Will 2013 be the big innovation tool year?

December 22, 2012 – 12:09 PM

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.

This year has been a year of change in Statoil, we are now embarking on a big change agenda and ensuring alignment on goals and activities. What about innovation under such circumstances? When I look back, I see great achievements also in this time of change. What seems to be a common denominator amongst them is that real innovation happens amongst people. It’s about the intersection where people discuss and build on each other to solve the challenges or find new opportunities for our business. That is great, but it also shows that tools are still tools and not the actual innovation engine. We will therefore also for 2013 be greatly dependent on people skills and competencies to outsmart our competitors and not outspend them :-)

I am sure everybody is looking at the opportunity of using new tools to innovate. We are launching internally an idea portal on our internal ‘My Profile’. Maybe this can help us having even bigger impact on bringing people together not only when they share a coffee stand or are in the same department, but also across geographies and organization. We do a lot of work to get overview of external ideas, but we should not forget the immense potential that lies within a competence organization. So 2013 will hopefully be a year where we take our innovation to the next level, leveraging external market opportunities with internal ideas and opportunities.

Looking forward to the next challenges I’m pretty sure that as we live in ‘The Age of the Unthinkable’ (book by Joshua Cooper Ramo), we have to continue to listen well before coming up with solutions. There is a reason why we have TWO ears and ONE mouth :-)

Happy holidays!

By Sonja Chirico Indrebø | Posted in Technology Development | Comments (4)

Wigs and Disco

November 15, 2012 – 2:45 PM

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.

A friend of mine, named Ludwig van, was hired to be the king’s private composer and he wore a wig to confirm his social status. Every month the king had a party and Ludwig van was responsible to get everyone dancing. Ludwig van was always humming a new melody and scribbled down one masterpiece after the other, faster than you can say “I think gas injection is going to be a step change in oil recovery from the deep water Gulf of Mexico fields, but we need to make sure we can operate in a safe manner”. Ludwig van had to renew himself for every composition to keep the king happy, so he would have food and drinks on his own table until the next concert.

Boy did he have skills. He had a tiger-dad and the best teachers boosting him on Allegros, Mezzo Fortes and popular music formulas. The audience got what they expected and more . The steps were left, right, left and then left again in the dance halls, with giant chandeliers of burning light hanging from the decorated ceilings. More tears and love were seen when Ludwig van was in charge of the music than in any funeral. And when the king or a prince was in the mood – a string quartet under Ludwig van’s direction would accompany the dinner for two with so much compassion that arrows of love, roses and underwear would fly through the hallways of the king’s castle.

Another friend of mine, with the disco name Studio 55, had a non-tiger upbringing in our own times. She had the pleasure of posing on stage with a fun-loving, wide collared party band in a smaller town on the world map. Her band played existing compositions and added their own twist to the music to shake them up for their audience. Her disco band would deliver what the audience expected and more. They did moves like the disco man and the train; they had loads of talent and were always on their high heels to improve their performances. The band had a disco showdown image that made the discotheques go crazy, weddings last for an extra day, and after they started wearing white suits on stage, a white suit factory renamed their premises to The Disco Mill and paid their forever-dancing-and-smiling workers with bling.

One day the three of us had a walk down Memory Lane. Studio 55 and Ludwig van were discussing what the most challenging part of their musical careers was. Well, said Ludwig van, I have spent my life reinventing myself. What has always surprised me, like a jump to the Trio (white powder to drizzled off his wig as he laughed of his dry sheet-music reference), is the significance of convincing myself and my band that I had picked the right chords and solo instruments. It has not been one free ride here, Ludwig van emphasized before he continued. No matter how great my latest composition has been, if I have not been able to spread the enthusiasm for the piece, the audience would not dance, nor would the king keep me on his payroll. And I would be without steaks and beds for my family.

Ludwig van had grown a sense for punch lines and concluded: I’ve got the range from pianissimo to fortissimo under my skin, what’s always been the string on the violin, the f-minor of a funeral, or the opposition in a Shostakovich, was how I have been able to sell my new music and ideas. You know, although my music seems obvious to you, I was the Bieber of my time, the train was just rolling a bit slower than today.

