The majority of the world patents comes from just 3 infocom industries

In a recent Thomson Reuters report, it appears that 52% of the world patents comes from just 3 infocom (ICT) industries: Computers & peripherals (30%), telecommunications (13%) and semiconductors (12%).

The report offers a breakdown of the best innovators in term of patent applications by industry and by region.

Source: http://img.en25.com/Web/ThomsonReutersScience/StateofInnovation2011.pdf

Louis Rhéaume
Infocom Intelligence
Louis@infocomintelligence.com
Twitter: @InfocomAnalysis

A map of new emerging technologies

here is a map of emerging technologies according to Michell Zappa of http://envisioningtech.com/

Louis Rhéaume
Infocom Intelligence
louis@infocomintelligence.com
Twitter: @InfocomAnalysis

New article on Seeking Alpha about Research in Motion

Our new article about Research in Motion is available on Seeking Alpha:

RIM'S New CEO Is Buying Time To Postpone Sale.

http://seekingalpha.com/article/321346-rim-s-new-ceo-is-buying-time-to-postpone-sale

Louis Rhéaume
Infocom Intelligence
louis@infocomintelligence.com
Twitter: @InfocomAnalysis

10 strategic actions Yahoo's CEO should do now.

Here are 10 strategic actions that the management of Yahoo should do.

1. Bring Yahoo email up to par

Yahoo email is actually more popular competitor Gmail — with 302 million users globally, according to Yahoo’s statistics. But Gmail is growing quickly and will eventually win this battle. Both of them are far behind Microsoft’s Hotmail client, which reported 360 million unique users in July.

Yahoo mail still doesn’t allow people to use their accounts as an all-purpose e-mail utility for work, enterprise and recreational unless they pay for a premium subscription — meaning if you want to hide ads, gain offline access via POP, use more than 100 filters/labels or forward your mail to other accounts — you have to pay $19.99 annually.

2. Restore Flickr to greatness

Flickr rose in popularity because it amplified the ability of photographers to store, catalog and share their hobby. Eventually, Yahoo saw its potential and purchased the company. And many critics have argued that’s pretty much where the service went wrong.

Fast forward to 2012, and we see that the iPhone is now the most used camera for uploading pictures to Flickr. We also see that Instagr.am, a startup that gives users filters for pictures they take with mobile phones, has pulled in 13 million users and been named Apple’s number one iOS app of 2011. The problem is that Flickr isn’t mobile enough. The company needs a happy medium between Flickr and Instagr.am — and it needs it fast.

3. Consolidate & trim the fat

Yahoo desperately needs another consolidation plan — something that combines all of its social products into one nice, neat package the way Google is attempting to do with Google+. It’s not enough for Yahoo to provide integration of these services. The company needs to take (another) hard look at what products and areas it’s successful in, and concentrate on them entirely.

This also means the company will inevitably have to trim the fat. Services like Yahoo’s IntoNow, a social check-in service for people watching TV frequently, is hot. Several analysts see the product going anywhere in the future. Yahoo has a history of building great services and not knowing quite what to do with them, leading the company to do nothing more often than not. It should consolidate IntoNow into Yahoo’s other social services and kill things like Yahoo Deals and 4cast.

4. Better organize

The company has several very popular media channels for sports and lifestyle/culture that aren’t being used to their fullest potential. Partnerships between Yahoo and other services (Monster.com, Match.com, etc.) are mixed in with all the other Yahoo channels, which probably earns the company lots of money for placement, but isn’t very desirable for the overall user experience. Yahoo should reorganize these channels, affiliate services and products into something more manageable.


5. Clean up the homepage

Yahoo’s homepage is extremely busy. It has a somewhat complete list of apps/services in a left sidebar, tabs along the top, trending topics on the right along with must-see trending videos, a collection of recent and interesting news down the middle. The company can certainly do a better job of streamlining its services into something more appealing than the current offering.


6-Get Back Into Search

Yahoo partnered with Microsoft to have Bing power its search engine a couple of years ago, part of a deal that let Yahoo run advertising for both. While the arrangement may make sense from a financial standpoint, it robs Yahoo of direct control over one of its primary products, and strengthen's Bing's brand more than Yahoo's. The move basically told them to never come back.

7-Platform First, Services Second

Yahoo has a problem with its products: It's always chasing its competition. Typically, an innovator or competitor will launch a service, then Yahoo will follow much later with a similar product that's inferior. And its core services (search, email) were quickly outclassed by more nimble and focused players. Think Flipboard vs. Livestand, Gmail vs. Yahoo Mail and Digg vs. Yahoo Buzz. Over the past six or seven years, Yahoo has been the ultimate me-too digital brand.

Even though some of those services have improved (notably Mail), a bunch of disparate services does not make a platform. This is something Facebook, Amazon and Google understand, but Yahoo doesn't. Yahoo has a bunch of people using its services, but they're not connected in any meaningful way. Yahoo needs to find its focus going forward -- maybe it's the multitude of niche and hyper-local Groups that are still very popular -- and start uniting its suite of products around that.

8- Make a similar HuffPo Move

When AOL bought The Huffington Post, it was a questionable decision, but it was a strong move forward in the company's plan to morph itself as a media company. It also got people talking about the brand again. Yahoo needs an equivalent action to really assert itself either as an innovator or serious player in the media business. Acquiring the right startup or small-but-growing company (I'm looking at you, Tumblr) could give Yahoo direction, attention and something it's in short supply of -- cool.

