Get Started. It's Free
or sign up with your email address
Rocket clouds
MA by Mind Map: MA

1. CS

1.1. drivers / prerequisites

1.1.1. tech

1.1.1.1. platforms work as mediator

1.1.1.1.1. for high-risk innovation, effective collaborative interfaces are needed

1.1.2. social

1.1.2.1. mutual benefit for contributor and sourcer

1.1.2.2. crowd must be

1.1.2.2.1. diverse in opinion

1.1.2.2.2. decentralized

1.1.2.2.3. independent

1.1.2.2.4. limited or unlimited

1.1.2.3. (general) emergence of online-communities

1.1.2.3.1. strengthen cohesion in the group and overall identification with the company

1.1.2.3.2. Communities of Practice (CoP)

1.1.3. procedure

1.1.3.1. tasks must be

1.1.3.1.1. divisible

1.1.3.1.2. easily solvable

1.1.3.1.3. easily understandable

1.1.3.2. results aggregation

1.1.4. ordinary users create significantly more original and valuable ideas than professional developers & advanced users

1.1.5. pros & advanced users create more easily realizable ideas

1.1.6. challenges / inhibitors

1.1.6.1. groupthink / peer pressure / collectivism

1.1.6.1.1. if using existing communities to achieve critical mass already at the start, this may easily happen

1.1.6.1.2. decreases diversity

1.1.6.1.3. mainly a problem with creative developments for the collective intelligence

1.1.6.1.4. maybe less of a problem with crowdcasting for simple solutions

1.1.6.2. aggregation & selection of content

1.1.6.2.1. should not be left to the mass, but done / coordinated by a single person

1.1.6.2.2. usually no "hunt for an expert and then only taking his opinion" should happen, but all contributions considered (and maybe combined)

1.1.6.3. intellectual property rights

1.1.6.3.1. particularly in B2B - intercompany environment

1.1.6.4. information security

1.2. Types

1.2.1. new form of existing concepts

1.2.1.1. such as SoM

1.2.2. Crowdcasting

1.2.2.1. publishing of a question (by a company) to a maximum reach of (diverse) users

1.2.2.1.1. numerous individual responses, since the community does not interact

1.2.2.2. higher potential for disruptive innovation

1.2.2.3. usually a single contribution taken

1.2.2.3.1. unless used as input for crowdstorming

1.2.3. Crowdstorming

1.2.3.1. open-ended, general discussion

1.2.3.1.1. analyze a problem in more detail

1.2.3.1.2. analyze from different angles

1.2.3.1.3. explore potentials of a topic without limiting questions

1.2.3.2. so far mainly customer communities to provide service or create new ideas

1.2.3.3. often engages rather experts

1.2.3.4. main method: forums

1.2.3.4.1. companies realize that forums are only useful & credible when

1.2.3.5. allows users to contribute everything they want and interact heavily

1.2.3.5.1. also negative feelings about the company, its products or other circumstances

1.2.3.6. higher potential for incremental innovation

1.2.3.7. usually a synthesis of contributions taken

1.2.4. Crowdfunding

1.2.5. Crowdproduction

1.2.5.1. Wikipedia et al

1.2.5.1.1. only with e.g. Red Hat and a financial model financial

1.2.5.1.2. usually for free

1.2.5.2. very similar to open innovation

1.2.6. Crowdvoting

1.2.6.1. prioritize and structure ideas

1.2.6.2. when followed, shows company's trust in users

1.2.6.2.1. since no explanation is given

1.2.6.3. possible reputation system

1.2.6.3.1. rating of the ideas (anonymous)

1.2.6.3.2. rating of ideas and poster's reputation

1.3. Products vs Markets

1.3.1. Product

1.3.1.1. single product is developed on the platform, all contribute to it

1.3.1.1.1. single competitions for a product

1.3.1.1.2. linux github platform

1.3.2. Market

1.3.2.1. multiple products are developed and offered for the different participants of the platform (not only the initiating company)

1.3.2.1.1. amazon mech turk

1.3.2.1.2. help forum maybe in a form as well?

