Robust organizations guide sources. Rather than letting sources generate any ideas, at any time, in any direction, robust organizations focus the activities of sources. One example of this is an organization identifying clear areas of interest or domains where innovation is particularly encouraged. For instance, Whirlpool seeks ideas from many sources, but often limits the area in which ideas are to be given. Suppliers are involved in idea generation through structured contests (Sheridan, Graman, Beck, & Harbert, 2001), for instance, while students have been sought to identify and target the needs of students, rather than of the general public (Dodson, 2002). Eli Lilly has adopted a similar strategy to tap into experts outside the company by bringing specific problems to virtual arenas. Eli Lilly founded InnoCentive, a wholly owned subsidiary, to take on the task of bringing outside researchers' attention and energy to the drug development process through an incentive system. The process is similar to bounty hunting in the Old West: 'Wanted' posters describing a scientific problem and a reward are posted, and bounty hunters can then compete in an online project room to answer first and best. Confidentiality was the first hurdle InnoCentive tackled, but even scientists who have won large bounties argue that the process puts undue risk upon the scientist, particularly when research must be conducted to get to a particular target or answer (Breen, 2002). Many scientists are signing up for InnoCentive: in 2002, '7,000 scientists [had] registered at InnoCentive, and there [were] 2,400 project rooms in use, organized around 33 problems' (Breen, 2002). As of 2006, more than 95,000 scientists have registered with InnoCentive (Kramer, 2006). Scientists from India, Russia and around the globe have signed up with InnoCentive (www.innocentive. com), and companies like Boeing, Proctor & Gamble, Dow Chemical and Nestle all have paid the membership fee and now seek solutions using InnoCentive (Kramer, 2006). In this case, open innovation seems to be working for the organizations, the scientists, and the broker.

Brittle organizations are more likely to seize good, immediately applicable ideas, but not to reward sources for particularly apt ideas, or ideas that complement the direction of the organization without being immediately applicable. Taking the long-term, business process view of idea generation allows robust organizations to highlight appropriate ideas. Brittle organizations have a difficult time with idea generation and mobilization due to lack of clear definitions about what constitutes an organizational idea. One crucial concern for idea generation is for employees to recognize when they have done something innovative. Sometimes, employees will be too modest or too unfamiliar with standard business processes to identify their own behavior as innovative. NPower Seattle deals with this concern through employee dialogue, where employees discuss recent problems and how they dealt with them. The listener, not the originator of the behavior, then reports to management about innovative processes and procedures. In this way, ideas are articulated and shared after basic screening.

Creating a long-lasting culture of openness is difficult, and not all people adapt well to that environment. Too much openness can lead to risky decisions and poor long-term management, while too little can lead to a staid and risk-averse culture. Similarly, striking the appropriate balance of need can be difficult. Overemphasizing need will cause some employees to leave for more stable jobs. Not emphasizing it enough will decrease urgency and idea generation across the board. Some companies choose to de-emphasize the time-consuming and sometimes unpredictable stage of generation in favor of collecting ideas generated by others. Robust organizations provide their employees with not only the necessary room for innovating, but also the necessary resources. Many organizations harp on the mantra of innovation, but few provide their employees with the necessary resources. Robust organizations, such as Air Products, will fund employee expenses to conferences that not only in the areas of expertise but also seemingly unrelated areas so as to provide the employee with resources to explore learn about auxiliary areas. Moreover, several companies such as 3M provide their employees with time (15% of their work week) to explore and develop ideas that are not directly related to their work assignments.

Robust organizations find a balance between emphasizing play and emphasizing need. For instance, at IDEO all employees are encouraged to bring objects that inspire them and leave them lying around the office to stimulate thinking. This is in part because IDEO's specialty is coming up with radical, big solutions, and thinking through analogies and having objects to pick up and manipulate sometimes encourages that process. On the other hand, many companies have to focus on both need and play in different situations. When a new client must be wooed, sometimes the driving force of need (to increase revenue or to earn a commission, for example) is much more suitable. Like organizations, individuals react differently to playfulness and the pressures of need. Robust organizations have assessed and balanced the two for the best results.

Robust organizations also explore ideas from a wide array of sources, both internal and external. For instance, Whirlpool underwent a major transformation when barriers to communication were eliminated and a website, the Innovation Pipeline (or I-Pipe), was constructed to facilitate the contribution of ideas from all employees, regardless of their places in the organizational hierarchy (Melymuka, 2004). Furthermore, Whirlpool has initiated competitions and communication channels with suppliers to improve its products (Sheridan, Graman, Beck, & Harbert, 2001; Atkinson, 2003). Whirlpool also seeks ideas from business partners like Lowe's and Best Buy (Dodson, 2002).

Brittle organizations have more limited ranges of sources and are less likely to be open to ideas. This is partly because they are less capable than robust organizations of evaluating sources. Robust organizations encourage boundary-spanning activities; they have individuals or entities (e.g. departments) tasked to examine domains outside their primary areas of interest for new ideas and sources. Determining the credibility and applicability of sources requires deep understanding of the market and of source context and expertise. Further, evaluating sources demands that an organization continuously update its evaluations of services--a source may become outdated or surpassed by a new, better idea generator. For instance, if a single employee with deep expertise in a single department constitutes a source of ideas, that employee may be able to gain a wider understanding of the organization or the market by being promoted, thus becoming an even better source of ideas.

Robust organizations know how to connect sources of ideas. Sources of ideas are distributed across the organization. Physically, sources may be located in different countries or geographic regions. Logically, sources may span various functional units of the organization (e.g. teams and departments) (Desouza, 2006). Unless sources are organized and connected in a meaningful and optimal manner, the mobility of ideas will be limited. Connectivity among sources can be arranged via physical arrangements (e.g. the design of office spaces to facilitate more interaction among employees) and also technological solutions (e.g. the use of intranets or other communication technologies). Unless sources are connected in an explicit manner through standardized idea generation processes, two problems will occur. The first is that ideas will not find communication channels. An idea generator might not know who is the best person to whom an idea can be sent; as a result, ideas may be sent to incorrect destinations, where their value might not be appreciated. Second, ideas might get lost in the regular traffic of other communications. Information should pass through the least number of hops between nodes, so as to get the messages to their destinations efficiently. Similarly, the more time ideas take to reach a destination, the less current the ideas will be and the less attention they will receive. Organizations must choose the appropriate connectivity solutions to enable the most effective and efficient mobilization of ideas. For example, the use of communication technologies may be productive for sharing ideas in highly structured domains and for solutions to well-defined problems. However, these technologies might fare poorly if ideas are in the early stage of development or are for problems that are currently unknown or poorly specified; a face-to-face discussion might work best in that case.

The next aspect of robustness is to hold some people, teams or units responsible for idea generation. Some level of accountability must exist for idea generation, even if those ideas are unsuccessful. Someone must be in charge, and evaluation and promotion systems must recognize this crucial role. However, controlling the sources of ideas too tightly can limit innovation. Brittle organizations sometimes have very isolated research groups that no longer engage with the stakeholders of the organization. In those instances, the core innovation group becomes accountable to stakeholders whose needs they do not understand enough to satisfy. Furthermore, particularly in small groups, very isolated research or idea generation groups may fall into 'groupthink' and become considerably less innovative than more heterogeneous, engaged researchers. In these instances, both the impact and quality of ideas decreases. Robust organizations balance accountability, time and space to innovate, and engagement with stakeholders.

Print Get the Mag Weekly Updates