9-Get Allies

Yahoo can't compete in every digital sectors. Yahoo's aging brand needs more focus. Yahoo killed its me-too deals service after a few short months last year, so now might be a good time a partnership with Groupon, which could use the help after that firm's shaky IPO. Yahoo made a strategic deal with Facebook in 2010, and it might be worth expanding that. LinkedIn is another company, at least demographic-wise, that might be a good match. Mobile is clearly an area that Yahoo wants to grow in, and there are some key players (Microsoft, RIM, Nokia, Sony) that would also love to take a bite out of Apple and Google.

10-Exit Asia

Yahoo's stake in Asia has been financially lucrative, but it's still a distraction. Its holdings in both Yahoo Japan (35%) and Alibaba Group (42%) don't give Yahoo enough control to make any difference to its core brand. It's already looking at making a deal to sell off these assets,. That'll give the company more focus and a big pile of cash to help it innovate in the coming (hopefully) years and maybe make interesting acquisitions such as vertical WebMD.

Conclusion

The company is in needs of a coherent innovation strategy that relies on a good mix between internal and external innovation building capabilities; acquisitions of innovation from start-ups and hot niche players; and alliances.

Source: Venture Beat and Mashable

Louis Rhéaume
Infocom Intelligence
louis@infocomintelligence.com
Twitter: @InfocomAnalysis

For IBM's former Innovation VP: "The future of innovation is collaboration!.

According to Nicholas M. Donofrio,former VP of Innovation at IBM, collaboration is becoming very important in innovation management. He is Senior Fellow, Ewing Marion Kauffman Foundation and Retired Executive Vice President of Innovation and Technology, IBM.

"Technology, by itself, is no longer the necessary and sufficient condition for success. Some companies had to learn this the hard way. IBM, where I worked for forty-four years, had to undergo a near-death experience to understand that times—and needs and wants—had changed.

Finding What Matters
Today, the innovation that matters is not the latest result of Moore’s Law, or doubling RAM, or tripling pixels. Those things still matter, but they matter much, much less. And, as innovations, they are old hat—merely the continued refinement and improvement of yesterday’s breakthroughs. The innovation that matters now—the innovation that we’re all waiting for,
even if we don’t know it—is the one that unlocks the hidden value that exists at the intersection of deep knowledge of a problem and intimate knowledge of a market, combined with your knowledge, your technology, and your capability … whoever you are, whatever you can do, whatever you bring to the table. This may seem mysterious. Let me explain it this way. The microchip was an innovation—a fundamental, technological innovation. Chips keep getting better
by the year. Is every new one an innovation? Perhaps, of a limited sort, but not in a fundamental way like the first one.

The personal computer was an innovation, not in some technical league; rather, it was the transformational application of existing technology to a new market for new uses. Operating
systems like the one that ran the early Macintoshes, and later Microsoft Windows, were innovations—ones that fundamentally changed not just existing technology but existing products and markets, by revolutionizing the user experience. There already have been several decades of this type of innovation—and some very successful recent examples. Think of the iPhone. Steve Jobs didn’t invent the phone or the cell phone or the handheld computer. But he put them all together into one attractive, easy-to-use, engaging package. Whether a die-hard techie
admits it or not, that’s innovation!

Yet, too many people still think of innovation solely in terms of a wholly new product or technological breakthrough. This is limiting, and it is false. Innovations can arise from fresh thinking in any number of areas: from product to service to process to business model. Michael Dell built a Fortune 500 company by changing the way computers are built and sold—but not changing anything about the device itself.

All of these things unlocked hidden value. It turned out that a more user-friendly interface than typing in the clumsy, unattractive DOS prompt drew people into computing and changed the way business is done and lives are lived. Thank Bill Gates. It turned out that people really wanted a multi-functional mobile phone with great design and were willing to pay for it. The design genius is what Steve Jobs brought to the table. It turned out that people wanted to buy computers directly, choosing for themselves the features they did, and did not, want.
Michael Dell proved that. These innovations not only created billions in wealth and probably millions of jobs—they increased our productivity, saved us time, connected us to new people
and products, and enriched our lives. Before they existed, we didn’t know we needed them and we certainly didn’t want them. Now we can’t live without them.

Limitless Opportunities for Innovation
The good news for innovators and potential innovators is that, given the incredible complexity and diversity of the world today, opportunities for innovation abound. As confused as you think the world is, it’s great for innovators. There are so many problems—some known and some yet to come to light—that opportunities for innovation will never run out. But we have to take a new approach: Start from the problem, not the solution. That is, we no longer can say to ourselves, “The end product is 5 GHz” (or whatever). Rather, we must ask ourselves, “What needs to change?” and then—and only then—start thinking about how to change it. The question of what specific invention or product or innovation to pursue comes after that.

The kind of people who best will be able to seize these opportunities are those I call “T-shaped” as opposed to “I-shaped.” I-shaped people have great credentials, great educations, and deep knowledge—deep but narrow. The geniuses who win Nobel prizes are “I-shaped,” as are most of the best engineers and scientists. But the revolutionaries who have driven most recent innovation and who will drive nearly all of it in the future are “T-shaped.” That is, they have their specialties— areas of deep expertise—but on top of that they boast a solid breadth, an
umbrella if you will, of wide-ranging knowledge and interests. It is the ability to work in an interdisciplinary fashion and to see how different ideas, sectors, people, and markets connect. But even the most brilliant “T” will find it difficult, and perhaps impossible, to innovate entirely on his or her own.

