Crowdsourcing

1,271 views

Published on

Published in: Business
0 Comments
0 Likes
Statistics
Notes
  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

No Downloads
Views
Total views
1,271
On SlideShare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
29
Actions
Shares
0
Downloads
48
Comments
0
Likes
0
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide
  • http://www.flickr.com/photos/alesk/356136498/
  • http://www.flickr.com/photos/orphanjones/2555269128/ http://www.flickr.com/photos/itzafineday/3143892144/
  • http://www.flickr.com/photos/rastafabi/1404604090/
  • http://www.flickr.com/photos/andrei_dimofte/2540987725/ http://www.flickr.com/photos/pvera/24938735/
  • http://www.flickr.com/photos/ch_jsilva/163163776/ http://www.flickr.com/photos/notionscapital/2306655269/
  • http://www.flickr.com/photos/jmarty/128010935/
  • http://www.flickr.com/photos/fletcherwarren/2961817697/
  • http://www.flickr.com/photos/blakespot/2558057114/
  • http://www.flickr.com/photos/kazanjy/284905580/
  • http://www.flickr.com/photos/leo_leibovici/2797642378/
  • http://www.flickr.com/photos/lachlanhardy/175318985/
  • http://www.flickr.com/photos/striatic/2418853122/
  • http://www.flickr.com/photos/a_mason/37564839/
  • Crowdsourcing

