A stack of Challenge certificates, all for top Solver Yury Bodrov

The massive pile of certificates. We're going to need some help...

First, we lured everyone in to the conference room.

Then we put them to work

Fueled by pizza, we made short work of addressing and stuffing the envelopes. Here's Mike Bittarelli sorting the enveloped by country.

If you’ve won a Challenge, you should receive a certificate in the mail any day.

Keep on Solving!

by Christian Stevenson, Ph.D.
Innovation Program Manager, InnoCentive

As an organic chemist and Innovation Program Manager at InnoCentive, one of my favorite things to do is to work with our dynamic Solver community to help them solve our Seekers’ pressing problems. I recently had an opportunity to do that in a very direct way when we carried out two surveys of our Solvers. InnoCentive was seeking ways to make Solvers happier with our Novel Molecule Challenges (NMCs, Challenges in which Seekers desire delivery of small amounts of novel molecules for testing in their assays). We did this even though InnoCentive was already giving Solvers an opportunity to find potential uses for the compounds they already had (something we know you’re interested in, but that’s often difficult to do) and get rewarded for it in the process – for a total of over $350,000 in awards to date for NMCs alone.

In response to the survey results, here are the concerns that you, our Solvers, voiced, and what we at InnoCentive are now doing as a result:

1. Clarify the Intellectual Property (IP) implications of participating in NMCs.

We realized there was confusion about the exact details of how IP worked with our NMCs. We know it’s a little obtuse.  So we re-worded that portion of the Challenge, and highlighted it in the Challenge document. In exchange for the Initial Award, Solvers only give our Seekers a non-exclusive license to test the compounds in the Seekers assays and use them to make new compounds for testing. If a Seeker desires exclusive IP rights in order to manufacture or sell your particular “new composition of matter,” they have to negotiate an additional award with you for that compound (see more below in #2).

2. Increase award amounts.

You told us the award amounts were too low to justify giving your compounds to our Seekers. Even for compounds you already had, the time involved in simply packaging and shipping the compounds made some of the awards too low. At InnoCentive’s urging, our Seekers have increased the Initial Award amounts. Furthermore, Solvers told us that our old system of awarding a flat rate of $25,000 for exclusive IP rights for a compound was not what all Solvers wanted. We’ve changed that portion of the Challenge so Solvers are now free to negotiate directly with our Seekers and secure whatever price they believe is fair for their compound.

3. Further protect Solver IP.

Some of our Solvers expressed concern about giving Seekers the exact molecular structure of their compounds (since molecular structures lie at the heart of IP on chemical compounds). As a former medicinal chemist at Merck and Co., Inc. I was particularly attuned to this concern. To answer it, InnoCentive has developed “Fingerprinting” NMCs. In this special sub-type of Challenges, the Seeker does not receive the molecular structure of Solver’s compounds in exchange for the Initial Award. In those cases, our Seekers have agreed to choose molecules based solely on physico-chemical data (molecular weight, calculated LogP, polar surface area, etc.) and results of a “Fingerprinting” program InnoCentive developed to ensure that Seekers acquire a representative set of Solvers’ molecules.

4. Make it even easier to participate in NMCs.

With new NMCs posting all the time, Solvers told us they wanted us to help them identify when they had molecules that might qualify for a Challenge. We’re all busy, so we figured anything we can do to help you stay focused on chemistry would be great. With our new Upload Your Libraries!  Challenge, we do just that. If you upload a database or Excel file of your compound collection, we’ll store it in our secure database. Every time a new NMC posts, we’ll query our database and email you if you have any molecules that qualify. Of course, the decision to actually submit the compounds to the Challenge is still entirely yours – we won’t forward your molecules to the Seeker unless you decide to submit to the specific NMC.

We thought long and hard about the suggestions you made, and we hope you’re happy with the changes we’ve made to address them. Please let us know if there is anything else we can do to help make NMCs even more attractive to you.

Thanks, and best of luck in the lab! -Christian

BonnieJean Butler is the newest member of our Client Services team, and is managing the Water Problems Affecting People in Developing Countries Challenge.  BonnieJean spent time in India and offers a unique perspective on the impact of this Challenge.

You and I can help save a life. Yes, you and I. And it’s easier than you think.

During my world-wide travels, I saw hard-working moms walk for miles in the hottest, most humid weather you can imagine. The destination? The closest stream. Why? To fill a bowl of water and walk back those very same miles to bring the water to their babies.

Her goal seems like a simple one, but these moms know the water has something in it that may make their children sick and possibly die. They’ve seen before; so many other babies have already died. Maybe this time it will be different. Maybe this stream is cleaner. Maybe my baby is stronger than the others. Maybe not.  So why do it? Simply, their babies will die quicker without water. What a horrible choice.

In some countries, more than 20% of children die before they reach 5 years old and high bacteria content in water is a major contributor. It’s hard to believe or even imagine if you haven’t seen it. People world-wide are dying because of bacteria-filled water.

