Problem To Solve

Stakeholder management is not new.  In fact, most references surfaced by Google search today cite the same 2×2 stakeholder matrix (Mendelow, 1991) published more than 30 years ago! – suggesting plenty of new opportunities to think innovatively about stakeholder engagement strategy.

Moreover, the context and importance of stakeholder management has started to evolve, in just the last 3-4 years.  There are multiple reasons and examples, from which two stand out in particular:

• In the business world, particularly at large corporations, the emphasis on traditional shareholder value is expanding to stakeholder value. Business stakeholders go well beyond shareholders and traditional customers to include employees, internal departments/functions, external partners, and those affected by socioeconomic issues.

• In the public sector, US federal agencies – notably the National Science Foundation and the Economic Development Administration – are extensively funding place-based collaborative consortia, each comprised usually of dozens of independent enterprises. Here, an extraordinarily diverse mix of entities must organize communally.

Closely linked with this evolution from traditional stakeholder management is the changing definition of “Customer”.  Indeed, customer focus in the past tended to be easier because the customer of a given enterprise was relatively easy to define.  In contrast today, consider for example an emerging regional innovation consortium established to commercialize university technology, increase jobs in the region, and reskill an inclusive workforce.  

In this case, who is/are the customer(s) and who are the stakeholders, exactly?  What are the strategic and tactical differences in collaborating with them?  And, by extension, how are the partners, contributors, special resources, influencers, and other members of a complex enterprise like this best engaged?

In fact, stakeholder engagement is often the “need behind the need”.  That is, the overt need could be to “Grow X…”, “Build Y…”, or “Fix Z…”  But these are desired outcomes.  The essence of what is needed to achieve those outcomes is getting everyone on the same page, and working together.

So, what is the solution to this new and growing challenge around stakeholder management?

Quick-Strike Stakeholder Engagement Strategy

The answer is not business as usual that clings to old paradigms and practices.  Nor is the answer an overly elaborate multi-month project which can overanalyze, waste time and energy, and impose prematurely rigid structures.  Rather, experience indicates that the most effective and practical answer is quick-turnaround development of a consensus-building stakeholder engagement strategy.

Let’s step back a moment for additional context.  Typically, organizational leaders seeking to strategize the engagement of diverse stakeholders do not start from scratch.  In most cases, the central opportunity has usually been at least roughly defined; and often an initial investment has already been made in an anchor asset or related activity.

Therefore, what is needed at this juncture is a practical means to consolidate current thinking, ideas, and actions into a pragmatic path forward that builds synergistic stakeholder engagement.

The Quick-Strike Stakeholder Engagement Strategy approach generates clear definition of what to do and why, to engage and integrate diverse stakeholders during complex collaborative innovation – e.g., at innovation districts, tech hubs or other cross-organization consortia aimed at communal outcomes.

The Quick-Strike Stakeholder Engagement Strategy process drives 3 main outputs:

• Identification of a complete palette of relevant stakeholders
• Determination of stakeholder roles which best add to collective value
• Strategy and structure of a core team to drive stakeholder engagement in the near-term.

The straightforward 6-step process combines internal reports and data, with insightful stakeholder interviews – all enhanced by generative AI tools, and delivered in a 4-6 week time frame depending on need.

In this approach, stakeholders are identified, including partners, contributors, and special resources – and they are mapped by role and importance.  Through the interview process, these stakeholders gain awareness and acceptance, leading to their commitment to the vision and high-level strategy.  A consensus roadmap further activates and engages the complete stakeholder mix.  And an execution charter structures the ways of working of an agile core team to drive the work to be done.

Quick-Strike Stakeholder Engagement Strategy is led most effectively by an innovation intermediary – i.e., an external resource who brings impartiality, outside perspective, and expertise in collaborative innovation.  Partnering with client leadership, that resource works with focus and commitment on behalf of the collective benefits of the entire consortium.

