An example of a company today which orients its innovation management to design thinking paradigms is SAP. The so-called “Design Services Team” has been entrusted with the task of integrating design principles into the SAP innovation management. To perform their tasks, the team looks into user requirements right at the workplace, for example, or generates experimental prototypes with the aid of HTML and Flash. The creative exchange of ideas and the cooperation among employees is supported by an internal Web 2.0 platform which was introduced at SAP by the Design Services Team during the so-called “Harmony” project in 2005. The next steps even include plans to integrate the Web 2.0 approaches tried out in the company into the SAP CRM suite.  

Integration of external know-how permits cost-effective ­innovation management  

If we now compare open innovation and design thinking, we see that both of these methods integrate external know-how into the internal innovation process of the company. The ­design thinking approach incorporates the user right into the research activities. The open innovation approach goes one step further and aims to incorporate other partners such as suppliers or even competitors along with the users. Furthermore, both of the approaches have in common the aspect that the integra­tion of ­external knowledge can take place at any phase of the innovation process. The objective of the integration of external know-how is the acceleration of the process which results when certain aspects and preliminary developments can be brought in from outside and do not have to be realized by the company’s own ­efforts. Moreover, the active involvement of the users ­ensures that the “right” product is developed. Ultimately, this also be­comes apparent in the faster and more successful development of a product or service. So both innovation methods clear the way for the acceleration of innovation activities and are ­especially useful as ways to master the rising competitive pressure and the shorter and shorter product life cycles. But in economically turbulent times like today, it is at least as important to maintain cost-efficient innovation management with the reduced innovation budgets.   

The opening of innovation activities to the outside can cut ­costs because the research activities are jointly financed or the required technological expertise which would otherwise have to be developed by the company itself, possibly at a great cost of time, effort, and money, is acquired immediately. ­Additional sources of revenue may even appear when a company’s own ­innovations can be sold to external partners. However, the ­earnings and cost savings described are contrasted with an increase in expenditures for coordination and the costs for interfaces. A study ­published by Christensen et al. in 2005, “The Industrial Dynamics of Open Innovation – Evidence from the Transformation of Consumer Electronics”, points out specifically the possibility of increased coordination and transaction expenses. For example, a secure environment for the exchange of confidential information must be implemented and the legal terms and conditions with regard to the rights to innovations which have been jointly developed must be created.