Conditions for a successful first step in collective
innovation; a case study of a MS Hackathon
Author: Stefen Bijwaard
Student number: 6170579
Msc. in Business Administration - Entrepreneurship and Innovation
Date of submission 19-08-2016
Version 1.3 19-08-2016
Amsterdam Business School | University of Amsterdam
Statement of Originality
This document is written by Student Stefen Bijwaard who declares to take full responsibility for the contents of this document. I declare that the text and the work presented in this document is original and that no sources other than those mentioned in the text and its references have been used in creating it. The faculty of Economics and Business is responsible solely for the supervision of the completion of the work, not for the contents.
Abstract
This thesis seeks to investigate the necessary conditions for the successful first steps of collective innovation. It does this by examining the Multiple Sclerosis (MS) Hackathon, which was organized by the VvAA. MS is a wicked problem within health care in the
Netherlands. Innovation tends to be slow and a Hackathon can provide a solution to the slow pace of innovation and to wicked problems. Looking at the models of Briscoe (2014) and DePasse (2014) the research questions were formulated. Through a single case study of the MS Hackathon, results show that both models supply conditions that are supported in the case. Two conditions of Briscoe (2014) were not supported; the encouragement of failures and the encouragement of teams to report failures, future roadmaps as well as
acknowledgements This thesis concludes that this Hackathon did not solve MS, but that Hackathons have the possibility of solving wicked problems in health care.
Acknowledgements
First of all I would like to thank my supervisor, Roel van der Voort, for helping me through this process and giving critical feedback on my drafts. Next I want to thank my co-workers for giving me a boost when I needed it and for being understanding during the whole process. Last but not least, a special thank you goes out to all my friends and family for supporting me and believing in me.
Table of contents
1 Introduction and Research Question ... 6 1.1. Introducing The VvAA ... 6 1.2. Mobile Doctors ... 8 1.3. Challenges in Health Care ... 10 1.4. Multiple Sclerosis ... 12 2. Literature Review ... 14 2.1. Wicked Problem ... 14 2.2. Innovation models ... 19 2.3. Design Thinking ... 23 2.4. Hackathons ... 26 2.5. The Use of Hackathons in Health Care ... 28 2.6. Comparison of Hackathon versus Hackathons in health care ... 32 3. Data and Method ... 35 3.1. Research Design ... 35 3.2. Data Collection and Validity ... 38 3.3. MS Hackathon: The Case Study ... 38 4. Results ... 42 5. Discussion ... 44 6. Conclusion ... 47 6.1. Scientific Relevance and Managerial Implications ... 47 6.2. Limitations and Suggestions for Further Research ... 48 7. Reference list ... 49
1 Introduction and Research Question
This paper seeks to investigate the conditions needed for the first steps in successful collective innovation. The MS Hackathon, which was organized by VvAA, is the specific collective innovation that this research project studied in order seeks these successful conditions. The Hackathon is becoming a popular innovation vehicle and this paper probes deeper into the literature surrounding collective innovation in the following chapter. However, the VvAA will first be described due to the specific nature of this case.
1.1. Introducing The VvAA
The VvAA is a financial services provider exclusively for doctors. It has been an active service organization at the heart of healthcare for more than 90 years. The VvAA has more than 117,000 members in multiple disciplines such as medics, paramedics, (para) medical students, and health care institutions. It was founded in 1924 in the Netherlands as an automobile association for doctors, veterinarians, and dentists. The VvAA provides
knowledge and insurance by means of services such as fiscal and juridical advice, insurance, legal advice, fiscal planning, mediation, training, business travel and the publication of the monthly magazine Arts & Auto. Its mission is to improve Dutch healthcare by unburdening healthcare professionals. The VvAA, together with its members, is the sole shareholder of the VvAA group. Its board consists of diverse medical professionals, and it employs 900 people, with headquarters in Utrecht and seven regional offices. Its 2015 revenue was 198,5 million euros, with a total netto result of 4,5 million euros (VvAA Annual Report, 2015). The VvAA has two main chains of production, namely, ‘VvAA Advice & Services’ and ‘VvAA
Insurance & Banking.’ (See the organogram pictured in Figure 1 below). The board of directors is composed of five people, including two chief executives (one chairman), the HRM director, the VvAA Advice and Services director, the finance director, and the VvAA Insurance and Banking Director (who is also a chief executive).
