Perspectives on Innovation

Peter Lohse InnoCentive Client Services

In today’s installment of “Help a Solver Succeed” (HASS), where we ask InnoCentive experts to provide resources that they think might be helpful to you in solving Challenges, Peter Lohse talks about the InnoCentive Solver Study conducted by the University of Wisconsin-Madison and Indiana University – Bloomington.

At InnoCentive we strive to provide our Solvers with the best tools and processes in support of their solution efforts. We plan, build and deploy these services based on Solver’s needs and the resources we have at hand. While we make every effort to frame and support a successful Challenge process, we rely on our Solvers for performing the creative part of process. This key step of our value chain is in your, the Solvers hands. We rely on your know-how, skills and commitment to submit solutions which our Seekers value and award. Without your creativity and work no problems would be solved and no business was possible.

Even though InnoCentive does not “own”’ the creative step of the innovation process we have a deep interest in understanding the prerequisites and conditions of successful solving routines. This has many reasons, the most important being our realization that we can effectively support this process only if we understand the factors which are indicative for success. No doubt problem solving routines are different from person to person and depend on the education, work experience etc. Nevertheless, there may be a preferred routine underlying successful solution finding efforts. Earlier this year, we launched a collaboration to study these questions with researchers from the University of Wisconsin-Madison and Indiana University – Bloomington.

In short, our research was designed to help determine why some Solvers are more successful than others. To answer this and other questions, we combined a web-based survey of the knowledge, problem solving routines, motivations, resource investments, and characteristics of InnoCentive’s external problem Solvers with an examination of secondary data regarding their solution submission activity. A survey was fielded by the research team in spring 2009 and was sent to approximately 1,600 Solvers who had submitted solutions to Theoretical and Reduction-to-Practice Challenges during 2007 and 2008. Nearly 500 Solvers responded to this survey and many provided qualitative comments and suggestions. The results from this research will be published in detail some time down the road. For the purpose of this Blog though, I want to give a short summary of our key findings, problem solving tips and an outlook on some exciting future research.

Findings: Nature of Successful Solvers
The results show that average successful Solvers invest a much larger amount of time and money than unsuccessful Solvers. Moreover, successful Solvers tend to rely on deliberate, analytical solving routines. They pay attention to the details of the challenge and thoroughly consider the relevant information instead of only relying on their intuition and making ‘off the head’ decisions.

However, our analysis also shows that deliberate, analytical solving routines lead only in combination with high time investment to solving superior performance. If Solvers devote only a little time to problem solving, then having creative routines such as thinking “outside the box” and generating solutions that no one else will conceive, can be more successful than analytical routines.

Successful Solvers are also highly intrinsically motivated and gain satisfaction from challenge solving. However, successful Solvers are also motivated by the award money. Moreover, in comparison to unsuccessful Solvers, successful Solvers submit more frequently, draw on formal reports and scientific articles rather than on their personal practical know-how and rules of thumb to solve Challenges.

Tips for problem solving
Based on the investigated Challenges and on our analysis, successful Solvers…

1. Devote considerable time to understand Challenges and to develop solutions
2. Become familiar with the Challenge task by breaking it down into smaller parts and by paying attention to every detail
3. Develop a solution based on a logical, step-by step approach and weighing logical arguments rather than relying on intuition and flashes of insight
4. Craft solutions in a very structured manner
5. Analyze prior solving attempts and learn from successes and failures

In sum, the results suggest that successful external problem Solvers are largely defined by their willingness to devote time together with their analytical routines.

Conclusions
Overall the results of this study confirmed our perception of successful solving routines. In this respect the tips for problem solving listed above are not different from what we have recommended before, but are congruent and somewhat more granular than what we have said in the past. Having statistically validated data to support our past recommendations certainly put my scientist mind at ease.

While the findings were no surprise to us, some of the statistics which resulted from the study caught my attention and are worth highlighting: For example, of the all the Solvers who had submitted to Theoretical and Reduction-to-Practice Challenges during 2007 and 2008, almost 10% were successful with winning an award! I think this number is absolutely stunning and contrasts the sentiment that the chance of winning on InnoCentive is vanishingly small due to the large size of the Solver Community. This is clearly not the case as the numbers show. In contrary, simply by submitting Solvers already have a reasonably good chance of winning. This also means that an above average proposal has an excellent chance of winning an award. I think this is great news for every Solver who is committed to submitting a quality proposal!

