I was recently checking out quirky.com and it occurred to me some of the elements/approaches they employ might alleviate some of the shortcomings found in enterprise innovation processes.?? In a nutshell, here’s how quirky works:

1. People pay $99 bucks to submit an idea for some kind of cool thing.??
2. That idea then goes into a kind of contest to become the next quirky product.??
3. The contest part is where the quirky community rates and votes for the different ideas (they call it influence products) in a certain time period.??
4. At the end of the time period, the winning idea in the contest becomes the next quirky product.??
5. The quirky team then builds the product in a certain period of time.??
6. The finished product then becomes available for sale.

———-

I’m sure you’re thinking “Ok Wolf, but how does that apply to enterprise innovation…”??

Scaling a promising concept or innovation to a larger audience inside an enterprise can be very challenging.?? I believe most of these challenges are derived from a flawed design in the innovation maturation / harvesting process.?? In many cases, the burden of getting the promising innovation to the next level falls on the shoulders of the innovator or intrapreneur. There may be innovation programs in place to raise awareness, but in my experience those programs often come up short in facilitating connections between the innovator and teams that have the broader skill set to help scale the innovation’s value to a more mainstream audience.?? I’ve discussed the challenges often faced by intrapreneurs in some previous posts (here and here).

But if we consider the quirky approach as a model for enterprise innovation, there may be a more valuable way to leverage the deep skills and talents found within an enterprise.?? Each step of the quirky process is interesting in some way.

1. Submit idea — Have a small barrier for the idea submitter to overcome which helps to keep the idea pipeline clean.?? In the context of the enterprise, allow any employee/agent to contribute ideas.?? Innovation becomes relevant for all staff… not just techies.

2. Idea in weekly contest for next product — I’m fascinated with this idea of a brief time period to keep the contest excitement going…. adding drama week in and week out.

3. Idea review by community — Ideas are reviewed, collaborated on, rated, etc.?? Its the active community that defines the agenda and focus of the next great thing to be produced.?? In essence this pre-establishes that a ‘market’ for this idea exists right now.?? The enterprise leverages the community to build a portfolio of offerings the community has already validated as attractive.

4. Weekly contest ends and winning idea is selected — After a fixed period of time, a decision to move forward or not is reached.?? That decision is derived based on employee input.?? Again, I think the “contest time period” is important here to provide the focus.

5. Winning idea is executed by quirky team — A staffed. multi-disciplinary team then executes on the winning idea.?? In my mind, this is exactly where many existing enterprise innovation processes are weak.?? Idea folks aren’t always builder folks.?? Additionally, idea folks might not have the time, personal networks, or expertise (supply, manufacturing, marketing, sales, etc.) to execute the idea.

6. Finished product becomes available — A place where the cool new thing can be leveraged.?? Although there’s often no money changing hands internally, perhaps there are other forms of capital (social, influence, recognition) which can serve as the ‘take’ for all those involved in the previous steps.

Ultimately a model like the above could provide a multi-audience value that complements the varied skills and traits found within the enterprise.

• In-depth idea evaluation.??
• Detailed community comments and feedback.
• Potential candidacy as the a product.
• If chosen, the idea is executed by a defined team and becomes a product available for use in a short timeframe.
• If it becomes a product, the idea submitter gets some form of award (monetary, patent, news story, etc.).

• Even if it wasn’t your original idea, community members divergent skills and perspectives can help to shape the idea into an even more powerful and valuable offering.
• It is the community that is driving the decision-making as it represents the initial target market for the product produced.
• The model appears to recognize that it takes a village to care for an idea.?? They do this by tracking “influence” for community members. In the enterprise this could manifest in the form of collaboration recognition and reputation building.

• Great innovation to improve portfolio.
• Majority of the benefits (whether financial or not).
• Community-validated ideas prior to development expense.
• Built-in early adopters and evangelists who supported idea from the start.

What do you think??? Where are the strengths and weaknesses of this kind of model??? What have you seen work?