@article {1275,
	title = {Giving Science Innovation Systems a {\textquoteright}Nudge{\textquoteright}},
	journal = {Technology Innovation Management Review},
	volume = {9},
	year = {2019},
	month = {10/2019},
	pages = {51-61},
	publisher = {Talent First Network},
	chapter = {51},
	address = {Ottawa},
	abstract = {In this article we consider the role that contextual factors play in science innovation systems \&ndash; that is, the choice architecture, that influences the orientation and outcomes of publicly-funded research. More specifically, we examine how choice architects, particularly policymakers and funding administrators, can affect the decision-making behaviour of researchers. The context for today\&rsquo;s science innovation systems continues to shift as governments seek solutions to the world\&rsquo;s \&ldquo;grand societal challenges\&rdquo;, such as climate change and ageing populations, in addition to greater and more demonstrable impact from funded research. This means that the assumptions of \&ldquo;basic research [being] performed without thought of practical ends\&rdquo; (Bush, 1945) that have shaped such projects, actually run counter to the growing expectations of greater commercialisation and use of multidisciplinary mission-led approaches. We argue that a closer examination of the choice architecture for publicly-funded research is required to understand and address how these potentially conflicting objectives may be pursued most productively through interventions that could form the basis of a novel, behaviourally-based toolkit for science innovation policy.},
	keywords = {behavioural economics, behavioural science, choice architecture, innovation policy, mission-led science, research impact.},
	issn = {1927-0321},
	doi = {http://doi.org/10.22215/timreview/1275},
	url = {https://timreview.ca/article/1275},
	author = {Kirsty de Jong and Urs Daellenbach and Sally Davenport and Jarrod Haar and Shirley Leitch}
}
@article {665,
	title = {Problemsourcing: Local Open Innovation for R\&D Organizations},
	journal = {Technology Innovation Management Review},
	volume = {3},
	year = {2013},
	month = {03/2013},
	pages = {14-20},
	publisher = {Talent First Network},
	address = {Ottawa},
	abstract = {Open innovation and crowdsourcing are usually focused on using others external to the organization to solve your problems. How then do R\&D organizations, who traditionally solve the problems of others, harness the benefits of open innovation and crowdsourcing yet maintain their mission and capabilities? "Problemsourcing" may provide the answer. In this mode of open innovation, the open call to the "crowd" of businesses is for them to suggest problems that, if solved by the R\&D organization, could greatly enhance the business{\textquoteright} competitive advantage and therefore the nation{\textquoteright}s economy. 

In this article, we describe a problemsourcing initiative developed by Industrial Research Ltd (IRL), a government-owned R\&D organization in New Zealand. The "What{\textquoteright}s Your Problem New Zealand?" competition promised NZ$1m worth of R\&D services to the winning business. Using this case study, we map a range of benefits of crowdsourcing for R\&D problems, including generating a potential pipeline of projects and clients as well as avoiding the challenge to the professional status of the organization{\textquoteright}s research capability. A side-effect not initially taken account of was that, by demonstrating openness, accessibility, and helpfulness, the reputation of the research organization was greatly enhanced. 

The problemsourcing model provided by the "What{\textquoteright}s Your Problem New Zealand?" competition represents a new strategic possibility for R\&D organizations that complements their traditional business model by drawing on the openness that open innovation and crowdsourcing seek to leverage. As such, it can provide insights for other research organizations wishing to make use of the connectivity afforded by open innovation and crowdsourcing.},
	keywords = {crowdsourcing, local open innovation, Open innovation, problemsourcing, R\&D},
	issn = {1927-0321},
	doi = {http://doi.org/10.22215/timreview/665},
	url = {http://timreview.ca/article/665},
	author = {Sally Davenport and Stephen Cummings and Urs Daellenbach and Charles Campbell}
}