Figure 1. Organogram of the VvAA.
VvAA Insurance and Banking department consists of two limited companies, namely, VvAA Insurance and VvAA Life Insurance. As operating company of the VvAA Group bv., VvAA insurance has multiple insurances: car, travel, home, liability (private and
professional) and legal (executed by the foundation VvAA rechtsbijstand). MediRisk
provides protection from medical liability to hospitals and health institutions. MediRisk also aims to provide prevention tips and statistics to hospitals and health institutions in order to better the quality of health care. Life Insurances and Banking is the other department, which mainly sells life insurance and wealth programs.
VvAA Advice and Services is the front office of VvAA insurance products and advice. This department also functions as an intermediary for insurance that is not sold by the
VvAA, for example health insurance. This front office is a large consultancy with around 200 employees who provide customers with advice. The advice is classified according the
customers’ professions, and the specialized advisers visit the customers or help them by phone or webcam. The office staff corresponds to the advisers. The call center is located in the front office, where questions can be answered directly. Advice given to the customers varies from starting a practice or funding a company to insurance. A tax department is located next to the front office, which helps customers with their taxes for their practices and offices.
Four service departments are located directly under the two executives. These are corporate communication, legal affairs, Strategy and Innovation, and Knowledge Management and Networks. The two remaining departments are finance and Human Resource Management (HRM). Subsequent HRM and the Mobile Doctors team will be disclosed.
1.2. Mobile Doctors
This research project focuses on the HRM department. There are different teams within the HRM department, namely, Quality Time (travel agency department), Mobile Doctors, education, and team coaching. The specific team investigated in this research is Mobile Doctors, which is a small team that was established two years ago. The team consists of one manager, one employee, two trainees, and one hired professional. The manager founded the department with the goal of improving the quality of health care through digital applications. Like every other insurance company, the VvAA is encountering competition from start-ups. The Internet of things, big data, and singularity are challenges that the VvAA has to face.
Instead of being a product pusher, the VvAA tries to be a facilitator. This department was therefore started two years ago in order to respond to these challenges and was called Mobile Doctors.
M-Health has accompanied the development of smartphones, tablets, and wearables. These devices have become more powerful over the years and are growing exponentially. With their growing power comes more sensors that can track more and more. Companies such as Apple and Google make wearables that can improve one’s overall health. If one consults the Apple website for the iWatch, it states:
Track your health. Start with your heart. Apple Watch monitors your heart rate and can help you be more conscious of your overall health and well-being. You can customize the information it measures and add apps tailored to your specific goals. So you get a better picture of you. (http://www.apple.com/nl/watch)
Such changes have a big impact on the way we live.
Mobile Doctors’ latest production is the MS Hackathon. Multiple sclerosis (MS) is a disease that affects people around the globe. Over 36 hours, the MS Hackathon seeks to improve the lives of people with MS and contribute to the healing of MS. Various different types of people are expected to join this Hackathon, including designers, doctors, app
developers and engineers, and also people with MS. The VvAA wants to discover whether it can use the Hackathon as a product to solve wicked problems in healthcare. However, let us first consider the current situation of health care and innovation in the Netherlands.
Innovation in Dutch health care is proceeding slowly, but is very much needed (Weening et al. 2011, Bekker et al. 2010, & Ostrovsky 2013). The VvAA faces the question of how it can play a role in health care as a financial services provider. Its members are medical professionals who represent health care, and it therefore has a role to play. In order to
improve health care, the VvAA’s main goal is to play the facilitating role among its members.
1.3. Challenges in Health Care
It is important for this research to describe the current situation of innovation in the Netherlands, and particularly that of innovation concerning MS. The Netherlands was ranked fifth in the Global Innovation Index (Dutta et al. 2015), which could lead to the conclusion that innovation is a well know factor in this country. However, innovation in health is among the lowest in the top sectors in the Netherlands. These top sectors accounted for 87% of all research and development expenses in the Netherlands between 2010 and 2012 (CBS, 2015). The central office of statistics (CBS) states:
One of the core initiatives to accomplish the goals of the Europe 2020-strategy is to not only make the EU a union on the political and economic level, but also to connect the member states on an innovative level. The so-called “innovation-union” must set the right conditions and improve access to finance for research and improvement innovation.” In this way, the CBS hope to further a quicker innovation process with faster times to market, which should lead to more economic growth and jobs. (CBS, 2015)
The main goal of the Europe 2020-strategy is to stimulate collaboration between science and business, with fewer rules and high quality universities. This collaboration could also stimulate innovation between EU members. The EU has set a goal called Horizon 2020, which is a financial instrument for the completion of the core-initiative “innovation-union.” This financial instrument is worth 80 million euros, which are available between 2014 and
2020. The Horizon has set 18 themes, one of which focuses on shortening the time it takes to get innovative ideas onto the market: “To accomplish the first-mover-advantage could be of positive benefit for the whole economy because new networks of companies will arise around successful innovations.”
