in quality, we needed greater depth of knowledge of the domains in question and a practical testing
ground for the solutions, which had thus far been defined “on paper” only. The need to bring in external parties and forge
development partnerships became clear. But this could happen: the concepts being developed had not yet obtained
"internal legitimisation" (a Division which had approved them and appropriated itself of them), the groups had no
decision-making power and the choice of partners was a strategic question. The feeling that the process had ground to a halt took a
heavy toll on the motivation of the participants and hence on the cohesion of the groups. This was an arduous, highly political
phase with no clear direction, which prompted the Catalyst Team to raise its profile and take steps to stimulate the emergence of a
"robust internal clientele with concrete intentions". Various conditions then converged and reached maturity, to the point that
the Top Management was able to take the decision to form a new Business Unit focused on the Health Care/Wellness domain.
The programme thus found its "internal client" and was finally able reach a positive conclusion. How the concepts, platforms and
groups evolved. With the start of the third phase, a fresh cycle of transformation/evolution took place. The groups focused on the
few business concepts now deemed sufficiently robust. Paradoxically, the adoption of a more focused perspective brought
to light a new level of complexity: for each concept under examination there were perceived to be various types of potential
consumer and hence various possible product and business model configurations. The groups “discovered” market
segmentation. The concepts became "second-level platforms" capable of containing and generating a wide variety of possible
solutions. The groups adopted a more planned and structured approach. Participation tended to be divided between three
levels: a small core of leaders (2-3 people); a second tier of active participants, generally focusing on specialised tasks; and a
third tier of peripheral figures, who in substance had abandoned the programme but kept themselves informed of
developments and remained at the disposal of the group. New people joined, bringing with them a high degree of highly
focused skills (specialists in particular technologies).
How the Catalyst Team and networks evolved. The contributions of the Catalyst Team shifted from an operational plane (support
for the development of the business concepts) to a strategic and political one (identifying possible partners and building
consensus among the Management of ST around the possible internal organisational solutions capable of accommodating
and developing the results of the programme).
The development of the external network was now entirely directed towards the search for companies with the potential to
become development partners, capable of providing valid fields for experimentation and willing to set up mixed teams
tasked with operating within the framework of co-development/co-evolution.
The conclusion of the programme
Bio to BiT came to a close at the end of April 2008. The new Business Unit acquired and assessed the results of the programme and
took action on four fronts:
• The development of prototypes;
• The drawing up of agreements with development partners;
• The definition of experimentation projects “in the field”;
• The consequent formation of a development team. Several of the participants in the programme were integrated into the new
organisational unit
Programme is "enabler/activator"
The key components, main critical factors and limitations of the experiment
In closing, I would like to make some suggestions for the benefit of anyone who might wish to replicate an initiative of
this type.
•
Hamel G., Prahalad C.K. (1995), "Alla conquista del futuro", Il sole 24 ore.
Hamel G. (2000), "Leading the revolution", Harvard Business School Press.
Hamel G. (2000) "Bringing Silicon Valley inside", Harvard Business Review, May 2000. Kauffman S. A.,
(1995) "At home in the universe", Oxford University Press.
Khun T.S., ( 1962) "La struttura delle rivoluzioni scientifiche" Einaudi. Morin E. (1983) "Il metodo",
Feltrinelli. Nonaka I., Takeuchi H., (1995) "The knowledge creating company"', Oxford University Press.
Nonaka I., Konno N. (1998) "The concept of Ba", California Management Review Vol. 40, No 3, Spring 1998.
Paoli M. (2000), "Sentieri per fabbricanti di stelle", Libreria dell'Università Editrice — Pescara. Paoli M. (2006),
"Management della complessità, complessità del management", Franco Angeli. Paoli M. (2003), "The cognitive
basis of system integration: redundancy of context-generating knowledge" - in "The business of system
integration", Oxford University Press.
Paoli M. (1992), "Progresso tecnico e processsi innovativi", Giappichelli Editore. Pascale R. T., Millemann M.,
Gioja L. (2000) "Surfing the edge of chaos", Texere Publishing Ltd. Strategos Institute, (2001) "The Innovation
Academy Field Book: Putting it into Practice". Troilo G., (2001), "Marketing knowledge management", Etas.
Valdani E. (2000), "L'impresa proattiva", Mc-Graw-Hill.
Valikangas L., Hamel G. (2001) "Internal Markets, emerging governance structures for innovation", paper presented at
the 21st Annual conference of the Strategic Management Society, San Francisco 2001. Vicari S. (2001), "Il
management nell'era della connessione", Egea.
Von Krogh G., Ichijo K., Nonaka I., (2000) "Ena-bling knowledge creation", Oxford University Press.
Watzlawick P., Weakland J. H., Fisch R., (1974) "Change", Casa Editrice Astrolabio. Weick K. E., (1997)
"Senso e significato nell'organizzazione", Raffaello Cortina Editore. Weick K. E., (1993) "Organizzare",
ISEDI. Wenger E. C., Snyder W. M. (2000), "Communities of Practice: the organizational frontier", Harvard
Business Review, January-February 2000.