The resultant benefits are threefold:

• Consensus to decide and act across diverse partners and contributors
• Conversion of incompletely formed individual interests into communal commitment
• Sustainable cross-stakeholder engagement during periods of uncertain funding/revenues.

The bottom-line result is a purposeful execution team moving in concert toward a common vision. Previous ideas, interests, and preliminary activities have been converted into integrated stakeholder engagement.

Example of Quick-Strike Stakeholder Engagement Strategy in Action

The University City Science Center is one of the oldest science parks in the United States, founded in 1963.  A leadership change triggered the opportunity to refresh and revitalize the Science Center (SC) strategy. The first phase comprised expedient steps to engage a complex mix of stakeholders.

Located in western Philadelphia, the SC stakeholder mix included numerous academic institutions, ranging from the University of Pennsylvania to Lincoln University.  Starting-point Science Center assets included extensive research space to lease, and an incubator for startup companies.  Scattered independently across the region were many entrepreneurs, angel investors and venture capital funds, professional services, and a wide range of government agencies and community organizations.

The first step in resetting the overall Science Center strategy was building a strategy and plan to engage this complex stakeholder mix.  Indeed, de facto implementation of the eventual strategy began with this phase of stakeholder input – leading to their awareness, acceptance, and, ultimately, enthusiastic involvement.  The straightforward stakeholder engagement process combined market research, structured interviews, and external benchmarking.

The outcome of the new Science Center strategy was an innovative complement of three multifaceted programs: the QED Proof-of-Concept Program, Quorum networking forums and events, and the new Port incubator.  This synergistic combination catalyzed research relationships with academic institutions across Philadelphia and beyond, while boosting tenant demand at existing and new Science Center buildings.  And it improved measurably the economic and community health of western Philadelphia.

Innovative Role of Generative AI in Quick-Strike Stakeholder Engagement Strategy

Quick-Strike Stakeholder Engagement Strategy incorporates generative AI (GenAI) as a facilitating tool within the overall process.  GenAI, properly applied, is a valuable means to the process end – the end being enthusiastic stakeholder engagement in complex collaborative innovation manifested, for example, by successful tech hubs, innovation districts, and regional innovation consortia.

Gen AI intersects and complements the six-step Quick-Strike Stakeholder Engagement Strategy process at several points.

• Baseline ecosystem knowledge: GenAI can quickly “ingest” multiple context-specific data sources into its already massive public knowledge base – e.g., special reports, website content, and white papers.

• Stakeholder mapping and vision/value hypothesizing: Carefully querying the GenAI knowledge base can reveal hidden stakeholders, while helping map stakeholder interests and potential roles — thereby enhancing the initial consortium vision and value proposition.

• Stakeholder interview synthesis: Systematic and impartial stakeholder interviews will test hypotheses about consortium vision and value proposition, while illuminating ecosystem strengths and gaps, and stakeholder interests and roles.  GenAI helps to creatively “connect the dots” and extract strategic insights from the diverse interview data.

• Consensus-driven strategy development: GenAI can simulate deep dives into specific needs of key stakeholders.  It can help drive Decision Analysis, whereby stakeholder criteria are defined and ranked. Finally, skillful iteration with GenAI shapes creative ideas about innovative elements of the stakeholder engagement strategy – e.g., social contract principles, governance models, applicability of OKRs and balanced scorecard metrics, and others.

The bottom line is that GenAI helps deliver what Quick-Strike Stakeholder Engagement Strategy, at its core, seeks to do: that is, expand the executional “burst” capacity of consortium leadership to engage, align, and mobilize a powerful team of partners and stakeholders – with speed, agility, and efficiency.

Call to Action

Effective stakeholder engagement starts with stakeholder identification, inclusion, and integration of their respective synergistic roles.  Human nature being what it is, the best way to get independent functions and organizations to work together – i.e., to look outside their normal/narrow spheres of influence – is to involve them upfront in an efficient and transparent process leading to consensus about collective effort.

