Their models are different, their corporate cultures are sometimes in opposition, and yet it is now fundamental for large groups to embrace the levers of disruptive innovation. Startups and large companies must learn to talk to each other, to get used to each other, and finally to collaborate in a digital world where the integration of disruptive business models is often the key to future growth.

Based on this observation, many actors are setting up mechanisms to promote innovation and exchange. While the corporate startup studio appears to be one of the best solutions to meet the need for disruptive innovation, many options are commonly explored by large companies. Let us take a look at the different options available.

1- Acquire mature startups

All large companies see the acquisition of a startup as a strategic opportunity. However, the acquisition can sometimes be disappointing. This can lead to frustration. Both for the acquirer, for example, concerning slow returns on investments, and for startups, that are highly sensitive to the hierarchy of large companies and may lose what makes them strong: their agility and their creativity.

Pros and cons.

For nearly 10 years, large companies, that have historically held a dominant position in the market, have rightly perceived that the massive digitalization movement, driven by the creation of highly disruptive startups, was likely to undermine this position. These large companies have also realized that they will not be sufficiently equipped in terms of agility to take advantage of the new opportunities created by the digital revolution.

Therefore, we are in a race to buy, or at the very least, to invest! Large companies that want to find themselves a seat at the table and have significant financial resources literally want to “create a shopping list” of startups. The checkbook is open and the shopping cart must now be filled. The founders of startups see it as a very successful way to make their exit, or to acquire substantial resources to, in turn, acquire a dominant position and gain a head start over their direct competitors, who are just as disruptive and determined as they are.

Thus, when Microsoft acquired Semantic Machines for $1 billion in May 2018, the founders of the startup made an amazing deal. For its part, Microsoft wants to improve its intelligent assistant Cortana and considers it an opportunity to establish its position in language interfaces and to differentiate itself from its competitors. But the story remains to be written.

2- Create a lab

Today, almost all global groups have created innovation centers, often called Labs. In these labs, companies are trying to create disruptive offers and business models. The group creates a new division within the company whose employees collaborate on the creation of breakthrough innovation projects.

But these labs are more like a conduit between the company, startups, and universities in the region. This link makes it easier for the company to attract new talent, to keep up to date with the latest technological trends, and to gain an edge over its competitors.

These innovation centers are above all a showcase for innovation in a group, committed to presenting a digital image of the company and to recruiting and retaining rare and expensive digital talents.

Click on the image to access the article

Ultimately, creating a lab makes it possible to support the company in its various transformations by bringing in new dynamism and new collaborative approaches in order to deal more effectively with the complex and transversal issues encountered.

3- Create an incubator or accelerator

The accelerator helps to advance the development of a project, i.e. to scale an idea that has already been created! The accelerator integrates the preparation and implementation of a program, usually in the short term (3 to 12 months), to support a startup in an already well-planned project. An accelerator, therefore, focuses on the startup’s operational and sometimes strategic challenges to leverage its potential for growth and create a sound foundation for it.

4- Use open innovation

Open innovation corresponds to all innovation processes based on sharing and collaboration. The notion of open innovation, therefore, implies that in its Research and Development process, the company is no longer closed off, but open to external actors.

This methodology can reduce the cost of R&D and improve the company’s innovation potential.

The challenge, in this case, is to integrate external ideas appropriately and preserve key skills within the company despite the increasing complexity of the environment.

One example among others: Audi, the car manufacturer, has lent itself to Open Innovation by launching the Audi Production Award. This is a competition that asks participants to think about the car of the future, and more generally about the future of the automobile. The winner receives a trophy and the sum of 5000 euros.

.

5 – And what if, finally, we use a Corporate Startup Studio?

A Corporate Startup Studio is a company that creates startups in collaboration with large groups.

The Corporate Startup Studio, after an ideation phase, offers several domains of innovation that are conducive to the development of startups.

After discussion with the major partner group, the Corporate Startup Studio gathers the essential resources needed to launch the project.

Thus, the large company benefits from the infrastructure and involvement of the Corporate Startup Studio’s teams throughout the entire process of creating and positioning the startup, in managing its first commercial and technical developments, and in accelerating its model.

The Corporate Startup Studio is a strategic gateway to connect the structured world of large companies and the proliferation of new concepts, thus creating the conditions for optimal collaboration between these two worlds.

The Corporate Startup Studio ensures that the company implements a reliable methodology for creation.

Finally, using a Corporate Startup Studio helps to limit failures, thanks to its permanent involvement, from the ideation to the completion of the project. Wefound, in particular, is not just a project initiator. As co-founder of the startups, it is committed to their success over time, year after year.

L’article CDO: the long road to disruptive innovation est apparu en premier sur Wefound.

For a group, the co-creation of a startup consists of partnering with an external company to create one or more startups that will be dedicated to achieving a business objective defined by the group: new growth opportunities or new uses, often induced by the digital revolution.

To this end, the company collaborates with an external partner: a corporate startup studio or a consulting firm. Together, they review the needs in terms of innovation to find effective levers to achieve these objectives. In concrete terms, the group and the studio create one or more startups together.

In doing so, the corporate startup studio, a specialist in the startup ecosystem, intervenes from the very beginning of the process. Gilles Debuchy illustrates: “We work very quickly with the company, we seek to understand in detail the pain-points and the opportunities that arise for them (and for their customers), then we seek to design the right solution or solutions to meet them. This is our ideation phase. These solutions are beta tested by our teams, the startup(s) we consider to be sustainable are created, a co-entrepreneur is recruited. The startup is up and running, the process is extremely agile and fast.”

Co-creation, a promising model, a very powerful accelerator.

Aware of the need to develop disruptive innovation vehicles, groups are often uncomfortable or hindered in the internal deployment of radical innovation. They, therefore, use new processes to access this innovation model (incubation, corporate venture capital, acceleration, intrapreneurship). But today, for a group, the co-creation model seems more promising in many respects. The financial risk is reduced, and above all, the co-created startup is by design aligned with the group’s strategic objectives. At the end of the process, the company is in a privileged position to incorporate it (spin-in).

As in the traditional context of acceleration, co-creation with a corporate startup studio will provide a startup ( that is aligned with the innovation needs of a group) with the time and space to grow and mature, as well as the resources needed to accelerate its development. Ben Yoskovitz, the co-founder of Highline BETA, sums up as follows: “Co-creating with corporate startup studios makes it possible, through outsourcing, to free the constraints frequently imposed upon disruptive innovations in large organizations”. 

Faster Time to Market: a decisive factor in the success of a startup. 

Co-creation, therefore, makes it possible to limit the impact of the intrinsic inertia of these large groups on the emerging startup. “Even when we talk about “ultra-fast” developments in a large company, the time scale is measured in quarters,” says Gilles Debuchy, founder of Wefound. When for a startup, time is measured in weeks and sometimes even days. In a macro-economic environment marked by the digital transition (which many large group leaders observe with some trepidation), the ability to deploy effectively will often make a difference. That is, between the one who will become a leader and the one who will remain on the side of the road, everything can be decided around his Time to Market, and his ability to put it into action.

The Group is a predator, take advantage of its strength, but keep your children out of reach.

Like Saturn devouring his son, the multinational group can be a formidable predator, which is also its strength. The major French groups are indeed war machines. At ease with international competition, their managers are formidable hunters used to absorb their competitors, like the French champions of acquisitions such as LVMH, AXA or Bolloré. However, as they are highly normative and, above all, serene in regulated systems, large French companies are by their very nature not well adapted to radical innovation, as Amazon or Apple can be.

In this case, having the temptation to develop a startup in its midst is like asking a lioness to raise a gazelle. Of course, this could happen, but it is better if the lioness is well trained if not tamed. But in this case, the risk is that the lioness will lose her competitivity in her natural environment. And this is precisely why the contribution of the corporate startup studio can be essential if groups want to integrate disruptive innovation without compromising themselves.

L’article The co-creation of startups, the future spearhead of innovation for large groups est apparu en premier sur Wefound.

Innovate and develop new business models, these two objectives are the focus of the CDOs of all major companies. However, in large groups, new business models and traditional business models have difficulty coexisting. But what if Schumpeter and Christensen, two theorists of innovation, gave us the keys to do so?

From Schumpeter to Christensen, from the cycle of innovation to disruptive innovation

In 1939, Joseph Schumpeter was the first economist to theorize the importance of innovation and to model its cycles, and today large companies have successfully embraced it: without innovation, a company is doomed to fail. Clayton Christensen, professor at Harvard Business School, introduces in his first book, “The Innovator’s Dilemma”, a work of reference for all startup creators, the concept of ” disruptive innovation “. Christensen’s work is enormous and fundamental. However, it remains unknown in France, difficult to access, disseminated in a multitude of academic articles.

