Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Collective Intelligence and Practice-Based Innovation: An Idea Evaluation Method Based on Collective Intelligence

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Practice-Based Innovation: Insights, Applications and Policy Implications

Abstract

Users and customers are becoming increasingly important sources of knowledge due to changes in innovation policies and paradigms. Simultaneously innovation is becoming more of a networking activity. New methods are needed for processing information and ideas coming from multiple sources more effectively. For example, the whole personnel of an organisation are seen as a great potential for innovation. The recent development of communication technologies such as the Internet has increased interest towards the multidisciplinary field of collective intelligence. To investigate the possibilities of collective intelligence, the nest-site selection process of honeybees was used as model for an idea evaluation tool, a prototype of which was then tested in a case organisation. The results were promising; the prototype was able to evaluate ideas effectively, and it was highly accepted in the organisation.

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

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
eBook
USD 16.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 109.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD 109.99
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

References

  • Amabile, T. (1998). How to kill creativity. Harvard Business Review, 76(5), 76–87.

    Google Scholar 

  • Asch, S. (1955). Opinions and social pressure. Scientific American, 193(5), 31–35.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Berg, J., Nelson, F., & Rietz, T. (2008). Prediction market accuracy in the long run. International Journal of Forecasting, 24(2), 283.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bessant, J. (2003). High-involvement innovation: Building and sustaining competitive advantage trough continuous change. Chichester: Wiley.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bjelland, O., & Wood, R. (2008). An inside view of IBM’s ‘Innovation Jam’. MIT Sloan Management Review, 50(1), 32–40.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bonabeau, E. (2009). Decisions 2.0: The power of collective intelligence. MIT Sloan Management Review, 50(2), 45–52.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bonabeau, E., & Meyer, C. (2001). Swarm intelligence: A whole new way to think about business. Harvard Business Review, 79(5), 106–114.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bothos, E., Apostolou, D., & Mentzas, G. (2009). Collective intelligence for idea management with Internet-based information aggregation markets. Internet Research, 19(1), 26–41.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Camazine, S., Deneubourg, J.-L., Franks, N. R., Sneyd, J., Theraulaz, G., & Bonabeau, E. (2001). Self-organization in biological systems. New Jersey: Princeton University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Conradt, L., & Roper, T. (2005). Consensus decision making in animals. Trends in Ecology & Evolution, 20(8), 449–456.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cowgill, B. (2005). Putting crowd wisdom to work. E-document. The Official Google Blog. http://googleblog.blogspot.com/2005/09/putting-crowd-wisdom-to-work.html. Accessed 7 May 2009.

  • Dennis, A., George, J., Jessup, L., Nunamaker, J., & Vogel, D. (1988). Information technology to support electronic meetings. MIS Quarterly, 12(4), 591–618.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Desouza, K., Dombrowski, C., Awazu, Y., Baloh, P., Papagari, S., Jha, S., & Kim, J. (2009). Crafting organizational innovation processes. Innovation: Management, Policy & Practice, 11(1), 6–33.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dominic, P., Reilly, R., & McGourty, J. (1997). The effects of peer feedback on team member behavior. Group & Organization Studies, 22(4), 508–520.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Elfvengren, K. (2006). Group support system for managing the front end of innovation: Case applications in business-to-business enterprises. Lappeenranta: Lappeenranta University of Technology.

    Google Scholar 

  • Forssen, M. (2001). Life cycles of organizational ‘bottom-up’ development ideas. Knowledge and Process Management, 8(4), 249–261.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Franks, N., Dornhaus, A., Best, C., & Jones, E. (2006). Decision making by small and large house-hunting ant colonies: one size fits all. Animal Behaviour, 72, 611–616.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gloor, P. (2006). Swarm creativity. New York: Oxford University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Gloor, P., & Cooper, S. (2007). The new principles of a swarm business. MIT Sloan Management Review, 48(3), 81–84.

    Google Scholar 

  • Government’s Communication on Finland’s National Innovation Strategy to the Parliament (2009). E-document. Ministry of Employment and the Economy. http://www.tem.fi/files/21010/National_Innovation_Strategy_March_2009.pdf. Accessed 15 April 2009.

