In reading an article on MIT's Technology Review website today (Harvesting Business Ideas from Inside and Out), I was reminded of Internet beginnings. I understand the development of the Internet as we know it is not crystal clear (in fact, didn't Al Gore take credit once?) but I do believe it was not conceived as a form of communication in any proposed history. Rather, the intent was to "create a way to share resources by interconnecting networks to improve processing power." (Ian Peters History of the Internet by way of explanation.) I still fancy this original intent which brings me to the two companies below. One is identified as an open innovation provider and the other is self-described as employing crowdsourcing to deliver a service and/or product. The terms crowdsourcing and open innovation are used so interchangably these days I won't attempt to articulate a difference. So, semantics aside, both companies seem to do an excellent job of actually bringing the ideas and talents of participating individuals to market as viable, valuable services and products for themselves and their clients. Both use a managed process for submitting and sharing ideas. Both rely on the services and knowledge of others to deliver the end result. And both monetize the value of an idea. But what truly makes them successful at this point? Is it that they supply a limitless pool of individual ideas and knowledge - or is it that they are able to successfully manage, package, buy and sell those ideas?
1) InnoCentive - If you know anything about Preserving Cell Viability at Positive Temperatures, become a Solver now. Other challenges abound from Seekers big and small.
2) Victor & Spoils - Set up as an ad agency with the distinct difference of relying on an unlimited number of creatives to execute the work. Recent clients include Harley Davidson & Gap.