Accelerating the commercialization of technology Commercialization through co-operation   Richard A. Siegel, Sten-0lof Hansén and Lars H. Pellas Co-operation is essential to bring technology into the markets where it is needed About ideas As an industrial designer once said, "there are no new ideas in the world, just variations on existing ones". While one could debate this concept indefinitely, in the end what is important is whether an idea can be put to work. Does it matter in the end whether the idea is a new one or a variation on an existing one? Academics may have one view, the business community may have another. To a company, a "good idea", or an idea that works: can produce new revenue streams and profits; create or protect jobs; contribute to the company's long-term stability; and keep stockholders happy. We have begun this discussion about ideas, because a new system, which will be described later - and the role it can play in accelerating and value-adding to the process of technology commercialization - is driven by ideas. Indeed, the entire commercialization process is the realization of a vision based on ideas, whether new or old. Some history Toward the end of World War 11, the USA committed itself to a programme of implementing an idea. The idea was that a massive explosion could be produced by using the power that would result by splitting an atom. So the Manhattan Project was created to implement the "A-Bomb"[1]. The project involved a multi-disciplinary (today called "cross-functional") team of technical specialists each potentially possessing a piece of the "how-to" answer. In the end, as we all know, this group succeeded. It was perhaps the first modern day implementation of multi- disciplinary teams used to implement an idea ... to find new ways ... new directions. The concept of brainstorming was first introduced to the business community by Alex F. Osborn, a principal in the leading American advertising agency, BBD&0[2]. He brought groups of people together to create ("brainstorm") new ideas for advertisements. The groups were largely homogeneous in discipline and from within the advertising agency world. The use of brainstorming was effective in that application, even though the disciplines of the brainstorming participants were essentially similar. As time went on, Osborn's brainstorming techniques were combined with the multi-disciplinary concept of the Manhattan Project to create what became the modern day process of idea generation[3,4]. This more advanced approach resulted in an even greater number of diverse and innovative ideas, thanks to the cross-fertilization of different disciplines that can occur during a brainstorming process. In the time frame of the 1950s and 1960s, the combined use of brainstorming with multi-disciplinary teams was refined and evolved. Think-tanks of all description were created to explore new approaches for dealing with societal issues; while others, more commercial in nature, were created to develop new product and business ideas for industry. To support and extend these efforts, others concentrated on the underlying process needed to facilitate these brainstorming or think-tank events by developing and refining the discipline of creative problem solving (CPS) - which provides us with techniques for enhancing the creativity of individuals and groups - and methodologies for moderating cross-functional groups, involving the use of creative and group dynamics techniques[5]. During the 1970s, a relatively small number of American and European companies became specialists on the process side of idea generation - new business concept development - and provided total project management of this process to companies large and small on both continents. At the time, it was a very appealing, almost magical process. It was exciting and stimulating to all parties concerned - the third party facilitator/manager, the cross-functional participants of the think-tank sessions (academics, social scientists, consultants, trade editors middle management industrialists, artists, etc.), and to the client who was paying the bill. The idea generating process, loosely derived from the Manhattan Project, was now creating new ideas for business, and some of these ideas were being implemented and becoming multi-million dollar successes. Perhaps driven in part by the application of this process, throughout the 1970s and 1980s, companies began to innovate new product ideas and new technologies at a faster and faster rate. Companies were starting to have plenty of ideas for new technologies, new products and new services, but too few of them were being successfully implemented and commercialized. By the mid to late 1980s the global business situation had changed considerably from what it was in the 1960s. Companies in Europe and North America had lots of new technology and know-how in their possession. They had plenty of ideas for new products, materials, technologies, systems, services, etc., and really did not have the same need for the idea facilitation process (the innovation process) discussed earlier. Companies were finding that they were competing with companies that they had never before thought of as competitive threats. Companies in Japan and other Pacific Rim regions were making almost astonishing technological progress and gaining major market shares in a host of industries and industrialized countries by successful implementation of time-based competition[6]. New technologies were changing the way many things were done. The Cold War was over (perhaps), and suddenly a host of unique problems and opportunities existed. Key problems Some of the key problems now facing companies in the USA and Europe were financial, technical, competitive, and organizational. Specifically: There were organizational structures that were out of date and organizational behaviour that needed developing[7-9]. There were extraordinary short-term profit making pressures put on CEOs that induced poor long-term, new business development decision making. Companies were not remaining competitive or moving new products into the market quickly enough, or, if they were, their market and customer targeting was not sufficiently accurate[6]. Jobs were being lost in one industry after another. Lots of new technology and know-how existed in North American and European companies ("the good news"), but not enough was getting out of the door and creating new revenues, profits and jobs ("the bad news"). In many cases, companies had too limited a knowledge of how to do business in unfamiliar geographic regions and/or in unfamiliar markets, where a company's technologies (new or underutilized) could potentially find new opportunities and produce increased profits. A new set of tools was now needed to help facilitate the process of technology commercialization! Of course the problems of the late 1980s continued right into the early 1990s, but not for all companies. Some companies began to see that alliances and co-operation with other companies could produce more significant developments and commercial results than going it alone. The term "strategic alliance" became a buzz word and suddenly some companies were beginning to join forces in technology development and market development. The approach to accelerating the commercialization of technology discussed on the following pages uses the concept of co-operation as its foundation, but in a rather unique way. As we discuss "commercialization through co-operation", you will find ways to address the problems above. But we must recognize that solutions to some problems will be required for this method to work most effectively. Commercialization through co-operation In the pages that follow, we will discuss one solution or "solution path" - a new process for accelerating the commercialization of new or under-utilized technology. To be sure we are all on the same track, and for the purposes of this article, let us begin with a definition for the term "commercialization". By commercialization we mean converting or moving "technology" into a profit-making position. By technology we are referring to know-how, techniques, patented or otherwise proprietary processes, materials, equipment, systems, etc. The solution path we will describe involves "commercialization through co-operation." But before discussing the postulates, principles and philosophies on which this new process is based, we need to put some issues in clear perspective. To do that, let us first bring the history of the "process of innovation" up to date. You will recall we left our discussion of history in the mid to late 1980s where companies had lots of product and service ideas and lots of technologies in the labs, or the manufacturing or service facilities, or simply in the minds of the company's people. It turned out that the process of innovating new ideas was no longer needed nearly as much as the process of implementing ideas. That is, commercializing or significantly broadening the commercialization of products and "technologies," as broadly defined earlier. In the late 1980s and early 1990s, it became quite clear that new techniques and resources would be needed by companies to help them commercialize their technologies more rapidly. The process of innovation had to be converted into a process for commercialization ... while still enabling innovative new ideas to emerge. But now, these ideas needed to be even more immediately relevant to the needs of the market (for short- to mid-term feasibility), and they needed to be implementable using existing or obtainable resources. Earlier, there was a discussion about the multidisciplinary or cross-functional teams of "experts" that were used to innovate new ideas during the period ranging from the 1960s to the 1980s. It turns out that many of these ideas, while intriguing and novel, were not quite so actionable since they often could not be reduced to practice; or they did not directly address a significant market need; or they could not be implemented in a cost-effective manner - or they just could not be implemented at all! Sometimes these ideas did not "feel" comfortable to the company for which they were created. Other ideas, generated on the "outside", seemed no more interesting and appeared no more valuable than ideas the company already had. It turns out that one of the key problems with the approach of creating and commercializing ideas and technologies was a problem of process, and that the types of multi-disciplinary people involved in the process were not well suited to the task of implementation. Since neither the process nor the people used in the earlier "innovation process" was relevant to the technology commercialization needs of companies in the late 1980s and early 1990s, both needed to change. Change the people; change the process While a team of bright people possessing disparate backgrounds such as academics, social scientists consultants, trade editors, middle management industrialists, artists, etc., can, as a group, be facilitated in such a way as to create interesting new ideas for the use of technology, first, they often lack the real world experience to know precisely where and how to utilize a technology, given its cost and second, they are not in a position to do very much about implementing their own ideas and suggestions. We want to emphasize these key points. The multidisciplinary idea generating people and the idea generating processes can create interesting and innovative new ideas. But, by and