  • Hallgren, E. (2008). Employee driven innovation: A case of implementing high-involvement innovation. Lyngby: Technical University of Denmark, Department of Management Engineering.

    Google Scholar 

  • Handbook of Collective Intelligence (2009). E-document. Handbook of collective intelligence. http://scripts.mit.edu/~cci/HCI/index.php?title=Main_Page. Accessed 3 March 2009.

  • Harmaakorpi, V. (2004). Building a competitive regional innovation environment – The regional development platform method as a tool for regional innovation policy. Espoo: Helsinki University of Technology, Department of Industrial Engineering and Management.

    Google Scholar 

  • Harmaakorpi, V., & Melkas, H. (2005). Knowledge management in regional innovation networks: The case of Lahti, Finland. European Planning Studies, 13(5), 641–659.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Herstatt, C., Verworn, B., & Nagahira, A. (2004). Reducing project related uncertainty in the “fuzzy front end” of innovation – A comparison of German and Japanese product innovation projects. International Journal of Product Development, 1(1), 43–65.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hinsz, V., Tindale, R., & Nagao, D. (2007). Accentuation of information processes and biases in group judgments integrating base-rate and case-specific information. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 44(1), 116–126.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hong, L., & Page, S. (2004). Groups of diverse problem solvers can outperform groups of high-ability problem solvers. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the USA, 101(46), 16385–16389.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Iandoli, L., Klein, M., & Zollo, G. (2008). Can we exploit collective intelligence for collaborative deliberation? The case of the climate change Collaboratorium. E-document. MIT Sloan School of Management. http://cci.mit.edu/publications/workingpapers.htm. Accessed 8 March 2009.

  • Jensen, M., Johnson, B., Lorenz, E., & Lundvall, B. (2007). Forms of knowledge and modes of innovation. Research Policy, 36(5), 680.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kallio, A., & Bergenholtz, C. (forthcoming). Generating innovation opportunities: how to explore and absorb customer knowledge. International Journal of Technology Management.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kasanen, E., Lukka, K., & Siitonen, A. (1993). The constructive approach in management accounting research. Journal of Management Accounting Research, 5, 243–264.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lipnack, J., & Stamps, J. (2000). Virtual teams. Toronto: Wiley.

    Google Scholar 

  • Malone, T. (1997). Is empowerment just a fad? Control, decision making, and IT. MIT Sloan Management Review, 38(2), 23–34.

    Google Scholar 

  • Malone, T. (2004). The future of work. Boston: Harvard Business School Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Malone, T., Laubacher, R., & Dellarocas, C. (2010). The collective intelligence genome. MIT Sloan Management Review, 51(3), 21–31.

    Google Scholar 

  • McDermott, C., & O’Connor, G. (2002). Managing radical innovation: An overview of emergent strategy issues. Journal of Product Innovation Management, 19, 424–438.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • MIT Center for Collective Intelligence (2009). MIT Center for Collective Intelligence http://cci.mit.edu/. Accessed 11 April 2009.

  • Office for Official Publications of the European Communities (2004). Innovation in Europe – Results for the EU, Iceland and Norway. E-document. Office for Official Publications of the European Communities. ftp://ftp.cordis.europa.eu/pub/innovationsmes/docs/results_from_cis3_for_eu_iceland_norway.pdf. Accessed 22 April 2009.

  • Paalanen, A., & Konsti-Laakso, S. (2008). Innovaatiohaavi organisaation innovaatiokyvykkyyden kehittäjänä [Innovation catcher as a developer of organizational innovation capability]. In V. Harmaakorpi & H. Melkas (Eds.), Innovaatiopolitiikkaa järjestelmien välimaastossa (pp. 186–195). Helsinki: Suomen Kuntaliitto. (In Finnish.)