1.3.2.1.3. idea gathering platform

1.3.2.1.4. usually more difficult to motivate ppl, since their contribution is not surely used

1.4. Users (socio-technographic profile)

1.4.1. Creators

1.4.1.1. usually dominate exponentially in contributions

1.4.1.2. majority one-time contributors

1.4.2. Critics (rating & commenting)

1.4.3. Collectors (tagging & voting)

1.4.4. Joiners (in it for the community)

1.4.5. Spectators

1.4.6. Inactives

1.5. Process

1.5.1. Goals

1.5.1.1. Target

1.5.1.1.1. Products

1.5.1.1.2. Processes

1.5.1.1.3. Forecast

1.5.1.1.4. CC suggests 70% core improvement, 20% "new to company", 10% "creating new markets"

1.5.1.2. Improvement

1.5.1.2.1. Radical / Disruptive

1.5.1.2.2. New

1.5.1.2.3. Incremental

1.5.1.3. Part

1.5.1.3.1. Concept

1.5.1.3.2. Development / Design

1.5.1.3.3. Production

1.5.1.3.4. Testing

1.5.1.3.5. Decision Making

1.5.1.3.6. Support / Customer Service

1.5.1.3.7. Several phases can be combined in one Tool

1.5.2. Scope

1.5.2.1. Crowd Type

1.5.2.1.1. wide audience (quantity)

1.5.2.1.2. in depth (experts) / start to end

1.5.2.2. Audience

1.5.2.2.1. Public

1.5.2.2.2. Partner-wide

1.5.2.2.3. Company-Internal

1.5.2.2.4. Output Control

1.5.2.2.5. intended interaction

1.5.2.3. Integration of CS System in existing systems? (not covered in Thesis)

1.5.3. Tools and their Configuration

1.5.3.1. C-Casting

1.5.3.1.1. SNS Forum Voting / Rating Blog

1.5.3.2. C-Storming

1.5.3.2.1. SNS (+PM)

1.5.3.2.2. Forum

1.5.3.2.3. Voting / Rating

1.5.3.2.4. Blog

1.5.3.2.5. Upload

1.5.3.3. C-Production

1.5.3.3.1. Creation: Wiki

1.5.3.3.2. Discussion

1.5.3.4. Forums are more community-centric, while SNS are more people centric (and thus better for fast-changing ad-hoc communities and selective filtering of contents)

1.5.4. Preparation

1.5.4.1. require most effort

1.5.4.1.1. tech issues

1.5.4.1.2. achieve & maintain critical mass

1.5.4.1.3. processing results

1.5.4.1.4. training

1.5.4.1.5. management support

1.5.4.2. decide on the incentives before starting the challenge

1.5.4.2.1. incentive should be bound to the quality of the contribution, not participation or quantiity

1.5.4.2.2. low reward may decrease # of contributions

1.5.5. Implementation & Maintenance

1.5.5.1. Incentives

1.5.5.1.1. Piggyback on existing systems

1.5.5.1.2. Nature of Knowledge

1.5.5.1.3. (indiv) Motivation to share

1.5.5.1.4. Opportunities to Share

1.5.5.1.5. org culture

1.5.5.1.6. community management

1.5.5.1.7. Asking Questions

1.5.5.1.8. Extrinsic

1.5.5.1.9. no vs fixed vs success based incentives

1.5.5.1.10. people usually start with utility as a motivator but stay for community reasons

1.5.5.1.11. inhibitors

1.5.5.2. Channels

1.5.5.2.1. Formal

1.5.5.2.2. Informal

1.5.5.2.3. Traditional channels often limit the inclusion of the right people into the CompIntel conversation

1.5.5.3. aggregating results

1.5.5.3.1. either compete, combine, or both

1.5.5.3.2. Q: use the crowd?

1.5.5.3.3. Stats: 5 FTE / 6000 or 40 FTE/1000 ppl depending on task

1.5.5.3.4. eventually involve professionals to make ideas feasible

2. InnovM

2.1. def:a means of changing an organization, either as a response to changes in the external environment or as a preemptive action to influence the environment. encompasses a range of types, including new product or service, new process technology, new organization structure or administrative systems, or new plans or program pertaining to organization members