Throughout his academic endeavors, Christensen strived to demonstrate that innovation is not about invention, or simply technological innovation, but rather about the disruption of the business model. It demonstrates how the disruption of the business model is complex to understand for large companies but also how it is fundamental for large groups in a context of accelerating digital revolution.

The change of the business model, the “beating heart” of disruptive innovation

The constant preservation of an optimal level of creativity, capable of renewing both products and services as well as practices and methods is crucial for the sustainability of a company. Especially when it is a large group subject to fierce competition in terms of production but also in terms of financing needs. These innovations improve existing products along an existing performance trajectory. They are called continuous. Disruptive innovations, on the other hand, introduce new dimensions and new performance criteria that are not integrated into the service offer of large companies. These new offers lead to new business models. To support his demonstration, Christensen relies on the “Kodak” case. The New York-based company, a market leader in analog photography and particularly in photographic film, is nevertheless the holder of a patent concerning the digital camera.

Despite the potential of the digital market and the undeniable commitment of the century-old American firm, it does not embark on the adventure of digital photography. Not out of timidity as we may be inclined to think, but out of a lack of alignment with the company’s business model. Despite the emergence of the digital market, Kodak continued to sell more and more film each year until 2000. Finally, digital developments are considered too big and that they may threaten Kodak’s business model. This results in a conflict between the new and old activity. The company had become trapped in its business model.

The corporate startup studio helps large groups to redefine innovation

“This is partly where the help of a corporate startup studio can be fundamental for a large group,” comments Gilles Debuchy, founder of Wefound. During the ideation phase, corporate startup studios help large companies to imagine new business models, because generally if groups are aware of their needs in terms of disruptive innovation, they have difficulty making realistic projections. “From the ideation phase, we help to identify new business models that are compatible with the Group’s historical culture or its strategic objectives,” continues Gilles Debuchy.

Exiting the infernal downward spiral of competition that consumes all available financial resources

Christensen goes further in his argument in favor of innovation by developing the example of Kodak, whose historical business model found digital photography unattractive. Admittedly, according to Christensen, the old model is sentenced to term, but this term is uncertain. And meanwhile, the traditional business model provides the bulk of the company’s resources. The new model represents the future but will not provide serious and viable resources until uncertain times. In this context, according to Christensen, investors and financial partners will demand that all investments be concentrated on the old business model to fight in a context of strong competition. And this competition will be made even tougher with the introduction of new entrants, disruptive as they are wont to be.

“May the circle be unbroken”.

L’article Large corporations : how to develop new business models ? est apparu en premier sur Wefound.

Very large companies have developed gradually since the beginning of the decade, and then more aggressively from 2015 onwards, to encourage disruptive innovation in-house: labs, open-innovations, intrapreneurship, etc. They have also invested heavily in startups. A few years later, a model has yet to be explored in France: co-creation. This is explained with the example of Bosch.

2015, the hunt for startups is open.

Disruptive innovation is a major challenge for corporations. The digital revolution has brought its share of competition in an economic world where all seemed to be well established. It must be recognized that today’s experts are unanimous in saying that all sectors of activity and all companies, regardless of their size or structure, are concerned by digital transformation and must accelerate their investment cycle. Many groups feared the Uberisation syndromes theorized by Maurice Levy, then president of Publicis. Since then, it has been a race towards digital innovation with the consequence that the hunt for startups can be considered as open in France since 2015.

Since 2015, major businesses have developed many initiatives to encourage in-house innovation. They have invested in the “startup phenomenon”, hoping, therefore, to integrate them into a “workflow” more in line with their pace of innovation: incubators, CVCs, accelerators, etc. A few years later, the results have not been entirely satisfactory and some frustrations persist. Some startups accelerated by large groups are delighted to be bought out after their acceleration period, by GAFAs or unicorns, the value of co-creation then escaping the large group. On the other hand, some startups tend to normalize themselves dangerously in the presence of large groups, thus losing “their essence”. This is what Franck Mattes and Ralph Christain theorize in their book: “Scaling-up Corporate Startups: Turn innovation concepts into business impact“. In this book, the two authors advocate the concept of co-creation and take the German giant Bosch who brilliantly initiated this concept in Europe as an example. 