Stakeholder engagement strategy-making should not be an elaborate and multi-month process that implicitly seeks to over-predict and over-plan its way to success.  Instead, what works best is a comprehensive but quick-turnaround approach leading to joint awareness, acceptance, and start-up action.

Your next step could be consideration of an innovation intermediary to help build a successful Quick-Strike Stakeholder Engagement Strategy, with a methodology and process that is straightforward, practical, low risk, and cost effective.

© OIC Innovation LLC 2024

Problem To Solve

Opportunity is the fuel that fires growth in organizations of all types, be they businesses, universities, not-for-profits, or multi-enterprise collaborations. Creating or entering new markets, co-innovating with partners, building innovation districts or tech hubs – these are but a few of innumerable examples of enterprise opportunities to experience, learn, and thereby grow success.

In fact, the number of opportunities is not the constraint at most organizations, especially given the financial, social, and political dynamics in marketplaces today.  Opportunities, like ideas, are not lacking.  Rather, what is missing is clarity about what to do and why.  By extension, missing is organizational commitment to a practical starting point.

So, how do improvement-oriented organizations convert a compelling but general opportunity into specific decisions and action?  The answer is a straightforward, effective, and expedient process to assess, define, and prioritize – i.e., convert what may be a conceptual mishmash of thoughts and information into a get-started strategy and structure which drives consensus, decisions, and action.

Absent such a process, what happens at most organizations is one of three suboptimal scenarios.  The opportunity remains inactionable and missed, amidst business-as-usual priorities and budgeting.  Or the organization deliberates for months to analyze and plan, seeking implicitly to predict its way to success.  Or the organization rushes to action without defining what “success” really looks like or identifying the true customer(s).

And compelling opportunities are pursued inefficiently or missed entirely.

What is the best way to start decisively and productively on the right path to pursuing compelling opportunities?

Quick-Strike Opportunity Definition

The answer is a practical, low-risk, and cost-effective process that results in clear definition of what to do and why to exploit a new market, business, or collaborative innovation opportunity.  Properly executed, this quick-turnaround approach leads to consensus decision making, coordination, and path forward.

The Quick-Strike Opportunity Definition process consolidates dispersed thinking, ideas, and information, generating three primary outputs:

• Concrete answers to critical next-step strategic and operational questions
• High-level startup strategy
• Execution charter for an Agile launch team, including Backlog of get-moving activities.

The process taps internal reports, stakeholder interviews, and external research.  Output-building is accelerated and enhanced by generative AI (GenAI) tools.  The time frame is typically 3-4 weeks depending on need. 

(Note: The facilitating role of GenAI in this quick-turnaround process is illustrated by its application in the related Quick-Strike Stakeholder Engagement Strategy approach, described in linked article.)

In this approach, the Opportunity is validated and prioritized, while incorporating creative refinements and amplifications from those who will be involved in implementation.  The consensus startup strategy and roadmap are developed.  And an execution charter structures the ways of working for an Agile action team to get the job done.

The bottom line result is crystal clarity about the what and why driving the Opportunity, and consensus and alignment among the people, functions, and partners involved – who may not be accustomed to working together.

Experience indicates that Quick-Strike Opportunity Definition is most effectively led by an “innovation intermediary” – i.e., an independent external resource who works impartially across stakeholders, on behalf of collective insights and benefits.  Throughout, that senior person/team iterates closely with client leadership.

Two benefits result which can break any logjam around if/how to move forward with commitment:

• Consensus to decide and act across diverse partners, contributors, and stakeholders
• Operational structure and plan to organize productive next steps.

Example of Applying Quick-Strike Opportunity Definition

The opportunity assessment and startup strategy for a university-based innovation district is an illustrative example of Quick-Strike Opportunity Definition in action.

In this case, the university has received state funding to refurbish a large building into a multi-use innovation center.  The vision is to establish this anchor investment as the basis for a local innovation district that leverages the university’s translational R&D capabilities in certain biomedical technologies.

