Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

A Facilitated Expert-Based Approach to Architecting “Prizeable” Complex Systems

  • Conference paper
  • First Online:
Disciplinary Convergence in Systems Engineering Research

  • 2637 Accesses

Abstract

This study builds on the premise that open innovation methods can be effectively applied to more complex engineered systems through a particular kind of decomposition, one that decouples parts that are suitable for (1) distant expert search, (2) sampling from the right tail, and (3) force multiplying. This paper develops and demonstrates a method that leverages a facilitated expert workshop to elicit those kinds of “prizeable” problems. Our research context – the NASA Asteroid Grand Challenge – had previously suffered from the perception that there was no meaningful role for open innovation methods to play since the physics was such that observation is dominated by contributions from institutional players. However, through our workshop, we both demonstrated that prizeable subproblems exist – even in this highly complex system – and that the proposed approach is capable of eliciting them. The paper concludes by reflecting on the implications of this exercise for open innovation in general.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 259.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Hardcover Book
USD 329.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Notes

  1. 1.

    These observational activities require large, multifaceted infrastructure spread across the globe because of (a) the small size of the objects that could pose a threat (both physical size and apparent size due to reflectivity) [29], (b) the multiple observations required to establish the orbit (when observing in optical spectrum) [27, 29], and (c) the limitations of individual platforms in detecting or characterizing a given PHO [29, 30]. With this infrastructure at their disposal, the vast majority of near-Earth object (NEO) discoveries are made by ground-based optical systems (bolstered by space-based observations) [27, 31] with follow-up characterization observations performed by radar telescopes when required. Since the beginning of their discovery and characterization efforts in 1998, detection capabilities have improved from an estimated 90% of all objects larger than 1 km in diameter to 90% of those greater than 140 m. Experts believe that the current discovery rate of approximately 1000 per year [29] is only limited by the observational infrastructure dedicated to the task.

References

  1. Office of Science and Technology Policy (2012) Implementation of federal prize authority: progress report, March 2012

    Google Scholar 

  2. Office of Science and Technology Policy (2012) Implementation of federal prize authority: progress report in response to the requirements of the America COMPETES reauthorization act of 2010. Office of Science and Technology Policy, Washington, DC

    Google Scholar 

  3. Zients J (2010) Memorandum for the heads of executive departments and agencies: guidance on the use of challenges and prizes to promote open government. Office of Management and Budget, 8 March 2010

    Google Scholar 

  4. Lindegaard S (2010) The open innovation revolution: essentials, roadblocks, and leadership skills. John Wiley & Sons, Hoboken

    Google Scholar 

  5. Terwiesch C, Xu Y (2008) Innovation contests, open innovation, and multiagent problem solving. Manag Sci 54(9):1529–1543

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Boudreau KJ, Lacetera N, Lakhani KR (2011) Incentives and problem uncertainty in innovation contests: an empirical analysis. Manag Sci 57(5):843–863

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Lakhani K, Lifshitz-Assaf H, Tushman M (2012) Open innovation and organizational boundaries: the impact of task decomposition and knowledge distribution on the locus of innovation. Social Science Research Network, Rochester, NY, SSRN Scholarly Paper ID 1980118, May 2012

    Google Scholar 

  8. Szajnfarber Z, Vrolijk A, Crusan J (2014) Exploring the interaction between open innovation methods and system complexity. Presented at the 4th international engineering systems symposium, Hoboken, New Jersey

    Google Scholar 

  9. Dane E (2010) Reconsidering the trade-off between expertise and flexibility: a cognitive entrenchment perspective. Acad Manag Rev 35(4):579–603

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Afuah A, Tucci CL (2012) Crowdsourcing as a solution to distant search. Acad Manag Rev 37(3):355–375

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Hinds PJ (1999) The curse of expertise: the effects of expertise and debiasing methods on prediction of novice performance. J Exp Psychol Appl 5(2):205–221

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Poetz MK, Schreier M (2012) The value of crowdsourcing: can users really compete with professionals in generating new product ideas? J Prod Innov Manag 29(2):245–256

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Jeppesen LB, Lakhani KR (2010) Marginality and problem-solving effectiveness in broadcast search. Organ Sci 21(5):1016–1033

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Acar OA, van den Ende J (2016) Knowledge distance, cognitive-search processes, and creativity the making of winning solutions in science contests. Psychol Sci. doi:10.1177/0956797616634665

  15. Collins HM, Evans R (2002) The third wave of science studies studies of expertise and experience. Soc Stud Sci 32(2):235–296

