open innovation

Nguyen Dang Tuan Minh

From the “reverse pitching” experience between Hồ Gươm Group and the LIF Global 2025 expert team, the hardest part wasn’t about technology—or even pilot processes. The real challenge was the courage to name one’s own pain points in measurable terms, and to let others see them clearly.

For many corporations starting their open innovation journey, the main hesitation lies in revealing internal “pain points”—fearing exposure of weaknesses, judgment from peers, or skepticism from their teams. Beneath that hesitation often hides a deeper issue: the lack of clarity about what they are actually seeking from open innovation—a new idea, a piece of technology, or a concrete business result in the next quarter.

Hồ Gươm chose to “open” in the right place: narrowing their challenge down to WIP congestion on the garment production line, identifying bottlenecks, available data, and safe testing boundaries. Once the “pain point” was properly framed, discussions quickly shifted from “what’s the hottest technology” to “which process fluctuation is stretching lead time.” This revealed cross-disciplinary solutions—weight sensors at bottlenecks, barcode tracking for semi-finished goods, and production rhythm adjustments based on real-time data. The key lesson: learning to describe the problem better often unlocks more solutions than learning yet another technology.

“Learning Models” or “Learning Capabilities”?

In many conversations with Vietnamese corporations, a common expectation emerges: that simply copying others’ methods—launching challenges, building sandboxes, inviting startups—will bring success. That expectation often leads to disappointment.

Singapore provides a powerful counterexample: a mature open innovation ecosystem where the true lesson lies not in the checklist of activities, but in the capability to reframe problems—between corporations and intermediary platforms—and in the disciplined operation around data, IP, and budgeting.

What Did Singapore Learn to Scale “Open” Nationally?

The IMDA Open Innovation Platform (OIP) acts as a switchboard for countless public–private collaborations. Managed by Singapore’s Infocomm Media Development Authority, it operates on three key layers of capability:

• Friction reduction: IMDA offers free consulting to help companies define their problems precisely—a small-sounding service, yet one where most other countries stumble. Firms only need to post a “bounty” for the right solution instead of struggling to craft a problem statement themselves.
• Market filtering: The platform maintains a network of around 12,000 registered solution providers globally and hosts quarterly innovation calls that receive hundreds of proposals—allowing rapid solution–demand matching by sector, technology, and geography.
• Discovery engine: A curated matchmaking system that lets businesses see who has solved similar challenges, where pilots were conducted, and how a PoC could run in Singapore.

The Open Innovation Network (OIN) by Enterprise Singapore goes a step further by funding pilots. It connects entrepreneurs, researchers, and corporations around funded challenges, offering Proof-of-Concept Development Grants to selected Singaporean startups and organizing National Innovation Challenges around key themes—mitigating the “funding gap” that often kills PoCs elsewhere.

The process runs as follows: define a shared problem → create a funded pilot → establish a reintegration pathway if successful.

These layers are “powered” by frequent, well-scoped challenges with measurable outcomes. The Sustainability Open Innovation Challenge (SOIC)—now in its 6th edition—has committed over SGD 2 million in pilot and support funding, with focus areas in climate, green buildings, sustainable agriculture, sustainable materials, and an open category. Linear timelines, early-announced criteria, and on-schedule results build trust with startups while enforcing discipline on challenge owners.

Similarly, the Nordic Open Innovation Challenge, run in partnership with Enterprise Singapore, attracts Nordic solutions while requiring winning startups to establish a local entity within six months—a subtle yet powerful way to anchor innovation capabilities in Singapore. The AI Open Innovation Challenge does the same for AI applications—moving beyond demos toward deployable use cases.

When ministries from MSE to EDB align on these initiatives, Singapore’s “open” ecosystem reveals not just density, but strategic coherence.

Why Does “Learning How Others Do It” Often Fail in Vietnam?

Three recurring reasons stand out:

• “We’re too big for this.” Many corporations view admitting problems as losing face. But open innovation isn’t confession—it’s disciplined knowledge acquisition. If you don’t articulate your needs, the market will sell you everything except what you need.
• Vague objectives. Domestic challenges often adopt trendy themes like AI or ESG without integration pathways or post-PoC criteria. When no one owns the follow-through, everything ends at the award ceremony.
• Missing intermediaries. Vietnam lacks strong “problem brokers” like IMDA or OIN—entities capable of helping firms craft problem statements, filter solutions, and link PoCs with funding and procurement mechanisms.

These intermediaries—knowledge brokers who understand both corporates and startups—are the missing capability. They can “translate” business pains into challenge briefs tied to sandbox policies, IP rules, and venture-client purchasing lanes.

What Should Vietnam Learn First from Singapore?

Don’t start with event quantity or number of challenges. Start with problem definition capability.

At the corporate level, the first task is drafting a problem brief for each key operation line: where the bottleneck is, what data exists, what unit of value is measurable, what system will the PoC integrate into, and who owns it. This isn’t a technical report—just a one-pager that IMDA or OIN could easily turn into a precise challenge.

Since Vietnam doesn’t yet have an IMDA, corporations must train this skill internally or delegate it to a trusted domestic innovation broker.

Next comes discipline in finance and IP. Many programs fail due to IP fear or lock-in anxiety. Singapore solves this via short-term PoC contracts, clear data/ anonymity clauses, and conditional commercialization paths (“if A, then B”).

For larger challenges like SOIC, budgets, ownership, and timelines are transparent—turning “open” from an event into an organizational commitment.

Finally, the pioneers matter. In every country, early movers—those willing to try, fail, and try again—prove that exposing pain points doesn’t weaken a brand; it attracts talent and partners. Once a few successful PoC-to-scale pathways exist, the rest of the system learns exponentially faster.

What Should Corporations and Startups Each Learn?

Corporations must learn the language of problems: describe pain points with data, constraints, and business goals rather than tech slogans. They must also practice disciplined humility—open enough for solutions to fit into operations, yet closed enough to protect the core.

Startups, on the other hand, must learn the language of integration: every proposal should show entry points into existing systems, transition costs, maintenance responsibility, and time-to-value.

In Singapore, requiring foreign startups to establish a local entity within six months of selection isn’t to make things harder—but to ensure local grounding. This is a useful lesson for designing challenges in Vietnam.

“Open” Isn’t About Copying Activities—It’s About Changing Perspectives

Learning from Singapore doesn’t mean chasing the number of challenges or the size of prizes. It means learning how to turn problems into learning contracts.

To do that, corporations must shift roles—from “technology judges” to “buyers of business outcomes,” from “hiding weaknesses” to “using the market to fix them.”

When pioneers set the example, others will gain the courage to follow. And once a few successful “return paths” from PoC to full integration appear, the entire ecosystem will accelerate on its own.

© KisStartup. All rights reserved. Any reproduction, citation, or reuse must clearly credit KisStartup.

References

 

Enterprise Singapore. (2025). Open Innovation Network: Market access and networks. Retrieved from

https://www.enterprisesg.gov.sg/grow-your-business/innovate-with-us/mark...

Enterprise Singapore. (2025). Grow your business: Innovate with us. Retrieved from

https://www.enterprisesg.gov.sg/grow-your-business/innovate-with-us

Enterprise Singapore. (2025). Co-innovation programmes & POC development grants. Retrieved from

https://www.enterprisesg.gov.sg/financial-support/Co-Innovation-Programmes

IMDA. (2025). Open Innovation Platform (OIP): How we can help. Retrieved from

https://www.imda.gov.sg/how-we-can-help/open-innovation-platform

IMDA. (2025). PIXEL / OIP calls. Retrieved from

https://pixel.imda.gov.sg/programmes/startups/oip-calls/

Open Innovation SG. (2025). Challenges directory. Retrieved from

https://www.openinnovation.sg/challenges

Open Innovation Network. (2025). Innovation challenges: Sustainability Open Innovation Challenge – 6th edition. Retrieved from

https://www.openinnovationnetwork.gov.sg/innovation-challenges/sustainab...