2.2. types

2.2.1. disruptive /radical

2.2.1.1. extremely unplanned and chaotic in nature and the period of time needed prior its commercialization is relatively long

2.2.2. incremental

2.2.3. open innovation

2.2.3.1. surrounding entities

2.2.3.1.1. customers, employees, competitors, unrelated interested, academics

2.2.3.2. precursor of CS

2.2.3.2.1. CS better captures also implicit needs than the structured OI approach

2.2.4. Process, Product, Position, Paradigm X Incremental, Radical, Architecture, Modular

2.2.4.1. graphic in text

2.3. aspects

2.3.1. leads to competitive advantage, either by cost or differentiation

2.3.2. important determinants for one type of innovation are not necessarily important for other innovations

2.3.3. Real innovation cannot be planned in advance, but facilitated

2.3.4. also an aspect of organizational change

2.3.5. diff from OSS - no business model there

2.3.5.1. if additional values provided (Red Hat), it would be Crowdproduction

2.4. incentivation

2.4.1. Europe risk averse

2.4.2. career development highly valued

2.4.2.1. reputation and community may be more important than financial incentives

2.4.3. acknowledgement of contributions required

3. SoM

3.1. driving forces

3.1.1. usability of tools / technology

3.1.1.1. categories

3.1.1.1.1. Communicating: publishing and sharing content

3.1.1.1.2. Collaborating: collective content creation

3.1.1.1.3. Connecting: networking people

3.1.1.1.4. Combining: mixing and matching for different purposes

3.1.1.1.5. Completing: adding, describing and filtering

3.1.1.2. capabilities

3.1.1.2.1. sharing / liking

3.1.1.2.2. tags

3.1.1.2.3. following / subscribing vs befriending

3.1.1.2.4. communication

3.1.1.2.5. SNS

3.1.1.2.6. Wikis ( / Mindmapping)

3.1.1.2.7. syndication / subscribing

3.1.1.2.8. should rather focus on connecting the right people than storing knowledge

3.1.1.3. Mashups

3.1.1.3.1. can show links between content spread over several different tools

3.1.1.4. Company internal

3.1.1.4.1. most traditional tools not as easily usable & effective in sharing knowledge & also more expensive than SoMas Social Media

3.1.1.5. SoM and mobile devices co-drive each other

3.1.2. interaction between users / social aspects

3.1.2.1. older messages disregarded

3.1.2.1.1. recap necessary?

3.1.2.2. networks around ideas & functions

3.1.2.2.1. seeing the connections and networks of people lowers the barrier to contact people

3.1.2.3. prosumer

3.1.2.3.1. individual adoption makes the most out of the platform

3.1.2.4. critical mass

3.1.2.4.1. either reached or reverse development sets in (all or nothing)

3.1.2.4.2. community may split in adopters and non-adopters

3.1.2.4.3. wanted stars help drive adoption

3.1.2.4.4. location or hierarchy devide helps adoption (easier reaching those ppl)

3.1.2.4.5. individual threshholds for adoption

3.1.2.4.6. not entire company needs to participate for success, but communities

3.1.2.5. community

3.1.2.5.1. within comm 1/9/90 rule

3.1.2.6. Shitstorm

3.1.2.6.1. handle real time / quickly or bigger damage

3.1.2.6.2. do not censor

3.1.2.7. develop / require an open communication culture

3.1.2.7.1. bottom-up information sharing (rather than just top-down)

3.1.2.7.2. if no success comes, the tools are usually blamed

3.1.2.7.3. Social Natives increasingly expect it

3.1.2.8. foster innovation

3.1.2.9. Executives fear loosing control

3.1.2.9.1. executives' support is needed for successful implementation

3.1.2.9.2. biggest inhibitors

3.1.3. relevance of content

3.1.3.1. information can be better contributed at the right time and place, limiting spamming

