We are home to the best term papers, research papers, dissertations, thesis papers, book reviews, speeches, book reports and all assignments

business or organisation

| October 28, 2015

Task: Project Teams are to identify a wicked problem or mega trend that is likely to, or already is, impacting a business or organisation with which they are familiar. Acting as an agent of the business or organisation conceptualise a product or service that responds to this wicked problem or mega trend and provides value to the business or organisation. That is, your product or service should be a beneficial innovation that can be commercialised or diffused widely. Prepare report and presentation as follows:
• Describe the business or organisation that is the subject of this report.
• Analyse, describe and explain the wicked problem or mega trend you have identified and how it is or could be impacting the business or organisation. Ensure you include definitions and characteristics for the wicked problem and/or mega trend/s.
• Describe and explain your product or service including how it addresses or leverages the wicked problem or mega trend into an opportunity that provides value for the business or organisation. Expand on the nature of the value the product or service provides.
• Defend (with evidence) the potential value of your product or service to a target market.
• Consider the product or service in terms of its contribution to innovation and explain the type of innovation that the product or service represents.
• Recommend how and why the business or organisation might take advantage of the contemporary issues covered in this subject with respect to the dissemination and ongoing evolution of the product or service into the relevant market.
• Provide evidence of a prototype that gives insight into the purpose and use of the product or service.

The project is about Arrium (Mining and Materials Company). Mega trend is going, going, gone(focus on climate change problems).
Product: to utilise the land that Arrium purchases while waiting for the approval for mining in an ecofriendly way. Installing renewable energy systems. Choosing Solar system – easy to manouvour
What you need to do is to write a 500 word recommendationpart “Recommend how and why the business or organisation might take advantage of the contemporary issues covered in this subject with respect to the dissemination and ongoing evolution of the product or service into the relevant market”.
The product is what mentioned above.
Contemporary issues covered in this subject are as below:
1. Wicked problems and mega trends
– Wicked Problems challenge the world today and are seemingly growing in number and complexity. Wicked problems present:
• commercial opportunities, when products or services emerge from the process of addressing wicked problems
• innovations, when something of value to society is created from the process of addressing wicked problems resulting in a change in the way we do things
– “It is through entrepreneurship & innovation that we can address these challenges to take advantage of the changes, and contribute to avoiding or managing problems. Megatrends refer to significant shifts in environmental, economic and social conditions that will play out over the coming decades.”
– CSIRO – 6 mega trends:
More from less – scarce water, energy, mineral and food resources are facing increasing pressure from rapidly growing demand
Going, Going…Gone? – pressure on the worlds’ biodiversity and ecological habitats
The Silk Highway – centre of gravity of the worlds’ population by 2050 will be between India and China; in 1980 it was between Europe and USA
Forever young – Aging population combined with longer life expectancy impacts retirement issues, employment of older workers, expenditure on healthcare
Virtually here – growth in tele-working, online commerce & social media changing the way we work, shop and communicate and impacts city design, transportation and lifestyles. Digitally connected world has powerful new networks potentially changing the playing fields on which we live, work and play.
Great expectations – rising demand for experiences over products and importance of social relationships has implications for products, work places, cities & cultures; and profoundly change the business and pricing models in the developing world.

