Open innovation is
heralded as a way to advance technology and product innovation quickly and
cheaply. It is modeled on the open source software movement, which is based on
computer programmers donating their time to build software components, check
their own work, check others’ work, and correct mistakes. Among the famous
software suites made through open source, Linux is a computer operating system
that is used in everything from cellular phones to web servers, and is often
involved when you are retrieving and reading blog posts like this one. Open
innovation extends this model to innovations outside computer programming by
organizations posting problems that anyone interested can help solve.
The idea is to use
volunteer efforts to get innovations for free (almost a Dire Straits lyric),
which sounds like a good deal. Unfortunately, this has proven difficult for
many organizations, and research in Administrative Science Quarterly by Hila Lifshitz-Assaf has found out why. Her careful study looks at an open innovation
initiative in a very innovative high-tech organization: NASA. In 2009, NASA tried
an open innovation experiment that led to some speedy, inexpensive, and
impressive solutions. But its relationship with open innovation since then has
been inconsistent, with some NASA professionals using it to great success and
some not. Why the difference?
In a word, the difference
is identity. Innovations are typically done by highly educated people who are
trained to follow careful processes specific to their organization and to their
scientific and technological specialization. These people have a professional
identity built around their unique skills as problem solvers for the
organization. For people with such an identity, what does it feel like to have
amateurs solve problems instead of them? Open innovation draws much of its
strength from individuals who may lack formal education, don’t follow the
predefined process, and aren’t even employees of the organization. Naturally
there is an inherent conflict between the insiders and the open innovation use
of outsiders, and some insiders are tempted to seal the organization off from
the outside sources of innovations.
Why did some parts of
NASA embrace open innovation? Again the answer is identity. Those who could
redefine their professional identity to be a solution seeker, not a problem
solver, became adept users of open innovation. For a solution seeker, the
existence of a solution is what matters – not who made it, and not how it was
made. It is a completely different way of thinking of oneself and of solving
problems.
The division between
problem solvers and solution seekers resulted in NASA professionals adopting various
approaches to the open innovation initiatives advocated by their leadership.
Problem solvers maintained boundaries, either explicitly or through the pretense
of openness but actual closure. That way they could maintain their focus on
their individual efforts and internal innovations. Solution seekers looked for
outside solutions, sometimes simply embracing externally developed solutions,
and sometimes adapting external solutions so that the final solution became a
mixture of outside and inside effort. Problem solvers may hold tight to their
identity, but open innovation is sure to continue gaining ground. “Get your
innovations for nothing, get your praise for free” is an appealing tune.