While the study emphasizes the importance of spending time on deliberate solving routines, it also yielded some interesting findings as to what solving routine is successful under what circumstances. The better we understand the relationships between Solver characteristics, solving routine and problem information the better we will be able to match Solver with Challenge for a successful outcome, and the further we can move away from a highly parallel solution approach closer to a more targeted match between problem and Solvers. This would save time and resources for all stakeholders involved and really would be a step forward in terms of Innovation efficiency.

Peter

Giorgia Sgargetta is the winner of the Challenge of turning dishwater blue when more soap was needed, featured on CNBC.

I was born in Cannara, a small town in Umbria (center Italy). I lived with my mom Carla, my dad Giorgio and my brother Federico. Federico is 2 years older than me and like all brothers and sisters we fought like cats and dogs; now we are very united. I now live in Moscufo, Abruzzo (a little bit more in the south of Italy). I live with my partially-fantastic husband, Alessandro (45) and my super-fantastic daughter Daiane (12). I am now 37 years old (birth on April 28, 1972).

My working life
After high school (Liceo Scientifico Convitto Principe di Napoli) I chose to study chemistry at Perugia University where I got my PHD in 1997. I discussed a thesis concerning the use of lipase enzymes in organic synthesis. I remember that day also because my car broken during the in-travel to the university and I also lost my driving license. My first work as chemist was at Scala S.p.A., an Italian laundry detergent manufacturer. The company was located near Rome. These years have been very interesting for me as I had occasion to work on QA, R&D and also answering at the phone Consumer’s complains (sometimes for formulas I developed!). This experience was very important for me. Then I moved to Abruzzo with my family and I joined Agriformula, an Italian manufacturer of agrochemicals (but we are located almost worldwide). Initially I was located at Bazzano plant (that is very close to the recent hearth quake that struck the city of L’Aquila). Now we have moved 20 Km far. I work both in the lab. and taking care of safety. Some years ago I tried to answer to an Innocentive challenge to challenge myself and for curiosity. Result was not positive but I am used to work hard and I tried again and again. I did not have particular suggestion to offer but you should try to improve a little bit each time, learning from experience. Even if I know InnoCentive people only by e-mail I am very grateful to people like Eugene Ivanov for their support.

What life means to me
Life to me means family and friends who you can trust and who trust you. My relatives and friends say that sometimes I work too hard. I really love to travel, in particular by ship and airplane. I consider myself lucky because until now I had the opportunity to visit a good portion of Europe and America. I hope to travel much more in future. Some years ago, with the family, I was involved as a volunteer in a project concerning support for child in the Brazilian Amazonia. It has been a strong experience. I like to live in a sort of farm and I have a lot of space for my beloved cats (number tends to increase….). We have also a little dog, Lilli. I love gardening and I am proud of my flowers. We have also olive oil threes (20) and we produce enough olive oil for the family.

Crowdsourcing continues to be the buzz word in the press and InnoCentive continues to be at the forefront in this new and exciting space, particularly in the areas of problem solving and innovation.  And while we’ve always recognized the power of this medium to be world changing, the precise role of the “Challenge” and its proper construction has been a subject of considerable discussion.

On this topic, I’ve come to what I believe is a deep insight:

Well constructed “Challenges” are an astonishingly powerful and uniquely effective tool for focusing the energies of people everywhere on the multitude of important problems in the world .

Let me explain how I came to that recognition.

The realization begins a few years ago with Professor Karim Lakhani from Harvard Business School and his study of InnoCentive titled “The Value of Openness in Scientific Problem Solving”.  Karim’s research resulted in two brilliant insights: 1) the diversity of InnoCentive’s distributed network is in fact its inherent strength for problem solving; and 2) Solvers participate for the following reasons:  to solve problems that matter, to be part of a community (and to be recognized within the community when they are successful), and for the prize itself.  This last point also speaks to my fundamental  belief that humans by their very nature need to problem solve, to break new ground, to climb Mount Everest.

Subsequent works from Karim and others have consistently confirmed the critical importance of the problem definition in InnoCentive’s Challenge based model and its success.  The problems must invite very diverse participation (you want entrepreneurs, mechanics, and chemists working on engineering problems, not just engineers) while focusing the Solver on the specific task at hand with as much context as possible (how do you explain an engineering problem to non engineers?).  As you can imagine, getting this right is incredibly important to sustaining high solution rates.

In 2008, I met Paul Carlile, a professor from Boston University with an unusual background in social and computer science and a gift for seeing the world through a systems lens.  Paul introduced me to the concept of Boundary Objects which sociologists use to describe powerful compartments of information which are both well defined and which translate naturally across communities and cultures.  We immediately realized that InnoCentive Challenges are Boundary Objects in every sense of the term.  Challenges articulate the need, describe the problem, specify success criteria, and establish the inducements.  This last point is critically important because the inducement telegraphs a (non zero) value to the world.  The best Challenges are universal and understood universally.

Now it is important to note that we believe it is the precision and care we take to define the Challenges that elevate them to the status of true Boundary Objects.  Our hallmark in this process is the understanding of how to manage the process to truly engage a highly distributed network and focus them to drive successful outcomes.  Well defined Challenges must ask the right questions (we strive for “pre inventive form” for you academics!).  We apply a meticulous attention to detail around understanding and articulating problems in concise ways.  Identifying the supporting information to give every Solver what they need to compete or team successfully.  Good Challenge design anticipates the audience and the conditions for effective engagement: Is the need for ideas, business plans, scientific or technological advancement?  Do I want the world to give me the idea or do I want them to demonstrate something physical?  Challenges must anticipate the cultural and legal realities of the world (e.g., is intellectual property an issue?).  What is the inducement to the network?  For a simple idea, a small reward may be sufficient, while a technological innovation may require a team to spend months of time and capital to develop a winning solution, requiring a substantial prize.  All of these things must be assembled into a Challenge before it is exposed to the world of problem solvers.

We have learned at InnoCentive that for the really big problems, it is essential to take a highly disciplined approach and to systematically refine the problems into more focused questions and ultimately to well defined Challenges .  For example, the big problem is not the need for a new drug for a neglected disease, it is the elimination and/or minimization of the human suffering caused by the disease.  The right questions might include: How do we limit transmission?  How can we cost effectively produce treatments that comprehend market based economics to ensure a sustainable model?  How do we distribute treatments in the developing world?  Even these questions require further decomposition until we get to well formulated challenges (E.g., Can we get 5X more vaccine into the hands of those that need it in the context of real world economic, cultural, and political constraints in Sub-Saharan Africa?).  The point is that focusing the energy of a human population on these crucial issues has always been possible, but requires process and tools to do so effectively.   Disciplined construction of the “Challenges” focus that human energy to drive results in ways never before possible.

The latest realization for me was attending the MIT Distributed Leadership Forum last week.  Put together by Professor Deborah Ancona (author of X Teams) of MIT, the Forum explored a number of important questions:  How do we empower leaders everywhere in organizations?  What are the implications of new organizational structures as we see destruction of the old established paradigms?  What tools can enable distributed leadership and work?  Presentations ran the gamut, from Alph Bingham, InnoCentive’s Founder, making vivid the need for organizations to think differently, to organizers of the Obama campaign team describing how they engaged millions in the campaign to win the oval office (a well defined challenge!), to Jim Parker, ex CEO of Southwest Airlines, describing how shared mission, passion, and empowerment built a world class airline and a truly winning culture.  Remember President Kennedy in the 60’s challenging a country to put a man on the moon in ten years?  I listened to example after example of exceedingly well defined goals and innovative empowerment structures enabling stunning outcomes inside and outside of traditional organizational paradigms.  One message was clear, empowering and enabling new forms of work and leadership may be crucial to solving many of the challenges facing our society today and while those forms are quickly evolving, the tools for organizing and distributing the effort are  just beginning to be understood.