    1. 1. Crowdsourcing [email_address]
    2. 2. Manufacturer-centric innovation User-centred innovation
    3. 3. 2006 "The Rise of Crowdsourcing" Jeff Howe
    4. 5. Crowdcreation Crowdfunding Crowd wisdom Crowdvoting Crowdsourcing
    5. 6. Benefits of crowdsourcing Cheap Wide range of talents Pay by results or don't pay at all Real customer's diseres Brand loyality by involvment
    6. 14. 2000 Goldcorp challenge 1400 participants 50 countries total prize of $575,000, with a top award of $105,000 The top winner was a collaboration by two groups in Australia: Fractal Graphics, in West Perth, and Taylor Wall & Associates
    7. 15. Red lake
    8. 16. Innovation is relative
    9. 17. IP
    10. 18. Early days of computers Self-made software Commercial “packaged” software is rarity 1960’s-70’s Much software developed in academics and corporate labs by scientist and engineers Hacker culture emerged – freely give and exchange software they had written to modify and build on others, as well free sharing. 1969, Defense Advanced Research Agency, established ARPANET, first transcontinental high-speed computer network. 1980 MIT’s Artificial Intelligence Laboratory licensed some of the code created by its hacker employees to commercial firm. 1985 Richard Stallman founded Free Software Foundation. Bruce Perens and Eric Raymond founded the open source software movement. 1998 GPL General Public License. Can’t incorporate GPL software into proprietary software ready for sale. Different in philosophical ground – more emphasize the practical benefit of its licensing.
    11. 19. <ul><li>Open Source Business Models </li></ul><ul><li>Selling installation, service, and support with software. </li></ul><ul><li>Versioning the software, with the free version as an entry-level offering and other, more advanced versions as value-added offerings. </li></ul><ul><li>Integrating the software with other parts of the customer’s IT infrastructure. </li></ul><ul><li>Providing proprietary complements to open source software (these increase in value as the cost of open source code falls; one version of this strategy is to create a creative commons and then build proprietary products or services on top of the commons). </li></ul><ul><li>Innovation mils, giving away non-core intellectual property . </li></ul>
    12. 20. <ul><li>Lead User </li></ul><ul><li>They are at the leading edge of an important market trend(s), and so are currently experiencing needs that will later be experienced by many users in that market. </li></ul><ul><li>They anticipate relatively high benefits from obtaining a solution to their needs, and so may innovate. </li></ul>
    13. 21. <ul><li>Why many users want to custom products? </li></ul><ul><li>Many users have needs that differ in details (Heterogeneity). </li></ul><ul><li>Many users have sufficient willingness to pay. </li></ul><ul><li>Many users have sufficient sufficient resources to obtain a custom product that is just right for their individual needs. </li></ul>
    14. 22. Activity specializations of innovating mountain bikers. Source: Luhje, Herstatt, and von Hippel 2002. This table includes 111 users in the study sample who had ideas for improvements to mountain biking equipment. (Of these, 61 had actually gone on to build the equipment they envisioned.) Many of these users reported experience in more than one category of activity, so the sum in each column is higher than 111. 5 (4.5%) No special terrain preferred 9 (8.1%) Urban and streets 13 (11.7%) Smooth single tracks (hilly, rolling, speed, sand hardpack) 68 (61.3%) Technical single tracks (up and down, rocky, jumps) 44 (39.6%) Fast downhill tracks (steep, drops, fast) Number of biker Preferred terrain
    15. 23. Activity specializations of innovating mountain bikers. Source: Luhje, Herstatt, and von Hippel 2002. This table includes 111 users in the study sample who had ideas for improvements to mountain biking equipment. (Of these, 61 had actually gone on to build the equipment they envisioned.) Many of these users reported experience in more than one category of activity, so the sum in each column is higher than 111. 10 (9.0%) High altitude 29 (26.1%) No extreme outside conditions 15 (13.5%) Heat 53 (47.7%) Rain, mud 60 (54.1%) Snow, ice, cold 45 (40.5%) Darkness, night riding Number of biker Outside conditions
    16. 24. Activity specializations of innovating mountain bikers. Source: Luhje, Herstatt, and von Hippel 2002. This table includes 111 users in the study sample who had ideas for improvements to mountain biking equipment. (Of these, 61 had actually gone on to build the equipment they envisioned.) Many of these users reported experience in more than one category of activity, so the sum in each column is higher than 111. 3 (2.7%) Sprint 17 (13%) Climbing 29 (26.1%) No focus on specific riding abilities 9 (8.1%) Endurance 34 (30.6%) Fast descent/downhill 22 (19.8%) Technical ability/balance 34 (30.6%) Jumps, drops, stunts, obstacles Number of biker Focus on particular riding abilities
    17. 25. <ul><li>Willingness to pay for improvements. </li></ul><ul><li>Willingness to pay often overestimated, thus results was deflated by 80%. </li></ul><ul><li>Every user, who was not really satisfied (results 4 and less, where 1 – is not satisfied, and 7 – very satisfied.) How much are you ready to pay for improvements. </li></ul><ul><li>137 webmasters said, that they are willing to pay more than $700’000 in aggregate, or $5’232 average. </li></ul><ul><li>If we assume, that each of them run 10 servers, thus they are ready to pay half the price of a total server software ($1’100, www.sun.com , 2001) </li></ul>
    18. 26. <ul><li>Willingness to pay for improvements. </li></ul><ul><li>Every user, who was not really satisfied (results 4 and less, where 1 – is not satisfied, and 7 – very satisfied.) How much working time do you need for improvements. </li></ul><ul><li>137 webmasters said, that they need 8’938 person-days, or $78 per working day ($716’758 / 8’938 days), this is below regular wage skilled programmer gets. </li></ul>
    19. 27. Are you satisfied?
    20. 28. Changes in exogenous information Design activity Design requirements Design Build Run Analyze Done Use learning from previous c ycle(s) to conceive and design an Improved solution. Develop models and/or build Prototype to be used in running Experiments. Test model/prototype in real or simulated use environment Analyze findings from previous Step and learn.
    21. 29. Users tend to develop innovations that deliver novel functions. Source: Riggs and von Hippel 1994. Sticky information 64 Total sample size 24 87% 13% Convenience or reliability improvements 23 52% 48% Sensitivity, resolution, or accuracy improvements 17 18% 82% New functional capability n Innovation developed by manufacturer Innovation developed by users Type of improvement provided by innovation
    22. 30. Innovators tended to use solution information they already had “in stock” to develop their ideas. Tabulated here are innovators’ answers to the question “How did you obtain the information needed to develop your solution?” Source: Luhtje et al. 2003. N=61. Responses were rated on seven-point scale, with 1 = not at all true and 7 = very true. Low-Cost innovation niches 16% 2 2.11 “ I learned to develop this idea.” 52.4% 5 4.56 “ I had it from mountain biking or another hobby.” 47.5% 4 4.22 “ I had it due to my professional background.” Very high or high agreement Median Mean
    23. 31. Information free revealing
    24. 32. <ul><li>Information free revealing </li></ul><ul><li>Users who freely reveal what they have done often find that others than improve or suggest improvements to the innovation, to mutual benefit (Raimond 1999). </li></ul><ul><li>Freely revealing users also may benefit from enhancement of reputation </li></ul><ul><li>From positive network effect due to increased diffusion of their innovation </li></ul><ul><li>Being the first to freely reveal a particular innovation can also enhance the benefit received, so making it rush to reveal. </li></ul>
    25. 33. Time People who need a new product Lead users Early adopter Routine users Market trend Commercial products available Lead users create solutions
    26. 34. Level of expertise World class High Moderate Medical radiology Semiconductor imaging Pattern recognition Networking to lead users or Pyramiding
    27. 35. Lead user process Phase 1: Laying the foundation Phase 2: Determin ing the trends Phase 3: Identifying lead users Phase 4: Developing the breakthroughs During this initial period, the team identifies the markets it wants to target and type and level of innovations desired by key stakeholders within the company. It’s axiom of the process that lead users ahead of the trend. To find out what is the trend team must talk to experts in the field they are exploring – people who have a broad view of emerging technologies and leading-edge applications in the are being studied. The team now begin a networking process to identify and learn from users at the leading edge of the target market and related markets. The groups members gather information that will help them identify especially promising innovations and ideas that might contribute to the development of breakthrough products. Based on what they learn, teams also begin to shape preliminary product ideas and to assess the business potential of these concepts and how they fit with company interests. The goal is to move the preliminary concepts toward completion. The team begins this phase by hosting a workshop with several lead users, a half-dozen in-house marketing and technical people, and the lead user team itself. Such workshop may last for two or three days. During that time, the participants first work in small groups and then as a whole to design final concepts that precisely fit the company’s needs.
    28. 36. “ The research of Eric von Hippel, frequently cited as evidence of the value of listening to customers, indicates that customers originate a large majority of new products ideas... The [Christensen] value network framework would predict that the innovations toward which the customers in von Hippel’s study led their suppliers would have been sustaining innovations. We would expect disruptive innovations to have come from other sources.” Innovation made by lead users, not customers, and lead user are a much broader category than customer of a specific firm.
    29. 37. “ A nation’s firms, gain competitive advantage if domestic buyers are among, the worlds most sophisticated and demanding buyers for the product or service, Such buyers provide a window into the most advanced buyers needs... Buyers are demanding where home product needs are especially stringent or challenging because of local circumstances.” M. Porter
    30. 38. Recommended literature
    31. 39. photos are from Flickr under a creative commons license authors indicated in comment page of ppt

    ×