MathWorks, a provider of software for technical computing and modeling, based in Natick, is running a "wiki-like" programming contest where anyone can look at anyone else's submission and then resubmit it as their own. Through this competitive collaboration MathWorks has found improvements in programming performance.
It's a very counterintuitive way of working. Open up your problem to other people in a systematic way. A problem may reside in one domain of expertise and the solution may reside in another.
People have talked a lot about innovations happening at the intersection of disciplines. So, could this practice in the open source software community work among scientists trying to solve scientific problems?
According to Karim R. Lakhani, an assistant professor at Harvard Business School, systematic evidence is now coming in that shows that broadcasting or introducing problems to outsiders yields effective solutions and quickly. Lakhani’s study shows that enjoyment and the challenge of learning were the strongest motivators for scientists to participate in the process.
Waltham based InnoCentive has put this idea into practice with the help of $6.5 million in financing from Spencer Trask Ventures, a New York-based venture firm.
InnoCentive has built an online community of problem seekers and solvers who collaborate to solve technical issues. The 140,000 registered solvers represent more than 60 different scientific disciplines. Dozens of Fortune 500 companies such Procter & Gamble and Eli Lily pay a fee per challenge posted. When the best solution is rewarded to the solver, InnoCentive receives a commission of 20% or more. The reward for solvers is from $5,000 up to $1,000,000. Seekers find that they can get more work done than their internal research and development departments can handle. Both seekers’ and solvers’ identity are kept confidential and InnoCentive guarantees the protection of intellectual property.
Since 2006, InnoCentive has been in partnership with the Rockefeller Foundation's Accelerating Innovation for Development initiative to find solutions to problems faced in developing countries, for the non-profit sector. For example, Rockefeller is offering $20,000 for a design for a solar-powered wireless router composed of low-cost, readily available hardware and software components.
Any ideas?
Friday, May 9, 2008
Labels: Research Strategy |
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
2 comments:
Dear William-
Thank you for your recent post about InnoCentive. I wanted to make you aware that we’ve recently changed our pricing model from the $80,000 annual fee you cite above to a transaction based pricing model. We did this in response to client requests for flexibility – they now pay per Challenge posted, rather than per year. On average, the cost to post is $15,000. That includes services from InnoCentive’s team of PhD scientists who can work with their organization to define their problem, articulate a problem statement, and administer the challenge for them. We also advise customers on what the right dollar amount for the award is. InnoCentive receives a commission only if the challenge is solved.
Also in addition to posting science related challenges we also offer challenges in Engineering & Design; Chemistry; Math & Computer Science and Business & Entrepreneurship. Thanks again for writing about us. If you ever have any questions or would like to learn more about us, please don’t hesitate to contact me.
Thank you,
Connie French
InnoCentive
Some social scientists place the study of open source collaborations into the field of Collective Intelligence. Both notions have about a 30-year history and practice. To a certain extent, Prediction Markets represent the other end of a spectrum of Collective Intelligence, whereby people bet that they know relevant information that is more predictive than those of others.
Some readers may not have heard about Creative Commons licenses, which are the equivalent for creative works of Open Source licenses. See also Science Commons.
One way to ease into open innovation is to get a financial commitment from the university to support open access journals such as PLoS. More generally, see Directory of Open Access Journals which lists 3300 open access journals. Quite a few of these have peer-reviewing standards as high as any of the best commercial journals. There are such journals in every field, and their quality range is identical to that of traditional journals. It is easy for any scholar to understand what is happening with open access publishing, and it gives them a framework for thinking about the broader issues.
Post a Comment