• Share
  • Email
  • Embed
  • Like
  • Save
  • Private Content
RAND Lecture:  INCENTIVE ENGINEERING (17 Jan12)
 

RAND Lecture: INCENTIVE ENGINEERING (17 Jan12)

on

  • 384 views

Lecture before the RAND Corporation, re: INCENTIVE ENGINEERING - video of lecture is also available at...

Lecture before the RAND Corporation, re: INCENTIVE ENGINEERING - video of lecture is also available at...

http://youtu.be/mjULNBc-5ZQ

Statistics

Views

Total Views
384
Views on SlideShare
384
Embed Views
0

Actions

Likes
0
Downloads
2
Comments
0

0 Embeds 0

No embeds

Accessibility

Upload Details

Uploaded via as Microsoft PowerPoint

Usage Rights

© All Rights Reserved

Report content

Flagged as inappropriate Flag as inappropriate
Flag as inappropriate

Select your reason for flagging this presentation as inappropriate.

Cancel
  • Full Name Full Name Comment goes here.
    Are you sure you want to
    Your message goes here
    Processing…
Post Comment
Edit your comment

    RAND Lecture:  INCENTIVE ENGINEERING (17 Jan12) RAND Lecture: INCENTIVE ENGINEERING (17 Jan12) Presentation Transcript

