Tip:
Highlight text to annotate it
X
>> Karim, you had a question?
>> Sure, I got one last.
Sorry. I also had a comment and a question.
On this motivation story,
actually it's very important that we get it clear.
Certainly, the open source analysis shows
that both extrinsic
and intrinsic motivations are at play.
Some people are in it for--
so when we talk about extrinsic motivations, we are thinking
about the output like what comes at the end
of the process and talk--
>> Extrinsics.
>> Extrinsics.
>> Carrots and sticks.
>> Not just carrot and sticks, but from a process point
of view, you rather enjoy the process and you're doing it
for the process or you're doing it for the outcome.
Outcomes can be different types of carrots and sticks.
It can be monetary.
It could be reputation.
It could be ego, the whole range of things like that.
And for intrinsic, it is
like I enjoy the problem solving process,
the dopamine release point.
And what we observed from a sort of a survey-based research is
that indeed, in open source itself that both extrinsic
and intrinsic are at play, that they matter a lot.
And certainly, in the prize systems,
we can discount extrinsic motivations.
I think the framework you wanna take is we have a clear sense
that different people are motivated by different things,
and there's a big self-selection effect going on.
In many of these settings, alright,
people voluntarily join the process, right.
Nobody--
>> Did you say survey research?
>> Yes.
>> We can talk this offline, but therein lies the problem.
My assumption is that for the most part, despite the fact
that we can seemingly and accurately reflect
on why we did what we did, that in reality, we're designed not
to know why we did what we did
because while we're busy thinking about it,
we're eaten by something else.
And so--
>> Maybe. I mean I think-- you know, we have a big discussion
about the whole field of psychology
and server methodology is up in the question.
I think the point I wanna make though is
that we wanna acknowledge the fact
that there are heterogeneous motivations.
People are driven by different things.
We know that ourselves, right?
Amongst ourselves, amongst our friends, different drivers,
and what makes these systems attractive is
that the systems do not typically have
to emphasize one driver versus the other.
People join for their own particular reasons
and the self-selection helps us find the right folks.
So in an experiment that I've run on the TopCoder platform,
we actually found that the extrinsic motivations,
the incentives, count as much as the intrinsic motivations.
>> In the short term, but of course,
the problem with extrinsics--
and I think NASA certainly knows this better than most--
is availability of money, and extrinsic include the boss
that always gave you a pat on the back.
Of course, the problem is what happens when the boss goes away
or the budgets dry up.
So does the innovation.
So the only durable and you're from Harvard, right?
Okay. So the stuff I'm talking about is from Teresa Amabile.
>> Of course, yeah.
>> So one of your colleagues and Teresa and I did a lot
of work together back in the mid '90s on this subject.
But I think that-- I think I'm reporting accurately on her data
that says over the long haul,
the extrinsics are most effective
as the icing, not the cake.
>> Maybe. But I think that we have
to account for self-selection.
So many of the studies done in psychology have been--
put people in a randomized setting
where they didn't have a choice to work on the activity.
And when we give people choice, right, and we have the boost
of the extrinsic, which is intrinsic,
extrinsic counts as much as intrinsic.
Anyway, we can talk offline about that because that's sort
of the newly formed emerging site.
The question I wanna ask you all is,
when should we not do open innovation?
When should we not go outside?
>> You know, that was a part of our thought process in terms
of evaluating the material that was going forward.
You know, could we understand at our like novice level of working
in open innovation maybe what wouldn't have worked well
or wasn't appropriate.
So we have some pretty clear dividing lines
with export control, what we--
you know, material that we cannot, by law, take out, right?
And we also know a material that it's hard to believe
and we could be wrong at this point than anyone
on the outside could really help us solve the problem.
You know, these are so specific to space flight.
You know maybe with the emergence
of commercial space flight and more people building rockets
and flying people, there's gonna be a different knowledge base
that we could tap into,
but we have a pretty concentrated source.
And Karim actually gave us a great presentation
and I think had a slide up there today
about the concentrated versus distributed.
