The document discusses considering an innovation contest to engage citizens in helping a department innovate. It notes that crowds can provide better forecasting, more ideas, and identify non-traditional risks. It proposes two approaches for an innovation contest: one to create applications using department data, and one for citizens to propose innovation projects that the department would review. Key benefits noted are engaging stakeholders, discovering capabilities, and cultivating conversations to inform future procurement. It raises questions about commitment levels and next steps.

1. Considering an Innovation ContestA conversation for Engaging the Citizenry in Departmental innovation

2. Harvesting the Wisdom of Crowds(J. Surowiecki)Discussion Draft MLennon123@gmail.com2Large groups and populations possess some surprising decision-making advantages over experts including:Better predictive forecasting and estimating capabilityRicher brainstorming and ideation capacityAbility to rapidly distill and prioritize meaning from large volumes of informationBetter capability to identify non-traditional risksInstitutional Experts perpetuate institutional assumptions and practices. Quantifying the “will (and conflicts) of the people”NEW LEADERSHIP, NEW MGMT MINDSETS AND EMERGING TECHNOLOGIES allow for capturing this wisdom in ways that were heretofore not possible

3. Examples of the wave of web innovation-- Accessing the Wisdom of CrowdsObama’s 1st press conference questions selected by voteDC Gov’t – Software contest using municipal dataHaiti – Opensource maps vsGooglemapsCity of Los Angeles Budget Crisis – Citizen Brainstorming and Preference Voting Dept of Ed. Listening Tour – Re-inventing No Child Left BehindGooglemapsPort-au-PrinceOpensourceMap (Ushahidi) w / Port au Prince Water Shortages identified by the public Jan 20, 2010Discussion Draft MLennon123@gmail.com

4. Building the capacity of the Department Team to Harvest the wisdom of crowdsBetter predictive forecasting and estimating capabilityRicher brainstorming and ideation capacity Ability to rapidly distill and prioritize meaning from large volumes of informationBetter capability to identify non-traditional risksQuantifying the “will (and conflicts) of the people” PROPOSAL –An innovation contest focused on Department issuesMost Viable Quick Winfor Internal Team DC Gov’t Case Study –$50K investment returned 47 software applications (Web, iPhone, & Facebook) valued at $2,300,000 in 30 days. Subsequent public conversations triggered an additional 230 ideas and 5500 votes on those ideas, as well as, 450+ blog posts, radio and video interviews; also, DC CIO is now US Fed CIO. Discussion Draft MLennon123@gmail.com

5. Potential Benefits for the Department TeamRaise the Visibility of the Department Agenda and awareness of key Department issuesRicher and more transparent engagement of public, partners, media, contractors, Agency staff, other agencies and external stakeholdersCreate choices to support Department Team’s decision-makingDiscover current capabilities of the market / Understand the current state of thought leadershipCultivate innovation conversations as stimulators to subsequent procurementRaise likelihood of breakout, transformative, non-traditional ideasReduce time to produce prototypes from 1-2 years to 60-90 daysLow cost – High innovation yieldFun, large-scale learning experienceDiscussion Draft MLennon123@gmail.com

6. Two Approaches for going forwardContest Approach 1 - Produce Applications using Department-data to advance agenda and missionContest Approach 2 – Propose Innovation projects – the top in each arena will be vetted by the Department team for potential next stage funding7 - Destination6 - Overcome Obstacles5 - Error Correction4 - Velocity3 - Direction2 - Necessary Capabilities & Resources1 - CommitmentDiscussion Draft MLennon123@gmail.com

7. Approach – Contest Approach 1Contest Framework (Data, Prizes, Judges & Timeline)Website Creation (IdeasforAid.org)Marketing to DevelopersJudge RecruitmentInitial ScreeningApplications posted publiclyPublic Voting for “People’s Choice” Awards Ceremony & Final JudgingResults of Contest MarketingDiscussion Draft MLennon123@gmail.com

8. Approach – Contest Approach 2Contest Framework (Topics, Prizes, Judges & Timeline)Website Creation (IdeasforAid.org)Marketing to Community (Internal & External)Judge RecruitmentInitial ScreeningProposals posted publiclyPublic Voting for “People’s Choice” Awards Ceremony & Final JudgingTop Proposals socialized with Internal InfluencersResults of Contest Marketing Discussion Draft MLennon123@gmail.com

9. Questions / Next StepsCommitment (Go/No Go)7 - Destination6 - Overcome Obstacles5 - Error Correction4 - Velocity3 - Direction2 - Necessary Capabilities & Resources1 - CommitmentDiscussion Draft MLennon123@gmail.com

10. Backup SlidesDiscussion Draft MLennon123@gmail.com

11. Involving Citizens using WEB2.0-enabled practices can improve decision quality11Planning–related impacts (Incomplete)Superior Forecasting and Prediction capabilityFostering innovationIdentifying non-traditional risks Prioritizing under imperfect / incomplete information conditionsIdentifying optimal choicesAssessing Agency & Program Performance impactsValidation & legitimacy of assessmentAbility to rapidly distill and synthesize meaning from large data Making sense of info. complexity and overloadCivic engagement & FeedbackWeak signal detection Discussion Draft MLennon123@gmail.com