That’s not unlike my experiences, said Studio 55, a bit distressed by meeting Ludwig van in person. She continued with how her band had grown with trying out increasingly more advanced concert concepts up to speaking a foreign language, adding stage outfits, and how they had been motivating each other to do the simple yet recognizable choreography on stage. I had to wrap any new idea in whizz-bangs of gold and silver; we’re walking down the Disco Avenue with a pride that will be remembered. If Ludwig van wanted punch lines, he would get punch lines.

Last week I went with my (real) colleagues to New Orleans to meet with government representatives administrating the offshore oil and gas industry in USA, while Ludwig van and Studio 55 held a punch line one-on-one where this story left them. In New Orleans we discussed the technologies we are working on in our Crack the Paleogene initiative, such as Multiphase Pumps and Multilateral Technology.

In our ambitious plans for crossing energy frontiers in the Gulf of Mexico we have a strong portfolio of technology projects that have significant potential for the future of our deep water investments. How we manage to implement our key stakeholder’s opinions to our projects has everything to say for the success of the technologies.

I’m not sure Ludwig van and Studio 55 would have promoted the concepts of gas injection and multi-phase pumps any better than we did, but they would surely know what was on our mind.

Being one step ahead takes more than technical skills.

By Magnus Tvedt | Posted in Technology Development | Tagged , , , , , , , | Comments (3)

Openness or secrecy

October 26, 2012 – 5:03 AM

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.

Getting access to new ideas
There are 6.8 billion people in the world – it’s an enormous amount of knowledge out there – and plenty of people holding knowledge that you do not have direct or indirect access to. Many of the most successful international companies have realized this. Their strategy is now more and more about how to get access to these people and their ideas. Many of the companies that perform best are those who utilize that knowledge base and exploit it to develop new products and services. This is called ‘Open innovation’.

To get the right answers you have to raise questions. And look for things in unusual contexts. From a trip to Stockholm many years ago.

Time is money
For the sake of clarity; Innovation is not just about new technology or products. Schumpeter defined innovation as new combinations of resources, eg. products, services, processes, markets, raw materials or re-organising entire industries.

Self-catering in banks or at IKEA are examples of service innovation. Actually it is also an example of process innovation – new ways of organizing work – because companies need fewer employees to perform a service. Other examples of new ways of organizing work can be found in the company Gore, who produces the Gore-Tex brand. Here an idea become an official project if an employee manages to convince other employees that it is worth it and get them to spend time on it.

In Google employees can use up to 20% of their time to work on their own projects and ideas. The same can be said about 3M, Apple and Virgin, they all have means to get ideas brought to the table. And the ideas that come out of such process innovations create new growth and profitability for companies. They actually often prove to be the most profitable new assets.

Secrecy or openness
Most companies come to a point in time where they need to look for new ways to secure further growth. I argue that innovation is a highly suitable growth strategy, taken into consideration brand development, to-market strategies, cost and building a sustainable competitive advantage.

But isn’t it so, that innovation often has the basis in internal processes – either through regular R&D work, or dedicated personnel in a company that is set to develop and refine new products, services or business models?

Many companies and organizations have a tendency to keep a lid on such research and development; “We must not disclose this method”, “we can not post that on the Internet”, are statements to be heard in such environments. Positioning and competitive strategies, by the learning of Porter and Ansoff, has created high barriers for sharing of knowledge. But the way to innovate and bring new ideas to the market is changing radically. And introvert forms of innovation is being replaced by open innovation.

Nowadays it’s a trend among major international companies to look for innovative power other places than before. IBM and Proctor&Gamle have been pride examples of companies doing just that. The companies openly states the areas where they have challenges, which innovative solutions they are seeking and they connect to external environments that can bring on new ideas.

How it works
The difference between open and closed innovation can be illustrated using a funnel, as cleverly explained by leading scientist on the topic, Henry Chesbrough. In a closed system the ideas come in one way and goes out one way. Capturing ideas, selecting and further developing them, mostly happens within the company. Some ideas are stopped before they get to mature and only ideas that fit in to the existing business strategy are taken to market. The rest are often placed in a drawer.

Illustrates a closed innovation system, where ideas come in one way and out the other. (Henry Chesbrough)

In an open innovation system both ideas from within a company and ideas from the outside come into the funnel through various ways. New technology and input from both external and internal sources can be assessed during the process, and ideas can be better adapted to applied technology or methods. Typical external sources are clients, vendors, partners, competitors, academia and firms from other industries. Statoil did in fact do just that developing our new rig concepts, designing them in collaboration sessions together with vendors such as rig owners, drilling contractors and yards. Applying known technology in new ways.

Illustrates an open innovation funnel, more collaborative, where ideas come in different ways and goes out different ways. (Henry Chesbrough).

The ideas can also be taken out in the market in different ways, either through the establishment of joint ventures, licensing the idea, establishing spin-off companies or by using the company’s own marketing and sales channels.

Of course intellectual property (IP) rights needs to be clarified in such processes, I will not address that spesifically this time.

Sharing is beliving
Open innovation is not merely a method reserved for big companies with a large spend on R&D. It is as much of an attitude and a way of thinking. It is an approach to knowledge that is useful for any manager; to share knowledge gives more knowledge! New ways to share information, inspiration and ideas can be used in areas such as product design, distribution, marketing models, business models, social responsibility, market research, licensing, sales, and not to forget research and development.

Connect and develop
Proctor&Gamble was an example I looked in to when I wrote my MBA thesis on branding and innovation. Their innovation program “Connect&Develop” is built on a philosophy that the company’s researchers and developers should seek to find experts and environments to help the company’s further development and growth. The CEO of Proctor&Gamble stated to BusinessWeek in 2010 that they had partners for around 50 % of new products, whichupon they obviously saved huge costs. Thus they increased their profit margin even though they still spent a lot of money on R&D and branding to support innovation. This is a way of thinking also familiar to Statoil. Two years ago we launched an open innovation website “innovate.statoil.com” where people can register their ideas and get funding or connect with communities that can develop the idea with them. We also launch innovation challenges on topics where we need new ideas.

Critical to drive growth
The motive most companies provide as reason to move toward a more open innovation approach is a belief that exploiting the technology that exists outside of the company is critical to driving growth. Open innovation ensures that innovation is speeded up and the product or service comes to market faster – with a better business model. An open innovation process can provide shared risk and shared costs. But not only that, according to McKinsey (and pure logic), companies could also achieve profitability through enhanced brand or strategic position.

The question is, are you willing to open up and give away some power to achieve higher profitability?

(1) offshore industry excluded, source: ssb.no

By Inger Lise Aarrestad Rettedal | Posted in Innovation strategy | Tagged , | Comments (10)

Three steps to position for the future

October 3, 2012 – 11:49 AM

“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!

In my view, the winners of tomorrow will be the companies that are able to foresee the true value technology can add, and at the same time identify the right opportunities to apply it. This is a demanding task in a world with increasing speed and volatility, but something that will be important going forward.

The areas with the most resources offer complex technical challenges but also a lot of reward. Despite the subsurface and deep water challenges in the Gulf of Mexico, pre-salt Angola or East Africa, Statoil and other companies are in fierce competition for the best opportunities.

With increased competition and a growing difference between the good and bad opportunities, the margins are diminishing. This calls for an even greater focus on applying technology in smart and efficient ways to maximise value creation and make the right decisions the first time.

I think there are three steps we can take to improve when positioning for the future:

Identify technology value drivers early
Technology will continue to be a differentiating factor when we are writing tomorrow’s history, both for Statoil and our competitors. The longer the time horizon and the higher the uncertainty, the greater the value added from technology in the event of success. It is within such areas that we have to start to prepare already now!

One example is the Arctic. It holds significant resources which will be important in the longer term, but several challenges remain unsolved. With our experience from harsh environments, we are well positioned and have many initiatives on going to stretch even further. And we take on new opportunities where we can leverage this competence through new opportunities like in our partnership with Rosneft in Russia.

Work more integrated
With an even stronger link between our technology capabilities and the positions we take through business development, we will be able to prioritize and increase our true bidding power for the right opportunities.  To achieve this we must be prepared to evaluate a wider range of options, where commercial and technical disciplines are more integrated. We may also have to work in new types of collaborations with our suppliers and partners. We must be prepared to take on some risk, but fail cheap and succeed fast.

Constant hunger to learn from others, including different industries
Although our past experience gives a solid starting point, the solution to future challenges might not always be in our back yard. We need to have a mindset for innovation. By acknowledging the common challenges between the space industry and oil industry, we have been able to exchange ideas and apply technology used in space to our operations. Constant hunger to learn from others, including different industries can open new opportunities.