2. Entrepreneurial mindset
What is entrepreneurial thinking?
Entrepreneurial thinking, sometimes called “entrepreneurial mindset”, is one of the key attributes employers are asking for in graduates entering the workplace. The ability to think like an entrepreneur is seen as directly linked to the capacity to produce innovation. Given the importance of innovation to organisations, governments and society it follows that organisations are now particularly keen to have employees with the ability or capacity to think entrepreneurially.
As with so many other terms, different people have different interpretations of what comprises entrepreneurial thinking. In this module you will explore entrepreneurial thinking from the perspective: SarasSarasavathy, a leading entrepreneurship academic; Naveen Jain a highly successful entrepreneur; Jeremy Liddell a young Australian entrepreneur; and Andy Goldstein a highly successful entrepreneur and academic.
SarasSarasavathy’s (2001) research suggests that entrepreneurs use effectual reasoning. Effectual reasoning occurs when people start with a given set of means (ie resources or “things” you can use such as money, ability, knowledge) and the goal (or objective achieved) emerges over time as the individual’s imagination and aspirations interact with experiences they have and other people. The opposite to effectual thinking is causal thinking – where a pre-determined goal is identified, the means are known, and the individual seeks to achieve the goal in the optimal (fasted, cheapest, most efficient) manner. Sarasavathy suggests that managers use causal reasoning (in an attempt to predict and control the future) and entrepreneurs, effectual. In imagining and implementing possible effects, entrepreneurs draw on:
– Who they are (traits, tastes, abilities)
– What they know (education, training, expertise, experience)
– Whom they know (social and professional networks)
Sarasavathy identifies three principles entrepreneurs use in effectual reasoning:
– The affordable loss principle
– The strategic partnerships principle
– The leveraging contingencies principle
Sarasavathy believes entrepreneurs are entrepreneurial because they think effectually, believe in a yet-to-be-made future that can be shaped by their actions, and because they realise they can not predict the future they prefer to work with people who are engaged in the decisions and actions that bring the future into existence.
Markus Eickhoff (2008) understands entrepreneurial thinking to be an attitude to work and working behaviour that is a precondition to successfully establishing and operating an enterprise. It is a bundle of abilities such as:
– Initiative
– Creativity
– Single-mindedness
Leo Higdon (2005) defines an entrepreneurial mindset as an ability to extend one’s knowledge to recognize opportunities where others do not. Such people do not think in linear, convention terms, rather they excel in thinking at higher levels of complexity; are constant learners who challenge assumptions; and from their knowledge base determine key facts and separate the important from the trivial. In recognising an opportunity, they seize upon it, marshal the necessary resources to exploit it and execute their plan. They energize others with their enthusiasm and create solutions for recognised needs. In any institutions, individuals capable of such thinking are highly valued because they can create value through their entrepreneurial mindset.
Higdon (2005) articulates seven characteristics of individuals infused with the entrepreneurial mindset:
– They challenge conventional wisdom
– They see connections where others do not
– They understand the value of the team
– They focus on the larger goal
– They learn from setbacks
– They develop and appreciate a sense of self
– They communicate effectively (Higdon, 2005)
Given the nature of wicked problems (see Mascarenhas’ How do we resolving them, page 30) good entrepreneurial thinkers are well positioned to contribute to their resolution, or to companies wishing to commercial market opportunities revealed by wicked problems and/or their solution. Equally mega trends offer entrepreneurial thinkers potential opportunities that can be created as commercial, not for profit or social ventures. Their creativity, initiative and single-mindedness can also contribute to the resolution of the threats inherent in the mega trends.

3. Transformative Innovation
What is innovation?
Innovation “…is the implementation of a new or significantly improved product (goods or services or experience), or process, a new marketing method, or a new organisational method in business practices, workplace organisation or external relations”.
The minimum requirement for an innovation is that the product, process, marketing method or organisational method must be new (or significantly improved) to the firm[1].
Innovation has a knock on effect – for example, electricity was an invention that became an innovation – it is now used in many areas of life, electricity provided something new and valuable to society that changed the way we do things. Basic research can lead to innovation. Basic research is research conducted to find out fundamental truths even if you think at the time there is no value in knowing the truth. For example, an engineering student once wrote a Phd on the mechanics behind how a cat laps milk. At the time the mechanics of this process were unknown, and it possibly seems that knowing how a cat laps milk is not of value to mankind. But this is basic research, and some other person may find a use for that knowledge or part of that knowledge. Basic research does not always lead to an invention (that is, an application for the knowledge) let alone an innovation. However, a lot of basic research does find a place in a wide range of innovations.
Innovation is typically understood to exist on 4 dimensions, and these dimensions are not either/or, they are a continuum from one extreme to the opposite and everything in between. Innovations can occur in any one or on several of these dimensions.
– Product or service innovation – The introduction of a good or service that is new or significantly improved with respect to its characteristics or intended uses: significant improvements in technical specifications, components and materials, incorporated software, user friendliness or other functional characteristics
– Process innovation- The implementation of a new or significantly improved production or delivery method. This includes significant changes in techniques, equipment and/or software: eg ATO income tax return process, airline bookings, film farming
– Position innovation – Changes in the context in which the product/service are introduced. Lucozade drink: first curing sickness, relaunched as health drink for fitness market
– Paradigm innovation – Changes in the underlying mental models that frame what the organization, product, process, etc does. Eg: Litter Qwitter, new business models (eg iTunes). Paradigm innovation is a particularly rich source of innovation from the “knock on effect”…For example, we had a change in paradigm when we stopped understanding the world was flat and started understanding the world was actually round. The cartoon suggests that when a bird hatches its world view changes. When we go to a new country and adopt their way of life, we understand and see things differently because our paradigm of how we make sense of the world has changed. The product Litter Kwitter is an interesting example of a paradigm shift involving how we understand indoors cats should or could toilet. It was so successful that it has generated an industry with competitors and expansions and extensions of the idea.
Innovation can be incremental (eg car evolution); discontinuous or radical (profoundly alter the industry eg Litter Kwitter Cat Toilet System or iTunes), and it can be disruptive that is, the focus is on impact not novelty or newness.

