10.1. The corporate context of CI D

According to the manager of this organization, “Our profession is in the process of evolving. It is undergoing a transformation.” Although innovation is well anchored with the company’s culture and history, the latter remains somewhat unknown or little acknowledged as being innovative. According to the CI D manager,

“I do not believe that we are well known within the innovation sphere. Moreover, this is what motivated the launch of a corporate incubator in this case. […] Slightly by chance, some start-ups came to see us because they wished to use some of our assets […] but we had not anticipated or even thought of that stage.”

The CI was created during the last five years, and this strategic initiative was greatly supported by the group’s general management: “… there was a reflection within a strategic project. At that point, the concept of a CI was created […] this was not clear at the time […] but the concept was ratified by the Management Committee….” Conversely to some cases that we set out in this work, we note here that the decision to implement CI D is not one of improvisation, but rather fundamental strategic thinking. The fact that the emergence of the CI rests upon a political decision confers upon it, from the outset, a legitimacy, which is at the very least theoretical.

CI D is the extension of a global strategy and aims, in particular, to develop a service offering that reflects the group’s metamorphosis,

“As regards services, we are still a company in its infancy. We may offer these services ourselves directly, or call upon a partner if the services in question require an occupational skill which we do not have in our company, or indeed even call upon other third parties.”

This is the operational translation of strategic decisions taken by management. Moreover, we can broadly interpret this position as a statement (in field publications, a “hard fact”), in the sense that it clearly indicates the position that the incubator intends to occupy within the institution’s sphere.

Table 10.1 summarizes the key elements of the corporate context of CI D. Bear in mind here the perceptions of the CI D manager, which are significant. They forge the representation of the CI, given the context which it develops and the type of managerial work which it will perceive as necessary to establish the adoption of CI D within the group’s field. As always, these elements form the main components, which themselves are not exhaustive. I will simply attempt to draw up the main table for you which I perceive to be relevant here. It is a basis upon which to understand this story.

10.2. CI D players

CI D’s organization rests upon two distinct entities of the company and is a feature which I have not encountered until now. On the one hand, one of the entities is highly oriented towards organization and strategy, and the other which is highly operational is directed towards business development. In short, “strategy” and “operational” issues from distinct entities are combined under one roof, that of the CI, to develop the overall approach. Nobody, including me, could think that this is complicated to devise and even carry it out. This CI manager is not contradicting us. In the opinion of the incubator manager: “It is slightly complicated to explain […] because in the end it is separated into two entities. There is on the one hand, the strategy management team […] a small team – including me – responsible for implementing the process and organizing the relationships with external entities, and on the other hand […] a small IT services management entity with simply two IT project managers responsible for implementing projects co-developed with start-ups.”

The role of the two IT project managers particularly appears significant for the implementation of CI D. These project managers are the mainstay of the structure, and their connection to the IT Services Department, while also being heavily involved in CI D, is not by chance, “These two projects will dip into the resources and in particular teams of IT Services Department developers according to specific needs, on a project-by-project basis. They will borrow resources for a given time before returning them to the IT Services Department. […] Operationally these two project leaders depend upon the CI. Hierarchically, they depend upon the IT Services Department.”

Within this context, the choice of IT resources attached to the key entity (IT Services Department) but dedicated to CI D was therefore entirely reflected. “Yes, that happens effectively between the CI and the IT Services Department. Moreover that is one of the reasons why we implemented the operational section within this service. This is so as to strengthen the suitability by this service for the CI program […] this enables these project leaders – developers themselves – to be better able to share with other service developers.”

I questioned whether or not the nature of the implementation of CI D was improvised. It appeared to me that it was not. It seems that the organization of CI D also bears witness to this. These CI organizational choices demonstrate the will to secure the group’s core business. The two project leaders are intermediaries to advocate for CI D within the IT Services Department. These are representatives – translators, whose role is to change how things are done, and particularly innovation production standards within the group. In short, they are the ones who will initiate the operationalization of start-ups within the organization.