The building refurbishment is complete, and contracts are finalized.  The team must now prepare to launch the new asset, attract tenants, and incorporate the tech hub into a holistic Innovation District. The goal is to foster greater industry collaboration, retain university spinouts in the region, and grow high quality jobs — all which build the university brand.

The university engages an outside expert to lead a Quick-Strike Opportunity Definition.  The primary insight-gathering techniques are leadership and stakeholder interviews preceded by review of internal reports, and followed by benchmarking of ideas generated during the discussions (in this case, proof-of-concept and spin-out retention programming).

The engagement addresses four lines of inquiry:

1. Identifying hub and district stakeholders, and their aspirations, needs, and expectations
2. Regional resources, assets, and capabilities to be leveraged
3. Local and regional gaps to fill or accommodate
4. By extension of all above, the high-level strategy and startup pathway

The duration of this engagement is five weeks, by leveraging a quick-turnround methodology and GenAI tools.  Concrete outputs are a high level strategy for the innovation hub and innovation district, and a path forward and core team which drive operational priorities in the near term.  The startup pathway includes two “early wins” to build credibility, confidence, and momentum.

Call to Action

Organizations today do not lack opportunities to improve and grow.  Instead, what is usually missing is the practical means to assess, define, and prioritize – and thereby convert ideas into decisions and actions. Quick-Strike Opportunity Definition fills this gap.  The process clarifies what to do and why, and creates consensus around the best starting point and path forward.

Your next step could be consideration of an external innovation intermediary to generate early success with a straightforward, low-risk, and cost-effective approach that puts you on a concrete path to pursue new opportunities with clarity and commitment.

© OIC Innovation LLC 2024

Problem To Solve

As an organizational leader, one or more of these circumstances may personally apply.

• You are leading a business or function that is becoming increasingly complex, as your expanding set of “customers” and “stakeholders” become harder to define and engage.
• You sense opportunities to improve and grow the organization, which you don’t have time to assess and define.
• You can’t easily break out of frenetic daily activities to “think” and strategize.
• You don’t have someone with whom you can privately confer, without risk.
• You are new to a demanding position.
• …

These are just a few of the unfortunate – but real world – attributes of senior leadership.

Meanwhile, senior executives deal with two baseline constraints confronting leadership at most improvement-oriented organizations.  The first constraint is time, i.e., enough “hours in the day” to do what needs to be done.  Closely related, the second constraint is executive bandwidth to stay ahead of the curve and lead proactively.

What can help?

One option is an executive coach.  But traditional executive coaches typically lack domain knowledge about the business or organizational context.  Indeed, the executive coach deliberately avoids business issues to focus on the leader’s mindset and decision making.

A management consultant is another option.  But the job of the consultant is to solve a given business or organizational issue, often following an elaborate project plan.  A good consultant works closely with organizational leadership – but the focus is on the issue to be solved rather than partnering with any one individual.

Implied by all this is the need and opportunity to fill gaps at many organizations today – with an external resource who simultaneously serves an on-demand thought-and-do partner with organization, business, or function leaders, while resolving critical organizational issues.

Player-Coach Partnering Model

The Player-Coach Partner (PCP) can address the gap created by leadership accountability, isolation, and time and capacity constraints.  The PCP is an on-demand external resource who partners with the senior organizational leader – a part-time support role that integrates traditional executive coaching and business consulting, while applying domain knowledge and pragmatic tools that achieve targeted outcomes.

Much more than an advisor, the Player-Coach is a thought-and-do partner.  He or she is someone with whom the senior leader can think freely and ideate in a confidential, productive, and risk-free manner.  But also, the PCP is someone who rolls up the sleeves to complete tasks on a planned path to issue resolution.  The combination gets work done faster and more proactively than when the leader operates alone – while the leader learns and grows from the experiences.