Inevitable Trends
I believe that two inexorable trends follow from this fact. First, nearly all future innovation will be collaborative. Whether it emerges from huge corporations or the smallest businesses, from century-old institutions or the latest startups, innovation will be the product of collaborative, global, and multi-disciplined processes.

My second point, one that will be especially hard for IT people to accept, given their reverence for the sanctity of intellectual property. We inevitably are going to move toward more open standards. There is no other way. Tight-knit circles, secrecy, and firewalls keep out the knowledge that will be needed to devise solutions and make them work.,, The old model of IP protection doesn’t fit the future. And that in itself is a problem to be solved requiring—innovation.

To thrive in this new world, the “I’s” are going to have to transform themselves
into “T’s.” And we’re all going to have to work together more so than we ever
have done before."

Source: Kauffman.org


Conclusion
Innovation managers must be good generalists. Business model innovation can create huge value, not just product or service innovation. Adapters of innovation can create a lot of value when they rely on a good mix of buying and buidling innovation internally and externally, and through collaboration. Microsoft did not invent the operating system, it bought a start-up. Google did not invent the Android, it bought a start-up. Apple did not invent the smartphone or tablet, but the firm created internally a whole wireless ecosystem where customers and partners can extract a lot of value. Similarly to IBM in the beginning of the 1990's, Apple was few months away from bankruptcy in 1997. Both firms are now among the highest capitalizations in the world.

Louis Rhéaume
Infocom Intelligence
louis@infocomintelligence.com
Twitter: @InfocomAnalysis

5 potential innovations according to IBM in the next 5 years

According to IBM we could see in the copming five years these 5 potential innovations. Here are the innovations followed by my comments.

1-People power will come to life.

Advances in technology will allow us to trap the kinetic energy generated (and wasted) from walking, jogging, bicycling and even from water flowing through pipes. A bicycle charging your iPhone?
=it is more a niche market than a mainstream sector.

2-You will never need a password again.

Biometrics will finally replace the password, and with that, redefine the phrase “hack.” Jokes aside, IBM believes multi-factor biometrics will become pervasive. ”Biometric data – facial definitions, retinal scans and voice files – will be composited through software to build your DNA-unique online password.”
=With the proliferation of web sites we want to access, passwords and user ID are also proliferating. Biometrics appears a decent solution in the coming years.

3-Mind reading is no longer science fiction.

Scientists are working on headsets with sensors that can read brain activity and recognize facial expressions, excitement and more without needing any physical inputs from the wearer. “Within [five] years, we will begin to see early applications of this technology in the gaming and entertainment industry,” IBM notes. It will also be good for folks who have suffered from strokes and have brain disorders.
=I saw some very interesting progress of technology with disable people, and it should continue in the near future.

4-The digital divide will cease to exist.

Mobile phones will make it easy for even the poorest of poor to get connected. In the U.S. and other parts of the world, this is already happening.
=While it is happening in some regions in the world, on a global scale it is more a long term issue. However, Africa is leading the world in such applications as mobile micro-banking.

5-Junk mail will become priority mail.

”In five years, unsolicited advertisements may feel so personalized and relevant it may seem that spam is dead. At the same time, spam filters will be so precise you’ll never be bothered by unwanted sales pitches again,” notes IBM.
=The amount of personalized information provided on social networks will make it worst.

Louis Rhéaume
Infocom Intelligence
louis@infocomintelligence.com
Twitter: @InfocomAnalysis

Canada's R&D support funding: second in the world.

Canada's R&D support funding is second in the world.

Louis Rhéaume
Infocom intelligence
louis@infocomintlligence.com
Twitter: @InfcomAnalysis

10 innovation myths

Here are 10 innovation myths according to Innosight.

Myth versus Reality

1-Innovation is random = Innovation is a discipline — it can be measured and managed. Consider how Procter & Gamble's structured approach to innovation allowed it to triple its innovation success rate and double the size of a typical initiative.

2-Only creative geniuses can innovate = Innovation is distinct from creativity. While creativity can help, people who aren't intrinsically creative can create high-impact innovation if they follow the right process.

3- You're either an innovator or you're not = Research recounted in The Innovator's DNA described how innovation is about 30 percent nature and 70 percent nurture.

4-Innovation happens in the R&D lab = Innovation — something different that has impact — can happen anywhere in an organization. Everyone should be looking for new ways to solve old problems.

5-We will win with superior technology = Most market disruptions rest on innovative business models — new ways to create, capture, or deliver value

6-Innovation is all about improved performance = Sometimes innovation is about improving performance along traditional dimensions, but some of the most powerful disruptive innovations sacrifice raw performance in the name of accessibility or affordability.*

7-Our customers will be a critical source of innovation insight = Your customers might tell you how to make your current offering better, but they won't point the way to disruptive growth; you have to explore new markets in new ways to identify new growth businesses.

8-Game changing innovation is done only by entrepreneurs = Many of the most exciting disruptions in recent years — such as GE's low cost imaging solution and Cisco's TelePresence solution — have come from big companies

9- We will win by targeting the biggest markets = Markets that don't exist are difficult to precisely measure or analyze; the most powerful innovations create new markets.

