Crowdsourcing on what are the new sources of ict enabled growth and jobs to take into consideration in the follow-up to the digital agenda for europe 2014

Crowdsourcing on what are
the new sources of ICT-
enabled growth and jobs to
take into consideration in the
follow-up to the Digital
Agenda for Europe
FINAL REPORT
A study prepared for the European Commission DG
Communications Networks, Content & Technology
by:

Page | 2
This study was carried out for the European Commission by
Authored by Michael Franklin and Dr Kelly Higgins
Internal identification
Contract Number: 30-CE-0607927/00-34
Smart Number: SMART 2013/0046
DISCLAIMER
By the European Commission, Directorate-General for Communications Networks, Content & Technology.
The information and views set out in this publication are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect
the official opinion of the European Commission. The European Commission does not guarantee the accuracy of
the data included in this study. Neither the Commission nor any person acting on the European Commission’s
behalf may be held responsible for the use which may be made of the information contained therein.
ISBN 978-92-79-43379-5
DOI 10.2759/85364
© European Union, 2014. All rights reserved. Certain parts are licensed under conditions to the EU.

Page | 3
Table of Contents
Abstract .............................................................................................................4
1. Executive Summary........................................................................................5
1.1 Open Innovation Challenges........................................................................... 5
1.2 Thought-leader Workshop on Open Innovation ................................................. 7
1.3 Final Study Report ........................................................................................ 8
2. Overview of Collected Ideas.........................................................................14
2.1 Challenge 1 – Overview of Collected Ideas ..................................................... 14
2.2 Challenge 2 – Overview of Collected Ideas ..................................................... 15
3. Retained Ideas .............................................................................................17
3.1 Challenge 1................................................................................................ 17
3.2 Challenge 2................................................................................................ 20
4. Policy Recommendations..............................................................................24
4.1 Challenge Submissions – Policy Recommendations.......................................... 24
4.2 Open Innovation Policy Recommendations ..................................................... 25
4.2.1 Challenge Design .................................................................................. 25
4.2.2 Where to best implement Open Innovation Challenges for the European
Commission .................................................................................................. 27
4.2.3 Alternative uses of crowdsourcing ........................................................... 28
4.2.4 Developing an organisational culture of openness towards crowdsourcing..... 29
4.2.5 Development of a Solver community........................................................ 30
5. Conclusions ..................................................................................................32
6. Appendices...................................................................................................34
6.1 Question 1 Internally Created Answer............................................................ 34
6.2 Challenge 1 Winning Submission................................................................... 43
6.3 Challenge 2 Winning Submission................................................................... 52

Page | 4
Abstract
This Final Study Report represents the culmination of the project InnoCentive has
delivered under tender from the Directorate-General for Communications Networks,
Content and Technology (DG CONNECT) of the European Commission. Exploring how
examples of open innovation can be used to direct information and communications
technology (ICT) public policy, two innovation Challenges were run as part of the
project. A thought-leader workshop was then held to discuss the outcomes and
implications of the Challenges, and explore how open innovation can be more widely
used in public policy and the potential for up-scaling. As an emergent tool growing in
popularity, crowdsourcing public policy can be seen as a vital way to further democratise
policy development, while accessing external expertise that otherwise may not have
been known to the organisation. This report firstly details the ideas collected through the
open innovation Challenges run, highlighting those that were retained by the judges or
received an award. Later chapters then build off these submitted ideas to outline
implementable policy recommendations that were discussed amongst workshop
attendees and broader recommendations for the potential future use of open innovation
and crowdsourcing by the European Commission.
Résumé
Ce Rapport d'Étude Final représente l'aboutissement du projet qu'InnoCentive a livré
sous contrat de la Direction Générale des Réseaux de Communication, Contenu et
Technologie (DG CONNECT) de la Commission Européenne. En explorant comment des
exemples d'innovations ouvertes peuvent être utilisés pour orienter des politiques
publiques vers les technologies de l'information et de la communication (TIC), deux
Défis d'innovations furent exécutés dans le cadre de ce projet. Un atelier de leader
d'opinion fut ensuite organisé pour discuter des résultats et des implications des défis, et
pour explorer la façon dont l'innovation ouverte peut être utilisée plus largement dans
les politiques publiques et la possibilité d'un changement d'échelle. En tant qu'outil
émergeant gagnant de plus en plus en popularité, le crowdsourcing de politiques
publiques peut être considéré comme un moyen essentiel pour démocratiser davantage
encore l'élaboration des politiques, tout en accédant à une expertise externe qui,
autrement, pourrait ne pas avoir été connue de l'organisation. Ce rapport détaille tout
d'abord les idées recueillies dans le cadre des Défis de l'innovation ouverte, en
soulignant celles qui ont étés retenues par les juges ou ayant reçu un prix. Les chapitres
suivants tirent partis de ces idées soumises afin de présenter des recommandations de
politiques implémentables ayant été discutées par les participants de l'atelier et de
recommandations plus générales pour la potentielle utilisation future de l'innovation
ouverte et du crowdsourcing par la Commission Européenne.

Page | 5
1. Executive Summary
Under a contract with the European Commission, InnoCentive designed, ran and
evaluated two open innovation Challenges. With the help of experts within the
information and communications technology (ICT), public policy and open innovation
spheres, this report has been compiled to reflect the major trends present in both the
Challenges, and the outcomes from the thought-leadership workshop held in Brussels on
16th
September 2014. Under the Directorate-General for Communications Networks,
Content and Technology (DG CONNECT) mission of harnessing information and
communications technology to help deliver greater economic growth and job
opportunities, this open innovation project had two aims: firstly to garner insights from
the crowd as to potential policies that could be implemented to meet this DG CONNECT
aim, and secondly to act as a trial to see whether crowdsourcing could be successfully
used to deliver and design public policy.
The two open innovation Challenges explicitly requested either potential policies that the
European Commission could develop to help deliver growth and jobs, or innovative new
business models that could better harness technological developments. Workshop
content used these Challenges as a starting point before exploring in detail the best
practices for successfully implementing crowdsourcing: where it could be most
effectively used in the policy creation process, and how the European Commission could
enhance the success of any future open innovation projects they may wish to undertake.
A series of recommendations were made by the experts present and these are
thoroughly covered in Section 4 of this Final Study Report.
1.1 Open Innovation Challenges
Within the tender produced by the Commission, seven questions were outlined to be
answered through the project and open innovation Challenges. These were:
(1) Which emerging technologies and ICT-enabled practices are
particularly relevant in terms of sources of growth across the
economy (per sector of the economy)?
(2) What are the main barriers to growth, job creation and investment
across the economy (per sector of the economy) in Europe?
(3) What are the critical "framework conditions" (legal and
administrative requirements, market variables, etc.) that would
help maximize the economic and social impact of new technologies
and ICT-enabled practices in Europe?
(4) How could the European Commission address the barriers identified
in Question 2 and/or improve the framework conditions mentioned
in Question 3?
(5) What would be the most innovative policy approach that could be
taken at a European level to address the creation of new jobs and
stimulate growth in ICT-related areas?
(6) What are seen as barriers for business model innovation in ICT
intense sectors in Europe? What inhibits exploration and
experimenting of new value creation approaches, scale up and

Page | 6
multiplying of the successful approaches? Have platforms and
innovation ecosystems been a driving role for business model
innovation?
(7) What kind of new policy or legislative approaches could foster the
innovation of business models in ICT intensive sectors in the short
and medium terms?
Question 1 was covered in a report created by InnoCentive through academic and
market research – this report can be found in Appendix 6.1. The remaining six questions
were split evenly between the two Challenges: questions 2 through 4 formulated into
Challenge 1 and questions 5-7 for Challenge 2.
Both Challenges ran concurrently on the InnoCentive website from 3rd
March 2014,
through to 8th
April 2014. In response to the postings, Challenge 1 received 202
registered Solvers (those interested in submitting a proposal) and 37 submissions.
Challenge 2 had 159 registered Solvers, 47 of whom submitted a proposal for the judges
to assess (these percentage submission rates fare well in comparison to historical
submission rates for InnoCentive Challenges.)
After an internal filter of entries to ensure quality and relevance, a pool of industry-
leading judges assessed entries online before the top 5 for each Challenge were
discussed on a deliberation call to select the overall winner of the $5000 prize for each
Challenge.
The winning solution for Challenge 1 presented 10 ways Europe can compete in an ever-
increasingly digitalized world; breaking down recommendations into the self-titled
categories of “Initiate”, “Concentrate” and “Transcend”. By firstly detailing a situation of
Europe losing ground to other world regions and how recent years have not seen enough
emphasis on rectifying this, “Initiate” looks at improving labour skills, entrepreneurial
culture and creating a level playing field, “Concentrate” seeks to increase public
spending and create more tech hubs that fit within a holistic pan-European master plan,
and “Transcend” slants more towards businesses themselves: increasing R&D spending,
improving strategic foresight and creating more inter-company collaboration. The full
submission can be found in Appendix 6.2.
The winning solution for Challenge 2 presented an approach of “Crowdpreneurship”:
combining the powers of entrepreneurship and crowdsourcing to redefine business
approaches and spark company led ICT innovation. By filling a void that other services
such as EIT ICT labs do not currently fill, and pairing thought-leaders from both technical
and entrepreneurial fields, it is hoped that greater involvement and ownership of the
company would lead to better outcomes. The idea took into consideration some of the
legal complexities for both the idea and equity management, along with how the central
idea incubator platform on which this would take place would help guide the contract
process and provide a free resource catalogue to help businesses grow further. The full
submission can be found in Appendix 6.3.
These entries will be discussed in greater detail in Section 3. Broad comments would
suggest that while a useful exercise that provoked some innovative policy suggestions,
the submissions for the Challenges did not present numerous opportunities for further
investigation: this is again discussed in more detail in section 2 and 3.

