MIT Sloan Management Review
Research Feature
Research Feature
Rather than seeking in-house solutions to problems,
companies are increasingly turning to contests to generate many diverse ideas.
Even the most successful companies have trouble developing
breakthroughs. R&D road maps, as helpful as they can be at accelerating
progress in known areas, are not particularly effective at spotting new
opportunities outside a company’s experience base. Resource allocation
mechanisms tend to be biased in favor of innovations that reinforce existing
business models. Executives obsess about tying R&D tightly to production
and grounding new ideas in reality. And marketing groups often focus on the
needs of current customers instead of identifying new market needs, discovering
new solutions or identifying new business models. As one executive told us, “We
ruthlessly weed out research that doesn’t fit the existing model — those
projects last only six months inside our labs. The immune system of the core
business is so strong.”
Traditional approaches to generating new ideas — most
notably large corporate R&D labs staffed with world-class talent — are
expensive and often produce disappointing results. In response, companies are
searching for better ways to identify and exploit novel solutions.
Increasingly, they are discovering that many of the very best ideas lie outside their
organizations, in an ecosystem of potential innovators who possess wide-ranging
skills and knowledge. To discover and attract these contributors, organizations
are launching competitions and offering prizes.
Throughout history, competition has spurred artists,
athletes, scientists and engineers to strive for new heights. As far back as
1714, the British government offered a prize for the accurate measurement of
longitude. In 1795, Napoleon offered a 12,000-franc prize to drive innovation
in food preservation, spurring a French brewer and confectioner named Nicholas
Appert to develop an effective canning process to avoid spoilage. Recently, a
variety of organizations have embraced competitions in their efforts to find
solutions to challenges as diverse as providing space travel for tourists and
predicting patterns of hospital admissions. (See “About the Research.”)
ABOUT THE RESEARCH
This article is based upon an integrated program of research
conducted over the past three years. First, we conducted an in-depth historical
archival analysis of the use of innovation prizes by companies and government
organizations in the United States and Europe. Next, we developed a theoretical
and normative framework for how prizes should be viewed in comparison with
other incentive-based mechanisms (for example, patents) for sourcing
innovations. Finally, we conducted a multi-year empirical study of the
Progressive Insurance Automotive X Prize, using in-depth interviews and
quantitative survey data to both describe and predict the dynamics observed.
This study involved capturing detailed data on organizational and technical
choices from more than 50 teams as they progressed through the competition. The
frameworks and findings that have emerged from this program of research have
been tested and refined through teaching activities in the classroom and in our
work advising organizations on competition design for universities (such as the
MIT $100K Entrepreneurship Competition), for government (such as the U.S.
Department of Energy National Clean Energy Business Plan Competition) and for
companies (for example, Cisco and Shell, major X Prize sponsors).
Innovation breakthroughs require companies to explore
fundamentally new ideas and opportunities outside the realm of past experiences
— in effect, “thinking outside the box.” This involves identifying many
opportunities before evaluating them. Competitions help to generate
breakthroughs by stimulating diversity in a number of areas: among the
individuals that compete, in the organizational forms that contestants adopt,
and in the solutions that those organizations develop. Rather than sourcing one
solution to a problem, competitions generate many of them. And while some of
the proposed solutions won’t outperform the status quo (or the efforts of a
highly focused internal team), it only takes one promising “outlier” to open up
a new direction. While traditional methods for managing innovation focus on
improving the mean, competitions maximizevariance. (See “The
Power of Diversity.”) Unlike contracting for R&D or writing grants, which
require organizations to select the best approaches in advance and invest in only
a small number of providers, competitions leverage the entire ecosystem of
potential innovators, with the sponsoring organization paying only for the
winning solution.
Consider what Netflix, the on-demand video and DVD rental
company, did when it wanted to improve its method of recommending movies to
customers. Instead of just investing large amounts of time and effort to revamp
its algorithm, Netflix set up a $1 million prize to encourage outside teams to
improve upon its own recommendation capability by 10%. To help teams develop
ideas, Netflix posted sample data online. When teams submitted solutions,
Netflix ran them against separate data sets to obtain the final speed and
accuracy score. Among the participants were graduate students from China,
researchers at Bell Labs and retired management consultants. Between October
2006 and July 2009, when the winning solution was submitted, the company
received more than 44,000 entries from more than 5,000 teams. During the first
33 weeks of the competition, more than two thirds of the submissions performed
worse than Netflix’s own algorithm. But to Netflix, that didn’t matter. The top
90 or so entries beat the benchmark by 5%, and the best outperformed the
benchmark by 7%. What’s more, the entry that eventually won the competition
beat the benchmark by more than 10%. Ultimately, Netflix received a
nonexclusive license to apply the ideas embodied in the winning entry.