Open Innovation SG. (2025). SOIC 6th edition (challenge page). Retrieved from

https://open.innovation-challenge.sg/en/challenges/soic-6th-edition

Agorize. (2025). SOIC 6th edition (platform page). Retrieved from

https://www.agorize.com/en/challenges/soic-6th-edition

Open Innovation SG. (2025). Nordic Open Innovation Challenge 2024. Retrieved from

https://open.innovation-challenge.sg/en/challenges/noic-2024/agreements?...

Open Innovation SG. (2025). AI Open Innovation Challenge 2024. Retrieved from

https://open.innovation-challenge.sg/en/challenges/aioic-2024/pages/abou...

Ministry of Sustainability and the Environment (Singapore). (2025). Research & innovation. Retrieved from

https://www.mse.gov.sg/resources/research-and-innovation/

Singapore Economic Development Board (EDB). (2025). Innovation initiatives for businesses. Retrieved from

https://www.edb.gov.sg/en/business-insights/insights/learn-about-singapo...

Open Innovation SG. (2025). Past editions – SOIC. Retrieved from

https://open.innovation-challenge.sg/en/challenges/soic-6th-edition/page...

Open Innovation Network. (2025). National innovation challenges. Retrieved from

https://www.openinnovationnetwork.gov.sg/innovation-challenges/open-inno...

IPI Singapore. (2025). Open innovation challenges. Retrieved from

https://www.ipi-singapore.org/challenges?challenge_type=2&page=3

(Additional references to GreyB, Innosabi, 2080 Ventures, etc., cited in previous KisStartup articles.)

If the previous article asked “Why open?”, then this one tackles the more urgent question: “How to open—with discipline, risk control, and real value creation?”

As global corporations accelerate their open innovation programs, it has become evident that most failures do not stem from a lack of ideas but from the absence of governance structures for openness. Leading corporations face the same paradox: to learn fast, they must open up—but opening too quickly without management safeguards leads to chaos.

According to Silicon Valley Bank (2025), up to 51% of Corporate Venture Capital (CVC) funds face challenges in speed and efficiency. Slow decision-making, multilayered approval processes, and a “safety-first” mindset have caused many corporate–startup collaborations to miss opportunities. Open innovation, therefore, doesn’t die from lack of creativity—it dies from being slower than the market.

Corporate Venture Capital: The Financial Lab of Open Innovation

Over the past two years, CVC has returned to the center of corporate innovation strategies—not as a “tech PR tool” as in 2015–2020, but as a disciplined learning capability that delivers both financial returns and access to new technologies and business models.

Instead of pouring money into hundreds of small deals, the new trend is to invest less but deeper. According to CB Insights (2025), the number of CVC transactions has dropped to a seven-year low, but the average deal size has increased significantly. Priority sectors remain AI, clean energy, and biotechnology—pillars shaping global corporate strategies.

A new concept, the secondary market for CVC, has also emerged. About 22% of CVC funds now use this mechanism to create liquidity—selling their startup equity stakes to other investors instead of waiting for IPOs or acquisitions. This allows faster capital recycling, reduced financial pressure, and sustained strategic positioning within innovation networks.

This marks a mature phase of open innovation: corporations are not only open in technology but also open in finance, managing their portfolios like professional investors rather than extended R&D units (SVB, 2025).

However, CVC is effective only when integrated into overall corporate strategy. Many fail because their funds operate in silos, detached from business operations—meaning technologies they invest in never make it into internal value chains. “Open” here means not only investing externally but also reintegrating innovation into the corporate ecosystem.

Venture Client: When Corporations Become the Startup’s First Customer

If CVC is how corporations buy learning rights, then the Venture Client Model is how they buy learning outcomes.

Unlike equity investment, this model doesn’t require corporations to take ownership in startups. Instead, they become the first paying customer, testing and applying startup products in real business environments.

The model originated at BMW Startup Garage, where the German automaker chose to collaborate with startups as pilot suppliers rather than investors. This saved time compared to traditional investment while giving startups true motivation—first revenue is more important than first capital.