Page | 7
1.2 Thought-leader Workshop on Open Innovation
Through briefly discussing the outcomes of the Challenges and then using them as a
back-drop for further exploration, the workshop held in Brussels on the 16th
September
2014 brought together industry experts from private firms, city officials, academia, and
NGO’s to explore the up-scaling of crowdsourcing within public policy creation.
Roundtable afternoon discussions looked to answer some of the key concerns as to
whether there is a scalability issue in the use of open innovation to create public policy
and how successes seen in the sciences and engineering could be transferred across to
this less quantifiable sphere. Through discussions amongst workshop attendees, the
following key questions were covered:
 Where does open innovation work and why?
 Is crowdsourcing a suitable tool for public policy and the social sciences?
 Where to best implement open innovation Challenges for the European
Commission?
 How to develop an organisational culture change to be more in favour of open
innovation?
 How to build a Solver community outside of the engineering and science based
topics?
 What recommendations can be made for the European Commission to allow the
up-scaling of the use of open innovation?
Discussions will be outlined in much greater detail in the Policy Recommendations
section (Section 4) of this study report; however three key themes became apparent as
the day progressed. Addressing these policy recommendations could be seen as taking
the first step towards a greater implementation of open innovation, and drawing better
successes:
1. Challenge Design
Open Innovation is not a panacea that can solve all issues. The first consideration of any
crowdsourcing programme must be the correct selection of topic. The second area for
attention is then an understanding of what the implications and goals of the Challenge
are and this must occur before any design begins. Only once these two facets are
cemented can the Challenge Design process start: questions asked, prizes offered
(monetary and non-monetary), intellectual property implications, background
information provided, and solution level desired must all be taken into account. The
Policy Recommendations section delves into far more detail, using examples to show
how different aspects can be considered and making broad recommendations to where
open innovation Challenges may be best implemented by the European Commission in
the future; including wider comments on other crowdsourcing opportunities.
2. Building a Solver Community
This must be seen as a pre-requisite for all Challenges – without a pool of knowledgeable
and engaged Solvers a perfectly designed Challenge will still fail. Building a community
can be done through correct outreach, marketing and recruitment (by accessing groups
such as university students and those experts who have recently retired, the aim can be
to reach non-usual suspects who may otherwise not engage with the policy creation
process). Large kick-off prizes can help draw in these groups, but then continual
Challenges must be present to maintain engagement. Community interaction and

Page | 8
management prevents drop-out and disillusionment of the use of any solutions
submitted and whilst return on investment analysis must be done to ensure worth,
detailed feedback and interaction with Solvers can be used to help build belief in the
open innovation process.
3. Developing an organisational cultural change
Thought leaders and open innovation champions must be present within an organisation
to ensure there is uptake and support for the process: there must be a willingness to
accept all solutions and be open to exploring their potential, even if this requires a
complete paradigm shift. However, having a pool of pilot Challenges – and there being
successful examples coming from these - is useful for the greater acceptance of open
innovation. Further to a successful delivery of the actual Challenge programme, a
framework for implementing the outcomes of the Challenges is needed to ensure ideas
are not forgotten and real value is extracted from the process. There is no precise
science to developing this change and it can take many years, however it is important if
a lasting open innovation programme is to be developed.
While internal, closed innovation processes will not disappear, through technological and
societal developments a great opportunity has arisen for accessing global experts and for
crowdsourcing to develop and dwarf the outcomes that its counterpart can deliver.
However this relationship between innovation processes must not be seen as
dichotomous, instead open innovation acts as an essential component to more traditional
approaches and can accelerate outcomes faster than otherwise possible; whether that be
harnessing ideas for further exploration, or overcoming a specific barrier that was
otherwise hindering progress.
Public sector initiatives represent a great opportunity for the running of influential,
relevant and trend-setting open innovation Challenges with the organisations not only
receiving the success of Challenges run, but also having the opportunity of providing the
framework to fuel the innovation processes for others who may wish to follow suit.
Ensuring that the correct frameworks, processes and designs are in place is the key step
that public sector organisations such as the European Commission must deliver on if
there is to be this greater usage.
1.3 Final Study Report
What follows in this Final Study Report will firstly look in more detail at the collected
ideas of the Challenges – assessing themes that arose and the implications solutions
might hold towards future European policy.
From this collection of ideas, Section 3 will then focus on the retained ideas that were
extended to the judging panel and then discussed on the deliberation calls to decide the
winners. This section will talk in detail about why certain entries were selected to be
advanced through each judging stage and the key features that made them attractive
proposals.
Section 4 will firstly explore the ICT-related policy recommendations that arose through
the Challenges, before then delving into detail regarding the wider policy

Page | 9
recommendations as to how to expand and scale-up the use of crowdsourcing and open-
innovation.
Finally, key conclusions to the project will be highlighted in Section 5. Full versions of the
winning submissions can be found in Appendices 6.2 and 6.3, and the internally created
document answering question 1, can be found in Appendix 6.1.
Résumé Analytique
En vertu d'un contrat avec la Commission européenne, InnoCentive a conçu, mené et
évalué deux défis d'innovation ouverte. Avec l'aide d'experts dans la technologie de
l'information et de la communication (TIC), des politiques publiques et du domaine de
l'innovation ouverte, ce rapport a été établi afin de refléter les grandes tendances
présentes dans ces défis, et les résultats de l'atelier de leader d'opinion tenu à Bruxelles
le 16 Septembre 2014. Dans le cadre de la mission de la Direction Générale des
Réseaux de Communication, du Contenu et de la Technologie (DG CONNECT) d'employer
la technologie de l'information et de la communication pour aider à fournir plus de
croissance économique et d'opportunités d'emploi, ce projet d'innovation ouverte avait
deux objectifs: premièrement, d'accumuler des connaissances sur le public ainsi que
politiques potentielles qui pourraient être mises en œuvre afin d'atteindre les objectifs de
DG CONNECT, et deuxièmement de faire un essai afin de voir si le crowdsourcing
pourrait être utilisé avec succès afin de transmettre et de concevoir des politiques
publiques.
Les deux défis d'innovation ouverte exigèrent explicitement soit des politiques
potentielles que la Commission européenne pourrait développer pour aider à assurer la
croissance et l'emploi, ou de nouveaux modèles d'affaires innovant qui pourraient mieux
exploiter les développements technologiques. L'atelier utilisa ces Défis comme point de
départ avant d'explorer en détails les meilleures manières d'implémenter avec succès un
crowdsourcing: là où il sera utilisé de la manière la plus efficace dans le processus de la
création d'une politique, et comment la Commission Européenne pourrait améliorer le
succès des futurs projets d'innovation ouverte qu'elle souhaiterait entreprendre. Une
série de recommandations ont été formulées par les experts présents celles-ci sont
complètement couvertes dans la Partie 4 de ce Rapport d'Étude Final.
1.1 Défis d'Innovation Ouverte
Dans l'appel d'offre publié par la Commission, sept questions furent amenées à être
répondues à travers le projet et les Défis d'innovation libre. Celles-ci étaient:
(1) Quelles sont les technologies émergentes et les pratiques liées aux
TIC qui sont particulièrement importantes en termes de sources de
croissance dans l'économie (par secteur de l'économie)?
(2) Quels sont les principaux obstacles à la croissance, la création
d'emplois et d'investissements dans l'économie (par secteur de
l'économie) en Europe?
(3) Quels sont les «conditions-cadres» critiques (exigences juridiques
et administratives, variables de marché, etc.) qui permettraient de

Page | 10
maximiser l'impact économique et social des nouvelles technologies
et des pratiques des TIC en Europe?
(4) Comment la Commission Européenne pourrait lever les obstacles
identifiés à la question 2 et/ou améliorer les conditions-cadres
mentionnées à la question 3?
(5) Quelle serait l'approche politique la plus innovante qui pourraient
être prise au niveau européen afin d'aborder le problème de la
création de nouveaux emplois et de stimuler la croissance dans les
domaines liés aux TIC?
(6) Que sont considérés comme des obstacles dans l'innovation des
modèles d'affaires dans les secteurs intenses des TIC en Europe?
Qu'est-ce inhibe l'exploration et l'expérimentation de nouvelles
approches de création de valeur, de changement d'échelle et de la
multiplication des approches réussies? Est-ce que les plates-formes
ou les écosystèmes d'innovations ont eu des rôles moteurs dans
l'innovation des modèles d'affaires?
(7) Quel genre de nouvelles politiques ou d'approches législatives
pourrait favoriser l'innovation des modèles d'affaires dans les
secteurs à forte intensité de TIC à court- et moyen-terme?
La question 1 a été couverte dans un rapport créé par InnoCentive à travers des
recherches de marché et académiques - ce rapport peut être trouvé dans l'Annexe 6.1.
Les six questions restantes ont été réparties également entre les deux défis: les
questions 2 à 4 pour le Défi 1 et les questions 5-7 pour le Défi 2.
Les deux défis ont eu lieu en même temps sur le site Web d'InnoCentive du 3 Mars
2014, jusqu'au 8e
Avril 2014. En réponse aux annonces, le Défi 1 enregistra 202
solveurs (ceux intéressés à soumettre une proposition) et 37 soumissions. Le Défi 2
enregistra 159 solveurs, dont 47 ayant présentés une proposition à faire évaluer par les
juges (ces pourcentages de taux de soumission sont bons en comparaison des taux de
soumission antérieurs des défis d'InnoCentive.)
Après un filtrage interne des soumissions afin d'assurer la qualité et la pertinence, un
panel de juges leaders d'industries évaluèrent les soumissions en ligne avant de d'élire le
Top 5 pour chacun de ces Défis et de délibérer pour sélectionner le vainqueur du prix de
5000$ pour les deux Défis.
La solution gagnante pour le Défi 1 présenta 10 façons pour l'Europe de rivaliser dans un
monde de plus en plus numérisé ; décomposant les recommandations dans des
catégories auto-intitulées "Initier", "Concentrer" et "Transcender". En détaillant tout
d'abord la situation d'une Europe perdant du terrain face aux autres régions du monde et
le manque d'emphase employé à rectifier ceci, "Initier" se concentre sur l'amélioration
des compétences de travail, de culture d'entreprise et de créer une situation équitable,
"Concentrer" cherche à augmenter les dépenses publiques et de créer plus de centres de
technologies correspondant au plan directif général pan-Européen, "Transcender" se
tourne plus vers les entreprises elles-mêmes: l'augmentation des dépenses en R&D,
l'amélioration des prévision stratégiques et la création d'une plus grande collaboration
inter-entreprises. La soumission complète se trouve à l'Annexe 6.2.

