XYZ Fast Prototyping MGMT 3405 1 Definition – Fast Prototyping Fast or rapid prototyping is a methodical exploration of innovative concept(s) by quick assembly of pieces either tangible or intangible to validate assumptions which are important to implement the concept. The outline of this concept is described in article “Intuit Inc. Project AgriNova” published in HBR by Thomas Eisenmann and Tanya Bijlani. Quickly identifying & rapidly developing solutions for part of the system which could be potential road blocks is key to ensure success of the product. This does not need complete development of all (or some) parts Problem Statement Our organization is specialized Business Analytics and Data Management expertise. Among other things, one of the requests often made by our customer is to give guidance on suitability of tool (or set of tools) for a particular task. Even though this knowledge is available within our organization, it is dispersed as the consultants are working with different customer. We set out to address the issue of - timely availability of comparison metrics across tools - continuous update to the metrics being used to compared After discussing with our executives we decided to build a web based application internally so that we can feed in the comparison data on continuous basis without spending too much time on reconciliation efforts. There were few challenges to be resolved while addressing the issues given in problem statement. We conducted a brainstorming session within our organization. The outcome of this session was a list of important components outline of which is as follows: - User Interface: The UI should be easy to use and intuitive enough to hide the complexity underneath. Unless the tool is easy to use people will be reluctant to use it. - Data Update: The data should be fed in on continuous basis to ensure updates for the tools to be compared are captured on regular basis. If the data is stale it will raise the credibility issue of the presented comparison. We cannot compare data of outdated version of the tools. - Contextual Text Mapping: The biggest issue is contextual mapping of text which describes a particular feature of tool, product or application. Of course this list is not comprehensive, but we need to address these points to ensure viability of the entire efforts. I think using “Fast Prototyping” to validate the feasibility of the components is best course of action before attempting to build this product. Leap of Faith Can we build & expand? As the data volume increase the methods employed, especially the algorithm employed will perform satisfactorily? We decided to find this out. Can we win? We did not spend great amount of time with user experience. We took a leap of faith by assuming that the team who participated in building UX is representative of future users. I think we should be able to tweak UI based on usage analytics and.

1. XYZ Fast Prototyping MGMT 3405
1
Definition – Fast Prototyping
Fast or rapid prototyping is a methodical exploration of
innovative concept(s) by quick assembly
of pieces either tangible or intangible to validate assumptions
which are important to
implement the concept. The outline of this concept is described
in article “Intuit Inc. Project
AgriNova” published in HBR by Thomas Eisenmann and Tanya
Bijlani. Quickly identifying &
rapidly developing solutions for part of the system which could
be potential road blocks is key
to ensure success of the product. This does not need complete
development of all (or some)
parts
Problem Statement
Our organization is specialized Business Analytics and Data
Management expertise. Among
other things, one of the requests often made by our customer is
to give guidance on suitability
of tool (or set of tools) for a particular task. Even though this
knowledge is available within our
organization, it is dispersed as the consultants are working with
different customer.
We set out to address the issue of

2. - timely availability of comparison metrics across tools
- continuous update to the metrics being used to compared
After discussing with our executives we decided to build a web
based application internally so
that we can feed in the comparison data on continuous basis
without spending too much time
on reconciliation efforts.
There were few challenges to be resolved while addressing the
issues given in problem
statement. We conducted a brainstorming session within our
organization. The outcome of this
session was a list of important components outline of which is
as follows:
- User Interface: The UI should be easy to use and intuitive
enough to hide the complexity
underneath. Unless the tool is easy to use people will be
reluctant to use it.
- Data Update: The data should be fed in on continuous basis to
ensure updates for the
tools to be compared are captured on regular basis. If the data is
stale it will raise the
credibility issue of the presented comparison. We cannot
compare data of outdated
version of the tools.
- Contextual Text Mapping: The biggest issue is contextual
mapping of text which
describes a particular feature of tool, product or application.
Of course this list is not comprehensive, but we need to address
these points to ensure viability
of the entire efforts.