10- Innovation requires big bets = As our friend Peter Sims writes in Little Bets, if you want to win big, you should start small.


Source:
http://blogs.hbr.org/anthony/2011/10/ten_innovation_myths.html?cm_sp=blog_flyout-_-anthony-_-ten_innovation_myths

louis Rhéaume
Infocom Intellignece
louis@infocomintelligence.com
Twitter: @InfocomAnalysis

The top 100 global innovators according to Thomson Reuters

Here are the top 100 global innovators according to Thomson Reuters.

http://top100innovators.com/top100

“New ideas lie at the heart of innovation, but
ideas alone are not enough. Innovation requires
translating ideas into value-adding products
and services. . . . Bridging the gap between an
idea and its beneficial result is the crucial step in
innovation. . . . Success will demand a greater
ability to quickly close the gap.”
-Soumitra Dutta, author of Innovating at the Top



Louis Rhéaume
Infocom Intelligence
louis@infocomintelligence.com
Twitter: @InfocomAnalysis

The 20 most innovative Canadian infocom firms according to Canadian Innovation Exchange

here are the 20 most innovative infocom firms according to Canadian Innovation Exchange.

Here’s the list:

Digital Media:
Massive Damage, Toronto ON
Arcestra, Toronto ON
Wattpad, Toronto ON
Recoset, Montreal QC
Achievers, Toronto ON
Vanilla Forums, Montreal QC
Woozworld Inc, Montreal QC
Infersystems, Toronto ON
ClearRisk, St. John’s NL
bitHeads Inc., Ottawa ON

ICT:
Shoplogix, Mississauga ON
TribeHR, Waterloo ON
Wave Accounting, Toronto ON
Evoco Inc., Calgary AB
QuickMobile, Vancouver BC
Nexalogy Environics, Montreal QC
ResponseTek Networks, Vancouver BC
NexJ Systems, Toronto ON
True Voice Technologies, Burlington ON
Polar Mobile, Toronto ON

http://www.techvibes.com/blog/cix-reveals-canadas-top-20-most-innovative-tech-companies-at-the-tsx-2011-11-10

Louis Rhéaume
Infocom Intelligence
louis@infocomintelligence.com
Twitter: @InfocomAnalysis

The 20 most innovative US tech start-ups according to Business insider

The 20 most innovative US tech start-ups according to Business insider

http://www.businessinsider.com/20-innovative-startups-2011-11

Louis Rhéaume
Infocom Intelligence
louis@infocomintelligence.com
Twitter: @InfocomAnalysis

Booz & Co Global innovation 1000, 2011

According to Bloomberg and Booz & Co, the 10 most innovative firms are:
1-Apple
2-Google
3-3M
4-GE
5-Microsoft
6-IBM
7-Samsung
8-P&G
9-Toyota
10-Facebook

In their 2011 Global innovation 1000 survey, Booz&Co report that it is not necessarily the big spenders in Research and development in percentage of sales that are the best innovators. Instead, having a strong culture that supports innovation and strategic alignment between the innovation strategy and the global corporate strategy is more important than total spending in R&D. For instance, Apple’s rank in R&D/sales (2.7%) is just 70, but the firm is the most innovative firm according to a survey to 600 senior managers.

According to the survey there are 3 generic innovation strategies:

1- Need Seekers actively and directly engage both current and potential customers to help shape new products and services based on superior end-user understanding. These companies often address unarticulated needs and then work to be first to market with the resulting new products and services.

2- Market Readers closely monitor both their customers and competitors, but they maintain a more cautious approach. They focus largely on creating value through incremental innovations to their products and being “fast followers” in the marketplace.

3- Technology Drivers follow the direction suggested by their technological capabilities leveraging their sustained investments in R&D to drive both breakthrough innovation and incremental change. They often seek to solve the unarticulated needs of their customers through leading-edge new technology.

Need Seekers are Apple and IBM and Technology drivers are Google, Microsoft and Samsung. These top performers generally consistently underspend their peers on R&D investments while outperforming them on a broad range of measures of corporate success, such as revenue growth, profit growth, margins, and total shareholder return. On the other hand, industries such as pharmaceuticals, continue to spend massively in R&D/sales but create low corporate value. Success in innovation isn’t about how much you spend, but rather how you spend it.

It appears that critical factors for R&D managers are the ways decision makers think about their new products and services — and how they feel about intangibles such as risk, creativity, openness, and collaboration. Need Seekers are more likely to financially outperform their rivals than companies following one of the other two strategies. In Booz’s survey more than 41 percent of Need Seekers said theirs strongly supported their innovation strategy, compared with just 7 percent of Market Readers and 14 percent of Tech Drivers. Need Seekers ranked as their highest innovation goal the creation of “advantaged products and services,” and their number one cultural attribute as “openness to ideas from external sources.” These characteristics clearly lead to create truly differentiated products by leveraging all potential sources of good ideas. Need Seekers even outperformed in terms of the management of the innovation process: They rated their portfolio management processes highest for both consistency and rigor. The most successful innovators ensure that their culture not only supports innovation, but actually accelerates its execution. Booz & Co’s analysis shows that a well-executed Need Seeker model, although it may be the hardest model to create, is also the most likely to deliver superior differentiation, profitability, and growth in enterprise value. That’s because it is the model most able to get to market first with products that address unarticulated customer needs through superior customer understanding, and the most likely to have the cultural attributes and cross-organizational alignment that can sustain its success.

