1. Crowdsourcing for R&D InnoCentive Case
1. What is the core idea behind InnoCentive’s innovation model? Why would firms use InnoCentive’s service to solve scientific and technical problems?
2. What is the motivation for Solvers to participate in InnoCentive?
3. What kinds of problems are appropriate for Broadcast Search?
4. What are the tradeoffs in choosing a market or a community for problem solving?

2. Vote
Is collaboration a good idea? Bad idea?

3. InnoCentive - Update: 2010
Added collaboration as a core feature of the platform in steps:
Experimented by embedding collaborative platform within one client, Eli Lilly.
Results: Collaboration contributed to idea diversity & helped build personnel networks in the firm.
Refined the tool and marketed to other clients
Success with collaboration  IC expands their offerings
Introduced team project rooms.
Provided clients the ability to enable collaborative problem solving among 5-6 solvers.
Value Distribution
Established a robust legal framework for prize & IP distribution among team members.
Allowed for minority dissenting opinions from team members in award distribution.

4. InnoCentive Update: By the Numbers…
Nov., 2011
April, 2012
Oct., 2013
Registered Solvers
250K in 200 Countries
250K in 200 countries
300K in 200 countries
Solver Reach
1M+ via partnerships
12M+ via partnerships
13M+ via partnerships
Challenges posted
1300+
1420+public & 1000s of internal employee challenges
1650+ public & 1000s of internal employee challenges
Project rooms opened to date
381K
409K
500K
Solution Submissions
27K
30K
40K
Total # of Awards
1000+
1140+
1500
Total Awards
$34M
$35M
$40M+
Award Range (f(problem complexity)
$500 – 1M
$500-1M
$5K-1M
Average Success Rate
50%
Prem. Challenge Success Rate: 85%

5. Be Clear on the Purpose: What type of knowledge is needed. Local vs
Be Clear on the Purpose: What type of knowledge is needed? Local vs. Distant?
Local Search: Discovery within a specific knowledge domain
A solver or community member has experience or expertise in the domain  the problem space & the problems found in it are local.
Focus becomes: exploiting accumulated knowledge.
3 Problems/Challenges:
Functional fixatedness: solvers have difficulty in using familiar tools or knowledge in a novel way.
Individuals have a tendency to cling to history of success when solving similar problems but past experience may bias attempts to reach superior solutions.
Individuals exposed to a solution to a complex problem often apply the same complex solution methodology to solve simpler problems.

6. Be Clear on the Purpose: What type of knowledge is needed. Local vs
Be Clear on the Purpose: What type of knowledge is needed? Local vs. Distant?
Distant (or broadcast) search: Discovery outside the local knowledge domain.
A solver or community member may have experience or expertise distant from the local domain.
Focus becomes: tapping knowledge from diverse &/or multiple (non-local) domains
Applying and/or combining knowledge from distant domains may yield very novel solutions.
Problems/Challenges:
Competition effect: larger # of solvers (N)  reduces an individual’s Pr(winning)  a low perceived Pr(winning)  reduces effort  lowers the overall quality of solutions.
As N increases  increase in amount of content generated  increases cost of content management

7. When do the different forms of Search work best?
Distant search works best when:
Problems are complex & a solution is highly uncertain,
Problems are codifiable (not abstract),
Solution development requires low asset specificity on the part of the solver,
Content evaluation criteria are well defined, and
Solution diversity is valued by the seeker
Local search works best when:
Community members hold domain specific & sticky knowledge useful to product innovation,
A firm wants to engage the same community members on a repeated basis, and
The firm & community benefit from real time interaction during the innovation process.
We explore these differences to understand the conditions under which CT-based product innovation will yield benefits for a firm.

8. Time Limits for Community Activities: When & Why?
Time limits for a community’s tasks/activities:
Promote active participation of community members (vs. postponing participation),
Motivate individuals to prioritize their activities, and
Induce more focused effort from community members
Increase an individual’s Task Orientation
Strong task orientation enhances the the quality of contributions.
Higher average quality of contributions:
increases the value created by the engagement and
reduces the time required for content screening and evaluation.
Overall: increases the value created and lowers the cost to create it.

9. Time Limits: Other Potential Advantages
Time limits combined with using internet-based collaboration tools, set the stage for rapid content exchange and iteration. Implications:
Faster solution development (vs. traditional approaches)
Also, may provide opportunities for identifying flaws/issues earlier in the product development process  increasing the efficacy of outputs
When a community is involved for a repeated process (all stages of a product dev. process), time limits for each stage or subactivity:
Help to accelerate the innovation process  reducing total cycle time
Faster cycle times also may provide an opportunity for firms to perform a task multiple times vs. once
Replication may help a firm refine or optimize it’s design and in turn, enhance market acceptance.
Overall: increases the value created and lowers the cost to create it.

10. Time-Limits: Disadvantages?
Limits the amount of time for content or an idea to evolve.
May limit the range, quantity and/or scope of a community’s contributions.
However, content does not have equal value so more content might not necessarily equate to “better” content.
Challenge: identifying the appropriate balance
Sufficient time to interact and iterate on the content but not so much time as to lose the community’s attention/focus.

11. Motivations