Archive for the ‘Open Source Theory’ Category

Pharma Gets Pre-Competitive

Wednesday, August 18th, 2010
PET scan of a human brain with Alzheimer's disease
Image via Wikipedia

Recently, we wrote a two-post series on the state of “openness” in pharma research.  The second post focused on the use of front-end data sharing as a means to advance stalled R&D.  The argument was that such pre-competitive collobarations in no way marked a change of posture for the hyper-competitive pharma industry.

As Klaus-Peter Speidel put it on an earlier Thinking post, competition is a special form of collaboration.  And reciprocally collaboration is also a competitive strategy.

Failing to register this, readers commenting on a recent NYTimes article that focused on how “rare sharing of data” led to progress in Alzheimer’s research, rather prematurely celebrated the victory of “selfless” collaboration.  Others, more sober, were quick to note that the instance of pre-competitive collaboration (PCC) described in Kolata’s article was an example of a smart business deal–and not the crumbling of IP rights in the domain of human health.

(more…)

Mathematical Progression: Equalis bring OI to Applied Math

Tuesday, August 17th, 2010

Vrije Vloeistofcorrectie

Judging by projects as diverse as Polymath and Arxiv, the math community is more open than most.  Along with its close sibling computer science, it’s been an early adopter of open science.

The success of significant experiments in openness, like Gower’s Polymath, is all the more surprising in a field which, more than others, rewards the achievement of individual, young genius.  There’s much prestige (and, with the Clay Institute, money) at stake for being the first one to submit the proof.

Most of these experiments in openness have leaned towards pure (theoretical) mathematics. But a recently launched open innovation (OI) platform, Equalis, sets its sights on applied mathematics.

Co-founded by Carmine Napolitano, with a background in engineering and finance, and Neil Mitchell, who holds a PhD in Computer Aided Engineering, Equalis seeks to capture the interest and imagination of those “other” mathematicians, working in areas as diverse as signal processing, statistical analysis, image enhancement, and numerical optimization.

What does it have planned for its math-focused community? So far, Equalis is largely focused on building up the solver community, knowing that a well-developed community can propose, advance and support many different kinds of projects.

In other words Equalis aims to be a 21st century math utopia where people go to ask questions related to their personal research in the morning, contribute to an open source project in the afternoon, and collaborate on a corporate prize challenges (like the ones hosted on hypios) in the evening.

Equalis has officially teamed up with hypios–virtually joining the two solver networks.  Equalis members can view relevant problems for hypios marketplace directly on Equalis’ site, and hypios’ expert-identification techniques can actively -push problems towards potentially appropriate Solvers on Equalis.  As Anthony DeFellipo, president of hypios America said, “we look forward to innovating together.”  Or more precisely we look forward to together enabling the most creative minds to step to the fore and do the innovating.

Learn more about Equalis: http://www.equalis.com

Read more about the partnership here: Equalis/hypios Announce First Math-Focused Open Innovation Community

Enhanced by Zemanta

Outsourcing (Part of) Product Development to the Community

Tuesday, May 4th, 2010

Community manager Dawn Lacallade of Solarwinds is not an ordinary social enthusiast. Her talk this afternoon was less a vague preachfest about the value of transparency than a practical application of the social gene in the production process.

The talk was called “Outsourcing Product Development to Your Community.” She started by observing, “We’re in an industry with high-tech people that make [building community] particularly easier to do.”

Communities, properly cultivated, can be integral to product ideation and development. You can literally change what you hope to accomplish, just by listening, down to the core of what your brand’s supposed to represent:

“When you start actually listening to your community, you actually find out what your brand is.”

(more…)

Loud and Clear: Broadcasting & the Limits of “Open Innovation” in Problem-Solving

Friday, February 19th, 2010

Harvard professor Karim R. Lakhani is often cited for his work on open innovation. In fact, Lakhani’s landmark study, entitled “The Value of Openness in Scientific Problem Solving,” focuses on “broadcast searches.” He posits that the right solutions for a problem often come from the periphery of a field. So-called “outsiders” — people at the periphery — are not just people outside of the lab or the company, but sometimes even outsiders to the problem’s field. (The study was based on an extensive pool of scientific problems in industries ranging from chemistry to agriculture.)

