A process view of open innovation paper

A Process View of Open Innovation Stephen R. Diasio, Tuba Bakici a PhD candidate of ESADE Business School, 2007-2011, stephen.diasio@esade.edu b PhD candidate of ESADE Business School, 2008-2012, tuba.bakici@esade.edu

Abstract: New developments in technology provide researchers opportunities to contribute to the open innovation literature. Previous literature about open innovation has focused on crowdsourcing platforms (Jeppesen & Lakhani, 2010) and development of constructs (Hughes & Wareham, 2009). However, investigation into innovation jams have been limited or scientifically supported within the innovation literature. Innovation Jams are one type of information and communication technologies that organizations are using to engage the collective knowledge of their network. Since open innovation platforms are still in their formative stages, few studies exist that analyze how innovation jams have evolved over time. In addition, this study has been conducted using longitudinal and retrospective analysis (Dittrich & Duysters, 2007; Dahlander & Wallin, 2006).

This paper contributes to open innovation literature through the analysis of IBM’s innovation jams using a longitudinal framework, participant observation, and retrospective data that suggests a process view of open innovation (Pettigrew et al., 2003; Van de Ven, & Poole, 1995). Moreover, this study presents an evolutionary perspective on IBM’s innovation jams from 2001 to 2009. Our longitudinal account focuses on the evolution of innovation jams, the role and interests of actants throughout the evolution of jams, the knowledge innovation, and goals. Preliminary results suggest technological and

methodological changes occurred at different phases of IBM’s use of Innovation Jams.

This includes the need for a more robust platform in managing a large audience, an aggregation mechanisms in building collective knowledge, and commitment from management through a mind shift to open and collaborative work. The paper concludes with suggestions for future research in demarcating open innovation platforms in exploring the advantages and role of each platform type.

Introduction: Open innovation implies a paradigm where organizations open up their innovation processes for the inflow and outflow of knowledge and information (Chesbrough, 2006).

This requires the removal of organizational boundaries in order to share and exchange knowledge and information located outside the organization. As an organization allows for greater exchange of knowledge and information, increased cost efficiencies to access knowledge outside the organization are able to be reached which help provide a competitive advantage in its innovation process (Chesbrough, 2004; Gassmann, 2006).

Prior literature has examined open innovation under various dimensions as well as a range of data analysis methods. Focal points within open innovation literature has been on certain phenomena, such as: open business models, open source, performance and challenges of open innovation, implementation of open innovation, and finally open innovation networks.

To proceed with an open innovation model and in leveraging its full potential, organizations require access to a broader audience or full spectrum of knowledge within the organizational network (Chesbourgh, 2003).

This includes the need for more

complex interactional and collaborative systems to aid in this transitional process (Christensen & Maskell 2003). Thus technology supporting open innovation and its networks such as marketplaces, crowd sourcing, venture capital, idea portals an innovation jams provide ample tools to engage its internal workforce and external stakeholders in the innovation process. Using these technologies, organizations will support open and collaborative work (Sawhney et al, 2005) and leverage open innovation to its potential.

The paper is organized as follows. First we review the literature related to open and collaborative platforms. Second we introduce the process view of change by Van de Ven and Poole (1995), followed by a description of the methodologies and data collection being employed.

Next, we discuss IBM’s innovation jams and then provided a

processional view of their use over time. Then we discuss brief limitations of the study.

Finally, the paper concludes with suggestions for future research in demarcating open and collaborative innovation platforms in exploring the advantages and role of each platform type.

Literature Review on Open and Collaborative Platforms: Previous literature about open innovation has focused on crowdsourcing platforms (Jeppesen & Lakhani, 2010) and constructs development (Hughes & Wareham, 2009).

To create an environment with the flows of knowledge and information, crowd sourcing is a network where the activity is initiated by a client and the work may be undertaken on an individual or a group level (Brabham, 2008).