The most successful Tech Drivers, like Google, Microsoft and Samsung have developed both the capabilities shared by all outperforming innovators, such as the ability to translate consumer and customer needs into product development and engagement with customers, and the capabilities specific to their own strategy: a deep understanding of emerging technologies and trends, and the capacity to manage the life cycle of their products and projects.

For the survey see:
http://www.booz.com/global/home/what_we_think/featured_content/innovation_1000_2011

Louis Rhéaume
Infocom Intelligence
louis@infocomintelligence.com
Twitter: @InfcomAnalysis

Court profil de l'industrie québécoise des Technologies de l'information et des communications (TIC)

Le magazine Direction Informatique rapporte que chaque employé québécois de l'industrie des technologies de l'information et de la communication (TIC) génère en moyenne des revenus annuels de 125 000 dollars, révèle un sondage de l'Association québécoise des technologies (AQT). L'étude a été effectuée en début d'année auprès de 495 petites et moyennes entreprises (PME) de l'industrie des TIC, c'est-à-dire des sociétés comptant entre 4 et 500 employés.

Les PME de l'industrie des TIC comptent en moyenne 38 employés, 15 ans d'existence et des revenus annuels de 4,8 millions de dollars. L'analyse révèle que 20 % des entreprises sondées offrent uniquement des solutions technologiques, alors que 14 % n'offrent que des services. Les autres offrent les deux types : 40 % surtout des solutions technologiques et 26 % surtout des services. 53 % des revenus proviennent de la vente de services, alors que 45 % proviennent de la vente de solutions technologiques.

Seulement 27 % des entreprises québécoises des TIC vendent uniquement au Québec, alors que 41 % d'entre elles font des ventes aux États-Unis et 29 % en Europe. Globalement, les ventes hors Québec représentent en moyenne 38 % des revenus des sociétés. Les modes de distribution privilégiés par les dirigeants sont d'abord la force de vente directe (38 %), suivie des alliances et partenariats (27 %), d'Internet (17 %), des distributeurs (10 %) et des revendeurs (8 %).


Innovation

Le Baromètre AQT révèle aussi que les entreprises des TIC placent l'innovation au cœur de leurs priorités. Pas moins de 95% des entreprises de 50 à 500 employés qui ont un plan stratégique, documenté ou informel, prévoient développer de nouveaux produits et services afin de demeurer concurrentielles.

De plus, 42 % des répondants disent protéger leur propriété intellectuelle par des clauses contractuelles, 32 % en innovant constamment et 15 % avec des brevets. Toutefois, 9 % des répondants avouent ne pas protéger leur propriété intellectuelle, alors que 2 % ne peuvent pas préciser. Au cours de la prochaine année, les entreprises disent vouloir investir dans l'amélioration de leurs produits et services (67 %), dans leur commercialisation (66 %), dans l'amélioration des processus internes (41 %), dans l'exportation vers de nouveaux marchés (39 %) et dans le perfectionnement et la formation des ressources humaines (36 %).

Obstacles

Du côté des obstacles à la croissance, les deux éléments au sommet de la liste sont les conditions du marché (52 %) et la pénurie de main-d'œuvre qualifiée (50 %). 10% des entreprises des TIC considèrent que l'évolution trop rapide des technologies peut constituer un frein à leur croissance.

L'étude révèle également qu'en moyenne, 33 % du personnel des entreprises des TIC de 4 à 500 employés est affecté à la recherche et au développement (R-D), comparativement à 18 % à la commercialisation et 14 % à l'administration. Enfin, 57 % des entreprises disent être prêtes à patienter entre 1 et 3 ans avant qu'une innovation mise en marché devienne rentable.

Louis Rhéaume
Infocom Intelligence
louis@infocomintelligence.com
Twitter: @InfocomAnalysis

Big spending in R&D does not necessarily equal to being very innovative

Big spending in R&D does not necessarily equal to being considered "very innovative". It appears that top 'Innovators' rank low in R&D spending. A new report by Booz & Co. says that for many companies innovation is a top priority. However, few of the biggest R&D spenders crack the top 10 in terms of being considered "innovative" by their peers. Booz identified 1,000 companies with the biggest 2010 research-and-development budgets. The point is to spend more wisely money to buy or build innovation.

Louis Rhéaume
Infocom Intelligence
louis@infocomintelligence.com
Twitter: @InfocomAnalysis

Some key elements for innovation management value creation: the case of Yahoo versus Google

In a recent interview, a former Yahoo VP argues that the key element for efficient innovation management in order to create value is to have an organization enabling small accountable and empowered team that can take risks. Salim Ismail is a successful angel investor and entrepreneur. He has operated seven early-stage companies and is a frequent speaker on internet technologies, private equity and entrepreneurship. From February 2007 to February 2008, Salim was a Vice President at Yahoo and the Head of Brickhouse, Yahoo's internal incubator where game-changing ideas were brought in, built and launched. He is now working for Singularity University.

