Conclusion
As an OI practitioner, I have noticed that the works available in this sphere fall overall into two highly distinct classes, as much in terms of intrinsic quality as volume.
On the one hand, there are many works, or should I say publications, from diverse and varied organizations and individuals that since the birth of social networks have been disseminating their opinions, and observations, by seeking to influence the perceptions of the greatest number of people. These works, while not lacking in relevance, being for example photographs of modern case studies, or potential trends, are no less debatable for at least one reason. The element of how this shared knowledge is compiled is often overlooked. In undertaking any reflection, it is appropriate to be clear as to the issue to which we wish to respond, and the ideas, concepts and even theories which enable us to clarify the issue. Moreover, it is indeed appropriate to state the design for works undertaken and to explain the given methodology for selecting case studies and the collection of data and the analytical method. Finally, it is a matter of objectively assessing the given work for its reliability (the replication of another’s research to produce identical results), internal validity (relevance and accuracy of results) and external validity (the spread of results), with the objective of ensuring the robustness of the design. In other words, a “scientific” approach is only rarely, if at all, used by the organizations and individuals in question, as it may prove lengthy and time-consuming. For commentators and influencers, it is simpler to keep up with the times in a given topic which continues to develop faster, to use their often real expertise and to perform some comparisons in France or elsewhere as a means of expression. Opinion trends, which often appear consecutively with verbal or written debate, are then authoritative and can even influence laws (in parliament). It appears necessary to me to state that these works and publications are invaluable. Thinking and wanting to share our thoughts is a value which enables us, after all, to advance debates and knowledge within our togetherness in its broadest sense.
How about the academic world? So far there are a multitude of academic works on OI and very little on CI. These works have one thing in common: they do not set out expertise which is directly actionable by managers on the ground. No doubt my reflection which follows will lead to criticism from some quarters, but it appears to me that this gap comes from a notable shortage of works to date on OI. Organizations are also focused on processes, and have little consideration for the human factor. Moreover, I am still not opposed to otherwise wondering, as would many, about the implementation of OI should this be otherwise. Have we found a solution for making it acceptable within our large groups?
Whether we consider the works of commentators, influencers or even academics, it seems to me that the OI and in particular start-up–large group relationships constitute a dark nebula, a form of black box, for which nobody really knows what happens. Therefore, at this stage, working towards knowing this seems neither chance nor even useless.
Starting from this acknowledgment, and particularly motivated by the subject of CIs and the OI, it seemed to me opportune to take on the habit of the researcher in parallel with the job of an OI practitioner, this time ensuring respect for scientific protocol with a view to bringing out knowledge. This “challenge” was no mean feat for me: all of my nights, weekends and holidays have been devoted to this research during the last four years. A thousand thanks to my family and my friends for their support during this period. This work is the extension of thesis work, and it is structured as a means of sharing actionable managerial recommendations.
My recommendations cover six parts which I hope will provide managers and companies with a useful perspective for the implementation or optimization of their given OI structure, and in particular the CI concept. However, before approaching the recommendations, it is appropriate to underline the framework in which they are stated.
This research intended to respond to the following question: How should we adopt the CI within the large group? We therefore speak of CI and more broadly of OI, but our attention was especially on the “How?” and not the “What?”, or “What is its purpose?”. We can wager that “What?” and “What is its purpose?” are certainly questions that have been asked a thousand times and for which the generic publications in the field swamp us with responses. Do we not therefore need to describe developments in modern society in which we live? Doubtless time and again, but it seems essential to go a step further by debating the question of “How?” which is tackled so little but is more complex. The questions of “What?” or “What is its purpose?” often come back to commenting on the current issues. “How does that work?” may enable you to do it and construct reality to face developments within our environment. It is therefore as regards “How?” into which my managerial recommendations fall, henceforth open to criticism, and this is, of course, natural. My work serves as an invitation to substantive discussion!