The study of A.T. Kearney (2008) identified three types of open innovation networks; transaction based, relationship based and community based. The transaction based open innovation networks involves transactions between a partner who seeks a technological solution and another partner that can provide a solution. The relationship based open innovation networks are used to build strategic relationships with partners.

The

community based open innovation networks assemble innovators and creating communities to collaborate. Here, gathering innovators to collaborate for innovation can be through using innovation intermediaries to provide solutions; creating or using communities and events to capture ideas; creating networks allowing for cooperation with their suppliers; building strategic relationships with partners; and collaborations with suppliers.

Open and collaborative platforms are one tool organizations are using to tap into an innovation network. Historically, these platforms have been developed as a separate independent technology. However the ubiquity of the internet has helped create new forms of open and collaborative platforms. Among these forms are innovation jams or “jams� for short are one type of information and communication technology that organizations are using in order to engage the collective knowledge of their network.

Private sector such as Dell, Microsoft, Starbucks and IBM used innovationjams. The main initiative of this application is that jams are a cost-effective method for product innovation. (Howe, 2009) Since open innovation platforms are still in their formative stages, few studies exist that analyze how innovation jams have evolved over time. In addition, few studies have been conducted on open innovation using longitudinal and retrospective data analysis (Dittrich

& Duysters, 2007; Dahlander & Wallin, 2006).

This paper contributes to open

innovation literature through the analysis of IBM’s Innovation Jams while using a longitudinal framework and retrospective data that suggests a process view of open innovation (Pettigrew et al, 2003). This analysis shows how Innovation Jams have evolved overtime from concept, to management tool, and finally to a consulting service that IBM provides to its clients.

Eight dimensional attributes used to analyze the

different phases. These key dimensions will highlight the process changes that occurred in each phase from the iterative use and implementation of Innovation Jams.

Process View of Change: The literature on process of change in organizations involves more than twenty theories.

Though the study of Van de Ven and Poole (1995) grouped these theories into four schools of thought; life cycle, dialectics, teleology and evolution. Life cycle model of development portrays a process of change as progressing through a continuing sequence of stages such as start up, grow, harvest and terminate. Teleological one is a cycle of goal formulation, implementation, evolution, and modification of goals. The dialectical model is a sequence of stages between entities espousing opposing thesis and antithesis that collide to produce a synthesis, which in time becomes the thesis for the next cycle. An evolutionary model is a repetitive sequence of variation, selection, and retention events among entities.

Each theory is viewed as a different sequence of change events that are governed by different motors that operate on different unit of analysis and represents a different mode of change. Thus Van de Ven and Poole (1995) used two dimensions, unit of change and

mode of change, to classify these four theories according to their process and action (Figure 1). This is one of the most extensive analysis and typology in process literature.

The authors believe the change process of IBM’s innovation jams is reflective of Van de Ven and Pool (1995) category of evolution and will illustrate this assertion through out this study.

Figure 1: Process theories of Organizational Development and Change

Innovation Jam at IBM Like many companies, IBM lacked clear mechanisms to address urgent issues and to internally transform innovation in an already complex portfolio of products and services.

Instead of defining new goals and procedures from the traditional top-down approach, IBM turned to its global workforce for answers. What developed overtime in phases was a transformation in IBM’s organizational culture to be the “innovators innovator”. For IBM this means being seen as a company that innovative company’s turn to innovate.

IBM is striving to deal with constant change in today’s competitive environment; where IBM has chosen to meet this challenge head on by building a culture of innovation throughout the organization using innovation jams as a catalyst. “It [Innovation Jams] really helped us.

Jam served as a changing factor in IBMs culture and how we

collaborate across our businesses (Interview with Liam Cleaver, 2009).”

The

commitment and confidence in innovation jams stretch throughout the organization as CEO Sam P. state "… the Jam had changed the company quicker and more dramatically than any other approach, and the question now is- by how much?” Using Innovation Jams are one mechanism that is helping IBM to meet their goal to become the “innovator’s innovator.”

