12.1.1. Human management

Indeed, it cannot be overemphasized that corporate open innovation activity is first and foremost about people, not about technological solutions and processes. Let me tell you about an edifying experience.

I remember an entrepreneur, CEO of his start-up, who proposed a technological solution that I had to keep quiet about. I’m just telling you that this technological solution was a breakthrough in the art and the way you and I consume content. This technological solution in itself was not a revolution at the time. It could be described as incremental innovation in the sense that it added use value to a vertical service that had been consumed by all for years. We found a business unit willing to work with this start-up and so it was integrated into a season of corporate acceleration.

The CEO’s profile was the following: young, fresh out of business school, in a couple. A boy who at first glance made me feel more like a kid who just needed support to start thinking that his solution was worth the effort to seriously consider a life as an entrepreneur. In short, he needed clients, even if he did not express it that way. Clearly, hearing him tell me that his solution needed to be “plugged” into our vertical and then our customers could access it did not really reflect a conscious business objective. I liked it. Why? Because he took the time to explain to the non-engineer that I am, his technology. He made sure with every sentence that I understood the technological ins and outs. He even gave me time to rephrase what he said and agreed or corrected the interpretation of what I heard. So, when he finally told me that for his solution to make sense needed to be “plugged” into our vertical, I asked him why. He went back to technical explanations and I asked him again why. I ended up saying to him: “you want to capture clients in this way to do business”. You suspect the answer. So that was it.

This type of exchange is essential. When you work in a start-up’s corporate open innovation system, whether you are recruiting on an ad hoc basis or on a seasonal basis, you just have to understand that you first have to read the form that the start-ups have filled in. This gives you an idea in advance of the business unit or jobs line that may be involved. If there is one, that’s when the real work begins.

By meeting the start-up, you can see a technological solution. You can also see a life project carried out by a woman or a man. I confess that I have always been in the second category and I am aware that a majority of people are in the first. If I’m wrong, so much the better, but my observation is that very often, even when we are overwhelmed by the importance of the entrepreneurial team, it is quite rare that the people who deal with entrepreneurs measure or take the time to measure the human dimension of their interactions. Many start-up interlocutors are fascinated by these champions of innovation but experience them as disembodied people. Are the entrepreneurs themselves aware that they are dealing with something other than portfolios they want to type into? Finally, there is an interaction of easy prey. Each becomes the other’s advocate. The entrepreneur, and proud of it, takes the game of being considered and arousing an interest that they perceive as legitimate in relation to their entrepreneur status. Their contact person in the large group takes on the role of being able to advise them on this or that aspect and therefore takes on particular importance in their own eyes. Ego on both sides triumphs and sets up an interaction of easy prey, not to say a game of easy prey. The “Beings” are forgotten.

The continuation of this game of easy prey is reflected in various observations. Do you have the slightest idea of the number of start-up support structures that have developed in recent years? I tend to think that given the profusion of these structures, all start-ups should not only be able to find what they are looking for, but also only go for it to succeed. Do you have the slightest idea of the development of the “start-up mentoring” market? It’s impressive the number of freelancers who offer their services to start-ups. There’s probably more than just the start-ups themselves. Sometimes, we see some pretty funny things. A graduate of a top school goes into self-entrepreneurship and turns start-up consulting into a profession. Have you ever seen a baby talking to a baby? It’s fun, but that’s where it ends. In our context, it’s just dramatic.

Let there be no mistake. I’m not talking about malicious intent. I just think a little responsibility helps. On the one hand, from those who want to support start-ups and, on the other hand, from start-ups who want to be supported. Supported or to be supported, it is not to do well. This involves all stakeholders and must be done within the framework of a real organization, whether it is a network built around the start-up or a traditional organization.

In the case of an open innovation system, in my opinion, it should cover all dimensions of the organization by first looking for the “what” and then the “how” for each dimension and with a prism that is totally attentive to people.

An organization is there to do business. Business is a notion that is at least as polysemic as value. In short, the notion of business can take on different meanings, such as that of value. Therefore, it should not be considered that talking about business is equivalent to talking about earning from the agent. It can be achieving a goal of personal fulfillment by earning money. In the context that interests me, I’m talking about the business of the start-up and the business of the large group. It’s good for earning money, and the personal fulfillment of the protagonists is also present. The open innovation system, its business, I remind you, is to make both stakeholders do business. The open innovation system wins when it achieves this goal by ensuring a win/win scenario.

