IBM's Open InnovationJam
I have followed IBM's massive online distributed events, a.k.a. "Jams" since they launched. The second phase of their newest one, Welcome to InnovationJam, starts September 12th. And this time we're ALL invited. WOW.
This site deserves some more exploration.
(And yes, lots of blog posts because I'm researching something and I find all sorts of cool things along the way!)
Tags: worldjam, innovationjam, onlineevents, onlinefacilitation, collaboration
posted by Nancy White at 2:10 PM
4 Comments:
I have some misgivings about this scheme as implemented by IBM. The basic problem is one of self-interest: who is going to contribute their best idea, knowing that it will likely be taken away from them by a highly commercial organisation? Many of us could cope with seeing no financial return personally from an idea which might solve one of the world's problems. But to have no further involvement in the development of the idea, once you've chucked it into InnovationJam, seems selfless beyond the capabilities of most people.
From the IBM viewpoint, InnovationJam was a logical progression from the two previous jams. Each was held two years apart, and each focussed on internal IBM issues. When the IBM Board voted CEO Palmisano a big pay rise two years ago, the Jam was cited as a major justification for the increase. So from his viewpoint, it's a simple "Launch another Jam, get another pay rise" logic.
Many big companies were invited to contribute to InnovationJam. That alone was an innovation. But very few of their employees contributed, and I suspect several of these companies had worked out before the Jam that they could see some of their best ideas go IBMwards, without financial return, if they didn't restrain their employees.
Anonymous misses the point -- I've seen his take on multiple blogs, and it's one that is misinformed on several levels. This is a "can't lose" situation for participants outside IBM, because if you look at what IBM is saying about this Jam, it's all about partnerships. IBM is looking to bring these ideas to market jointly with the contributors -- and its willing to put up $100 million of its own money to jump start it. So that's attractive to the companies participating -- they've made that clear. (And remember, that's IBM's core audience, not individuals.) And the continued repitition of this myth about Palmisano's pay raise -- never was it ever tied to any Jam or Jam outcome. That's simply not true, and reckless to propagate.
Anonymous misses the point -- one he seems to have been making on multiple blogs, and one that is misinformed on several levels. This is a "can't lose" situation for participants outside IBM, because if you look at what IBM is saying aboiut this Jam, it's all about partnerships. IBM is looking to bring these ideas to market jointly with the contributors -- and its willing to put up $100 million of its own money to jump start it. So that's attractive to the companies participating -- they've made that clear. (And remember, that's IBM's core audience, not individuals.) And the continued repition of the myth about Palmisano's pay raise -- never was it ever tied to any Jam or Jam outcome. That's simply not true, and reckless to propagate.
>>>
The basic problem is one of self-interest: who is going to contribute their best idea, knowing that it will likely be taken away from them by a highly commercial organisation?
>>>
I beg to differ. Lots of people share their ideas freely. E.g. Customer feedback/ suggestions. Wrt IBM making money out of this -- welloOn my own, an idea might simply exist as an idea and nothing more. But by getting it adopted by a organisation with the resource to do it, ultimately I benefit. Obviously there must be some returns for whoever takes the risk to push the idea to fruition.
Post a Comment
Links to this post:
Create a Link
<< Home