3. I think using “Fast Prototyping” to validate the feasibility of the
components is best course of
action before attempting to build this product.
Leap of Faith
Can we build & expand? As the data volume increase the
methods employed, especially the
algorithm employed will perform satisfactorily? We decided to
find this out.
Can we win? We did not spend great amount of time with user
experience. We took a leap of
faith by assuming that the team who participated in building UX
is representative of future
users. I think we should be able to tweak UI based on usage
analytics and statistic.
XYZ Fast Prototyping MGMT 3405
2
Experiment Outline
We addressed each challenging component of the system to
ensure we are certain that it is
worthwhile to spend time and resources on this application. The
three main challenges listed
above are entirely different from technology perspective. The
method employed for each of the
component of the system is also very different and is outlined

4. below:
User Interface: Nothing beats rapid prototype building
while getting buy in from end users. First we designed the
user experience by giving a name for each of the action as
shown in the diagram. We outlined the tentative look and
feel of each screen, where it was important for us to point
out key element of this prototype. Next we built couple of
screens which tested actual user interaction using the
rapid prototyping tool such as Balasamiq. This step helped us to
understand how end user
would use our tool. We gather typical sequence followed by our
users. One of these captured
sequences is given on next page.
Data Update: Prototyping this was bit easier and quicker. There
are several tools available for
web crawling. We implemented Apache Nutch in open source
community.
Contextual Text Mapping: The hardest parts of this prototyping
effort. We set out to research
on the latest in “Pattern Matching” on Google Scholar. We
realized that there are three distinct
type: Simple Character Mapping, Word or Token Mapping and
Context based Token Mapping.

5. We agreed that type c would be appropriate for our method.
More research revealed research
done by Yoav Artzi andLuke Zettlemoyer documented in paper
titled “The University of
Washington: Semantic Parsing”. (Link)
We quickly prototyped the algorithms mentioned in the
document “Semantic Parsing”. We are
evaluating the results of this prototype.
Conclusion
Key take-away from the learning on topic of “Fast Prototyping”
for me:
- Figure out how to break down the topic into manageable areas
for experimentation.
- Search for previous referenced and reviewed work using
Google Scholar for each of the
areas.
- Most important: Win executives confidence early, that we can
deliver, by demonstrating
key concepts with fast prototyping
http://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/1311/1311.3011.pdf
XYZ Platforms as innovation outcomes MGMT 3405

6. 3
Definition – Platforms as Innovation Outcomes
The platform is extremely powerful ecosystem that quickly and
easily scales, morphs and
incorporates new features (planks). It can also quickly add
users, customers, vendors &
partners. The platform is broadly divided into three broad
categories: business model platform,
industry platform, technology/product platform. This concept is
outlines in “The Evolution of
Platform Thinking” by Michael Cusumano.
Problem Statement
Comparing two tools or applications is challenging especially if
you have difficulty gathering
comparable features. This same concept is true for services or
products
as well. Take example of ATT U-Verse GigaPower VS Comcast
xfinity.
Both of them claim to have fastest networks. It doesn’t call out
cost of
ownership over the time, drop rates, Quality of Service,
Experience or

7. Engagement. ATT as well as Comcast only publish metrics on
their site
which is favorable. Ford and GM trucks are superior to each
other with
outstanding post sales service. Samsung SMART TV VS Sony
Bravia is
another example which “Outstanding” picture quality, with
“Intelligent”
processor having “Higher” Hz confuses people. Daily brands
like Coke
and Pepsi also claim to have superior test to each other.
I think there is scope to develop a “Platform” which will serve
as a mean to compare tools,
application, services or products in unbiased way.
Leap of Faith
This concept is very expansive and it is very difficult for me to
wrap my head around all the
leaps of faith that I have to take. Here is list of few that I could
think of:
- People will really need platform to “Compare” before taking
decision. Survey or small
application can answer this leap of faith
- The technology to bundle this entire thing together can be

8. built in orderly manner so as to
meet expectations of the user base. This will be very complex
setup since there are several
complexities involved in this platform this will be very complex
setup.
- The financial model will be viable and attractive to investors
and end users. I will have to
build financial model and spend some time tweaking it.
Developing Platform Concept
I think problem stated above can be best addressed by
building an extensible platform. This is very good case
for business model platform + technology platform.
Please note that even though this platform serves
industries, it is not a “industry” platform as defined
paper sited previously To draw similarity between the
concepts taught in the class and in book “The age of
Platform” by Phil Simon, we have platform called as
“Comparison” platform (in blue) which consists of various
module such as Technology,
Comparison
Platform