We wonder, “can’t they just fix it”? Great question! Here’s your chance to help, and it’s easy! Not like “lose 50 lbs in 3 weeks” easy, but really and truly easy. We are seeking to identify these water related issues and you can help identify and solve them. Submit your own ideas or forward this Challenge to your family, friends, or strangers; whatever it takes.

You don’t have to irrigate the Sahara. Smaller incremental changes or improvements are usually more actionable. Get creative with solutions that use limited funding, but create a big benefit for a population. Think about cost efficient solutions can be deployed quickly and have a wide ranging impact.

Please get involved with this Challenge. You really can make a difference and maybe even save the life of a child. So think about it… And pass it on.

BonnieJean

In today’s InnoCentive Insider, Peter Lohse talks about the curious fact that many Challenges are awarded to Solvers with expertise outside of the Challenge field.

It has been more than six years since I joined InnoCentive and I continue to be fascinated by the business model and the success we have with delivering solutions to our Clients. Our success rate overall was around 30% at the end of 2005 and is now quickly approaching the 50% mark (on average, for Theoretical and RTP Challenges). We do not have an empirical basis yet for comparing this outcome with the effectiveness of internally focused solution efforts. However, considering that many of the Seekers had been unsuccessful in finding a solution to these problems on their own, I would say the solution rate is quite spectacular.

Much of the praise for this success goes to our Solvers. They are the brains, experimenters and composers behind the winning proposals. The Client Services Team at InnoCentive is in the privileged position to be a first hand witness to our Solvers’ tremendous creativity.  Each of us has seen hundreds of successful submissions, hence we have a pretty good understanding of how a proposal should be formulated to have the potential for winning an award. These learnings are available to all of our Solvers through the InnoCentive newsletter or through this Blog. For example recent postings from my colleagues Lisa Reinhold, Eugene Ivanov and Michael Albarelli provide valuable insights in this regard.  While we believe that Solvers who follow these guidelines will submit proposals which are more likely to be successful, we recognize that factors other than the form of a Solver submission will have an influence on winning an award. It’s some these other factors that I would like to discuss.

The Study

In 2005 we teamed with up Karim Lakhani and Lars Jeppesen, both working at MIT’s Sloan Business School at the time to conduct a study on the effectiveness of problem solving at InnoCentive.  In this study, regression analysis was employed to correlate solution success with Challenge characteristics like Challenge type, award size and posting period.  In the context of this study we also conducted a web-based survey to examine Solver motivation in the solution finding process.  The study design and results have been published as an HBS working paper which is freely available on the internet at www.hbs.edu/research/pdf/07-050.pdf. Please note that this study considers Theoretical and Reduction to Practice Challenges only.  The Ideation and eRFP Challenge were only launched later and were not part of this study.

The study results were very well received by many with an interest in open innovation.  They presented one of the first attempts to quantify and analyze success when sharing information about difficult and unsolved scientific problems to large group of “unknown” outsiders. 

What it Means for Solvers

Besides the insights  the study provides to organizations which consider a “broadcast setting” for solving problems, I think that there are a number of findings which should also be interesting to problem Solvers: 

• One of them was that problem solving success was found to be associated with the ability to attract specialized Solvers with a range of diverse scientific interests.
• Related to this, and perhaps not quite as intuitive, successful Solvers solved problems at the boundary or outside their fields of expertise, indicating a transfer of knowledge from one field to another.

This latter finding is based on the self-assessed distance between the Solver’s field of expertise and the discipline of the Challenge.  The increase in probability was small (ca. 10%) but significant.  Even though somewhat counter-intuitive, I think it makes sense that somebody who is an outsider to a field can look at problem with fresh eyes and is less bothered by the do’s and don’ts which might prevent insiders from submitting a truly revolutionary solution proposal.

The Aftermath

After the results had been published in 2006 the study was regularly cited in the press, blogs and on websites as a reference to success in an open innovation setting. In some cases though, the results were interpreted a little too enthusiastically for my taste.   For example, one blog commented on the finding of cross-pollination saying that  “….chemists were better suited to solving life biology problems and vice- versa …”  – a statement which is pretty far from reality in my view.  I think there are many problems where cross-pollination can be important e.g. Challenges where new materials are sought and where solutions from many disciplines including chemistry, biology, material science, physics etc. may apply. However, that a biologist contributes effectively to an organic synthesis Challenge is rather unlikely unless that biologist has a deep understanding of the structure formalism and reactivity concepts used in organic chemistry.  The same holds true vice versa for the chemist.

What it Really Means for You

To me a likely reason that submissions from outside of the Challenge discipline have a somewhat increased probability of success is that the Seeker had probably already tried many approaches which are common sense within the discipline of the Challenge.  So, when a Seeker works with InnoCentive they expect new and unusual perspectives and are probably more likely to reward the new and unconventional proposal.  Of course, being different does not necessarily mean that the proposed approach is a solution. What is important is that the solution is different but also relevant to the problem. Hence demonstrating the relevance of a Solver’s different perspective to the Seeker’s problem is critical to success in our view. Those Solvers who explain clearly and in detail, step by step, as to why the proposed approach meets the requirements of the Challenge will more likely become award winners. Not surprisingly the results of the study also show that the time invested by the Solver in developing the solution is significantly and positively correlated with winning an award.