Page | 11
La solution gagnante pour le Défi 2 a présenté une approche de "Crowdprenariat":
combiner les avantages de l'entrepreneuriat et du crowdsourcing pour redéfinir les
approches commerciales et susciter la mise-en-place d'innovations dans les TIC par les
sociétés. En remplissant un vide que d'autres services tels que les laboratoires de TIC de
l'IET ne remplissent pas actuellement, et l'appariement des leaders d'opinion de
domaines à la fois techniques et entrepreneuriales, il est à espérer qu'une plus grande
implication et appropriation de la société conduirait à de meilleurs résultats. L'idée prit
en considération certaines des complexités juridiques concernant à la fois l'idée et la
gestion des capitaux propres, ainsi que la manière dont la plate-forme centrale
d'incubation d'idée au sein de laquelle ceci se déroulerait pourrait aider à le processus de
marché et fournir un catalogue de ressources gratuites pour aider les entreprises à se
développer davantage. La soumission complète se trouve à l'Annexe 6.3.
Ces soumissions seront discutées plus en détail dans la Section 3. Les commentaires
généraux suggèrent que bien qu'étant un exercice utile qui a provoqué quelques
suggestions de politiques novatrices, les soumissions aux Défis n'ont pas présentés de
nombreuses opportunités d'investigations plus approfondies : ceci est de nouveau
discuté plus en détails dans les parties 2 et 3.
1.2 Ateliers de Leader d'Opinion sur l'Innovation
Ouverte
En discutant brièvement les résultats des défis et en les utilisant ensuite comme toiles
de fond pour une exploration plus approfondie, l'atelier tenu à Bruxelles le 16 Septembre
2014 a réuni des experts de cabinets privés, de fonctionnaires de la ville,
d'universitaires, et d'ONGs pour explorer le changement d'échelle du crowdsourcing au
sein de la création de politiques publiques. Les tables rondes de l'après-midi cherchèrent
à répondre à certaines des principales préoccupations concernant l'existence d'un
problème de mise à l'échelle dans l'utilisation des innovations ouvertes pour créer des
politiques publiques et comment les succès enregistrés dans le domaine des sciences et
de l'ingénierie pourraient être transférés dans ce domaine moins quantifiable. Au cours
des discussions entre les participants de l'atelier, les questions suivantes ont été
abordées:
● Où est ce que l'innovation ouverte fonctionne, et pourquoi?
● Est-ce que le crowdsourcing est un outil approprié pour la politique publique et les
sciences sociales?
● Où serait le meilleur endroit pour implémenter des Défis d'innovation ouverte
pour la Commission Européenne?
● Comment développer un changement de culture organisationnelle afin d'être plus
en faveur de l'innovation ouverte?
● Comment construire une communauté de Solveurs en dehors des sujets
d'ingénierie et de sciences?
● Quelles recommandations peuvent être faites pour la Commission Européenne
pour permettre la mise à l'échelle de l'utilisation d'innovation ouverte?
Les discussions seront décrites beaucoup plus en détail dans la partie Recommandations
de Politiques (Partie 4) de ce rapport d'étude; cependant trois thèmes principaux sont
apparus alors que la journée avançait. Répondre à ces recommandations de politique

Page | 12
pourrait être considéré comme le premier pas vers une plus grande mise en œuvre de
l'innovation ouverte, et l'élaboration de meilleures réussites:
1. Conception des Défis
L'Innovation Ouverte n'est pas une panacée qui peut résoudre tous les problèmes. Le
premier examen de tout programme de crowdsourcing doit être le bon choix de sujets.
Le deuxième domaine d'attention est alors une compréhension des implications et des
objectifs du Défi, cela devant se produire avant le début de toute conception. C'est
seulement une fois que ces deux facettes sont considérées que le processus de la
Conception du Défi commence: les questions posées, les prix offerts (monétaires et
non-monétaires), les implications de la propriété intellectuelles, les informations de base
fournies, et le niveau de solution désiré doivent être pris en compte. La section des
Recommandations de Politiques couvre beaucoup plus de détails, utilisant des exemples
afin de montrer comment différents aspects peuvent être considérés, et en faisant des
recommandations générales concernant l'endroit où les Défis pourraient être implantés
au mieux par la Commission Européenne à l'avenir; ainsi que des commentaires plus
larges sur d'autres possibilités de crowdsourcing.
2. Construire une Communauté de Solveurs
Cela doit être considéré comme un pré-requis pour tous les défis - sans un groupe de
solveurs compétents et motivé, un Défi parfaitement conçu échouera malgré tout. Bâtir
une communauté peut se faire grâce à une sensibilisation adéquate, au marketing et au
recrutement (en accédant à des groupes tels que les étudiants universitaires ou des
experts ayant récemment pris leur retraite, l'objectif serait d'atteindre un autre type de
personnes qui pourraient autrement ne pas participer au processus de création de
politiques). D'important prix au moment du lancement peuvent aider à attirer ces
groupes, mais des défis constants doivent être présents pour maintenir l'implication.
L'interaction et la gestion communautaire empêchent l'abandon et la désillusion de
l'utilisation de toutes les solutions soumises tandis que l'analyse du retour sur
investissement doit être menée afin d'assurer un feedback détaillé, les interactions avec
les Solveurs peuvent être utilisées pour aider à créer de la confiance dans le processus
de l'innovation ouverte.
3. Développer un changement de culture organisationnelle
Les leaders d'opinion et les champions de l'innovation ouverte doivent être présents au
sein d'un organisme pour assurer la présence d'une adhésion et d'un appui au
processus: il doit y avoir une volonté d'accepter toutes les solutions et d'être prêts à
explorer leur potentiel, même si cela nécessite un changement complet de paradigme.
Cependant, avoir un panel de Défis pilotes - il y a des exemples de réussite en
proviennent - est utile pour la plus grande acceptation de l'innovation ouverte. Au delà
d'une bonne exécution du programme de Défi, un cadre pour l'implémentation des
résultats des Défis est nécessaire pour s'assurer que les idées ne seront pas oubliées et
que leur véritable valeur soit extraite du processus. Il n'y a pas de méthode particulière
pour développer ce changement et ça peut prendre de nombreuses années, cependant
c'est important si un programme durable d'innovation ouverte doit être développé.
Bien que les processus d'innovations internes et fermés ne disparaîtront pas, une grande
opportunité a surgi à travers les développement technologiques et sociétaux pour
accéder à des experts mondiaux et pour que le crowdsourcing développe ou réduise les

Page | 13
résultats provenant de son homologue. Cependant, cette relation entre les processus
d'innovations ne doit pas être considérée comme dichotomique, l'innovation ouverte agit
comme un élément essentiel pour des approches plus traditionnelles et peut améliorer
les résultats plus vite que possible autrement; que ce soit pour employer les idées à de
plus amples explorations ou pour outrepasser un obstacle particulier qui autrement
entravait le processus.
Les initiatives du secteur public représentent une grande opportunité pour la gestion des
défis d'innovation ouverte influents, pertinents et avant-gardistes, les organisations ne
recevant pas seulement les succès du Défi accompli, mais également la possibilité
d'apporter un cadre pour alimenter les processus d'innovation pour d'autres qui
souhaiteraient peut-être leur emboîter le pas. S'assurer que les bons cadres, processus
et modèles soient en place est l'étape clé que des organisations du secteur publique
comme la Commission Européenne doivent exécuter en cas d'une utilisation accrue.
1.3 Rapport d'Étude Final
Ce qui suit dans ce Rapport d'Étude Final se penchera premièrement plus en détails sur
les idées recueillies lors des Défis - évaluant les thèmes qui en émergent et les
implications que ces solutions peuvent apporter pour la future politique Européenne.
En se basant sur cette récoltes d'idées, la Partie 3 se concentrera alors sur les idées
retenues qui furent présentées aux membres du jury et ensuite examinées lors de la
délibération des lauréats. Cette partie va couvrir en détail pourquoi certaines
soumissions furent sélectionnés et ont passées les différentes étapes de jugement ainsi
que les caractéristiques clés qui ont fait d'elles des propositions intéressantes.
La Partie 4 explorera premièrement les recommandations liées aux TIC qui ont émergées
au cours des Défis, avant de se pencher plus en détails sur les recommandations de
politiques plus générales concernant comment étendre et mettre à l'échelle l'utilisation
du crowdsourcing et de l'innovation ouverte.
Enfin, les principales conclusions de ce projet seront mises en évidence dans la Partie 5.
Les versions complètes des soumissions gagnantes peuvent être trouvés dans les
Annexes 6.2 et 6.3, et le document créé en interne répondant à la question 1 peut être
trouvé dans l'Annexe 6.1.