9. Technology Adoption Verification
Autos Commodities IT Services
Telecom
Services
Add new feature to existing tool/service/product
Add new industry
XYZ Platforms as innovation outcomes MGMT 3405
4
Adoption initiative such as Marketing & Verification
mechanism to ensure the validity of the
feed and output. Various businesses (industries) can be aligned
for common feature
comparison.
Please note that there is subtle difference here as why they are
called business model rather
than industry. The comparison business model for each industry
will be different and hence it
will fit in as “Business Model” for that industry in the platform
that I am proposing to develop.

10. To give you example, the commodities (e.g. cloth, office
supplies etc) are best served with “Ad-
supported” business model. While the “Business Model” for
auto industry could be
“Commission” based and for IT services could be “Pay as you
Go”. Of course I agree that these
terminology need to evolve as we think more about what can be
accommodated in this
platform, but this could be draft 1.0 terminology, if I can call it
so.
Going forward the features could be added to continuously
engage end users and add to the
existing user base. We can roll out platform with possibility to
add new features for predefined
industries, but the platform con be expanded with possibility to
add entire industry to it. Of
course making it available on multiple devices such as laptop,
tablet, phone, various wearable
devices could be akin to adding “different” types of planks to
expand the user base.
Experiments
To answer our favorite questions: Is it real? Can we win? Is it
worth doing? I conducted couple
of experiments as follows:

11. - Is it real?1.0 Information overload: Tried
google/bing/yahoo/wolfram alpha/duckduckgo
search for “Google Nexus 5 VS Samsung S5 VS iPhone 5S”.
The search engines confuse
themselves at best and at worst present information which is
way too much for a person to
quickly decipher.
- Is it real?2.0 Anybody out there: People are aware of this
problem and trying to solve it.
Please take a look at www.versus.com. They are building exact
same thing that I am
proposing. Other examples are Burstorm and Passioned Group.
- Can we win? Then why I think we will win: What people have
built so far, included versus is
not comprehensive platform where we can add planks to extend
it indefinitely. This is a web
application, the best one to be found though. Yelp and other
user review sites are “Review”
site, they tell us how the product experience (perception
sometimes) is, but do not
compare the features, which is critical for informed decision.
This is definitely a green field
for our platform. Similar by limited application in medical field

12. can be seen in this paper
- Is it worth doing? Service is where the returns are: I think it is
worth doing it, but need to
conduct additional experiments to study financial feasibility.
Conclusion
I feel the concept presented here is a classic case for building a
platform. It serves well to the
various dimensional attributes such as working in ecosystem,
collaborating for usage and
collaborating for marketing along with technology sharing. The
“Business” planks to this
platform can be added based on user’s demand, while
“Technical” Planks can be added as
usage grows.
http://www.versus.com/
http://www.biomedcentral.com/1472-6947/12/88
XYZ Open Innovation MGMT 3405
5
Definition – Open Innovation
The outline of open innovation can be best described by the

13. concept of funnel shown in the
picture picked up from paper “Renewing growth from Industrial
R&D” published by Prof Henry
Chesbrough. This image has been edited
to support the concept which we
implemented within our organization. The
external experts (red bean) contribute to
concept that is supported by the team of
internal experts (blue bean) who are
funded by organization to address the
value proposition for current customers.
The exchange of ideas and concepts along
with developed artifacts benefit all the
players. Of course sponsoring
organization has the “early mover” advantage. It also gains
enormous clout over the direction
of research and development. Additionally it builds loosely
integrated network of professionals
in the same domain which helps grow each other’s business.
Problem Statement

14. Technology especially the one developed in Silicon Valley has
undoubtedly changed the face of
many industry. Shipping industry for example uses technology
such as advanced optimization
algorithms to utilize every inch of space on ship and in
container. Ships efficiently plan routes,
ports and take advantage of sea currents and weather conditions.
Medical industry hasn’t seen such advancement towards
optimization yet, despite itself being
founded on one of the most talented community members. With
explosion of Social, Local,
Collaborative platforms I think time is ripe for medical industry
to take advantage of “Open
Innovation”
Some of the implications when you put these two things
together:
- Medical professionals do not adapt information technology
with same zeal as other
labor intensive bodies of our society such as shipping industry.
Main problems for this
behavior being “Privacy Issues” associated with medical care
and extremely
personalized nature of diagnostics. Secondary problems are lack

