How can we ensure that the Need is broadcast to the right potential experts, without narrowing or broadening too much the broadcast and and do we ensure that we manage to engage these potential experts?<\/p>\n
To maximize the probability to solve a problem, a tradeoff has to be found between strong targeting of the solvers<\/em> and large broadcast:<\/strong> even assuming a large base of solvers<\/em>, it is merely impossible to guaranty their engagement into problem solving. To engage solvers<\/em>, one needs to contact them (for example by email) to \u201cadvertize\u201d the problem. Given a certain problem, who should be contacted? All the solvers<\/em> in all the fields? Solvers<\/em> whose online profile shows a certain \u201cpotential\u201d for the problem? Common knowledge would assume that it is best to target solvers<\/em> to most-efficiently engage them into the solving process. However, a paradox underlies Open Innovation platforms: the \u201cgraal\u201d of these platforms is to maximize cross-fertilization (between industries and between scientific fields). Indeed, studies\u00a0have shown that submitted problems are regularly tackled and solved by solvers<\/em> outside of the\u201cnatural\u201d field.. The initial problem broadcast to experts should therefore not be too targeted. However, recurring fuzzy broadcast of problems to solvers<\/em> leads to decreasing interest as many irrelevant problems end up being sent to solvers<\/em>. The tradeoff is uneasy and fails in most situations.<\/p>\n The solver<\/em> has no guarantee that his solution will not be \u201cstolen\u201d by the client company.<\/strong> Since no trustable mechanism is proposed to incite the client company to reward a good solution (as they may use it for free if they do not look for the IP rights[1]<\/a>), solvers<\/em> are very reluctant to propose a valuable solution when they have one.<\/p>\nThe solver protection<\/h3>\n
\n