    Google Scholar 

  • Page, S. (2007). The difference: How the power of diversity creates better groups, firms, schools and societies. Princeton: Princeton University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Passino, K., & Seeley, T. (2005). Modeling and analysis of nest-site selection by honeybee swarms: The speed and accuracy trade-off. Behavioral Ecology and Sociobiology, 59(3), 427–442.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Passino, K., Seeley, T., & Visscher, P. (2007). Swarm cognition in honey bees. Behavioral Ecology and Sociobiology, 62(3), 401–414.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rothwell, R. (1994). Towards the fifth-generation innovation process. International Marketing Review, 11(1), 7–31.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Seeley, T., & Buhrman, S. (1999). Group decision making in swarms of honey bees. Behavioral Ecology and Sociobiology, 45(1), 19–31.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Seeley, T., Visscher, P., & Passino, K. (2006). Group decision making in honey bee swarms. American Scientist, 94(3), 220–229.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sunstein, C. (2006). Infotopia: How many minds produce knowledge. New York: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Surowiecki, J. (2004). Wisdom of crowds. New York: Anchor Books.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tapscott, D., & Williams, A. (2006). Wikinomics: How mass collaboration changes everything. New York: Penguin Group.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tidd, J., Bessant, J., & Pavitt, K. (2005). Managing innovation: Integrating technological, market and organizational change. Chichester: Wiley.

    Google Scholar 

  • Visscher, P. (2007). Group decision making in nest-site selection among social insects. Annual Review of Entomology, 52, 255–275.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Von Hippel, E. (2005). Democratizing innovation. Cambridge: MIT Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wolfers, J., & Zitzewitz, E. (2004). Prediction markets. Journal of Economic Perspectives, 18(2), 107–126.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Woolley, A., Chabris, F., Pentland, A., Hashimi, N., & Malone, T. (2010). Evidence for a collective intelligence factor in the performance of human groups. Science, 330, 686–688.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Yin, R. (1994). Case study research. Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Lahti School of Innovation, Lappeenranta University of Technology, Lahti, Finland

    Juho Salminen (Researcher) & Vesa Harmaakorpi (Dean, Faculty of Technology Management; Professor)

Authors
  1. Juho Salminen
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Vesa Harmaakorpi
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Juho Salminen .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. Lahti School of Innovation, Lappeenranta University of Technology, Saimaankatu 11, Lahti, 15140, Finland

    Helinä Melkas

  2. Lahti School of Innovation, Lappeenranta University of Technology, Saimaankatu 11, Lahti, 15140, Finland

    Vesa Harmaakorpi

Appendix: Instructions for the Users of the Idea Evaluation Tool Prototype

Appendix: Instructions for the Users of the Idea Evaluation Tool Prototype

Translation from the original Finnish instructions used in the test.

1.1 The Idea Evaluation Tool

1.1.1 Instructions

The purpose of the tool is to collect all the occurring ideas, as they are most of the time forgotten instantly. Forget self-criticism, because all thoughts are accepted. The ideas are divided in four categories:

  1. 1.

    Ideas: all general development suggestions and ideas

  2. 2.

    Problems: observed problems and things requiring improvements

  3. 3.

    Observations: observations about the surrounding world that others might find interesting, for example newspaper articles

  4. 4.

    Development ideas: suggestions and observations concerning this evaluation tool

1.1.1.1 Submitting an Idea

Follow these instructions when you are submitting an idea for evaluation:

  1. 1.

    Write either IDEA, PROBLEM, OBSERVATION, or DEVELOPMENT IDEA in/as the topic of a message.

  2. 2.

    Describe the idea, problem, observation or development idea briefly in the message.

  3. 3.

    Send the message to (email address of facilitator).

1.1.1.2 Evaluating an Idea

When you receive a message with IDEA, PROBLEM, OBSERVATION or DEVELOPMENT IDEA in the topic, follow these instructions:

  1. 1.

    Evaluate the importance of the idea, problem, observation or development idea according to your best knowledge on a scale of 1–5. 1 means poor/unimportant and 5 means good/important.

  2. 2.

    Send your reply to (email address of facilitator).

1.1.1.3 Results

The evaluated ideas can be viewed in a common network folder.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2012 Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Salminen, J., Harmaakorpi, V. (2012). Collective Intelligence and Practice-Based Innovation: An Idea Evaluation Method Based on Collective Intelligence. In: Melkas, H., Harmaakorpi, V. (eds) Practice-Based Innovation: Insights, Applications and Policy Implications. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-21723-4_12

Download citation

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation