… As we move from the realm of “pure” software – that is, programs running on generalised computers producing essentially digital output (even if that is converted into analogue formats like sounds, images or printouts) – to that of “applied” software, there is a new element: the device itself.

For example, in the case of the pacemakers, having the software that drives the computational side of things is only part of the story: just as important is knowing what the software does in the real world, and that depends critically on the design of the hardware. Knowing that a particular sub-routine controls a particular aspect of the pacemaker tells us little unless we also know how the sub-routine’s output is implemented in the device.

What that means is that not only do we need the source code for the programs that run the devices, we also need details about the hardware – its design, its mechanical properties etc. That takes us into the area of open hardware, and here things start to get tricky …

The problem with hardware specifications is that they are only really useful to those with the facilities to implement them – that is, hardware manufacturers. In fact, those best placed to explore the hardware are the original designers and engineers with their prototyping machines. So what is needed is some way for others to get involved in that design process right at the start, not after everything has been decided. Of course, there are technical areas that few have the competence to comment upon – but some do: there are bound to be designers and engineers outside the company who are able to make useful comments. And even non-technical people can comment on other aspects – for example the appearance of devices, or assumptions about how they will be used.

Companies already gather that kind of information through market research, but there’s a key difference here. Instead of the company paying a specialist market research organisation to go out and ask people what they think about a possible new product, this would entail opening up the entire design process to let anyone comment. Where the former depends on finding enough people who may or may not have interesting things to say, the latter is self-selecting: those who have opinions are given a way of expressing them.

This is not a new idea. It was formally dubbed “open innovation” by Henry Chesbrough a decade ago, notably in his book of the same name. It’s based on the simple but powerful idea that there are always more people outside a company than inside it who know about any given subject – it’s never possible to hire all of the world’s experts. And so it makes sense to open up the development process to tap into that pool of expertise that would otherwise be missed …

Experiencias de “open data” e innovación abierta [Mesa redonda de Visualizar’11]

Materiales generados en la mesa redonda “Experiencias Open Data e innovación abierta” (más información aquí) celebrada en la EOI Escuela de Organización Industrial de Madrid el 5 de mayo, y que forma parte del programa Visualizar’11. Comprender las infraestructuras que organiza Medialab Prado con el apoyo de EOI.

En la mesa participaron Daniel Latorre desarrollador web del proyectoDNDzgz), Ruben Martín (responsable técnico en los proyectos de Open Data de la Fundación CTIC), y Alberto Ortiz de Zárate Tercero (responsable deOpen Data Euskadi, Departamento de Justicia y Administración Pública del Gobierno Vasco).

Vídeo captura del flujo de stream en Youtube: 

- Presentación de Rubén Martín en Slideshare: 

#opendata: Apertura y reutilización de datos públicos   

- Algunas fotos en Flickr

Identidades individuales y procesos colaborativos en la cultura digital (esquema)

Identidades individuales y procesos colaborativos en la cultura digital

Notas para la conferencia impartida en el curso Ser/Estar en Internet. Dinámicas del sujeto conectado. UAM, Madrid, 17 Diciembre 2009

[índice inicial para un posible libro. Idea de título: Internet como plataforma de innovación emergente]

1. ¿CUÁNDO CAMBIARON LAS REGLAS DE JUEGO?

2. ¿Por qué es relevante la web 2.0 / medios sociales?

3. - De consumidores a productores

4. - De los mass media a la larga cola

5. - Comunidades de prática

[que surgen en el inicio de Internet (software libre …) pero que han pasado de ser minoritarias a ser dominantes en la dinámica social de la red]

6. LO INDIVIDUAL Y LO COLECTIVO EN INTERNET

7. Construcción de la identidad individual en Internet

8. - múltiples redes y comunidades

9. - fragmentación de la presencia y actividad digital

10. La identidad individual como parte de un proceso de participación … ¿y colaborativo?

11. - de flujos unidireccionales a multidireccionales

12. - construcción de reputación. Meritocracia

13. - ¿canon, calidad?

14. Niveles de participación

15. - participación: opinión, díálogo, debate, ¿comunidad de aprendizaje?