According to Qmarkets (2025), Venture Client models are now adopted across industries—from energy (Enel) and finance (BBVA) to pharmaceuticals (Roche). The State of Venture Client Report (2025) notes that 2024 marked a “reassessment phase,” when corporations began cutting symbolic partnerships and restructuring for measurable outcomes.

For Vietnamese corporations, this approach is highly feasible. Becoming a startup’s first customer doesn’t require ownership changes or large venture capital budgets but creates dual value: corporations access new technologies, while startups gain real market validation. This model minimizes financial risk but demands a culture of experimentation—accepting that some pilots may fail, yet each failure is a cheaper lesson than a corporate-scale one.

Corporate Accelerator: When Corporations Become Tech Incubators

While the Venture Client model targets ready-to-market solutions, Corporate Accelerators focus earlier—on nurturing ideas and testing them with internal teams. According to Cognitive Market Research (2025), the global accelerator market is expanding rapidly, with over 2,400 active programs and VC funds. Corporations like Airbus, Shell, and AB InBev use this model to scout emerging technologies, recruit talent, and build long-term links with the startup community.

Interestingly, the effectiveness of accelerators isn’t measured by how many startups succeed, but by how much the corporation learns. A Failory (2025) survey found that only 15–20% of accelerator startups raise follow-on funding, yet nearly 70% of participating corporations reported that they had “restructured their internal innovation processes” afterward.
Ultimately, accelerators don’t just create new startups—they recreate the innovation DNA of the corporation itself.

Opening Ecosystems and Sharing Intellectual Property: From Monopoly to Symbiosis

Today, open innovation is no longer a two-party relationship between corporations and startups—it has evolved into multi-stakeholder networks involving research institutes, customers, suppliers, startups, and regulators co-creating value. Dealroom (2025) calls this the “post-isolation era”, where competition no longer happens between individual companies but between innovation ecosystems.

A prime example is the rise of Patent Pools—shared patent funds contributed by multiple corporations. Companies like Apple, Google, Samsung, and Sony use this model to share core technologies (e.g., 5G standards, data compression protocols), reducing R&D costs and accelerating standardization (PatentPC, 2025). Similarly, cross-licensing allows firms to exchange technology rights without reinvesting from scratch (MontecarloLifestyle, 2025).

For Vietnamese corporations, this is an underexplored yet promising path. Many own uncommercialized patents or hesitate to share due to fears of losing trade secrets. However, with clear IP frameworks and transparent licensing mechanisms, each “sleeping patent” can become either a new revenue source or raw material for others’ innovation.

Open Governance: From Culture to Mechanism

“Disciplined openness” isn’t just about process—it’s about cultural transformation. In successful corporations, open innovation isn’t initiated by R&D departments but embedded in overall strategy. Three foundational elements often define sustainable models:

• Leadership commitment. Without CEO sponsorship, open innovation stops at pilot projects.
• Transparent data and IP governance. Every asset is clearly categorized: core, modular, or open.
• Value-based performance measurement. Instead of counting startup contests, corporations now track conversion rates from pilots to real contracts, time from idea to commercialization, and the revenue or cost savings from open innovation.

According to Coinlaw (2025), the average ROI for CVC portfolios ranges between 20–25%, proving that openness can be both fast and profitable—when managed correctly.

Vietnam: Selective Openness for Faster Learning

In Vietnam, many corporations have begun talking about openness—organizing hackathons, sandbox pilots, and startup collaborations—but most still lack long-term operational frameworks. The next phase should focus not on more activities but on system design: defining goals, IP mechanisms, experimentation budgets, and evaluation criteria.

For startups, understanding how corporations open up is the key to collaboration. A product may not fit CVC investment but could be sold through a venture client model. A technology may not be strong enough for monopoly, yet could be licensed within a patent pool.
Thus, “open” isn’t just corporate behavior—it’s the shared language between two worlds learning to co-evolve faster.

Discipline Is the Foundation of Openness

A successful open innovation program requires not only courage to share but also discipline to manage that sharing. When corporations understand the boundaries between what to keep and what to open, between strategic and collaborative data, innovation stops being a cost—it becomes a profitable capability.