And we have some areas where we have a high level of assurance
that we're really in that area, but we do have a small amount
of doubt and says, should we, could we take the chance
with some of these areas that we were so sure were ours
and put them out there, and see what we got?
You just ask part of this experiment.
And we haven't really done an analysis to go back
to all the challenges we were in to go and say, "Well,
originally, what did we think of this and what do we think
of it now" which would be an interesting part of evaluating
where we've gotten to, how right or wrong were we
with what we thought was really something we had to internalize.
We did think, however, we could use the information
that we got back to help us understand
that this is something we really do have to internalize.
The world at large is not interested in this
or it's not commercializable,
you know this is something we're gonna go work as a problem
and maybe we could spin off something.
You know, 'cause that was actually an interesting
approach, that Steve alluded to,
was using the challenge platforms
to essentially advertise a capability that you used
or have developed a certain capability to do X.
But you're unaware of all the various ways
that could be applied so you put the challenge up that says,
"I have this capability.
This is what I do with it.
Could you think of another way to use it?"
That was kind of like could you think of a different way
to get men to wanna shave because you have a certain type
of razor you're trying to sell.
And it's not so much about selling it but giving it back
to the community that says here is some essentially
intellectual property.
We could license out if someone could think
of a really interesting way to apply it
and make it a commercial entity.
But yeah, we really struggle with some of that,
what proprietary we have to do versus what could the world
at large contribute to it.
>> We're gonna take one more question back here
and then I encourage you all--
>> A little bit, again, to that question.
I was thinking--
>> Quickly, Eugene.
>> On terminology, but I think it's almost the wrong question
because I think the open innovation is actually the tool
to answer that question because from our experience
with the commercial companies,
and I think it should be translated into the agencies
and the government labs, is to do researching, to do discovery,
to do whatever process we have between those service providers
in the room and maybe some others, is to decide
if the solution could be found out there or you really need
to spend time internally to resolve it.
The only answer to that question is a process of going
for the open innovation process.
So I've kind of turned a little bit on the hat but, again,
we can discuss what each word means
and I know people have different--
>> And I wanna encourage people to talk over lunch
and I know there are a lot of other questions.
If I may take one more question and then we'll break for lunch
and you can network during lunch.
Yeah.
>> Yes. My question is for Lisa.
And Lisa, you said that a good challenge has
to be very specifically written.
So how do you write a good challenge that's specific enough
and yet, open enough so that you can encourage unique answers?
>> That's raised to me, okay.
So-- well, so there's--
an example is one of the challenges I have
out on our website is for a natural blue color.
And so if you can put specific, if you can bring it
out of the sort of the realm of the media expertise
and talk about, it has to be a compound that absorbs
in this spectrum of light and their very specific criteria
that the inventors submit or can compare their criteria to.
It has to be a compound that retains its molecular structure
after being heated to 200 degrees
for 20 minutes or something.
So you take it out of-- you don't say you have to be able
to cook it in a sauce.
You say, "Here's the temperature and this will survive
for this amount of time."
'Cause often when we start with our food challenges,
it's like I want a, you know, something that I can put
in this mix in that can survive baking.
But you have to abstract that up to sort
of the general scientific principles and then you have
to put those specific criteria in there
so people can easily judge whether they have something they
can meet the challenge.
>> Ten seconds on this analogy again, let me end with this.
So here's one of the greatest creative briefs I ever wrote
or if you would call it a challenge.
Artificial Christmas tree is the real Christmas tree as X is
to the candle, create X. Specific enough,
a kind of general idea and yet, broad enough
and encouraging enough to dig in and say, you know,
for the first time, 5 or 10 years ago,
sales of artificial trees were bigger than real trees
and that was like the Holy Grail,
how could we ever do that?
It encourages people to say,
"What generically is going on here?
How could this have happened?"
And one answer is fakes became real.
>> Please join me in thanking the panel.
>> Again, just one quick, again, comment.
Sorry, Ian to steal a little bit of your time.
One thing that already been mentioned is
that the process is not static.
You need to triangulate this great side at every point.
