7 lessons learned from $5 million in open innovation prizes

Curated on Posted on by Stefaan Verhulst

Sara Holoubek in the Lab Report: “Prize competitions have long been used to accelerate innovation. In the 18th century, Britain offered a significant prize purse for advancements in seafaring navigation, and Napoleon’s investment in a competition led to innovation in food preservation. More recently, DARPA’s Grand Challenge ignited a decade of progress in autonomous vehicle technology.

Challenges are considered a branch of “open innovation,” an idea that has been around for decades but became more popular after the University of California’s Henry Chesbrough published a book on the topic in 2003. Chesbrough describes open innovation as “a paradigm that assumes that firms can and should use external ideas as well as internal ideas, and internal and external paths to market, as the firms look to advance their technology.”…Here’s what we’ve learned…:

1. It’s a long game.

Clients get more out of open innovation when they reject a “one and done” mentality, opting instead to build an open innovation competency, socialize best practices across the broader organization, and determine the best moments to push the innovation envelope. …

2. Start with problem statement definition.

If a company isn’t in agreement on the problem to be solved, its challenge won’t be successful. …

3. Know what would constitute a “big win.”

Many of our clients are tasked with balancing near-term expectations while navigating what it will take for the organization to thrive in the long term. Rather than meeting in the middle, we ask what would constitute a “big win.” …

4. Invest in challenge design.

The market is flooded with platforms that aim to democratize challenges — and better access to tools is great. But in the absence of challenge design, a competition run on the best platform will fail. ….

5. Understand what it takes to close the gap between concept and viability.

…Solvers often tell us this “virtual accelerator” period — which includes education and exercises in empathy-building, subject matter knowledge, rapid prototyping, and business modeling — is of more value to their teams than prize money.

6. Hug the lawyers — as early as possible.

… Faced with unique constraints, we encourage clients to engage counsel early in the process. …

7. Really, really good marketing is essential.

A key selling point for challenge platforms is the size of their database. Some even monetize “communities.” …(More)”

The Wikipedia competitor that’s harnessing blockchain for epistemological supremacy

Curated on Posted on by Stefaan Verhulst

Peter Rubin at Wired: “At the time of this writing, the opening sentence of Larry Sanger’s Everipedia entry is pretty close to his Wikipedia entry. It describes him as “an American Internet project developer … best known as co-founder of Wikipedia.” By the time you read this, however, it may well mention a new, more salient fact—that Sanger recently became the Chief Information Officer of Everipedia itself, a site that seeks to become a better version of the online encyclopedia than the one he founded back in 2001. To do that, Sanger’s new employer is trying something that no other player in the space has done: moving to a blockchain.

Oh, blockchain, that decentralized “global ledger” that provides the framework for cryptocurrencies like Bitcoin (as well as a thousand explainer videos, and seemingly a thousand startups’ business plans). Blockchain already stands to make medical patient data easier to move and improve food safety; now, Everipedia’s founders hope, it will allow for a more powerful, accountable encyclopedia.

Here’s how it’ll work. Everipedia already uses a points system where creating articles and approved edits amasses “IQ.” In January, when the site moves over to a blockchain, Everipedia will convert IQ scores to a token-based currency, giving all existing editors an allotment proportionate to their IQ—and giving them a real, financial stake in Everipedia. From then on, creating and curating articles will allow users to earn tokens, which act as virtual shares of the platform. To prevent bad actors from trying to cash in with ill-founded or deliberately false articles and edits, Everipedia will force users to put up a token of their own in order to submit. If their work is accepted, they get their token back, plus a little bit for their contribution; if not, they lose their token. The assumption is that other users, motivated by the desire to maintain the site’s value, will actively seek to prevent such efforts….

This isn’t the first time a company has proposed a decentralized blockchain-based encyclopedia; earlier this year, a company called Lunyr announced similar plans. However, judging from Lunyr’s most recent roadmap, Everipedia will beat it to market with room to spare….(More)”.

There’s more to evidence-based policies than data: why it matters for healthcare

Curated on Posted on by Stefaan Verhulst

 at The Conversation: “The big question is: how can countries strengthen their health systems to deliver accessible, affordable and equitable care when they are often under-financed and governed in complex ways?

One answer lies in governments developing policies and programmes that are informed by evidence of what works or doesn’t. This should include what we would call “traditional data”, but should also include a broader definition of evidence. This would mean including, for example, information from citizens and stakeholders as well as programme evaluations. In this way, policies can be made more relevant for the people they affect.

Globally there is an increasing appreciation for this sort of policymaking that relies of a broader definition of evidence. Countries such as South Africa, Ghana and Thailand provide good examples.

What is evidence?

Using evidence to inform the development of health care has grown out of the use of science to choose the best decisions. It is based on data being collected in a methodical way. This approach is useful but it can’t always be neatly applied to policymaking. There are several reasons for this.