Acknowledging the issue: the quality of “problem-framing” by the CI
CI managers should initially take into account two aspects to facilitate the adoption of their structure: the social dimension and the organizational dimension. Organizations and staff influence each other. It is the interaction between the given organization and the human element which molds existing facets.
The CI and managerial innovations in general cannot claim to become established within their environment without the support of key actors. The CI is made up of women and men who comprise an integral part of a whole and interact with each other. It is this mundane nature which it is, however, appropriate to mention, such that we often have the impression in reading the press that it is these CI structures – as forms of organization – which, for example, enter into commercial partnerships between large groups and start-ups. This form of disembodiment is not desirable and leads to a distorted vision of reality, ignoring at the same time work undertaken by these women and men to achieve the given outcomes. These are not the gods who molded the actual Trojan horse1 but indeed architects for a specific purpose.
Moreover, the corporate context, its organization, constraints, issues and opportunities are all elements likely to influence the CI’s capacity to gain a foothold within the business reality, and take root within the group. Regarding this point, and re-stating it again, it is appropriate to be aware that these elements are not themselves disembodied fruits, but indeed the result of people and interactions between these people. Imagine, if you will, a Trojan horse which is too high to go through the gates of Troy.
Wishing to implement or improve a structure linking the large group and the start-up assumes prior detailed analysis and careful observation, regarding social aspects as much as organizational aspects. This analysis can be embodied within what we can label as “problem-framing”. This latter must be clearly formulated by the CI manager. It is a question of an initial highly strategic task, but which we realize participates in appropriation by the CI data manager of the problem to be resolved.
This includes making large groups and start-ups work together; in other words, from the perspective of large groups, reinventing the fabric of innovation.
This “problem-framing” may integrate some elements which constitute the system. Table C.1 shows seven of them which are set out in the form of a checklist of questions to ask oneself.
Table C.1. The checklist for the CI problem-framing
| Problem-framing | |
| Question 1 | Within what market is the group developing? |
| Question 2 | What is the competitive intensity within this market? |
| Question 3 | How is the group perceived in terms of innovation? |
| Question 4 | What are the past and present relationships and structures with external third-party players (e.g. start-ups)? |
| Question 5 | What is or are the mission or missions of the CI? |
| Question 6 | What external business partners (start-ups) does the CI target? |
| Question 7 | Who are the internal “customers” within the large group? |
We must not claim that this single checklist enables us to set down exhaustive problem-framing upon which the manager of the CI incubation structure will be able to rely. Asking oneself these seven questions is necessary as they constitute a basis which, in the end, lays down the situation’s constraints and opportunities.
Periods of the life cycle of the various case studies which are set out reveal at what point many CIs mold themselves within a form of improvisation, as if we hastily appropriate a given objective at the get-go for it to be in fashion. The CI may unfortunately be launched as an ostentatious sign of digital adherence to the large group, and realizing what this involves is a negative experience. These seven questions are simple, the effort of asking them is less costly and the CI managers would save having to formulate responses by, in particular, sharing them with key internal actors whom they will need (top managers, business units and R&D, communication).
The stage of problem-framing is therefore very significant, regardless of the number of questions, even if one avoids asking too much so as not to halt action from the beginning. It is essential to draw up an inventory as accurately as possible. The quality of problem-framing will, in particular, condition the choice of actions to implement and the associated practices to create interaction spaces.
Work areas: “try, try and try again!”
At the launch of a CI, as during its lifetime, the adaptation process will be permanent and will mobilize various types of work, that is, more banal practices for implementation. The practices that we have shared below are those we have both noticed and analyzed. To claim that there are no others would be pretentious on our part, but those set out below are indeed real.
The first type of work refers to carrying out permanent “evangelization” based on official discourse (managerial curation), organized during meeting points so as to arouse the support of the greatest number of people. Mobilizing institutional managerial discourse speech is a positive aspect, but it is especially necessary to ensure the contribution and participation of these managers in practical terms, as well as involving them in approaches and practices implemented. There is thus a form of support which will enable these managers to be seen and to be associated with the structure when it comes into being, and therefore assert the legitimacy of the OI structure within the company.
