Tactical Planning

FEATURE ARTICLE

B u s in e s s M o d e l I n n o v a t i o n in P r a c t i c e A system atic approach to business m o d e l innovation can help capture value and reduce risks.

Jim Euchner and Abhijit Ganguly

OVERVIEW: Business model innovation is often the key to capturing value from innovation within corporations. Develop­ ing and implementing new business models in practice, however, is difficult and fraught with risk. This paper discusses a systematic approach to developing new business models and identifies concrete steps to reduce the risks associated with them. It draws on literature on elements of the process as well as experience developing and implementing new business models at Goodyear.

KEYWORDS: Business model innovation, Adoption risks, Co-innovation risks, Business model canvas

Business model innovation has gained increased attention over the last five years, driven in large part by the tremen­ dous returns generated by companies that have developed new business models—Netflix, Dell, and the Apple iTunes store are the most frequently noted examples. The term it­ self, however, has been only vaguely defined. Keeley and coauthors (2013), for example, characterize business model innovation by the number of attributes of a business that are changed, while Osterwalder and Pigneur (2010) define a business model in terms of a completed canvas. The vague­ ness of these representations makes it hard to study (or even to discuss) the process of developing a successful business model to harvest value from innovation.

The concept of the business model is actually simple: the business model is the means by which a firm creates and sus­ tains margins or growth. The business model, defined in this

James Euchner is editor-in-chief o f Research-Technology Management and vice president o f global innovation at Goodyear. He previously held senio' management positions in the leadership of innovation at Pitney Bowes and Bell Atlantic. He holds BS and MS degrees in mechanical and aerospace engineering from Cornell and Princeton Universities, respectively, and an MBA from Southern M ethodist University. This paper is adapted from his talk at the 2014 IRI Annual Meeting in Boston in May. [email protected]

Abhijit Ganguly is manager, business m odel innovation at Goodyear. Before jo in in g Goodyear, he was responsible fo r leading grow th in itia­ tives across m ultiple geographies fo r a manufacturing company. He holds a bachelor's degree in mechanical engineering from Jadavpur Uni­ versity (India) and an MBA from the Tuck School of Business at Dartmouth. [email protected]

DOI: 10.5437/08956308X5706013

way, is inherently embedded in a firm's competitive environ­ ment: the ability to create margins and growth is dependent on what competitors are doing to create margins and growth for themselves. The business model is not simply the means by which a firm creates and captures customer value. Focus­ ing on creating customer value without regard to competitive advantage will leave a firm vulnerable to both margin ero­ sion and anemic growth. Because the competitive environ­ ment is forever changing, business models require constant vigilance; they must be adapted and strengthened over time as the competitive environment evolves.

Business model innovation, in this context, is any innova­ tion that creates a new market or disrupts the competitive advantage of key competitors. Business model innovation is confused in many discussions with building new capabilities (for instance, a new channel). This may or may not be busi­ ness model innovation: while business model innovation may require new capabilities, new capabilities will constitute business model innovation only when they significantly dis­ rupt the competitive dynamics of an industry. A few com­ mon examples of business model innovation make this distinction clear:

• Dell: Dell disrupted the cost structure of the personal computer industry with its build-to-order model by eliminating the costs of retail outlets, which radically re­ duced working capital, enabled customization of orders, and (riding Moore's law) assured that its products had new er and cheaper components than competitors' offerings.

Research-Technology Management • November— December 2014 | 33

• Netflix: Netflix's m ail-order DVD rental model disrupted the cost structure of Blockbuster Video (which had p re­ viously disrupted th e cost structure of its smaller rivals). Netflix elim inated retail outlets and used some of the savings to create a pricing structure th at elim inated late fees. It co n tin u ed to build on its advantages by o p ti­ mizing both its infrastructure and its recom m endation engine.

In this paper, w e are particularly concerned w ith developing business models to capture value from innovation inside a corporation. Successful innovation inside corporations re­ quires n o t only developing an appropriate business model, but also sustaining that model in an environm ent that can be resistant to change. In a study of the innovations developed at Xerox PARC in the 1970s and 80s, for example, Chesbrough (2006) showed how the benefits of breakthrough innovation are often fumbled because the innovation does n o t m atch th e dom inant business m odel of th e corporation that devel­ oped it. He examined 32 significant innovations developed by Xerox PARC and showed that substantially more value was created w hen the new technologies were spun out than by their use internally. This is a challenge common to many corporations, and the one w e have sought to address in our work.