Clayton Christensen is most closely associated with the concept of disruptive innovation. He distinguished sustaining innovations (where you have continual improvements to a product or technology) from disruptive innovations (where the disruption is in the impact the new product or technology has on the existing market). Christensen says that:
– Disruption is possible where there are over serviced customers. For example, most of us cannot use the full functionality of a spreadsheet and will never need to, yet the spreadsheet provides extensive capabilities. That is, we are “over serviced users”.
– The disruptor often uses trivial, low cost solutions that meet the needs of the over serviced customer.
– The disruptor destroys the business model of the incumbents. Over time the disruptor becomes in the incumbent in turn potentially becoming at risk of another disruptor entering the market with low cost trivial technology that will meet the needs of the over serviced user.
At the firm level, we present innovation as linear process that needs to be managed. You generate ideas, select the good ones, implement the solution (or best idea) and this requires leadership and proactive linkages between firm elements and stakeholders. Organisations that repetitively achieve this management of the innovation process are considered to be innovative organisations.

But in reality innovation management is more akin to a tangle of spaghetti. It is not linear, it is challenging to implement, continuous, iterative, dynamic, touches and incorporates all stakeholders and all parts of the business.

Innovation is:
– Done in-house in research and development (R&D) areas by large and small to medium enterprises
– Done by research organisations (such as the CSIRO and universities) and exported to other businesses that commercialise and/or disseminate the research into the community.
The move towards open innovation is shifting who does the research and development that precedes innovation. For example, mountain bikes were created by enthusiastic bike riders who tinkered and built and prototyped these bikes in their spare time (professional amateurs). It took 10+ yrs for the bike manufacturing industry to notice mountain bikes as a product that could be distributed successfully. The mountain bike industry is now a multi-billion dollar industry. Professional amateurs have a hand in other innovations, most notably in astronomy which relies heavily on passionate amateurs pursuing their interests the results of which get adopted into the science of astronomy.
– Global corporations also conduct R&D. They encourage staff to be innovative through innovation programs eg Shell Game Changer.
– Proctor & Gamble developed the Connect Program to seek out innovative individuals (at universities etc) to invite them to bring their ideas in for P&G to evaluate and maybe commercialis
– Innovation has been gamified. Competitions and challenges now encourage people to compete for prize money for solving problems or challenges egInnocentive
– This is the age of “citizen scientist” in which ordinary people expand the pool of people capable and willing to problem solve or be innovative often in response to the big data that can now capture, eg
When Malaysian Airlines Mh370 disappeared the flight data and satellite information was put “out there” for people to use to help find the plane.
NASA hosts competitions on its web site, offering its data up to individuals or groups to use in the competition.
Countries have National Systems of Innovation – this graphic is one conceptualisation of the Australia NSI using a propeller moving through water as the analogy for the NSI. A country’s NSI is important because innovation is linked to economic prosperity through the generation of new businesses, new jobs. Accordingly, governments create policies to support and increase innovation.

The Global Innovation Index (GII) ranks most of the world’s economies on indices that measure those features typically agreed to contribute to innovation (inputs) and outputs. The GII is used by policy makers to assess a country’s innovation performance and therefore it influences innovation policy decision making.