It was therefore essential that the CEO I mentioned above became aware of this by verbalizing it himself. Because once you become aware of this, then you can discuss how you want to do this business and therefore anticipate future negotiations on this point. You may also be faced with someone with strong ideas, in which case I’m sorry to say that if one of the two protagonists, when preparing for a wedding, feels that he or she is the one who will always be right, then it’s not even worth spending a minute on it. I’ve come across some of them.

On this business dimension, what surprises me all the same is that certain large groups, which nevertheless intend to benefit from the innovations of start-ups, still find it “relevant” that their open innovation system charges services to start-ups. Basically, the start-up would have to pay to do business. And you’ll find start-ups to accept this kind of approach somewhat surprising. I will not talk about open innovation structures (outside corporate) that use and abuse the “market” of start-ups under the guise of supporting them in their business and that, in fact, make it a business. It’s just sad, because I think we should collectively remember that this is all about start-ups generating financial value and employment. If I’m an entrepreneur and the little I have in my pocket, you take it away from me, I don’t know how to do it. Yet, this is commonplace in entrepreneurial ecosystems. As I like to say, in principle, we’re here to grow the wool from the backs of start-ups and not to shear the little wool they have at the beginning of the adventure.

An organization is also a structure. The open innovation system must try to understand in dialogue with the CEO who is part of the capital, why, is it a limited liability company by shares, a limited liability company and why, even if trust is established, if it is married, etc. This is all valuable information. I say this thinking of a case (not the one above) where a CEO wishing to make a capital increase to bring in partners found himself blocked because our friend, married in community of property, was just getting divorced. Establishing trust so that the entrepreneur verbalizes some essential data of his life is unavoidable. Let’s be clear, this is not about being voyeurs of other people’s lives and judging. But imagine that you get your company to sign a contract with a start-up in the previous configuration. Who’s responsible for it in case of a hard blow? The person responsible for the system – the CEO – I answer both of them because they have not been able to establish the trust that leads to the necessary transparency. It is up to the open innovation system to ensure with the CEO that there are no major or insurmountable difficulties before starting work with a business unit.

An organization is also people. We are all bearers of points of excellence and points of vigilance. We talk about qualities and faults more simply. I confess I’m not very comfortable with this type of leap because one often has the qualities of one’s faults and the faults of one’s qualities. A person’s first system is themselves. As with any system, the more balanced the system, the more efficient it will be. I do not believe that this balance can be forged only with what our collective thinking regards exclusively as qualities or exclusively as faults. It is an alchemy between qualities and faults that gives us the fact that we are balanced and can then enter into profitable interactions with others.

I really like to get CEOs and their teams to talk about their qualities and faults. I am making this request without using these terms. I’m talking about their relationships with others, their behavior towards others. I also tell them about mine to make them feel comfortable. It’s not about judging. Recruiting a start-up into a system is like recruiting an employee, but with whom you have no hierarchical link. In order to deliver the objective that the system guarantees, then skills upgrading training can be useful. These training courses to improve skills in the jargon of open innovation systems are called mentoring or coaching. Having identified points for optimization of the CEO’s hard or soft skills and/or their team, the aim is to ensure that these are consolidated as we move towards the objective. Of course, obtaining information, just like the implementation of capacity building, must never be done in “dictator” or insidious mode. It is first and foremost, and I repeat, a relationship of human trust, without judgment and with respect, that everyone is entitled to expect in an interaction.

12.1.2. Business developers

The business developer in an open innovation structure is the person who will be in charge of the relationship between a start-up and a business unit or jobs line. They can be in charge of a portfolio of start-ups for the most confirmed ones.

In my opinion, their mission is not only to confirm the right solutions upstream, but also, from the outset, to invest in the selection and monitoring of the relationship between the start-up and the business unit or jobs line. The head of corporate open innovation is just the chief business developer. This means that everything that the device manager is responsible for and everything they do is also valid for the collaborating business developer.

Because the honor is to the employees, and not to the managers, I have chosen to describe the concept of the interaction architect in this sub-section for the business developer of an open innovation device. Thanks to all those who have been my employees during all these years, and especially to MC who will recognize herself.

The achievements of the open innovation system depend on these business developers, true “architects of interactions”, while respecting its purpose: to implement a new innovation factory based on start-ups. The business developer is an interaction architect. What does that mean? The most relevant comparison that has come to mind over time is that of the work of the architect. Certain categories of architects can inscribe their art in human behavior at home and at work. They’re called interior architects.

In the case of the business development manager in charge of the relationship between the start-up and the large group, the latter is the designer who achieves the company’s objectives through the open innovation system. They are at the forefront of the execution and seeks to make their art part of the daily working life of the targets. As an interaction architect, it is important to understand the issues inherent in the relationship between a given start-up and a given business unit beforehand and over time. It is also important to draw on or combine simple practices to deal with them.