Page | 14
2. Overview of Collected Ideas
Along with Section 3, this chapter will be sub-divided into the two Challenges that were
run as part of this project. Challenge 1 sort to pertain solutions for improved job creation
and investment across many economic sectors through the use of ICT, alongside how
current barriers to growth could be overcome.
The focus of Challenge 2 was slanted towards novel policy approaches to help promote
economic growth and innovative business models that could take advantages of these
policy changes. Each Challenge answered three of the questions outlined in the European
Commission tender: Challenge 1 covered questions 2-4 while Challenge 2 answered 5–7.
2.1 Challenge 1 – Overview of Collected Ideas
With this Challenge seeking ideas to improve job creation and ICT investment while
breaking down current barriers that prevent growth, a wide spectrum of solutions were
submitted and each looked at the Challenge statement from a different perspective.
Overall, 37 submissions were received, with the top 11 being passed on to the external
judges. This section will primarily look at the broad themes that existed across all 37
entries, however will also comment on those that were not passed on to the judges
(Section 3 will look in detail at each of the fully assessed entries).
While submissions varied in quality, recommendation and perspective, three main
themes can be extracted from the entries as an entire group:
1. educational improvements for better ICT uptake and usage,
2. further development of centralized EU portals and more holistic management
systems,
3. a renewed focus on entrepreneurship and greater support opportunities made
available for startups.
As with all open innovation competitions, solutions are attracted from many different
fields and with the purposeful aim of having few barriers to entry in these Challenges (no
proof of technical knowledge or eligibility criteria were used to ensure higher quality or
relevance), a varying quality of submissions was received. Those that were discarded
were generally one or more of: lacked coherence or reason, short in length, irrelevant
content or incomplete. Some did comment on useful policy recommendations but were
either usurped by more detailed and thorough submissions on a similar theme, or were
so short that a proper appreciation of the recommendations could not be gained. Topics
that some of these rejected entries covered included:
 The promotion of holistic ICT management across society and using centralised
EU platforms – having one widespread system instead of numerous silos that
service only one requirement
 European Union acting as a support body for entrepreneurial development.
Creating open source applications alongside publishing internal ICT trends to
allow entrepreneurs to appreciate future market opportunities
 Altering business models to ensure developments are consumer-centric. Similar
entries commented on using business model benchmarking to firstly educate
entrepreneurs and then guide business development

Page | 15
Building on the centralised platforms mentioned, the higher quality entries commented
further by introducing potential policies such as platforms for Smart City integration to
enable the crosspollination and exchange of ideas and practices. Other examples include
the creation of central marketplaces for IP/Licensing which acted with the support of the
European Commission, and four key EU portals that would help provide greater learning,
employment, transaction and business delivery possibilities.
For the theme of entrepreneurial development, those submissions that were retained
delved into greater detail on prize based recognition and support of entrepreneurial
excellence, and the removal of information poverty for entrepreneurs to allow them to
fully realise potential and create employment opportunities. Many of these submissions
were more suitable for Challenge 2 which focused on new paradigms for business models
and thus entrepreneurial focused crossovers will be seen in more detail in later sections.
The final trend in the discarded entries was how improved ICT education could be
attained to meet economic and social ends. Whilst policy recommendations varied, some
focused on one particular area that could be improved, such as the championing of ICT
skills among school children, while others looked to numerous diverse fields: briefly
touching on areas such as the up-skilling of workers, centralised interoperable systems
for personal knowledge management, and the promotion of open source business
information. As a group they all argued for greater education and up-skilling to create
more productive workers, more innovative entrepreneurs and more tech-savvy
consumers who could take full advantage of a technologically-driven society.
These are just some of the broad themes that rejected submissions commented on.
Some of these were present in those submissions passed on to the judges, however
varying quality, analysis and direct appreciation of the Challenge aims separated out the
advanced and rejected entries.
2.2 Challenge 2 – Overview of Collected Ideas
Whilst soliciting solutions slanted towards novel policy approaches to help promote
economic growth, alongside innovative business models that would take advantage of
these policy changes, many crossovers with Challenge 1 existed in the solutions
submitted for Challenge 2. Overall, this Challenge attracted more submissions, and more
of a higher quality: 47 entries were submitted and 15 were retained and passed on to
the judges. As with Challenge 1 previously, this section will explore the themes and
overviews of all submissions, however comment more on those that were rejected at the
first stage.
Those ideas that were rejected varied greatly in context and focus. Entries ranged from
implementing ‘digital motorways’ that provided high speed internet in rural areas, to
limiting intellectual property ownership to thirty years; and from the greater pairing of
private and public institutions to drive innovation, to the creation of numerous tech hubs
supplied with 1 gigabit internet. Many submitted ideas contradicted each other and while
this is normal to see in policy related open innovation Challenges, it potentially highlights
a lack of a coherent school of thought amongst Solvers. Ideas previously submitted for
Challenge 1 also reappeared in edited forms for Challenge 2: greater support
mechanisms for tech starts ups through tax breaks and centralised portals that could
help facilitate collaboration were just two of these duplicates.

Page | 16
Similarly to Challenge 1, those ideas that were rejected were usually short, irrelevant or
unimaginative: potentially repeating what was laid out in the introductory documents, or
restating current trends in academic work. However some ideas were at the opposite end
of this spectrum: outlining a dream scenario that would either require huge amounts of
capital to implement, or had colossal social, cultural or political barriers that may prevent
it from becoming a reality. To ensure relevance and best use of time for the judges,
these entries were removed from consideration and only the top fifteen passed on.
Those ideas that shone through the field and were selected to be passed on did not
necessarily focus on a completely different field, but instead offered greater insight,
analysis, or a slightly different tact that presented an implementable alternative that
could deliver policies for economic growth or new business models to take advantage of
recent policy developments.
One thematic trend present in the entries for Challenge 2 was that of minor changes to
the intellectual property system or business model changes that would force a change in
practice. Whether through a new business led paradigm of ‘Creative Destruction’
(clearing old software to force innovation), or a governmental legislative change that
would again promote innovation and limit the time period intellectual property ownership
lasted, the salient arguments were that changes need to be made to allow advancement
and growth. Judges later commented that the revolutionary aspects of these proposals
may prevent implementation, but they appreciated that some steps to realisation had
been outlined and thought through.
Other submissions combined ideas previously introduced, for example the creation of
centralised EU portals however combined with authorship law changes to create an
online marketplace for crowdsourcing ideas. In a similar field was a proposal for the
creation of crowdpreneurship: a policy to combine the strengths of crowdsourcing
knowledge and expertise but specifically focused on entrepreneurial ventures, all
controlled through one EU centralised portal.
Again, private/public partnerships and the creation of entrepreneurial sandboxes were
introduced, along with the development of digital clusters and the promotion of
telecommuting. What separated many of these ideas from those that were rejected was
the quality and depth of analysis within the answers, along with an appreciation of the
Challenge aims rather than just a proposal for their own technology or idea.

Page | 17
3. Retained Ideas
As with Section 2, the insight to the retained ideas will be split into the two Challenges.
These sections will provide a far more detailed look at the retained ideas and
recommendations, outlining their key strengths and why they were advanced through
the judging stages. The winning solutions for each Challenge are given further attention
and the full text for these entries can be found in the Appendices 6.2 and 6.3 of this
report. To retain the anonymity of the authors of the submitted solutions and therefore
guarantee impartial evaluation, the solutions were referenced using their submission
number throughout the whole Challenge process. The same submission numbers are
used here in the Final Report.
3.1 Challenge 1
Entry 10:
While brief in the initial stages of answering questions 2 and 3 that sort insights to the
main barriers to ICT-related growth and the critical "framework conditions" that would
help maximize the impact of new technologies, this entry was retained due its four ideas
on centralised portals that could supply the necessary infrastructure for an ever more
digitalized economy and society. Through the self-labelled EU-Learn /Employ /Deliver
/Transact, services would be made available to different sects of society and help
provide resources to better guide users through the digital age. The judges felt that this
holistic and rounded view of European Union services was well-founded and had
potential impact in many different areas of life. Full implementation could lead to a
paradigm shift and significantly change digital experiences across society. However,
judges commented that it was not as ground-breaking as other entries (academic trends
and thought have already covered this in detail) and lacked full detail or implementation
plans, limiting the policy applicability.
Entry 16:
This entry built on the EU policy of the development of smart cities and how technology
could revolutionise everyday citizen life. It promoted the development of a central portal
for Smart Cities to learn best practice from each other and increase the speed of
development: with the ethos of interconnectivity within the city, extending this to create
a continental network of Smart Cities appeared to be the next logical step for this Solver.
Again, this submission was retained due to its holistic and transferable insights:
championing the crosspollination of ideas and creating a system that facilitated crowd-
learning instead of enforced top down recommendations. However as before, it lacked
full detail to implementation or greater insights as to how the platform would function
and thus judges marked the entry down on these criteria.
Entry 17:
This solution focused on the lack of financial incentives for technology entrepreneurs and
juxtaposed this to the purported USA situation whereby far more venture capitalists are
present due to a differing culture than in Europe; more merger & acquisition offerings
are available which in turn creates a less risk-averse entrepreneurial community. To
counteract these disparities, the entry suggested the creation of large scale
entrepreneurial recognition prizes: awarding them to the European technology startups
that create the most value or built the largest consumer base. These would not only
encourage entrepreneurship, but specifically social-entrepreneurship as companies would