large, what is created by such people and through this process is not often immediately actionable, since these people lack the solid industry experience to target applications for technology that really fit existing industrial (market) needs. And they lack the authority and influence needed to take commercial actions based on their ideas. From these observations emerged the postulate that there should be a way of accessing individuals who could innovate, evaluate and take commercial action on a good idea. And, that such people should be willing and able to help or co-operate with a company that possesses a potentially significant new or under-utilized technology to bring that technology into those markets that need it. For purposes of our continuing discussion, let us call the "owner" of such potentially significant technology the "sponsoring company". Overall, the postulate suggests that given direct access to the right kind of people, a sponsoring company with a new or underutilized technology would be able to achieve four fundamental objectives. These are: Validate commercialization. That is, determine if one of its technologies has the overall business potential it will need in order to justify commercialization in the first place (if a new technology) or justify the broadening of commercialization (if an under-utilized technology). Realistically assess utility of the technology. Such people could determine key applications, variations, modifications of the technology, i.e. ideas for using the technology, that would directly address known and specific problems and needs that exist in the markets or in industries in which they have considerable and up-to-the-minute experience. By connecting real-world needs with the attributes of a given technology, such ideas offer the potential to create new competitive advantages for customers of products that could result from the application of the technology in question. Part of the approach we are describing here includes some of the idea generation techniques of the earlier described innovation process - but with these types of people, assessment becomes founded on a much more real-world footing. Accurately target commercialization. These people could help the sponsoring company to target those specific markets, industries or industrial sectors which could potentially utilize the technology in a cost-effective manner ... now! ("now" meaning short- to mid-term) And they could identify the leading companies in the world, who could most benefit from involvement with the technology; as a customer, or co-developer, or licensee or through some other form of partnership or alliance. Initiate commercial actions. Most of all, access to such people could provide an immediate path to commercialization, since such people are themselves in a position to do something about their own ideas and suggestions. That is, they can begin to take the critical precommercialization steps with the sponsoring company to determine technical and economic feasibility. It turns out that these people exist - and they are among the international "captains of industry". They can be called "industrial opinion leaders", and they now sit in the chairs once occupied by the multidisciplinary specialists earlier used for idea generation. After the "right" opinion leaders are identified for a given project, they are brought together and interact in such a way as to provide the input needed to accomplish objectives (1), (2), (3) above, and then lay the foundation for the most important objective, (4). The occasion itself is referred to as a summit and the participants as panelists. Collectively, these objectives define the thrust of It commercialization through co-operation", and when effectively implemented, enable the process of technology commercialization or the expansion of commercialization to be dramatically accelerated. Who are the "right" industrial opinion leaders and where do they come from? There are several criteria that define the types of industrial opinion leaders that would be well suited to this approach, and criteria that define the "right" opinion leaders for a specific task. Here are some of the criteria for the "right" opinion leaders: The company for which the opinion leader works is a participant in an industry or market where potential application for the sponsor's technology is suspected, i.e. a potential customer or cooperation partner for the sponsor. And this company is one of the world's innovative leading companies in its field; maybe number one in size, maybe number three or five, but certainly one of the innovative leaders and thus likely to be among the first ones to implement a new technology in that industry. The opinion leader is the one individual in that company who can best assess and evaluate the characteristics and attributes of the sponsor's technology and its specific utility for his/her company. In other words, he/she can readily assess whether it would provide with his company a significant business advantage. Often, this person is that company's top technical or commercial development executive in the area of interest. But, just as important as in the last point, this person, because of his/her place in the organizational structure of the company, possesses the authority to launch a commercial relationship with the sponsor, or has the unique position of being able directly to influence such a commercial decision. If the latter, he or she is the person whose experience and credibility within his/her organization is such that if he or she recommends a commercial action to "the decision maker", the decision maker usually accepts the suggestion without question. The opinion leader is willing to sign a secrecy agreement covering information discussed during