The impactof the innovationspace”Ba”Evaluation Model for Innovation Centers (EMIC)2020年1月Research Paper by Future Center Alliance JapanResearch BackgroundIn the midst of the global economic crisis and the changing society, ‘innovation’ has become the key forcorporate activities. It is essential for any company to obtain abilities to explore new opportunities andtechnologies, create new concepts and market with new business models in an agile manner to remainsustainable. Innovation will not occur with traditional business systems and workplaces that only focus onexisting businesses. That is the context of why so many companies have been investing in creative/innovativespaces such as innovation centers, future centers, innovation labs, garages, and living labs, etc. to gain returnfrom the Ba for innovation. Innovation center here means not just hardware like physical space, but it alsoincludes a wide range of programs such as CVC and awards. Skills and tools such as Design Thinking and/orLean Startup are also important factors.
One of the common challenges of these type of innovative space ang programs is how to measureimpact/results, which could be either tangible and intangible. According to some research, even though thenumber of innovation centers are growing rapidly worldwide, many of them do not produce satisfactoryresults. With these problem recognitions, we, FCAJ have suggested guidelines for strategizing, designing andoperationalizing innovation centers as “Ba”. This research project aims to suggest a valid model and a hypothetical evaluation metrics for the relationship between innovation place and innovation management.

Research Scope1

2Consistency between the place ofinnovation (Ba) and the corporatestrategy and organization: "Location(role) of Ba"In terms of the role of the innovation centerThe gap between expectations for andaligned with the company's strategy, how doesoutcomes from innovation centers partly comesthe innovation center create the appropriatefrom lack of clear innovation strategies/policiesinternal and external relationships and consisten-and the ambiguity of the positioning of innova-cy of policy and practice?

tion centers. As the international standard ofThe following three points will assist in identi-innovation management system (ISO 56002) wasfying the gap between the perception and thepublished in 2019, it should serve as a commonlanguage forThe qualitative function and role ofInnovation Center (Ba): "Power of Ba "reality.

innovation management. It isimportant to clearly define the position, scopeand role of the innovation space.

(1) Relationship between the place and the organization(2) Capabilities and Assets of Ba(3) Relationship between Ba, external stakeholders and society© 2020 Future Center Alliance Japan1Evaluation Model for Innovation CentersWhat do we do at innovation space? What should be done there? Innovation Center is not a mere facilityfor workshops, but a place for programs in practice that drive innovation = “Ba.” When innovation is notproduced at Innovation Center, it is not because of lack of ideas, but it means it does not work as a systemthat consists of resources, passionate people, , culture, and tangible/ intangible incentives. This means that itis more important for program organizers to conduct a series of programs through connecting ideas insideand outside of the organization than to satisfy workshop participants and/or care about convenience of thespace. The overall notion is showed in Figure 1.
The place of innovation, or “Ba” is also regarded important by ISO56002. Chapter 7.1.6.2, which is aboutinfrastructure to support innovation, contains creative environments, research and development labs, makerspaces, simulation labs, and living labs.（Figure 2）It is recommended to set KPIs (Key Performance Indicators)by developing a hypothesis about how these place of innovation is related to and interacts with other factorsof an innovation management system.
There are two factors that contribute to the success of innovation centers: hardware and software. Hardware, space design is effective in branding the centers and facilitating stakeholders’ behavior, but it is notsufficient condition to drive innovation. The more important factor is if the place functions as “Ba” to enableinnovation. Place managers must ensure that the place aligns with the innovation strategy and remove anyobstructive factors. They also must improve the level of place because, innovation is the activity of changingthe future through overcoming the resistance and skepticism that block the way forward. Therefore, it is indispensable to look at if the company has established management objectives, strategies, capabilities, awarenessof stakeholders, relationships with others and management indicators (KGIs and KPIs) appropriate for a placefor intellectual combat.

4 Context of the organizationInnovation Management PolicyInnovation Management SystemSupport SystemSociety(external)FunctionExternalInterfaceAssetsKnowledgeInternalInterface5 Leadership8 OperationOrganization(internal)6 Planning7 SupportField of Practice10 ImprovementFigure 1© 2020 Future Center Alliance JapanFigure 2

29 PerformanceEvaluationEMIC FrameworkAs previously mentioned, innovation centers should be evaluated if it connects people and knowledgeinternally and externally, facilitates knowledge creation and exchange, and produce impacts vis a vis its objectives.
EMIC is an evaluation model developed to examine both hardware and software factors that are essential forinnovation centers to function through verification of whether the objectives, strategies, and its implementation are aligned with the place = “Ba”. Nowadays, organizations from both public and private sectors showstrong interest in Open Innovation 2.0. EMIC has also its bass on Open Innovation 2.0, which focuses on theinterrelationship between “Ba” connecting inside the organization and outside the organization. The modelconsists of 12 elements, which builds an ecosystem as a whole.

1. Clarity of PurposeThe crystal-clear purpose1.isClarityessen�aldrive innova�on. Evaluate theof toPurposeclarityof what kindof the isfuturethe centerwant tosee andThe crystal-clearpurposeessen�alto drivewouldinnova�on.
Evaluatethewhytheywanttoachieveit.
clarity of what kind of the future the center would want to see andwhy they want to achieve it.

