“Wisdom of Crowds” and innovation – It’s not working
August 3rd, 2008
I want to begin with a pet peeve: I really don’t like the word “innovation.” I think that many people and corporations have begun turning an important concept into a buzzword.
However, innovation is still a very important concept. An organisation can grow two different ways: through market size and share, but also through innovation, generating new products and services. I firmly believe that while both are important, only innovation can keep a company healthy in the long term. But innovation happens on multiple levels. Jeff Bezos of Amazon.com said this in an interesting article in BusinessWeek:
Q: Academics say Amazon excels at different kinds of innovation — from creating new ways of doing business to making small changes that improve the online store. [...] How do you balance these approaches?
A: There is a ton of fine-grained innovation that happens on a daily basis. That kind is super important—things that make our operations more efficient and lower cost so we can afford to offer lower prices to our customers. But there is a spectrum, and at the other end is large-scale innovation like Kindle and Web services and Amazon Prime. With large-scale innovation, you have to set a very high bar. You don’t get to do too many of those [initiatives] per unit of time. You have to be really selective.
I’ve talked before about prediction markets and using them for innovation. Specifically, using PM’s to rank ideas and innovations is a horrible idea. However, I do believe that once you have a short-list of good ideas, prediction markets are appropriate to get a numerical comparison of how each could affect a business or organisation.
But so far I’ve been distinctly unimpressed with how most corporations approach “crowdsourcing” and innovation. There are two approaches, and both have a similar flaw:
- External: Companies ask their customers or the public at large to propose new ideas.
- Internal: Companies ask their employees to propose new ideas.
All of the software solutions to each of these approaches follow a similar pattern; each is essentially a Digg for ideas. But an idea is only the first step in innovation, and it’s by far the easiest step. Selecting the best ideas is only a further marginal step forward. While a “crowdsourced” method of finding and ranking ideas is great, those ideas then go through a typical corporate process to be approved, managed and implemented. What starts off so promising (getting a group of people to start the innovation process) then becomes a standard organisational process. This implementation are where great ideas go to be killed off.
Great ideas that lead to great innovations inspire passion in the people that believe in them. This passion is what is lost when an idea gets put into an standard process. While the idea still may be implemented, I think that it will generally lose momentum if the people making an idea happen weren’t those that were passionate about it.
Side note: I mentioned the difference between external and internal crowdsourcing above because there are important differences when you go beyond a Digg-style ranking mechanism. Namely, an internal approach can take advantage of great ideas without any real intellectual property concerns, where an external approach needs to be sensitive to this issue.
There are some success stories, however. When a true marketplace for ideas and innovations is established, there is a flourishing community. For example, InnoCentive is a marketplace where companies can post technical problems they’re having problems solving, and anyone can try finding the best solution. This is a great model, but only works when a company has a well-defined problem that can be addressed by the innovator. The innovators can never initiate an innovation, they can only react to a request for innovation.
Summary
Innovation is NOT about ideas. Innovation is about putting great ideas into practice. While ranking systems are appropriate and a good start to the process, they are just the easiest first step.
I am dissatisfied with the current approach to crowdsourcing and innovation because current solutions just attack a small portion of the innovation process. I have some things I’m working on that I hope will eventually bridge this gap. This is a topic I expect to write about much more in the coming months, and would appreciate any and all comments, public or private.
[End Note:] If you’d like to get new posts here delivered directly to your inbox, please click here. Or, if you read blogs via RSS, click here to subscribe. For those of you that do read this by RSS (quite a few, according to Feedburner), I recently updated the blog’s theme to make it simpler and faster loading. I hope you like it.
August 4th, 2008 at 9:16 am
Thanks for a great piece on innovation, we also find that people throw the word “innovation” around casually to mean any good idea. We have found that open innovation is a very effective tool for businesses, but only like you said, when they have a very clearly defined problem or challenge they need help with. As with any good design, or idea, the solution is only effective if the problem is clearly defined.
If you'd ever like to speak with someone at InnoCentive or learn more about the latest things we're developing, feel free to call me directly.
Regards
Liz Moise
Marketing Manager
InnoCentive
August 4th, 2008 at 2:47 pm
Thanks, Liz.
It seems that a lot of prediction market-based applications tend to focus solely on ideas, which I think is unfortunate and misses most of the innovation process. Action is so much more important than the idea when making innovation happen. I really like what InnoCentive is doing, but also think there's a potential for another whole range of applications to help companies that have trouble defining their problems.
Thanks for commenting,
Jed
August 10th, 2008 at 2:56 pm
Jed, nice post, but for Pete's sake, use a picture of a CFL…an incandescent bulb is so 19th century!
August 11th, 2008 at 7:39 am
I know, I know… but I had it in good quality from iStockphoto! But
then again, shouldn't we be talking about LED's soon, anyway?
September 10th, 2008 at 1:58 am
[...] Open Hack Day Sunnyvale, Sept 12-13, 2008 By David Pennock As Jed points out, “an idea is only the first step in innovation, and it’s by far the easiest [...]
October 4th, 2008 at 2:38 pm
What prevents companies from using, say, PMs further “down” the innovation value chain? Don't you think some companies do it already?
Take Google, I think they have used PMs to get quantifiable data in all phases of “innovation” and implementing ideas into practice. Intel has used them to get predictions on how products will do in markets (lots of examples from using PMs in final stages of “innovation process”).
So, I don't agree, although I think you could be right for blaming companies focusing too much on front end.
October 5th, 2008 at 7:26 am
I think I addressed this more on my original post here:
http://blog.mercury-rac.com/2008/05/05/predicti...
To quote that post:
“I believe that while you can use prediction markets to help quantify innovative ideas, using PM’s to prioritise ideas is a poor use of the tool.”
Prediction markets are great when you have a rather well-defined idea or innovation. For example, in the final stages of creating a new consumer product it would be very useful to determine what the company (and distributors) think demand of that product will be in order to manufacturing figures correct. But when you're dealing with 30+ different early-stage ideas, all of which will change as they become more and more real, prediction markets are a poor tool. There is simply too much uncertainty for a market to be of much use; other tools are more appropriate.
I think if you go and read my earlier post you'll see that I've probably addressed your concerns.
December 3rd, 2008 at 6:48 am
this is good choice, i believe on that, very nice tips, thanks for the nice complements, please keep in touch
January 29th, 2009 at 8:08 pm
Thanks for the info. May God have mercy on us all.