15. of interconnected
backbone due to rules and regulation as laid out by HIPAA
along with ambiguity of
description of cause and real reason behind the cause
- This makes it difficult for patient to discover alternatives for
their problems
- It is also difficult for medical facilities such as hospital,
doctors and nurses to discover
what their patients (a.k.a. customers) physical and emotional
reactions are to the
provided care.
“Open Innovation” is the best means to bridge the gap between
technology companies like ours and
medical professionals across the globe who are willing to
participate in these efforts.
Ref: Renewing growth from Industrial R&D Prof Henry
Chesbrough, UC Berkeley
XYZ Open Innovation MGMT 3405
6
Experiments

16. To solve this problem our team executed series of experiments
as below:
1. Formed internal team (blue beans in the picture above) of
“so-called” domain experts.
The reason I call them “so-called” is: they are all engineers and
none of them has any
medical experience. They have little exposure to medical
terminology since they are
exposed to IT work in medical environment. They are extremely
passionate to make the
difference in the world.
2. Armed this team with tool to put the thoughts across to the
world. This team rapidly
built an application to collaborate with willing experts.
(http://healthcaredataanalysis.org/)
3. We reached out expert within the industry to discover real
“experts” who are respected
in this field (red beans in the picture above) to supplement our
internal experts.
4. We produced the results & appreciated this open community
members to contribute
Outcome & Result

17. Even though this effort started and sustained purely by passion
to “Do good in return”
philosophy, to support it on an ongoing business we needed to
show outcome and result to our
management. Here is list of few outcomes:
- Real help to people in need to understand medical care and
optimize their spend by
relying on right resources (doctors, hospitals and medicines)
- Possibility to expand to other social media (currently this
supports only twitter)
- Collaborative network of over 100+ real industry experts
who can be contacted for additional business
opportunities
Here is list of few results:
- Actually ended up winning us business for one of the
largest chain of hospital in Arizona.
- Was sold as value added service to medical facility in bay
area.
- Repository of analytics tool (not the diagnostics by
contributors) which can be sold as
value added service.

18. Conclusion
I learned a great lesson from observing these passionate “Open-
Source Nerds” learn and
experiment with “Open Innovation” to bring value to
community. I also noticed the acumen of
managers to challenge and channel the spare energy available
within system for future benefit
of organization. Couple of unaddressed questions which sprung
to my mind: Whose intellectual
property it could be? How people contributing to it should be
compensated? Are they
acknowledged appropriately? I guess the “Open Innovation” is
driven by passion and tendency
of humans to “Do Good”, hence some of the questions could be
irrelevant. None the less, this is
powerful tool in the hands of managers for innovation.
http://healthcaredataanalysis.org/
Individual Experiment Topics
This list will grow over the quarter. Ultimately, you will choose
three for your first packet and three for your second packet.
They are due on the dates noted in the Course Syllabus.
Instructions for completing the assignment are also in
the Course Syllabus.
First Packet Options (pick 3)

19. Regional effects
Disruptive innovation
Incremental innovation
Fast Prototyping/Lean innovation techniques
Platforms as innovation outcomes (business model platforms)
Structural holes
Open innovation
Open source
Ambidexterity
Environmental Scanning
Features (core/tangential, concrete/abstract)
Second Packet Options (pick 3)
Innovation catalysts
Features (core/tangential, concrete/abstract) - If not used in first
packet
Open innovation - If not used in first packet (though note that
co, user, crowds, corporate venturing, and prizes are forms of
open innovation)
Co-Innovation
User innovation
Crowds in innovation
Unstructured time for innovation
Prizes
Corporate venturing
Crowd equity funding
Business Model
Open Source MGMT 3405
Definition – Fast Prototyping
Fast prototyping is the process of quickly mocking up the future
state of a system such as website or application, and validating
it with a broader team of users, stakeholders, developers and
designers. By doing it quickly and generates feedback
iteratively, it can improve the final design and reduce the need

