Biomedical Engineering Reference
In-Depth Information
summarizes the fi ve phases of the
Innospire
process: (1) idea sourcing, (2) idea
selection, (3) innovation marketplace (to promote self-assembled innovation teams),
(4) innovation bootcamp (to offer skills training and professional coaching) and,
after a grand jury event selecting the projects to be incubated, (5) enabling projects
phase, where a few ideas are selected for incubation, which is the natural step after
the conclusion of the grassroots innovation process per se (which comprises the fi rst
four phases).
(a) Idea sourcing
We communicated the new process to the organization and solicited ideas in
diverse ways. Very important for the process was the full support from top man-
agement. The heads of the Chemicals and the Pharmaceutical business sectors
started the idea submission process with an e-mail sent to all employees encour-
aging them to participate and think outside-the-box. To support the idea collec-
tion phase further, we built an Intranet site giving all background information
required plus video statements of the two board members. Several site manag-
ers organized local idea brainstorming sessions to enhance idea submission
from a certain site or country even further. At the main sites of Merck KGaA,
we put up posters with eye-catchers at main entrances and at highly frequented
local places informing about the idea submission phase.
We made it clear from the start that this was not a pure idea contest but that
the idea owner would step into a process that would last at least for a year in
which he would, together with his team, turn the idea into a viable business
plan. In line with the predictions of SDT, we expected this decision to help us
craft an entrepreneurial mindset among idea champions and reduce the focus on
extrinsic motivators for participation. In addition, besides the
Innospire
mecha-
nisms per se, top management gave a clear signal that Merck KGaA is serious
about leveraging these ideas into business providing support for implementa-
tion beyond a mere idea contest. With this decision, we expected to improve
participants' feelings of relatedness and security with respect to their participa-
tion in grassroots innovation and also accelerate transformation of extrinsic
motivators (e.g., career progression) into more internal sources of motivation
and regulation.
We did not provide any restrictions on the minimum size of the business or
the time to market. This was done in order not to discourage or kill-off imma-
ture ideas from the start, but rather to create an environment where everything
can be proposed and optimized further throughout the process. One clear direc-
tion provided was that ideas that exploited cross-divisional synergies between
our chemical business and our pharmaceutical business were especially wel-
come. Seven of the 13 ideas we eventually would retain were of such nature.
Another important expectation to manage already in the idea generation
stage is that the time the teams invest in the process is “on top” of their current
duties. In this early stage it would be politically not feasible to remove active
objectives and get people additional dedicated time assigned by their line man-
agers. Yet, another important reason for this decision was, again, to allow a
Search WWH ::
Custom Search