Netflix leveraged competition to find new solutions to a
well-defined problem. Other companies are using similar methods to identify new
problems and customer needs that can be solved with existing technologies and
capabilities. However, competitions can have drawbacks, ranging from the potential
duplication of resources to questions about the ownership of the intellectual
property. Therefore it’s critical that companies have a clear understanding of
the trade-offs before they begin. Managers should understand why competitions
can be effective, where and when to consider using them and how best to
implement them.
Why Competitions Can Be Effective
Competitions generate diversity in three critical inputs to
the innovation process: motivations, participants and organizations. This
diversity, in turn, generates a wider variety and greater number of solutions
to any given problem.
Diverse Motivations
Economists have a hard time explaining why competitions can
be so effective. From an economic standpoint, participants often behave
irrationally, devoting too much time and effort to the challenge relative to
the expected monetary rewards from competing. In many challenges, competitors
in their aggregate (and sometimes individually) spend far more money than the
competition prize purse. For example, the 26 competitors in the Ansari X Prize,
which awarded $10 million to the first team to launch a three-person spacecraft
to an altitude of 100 kilometers twice in the span of two weeks, collectively
spent more than $100 million in their efforts to win the prize. While the
commercial opportunities available to entrants may have influenced their
spending, the same commercial opportunities existed before the
competition. And yet more than half of the entering teams didn’t exist prior to
the announcement. Why did the competition create so much interest? While our
work suggests competitors systematically overestimate their chances of winning,
this does not fully explain the over-allocation of effort in relation to
expected returns.
Understanding why competitions work requires recognizing a
more diverse range of incentives and the ways competitions provide such
incentives to spark outsized efforts. Nonfinancial motivations include the
thrill of competing, the love of a hobby or pastime, the passion for a
particular cause and the reputational effects from participating and performing
well. A respected prize has a valuable credentialing effect, legitimizing an
innovator’s pursuit of a problem, and a well-designed competition can help entrants
build skills and expertise through education and mentoring. For many
participants, these “softer” motivations outweigh the financial incentives.
The power of diverse motivations was evident in the 2010
Progressive Insurance Automotive X Prize (PIAXP), a $10 million challenge to
develop a vehicle with breakthrough efficiency (as measured by
“miles-per-gallon-equivalent” energy consumption). More than 100 teams
registered for the competition, and despite the long odds of winning, more than
40 teams incurred the expense of fielding vehicles. When we surveyed the
entrants about their motivations, “winning the prize” was only the fifth
highest ranked response; more important was their desire to “gain publicity,”
“enhance their reputation” or “address environmental concerns.”1
Similar results were found in a study of prizes awarded by
the Royal Agricultural Society of England (RASE) between 1839 and 1939 for
developments in farming methods and machinery.2While
larger purses attracted more entrants, the largest increase in participation
was associated with competitions for the RASE “gold medal” — a prestigious
award bestowed on only 13 occasions during the century. Furthermore, these gold
medal competitions spurred five times more patent activity than doubling the
prize purse. The intrinsic motivation of competing for a gold medal not only
increased the number of participants, it also led to significantly greater
novelty in the outcomes from their efforts, compared with a purely financial
incentive.
Diverse Participants
Different incentives attract different types of
participants, not all of whom might consider devoting their skills and
attention to another challenge. This dynamic is powerful because in many
situations it is impossible to predict who will have the best ideas, or what
combination of skills will best solve a problem. For example, in the Netflix
competition, one of the highest-performing entries didn’t come from graduate
students or computer scientists but from a 48-year-old retired management
consultant living in London named Gavin Potter; Potter was able to combine his
undergraduate knowledge of psychology with mathematics coaching by his
high-school-age daughter.3
Similar patterns have emerged in competitions run by
InnoCentive, a company based in Waltham, Massachusetts, whose online platform
brings together organizations seeking solutions to problems and potential
solvers from all over the world, awarding prizes for the best solutions.
Research shows that in many cases the winners of InnoCentive challenges come
from outside the field of expertise in which a solution is expected to reside —
underscoring the link between diverse participants and a greater range of
outcomes.4 Sometimes
the best solution already exists, but in a different context that happens to
share similar challenges. In other cases, a person or team will approach the
problem from an unforeseen perspective, opening up new possibilities not
previously considered. Ultimately, searches defined too narrowly within a
“traditional” field of expertise (for example, chemistry) can exclude valuable
insights that come from exploring different perspectives and viewpoints (for
example, biology or physics).
Diverse Organizations
Competitions also encourage different types of organizations
to work on a problem. Traditional R&D teams are designed to meet the
narrow, predefined goals of a company and are bound by the organization’s usual
approaches to problem solving. Attempts to break out of these organizational
limits typically fall short and often create their own problems in terms of
design and governance. Competitions, in contrast, bring into the game a wide
variety of organizations pursuing a range of different goals: from public
companies, to startups, to universities, to high schools, to groups of friends
who share a common passion. Rather than being constrained by a rigid set of
rules and norms, individuals or groups can design an organization that best
fits their view of the problem and the solutions they are trying to develop.
Competitions provide one mechanism to harness this organizational diversity.
The $30 million Google Lunar X Prize, which challenges teams
to land a rover on the surface of the moon and to broadcast high-definition
video back to the Earth, offers a case in point. Rather than only attracting
“the usual suspects” from the aerospace industry, the contest currently
includes dozens of competing teams that represent a wide spectrum of
contestants. For example, one team, Next Giant Leap, originated as a consortium
of smaller aerospace companies, media and marketing organizations, and students
and faculty from MIT. Team Frednet is made up of virtual collaborators,
mirroring open-source software organizations. And in an industry where export
controls and government funding limit the opportunity for international
participation, some entrants are leveraging broad global partnerships in
pursuit of the prize.
Critically, recent research has shown that these different
organizational forms tend to develop different types of solutions, even when
trying to solve the same problem.5 In
essence, there seems to be a strong link between the design of an organization and
the types of solutions it produces. This phenomenon, known as “mirroring,”
occurs because an organization’s governance structures, problem-solving
routines and communication patterns act to define the space in which it
searches for new solutions. Competitions provide a way to capitalize on
organizational diversity.
Diverse Solutions
The combination of a broader range of motivations, different
types of participants and differing organizational forms expands both the
number and diversity of the proposed solutions. It is this diversity that makes
competitions so appealing to companies seeking breakthroughs.
The entrants in the PIAXP competition ranged from
established companies like Tata Motors to car enthusiasts and high school
students from Philadelphia. The entrants took a variety of technical approaches
to developing a 100-mile-per-gallon vehicle capable of meeting strict range,
safety and emissions standards. Some teams started from scratch while others
tried to adapt existing platforms for efficiency. They came up with a range of
designs: three- and four-wheeled cars, two- and four-seaters, and in one case
an aerodynamic motorcycle equipped with “training wheels” for stability at slow
speeds. In addition to submissions based on electric, hybrid and internal
combustion engines, one submission proposed a vehicle powered by gas made from
wood and paper products. Teams found improvements in fuel economy through
innovative power trains, battery management techniques, improved aerodynamics
and lighter materials. Significantly, no single innovation stood out as a
“magic bullet” solution. Rather, contestants presented a mix of different
technologies and approaches demonstrating that improvements in system design
and integration were the key to superior performance.
When to Use a Competition
Once managers understand how innovation competitions work,
they need to evaluate the extent to which competition can support their
innovation objectives. Rather than pursuing “open innovation” competitions just
because others are, managers should assess where their organization needs to
improve and how a prize might further those objectives.
Discovering innovations can be seen as a search for the
high-value peaks in a company’s “innovation landscape.” Each point in the
landscape suggests a different possible design based on a combination of inputs
resulting in value. Although some innovation landscapes are predictable, others
are rugged and uncertain, requiring significant amounts of trial and error to
identify the peaks. Traditionally, companies have relied on internal R&D
teams to explore the landscape. However, when the terrain is less familiar,
many organizations are turning to competitions.
Consider the annual NYC BigApps competition, which New York
City Mayor Michael Bloomberg initiated in 2010. The goal was to encourage
software developers to use government data to create applications for solving
city problems and meeting local needs. Prior to announcing NYC BigApps, city
officials didn’t know which problems were worth solving or how best to tackle
them. So they decided to have a competition. In the first year, the $20,000
prize generated submissions from more than 80 individuals, businesses and
nonprofit organizations. The proposals addressed a variety of services, including
restaurant and taxi driver reviews, applications for finding nearby subway
stations and tools for evaluating local schools. Using a platform named
ChallengePost, software developers were able to showcase their solutions,
appeal to investors and link to social media networks. The contest enabled New
York City officials to identify a wide range of high-value applications and put
them quickly into the hands of potential users.