You are in the time of transformative innovation (TI) – it is an emerging conceptualisation– the International Futures Forum sees it as a new form of innovation; the next wave….

TI – definitions have in common the idea that it is innovation that changes the way a system operates.

A system is a network of interrelated elements. For example, the human system; the business system; the health system. In a system there are inputs, something happens the inputs get converted into output. A system that has no outputs as a consequence of inputs atrophies, that is the system dies. Changing systems such as welfare, health, school is extremely difficult because of their complexity.

TI brings about deep, systems level change or transitions. For example when the national immunisation programs was introduced into schools to pick up and immunise most if not all children…a whole system changed (that is, the associated practices, attitudes, institutions, cultures and values of schools, public health organisations, and even families and communities). Think of all the systems that changed through the spread of electricity.

To those working in TI for global good, TI is about radical change, paradigm breaking novelty, it is sustainability-oriented TI. Those working in competitive environments such as businesses, TI has a competitiveness orientation. When we look at wicked problems and megatrends, TI opportunities exist in both competitiveness (for business growth) and social good (eg sustainability issues) and can emerge one from the other.

DEFRU suggest with respect to TI, governments’ role moves from enabling innovation for economic development via the NSI to modulating (ie exerting an influence on) TI to benefit current & future generations through attainment of specific goals by:
– Building pathways – capability building (lean startup), competence development (probe and learn) & learning (resulting new instruments, social & behavioural innovation)
– Enabling markets – policies, regulations, targeted support for radical new emerging innovations, provision of intelligence, to influence economic frame conditions and shape paths
– Strategic Governance – creation of new institutions, facilitating “new ideas that work” & entrepreneurial actors, public & stakeholder engagement

TI is characterised by originality that crosses sectoral boundaries and redraws social and economic arrangements. It involves wide diversity of actors, takes decades to move from margins to mainstream, involves substantive risky investments, conflicts between emergent & incumbent actors, reconfiguration of sectoral & policy boundaries (Seward, 2008). Think of for example, the immunisation program brought into schools over many years and how this mass immunisation has impacted not only the school and health systems, but also society as less and less we suffer from disease because of immunisation which in turn affects what we need as a society.

Leicester suggests there are 10 critical characteristics of TI rooted in culture and values (Leicester, 2014). To bring about or encourage TI (as compared to incremental, or radical, or disruptive innovation) we need to be:
– Balanced – hospice the dying culture, midwife the new
– Inspiring & hopeful – acknowledges broader culture unease
– Informed by a longer term perspective
– Pioneering – start small, be counter culture, discover & learn
– Grounded – real, clear-sighted view of evidence, lived experience is abstract data
– Personal commitment is “beyond reason” – beyond the professional “you”
– Responsible – do no harm, be sensitive to the pressures of boundary pushing
– Reveal hidden resources – rely on abundant sources of support not scarce sources
– Maintain integrity – culture is inferred from what and how something is done
– Maintain pioneering spirit in face of success – free up resources that maintain today’s systems in order to channel them towards a system fit for tomorrow

TI emerges when organisations explore the intersection of business and society, embracing social, environmental, ethical or similar initiatives as an integral part of their strategic mission (Bright, Fry &Cooperrider, 2013). It is expands mutually beneficial outcomes of activity to business and society, increases the scale of enacted human strengths, and invokes a deep shift in values, assumptions and behaviours that guide the organisation.

Transformative Innovation grows from entrepreneurial thinking and innovation, it has the capacity to address wicked problems. In achieving transformative innovation it is reasonable to suggest that commercialisable innovations could emerge as part of the process to be diffused through the process of entrepreneurship.

4. The Crowd
Our society has shifted towards an open innovation platform – where the ability to connect with multiple players and the ability to find, form and deploy creative relationships is paramount to commercial success. The lessons and experience of Proctor and Gamble in innovation over the last 10 years are particularly instructive (P&G is USA multinational whose products include Old Spice, Swifter, Pringles) (Huston &Sakkab, 2006).

Most mature companies have to create organic growth of 4% to 6% year in, year out. For P&G, that’s the equivalent of building a $4 billion business in one year alone. How were they going to do it? P&G, a mature organisation nearly 200 years old, were faced with the difficulty of how to grow. It had a huge R&D budget, but despite this investment in research into innovative ideas and products they were in decline not growing their revenues, market shares, or profits for shareholders – unable to generate 4% growth per year. The old innovation model of spending on R&D and creating from within the organisation simply was not working any more. CEO, AG Laffley turned P&G around by moving to open innovation.