Moreover, the context of the company, its organization, its constraints, challenges and opportunities are all elements likely to influence the system’s capacity to gain a foothold in the reality of the company and to become integrated in the group. On this point, and again, it is important to be aware that these elements are not disembodied fruits, but the fact of people and interactions between people.

Imagine a Trojan horse too high to pass through the Trojan Gates. We are no longer in the realm of “why?”, but of “how?” The selected start-up necessarily motivates the large group. There are many start-up candidates for the open innovation system and few elected officials. Such a framework is therefore less risky for the start-up and for the business unit, which can concentrate on implementing the partnership to be built. So, when I say “how?” is to say that you need real reasons to fail.

There is a dual interest for both the large group and the start-up to work together. Start-ups are innovative, go fast and desire clients. Large groups want to retain and/or acquire new clients through innovation quickly and already have large customer bases. All of this gives the open innovation system and its business development actors a special responsibility.

The business developer is a “singular being” in the context of open innovation systems. They are an intermediary agent and relationship architect, both dedicated to the guest and to the company they represent. We therefore understand better the essential importance of the skills that the business developer must have or acquire. The efficiency of the corporate open innovation system is at stake, which, far from being a fad, can be considered as a major managerial innovation for relations between large groups and start-ups. This suggests questioning the adjustment or alignment between the start-up systems and their environment, i.e. the “host” company, and beyond what the managers of these systems will have to implement in the muted adversity of business, to allow business developers to carry out their mission.

From my experience today, I can’t say how many business developers would be needed in an open innovation structure. The question relates to the large group’s capacity to absorb start-ups. For my part, simple or complicated, I tend to think that if you entrust five or six start-up/business unit relationships to a business developer, it’s more than enough. Doing this job is real time and full time, managing humans.

What amazes me is witnessing some systems managing a considerable volume of start-ups with only a few business developers. I don’t know where the right line is, but I’ll bet the human relationship takes time. Rather, it reflects a communication policy on the part of the large groups in question, and I shall not mention any of them. They will recognize themselves, if they are not already identified by the start-up world. Surprising, even scandalous, that the web media say nothing about it. It is astonishing, even scandalous, that large groups, in order to satisfy certain top managers’ egos, use entrepreneurs to such an extent. It is surprising and distressing that these entrepreneurs allow themselves to be used for photography or out of fear of saying “no” to the interlocutors of large groups.

12.1.3. Ecosystem management

When managing a large group’s open innovation system, community management should not be taken for granted. It’s actually quite the opposite.

Most of the large groups had and for some still have a bad reputation in their management of, for example, start-ups. I, for one, remember my first few hours on the job. The day after my appointment, and without knowing how, I must have received no less than a dozen phone calls. I think that those who had led me to take this “blank page” position had themselves let the cat out of the bag to their own network. Great!

As I was telling you from one day to the next, I found myself pushed to the front of the stage, not to perform but to say and explain what I was going to do operationally. People are not fooled. Top managers appoint, generate representativeness (is that their job?) but people know that operationally, it’s others who have to do it. It is therefore normal that on a subject as sensitive as the start-up relationship, I was immediately “questioned” about my intentions.

To those who had doubts, not about me but about the ability of a large group to succeed in the bet, I replied in essence that success or failure depended on me and them. Did they want to help me succeed? A majority of these people became the first cohort of mentors who gave free time to the start-ups on the mentoring aspects. I involved them in the action and not as an observer of the action. To those who, from the outset, wanted to offer me their service against finance or against the right to say they were participating, I selected those I felt were competent and this without being influenced by certain bigwigs. I don’t like being patronized or even instrumentalized. Maybe that’s why I gave up long ago any idea of a career in a large group (and that’s not bad ...).

In the end, all these external people became the first generation of this part of the start-up ecosystem that embarked on an adventure that has been going on for six years. I’ll always be eternally grateful to them. Without them, nothing would have been possible. It is in this context that I learned how essential the useful contacts approach is when you want a large group to perform well in its relationship with start-ups.

The same effort had to be made internally when selecting start-ups. Not simple, because the system was new. There were business units to recruit. The business units were not so easy to recruit. You can well imagine that the “Corporate Accelerator” object was little understood not only by those who operated it (including me), but also by the environment. “Accelerator” for many meant Silicon Valley and therefore supporting start-ups for investment. I was talking about an acceleration for commercial purposes, and more specifically commercial partnership. For those who, internally, understood “acceleration” as a form of incubation, it was like saying that the start-up was decidedly incomplete and would therefore make them lose more time than they would gain. The business units are not anticipatory. Nevertheless, we found some business units that agreed to take the bet without understanding everything. A first season could thus begin.

