Presented August 2011 to the federal Ideation Community of Practice re: NASA’s innovation strategy, including use of innovation platforms (internal and external tools for crowdsourcing collaboration) and innovation spaces (hacking spaces, TechShop/FabLab/etc.)

1. Innovation Platforms and SpacesNASA’s Strategy for InnovationCase Studies, Best Practices, and Forward PlansIdeation Community of Practice (ICoP)August 9, 2011

2. Innovation Strategy and ResultsiCOP – Washington, DCAugust 9, 2011 Jeffrey R. Davis, MD Director, Space Life Sciences, NASA Jennifer A. Fogarty, PhD Innovation Lead, Space Life Sciences, NASA Cynthia M. Rando, CHFP Innovation and Strategy Coordinator, Wyle Samantha Snabes Deputy Strategist, Wyle

4. Driven by visioning exercise and strategic plan

5. Informed by alliances benchmark and Harvard Business School open innovation and portfolio mapping models and collaborative projects

6. Tested by innovation pilot project

7. Realized by establishing:

8. NASA Human Health and Performance Center (October 2010)

9. Center of Excellence for Collaborative Innovation (July 2011)

10. Future work

11. Continue collaborative innovation initiatives

12. Pursue collaborative research models

13. Develop Strategic Framework for Innovation 3

15. Calls on agencies to increase their ability to promote and harness innovation using tools such as prizes and challenges

16. Dec 2009 OMB memo

17. Requires agencies to further these principles

18. Mar 2010 OMB memo

19. Provides guidance on policies and issues related to using prizes and challenges to promote innovation4

21. TopCoder - open innovation software company with a large network of solvers (~300,000) Variety of skill-based software coding competitions 5

22. NASA Pavilion on InnoCentive 6 Global Appeal- 2900 solvers 80 Countries

23. InnoCentive Pilot Results 7

24. Important for protecting health in space flight Previous work to extend prediction capability beyond 1-2 hours not successful Challenge: 4-24 hour prediction 2 sigma confidence interval Result: 8 hour prediction 85% accuracy 3 sigma confidence interval Solution submitted by retired Radiofrequency engineer 8

25. 9 yet2.com

26. 10 yet2.com PilotResults

27. Yet2.com example: Bone Imaging Page 11 11

28. NASA@work 12

29. NASA@workCenter Participation 13

30. Example: JSC Challenge The Challenge: Non-Invasive Means to Detect Internal Leakage This Challenge asked Solvers to identify technologies and/or concepts which will provide monitoring of the pressure in a small volume between seals (or valves) non-invasively. The Participation:17 Participants from 7 Centers20 Discussion Posts

31. Non-Invasive Means to Detect Internal Leakage The Solution: Marshall applied a Wireless Ceramic Pressure Sensor that they had tested and had experience using in Structural Health Monitoring applications. Challenge Owner Feedback: “Half of the Solutions were deemed by the team to be of sufficient quality to consider for an award. My team chose to award the Solvers for their ‘Wireless Ceramic Pressure Sensor’ concept which holds promise.” “I hope that NASA adopts this platform as an ongoing tool. It provides the opportunity to break down the "silos" that all too often impede the open flow of solutions.”

32. 16 TopCoder

35. Useful algorithm developed and incorporated into NASA model

36. Team felt this process was more efficient than internal development

37. Next steps – NASA Tournament Lab with HBS and TopCoder developed to seek many novel optimization algorithms for ISS17

38. Portfolio Analysis - Metrics Metrics in development Direct costs of open innovation tools Indirect costs (NASA/Contractor team member time) Determine “best” success rate for challenges conducted Compare to existing tools For example, average challenge <$50K to phase I SBIR $100K; grants usually much more Intangibles Connect NASA expertise internally Develop new collaborations externally Promote the space program (participatory exploration) 18

39. Innovation Pilot Lessons Learned Challenge/Technical Need Training Identification Development Predictive Implementation Legal Restrictions Participation Challenge team development Owner and support team Funding Plan Posting cost Awards Fees Follow-up and predicative implementation 19

40. Next steps Longer term contracts for external crowdsourcing, consortium, and internal collaboration platforms Centralized resource using our most experienced people Decision framework for using open and traditional problem solving tools together 20

41. NASA Human Health and Performance Center Membership 90 + members: http://nhhpc.nasa.gov Seven NASA Centers International Space Station partners: JAXA, DLR Government orgs: FAA, GSA, USAF Research Labs, two NIH Centers, FDA, USAID, ONR Academia: FAA COE (Stanford), MIT, UTMB, Tufts, Clemson Corporate: Philips, Johnson & Johnson, Procter & Gamble, General Mills, Nike, GE, InnoCentive, Yet2.com, Cazneau, Pitney Bowes, UnitedHealth Group, Kimberly-Clark Corp. Nonprofits: Mozilla, Southwest Research Institute, The National Center for Human Performance, San Diego Zoo, Draper Lab, Prize4Life Second Workshop: Connecting Through Collaboration – October 18, 2011 21

42. Collaborative Tools NHHPC Wiki Facilitates collaboration across NASA centers and outside organizations. Features include: Discussion Forums Workspaces for project development Searchable member directory Multiple privacy settings Content and resource sharing Internal SharePoint sites Centralized repository for official media Content Management System Social Media 22

43. 23 Collaborative spaces at NASA “People science, not rocket science” Open Government Initiative NASA Headquarters Nick Skytland Chris Gerty Sean Herron Ali Llewellyn cultivating transparency, participation, and collaboration through NASA’s policy, technology, and culture

44. Collaborative Spaces 24 “Affordances” of any collaborative space… [Reference: Harvard Business Review, July-Aug 2011] Proximity“Functional Centrality” Privacy(In the availability of it) Permissiongiven from above?

45. Case Study: The “Über Café” 25 Proximity Privacy Permission

46. Case Study: The “sp.ace” 26 Proximity Privacy Permission

47. Case Study: The “Sandbox” 27 Virtual Participation in work Management Approvals in work Proximity Privacy Permission

48. Case Study: The “Charette” 28 Large Virtual Component Proximity Privacy Permission

49. Questions, Answers, and Discussion 29