The second type of work consists of motivating stakeholders according to their own interests. Here, it is not a matter of belief but of knowledge. Listening, demonstrating empathy, understanding grief, expectations and needs are essential skills. These skills should be used in order to discover the most efficient way to motivate negotiators, in other words, for them to embark on the adventure. The fundamental question must be expressed in the simplest way possible, for example: “In what way does the incubator structure and the OI serve the interests of given players?” We have to be able to distinguish personal and collective interests; the two do not necessarily converge. Here, it is not a matter of judging, but of understanding by remaining neutral and in phase with the group’s business objectives – a genuine vital lead in the adoption process.
As a corollary to motivating players, the third work type takes its position: the constitution of an identical network. The constitution of such a network can take shape through various techniques. On the one hand, as is well known, the Web today offers us a multitude of means for forming interest groups and sharing groups. There are Twitter lists, Facebook groups and even LinkedIn, and many other tools. On the other hand, physical exchanges taking place in real life (beyond the virtual) appear to be able to punctuate the construction of an identical network, henceforth (and this is also valid for the virtual sphere) whether or not one allows sufficient time to invite useful contacts to the network (as opposed to trolls). Lastly, we should state that forming an identical network, whatever the given subject, does not happen by sitting quietly behind a PC, but indeed by going beyond the given situations. On this subject, there is nothing to contradict us if we assert that each day there are a thousand and one opportunities to participate in digital events. These are all opportunities which, if correctly exploited, can enable us to gain more useful contacts.
Finally, the fourth type of work involves becoming a source for proposals. CI managers themselves may become a source for proposals, advice and participation in all reflection aiming to change the means of innovation production within large groups. By large groups, we mean not only their own large group, but also other large groups. Leaving this interaction to consultants who have never practiced the given profession is a mistake, as there is thus an obvious loss of knowledge. What we can see, experience and understand, by managing a corporate incubator structure or another OI structure, is invaluable, and talking about it can help us to have a better perception during our actions. This expertise is far from strategic, being highly operational, and can be drawn on to provide essential clarity on business development, to reinforce and hone strategies or even raise an alert. Nowadays, a few large groups appear to have decided to identify and put forward the lack of experts in the OI which they have molded by entrusting such missions to them. The expertise of these teams is, however, a usable asset, as much internally as externally.
Awareness of the organization
It is appropriate not to confuse the organization and the individuals within the organization. The manager of a corporate incubation structure must be aware that he or she is in control of an “entity”, a “construction” or an artifact – and that the latter has particular features. This entity-organization must position itself in relation to other organizations and has features which can be manipulated to manage complex interactions.
Reaching their objective entails the OI manager having the capacity to “manipulate” some of these characteristics (advantages relating to the structure, the complexity of the structure and the functional ambiguity of the structure). We summarize the categories of characteristics in Table C.2 and describe them.
Table C.2. Structural characteristics of the CI
| Manipulated characteristics | |
| What are the relative advantages? | The involvement of top management, autonomy, the flagship communication position, the start-up focus and finally, the malleability. |
| What are the complexities? | Ensuring resources, making these type of structures understood and ensuring operation with start-ups. |
| What are the functional ambiguities? | Breadth, depth and nature of functions ensured by corporate incubators. |
It is a matter for the manager of making use of the characteristics of the incubation structure to negotiate a central position within large group–start-up relationships and converting the latter into monetary value. It should be noted that beyond monetary value, the value induced across the large group organizational transformation may be palpable, and we will return to this topic in the section on HR.
Performance indicators
CI managers should show creativity to devise performance indicators that are useful for managing their activity. Based on our research and also our experience within the management of corporate incubation structures, the following four indicators may already constitute a good basis for activity monitoring.
