IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/hal/journl/hal-01141037.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Web 2.0 et Open Innovation : un regain d'intérêt pour les concours d'innovation en ligne

Author

Listed:
  • Isabelle Liotard

    (CEPN - Centre d'Economie de l'Université Paris Nord - UP13 - Université Paris 13 - USPC - Université Sorbonne Paris Cité - CNRS - Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique)

  • Valérie Revest

    (TRIANGLE - Triangle : action, discours, pensée politique et économique - ENS de Lyon - École normale supérieure de Lyon - UL2 - Université Lumière - Lyon 2 - IEP Lyon - Sciences Po Lyon - Institut d'études politiques de Lyon - Université de Lyon - UJM - Université Jean Monnet - Saint-Étienne - CNRS - Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique)

Abstract

Le Web 2.0 constitue la pierre angulaire pour l'intérêt renouvelé envers un dispositif d'incitation à l'innovation : le concours. Ce dernier contribue en effet à proposer une vitrine mondiale pour ce dispositif, via des sites et des plateformes qui n'ont eu de cesse de se développer depuis le début des années 2000, fonctionnant sur le principe du crowdsourcing. Dans un contexte d'Open Innovation, les concours d'innovation sont mobilisés par deux types d'acteurs économiques: des entreprises privées, mais aussi des agences publiques. En effet, parallèlement aux plateformes privées (Innocentiven Ninesigma…), un nombre croissant d'agences fédérales et d'organisations publiques américaines poste en ligne des concours via le site www.challenge.gov. Nous proposons une analyse comparative de l'utilisation des concours d'innovation par ces deux types d'acteurs. Dans le cas des plateformes privées, les concours contribuent à une forme de marchandisation de la connaissance. La valeur marchande de la solution proposée et son degré d'appropriation par l'entreprise qui a lancé le défi, sont au coeur du dispositif. Les pouvoirs publics américains utilisent de leur coté les concours en ligne afin d'orienter les innovations vers des domaines jugés cruciaux pour l'avenir, trouver des solutions à des défis complexes mais aussi dans la plupart des cas, sensibiliser le public sur des thématiques spécifiques.