Data Collection and Analysis: Innovation jams can have gained some attention as a result of there use in a few high profile companies, however their existence is fairly recent. In part of their novelty and lack of a precise definition, innovation jams can be found in a diverse set of practices, organizations, and projects with varying levels of maturity. As a result, we have focused our investigation on IBM because of their history in using and commitment to innovation jams in the future.

This investigation is one part of a larger project on open and

collaborative innovation throughout Europe supported by the Spanish Ministry. This

longitudinal study uses multiple retrospective data sources on IBM’s innovation jams from 2001 to 2009. Over 60 hours in participant observation in IBM’s Smartwork Jam 2009 was recorded.

A semi-structured in-depth interview was carried out with the

Program Director and founder of the Jam Program Office and Collaborative Innovation, who has overseen the management and implementation of over six innovation jams. A transcription was made and confirmed for authenticity by the interviewee, then contrasted with secondary data such as project documentation, the Smartwork Jam website, and public and private presentation on the Innovation Jams to enhance data credibility (Patton, 1990, Yin, 2003). The authors feel these methods are appropriate in researching new topics and emerging technologies (Shane, 2000; Stake, 2000; McDermott and O-Connor, 2002) that help in reconstructing past contexts, processes, and decisions in order to discover patterns and in find underlying mechanisms over time (Pettigrew, 1990; 2003b).

Analysis has been organized in three parts- concept, tool, and service. Arranged to emphasize the evolution and process changes at each phase, specific innovation jams will be discussed that best represent innovation jams as a concept, tool, and service (Table 1).

Within each phase, changes highlighting innovation jams will be presented in chronological order. However, because of innovation jams dynamic nature, aspects of innovation jam may over lap through the changing phases.

The concept phase represents the inception of innovation jams as platform and early developments as a communication technology. The tool phase represents innovation jams as tool to be used internally at IBM making up one part of a larger management strategy. Innovation jams the service phase represent a platform for consulting for IBM’s clients, help IBM to be an “innovator’s innovator.”

Concept Phase: In the concept phase early forms of innovation jams at IBM commenced in 2001 as a result of a company wide self-reflection initiative to drive innovation internally. Initially devised to be a new medium to bring people and ideas together it was considered to be a first in large scale communication called a mass parallel conference (MPC) for World Jam 2001. Implemented through IBM’s existing intranet, its goal was to capture and explore the internal knowledge and information exchanged through this new method of organizing. Nancy Lewis, Director of Global Management Development, stressed “this is not about the technology.

This is about providing a new medium to facilitate

innovation, cross-functional dialogues across the population within IBM.” Though the MPC was seen as an open space where participants can move from topic to topic and cross-pollinate ideas, it was seen as a way which individuals of all ranks can talk to each other, thus democratizing the organizational structure. IBM realized early on the impact of this new collaborative work and its ability to build a sense of community with IBM. This early form of innovation jams was a first in providing a platform for communication across physical boundaries and hierarchy, while bridging time and space across (Redefining Manager Interaction at IBM Report, 2002) the company and world.

Since all support was internal, participants in IBM’s MPC included IBM employees and a technical cast maintaining a database for knowledge and information retention.

Consequently, all intellectual property concerns were managed under standard business policies and maintained internally.

Moreover, the concept phase of innovation jams played one component in a larger collaboration strategy for IBM and should be still considered a top-down approach because of the pre-filtering of information determining what information and knowledge was made available before and after an event. With more experience using innovation jams and in the advancement in technology, concerns about pre-filtering knowledge and information would later subside.

World Jam 2001 was not perfect, but would provide a base for the success of future innovation jams.

