How Open Innovation and Crowdsourcing is Helping Find Asteroids and Planes

Open innovation and crowdsourcinng are concepts that have taken the research and strategy gurus by storm. NASA and DigitalGlobe are using similar concepts to help solve problems such as finding a missing plane and developing better asteroid algorithms. Using and hedging knowledge to solve problems, improve services, reduce costs, and be more effective is the main goal. The organizations have put forward two different but interrelated programs.

NASA and Planetary Resources Inc. have teamed up to put more eyes on the sky. They are offering $35K in prizes to citizen scientists that can improve upon existing algorithms for asteroid hunting. Participants can sign up on Top Coder . The goal is to help NASA find, derail, or destroy asteroids that could threaten Earth. 

According to Tom Kalil, the deputy director for technology and innovation at the White House Office of Science and Technology, "I applaud NASA for issuing this Grand Challenge because finding asteroid threats, and having a plan for dealing with them, needs to be an all-hands-on-deck effort. (2)"  Citizen scientists have a lot of knowledge and helping them engage in important.

NASA hopes to find better patterns in the data. By analyzing information people naturally see different things based upon their problem solving schemas and personal abilities to connect information. Some will see patterns where others see only a bunch of numbers and data. Bringing in multiple perspectives helps raise the chance of finding something new. 

NASA is not the only one using open innovative concepts to solve problems. Colorado based DigitalGlobe (3) is using crowdsourcing to help find the missing Malaysian Flight (4). They are asking participants to scour 1,200 square miles of ocean to find objects on the water’s surface that may indicate the location of the missing plane. 

Each participant picks an area covered by satellite photos. They look through these pictures to find items that may indicate wreckage. If an area is scattered by floating debris they can alert authorities. Their process takes corporate citizenship to the next level. In previous projects, volunteers have highlighted up to 60,000 items.

There is a difference between open innovation and crowdsourcing. Open innovation is using stakeholders and other individuals an entity doesn’t normally engage with to encourage greater product development. Those who have knowledge to offer are generally invited. Crowdsourcing focuses more on using the power, skill, and knowledge of a crowd to improve upon a concept or problem. Crowdsourcing is generally open to anyone who desires to participate.

Enhancing Networks for Knowledge Creation

Knowledge diffusion is naturally affected by the quality of organizational information networks. These networks encourage the transference and use of higher levels of information that impact the service functionality of an organization. Dong, et. al. (2011) explores the need to understand these networks, enhance them, and effectively use them to develop organizations. Their explanation moves into the need to train workers on how to manage information in order ensure that information resources are fully utilized. 

Service and information systems are “value co-creation configurations of people, technology, value propositions connecting internal and external service systems, and shared information” (Maglio & Spohrer, 2008, pp. 18). Organizations that use information properly can ensure that they are receiving the right kind of information and putting that information to good use for service effectiveness. Each network has inherent value fostered by their ability to connect to rich elements within the internal or external environment. 

The success of an organization is based both on its employee’s talents and the way in which they interact (Hildalgo, 2011). Firms should ensure that productive interaction is fostered for greater growth and knowledge development. It is the process of obtaining information and applying it to constructive projects that encourages productive use.

There are three major types of networks. Networks can be random, small world, or clustered. Random networks are based in knowledge intensive industries, small world networks are used in focused intensive work environments, and clustered networks are common in organizations where people form knowledge sharing cliques. 

Developing industries need the larger random networks to obtain enough information to develop multiple areas within an industry. Organizations often cluster information based on how people relate to each other and which group they identify with. Small world networks can be used in inter or intra organizational development projects. Knowing which type of network does which function is helpful in using them properly. 

The researchers found that a stronger information network model is helpful in formulating the effectiveness of structures. The way in which information flows and is collected is important for overall utility. They also believe that improving upon randomness to include additional information into a more open system is beneficial for knowledge creation. Experienced information and network users are able to capitalize on these networks for growth but may need additional training to enhance skills. 

Dong, S. et. al. (2011) A benchmarking model for management of knowledge-intensive service delivery networks. Journal of Management Information Systems, 28 (3).

Hidalgo, C. (2011). The value in the links: Networks and the evolution of organizations. In P. Allen, S. Maguire, and B. McKelvey (eds.), Sage Handbook on Management and Complexity. London: Sage, 2011, pp. 257–569.

Maglio, P., and Spohrer, J. (2008). Fundamentals of service science. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 36, (1). (Spring 2008)

Growing Small Business and the Economy Through Clustering

Small and medium businesses have difficulty getting past a critical threshold that allows them to grow in the market. Helping them collaborate with like-minded businesses helps their growth potential. A paper by Dhakal, et. al. (2013) discusses an open-innovation concept of living labs that allows stakeholders and customers to engage in the co-creation process together. They studied a cluster in Australia to show how this enhances business development and the economic engine.  

