by clicking on the page. A slider will appear, allowing you to adjust your zoom level. Return to the original size by clicking on the page again.
the page around when zoomed in by dragging it.
the zoom using the slider on the top right.
by clicking on the zoomed-in page.
by entering text in the search field and click on "In This Issue" or "All Issues" to search the current issue or the archive of back issues respectively.
by clicking on thumbnails to select pages, and then press the print button.
this publication and page.
displays a table of sections with thumbnails and descriptions.
displays thumbnails of every page in the issue. Click on a page to jump.
allows you to browse through every available issue.
FCW : January 2013
STEVE KELMAN is professor of public management at Harvard University s Kennedy School of Government and former administrator of the Of ce of Federal Procurement Policy. Commentary | STEVE KELMAN One encouraging piece of news on the procurement front in the past few years has been the use of contests by some agencies, such as NASA and the Air Force, to buy solutions to problems that require innovation. In a traditional procurement process, the government chooses a supplier to solve a problem and often --- especially if the problem is dif cult --- pays it for its work regardless of whether it actually solves the problem. Contests are different in two ways. First, the government broadcasts its needs to the public and allows anybody to submit a solution, rather than choosing one contractor to work on the prob- lem. Second, the government pays the winner a prize for a success- ful solution, not simply for effort --- though the contest prize often must be larger than what a con- tractor would have been paid for effort alone. Whenever contests are suggest- ed as a procurement technique, advocates (including me) repeat the obligatory statement that "the technique isn t suitable for all pro- curements," but the phrase often stops there. Recently, though, I read a bril- liant paper in the July 2012 issue of the Academy of Management Review that provides some help- ful insight into determining when contests are a good alternative to contracting. (Readers of past columns referencing articles in academic journals will note that it is not unusual for me to read an article months after publication; academics like to think the content is timeless.) In "Crowdsourcing as a Solution to Distant Search," Allan Afuah of the University of Michigan s Ste- phen M. Ross School of Business and Christopher Tucci of the Swiss Federal Institute of Technology in Lausanne offer the following guidelines: • The more the customer believes there is a signi cant likelihood that the solution to the problem might involve knowledge and skills outside what the research- ers call the customer s "knowledge neighborhood," the more it makes sense to use a contest. One reason is that the bigger the gap between the knowledge needed to solve the problem and the kinds of knowl- edge the customer already has, the harder it is to select the appropri- ate contractor to solve the problem and the greater the likelihood of selecting a contractor that will fail. (Incidentally, this theoretical obser- vation is supported by empirical evidence that winners in private- sector contests are often geograph- ically distant entities or individuals unknown to the customer.) • The easier it is to describe what the customer needs, the more it makes sense to use a contest. If a potential solver needs to under- stand a lot of hard-to-describe details of the customer s environ- ment and culture in order to solve the problem, it is unlikely that the far- ung small businesses and innovative individuals who typi- cally tackle such challenges will be able to solve the problem correctly because there will be something they don t know about the situ- ation that makes their solutions inappropriate. • The less contact the solvers need with the customer while they are working on the problem, the more it makes sense to use a contest. Otherwise, the communication demands on the customer will become overwhelming. • The cooler the problem, the more it makes sense to use a contest. Cool problems attract more solv- ers, and they are often willing to work on the problem for lower prizes. That is one of the reasons for the success of various open- source software innovations. The researchers guidelines are sensible and practical. Federal pro- gram managers should keep this checklist in their toolkit. ■ When contests are a winning procurement tool Under the right circumstances, the best approach is to pay someone for a successful solution rather than hire a company to try to solve the problem The easier it is to describe what the customer needs, the more it makes sense to use a contest. January 2013 FCW.COM 11