To map an organization’s innovation landscape, we have found
it helpful to use the classic familiarity matrix,6 which
examines the nature of the problems companies are trying to solve and the
proposed solutions — specifically whether they are familiar or new. (See
“Mapping the Innovation Landscape.”) Organizations tend be good at exploring
the landscapes of familiar problems and solutions (in other words, those near
the “home” quadrant). They need help when developing new solutions to existing
problems, new market needs that can be addressed with existing capabilities and
new business opportunities created by discovering new solutions to novel
problems. These are the areas where competitions have proven most helpful.
As an example of how an organization can generate new
solutions to a known problem, consider the Oil Cleanup X Challenge, a $1.4
million prize awarded in 2011 for the most effective product to recover oil
from the surface of the sea. The competition for the prize, which was sponsored
by philanthropist Wendy Schmidt, drew more than 350 entrants. The winning team,
Elastec/American Marine, of Carmi, Illinois, had been working in the oil
recovery industry and selling products in this area for many years. In fact, it
had already identified several ideas for significantly improving oil-spill
cleanup performance, but the ideas had remained on the drawing board until
Schmidt announced the prize. Spurred by the challenge, CEO Donnie Wilson
assigned ten engineers to flesh out the ideas during an intense 60-day effort.
Their breakthrough solution featured rapidly spinning plastic discs with
built-in grooves that create a channel for the oil to adhere to. Their product
could recover 4,670 gallons of oil per minute from the water’s surface — four
times the prior industry standard.
Sometimes, a company can have a wealth of capabilities and
possible solutions but have difficulty identifying which problems these could
be deployed against, or who the customers might be. Such was the situation at
IBM. Historically, the company had a wealth of R&D discoveries, many of
them never converted into commercial products. In 2006, management set out to
change that with the launch of an “Innovation Jam,” an online conference for 150,000
employees, partners, customers and researchers.7 The
organizers shared information on IBM’s emerging technologies during a 72-hour
online brainstorming session aimed at capturing ideas for commercialization.
Subsequently, a team of managers sifted through the most promising ideas, which
were subjected to a second 72-hour “jam” to define actionable investment areas
(such as smart healthcare payment systems and the “3-D Internet”). Within the
year, then-chairman and CEO Sam Palmisano announced $100 million of investments
in ten business areas identified through the Innovation Jam.
Organizations seeking to build brand new businesses around
innovative solutions to novel problems have slightly different needs. Here
competitions are often used as part of a broader innovation strategy that
combines seed capital, early-stage partnerships and other “open innovation”
approaches. Competitions, especially those following business-plan-style
formats, provide an excellent vehicle for identifying a large number of
early-stage opportunities, evaluating them and building communities in emerging
areas.
Cisco’s I-Prize competition, which invited global
contestants to help the company discover new billion-dollar businesses,
provides a powerful example. After launching the competition internally, Cisco
opened the I-Prize to external participants in 2007, offering a $250,000 prize
for ideas that would help the company leverage its industry positions to build
new businesses. Cisco received more than 1,000 submissions. Using a
crowdsourcing platform called Brightidea and a team of judges, the company
winnowed the entries down to 40 semifinalists, who spent six weeks refining their
business plans before presenting them to a panel of senior executives. The
winning team, based in Germany and Russia, developed a sensor-enabled smart
grid that improves energy efficiency by taking advantage of Cisco’s leadership
in internet protocol (IP) technology.
How to Run an Innovation Competition
Tapping into the power of competitions involves more than
publicizing a problem and waiting for solutions to flow in. To be effective,
competitions must be designed and managed well.8 We
have identified five critical design decisions — what we call the “Five Ps”: 1)
frame the problem; 2) establish the prize; 3) select the participants; 4)
define the process; and 5) build the platform. Considering these steps allows
companies to assess the costs and benefits of using prizes.
Step 1: Frame the problem
Depending on the company’s objective, competitions can be
configured in different ways. It’s often helpful to carve the problem into
“chunks” to reduce the amount of effort required to enter a competition and
attract a larger and more diverse set of participants. However, this approach
has a downside: Major breakthroughs may not conform to preconceived notions of
what the problem is, or how it can be solved. When dramatic performance leaps
are required, companies should encourage participants to think as broadly as
possible and consider a wide range of solutions.