    • THE HISTORY OF PRIZES “OPEN INNOVATION” PRIZE HISTORY TIMELINE* 1714 1775 1795 1895 1900 19191567 2012 BRITISH ALKALI NAPOLEAN CHICAGO DEUTSCH ORTEIG LONGITUDE PRIZE FOOD TIMES-HERALD PRIZE PRIIZE PRIZE PRESERVATION PRIZE FOR AUTO PRIZE MOTORS CHARLES LINDBERGH CROSSES THE ATLANTIC RAYMOND ORTEIG 9 TEAMS SPEND $400K “TO WIN $25K” * Knowledge Ecology International, Research Note 2008:1 (http://url.ie/dzyk)
    • A PRIZE RENAISSANCE “THE ANSARI X PRIZE” $1BB+ $100MM $10MM $2.5MMCREATING LEVERAGE: 26 different approaches proposed from a wide range of entrants („96-„04). ARCA SPACE TRANSPORT DA VINCI PROJECT CANADIAN ARROW ROCKET PLANEARMADILLO AEROSPACE STAR CHASER PABLO DELEON 26 TEAMS / 7 NATIONS SPEND $100 MILLION TO WIN $10 MILLION“VIRGIN GALACTIC LEASES WINNING TECHNOLOGY” 3 BILLION+ MEDIA IMPRESSIONS MOHAVE AEROSPACE VENTURES WINS $10 MILLION
    • PRIZE GROWTH & EXPERIMENTATION “SUCCESS STORIES & CAUTIONARY TALES” * (1970-2009)* McKinsey & Company (2009), “And the Winner Is…” (http://url.ie/dzyj)
    • PRIZE INVESTMENT “VENTURE PHILANTHROPY & INNOVATIVE GOVERNMENT” Source of New Prize Capital (since 2000)* GROWING SEGMENT* McKinsey & Company (2009), “And the Winner Is…” (http://url.ie/dzyj)
    • A PRIZE TYPOLOGY* “REWARDING OR AWARDING”* Morgan, J (2008), “Prize Induced Innovation.” innovations, MIT Press, 3(4). (http://url.ie/dzym)
    • A PRIZE TYPOLOGY* “A SHIFT IN AWARENESS” Before 1991 After 1991* McKinsey & Company (2009), “And the Winner Is…” (http://url.ie/dzyj)
    • A PRIZE TYPOLOGY* “IDEATION OR DEMONSTRATION”* Morgan, J (2008), “Prize Induced Innovation.” innovations, MIT Press, 3(4). (http://url.ie/dzym)
    • A STANDARD PRIZE TYPOLOGY “FOUR QUADRANTS” ACADEMICS,ADVOCATES & ENTREPREURS,KEY OPINION INVESTORS & LEADERS RISK-TAKERS
    • PRIZE OUTCOMES“TODAY‟S DISCUSSION”
    • PRIZE PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT “DRIVING INNOVATION & CHANGING PUBLIC PERCEPTIONS” FEEDBACKUx
    • PRIZE PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT “PRIZE INCENTIVES & OTHER DRIVERS” FEEDBACKUx
    • PRIZE PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT “NEW MINDSHARE & MEDIA” FEEDBACKUx
    • PRIZE PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT “CREDIBILITY & COVERAGE” FEEDBACKUx
    • PRIZE PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT “ENGINEERING THE PLAYER EXPERIENCE” FEEDBACKPUxx
    • PRIZE PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT “VERTICAL VALUE” FEEDBACK FEEDBACKPUxx
    • PRIZE PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT “LATERAL VALUE” FEEDBACK FEEDBACKPUxx
    • THE ARGUMENT FOR OPEN PRIZES “WHO ARE PRIZE SOLVERS?” TOXICOLOGY DRUG PATHOLOGY FRACTAL ALGORITHMS DISCIPLINE + 3o DISCIPLINE + 8o DISCIPLINE + 9o DISCIPLINE + 4o DISCIPLINE + 5o DISCIPLINE + 6o DISCIPLINE + 7o DISCIPLINE + 10o CHRYSTALLOGRAPHY $25,000.00 NEW CHEMICAL COMPOUND WINNERS ARE 6 DEGREES OR MORE SEPARATED FROM THE TARGET DISCIPLINEKEY TRAITS OF PROBLEM SOLVERS: Winners are technically or socially marginal to problemdomains (increasing distance between problem domain & personal expertise).EFFECTIVE TRAITS OF PRIZE DESIGN: The more intellectually diverse the pool of competitors themore likely problems get solved (in science women are more likely to win).“Problems exhibiting high uncertainty (multi-dimensional inputs) benefit most from contests.”
    • ENSURING TRAINSPARENCY & FAIRNESS “NORMALIZATION”OBJECTIVE CRITERIA SUBJECTIVE CRITERIA TRAIT RUBRICS (HOW IS CONTENT JUDGED?): STATISTICAL NORMALIZATION: 5-10+ Reviews/Proposal
    • SUBJECTIVE CRITERIA “OPEN, FAIR & DILIGENT”SUBMISSIONS NORMALIZATION BANDWIDTH JUDGING (PROPOSALS) (REVIEWS PER PROPOSAL) (TIME TO JUDGE) (REVIEW PANELS) 10 JUDGES 5 REVIEWS/PROPOSAL 1 HOUR/PROPOSAL20 PROPOSALS (10 PROPOSALS/JUDGE) (100 REVIEWS) (100 HOURS OF JUDGING) (10 HOURS/JUDGE) 5 REVIEWS/PROPOSAL 3 HOURS/PROPOSAL 10 JUDGES20 PROPOSALS (100 REVIEWS) (300 HOURS OF JUDGING) (10 PROPOSALS/JUDGE) (30 HOURS/JUDGE) 25 JUDGES 5 REVIEWS/PROPOSAL 3 HOURS/PROPOSAL100 PROPOSALS (200 PROPOSALS/JUDGE) (500 REVIEWS) (1,500 HOURS OF JUDGING) (100 HOURS/JUDGE) 100 JUDGES 5 REVIEWS/PROPOSAL 3 HOURS/PROPOSAL (100 PROPOSALS/JUDGE)200 PROPOSALS (1,000 REVIEWS) (3,000 HOURS OF JUDGING) (300 HOURS/JUDGE)
    • SAMPLE PRIZE MARKETING CAMPAIGN “AT WHAT COST?”$ $ $ $ $(A B C) D E $10+ MM (USD) MEDIA BUDGET
    • OUTREACH TACTICS & COMMUNICATIONS “TIGER TEAMS & NETWORKING” INDUSTRY ASSOCIATIONS LOCAL GOVERNMENT REGIONAL SUBJECT AUTHORITIES MATTER EXPERTS NONPROFITS ACADEMIC FOUNDATIONS INSTITUIONS COMMERCIAL INTERESTS INVESTORS PHILANTHROPISTS EMPLOYERS CREDIBLE CONNECTORS COMMUNITY ACTIVISTS BUSINESS INCUBATORS
    • TRACKING PRIZE OUTCOMES“MEASURING AGAINST GOALS & OBJECTIVES”
    • A PRIZE PROCESS “STAGES & GATES” REFERRAL MODULE REFERRAL NETWORK1 (NETWORKING INTERESTS) (VIRAL DISTRIBUTION) REGISTRATION MODULE REVIEW PROCESS2 (FORMALIZING INTEREST) (ADMINISTRATIVE) CONTRACT: PART ONE Y/N3 (MEDIA RIGHTS/WARRANTIES) REVIEW PROCESS (LEGAL & COMPLIANCE) CONTRACT: PART TWO4 (COMPLIANCE) Y/N SUBMISSION MODULE51 (RECEIVING PROPOSALS) REVIEW PROCESS (CRITICAL)52 VARIABLE DATA SET Y/N6 AWARD MODULE (TRANSFER/CEREMONY) AWARD
    • MAPPING THE PROCESS “SUPPORTING DOCUMENTATION”STAGE TWO: Teams Registering to Compete…1 REFERRAL MODULE REVIEW PROCESS (CAPTURING CANDIDATES) (ADMINISTRATIVE) REGISTRATION MODULE Follow-up2 (SCREENING CANDIDATES) SUPPORTING DOCUMENTATION: REGISTRATION PACKAGE (AGREEMENT) N/Y  Agreement NEGOTIATE TERMS Ensures: Compliance; PASS TO Media Rights; SUBMISSION Logistics.
    • INSPIRING A PRIZE CULTURE“START WITH UNDERSTANDING BASIC MOTIVES”