The mobile app (Fig. 21.2) has a map with icons for georeferenced actions by the player (notify mosquito hatcheries; destroy hatchery; report zika, chikungunya or dengue patients, make an appointment to open a property). On the middle screen, the player may examine her/his conquest history, ranking, points and rewards. The screen on the right shows a game level change and accumulated points. The bottom of this screen brings a link to an AB’s partner business. Access to the marketplace is possible from any page through a specific hot button. V1 of AB’s mobile component was implemented for Android, with Google maps native GPS.
Fig. 21.2Some screens for AedesBusters
V1 for AB’s Web component was implemented as a Restful Web Service using JAX‐RS. Further implementation details may be found in [17, 18]. According to granted permissions by the sys admin, VA/VE agents or high level players (who have made important conquests which were endorsed by the associated supervisor and can thus act as volunteer agents) use AB’s Web component basic screen map (Fig. 21.2) to: as “regular agents” view data on notifications (location, time and player), mission results, etc.; as “supervisor”, to edit such data (e. g. validate an uploaded object), invite or endorse volunteer agents, attribute missions; or, as “sys admin”, manage the database, the problem‐solution logic (e. g., changing incentives), produce reports for decision support and manage the marketplace.
21.4.2 AquaGuardians
Interviews with ANA professionals, expert university professors, local water management agents, educators and business people conducted in the first semester of 2016 in the state of Paraíba, Brazil, led to the following success indicators for AG: a) student awareness of water conservation and b) number of community actions towards saving, preservation and monitoring of water. Indicator a) is to be evaluated by the (increase) of photographic, artistic, theatrical, reading, writing, video and other works by students on the general theme of water. AG V1 Web GIS was implemented using MySQL; the mobile App used Unity (Fig. 21.3).
Fig. 21.3Some screens for AquaGuardians
AG screens bear close functional similarity to AB’s and details may be found in [19]. Children and teenagers play AG by doing georeferenced missions for caring for available water resources and producing (and uploading proof of) their works; local school teachers play by creating, coaching and assessing these missions in the virtual and real worlds; water agents play to validate the other players’ actions and by making strategic decisions for water management. Any business person or consumers – not only players – may participate by offering or buying products and services in the marketplace. Differently from AB, AG offers a physical gameboard (possibly sold separately) for playing with the mobile app.
21.5 Validation Studies
Preliminary validation studies were carried out to check whether V1 for AB and AG would impact the success indicators favorably and whether the associated marketplace would be attractive to the match stakeholders as a business channel – i. e., to answer the Research Question (RQ) at the end of Sect. 21.3. Please note that, since fully validated feedbacks in the iterative methodology (Sect. 21.3.1) may take months, years even to be completed (i. e., to ensure claims that solutions are sound and encompassing), one may only argue for face validity [18] for now.
21.5.1 AedesBusters
AB V1 interface and functionality were first evaluated by 24 VA/VE staff who unanimously found the match features “likely to improve success indicators i) to iv)”. A field trial was conducted in the week of July 13–17, 2015 in a suburb of the city of Campina Grande, Brazil, whose Quick Mapping for Aedes aegypti Infestation Index (“LIRAa” in Portuguese) had reached 11.5% then (Brazilian health authorities consider LIRAa < 1% to be satisfactory; between 1 and 3.9%, state of alert; and ≥ 4% to be in “risk of surge”). Thirty volunteers (students, housewives, teachers, police and sales people) participated in the field trial, 53.33–46.66% male‐female, 20–36 years old; all trained in AB gameplay; 10 VA/VE agents acted as supervisors, validating notifications for intangible incentives only. During the week, AB increased notifications by 520% (compared to previous week averages) and reduced VA/VE average response time (from notification to decision to act) from 15 h to 5 min (supervisors monitored notifications on the map and sent messages with action missions to players acting as field agents). At the end, all 30 volunteer players and 10 staff were interviewed, in addition to 150 residents in the trial suburb. Ninety percent of players and residents agreed they would recommend that friends and relatives play AB; 90% of the agents said “AB would much facilitate combating the mosquito and integrating actions between the environment and epidemiology agencies”. These results establish “face validity” for AB as a useful tool for checking the spread of Aedes aegypti.