To encourage development of a more fuel-efficient airplane,
for example, a sponsor could divide the problem into distinct areas, such as
improving the body aerodynamics and increasing the efficiency of the engines.
Recognize, though, that each time you narrow the focus you embed assumptions
about the nature of the problem and the expected solution. This may not be
desirable if developing radical innovation breakthroughs is the goal.
Step 2: Establish the prize
Competitions with bold and difficult objectives tend to
provide larger rewards to attract attention and lure a more diverse participant
base. But the opportunity to win a big pot of cash isn’t as important as you
might think. In September 2010, fewer than 130 teams registered for a chance to
win the $10 million PIAXP Prize for the design of super-efficient vehicles.
That same month, more than 500 teams entered a $10,000 contest sponsored by The
Economist to find better ways of capturing atmospheric carbon and
reducing global warming.
Reward structures should take into account the range of
motivations that inspire individuals and teams to compete. In some cases,
monetary rewards will be the prime driver. In others, nonfinancial benefits,
such as the opportunity to advertise one’s skills or achievements, may be more
important. To attract entrants looking for excitement and intellectual
challenge, contests can build and nurture a sense of community and support
social interactions among competitors. For contestants looking to build their
own businesses, competitions can provide opportunities to network with
potential investors, partners and customers. Sponsors can also leverage their
own strengths to increase the value of participation. Netflix, for example,
shared massive data sets with contest participants. By sharing something of
value, organizations can amplify the impact of a competition and attract more
participants.
Step 3: Select the participants
Some companies open competitions to everyone. Others
restrict entry to prequalified participants, such as the employees of a single
company, its customers and business partners. While the power of diversity
argues for “openness,” there are circumstances where being too open
can be problematic. For example, a competition may require sharing details
about the company’s intellectual property. A related issue is the time and
effort companies must devote to evaluating submissions.9 In
circumstances where assessing ideas is difficult or expensive, prequalifying
participants may make sense. Similarly, concerns about safety and privacy may
argue for a more controlled process.
Step 4: Define the process
One of the most important ways competitions create value is
by encouraging collaboration. Time and again, we saw individuals and teams
engage in unprompted and unexpected collaborations. Sometimes, these activities
occurred in the course of efforts to build teams that possessed the skills and
resources to compete. On other occasions, however, they occurred in
spite of the competitive dynamics. Competitors often shared a passion
for the challenges that they were collectively engaged in, giving them a common
purpose. Contest participants therefore seemed more willing to share
information, help others and solicit help than they would be in their normal
roles as employees competing in a marketplace.
To capitalize on this dynamic, companies should look for ways
to harness the power of competition and collaboration. For example, the X Prize
Foundation hosted face-to-face meetings for PIAXP entrants to promote team
networking and learning. Although there is always a risk that teams may
withhold their best ideas while attempting to discern their competitors’
secrets, the culture of a competition typically discourages such actions.
Step 5: Build the platform
Besides prize money, an effective competition requires a
range of other investments: in information technology and processes, staffing
and judging, and marketing. A fundamental decision for companies considering
establishing a prize is whether to build this infrastructure themselves or tap
into external assets and third-party expertise.
Over the past decade, several organizations have developed
platforms for running competitions. Companies such as InnoCentive, NineSigma in
Cleveland and Kaggle in San Francisco offer comprehensive platforms for hosting
competitions; other companies such as Idea Crossing in Cleveland and
ChallengePost in New York City specialize in software platforms. On a larger
scale, organizations such as the X Prize Foundation have developed a repertoire
of capabilities for designing, running and judging multiyear challenges.
So when does it make sense for an organization to build its
own competition infrastructure? With Netflix, the critical factor was the level
of complexity, both in terms of the data the company needed to provide to
participants and the systems required to test performance. Releasing the data
to a third party raised privacy concerns, quite apart from the difficulty of
having an outside group run the tests to select a winner. Similarly, Cisco and
other companies that encourage open-ended proposals often prefer using their
own infrastructure because it allows them to tailor the contest platform to
their specific needs. Ultimately, the more unusual one’s needs and the more diverse
the range of solutions, the stronger the argument is for creating your own
prize platform.
