CONSISTENT PATTERNS IN LARGE - SCALE COLLABORATION - Collaborative Computational Technologies for Biomedical Research - page 104

Figure 6.4 Cumulative value vs. cumulative quantity from four large Pfi zer campaigns:
(triangles) an all-R&D campaign seeking nontraditional, marketable IP; (circles) a
challenge to reduce operating costs for a mobile sales force; (squares) a process
improvement challenge to reduce time and complexity in clinical document prepara-
tion; (diamonds) a scientifi c-medical challenge for additional indications for an existing
drug.
In case ( a ), not only are the “idea people” prolifi c, their ideas are better.
If there is some sort of expertise or talent for idea generation, or if people
with more talent also have more confi dence resulting in higher participation,
this is what we might expect. It would be a case of an “80-20” rule where a
minority dominates in quantity and quality. On the other hand, a case can be
made for ( c ), where the ideas from the rare participants should be better:
There is good evidence that teams get tired and less effective over time and
need external stimuli [11], and Gary Hamel makes a strong case that value
comes by “listening to the periphery,” those voices seldom heard by dint of
corporate culture, geography, or generational deafness [12].
Our data, while not as complete as for the power law itself, are consistent
and provocative. Figure 6.4 shows the results from four large Pfi zer challenges
in which semiquantitative estimates of idea value were available. Importantly,
in all cases entry value was assigned by the review team established by the
campaign sponsor and judged by criteria agreed on in advance [typically along
dimensions of technical feasibility, potential market value or cost or time
reduction, competitive advantage, and intellectual property (IP) risk]; in other
words, value was estimated by those who would benefi t by success and be
involved in implementation. Ideas rated low by such a team have essentially