In Summary 

In summary, new and unconventional ideas are important for success.  InnoCentive is the Seekers’ platform of choice for harnessing these.  However, submitting an “unconventional” proposal is not enough; the proposed solution needs to be carefully matched to the Seeker’s needs.  In other words, Solvers need to commit to a carefully drafted solution proposal which explains in detail how the proposed approach can help the Seeker. In my experience, it’s often those well explained proposals which also emanate the Solver’s passion for the presented solution which are the ones which will be successful eventually. 

More studies like the one cited above are underway and perhaps some of you who are reading this have been contacted in the past for your input. I want to thank those who have shared their experience. We are grateful for the input and will take the steps necessary to improve our platform and processes to the benefit of all stakeholders involved.

Peter

Imagine that you invited a contractor to your house and asked him to paint a wall in your dining room blue.  The contractor arrives, looks at the wall and says: “No way, you should paint it pink.”  He thinks for a moment and adds: “Actually, you don’t need this wall at all.  Tear it down!”  He then looks around and suggests: “Better yet, sell this house and buy a new one.”

Sounds strange, doesn’t it?  Well…a couple of months ago, I posted a Challenge for a Seeker who was making a product from Material A.  In order to improve the quality of this product, the Seeker wanted to replace Material A with another material.  A good number of proposals had been submitted in response.  Some Solvers argued that Material B could do the job; some Solvers pointed to Material C; some Solvers suggested taking a careful look at Material D.

But there was one Solver who claimed that there was no need to replace Material A in the first place, because the Seeker would be better off with throwing away his product and replacing it with the product that the Solver had proposed.  When I tried to argue that the Challenge was about a new material and not a new product, the Solver insisted that his solution was of “out-of-the-box” type.  The Solver has also politely intimated that, perhaps, the Seeker simply didn’t know “what he needs.”

I have to admit that this wasn’t the first time in my practice that Solvers implied that a Seeker didn’t know “what he needs.”  So, let me speak a few words in defense of our Seekers.   

Leaving aside InnoCentive’s not-for-profit Seekers, a “typical” InnoCentive client is a large, successful, commercial enterprise employing hundreds of highly skilled and experienced scientists and engineers.  This enterprise has also a huge marketing department (with a multi-million dollar budget).  So, when it comes to posting a Challenge, the Seeker usually has a very clear understanding of what he “needs.”  (Besides, let me tell you a little secret: posting Challenges at InnoCentive isn’t free.  Every time the Seeker wants to post, he has to go through a rigorous budget approval process with management.  Challenges that no one “needs” have practically zero chance of reaching our website).     

I suspect that in the case of Material A, the Seeker was aware of extensive marketing studies showing that consumers were generally pretty happy with this particular product, but wanted some improvements, improvements that could be achieved by replacing Material A with some other material.  In addition, replacing one material with another is one thing; replacing the whole manufacturing process to run a new product – in the midst of economic recession! – is another.

I agree that some InnoCentive Challenges may look “strange.”  But I would argue that there is always a reason why the Seeker decided to post a “strange” Challenge.

Back to Material A.  A Seeker posts a Challenge asking to replace environmentally “unfriendly” Material A with something “green”, but adds: “Material B won’t be accepted.”  “Why?” many Solvers would immediately ask.  Why does the Seeker reject Material B, which is much better – and a thousand times “greener” — than Material A? (Does the Seeker really understand “what he needs”?).

The answer is simple: Material B is patented by the Seeker’s sworn competitor.  As much as he loves Material B, the Seeker cannot use it.  He needs something else.  Anything else.  But not Material B.

Strange” challenges come in different shapes and flavors.  My personal favorite is a Challenge “that has no solution.”  “This Challenge has no solution”, write several angry Solvers, “what’s the point of posting it?”

I know that the Challenge has no solution.  And so does the Seeker, but he or she still posts it — just to make sure that no new revolutionary technology has appeared in the past few years that would pave the way to a possible solution.  No solutions this time?  All right, let’s wait for another couple of years. 

A Seeker working for one of our oldest clients told me a story.  Many years ago, he designed a synthetic process, which he’s been trying, to no avail, to optimize.  His boss never missed an opportunity to remind the Seeker about the “shortcomings” of his process.  The Seeker then posted a Challenge to InnoCentive asking Solvers to come up with an improved design of the process.  He received a few dozens of submissions, but none was even close to providing the efficiency of the original process.  The Seeker’s original design was unbeatable!  He collected all the submissions, entered his boss’ office and dropped the whole package on his table.  His boss has never raised this topic again.

So, next time you see a “strange” Challenge, don’t rush to criticize the Seeker.  Open a project room and give the problem some thought.  However fulfilling solving a “normal” Challenge might be, nothing can be compared with the intellectual excitement of solving a “strange” Challenge.  Want to try?

By the way, what is the color of the walls in your project room?  Paint them blue!

Eugene Ivanov
Innovation Program Manager, InnoCentive