3.1.4. incentives

3.1.4.1. Intrinsic

3.1.4.1.1. all three of the groups above

3.1.4.1.2. altruistism

3.1.4.1.3. networking

3.1.4.1.4. mutual benefit

3.1.4.1.5. inhibitors

3.1.4.1.6. not falling behind / missing out

3.1.4.2. Extrinsic

3.1.4.2.1. financial incentives

3.1.4.2.2. Push by Management

4. ChangeM

4.1. Change Drivers will prefer a seperate system so it can "evolve" and be adopted

4.2. critics will prefer integration in existing systems so that it just has to be used / adopted by all

5. CompInt

5.1. understand threats & opps

5.1.1. react faster than competitors and stay competitive

5.1.2. efficient sharing creates sustainable competitive advantage

5.1.3. Finnish companies value their competitive supplier knowledge as 2.6 out of 5

5.1.4. most companies not successful in incorporating CI in processes

5.1.4.1. mostly push approach so far

5.1.4.2. with Social Media the analysis phases overlap more than before and influence each other

5.2. what - so what - now what?

5.3. news =

5.3.1. new info

5.3.2. new info needs

5.4. analyzing =

5.4.1. conceptualising

5.4.2. describing

5.4.3. explaining

5.4.4. extending

5.4.5. forecasting

5.4.6. hypothesising

5.4.7. illustrating

5.4.8. modelling

5.4.9. predicting

5.4.10. re-organising

5.4.11. synthesising

5.4.12. visualising

5.5. with the use of communities a large company can gain the benefits of a small company, as in low virtual organizational structure and informal knowledge sharing

5.6. challenges

5.6.1. information value

5.6.1.1. outside = more novel

5.6.1.1.1. can also be specific information brokers

5.6.1.2. from inside = deeper understanding / context application

5.6.1.3. avoid info overflow

5.6.1.4. right time - right ppl - cost efficient

5.6.1.4.1. ppl info usually better than InfoSystem (due to usability)

5.6.1.4.2. people are increasingly dispersed locally (in a company)

5.6.1.5. discussion increases value

5.6.1.6. often too restrictive information sharing policies

5.6.2. overall value difficult to measure

5.6.2.1. intangible results

5.6.2.1.1. easier to measure intuitively

5.6.2.2. scattered throughout the company

5.6.3. Volatility Uncertainty Diversity of the Situation Cost of Error

5.6.3.1. analyzing personnel should be from more dept to increase diversity and understanding

5.6.4. traditional tools do not support the easy finding of the right ppl to participate

5.6.4.1. and require synchronism

5.6.4.1.1. very counterproductive in global companies in different time zones

6. (S)SCM

6.1. components

6.1.1. planning

6.1.1.1. increasingly complex

6.1.1.1.1. sub SC for coping

6.1.2. sourcing

6.1.3. making

6.1.4. delivering

6.1.5. returns

6.2. challenges

6.2.1. high

6.2.1.1. costs & flexibility

6.2.1.1.1. new: demand - driven

6.2.1.1.2. many big legacy systems

6.2.1.1.3. SCs have to become more collaborative, also between companies

6.2.1.2. availability

6.2.1.3. supply security

6.2.2. medium

6.2.2.1. complexity of Prods & SC

6.2.3. lower

6.2.3.1. risk management

6.2.4. (returns)

6.2.5. top prios for companies in 2012 survey

6.2.5.1. 1. visibility 57%

6.2.5.2. 2. Biz innovation 56%

6.2.5.3. agility

6.2.6. by time horizon

6.2.6.1. reacting (short)

6.2.6.2. optimizing (medium)

6.2.6.3. designing (long) the SC

6.3. SCMS

6.3.1. SSCMS

6.3.1.1. benefits

6.3.1.1.1. fast decisions

6.3.1.1.2. platform for innovations

6.3.1.1.3. collab partners to community members

6.3.1.1.4. (more transparency)