T h e P r o c e s s o f B u s in e s s M o d e l I n n o v a t i o n

At Goodyear, we have created and tested a six-step process for developing business models capable of capturing value from innovation (Figure 1). The pyramid structure of our process reflects the evolution of risk as the process develops: at the bottom of the pyramid, the unknow ns are m any and the risks high; at the top, m any of the inherent risks have been defined and, to the extent possible, mitigated.

The purpose of the business model work is to reduce the risks through learning through targeted experiments with cus­ tomers and partners before incubating the business in the m ar­ ket. The process, which begins by identifying the potential for value creation and ends with the beginning of incubation, is iterative: it continues until a compelling business model is de­ fined, one we believe can deliver the value proposition to our target market at an acceptable cost. A similar learning process continues during incubation, where we are actually in busi­ ness, selling to customers at a small scale. Two businesses have entered incubation at Goodyear in the past two years and two others are in earlier stages of development.

Although any innovation process is inherently iterative, there is a sequence to the analyses and experiments that lead to effective new business models. Each stage of the process draws on work others have undertaken in defining and bench­ marking particular aspects of innovation (see "Creating a Lan­ guage of Innovation," p. 35). We have integrated that work into a coherent process that has now been tested in practice.

1. Demonstrate value creation. We start by ensuring that w e have a clear understanding of the new value the innovation will create for customers. We explicitly separate the definition of the value proposition from the business model development work in order to m aintain focus. We have found that if we try to develop the business model at the same time we are creating new value propositions, the focus shifts away from the customer and toward our value capture. The result can be a great business model that sells something customers don't want.

There are risks in making this separation: it sometimes leads to value propositions that are economically unrealistic, and teams may ignore the inherent potential of the company's

assets. However, we find that making the distinction is worth the trade-off. Any successful business model starts with the desire to fill a compelling customer need, and it is important to get this first step right.

Thus, the first deliver­ able of the business model innovation process is clar­ ity a b o u t value creation. R eaching clarity begins w ith uncovering customer needs and developing con­ cepts for new value propo­ sitions; Goodyear uses a ra n g e of w ell-estab lish ed design m ethods for this step. Such m ethods have been discussed extensively in th e lite ratu re (see, for exam ple, Kelley [2001], M artin [2009], and RTM's

Capture value

Create value

FIGURE 1. G oodyear's business m o d e l in no vation process

3 4 | Research-Technology Management Business Model Innovation in Practice

C r e a t i n g a L a n g u a g e o f I n n o v a t i o n

Developing a practice requires developing a common lan­ guage. We have systematically sought to develop such a language within Goodyear, by exploring as an organiza­ tion the works that inspired our process. Our approach has been to read the references as an organization and to discuss their application to the work underway in new business development. Key references that have been helpful to our practice are:

• The Art of Profitability by Adrian Slywotzky (New York: Warner Books, 2002). Slywotzky introduces the concept o f profit models. He describes 23 archetypal business models and their underlying dynamics in a way that il­ lustrates the key characteristics o f coherence, com peti­ tive advantage, and economic leverage. The archetypes themselves are a good starting point for identifying po­ tential business models.

• The Wide Lens: What Successful Innovators See That Others Miss by Ron Adner (New York: Portfolio- Penguin, 2013). Adner discusses innovation ecosystems and two primary types o f ecosystem risks: co-innovation risk and adoption-chain risk. Many business models are critically dependent on identifying and managing these risks.

• The Lean Startup: How Today's Entrepreneurs Use Continuous Innovation to Create Radically Successful Businesses by Eric Ries (New York: Crown Business, 2011). Ries has formalized the experiment-driven ap­ proach to rapid, in-market learning that has propelled the success of many startups. The process requires discipline but creates a focus and pace that are very productive.

• The Other Side of Innovation: Solving the Execution Challenge by Vijay Govindarajan and Chris Trimble (Cambridge, MA: Harvard Business Review Press, 2010). In their study o f new ventures inside established corporations, Govindarajan and Trimble identified the dedicated innovation team, independent of the core performance engine, as a critical success factor. The book offers a language and an approach that makes clear that many issues that appear to be political are actually the natural consequence of breakthrough in­ novation in large organizations.

M ay -Ju n e 2014 special issue, "The Art and Science of De­ sign"). For an example of the application of such methods inside a corporation, see Buchner and H enderson (2011).