21.5.2 AquaGuardians
In July 2016, thirty‐three users – 20 students, 6 teachers and 7 water agents 54.54–45.46% male‐female, 16 to 41 years old; all trained in AG gameplay mechanics – were questioned about their level of motivation to play AG V1: 26.1% responded they felt very motivated by the match’s features; 65.2% felt motivated; and, just 8.7% felt neutral. When asked about the utility of AG features to support educational tasks (“missions”), 41.2% answered they were “very useful”; 44.1% said “useful”; and, 14.7% remained neutral. Water agents, when asked whether AG would increase success indicator b) in their city, responded: very much, 43.5%; yes, 47.8%; and, only 8.7% remained neutral. These favorable percentages establish AG face validity for its features concerning success indicators a) and b).
21.5.3 Marketplace
Since marketplace features are common to AB and AG, answers to the RQ in subsection 21.3.2 for both matches are discussed together in this subsection. All 33 AG users in 21.5.1 graded the importance of the marketplace for the match attractiveness in a five‐point scale from 1 (not important at all) to 5 (very important): the agents’ grades averaged 4.74; the teachers’, 4.80; and, the students’, 4.91.
As for AB, 26 UFCG students played AB as volunteers in early 2016. They had no tangible intrinsic incentives – e. g., no marketplace features: they just played to “do good”. When asked whether the AB match would motivate their engagement as “volunteer agents” only 24% said yes (62% were in doubt and 14% answered “no”). The introduction of a marketplace however, would make 92% answer “yes”, thus providing for an affirmative answer to the RQ and implying face validity of a marketplace match to fight Aedes aegypti. Further evidence of the interest by entrepreneurs and business leaders on AB was collected through a survey in the city of Iguatú, Ceará state, Brazil, in late 2015. Eleven interviewees from the education, radio, franchise, furniture and appliance retail, office supplies, cosmetics, photography, party and event promotion, male fashion and beverage industries, unanimously said they would use AB’s marketplace to advertise and to offer discounts to outstanding players, paying commission on sales. Since Iguatú had LIRAa < 1% then, the surveyed subjects’ position may be projected more favorably to cities where LIRAa > 1%, adding credence on the validity of AB’s marketplace significance for business and consequently, interest on matches.
21.6 Conclusion
This chapter discussed an IT system whose intersection to digital marketplaces supports educational and operational efforts to address complex, costly community challenges in a cost‐effective manner for governments, in a lucrative way for users, and with sustainability for the system itself. The system incorporates concepts and facilities from alternate reality games, crowdsourcing, incentive engineering, georeferenced information systems, trust systems, computer‐based education, mobile computing, knowledge management, marketplaces and entrepreneurship. The proposed system is seen as a marketplace‐driven, game‐changing game, or match for short. A generic match modular archite
cture was proposed, implemented and applied to two real problem cases for preliminary validation experiments in the public health and water conservation areas.
This chapter offered preliminary evidence that (digital) marketplaces contribute to attract and retain players to matches. As such, the chapter contributed to the on‐going discussion on the role and impact of IT and digital marketplaces to the economy and wellbeing of society in general. Work in this theme is just beginning, however. Applications of matches to other areas and more extensive validation may yield more encompassing, statistically significant evidence.
Acknowledgments
The comments of anonymous referees helped improve the contents of this chapter. Their time is much appreciated. The authors also thank Valéria Andrade, Irivaldo Oliveira, Hugo Morais, Gabriel Cintra, Francisco Edeverson, Rafaela Araújo from Atelier de Computação of the Federal University of Campina Grande (UFCG), Brazil for implementing AB and AG and helping with the validation experiments. The authors are grateful for the financial support received from the National Agency for Water – ANA, from the Coordination for the Improvement of Higher Education Personnel – CAPES, Foundation for Research Support of Paraíba State – FAPESQ‐PB, and the Ministry of Communications of Brazil for the development of AedesBusters and AquaGuardians within the ClipCult project.
