- "open" und "closed" Innovationsprojekte möglich
- frei wählbare "community": offen, beschränkt regisrierte user oder Hochsicherheitszugang
- interaktiver Austausch zwischen Teilnehmer, der durch Experten für Innovationsmethoden moderiert wird
- qualifizierte Moderationsexperten sind Mitglieder des INNOLOGICS e.V.
- die Forumprozesse basieren auf INNOLOGICS-Methoden, wie z.B. Total Technology Development
- Innovationsmethoden, wie z.B. TRIZ können online gelernt und angewendet werden
- Experten und Teilnehmer auf der ganzen Welt können rund um die Uhr zusammenarbeiten
- Mehrere Projekte können gleichzeitig mit unterschiedlichen Teilnehmergruppen durchgeführt werden
- Optionen für Smartphone-Zugang, Hochsicherheit oder individuelle Implementierung auf ausgesuchten Servern sind möglich
- komplette Übersicht über alle Teilnehmer-Beiträge, Aktivitäten, Anlagen, Uploads und Inhalte
- Reduktion von Reise- und Workshopkosten
- hoch effiziente Ideengenerierung durch überlegte Beiträge und weniger "trash ideas"
- Administration mit Teilnehmer-Kontrolle
Welche Vorteile seht Ihr noch?
Hier ein gutes Argument, unser Tool zu verwenden (von smartdraw.com):
The Valuation of Meetings
ROI:"Expressed usually as a percentage, return on investment is a measure of
profitability that indicates whether or not a company is using its resources
in an efficient manner."
It's well documented that a considerable amount of time (our most valuable
resource) is wasted in meetings. For most organizations, this is a hidden
cost that is affecting the bottom line. The question is, by how much? As
Hamlet said, "Ay, there's the rub."
The first step in valuing a meeting is to determine what resources comprise
the investment. Most meetings consist of three cost factors.
1. Time spent by those participating in the meeting
2. The facility cost (rent and utilities of the meeting space)
3. Any incidentals (equipment rental, copies, food and beverages)
For most organizations, the time of the participants is the largest cost
factor for meetings. Consider the statistic that most executives spend 23
hours a week in meetings. At a $120,000 salary level and based on a 48-week
work year, that's a weekly meeting cost of over $1,400 per executive.
For most enterprises, meeting cost is a relatively straightforward
mathematical computation. In our hypothetical meeting ROI model, we will
apply the following assumptions:
* An executive spends an average of 23 hours per week in meetings
* Average annual executive salary is $120,000
* A manager spends an average of 12 hours per week in meetings
* Average annual manager salary is $60,000
* Our company has four executives and 16 managers regularly attending
It could be argued that meeting time is more or less valuable than time
spent in other pursuits. But for this model we assume that the value of an
executive/management hour is the same, regardless of activity. After all, if
it was a less valuable investment of time, then why have meetings at all?
Conversely, if it were more valuable, then it would make sense to invest
even more time in meetings.
There are probably as many ways to compute the average value of attendees as
there are meetings. For the attendees at this company's meetings, we will
apply an average value per hour ("billing rate", if you will) of $75
A search of the Internet for statistics on meetings reveals some alarming
data on the inefficiency of business meetings:
* According to a Microsoft® survey 63% of meetings are conducted
without a prepared agenda.
* According to an MCI Network Conferencing white paper, 9 out of 10
people daydream during meetings.
* The same white paper also reports that 73% bring other work to
* Nearly one in ten meetings is held without the primary decision
maker(s) even being present.
* Executives average 23 hours per week in meetings with 7.8 hours
identified as wasted time.
* An article in the Fall 2006 issue of The Facilitator newsletter
reports that 49% say unfocused/unproductive meetings are their biggest
* All too often there is no accountability for results, with only one
in five meetings having any type of follow-up.
* A Tulsa University study estimated meeting productivity rates of 33%
to 47% - the rest ofmeeting time is wasted.
The average proficiency rating is 43%, meaning that 57% of the time and
potential productivity of meetings are lost. This number is consistent with
survey data. Presented in mathematical terms, it means that companies are
suffering a negative ROI of 30% on their meetings.