Once we have identified a set of value propositions, we attem pt to quantify their benefits from the point of view of the prospective customer. This exercise defines the ways in which the customer's world will be materially improved as a result of adopting our innovation.

The key to success at this stage is to deal w ith real- w orld data: W h at are people actually doing? How m uch im provem ent is possible in practice? For example, we have quantified the benefit to truck fleet operators of maintaining

optimal air pressure in their tires. To accomplish this, we needed to understand current practice and quantify the b e n ­ efits of an optimal tire m anagem ent protocol in terms of tire life, reduced roadside failures, reduced administrative costs, and improved fuel economy.

2. Generate business model options. Business model innovation, at its heart, is about capturing a share of the value created. A strong business model will capture a significant portion of that value and do so in a way that is dif­ ficult for others to replicate. It will also offer the potential to build competitive advantage, often through leveraging assets available within the corporation. Although there may be a best business model, depending on the nature of the innovation and the assets of the corporation, there is rarely a single good busi­ ness model. At Goodyear, we explore a num ber of options.

Good business models have three characteristics: they are coherent, they offer competitive advantage, and they provide some form of economic leverage. Coherence refers to th e w ay the parts of the m odel w ork together to create ad­ vantage; the custom er set, the basis of competition, the channel, and the assets th at create advantage all m ust ar­ ticulate. Competitive advantage is the differentiation th a t will attract customers and perhaps allow flexibility in pricing. Competitive advantage m ust be built on a strategic asset—a unique product, differential pow er in th e channel, a speed to m arket advantage, or some form of inform ation advan­ tage. In The Profit Zone (1997), Slywotzky, Morrison, and Andelm an list w hat they call strategic control points and th eir relative strengths. Referring to these potential points of advantage is a useful reality check.

Economic leverage ensures the business model can deliver profit at scale. Every coherent business model has an eco­ nomic story behind it, an intersection of economic forces that enables value creation and value capture. In The Art of Profit­ ability (2002), Adrian Slywotzky outlines 23 distinct business models, including the experience curve, cost leadership, and m ulticom ponent profit, and the dynamics that make them work. It is vital to understand these dynamics in order to understand the key point of leverage—w hat m ust be done in order to be successful.

Strong business models cannot be generated by brain­ storming the elements of a business model using a tool like the Business Model Canvas (Osterwalder and Pigneur 2010). The canvas may be useful in representing a business model, but it misses the key dynamic elements of working business models—it does not represent coherence (or the relationship among elements); it does not represent the competitive posi­ tion (which is off the canvas); and it does not quantify the economic leverage points.

Instead, recognizing that there are a limited num ber of coherent, effective models, we use Slywotzky's (2002) 23 ar­ chetypes as a starting point. For a given value proposition, we try to identify the archetypes that might be appropriate. We ask, who is offering a similar value proposition in another field? W hat business model are they using? Often, we will try to visit a company that is using an analogous model.

Business Model Innovation in Practice November— December 2014 | 35

T h e b u s in e s s m o d e l c a n v a s m isse s

t h e k e y d y n a m ic e l e m e n t s o f w o r k in g

b u s in e s s m o d e ls .

As we were thinking about business models for the value proposition associated with reducing the total ownership costs of tires, for example, we were inspired by an insurance company, FM Global. FM Global sells insurance, but its poli­ cies are bundled with a value proposition that significantly reduces the probability of loss. Unlike other insurance com­ panies, FM Global invests in R&D in technologies that reduce the probability of loss and in experts who can advise on best practices for risk management; it offers its customers a tiered pricing model based on adherence to good risk-management and loss-reduction practices. The costs are higher in this model than in the one used by most other insurers, but the casualty losses are much lower. The value to the customer is not just insurance (and potentially reduced premiums for compliance with FM Global-identified best practices) but also uptime.

The FM Global model inspired Goodyear to develop an analogous model for tire management. We invest in tech­ nologies, management protocols, and product selection that increases some costs but reduces the total cost of ownership for fleets, and we are able to capture some of that value. There are important elements that differ from the insurance model, of course, but the essence is similar.

In the field of problem solving, selecting from a list of ar­ chetypes and refining the result to fit the specific need is known as structured selection. That is a good description of the approach we use at Goodyear, with Slywotzky's archetypes as the core options.

3 . Identify the risks for each option generated. A business model concept is only a concept. It is fraught with unknowns and risks. We attem pt to clearly identify these risks up front, focusing on the three types of risks identified by Adner (2006): business execution (initiative) risks, co-innovation (interdependence) risks, and adoption (integration) risks.