16. - colaboración: construcción colectiva, comunidad de práctica y aprendizaje

17. - acción colectiva: comunidad de objetivos

18. - acción colectiva e ideología: decisiones basadas en proyectos, colaboración transversal

19. Géneros de participación

20. - Hanging out, Messing around

21. - Geeking out

22. DE LOS BLOGS A LAS REDES SOCIALES

23. La prehistoria de los medios sociales: Foros

- contenidos + interacciones

- diseño para el debate y lo efímero

24. Blogs y wikis

25. - construcción individual y colectiva de conocimiento explícito

- usos “indebidos: interacciones sociales (posts y comentarios sobre estado y presencia) 

26. Las redes sociales como pegamento social

27. - el valor de lo superfluo y de las conexiones débiles

28. - interacciones como: a) conocimiento tácito, b) conexiones entre individuos

[capacitación para puesta en marcha de proyectos colaborativos]

29. INTERNET COMO PLATAFORMA DE INNOVACIÓN EMERGENTE

30. Un ejemplo de innovación social: #, RT en twitter

31. Innovación disruptiva: de los buscadores a las redes sociales

32. - buscadores: ¿por qué Bing es irrelevante?

33. - “búsqueda” social. La convergencia de tendencias:

* push & pull

* la personalización (larga cola)

* construcción personalizada de redes de recomendación (reputación, meritocracia)

* conocimiento explícito + tácito

* comunidades de práctica y aprendizaje

34. Plataformas y emergencia

35. - Caso Twitter. Razones de su éxito en grandes movilizaciones o catástrofes: simplicidad, flexibilidad, motivación para acción colectiva

36. - diseñadores (políticos, tecnológicos): construcción de la plataforma, reglas de juego, interfaz

37. - internet como pro-común: ¿ciudad o centro comercial?

38. - internet como plataforma abierta y generativa: innovación emergente (por los usuarios)

39. ¿PELIGROS?

40. - Autonomía vs. control (político y corporativo)

41.- Consenso (reducción de diversidad, simplificación) vs. conflicto (diversidad, debate)

Why collaborate at all? One could conceivably make more money not sharing the profits — if there are any — so why collaborate if one doesn’t have to? If one can write alone, why reach out? …

Well, as I said earlier, one big reason is to restrict one’s own freedom in the writing process. There’s a joy and relief in being limited, restrained. For starters, to let someone else make half the decisions, or some big part of them, absolves one of the need to explore endless musical possibilities. The result is fewer agonizing decisions in the writing process, and sometimes, faster results.

Another reason to risk it is that others often have ideas outside and beyond what one would come up with oneself. To have one’s work responded to by another mind, or to have to stretch one’s own creative muscles to accommodate someone else’s muse, is a satisfying exercise. It gets us outside of our self-created boxes. When it works, the surprising result produces some kind of endorphin equivalent that is a kind of creative high. Collaborators sometimes rein in one’s more obnoxious tendencies too, which is yet another plus.

There are also some more market-oriented, pragmatic arguments for collaboration…

El próximo viernes 12 de marzo, a las 12.00 GMT, defenderé mi tesis doctoral “Ecosistema del Turismo Red: Modelo de la Abundancia e Innovación en las Islas Canarias”. Será en el salón de actos del Parque Científico Tecnológico de la Universidad de Las Palmas de Gran Canaria, pero gracias a la Fundación Universitaria de Las Palmas será trasmitido vía streaming por Internet (en este enlace, que estará activado unas horas antes: http://eduwilliam.ulpgc.es/).

El tribunal estará compuesto por reconocidos expertos en Economía Digital como Juan Freire, en Sistemas de Información como Jacques Bulchand, en nuevos modelos de aprendizaje y gestión del conocimiento como Enrique Rubio y Josep M Duart y en competitividad turística como Eduardo Parra.

El objetivo de la tesis ha sido explorar una nueva forma de hacer las cosas en el turismo que nos permita ser más competitivos en la Sociedad Red. Pero no sólo desde la teoría, sino especialmente desde la innovación y emprendeduría. La investigación se funde de lleno con las mismas, y genera los elementos conceptuales sobre los que se apoya y fundamenta el Tourism Revolution Ecosystem

… The idea behind the centers is to foster innovation by combining a richer understanding of customer needs with creative links among 3M technologies. “Being customer-driven doesn’t mean asking customers what they want and then giving it to them,” says Ranjay Gulati, a professor at the Harvard Business School. “It’s about building a deep awareness of how the customer uses your product.”

