Innovation Management & Innovation Ecosystems Implementation

What differenciate InnoCrowding’s services from other innovation brokers?

InnoCrowding's innovation enablers tools offer a number of benefits that maximize the implementation of an innovation ecosystem. Among the differentiators are:

• Maximum flexibility and scalability to Solution Seeker. One size does not fit all.
• Our training program provides your organization with the right foundation to implement an innovation ecosystem beginning at the department level. InnovaCamp is a tested bootcamp on innovation deployed at your organzation. InnovaCamp's users have experence immediate improvements in their organization. InnovaCamp represents the right mix of knowledge and skills to encourage the implementation of an innovation ecosystem utilizing the resources available within the company.
• Ability for Solution Seekers to post project in languages other than english and accept solutions from Problem Solvers in virtually any languages. Our network of professional transaltors TradAptLingua provides upon request of Solution Seekers the translation, localization, and disciplinary adaptation of the solutiuon. .
• InnoCrowding is the first innovation enabler to offer complimentary project posting to Solution Seekers upon registration. Organizations can utilize a “Self-Serve Service" Public ContestPost to request non IP solutions or expert help from our pool of +400,000 Professional Freelancers. Solution Seekers can utilize our escrow system to provide secure payments to freelancers.
• When and organization requires confidentiality and privacy or their challenges may include IP transfer their request is handled in a Private ContestPost system. Depending on the challenge the organization may choose to have our dedicated client service provie a 360 degree consulting services or have their internal R&D team work with our team on challenge extraction, proposal writing, award suggestion, management and categorization of responses, due diligence on chosen solution, prize transfer and where introduction to scientific or technical problem solver.
• InnoCrowding's is the creator of the first global social network InnovaHub.com dedicated esclusively to Professional Experts Freelance, Innovators, and Scientific/Technical Problem Solvers. Registered organization can explore the numerous features of the hub such as:thousands of resumes, cv, video, whitepapers, invention for sales or license, feedbacks/ ratings on members and can post job available withe their organization. Subscription cost are based on the organization's size. InnovaHub's subscribers can also start surveys and polls as well promote their organization through sponsorship.
• Innocrowding allows both Professional Expert and Scientific/Technical Problem Solvers to work alone or to collaborate in a workgroup to share their innovative solutions and proposals for future potential buyers.
• Our project aggregation application provides viral marketing of your projects by discipline. This method assures that your request are sent through our system to encourage the participation of innovation enthusiasts, researchers, research centers, and scientists. The widget allows a push–pull marketing extremely interactive.
• InnoScalation is the ultimate innovation weapon provided by our company. Highly scalable and very affordable to any organzation (<$ 1 per user). InnoScalation provides the organization with templates on crowdsoucing and open innovation to deploy projects at the department level, expand to the entire company, reach the clients and vendors, and finally when needed escalate to our +400,000 global solvers.

Our research to date has shown that the optimal population of innovators is one with high levels of knowledge and widely diverse perspectives. Brokerages appear to achieve this mix by either (a) getting as many innovators as possible, or (b) pre-filtering the population, or by a mixture of both approaches. For your firm, can you comment, in practical terms, on how this mix is achieved? Also, is it the case that "one size fits all" or do different types of problems, or different types of innovation seekers, need different types of "crowds"?


InnoCrowding utilizes a meshed approach to achieve the high level of knowledge as well the widest perspective of our innovators population - now at +420,000ix. Our meshed approach nurtures knowledge, skills, and passion for the discipline. Our system hosts two levels of innovators: professional expert freelancers, and scientific/technical problem solvers.

The main difference among the two groups is the depth of their expertise and the level of knowledge. We have devised a series of steps that determine the level of expertise/specialty and the solver's affinity driven by passion. Our experience demonstrated that the level of difficulty expressed in the request from an innovation seeker determines the mix of the group to whom manually as well automatically the system forwards a formal invitation to participate.

This has eliminated the "waste" of emails that many solvers receive from brokers and to get "invited" solely to requests that are either directly related or complimentary to their expertise. The solver has the ability to add disciplines of interest dynamically.


Our research to date has shown that the optimal "innovation challenge" is one that is relevant to the underlying problem, and is broken down or defragmented in order to make it "more solvable" and also "safer" to ask (does not reveal underlying IP or strategy). Again, in practical terms, how does your firm help innovation seekers articulate relevant, solvable and safe challenges? Do different types of clients, or different types of innovation, require different ways of articulating the problem?


InnoCrowding has found through a series of tests that the optimal innovation challenge is the one where the underlying problem is fully decomposed and defined for a cross-disciplined solver's pool. Using this method we have experienced the highest participation and solve rate. Furthermore, our approach takes particular attention to making the challenge safer, more solvable, and attracting solvers from diverse points of view.

We have witnessed that the optimal/innovative solution often was provided by a solver that had a "diverse" yet "complimentary" discipline. To define and articulate the challenge we utilize individuals that are "experts" of the discipline in question teamed with a group of individuals that have "no knowledge in that field" but excellent writers capable, through simplified sentences/words, of expressing complex ideas. While the experts are discipline-based the writers stay constant.


This technique assures the participation of the inquisitive/innovative in addition to the specialized individual. The interaction among solvers and the option for them to create groups from diverse point/expertise often create winning synergies and breakthrough innovation.


Our research to date has shown that the ability of a brokerage to help filter through proposed innovations is often necessary for innovation seekers to effectively engage in this process. In what ways does your firm provide such filtering services/tools? Do different types of clients, or different types of innovation, require different types of filtering?


InnoCrowding offers two levels of challenge "Public-ContestPost or Private-ContestPost. The Public-ContestPost request of collaboration or proposals do not feature intellectual property transfers. These requests are for a "specific and well defined expertise" often offered by a professional freelancer. Our platform allows the requester to "define the group to invite" and gives them the ability to formulate, through simple steps, the request and pre-define the prize or invite bids. This kind of request requires minimal to no intervention from our firm.

When the company requires "privacy" or where there is a transfer of "IP", we guide the innovation seeker through one or more steps that may include: challenge extraction, definition, articulation, publishing, viral push, hosting and review of response and suggestion of best responses.

The complexity of the request, as well as its discipline, often are the key factor in determining our firm's involvement. The innovation seeker is invited to review our "Innovation-Depot" to determine if a complimentary or the actual solution was already proposed and offered for purchase or license or to identify the individual that closely reflects the path required by the seeker. In both cases we intervene to perform due diligence and to broker the transaction - purchase/license or private collaboration.


Finally, our research has highlighted the importance of rewards, both monetary (payment for successful solutions, profits from exploiting solutions) and non-monetary (reputation, learning) to the open innovation process. Can you comment on some of the specific rewards that you feel motivate both successful and unsuccessful innovation seekers and providers? Again, do different types of clients, different kinds of innovators, or different types of innovation, require different types of rewards?


InnoCrowding hosts: reward based projects - where the innovation seeker is a for-profit organization posting a prize -, and challenges for the "common good" often sponsored by not-for-profit or pushed by members. The latter carry little or no prize reward but offer to recognize the presence and the profile of the solver's capacity in finding solutions that benefit the cause.

The prize based attracts a larger number of individuals in the "shortest time", while the participation to a request for the common good requires "longer exposure" to attract solvers. A proper viral marketing campaign is needed in both cases to generate interest towards the request. Our platform defines through a series of direct questions (minimum prize range and interest in common good field) the motivational thresholds of the solvers so to have the most accurate profile and the most effective viral campaign. Our internal survey indicates that the majority of the innovation members are willing to dedicate their expertise to a common good challenge in exchange of a peer recognition. Furthermore, the minimum prize the majority selected is between 500-10,000 for non IP-based requests and 10,000 up for IP-based requests.