The first is that there are many different types of evidence. Evidence is more than data, even though the terms are often used to mean the same thing. For example, there is statistical and administrative data, research evidence, citizen and stakeholder information as well as programme evaluations.

The challenge is that some of these are valued more than others. More often than not, statistical data is more valued in policymaking. But both researchers and policymakers must acknowledge that for policies to be sound and comprehensive, different phases of policymaking process would require different types of evidence.

Secondly, data-as-evidence is only one input into policymaking. Policymakers face a long list of pressures they must respond to, including time, resources, political obligations and unplanned events.

Researchers may push technically excellent solutions designed in research environments. But policymakers may have other priorities in mind: are the solutions being put to them practical and affordable?Policymakers also face the limitations of having to balance various constituents while straddling the constraints of the bureaucracies they work in.

Researchers must recognise that policymakers themselves are a source of evidence of what works or doesn’t. They are able to draw on their own experiences, those of their constituents, history and their contextual knowledge of the terrain.

What this boils down to is that for policies that are based on evidence to be effective, fewer ‘push/pull’ models of evidence need to be used. Instead the models where evidence is jointly fashioned should be employed.

This means that policymakers, researchers and other key actors (like health managers or communities) must come together as soon as a problem is identified. They must first understand each other’s ideas of evidence and come to a joint conclusion of what evidence would be appropriate for the solution.

In South Africa, for example, the Department of Environmental Affairshas developed a four-phase process to policymaking. In the first phase, researchers and policymakers come together to set the agenda and agree on the needed solution. Their joint decision is then reviewed before research is undertaken and interpreted together….(More)”.

Big data in social and psychological science: theoretical and methodological issues

Curated on Posted on by Stefaan Verhulst

Paper by Lin Qiu, Sarah Hian May Chan and David Chan in the Journal of Computational Social Science: “Big data presents unprecedented opportunities to understand human behavior on a large scale. It has been increasingly used in social and psychological research to reveal individual differences and group dynamics. There are a few theoretical and methodological challenges in big data research that require attention. In this paper, we highlight four issues, namely data-driven versus theory-driven approaches, measurement validity, multi-level longitudinal analysis, and data integration. They represent common problems that social scientists often face in using big data. We present examples of these problems and propose possible solutions….(More)”.

Disrupting Democracy: Point. Click. Transform.

Curated on Posted on by Stefaan Verhulst

Book edited by Anthony T. Silberfeld: “In January 2017, the Bertelsmann Foundation embarked on a nine-month journey to explore how digital innovation impacts democracies and societies around the world. This voyage included more than 40,000 miles in the air, thousands of miles on the ground and hundreds of interviews.

From the rival capitals of Washington and Havana to the bustling streets of New Delhi; the dynamic tech startups in Tel Aviv to the efficient order of Berlin, this book focuses on key challenges that have emerged as a result of technological disruption and offers potential lessons to other nations situated at various points along the technological and democratic spectra.

Divided into six chapters, this book provides two perspectives on each of our five case studies (India, Cuba, the United States, Israel and Germany) followed by polling data collected on demographics, digital access and political engagement from four of these countries.

The global political environment is constantly evolving, and it is clear that technology is accelerating that process for better and, in some cases, for worse. Disrupting Democracy attempts to sort through these changes to give policymakers and citizens information that will help them navigate this increasingly volatile world….(More)”.

Analyzing the Role of the Internet-of-Things in Business and Technologically-Smart Cities

Curated on Posted on by Stefaan Verhulst

Paper by A. Shinn, K. Nakatani, and W. Rodriguez in the International Journal of Internet of Things: “This research analyzes and theorizes on the role that the Internet-of-Things will play in the expansion of business and technologically-smart cities. This study examines: a) the underlying technology, referred to as the Internet of Things that forms the foundation for smart cities; b) what businesses and government must do to successfully transition to a technologically-smart city; and c) how the proliferation of the Internet of Things through the emerging cities will affect local citizens. As machine-to-machine communication becomes increasingly common, new use cases are continually created, as is the case with the use of the Internet of Things in technologically-smart cities. Technology businesses are keeping a close pulse on end-users’ needs in order to identify and create technologies and systems to cater to new use cases. A number of the international smart city-specific use cases will be discussed in this paper along with the technology that aligns to those use cases….(More)”.

A New City O/S: The Power of Open, Collaborative, and Distributed Governance

Curated on Posted on by Stefaan Verhulst

Book by Stephen Goldsmith and Neil Kleiman: “At a time when trust is dropping precipitously and American government at the national level has fallen into a state of long-term, partisan-based gridlock, local government can still be effective—indeed more effective and even more responsive to the needs of its citizens. Based on decades of direct experience and years studying successful models around the world, the authors of this intriguing book propose a new operating system (O/S) for cities. Former mayor and Harvard professor Stephen Goldsmith and New York University professor Neil Kleiman suggest building on the giant leaps that have been made in technology, social engagement, and big data.