To assess the business execution risks, we build a financial model. Although most of the data in the model are estimates, we can identify our best estimates of, for example, basic pric­ ing, the costs of customer acquisition, the costs of goods, cus­ tomer startup costs, and customer servicing costs. For each element in the financial model, we estimate a range and in­ corporate the connection of each element to other elements. Everything about this model may be wrong, but it is still ex­ tremely valuable. Trying to express the logic of the business quantitatively requires that the elements be carefully thought through. Estimating values both makes them explicit and highlights their raw uncertainty. The discussions that are

engaged in the construction of the model, like how one might account for unused tire inventory in a fleet, are pro­ ductive in mapping all of the implications of the value propo­ sition and business model.

There are risks that are beyond the direct control of the innovator, which Adner refers to as ecosystem risks. The two primary categories of ecosystem risks are co-innovation risks—uncertainties related to innovations others must cre­ ate in order for your business model to be successful, such as an enabling technology or a new process—and risks associ­ ated with the innovation adoption chain. Adoption-chain risks relate to the process of building the alignment among all of the stakeholders required to bring an innovation to mar­ ket. Assuming customers want to buy the new offering, who else might need to be on board for it to be successful? At Goodyear, the alignment of the dealer network with a new services offering is an essential element in the success of a new business model; it therefore represents a significant adoption chain risk.

To identify the risks for each option, we bring together participants with a wide range of backgrounds and map out what must be true for the business model to hold. We iden­ tify each element associated with the value delivery system, our level of knowledge for that element, the parties who need to align with it, and our best estimate of the associated costs.

We then use the financial model we have developed to perform a stochastic analysis of the business model. With off- the-shelf tools, such analyses are relatively simple to per­ form. In essence, the model is run thousands of times, with different selections for the unknown variables, dependent on their probability of occurrence. The result of the model is not a single number for projected profit, but a distribution of profit, which typically includes instances (combinations of variables) that are possible but not profitable (Figure 2). The stochastic model is a starting point for reducing risk. In the example, there was a very slim chance that the business could have ever been profitable (the dark zone). All our sub­ sequent work focused on increasing the chances of profit­ ability. It was not easy, but a disciplined focus on key drivers of the model got us there.

4. Prioritize the risks. Stochastic methods can be used to quantify the chances of business success given your current state of knowledge and to identify the variables that are likely to have the most effect on the success (or failure) of the business model. We use a tornado diagram, which is an artifact of the stochastic model, to depict, in rank order, the variables that most affect the profitability of the model (Figure 3). The variables at the top of the list are the ones with the largest potential effect on the model—and the ones it will be most beneficial to invest in understanding and controlling. In the example of the busi­ ness above (that originally had a slim chance of being profit­ able), we identified that our commercial relationships with our co-innovators were unsustainable from a profit perspec­ tive. Often, the variables that drive profitability are not

36 | R e s e a rc h -T e c h n o lo g y M a n a g e m e n t B usiness M o d e l In n o v a tio n in P ra ctice

FIGURE 2. Results o f stochastic m o d e lin g o f a business m odel's p ro fita b ility

intuitively clear. The tornado diagram derived from the sto­ chastic model makes them explicit. In some cases, assump­ tions that have been in the background take center stage. Once the importance of such an assumption is identified, customer research and even modification of the value propo­ sition can increase the potential for profitability.

As an example, in one initiative, we demonstrated value creation by outfitting commercial trucks with tire monitoring technology (Step 1). Our business model option (Step 2) was an add-on service that augmented our product offering and leveraged our service provider network for competitive ad­ vantage. The model was enabled by a strong ecosystem of technology partners (Step 3). Our financial model (Step 4) assumed that customers would sign long-term contracts (al­ lowing us to amortize the technology costs). The stochastic modeling highlighted the importance of that assumption. A significant customer set was unwilling to agree to long-term

contracts, which made the model unprofitable. In or­ der to make the business model profitable, we had to go back to the drawing board to develop lower-cost solutions.