One can therefore see that both the EU and the Netherlands also promote innovation and collaboration. However, the perception is that healthcare lacks innovation. The Netherlands is a self-proclaimed “knowledge country” whose innovation distinguishes it from other
countries. Both the EU and the Netherlands promote innovation, finance research, and support collaboration between companies throughout the EU’s member countries. However, given that this research project focuses on health care in the Netherlands, with special attention to MS, it is necessary to consider the innovation and budgets in the Netherlands more closely. The CBS (2015) report focuses on the top sectors in the Netherlands, one of which is life sciences and health. In the CBS (2015) report, production and added value are key figures to compare. Production stands for innovate ideas that become a product or service and are sold to consumers. The production ranking for life sciences and health is improving each year, but still ranks third from last. Moreover, if one considers the added value, it ranks lowest among the top sectors. Among all companies in the Netherlands, the percentages for production and added value are 1% and 1,6% for life sciences and health respectively. This could be explained by the low number of people working in this sector, in comparison to the other sectors. Another explanation may be found in the slow pace of innovation within the health care sector. Treatment, pills, and technology all have to be validated and are legally required to comply with a set of rules. A study by DiMasi et al. (2003) collected data in order to establish a timeline from the start of clinical testing to a drug’s marketing approval. It considered the differences in timeline between 1991 and 2002, where the average timeline was 98.9 months in the first instance and 90.3 in the last. Nefemed (2010) conducted research
on health care in the Netherlands and identified 10 reasons why patients do not get the best health care solutions through medical aids and technology. These were: Non transparent procedures, fragmentation, diagnose and treatment-rates, lack of budgeting for innovation, decompartmentalisation, price focus, short-term thinking, process innovations, differences abroad, and delay. The lack of budgeting for innovation is also seen in the figures of the CBS (2015). This research project does not seek to prove that healthcare innovation is slow paced in the Netherlands, which could form a scientific study on its own. Rather, it assumes that more innovation is needed in healthcare. The following section explores how this relates to MS.
1.4. Multiple Sclerosis
This paper is concerned with the MS Hackathon. The fact that the Hackathon is about MS is purely coincidental. The organizer of the Hackathon is the manager of Mobile Doctors and one of his friends has MS. After a conversation about his upcoming event to raise money for the disease, the idea of a Hackathon for MS emerged. The website of MS Hackathon states that:
Multiple sclerosis (MS), also known as disseminated sclerosis or encephalomyelitis disseminata, is a demyelinating disease in which the insulating covers of nerve cells in the brain and spinal cord are damaged. This damage disrupts the ability of parts of the
nervous system to communicate, resulting in a wide range of signs and symptoms. While the cause is not clear, the underlying mechanism is thought to be either destruction by the immune system or failure of the myelin-producing cells. MS is usually diagnosed based
on the presenting signs and symptoms and the results of supporting medical tests. There is no known cure for multiple sclerosis. (www.mshackathon.nl)
MS affects 2,5 million people (www.mshackathon.nl), together with their families, friends, and caretakers. While there are treatments that attempt to improve functioning, they are only focused on preventing attacks and treatment after attacks. The current medication on the market is not very effective and can have adverse effects, which leads people to
alternative treatments. However, these alternative treatments are not based on evidence and did not stop 20 thousand people worldwide from dying of MS in 2013. There are around 17,000 people with MS in the Netherlands. Because of the wide range of signs and symptoms, the disease is not the same for everyone. One can see on MS Web
(www.msweb.nl) how many thesis promotions were made on MS in the Netherlands in the last years. There were seven theses in 2012, six in 2013, eleven in 2014, and six in 2015. If one looks up multiple sclerosis and innovation, one finds only eleven research projects available via the University of Amsterdam (UvA) library. The results only indicate the years from 2007 to 2016, which means that in nine years only eleven research projects were undertaken. This give rise to the assumption that innovation in MS is very low, at least as indicated by the research. Moreover, Dutch guidelines for the diagnosis and treatment of MS were only introduced in 2012 (Dresden, 2013), and this late introduction is another
indication. While there have been innovations in health care, including for MS, no cure has yet been found for MS. This paper therefore argues that MS is a wicked problem, and that innovations by means of disruptive innovation, such as a Hackathon, can accelerate the innovation pace.