The contractual basis of the Player-Coach relationship with the client is a clearly defined organizational outcome and timeframe, and a statement of work describing the collaborative plan to achieve specific objectives.  The Player-Coach can, for example, conduct interviews, internal assessments, external benchmarking, or other tasks.  The Player-Coach can facilitate sprint-based action teams which align diverse functions and stakeholders.  Meanwhile, the Player-Coach and senior leader stay on the same page via regular one-on-one “standup” meetings.

Throughout, the roll-up-the-sleeves and get-work-done partnership with the senior leader continues – and grows.

Senior leadership and the extended organization benefit in a variety of ways from the Player-Coach Partner model, including:

• Independent/outside perspective that accelerates and enhances decision-making
• “Innovation intermediary” who facilitates consensus and alignment among functions, partners, and stakeholders
• Customized application of advanced management techniques and tools, e.g., generative AI, Agile Innovation™, OKRs
• Access to specialized expertise who are part of the Player-Coach network
• Expansion of overall “burst” execution capacity to get work done.

…All provided on an as-needed basis, within budget and without additional fixed cost.

Examples of Player-Coaching in Action

Two examples help illustrate what the Player-Coach Partnering model looks like in practice.  One example occurred in the private sector, while the other was a public-private initiative.

A longstanding leader in advanced materials technology saw its position weakening at large data center accounts.  While its products were reliable and performed well, this business suffered from customer perception of becoming slow to innovate.  Needed was much tighter alignment between the company’s technology, engineering, manufacturing, and commercial functions.

A veteran manager at the company was assigned accountability to lead a highly visible two-year project. After reviewing several consulting firms, the senior leader engaged a Player-Coach for part-time support. Together, they formed a lean and tight tandem team who co-led multiple cross-functional teams along an agilely structured journey applying Agile Innovation™ ways of working.

Fueling insights along the way was task-based internal and external research, and the perspective of an independent outsider with a wide range of experiences in different industries and organizations.

Eventual results were threefold: A turnaround in customer perception around speed-to-innovate, the foundation for a more agile culture across this large global division, and the achievement of all project metrics during the two extensive phases of work.

The second example of Player-Coach Partnering was equally challenging and successful, but totally different.  The University City Science Center, one of the oldest research parks in the USA, recognized the opportunity to position itself as the champion of a new regional innovation ecosystem centered in Philadelphia.  A Player-Coach was engaged to support strategy development, stakeholder engagement, and design of initial programming.

The Player-Coach partnered with a member of the senior leadership team: the CTO, who combined technical expertise in life sciences with relationships at many universities and economic development organizations.  

Here again, the Player-Coach and client CTO formed a tight tandem to execute an agile learn-and-advance set of activities over two years, under the close oversight of the Science Center CEO and Board.  The PCP and CTO nimbly shared the work while interacting continuously.  

The eventual result was partner and stakeholder commitment to three major brick-and-mortar and networking programs which moved the Science Center to the forefront of a diverse and high-performing regional ecosystem.

Call To Action

Beyond success in complex organizational environments, these two examples feature hallmarks of Player-Coach Partnering: namely, shoulder-to-shoulder partnership, hands-on support, new insights from an independent and outside perspective, pragmatic methodologies and tools, and the intellectual capacity and “manual labor” to get the job done on time.

Your next steps could be considering the value of a Player-Coach Partner – a practical, low risk, and cost effective resource who can help drive strategy and execution at your business, organization, or regional consortium.

© OIC Innovation LLC 2024

The innovation and commercialization of life science and other deep tech is necessarily a multi-player and long-term endeavor, characterized by many transactions, high costs, and constraining inefficiency.  Today, those geographic regions that are most successful have developed, over extended periods of time, deep relationships and innovation cultures allowing them to overcome organizational and transactional friction.

BioEcosystem Partners (BEP) provides a system-based alternative.  BEP works with organizations seeking to convene innovation and commercialization consortia, helping them create strategic operating systems – programs that build clear and transparent operations, governance, and evaluations for achieving specific commercialization objectives.  BEP expedites the development of new and emerging consortia, and their regional and societal value.