Limitations included software not being fully implemented for

participants, language support was only in English, and limited use of synchronous breakout technology and extra tools. For innovation jams to move into the next process phase; several critical technological and phase changes where required. First, the existing technology was seen as an inhibitor to innovation jams use and a new independent platform was needed for scaling and better computer-mediated support. Scaling allowed for future inclusion of external participants and subject matter experts who did not have access to IBM’s existing intranet. Greater attention to user friendliness was considered to encourage even greater participation. Lastly, to manage a large scale conversation with more effectiveness, data analysis tools were needed in order to sift through the large number of ideas and information that participants contributed.

Tool Phase: Innovation Jam 2006 was a mile stone in IBM’s innovation process. It marked a corner turned in the evolution of innovation jams from concept to a management tool within IBM. Now considered a key component in a larger management strategy for innovation,

innovation jams were a new genre of corporate interaction that, by its very nature can only take place in computer mediated, virtual environment.

This new independent

computer mediated environment provided the needed structure for large scale discussion and in aligning employees around a common purpose. It also marked the first in allowing external participant with innovation jams, however was limited to family members of IBM employees. This allowed for even a broader range of contributors in generating and evaluating ideas and development in the early stages of an egalitarian approach to innovation within IBM. Internal subject matter experts were used as facilitators and moderators to support the flow of discussions and to contribute constructively to issues raised. This is done by steering the dialogue, encouraging participation and deeper thinking, offering insight into the topic, or identifying topics that have the potential for immediate implementation.

The tool phase also ushered in a more pragmatic outlook on open and collaborative work where innovation jams were seen as event and a catalyst for innovation. Even the process of “jamming” or from start to finish changed because of innovation jams role as a tool.

“A Jam at its heart is a management tool, a strategic communication tool, so hence my team who originally were in corporate communications now is part of the CIO staff because IBM has grouped them together in a unit called Enterprise Transformation so the Jam can transform IBM” (Interview Liam Cleaver, 2009).

Instead of a straight time period of 48-90 hours of participating, jamming was separated into parts. Steps included creating two stages of the jamming process. The first stage was used for idea generation and discussing promising “big ideas.” After several weeks the second stage was launched where executive and management reviewed the plethora

of ideas by opening the innovation process further by creating a focused session for idea refinement. This gave management areas to focus on, saving management time and in preparing the next steps in transforming 10 ideas and the $100 million financial backing into real outcomes.

Because of the raised complexity of innovation jams, large scale preparation was needed before and after the innovation jam event. Unlike previous IBM innovation jams where preparation was not necessary, Innovation Jam 2006 and future jams required familiarization with emerging technologies which were described in on line materials made available to all internal and external participants prior to the event (Herlander et al., 2007). Preparation was need for moderators and facilitators, who met before to review the innovation jam objectives and for training on the new independent platform.

Since Innovation Jam 2006 expanded participants to include family members of IBM employees, IBM added pre innovation jam rules, making agreement to them required to participate and in protecting intellectual property at IBM. It is also here that IBM would adopt important technological changes such as robust real-time data analysis and metric tools needed to move innovation jams from an internal management tool phase to a consulting service phase. Next, a critical phase change included IBM seeing innovation jams as a transformational intervention rather then a tool to be applied periodically.

From this, even greater pre and post preparation was adopted, allowing for webcasts, interests groups, and greater opportunities in connecting IBM employees. Lastly, IBM strategically expanded innovation jams offering to two separate platforms for large and focused groups. This included the development of scaled down platform called a Mini Jam. “Our whole user experience, whether it’s the Innovation Jam or the Mini is about

getting people to stay, hang out a little longer, hear what’s there, and adds to the discussion. The Mini Jam helps to parse the crowd so you don’t have 30,000 people coming into a room on a topic area at one time (Interview with Liam Cleaver, 2009).”