Professor Gulati recently completed a book, “(Re) (Organize) for Resilience,” about how to make customers the center of a business.

A typical customer day at a 3M center begins with a team from a visiting company presenting an overview of their business to a group of 3M marketing and technology experts who pepper them with open-ended questions. The goal is to understand “what our customers are trying to accomplish, not what they say they need,” says John Horn, vice president for research and development at 3M’s industrial and transportation business.

Next is a visit to the “World of Innovation” showroom. The company has more than 40 of what it calls technology platforms — core technologies in areas like optical films, reflective materials, abrasives and adhesives — that can potentially be combined and applied to meet a range of needs in different markets. By exposing customers to these platforms, 3M hopes to prompt the type of novel connections — like using dental technology to improve car parts — that drive innovative solutions. “We never show completed products,” Dr. Horn says. “Doing that would constrain people’s thinking.”

Does it work? Dr. Horn says that “the innovation center experience isn’t just about making everyone feel good.” It has helped 3M to establish productive, long-term customer relationships.

For instance, 3M and the Visteon Corporation, an automotive supplier that is one of its customers, have worked together in the development of a next-generation concept vehiclethat incorporates 3M technologies not originally developed with automotive applications in mind. Visteon’s visit to the innovation center, combined with follow-up collaboration, led to the idea of using 3-D technology from 3M for navigation displays, Thinsulate materials to reduce noise and optical films to hide functional elements of the dashboard unless the driver wants them displayed.

Harvard Business School Finance Working Paper No. 10-038

Abstract:

In this paper we assess the economic viability of innovation by producers relative to two increasingly important alternative models: innovations by single user individuals or firms, and open collaborative innovation projects. We analyze the design costs and architectures and communication costs associated with each model. We conclude that innovation by individual users and also open collaborative innovation increasingly compete with - and may displace – producer innovation in many parts of the economy. We argue that a transition from producer innovation to open single user and open collaborative innovation is desirable in terms of social welfare, and so worthy of support by policymakers.

En el blog de Creative Commons:

Their first policy recommendation should come as no surprise:

The roots of this apparent bias in favor of closed, producer-centered innovation are certainly understandable – the ascendent models of innovation we have discussed in this paper were less prevalent before the radical decline in design and communication costs brought about by computers and the Internet. But once the welfare-enhancing benefits of open single user innovation and open collaborative innovation are understood, policymakers can – and we think should – take steps to offset any existing biases. Examples of useful steps are easy to find.

First, as was mentioned earlier, intellectual property rights grants can be used as the basis for licenses that help keep innovation open as well as keep it closed (O’Mahony 2003). Policymakers can add support of “open licensing” infrastructures such as the Creative Commons license for writings, and the General Public License for open source software code, to the tasks of existing intellectual property offices. More generally, they should seek out and eliminate points of conflict between present intellectual property policies designed to support closed innovation, but that at the same time inadvertently interfere with open innovation.

Designers have traditionally focused on enhancing the look and functionality of products.  Recently, they have begun using design tools to tackle more complex problems, such as finding ways to provide low-cost healthcare throughout the world.  Businesses were first to embrace this new approach—called design thinking—now nonprofits are beginning to adopt it too.

Los factores económicos, sociales y tecnológicos actuales están promoviendo el cambio de paradigma en los sistemas de innovación:

- Globalización … Pérdida de competitividad … Democratización de las tecnologías … Usuarios más exigentes

Diversos investigadores mantienen diferentes perspectivas sobre qué es exactamente la innovación abierta y qué áreas funcionales de la empresa abarca. Desde el grupo de investigación OBEA de Mondragon UnibertsitateaMIK hemos conseguido unificar todas esas diferentes perspectivas en cuatro escenarios.

- intraorganizacional … interorganizacional … de usuario … colectiva

Abstract: Extensive research has been done to analyze the phenomenon of open source software development from various perspectives. By contrast little is known about open source development of tangible objects, so–called open design, so far. Until recently, limitations to the availability of successful empirical examples of this ‘new innovation model’ outside software may have been a key reason for this gap.

This paper contributes to the literature on the open source mode of product development by providing a quantitative study (N = 85) of open design projects. Our goal is to explore the landscape of open source development in the world of atoms, to analyze project characteristics, structures, and success, and to investigate similarities and dissimilarities to open source software development.