Yahoo became a matrix company under Terry Siemel, with several layers of organizational approval. The firm is now developed under the traditional verticals administrative functions. Google on the other hand always promoted risks taking and has less organizational layers of approvals, even less under the new CEO Larry Page. Free time is giving to engineer to work on the innovation project of their choice. Google encourage risk taking. Many internal resources of Yahoo made spin-off outside the firm like Zynga. Like Xerox which created many innovations like the mouse, the operating systems, Ethernet but did not develop it, outside spin-offs of Xerox created more value than Xerox itself: Apple, 3Com, Adobe Systems; history is repeated with the case of Yahoo.

According to Ismail, in the fast moving area of high tech, it is difficult to play the game of catching-up on trends and competition. Few players won that game. Apple totally reinvented the company, but they have relied on the Blue Ocean Strategy.

For more information on the ideas of Salim Ismail, see the interview on TechCrunch.

http://techcrunch.com/2011/10/11/keen-on-how-yahoo-screwed-up-and-lessons-for-other-silicon-valley-giants-tctv/#ooid=locnJ1Mjq5H8b_xXxgp9bym7HAdEvXrv

Louis Rhéaume
Infocom Intelligence
louis@infocomintelligence.com

L'innovation et les TIC (Technologies de l'Information et des Communications)

Un récent rapport du CEFRIO et DMR explique l’importance de l’innovation avec les Technologies de l’Information et des Communications (TIC).  Il soulève les 6 grandes catégories d’innovation : modèles d’affaires, commerciale, organisationnelle, de produit, de procédé et technologique. 

L’innovation par modèle d’affaires vient influencer le caractère de l’entreprise, ses clients, ses marchés-cibles,  l’offre à ses clients, les intervenants à mobiliser, tout le processus et les réseaux de création de valeur.  Cette innovation engendre souvent des besoins d’innovation technologique pour en soutirer la faisabilité et la viabilité.  Magretta du Harvard Business Review soutient que pour se positionner et devenir un leader dans son secteur, une entreprise se doit de développer un processus systématique et stratégique d’innovation du modèle d’affaires.  Pour en savoir plus sur la redéfinition de modèles d’affaires en télécommunications, revenez sur ce blogue : j’ai écrit un chapitre de livre avec le Dr. Yves Rabeau de l’UQÀM qui sera publié sous peu.

Louis Rhéaume

Infocom Intelligence

louis@infocomintelligence.com

What is the hype in Groupon (group-buying local daily coupon offers)?

Launched in November 2008, Groupon features a daily deal on the best stuff to do, see, eat, and buy in a variety of cities across the U.S., Canada, Europe and soon beyond. They have more than 300 people working in their Chicago headquarters, a growing office in Palo Alto, CA, as well as local account executives in many cities. How Groupon obtained $500M in revenues in two years and a valuation around $3-4 billion (according to rumours of acquisitions by Yahoo or Google)?

According to LA Times:

“A new breed of coupons — zapped daily to consumers' e-mail accounts and offering local deals for spa treatments, restaurants, yoga classes, hot-air balloon rides, stores and even Botox — has transformed the dowdy discounts into a social media phenomenon that's attracting a new generation of fans. The savings are eye-popping: 50% to 90% off is typical. But there's a catch. If you want that $40 mani-pedi for 15 bucks, you'll have to pay upfront with a credit card and you'll have to move fast. The chance to snag one of these vouchers usually lasts no more than 24 hours (though merchants will honor them for weeks or months).

Bargain-hungry shoppers are hooked. "Daily deals" websites including Groupon, LivingSocial and Screamin Daily Deals have attracted millions of users, a lot of them young, urban and tech-savvy. Many say they love the excitement of waking up in the morning, checking the latest deal online and deliberating with friends on Facebook or Twitter about whether to buy — all while the clock ticks down... The daily deals phenomenon "is a rocket ship unlike anything we've probably seen in consumer shopping online," said Brad Wilson, a discounts expert and founder of BradsDeals.com. "It's brilliant... Wilson said he's betting that the trend will survive the economic downturn, in part because consumers simply can't resist the allure of a bargain. "There's such a compulsion to it," he said. "People end up spending more than they intended in the excitement of the countdown of that day."

http://www.latimes.com/business/la-fi-groupon-christmas-20101026,0,2667542.story

Launched two years ago, Groupon is now the leader in this sector. It really takes off over the past year. Groupon offers a way to get important discounts while discovering fun activities in your city. Their daily deals consist of restaurants, spas,massages, theaters, hotels, and a whole lot more, in dozens of cities across the US and Canada. It recently acquired firms outside the USA for expansion.

Yahoo made it known to Groupon executives and backers that it was willing to pay as much as $3 billion to $4 billion to acquire the company. Besides Yahoo, other potential Groupon suitors include Amazon, Google, and eBay. The company is deciding between an eventual IPO, opening itself to acquisition talks with bigger companies, or raising more capital. Last week, Bloomberg reported that Groupon is looking to raise money at a $3 billion valuation. Groupon raised $135 million at a valuation above one billion dollars in April. The company currently has 3,000 employees serving markets in 29 countries. Internally, it is believed to be "many, many multiples larger" than its nearest competitor, LivingSocial.

Read more:
http://www.businessinsider.com/yahoo-hints-at-3-billion-offer-for-groupon-2010-11

However, Living Social continues to nip at the heel of Groupon; last month, it actually had more unique visitors than the coupon giant. The company currently has 10 million subscribers in the U.S., Canada, Britain and Ireland — said it has saved consumers more than $100 million this year.