Page | 18
not be so reliant on profit if potential prizes could be won. This submission was retained
for it developed past the entrepreneurial support that many similar entries commented
on, and suggested an alternative system that can complement direct investment and
seed-funding. This entry lacked detail or implementation stages, but had merit in the
idea and thus was advanced to the judges however potentially naïve in thinking prizes
could counteract a whole M&A culture.
Entry 18:
Championing the embedding of ICT in education, this proposal sort to modify the over-
importance placed on handwriting in education systems; updating the schooling model to
be more relevant to the digital society of the 21st
century. By arguing that the root cause
of economic development is the workforce that fulfils it, focusing on more appropriate
training in schools appeared to be a logical and implementable policy that could have
long term implications for economic competitiveness and skilled labour. Judges liked the
paradigm shift it presented and the potential long term competitive gains. While the
entry did lack detail, as an outline to a future policy it was highly recommended by the
judging panel.
Entry 19:
Providing great detail to current barriers to growth and framework conditions that are
required to maximize the impact of new technologies, this entry sort to present the
creation of Personal Knowledge Management Systems in a cloud based system as
providing the potential to overcome these obstacles. This entry was retained due to its
full detail, the potential it held for life-long learning, and the direct appreciation of all the
questions asked in the Challenge statement. The judges did comment that more
information was needed to separate this service from others that are more freely
available and why it would need a central government policy to implement it –
businesses already offer similar services and thus questions were asked to the role the
European Union could play within this scheme.
Entry 20:
Briefly mentioning some of the barriers and framework conditions, this entry
predominantly focused on the large-scale investment and backing of Person2Person
satellite phones. It purported that despite 4G LTE systems and other connectivity
developments, infrastructural limitations prevent full services being able to be accessed
by all customers and satellite phones present the only real solution in delivering
connectivity to all. As a complete paradigm shift, this entry presented an intriguing, if
far-fetched, solution that provided great detail to potential implementation plans.
However due to the huge startup costs and such large buy in to current systems, it was
seen as too extravagant and distant from current society to win the prize.
Entry 23:
Whilst not directly answering the questions in the Challenge statement, this entry
outlined the statistical development of a permanent mechanism for the surveillance and
analysis of job postings; granting employees greater information and leading to more
appropriate fillings of postings. Recognising the need for greater ICT skills of workers,
the proposed solution would data mine and filter job postings and disseminate
conclusions so the best skilled individuals became aware of positions available. Judges
saw the application as creative and feasible, however questioned whether HR
departments were not already capable of doing this and thus what the role of the
European Union would be within this policy.

Page | 19
Entry 25:
Along a similar theme to the previous entry, this submission looked at increasing job
information for employees: in this case through the crowdsourcing of employment
information. With user generated information about companies and employers,
prospective future employees would have a greater insight to a company allowing more
efficient job applications and sourcing of labour. This entry was seen as a creative
alternative to current systems and would help rebalance power between employees and
employers, however lacked detail and was not advanced past the initial online judging
stage.
Entry 30:
Adapted from an academic paper previously written by the Solver, this solution focused
on “information poverty” that he stated adversely effects entrepreneurs. Providing great
insight and detail on the issue of information poverty, this paper was advanced for the
evaluation presented and the innovative ideas mentioned: giving evidence and proof as
to why one policy route should be followed. As an academic paper, it lacked a good
implementation plan, focusing far too much on the issues rather than a potential solution
that question 4 was particularly pertaining to. Judges liked the background information
yet saw little innovative policy or solution and thus marked the entry down.
Entry 37:
Outlining 10 ways Europe can compete in the future global economy and allow greater
ICT growth, this paper firstly detailed a situation of Europe losing ground to other world
regions and how potentially the Europe Union do not do enough to rectify this. The 10
detailed propositions the Solver outlined were then grouped together in self-titled:
“Initiate” which looked at improving labour skills, entrepreneurial culture and creating a
level playing field, “Concentrate” which sort to increase public spending and create more
tech hubs that fitted within a holistic pan-European master plan, and “Transcend” which
was slanted more towards businesses themselves: increasing R&D spending, improving
strategic foresight and creating more inter-company collaboration.
The judges all liked this entry and appreciated the level of detail and insight it provided –
not just focusing on one improvement that could be made but instead outlining a range
of complementary policies that can deliver growth outcomes. It was selected the overall
winner of this Challenge with judges commenting how it presented a range of
opportunities for changes in policy that effected numerous barriers and framework
conditions needed for economic development. There was potentially a lack of detail on
each of the 10 proposals, but as a starting point for further development it represents an
interesting paper for further exploration.
Entry 38:
By transferring a potential policy from something that has already implemented in India,
this solution sort to redefine the licensing and intellectual property practices by creating
a central European Union run marketplace. This marketplace would firstly help startups
protect their IP, before creating a platform for licensing to other companies who may be
interested in using the invention. The solution continued by directly addressing problems
in sales, marketing and financing which startups may have, outlining how open source
software could be made available to support businesses: best practice guides and
transferable information were two options mentioned. While transferable and addressing
specific issues, this entry was not seen as highly creative and with a poorly written
structure, judges struggled to thoroughly understand and appreciate the entry.

Page | 20
3.2 Challenge 2
Entry 04:
With Challenge 2 pertaining innovative business models and novel public policies that
could stimulate economic growth through ICT, this submission argued for the
implementation and uptake of an online idea crowdsourcing marketplace. New
authorship laws would be written to protect the ideas posted on the portal and the hope
is that the platform would facilitate a greater sharing of business ideas, in particular
allow the buying of ideas from those who did not have the capability to realise them.
This entry was retained due to its ambitious aims which could result in a high impact,
and the Solver showing appreciation of legal complexities that would have to be
overcome before implementation. However judges did comment how it was potentially
naive on implementation and made assumptions that undermined the feasibility of the
project.
Entry 06:
This entry proposed that to manage the supply chain of all national governmental
services, the EU should create a shared services organisation to help deliver and enable
the use of ICT to increase efficiencies and save money. Through one uniform system for
financial, fiscal, procurement, HR and many others, businesses, citizens and
governments would be able to save money while pan-European interoperability could
become apparent between firms. This entry was advanced due to potential high impact
in both the short and long term, alongside the interoperable impacts that it would cause
(also developing best practice and ensuring standards across the EU). However, judges
commented that despite this potential, the idea was not new and much of what was
outlined already existed.
Entry 07:
Promoting a new business model that combined the power of entrepreneurship and
crowdsourcing, the so called “Crowdpreneurship” this solution purportedly could allow
creativity and innovation to flourish and fill a void that other services such as EIT ICT
labs do not currently fill. By pairing thought-leaders from both technical and
entrepreneurially fields and through rewarding business partners with shares rather than
a fixed income, it was hoped that greater involvement and ownership of the company
would lead to better outcomes. The idea took into consideration some of the legal
complexities for both the idea and equity management, along with how the central idea
incubator platform on which this would take place would help guide the contract process
and provide a free resource catalogue to help businesses grow further.
This entry was selected the overall winner for Challenge 2 with judges commenting on
how it filled a gap within the current system and offered an alternative business model
and support network to what was currently implemented. There are translated schemes
that work on this idea of business/science partnerships however do not focus so much on
the intellectual property and company ownership aspects: with an ecosystem already in
place, some of the recommendations made in this entry had the potential for great up-
scaling and thus this idea was selected as the overall winner for Challenge 2.
Entry 09:
This entry looked to promote a new business model paradigm and outlined six policies
the EU could implement to encourage this transition. These included an increase in
subsidies given to entrepreneurs and startups, supporting a new worker paradigm of

Page | 21
telecommuting, encouraging corporate involvement with entrepreneurs to facilitate
greater cooperation, driving ICT based education to ensure a properly trained workforce,
and centralizing business to English. These ideas were all given more background
information as to potential implementation routes and benefits they would bring, and
while they each had potential on their own, with such a scattered approach of ideas
commenting on many different problems, the entry lacked coherence. The judges
appreciated some of the potential, however thought it missed commerciality specifics
and unless there was widespread direct affirmative action from the EU, it would be
impossible to implement all measures suggested.
Entry 10:
To help drive innovation and growth in businesses and particularly the public sector, this
entry argued for following a policy of “Creative Destruction”: the idea that a percentage
of old or outdated software should be removed periodically to allow for updating and
create a need for innovative new solutions. The Solver combined this idea with that of
using crowdsourcing solutions to create the new software and by making public sector
metadata freely accessible to allow for businesses to learn and build off it. With the
inclusion of law change considerations as well, judges felt this entry had a good
understanding of the legacy drag issues and whilst lacking specifics, the proposed policy
had potential to be successful: human barriers and further legal consideration were the
two greatest hurdles that would need to be overcome.
Entry 11:
This proposal specifically looked at software development and how government projects
could be better organised to deliver value for money and greater efficiencies. Using
“Function Points” as a standard measurement of effort and building cost, the solution
remarked that having a set of measure would allow better understanding of the
undertakings for both the supplier and contractor, and would allow comparability not
only within government departments, but across nations if this was a widely taken up
scheme. Giving information as to how the ecosystem would develop to facilitate its use,
and then also embellishing on the direct benefits that would be realised, this proposal
was seen as transferable and with good impact potential. However judges did comment
on its limited scope and how the system of Function Points system was invented many
decades ago – not fulfilling the innovative criteria that the question sort after.
Entry 14:
Seeing talent and entrepreneurship as the two most useful traits when trying to drive
economic growth, this entry sort to create a supportive network for startups and outlined
three main methods for achieving this: (1) the creation of entrepreneurial sandboxes to
help support scientists transfer developments across from academia, (2) the
matchmaking of entrepreneurs with scientists to help combine expertise to deliver better
results, and (3) introducing subsidies and tax relief for innovative companies. With these
three combined methods, the Solver argued that technological improvements will follow
and economic growth occurs. The judges were split on their support of this entry: some
commenting on the clear understanding of the situation and presenting pragmatic
solutions, others stating that many of these methods are already being tried in smaller
settings and they would be more suited to a university partnership. With these split
opinions the entry was retained and advanced through judging stages, however was not
elected as an overall winner.
Entry 20:

Page | 22
This entry sort to present a lack of incremental change over the years as being the main
barrier for current business model development and economic growth: outdated laws
and regulatory systems preventing innovation. It suggested widespread changes to both
procurement and copyright laws, alongside a change in internal government behaviour
to innovation: breaking down relationships with established players and promoting the
hiring of startups and entrepreneurs. The judges recognised that some key issues were
highlighted, however commented that they are not the root cause of barriers preventing
growth and the solutions presented were neither feasible nor wholly based on accurate
assumptions.
Entry 21:
Presenting the case for a Global Smart Workforce, this entry proposed the support of e-
authentication software and the greater uptake of cloud based services to allow people
to work from anywhere in the world. To aid this scenario of greater non-locational work,
the entry proposed the creation of a Dynamic Virtual Organisations Breeding Platform
which would be set up by the EU. This platform will allow the creation of virtual
businesses by pairing individuals from around the world; facilitating a better matching of
skills and needs and opening access to talent and businesses globally. While the judges
liked the ingenuity and innovative element of this entry (highlighting its transferability
and potential short term impact), issues relating to different countries legal systems and
the pure scale that the Platform would have to facilitate, the judges thought the proposal
lacked feasibility.
Entry 22:
A replication of entry 20 from Challenge 1, this submission looked at the greater uptake
and backing of Person2Person satellite phones. Again the judges saw the entry as
intriguing and ambitious, however with such high costs and potential legal and political
barriers, they thought it was reaching too far and the social desire to take up P2P
satellite phones was not present. With relevancy to both Challenges, the entry was
forwarded to judges; however both sets felt that it was too far-fetched and not feasible.
Entry 24:
Another repeat entry from Challenge 1, this entry outlined how statistical analysis could
be used to improve the awareness of job postings and allow more efficient hiring
processes. The judges commented that despite the potential short term benefits, there
was little situational awareness or perspective and with skills in IT digitalization and job
requirements changing, it may become quickly void.
Entry 25:
This entry focused on a barrier to growth for startups and presented how the creation of
an EU ICT reseller would assist European company’s growth and help gain customers in
their early stages. The site would allow cheap advertising for companies and would act
as a trialling stage for entrepreneurs to realise if there is a market for their product, or if
they should stop before investing any more. The entry took into consideration the legal
consequences and changes that may need to be made, but also presented a further step
whereby startup funding could be provided to the most promising businesses on the site
to help them grow further. The judges commented that the entry was feasible to
implement and could have a pan-European effect in a range of sectors, but required
large scale support from central European Union and was not a truly innovative idea.
Entry 35:

Page | 23
Edited from an academic paper written by the Solver, this entry looked at cluster theory
and how the creation of ICT clusters in the EU could lead to greater productivity and
growth. While going into great detail and academic theory behind the benefits of
clusters, the judges thought this entry was a little clichéd, and with no attempts to
situate it within the Challenge context, many of the points were either unoriginal or not
centralised to the Challenge aims. There were benefits of high transferability between
national and European sectors and good long term potential impacts, however with it
repeating theories and having little true implementation plan, the entry was not elected
a winner.
Entry 39:
Outlining two interlinked policies, this proposal argued for an increase in the uptake of
telecommuting, and from this, a reduction in cost of employment for firms. To allow
greater uptake of telecommuting, the entry proposed standardising work laws across the
EU and creating clear regulations for cross-border employment. With tax breaks offered
to both the company and employees for taking part in the scheme the Solver felt uptake
could be substantial. To reduce employment costs further, the entry also suggested
creating a policy that limits the difference between net salary received and the total
employer costs: arguing these differences currently prevent the best staff from being
hired and the proper remuneration being received. The judges saw that the entry had
some interesting ideas for problem areas that have been raised previously, however
lacked detail or full outlines of how schemes or policies would work. Once implemented,
the short and long term impact could be substantial and highly transferable across the
EU.
Entry 46:
A replicate entry of the winning submission from Challenge 1 (entry 37), this entry firstly
outlined the current situation and barriers to growth before presenting 10 ways Europe
can improve competitiveness – grouping these into “Initiate”, “Concentrate” and
“Transcend”. With relevant business and EU policies suggested this entry was again well
received by the judges due to its situational awareness and contextual understanding of
both the barriers, and the future capabilities that could be realised.

Page | 24
4. Policy Recommendations
4.1 Challenge Submissions – Policy Recommendations
While primarily used to explore the success and potential up-scaling of the use of open
innovation as a tool for policy creation, the two Challenges run as part of this project still
presented a plethora of policy suggestions that could have implications for future
European Commission recommendations on ICT enable growth.
Firstly looking at the policy recommendations of the two winning submissions that are
shown in full in the appendices: “The Future of ICT-Enabled Growth and Jobs in the EU:
Ten Ways Europe Can Compete” for Challenge 1, and “Crowdpreneurship: An Idea
Incubator Platform Powered by the Crowd” for Challenge 2.
“Crowdpreneurship” as an idea is a recommendation which certainly has unique aspects;
proposing the combining of crowdsourcing labour and support for entrepreneurs
(specifically introducing those with business skills with technology innovators to ensure
complimentary skills are present in start-ups). Through various new legal frameworks
and support aspects, “crowdpreneurship” could represent a complimentary proposal to
the EIT ICT labs and other schemes already in place and thus is an opportunity for
further exploration.
The “Ten Ways Europe can compete” proposal presented numerous different
recommendations which covered various aspects of ICT-related economy that would
coalesce to deliver greater outcomes than their individual parts. The majority of the 10
proposals built off current policy and suggested adaptations or improvements, rather
than full-scale re-developments: this could be argued to show a lack of innovativeness
and thus a failure of the Challenge to draw groundbreaking proposals. Conversely the
similarity of proposals can be seen as a ratification of current European Commission ICT
action: with large numbers of proposals following similar lines to what has already been
implemented this could be interpreted as a large agreement with policy and the
recommendation in fact is to stay-the-course.
Further to this theme of a lack of creativity, within the background documentation on the
Challenges an introductory paper was supplied to potential entrants: this outlined what
the current policy situation is and introduced some of the more recent developments that
have been implemented. The purpose of this document was to give enough background
knowledge so that applicants from any expertise could build in their knowledge and
suggest new innovative policy proposals. However, the document may have in fact
provided too much information and from this then stifled the creativity of applicants:
reading the current situation in great detail may then confine your thinking as to only
how you can adapt and improve the aspects raised. Providing background information is
important to make sure that applicants are aware of the current situation and already
implemented policy; however there must be a balancing point between an overload
which imposes on creativity, and the key information that can help spur inventiveness.
Another limiting factor in the Challenge Design that may have prevented truly innovative
ideas is that the questions posed and Challenges presented were potentially too broad:
asking for any ICT based recommendation that could deliver economic growth and jobs.
Without boundary objects and frameworks that would help focus solutions, huge
variation was present and lack of specificity within the submissions. The following

Page | 25
sections on Policy Recommendations related to implementing open innovation will look
into the Challenge Design process in more detail, however the two Challenges that were
run as part of this project potentially gave first-hand experience which can be built upon
and rectified for future projects: specificity of questions can help direct Solvers to
providing higher value solutions, instead of receiving a broad under-developed plethora
of proposals.
4.2 Open Innovation Policy Recommendations
As mentioned above, with these Challenges representing an exploration to the potential
of open innovation in the process of policy creation, there can be direct actions taken off
the back of the strengths and weaknesses of the Challenges. However further to this
first-hand experience, the bringing together of experts at the workshop allowed detailed
exploration of open innovation best practice and recommendations that could be made
as to how best implement crowdsourcing in the future. These recommendations come
under 4 main themes: 1) Challenge Design, 2) Where to best implement Open
Innovation Challenges for the European Commission, 3) Developing an organisational
culture of openness towards crowdsourcing, and 4) Building of a Solver Community that
can provide solutions for the Challenges presented.
4.2.1 Challenge Design
Open Innovation is not a panacea that can solve all issues. It adds an alternative method
to the tool-box and presents an opportunity for accelerated value creation but only if
used correctly. The first consideration of any crowdsourcing programme must be the
correct selection of topic: with open innovation spurring out of life sciences, engineering,
chemistry and similar subject areas, it is best to first explore why it has been successful
in these fields.
Specific, quantifiable, verifiable: successful science based crowdsourcing Challenges all
have these features. They allow absolute assessment criteria and solution requirements
and facilitate a clear linear implementation path that allows for solutions to move
through from the idea, to proof of concept, to full realisation stages. The question can of
course ask for different levels of proof or complexity, but with measurable outcomes a
quantitative assessment to the value of the crowdsourcing process can be easily
attained. This quantifiable measurement is also present in the second key factor that
allows for a successful Challenge Design: a known desired outcome prior to the launch of
the Challenge and thus knowledge of a successfully run programme.
While the policy creation process is of course not so dichotomous between success and
failure, and there are not standard measures that can be quickly obtained to assess
validity of submissions in the Challenge, there are examples where the use of open
innovation policy can be successful implemented and Challenges can deliver
measureable benefits.
Amsterdam and Barcelona are both part of the Open Cities initiative which looks to
promote open & user driven innovation and both have implemented crowdsourcing
Challenges to deliver policy. Barcelona launched the 2013 Urban Lab Challenge
(http://www.opencities.net/urban_lab_challenge) to help improve the tourism industry
in the city and outlined four policy goals that entries should meet: how to best connect
tourists with locals, better personalization of the visitor experience, optimising travel for
tourists without affecting locals day-to-day lives, and how to best travel in the city as a

