Implementing Open Innovation at NASA’s Space Life Sciences Directorate: A Strategic Challenge

QUESTION

When dramatic budget cuts in 2005 forced Davis and Richard to rethink Space Life Sciences Directorate’s (SLSD) research and work processes, open innovation presented itself as one tool SLSD members could use to continue to collaborate on their research and technology for the efficacy of human health and performance in space. In 2008, as part of a larger strategic plan to ensure that SLSD operated within the new budget paradigm, Davis introduced open innovation, presenting it as one of several ways to enable SLSD scientists and engineers to continue to pursue research and innovation with partners outside SLSD.

Since 2008, Davis had made continuous efforts—both formal and informal—to seed open innovation as a viable approach in SLSD research and technology development

Davis and Richard had organized the workshop to present insights from dramatically successful.

SLSD open innovation pilots conducted the previous fall. About 60 members of the SLSD leadership team were invited to the workshop. Several of these members had been early adopters of open innovation and were enthusiastic about its promise as a way to pursue research and experimentation.

Many others, in contrast, had shown little interest, had been confused about the approach, and were generally resistant and sceptical.

Davis and Richard were excited about the workshop, especially the presentation of the challenge2 results. The results were spectacular; they showed how effective and efficient open innovation at SLSD could be. Davis and Richard hoped the results specifically, and the workshop more generally, would persuade SLSD members to integrate open innovation into their day-to-day SLSD research.

They had been laying plans for weeks, anticipating that the pilot results would persuade their skeptical colleagues.

Instead Davis and Richard stood stunned at the back of the room as some colleagues resoundingly rejected the results as unrelated to their work. They were surprised by the emotional reaction to these open innovation pilots. Some were skeptical that outsiders and nonexperts could help solve big science problems; others resisted integrating an open innovation approach into their labs, calling it ill-suited to their specialized research. Many expressed reluctance to incorporate the approach into their day-to-day work. Back in his office, Davis remarked, “I just really didn’t expect that response.

We’ve been providing information about this approach for two years. It was like the air slowly coming out of a balloon.” Richard said, “No. It was worse. It was like a lead balloon crashing with a deep thud.”

Case Questions 

Why has “Open Innovation” become a strategic priority for Jeff Davis? 

What insights have you gained from the case on the importance of “defining problems” skillfully in the innovation process? 

Who were some of the most important groups of expert problem solvers within the Space Life Sciences Directorate (SLSD)?   

Evaluate how Davis lead the introduction and implementation open innovation at NASA and SLSD. What were some strengths and weaknesses of his approaches?  Why didn’t people share his vision and enthusiasm for open innovation?

ANSWER

 Implementing Open Innovation at NASA’s Space Life Sciences Directorate: A Strategic Challenge

Introduction

In 2005, budget cuts forced Jeff Davis and Richard to rethink the research and work processes of NASA’s Space Life Sciences Directorate (SLSD). To continue collaborating on research and technology for human health and performance in space, open innovation emerged as a viable approach. In 2008, Davis introduced open innovation as part of a larger strategic plan to operate within the new budget paradigm, encouraging SLSD scientists and engineers to pursue innovation with external partners. Despite Davis’ continuous efforts to seed open innovation, its integration faced challenges as some SLSD members remained skeptical and resistant.

Strategic Priority of Open Innovation for Jeff Davis

Open innovation became a strategic priority for Jeff Davis due to the dramatic budget cuts in 2005. Recognizing the constraints imposed on SLSD, Davis saw open innovation as a powerful tool to maintain collaboration and research momentum in the face of financial limitations. By involving external partners and experts, Davis believed that open innovation could provide fresh perspectives, accelerate problem-solving, and enhance the efficacy of human health and performance in space. He aimed to leverage external knowledge and resources to supplement SLSD’s capabilities, ensuring the continuation of innovative research despite budgetary constraints.

The Importance of Skillful Problem Definition in the Innovation Process

The case highlights the significance of skillfully defining problems in the innovation process. The success of open innovation relies on formulating clear and well-defined challenges for external experts to address. In the SLSD context, some colleagues rejected the open innovation results, primarily due to a lack of alignment between the defined challenges and their specialized research. This suggests that some problems might have been inadequately framed, leading to a disconnection between external problem solvers and the specific needs of SLSD researchers. Skillful problem definition is essential to attract relevant expertise, focus efforts efficiently, and bridge the gap between external solutions and internal requirements.

Groups of Expert Problem Solvers within SLSD

Within SLSD, the most important groups of expert problem solvers were those who demonstrated early adoption and enthusiasm for open innovation. These individuals recognized the potential of external collaboration to advance research and experimentation. They were open-minded, receptive to novel approaches, and willing to explore solutions beyond their immediate scope. On the other hand, some colleagues resisted open innovation, perceiving it as incompatible with their specialized research or skeptical about outsiders’ contributions. Bridging this divide required engaging both early adopters and skeptics, emphasizing the benefits of diverse perspectives and fostering a culture of openness and knowledge sharing.

Evaluation of Davis’ Introduction and Implementation of Open Innovation

Strengths

Strategic Vision: Davis showed foresight by recognizing the potential of open innovation as a solution to budgetary constraints and promoting its integration within SLSD’s research and technology development.

Pilot Success: The spectacular results from the open innovation pilots demonstrated the effectiveness and efficiency of the approach, providing tangible evidence of its value.

Continuous Efforts: Davis’ persistent efforts to promote open innovation demonstrated commitment and dedication to driving organizational change.

Weaknesses

 Inadequate Communication: Despite providing information about open innovation for two years, Davis may have failed to effectively communicate its benefits and relevance to skeptical colleagues, resulting in resistance and misunderstanding.

Insufficient Problem Framing: Some challenges presented to external problem solvers may not have aligned well with the specific needs and research focus of SLSD members, leading to a lack of enthusiasm for the approach.

Overlooking Resistance: Davis may not have adequately addressed the concerns and reservations of colleagues who were reluctant to adopt open innovation, resulting in a failure to build consensus and shared vision.

Lack of Enthusiasm for Open Innovation

The lack of enthusiasm for open innovation among SLSD members can be attributed to various factors. Some researchers might have been hesitant to embrace external contributions, fearing that outsiders and non-experts could not effectively address complex science problems. Additionally, the specialized nature of their research might have led to a perception that open innovation was ill-suited to their needs. Moreover, insufficient communication and problem framing may have led to misunderstandings and skepticism among SLSD members, hindering the successful integration of open innovation into their day-to-day work.

Conclusion

Jeff Davis’ pursuit of open innovation at NASA’s Space Life Sciences Directorate aimed to tackle budgetary challenges and foster collaboration with external partners. While the approach showed promise, its successful implementation encountered resistance due to communication gaps and inadequate problem framing. To overcome these hurdles, a more strategic and inclusive approach is required, involving clear problem definition, effective communication, and engagement with diverse groups of problem solvers. By fostering a culture of openness and addressing the concerns of skeptics, SLSD can fully embrace the benefits of open innovation and drive research and technology development to new heights.