6.3.1.2. Ariba, GXS

6.3.1.2.1. multisided markets

6.3.1.2.2. e.g. seperate conversations based on email link

6.3.1.3. layers

6.3.1.3.1. Social Exception handling

6.3.1.3.2. open SC sourcing & dispatch

6.3.1.3.3. competency networks

6.3.1.3.4. community coord

6.3.2. linkages

6.3.2.1. tech

6.3.2.2. social

6.3.2.2.1. e.g. meetings

6.3.2.3. legal

6.3.2.3.1. e.g. contract mgmt

6.3.2.4. administrative

6.3.2.4.1. e.g. kpis tracking

6.3.2.5. depend on strat, tac, or op integration

6.3.2.6. prod, fin, logistics integration

6.3.2.6.1. SC transparency driving concern

6.3.3. types of events

6.3.3.1. regular

6.3.3.2. delayed

6.3.3.3. unexpected

6.3.3.4. overdue

7. Sourcing

7.1. SRM

7.1.1. hard aspects

7.1.1.1. price, quality, delivery and service

7.1.1.1.1. increasingly global sourcing for optimal prices

7.1.2. soft aspects

7.1.2.1. visits, surveys and certifications

7.1.3. supplier selection and evaluation critical to company success

7.2. components

7.2.1. !Strategy Development

7.2.1.1. dedicated time provides added value

7.2.1.2. sometimes even extra positions created

7.2.2. !Demand Aggregation

7.2.3. Negotiation and Contract Signing

7.2.4. Electronic Tendering

7.2.4.1. Catalogue Mgmt

7.2.5. eAuctioning

7.3. short term (op, tactical) vs long term (strategic)

7.3.1. mix: outsourcing of demand mgmt

7.3.2. outsourcing y/n?

7.3.2.1. even processes like design & ingineering are now candidates for outsourcing and often end up being it

7.4. challenges

7.4.1. creation of additional *sustainable* value to products

7.4.1.1. re-negotiation of contracts

7.4.1.2. improved SRM strategies

7.4.1.3. multisourcing to avoid disruptions & price or risk increase

7.4.1.4. monitoring of external factors for all parts of the SC to mitigate risks

7.4.2. (full) dependency on few strategic suppliers

7.4.2.1. German companies avoid this if possible

7.4.2.2. aim for reducing waste in the SC rather than suppliers margin (to avoid unhealthy SC)

7.4.2.2.1. create a "passionate supply chain"

7.4.3. reacting to need / demand for

7.4.3.1. sustainable manufacturing processes

7.4.3.2. increased regulatory pressure

7.4.3.3. scarcity of global resources

7.4.3.3.1. industry wide cooperation

7.4.3.4. more individual consumer demands

7.4.3.4.1. sourced preproducts become more complex

7.4.3.5. increased demand volatility

7.4.3.5.1. many companies see their current processes as too unflexible

7.5. creates value

7.5.1. procurement captures it

7.5.1.1. both functions may be merged in smaller companies

7.5.2. can contribute to innovation

7.5.2.1. needs to be involved earlier in the development process

7.5.2.2. silos between departments need to be opened

7.5.3. collaboration along the supply chain

7.5.3.1. cross-functional Sourcing / SRM teams

7.5.3.1.1. formalized development processes help only in non-complex tasks

7.5.3.1.2. required for trust

7.5.3.1.3. cross-functionality increases internal creativity but reduces external comm capabilities

7.5.3.1.4. autonomy & teamwork training are major drivers for effective teams (more than culture or anything else)

7.5.3.2. competitiveness of product depends on competitiveness of every SC process

7.5.3.2.1. include supplier(s)(!) early in the process to give them lead times for developing required input & identify shortages early

8. Strategy

9. TODO

9.1. self-regulating community

10. Platforms

10.1. Spigit

10.2. Yammer