COMMENTARY

Why contests are a smart procurement tool

Steve Kelman is professor of public management at Harvard University’s Kennedy School of Government and former administrator of the Office of Federal Procurement Policy.

Compared to many of my colleagues, I am more inclined to read academic journals from cover to cover rather than just the one or two papers that are directly related to my areas of research. This has the virtue of exposing me to ideas off my beaten track, which is good for creativity, but at the cost of my often being way behind on the latest issues.

I say this as an excuse for reporting only now on a paper in the September/October 2010 issue of Organization Science. Fortunately, academic papers have a longer shelf life than, say, a daily newspaper. And this article was worth the wait.

It has the forbidding title “Marginality and Problem-Solving Effectiveness in Broadcast Search.” The authors are Lars Bo Jeppesen of Copenhagen Business School and Karim Lakhani of Harvard Business School. By “broadcast search,” the authors mean what in government jargon is called “contests” — that is, situations in which an agency announces a problem and offers a prize for the first or best solution.

The paper’s starting point is an observation from what was probably the world’s first government-sponsored contest and perhaps the best-known one, due to its popularization in Dava Sobel’s 1996 book “Longitude”: the prize offered by the British government in the 1700s to anyone who could solve the vexing problem of determining longitude at sea. The paper notes that Sir Isaac Newton, who served on the board of scientists that reviewed the entries, predicted that the solution would need to be based on astronomical science. However, the eventual winner was a largely self-taught carpenter and clockmaker, John Harrison, who developed a chronometer suitable for the task by coming up with a design that differed from the clockmaking establishment’s typical approach.

The paper also cites research showing that the scientists responsible for major innovations in medicine and molecular biology have tended to be marginal players.

With that in mind, Jeppesen and Lakhani reviewed the winners of a sample of contests launched on the website InnoCentive.com and found two results. The first is that the more the solution submitters characterized the problem they were trying to solve as at the boundary of or outside their field of expertise, the more likely they were to win the contest. The second was that women were more likely to win than men.

The researchers suggest a common explanation for those findings: Outsiders have “a useful ignorance of prevailing assumptions and theories.” Furthermore, the greater the number of different perspectives and toolkits that are applied to a problem, the greater the likelihood that one of them will work. Indeed, in many cases, organizations conduct a contest only after trying to solve the problem internally using conventional toolkits.

The greater success rate for women, the researchers say, relates to the enforced marginality of many women in science, which produces the positive side effect that women scientists might be less bound by conventional wisdom.

The findings suggest another reason why contests might be a good procurement tool for government. Because contests do not require an understanding of the government procurement system, they are more likely to bring in players other than the usual suspects, and such players might be better able to solve the government’s problems. Therefore, the advantage of using contests might be even greater for government than for the private firms studied in this research.

About the Author

Kelman is professor of public management at Harvard University’s Kennedy School of Government and former administrator of the Office of Federal Procurement Policy. Connect with him on Twitter: @kelmansteve

Who's Fed 100-worthy?

Nominations are now open for the 2015 Federal 100 awards. Get the details and submit your picks!

Featured

Reader comments

Sun, Feb 12, 2012 Jeff Myers Washington, DC

I wonder if there may be an additional thing going on: Insiders expect to get paid for their work, and don't enter contests. Outsiders perceive their contest entry as a bit of a fluke - more a hobby for spare time than their core focus, so more outsiders enter the contests than insiders. Is there any way to tell how many entries come from "insiders" compared to "outsiders"?

Fri, Feb 10, 2012 OccupyIT

Well at least you admit you are academic. That's the first step to a cure. :) All kidding aside, I find this misconception alot that somehow innovation is supressed in the USG and by the contractors because of group think. I would rephrase “a useful ignorance of prevailing assumptions and theories.” applicable to academia as “a useful ignorance of the regulatory, security, and policy environment within which innovations must be deployed.” to put this in the correct context. Most people think a $10K prize somehow engages better, more innovative participants and this article perpetuates that thinking. In reality it allows the participate, usually through ingnorance, to set aside all the other requirements imposed by the USG on real IT efforts. I have participated in projects where the non-functional requirement tail (like C&As, IV&Vs, ORRs, SDLC meetings, etc.) wags the agile, innovation dog on the order of greater than 1-to-1 (i.e., Dev Costs <= Compliance/Policy Costs) or worse. You think bans on cookies and then javascript and then rich clients, etc. encouraged innovation. All those policy blockers are suddenly removed as we swing the pendulum back to the wild west. Happens over and over and we should see at some point a catastrophe from a contest winner that remind everyone that some of our controls exist for a reason. Silver Bullet hunters usually get one...

Please post your comments here. Comments are moderated, so they may not appear immediately after submitting. We will not post comments that we consider abusive or off-topic.

Please type the letters/numbers you see above