20. for changes during development. A good rapid prototyping are
revising quickly based on feedback and using the appropriate
prototyping approach. Meanwhile, it helps teams experiment
with multiple approaches and ideas, also it ensures that
everyone shares a common understanding, and it reduces risk
and avoids missed requirements, leading to a better design
faster. [Sven Lennartz, Vitaly Friedman, Thomas Burkert
(2011). Professional Web Design, Vol. 2. Smashing Magzine.
pp 246. ISBN: 978-3-943075-09-0]
Problem Statement
Our organization specializes in Mobile Application (Apps)
Development for our clients. The types of apps that we develop
range from games, utilities to special-domains. We need to
cover most mainstream mobile device platforms, including iOS
(Apple), Android (Google and variants); also we need to cover
different form-factors, such as smartphones and tablets. To
bring our client’s mobile app from original concept to final
product, we work with them in iterations. Clients provide initial
ideas/requirements, and we generate initial design for them to
evaluate and they respond with adjustment to their earlier
ideas/requirements. This process needs to be repeated many
times until a final acceptable design emerges. Within this
process our designs must be working apps for our clients to test
their ideas with their users.
This situation created a dilemma for us. Native mobile app
development for a single platform is slow and expensive,
multiply this with multiple platforms and form-factors, the cost
for a multiple-iteration process is prohibitive. Yet more
iteration with clients would yield a much refined and superior
product.
So we need a “Fast Prototyping” approach to deal with this
issue, otherwise we wouldn’t be able to survive because the
development cost would render our business unsustainable. We

21. should find a way to follow our clients’ ideas to do fast
prototyping quickly, iteratively and cheaply.
We adopted an obscure technology called “PhoneGap” which
utilized Web technologies to create web apps that can run on
mobile devices (both iOS and Android).
Leap of Faith
Can we build & expand?
From the beginning “PhoneGap” is very buggy and only
supports limited feature in most mobile platforms. Can we build
web-based mobile apps to satisfy our clients’ requirements? Can
this method be expanded to all of our product categories? Game
apps would be a great challenge for us because web technology
is renowned in the lack of advanced game features.
Can we win?
We took a big leap of faith in adopting this approach. We
assumed our developers would pick up web technologies much
faster than platform technologies. We pray that weak device
features from the offerings of the likes of “PhoneGap” would
not hinder or cripple our fast prototype builds leading to our
clients’ dissatisfaction.
Experiments
We carried out utilizing web technologies to do fast prototyping
for our clients’ mobile apps in a controlled approach:
1. To mitigate the risk of Web Technologies and PhoneGap’s
weak feature support for mobile devices and performance
lagging, we only use PhoneGap for utility and special-domain
mobile app prototyping, not games.
2. Would an inferior but faster web prototype increase the
iteration speed or hinder it? To find out, we set up two teams
with similar expertise in general software development skills.
One group made use of Web Technologies and PhoneGap to do
fast prototyping and the other group used traditional approach

22. to work with clients, such as static graphical mockups as well as
(much slower) prototyping using platform technologies.
Results
1. The timid and meticulous approach in adopting web
technologies (with PhoneGap) to do fast prototyping, avoiding
some fields such as games, proves to be a very sound and solid
method in getting the job done. Eventually web technology
caught up in features and performance and PhoneGaps matured,
resulting in fast prototyping using web apps in all our product
categories, including games.
2. The crude versions of mobile web app prototypes gave clients
a great tool in rectifying the deficiencies of their initial ideas
and making it much faster in getting to the final version that
clients satisfy with. In the end, all of our developers adopted
using mobile web app fast prototyping in their jobs.
Conclusion
The solution we got has both technical and managerial
implications. It not only improved the way that we how to make
fast prototype, it also supplants the old method that how we
develop mobile apps. The realization is profound in that we
need to prepare enough to adapt to the fast changing market.
Bing Li Disruptive Innovation MGMT 3405
Fast Prototyping MGMT 3504
2
1
Definition – Disruptive Innovation