the process - and willing to do so without knowing the identity of the sponsor - all to protect sensitive information and ensure objectivity. There can exist no conflicts of interest between opinion leaders involved in a single process or conflicts of interest between the opinion leaders, their companies and the sponsor. Even if there exists the suspicion of a conflict of interest between opinion leaders, it must first be cleared with all opinion leaders. For example, when this process focuses on only one or a few industries where several opinion leaders could be from the same industry, as opposed to a case which explores possibilities for the sponsor in 15 or 20 areas, where all opinion leaders come from entirely different industries. Other criteria are somewhat less tangible and include such personal attributes as willingness to work hard and a good sense of humour. Now that we know who they am... why do they participate in such a process? This gets back to the notion of "commercialization through co-operation". The idea is based on the postulate that the innovative companies of the world should and can co-operate with one another to realize more thoroughly the benefits new technologies and systems can bring to industries, markets and society overall; and that they can do this in a structured, timely and confidential manner. As it turns out, true opinion leading companies, and opinion leaders generally, agree with this notion. But for them, there is more than just a philosophical justification Since this approach applies to companies possessing potentially significant technology, and given its results-to-date, industrial opinion leaders look at participation in this process as an opportunity to gain early access to new technology (new to the world or just new to their industry) that could give them a competitive advantage in their industry. So clearly, there is commercial motivation. While no promises can or should be made in advance, it is only natural and expedient for sponsors of this process to work initially with those summit panelists who have participated and invested their time in the sponsor's commercialization project. And, these panelists represent companies that could be excellent "partnering" candidates for the sponsor. So, through this ad hoc form of "co-operation" between people and companies, everybody can win the panelists and the sponsor. Virtually all of the hundreds of opinion leaders who have participated as panelists in this process since 1987 say they would gladly participate again, when the opportunity arises - even if earlier participation has not yet resulted in a direct commercial benefit. The Summit Business Development System: an overview The process we have been referring to is called the "Summit Business Development System". The event in which the aforementioned industrial opinion leaders interact is termed an "Advanced Technology Summit", or Summit for short, and it involves participation of 12 to 14 such world-class industrial opinion leaders. During the Summit, the team of opinion leaders, i.e. the summit panelists, also lay the foundation for initiating commercial actions (the fourth fundamental objective of the process), which is later implemented through private workshop sessions with a team of "opinion leaders" from the sponsoring company, and a team of high level technical and business managers from the summit panelist's company. Through these follow-on "workshops", relationships are created and work begins to prove out the hypotheses of the summit panelists. Typically, some numbers prove out and commercialization is off the ground. The different phases of the Summit business development system are best described in the form of a case study. For this purpose we have chosen the case of a Scandinavian, medium-sized manufacturer of specialized precision injection moulding and assembly systems, who wanted to learn what overall potential existed in the European and American health-care industries for his special type of moulding and automated assembly processes conducted in controlled environments. Phase I Project planning workshop (PPW). The project was initiated with a series of intensive planning workshops, conducted by two senior facilitators and attended in full by a three-member "core project team" from the sponsoring company plus a number of technical experts on an "as needed" basis. During these workshops, which lasted five working days in total, the project mission, strategic objectives, project objectives and a host of other planning tools were assembled and finalized, including a set of criteria for the commercialization of the technology in question. Following the workshops and based on decisions made there, Summit facilitators started the process of panel research and recruiting, panelist preparation and summit logistical preparations. Panel research and recruiting (PRR). In this activity the facilitating organization ISIS acts on opportunities identified during the PPW as well as its own extensive network of opinion leaders within the industry, often referred to as the Industrial Opinion Leader Network. In close consultation with the sponsor and using its own proprietary techniques, the Summit facilitators scanned the universe of opinion leaders within the European and American health-care industries, finally selecting and agreeing with top executives from 13 category leading companies about their participation in the summit. Panelist preparation (PP). In order to allow the panelists to prepare themselves for the summit, an extensive briefing document was prepared and distributed. Special care is taken not to reveal any classified information or the identity of the sponsor in this document. The latter will not be disclosed to the panelists until