« Making the World Wide Web a Community | Main | What’s really radical about open innovation »

Innovation = Success

Like a broken record we are learning that innovation starts with combining many ideas, expertise, and talents across a diverse blogosphere. The chapter in Wikinomics just shed more light on how businesses have expanded their capacity to provide products and services faster by opening up their intellectual properties to the world to help solve problems that they could not do from within, and like the title of my last post; two heads are better than one. This is especially helpful when the budget is tight. Like InnoCentive, NineSigma, Innovation Relay Centers, and Eureka Medical that "post R & D problems on their web site, [while] solvers submit their solutions in a bid to capture cash prizes ranging from $5,000 to $10,000 (Wikinomics, pg. 98), are prospering using these global marketplaces or "ideagoras" to push past the closed silo idea that, "retain[ing] all of your best people internally" (Wikinomics pg. 99) is the best solution.

Revenue has boomed within companies that are willing to open up their resources to the world and are presently breaking down monopolies that rely on outsourcing alone. For every action there is a re-action. Does this mean that companies that take full advantage of open source networking will down-size or lay-off their existing employees from within? If this new innovative strategy helps to rake in more money annually, and costs less, what are they paying their employees for, who cannot come up with such qualified solutions? Where do businesses draw the line between who they want to keep and who they want to get rid of? I would imagine that these employees are kept on their toes by these new innovation strategies. "The corporate R & D process must look two ways: toward its internal projects and competencies and toward the external marketplace to leverage new IP and capabilities" (Wikinomics pg. 123). So I think it is safe to say that businesses need to have a happy medium between both to prosper and not just one or another.

The reading in Connect really helped to clarify some problems I was having to fully understanding the concept of bookmarking. The chapter provided me with sites that I never even knew existed. I especially liked memorandum.com because I realized that I had been missing out having not been informed about meme trackers. I also did not know that research had a better name: Orienteering. I found myself using this approach last semester when I was researching Facebook applications. I initially tried to use the teleporting approach, but I soon realized that I did not even really know the definition of applications or where they originated from and why. As I took smaller steps towards my goal of researching Facebook applications, I became much more knowledgeable about web applications in general, and in the end I was able to write a more insightful and fulfilling paper, and, “that confirm[ed] [I’ve] found the right thing? (Connect! Pg. 119).

As this week is coming to an end I have realized how much information I have swallowed up. The delicious site is easy to navigate through and tagging is very simple thanks to Connect and Krista’s web blog about using tags. I have only tagged a few pictures of the 35 W bridge collapse under the creative common licenses, but if you have any suggestions for me, I would be more than happy to listen.

Comments

I'm glad you raised the point about workforce impacts in your second paragraph. Probably as with any business innovation, many corporations will look at this as an opportunity to streamline by making layoffs. Of course, if the older business model isn't working, that is often absolutely necessary to remain competitive. On the flip side, the same innovations should drive a mushrooming of new small companies and freelancers with specialized expertise. The hope is always that capitalism ends up balancing it out, but it'll no doubt be a difficult and uncertain transition for some.

"I also did not know that research had a better name: Orienteering."

You know, I actually found myself a little annoyed by all the new vocabulary in Connect!. Not because I think those terms don't need to be coined, but because the authors are inventing a new word nearly every page. It seems like they''re trying too hard to start their own memes, and not focusing enough on the content matter.

Hey Hilary, your blog title and intro statement summed it all up: "Innovation = Success . . . Like a broken record we are learning that innovation starts with combining many ideas, expertise, and talents across a diverse blogosphere." Innovation is so important nowadays. Innovation allows us to compete in the global marketplace. To the U, innovation is important. The U even has an Innovation Studies certificate program:
http://cce.umn.edu/certificates/mgmt/innovation/index.html

You ask some very interesting questions: "Does this mean that companies that take full advantage of open source networking will down-size or lay-off their existing employees from within? If this new innovative strategy helps to rake in more money annually, and costs less, what are they paying their employees for, who cannot come up with such qualified solutions? Where do businesses draw the line between who they want to keep and who they want to get rid of?" The questions that you ask are definitely questions that I and others would like answers to. Later on, you wrote: "'The corporate R & D process must look two ways: toward its internal projects and competencies and toward the external marketplace to leverage new IP and capabilities' (Wikinomics pg. 123). So I think it is safe to say that businesses need to have a happy medium between both to prosper and not just one or another." I am all about happy mediums; I think that allows the most people to be the most satisfied. As the weeks go by, I am confident that the questions we have will be answered. . . So to you and everyone, keep asking those intriguing questions!


I have to agree with the broken record statement. To an extent, the information in these books is simply common sense. But the problem is learning how, when, where, etc to implement new ideas and innovations. How to protect ones self from those who would take advantage of naivity. It would be nice to have more information on protection rather then reiterating the information that is in general common sense.