23. Disruptive Innovation, as indicated by Dan Yu and Chang Chieh
Hang, in their paper “A Reflective Review of Disruptive
Innovation Theory” – is a powerful means of broadening and
developing new markets and providing new functionality,
which, in turn, may disrupt existing market linkages.
Problem Statement
As the World’s Capital of Tech Startups, Silicon Valley is
obsessed with Disruptive Innovation. Certainly, Disruptive
Innovation comes in many forms, also with different
ramifications and results. I will analyze three examples of
Silicon Valley Disruptive Innovation, to cross over many
different aspects of this phenomenon, as to supplement Dan Yu
and Chang Chieh Hang’s paper:
1. Did Airbnb disrupt the hotel business? For high-end markets,
compare to luxury hotels, Airbnb can supply lavish personal
properties in wildly exotic locations. No matter how luxury
hotels are, there are always disadvantages on the variety of
exotic locations they can build upon. On the other hand –
compare to low-end hotels, Airbnb unlocks the temporary
dwelling and vacation home rental market.
2. Did Uber disrupt the Taxi business? Uber is a ride-sharing
service that’s upended the taxi business in the cities where it
has launched. Uber is building positive public sentiment with
great service and discounts, all propelled by word-of-mouth and
social media. Uber’s secret power comes from its convenient
smartphone app, providing lower cost and interesting
experiences with any driver. Uber disrupts the taxi business so
much that many cities are considering enacting new ordinace to
restrict Uber’s expansion, to the dismay of free-market
proponents.
3. Did Netflix disrupt the Network TV business? Netflix has the
potential but it needs more disruptive innovation to reach that
goal, although this day may never come to Netflix—Netflix’s
challenges: bidding war with Networks for good content; Net
Neutrality makes it hostage to cable company’s extortion.

24. Leap of Faith
Can it be built?
At first people were very skeptical toward Airbnb’s business
model/premise, but Airbnb tried to build the market from a
small group of hardcore - “share economy warriors”. And
despite some controversy, the growth of the network
suggests that it is disrupting the casual accommodation market
in a way the hotel industry probably never expected. Even
though bed-and-breakfast operations and corporate or vacation
rentals have existed for some time, the sheer scale of Airbnb
changes the game.
Uber’s Leap of Faith hinges on challenges from their biggest
competitor – the incumbent city taxi industry. Uber has only
existed for less than 10 years; the resistance is very real, and
there are many cities to fight with.
For Netflix –there is a big issue: will Net Neutrality rule-change
put Netflix in danger?
Can they win?
Airbnb created an entirely new market, which has more
advantages over the existed big and stable hotel market. They
would co-existed and supplement each other for the foreseeable
future.
Uber directly threatens the existing city taxi business and
people’s habits would eventually drive the traditional taxi
business out of the market place.
Netflix is thriving – the success of “House of Cards” and Kevin
Spacey proved that – yet with content owners withdrew their
titles from Netflix and ISPs charge Netflix premium to just
maintain a passible streaming experience for Netflix viewers
reveal some weakness.
Experiments
1. What if Airbnb opens up its own hotel chains?
It will be like MacDonald’s own direct operated restaurants vs.
their franchise restaurants – Airbnb will not adopt this strategy

25. until their member growth hit a plateau – and this strategy
might be preferable or even necessary in international markets
outside of North America and Europe.
2. Uber meets Google Self-driving Car, what’s next?
On one hand, Uber would face big challenges from the
incumbent taxi business although now more and more people
begin to adopt this prevalent and new transportation tool. On
the other hand, cities would take corresponding measures to
stop Uber expansion. But the future is unstoppable and software
is already eating the world (Marc Andreessen). The taxi
industry needs to get out of the way of change, but the smarter
thing to do would be to adopt Uber’s approach, or even improve
on it. That’s what competition is all about. [Dwight Silverman
(July 21, 2014). “How Uber is disrupting the taxi business: It’s
simply great”. Techblog. ]
3. What does it take for Netflix to overrun TV networks?
Nowadays, many people choose to watch their favorite shows on
iPad or smartphone instead of TV because it’s just convenient,
so they “cut cords” and ditch their cable service altogether.
Meanwhile, content rights owners would take action to curb or
limit Netflix’s library offerings, but Netflix hedged their
position with their own original shows. People’s viewing habits
are already changing and although the traditional TV networks
will still exist for a very long time, Netflix might well be the
ultimate winner of this fight.
Conclusion
The most important takeaway we can deduct from studying
these examples is that Disruptive Innovation cannot be planned,
but can be nurtured. It is a fragile thing and can perish anytime
or anywhere along the way, until the right ingredients help
make it strong enough to take over the market from old
incumbents.
Disruptive Innovation MGMT 3405