Service Phase: Innovation jams in the service phase play an important role for IBM to reach its goal to be an “innovator’s innovator.” Today, innovation jams are seen as a platform for innovation used by companies to harness the collective knowledge (Surowiecki, 2004, Howe, 2008) within the organizational network. By harnessing the collective smarts and intrinsic passion of its workforce IBM has used innovation jams as an enabler for influencing complex systems for accelerated decision making and action (Bjelland & Wood, 2008).

Greater participation moved from IBM employees and family members to an even broader spectrum of stakeholders.

This included trained facilitators and moderators,

academics, partners, suppliers, customers, and other valued stakeholders. This change drew on the collective wisdom of these valued stakeholders in the innovation jam process to gain new perspectives on problems and challenges IBM faced.

Though broader participation was supported in the service phase of innovation jams, having a defined audiences was able to be targeted to build tighter relationships with internal and extranets of employees in solving specific business issues (Jam for Smarter Planet Report, 2009).

From this, a bottom-up approach was further established

complemented by external knowledge outside the traditional organizational structure.

Within the service phase, changes in technology allowed for a shift from stages and steps into delivering real-time analysis. This included a more focused attention to the audience and directing specific topics and questions to those who may provide answers.

Technology changed as well from collecting and storing to transforming and understanding in real-time. Sophisticated real-time text analysis and data mining tools were implemented allowing for dynamic themes to be followed as it happened, moving the innovation jams stages into one iterative stage of insight. Analytical tools adopted from IBM Research group, COBRA- Corporate Brand and Reputation Analysis provided the needed technology for robust analysis.

Topics were able to be refined using

themeclouds that visually represented emerging trends and frequent words that are commonly associated together.

Figure 2 represents a themecloud used in IBM’s

Innovation Jam.

Figure 2. Example of Themecloud

Real-time data analysis provided greater monitoring ability for intellectual property concerns. Though IBM’s COBRA data mining tool provides focus and meaning to on going conversation, it can also play’s as risk mitigating tool. For example, COBRA can extract words to determine if participants are or may violate innovation jam rules. This could be used for monitoring unconstructive language or highly sensitive information.

IBM’s Automotive Supplier Jam had over 150 companies participating and was where COBRA was used to ensure the protection of intellectual property by monitoring discussions so anti-trust laws were not breached.

Other technology changes that resulted in the service phase was in the development of a second independent platform called the Mini Jam. The Mini Jam is an innovation jam but tailored to target smaller more specific audiences for faster solution providing and even greater in-depth discussion.

Even with technological enhancement of collaborative tools, a fundamental perception of security with an open and collaborative mentality became evident. “Having the right mindset in place in the company which starts at the top. You may have executives who my not be comfortable with open collaborative forum because it means you are giving away a certain element of control, but it doesn’t mean that it has to be destructive, in fact it can be productive” (Interview with Liam Cleaver, 2009). Leaders and top executives of IBM adapted a frame of mind that will not only support innovation in the form of open and collaborative work but to remain competitive in today’s changing environment.

Next, changes in the service phase incorporated broad management support pre and post the innovation jam event. Management’s presents through clear signals must be sent to show support for the up coming innovation jam and encouraging participation,

highlighting that all ideas count. “We work with colleagues in communications, and HR, lines of business colleagues and reach out to think through the intent of the Jam to find out who are the key stakeholders and key actors that we ensure as many as possible as Jam hosts- to be as real productive and show the crowd that they should participate” (Interview Liam Cleaver, 2009).

Greater personal commitment from all levels of

management was made to ensure the depth and breathe of participation, as well as the quality and focus of the content.

Limitations: It offers a process view of open innovation in inter-firm networks. The use of participant observation and retrospective data has generated a number of important findings.

However further research is needed in order to evaluate the external validity of the current findings. Also taking into account that this study is based on a single case of IBM, will not be sufficient to generalize the same process in all other companies. As we have explained previously, there are more than 20 theories in the literature of process of change suggesting further research is required with organizations following a different model other than IBM does.

Thus this paper has these limitations that should be

acknowledged.