The Opportunity

Transforming life science and deep tech inventions into commercialized products which enhance society attracts the strong interests of many participants across the development cycle.  Eventual success can be highly rewarded in terms of personal satisfaction, organizational recognition, and financial return.  However, the commercialization journey today remains costly, unpredictable, and slow; and when product success does occur, rewards can seem unevenly distributed among contributors.  Commercialization success has therefore become concentrated in certain geographic regions where deep relationships among multiple players have grown over time, allowing familiarity and trust to overcome development uncertainty.

There is a mismatch today between the many geographic regions or virtual ecosystems that receive public funding in life science and deep tech R&D, and those regions most successful at commercializing inventions – raising a fundamental question and opportunity: How can we grow the value, predictability, speed, and inclusiveness of early-stage technology commercialization?

Commercialization is hampered by complexity and fragmentation

Life science and deep technology commercialization is highly complex along three dimensions, all of which are requisite:

1. Multiple diverse organizational participants;
2. Many individual and cumulative point-to-point transactions, and;
3. A long and episodic development cycle where returns are often deferred to “downstream” transactions.

Engaged in the circuitous path between invention and commercialization are many different players – for example, academic institutions, inventors, investors, entrepreneurs, professional services, life science companies, infrastructure owners, and government and economic development agencies.  Each plays a particular role, such as invention, early-stage development, or providing resources for growth.  Driving these players is a wide range of objectives, incentives, and timeframes.

To achieve their respective objectives, these diverse players typically operate through a complex and ad hoc spiderweb of independent and opportunistic interactions.  Academic institutions, for example, may license intellectual property to entrepreneurs.  Startup entrepreneurs may accept equity financing from investors based on holding the rights to patents licensed from a university.  The startup may use government incentives to hire graduates from local universities, and it may rent space from a developer.  And a multinational company may ultimately acquire the startup, to scale and market its product.

These many transactions occur over a long timeframe during life science and deep tech commercialization – often 5-10 years.  Furthermore, the returns associated with the commercialization of a particular technology are often not directly linked to many of the transactions; for example, the original technology license might realize returns in the form of royalties from product sales that only occur after many subsequent development transactions have taken place among additional downstream players.

The net result of many players, long development timeframe, and the fragmented and deferred nature of investment is significant transactional friction that raises costs and reduces speed.  Eventual success becomes serendipitous and almost random.   

The opportunity for more successful innovation hubs

Compared to the many research-intensive academic centers across the United States and globally, only a small handful of regions and associated organizations have been consistently successful at bridging the gap between early-stage technology and commercialized products.  This may be, in part, because of the geographic concentration of unique capabilities, such as inventive laboratories, and specialized infrastructure or workforce.

We hypothesize, however, that even more important to commercialization success has been the development, in certain regions, of long-term relationships and innovation culture among the multiple public and private sector entities required to bring a new product to market.  These deep relationships allow these regions to more effectively overcome the natural fragmentation and transactional frictions associated with life sciences and deep tech commercialization.   

Implied by this is the need and opportunity for a better and more widespread approach to grow commercial value from life science and deep tech technology hubs.  Today, a myriad of innovation hubs, districts, consortia, and clusters throughout the world seek to address the hurdles inherent to life science and deep tech commercialization.  Most of these hubs focus primarily on what is natural and easiest: that is, bringing the players into closer physical proximity by clustering the infrastructure assets into research parks, districts, or incubators.  While physical proximity can certainly create opportunities to build more and deeper relationships, clustering is a necessary – but not sufficient – step for launching and growing new, effective innovation hubs.

The fundamental problem-to-solve at emerging regional tech hubs today is how to better align the objectives, activities, and incentives of diverse ecosystem participants during the prolonged cycle between invention and commercialization.  By extension, we must better integrate the physical proximity and clustering of physical assets (“hardware”) with programs that systemically promote connections, relationships, and partnerships (“software”).  BioEcosystem Partners has learned from direct experience that the solution to this problem is to take an “operating system” approach.