Calling their approach “distributed governance,” Goldsmith and Kleiman offer a model that allows public officials to mobilize new resources, surface ideas from unconventional sources, and arm employees with the information they need to become pre-emptive problem solvers. This book highlights lessons from the many innovations taking place in today’s cities to show how a new O/S can create systemic transformation.

For students of government, A New City O/S: The Power of Distributed Governance presents a groundbreaking strategy for rethinking the governance of cities, marking an important evolution of the current bureaucratic authority-based model dating from the 1920s. More important, the book is designed for practitioners, starting with public-sector executives, managers, and frontline workers. By weaving real-life examples into a coherent model, the authors have created a step-by-step guide for all those who would put the needs of citizens front and center. Nothing will do more to restore trust in government than solutions that work. A New City O/S: The Power of Distributed Governanceputs those solutions within reach of those public officials responsible for their delivery….(More)”.

Transitioning Towards a Knowledge Society: Qatar as a Case Study

Curated on Posted on by Stefaan Verhulst

Book by Julia Gremm, Julia Barth, Kaja J. Fietkiewicz and Wolfgang G. Stock: “The book offers a critical evaluation of Qatar’s path from oil- and gas-based industries to a knowledge-based economy. This book gives basic information about the region and the country, including the geographic and demographic data, the culture, the politics and the economy, the health care conditions and the education system. It introduces the concepts of knowledge society and knowledge-based development and adds factual details about Qatar by interpreting indicators of the development status. Subsequently, the research methods that underlie the study are described, which offers information on the eGovernment study analyzing the government-citizen relationship, higher education institutions and systems, its students and the students’ way into the labor market. This book has an audience with economists, sociologists, political scientists, geographers, information scientists and other researchers on the knowledge society, but also all researchers and practitioners interested in the Arab Oil States and their future….(More)”.

Enhancing social impact through better monitoring, evaluation, and learning

Curated on Posted on by Stefaan Verhulst

Deloitte: “Social sector organizations tackle some of the world’s most difficult and complex challenges on a daily basis. And, just as in other industries, getting the right data and information at the right time is essential to understanding what an organization needs to achieve, whether it is doing what it set out to do, and what impact its efforts are actually having. Yet, despite marked advances in the tools and methods for monitoring, evaluation, and learning in the social sector, as well as a growing number of bright spots in practice emerging in the field, there is broad dissatisfaction across the sector about how data is—or is not—used….

Based on our interviews, the research team identified three characteristics that participants within and outside the social sector believe should be defining pillars of a better future for monitoring, evaluation, and learning. These three characteristics are purpose, perspective, and alignment with other actors….(More)”

Screen Shot 2017-12-14 at 7.38.20 AM

The Engineers and the Political System

Curated on Posted on by Stefaan Verhulst

Aaron Timms at the Los Angeles Review of Books: “Engineers enjoy a prestige in China that connects them to political power far more directly than in the United States. ….America, by contrast, has historically been governed by lawyers. That remains true today: there are 218 lawyers in Congress and 208 former businesspeople, according to the Congressional Research Service, but only eight engineers. (Science is even more severely underrepresented, with just three members in the House.) It’s unlikely that that balance will tilt meaningfully in favor of STEM-ers in the near term. But in another sense, the growing cultural capital of the engineers will inevitably translate to political power, whatever its form.

The engineering profession today is broad, much broader than it was in 1921 when Thorstein Veblen published The Engineers and the Price System, his classic pamphlet on industrial sabotage and government by technocrats. Engineering has outgrown the four traditional branches (chemical, civil, electrical, mechanical) to include all the professions in which the laws of mathematics and science are applied to real-world problems…..In a way that was never the case for previous generations, engineering today is politics, and politics engineering. Power is coming for the engineers, but are the engineers ready for power?

…tech smarts do not port easily to politics. However violently Silicon Valley pushes the story that it’s here to fix things for all of us, building an algorithm and coming up with intelligent ways to improve society are not the same thing. The triumph of the engineers is that they’ve managed to convince so many people otherwise.

This victory is more than simply economic or mechanical; engineering has also come to permeate the language of politics itself. Zuckerberg’s doe-eyed both-sidesism is the latest expression of the idea, nourished through the Clinton years and the height of the evidence-based policy movement, that facts offer the surest solution to knotty political problems. This is, we already know, a temple built on sand, ignoring as it does the intractably political nature of politics; hence the failure of “figures” and “facts” and “evidence” to do anything to shift positions on gun reform or voter fraud. But it’s a temple with enduring bipartisan appeal, and the engineers have come along at the right moment to give it a fresh lick of paint. If thinking like an engineer is the new way to do business, engineerialism, in politics, is the new centrism — rule by experts remarketed for the innovation age. It might be generations before a Veblenian technocrat calls the White House home, but no presidency can match the power engineers already have — a power to define progress, a power without check….(More)”.