CI D mobilizes other internal players, indirectly this time, to conclude its mission:

“With the service offering proposed by the CI, there is obviously co-development with overall developers made available for a given project for a specific period. […] However there are also all of the remaining teams, and in particular marketing, communication and other departments.”

However, marketing (in the broadest sense, including sales and those responsible for key account relationships) does not appear sufficiently involved within this approach, despite the efforts by the CI D manager to associate them with selection committees. In the opinion of the CI D manager, these selection committees are a way to change company mindsets. This approach illustrates managerial work for motivation within and through initiatives which mainly target changes in regulatory associations. For its part, the communication management appears particularly involved in the structure: “Colleagues in communication management have invested a fair amount of time in the CI as it is just as essential for them and more generally essential for the company.”

Anything different would have been surprising, as the communication management services took up the subject of CIs and start-ups as a means of promoting the company image, without actually re-establishing work from CIs or start-ups. This assessment on our part is certainly not positive, but very real. Indeed, it is enough to convince us to talk to the communication players on the one hand and the operational players on the other. This is what I did at the beginning of my research, and that led me as I indicated, from the introduction, to capitalize on the exchange of views of operational managers as a means of clarifying the question “how can I carry out this exercise?”

Concerning external resources, the company only wishes to focus upon the development and the strengthening of its technological base, and the managerial support of start-ups is ensured by external players. This is mainly for the CI hiring the support of external experts to accompany start-ups from a more managerial viewpoint.

Some large groups are aware of the relative fragility of start-ups, and in this respect, not only as regards the resources they are likely to mobilize, but also their own managerial competences. The managerial consolidation of start-ups is therefore a significant element for some CIs since this envisages commercial partnerships or even co-developments. Partnering a major brand and a start-up may prove disastrous for the major brand, in the event of difficulties for the incubator start-up. The managerial strengthening of start-ups, beyond business aspects with CI start-ups, therefore entails an issue of risk management.

Although the landscape we have just painted appears at first to be somewhat favorable to the CI D, the CI manager reminds us that CI D was not always perceived so well and welcomed by the other entities of the group. So as to compensate for the difficulties encountered in the field, the CI D manager has resorted to the use of institution communication as a lever. The use of this communication lever reflects, as we so often note, the awareness of the CI managers of the need to work within “demonstration” and communication, thereby facilitating the involvement of all relevant players within the incubation structure.

10.3. The structure of CI D

The structure of CI D is organized around two missions. The first deals with entrepreneurship, which targets start-ups, and the second intrapreneurship, which targets internal employees. The CI D manager is eager to emphasize this form of originality,

“The CI has two parts a priori complementary but which we rarely see together […] that is to say a co-development structure with external start-ups […] but also an intrapreneurship structure where it is more about developing internal ideas. Obviously this part necessitates significant communication because it involves the ideas of employees that we seek to identify, and employees who will then be selected to produce internal projects.”

In this context, the CI D manager plays the role of a coordinator of a project which will involve various stakeholders, according to the project’s needs,

“I coordinate all of this […] and we work a lot within a transversal manner, so as to make a link between the various management departments.”

Before we return to CI D’s operating mode in detail, we perceive that in this case, the CI implementation does not involve improvisation. Its manager is aware of the entrepreneurship/intrapreneurship feature, proving that previous research as to the launch of the CI D has no doubt been led, and then the launch considered at the most local level possible. In addition, the selection process exists to bear witness to this as well.

The CI D manager returns to this,

“We have a two-stage selection process […] Firstly, we make a so-called “coarse-grained selection” on the basis of projects available then an oral presentation before the selection committee which will propose a list of projects for ratification by the group’s managing director (MD).”

This is a key event which clearly configures the field of CI activities and which benefits from direct involvement of the group’s MD. It is appropriate to note here that this is a CI in which the MD participates in practical terms within the selection process. We are more in the sphere of the MD’s power of persuasion to consolidate and legitimize the existence of the CI. With CI D, we are concerned with the direct and physical involvement of the MD, a significant advantage for the adoption of the CI.