Businesses not only have to offer deep discounts but also must give the daily deals websites a big chunk of those sales: A 50-50 split is typical. 


According to Business Insider here are the main reasons for Yahoo to acquire Groupon:

“Yahoo's most valuable assets is its HUGE lead in email. Unfortunately for Big Purple, the the once-fast growing business it has developed with that traffic – brand advertising – is starting to slow. So how would buying Groupon help? Groupon makes ALL of its money ($400 million this year?) sending mostly local coupons to its users' email inboxes. Its biggest cost is user-acquisition – buying its way into inboxes. If Yahoo were to buy Groupon, it would eliminate Groupon's biggest cost AND increase its subscriber base to over 100 million people. Cha-ching!

The kicker? Yahoo is ALREADY making money off Groupon ads in its inbox. See the screenshot of my Yahoo Mail inbox below. But instead of reaping Groupon's huge margins, Yahoo is just collecting mediocre CPMs for lousy email banner ads. Worse, it doesn't have any relationships with the local businesses fueling Groupon's spending.”

Read more: http://www.businessinsider.com/heres-why-yahoo-wants-to-buy-groupon-2010-10#ixzz15Ycr50fv

Thus, Yahoo’s M&A Strategy could focus on Local Commerce Rather Than Content.

Industry outlook

“Right now, Groupon-style group buying is more or less just coupons that get sent to you via email to entice you to sign up. What if you could look at a real-time, auction-style exchange of local offers from merchants or retailers or restaurants in your vicinity — maybe even on your mobile device — and pick the offer you wanted for dinner that evening? You can’t do that now, but that’s one vision of where the local group-buying phenomenon is headed in the future, according to Don Rainey, a partner with Grotech Ventures and an investor in LivingSocial, the number two player in the U.S. group-buying market next to Groupon. Rainey said he sees a day when merchants and potential customers interact through a kind of real-time exchange — like a stock exchange, with buyers and sellers, but for local offers on meals or other goods. “I can see local retailers and consumers bidding in a real-time system for where that consumer is going to go for dinner,” says Rainey. If a merchant is having a slow night, they can put an offer into the system and users can choose between that and multiple other offers, based on location and the time they want to go out. As someone who is constantly looking for new options for places to eat in my local area, this sounds like a winner to me.

Groupon gets all the press when it comes to group buying, primarily because it’s the largest player in that market by far; it has raised more than $165 million in venture financing and has sales that are approaching $500 million. However, LivingSocial is a strong number two in that expanding space, and in some regional markets, it’s a larger player than Groupon, according to Rainey. “

Source: http://gigaom.com/2010/10/27/livingsocial-and-the-future-of-local-group-buying/

One important value added brought by group-buying coupons is that some small and medium businesses who could not afford a decent advertising budget, can now do it for a very small percentage of what it costs before via print, radio or TV.

Recently, Amazon is looking to invest around $100M in Living Social the main competitor of Groupon, which has around the same number of daily visitors on its website.

A big potential resides in the connection between mobile and social networks.  Daily mobile alerts, which can be personalised to customers, would bring value added to both consumers who can make targeted very interesting deals, and retailers who can reach more "offers-friendly" customers. 

Louis Rhéaume

Infocom Intelligence

louis@infocomintelligence.com

What 2 of the best Venture capitalists are saying on the future of the Internet ?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nBvuirDPHKA&feature=player_embedded

Last week, 2 of the best Tech VC (venture capitalist) gave their perspective on the Internet for the Web 2.0 Techcrunch summit.  John Doerr of Kleiner Perkins, the man behind the success of Netscape, Facebook and Google just to name a few; and Fred Wilson of Union Square Ventures who made the deal of Zynga made very interesting remarks on the future of the Internet.

For Wilson, we are in the middle of a second Internet stock market bubble.  I agree with him, but I think we are at the beginning (see post http://infocomanalysis.blogspot.com/2010/10/are-we-entering-in-second-internet.html). For Doerr we are just in a boom period of a third waves of value creation and innovation about Internet.  For Wilson, tech VC firms are seeing a lot of firms which copy the strategy of others.  Thus, there are a lot right now of "Me too" business models.  For instance, a lot of firms try to copy the success of  Groupon in local daily social networks deals.  It is similar to what happened in telephony in the 1990's where CLECS (Competitive Local Exchanges Carriers) had almost all the same strategy and business models.  The vast majority went in bankruptcy following the burst of the 2000 tech stock bubble.

According to Wilson only 10% of firms in a VC portfolio should go public, the best ones only.  The rest  should try to sell  to others firms.

For Doerr, the Silicon Valley is still the place where important Internet platforms still emerge and grow.  For him, it has never been a better time to start a tech firm than today.  Valuations are high and VC money is largely available.

For Wilson, a very hot sector right now is the combination between mobile and social networks.  One can think of the potential of Twitter and Groupon for instance in this sector.  He adds that Android will become the dominant platform on mobile because of its open standard platform versus Apple and Research in Motion (RIM and its Blackberry).  Application developpers can create more easily value on this platform.  Wilson proposes that Apple is like the "cable providers" business model of mobile Internet.

Doerr suggests that Facebook, is the strongest firm on execution of the Internet with Google, Apple, and Amazon.

Wilson suggests that Facebook did not create much innovation.  Furthermore, the only complementor of its platform, which created a lot of value is Zynga. He also suggests that Google is the best tech acquirer since a decade.