Discussion and Conclusions: This study contributes to the open innovation literature by suggesting a process view of innovation (Pettigrew et al., 2003; Van de Ven, & Poole, 1995) using IBM’s innovation jams as the object of analysis. Our analysis suggests technological and methodological changes occurred at different phases of IBM’s use of Innovation Jams. This includes technical changes of 1) the need for multiple independent platforms in managing large

and small audiences, 2) aggregation mechanisms and robust data analysis tools in monitoring and understanding of the large scale discussion. Methodological changes that occurred were 1) inclusion of external knowledge and collaborators by bring in customers, suppliers, academics, and subject into the innovation process 2) commitment from management through a mind shift in embracing open and collaborative work and in building a bottom up approach.

The open innovation literature has been struggling to identify the ways of grasping benefits from external and internal networks (Chesbrough, 2006). This is why the main focus of this paper is try to evaluate inter-firm networks, in this case innovation jams, through a process view of open innovation. The case of IBM provided an illustration of a successful enterprise that until recently has exclusively utilized the open innovation networks. Such jams, so called inter-firm networks, provide higher innovativeness, efficiency, and adaptability for firms especially in the case of highly competitive and altering conditions.

References: Brabham, D. C. (2008). Crowdsourcing as a Model for Problem Solving: An Introduction and Cases. The International Journal of Research into New Media Technologies, 14(1):75-90.

Chesbrough, H. W. (2003). Open innovation: the new imperative for creating and profiting from technology. Boston, MA: Harvard Business School Press.

Chesbrough, H. W. (2006). Open business models: How to thrive in the new Innovation Landscape. Harvard Business Press, Boston.

Christensen, J.F. & Maskell, P. (2003). The Industrial Dynamics of the New Digital Economy. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.

Dahlander, L. & Wallin, M. W. (2006). A man on the inside: Unlocking communities as complementary assets. Research Policy, 35(8 SPEC. ISS.): 1243-1259.

Dittrich, K. & Duysters, G. (2007). Networking as a Means to Strategy Change: The Case of Open Innovation in Mobile Telephony. Journal of Product Innovation Management, Vol. 24. 510–521.

Dorset, L, Fontaine, M., and O'Driscoll, T. (2002). Redefining Manager Interaction at IBM. Knowledge Management Review. September/ October. Melcrum Publishing.

Helander, M., Lawrence, R., Yan, L., Perlich, C., Reddy, C., and Rosset, S. (2007).

Looking for Great Ideas: Analyzing the Innovation Jam. KDD'07, August 12-15, 2007, San Jose, California, USA. Hughes, B. & Wareham, J. (forthcoming). Knowledge arbitrage in Global Pharma: A synthetic view of absorptive capacity and open innovation. R & D Management, 40, 222 -235.

Howe, J. (2009) CrowdSourcing: Why the power of the crowd is driving the future of Business, Three Rivers Press, New York.

IBM Report. Innovation Jam: Ideas that Matter 2007 IBM Report. Retrieved from http://www.ibm.com/ibm/ideasfromibm/us/energy/031607/images/IFI_03162007.pdf IBM Jam Program Office Report . What's a Jam? A history of value and innovation (2008).

Retrieved

production/mediaplug_assets/104804/

from

http://s3.amazonaws.com/vcv_

Value_of_IBM_Jams.pdf?AWSAccessKeyId=1S3G1XF4F94625E7C4G2&Expires=126 2579497&Signature=0g3vIWUMC1ABUVimUbaKmU9j1mg%3D IBM Report. Building a smarter planet: Zurich Research Lab IBM (2009). Retrieved from http://www.zurich.ibm.com/pdf/kai/20090622_Innovation_Leadership_Summit.pdf IBM

Executive

Report.

Innovation

Jam

2008.

(2008).