An example of the success of their new innovation strategy was P&Gs rethinking of Pringles potatoes chips. Procter & Gamble launched a new line of Pringles potato crisps in 2004 with pictures and words – trivia questions, animal facts, jokes – printed on each crisp. It was an immediate hit.

Before the open innovation model, it might have taken two years to bring this product to market, with all risk and investment internally born wholly by P&G. Now: from concept to launch, it took less than a year and occurred at a fraction of what it would have otherwise cost. How did they do this?

Once they had come up with the concept of printing pop images on Pringle Chips P&G needed to develop the method and tools to achieve this. Traditionally, P&G would have spent the bulk of their investment just on developing a workable process. An internal team would have found and worked with an ink-jet printer company that could devise the process, and then would have entered into complex negotiations over the rights to use it. Instead P&G used an open innovation approach.

They created a technology brief that defined the problems that needed to be solved in order to bring the concept of pop printed Pringles to realisation. They circulated they brief throughout their global networks of individuals and institutions to discover if anyone in the world had a readymade solution they could adopt. P&G discovered a small bakery in Bologna, Italy, run by a university professor who also manufactured baking equipment. He had invented an ink-jet method for printing edible images on cakes and cookies that was rapidly adapted to solve the problem. This process of open innovation helped the North America Pringles business achieve double-digit growth over the next two years.

Lafley made it P&G’s goal to acquire 50% of their innovations outside the company. The strategy wasn’t to replace the capabilities of their 7,500 researchers and support staff, but to better leverage them. `Half of our new products, Lafley said, would come from our own labs, and half would come through them.` For every P&G researcher there were 200 scientists or engineers elsewhere in the world who were just as good–a total of perhaps 1.5 million people. This change in focus required massive operational changes. Needed to move the company’s attitude from resistance to innovations “not invented here” to enthusiasm for those “proudly found elsewhere.” And P&G needed to change how to define, and perceive, the organisation of R&D–from 7,500 people inside to 7,500 plus 1.5 million outside, with a permeable boundary between them

This strategy is called P&G’s Connect and Develop Innovation model. It involves:
– Putting the customer at the centre of everything – the boss – and using research in their consumer markets to inform their innovation activities.
– Accessing 50% of their innovation from outside the company.
P&G used an open innovation strategy to seek out and develop active agreements with innovation partners. Their connect and develop model enables them to share their R&D capability, their commercialisation know how and their brand strength, as well as their substantial asset base of other resources to with their partners world wide bringing new ideas, incremental and disruptive innovations to market.

The results of this strategy are that:
• More than 35% of new products in market have elements that originated from outside P&G, up from about 15% in 2000.
• R&D productivity has increased by nearly 60%.
• Innovation success rate has more than doubled, while the cost of innovation has fallen.
• R&D investment as a percentage of sales is down from 4.8% in 2000 to 3.4% today.
• P&G launched more than 100 new products in two years by using outside help (Huston &Sakkab, 2006).

Open innovation, crowd sourcing, crowd funding, citizen scientist, people-powered medicine, crowd activism, and other similar terms refer to the inclusion of “the crowd” in the design, development, selection, implementation, funding, evaluation in the processes of innovation. Open innovation and the use of the crowd is a growing trend. The rise of computing power and the globalisation it makes possible (think internet, big data sets, and mobile and digital technologies) has given an exponential hike to what has always been observed, that is – good ideas or breakthrough innovations come from the collision of knowledge or insights that comes from crossing domains and from cross fertilisation of specialised skills sets. The advent of digital technology has moved us away from thinking that only “special people in special buildings with special incentives”, such as is found in the research & development laboratory of a big company, or in a university, can contribute to great ideas, insightful observations or novel interpretations. Equally, the same characteristics of computing power and globalisation are driving substantial changes in how to source or fund entrepreneurship.

The potent combination of globalisation and digitalisation makes it possible for billions of individuals scattered around the planet to be connected by the tenuous strands of the internet and actively participate in innovation (Hutter, et al, 2011). We live in an age where there is an increasing trend towards open business models and closer collaboration with customers.

Use of the crowd in sourcing and funding entrepreneurship and innovation is a form of Open Innovation – a term promoted by Henry Chesbrough that refers to the idea that firms should use ideas generated outside as well as inside their business in pursuit of business development. It incorporates the suggestion that in a world of distributed knowledge a business cannot afford to rely only on its own research and development activities if it is to remain competitive, or achieve break through innovations (ie innovations that ultimately generate very good returns for the business). Chesbrough suggested that firms should consider licensing arrangements, joint ventures, spin offs and similar in the pursuit of innovation. Open innovation is the systematic encouragement and exploration of a wide range of internal and external sources for innovative opportunities; the exploration process is integrated into the firm’s capabilities and resources; the exploitation of opportunities is achieved through multiple channels (West & Gallaher, 2006).

Today, open innovation is more than just the formal collaboration between firms and individuals with different and specialised skills and knowledge promoted by Chesbrough. The following are manifestations of open innovation (note – not an exhaustive list):

User centred design (Dell’Era&Landoni, 2014). – as exemplified by IDEO (http://www.ideo.com/) – considers the user to be the source of innovation. Firms identify unique insights into products and services by asking users about their needs, or by observing them during the use of existing products or services and tracking their behaviour during the consumption process. This form of co-creation is believed to create positive, long term consequences and has resulted in organisations looking for new methods that can involve users in the innovation of their processes.

One such process is the Living Lab which provides a real-life test and experimentation environment in which users live and work, fully aware that they are co-involved in an innovation project. Living Labs are rapidly emerging (see www.openlivinglabs.eu) around the world as an original approach to new product and service development.

Crowd sourcing- uses an open call to source tasks traditionally performed by specific individuals or in-house, from an undefined or loosely defined group of people or a community (Pisano &Verganit 2008). Many major companies now proactively source ideas and innovations from the crowd as a means of leveraging the power of their own in-house R&D, or because they do not wish to invest extensively in in-house R&D. For example, Proctor & Gamble have established Connect + Develop to assist external innovators bring their ideas for evaluation and potentially commercialisation (http://www.pgconnectdevelop.com/). Royal Dutch Shell established GameChanger in 1994 to seek out contributions from creative communities or individuals (http://www.shell.com/global/future-energy/innovation/innovate-with-shell/shell-gamechanger.html). Employees can be sourced via open innovation creating work opportunities for a virtual and distributed labour pool (https://www.odesk.com/), consumers are invited to build or design products (https://www.threadless.com/), readers identify which story they want journalists to investigate (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bdrBGU3XrI0#t=75), and much more (see industry website: http://www.crowdsourcing.org/).

Contests (Hutter et al 2011) – have long being used as a means to reach out to a broad audience of people with various backgrounds, skills and expertise to help create or solve problems, build major new buildings, create new technology and generate break through ideas. The internet facilitates such contests, allowing users to competitively disclose their creative ideas to corporations who host or fund the competition, and to interact and collaborate with like minded peers by communicating, discussing and sharing their insights and experiences, build social networks and establish a sense of community. Such competitions foster a balance between competitive and cooperative behaviour, also known as “co-opetitive” behaviour. Innocentive is an example of an open R&D competition platform http://www.innocentive.com/. Kaggle (https://www.kaggle.com/) is a community of data scientists who compete to solve complex data science problems, including the problem of job scheduling for Santa’s Elves (prize $20,000) https://www.kaggle.com/c/helping-santas-helpers.

Open Collaboration Communities – exist where people freely give their knowledge and expertise and openly work together giving up all potential intellectual property rights (von Hippel & von Krogh, 2003). A well known example occurs in open source software development where expert programmers, supporters and users all voluntarily contribute to a collaborative software project freely revealing the source code in order to create and improve programs. In a similar vein, communities are created to share innovation and connect with people wanting those innovations. iBridge is a network established for university and industry researchers and scientists seeking the latest in innovations, innovation communities and hubs and organisations (http://www.ibridgenetwork.org/).

