In the context of design thinking, the focus on low-cost and pragmatic prototypes in the early research phases supports cost-efficient innovation management. But if the strict principles in this respect are not strictly observed, the production of a large number of complex prototypes can cause the costs of innovation to explode. Increased research costs can also be incurred ­pursuant to the design thinking principle that ideas should not be ­rejected early on. While this promotes the creative ­exploration of differing, perhaps promising approaches, it can ­simultaneously result in reduced efficiency of the innovation activities.   

Securing differentiation potential   

In conclusion, it can be determined that both approaches enjoy significant advantages with regard to speed and efficiency in comparison with a closed innovation process such as that still implemented in most companies today. The design thinking approach, although innovative, involves increased expenditures and can result in poorer cost efficiency during the innovation process if there is a large number of complex prototypes. This is not the case when the open innovation method is used because there are no comparable cost drivers. As a general rule, the ­specific expenditures and costs must be monitored whenever either of the approaches described here are used so that ­efficiency can be assured.   

Both approaches lead to a known phenomenon which is being examined more and more closely: as a consequence of the ­utilization of advanced innovation methods by a larger and ­larger number of market participants, the possible differentiation ­potential per market participant diminishes because everyone is developing innovation capabilities which are becoming in­creasingly similar. This dilemma, known as “strategic convergence”, should be the basis of a highly differentiated evalua­tion of the company’s own innovation strategy. It is much more ­difficult for competitors to imitate the development of ­strategic capabilities by the ­acquisition of “innovation cores” – as ­des­cribed using Cisco as an example – but this requires market and technology elucidation at the highest level in the innovation management. This is where future market leaders should start their deliberations, especially during times of financial crisis.