Using the crowd as an innovation partner.

IF 9.1 4区 管理学 Q1 BUSINESS Harvard business review Pub Date : 2013-04-01
Kevin J Boudreau, Karim R Lakhani
{"title":"Using the crowd as an innovation partner.","authors":"Kevin J Boudreau,&nbsp;Karim R Lakhani","doi":"","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>From Apple to Merck to Wikipedia, more and more organizations are turning to crowds for help in solving their most vexing innovation and research questions, but managers remain understandably cautious. It seems risky and even unnatural to push problems out to vast groups of strangers distributed around the world, particularly for companies built on a history of internal innovation. How can intellectual property be protected? How can a crowd-sourced solution be integrated into corporate operations? What about the costs? These concerns are all reasonable, the authors write, but excluding crowdsourcing from the corporate innovation tool kit means losing an opportunity. After a decade of study, they have identified when crowds tend to outperform internal organizations (or not). They outline four ways to tap into crowd-powered problem solving--contests, collaborative communities, complementors, and labor markets--and offer a system for picking the best one in a given situation. Contests, for example, are suited to highly challenging technical, analytical, and scientific problems; design problems; and creative or aesthetic projects. They are akin to running a series of independent experiments that generate multiple solutions--and if those solutions cluster at some extreme, a company can gain insight into where a problem's \"technical frontier\" lies. (Internal R&D may generate far less information.)</p>","PeriodicalId":12874,"journal":{"name":"Harvard business review","volume":"91 4","pages":"60-9, 140"},"PeriodicalIF":9.1000,"publicationDate":"2013-04-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Harvard business review","FirstCategoryId":"91","ListUrlMain":"","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"管理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"BUSINESS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

From Apple to Merck to Wikipedia, more and more organizations are turning to crowds for help in solving their most vexing innovation and research questions, but managers remain understandably cautious. It seems risky and even unnatural to push problems out to vast groups of strangers distributed around the world, particularly for companies built on a history of internal innovation. How can intellectual property be protected? How can a crowd-sourced solution be integrated into corporate operations? What about the costs? These concerns are all reasonable, the authors write, but excluding crowdsourcing from the corporate innovation tool kit means losing an opportunity. After a decade of study, they have identified when crowds tend to outperform internal organizations (or not). They outline four ways to tap into crowd-powered problem solving--contests, collaborative communities, complementors, and labor markets--and offer a system for picking the best one in a given situation. Contests, for example, are suited to highly challenging technical, analytical, and scientific problems; design problems; and creative or aesthetic projects. They are akin to running a series of independent experiments that generate multiple solutions--and if those solutions cluster at some extreme, a company can gain insight into where a problem's "technical frontier" lies. (Internal R&D may generate far less information.)

分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
利用大众作为创新伙伴。
从苹果公司(Apple)到默克公司(Merck)再到维基百科(Wikipedia),越来越多的组织开始向大众寻求帮助,以解决他们最棘手的创新和研究问题,但管理者仍然保持谨慎,这是可以理解的。把问题推给分布在世界各地的一大群陌生人,似乎是有风险的,甚至是不自然的,尤其是对那些建立在内部创新历史上的公司来说。如何保护知识产权?如何将众包解决方案整合到企业运营中?那成本呢?作者写道,这些担忧都是合理的,但将众包排除在企业创新工具包之外意味着失去一个机会。经过十年的研究,他们已经确定了群体在什么时候倾向于(或不倾向于)优于内部组织。他们概述了四种利用大众动力解决问题的方法——竞赛、协作社区、互补和劳动力市场——并提供了一个在特定情况下选择最佳方法的系统。例如,竞赛适用于具有高度挑战性的技术、分析和科学问题;设计问题;以及创意或美学项目。它们类似于进行一系列独立的实验,产生多种解决方案——如果这些解决方案集中在某个极端,公司就可以洞察到问题的“技术前沿”在哪里。(内部研发可能产生的信息要少得多。)
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
1.40
自引率
0.00%
发文量
1
期刊介绍: HBR covers a wide range of topics, including strategy, leadership, organizational change, negotiations, operations, innovation, decision making, marketing, finance, work-life balance, and managing teams. We publish articles of many lengths (some in both print and digital forms, and some in digital only), graphics, podcasts, videos, slide presentations, and just about any other media that might help us share an idea effectively.
期刊最新文献
When work feels like family, employees keep quiet about wrongdoing How to (actually) save time while working remotely Telling tales. 20. Where Babies Come From Stop holding yourself back.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1