An operating system for innovation ecosystems

Consider computer operating systems as analogy.  With even the most basic device today, one easily navigates an extraordinary breadth of software applications and hardware yielding an enormous range of IT functionality; without ever questioning how components such as screen, keyboard or mouse interact to produce text or shift images.  The operating system provides quick and seamless connections; conversely, imagine the intolerable difficulty of having to control separately each application and hardware device without Windows, macOS, or the like.

Analogous to computer applications and hardware is the wide spectrum of innovation components needed for commercialization, and typically controlled by multiple stakeholders.  These components include organizational leadership and vision, patented or otherwise protected inventions and ideas, entrepreneurs, workforce and expertise, capital, permissive policies and regulations, infrastructure, and market pathways.  Today, these components are managed more-or-less individually by the spiderweb of stakeholder transactions.  Missing is the practical equivalent of an operating system to not only aggregate but also coordinate the many constituents of a powerful ecosystem.

BioEcosystem Partners recognizes that such an operating system can be achieved with a customized set of consortium programs.  Programs describe an explicit set of activities, processes, tools, and governance which stakeholders and participants use to coordinate innovation components such as inventions, capital, and expertise, to achieve a concrete commercialization objective.  The operating system for each regional tech hub will necessarily be customized to that hub’s unique needs, capabilities, and challenges.  

The good news is that customization can usually be done by piecing together modular versions of programs which address common commercialization goals.  Examples include:

• Partnership frameworks for academic collaboration with industry and investors
• Early-stage technology proof-of-concept or proof-of-validation programs
• Engagement platforms for mentors, entrepreneurs, professional services, graduates, students
• Accelerators and incubators for startup launch and growth
• Community talent and workforce development

In our system approach, BEP works with clients to customize and integrate semi-standard program “modules” to emphasize the unique characteristics of a given region, and to achieve that region’s specific commercialization objectives.  While the basic program alternatives are similar, their individual selection and customization depend on the strategy, operations model, and related strengths and gaps of a given tech hub – be it relatively established or aspirational in nature. 

The integrating glue of the tech hub is its operating system which provides a framework and transparent set of “rules” understood by all stakeholders and participants.  It essentially provides and expedites the same alleviation of transaction friction achieved by well-established hubs only after many years of relationship building.

Example of system success: Science Center and QED POC Program

The University Science Center is the oldest science park in the United States, founded in 1963.  A leadership change triggered the refresh and revitalization of Science Center strategy, incorporating regional market research, external benchmarking, and stakeholder interviews.  The operational outcome was a complement of three multi-component programs: the QED Proof-of-Concept Program, Quorum networking forums and events, and the Port incubator.  This synergistic combination catalyzed research relationships with academic institutions across Philadelphia and beyond, boosted tenant demand at existing and new Science Center buildings, and contributed measurably to the economic and community health of west Philadelphia.

The QED POC program particularly exemplified the power and value of a system approach to tech innovation hubs.  Tapping existing and new relationships, QED was the first multi-institutional POC program in the USA.  It provided the operational framework and mechanics for identifying, validating, funding, and translating high-potential life science technologies. 

The QED consortium grew to more than 20 academic institutions, nearly 50 companies and investors, and more than 200 entrepreneurs and industry professionals.  Moreover, it led to the commercialization of many technologies and the creation of several follow-on consortium programs, while earning multiple funding support from the US EDA, other government agencies, and the private sector.

Supporting the system approach to collaborative innovation and commercialization

BioEcosystem Partners is a special resource to organizations who serve, or aspire to serve, as regional leaders in consortium-based organizations.