Those who master selective openness today will be the organizations that adapt and thrive tomorrow. In the age of AI and connected platforms, openness is no longer a risk—it is the only insurance against obsolescence.

© Copyright belongs to KisStartup. Any reproduction, quotation, or reuse must clearly cite the source KisStartup.

References

Cognitive Market Research. (2025). Accelerators market report 2025–2030. Retrieved from

https://www.cognitivemarketresearch.com/accelerators-market-report

CB Insights. (2025). Corporate venture capital trends Q1 2025. Retrieved from

https://www.cbinsights.com/research/report/corporate-venture-capital-tre...

Coinlaw. (2025). Venture capital industry statistics 2025. Retrieved from

https://coinlaw.io/venture-capital-industry-statistics/

Dealroom. (2025). Global Tech Ecosystem Index 2025. Retrieved from

https://dealroom.co/uploaded/2025/05/Dealroom-Global-Tech-Ecosystem-Inde...

Failory. (2025). Startup accelerators: Global trends and outcomes. Retrieved from

https://www.failory.com/blog/startup-accelerators

MontecarloLifestyle. (2025). Patent licensing strategies for innovation and monetization. Retrieved from

https://www.montecarlolifestyle.mc/patent-licensing-strategies-for-innov...

PatentPC. (2025). The role of patent pools in Apple’s tech strategy. Retrieved from

https://patentpc.com/blog/the-role-of-patent-pools-in-apples-tech-strate...

Qmarkets. (2025). Venture clienting: How corporations buy innovation. Retrieved from

https://www.qmarkets.net/resources/article/venture-clienting/

Silicon Valley Bank. (2025). State of corporate venture capital report 2025. Retrieved from

https://www.svb.com/trends-insights/reports/state-of-cvc/

State of Venture Client. (2025). The state of venture client report 2025. Retrieved from

https://stateofventureclient.com/state-of-venture-client-report/

Would you like me to continue with Part 3 (the final article) in this series – “Leading Innovation in Corporations: Building Open Capability from Strategy to Culture” – focusing on organizational structure, leadership, and how to establish effective innovation governance?
 

 

In the 21st century, “closing off to protect advantages” is no longer a safe strategy. When the technology life cycle is now measured in quarters and the product cycle is shorter than the internal approval process, large corporations are forced to learn how to open up – to learn faster, test faster, and co-create new value with others.

Open innovation is becoming a survival strategy, not just a complementary option for traditional R&D programs (Mind the Bridge, 2025; Innosabi, 2025; Start2Group, 2025).

“Open” because no one can do everything alone

In the 1990s, the competitive edge of corporations lay in the size of their R&D departments and billion-dollar budgets. Today, however, more useful knowledge lies outside the enterprise than within. According to Open Innovation Outlook 2025 (Mind the Bridge, 2025), over 68% of new product and technology ideas commercialized by corporations come from external sources – startups, research institutes, or customers.

This leads to a new rule: the cost of internal learning is now higher than the cost of controlled sharing. Instead of trying to build everything from scratch, successful corporations have shifted to becoming orchestrators of value networks — turning startups into “extended R&D departments” and customers into co-creators.

Notable examples include Samsung, Bosch, and Elia Group. Samsung continuously organizes open innovation contests to seek IoT and healthtech solutions, successfully commercializing products like SmartThings (HeroX, 2024). Bosch established the Open Bosch program, where startups collaborate with internal engineers to develop AI modules for autonomous vehicles (ITONICS, 2025). Elia Group, meanwhile, opened its grid data to digital energy startups, enabling AI-based optimization of operations (ITONICS, 2025).

In all these cases, “open” is no longer tech-related CSR — it is a core strategic structure, a foundation for maintaining innovation speed and adaptability.

“Open” because internal innovation has hit its ceiling

Traditional R&D processes are often cumbersome, risk-averse, and prioritize safety over speed. Hundreds of ideas may “die” in the lab due to lack of test markets or misalignment with strategic product portfolios. Open innovation creates a parallel mechanism — where ideas can be tested beyond internal borders, at startup speed but with the corporation’s data, funding, and brand as launchpads.