I hope you agree that it will only be more exciting to work in our business going forward, especially with the complex and challenging areas growing rapidly. I have shared some views on what it will take to maximize value by using technology as a differentiator. What do you think will be most important to position for the future?  Writing tomorrow’s history starts today, so please share your ideas and let’s do it together!

By Ragnhild Ulvik | Posted in Innovation strategy, Technology Development | Tagged , , | Comments (2)

Finding the best solutions for evacuation in the Arctic

August 28, 2012 – 11:39 AM

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?

Statoil is stepping up the activity in the Arctic. 25% of what is regarded as the remaining undiscovered oil and gas in the World is believed to be in the Arctic, and Statoil wants to be among the companies developing this area in a safe way. We have access to acreage in Canada, Russia, Alaska and Greenland that is of high interest to investigate. We have access to acreage in the Norwegian Arctic as well, but these areas don’t have ice.

Up to now Statoil has only been responsible for drilling and production of offshore oil and gas in open water with no ice. But in the areas mentioned there will be ice most of the year and only a short season free of ice. In the near future; say the next 4-5 years drilling will only be done in the open season period, but in a longer timeframe we hope to be able to drill in some ice as well. We will first participate as a partner with some of those that already has been drilling in the Arctic for some years. This will raise a lot of new challenges for the drilling, and we will need drilling equipment’s tailored for operation in ice. We must have safe system where we can drill without harming the environment or people on board. If we are able to find oil and gas, as we hope, we need to develop good projects for the best and safest way to bring the oil out and this will raise new challenges. So do you have some good ideas? In all this development we will need help and input form people outside Statoil.

Take the challenge HERE!

Escape, evacuation and rescue (EER)
The risk for a serious incident is low, but still we need to plan for potential accidents and find the best solutions for evacuation and rescue. Escape is to move from an unsafe area to a safe location on the installation, and we believe that this is not that different from how it is organized in the North Sea. Evacuation is to leave the installation if this is needed, and rescue is to bring the people to another safe area on land or in a stand-by vessel. This will be very different if it is ice in the area.

In the North Sea the preferred way of evacuation is by helicopter, but if it is too much fog you can’t use these. Then we have to look for other options; the lifeboats. Although they have never been used within Statoil, all the installations have free fall lifeboats in case of an emergency. As I am sure you understand this solution is not acceptable in the Arctic since ice may be present.

(Stepwise approach/)Evacuation
Many ideas for evacuation have been assessed but we still need more good proposals from you. Phase one is to develop a lifeboat that can handle ice. We think this is more or less a matter of cost. The hull must be strengthened so that ice does not harm it etc. But in the longer run we are looking for solutions when most of the area around an installation is covered by ice. How could we get away from the installation if it is not enough water to use a lifeboat, and not solid ice where we can use the ice surface for transportation? Good ideas are most welcome. We are searching for options that can solve these challenges right now and some have proposed to use a submarine and this might work, but it is extremely expensive both to develop and maintain since you need a professional crew. Maybe we could use the air, but this is also challenging in a cold winter storm.

If we have at least partly open water we can use a davit launching mechanism for setting out a lifeboat. This is the same type of launching as you can find on most ships if they don’t have free fall lifeboat.

But if there is ice covering most of the surface we have new challenges. The ice is always moving, if it is not close to the shore though. An installation that is standing in the ice will therefore have ice braking up along the side of the installation. Launching a vessel must be done outside this zone to be safe. This will also require new solutions. Do you have any proposal?

Rescue
The last challenge is the rescue part. The people in the lifeboat or the “lifevehicle” have to be rescued from the ice surface or the water. If it is -30oC and windy you have to be in the lifeboat/lifevehicle until a rescue team can pick you up. It might even be ice bears outside. This has to be done in a safe manner. Maybe we can use helicopter or maybe we need other solutions. We are looking for the good solutions and would like input from you. Maybe you need to stay in the lifeboat/lifevehicle for a day or two before the rescue team can pick you up, either one by one or all at the same time. How would you solve this?