References
1.
World Health Organization WHO Mosquito control: can it stop Zika at source? |Update 17 February 2016. http://www.who.int/emergencies/zika-virus/articles/mosquito-control/en/ Available at. Accessed Oct 22, 2016.
2.
UNEP / UN-Habitat “Sick water? The central role of wastewater management in sustainable development”. Available at http://www.grida.no/publications/rr/sickwater/. Acessed 22 Oct 2016.
3.
D. J. Kuss, Internet gaming addiction: current perspectives, Psychology Research and Behavior Management, 2013; 6: 125–137. DovePress. Published online 2013 Nov 14. DOI: 10.2147/PRBM.S39476
4.
Muntean, C. I. (2011). Raising engagement in e-learning through gamification. In The 6th International Conference on Virtual Learning ICVL 2012 (pp. 323–329)
5.
M. Kosonen et al., “User motivations and knowledge sharing in idea crowdsourcing.” International Journal of Innovation Management, 2014; v18, n5: 6-18.
6.
Seeclickfix. Seeclickfix: Better Communication, Stronger Communities. Available at http://en.seeclickfix.com/ Acessed 22 Oct 2016, 2016, New Haven.
7.
Trashout. Trashout: localization of illegal dumps. Available at https://www.trashout.ngo//?ref=trashout.me. Accessed 22 Oct 2016. 2016. Prague
8.
Gibbs, M., Designing Incentive Plans: New Insight from Academic Research, World at Work Journal, Fourth Quarter 2012, 29-47.
9.
K. Song et al., Game Theoretical Analysis on Cooperation Stability and Incentive Effectiveness in Community Networks. 11(2): e0148688., 2016. Crossref
10.
J. Chandler et al., Risks and Rewards of Crowdsourcing Marketplaces, February 4, 2014, Handbook of Human Computation, pp. 377-392, Springer, New York, USA.
11.
U. Gneezy et al., When and Why Incentives (Don’t) Work to Modify Behavior, JEP, Fall 2011, V 25, N 4; 191–210.
12.
H. Yu, “Building Robust Crowdsourcing Systems with Reputation-aware Decision Support Techniques,” Available at https://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/1502/1502.02106.pdf., Acessed 22 Oct 2016.
13.
M. H. Nguyen and D. Q. Tran, A Trust-based Mechanism for Avoiding Liars in Referring of Reputation in Multiagent System, International Journal of Advanced Research in Artificial Intelligence, 2015 Vol.4, No.2; 28-36.
14.
W.T. Luke Teacy et al., An efficient and versatile approach to trust and reputation using hierarchical Bayesian modelling, 2012, Artificial Intelligence 193; 149–185.CrossrefMATH
15.
J. Y. Geronimo, Crowdsourcing dengue alert. Available at www.rappler.com/nation/31760-nationwide-dengue-vector-surveillance. Accessed 14 11 2016. 2016.
16.
IBM, Sistema Agua Viva. Available at http://agua-viva.org. Accessed 17 Oct 2016. New York. 2016.
17.
Larman, Craig. Agile and Iterative Development: A Manager’s Guide. Addison-Wesley. p. 27. ISBN 978-0-13-111155-4. 2004. New York.
18.
M. Litwin, How to Measure Survey Reliability and Validity, Sage Publications, 96 pp. 1995. Los Angeles.Crossref
19.
Federal University of Campina Grande. CompCult - Atelier de Computação e Cultura da UFCG, Available at www.compcult.net. Accessed at 22 Oct 2016. 2016. Campina Grande.
Further Reading
20.
G. Coulouris, J. Dollimore and T. Kindberg, “Distributed Systems – Concepts and Design,” Amsterdam: Addison-Wesley Longman, 2005.MATH
21.
