Wie Unternehmen internes Crowdfunding nutzen

1. Oktober 2013

2. Teil: Hier geht es zum Beitrag von Walter Frick

Can Internal Crowdfunding Help Companies Surface Their Best Ideas?

by Walter Frick

Crowdfunding platforms like Kickstarter and Indiegogo have proven adept at channeling funding - millions of dollars in cases like the Pebble watch - to innovative new products and projects, often by previously unknown inventors and designers. Can larger companies employ the same type of system to find and fund internal innovation?

IBM has been experimenting with such "enterprise crowdfunding," where the company gives its employees a small budget and encourages them to commit it to each others' proposed projects. The experiments are the subject of an academic paper by IBM researchers, and the results have been promising, with a few surprises - crowdfunding may help improve morale, for instance. I spoke with one of the authors, Michael Muller about what he and his team have discovered. Following is an edited version of our conversation.

Tell us a bit about the experiments with crowdfunding at IBM.

IBM has been interested in finding different ways to support innovation inside of companies - inside of IBM and inside of clients companies - for a long time. When we bring it inside the enterprise, what we call enterprise crowdfunding, several things are different.

Number one, we don't have people use their own money An executive allocates a budget to the participants in the experiment. In our first case, a vice president in research allocated $100 to each of the 500 people in his organization. There was a website that was inspired by Internet crowdfunding websites, where members of the organization could propose projects, and members of the organization could take their $100 and spend it on each others' projects. The trial lasted about a month and the funds where available on a use-it-or-lose-it basis, meaning you could only spend it on somebody else, not on yourself. And at the end of the trial, if you didn't spend the money you didn't get to keep it. A second trial in research was at IBM's Almaden research center [in San Jose, California]. The third trial was in a relatively large IT part of IBM, roughly 5500 people strong.

What kinds of projects were funded?

Many addressed a bunch of technical challenges that we have been having. I don't think they were new inventions here so much as they were making technology available so that people could have new thoughts around the technology which would then lead to inventions, we hoped. In the first research project people had said that they needed access to a micro-tasking site - an example of this would be Mechanical Turk - and it was hard to negotiate how to do those payments through the standard IBM channels. It was funded and the vice president moved heaven and earth to get that through the IBM purchasing organization. And I have seen conference papers based on the data that were collected through the use of that particular set up. In that case, not only did the project go through, but it's enabling useful research.

There were also some other projects that addressed morale issues and the culture.

Several of the proposals had to do with things that people would have to do together in order to participate in it. One was "afternoon beverages". It was at a standard time and if you came for afternoon beverages you are going to talk to you peers and network. Another was simple small-scale pieces of athletic equipment, generally speaking for shared use. The theme seemed to be over and over again, 'We'll do this together, we'll use this together, we'll talk to each other, we'll meet each other.'

What was participation like?

We ran this really not knowing what to expect. We knew the standard figures for social media, where about 10% of the people would be pretty active, or at least somewhat active. Then the 90% of the people would maybe occasionally contribute or mostly look around to see what was going on. We had those kinds of expectations in mind, and what happened really surprised us: we had well over 45% participation.

We had thought, well maybe it's going to be the case that the higher you are in the organization - the more influential you are - the more likely you are to get funding. We found the reverse, actually. People as high as IBM fellows were making proposals that did not get funded; it was really grassroots. Since then we have done two other trials and in one of them the effect of rank in the organization was a complete wash, no statistical effect at all.

Digitale Angebote des Harvard Business Manager
Den Harvard Business Manager gibt es nun auch in digitaler Form für Apple- und Android-Geräte. Alle Ausgaben seit Dezember 2011 stehen bequem mit einem Klick zur Verfügung. Wählen Sie aus den folgenden Varianten für Smartphone, Tablet und Bürocomputer. Oder entscheiden Sie sich für das klassische PDF als Arbeitsmedium.

Zur Übersicht

You found considerable participation across geographies, correct?

Unlike the two research groups, the IT group from the third experiment was geographically distributed across 29 countries and a bunch of different divisions. We thought maybe geography will get in the way, and we found that people collaborated pretty easily across geographical boundaries. For a proposal that was successfully funded, it was well over eight countries among the various investors.

We felt maybe even though geography didn't get in the way, maybe people sharing a common geography might still give an extra oomph, and it turned out that [it] did. If you share the country you are a bit more likely to invest. A few other "things-in-common" worked similarly. If you share the division you are more likely to invest. If you are on the same large-scale international working group or team you are a bit more likely to invest. But none of these stopped people, they just gave people an additional encouragement.

Artikel
© 2013 Harvard Business Publishing
Alle Rechte vorbehalten
Vervielfältigung nur mit Genehmigung
Die neuesten Blogs
Nach oben