26. Definition – Open Source
· From “How Open Source Software Works: Free User to User
Assistance”, Karim R Lakhani defined “Open Source” as the
following: in production and development, open source as a
development model promotes a universal access via a free
license to a product's design or blueprint, and universal
redistribution of that design or blueprint, including subsequent
improvements to it by anyone. (Lakhani, K. R., & von Hippel,
E. (2003). How Open Source Software Works: Free User to User
Assistance. Research Policy, 32, 923–943)
Problem Statement
Our organization is developing a Plug-in HDMI device for
people to stream content from their mobile devices to their big
screen TVs. So our device is a direct competitor with similar
offerings from Google and Amazon. Since our organization is a
startup company, we obviously lack the financial strength and
technology might that Google and Amazon have. So what do we
do?
It turns out that people really like to tweak their hardware
devices. Linksys (now a division of Cisco Systems) open-
sourced their WRT54G series router to support third party
firmware and that product became very popular and even
influenced many competing products from its competitors. This
open-sourced third party firmware added a lot of useful and
advanced features usually only seen on much high-end and
expensive router models. People are crazy about this router. The
great success ensued for this product and Linksys would never
be able to achieve this feat without the open source strategy.
Google also did a similar thing with open-sourcing their
Android mobile operating system to manufacturers and
developers. Android is perhaps the most successful open source
initiative in history (another one is Linux – but Android has

27. already surpassed Linux in terms of installation base and
Android is also built on top of Linux). This strategy propelled
Android to be the No.1 mobile OS, meanwhile leaving Apple’s
iOS in a second place based on market share (iOS, however, is
still the most profitable mobile OS, the result of Apple’s
opposite all-closed walled-garden strategy)
Back to our own product – we would like to adopt a similar
open source strategy for our device. For our kind of product to
succeed, third party app support is crucial. Without a
comprehensive list of supporting apps, our device will never
stand a chance at market acceptance. Google has opened the
SDK (Software Development Kit) for their device so third party
app developers could support the Google device. We would
open our SDK as well. Certainly we know we don’t have the
same industry influence as Google and our app offerings will
never catch up to Google’s if we merely offer what Google had
already offered. So we need to implement a much more
compelling open source campaign.
And our strategy would be “Total War Open Source” – we
would stop at nothing – we would open our SDK and open-
source all of our software code, firmware code. Furthermore, we
would open-source our hardware – with “X-ray transparency” –
including hardware schematics and enclosure designs.
What would this open source strategy entail?
Leap of Faith
Can we win this way? Open source hardware (and the software
come with it) is still rare since hardware development would
incur hard non-marginal cost and it is a leap of faith to throw
all that in the open. On the other hand, the user/developer’s
enthusiasm generated by open source hardware is often genuine
and overwhelming. Most of the time, this watershed market
response is enough to carry an obscure hardware platform to the
mainstream. I think the risk can be mitigated by the market

28. outcome of open source.
Is it worth doing? Hardware development is much more risky
than software. Software can improve very cheaply but hardware
could not. Also there is a much shorter window for a hardware
product to woo the market; once that window is closed
(nowadays hardware becomes obsolete very fast) all the cost is
lost. With this kind of risk and the potential benefit from an
open source campaign, I would say it is well worth doing (the
open source campaign).
Experiments
The experiment is quite straightforward – to be implemented in
two phases:
1. A Kick-starter campaign to offer the first fully open-source
plug-in HDMI device, pricing the device almost half of that of
Google’s.
2. A follow-on developer summit in Silicon Valley to rally
developers into developing apps for our device.
Result
The outcome is a roaring success:
1. Our Kick-starter campaign becomes the No.1 in the hardware
category for 2014. Almost a half-million dollar commitment
from backers eager to get hands on our device.
2. Because of the successful Kick-starter campaign, once hard
to approach suitors lined up to offer supporting apps on our
device. Now most of the major apps supporting the Google
device would also support ours.
Conclusion
It is no doubt that mass consumer-facing product should adopt
open source.