We have several challenges tied up to the Arctic. Do you have a good idea that could be a key factor to fully unlock the resources of the North? You are welcome to do so in the comments below – or simply take the challenge!

By Steingrim Bosheim | Posted in Technology Development | Tagged , , , , , , | Comments (8)

Innovation requires novelty but not all sorts of novelty leads to innovation

August 15, 2012 – 10:53 AM

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.

100% confirmation is a world where everything is stable, predictable and in a steady unchangeable state. Here innovation is impossible and everything has a ready-made content. It is easy to confirm value because nothing changes and there is no uncertainty associated with the choices taken. In the other extreme 100% novelty, the world is chaotic and innovation is not possible either because there is no way to confirm the value and the consequences of the novelty. It becomes problematic to learn from both these situations.

So an innovation is somewhere 100% novelty and 100% confirmation, this is the space of possibilities for a sweet-spot. For Paul Carlile a “sweet-spot of innovation” is where the value of novelty can be confirmed. If this is not the case, the innovation is outside the area of the sweet-spot. The problem is of course that we perceive the world differently based on our cultural background and education. What is value for A need not be for B. The effectiveness of a sweet-spot is determined by the relational capability of actors and artifacts. For A and B to communicate, a sweet-spot needs to be relational at the border between them. A can be in a more novel space with a long term focus, like research. B can is in a more confirmatory space like operations and has to deliver tomorrow. A and B have to communicate and share practice for their relative positions to become visible. In this communication process artifacts play a role in mediating between A and B. An artifact is an object made or shaped by A or B’s efforts, a product of their conception or agency. These artifacts employed by A and B can be anything from a shared language with common syntax, a new IT-system, a CAD-drawing, a spread-sheet, a work process chart, a mandatory document or any type of artifact that enables A and B to convey some sort of shared meaning.

An infrastructure for innovation always consists of people and material/ immaterial artifacts. Every artifact has a capacity to represent novel circumstances since it can be used between people to help them communicate and innovate together. But artifacts can also get in the way of innovation. This means that artifacts can have some inherent elements. As the relation between A and B changes artifacts also have to change.

A and B’s ability of to use artifact may differ, but they must have an ability to use particular artifacts to identify novelty and confirm its value. Old abilities must be changed and new ones developed. This is where the word capability that I have used previously in my blog comes in again. The capability is the capacity and ability to identify novelty and confirm its value. There is always the question to ask: what do we keep and what do we change? This relational capability that A or B has provides an infrastructure for innovation that supports the movement from novelty to confirmation, a process that Carlile describes as a transformation cycle. There are  some important questions for organizational design if we want to succeed with innovation:

  • How does one design an organization that has the proper focus on novelty vs. confirmation? If a high confirmation mentality is too prominent bureaucratic procedures and short term operational focus will dominate. With too much high novelty chaos would rule the organization
  •  How is the organization able to detect and deal with novelty?
  • The work and governance processes that enable us to go from a high novelty case, assess its value/ consequences and create a high confirmation practice, what do they look like?
  • What communication practices and artifacts can help different knowledge domains move into the same sweet-spot?

In my next blog I will argue how this way of thinking can shed new light on our understanding of technology readiness-levels (TRL).

By Vidar Hepsø | Posted in Innovation strategy, Technology Development | Tagged | Comments (1)

When (wantEffect) then codeIdeas;

July 31, 2012 – 1:36 PM

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.

 

I’m not the only one thinking of transferring skills. The armed forces are trying to stare goats down (I’ve read that in a book), aviation technical writers create hats to avoid mind control from the aliens (I’ve seen that on the internet, and managers keep trying to get everyone to march in the same direction (just like nature). But aspirations of uniform communication are met with challenges.

Every day you have the opportunity to inspire others with your ideas. But rather than doing what you intended, they add their interpretation and experience to the intentions, and do something unexpected. And we don’t want that, do we? You want them to do exactly what you think is best; why else would we bother teaching them? There is a way to ensure that everyone marches in the same direction – with software.

The computer, not the dog, is man’s best friend. The computer does exactly what you tell it, as long as you have software that supports you. And as long as electrons are flowing through the wiring, it is happy. The computer never eats your sofa when you are gone, or goes romantic on your leg when your friends are visiting, but be aware, network trouble can cause more abdominal pain than Montezuma’s revenge. Know when to call an expert to solve your network problems.

