Open Innovation for Operations: Why External Expertise in Operations Matters

You Don’t Need to Know Everything. You Just Need Access to Those Who Do

No one can keep pace with the full span of technological, therapeutic, and operational change. Nor can anyone keep up with challenges faced and solutions adopted across one's own industry sector as well as relatable challenges faced elsewhere.  Identifying links, similarities or potential applications may be tricky but there is always expertise, someone that knows or has tried, someone that has started, succeeded or failed.  Increasingly that expertise is outside the “building”, and sometimes it will take time to find and nurture.

The effort will be worth it, timely access to appropriate insight, the lived experience and cutting‑edge expertise of others, will dramatically improve the effectiveness and sustainability of your delivery and the quality of your outcomes.  The alternate continued exclusive reliance of in-house knowledge, capability and effort risks ineffective delivery, groupthink, complacency and at the extreme, potential irrelevance. 

Why open innovation should apply to operations

In pharma and biotech, the value of external expertise is already proven - but is limited primarily to one part of the business. In research and development, it is almost taken for granted. Universities, sponsored research groups, start‑ups, and specialist firms routinely generate ideas, data, and assets that larger organizations later scale, acquire, or partner with. The entire innovation model assumes that critical insight often sits outside the company.

What is surprising is how narrowly that logic is applied.

The same openness is rarely extended to the operational domains where decisions are just as consequential: manufacturing strategy, facility design, process platforms, automation and data systems, tech transfer, quality systems, supply chain architecture, and partner governance. Internal experience in these areas can be excellent - but it is still bounded. And it is equally bounded in the AEC firms and large consultancies we turn to on the occasions we do look outside.

Strangely, we tend to seek external input only in the most high‑stakes environments -when building a new facility, when a senior leader is shaping strategy, or when we want to implement the latest idea from HBR. In those moments, blind spots can be costly. But they are just as costly - and far more common - when strong internal teams are asked to deliver projects or performance improvements without the benefit of insight from people who have already faced similar challenges elsewhere.

Net+U is being built (in part) on a simple belief: the principles of open innovation - the recognition that valid, applicable, and needed expertise exists outside any single organization - should be applied to operations and project delivery as deliberately as they are applied to R&D and pipeline management.

A spectrum of need - external expertise in operations

The conversation about external expertise is often framed as if it only matters for major strategic shifts, or when additional resource is needed because internal capacity is constrained. In reality, the need spans a full spectrum.

At one end are the large capital programs and investment decisions where a small number of early choices can shape how the organization works for years. These choices influence whether investment maximizes strategic advantage, whether the solution is sustainable, and whether the site has the flexibility to reconfigure and respond to changing needs. Early decisions set project cost, but more importantly they determine operational cost and capability. The priorities and understanding of those delivering major site projects often differ from those who will later run and adapt the facility, and this misalignment can constrain and penalize operations throughout the plant’s lifetime.

At the other end are the decisions made every day by engineers, managers and project leads. These choices could be easier, faster and more consistently correct if informed by someone who has already faced similar challenges.

People struggle to ask for what they have never seen. Steve Jobs put it simply: people often do not know what they want until they are shown what is possible.

In organizations, this limitation is not always realized or acknowledged, but it is there and it is costly. Good people repeat the mistakes of others. Significant effort is invested in delivering outcomes that fall short of best‑in‑class. Large sums of money are spent without ever considering, or being informed about, what might have been possible.

The project that asked for “twice what we already have”

Have you ever worked on a large capital program, or even a small capacity‑expansion project, where the brief was simply: “I need twice what we already have”?

Sometimes this direction is driven by time pressure or a desire for consistency, which can matter. But more often it comes from an assumption that the existing model is proven and therefore safe.

But is it?

Every investment should be an opportunity to pause and consider what has changed. If we do not assess the progress others have made, or the advances emerging across the industry, then what looks like a safe decision can actually institutionalize future failure. The world does not stand still. Being excellent at yesterday’s best practice is a reliable route to tomorrow’s irrelevance.

The question all stakeholders should ask is simple: what might be better?

The depth of that exploration should reflect the scale and urgency of the project.

For incremental changes to an existing process, the answer may emerge through iterative improvement.

For a small capacity increase or capability addition, an informed stage‑gate discussion may be enough.

But for a strategic investment, the responsibility is far greater. Stakeholders must be well informed, must set clear criteria for assessing options, and must ensure the chosen approach is robust and future‑proof.

Operational leaders cannot be assumed to know every relevant option or best practice, nor should they act as though they do. There must be a practical way to engage people who understand what is possible, so that stakeholders can make well‑grounded contributions and decisions.

Consider a first major site build for a growing biopharma company that has relied heavily on CDMOs. The questions should include:

• What has changed since the CDMO facility was designed?

• What are competitors doing, and why?

• What advances have been made in processing platforms, automation, monitoring, data management, contamination control, validation strategy and regulatory expectations?

• How could in‑house data be used to hone processes, accelerate release, target maintenance and QA activity, model future improvements or shorten development cycles?

• What has shifted in therapeutic modalities, supply chains and competitive timelines?

• When we walk into this facility in three to five years, what will be different? How will people spend their time?

• Is what we are planning aligned with corporate strategy? How will success be measured, not just in terms of on‑time and under‑budget delivery, but in operational performance and strategic advantage?

Two contrasting illustrations from a recent biopharmaceutical conference underline the point. Continuous manufacturing was a prominent theme, celebrated for its potential to reduce lead time, floor area and environmental control demands, and therefore both capital and operating costs. Yet one company described developing and securing approval for a continuous process, only to decide not to implement it because their new facility had been built in parallel on a batch paradigm.

Another presenter demonstrated the impact of “paperless” by showing a site map and asking delegates to identify what was different. The answer was simple: the administration building was a fraction of the size of a standard facility.

One company had done what they'd always done and missed out - the other identified what could be better and took advantage.

Across all scales of project, pausing for informed decisions is critical. Time will always be constrained, so the process of informing must be effective. When the right expertise is orchestrated and focused on supporting stakeholder decision‑making, risk is reduced and outcomes improve. Prior knowledge, familiarity and experience should always provide a foundation, but they should never become a constraint or a cause of blinkered vision.

Open innovation is proven, but applied too narrowly

Open innovation recognizes that useful knowledge and pathways to value exist both inside and outside the firm. This is already demonstrated in R&D, where external insight is foundational to innovation.

The question is simple: if external ideas and competence are so highly valued in product innovation, why would external expertise not be equally valuable for operations, for best-in-class delivery, for defining objectives and strategy, and for the innovative creation of solutions? R&D and Operations are interdependent, each learning from and relying on the other, and both operating in a context where success depends on excellence, best practice and innovation.

Excellence can create blindness

Organizations often become highly skilled at the very things that later limit their ability to adapt. This is the essence of the innovator’s dilemma and the challenge of organizational ambidexterity.

Teams become expert in established platforms, proven technologies and validated processes. These strengths are real and valuable, but they can narrow perspectives, create complacency and make it harder to imagine alternatives, even when those alternatives are already evolving elsewhere.

The better an organization becomes at delivering, the more tightly its attention is drawn to the KPIs used to measure performance and compare it to its assumed peers. As that focus intensifies, it becomes harder to question the operating model or to recognize when the environment has shifted.

Operations teams rarely have much slack. They do not have resources with significant capacity to explore opportunity or threat. Their corporate masters demand continuous improvement in delivery. Their role is to exploit, to maximize return from the current deployment. Access to external best in class performance can clearly help here, but there is a broader argument too.

For operational sites and ambitious staff, future relevance and growth depend not only on current output but also on the perception of capability, the ability to respond and reconfigure, and the degree of influence they have in shaping strategic direction. All of this becomes easier, and in some cases only becomes possible, when the limited time available is augmented by access to, and orchestrated input from, an intelligently nurtured external network.

Dynamic capability and the need to sense, seize and reconfigure

Dynamic capability is the ability to sense changes in the environment, seize opportunities and reconfigure effectively to exploit those opportunities, and to do this consistently. If you operate in an environment where nothing is changing, there is no need for such abilities. Most of us do not. Long‑term success depends on adapting faster and more intelligently than peers.

Change is multi‑dimensional. Technology development is accelerating. Processing platforms and analytics are evolving. Therapeutic approaches and regulatory expectations are shifting. Competitive landscapes and supply chain constraints are changing. For a site, or for professionals working on that site, response can also be multi‑dimensional. It is not limited to local reconfiguration. It can include more deliberate strategic input and influence, and the development of recognized local competencies in areas critical to corporate growth.

If you accept that the rate of change is increasing, then two implications follow. First, it becomes even more unrealistic that any one organization can stay current across all relevant fronts. Second, the penalty for failing to keep up, whether as a department, site or corporation, becomes more severe. The risk is medium‑term irrelevance.

If you conclude that organizations and individuals cannot simply pursue excellence in current deployment and expect to survive, the practical question becomes clear. How can they build sensing and option‑creation capacity when internal resource and time are so constrained, and when the applicability of evolving technologies and the impact of emerging market trends are so uncertain?

From theory to practice: building the capability to look outward

We believe the answer lies in being deliberate. Whatever time is available should be used to engage, grow and nurture an external expert network. At all levels within an organization, people of potential, people motivated to improve and driven to deliver strategic advantage, should have objectives (to which a small proportion of their time is allocated) that include contributing to that network and its exploration. Internal processes and frameworks should be created to ensure that this effort is effective and rigorously challenged.

Frameworks should leverage the internal resource that is available to develop and nurture an external network in areas of potential interest. It should amplify the impact of employees through support from, and coordination with, elements of that network. It should use the network, and its integration with staff, to alleviate resource constraints and generate momentum.

We believe that an external, orchestrated and curated platform, with the potential to create parallel working groups that include operational resource overlap, consistent with the thrust of ambidextrous theory and the COE (centre of excellence) concept in Winsor et al’s Open Talent model, could have significant potential. We also believe it would offer capable independent experts the opportunity to support real change.

Continuity from development to realization

Biopharma outcomes depend on continuity. Research informs process development. Development informs scale‑up. Scale‑up informs transfer. Transfer informs commercial operation. Knowledge should flow forward and backward across this chain. Data from one stage should shape decisions in the next. Experience from prior programs should reduce risk and accelerate future development.

In practice, this continuity is fragile. Project teams and disciplines can operate in silos. Integrators may be strong in design delivery yet less connected to operational realities.

A well‑orchestrated and integrated external network could help bridge these gaps. It could provide context, perspective, contrasting experience and insights that internal teams may not have or have time to develop. It could help ensure that the right questions are asked and that better solutions are reached through timely engagement. It could help surface avoidable risk.

Small scale matters too

At the other end of the spectrum, external expertise can be transformative in a simpler, more personal way. The contribution of a bright engineer, scientist or technical manager is often constrained by limited experience. Access to someone with relatable lived experience can compress learning dramatically. It allows an inquisitive, motivated and capable individual to build on the experiences of others, more quickly shaping how options are framed, which questions are asked early, what stakeholder dynamics matter, and where challenge has arisen before.

For ambitious people, this kind of access can accelerate development, broaden perspective and strengthen their ability to influence. It increases their potential to contribute to both current performance and future direction. Access to professionals who have already reached the levels to which an individual might aspire, or who have faced similar challenges, can also inform career planning and help individuals assess their trajectory with greater clarity.

Real barriers exist, but they are solvable

Working with external expertise is not frictionless. Real barriers exist. Communication and data‑access constraints can slow progress. Confidentiality and IP protection requirements must be respected. Incentives and politics can get in the way, including reluctance to admit uncertainty or expose gaps in expertise, especially where identity and influence are tied to being the internal expert.

None of these barriers are trivial. The solution lies in deliberate and committed engagement, supported by a clear and considered framework, disciplined scoping and appropriate governance. The effort is justified by the objective of future viability and ongoing success.

Who this is for

A curated external network only works if it creates value for everyone involved. It must support those seeking insight and those offering it. It must give ambitious internal staff access to experience they do not yet have and give experienced professionals meaningful ways to contribute.

On the contributor side, this includes experienced operators and technical leaders, including late‑career professionals who still want to make an impact. It includes independents and specialists building a focused practice, academics seeking industry relevance, and experts in emerging technologies and operating models.

On the user side, this includes change drivers and operational leaders, project sponsors and program leads, technical managers and engineers, and those responsible for identifying and delivering projects or for operational performance. It also includes those shaping site strategy, direction and investment cases.

A well‑orchestrated network connects these groups in a way that is practical, credible and outcome‑focused. It creates a space where experience can flow to where it is needed, when it is needed, eliminating friction and uncertainty.

Some questions

For change drivers and sponsors inside organizations:

Where do you see the biggest challenges in your work right now? How do you ensure you are tackling the most impactful problems, implementing the best solutions and doing so effectively? How do you stay aligned with strategy while also addressing market and technological opportunity?

For independent experts and academics:

How do you believe you could help those driving change in industry? What would you need from a platform designed to give you meaningful opportunities to influence real industrial outcomes and support the development of client‑side professionals?

Net+U is being built to make that connection practical, credible and outcome‑focused - we’d love to hear from you.

Please get in touch

write2us@netplusu.com