In conclusion, this chapter has outlined the situation of the VvAA, healthcare in the Netherlands, and MS. The VvAA advocates more disruptive innovation in healthcare and is looking for vehicles for innovation. This research focuses on the MS Hackathon and seeks to
establish successful conditions by which the Hackathon can build on scientific evidence. This paper continues by describing wicked problems, innovation, and Hackathons in the following chapter. Chapter 4 presents the data and method used, including the research design, case selection, and data collection. Chapter 5 presents the results concerning successful conditions in a Hackathon, which leads to the discussion in Chapter 6. The final chapter describes the implications for future research and presents the conclusion.
2. Literature Review
In order to establish whether MS is a wicked problem, this chapter starts by describing the concept of a wicked problem. This is followed by seeking the solution of the wicked problem innovation, with a focus on the literature related to collaboration in innovation. The
discussion then turns to design as the next subject that could contribute to the innovation process. Finally, there is a consideration of Hackathons and, more specifically, Hackathons in health care. After the literature review the research question will be discussed.
2.1. Wicked Problem
Wicked problem is a term that was first used in a seminar by Horst Rittel. Wicked problems are seen as social problems that are ill-formulated, with confusing information, with many clients and decision makers who have conflicting values, and in which the ramifications of the whole system are thoroughly confusing (C. West Churchman 1967). In the article of
Churchman (1967), they even name wicked problems as “evil.” In order to arrive at a better definition of the term wicked problem, Rittel and Webber (1973) describes characteristics of a wicked problem. 1. There is no definitive formulation of a wicked problem. 2. Wicked problems have no stopping rule, thus are continuous. 3. Solutions to wicked problems are not true or false, but are rather good or bad. 4. There is no immediate and no ultimate test of a solution to a wicked problem. 5. Every solution to a wicked problem is a “one-shot operation,” and because there is no opportunity to learn by trail-and-error, every attempt counts significantly. 6. Wicked problems do not have an enumerable (or an exhaustively describable) set of potential solutions, nor is there a well-described set of permissible operations that may be incorporated into the plan. 7. Every wicked problem is essentially unique. 8. Every wicked problem can be considered to be a symptom of another problem. 9. The existence of discrepancy representing a wicked problem can be explained in numerous ways. The choice of explanation determines the nature of the problem’s resolution. 10. The planner has no right to be wrong.
These characteristics are solely defined in the context of planning and social problems. This paper seeks to define wicked problems in the healthcare and therefore on a social level. By consulting the literature on wicked problems, one discovers that other fields also use the term wicked problem. The ten characteristics noted above will not be able to define the problem as it relates to MS. In addition to Churchman, Rittel, and Webber who discuss wicked problems related to planning, there have also been other fields in which wicked problems have been recognized, including designing, software, and policy (Guidon, 1990 & Ferlie et al. 2011).
This research project adopts the definition and characteristics of Conklin (2005), whose six characteristics of Conklin are as follows: 1. You don’t understand the problem until you have developed a solution. 2. Wicked problems have no stopping rule. 3. Solutions to wicked
problems are not right or wrong. 4. Every wicked problem is essentially unique and novel. 5. Every solution to a wicked problem is a “one-shot operation.” 6. Wicked problems have no given alternative solutions. These characteristics are more modern than the ones mentioned by Rittel and Webber (1973) and can be used in more fields than only planning.