A broadcast search, as the study defines it, involves disseminating a problem in such a way that it reaches these outsiders. According to Lakhani, people situated at disciplinary crossroads are better able to see the connections between solutions in one area and their potential cross-applications to problems in another. This might not be true for every problem, but in cases where experts in a field find it hard to work out a solution themselves, they should try to ask people from outside their field.
(more…)

The Next Industrial Revolution?: Wired vs. Gizmodo

Friday, February 12th, 2010

Open Source Hardware: Industrial Revolution or DIY craft fair?

The Debate: In “Atoms Are the New Bits,” Wired magazine’s Chris Anderson announces the next Industrial Revolution: let’s call it “open-source hardware.”  In a sprited rebuttal, “Atoms Are Not Bits; Wired Is Not A Business Magazine,” Gizmodo’s Joel Johnson says Anderson is peering through a glass, darkly (or else sniffing glue).  The revolution he breathlessly describes is called outsourcing, Johnson argues, and there’s nothing new about that.

The Arguments: Wired contends a new industrial revolution is in the works as open source design meets open source hardware.  Hackable, modular components can be used to create innovative products and pave the way to a ‘glocal’ model of micro-manufacturing.  Low-cost prototyping and tool access open the field to potential ’small-batch’ entrepreneurs.  The increasing willingness of global suppliers to woo small-batch production (and take credit cards) makes such business models possible on an unprecedented scale.  Innovative designers in consumer electronics (CE) and beyond face fewer barriers to entry than ever before.  Expect a deluge of upstart design firms, Wired says, with “virtual” manufacturing facilities; this is the future of “US” manufacturing.

Gizmodo, however, argues that it is the present of “US” manufacturing—it’s called outsourcing.  Western designers effectively brand Chinese conglomerates.  You can find the material analogs of these “virtual” factories in smoggy China, with workers hunched over baseboards.  If there’s anything remarkable in this story, thank FedEx, which has found a way to ship small orders incredibly cheap.  And if there’s anything new about the phenomena Wired presents as signs of the next IR, it’s hardly on a revolutionary scale.  Dippy DIYers and hobbyists starting small-run production of niche products by using new tools does not a revolution make.

(more…)

The Apple and the Bug (Part II) : Fast-track Prototyping

Thursday, October 8th, 2009
apple_bug
Fast-Track Prototyping, the nail in the coffin for the “Apple-Model?”

In the last post, we talked about how the product development life-cycle might look different in the future as a result of certain trends in open innovation. In particular, we discussed a change in the prototyping model that might, someday soon, put a wrench in the Apple-style secrecy machine.

There we mentioned a young company, Bug labs, based in NYC, that makes open source modular components  allowing DIYers to build their own gadgets. The idea, anway, was that they were for DIYers. According to this article in Electronic Design, however, most of its sales are actually going to corporate entities building prototypes or small production runs. “The open nature of BUGbase makes it easy to add a custom module at significantly lower cost and risk than a completely unique prototype” they say.

(more…)

The Apple and the Bug: Secret product design vs. open prototyping

Friday, October 2nd, 2009

(First in a two-post series)

apple_bug

Secrecy, Apple-Style

Apple is famous for the secrecy of its product development. It claims not to believe in market research, relying instead on its designers (and executives) to come up with products that will stun and awe the community, beginning with a set of hip early adopters. It has, however, welcomed outside innovation when it comes to its iPhone.

The iPhone Apps store sells thousands of special applications that are developed externally. Not only does Apple pull in tons of revenue (according to Jobs, at least $1 million/day) through the sale of these apps, but some credit the apps and their buzz with iPhone’s competitive advantage. Brad Stone, from the New York Times’ bits blog writes, “The breadth and depth of Apple’s app store is a big reason why the iPhone continues to maintain its lead against up-and-comers like the Palm Pre and the phones running Google’s Android operating system.”