Page | 26
tourist. €3000 was offered to the winning policy proposal alongside an introduction to
the relevant city officials: helping to pilot the policy in the city and then setting up
potential links to other European cities with a similar issue.
Two of the finalists were local businesses who used the Challenge for endorsement of
their business and then to support further growth. Rudder Tech (http://rudder-tech.com)
implement cloud-based software that helps better manage tourist activities, while
Trip4Real (http://trip4tech.com) offer a unique booking service to better connect locals
with tourists (their service is now present in over 40 cities across Europe). This is an
example of an open innovation Challenge that shows that while not directly creating new
public policy or laws, connections between public and private organisations can be
utilised to meet targets and impact the public policy landscape. In having precise
questions and problem areas, relatable issues for the citizens of Barcelona and a prize
package that provides support through the development of the business, this Challenge
has facilitated private business development to meet a public policy aspiration.
The second city to highlight is Amsterdam. Having launched a crowdsourcing platform
(http://amsterdamopent.nl), city officials now regularly use the inducement prize
process as a way to further engage citizens with issues in the city and to spur innovative
policy suggestions that can improve services offered. The Challenges usually present
small policy questions such as how to better use a public park in the busy summer
months or how to improve safety on public transport. Alongside looking for solutions to
the issues highlighted, the use of open innovation Challenges can help spur interest in
public policy and raise the democratisation of policy creation. City meet-ups and Open
Innovation Festivals help bring a physical location to initiatives and a dedicated Solver
community is now present on the platform to provide solutions to the Challenges issued
and discuss the entries fellow Solvers have posted. With submissions for Challenges
regularly reaching the magnitude of hundreds, this Amsterdam example shows how open
innovation can spur interest in public policy and how the creation of an engaged Solver
community can lead to higher discussion levels and standards of any solutions submitted
(a point that this report returns to in much greater detail in later sections). While not
pertaining to the broadest policy related questions or requiring the deepest
understandings of legislative intricacies, the Amsterdam innovation platform works due
to the simplicity and openness: finding those issues that people can engage with and
offer their localised knowledge and insights.
From an InnoCentive perspective in running far more global and grander-scale open
innovation Challenges, policy related questions represent an opportunity to tap a world-
wide talent base. While personal interaction with the issue may not be present from
Solvers, subject expertise and also the transfer of initiatives from around the world can
offer innovative solutions to the policy issues presented.
Annual Economist Challenges that look at alternative policies to help tackle a specific
aspect of poverty in the developing world draw 1000s of interested Solvers and 100s of
solutions. By positioning the Challenges at the intersection of a pressing global issue,
and then trying to implement cutting edge technologies or methods, this helps draw in
both technology enthusiasts, and those more interested in the alleviation of global
poverty. The prize on offer also gives a prestigious opportunity for winners: $10,000
alongside presenting your policy initiative to a room of experts at the Economist
Conference in New York. Economist examples take forward the Amsterdam and
Barcelona ideals of policy related open innovation, and then exemplify how the up-

Page | 27
scaling to global questions can occur. While some of the benefits of the local scale are
lost, accessing a global crowd through a cleverly worded Challenge can draw in hugely
influential solutions.
4.2.2 Where to best implement Open Innovation Challenges for the
European Commission
The above section comments on the importance of Challenge Design and then presents
some examples of where policy related open innovation Challenges have been successful
elsewhere: here InnoCentive would like to make recommendations as to where the
European Commission may be able to successfully implement their own future
Challenges.
The first and most important recommendation is based on the scale of the Challenge
solution: is the desired outcome a “seed” idea that can spark further developments, or
an implementable policy which only needs refinement before realization? This question
can be further investigated by asking is the outcome a brand new policy where there are
few current initiatives, or is it tinkering with current procedure? From InnoCentive
experience, insight from the two Challenges run, and discussions at the workshop,
InnoCentive feel that open innovation Challenges are better placed to answer seed idea
questions.
Policy Challenge questions in fields which have fewer limitations due to current
legislation can allow for more innovative solutions to be presented and thus greater
Challenge outcomes achieved. In policy spaces that have many years of compounded
legislation and regulation, not only does this require huge amounts of background
knowledge to be able to interpret the quagmire, but also offers limited space for
ingenuity and creativity (regardless of whether this is to present small improvements or
potentially complete paradigm shifts). Another benefit with crowdsourcing Challenges is
that the Solver community is not constrained by internal politics of an organisation: they
can provide a fresh set of eyes to the issues and focus solely on providing solutions.
Further to this ideal of how developed the outcomes of the Challenge will be, it is also
important to consider the scope of the question being asked: is it looking for insights into
a huge space and thus solutions could cover any number of different topics, or is it
asking for answers to one specific issue (as highlighted above in the Challenge Design
section)? From experience gained through these two Challenges and from the past
thousands InnoCentive have run, specificity and providing frameworks within which
Solvers can work is vital. By combining these two Challenge design aspects InnoCentive
would recommend that the Commission in the future asks for seed ideas, however within
a precise framework and topic. For example, how could taxation and regulation of
wearable-tech application developers be altered to spur greater innovation in this field?
Further recommendations that can be made as to the successful future implementation
of open innovation Challenges look again at the solution scale requested in the
Challenge, however in a geographical aspect in this instance. The city-scale shown in
Amsterdam and Barcelona has proven successful for developing greater citizen
involvement. A next step would then be to ask whether multi-stage Challenges could
utilise this initial locality to drive greater engagement. Asking questions that target one
specific city region or tech-hub allows for more precise and targeted answers instead of
pan-European solutions; however there then could be the opportunity for later Challenge
stages to ask for the up-scaling of these local initiatives to affect the supra-national. The

Page | 28
Living Labs initiative has been successful in connecting these local, regional and national
actors and ensuring a pathway through to greater scale implementation – a similar
model could be used for crowdsourcing initiatives.
Final recommendations that may help improve the design of European level Challenges
is to avoid emotionally charged issues as they can lead to a publicity backlash and
general negativity surrounding the Challenge whilst also rendering a lot of entries
worthless. Another potential consideration to take into account with public policy
initiatives is that they may want to match with the term lengths of politicians: being able
to launch, ratify and implement any new policies suggested in the Challenge within the
lifetime of an election cycle will potentially allow for greater support from politicians.
4.2.3 Alternative uses of crowdsourcing
The majority of workshop discussions and of this Final Study Report centre on the use of
open innovation Challenges in the creation of public policy, and of course two were run
as part of this project. However crowdsourcing as a wider topic is far broader and
complex than just the running of Challenges or prizes.
One alternative use of crowdsourcing which was briefly touched upon at the workshop
was actually taking the public consultation a step back along the Challenge Design
phase: calling upon the crowd to help with the selection of topic for the Challenge which
will then proceed forward to the full design. This approach has recently been
implemented by the British government with their re-launch of the Longitude Prize. A
series of TV shows were run to highlight the capabilities of open innovation competitions
and experts presented 6 of the most pressing global issues for the Longitude Prize to
focus on; an online voting system was then set up to decide on which problem the prize
should tackle and receive the backing of the £10million prize fund.
This form of crowdsourcing could be thought as being a popular vote in seeing which
issues the public think require the most attention: a form of polling if you wish. Using
crowdsourcing in this method is a great way to democratise the entire process and
increase public involvement, whilst also acting as a good PR method for raising
awareness of the ethos and willingness for public engagement an organisation has.
However this method is not without its issues. Some subject fields and topics are so
complex that the wider public may not having the pre-requisite understanding to truly
grasp the scope of the issue at hand: just because an issue is or isn’t popular, this does
not equate to its true worth. Secondly the selection of the topic does not mean that
there is a reduction in development work for the organisation running the Challenge; full
research and design procedure must still follow and if in fact this problem ideation stage
results in an alternative Challenge being developed to the exact outline which was
presented to the public in the voting process, then there could be questions as to the
worth of this form of crowdsourcing. The way the Longitude prize used this
crowdsourcing worked successfully due to keeping the Challenge field vague in detail and
giving various potential scopes to actually develop the Challenge.
An alternative method of crowdsourcing the topic of the Challenge is to have a public call
for issues which they would like to see tackled: not pre-selecting 6 or 7 topics, but
having an open call for any suggestions. InnoCentive have recently done this with a
governmental client with mixed success. An open call allows greater transparency,
involves more stakeholders and can help ratify any decisions you end up with. However

Page | 29
the standard of suggestion was low or not a suitable topic for a Challenge, thus very few
of the issues raised were taken forward to the Challenge Design phase. A similar policy-
related example of a recently implemented initiative is that of German MEP Julia Reda
who has called upon the crowd to submit questions through an online platform
(http://whatwouldyouask.eu); she then asked the most popular to the relevant
European Commissioners.
A third crowdsourcing method that can be used is in the finale of the Challenge: again
consulting the public, but to do so on the selection of winners of the Challenge. This can
be achieved through the use of an online platform which presents each submission to the
crowd, and then asks for voting – this does require submissions to be openly accessible
and this may present issues with some Challenge types. An alternative setting for
crowdsourcing judging is in a live final event: attendee’s judge the submissions
presented to them and a winner is presented there and then. In both these cases, the
public vote can make up a percentage of the overall voting, or it can be the entirety: the
specifics which are followed will have to be decided upon within the Challenge Design
stages.
4.2.4 Developing an organisational culture of openness towards
crowdsourcing
While seemingly an obvious pre-requisite to the successful implementation of any open
innovation programme, a lack of organisational culture support and understanding of the
process is frequently a prime reason for Challenges not realising full potential. The most
important factor to stress is that it is not just Challenge owners or managers who must
have full belief in the process, but those politicians and others who will be responsible for
the implementation of any proposals that come out of the process. All must be truly
open to all entries that are received and the potential of a complete paradigm shift in
policy if that is what the crowd is suggesting. A willingness to also admit that there are
issues that you can’t solve internally and require the assistance of the crowd is also key:
this should not be seen as a weakness or fault but instead a positive utilization of all
resources available, whether internal or not.
From experience of implementing open innovation Challenges for a variety of
organisations, but also an internal facing platform which relies on far higher
organisational involvement for success, the below suggestions on developing a culture
change not only come from the workshop outcomes, but also direct experience of
working with InnoCentive clients.
Having internal “champions” who have the role of educating others to the process and
capabilities can help improve uptake: this is in fact a pre-requisite that we require to be
in place before the launch of the internal facing crowdsourcing tool InnoCentive offers.
Once champions are in place, an educational process can then be achieved through
workshops or seminars as to best practice, potential for success, but also the limitations
and realisation that open innovation cannot solve all problems.
Further to these internal leaders, having a pool of successful pilot Challenges will ratify
the methodology and then lead to greater future implementation. From past experience
with a variety of clients in numerous different industries, InnoCentive has found that 5 or
6 Challenges are needed to truly understand the capabilities of the crowd and further
refine the process to improve success. It is advised that these pilot projects are done