This selection committee is a space in which from time to time, players from the various fields of the company meet. In this space, the CI manager will complete work, aiming to recruit and mobilize useful resources. The MD’s involvement in the selection process plays a significant role to the extent that it enables the strengthening of the CI’s legitimacy within the institution and the assertion of rules. Regarding this aspect, the CI D manager sets out,

“Yes […] there is competition around the human resources for the internal division of the CI […] but not around the external division because there is a prioritization […] a rule according to which, from the point we select projects with external players, we must provide the means to conclude them.”

We may note, and we will immediately return to the point, that it is very rare in semantic terms that a CI employs the term “external” so as to explicitly designate start-ups. This manager believes in the existence of internal and external aspects, which as a result illustrates the sense of belonging of the internal CI manager to the institution.

Let us return to the rule of managing resources allocated to projects,

“However, we are not there yet […] we are already behind on certain internal projects due to a lack of developers. … There is therefore an issue of global priority […] and the CI doesn’t have the priority compared to other projects. We are trying to secure resources for external part of CI activity. But for the internal part of CI activity, we are on an equal footing with other internal teams.”

The golden rule (doubtless stemming from the managing director) that appears to prevail here desires that when the institution commits to a project – whether this concerns the external start-up – it must honor its commitments. It is likely that the line of argument of this rule rests upon the preservation of the corporate image, elements which, to say the least, are fundamental with employees. We may see in this position (which we must welcome) the willingness to change aspects by explanations which affect everyone and without offending the susceptibility of other internal players. In other words, the CI as a strategic priority is assisted by the MD to “naturally” find its place within the group’s field.

To “naturally” find its place does not mean that the CI is a “passive” player at all, quite the contrary. The following arguments illustrate the willingness of the CI D manager to act around his given environment by developing complementary and highly operational rules, that is to say, a normative system, enabling the CI to gain a foothold within the group’s DNA elements,

“Within the CI, we are agreed that by default […] if a start-up or an SME came with its proof of concept (POC) and that we were assisting its development by accelerating it […] we would not seek to recover the intellectual property (IP) rights as to the division in question. […] On the other hand if the given development used business assets […] then evidently we would recover IP.”

10.4. Tasks and missions of CI D

As we have seen, the structure of CI D is organized around two missions: entrepreneurship and intrapreneurship. These missions fall within the group strategy and must derive from group activity within its core business. The CI serves, as such, as a catalyst for group activity, and this role, as we will see, influences the spectrum of tasks achieved.

It is appropriate to note here that CI D does not lie within a spin-off rationale, or even an organizational transformation. However, this latter – and owing to its missions – is likely to leave an impression within the group’s field and to indirectly take part in its transformation. Bearing in mind the view of the CI D manager, selection committees were a means of changing company mindsets (changing normative associations). In that regard, I advance the idea according to which the absence of transformational objectives enables better assertion of the CI’s role within business development, but we cannot deny the transformational effect achieved by the diffusion of this mentality.

The work, which consists of mobilizing institutional communication so as to cover media activities and organized events, is a means of fulfilling the missions of CI D. Moreover, the communication may rely upon the physical presence of start-up members since, “… There is a physical space which can accommodate ‘project’ teams (start-up + internal organizations), the timing of individual projects …”. Capitalizing on start-ups is a well-understood point by CI teams and even better understood by companies. What better “advocates” could one imagine to legitimize the CI’s operations than the start-ups themselves? Whether the manager of the CI (or the company) explains what is done or whether a start-up does it, in your opinion who will have the greatest impact? Clearly, it is better to let the start-ups speak for themselves. In any case, in the case of CI D, it appears that this is well understood and applied.

