I am a Finnish lawyer specialized in intellectual property law and researcher specialized in open innovation, currently working on my PhD. The title of my Doctoral project is 'Transcending the Shortcomings of Open Innovation,' where I am wrestling with a very interesting question: whether the problems that excessive fragmentation of patents poses for cumulative innovation can be resolved with Open Innovation.
Thank you so much for the selection! It has been very exciting to take part in challenge and to discuss open innovation in such a diverse group and to read so many fresh views on the topic! Looking forward to upcoming challenges on OpenIDEO!
Thanks Joanna for the insightful synthesis! I think we indeed should look for 360 degree view for different incentives that play a role in innovation. I personally really like the Erik’s idea of Nudging innovation. I wish social media platforms would feature more designs that would give opportunities to casually engage in problem-solving.
I believe that each individual in different contexts may respond both to external, (direct or indirect monetary incentives, reputation building) or intrinsic motivations (altruism, enjoying the process of innovating). I suppose the challenge for building an innovation community is to attract participants with very heterogeneous incentives. For example Jim Rosenberg in his post "Top Idea -> Proof of Concept Grant"(https://challenges.openideo.com/challenge/exploring-open-innovation/ideas/top-idea-proof-of-concept-grant monetary) rewards to incentivize idea creation and ensure that they will become implemented. This could work for challenges with look to solve more concrete problems by teams who really want to implement their relatively mature idea. Yet the grant may crowd out innovators who prefer to make contributions as a light activity in the free time, and gladly leave implementation for someone else, as they themselves do have not resources to engage in it
I also wonder, whether a new type of incentives begins to play a role in open innovation practices when they are used to tackle societal problems? What would these incentives then be? Given that societal problems are are connected to political questions, could then some of the motivations behind political activism also incentivize open innovation? Are these motivations similar to altruism or something else?
Hi Anne-Laure! Thank you for your thoughtful comments and insights from the upcoming paper, would be happy to read it. I do agree firms participation on open innovation to depends a lot on how they understand the knowledge being created. I have had some analogous experiences when discussing firm's participation in multiparty R&D projects. Coming from IP law, I was looking into how firms decide to share their IP in a project, and it appeared that the firms that were willing to share were those who were a) aware of what relevant information they had b) convinced that what they shared it in the project and developed collaboratively, would bring them more value than keeping it to themselves.
Thank you for your comments on the hypotheses. I tried to write them in very abstractly/roughly to considers the variety of disciplines studying open innovation, but it was challenging to fully depart from the legal viewpoint. I appreciate your input from another discipline and I do agree that management and communication challenges are never simple.
In the first point, by practical meant situations to which a solution exists or it is relatively easy to obtain or create. In the context of law, this could mean for example a development of a fitting licensing agreement with some effort, but generally something that a normal lawyer could do. Could you think of equivalent definition in communication or management practices, or is the hypothesis unfitting given the fluidity and complexity of the processes?
The second hypothesis refers to more fundamental tensions in open innovation, irrespective of the discipline from which we view them. In the context of law, a solution to problems of the second category could mean for example a development of of a novel licensing mechanism for a new, previously unknown way to engage in open innovation.
Examples of the third category would be actual market failures such as lack of incentives of individual user innovators to disseminate their innovations( Jong JPJ and others, ‘Market failure in the diffusion of consumer-developed innovations: Patterns in Finland’ 44 Research Policy 1856) or in the legal context, situations where private ordering, though contracts and licensing practices is not sufficient to enable open innovation, but it's success would require a change in legislation.