Page | 30
with smaller, less significant issues as to reduce the importance put on the outcomes:
the pilots should be seen as experiments and assessed accordingly.
Once the Challenge solutions have been submitted and prizes distributed, there is the
important step of building upon suggestions and making sure that worth comes from the
Challenges. A framework for further implementation should be developed internally to
ensure that the outcomes are not left in a draw to collect dust, but instead their true
potential realised: whether this is further refinement of the seed idea, or investigation to
the scaling of the more implementation-ready initiative. It may of course be realised that
the solution cannot be taken any further forward, however having for example a
framework of a 100-day process to measure this feasibility is important for delivering
value and change through open innovation.
Further to this ideal of having a process for the implementation of solutions, there also
needs to be an organisational understanding that the use of open innovation is a process
rather than a one-off event. In the broader sense this can relate to the idea of having a
body of evidence through a number of Challenges run before making a full judgment on
success, however on the more individual sense towards one Challenge, it relates to the
idea that it takes time and is not instantaneous. There is a required longevity of
engagement with the process to ensure the design, implementation and assessment of
the Challenge are all properly achieved. Open innovation cannot be seen as a one-off call
to the crowd which provides immediate gratification, but instead a process like any other
project.
The final key point that should be stressed when looking to develop a culture towards
open innovation is that it should not be seen as a replacement for traditional innovation
and policy creation methodologies. Conversely, crowdsourcing should not just be seen as
an add-on to all other methods and just being used as a PR exercise to display a culture
of openness and democratisation of policy creation. The policy tool box has many
different utensils and open innovation has a place to fit in this system: as previously
mentioned it is not a solution to all issues and careful selection should be made to
ensure that the most suitable problems and policy areas are recognised. An internal
understanding of this role crowdsourcing plays is vital to preventing disillusionment with
the outcomes that may be presented and the realistic opportunities it does present.
4.2.5 Development of a Solver community
As previously mentioned in the Amsterdam example of using open innovation to great
success, the creation of an engaged and dedicated Solver community is key to ensuring
the success of crowdsourcing and must be seen as a precondition for all Challenges the
European Commission may wish to run in the future. However, it is not just about
drawing in as many people as possible to the open innovation community, but also
drawing the correct individuals who will be able to add the most value in the submissions
they enter and comments they provide on other Solvers solutions (if this is a feature of
the community).
Reaching these correct individuals requires direct and targeted marketing: it is advised
that this marketing is heavily invested in before the launch of any Challenge and then
throughout the submission process. A key recommendation further to this broad
marketing goal is to target non-usual suspects who may not have previously had contact
with the European Commission. University students and retired industry experts are two
groups that have seen involvement and success in open innovation Challenges and are

Page | 31
potentially those that otherwise would not be involved in public tender processes that
the Commission may already undertake. As seen in Amsterdam and Barcelona, it is also
those who will be directly affected by the policies who show the greatest involvement. In
the two open innovation Challenges run as part of this EU Smart project, European
targeted marketing took place due to the nature of the Challenges and this resulted in
40-50% of submissions coming from the continent (compared to usually 10-20% for
other non-location specific InnoCentive Challenges).
Another potential way to spur interest in the open innovation process and build a Solver
community is to launch one large prize, or a series of prizes that build into a large fund.
We need to look only at the success that the first X-Prizes saw at not only drawing
investment in the field and Solvers to the space, but also the general public awareness
of crowdsourcing and inducement prizes: a decade later comments from American
clients still focus on the desire to run something similar to an X-prize. If a comparable
fund could be present on the European scale it could not only be used to answer some of
the pressing policy issues the Commission are currently facing, but also set a precedent
and trend for the greater knowledge, use and involvement with open innovation
Challenges. Once this initial interest is present, a continual posting of smaller Challenges
can then be used to maintain engagement and interest.
Continuing this notion of maintaining engagement with the open innovation process, one
way of helping to do this is providing feedback on solutions submitted and keeping
Solvers updated with developments that have come following the Challenge: as
previously noted most Solvers will enter Challenges that centre of issues important to
them and thus will want to know what is being done to alter policy or implement the
suggestions submitted. This ideal of providing feedback can multiply the effort required
by the Challenge organizers: a return on investment analysis must be done to see
whether the time taken to fully respond to all submissions is worthwhile against the
potential loss of Solver engagement.
A final suggestion as to developing and maintaining a Solver community is the creation
of support systems. Many of the policy areas presented will be complex and with large
amounts of associated information that could be relevant for Solvers. Filtering this and
providing the key information to allow an initial understanding of the field will lead to
greater relevancy in solutions and mean that more people have the capability to enter.
There is of course a balance to be had between providing too much information and
potentially limiting creativity off the back of this, however background documents can
help facilitate greater involvement and higher Solver numbers.

Page | 32
5. Conclusions
From a starting point of asking policy related questions to Solvers and exploring the
potential for the use of open innovation at the European level, this project has given
great insights to not only the specifics of the opportunity for crowdsourcing in the chosen
topic area, but also a wider understanding of the potential for future up-scaling of use
and where may be best placed for further implementation.
While the two Challenges may not have delivered the numerous groundbreaking
proposals that would have been hoped for, these potential short-comings present far
more learning processes than a perfect result would have. A thorough analysis of the
limitations that potentially occurred allowed great insights into the; question design,
broader Challenge design, marketing and Solver community make up. This investigation
of the Challenges immediately gave a good starting point to then explore in more detail
where open innovation works and why, and through structured discussions with experts
at the workshop these key questions were raised and answers garnered from their
experience in the field.
As highlighted in the Policy Recommendations section above, there are three key areas
of recommendation within the general theme of using open innovation, and then more
direct recommendations as to how this can be best implemented by the European
Commission in the future. These recommendations can be categorised as two pre-
requisites that need to be in place before the benefits of open innovation can be fully
realised:
1. Developing an organisational culture of openness towards crowdsourcing
2. Developing a Solver community in the policy area within the focus of the Challenge
The third recommendation covers the far broader topic of Challenge Design: ensuring
that a plethora of considerations are taken into account and defined scopes are present
(solution requirements, topic area, and geographical considerations to name just three).
While there is no one-size-fits-all model for developing open innovation Challenges and
every problem statement must be seen as distinctive, the above section presented
guidelines and topics that are essential for any Challenge designs.
This project was undertaken with two-fold objectives: to get insights into potential public
policy initiatives related to ICT enabled jobs and economic growth, and to explore the
potential for scaling up the use of open innovation within the creation of public policy.
Through the running of the two Challenges and the workshop exchanges, the following
key findings have been discussed and presented in this Final Study Report: 1) an
understanding to the potential limitations & strengths of crowdsourcing policy related
questions; 2) an understanding to the pre-requisite circumstances that must be in place
for open innovation successes to be realised; 3) an understanding to the questions that
must be taken into consideration before even the first word of the Challenge Design is
inked; 4) a wider consideration of alternative forms of crowdsourcing that can be
implemented by the European Commission.
Open innovation is a complex and dynamic process which is ever-developing. It offers an
opportunity to garner the skills, expertise and knowledge of thousands of people who
otherwise may not have been involved in the public policy creation process. Through

Page | 33
democratising the creation of public policy, raising citizen engagement within
governance, and facilitating access to otherwise untapped potential, great benefits can
be realised through running crowdsourcing Challenges. If the use of open innovation is
to flourish then policy-makers must take serious measures to develop the frameworks
outlined above that support the process and in doing so properly understanding how to
harness the capabilities crowdsourcing offers. This Final Study Report outlines various
recommendations and uses first-hand experience to discuss how the increased usage of
open innovation can occur and the course for it to become a regular part of the European
Commission policy creation process.

Crowdsourcing on what are the new sources of ict enabled growth and jobs to take into consideration in the follow-up to the digital agenda for europe 2014

Crowdsourcing on what are the new sources of ict enabled growth and jobs to take into consideration in the follow-up to the digital agenda for europe 2014

Recommended

Recommended

More Related Content

What's hot

What's hot (18)

Viewers also liked

Viewers also liked (16)

Similar to Crowdsourcing on what are the new sources of ict enabled growth and jobs to take into consideration in the follow-up to the digital agenda for europe 2014

Similar to Crowdsourcing on what are the new sources of ict enabled growth and jobs to take into consideration in the follow-up to the digital agenda for europe 2014 (20)

More from polenumerique33

More from polenumerique33 (20)

Recently uploaded

Recently uploaded (20)

Crowdsourcing on what are the new sources of ict enabled growth and jobs to take into consideration in the follow-up to the digital agenda for europe 2014