2013, Bosch launches Grow, the first real European co-creation platform.

In 2013, Bosch initiated the opening of a new in-house platform dedicated to innovation. On this platform, the innovation teams had the opportunity to transform their concepts into products and business models independently and hand in hand with Bosch. For teams wishing to innovate, this platform offered an ideal structure to exploit their agility and dynamism but also to meet customers, while benefiting from the comfort and support that is typical of large companies.

With this platform Grow, Bosch had two objectives:

• Increase the chances of success of truly innovative initiatives,
• Transform the group profoundly, to make disruptive innovations possible, manage them and make them viable (scaling-up).

Bosch, a historically atypical innovator

When Robert Bosch humbly founded his workshop for precision mechanics and mechanical engineering in Stuttgart in 1886, he probably had no idea of the development that would follow his initiative. Today the Bosch Group is a world leader in its field and employs more than 400,000 people worldwide. It generates nearly 80 billion euros in turnover. These activities include 440 subsidiaries in 60 countries, grouped around 4 business sectors: Mobility Solutions, Industrial Technology, Consumer Goods, and Building Technologies. One of the group’s particularities is its capital structure: 92% of Bosch shares are held by charitable foundations and the majority of voting rights are governed by a trust that is responsible for the Group’s innovation efforts.

This structure guarantees the group a high degree of freedom, particularly in terms of innovation. But above all, it gives managers the freedom to undertake strong initiatives in terms of long-term innovation. Bosch now prides itself on employing 64,500 people in research and development.

Large companies can create innovation but have more difficulty inventing new business models.

Franck Mattes and Ralph Christain theorize it in their book: “Large companies are often victims of their own success. They are so powerful with their core business activities that they do not feel the need to reinvent themselves. However, if Bosch has constantly evolved its core business over the past 50 years, it is undoubtedly due to a large number of technological innovations and to the new business models that have emerged. The major technological innovations are given by the Group, but the ability to integrate its innovations into disruptive business models must be heavily backed by Bosch.

Bosch’s main idea is brilliant: to include the trade-off between high-risk and low-risk investments in the group’s core business. Typically, as any innovation director knows well, the chances of success for development in a core business are 85% as long as the target growth remains at a single-digit level (which the groups master). But if you plan to invest in disruptive innovation, only 10% of projects will succeed. However, it is this 10% who will do what Bosch calls “very big things” that will push the market forward and reinvent it. It was precisely to incorporate this risk into the core business of a giant like Bosch that Grow was created.

 Co-create startups for the group and with the group.

Bosch positions Grow as a working environment that generates “radical innovation”. The people selected at Grow have to think differently every day. But Bosch positions Grow as an essential partner offering all the support necessary for successful business development.

All co-created startups are financed by Bosch and supported by the growth platform team, from fundraising preparation to integration into the group. Unlike its subsidiary Venture (Robert Bosch Venture Capital), Grow is not focused on investing in external technology startups that could be incubated by Bosch’s incubator. Grow has its own legal structure that allows it to co-create startups with the group and for the group.

Wefound, the corporate startup studio offers you tried and tested acceleration levers for the creation of disruptive innovation structures for the benefit of large groups. To learn more about Wefound’s methodology, we invite you to read this article:

Click on the image to read the article: Wefound, a Corporate Startup Studio, made in France

L’article Co-creation: a pillar of radical innovation for large corporations. est apparu en premier sur Wefound.

In the toolbox of innovation, there exists a multitude of solutions that have been approved by large businesses: Open innovation, corporate ventures, internal incubator, internal accelerator, etc. A newcomer to this list is a relatively new concept: the corporate start-up studio, that allows a company to create in-house and bespoke start-ups.

Why create a Startup studio?

• To create new companies from scratch.
• To stop limiting oneself to the creation of a single start-up at a time and develop several start-ups in parallel.
• For corporate start-up studios; to align the creation of a start-up with the business goals of a company or business units.
• To capitalize on the experience, culture, and the creators of start-ups and to share the resources of a large group in order to launch the start-ups with more chances of success.

