The IXC helps member companies share poorly defined needs and tries to match them to technologies and initiatives residing in other member companies. Each member company is assigned a trusted intermediary (TI). The TI is an employee of the IXC, but he or she becomes a “fly on the wall” in the company that they are assigned to. The TIs try to uncover the problems and needs of the organization. All the TIs meet and discuss regularly to find a match for the needs of the organization that they are assigned to. Very strict confidentiality agreements protect the knowledge of member companies. The TIs are not allowed to utilize the knowledge that they accumulate for private reasons and the information shared by the TIs is not even made known to other member organizations except through a strict process once the match has been identified. The Trusted Intermediaries also conduct nonmember search if need be. By signing non-disclosure agreements with nonmember companies as an employee of the exchange, rather than the member organization, the TIs serve to cloak the identity of the member until later stages of the transaction. Initially based out of Australia, the IXC is expanding its operations to other markets globally. For more information, please visit http://www.ixc.com.au/.
skip to main |
skip to sidebar
Participate in the decision market
Cool Web links
About Me
Blog Archive
Posts
Suggested revisions to InnoCentive model
ELIMINATE: experiences rather than single solutions, profit motive, closing issues once solved
REDUCE: bureaucracy /procedures, payments (incentives problem?), agreements, confidentiality
ENHANCE: intermediary role to clarify problem, gathering multiple problems, use of tech to create space for interaction, other forums to improve access/ collaboration
CREATE: multiple experiences related to each problem, monitoring effectiveness of solutions, wider role for 3 parts
REDUCE: bureaucracy /procedures, payments (incentives problem?), agreements, confidentiality
ENHANCE: intermediary role to clarify problem, gathering multiple problems, use of tech to create space for interaction, other forums to improve access/ collaboration
CREATE: multiple experiences related to each problem, monitoring effectiveness of solutions, wider role for 3 parts
Suggested revisions to the NineSigma model
ELIMINATE: The name
REDUCE: The one-way approach
ENHANCE: Problem identification needs a more inclusive, participatory approach; use pictures/video/multimedia; offer ‘failures’; open call for new/existing ideas
CREATE: Organizational capacity to manage the innovation process; feedback loops; more of a networked approach;
more transparent process around how new ideas are ‘chosen’; a parallel/linked process involving those not on email; an evaluation process involving wider ‘community'
REDUCE: The one-way approach
ENHANCE: Problem identification needs a more inclusive, participatory approach; use pictures/video/multimedia; offer ‘failures’; open call for new/existing ideas
CREATE: Organizational capacity to manage the innovation process; feedback loops; more of a networked approach;
more transparent process around how new ideas are ‘chosen’; a parallel/linked process involving those not on email; an evaluation process involving wider ‘community'
Suggested revisions to the Big Idea Group
ELIMINATE: Copyrights, patents, etc.; broker profits(?) – examine our own assumptions about what’s right and wrong about these types of issues, find what’s just and what works; drive for perfection and conventional rigour; prejudice against voice
ENHANCE: understanding of AID innovation marketplace; identification of innovation through gaps, failures, passions; appreciate the contributions of diverse stakeholders; wisdom of crowds in selecting and validating innovation; accessibility and collaborative testing
CREATE: panel of judges – democtratize; deadlines, multiple approaches, incentives to share, co-creation; non-traditional innovations, consultants as innovators, access to diasporas; categories of innovation (e.g. product, finance, delivery, process); themes of innovation (e.g. health, education, etc.)
ENHANCE: understanding of AID innovation marketplace; identification of innovation through gaps, failures, passions; appreciate the contributions of diverse stakeholders; wisdom of crowds in selecting and validating innovation; accessibility and collaborative testing
CREATE: panel of judges – democtratize; deadlines, multiple approaches, incentives to share, co-creation; non-traditional innovations, consultants as innovators, access to diasporas; categories of innovation (e.g. product, finance, delivery, process); themes of innovation (e.g. health, education, etc.)
Suggested revisions to InnovationXchange model
ELIMINATE: assumption that exchange is a flat and mono-cultural environment (power + mindsets)
REDUCE: legal confidentiality; costs in non-profit sector (but not so much that trust through face to face time is lost); headline “innovation” language
--> impactXchange
ENHANCE: “TI” shared between a few organizations = lower cost for smaller orgs; sector specific focus; sponsoring networks for smaller orgs by larger ones; face to face events (marketplace/ expo) with funding for collaborative innovations resulting; ways to reduce TI costs
CREATE: independent / pooled funding for “trusted intermediaries”; TI is the funding organization as well (look to other social investment pools; other TI partners; social spaces for label-free exchange of ideas
REDUCE: legal confidentiality; costs in non-profit sector (but not so much that trust through face to face time is lost); headline “innovation” language
--> impactXchange
ENHANCE: “TI” shared between a few organizations = lower cost for smaller orgs; sector specific focus; sponsoring networks for smaller orgs by larger ones; face to face events (marketplace/ expo) with funding for collaborative innovations resulting; ways to reduce TI costs
CREATE: independent / pooled funding for “trusted intermediaries”; TI is the funding organization as well (look to other social investment pools; other TI partners; social spaces for label-free exchange of ideas
1 comment:
Interesting that the speaker sees the IXC model as "expensive." I've never understood why IXC persists in trying to sell what it does as a service. IXC supplies a specific kind of human resource, and we pay far more for that kind of person typically than IXC charges. You wouldn't say 100k for your operations manager was too expensive, would you?
Also, the speaker makes the error (which I often saw people make) of jumbling the IXC function in with general sharing - when he suggests getting people from different companies together. Sure, you can always try that sort of thing in a variety of models - we call the most obvious the trade show, and trade shows do work for finding connections between companies...especially when there is lots of alcohol. But the unique function of the intermediary is that he or she is NOT employed by any of the companies but rather employed by a non-profit regulated body that holds fiduciary responsibility not to one party but to all firms participating in the regime. There are details in the intentions of separate firms which can not be told to the employee of another firm under any circumstances...and sadly, these details in intent (which can not be protected by IP) are arguably the best source of strong connection opportunity between firms. If I told you that my firm intends to put your firm out of business next month, you would be required by your fiduciary responsibility to report that knowledge to management. However, if two intermediaries share that information, they are required to say nothing and let it happen. Intermediaries are only allowed to report information (and then only through a strict set of procedures) when they see a reasonable opportunity for win-win connections.
Post a Comment