It is on this fragile internal and external ecosystem that the corporate open innovation system was forged, and I will never forget the names and faces of all those who were the first stakeholders.

When you manage this type of system, you should be aware that you are managing the reconciliation of two mindsets, that of the entrepreneurs and that of the internal workers. Each of these mindsets has a “family” around it. In this family, there are useful people for the purpose of the process and destructive or negative people for the process. Spotting the “good ones”, taking them on board and then cultivating them are just a must. It’s a job to be done on the fly and trusting each other. In fact, it’s like recruiting employees, remembering that there is no hierarchical link. It is essential for the manager of a corporate open innovation system to have the intelligence of people and situations while knowing themselves how to remain discreet. I sometimes think that the person responsible for this type of system is anything but a leader in the sense that we often hear, i.e. the one who spends their time getting noticed.

Indeed, the leader we imagine is the one who speaks, harangued, mobilizes, gets things done, etc. I believe that the person in charge of an open innovation system speaks in a chosen way, motivates, does it themselves, in short, sets an example. I don’t think we’ve ever seen a priest take the bride and groom’s place before. That would seem absurd to you to imagine. We just have to tell you that the person in charge of a corporate open innovation system is like a priest who has to marry a start-up with a business of a large group. He’s a trusted leader, someone that everyone can confide in. This leader of the shadows must absolutely find approaches to animate and communicate with his congregation.

I believe it is essential that a corporate open innovation system has an ecosystem manager (or operations manager). The one who will operationally take care of the daily interactions between the entrepreneur and the external staff, and support the business developer in the interactions between the entrepreneur and the internal staff. In short, this ecosystem manager manages operations like a firewall that preserves the System/Entrepreneur/Business Unit triumvirate with a focus on the external and at the service of the business developer’s action (between the internal staff and the start-up). This ecosystem manager enables the head of the corporate open innovation system to keep all the useful distance to operationally deal with the difficult situations that are bound to arise.

The ecosystem manager is in a way the person in charge of preventing the external from causing the relationship to slip, knowing that the business developer is in charge of constructing it between the entrepreneur and the business unit. This person is not the handyman, but I recommend that this person be the trusted wife or husband of the person in charge of the system. The interaction between the person in charge of ecosystems (or operations) and the person in charge of open innovation will determine the systemic management of the entire system.

At the very beginning of my mandate, I was both responsible for the system and, in a way, responsible for the ecosystems. I remember I was there through many nights and weekends, and I was talking to myself. The top managers who will read these lines will understand this role if I talk to them about the chief of staff. It’s almost an identical role. This is not about preserving a top manager, but about preserving a structure and its purpose.

I would really like to thank here those who have played this role in my professional life. Without them, nothing would have been possible. These profiles bear witness to the doubts, visions and ambitions of the structure through a woman or a man responsible for the open innovation system. That the open innovation structure gets out of control and it is the image of the whole group that is affected.

12.1.4. Digital communication

It’s a neat transition to talk about communication. To those who will tell me that large groups are communicating at all costs about open innovation, I will answer: “yes, but so what?”.

Do you think entrepreneurs understand or read institutional statements? The answer is no. I don’t know of a corporate open innovation system that hasn’t had to develop its own Twitter account or its own Facebook or its own website. You have to stay focused and that’s where it happens. This is the project communication I’m talking about.

An open innovation system for start-ups has as its clients … start-ups. It is therefore a “service” to be marketed to its target. When your target is on social networks, and an “entrepreneur” profile is, you need to be on social networks and communicate clearly. I’m not here to promote the brand. I’m here to tell entrepreneurs what the corporate open innovation system offers and to be credible, to tell them how they are useful to me and how I can be useful to them. If the work is done well and the results are at the end, it will nourish the brand.

During the first two years of the acceleration, I was myself animating my corporate accelerator’s twitter account. Fascinating! And terribly time-consuming. Yes, I confirm it’s a real job. I learned about the nights and the weekends. My counterparts in many other major groups could testify to that. A few tweets to launch a call for projects. Kindness to answer questions… and that’s enough. But we still have to take the trouble to do so in concrete and operational terms.

