個案總覽

From Apple to Merck to Wikipedia, more and more organizations are turning to crowds for help in solving their most vexing innovation and research questions, but managers remain understandably cautious. It seems risky and even unnatural to push problems out to vast groups of strangers distributed around the world, particularly for companies built on a history of internal innovation. How can intellectual property be protected? How can a crowdsourced solution be integrated into corporate operations? What about the costs? These concerns are all reasonable, the authors write, but excluding crowdsourcing from the corporate innovation tool kit means losing an opportunity. After a decade of study, they have identified when crowds tend to outperform internal organizations (or not). They outline four ways to tap into crowd-powered problem solving--contests, collaborative communities, complementors, and labor markets--and offer a system for picking the best one in a given situation. Contests, for example, are suited to highly challenging technical, analytical, and scientific problems; design problems; and creative or aesthetic projects. They are akin to running a series of independent experiments that generate multiple solutions--and if those solutions cluster at some extreme, a company can gain insight into where a problem's "technical frontier" lies. (Internal R&D may generate far less information.)

This is an MIT Sloan Management Review article. Companies are aware of the potential benefits of "open innovation"-relying on outsiders both as a source of ideas and as a means to commercialize them -but they have struggled with precisely how to open up their product development to the external world. For starters, many executives have little idea how to motivate and manage outside innovation. Specifically, should external innovators be organized as a collaborative community or as a competitive market? Collaborative communities are perhaps best known through Linux and other open-source software efforts that are governed loosely by social norms and "soft" rules to encourage open access to information, transparency, joint development and the sharing of intellectual property. Competitive markets are strikingly different. Rather than collaborating, external innovators in a market will develop multiple competing varieties of complementary goods, components or services. Customers then choose from among the different offerings, and this often results in fierce competition -and little cooperation -among the innovators. Because the dynamics of communities and markets are so dramatically different, companies need to consider carefully which approach makes the best sense for their objectives. From their research, the authors have identified three critical issues that managers should take into account when making that decision: 1) the type of innovation that will be shifted to external innovators, 2) the motivations of those individuals, and 3) the nature of the platform business model. An in-depth analysis of those issues reveals that the choice between communities and markets is not as obvious -nor as clear-cut -as it might first appear.

This case series looks at three important inflection points in Palm's history that relate to decisions about its platform: when the company was debating whether to open its operating system (OS) for licensing to third-party hardware manufacturers; 2001, when the company was deciding whether to split into two separate companies; and, 2005, when the company was migrating from its own OS into Linux. (The last part, set in 2008, is an epilogue). By looking at Palm's decision concerning its platform over time, students are asked to consider how Palm's decisions affect innovation, competitiveness, value creation and value capture.

This case series looks at three important inflection points in Palm's history that relate to decisions about its platform: when the company was debating whether to open its operating system (OS) for licensing to third-party hardware manufacturers; 2001, when the company was deciding whether to split into two separate companies; and, 2005, when the company was migrating from its own OS into Linux. (The last part, set in 2008, is an epilogue). By looking at Palm's decision concerning its platform over time, students are asked to consider how Palm's decisions affect innovation, competitiveness, value creation and value capture.

This case series looks at three important inflection points in Palm's history that relate to decisions about its platform: when the company was debating whether to open its operating system (OS) for licensing to third-party hardware manufacturers; 2001, when the company was deciding whether to split into two separate companies; and, 2005, when the company was migrating from its own OS into Linux. (The last part, set in 2008, is an epilogue). By looking at Palm's decision concerning its platform over time, students are asked to consider how Palm's decisions affect innovation, competitiveness, value creation and value capture.

This case series looks at three important inflection points in Palm's history that relate to decisions about its platform: when the company was debating whether to open its operating system (OS) for licensing to third-party hardware manufacturers; 2001, when the company was deciding whether to split into two separate companies; and, 2005, when the company was migrating from its own OS into Linux. (The last part, set in 2008, is an epilogue). By looking at Palm's decision concerning its platform over time, students are asked to consider how Palm's decisions affect innovation, competitiveness, value creation and value capture.