Examples of BEP clients include:

• Academic institutions seeking practical commercialization through stronger engagement with companies and investors
• Life sciences infrastructure leaders seeking to partner with academic institutions and companies in technology hubs
• Companies and investors seeking to engage efficiently with academic institutions, health systems, and startups
• Non-profit and public organizations seeking to build economic development networks and regional economic health.

The starting point of a system approach to technology hubs is a clear vision and strategy fitting the innovation opportunities, components, and operating requirements of a given region.  Tech hub strategy then drives a well-defined operating model which, in turn, is enabled by its operating system.

The key to tech hub success is combining system strategy with program know-how to “synergize” productive connections, interactions, and relationships across a true innovation ecosystem – elevating the volume, quality, and value of high-potential commercialization opportunities.

BEP is both strategic partner providing domain experience, outside perspective, and thought leadership; and execution partner delivering hands-on support and coordination, to accelerate launch of new innovation programs and initiatives.  BEP delivers a menu of services along the spectrum from strategy formulation and road-mapping, program design and planning, consortium partnerships, and business development.

Thereby, BEP clients position and distinguish themselves as innovation organizations leading regional and/or networked consortia, creating and sharing ecosystem value in the near-term and sustainable long-term.

Rising to the Occasion

Visionary regional leaders can solve the problems which constrain the transformation of life science and deep tech inventions into commercialized products, today.  These innovative organizations will apply a pragmatic system approach that catalyzes connections, relationships, and partnerships across their regional ecosystems – to grow the value, predictability, speed, and inclusiveness of early-stage technology commercialization.

Empowering the many life science and deep tech hubs now engaged in exciting R&D means that the rewards from commercialization and societal impact do not need to remain concentrated in a few geographic areas.  The playing field can be leveled, with far more widespread personal satisfaction, recognition, and financial returns.

© OIC Innovation LLC 2023

An under-recognized constraint at innovative and action-oriented businesses today is a clear answer to the question: How do we get started?  That is, faced with a pressing problem or opportunity, business leaders often get stuck in the starting block.

For instance, management struggles with how to muster internal resources; and meaningful action is delayed or washed out by distractions from other parts of the business.  Or, the business rushes headlong into activities, without a mobilizing “What” and “Why”.  In either case, the problem or opportunity remains unresolved.  

So, how do business leaders break out of this habit and mindset?

The answer is common sensical if not commonly practiced:  it is a practical quick-strike approach to define the opportunity, and structure the path forward.

With Quick-Strike Opportunity Definition (Q-SOD), business leaders can determine comprehensively in just a couple weeks what should be done and why, and how.  Q-SOD outputs:

• Clear “problem-to-solve” that engages and aligns the organization (“Why”)
• Key assumptions and tactics to get the job done (“What”)
• Agile structure and ways of working (“How”)

The net result of the two-week quick strike is a single-page Execution Charter specifying 1) problem-to- solve and objectives; 2) success definition and timeframe; 3) Agile execution structure and ways of working; and 4) key activities, with an accompanying list of Startup Backlog and first-week Sprint Deliverables.

The business is thereby ready to go – or potentially “Hold” based on strong understanding of outcomes, cost, and timing.  Either way, the problem or opportunity is addressed definitively, with a clear path forward.

The Quick-Strike Opportunity Definition mini-process is enabled by a practical playbook of frameworks and tools which can easily and immediately deployed – e.g., contextual questions to ask, Blue Ocean assessment and ideation tools, execution templates, etc.  And driving the quick strike is an (external) “player coach” with strong focus and commitment to meet the tight timeframe, partnering with the CEO and leadership team as necessary.

In just two weeks, the business is ready to attack efficiently the issue:  be it product, service, or business model innovation; business development initiatives aimed at key accounts or new markets; or productivity enhancements to internal functions.

“A journey of 1000 miles starts with the first step.”  The irony at innovative and action-oriented businesses today is that often the starting point is the stumbling block.  In contrast, a small investment in quick-strike opportunity definition yields faster and greater returns.  

© OIC Innovation LLC 2023