First, it is a matter of the number of operational events implemented by the manager of the incubation structure. This indicator can also be completed by a more qualitative measurement. Questions include “What players were present?” and “What did they think of the event?”; there will, of course, be other questions to ask. Knowing what was organized, how many players were involved and what came out of the event in practical terms (agreements, contracts, meetings and other outcomes) enables an appreciation of the reality of managerial work accomplished by the managers of these OI structures.
The second indicator which seems necessary is satisfying start-ups. The company is host to start-ups through the CI structure. Being able to gage the level of satisfaction of those invited to the event seems an essential basis on which to value the reconciliation that the corporate incubator will have held in the name of the group. The start-ups constitute the best evidence of the group development and do not lack the know-how in this sphere.
The third indicator dealt with the number of start-up projects that have been integrated into the marketing plan and/or the company IT system. Put more simply, this involves the number of commercial partnerships concluded between business units and the start-ups, and even the number of co-developed projects giving rise to the development of a new sphere of activities.
Finally, the fourth and final indicator which we are proposing is the value creation through joint projects between start-ups and business units. It is a response, in the end, to the business objective so frequently expressed in the remarks by managers that we have questioned. Table C.3 resumes what we are calling the performance indicators of a CI structure, and can be reused and/or readjusted to assess the performance of other OI models.
Table C.3. CI performance indicators
| Performance indicators of an OI structure | |
| Indicator 1 | Number of operational events implemented |
| Indicator 2 | Satisfaction of start-ups |
| Indicator 3 | Number of partnerships created |
| Indicator 4 | Value creation through partnerships |
The first two indicators enable us to configure the field of activity of the corporate incubator. Moreover, they enable the assessment of what CI activity has contributed to the internal organizational transformation of the large group. The latter two indicators enable the assessment of how the CI activity has contributed to the group’s business transformation.
These indicators may appear mundane to the reader. Indeed, they are. However, by putting the question to many CI managers and even the OI, or individuals within large groups, it invariably appears that the responses, far from being precise, are vague. Everything happens as if the novelty of these OI/CI structures led all of the people we spoke with to be unable to describe these subjects (OI/CI structures) by means of indicators. Returning to the basics by describing the KPIs of these OI/CI structures therefore seems useful. We would be delighted if this opens a debate on the issue and would wager that it is highly certain that indicators 3 and 4 would come out as the winners. That being said, let us not forget the first two, the purpose of which is to mold the latter two.
Understanding of the situations and people to perpetuate
The CI manager must be aware of the necessary “translation” work to implement, so as to conclude his mission. This should be taken to mean that everyone understands their perceptions of people and situations according to their own past and present experience. In addition, an endeavor, not only of empathy, but especially of “translation”, should be conducted with an understanding of situations and people. Otherwise translated, it involves making the given individual understand that implementing the corporate incubator may serve his or her ends whether they are personal or collective. The CI manager, and more generally the OI manager, must take into account the individual and collective considerations of each actor. To achieve this, the CI manager will have to adapt the structure to the new requirements, i.e. translate the structure in situ and in a specific context.
In addition, we suggest making interactions with players central to the CI manager’s day-to-day responsibilities, both in order to get to grips with the players whom they need, and also so that the latter get to grips with the corporate incubator. It is this reciprocal approach of getting to grips with systems or acculturation which will ultimately lead to the configuration of the sphere of the OI structure, and to its adoption within the group. The institutionalization of the given CI mechanism will then be accomplished.
Reading the theory of such translation by Callon (1986) and Latour (1994) is invaluable in this regard, and other useful information is featured in our bibliography. Reading such publications will greatly open people’s eyes to understanding that speaking is not the same as making oneself understood.
The resource-based view: an additional approach and a major issue
Stemming from this research, it appears that the resource-based view is an approach which would enable completion of the analysis of managerial work. Indirectly, the research questions the capacity of large groups to deploy corporate incubation structures and, more generally, other OI structures. This issue refers to two aspects.