after the summit, and even then only if the sponsor gives his permission. In this case, the document was 80 pages, containing general information about the summit process and detailed, non-confidential information about the technology itself, its features and properties and a number of examples of what it could achieve. The briefing document was thoroughly checked by the sponsor before it was sent out to the panelists two weeks prior to the summit, thus giving them time to familiarize themselves with the subject matter and to consult with various experts within the company about specific points of interest or question. Summit logistical preparations. These include facility reservations, traveling arrangements for participants, arranging video filming of the summit, etc. The summit is normally conducted at one of two European or North American conference centres specifically chosen for their capability to handle the complexity of this event, as well as their locations. In this case, because of the composition of the panel and related cost implications, the summit took place in Europe. The Summit. The Summit is conducted over a three-day period, during which panelists are involved for one-and-a-half-days. On the evening preceding the actual occasion the panelists and facilitators met for an "ice breaking/team building dinner". Before the actual summit started the following morning, each participant signed a nondisclosure agreement, effectively prohibiting him from disclosing to anyone information discussed during the summit, as well as an agreement to the fact that any proprietary information coming out of the summit will be the property of the sponsor. The summit itself is conducted by a senior ISIS executive, assisted by one or more ISIS professionals. The proceedings of the occasion are extremely disciplined, allowing very little, if any, deviation from the agenda agreed between ISIS and the sponsor, and aimed at providing maximum information to meet the needs of the sponsor. The entire summit was filmed and watched live at the same location via closed circuit TV by a team of project-related technologists, who had the necessary facilities to interact with the chairman, thus being able to steer the discussion. Following the summit, an intensive analysis was performed by ISIS which included follow-up interviews with panelists for clarification and confirmations of their interests with regard to their companies. Several unique documents were prepared to assist in processing all the information and insight developed by the panel during the summit; by panelists following the summit and from all other sources contacted in the context of more conventional market intelligence gathering. Summit review workshop. Phase I of the summit system ended with a five-day intensive review of all data developed during the summit process. At these workshops, the conclusions and a next steps action plan were created through the collaboration of the sponsor and ISIS "core" project teams (this technique is referred to as "collaborative conclusions"). In the process, business opportunities were prioritized and plans made to establish, for the first time, direct contact between the sponsor and, in this case, because of the high level of interest in the technology, all the panelist companies. In addition, in this case the entire summit was reviewed on video by a larger group of top and middle management within the sponsoring company for the purpose of establishing a broader and better understanding of the market place and its special needs. Total elapsed time for Phase I was 4-5 months. Phase II In the next phase of the summit system, implemented when commercialization is the objective, face-to-face meetings (Summit Transition Workshops) are conducted with high level technical and business development teams from the sponsor's company and the panelists' companies. These workshops are organized and conducted by ISIS facilitators. During these workshops, it is determined where the strongest opportunities lie and whether development of a preliminary relationship between the two companies is warranted and desirable. Objectives at these meetings can vary considerably. In some cases the sale and purchase of products, services or systems is an end-point objective. In others, technology licenses are explored. In still others, collaborations, co-operations, partnerships, codevelopments, and other forms of strategic alliances begin to take shape. In all cases, the potential to launch a commercial relationship of some kind immediately, that can meet the sponsor's commercialization requirements - and the needs and interests of the panelists' companies - is explored, and a preliminary go/no go decision is made. Total duration of phase II is up to four months. Who can benefit from this approach? To see who can, let us first look at some additional examples of those who already have. Case 1: a small Scandinavian manufacturer of a new water purification system During project planning, and based on various analyses, it was decided to assemble a panel comprising world leaders in industries concerned with waste water management and desalination. The panel concluded there were a number of short and long-term applications for the technology; and over half the panel made a commitment to immediate exploration of the possibility of a commercial relationship. The sponsor, who was very small at first, and was able to secure partial government funding for the summit system, was initially able to use the results of the summit to raise several million dollars to fund development and marketing. Additionally, several very large panelist companies made offers to invest considerable technical resources in empirical testing programmes to prove viability