5. Reduce risk through business experiments. The heart of the business model innovation process is business experiments, con­ ducted in the real world us­ ing prototypes, simulated user experiences, and short trials. These experiments are designed to provide enough insight to allow us to validate (or invalidate) a crucial assumption, and re­ duce the risk associated

with it. For instance, in developing its managed-services business model, Goodyear conducted trials of two new en­ abling technologies to assess their efficacy, user acceptance, and economic indicators. This involved collecting and ana­ lyzing operating data to quantify the benefits of the technol­ ogy and assessing an operations protocol in the field. Results from these experiments revealed that one of the technologies would not work in the real world, and the other required extensive user training at multiple points in the organization to realize its benefit, which created an unsustainable cost structure. Based on this important insight, we adapted our business model and technology strategy to increase the likeli­ hood of success.

We model our experimental efforts on the body of work that has become known as the "lean startup" approach (Ries 2011; Blank and Dorf 2012). The premise of this work is two­ fold: (1) crucial learning happens with real customers, and

Sensitivity

-30% -20% -10% 0% 10% 20% 30%

Most critical factor

Least critical factor

Spend time, resources minimizing risk for these factors

Ignore these factors

FIGURE 3. Tornado diag ram id e n tify in g key factors affecting a business m odel's p ro fita b ility

Business Model Innovation in Practice November— December 2014 | 37

(2) successful learning arises from something akin to the scientific method, moving from hypothesis through testing to proof. Much of the work around lean startups has been in the digital realm; Goodyear is attempting to apply it in manufacturing and service, which have their own sets of challenges.

The experiments we perform shed light on the riskiest variables identified by the modeling. A business experiment is generally short term and limited in scale, but it answers a question that is critical to the success of the business. As with the scientific method, it is crucial to isolate the under­ lying hypothesis that is being tested and to specify how the assumption—the hypothesis—will be tested, what will be measured, and how the results will be interpreted. We attempt to define experiments formally and rigorously; the rigor of approach ensures that the experiments are measuring the right thing, but it is also important for the legal reviews and coordination required to conduct such experiments, especially those that directly involve customers, within a large corpora­ tion. We time-bound the experiments in order to maintain the pace of learning.

The process of reducing the risk associated with a business model is iterative, continuing until all of the important risks have been defined and resolved as far as possible, and it can be extensive. At some point, the likelihood of the business model's success becomes more clear, leading to a decision point: If there is very little downside risk associated with the business, or if the downside risk can be managed effectively, the initiative can move into incubation. If it emerges that profitability is very unlikely, even under the best of circum­ stances, the business model (and maybe even the initiative) will have to be abandoned. The risk analysis process must continue until the picture is clear enough to make one deci­ sion or the other; that point of decision depends on the orga­ nization and its tolerance for particular risk types and levels.

6 . Organize for incubation. The goal of business model innovation is to bring a new of­ fering to market. But an entirely new venture typically can't be introduced to the market as a full-blown offering at scale. The first step in deploying the new model, then, is small- scale incubation. The primary goals of the incubation phase are to demonstrate profitability and scalability in the market, and to identify a business-building strategy.

Incubation at Goodyear follows the same lean startup ap­ proach used in developing the business model, but the ven­ tures are funded by a corporate incubation fund and overseen

A b u s in e s s e x p e r i m e n t is g e n e r a l ly s h o r t

t e r m a n d lim it e d in s c a le , b u t it a n s w e r s a

q u e s t io n t h a t is c r itic a l t o t h e s u cce ss o f

t h e b u s in e s s .

by a New Venture Board (NVB) composed of a few forward- looking general managers within the company. The agenda of an NVB meeting is organized around the top five key as­ sumptions central to the success of the business. NVB reviews involve identification of a hypothesis about a key assump­ tion, assessment of actions taken to test the hypothesis, dis­ cussion of the current state of knowledge about the new venture, and decisions about what is to be done next to fur­ ther that knowledge and by when.

A key decision in incubation is whether to organize the new business within the relevant business unit (what Vijay Govindarajan and Chris Trimble, in The Other Side of Innova­ tion [2010], call the "performance engine") or as an indepen­ dent entity. The work of Govindarajan and Trimble, as well as Chesbrough's study, argues for an independent entity if the new business challenges the business model of the core. They believe that an independent entity has a greater ability to escape the orthodoxies of the existing corporation and yet borrow key assets of the corporation as necessary. Their work shows that business models operating within established per­ formance engines are frequently strangled by practices devel­ oped to support the operational efficiency of the core, starved of critical resources, or co-opted to support the core business. A change in management in the core or a short-term crisis can eviscerate the nascent enterprise altogether.