So in our, whatever, within 4 to 6 months duration
of the project is that we very often rewrite the statement
based on the feedback that we get from other client and based
on the feedback we get from the potential solution providers.
>> And very often, we wanna start
with several different definition of the same problem.
One is very broad and one is very, very narrow,
specifically technical.
And we never had one person responding to both of those
because they're so different
in that they address some different types
of potential solution providers.
>> Rewriting the statement that I would--
there are a lot of questions about that.
So let's end for lunch and you can ask him that,
and many others.
Thank you.
Oops. Last word from Jeff.
[ Applause ]
>> Sorry. Don't leave just yet.
A couple of housekeeping things, but before we do that,
I'd like to get Karim and Paula to come back up from yesterday.
And I think what I'll do is I'll just ask each of you to come by
and in the spirit of non-monetary awards that,
hopefully, once they're of value, we have montages for you
from the Space Flight Center and we'd like to give those to all
of our speakers and panelists some recognition and thanks
for everything they did for us yesterday
with our internal workshop and today.
And we have one for Jeff this afternoon,
but he has to speak first before he can get his montage.
So, just come by and let's recognize everybody
Karim Lakhani.
[ Applause ]
>> I don't have enough hands, and Paul Carlisle.
[ Laughter ]
[ Applause ]
>> And Pascal, we had you next as you're a speaker.
Thank you very much.
[ Applause ]
>> And Robynn Sturm.
[ Applause ]
>> Bev Godwin.
[ Applause ]
>> Eugene Buff.
[ Applause ]
>> Thanks Eugene.
>> Thanks.
>> Steve Domeck.
[ Applause ]
>> Thanks.
Jen Fogarty, you're a panelist.
[ Applause ]
>> It's in lieu of pay.
[ Laughter ]
[ Inaudible Remark ]
>> Craig Wynett.
[ Applause ]
[ Inaudible Remark ]
>> Thank you.
>> Thank you.
>> And Lisa Pannell.
[ Applause ]
>> Thanks very much.
>> Thank you.
>> I wanna just thank all the speakers and panelists.
This is as great as talking to somebody at the break
and we probably could have done this for two days,
but you never know how long to schedule these things.
So this is our first outing and I would certainly
like your feedback today because we wanna make this of ongoing,
continuous value and not cut off the dialogue.
So in the spirit of that, a couple of housekeeping things.
One is I'd like to give you time at lunch to find each other
so I'm proposing we slide the afternoon
to half an hour to the right.
We'll just slip the agenda down a half an hour.
I know some of you may need to leave later in the afternoon,
but that will give you about an hour and 15 minutes
for lunch to, you know, break off.
I know there are conversations that people wanna have.
And I would also just remind you that Jeff Hamaoui
and Lisa are talking this afternoon again on other models.
I think it'll be interesting so please come back
at 1:30 so we can start that.
The breakout sessions this afternoon,
for those [inaudible] you can stay, I hope.
We really like you to match up at tables.
There were so much energy around, you know, projects
and challenges that if the themes don't necessarily work
for you out there, we can open up more project 101
or challenge 101 questions so you can recombine
with the folks you heard speak today,
and then perhaps get into more specifics.
So what we've done to try to help us gauge that is
on your way out, there are three stacks of breakout sessions
that you have in your packet.
If you just make a little mark next
to the ones you're interested in, it'll give a sort
of a volume idea of how
to completely structure-- I'm sorry.
[ Inaudible Remark ]
>> Yes. I'm sorry.
Just mark one.
Don't mark three of interest.
Just mark the one of highest interest.
So we get an idea of what the volume would be
and we'll rearrange those.
And if you could do that before we go to lunch,
that will help us reset the afternoon.
Then we'll have a list of the plan breakout sessions for you
at the same table where you picked up your packets
so you can see where those tables are going to be,
and we'll make, again,
adjustments based on your feedback.
You have the list on your packet, again,
if you look through that also.
So we'll slide a half an hour to the right
so if you could be back at 1:30 and I would ask you
to keep thinking about who you wanna talk to,
what tables will be of most interest,
and keep those questions coming.
Thank you very much.