Software can save you hours of explanation and persuasion. Just have it installed, and you control the process by the code in the software. By controlling the software, you can monitor safeguards, set limitations, and ensure everyone is following the plan and rules. Be careful though, if it’s not user friendly, fancy looking and well integrated with all other software, the software is out of the OS before you can say ‘while you hold these three buttons and scroll the mouse, follow the yellow ruler and compress the handle bars on that light grey archive to save it to export mode’.

When asked, I recommend that students learn some basic programming skills. Sooner or later, you will have an idea that you want distributed and adopted by many people. You might not be making software yourself, but you will be dealing with people who do. If you don’t know elementary programming, you get software that does not do what it should, costs too much, and does all the things the programmer thought was useful. Your software ends up on this list.

With clever use of software, one step at a time, you will all be my drones. Maniacal laugh

By Magnus Tvedt | Posted in Technology Development | Tagged , , , , | Comments (2)

I feel confident that the patient will survive!

June 26, 2012 – 10:25 AM

 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.

Despite an impressive technology history, we can not rest on our laurels. Globally there is a massive global focus on innovation and technology development, not only in our industry. And the ambitions are sky high. I love the first sentence of “Innovation and Research Strategy for Growth” published by UK Department for Business Innovation and Skills: “The UK has the potential to be a world leader in innovation”. That is the kind of attitude that I like!

However, the business environment are changing, and changing rapidly. The technological challenges are becoming more complex. We are going deeper, longer and colder. Innovation is a key factor to solve the challenges facing us. Statoil is an international oil and gas company with activities all over the world. We are recruiting globally, we are collaborating with the best wherever they may be, our ambition is to become a world leading research and development organization. Still, we are dependent on an internationally competitive, vigorous and innovative industry in Norway.  

Statoil we are taking the consequences of the global changes and our drive to become world leading.

  • We are changing our name from Research & Development to Research, Development & Innovation. This is not a cosmetic change. Through the establishment of a new business unit that will only focus on innovation, we are putting innovation higher on the agenda and will work more systematically with innovation as a tool
  • We are going to learn from the best. Innovation is about collaboration and networking – through RDI we will systematically work to broaden the networks both internally and externally and enhance the innovation capabilities in Statoil. The agreement with University of Texas at Austin is one example
  • We are going to work more systematically to recognize and facilitate radical innovation. A team has been established to enhance our capabilities for radical thinking and testing of out of the box ideas
  • We will develop tools and structures that improves innovative efforts in Statoil
  • We will equip our leadership with tools that enables them to stimulate innovation. Quality in leadership is essential. The Technology Capture Forum is assessing ideas and provide advice and funding for further development. This ensures management involvement at high level – early in the process
  • We are globalizing our activities to be closer to the most innovative environments
  • We are increasing our RD budget with 25% from 2011 to 2012
  • Statoil’s Global Strategy and Business Development unit (GSB) is instrumental in Statoil’s further success for business and commercial opportunities. This unit has significantly raised the issue of how to become more innovative through e.g. the ProtoForum where key managers across business areas are gathered to share experience, knowledge and identify common areas of interest for further development
  • We have established innovation fascilitators on our locations to support inventors through low threshold funding and networking with their peers
  • We are reaching out to people with great ideas through this website because we strongly believe that there are so many clever people outside our company. This site is in it’s early phase and we learn as we go – but expect a more aggressive and more visible messages from this site in near future! We will make it clear that we are serious about innovation – and that when working with us is truly an experience worthwhile the passion and hard work for the good ideas

To sum it up: We have a proud technology heritage in Statoil. Now we are stepping up our efforts within research, technology development and innovation.

The patient will survive but the recovery will demand a lot from us!

By Karl Johnny Hersvik | Posted in Innovation strategy | Tagged | Comments (3)

Necessity – The mother of all inventions?

June 20, 2012 – 11:50 AM

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.

When do we in our everyday work feel the necessary sense of urgency to put our best efforts together and invent a solution to an important problem? Since I was little and learnt about this story I have always had it in the back of my mind when I have faced a problem – what do I have available and how could that solve the issue I am facing?  

Could this be an interesting exercise for you and your team to play the role of the ground team in Houston and sit together and solve issues that you know your business is trying to solve?  The start could be the famous words of: Houston we have a problem!  