Startup studios: the French touch with Wefound

In France, many companies claim to be start-up studios, one of the most famous being eFounders. In addition, certain investors and incubators also use this concept in order to diversify their offers to large companies and find ways to ensure future growth.  “Wefound’s offer is fundamentally different to that of our peers. We are positioned as a Corporate Start-up studio. We are among the very few to actually do this in Europe. Hand in hand, with large businesses we integrate their business goals and their culture of innovation to conceive projects and to develop them as start-ups, playing the role of co-founder”, says Gilles Debuchy, founder of Wefound.

Establishing the startup creation model.

The studios are the new players in the start-up ecosystem. They are characterized by a strong operational involvement of the management and the employees in the start-up created. The studio’s teams develop the business until it is mature enough for the market or the group. There is also a strong financial involvement of the studio in the development of the start-ups.

“We are not at all in competition with the venture capitalists”, adds Gilles Debuchy. The venture capitalists can get involved at any point with the funding of the start-ups in synergy with the studio.

The Corporate Start-up Studio brings forth an optimal alternative for the Director of R&D or the CDO of the big groups that wish to have a more operational relationship with its partners, “but also start-ups that are aligned to their business goals, and who eventually, will speak the same language”, adds Gilles Debuchy.

Allowing big groups to integrate startup culture in a targeted and effective manner without going through a cultural revolution

“The goal of the start-up studio is to find a solution to the failure rate of almost 90% generally seen in entrepreneurship. The idea is to benefit from a seasoned entrepreneur and  the experience of a talented team with undeniable expertise in the start-up ecosystem”, explains Atilla Szigeti in his ebook ‘Anatomy of a startup studio’

The traditional recipe for a start-up is: have an idea, create a product, an offer, start commercializing it and finally, scale up. In France, 9 times out of 10 this method fails. “We can discuss all the good (or bad) reasons but it is the reality”, comments Gilles Debuchy. “We have created Wefound to address this challenge: to reduce the risk of creating a start-up. The groups are aware of their need for innovation and agility, and furthermore, certain sectors are obsessed with the emergence of a ‘Game changer’”. We offer them the possibility of creating a reliable start-up that will allow them to innovate with the group’s goals in mind.

Startups and large groups in sync, the pooling of resources become a key lever for success.

This pooling of skills between the group and the start-up becomes one of the major keys to the success of the studio. It is the studio’s teams that will allow the start-ups to take off. They will rely on the experience of the business teams of the group, generally with the CDO acting as the liaison between the two. They are in tune after a stage of ideation that lasts 3 to 6 months.  The founders’ experience and the varied skills of the studio’s collaborators provide the group with agility and a culture of innovation that is priceless. The group provides various resources (legal aid, market knowledge, distribution, etc.)  that a start-up usually doesn’t have access to. The teams are in sync, speak the same language and the start-up is on the path to success.  

L’article The Corporate Startup Studio: a game changer for innovation in big companies or a new gadget for the chief digital officer (CDO)? est apparu en premier sur Wefound.

These days, the innovation process of large organizations has been considerably upset. The majority of large businesses can no longer compete with start-ups that are faster and more agile in the domain of innovation. With this in mind, many groups have tried to clone the methods and tools used by start-ups to improve their potential for innovation.

The invasion of lean management and design thinking into large groups

We have all witnessed the flood of words related to lean management and design thinking into our vocabulary. These techniques have clearly led to some undeniable success in terms of innovation. But in the majority of cases, they have not borne fruit and thus discourage the promoters of innovation in large companies (who then dream of joining start-ups).

Clearly, it is neither the methods of “lean” or “design thinking” that has to be examined (for they have made fortunes for various entrepreneurs in Silicon Valley) nor the people who implement them in the large companies. It is ultimately the compatibility of these methods with the environment of a large organization that raises questions.

The DNA of a start-up: agility by design, disruption out of necessity

 One of the obvious reasons is that large corporations are not made to be agile. In other words, to use more modern terms, they are not agile “by design”. On the contrary, they are designed based on validated models to be long-lasting and efficient.  When we then add administrative procedures, regulatory constraints, and other such restrictive factors to this mix, the implementation of disruptive innovation strategies that start-ups like Nickel, Uber, or BlaBlaCar are able to produce, become immensely complex for publicly listed companies.

To free themselves of the shackles that limit their potential for innovation, these groups use methods that allow them to encourage the creation of “core business start-ups” such as incubators, accelerators, investment funds, etc.