2. External Acceptability(Contac�vity)How the interface withstakeholders is designed?

Basic
Func�onPla�ormEcosystemImpact3. Func�on and Capacityas “Ba”4. Organiza�onal andPolicy RelevanceHow it operates as a mechanism Is innova�on management aligned withfor innova�on prac�ces?
the corporate strategy and organiza�on?

Evaluate space se�ngEvaluate the processes andmeans of innova�onEvaluate the mission andstructure of the team incharge of innova�onEvaluate prac�ces ofinnova�on projectsEvaluate the opera�on ofinnova�on centersAssess capabili�es of totalinnova�on managementEvaluate diversity andcommitment of players andcommuni�es thatpar�cipate in its innova�onac�vi�esEvaluate the accessibility ofknowledge required forproblem solving and valuecrea�onEvaluate the level ofcollabora�on within theorganiza�on and the levelof coopera�on forcommercializa�onEvaluate externalrecogni�on/branding as aplace of innova�onQualita�vely evaluatelevels of innova�onprac�ces and opera�onalperformanceQualita�vely evaluateinnova�on outcomes5. Overall evalua�onDoes the innova�on center produce the expected results?
Evaluate whether thecenter performs as expected.
5. innova�onOverall evalua�onDoes the innova�on center produce the expected results?
Evaluate whether the innova�on center performs as expected.

© 2020 Future Center Alliance Japan3HardFactor

So�FactorComponent Elements of the Evaluation Indexand Correlation among themWe examined how seven component elements contributed to the overall evaluation of EMIC by correlationanalysis..
It shows that "clarity of purpose" and "function and capacity of the software factors for “Ba”" had a significant impact on the overall evaluation. The analysis also revealed that the following items enhanced the overallrating of innovation centers:-Objectives are clearly set;-Seeds are openly shared; and-Active practices in a project.
We also examined "clarity of purpose" and "functions and capabilities of software factors for “Ba” " respectively about how item indexes affected. We calculated the difference of the means of between domestic andinternational benchmarking survey results.
However, this comparison has some limitation as it did not compare the exact same groups. While domestic, Japanese innovation centers were owned by private companies, many of the international centers in theresearch were owned by public-sector or neutral organizations. In addition, we have conducted additionalethnographic research to only domestic centers.. We would like to continue the research to make it as comparable as possible in the future.

Regarding the "Clarity of purpose" factor, there was a significant difference between the Japanese groupand international group (international group were higher) on f "social problem solving" "clarity of strategy andvision" and "self-awareness," in order of the gaps (bigger to smaller). These items negatively contributed tothe overall evaluation of the domestic (Japanese) innovation centers. Regarding "functions and capabilities ofsoftware factors" there was significant differences in "occurrence of synergistic activities" and "activities different from traditional development between domestic and international groups.
Regarding "functions and capabilities of the BA as software factors", there was significant difference on themeans of "occurrence of synergistic activities" and "activities different from traditional development" betweenJapanese and non-Japanese ICs. These low scores resulted in low scores of software factors of the domesticinnovation centers.
No significant difference wwa found in the transaction of thinking when connecting ideas to business. Wewill research more cases with the EMIC model in the future.

© 2020 Future Center Alliance Japan

4Consistency between EMIC evaluationand qualitative assessmentIn this research, we visited eight domestic (Japanese) and six international (non-Japanese) innovationcenters and conducted the evaluation using the EMIC framework. As the EMIC model is still under development, we also conducted qualitative evaluation as supplementary measures to see consistency. The followingdescription shows our findings comparing domestic and international innovation centers applied to the EMICmodel.
Key ideas appeared in: "external acceptability in software factors," "function and capacity of a place in hardware factors," and "clarity of purpose” many times. These results suggest the consistency between quantitativeresearch using the EMIC model and qualitative assessment, Which suggests a certain level of reliability of theEMIC model, even though it has areas for improvement in the future.

© 2020 Future Center Alliance Japan

5Further utilization of EMICThe purpose of this research is to propose EMIC as an effective model and tool for place management inthe context of innovation management. The FCAJ Study Team will continue to make use of EMIC in the following ways:1 Guidance for those who plan to establish an ICHow to manage “ “Ba” or place for successful innovation. It starts at setting clear purposes, and thendevelop a consistent concept and plan for both hardware and software. EMIC serves as a guidance for thisentire process.

2 Guidance for those who operate IC and consider improvement/reformMany IC stakeholders feel that their ICs do not fully bring out its potential. EMIC serves as an effectiveguidance for those facing such challenges by helping them revisit the current situation and understandwhat needs to be improved.

3 A communication framework for those who facilitate discussion about ICs among various stakeholdersIt is important to foster a common understanding on ICs among various stakeholders in differentpositions. EMIC serves as an effective framework for productive discussions through encouragingexchanging opinions from different positions and synthesizing them as collective decisions.

4 A framework for IC practitioners in different organizations who want to share their experiencesIt is significant to mutually share IC experiences, lessons learned and insights across organizations as ICactivities develop. EMIC provides a framework for sharing and social accumulation of practical knowledgeof IC.

5 Media for IC benchmarkingMore an more companies, government agencies and universities are in development and operation of ICsto drive innovation. Setting a global IC benchmarking and its clearinghouse is crucial for its developmentand evolution. FCAJ's research team will continue to explore ways to make open use of EMIC in the future.

© 2020 Future Center Alliance Japan6