Maybe you need a mother to join :-) , at least I fit in that category being the proud mother of three children!! So what do you think it takes for you and your team to get inspired and be innovative together?

By Sonja Chirico Indrebø | Posted in Technology Development | Tagged | Comments (12)

Will the patient survive, Doctor?

June 13, 2012 – 12:05 PM

By Sigrun Daireaux

Recently, several public innovation evaluations and strategies have been published. Together they give an interesting – or alarming? – picture of the healthiness of the Norwegian innovation capabilities. Tell me, Doctor – will the patient survive?

Early February, the European Union presented their Innovation Union Scoreboard 2011. The report is based on 25 research and innovation related indicators, and includes the 27 EU countries as well as “outsiders” like Iceland  and Norway. The countries are divided in four groups. Amongst the “innovation leaders” are Sweden, Denmark, Finland and Germany – well above the average. These are followed by the “innovation followers”, all around the EU average. Thereafter, “moderate innovators”, all below the EU average – and where we find Norway. And in the bottom are the “modest innovators”. 

In addition, the study concludes, the EU is not able to close the innovation gap to the USA and Japan, and Brazil and China are catching up with us.

Only a week later, Statistics Norway published a study showing that the share of Norwegian companies introducing innovations to the market is declining – and has been since 2004. 

In parallel, the  the Norwegian government published their report ”Norge 2020: Hva skal vi leve av i fremtiden?” (Norway 2020: What shall we live off in the future?). The report sest out stating that we need to build the future on our current recognized strengths, and that innovation is crucial to be competitive. In the words of Norway 2020: ”Where will future demand growth be? What technologies and solutions must be developed? In which areas has Norway distinctive prerequisites to succeed? What important development trends will influence us?” 40 younger industry leaders and union representatives have been involved in the work, representing a wide variety of the Norwegian industries; from fisheries and energy to design and communications. And the result? The most specific response I was able to find, was by Per Benjaminsen, CEO of biotech company ProBio ASA: “The future wealth will come from the sea. Biotechnology will have a significant economic impact for the future value creation.” This is quite possibly true. And I wish the rest of the report had been – at least – as specific. Unfortunately, it is not. Aside this one statement, there is no direction, no actions, no statements saying what Norway should focus on. Is Norway able to become a country independent of its oil wealth? Will the patient (innovation in decline, already below EU average, and also lagging internationally) survive? My opinion is no, not based on this document.

Is there nothing to do, then? Well – almost at the same time, the UK Department for Business Innovation and Skills published their ”Innovation and Research Strategy for Growth”. The similarities in ambitions, and the difference in the results, compared to Norway 2020, are striking. Where Norway 2020 is vague, the BIS reports rapidly gets very specific, stating focus areas and concrete actions – even with a timeline! Highlights are:

  • Launching technology and innovation centres within six specific areas (“Catapult centres”) to commercialise innovation and research to be competitive internationally
  • Improve incentives for small and medium-size enterprises (SMEs) – with measurable and specific numbers and initiatives
  • International cooperation initiatives started to internationalise UK businesses and get access to foreign funding

The BIS also states clearly within which sectors the UK industry innovation shall focus. Some examples are:

  • Life sciences (pharmaseutical/biotechnology, specifically cell therapy)
  • High value manufacturing (space industry)
  • Nanotechnology
  • Offshore renewable energy (wind, wave, tidal)
  • Emerging technologies (synthethic biology, energy-efficient computing, energy harvesting, graphene)

I find this level of detail impressive, encouraging and brave. This of course does not mean that all other UK businesses need to change their course. But it means that there will be a high public focus on funding and driving industry development and innovation within these areas. I believe this sort of focus will actually help the UK succeed in their ambitions, creating jobs and generating globally competitive products.

Conclusion: There is hope. If we could get as action oriented as the UK, I believe there would be hope for Norwegian industry in competing with the international best. But it requires the ability to prioritise, and the courage to communicate the priorities. Let’s start with Statoil, and let me start with challenging my own R&D head: Karl Johnny Hersvik, what do we prioritise? Can we save the patient?

By Sigrun Daireaux | Posted in Innovation strategy | Tagged , , , | Comments (4)
Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 91 other followers