Happy New 2012


Merry Christmas

Winter Wonderland - London December 2011


Four days ago, reading the inquiry from Sriram (Ram) Sampathkumar at the LinkedIn discussion group about Open Innovation, greatly conducted by Stephan Lindegaard, I participate on the forum and Rich McDonnell ask me to translate the table of contents of the book that a group of Spanish professionals published last month of March telling their (our) stories and experiences about “intrapreneurship”.

Here it is,  the table of contents I promise Ram to translate. The complete book, Spanish written, could be discharged at EOI website.


experiences and reflections on the art of intrapreneurship within organizations



Chapter 1: Innovation in the company and cultural change daily.

Fernando Summers. BBVA.

Chapter 2: To change the statu quo requires boldness and patience.

Alberto de Vega, Eduardo S. de la Fuente. Telefónica R&D.

Chapter 3: Connectors: People connecting ideas, projects and people inside enterprises.

David Bartolomé Sedano. Telefónica R&D.

Chapter 4: This here is always done well.

Rafael Gil.  Boyacá group.

Chapter 5: The third way.

Leo Borj. Inergia Soluciones.


Chapter 6: Hunting the Woolly Mammoth: Experiencing with confidence radical in public administration.

Alberto Ortiz de Zárate Tercero. Eusko Jaurlaritza | Vasque Government.

Chapter 7: Networked entrepreneurship: The long tail of public entrepreneurship.

Iñaki Ortiz. Eusko Jaurlaritza | Vasque Government.

Chapter 8: Collaborating to place into practice collaboration.

Jordi Graells. Generalitat de Catalunya.

Chapter 9: Field manual of the Entrepreneur-Warrior.

Alex Lara.


 Chapter 10: Self: Intrapreneurs.

Javier Cuervo. EOI Business School.

Chapter 11: The professional way of the intrapreneur.

Mari Luz Congosto.  Carlos III University.

Chapter 12: Bottom hacking the system: Change without taking the power control.

Pablo Garaizar. Deusto University.

Chapter 13: The “Gargantúa” company: The monster that devoured employees.

Lorena Fernández. Deusto University.

Chapter 14: Entrepreneurship in the educational world. Opening proceses, practices and results.

Tíscar Lara. EOI Business School.


Chapter 15: And yet, I love you.

Julen Iturbe-Ormaetxe. Consultoría Artesana

Chapter 16: Intrapreneurs, the new adventurers.

Andrés Pérez Ortega. Marcapropia.net

Chapter 17: Living between two worlds.

José de la Peña Aznar. Telefónica foundation.

Chapter 18: Entrepreneurship, the new revolution coming from open innovation.

Dioni Nespral. Everis.

Happy New Year

Extreme Postponement

How to implement the New Products Development process?

What is NPD? Briefly, according wikipedia, in business and engineering, new product development (NPD) is the term used to describe the complete process of bringing a new product or service to market. There are two parallel paths involved in the NPD process: one involves the idea generation, product design and detail engineering; the other involves market research and marketing analysis.

What we understand by a new product is detailed in a separate post, we are going here to concentrate on the process rather than on the result.

In a hierarchical world, under the based on departments supply chain, the NPD process is implemented in a “linear” way:

There is some drawbacks on this way:

  • It is an slow and time consuming process.
  • It is difficult to introduce changes on the initial requirements, or to introduce new technologies.
  • Not suitable to deal with “wicked problems”. This is a problem whose requirements and limitations cannot be entirely known before completion. So at a further stage of the development we realize that the present planning and resources are not suited to solve the problem.

On the other hand the present needs are:

  • Develop according real customer needs.
  • Short “time to market”.
  • Integrates latest technologies.

To solve the “genetic” constrains of the “linear” model to satisfy the present needs and challenges we jump to the “parallel” model:

The main elements of the “parallel way” are:

  • Open: Integrating knowledge outside from the company like customers, providers, universities, etc.
  • Collaborarative: Cooperation among all the people involved.
  • Concurrent: All together, not at the same time but at the right time. How? Applaying Lean Design for Six Sigma style guidelines and “concurrent design facilities”.
  • Interaction and Iteration.

The teaching by solving principle


Last week I was attending a workshop conducted by Mark Fritz about “Leading Virtual & Matrix Organizations”. It was comfortable to see that a master on personnel effectiveness like Mark outline the parallelism about both circumstances, the virtual enterprise and the matrix organization. That was the same I perceived the time I spent at Tyco Electronics, a multinational company matrix organized, furthermore, most of the work was managed “virtually” because several project teams were located in different places around the globe.

Mark outlined that a key point to succeed was to focus on outcomes rather on activities because it will focus the people and the organization on results, help to get everybody aligned (to the outcomes) and bring a reason for everyone to collaborate towards achieve the outcome. On the other hand activities could potentially become the ultimate purpose instead of the tool to reach the target, also activities are prone to generate a lot of “comeback” questions that become “stoppers” and requires considerable time attention by the managers.

I like to bring here the application of this Mark’s key rule to the education process. What we really want in the education process is to acquire a knowledge, acquire an habit, an skill, etc. This is why the “case method” or the “learning by doing” methodologies are so well accepted, because their effectiveness but there is a big danger, concentrate on the activities, on the “by doing” or the “discussion” of the case and forget about the ultimate purpose of the activity, to learn or acquire an habit or skill.  In the same way a project benefits from focusing on outcomes rather on activities.

I propose to name the “learning by doing” process in a different way, this is “Teaching by solving”. Teaching which is the activity and solving which is a result, a valuable result. The activities along the solving (teaching) process are oriented to a clear target, solve a problem, this is a valuable outcome. In this way the activity is inherently related to the outcome.

This principle would be very useful on business schools and consultancy companies where it is easy to lose the objectives. Other learning process, like the ones related with sports or professions, have the scope well defined and the “learning by doing” methodology is very appropriate but other kind of skills or expertise, the more tacit ones for instance, requires closely track the target and the “Teaching by Solving” methodology fits best.