On May 6, 2013, at OTC in Houston, we re-launched Statoil Innovate – our open innovation portal. Together with two of my colleagues, I had a press briefing in our humble tent that day. It was pretty exciting.
It is that time of year when we not only look to plan for the future, but where we assess the year that has passed. How was 2012? Did we achieve the goals we set out? I guess we all have our expectations and are now reviewing the degree of realization.
I love music.
Aged for hundreds of years or live from a color flashing plateau of drum beats and high heeled moves, I am captured by the originality and all the ideas set to life in the performance. Music connected me with friends from all over the town when my career moved for an intermezzo in Houston. The challenges of performing music have similarities to those who face technology development when it comes to creativity and implementation.
Only 643 of the 487.138 companies registered in Norway in 2012 (1) had more than 250 employees. In fact, around 80% of the companies had less than 5 employees. Then it goes without saying that not all the smartest people in the world work for your company.
“The way Statoil applies its strong technical capabilities in selling and buying is a key differentiating factor in M&A processes.” Both Alex Grant from the investment bank Jefferies and several other bankers have remarked that technology is a key value driver for growth within our industry, also when it comes to business development and positioning for the future. I could not agree more!
By Steingrim Bosheim
We have established solid emergency routines in our day-to-day operations in open water, but the Arctic makes us think differently: We’re moving from open water to ice. Is it possible to tailor our evacuation plan to arctic conditions?
By Vidar Hepsø
Innovation requires novelty but not all sorts of novelty leads to innovation. Many types of novelty will not bring value for an organization and can be considered as problematic, even bad. The key challenge is to evaluate the value and consequences of novelty. A key problem is that our understanding of what creates value stems from existing knowledge and practice. Knowledge is therefore both a source and a barrier for innovation. I have over many years had the pleasure to collaborate with Paul Carlile at Boston University. He has addressed some of the dynamics involved in this process in his theory of innovation. Carlile is studying the “sweet-spot of innovation”. This sweet-spot evolves in an axis of confirmation of one side, and novelty on the other side.
By Magnus Tvedt
I want everyone to be like me, think like me, and act like me. That would make a better world.
There is only one of me, and my thoughts can only be found in my head. Luckily, you might add. But when I invent malgebra, save the world from drought, and double the oil production from our wells, I want to transfer my thoughts into my colleague’s heads and click ‘activate‘. Subsequently they can benefit from my greatness, and be perfect users from day one, without mistakes.
By Karl Johnny Hersvik, Senior Vice President for Research & Development (R&D), Technology, Projects and Drilling (TPD)
First of all; thank you for challenging me, Sigrun.
I believe that your diagnosis is quite precise and that both a change of diet and an increased amount of exercise to make the patient recover fully. The cure might require a lot both from the patient and those watching over her.
I find the topic – Norway’s innovation capabilities – highly interesting. There is reason to claim that both Statoil as a company and the Norwegian oil and gas supply industry have a proud innovative history. What we have achieved together during the last four decades, is by all accounts impressive.
By Sonja Chirico Indrebø
When is the necessity such that we are most likely to find new solutions? Do we need to have a big problem or is a small problem but with a long irritation span enough?
I found the Apollo 13 mission a real proof of the heading above, although I’m not sure there were that many mothers amongst the engineers in the Houston Space Center. The problem at hand was that after an explosion onboard the Apollo 13, they had to save on electricity and oxygen. The engineers in Houston faced the problem that although the astronauts could make it back to earth, they would not have enough air to survive the time needed to return. At the space station in Houston they then copied all the parts that they knew where available in the space station and within an extremely short timespan managed to invent a new gadgets that could clean CO2 out of the air so that they could survive.