So with thanks to many brilliant people along the way, it all came together for me.  There is an Art and Science to “Challenges” which allow them to effectively harness the wealth of human creatively and inventiveness.  This Art and Science is not only key to understanding InnoCentive’s success, it is crucial to enabling the kinds of distributed world changing problem solving we need to see in this century.

Whether it is the quest to eliminate suffering from a neglected disease, or accelerating research for sustainable energy sources, or putting a man on the moon, it is clear that Challenges have a powerful role to play in changing the world.  This is the promise of Crowdsourcing and the “Challenge” is the precision instrument that enables its full potential.

I invite your feedback and thoughts.  In fact, consider it a Challenge!

Dwayne Spradlin
CEO, InnoCentive

The 2009 Army Capstone Concept from TRADOC on Vimeo.

In honor of Veterans Day, celebrated in the United States on November 11th, today’s post looks at the U.S. Army’s newest crowdsourcing initiative, the Capstone Concept.

The United States Army has long been on the forefront of technological advancement, all while maintaining an aura of secrecy and confidentiality.  For this reason, it’s hard to imagine that they would be looking for opinions on one of the most pivotal issue in warfare – how to plan for an environment that is changing so rapidly that they have no idea what it will look like in five months, much less five years or longer.

The Army is developing a document called the Capstone Concept, which attempts to do just this – define the problems that will be faced in future armed conflict, and describe how the army will deal with these problems.  The Capstone Project was first created in 2005, and dealt primarily with technological issues of warfare – assuming that changing technology would be the biggest catalyst in the way armed conflicts are waged.  After 8 years in Iraq and Afghanistan, however, the Army has realized that technology is only a small element of the change that has occurred.

One of their discoveries was that, more important than technology is the intelligence that comes from relationships.  They discovered, for example, that oftentimes the enemy hides within a population, walking among civilians, unrecognizable to an outside observer.  At the same time, they learned that junior leaders on the ground can have significant knowledge of these populations that their higher ups might not have.  When given the autonomy to establish trust with people in these communities, these junior leaders were better able to ferret out the enemy, which enabled the army to deal with them individually rather than in larger initiatives that put civilians at risk.  They also found that if they could forge relationships with key community leaders – clergy, teachers, merchants – they were better able to earn the trust of that community, which in turn led to better intelligence.

This current document reflects the lessons learned in the last 8 years of war, and attempts to find gaps in the Army’s experience, with plans for how to fill these gaps.   It’s an unimaginable assignment – figure out what you don’t know, and then determine how to minimize surprises.  To tackle the daunting task of writing this document, the Army assembled a team of individuals with different perspectives – Army personnel of various ranks, from Generals to Privates, members of Academia, professional Strategists, and allies. Now they want to know what you think . They have created a draft and have shared it here. Regardless of where you stand in relation to current operations, this is an opportunity to have your voice heard and potentially contribute to this important document.

Last week, Make Magazine announced a new series of educational and inspirational videos called “The Elements of Humanity”, designed to inspire students to become interested in science, technology, engineering and math (STEM), the series is a set of interviews with prominent scientists and technologists which seeks to uncover each person’s own fascination with science and how that fascination has shaped their life’s work.

In the clip above, “Fascination with Fossils”, Louise Leakey says,  “I finally found evidence that put Africa on the map as the place we all came from.” A member of the storied Leakey family, Louise Leakey has continued to explore Africa in search of fossils that tell the story of our human origins. A Research Assistant Professor in the Department of Anthropology, University of Stony Brook, New York, Leakey is also a National Geographic Explorer in Residence.

These interviews of working scientists and technologists were recorded at SciFoo, an unstructured conference on Science and Technology organized this past summer by O’Reilly Media along with Nature Magazine and Google.  Other interviews, which showcase scientists in an informal setting discussing their life’s passion as they would with a new acquaintance at a dinner party, include Mathematician John Mighton talking about his fascination with how kids learn math, and Google computer scientist Rebecca Moore talking about her fascination with mapping tools.

The video series can be found at ElementsofHumanity.org