R. Buettner, “A Systematic Literature Review of Crowdsourcing Research from a Human Resource Management Perspective.,” Proceedings of HICSS-48., Bd. DOI: 10.13140/2.1.2061.1845., Nr. DOI: 10.13140/2.1.2061.1845., p. DOI: 10.13140/2.1.2061.1845., January 2015.
22.
A. Doan et al., “Crowdsourcing Systems on the World-Wide Web,” CACM, Bd. 54, Nr. 4, pp. 86–96, 2011.Crossref
© Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany 2018
Claudia Linnhoff-Popien, Ralf Schneider and Michael Zaddach (eds.)Digital Marketplaces Unleashedhttps://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-662-49275-8_22
22. Industrial Evolution and Disruptive Innovation: Theories, Evidence and Perspectives
Luigi Orsenigo1
(1)Scuola Universitaria Superiore IUSS, Pavia, Italy
Luigi Orsenigo
Email: [email protected]
22.1 Introduction: From Creative Destruction to Disruptive Innovation
The idea of disruptive innovation has at the same time a very long and a very short history. Yet, we still know too little about the frequency, intensity and modalities of this crucial phenomenon, let alone about the implications for strategy and policy making. There are indeed various meanings and interpretations of this concept, in the literature and in practice, but they often lack generality and in most instances theories rely on a quite narrow set of specific cases of particular firms, products and industries. This paper will not review the details of this debate. Rather, some more basic issues are discussed about the intensity and forms of disruptive innovation and the strategies and reactions of incumbents to the threats presented by new technologies. Thus, this paper aims at locating the concept of disruptive innovation into a broader context in order to clarify its relevance and the differentiated ways in which it appears (or it doesn’t appear), thus providing very preliminary and basic indications for analysis and action.
The long part of the story can be traced back to the Classical economists. The notion that markets and market leadership are constantly changing through the appearance and introduction of new technologies and more generally innovations was forcefully advanced by Marx, who wrote almost poetic pages describing the hectic and irresistible pace of capitalism driven by continuous technological change: “All that is solid melts into the air” [1].
Yet, the idea that innovation was the hallmark of economic competition and growth was only systematically introduced in 1911 by Josef A. Schumpeter [2]. He advanced the concept that new firms – the heroic entrepreneur – would continuously threaten and then substitute old incumbents by introducing new processes, new products, new markets and new “combinations of factors”. Yet, 30 years later he partly changed his mind. In “Capitalism, Socialism and Democracy” [3], while still maintaining that “the process of creative destruction is the essential fact about capitalism”, (p. 83), he also suggested that entreprene
urial innovation was being replaced by the routinized activity of R&D labs within large corporations enjoying long lasting monopoly power: in his view, these developments were doomed to bring capitalism to an end.
The shorter part of the story begins in the last three decades of the XX century, when economists began to study innovation in earnest, realizing that technological progress was the single most important source of growth. The advent of the information and communication technologies (ICT) revolution and the emergence of the Silicon Valley prompted an enormous amount of empirical and theoretical research on innovation and entrepreneurship, which became important autonomous fields in economics and management. In the eyes of the larger public, innovation became the “new industrial religion” (as the title of an issue of “The Economist” declared in 1999) and the new mantra for strategy and organization studies in business schools as well as in public policies.
This body of studies produced invaluable knowledge into the sources, patterns and consequences of innovation. Of course, it is impossible to review these findings here (For a recent survey, see [4]). However, a few main broad results can be emphasized here at the very beginning to set the stage for the following discussion.
First, there is little question that technological innovation is the single major engine of economic growth and of industrial change. Major episodes of industrial transformation, with dramatic reshuffling of dominant positions, are typically associated to the appearance of new technologies. The introduction of new technologies brings about the emergence of new products, processes, markets, firms, organizational forms and business models, etc. Some of these technological innovations are so pervasive and revolutionary – sometimes called General Purpose Technologies or Techno‐Economic Paradigms – to produce structural transformations in the economy, in the institutions and in the society at large: steam power, electricity, information technologies, etc. [5, 6].
Digital Marketplaces Unleashed Page 30
