Appendixes
INDEX OF APPENDIXES
1. Appendix: Third Party Open Innovations2812. Appendix: Organisational and Psychological/Social Barriers to Co-Creation2843. Appendix: Corporate Use of Co-Creation2874. Appendix: A Typology of Crowdsourcing2895. Appendix: Typology by Type of Crowd2926. Appendix: Classification by complexity of task2937. Appendix: Examples of Idea Management Platforms2958. Appendix: Crowdsourced Advertizing3009. Appendix: Specialty Crowd Process Providers30210. Appendix: Surveying the new sharing attitudes (USA) 30411. Appendix: The History of Product-Service Systems 30612. Appendix: The emergence of collaborative consumption 30813. Appendix: Examples of the sharing economy in the UK 31014. Appendix: Four Degrees of Sharing 31215. Appendix: Three examples of Open Hardware and/or Distributed Manufacturing31616. Appendix: Examples of Open Design Projects31917. Appendix: Interview: Agata Jaworska on the Design for Download Project32318. Appendix: Four Stages in the Spatio-Temporal Configuration of the Human World32619. Appendix: CrowdCube First Year Infographic32920. Appendix: Axel Bruns on Produsage in Citizen Journalism33221. Appendix: Open vs. Closed Platforms33422. Appendix: Mapping the emergence of sharing economies in France336
280
1. Appendix: Third Party Open Innovations
Compiled by Michel Bauwens
From an article in Wired magazine:
“Pharmaceutical maker Eli Lilly funded InnoCentive’s launch in 2001 as a way to connectwith brainpower outside the company – people who could help develop drugs and speedthem to market. From the outset, InnoCentive threw open the doors to other firms eager toaccess the network’s trove of ad hoc experts. Companies like Boeing, DuPont, and Procter &Gamble now post their most ornery scientific problems on InnoCentive’s Web site; anyoneon InnoCentive’s network can take a shot at cracking them.The companies – or seekers, in InnoCentive parlance – pay solvers anywhere from $10,000to $100,000 per solution. (They also pay InnoCentive a fee to participate.) Jill Panetta,InnoCentive’s chief scientific officer, says more than 30 percent of the problems posted onthe site have been cracked, “which is 30 percent more than would have been solved using atraditional, in-house approach.”
The solvers are not who you might expect. Many are hobbyists working from their proverbial garage, like the University ofDallas undergrad who came up with a chemical to use inart restoration, or the Cary, North Carolina, patent lawyer whodevised a novel way to mix large batches of chemical compounds.This shouldn’t be surprising, notes Karim Lakhani, a lecturer in technology and innovation at MIT, who has studiedInnoCentive. “The strength of a network like InnoCentive’s is exactly the diversity of intellectual background,” he says.Lakhani and his three coauthors surveyed 166 problems posted to InnoCentive from 26 different firms. “We actuallyfound the odds of a solver’s success increased in fields in which they had no formal expertise,” Lakhani says. He has puthis finger on a central tenet of network theory, what pioneering sociologist Mark Granovetter describes as “the strength ofweak ties.” The most efficient networks are those that link to the broadest range of information, knowledge, andexperience”
How it Works, by Peter Turner:
“Companies (like Proctor & Gamble an early entrant) contract as “seekers” to post R&Dchallenges gaining access to a growing global community of currently 80,000 scientist“solvers.” Many of these professionals were attained through agreements with universitiesand research institutions throughout the world.The process provides IP protection for the “seekers.” They review together with InnoCentivesolutions returned by “solvers” and selects the best solution. Innocentive issues the award tothe winning “solver” which has reached payments as high as $100,000US.Once a solver executes a services agreement a private online room is created to interact withInnoCentive staff and permit the review by the approved solvers of the seeker’s confidentialmaterial
The solver’s proposed solutions are posted and then reviewed by InnoCentive who workwith the solver to refine as needed. Innocentive selects the best submission and awards are paid to the solver. Identities of both parties are kept confidential until a verified submissionhas been accepted and award paid; InnoCentive bills the seeker for that amount plus its fee. An indemnity agreement is obtained from the solver to protect both the seeker andInnoCentive.”
Example of a project:
“Take Colgate-Palmolive (CL). The company needed a more efficient method for getting itstoothpaste into the tube — a seemingly straightforward problem. When its internal R&Dteam came up empty-handed, the company posted the specs on InnoCentive, one of manynew marketplaces that link problems with problem-solvers. A Canadian engineer named Ed Melcarek proposed putting a positive charge on fluoride powder, then grounding the tube. Itwas an effective application of elementary physics, but not one that Colgate-Palmolive'steam of chemists had ever contemplated. Melcarek was duly rewarded with $25,000 for a few hours work.”
Discussion and Debates
1. Innocentive isolates the problem solvers from each other
Commentary by Sami Viitamaki:
“Innocentive fits the category of crowdsourcing that does not fully utilize the community’s‘wisdom of crowds’. The solvers pursue the solution in isolation from each other, and the possibility of using the community to gather comments on the alternatives, build on others’ideas, find a winning solution by community rating, etc. is absent.In my thesis I call these kind of companies ‘Crowdsourcing Brokers’, for they really simply gather up alternative solutions from a large member base for their own clients’ needs andleave deciding on the winning solution to the clients. Given the nature of the competition inthese kind of efforts and the considerable monetary rewards involved, the approach isnaturally understandable. Other ‘broker’ approach companies are e.g. iStockphoto andHolotof advertising.”
2. Summary of a study by Karim Lakhani:
“Karim Lakhani and his team at Harvard Business School have been studying this phenomenon in the context of scientific problem solving (working paper here) based on data from Innocentive’s winning entries (30% of all problems on Innocentive have been solved).Below are some of their findings of the study followed by my commentary on itsapplicability to analytics:In short, diversity of problem solvers area of expertise was key. Analytics lends well todiversity as it is a very multi-disciplinary field with potential applications from a variousbranches of science i.e. economics, mathematics, engineering, psychology, operationsresearch etc.
Search History:
Result 00 of 00
00 results for result for
p.
Synthetic Overview of the Collaborative Economy: Appendixes
The report “Synthetic overview of the collaborative economy“, coproduced by Orange Labs and the P2P Foundation, provides a thorough mapping of the actors involved in this cooperative economy: for the first time, nearly all the dots of the emerging collaborative economy, and their inter-relation, are presented in a single overview.
249
Reads
2
Readcasts
823
Embed Views
Recommended
More From This User
Notes
Load more