Assessing the Costs and Benefits
The advantages of using competitions to pursue innovation
must be set against the potential costs and risks. There are inherent
trade-offs between the power of diversity, on the one hand, and the costs of
generating, evaluating and capturing value from diversity, on the other. The
costs fall into several categories, each of which must be evaluated before
making the decision to run a competition:
Prize Infrastructure: Successful prizes provide
something attractive to potential participants — money is not enough. Companies
need to provide data or a development infrastructure to allow opportunities to
be identified or problems to be solved.
Prize Administration: As the CTO of Cisco’s
emerging technologies group has warned, “Anyone attempting to do innovation on
the cheap should look elsewhere.”10 As
enticing as it may be to get people to work “for free,” such thinking
underestimates the cost of the resources you will need to provide; the
administration and operations costs often exceed the prize purse.
Prize Adjudication: If it can be costly to test
whether a single solution is a good one, imagine the expense
of evaluating dozens or even hundreds of entries. Inviting entrants to develop
new algorithms makes for popular competitions; they can be evaluated
automatically. Car designs can be tested with a race. But evaluating new
designs, chemicals and drugs is more challenging — and more expensive.
Disclosure Risk: In describing the challenge you
seek to address, you are sharing important information with the world, which
might be helpful to competitors. Some prize platforms help you retain
anonymity, but not all of them do.
Control: Any venture in open-source or
crowdsourced innovation cedes a large measure of control to those doing the
innovative work. The traditional precepts of centralized project management and
milestone reviews don’t apply in the same way. While the upside can be
substantial, the risk factors are outside your control.
Competitions can play a role in the innovation portfolio of
any company. Some efforts will be successful and others will fail, which is
natural given the uncertainty inherent in competitions. That argues for
starting small, experimenting with a variety of different approaches to
evaluate which are most effective, and learning and adapting as you go. In order
to coordinate efforts and derive maximum impact from the various experiences,
companies should appoint a single senior executive as the point person — in
effect, a “chief competition officer.” That person should ensure that the
company rigorously evaluates proposed experiments in terms of the company’s
overall innovation objectives and competitive capabilities. Ultimately,
decisions such as how much infrastructure to build, the level of funding for
competitions (versus more traditional R&D projects) and how best to market
and promote competitions should be made by managers overseeing the entire
portfolio of activities under the innovation umbrella.
Particularly in lean times, innovation competitions
represent a high-leverage tool that taps into powerful motivations to draw out
disproportionate efforts from a wide variety of participants. In addition, they
can focus contributors on specific aspects of an organization’s innovation
challenges. By varying the structure of competitions, companies have the ability
to influence the types of innovators they hope to attract, the nature of the
solutions submitted and the amount of collaboration that ensues. Therefore,
competitions can be a powerful addition to a company’s R&D portfolio.
REFERENCES (10)
1. F. Murray, S. Stern, G. Campbell and A.
MacCormack, “Grand Innovation Prizes: A Theoretical, Normative and Empirical
Evaluation,” Research Policy 41, no. 10 (December 2012): 1779-1792.
2. L. Brunt, J. Lerner and T. Nicholas,
“Inducement Prizes and Innovation,” CEPR Discussion Paper No. DP6917, July
2008.
3. J. Ellenberg, “This Psychologist Might
Outsmart the Math Brains Competing for the Netflix Prize,” Wired Magazine,
February 25, 2008.
4. L.B. Jeppesen and K.R. Lakhani, “Marginality
and Problem-Solving Effectiveness in Broadcast Search,” Organization Science
21, no. 5 (September/October 2010): 1016-1033.
5. A. MacCormack, C. Baldwin and J. Rusnak,
“Exploring the Duality between Product and Organizational Architectures: A Test
of the ‘Mirroring’ Hypothesis,” Research Policy 41, no. 8 (October 2012):
1309-1324.
6. E.B. Roberts and C.A. Berry, “Entering New
Businesses: Selecting Strategies for Success,” Sloan Management Review 26, no.
3 (spring 1985): 3-17.
7. O.M. Bjelland and R.C. Wood, “An
Inside View of IBM’s ‘Innovation Jam’,” MIT Sloan Management Review 50, no.
1 (fall 2008): 32-40.
8. Murray, Stern, Campbell and MacCormack,
“Grand Innovation Prizes.”
9. G. Pisano and R. Verganti, “Which Kind of
Collaboration Is Right for You?” Harvard Business Review 86, no. 12 (December
2008): 78-86.
10. G. Jouret, “Inside Cisco’s Search for the
Next Big Idea,” Harvard Business Review 87, no. 9 (September 2009): 43-45.
No comments:
Post a Comment