For these reasons, we have chosen to incubate new busi­ nesses as separate divisions with their own staff and general manager, although this may not apply as a general rule in all situations. The businesses leverage the resources of the core for support functions (such as legal and accounting), but have their own sales, operations, IT, and technology staff. They work closely with the core business to avoid unneces­ sary channel conflict or customer confusion and buy re­ sources (like tires and services) from the core. The businesses report through the corporate innovation function and are accountable to the NVB, which provides oversight and guidance.

The ultimate decision about integration with the core, at least for the businesses currently in incubation at Goodyear, will be addressed when we make the decision to scale. The options for scaling range from organic growth of the startup to reorganization or transformation of a business unit around the new business model.

C o n c lu s io n s

Most of us are faced with scarce resources and high opportu­ nity costs inside corporations. A disciplined approach to busi­ ness model innovation creates the quickest path to market for ventures, in addition to increasing chances of success. The approach we are evolving at Goodyear has had many chal­ lenges. From a project standpoint, knowing when to kill a venture remains a challenge. From a team standpoint, at­ tracting and developing talent with the nontraditional skills required has been difficult. Managing the relationship with core businesses has also presented challenges, especially where the new venture and the existing business compete for resources or customers. Business oversight is essential for

3 8 ] R e s e a rc h -T e c h n o lo g y M a n a g e m e n t B usiness M o d e l In n o v a tio n in P ra ctice

building credibility, but it requires a time com m itm ent from operating and a shift in orientation tow ard learning.

Business m odel innovation can be m anaged as a disci­ plined process. M uch has been w ritten about different ele­ m ents of this process. The contribution of this paper is an integrated view, w hich combines the elem ents in a way th at can be successfully applied inside corporations. The process w e propose has been applied w ith several value proposi­ tions in a range of business contexts. It has resulted in two businesses th at are currently in incubation and two at late stages of developm ent. We will continue to refine these m ethods an d tools as we create n ew businesses.

R eferences Adner, R. 2006. Matching your innovation strategy to your in­

novation ecosystem. Harvard Business Review 84(4): 98-107. Blank, S., and Dorf, B. 2012. The Startup Owner's Manual: The

Step-by-Step Guide for Building a Great Company. Pescadero, CA: K&S Ranch Publishers.

Chesbrough, H. 2006. Open Innovation: The New Imperative for Creating and Profiting from Technology. Boston, MA: Harvard Business School Publishing.

Euchner, J., and Henderson, A. 2011. The practice of innova­ tion: Innovation as the management of constraints. Research- Technology Management 54(2): 47-54.

Govindarajan, V., and Trimble, C. 2010. The Other Side of Innova­ tion: Solving the Execution Challenge. Cambridge, MA: Harvard Business Review Press.

Keeley, L., Pikkel, R., Quinn, B., and Walters, H. 2013. Ten Types of Innovation: The Discipline of Building Breakthroughs. Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons.

Kelley, T. 2001. The Art of Innovation: Lessons in Creativity from IDEO. New York: Doubleday.

Martin, R. 2009. Design of Business: Why Design Thinking is the Next Competitive Advantage. Cambridge, MA: Harvard Business Re­ view Press.

Osterwalder, A., and Pigneur, Y. 2010. Business Model Genera­ tion: A Handbook for Visionaries, Game Changers, and Challeng­ ers. Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons.

Ries, E. 2011. The Lean Startup: How Today’s Entrepreneurs Use Continuous Innovation to Create Radically Successful Businesses. New York: Crown Business.

Slywotzky, A. 2002. The Art of Profitability. New York: Warner Books. Slywotzky, A., Morrison, D. J„ and Andelman, B. 1997. The

Profit Zone: How Strategic Business Design Will Lead You to To­ morrow's Profits. New York: Crown Business.

I n d u s t r i a l ' i l l R e s e a r c h

I n s t i t u t e

Creating Innovation A T - r » x T , _ Leadership Solutions Thank you 2014 IRI Industry Sponsors

Gold: idbs NBftRY innocentive"

Silver: GLG inn© Hh a r r i s + h a r r i sG R O U P

mQ uestel V / 5 C I T 6 C H

A decade o f ac tionable IP insights..

N I N E S I G M

Xzw In-kind: H E R S H E Y '

The Hershcv Company

/

B usiness M o d e l In n o v a tio n in P ra c tic e N o v e m b e r — D e c e m b e r 2 0 1 4 I 39

Copyright of Research Technology Management is the property of Industrial Research Institute, Inc. and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use.