I’m surprised that there are still a few cases of corporate open innovation systems that simply don’t have a handle on their social network and/or website. How can communication actors outside the scope of the system claim to be available to share information in real time? Social networking is like a constant stream of information. It works when those who receive the information realize the sincerity of the information because it is real time and produced by those who do things. It’s a fight I’ve never had to fight internally. Yes, if I can find points of optimization in the company I work for, I openly admit that many things were obvious to many people from the very beginning of this adventure, whatever the reasons. We let him do it, it’s dangerous. We’re just letting him do it, that’s all. Whatever the reason, in my company, as in many large groups, the management understands this.

This means that as the person in charge of a corporate open innovation scheme, you are in a way a stakeholder in what is said in the name of the company… In other words, you have no legitimate right to make mistakes. It’s a huge responsibility. It’s the brand image! In this case, it is better to recruit a community management professional directly from the scheme’s team. This community manager will live in step with the open innovation system.

It is a real job, and a key position within the corporate open innovation systems. Ignoring a Community Manager position is a mistake. The first “human” relations between the system and the ecosystem are taking place on the web social media. That’s where it happens next, to at least keep virtual contact with the external ecosystem, and the internal one for that matter. Many employees have social network accounts.

In short, there are three reasons why I “preach” in this position. The first aspect is that to my knowledge, Twitter, Facebook, etc., are free. So apart from the dedicated resource, it doesn’t cost anything. Moreover, showing the life of a season serves to animate and cultivate your relationship with as many people as possible. You can’t just go to events and meet everyone. Finally, while I’m not a fan of photography at all costs, sometimes illustrating key moments taken on the spot with real people who are not posing, but just expressing what happens in real life, then so much the better.

12.2.1. The basis

From all my experience, I have finally retained that what is important to operate a corporate open innovation system is the expertise of those who develop it. So okay, their paychecks come in handy. But beyond that, let’s be clear, an open innovation system is very inexpensive. It is the management of the approximation between two mindsets, that of entrepreneurs and business units. It is the management of two internal and external ecosystems with useful contacts. Eventually, you can spend money on meals and phone calls, but I’m sorry to say that it ends there.

This basis in fact reflects the very purpose of the system. Confirming the right stakeholders and building and managing their relationships. Church wedding preparations and ceremonies cost nothing.

12.2.2. Going further

I recognize that, depending on the service offered to entrepreneurs, if it is free for them then you will have expenses. There can be travel expenses to pay them, business test fees to reassure business units or event fees to set up. It may also be an accommodation fee if you rent a room to operate the system. Operating a joint working place where start-ups can come for free has a cost I can’t deny. But finally, to reserve a room allowing a selection of entrepreneurs to have an office, Wi-Fi, a few elements of comfort, I’m sorry to think that it’s not going to go very far, as long as we are not following communication and photos at all costs.

These expenses constitute minimal, even insignificant investments when a large group decides to launch this type of open innovation system, for what it should mean: doing business.

12.2.3. The real false costs

The real false cost is in the integration of the external solution into the IS or internal processes. Yes, there is a cost that I remind you must and can be compared to the cost of internal manufacturing. It’s the eternal make-or-buy question. If the company wants to fill a gap, at the limits of the latter, the path of open innovation is always economically cheaper. And if the company decides to do so, then the question does not arise. In short, this refers to the qualification of entrepreneurs to be recruited in the framework of open innovation systems. Properly qualifying these entrepreneurs in relation to the company’s objectives is a matter of human expertise and refers to the discourses I have given you before.

There are no good or bad objectives to a corporate open innovation system. There are objectives, and the procedures for achieving them can be variable. We have to admit that if we start from the business challenge which consists of bringing innovative solutions from start-ups to the customer base, while allowing start-ups to access these customer bases, then I must admit that this objective is not expensive, quite the contrary.

Undoubtedly, some large groups more eager to “take pictures” or animate must spend a little more. I dream of the moment when all these communication budgets will be devoted to doing business. Communicating, yes, but it is cheaper to communicate about results in my opinion. Nothing to prove, the results speak for themselves.

Another real false cost is capital investment. If the corporate open innovation system is intended to make investment as well, there is a cost. However, I remind you that investment implies a return on investment. So, we might as well make sure we have the right teams doing the job to win in the end. So, I’m not sure where the cost is as such.

Strictly speaking, yes, I consider this widely held idea that open innovation is expensive to implement to be false. This is just a view of the mind for those who refuse to get out of their little square of internal innovation and find all the right reasons (wrong), … because in fact it disturbs their comfort. There are risks involved in open innovation and I have shared them with you. Financial risk is not part of the equation when the steering of the corporate open innovation system is entrusted to a competent person and the emphasis is placed on the very purpose of open innovation: to go further and faster in the face of competition.

