On October 14th Cisco announced the winner of their
open innovation contest. The contest was meant to solicit the next big ideas. Contestants proceeded through a series of reviews where they had to continually refine and pitch their ideas.
The winners were three European college students who proposed using Cisco's technology to manage energy efficiency.
On the surface everything seems great about the contest. It was cheap to run (<$50,000), is exciting because of it's focus on new ideas, and was supported by top management.
But something doesn't seem right. Cisco is big, about 60,000 employees. Since they are big they probably have some of the brightest and smartest people in the industry. So if they have the best and brightest why do they have to go outside for good ideas?
Some may argue that they need to go outside because staying if they only stay inside the culture they run the risk of only getting inbred ideas. This doesn't make sense because if the culture is only going to produce inbred ideas than there is no way in the world that this same culture is going to adopt and further an outsider's idea.
I'm not against getting ideas from the outside. On the contrary, I advocate shamelessly stealing good ideas from anywhere you can. It's just that I don't think getting good ideas are the problem.
Take Kodak for example, they invented
the first digital camera but they are 4th in digital camera global market share. Good idea, bad execution.
So if successful innovation hinges on idea execution instead of idea generation and Cisco has the talent to develop good ideas in-house why do they go outside for ideas? Why would someone else know the marketplace better than them? While the Cisco I-contest is exciting, and serves as a good PR tool, it's not clear to me what problem the contest solves.