A living lab is a user-centered open innovation ecosystem (Hippel, 1986).  It uses modern technology to foster communication between stakeholders and customers to co-develop products.  The natural environment becomes the testing grounds for new products and services and this allows users to offer feedback on the success of changes and provide ideas on how to improve on the products and services. 

It provides a collaborative space (virtual or physical) that distributes problem-solving tools, capacities, and responsibilities to the end user to create greater innovation (van der Valt et. al., 2009).  This innovation is used to enhance the offerings of companies through enhanced products and services. In this context, innovation is seen as enhanced discovery whereby innovation equals invention plus exploitation (Roberts, 2007). 

Before an open innovation living-lab can be successful the stakeholders will need to agree on joint goals, and focus on the resolving of problems in the real world (Bergyall-Karaborn, et. al., 2009).  This process allows stakeholders to work collaboratively on developing products and consideration customer feedback to enhance their offerings. The information is shared among the stakeholders to further develop mutual products and services. 

When living labs have the right stakeholders and functionally work well together, each of the businesses receives a benefit for both the co-creation product/service as well as gain important knowledge for the enhancement of other products/services. When innovations are significant, it can have an impact on the regional well-being and local employment opportunities (Keniry, et. al. 2003). 

Living labs are beneficial to enhancing knowledge clusters. Clusters are defined as “a geographically proximate group of interconnected companies and associated institutions in a particular field, linked by commonalities and complementarities (Porter, 1998, p. 4). Cluster members need a way to communication to foster mutual growth. Greater growth contributes to the functionality of a larger economic hub.

The authors found that geographical togetherness of small businesses form around competence similarities. To enhance the local interaction it is possible to use open innovation (i.e. living labs) to further their growth. It requires a method operationalizing processes and developing mechanisms that help further innovation. Organizations that willingly collaborate around certain key objectives with other stakeholders and use customer feedback to enhance their products are likely to reap growth while the region experiences greater economic enhancement. 

Bergvall-Kåreborn, B., et. al. (2009). A Milieu for Innovation – Defining Living-Labs. In K. R. E. Huizingh, S. Conn, M. Torkkeli and I. Bitran (eds) Proceedings of the 2nd ISPIM Innovation Symposium: Simulating recovery - the Role of innovation management, New York City, USA. 6-9 December 2009.

Dhakal. et. al. (2013). The innovation potential of living-labs to strengthen small and medium enterprises in regional Australia. Australasian Journal of Regional Studies, 19 (3). 

Keniry, J., et. al. (2003). Regional Business – A Plan for Action, Department of Transport and Regional Services, Canberra.

Porter, M. (1998). Clusters and competition new agendas for companies, governments, and institutions. In M. Porter (Ed) On Competition (pp. 197-287), Harvard Business School, Boston.

Von Hippel, E. (1986). Lead users: a source of novel product concepts. Management Science 32, 791–805.

Managing Project Conflicts

Conflict is inevitable in public projects and activities. This the case when money, influence, and limited opportunity abound. By changing the fundamental nature of stakeholders from power over to power with a higher level of collaboration can occur that leads to better results. A paper by Eivind Brendehaug shows how the planning process can be improved when local stakeholder interests and conflicts can be compromised and integrated into the development process (2013).

Co-management is a concept that helps to explain strategic development with three aims that include 1.) fulfill management aims, 2.) distribute cost and benefits among local stakeholders and authorities, and 3.) supplement representative democracy to reduce conflicts (Brechin et. al. 2003). It is a process of reviewing the varying issues inherent within projects and then finding a way to co-develop that concept.

When projects are developed they rest in the authority of the planners. The planners have instrumental power over the decisions, institutional power over the processes and cultural power over information (Lukes, 2005). This means that the entity in charge of projects has both real and perceived power that stakeholders naturally look to for direction.

Most planning projects are seen as zero sum games where there are clear winners and losers. The process of power over certain entities creates distrust and lack of engagement in the developmental process. Creating plus sum situations encourages higher levels of engagement and requires a paradigm shift of power to increase the likelihood of project success.

Each stakeholder has their own needs and wants. No one should expect to get everything they want as this is a public project. However, by listening to their needs, wants, fears, and concerns it is possible to create a greater match between the production process and stakeholder participation that leads to a more beneficial project.

The case study is important because it helps highlight a few points. Stakeholder develop analysis models for understanding problems and this impacts their influence in the process. The developing authority must desire the participation of stakeholders to realize goals. Conflicts are great sources of information in understanding worries and claims to help planners address these issues. Proper management can move planning from a zero-sum to a plus sum process that hedges the interests and abilities of the stakeholders.

Brendehaug, E. (2013). How local participation in national planning creates new development opportunities. Systemic Practice & Action Research, 26 (1).

Brechin, S. et. al. (2003) Contested nature. Promoting international biodiversity with social justice in the twenty-first century. State University of New York Press, New

York

Lukes S (2005) Power. A radical view, 2nd edn. Palgrave Macmillan, Basingstoke