I won’t go any further on this section, as this subject of investment useful for setting up a corporate open innovation system seems totally irrelevant to me. So, ask the people responsible for this type of system: “What is your core budget? You’d be very surprised…”.

12.3.1. Misuse from start-ups

There have been some misuses from start-ups. As I write these lines, I am reminded of something. The CEO, a dashing 32-year-old boy, self-confident, friendly, constructive, at least on the surface. He was part of one of the seasons of the open innovation system for which I am responsible.

I remember the first day. It was a Demo Day season-opener. He introduced me to his three employees. A very nice team and also mixed.

How special and unique these moments were! A phenomenal energy emanated from each of us, and we all collectively felt like we could move mountains. We talked, we exchanged, we put ideas forward. The person in charge of the system acted a bit like the host of the moment towards external and internal people. Benevolence, listening, exchange and smiles were the order of the day. At the end of the day, and every time it happened, I went to bed with pride, feeling like I had brought together under one roof different people who had a lot to contribute. You don’t change your karma, it’s probably my vocation and what makes me have fun in this job!

Concerning this start-up, I saw them together during this Demo Day, and I also saw them individually. So, I can largely testify to their human and motivational alignment. Everyone knew why he was there and had the same understanding. Very important!

I remember one day. This day was the kick off meeting that I dedicated to each start-up and this time it was one to one, i.e. the start-up and the system team. We talked, we told each other the story that’s coming up. We kept reminding ourselves of the extent to which it would be necessary to deliver the expectations on both sides. In short, the paragraph just below demonstrates.

In the present case, this start-up had applied and therefore, in principle, had to have a marketable service. I don’t know if I told you, but I’m responsible not for a corporate incubator, but for a corporate accelerator. So, I recruit start-ups that have a marketable or commercialized product or service. The objective being commercial partnerships with large groups. Let’s be clear, this is clearly displayed, said and repeated, so there is no risk of misunderstanding on the part of start-up applicants. They know that. Another condition for the recruitment of the start-up is to have a motivated business unit. Again, zero risk, because it is said over and over again that you don’t recruit because a solution is interesting, but because you have at least one client (the holy grail) for the start-up. We’re speeding up business. Finally, there must be a roughly correct structural situation, i.e. in substance, there are laws on limited liability companies by shares and other limited liability companies, when the start-up candidate, it is appropriate that its statutes exist.

I remember that day. There was a day when we discovered that what the start-up had sold us as a marketable or commercialized solution turned out to be a non-existent “fake”, with an impatient business unit in front of us. There was a day when what had been described to us as a stable structure turned out to be a can of worms in which the so-called employees had no employment contracts and were not even freelancers with legal contracts. There was a day when one of the mentors said to me: “this CEO is a narcissistic deviant, his team is suffering …”. It took us two weeks to find out what was going on. It was terrible.

My first question was to ask myself if something had gone wrong in the recruitment process for start-ups. This process is based on caring. We believe what it says on the application form, we exchange before recruitment, but we don’t do formal due diligence. Too long a process. We prefer to reserve this during the acceleration period. If over a year you do all the useful checks before recruiting a start-up, you will spend nine months in due diligence and three months making contracts. This process based on benevolence seems to me to be appropriate. This is all the more true since, in hindsight, out of the 100% of start-ups recruited to date, only three of them have sold dreams and lies.

In the case of this start-up, it was the first case of “perjury”. The start-up came out of the corporate accelerator silently. Anxious to help the real fake employees of this start-up, I allowed two of them who wished to do so to benefit not from the assets of the corporate accelerator (the structure of the original start-up had been recruited), but from my personal expertise. In short, I assumed my recruitment error for all of us. I have been helping these two people for over a year to get by in life. They were both founded in the wake of start-ups. I must admit that in retrospect on this point too, I wonder if I did the right thing. Even if that’s not the point, I’ll just tell you this. In view of the behavior of these two people afterwards, I wonder whether it was not the collective itself of the original four who constituted a system of people incapable of any form of transparency.

When I talk about human history, one can imagine that I only refer to positive moments. If they are in the majority, I ask you to take my word for it when I say that this is not always the case. The few disastrous situations are red-hot markers in the heart, guts and mind, despite all the hindsight that needs to be taken. You can’t do this job without getting involved. And when you get involved, you expose yourself to the risks of other people’s behavior.

For example, I have also been confronted with CEOs who refused all mentoring support. That’s no problem. I have no problem with that per se. On the other hand, my responsibility was always to ask myself whether or not what I perceived as optimization points could harm the contract project. Often no, sometimes yes.