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Rabe CB (2006) The innovation killer: how what we know limits what we can imagine- and what smart companies are doing about it. In: AMACOM Div American Mgmt Assn

    Google Scholar 

  17. NASA Centennial Challenges (2009) Astronaut glove challenge. NASA, November [Online]. Available http://www.nasa.gov/directorates/spacetech/centennial_challenges/astronaut_glove/index.html. Accessed 20 Aug 2016

  18. Simon H (1962) The architecture of complexity. Proc Am Philos Soc 106(6):467–482

    Google Scholar 

  19. Nadler D, Tushman M, Nadler MB (1997) Competing by design: the power of organizational architecture. Oxford University Press, New York

    Book  Google Scholar 

  20. Baldwin CY, Clark KB, EBSCOhost (2000) Design rules vol. 1: the power of modularity. MIT Press, Cambridge, MA

    Google Scholar 

  21. Galbraith JR (1977) Organization design. Addison-Wesley Pub. Co., Reading

    Google Scholar 

  22. Colfer L, Baldwin CY (2010) The mirroring hypothesis: theory, evidence and exceptions, Harvard Business School Working Paper, vol 10, no. 58

    Google Scholar 

  23. Ethiraj SK, Levinthal D (2004) Modularity and innovation in complex systems. Manag Sci 50(2):159–173

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. Johnston C (2012) Netflix never used its $1 Million Algorithm due to engineering costs. WIRED, 16 April

    Google Scholar 

  25. Amatriain X (2012) Netflix recommendations: beyond the 5 stars (Part 1). The Netflix Tech Blog, 06 April

    Google Scholar 

  26. Lifshitz-Assaf H (2016) Dismantling knowledge boundaries at NASA: from problem solvers to solution seekers. Social Science Research Network, Rochester, SSRN Scholarly Paper ID 2431717

    Google Scholar 

  27. NASA (2007) Near-earth object survey and deflection analysis of alternatives – report to congress

    Google Scholar 

  28. Kessler J (2015) Additional expert session post Ames Asteroid Workshop, 13 June

    Google Scholar 

  29. Galache JL, Beeson CL, McLeod KK, Elvis M (2015) The need for speed in near-earth asteroid characterization. Planet Space Sci 111:155–166

    Article  Google Scholar 

  30. JPL NEO Program (2013) Introduction: NASA Near-Earth Object Search Program. Introduction: NASA Near-Earth Object Search Program [Online]. Available: http://neo.jpl.nasa.gov/programs/intro.html. Accessed 24 Oct 2016

  31. Spahr T (2014) The Minor Planet Center and the International Asteroid Warning Network, May

    Google Scholar 

  32. Asteroid Grand Challenge (2015) Asteroid data hunter challenge. NASA, 12 March. [Online]. Available: http://www.nasa.gov/content/asteroid-data-hunter-challenge-0. Accessed 26 Oct 2016

  33. Ancona DG, Kochan TA, Scully M, Maanen JV, Westney DE (2004) Managing for the future: organizational behavior and processes, 3rd edn. Cengage Learning, Mason

    Google Scholar 

  34. Jansson DG, Smith SM (1991) Design fixation. Des Stud 12(1):3–11

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. The George Washington University, Washington, DC, USA

    Zoe Szajnfarber & Ademir Vrolijk

Authors
  1. Zoe Szajnfarber
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Ademir Vrolijk
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Zoe Szajnfarber .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. Systems Architecting and Engineering Program, University of Southern California, Los Angeles, California, USA

    Azad M. Madni

  2. Center for Systems and Software Engineering, University of Southern California, Los Angeles, California, USA

    Barry Boehm

  3. Aerospace & Mechanical Engineering, University of Southern California, Los Angeles, California, USA

    Roger G. Ghanem

  4. University of Southern California, Los Angeles, California, USA

    Daniel Erwin

  5. Systems Engineering Fellow, The Aerospace Corporation, El Segundo, California, USA

    Marilee J. Wheaton

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2018 Springer International Publishing AG

About this paper

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this paper

Szajnfarber, Z., Vrolijk, A. (2018). A Facilitated Expert-Based Approach to Architecting “Prizeable” Complex Systems. In: Madni, A., Boehm, B., Ghanem, R., Erwin, D., Wheaton, M. (eds) Disciplinary Convergence in Systems Engineering Research. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-62217-0_33

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-62217-0_33

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Cham

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-319-62216-3

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-319-62217-0

  • eBook Packages: EngineeringEngineering (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation