Page - (000041) - in Knowledge and Networks

31 have not been commercialized 8 ; and partnering with universities, think tanks, and non-governmental organizations (Chesbrough, 2006a ; Fabrizio, 2006 ). Companies crowdsource by sending out open, electronic calls for inventions or expertise when problems emerge and require solution. For example, in 2002 Proctor and Gamble wanted to fi nd a way to print edible pictures on each potato chip in a Pringles can; their electronic call was answered by the owner of a small bakery in Bologna, Italy, who had invented a way to print edible pictures on cakes and cook- ies; more generally, Proctor and Gamble has developed a strategy it calls “Connect + Develop” to replace the more traditional mentality of in-house research and development (Huston & Sakkab, 2006 ). Other companies orchestrate high- stakes online competitions as a growth strategy to access inventions that would enhance core competencies. Cisco Systems, for example, arranged an online com- petition for an invention related to its core competency in internet technology in 2007, offering a prize of 250,000 dollars to the winner; 2500 inventors across 104 countries competed, with rules stipulating that the winner would sign over the com- mercial rights of the invention to Cisco (Jouret, 2009 ). This one-time cost was offset considerably by the long-term billion-dollar business that Cisco launched using the winning invention as a platform. Many fi rms now outsource crowdsourcing, giving rise to a new breed of fi rms that connect seekers (fi rms looking for new technology or expertise) with solvers (fi rms or individual actors with intellectual property or expertise who may be disas- sociated from fi rms)—the contemporary answer to Hayek’s concern for how to access dispersed knowledges. Useful classifi cations of these mediators 9 exist (e.g., Feller, Finnegan, Hayes, & O’Reilly, 2009 ), 10 but the rapid evolution and internal diversifi cation among these fi rms render the classifi cations insightful mainly in clarifying an initial division of labor. For example, some of these fi rms specialized in connecting seeker fi rms with experts selling existing intellectual property, while others connected seekers with experts selling their expertise to solve problems; some specialized at the outset in demand-driven activity such as classifying and cataloguing problems that solvers search, while others focused on supply-side activ- ity such as fi nding solutions sought by fi rms. Most of these fi rms gradually have diversifi ed internally, developing an array of activities and services to complement 8 Around 90 % of Proctor and Gamble’s patents in 2002 were never commercialized as innova- tions—a situation that is emblematic of tendencies to warehouse inventions (Chesbrough, 2006a , p. 9). In the context of open innovation, dormant inventions take on new value as a means to earn revenue quickly as other fi rms look to license in new technologies to avoid the costs of technology development. 9 These third-party organizers conventionally are termed “intermediaries.” Taking a cue from Bruno Latour’s ( 2005 ) compelling argument that “intermediary” implies neutrality, I use the term “mediator.” 10 Feller et al.’s ( 2009 ) classifi cation of mediators includes the following exemplars: Innocentive, founded in 2001; NineSigma, founded in 2000; Yet2, founded in 1999; YourEncore, founded in 2003; and InnoCrowding, founded in 2006. Companies specializing in connecting freelancers in software development, website design, customer service, and translation in low-wage countries with businesses (including SMEs) in high-wage countries include: oDesk, launched in 2005; Freelancer, launched in 2009; and Guru, launched as eMoonlighter in 1998 (Korkki, 2014 ). 2 Reversing the Instrumentality of the Social for the Economic