Welcome to the Last Mile Challenge

Interesting that the speaker sees the IXC model as “expensive.” I’ve never understood why IXC persists in trying to sell what it does as a service. IXC supplies a specific kind of human resource, and we pay far more for that kind of person typically than IXC charges. You wouldn’t say 100k for your operations manager was too expensive, would you?

Also, the speaker makes the error (which I often saw people make) of jumbling the IXC function in with general sharing – when he suggests getting people from different companies together. Sure, you can always try that sort of thing in a variety of models – we call the most obvious the trade show, and trade shows do work for finding connections between companies…especially when there is lots of alcohol. But the unique function of the intermediary is that he or she is NOT employed by any of the companies but rather employed by a non-profit regulated body that holds fiduciary responsibility not to one party but to all firms participating in the regime. There are details in the intentions of separate firms which can not be told to the employee of another firm under any circumstances…and sadly, these details in intent (which can not be protected by IP) are arguably the best source of strong connection opportunity between firms. If I told you that my firm intends to put your firm out of business next month, you would be required by your fiduciary responsibility to report that knowledge to management. However, if two intermediaries share that information, they are required to say nothing and let it happen. Intermediaries are only allowed to report information (and then only through a strict set of procedures) when they see a reasonable opportunity for win-win connections.

THE PREDICTION MARKET ON OPEN INNOVATION FOR DEVELOPMENT CLOSES FRIDAY AT MIDNIGHT!!!

Trading closes Friday, 11:59PM US Pacific Time – that means there are 5 days left to trade and counting. Check out the blog for updates and commentary at oi4dev.blogspot.com. The top 3 traders receive $25 gift certificates to the IDS bookstore. Good luck!

The innovationXchange model is significantly different from the others through its use of the ‘trusted intermediary’. While I agree with Alfredo’s observation that there are major pros and cons to this model, I believe that a strong investment in the proposed ‘spaces for label-free idea exchange’ would propel an increase in innovation by tapping into the wisdom of diverse crowds and facilitating networking, all while providing what the other models do not – a knowledgeable insider understanding of the challenges a given seeker org faces. Innocentive and NineSigma both help clients refine their problems – and stress that this is key to finding the right solution. InnovationXchange takes this step to a whole new level.

I just heard a really interesting radio show on innovation and outside the box thinking. The way the discussion was framed seems particularly relevant to our discussion last week:

"If there was ever a time we needed to think outside the box, this is it. On energy, the economy, war, security, America seems boxed. Maybe your life does, too. So, how to fire up the engines of real out-of-the-box innovation? Neuroscientist Gregory Berns says it starts with brain chemistry and habits that can break us free of mental ruts. He looks at the biology of how we feel, think, and behave — and points to the exits from tired old patterns, with examples of innovators and iconoclasts from Picasso to Warren Buffet to the Dixie Chicks. This hour, On Point: Rewiring the brain for change.


The link to the show is below:

http://www.onpointradio.org/shows/2008/09/getting-outside-the-box/

Hope you find it useful. Cheers,

Alfredo

Hello to all,
In an effort to manipulate the markets in my favor (all very legitimately of course), I’m sending some quick reasoning to potential investors in the different open innovation models. I invested most heavily in Innocentive and BIG, lightly in Nine Sigma, and nothing in the Innovation exchange. Here are my quick reasons:
• It’s interesting to see the difference between Innocentive demand-defined (defined problem) approach, versus the BIG supply based approach. Innocentive finds solutions where they are—theoretically breaking down many barriers (it looks outside one’s known, comfortable networks and relationships). The conceptual model is strong.
• BIG, on the other hand is also strong in that it has the potential to identify (non problem initiated) innovative ideas from outside the traditional development power circles (UN agencies, large NGOs, Donors, etc.) It’s also good in that it can help develop ideas further—in other words they don’t have to be fully polished. These are my two favorites.
• Nine-sigma seems similar to Innocentive, but not as interesting to me. That said I put down a bit in case it’s a sleeper
• Innovation Xchange is interesting in concept in that it involves direct learning transfer (i.e. collaborative capacity) between organizations, but the effectiveness of that seems hampered by the TI intermediary. The TI model is full of pros and cons that almost seem to offset each other. Again, I like the potential learning gains from an exchange model, but the potential benefits seem to be outweighed by costs and risks. I didn’t put any on this model.
Hope to see you all trading!
Alfredo