You can invest as much as you wish, if the entrepreneur does not resonate with you, then you are responsible for this type of system caught between the large group and its structural and political constraints, and the start-up. For example, I have dealt with entrepreneurs whose stress level was such that it did not allow for any discussion. If you are not able to detect this before you sign the integration of the start-up into the system, you have no choice but to manage as you go along and gradually move the start-up away from you and your company.

These are human adventures where we learn as much from entrepreneurs as they learn from us. We spend days, nights and weekends on it. I’m not saying this to mark our involvement. That is, an entrepreneur’s day doesn’t start at 8 a.m. and end at 6 p.m. You remember I told you about how it’s done, or how entrepreneurs operate. Be aware that when you work with entrepreneurs, it is not non-stop, but stop and go on situations and events that are often unpredictable. It is necessary to be available for this. I’ve always made it a point of honor to be one (my team as well) and probably wrongly in some cases. In spite of the efforts, sometimes it’s misuse from the start-ups themselves.

And in this open innovation approach, we cannot say that the large group is perfect in terms of the open innovation system that it has nevertheless allowed to be born and on which it communicates with great force through press releases. Take a good look at the news, especially from the major groups in the CAC 40 French stock market index. You’ll see that they’ve “understood” that we are in the digital age and the start-up era. “Understood” yes, does this make the task of open innovation systems easier? The corporate open innovation system is not known, but it is difficult to address its purpose. Recognized, the corporate open innovation system is undergoing the “millefeuille effect” that I mentioned in a previous chapter. In both cases, the danger to the object of the mission exists.

12.3.2. Misuses from the large group

You will have noticed a certain form of annoyance on my part on this subject of virtues. A business developer works to build these partnerships and other co-productions between start-ups and business units. They do their job with their heart, mind and soul, when they do it right.

Business developers manage many relationships and each time they have to switch ways because each entrepreneur and each business unit are unique. Putting business developers in situations of suffering sometimes means destroying people’s motivation and without motivation, more than for any other job, nothing happens. Nothing would be simpler to do this job, than to limit oneself to contacts by e-mail, … Nothing would happen between the start-up and the internal interlocutors of the large group. At best, the start-up would be stretched to the limit for nothing.

Nobody can tell me that in many corporate open innovation systems things do not go as just described. The soft development business is present and will be for a long time to come. That’s not a criticism. Having talked to some business developers of open innovation systems, they tell me that they are involved in the quality of the start-up, but that afterwards it’s up to the business unit. I don’t believe in that pattern and they agree with me. They are the ones who are announcing more than questionable results to me. Why? For an obvious reason. For the business unit, the start-up is an unplanned opportunity that is coming. Moreover, for the business unit, the start-up is one project among others. How in this context, without the investment of people for whom the start-up is 100% the business, we can expect results. Things don’t just fall from the sky. With this awareness, why don’t so many business developers in open innovation structures get more involved? Perhaps, for all the reasons underlying the following account.

I remember one day. We had many candidates for the season in question. The start-up for which we had found a jobs line was in the area of internal processes and in particular an offer for employees. As always, it was after many upstream interactions with the jobs line that we finally decided to recruit this start-up. All indicators were green. At the Demo Day launch of the season, the jobs line came. During the initialization meeting with the start-up, I remember calling the jobs line live and involving them in the discussion. All indicators were green. I even thought I could sense the jobs line taking care of everything from now on and giving us feedback.

I remember the day. A week later, the start-up called me in a panic, saying that they had no news, but that given the motivation of the jobs line, they thought it must be related to the workload. I asked around anyway. In fact and as is often the case, the head of the business unit or jobs line decided on the OK for the start-up. That’s where it got tough, because the manager entrusted the “baby” to one of his employees who either discovered, or was not completely aligned.

I don’t know if you’ve ever worked in a large group before. But let me tell you that there is a great paradox. On the one hand, it’s more like pyramid or even matrix pyramid, but hear me when I say that employees have a freedom that if they don’t want to do or do wrong, then nothing will happen. Why? Because an employee has objectives and can always tell you that the means or the way to achieve them is up to them. Because a co-worker can also encourage you to do nothing by telling you that if there is a problem, no one should hold it against them. When as a manager you are faced with this type of profile, as long as you are not dictating or as long as you are not very brave, you will not insist more than that by imposing the objective and the means.