The first aspect deals with resources that the group intends to mobilize to facilitate the CI deployment. To find a so-called “nugget” start-up which can echo the needs of a business unit of a large group, doubtless hundreds of them must be analyzed. Then, we must select them ensuring that we analyze the solutions and the people from these start-ups. Finally, we must start the organizational and human process to establish and construct the relationships between the start-up and the large group, so as to end up with commercial partners, then integration and commercialization. This whole process is carried out within a short time period (a real issue for the start-up). In this regard, have we actually equipped the OI teams with sufficient resources?
The second aspect to deal with is the skills of the corporate incubator manager and his or her team and therefore their profile. We might think that this subject of the start-up–large group relationship might be mastered from a few books dealing with the lean start-up. However, we appear to forget that employees of large groups live within an environment of the large group and not the start-up. Understanding the territory of the other entity is necessary but not sufficient in itself. It is the bridge between the two that we are asking employees to assimilate. The OI/CI vehicle is at the boundary of the two worlds. Is the specialism of the OI nowadays codified within HR nomenclatures? How can the most seasoned expertise be transmitted? How can it be protected as a large group asset?
As part of the research concerned, it is difficult for me to answer all of the questions which can crop up on the theme of resources. Other, more specific research is essential. However, I have to acknowledge that the various interactions that I have been privileged to have during the last few years, and my own experiences, lead me to put forward two reflections, both of a highly operational nature.
I believe that ultimately to start and operate a CI, few resources are useful. By few resources, I mean both human and budgetary resources (save for the capital investment budget within start-ups). However, this point indeed assumes making the right choices. Primarily, it resolves around having useful subject profiles to conclude this delicate CI mission. I suggest that a generalist manager, one or two business developers, one individual in charge of deploying start-up mentoring and one individual in charge of digital communication suffices. There is no need for technology experts or even pure marketing specialists. We should not forget that the large group already comprises among its employees such profiles that this CI team will simply seek to convert. Next, equip the CI with several dozen thousand euros and a high level of autonomy, and you will see that it will be able to advance at speed within working protocols which – I warn you in advance – will depart from the traditional standards of the large group. “There is no door that I exempt myself from opening to fulfill this mandate and the obligations which are associated with it” and this time, I will not tell you the author of this conviction. Consider it to be anonymous.
These are my reflections and no doubt many readers will be able to discuss them. Regarding the skills of corporate incubation, I believe that desire, openness, kindness, maturity and responsibility towards others, whether internal or external players, are all qualities which can mold in-depth involvement, without which the various facets cannot themselves transform. A sharp team equipped with these qualities can succeed, even if the effort can prove to be exhausting for each one of its members. The CI is a human adventure, as the start-ups, like the business units, are themselves stories of reconciliation between people and not stories of reconciliation of technological solutions. Given that it is a human adventure, its backdrop, the transformation of the economy, does not appear to me to escape this vision. Working within a CI is to construct the alliance between two worlds to produce a further world in which we believe, and that cannot, in any case, make one see reason and happen without letting go of a part of oneself… “with pleasure!”
To go further and, more rigorously, go deeper into this theme using the resource-based view and equally its declensions (knowledge-based view and competence-based view) enables better assessment of the role of some resources. The approach also enables better assessment of the capacity of managers to mobilize some of these resources within both space and time, or even the skills in which managers and employees from large groups should be proficient. Nowadays, to my knowledge, there do not exist functions described from an HR point of view by companies for this type of activity (involving the CI manager and his or her team). However, the research enabled us to note that the CI managers and their teams mobilize various technical, behavioral and relational skills to carry out the managerial work of adoption. A task with the greatest synergy between HR and CI and OI structures more generally therefore appears desirable to describe the necessary specialisms and skills.
To conclude, a further aspect of collaboration between HR and the OI structure may also be the use of this internal/external operational model as a means of acceleration of organizational transformation within the large group.
The resource-based view is an approach which does not lack the enrichment of the practice of corporate incubation. The heirs to the Trojan horse will doubtless take part in further adventures! However, that is another story, that of The Odyssey…