A further approach used by CI D consists of implementing “… calls for projects which are organized on a twice-yearly anticipated frequency. Every call for projects revolves around one or two predefined themes”. For CI D, it is a matter, each time, of sticking to strategic company priorities and consequently to the priority activities of employees. We can indeed guess that the axes and themes chosen have to have been previously ratified by the managing director. This thematization of calls for projects a priori offers several advantages. On the one hand, further strengthening the CI’s credibility regarding the MD as a CI stakeholder, and on the other hand, improving efficiency within the incubation process, as CI D will have anticipated the mobilization of internal resources to convergent competences. This facilitates the alignment of internal mechanisms around the CI. Overall, the legitimacy of the CI is strengthened and simultaneously so is its capacity to see the way through the given exercise.

The process of CI D is clearly well established, indeed standardized, and supported by the company’s management, which facilitates anchoring of this CI in the field of institution.

10.5. The tools of CI D

CI D capitalizes on communication relays via external partners and existing websites. The communication in question systematically emphasizes the transversal nature of the CI within the organization and the fact that the latter enables the construction of bridgeheads between the group and its ecosystem.

It should be stressed that the tools are in these cases used to promote the CI’s initiatives through those which have responsibility for it. The CI manager led me to observe that the CI team, whether direct or indirect, features on the website, which for him was an important point, as if it embodied the operation. Having analyzed this website, I can confirm this point and much more besides. I only found the direct CI players on this website, that is to say, CI teams, start-ups, external organizations, mentors and others; there was no trace of top managers. It is appropriate to welcome the policy led by this company, which appears to effectively wish to value, at first, the real project players, and hence give start-ups the key aspects clearly identified by their missions. It is an important point in the sense that one of the major difficulties that start-ups face is often finding the right negotiators within large groups.

10.6. Summary of CI D

The characteristics of this case stem from several elements. The first is the distributed nature of the CI’s activities to better involve engineers in the given approach. The second is the handling by this CI of not only entrepreneurship with external start-ups but also intrapreneurship among employees. The third point is the managing director’s direct involvement in ratifying the selection of start-ups. It appears difficult for internal players likely to collaborate with the CI to not get involved in this structure, all the more so since the managing director is himself a central player. Within such a context, it is difficult to not display a propensity of wishing to work with the CI and collaborate with external players. However, I had a clear feeling that it is through arduous work that its adoption is being established. I believe that this is one of those rare cases that I have encountered where I can clearly observe that the CI is becoming institutionalized. It will soon be an integral part of the landscape.

Political work is less important than in other cases I observed. There is systematically a ratified strategic file upstream, selected start-ups, the willingness to meet its commitments to external partners, rules of internal operation and other factors. Although relatively in its infancy, CI D has clearly defined missions, a structure which is certainly original but in line with management expectations and the well-established operating procedures which do not have a so-called “adhocratic” structure. The system which regulates the activities of CI D matches with that of the group. This system facilitates the anchorage of CI D within the institutional sphere and enables CI D to configure its own sphere through the repeated organization of FCEs.¹

That does not exempt the CI from having a duty to carry out their managerial work, to fluidify and build the relationships between the start-ups and its company. The genuine issue that I identified in this case seems to be linked to the construction of a new common identity. The construction of this common identity aims mainly to guarantee the quality of work produced with and for start-ups and does not, unlike some of the cases analyzed in this work – aim to interest or recruit players. Start-ups go through the gates of the citadel without any difficulty, and beyond that, we may almost consider that it is a matter of everyday work.

Lastly, we note that in addition to a contribution in terms of image, the activities of CI D have a practical impact on group results and have enabled it to broaden its knowledge base – without this aspect being, however, still entirely measurable, “We have interesting projects that have been introduced and which have been developed on an industrial scale.” This is a sufficiently significant point to be emphasized in comparison to other cases where interviewees were less at ease to speak of tangible results.

We must observe that this top-down approach, not just through words but indeed through the direct involvement of top management in the implementation of the CI (through the selection committee), appears to bear fruit.