Retrieved

from

ftp://ftp.software.ibm.com/common/ssi/pm/xb/n/gbe03165usen/GBE03165USEN.PDF Hargrove, L. IBM presentation. Innovation and Emerging Collaboration Technologies at IBM Ontario Research & Education Summit (2007). IBM Canada.

Jeppesen, Lars Bo, and Karim R. Lakhani. (2010). Marginality and Problem Solving Effectiveness in Broadcast Search. Organization Science (forthcoming).

Kearney, A.T. (2008). Innovation Management: Strategies for success and leadership.

Chicago.

Ostergaard, S. IBM presentation. IBM Innovation Jam- Experiences & Techniques (2008) IBM Optimize Business Performance by Building a Smarter Enterprise An InformationWeek Editorial Perspective’s Webcast Patton, M. (1990). Qualitative evaluation and research methods (2nd ed.). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.

Pettigrew, A. M., (1990). Longitudinal Field Research On Change: Theory and Practice, Organization Science, 1(3):267-92.

Pettigrew, A. M. Whittington, R. Melin, L. Sanchez-Runde, C. Van de Bosh, F. A. Ruigroki, W. Numagami, T. (2003). Innovative forms of organizing: international perspectives. London: Sage Publications, XIV.

Pettigrew, AM., Strategy as Process, Power, and Change, in Cummings, S, & Wilson, D, (2003b), Images of Strategy, Blackwell Publishing, pp. 301-330 Sawhney, M. Verona, G. and Prandelli, E. (2005). Collaborating to create: The Internet as a Platform for Customer Engagement in Product Innovation. Journal of Interactive marketing, 19(4).

Spira, J., Friedman, S., and Ebling, S. IBM's WorldJam: How IBM created a new standard in intracompany communication, New Yor: Basex, (2001).

Stake, R. (2000). The Art of Case Study Research, edn. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications.

Surowiecki, J. (2004). The Wisdom of Crowds: Why the Many Are Smarter Than the Few and How Collective Wisdom Shapes Business, Economies, Societies and Nations Little, Brown.

Van de Ven, A. H. & Poole, M.S. (1995). Explaining development and change in organizations. Academy of Management Review, 20: 510-540.

Von Hippel, E. (2001). Innovation by User Communities: Learning from Open-Source Software. MIT Sloan Management Review, 42(4): 81-86.

Yin, R. K. (2003). Case study research: Design and methods (3rd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Concept

Tool IBM employees, executives, managers, internal subject matter experts

Service IBM employees, trained facilitators, academics, stakeholders,

Actants & Interests

IBM employees, intranet team

Definition of Jams

New medium for bring people and ideas together

Tool to align employees for a common purpose and structure for large scale discussion

A virtual round table to stimulate ideas, drive innovation around specific topics and collaborative solutions

Goals of the Phase

Capturing and exploration of new medium

Generation and evaluation

Influencing complex systems for accelerated decision making and action

Knowledge Location

Internal

Broad and internal

Internal and external with predetermined targeted audience

Critical Phase Change

Independent platform needed (scaling), inclusion of external knowledge and participants,

Event, Pragmatic outlook, not anonymous, 2 part process of jamming- 1. generate ideas 2 evaluate them

transformational intervention, extensive pre and post preparation needed

Requirements

Intranet

Independent Platform

Technological Changes

N/A

Data analysis tools,

Methodology

Top-down approach, information is pre-filtered determining what is available

Early stages to building a an egalitarian approach

Bottom-up approach supported with parallel forces from external knowledge

Intellectual Property Risk Management

Knowledge shared only with internal employees and maintained internally

Pre rule agreement needed, maintained internally

Pre rule agreement from all parties needed, text mining software and reporting for risk management

Characteristics

Building a sense of community

New medium for sharing and rating

Non-competitive active discussion, broad participation and legitimacy, Enabling culture change

Table 1. Phase Changes and Key Characteristics

Pre and Post Jam events, multiple platforms Robust real-time metrics and reporting, multiple platforms