Suggested Citation

  • Isabelle Liotard & Valérie Revest, 2014. "Web 2.0 et Open Innovation : un regain d'intérêt pour les concours d'innovation en ligne," Post-Print hal-01141037, HAL.
    • Handle: RePEc:hal:journl:hal-01141037
    Note: View the original document on HAL open archive server: https://hal.science/hal-01141037
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://hal.science/hal-01141037/document
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Kevin J. Boudreau & Andrei Hagiu, 2009. "Platform Rules: Multi-Sided Platforms as Regulators," Chapters, in: Annabelle Gawer (ed.), Platforms, Markets and Innovation, chapter 7, Edward Elgar Publishing.
    2. Jean‐Charles Rochet & Jean Tirole, 2006. "Two‐sided markets: a progress report," RAND Journal of Economics, RAND Corporation, vol. 37(3), pages 645-667, September.
    3. Jaison G. Morgan, 2008. "Inducing Innovation Through Prizes," Innovations: Technology, Governance, Globalization, MIT Press, vol. 3(4), pages 105-117, October.
    4. Thierry Isckia & Denis Lescop, 2011. "Une analyse critique des fondements de l'innovation ouverte," Revue française de gestion, Lavoisier, vol. 0(1), pages 87-98.
    5. Roson Roberto, 2005. "Two-Sided Markets: A Tentative Survey," Review of Network Economics, De Gruyter, vol. 4(2), pages 1-19, June.
    6. Brennan, Timothy J. & Macauley, Molly & Whitefoot, Kate, 2011. "Prizes, Patents, and Technology Procurement: A Proposed Analytical Framework," RFF Working Paper Series dp-11-21-rev, Resources for the Future.
    7. Nicolas Jullien & Julien Pénin, 2014. "Innovation ouverte : vers la génération 2.0," Post-Print hal-01009630, HAL.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Liotard, Isabelle & Revest, Valérie, 2018. "Contests as innovation policy instruments: Lessons from the US federal agencies' experience," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 127(C), pages 57-69.
    2. Pierre ANDREOLETTI & Pierre GAZE & Maxime MENUET, 2015. "Can a Platform Make Profit with Consumers' Mobility? A Two-Sided Monopoly Model with Random Endogenous Side-Switching," LEO Working Papers / DR LEO 1969, Orleans Economics Laboratory / Laboratoire d'Economie d'Orleans (LEO), University of Orleans.
    3. Gawer, Annabelle, 2014. "Bridging differing perspectives on technological platforms: Toward an integrative framework," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 43(7), pages 1239-1249.
    4. Njoroge Paul & Ozdaglar Asuman & Stier-Moses Nicolás E. & Weintraub Gabriel Y., 2014. "Investment in Two-Sided Markets and the Net Neutrality Debate," Review of Network Economics, De Gruyter, vol. 12(4), pages 355-402, February.
    5. Wang, Shiying & Chen, Huimiao & Wu, Desheng, 2019. "Regulating platform competition in two-sided markets under the O2O era," International Journal of Production Economics, Elsevier, vol. 215(C), pages 131-143.
    6. Muge Ozman, 2008. "The Two Faces of Open Innovation: NetworkExternalities and Learning," Working Papers of BETA 2008-24, Bureau d'Economie Théorique et Appliquée, UDS, Strasbourg.
    7. Xing Wan & Javier Cenamor & Geoffrey Parker & Marshall Van Alstyne, 2017. "Unraveling Platform Strategies: A Review from an Organizational Ambidexterity Perspective," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 9(5), pages 1-18, May.
    8. Jabbour, Chady & Rey-Valette, Hélène & Maurel, Pierre & Salles, Jean-Michel, 2019. "Spatial data infrastructure management: A two-sided market approach for strategic reflections," International Journal of Information Management, Elsevier, vol. 45(C), pages 69-82.
    9. Lei Huang & Yandong Zhao & Liang Mei & Peiyi Wu & Zhihua Zhao & Yijun Mao, 2019. "Structural Holes in the Multi-Sided Market: A Market Allocation Structure Analysis of China’s Car-Hailing Platform in the Context of Open Innovation," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(20), pages 1-20, October.
    10. Maruyama Masayoshi & Zennyo Yusuke, 2013. "Compatibility and the Product Life Cycle in Two-Sided Markets," Review of Network Economics, De Gruyter, vol. 12(2), pages 131-155, June.
    11. Nicholas Economides & Benjamin E. Hermalin, 2015. "The strategic use of download limits by a monopoly platform," RAND Journal of Economics, RAND Corporation, vol. 46(2), pages 297-327, June.
    12. Oliver Budzinski & Janina Satzer, 2011. "Sports Business and Multisided Markets: Towards a New Analytical Framework? (Long Version)," Working Papers 1104, International Association of Sports Economists;North American Association of Sports Economists.
    13. Боровкова А.Е., 2019. "Поведение Фирмы-Посредника На Двустороннем Рынке При Дифференциации Продукта В Условиях Асимметрии Информации," Журнал Экономика и математические методы (ЭММ), Центральный Экономико-Математический Институт (ЦЭМИ), vol. 55(2), pages 104-117, апрель.
    14. Oz Shy, 2011. "A Short Survey of Network Economics," Review of Industrial Organization, Springer;The Industrial Organization Society, vol. 38(2), pages 119-149, March.
    15. Alma L. Garcia-Almanza & Biliana Alexandrova-Kabadjova & Sara G. Castellanos Pascacio, 2012. "The Adoption Process of Payment Cards -An Agent- Based Approach," Working Papers 1213, BBVA Bank, Economic Research Department.
    16. Gupta, Sunil & Mela, Carl F. & Vidal-Sanz, Jose M., 2009. "The value of a "free" customer," DEE - Working Papers. Business Economics. WB wb092903, Universidad Carlos III de Madrid. Departamento de Economía de la Empresa.
    17. Elizabeth J. Altman & Mary Tripsas, 2013. "Product to Platform Transitions: Organizational Identity Implications," Harvard Business School Working Papers 14-045, Harvard Business School, revised Sep 2014.
    18. Biliana Alexandrova-Kabadjova & Alma L. Garcia-Almanza & Sara G. Castellanos Pascacio, 2012. "El proceso de adopcion de tarjetas de pago: un enfoque basado en agentes," Working Papers 1214, BBVA Bank, Economic Research Department.
    19. Oliver Budzinski & Janina Satzer, 2008. "Sports Business and the Theory of Multisided Markets," MAGKS Papers on Economics 200811, Philipps-Universität Marburg, Faculty of Business Administration and Economics, Department of Economics (Volkswirtschaftliche Abteilung).
    20. Bejjani, Melissa & Göcke, Lutz & Menter, Matthias, 2023. "Digital entrepreneurial ecosystems: A systematic literature review," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 189(C).

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:hal:journl:hal-01141037. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: CCSD (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://hal.archives-ouvertes.fr/ .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.