According to Future-Proofing Corporate Innovation (Start2Group, 2025), 75% of the world’s leading corporations have shifted from exclusive innovation models to flexible frameworks that allow simultaneous testing of multiple solutions and faster selection. As a result, they have shortened R&D cycles by up to 40% and significantly reduced the cost per successful product (McKinsey, 2025; HYPE Innovation, 2025).

“Open” to adapt to the era of AI, data, and platforms

In the digital economy, value no longer lies in raw data but in the ability to connect and learn from others’ data. Technology and industrial giants are opening APIs, sharing simulation datasets, or allowing third parties to develop products on their platforms — from Google and Microsoft to Siemens and Bosch (ITONICS, 2025; Yet2, 2025).

In Vietnam, this trend is still in its early stage. Some corporations have organized innovation contests or launched technology sandboxes. However, most efforts remain experimental — lacking clear IP governance mechanisms, complicated collaboration processes, and a corporate culture still hesitant to share.

If this does not change, Vietnamese corporations risk repeating Kodak’s mistake — once owning the first digital camera technology but collapsing due to cultural inertia and the belief that “we are already leading” (Innosabi, 2023).

“Open” to leverage the short lifespan of patents

According to the WIPO Global Innovation Index 2025, over 60% of patents in high-tech fields have a commercial life span of less than three years (WIPO, 2025). If companies fail to quickly find partners to exploit these patents, they will become obsolete before investment costs are recovered.

Many global corporations have adopted Patent-to-Market or Patent Licensing strategies — sharing non-core technologies for startups or SMEs to create new products. This is how IBM, Hitachi, and Panasonic generate billions of USD annually from their seemingly “expired” IP portfolios.

In Vietnam, where the patent commercialization rate is still below 10% (WIPO, 2024), being “open” could become a lever to transform intellectual property assets into real revenue streams instead of merely sitting in registration files.

“Open” to survive in a nonlinear economy

After the COVID-19 pandemic, corporations realized that global value chains are no longer stable. Supply chain disruptions, material shortages, and geopolitical volatility have made adaptability the greatest competitive advantage.

Research by McKinsey (2025) and HYPE Innovation (2025) shows that corporations with well-functioning open innovation programs are 2.3 times more resilient during crises than those relying solely on internal resources. Collaborating with external partners creates resilience nodes in the network — when one link fails, the rest can still operate.

Vietnam: Still at the “dialogue” stage, not yet “designed for openness”

Many Vietnamese corporations are still talking about openness rather than designing for openness. Activities such as hackathons, MOUs with startups, or pilot collaborations remain fragmented, lacking proper budget mechanisms, KPIs, and data governance frameworks.

The root causes are the absence of IP management frameworks and mechanisms to protect knowledge in open collaboration. Companies fear losing trade secrets, lack IP valuation capabilities, and maintain cultures favoring safety over learning.

“Open” to evolve, not just to cooperate

If this article answers the question “Why open up?”, the next one will explore “How to open up with discipline” — how corporations can build ecosystems, manage IP, measure effectiveness, and maintain flexibility without losing technological secrets.

Open innovation is not merely about sharing ideas; it is about restructuring how enterprises learn and create value. In an era of volatility, “open” is no longer an action — it is a strategic capability of the corporation.

© Copyright belongs to KisStartup. Any form of copying, citation, or reuse must clearly cite KisStartup as the source.

References

Digital Leadership. (2024). Open innovation examples, definition, and challenges. Retrieved from

https://digitalleadership.com/blog/open-innovation/

HeroX. (2024). 5 examples of companies that got open innovation right. Retrieved from

https://www.herox.com/blog/982-5-examples-of-companies-that-got-open-inn...

HYPE Innovation. (2025). 2025 State of corporate innovation report: Key trends and insights on turning ideas into outcomes. Retrieved from

https://www.hypeinnovation.com/news/2025-state-of-corporate-innovation-r...

Innosabi. (2023). Challenges in open innovation. Retrieved from

https://www.innosabi.com/resources/post/challenges-in-open-innovation

Innosabi. (2025). 7 strategic corporate innovation trends in 2025. Retrieved from

https://www.innosabi.com/resources/post/corporate-innovation-trends

ITONICS Innovation. (2025). Open innovation guide – Examples & tools 2025. Retrieved from

https://www.itonics-innovation.com/guides/open-innovation

McKinsey & Company. (2025). The top trends in tech. Retrieved from

https://www.mckinsey.com/capabilities/mckinsey-digital/our-insights/the-...

Mind the Bridge. (2025). Open innovation outlook 2025: Trends for 2025 in corporate-startup engagement. Retrieved from

https://mindthebridge.com/open-innovation-outlook-2025-trends-for-2025-i...

Start2Group. (2025). Future-proofing corporate innovation: Strategies for 2025 and beyond. Retrieved from

https://www.start2.group/blog/future-proofing-corporate-innovation-strat...

VinUni. (2025). Open innovation conference 2025. Retrieved from

https://vinuni.edu.vn/research/event/open-innovation-conference-2025/

WIPO. (2025). Global innovation index 2025. Geneva: World Intellectual Property Organization. Retrieved from

https://www.wipo.int/web-publications/global-innovation-index-2025/asset...

Yet2. (2025). Three big trends in open innovation systems from the first half of 2025. Retrieved from

https://www.yet2.com/insights/three-big-trends-in-open-innovation-system...

 

On August 16th, 2024, the Reverse Pitching event, organized by Mitsui Chemicals—one of Japan's leading corporations in chemicals and advanced materials—in collaboration with KisStartup, has garnered significant attention from the scientific community, universities, research institutes, startups, and businesses in Vietnam. This is a large-scale open innovation initiative where Mitsui Chemicals proactively presents the advanced technologies they own and invites external collaborations for further development.

The distinctive feature of this model is that, unlike traditional pitching events where businesses or startups present their ideas, Mitsui Chemicals openly shares their portfolio of breakthrough technologies and seeks partners, scientists, and startups to co-develop or co-invent. This approach not only maximizes the lifecycle of inventions but also opens new avenues for collaboration, enabling businesses and researchers to unlock the potential applications of these technologies, thereby creating new products and services.

The program focuses on areas with broad application potential, such as the development of thermoplastic materials, polyolefin additives, and gas and moisture barrier solutions. These technologies can be applied in various industries, from healthcare and food to industrial and construction sectors, offering groundbreaking and sustainable solutions.

Mr. Kaneyoshi Hiromu, Executive Director of the Mitsui Chemicals Singapore R&D Center, emphasized that this initiative not only creates opportunities for connection but also helps Mitsui Chemicals and its partners co-create new technologies. Additionally, Mitsui Chemicals has opened registration and is awaiting potential collaboration proposals after the event, offering startups and scientists the opportunity to participate in the corporation's awards program in 2025.

Ms. Nguyen Dang Tuan Minh, Founder and CEO of KisStartup, stated that this is a rare open innovation activity in Vietnam. In the context of globalization and the technology boom, this model helps businesses not only rely on their internal strengths but also seek support from external resources to solve challenging problems.

Mitsui Chemicals' Reverse Pitching event marks a new milestone in promoting open innovation cooperation between corporations and potential partners, contributing to bringing advanced technologies into practical applications and creating sustainable value for both sides.

TECHNOLOGIES INTRODUCED

Part 1 - Breakthrough thermoplastic materials for applications in various industries

1. Friction-resistant plastic materials

Mitsui Chemicals Group's plastic materials are innovated and improved to reduce friction, extend the life of components and reduce noise across various industries such as automobiles, electronics, construction and home appliances.

The Group is looking for new ideas and technologies to enhance the value of its plastic materials to create novel and groundbreaking applications. Mitsui Chemicals Group is particularly interested in solutions that serve specific needs in Vietnam and the region, in order to open up new value for this material.

2. Stain-resistant plastic materials

Mitsui Chemicals Group is proud to offer a wide range of stain-resistant plastic materials designed to tackle a wide range of stains, from stubborn food residues such as meat sauce to both water-based and oil-based stains.

Our innovative materials are used in a wide range of industries, from food containers to preventing algae build-up on walls. These materials not only improve efficiency by offering unique stain-resistant properties or allowing for easy cleaning with just a small amount of water, but also help save on resources and maintenance costs.

3. Plastic materials with superior gas permeability or gas barrier

We are pleased to introduce our innovative plastic materials with superior gas permeability and gas barrier properties. These transparent and chemical-resistant materials have a wide range of applications. Our gas permeable resins are expected to be used for cell culture tools, while gas barrier resins are suitable for tablet packaging sheets, syringes and many other applications.

The group is currently seeking innovative proposals from industry stakeholders to explore new opportunities in the healthcare sector by leveraging the unique properties of these transparent plastic materials with superior gas permeability and barrier properties.

*Gas permeability - Gas permeability, which can be understood as the ease with which atoms or molecules pass through a membrane without reacting with the material under steady-state conditions, i.e. the steady-state flow rate of gas through the membrane.

**Gas barrier property - Gas barrier property, which refers to the ability of a material to resist the passage or transmission of gases, such as oxygen, carbon dioxide or water vapor, through it. This is an important property for packaging materials because it protects the contents from damage or deterioration due to exposure to gases from the environment.

Part 2 - Polyolefin additives for industrial applications

4.Smooth plastic materials

Mitsui Chemicals' unique plastic material is a surface modifier that imparts silicone-like properties to polyolefins, such as anti-stick properties, water and oil resistance, and abrasion resistance. It can be used for any application that requires a slippery or easy-to-slip property, such as protective films, anti-staining applications, and food packaging, in a variety of industries. The Group is particularly interested in solutions that can use our materials to create or improve the properties described above.

5. Materials for viscosity control

Mitsui Chemical Corporation has developed a special polyolefin fiber with a complex branched structure similar to natural wood fibers. When added to a formulation, it effectively captures particles (small, suspended particles in the compound) to ensure even dispersion and better processability, as well as improved durability and crack resistance. This material is currently used in a variety of applications such as paints, adhesives and building materials.

The Corporation is looking for solutions for both new and existing applications that require effective viscosity control, such as solvent-based exterior paints, concrete, adhesives and lubricants.

Submit your ideas: https://docs.google.com/forms/d/e/1FAIpQLSfsQXA3Y2vd9boUPEn35R9g08o4r6kM...

 

The Workshop of "Open Innovation in Lecturers - Students - Schools: Creating a Wave of Innovation in Education", in order to create and promote the spirit of entrepreneurship and innovation to strengthen the connection and sharing of resources for developing the innovation ecosystem in higher education institutions has been organized on September 19, 2022, by Hong Duc University in coordination with NATEC, Ministry of Science and Technology, and KisStarup Joint Stock Company. 

Within the framework of the program, Assoc.Prof.Dr. Bui Van Dung - Rector of the University and Ms. Nguyen Dang Tuan Minh - Head of Corporate Open Innovation Technology Village, Techfest 2022, Founder and CEO of KisStartup signed a memorandum of cooperation on building and developing ecosystems for HDU and startups in Thanh Hoa province.

Accordingly, KisStartup will cooperate with the school to develop MISP-HDU, an incubation and acceleration program for the promotion of innovative startup solutions for SMEs and Micro enterprises in Thanh Hoa, and at the same time connecting solutions of startups to serve SMEs and Micro-enterprises through testing and developing the market in Thanh Hoa.

KisStartup also cooperates with the school to promote the commercialization of research results from the university through KisStartup's Vietnam RnD incubation program and to improve the capacity of faculty and students in innovation.

Hong Duc University with its strength as a multidisciplinary university, located in the ecosystem of more than 25,000 small and medium enterprises in Thanh Hoa will have the potential to become an innovation center in the North Central region.
The signing ceremony was conducted in the presence of Mr. Pham Hong Quat, Director of NATEC, Ministry of Science and Technology and other stakeholders in the startup ecosystem.