The core models and their suggested modifications are described below, although these models are still 'under construction.' Groups will continue modifying their concepts and communicating changes via the blog and discussion space. By “buying” and “selling” shares in these four models, each of you will be participating in real time feedback on the potential value of these ideas. We invite you to begin participating by answering the following question (by clicking "comment"):
If you had $5,000,000 in seed funding, which of the below models of open innovation for development would you support?
Posts
4 comments:
Hello to all,
In an effort to manipulate the markets in my favor (all very legitimately of course), I’m sending some quick reasoning to potential investors in the different open innovation models. I invested most heavily in Innocentive and BIG, lightly in Nine Sigma, and nothing in the Innovation exchange. Here are my quick reasons:
• It's interesting to see the difference between Innocentive demand-defined (defined problem) approach, versus the BIG supply based approach. Innocentive finds solutions where they are—theoretically breaking down many barriers (it looks outside one's known, comfortable networks and relationships). The conceptual model is strong.
• BIG, on the other hand is also strong in that it has the potential to identify (non problem initiated) innovative ideas from outside the traditional development power circles (UN agencies, large NGOs, Donors, etc.) It's also good in that it can help develop ideas further—in other words they don't have to be fully polished. These are my two favorites.
• Nine-sigma seems similar to Innocentive, but not as interesting to me. That said I put down a bit in case it’s a sleeper
• Innovation Xchange is interesting in concept in that it involves direct learning transfer (i.e. collaborative capacity) between organizations, but the effectiveness of that seems hampered by the TI intermediary. The TI model is full of pros and cons that almost seem to offset each other. Again, I like the potential learning gains from an exchange model, but the potential benefits seem to be outweighed by costs and risks. I didn't put any on this model.
Hope to see you all trading!
Alfredo
I just heard a really interesting radio show on innovation and outside the box thinking. The way the discussion was framed seems particularly relevant to our discussion last week:
"If there was ever a time we needed to think outside the box, this is it. On energy, the economy, war, security, America seems boxed. Maybe your life does, too. So, how to fire up the engines of real out-of-the-box innovation? Neuroscientist Gregory Berns says it starts with brain chemistry and habits that can break us free of mental ruts. He looks at the biology of how we feel, think, and behave — and points to the exits from tired old patterns, with examples of innovators and iconoclasts from Picasso to Warren Buffet to the Dixie Chicks. This hour, On Point: Rewiring the brain for change.
The link to the show is below:
http://www.onpointradio.org/shows/2008/09/getting-outside-the-box/
Hope you find it useful. Cheers,
Alfredo
The innovationXchange model is significantly different from the others through its use of the ‘trusted intermediary’. While I agree with Alfredo’s observation that there are major pros and cons to this model, I believe that a strong investment in the proposed ‘spaces for label-free idea exchange’ would propel an increase in innovation by tapping into the wisdom of diverse crowds and facilitating networking, all while providing what the other models do not – a knowledgeable insider understanding of the challenges a given seeker org faces. Innocentive and NineSigma both help clients refine their problems – and stress that this is key to finding the right solution. InnovationXchange takes this step to a whole new level.
THE PREDICTION MARKET ON OPEN INNOVATION FOR DEVELOPMENT CLOSES FRIDAY AT MIDNIGHT!!!
Post a Comment