A new toolbox to innovate: corporate incubators, corporate accelerators, corporate ventures, etc.

In doing so, the groups feel that they have a keen eye on innovation in their sector of activity, and consequently believe that they retain control over these innovations and can thus neutralize game-changers.   The results are not too convincing though. Start-ups advance at their own pace and large companies have theirs. The innovations of internalized start-ups often do not correspond to the goals fixed by the Business Units. The start-ups’ projects are paradoxically subjected to a gestation time that is too long to retain the attention of executives who handle short-term goals on a daily basis.

Too often, it just doesn’t work out. Consider this photography metaphor, “It’s just a matter of adjusting the focus!” To film a single scene; the innovations, the start-ups, and the large organizations cannot all be the main point of focus on the same scene. Someone will always be out of focus for the other and vice-versa.

Case study:  BNP- PARIBAS shells out more than 200 million euros to buy Nickel.

Would it have been possible for a start-up like Nickel (the bank without a bank) to come into existence within a French banking institution, by offering to create its business from a customer base that has been barred from the system? Probably not.

And yet 5 years later, BNP, a leading French bank, took control of Nickel.  A company that allows these “outsiders” to be reintegrated into a hybrid peripheral organization, with a totally disruptive distribution circuit and whose “clearing – transaction” system is managed by a proprietary algorithm based on blockchain. Basically, everything that a bank would not have wanted, before witnessing its undeniable success, 4 years and 700,000,000 customers later.

The problem is that success has a cost and, in this case, BNP had to pay more than 200 million euros to buy-out the “troublemaker” of the French banking system.

Let us imagine the scene:

A young aspiring banker, fresh out of business school meets a rigorous financial inspector in the corridors of his bank. He gathers up his courage, goes up to the senior manager and says to him: “Mr. Director, I have a great idea! Let us open a subsidiary that can open bank accounts in tobacco shops, for people who have been banned from banking and who are too scared to even enter a bank. We will offer these people that have no current means of payment, a bank account and a credit card for only €20 a year. Everything will be perfectly secure. I have a classmate who is developing a blockchain solution that will make all exchanges secure.”

There is no doubt that the young graduate would have seen his future in the bank largely compromised.

It is not man that impedes innovation, but the systemic organization in large corporations.

Surely, it will be foolish to mock the banking executive, but how could have anyone imagined the success of Nickel? A bank without fees, distributed via tobacco shops (when banks have already bought out half of the street corners in France) and secured by a technological innovation which no one really understood.

It is precisely this purely systemic mechanism that proves to be the “innovation killer” in large corporations. A corporate start-up studio makes it possible to bypass this mechanism by helping a corporation to think about innovation outside the system, but always via a shared ideation process consistent with their business goals.

(read the article on how a corporate studio start-up works).

Detergent makers: pioneers of start-up studios?

The idea is not new. Peter Drucker in his book “Innovation & Entrepreneurship” in 1985 devoted a whole chapter to the American giants: Johnson and Johnson, 3 M, and Procter and Gamble. They created innovation levers that were sometimes in conflict with their core business, in order to disrupt the market, through autonomous companies created ex nihilo. The “entrepreneur”, was completely free from the system and had free rein. He had to invent an innovative, disruptive product, while being able to take care of everything independently, from research to sales and marketing.

This is how Swiffer, for example, was created. It is obviously unlikely that this undeniably successful innovation could have been developed internally. Imagine that! A dust suppressant without detergents… From a detergent company! We usually don’t kill the goose that lays golden eggs.

Corporate Start-up studio and large companies, “hand in hand” to create levers for sustainable innovation

Large companies have a lot of assets that start-ups envy: networks, privileged access to the market, knowledge of the regulatory framework and its evolution, human resources, and financial resources that they must value and exploit. The studio, which has an exhaustive knowledge of the start-up ecosystem and a network of extraordinary entrepreneurs, offers the group a vector of agility while the group offers a unique framework, conducive to the success of the start-up.

Thanks to shared ideation processes and virtuous legal and financial architectures, corporate start-up studios will make it possible to reconcile disruptive innovation with the culture of success of large publicly listed groups. Good news for groups! They will no longer have to spend hundreds of millions of euros to acquire mature innovation levers. The maturation will now take place within the group.

L’article The Corporate Startup Studios: the highway to disruptive innovation for large corporations est apparu en premier sur Wefound.