blog de notas de juan freire

… 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 …

Linus Dahlander, David M. Gann (2010). Research Policy 39(6) p. 699-709. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.respol.2010.01.013

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 Unibertsitatea y MIK 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.