John Doerr had the final word.  He cited Colin Powell who said: "Innovation without execution is hallucination".

Louis Rhéaume
Infocom Intelligence
louis@infocomintelligence.com

Dealing with the Make or Buy innovation dilemma using Strategic Project Portfolio Management (SPPM)

My PhD thesis is not completed, even though I widely analyzed strategic innovation management for almost 4 years.   I am studying the dilemma Make or Buy innovation to create value, through Strategic Project Portfolio Management (SPPM).  It appears that few industries have what I call “highly dynamic” SPPM.  For instance, big pharmaceuticals such as Pfizer, have thousands of innovation projects and use a formal SPPM  to create more corporate value.  While the tendency in the past decade in this industry was investing massive internal R&D, a new trend has emerged with a more optimal mix between making innovation and buying innovation.  Big pharmas are acquiring more biotechnology firms and sub-contracting innovation, for a more “open innovation” system.

Another firm, which is probably using a systematic approach in SPPM, and moving toward a more highly dynamic approach, is Google.  Recently, David Lawee, the vice president of corporate development of Google said that the acquisition of the wireless-software start-up Android was Google’s “best deal ever”.  Furthermore, in buying innovation, integration is the key.  According to the VP, when Google buys a company, it’s up to the entrepreneurs behind that company to make it a success.  Android was acquired for around $50M in 2005, representing around 40% of total 2005 acquisitions.  The founder of Android stayed with Google and was the champion of the development of Android’s platform as an open-source operating system. It is now the fastest growing platform for high-end smartphones, a tough opponent for Apple, RIM and Nokia.

In infocom industries a key metric exist: Is the technology being used? A lot of it depends on the perseverance of the team coming in.  Google does not charge for the operating system itself, but the company profits from mobile ads displayed on Android phones. In 2010, mobile ads represent around $1 billion in revenues for Google.  These revenues come mainly from one of its latest acquisition: AdMob.  While mobile ad networks are very sexy and growing very fast, Google had to pay $750M for AdMob a mobile-advertising startup in 2010.  Timing and integration is almost everything in acquisitions and the payoff on this investment will be more long term.  Google is the leader in the number of acquisitions for 2009-2010 in infocom industries and made over $8 billion in acquisitions since its creation in 1998.

Louis Rhéaume

Infocom Intelligence

louis@infocomintelligence.com

Le Canada 13e pays pour l'innovation: Note D pour décevant

Selon le Conference Board du Canada, le Canada se classe au 13e rang sur 17 pays étudiés en gestion de l'innovation. Il obtient donc la note D. http://www.conferenceboard.ca/HCP/Details/Innovation.aspx





Le Canada est reconnu pour son système d'éducation, sa société où il fait bon vivre et un système de santé acceptable. Par contre, lorsqu'il s'agit de développement de nouveaux produits et services, de la recherche jusqu'à la commercialisation, le Canada ne s'est pas vraiment amélioré globalement depuis les années 80.



Nous avons bien quelques fleurons en télécommunications comme Research in Motion, mais pour un RIM qui va bien, nous avons un Nortel qui fait faillite. Nortel subit les conséquences de ses mauvais choix en stratégie d'innovation. Elle a eu ce qu'on appelle une mauvaise gestion stratégique du portefeuille de projets d'innovation. Celui-ci doit éviter les culs de sacs, c'est-à-dire les trajectoires technologiques qui ne vont nulle part. Or Nortel, a beaucoup investi dans le standard SONET en système de télécommunications. Le standard qui a émergé est plutôt le ETHERNET. Comme Beta qui s'est fait damné le pion par VHS, SONET s'est avéré un cuisant échec pour Nortel et en a subit des conséquences depuis 2000. Évidemment ce n'est pas la seule raison. Le CEO Roth qui a été le CEO of the Year au Canada en 1999 je crois, s'est lancé dans l'achat à coup de milliards de firmes avec aucun revenu. Ainsi, Nortel avait une mauvaise stratégie d'innovation à la fois dans la conception et l'achat de l'innovation.



Après l'éclatement de la bulle Internet, les entreprises ayant payé trop cher leurs acquisitions ont vu leurs valeurs boursières chutées encore plus drastiquement que le marché techno. Des corrections de plus de 95%, il y en a eu plusieurs: Nortel, Cognicase, etc.



Ce qui manque au Canada est une culture de l'innovation. Des compagnies comme Virgin, 3M, Google et Yahoo misent sur l'empowerment de leurs employés pour développer l'innovation. Ainsi, dans quelques entreprises on laisse travailler de 10% à 15% du temps des professionnels sur des projets d'innovation de leur choix. On fait confiance en l'intelligence humaine pour trouver de nouvelles idées et on les encourage en ne pénalisant pas trop l'échec. Bien des projets d'innovation qui ont connu du succès ont reposé leur développement d'abord sur un ou des projets qui ont été des échecs. L'entreprise apprenante mise sur le organizational learning pour développer sa stratégie d'innovation. Chez Virgin, même une secrétaire peut amener une idée de projet d'innovation ou de nouvelle entreprise au président Richard Branson. Le groupe Virgin est en fait un pipeline d'intrapreneurship.

Louis Rhéaume

Infocom Intelligence
www.infocomintelligence.com
louis75@sympatico.ca