Crowd Funding – there are two main forms of crowd funding (ie raising money for your idea or venture by going to the public instead of a bank, venture capitalist, angle investor or more traditional means of fundraising): reward-based and charity-based (Rechtman& O’Callaghan, 2014).

In reward-based crowd funding, the public is approached to provide funds in exchange for a “reward”. Small amounts are sought in exchange for a reward for investing (eg, crowd funding for a film might offer tickets to the finished movie as the reward). If the threshold amount is not raised, the investors do not have to forward their promised investment. Kickstarter is a very successful example of a crowd funding platform (https://www.kickstarter.com/). In a similar vein, researchers post their projects and expeditions seeking crowd funding to back promising projects that would otherwise go unfunded and therefore discoveries and innovations missed (http://www.petridish.org/).

In charity-based crowd funding, the charity solicits contributions for a particular cause. A small gift maybe offered in exchange (eg a pen).

Dubbed “citizen scientists” the ubiquity both of connectivity and data has promoted a role for talented amateurs or “pro ams” to pursue their passions and interests to solve challenges and puzzles and in so doing, contribute to entrepreneurship and innovation. In a poignant example of crowd sourcing, DigitalGlobe released satellite imagery to “the crowd” in an attempt to quickly locate missing Malaysian Airlines flight MH370 http://www.tomnod.com/campaign/mh370_indian_ocean/map/1fux27ybw.

Today, more than before, organisations and individuals are open to, and recognise, the capacity of “the crowd” to generate insights, contributions & solutions that can contribute to problem resolution and/or commercial outcomes – that is to be the “source” of ideas and innovations. Equally, the crowd is more than ever able to be brought into funding of innovations and ideas providing entrepreneurs, small businesses, and even hobbyists with an avenue to which they can turn for funds.


Huston, L., &Sakkab, N. (2006). CONNECT AND DEVELOP. Harvard Business Review, 84(3), 58-66.
West, J.; Gallagher, S. (2006). “Challenges of open innovation: The paradox of firm investment in open-source software”. R and D Management 36 (3): 319
Hutter, K., Hautz, J., Fuller J., Mueller, J., &Matzler, K. (2011) Communitition: the tension between competition and collaboration, Creativity & Innovation Management, Vol 20,(1),
von Hippel, E. and von Krogh, G. (2003) Open Source Software and the ‘Private-Collective’ Innovation Model: Issues for Organization Science.Organization Science, 14, 209–23.

5. Entrepreneurship & Innovation Ecosystems
In the 1970’s there was an interesting change that swept across the business landscape. With what started as a simple movement towards taking more care of the environment, a sustainability focus emerged. But this wasn’t just about chopping down trees in the amazon, or looking at toxic dumping into rivers or even considering triple-bottom line reporting. What began to emerge was an interest of some of the concepts from ecology.

The words from ecology which you may be familiar within a business context already include words like: Niche, Environmental analysis, Business terrain, Competitor, Symbiosis to name a few.

For a great example of ecosystems and the changes that can occur within ecosystems watch the following video… As you watch this video – consider what business parallels can you think of?

Taking an ecosystem view to entrepreneurship and innovation means taking a wholistic view and considering all the interacting parts and components. In the same way that a biological ecosystem consists of a number of species (trees, plants, animals, insects) which interact in dynamic and complex ways often characterised by a food web, you can find comparable examples within the business landscape. Silicon valley is often cited as a classic example of an entrepreneurial ecosystem.

The following Harvard Business Review blog quotes:
“Fostering entrepreneurship has become a core component of economic development in cities and countries around the world. The predominant metaphor for fostering entrepreneurship as an economic development strategy is the “entrepreneurship ecosystem.”

Read on the blog to consider some of the common myths and misconceptions associated with the term “entrepreneurial ecosystem”:

One of the best examples of an “entrepreneurial ecosystem” developed organically in Denmark in the 1970’s. Watch the following video clip to learn more about this example. What were the “species” that belonged to this entrepreneurial ecosystem?

For a custom paper on the above topic, place your order now!

What We Offer:

• On-time delivery guarantee

• PhD-level writers

• Automatic plagiarism check

• 100% money-back guarantee

• 100% Privacy and Confidentiality

• High Quality custom-written papers

Category: Buy Original Term Papers | Get Custom Paper Writing Service that is original

Ready to make an order!