in their areas, in return for a lead time advantage in commercialization. Case 2: a large US commodity chemicals company The laboratory of this large US commodity chemicals producer had developed a new molecule expected to have direct utility in one of the company's major market areas, but application had not yet been proven. Faced with the need to continue the project's funding for another year, the head of R&D asked the development team if it had any back-up application areas for the molecule, in case the original target objective failed to prove out. Since the answer was no, this sponsor needed to explore commercial application more fully in other market areas to increase the overall business potential for the project. Following various analyses, it was decided to focus this company's summit into 24 diverse industrial markets, utilizing panelists with multiple expertise and influence so as to cover the 24 markets with only 14 opinion leaders. Since almost all of the markets investigated were unfamiliar to the sponsor, the process became a form of "immersion" training, but of still greater value, over half the summit panelists projected utility for current and modified versions of the molecule in their industries. Collectively, these applications offered sufficient commercial potential to support continued in-house project funding. Armed with these data and a heightened sense of confidence, the project received its funding and the sponsor launched empirical testing with selected panel companies. At least one new product using this molecule entered the consumer market within 18 months of the end of the Summit assignment. Case 3: a new international joint venture company with a unique produce packaging technology A new joint venture company formed by European (Tambox Europe) and North American (Pacific Asia Technologies) parents was positioned to combine new technology from both companies in order to create the next generation of modified atmosphere packaging for the fresh produce industry. Since this area of technology had been controversial in the past, it was decided to involve some of the world's leading produce growers, distributors and retailers from the US and Europe, who already had experience with the technology in earlier technical generations. After studying and questioning the attributes of this new generation of technology, the summit panel concluded it should definitely be commercialized and targeted those products and companies in greatest need of the new packaging system, several of whom were already panel members. The panel also showed the sponsor where system design improvements and changes needed to be made in order to receive market acceptance. Commercialization is well under way and consumers in Europe and North America will be among the first to benefit. Case 4: a large European capital equipment and advanced materials producer More typically involved in the development and manufacture of very sophisticated capital equipment and systems, this manufacturer had developed a new material with unique properties. The company needed to determine whether commercialization was warranted, and if so, where and with whom. Once again, a very broad scope industrial opinion leading panel, comprising top technologists from market-leading companies in Europe and North America, was assembled to study the material and its potential. After considerable innovation and critical evaluation, the panel was able to target several applications that offered the potential to satisfy the sponsor's commercial criteria. In some cases, targeted applications related to companies on the panel. Other applications were targeted at industries and companies not represented. Phase 11 brought the sponsor face-to-face with panelists and nonpanelists alike and several joint development programmes were structured. Based on this, the sponsor created a profit centre around the material, hired a CEO, who in turn hired a preliminary staff, and launched commercialization. Case 5: a medium-sized international commodity and speciality chemicals producer This highly respected European chemical producer wanted to expand its product portfolio with new chemical technologies obtainable from third parties. This summit system used the resources and technique to search and identify properties that could be brought in, rather than technology to introduce out. It was decided to search the US market for complementary and synergistic speciality chemicals which could be purchased or licensed by the sponsor from leading chemical companies with little or no involvement in Europe. Through the summit system, several were found and qualified by two separate panels plus a specialized direct communications package sent to a larger universe. All targets were prioritized, selected companies approached, and negotiations launched. The sponsor had one technology under a first option agreement and in testing, even before the Summit system was concluded. Who else can benefit from this approach? The applications for the "commercialization through co-operation" Summit system seem limited only by the imagination, given the potential to assemble a panel of high level industrial opinion leaders from virtually any industry or from any market. The power such a group possesses to forecast, assess, target and support rapidly and reliably commercialization of virtually any potentially significant technology, product, system, service or even just a unique area of know-how is enormous. The case histories reveal some of the versatility inherent in the approach and suggest just some of the types of companies who can benefit from it. Traditionally, this system has been used by companies whose businesses are supported by development and/or use of advanced technologies, often