In the case of the situation I have described, the head of the business unit had recruited a new staff member. In other words, this person in the start-up had in a month and a half often interacted with the start-up and with my system for the sole purpose of doing nothing. We were still able to get a paid pre-study for the start-up. The result was positive, but nothing happened afterwards, despite reminders to the head of the jobs line. Appalling, isn’t it?

12.3.3. Corporate open innovation, this human misuse?

Sociology, management of people and situations govern the activity of a corporate open innovation system. But the actors in these systems are neither psychologists nor psychotherapists. You manage people whether they are start-ups, business units or stakeholders. This takes place against the backdrop of an “unnatural” relationship between the very large (the large group) and the very small (the start-up). This is done against the backdrop of two complementary mindsets if we want to stay positive. This is done against the backdrop of two different “families”. This is done against the backdrop of two information systems to be integrated technically, if not at least at the process level (HR solution, etc.).

So, my “unnatural” is not there to exaggerate the trait, but because everything opposes large groups and start-ups: business in the making versus regular business sometimes even annuity business; malleable structure versus rigid structure; trained staff versus trainee staff; effectuation versus causation; “I’m hungry vs. I’m a person of independent means”, … This is not to say that one organization is better than the other, or that they are incompatible. It will not have escaped your attention that a woman is different from a man. Yet, I would not be here to write these lines and you to read them, if it were not for these men and women. I am expressing, by marking these different features, some commonplaces, and also the professional, if not moral, obligation to align all these dimensions so that each of the two actors moves serenely towards a contract to be sealed and executed.

Aligning these dimensions is a particularly demanding and often thankless job. Unrewarding because if the contracts are signed, I’ll let you guess that it’s considered to be because of the business unit. In fact, start-ups are not far from thinking so. If the contracts are not signed, then you will not fail to receive the reproaches of the start-up for which you are the referent within the large group. Challenging, because when you know that if there is to be a contract, the two actors have to line up all the time, in order to do that you have to move lines. You will move the lines of mindsets, the lines of internal procedures, … you will not only make friends. So go and disturb a bear (the people in large groups) sleeping comfortably in its cave and see how it reacts. This is sometimes the reaction of some who are asked to move certain aspects of a project between a business unit and a start-up.

But probably, the biggest waste of corporate open innovation is in fact a major paradox that I suggested at the beginning of this chapter. If this system is invisible, it will have trouble performing. If it is visible, it will suffer the millefeuille effect and will be crushed by the mass of all kinds of solicitations that will not necessarily have anything to do with its mission. To go further, I think I can tell you that, assuming it stands the test of time, then the time will come when the large group will seek to institutionalize it. And then, it will be the beginning of the end. A corporate open innovation system exists because internal innovation, without being inefficient, needs to be completed in order to provide the large group with innovative solutions quickly. An innovative solution because internal innovation is often and too often standardized. It seems quite logical to think that consanguinity in internal innovation is necessarily less likely to take you off the beaten track than open innovation with outsiders. It seems just as logical to think that the cumbersome procedures and other governances of internal innovation do not allow us to move quickly. So, I think everyone will agree with me that corporate open innovation has at least these two assets: new solutions and speed. The trick is that if it works well, then the large group will want to industrialize the corporate open innovation approach. And this is where things become Kafkaesque: applying traditional organization and or procedures to open innovation. In short, the large group forgets that if it can work, it is because corporate open innovation is outside its internal procedures and organizations. I’ll let you guess how tiring this can be for those who work in corporate open innovation systems … it can become, if we are not careful, a tremendous human waste. It takes time to acquire know-how and expertise in this business of corporate open innovation. Leading professionals in this field to lose faith by repetitive contradictory injunctions is just stupid on the part of the large group structure.

Operating a corporate open innovation system requires a fine team of professionals who will “scale up” over time. The team will grow stronger as it gains experience in interacting with internal group members and external start-ups, and as it experiences new situations. This team will develop knowhow and expertise based on solid skills.

The question of team size should not be correlated with the ability to succeed in the system’s overall mission. It’s the quality of the people that counts. On the other hand, the size can be legitimately correlated to the width of the missions of the system (commercial partnerships, investments in start-ups, etc.). This is also true for the amount of budgets to be committed, which is more likely to be related to the range of activities covered than to an amount inherent to corporate open innovation.

This job is fascinating because more than any other job, in the end, it is these people who make the job worthwhile. And sometimes when business units or lines of business or start-ups become aware of this, then everyone knows how to thank you. That is what I remember first and that is what I will always remember. The rest will go in the garbage cans of my story.

Question 12: According to you, how many commercial contracts can these four people make between business units and start-ups in one year? How much budget would they need to do this?