Even so, the process for approval is by all accounts strenuous, even censoring, and there are some who, choosing to bypass it completely, market their apps through third-party sites.  Running these apps requires the iPhone to have been “jailbroken” (downloading a small piece of code).  Apple is vehemently opposed to this, claiming that it strains and breaks the iphone operating system.  Others counter that Apple is just being a control freak and ungrateful to the thousands of app producers that have worked to make the iPhone into a sort of Swiss Army knife of consumer electronic (CE) devices. In short, some outsiders applaud this sort of hacking, claiming that the process of application innovation and end-user specialization should be more open and symbiotic than the Apple-model allows.   (more…)

Music to our autodidactic ears

Wednesday, June 24th, 2009

Opensource is by now familiar enough a concept.  Its opposite is strictly limiting access to content and code. It may never be a matter of either/or but rather of both/and. If, as Stewart Brand said, “information wants to be free…and information wants to be expensive, the tension will not go away,” then nowhere is this more true than in the case of higher education. You can read it in the mission statements of the world’s top research institutions. Often astoundingly expensive and nearly impossible to access (for the average student), these institutions are nevertheless self-conscious of their responsibility to diffuse knowledge as far and as widely as they can. Increasingly they see the possibility of opensource courseware as the means to fulfill this mission—while also increasing their name recognition home and abroad.

These brand names of higher education—France’s Ecole Normale Supérieure, UK’s Oxbridge, and the US’ Ivy League, to name just a few—are able to attract a large pool of applicants and select the best candidates (and, at least in the US, charge a high premium) because the quality of the education they offer is thought to reside largely in the stimulating residential life and peer-to-peer and teacher-to-student relationships. These preserves of knowledge and world-class research are possible on the condition of keeping most applicants out. But, it seems, they are not the least bit worried that sharing the form and content of their courses will make their leafy campuses obsolete. If the value of these degrees is directly proportionate to the number of people who are turned away, there is nothing ineherently unscalable about the content of the courses they offer there.

With respect to making course content publicly available, MIT has probably the most extensive program. Launched in 2001, the goal of MIT OpenCourseWare was to make all MIT courses—undergraduate and graduate—online and public.  Apparently, the project did not meet with too much opposition from faculty (in fact, quite the opposite), perhaps because professors retain the authorship rights.  Now, you can find courses, the notes, assignments, exams, and sometimes even audio materials from top professors in almost every department.  What’s more, in 2005, MIT spearheaded the OpenCourseWare Consortium, where a truly global group of universities have agreed to make at least 10 courses each publicly available. With a slightly different content focus, France’s ENS, with its high-profile public mission, made an early move towards knowledge diffusion with its EnSavoirs site.  You can listen to seminars and lectures given by world-class thinkers on almost any topic of interest at this very searchable site (mostly in French but some in English).

Calling all Autodidacts!

What’s the caveat?  These opencourseware sites are non-certificate and non-degree granting; the cachet of a degree is still reserved for the highly-selective group. It didn’t take long for someone to realize that the real advantage of this movement could be realized by offering a structured degree to students who cannot otherwise access high quality education. That’s just what Israeli entrepreneur Shai Reshef hopes to do with University of the People. Recently launched, it will be the first online global degree granting university (once accredited).

Is it going to make MIT obsolete? There are reasons to doubt it. What it will do is leverage the new availability of information and couple that with online peer and professor interaction (their model calls for using volunteer services of qualified educators) to make for a very scalable and very low-cost education.  Helping the drive towards low-cost and high quality educational materials are companies like Flat World Knowledge, publishers of user-adaptable opensource textbooks.  (They make money by offering students complimentary services.) According to Reshef:

[T]he open-source courseware is there, from universities that have put their courses online, available to the public, free, and we know that online peer-to-peer teaching works. Putting it all together, we can make a free university for students all over the world, anyone who speaks English and has an Internet connection.

Yes, so far the majority of available materials are anglophone, but, witnessing the international scope of the OpenCourseware consortium, we can expect that to equilibrate somewhat in the near future, especially since many of the world’s most under-served students are not from anglophone countries.

Let us know in the comments if you have other favorites you’d like to share.

Deborah Goldgaber
Photo by gadl / CC BY-SA 2.0

Share this post! add to del.icio.usDigg itStumble It!