including companies involved in advanced materials, capital equipment, communications, electronics, speciality chemicals, computers, polymers, forest products, medical/health care and many others. Typical objectives for the system have included one or more of the following: Introduce new technology to multinational markets. Structure "strategic alliances" to accelerate commercialization. Enter new markets with existing, perhaps under- exploited technology. Launch new products, services or businesses in unfamiliar markets. Secure market intelligence, forecast the future of an industry, identify new market and business opportunities. Search for, acquire or license new technologies or technical capabilities. Assess the value and potential of a new technology. Summary The approach described in these pages represents a new way of thinking about technology commercialization, innovation and business planning, overall. While its roots may be tracked back to the process employed by the Manhattan project and Osborn[2], it bears little resemblance to these ancestral predecessors. The Summit Business Development System, for now, stands alone as a disciplined implementation of the concept of commercialization through co-operation and provides a contemporary way to exploit technology in diverse industries and markets more rapidly and fully, on a global basis. By forming, early on, co-operation between sponsors (technology developers) and opinion leading companies (technology beneficiaries), the approach dramatically shortens the time required to address some of today's key business problems and challenges. The approach provides ready access to people best qualified to provide commercial development guidance for new or under-utilized technology. It enables companies to enter unfamiliar markets by "partnering" with trend setting companies through licenses, joint ventures, etc. It enables development or co-development of unfamiliar new products or systems through collaboration or joint development with trend setting companies who are expert and leaders in their fields. It increases the odds of succeeding in the commercial development process overall by ensuring that there exist alternative directions and options available to the technology's developer (i.e. it avoids gambling on only one direction, no matter how right and appealing the one direction may seem). It provides a structured and controlled way for those companies whose businesses have been negatively affected by global changes to find and implement new business directions, and to protect and increase jobs, through conversion of their technologies and areas of know-how into new applications (such as defense industry contractors throughout North America and Europe). It presents a practical and controlled way to develop new business in global markets for companies whose marketing resources or international connections are not as well developed as their technological skills and resources. Finally, effective use of the results of this system offers the potential to guide the future of industries, while providing societal contributions. Beyond strictly commercial objectives Having demonstrated application to the tasks listed above, variations of this process are being studied to: assist states within the former Soviet Union and Eastern Europe to bring the benefits of their technologies more rapidly into "Western" markets - while deriving desperately needed capital required for societal rebuilding; generate and implement solutions to social and societal problems on a regional and international basis. These are areas in which we believe international opinion leaders can make important contributions, not just through their ideas, but through their actions! While the summit process does not yet help companies redesign outdated organizational structures or remove pressures on CEOs to focus primarily on short-term profits - two of the contemporary business problems cited earlier - it does enable companies possessing high potential "technology" to initiate new and significant commercial actions within five to six months of start - and it does prove that through co-operation almost anything can be done - and it can be done quickly!   References Kunetka, J.W., City of Fire: Los Alamos and the Birth of the Atomic Age, 1943-1945, Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ, 1978. Osborn, A.F., Applied Imagination, Charles Scribner's Son, New York, NY, 1963. Husch, T. and Foust, L., That's a Great Idea! The New Product Handbook, Gravity Publishing, CA, 1986. Keil, J.M., The Creative Mystique: How to Manage It, Nurture It, and Make It Pay, John Wiley & Sons, New York, NY, 1985. Bacon, F.R. Jr and Butler, T.W. Jr, Planned Innovation, University of Michigan, MI, 1981. Stalk, G. Jr. and Webber, A.M., "Japan's dark side of time", Harvard Business Review, July-August 1993, pp. 93-102. Drucker, P.F., The Frontiers of Management: Where Tomorrow's Decisions Are Being Shaped Today, E.P. Dutton, New York, NY, 1986. Senge, P.M., The Fifth Discipline, Doubleday, New York, NY, 1990. Garvin, D.A., "Building a learning organization", Harvard Business Review, July-August 1993, pp. 78-91.   Richard A. Siegel is President and CEO of ISIS International Inc., a Connecticut-based international consultancy specializing in business growth, technology exploitation and product innovation. He can be reached at +1-203-261-5300 or fax +1-203-261-4911. ISIS is at www.isisusa.com. Sten-Olof Hansén is Professor of International Marketing at Vaasa University, Finland; and Lars H. Pellas is Vice President, Business Development at MediNet International Ltd., Turku, Finland. © 1995 Richard A. Siegel Article republished with permission of MCB University Press. RETURN TO ACTIONABLE ADVICE