If these six characteristics are tested to MS, one will be able to define whether or not MS is a wicked problem. MS still has no effective treatment, which means that there is no solution. Research on MS have discovered that the insulating covers of the nerve cells in the brain and spinal cord are damaged and therefore do not communicate with the brain. It has not yet been discovered why this occurs and why people get MS. The second characteristic is a questionable one. The stopping rule doesn’t exist when there is a cure for MS, but therefore there is no MS-Free world. However, MS has many ways in which it can manifest itself, and therefore treatment will always be on an individual level. Conklin (2005) comments on the no stopping rule as follows: “The problem solving process ends when you run out of resources, such as time, money, or energy, not when some optimal or ‘final and correct’ solution emerges.” Given this explanation, one could suggest that MS will never have a solution. A cure still means that time, money, and energy are essential. How will people be treated who have no money? How will people be treated in hard-to-reach locations? How can one
diagnose the disease before the first signs appear? The core of a wicked problem is that fixing one-thing results in another problem. Regarding the third characteristic concerning solutions: It is also true that MS has no right or wrong. There is no solution to MS and solutions to the disease can only be effective or non-effective. MS is different for each person and there are different stages and ways in which MS manifests itself. MS is therefore unique and novel (Number Four). The fifth characteristic is a Catch 22. Conklin (2005) states: “you can’t learn about the problem without trying solutions, but every solution you try is expensive and has lasting unintended consequences which are likely to spawn new wicked problems.” This is
true of every disease and therefore also true of MS. The final characteristic is also true: There are no solutions to MS, and therefore no alternatives. This means that MS has the
characteristics of a wicked problem as defined by Conklin (2015). We now know what a wicked problem is and that the disease of MS has the characteristics of a wicked problem.
However, it is one thing to define wicked problems and another to find solutions for dealing or coping with wicked problems. While others (Periyakoil 2007, Reinecke et al. 2015) seek to tame wicked problems, Roberts (2000) tries to find a solution to them. Her research describes three types of problems, namely, simple, complex, and wicked. Simple problems have consensus concerning problem definition and solution. Complex problems involve a conflict in the problem-solving process in which the stakeholders agree on the problem but not on the solution. However, for Roberts (2000), the wicked problem is defined as having no agreement on either the problem or its solution. On the basis of this definition, it is assumed that MS constitutes a wicked problem. Researchers have not yet found the reason why people have MS, nor what causes it, and they definitely do not know how to solve the disease. MS is also difficult to diagnose and is usually diagnosed between the ages of 20 and 40. Even if a medication could be found for MS, treatment would still have to be considered individually. There is also no clear reason why people contract or have MS. All of these are wicked problems, and MS is therefore defined as a wicked problem.
Roberts (2000) explores solutions for wicked problems, which include three strategies that are authoritative, competitive, and collaborative. The authoritative strategy can be
compared to Periykoil (2007) and Reinecke’s (2015) research on taming wicked problems. In this strategy, the problem is given to a small number of authoritative experts who solve the problem. The main goal of this strategy is to diminish the level of conflict by handing it over to a small number of people to define the problem and arrive at a solution. This is a top down strategy and works in some cases. The authoritative strategy rests on the power of the few.
When considering performance and strategy, it is usually the CEO decides where the
company is going. This strategy focuses on a group that is selected one individual or a small group, while the others are expected to follow. This strategy works well in the military, but may not work in organizations that are trying to solve wicked problems. The advantages of authoritative strategies are that reducing the people in the problem-solving process decreases the complexity of the process and relies on experts. However, there are also disadvantages as authorities and experts can be wrong, can focus too much on their own narrow fields, and can lose the opportunity for learning.
Competitive strategies are as simple as the description. In them, multiple people strive to fix the problem, regardless of their power within a company. The main advantage of this strategy is that it stimulates innovation. Every player in the field has to do better than their opponent, which pushes people to the edge. However, the main disadvantage is also
connected to this in that some people do go over the edge. This can provoke violence, which can consume the time that should have been spent on solving the problem.
This research project seeks to probe deeper into the collaborative solution. Roberts (2000) states: “Collaboration is premised on the principle that by joining forces parties can
accomplish more as a collective than they can achieve by acting as independent agents. At the core of collaboration is a ‘win-win’ view of problem solving.” In contrast to the two other strategies, in which there are winners and losers, the collaborative strategy seeks to have only winners. Not only will alliances and partnerships be made, but businesses, governments, and even whole countries can benefit from it. These are all known advantages to collaboration. However, Roberts (2000) also describes the disadvantages. If there are more stakeholders dealing with the problem, then this increases the difficulty of achieving synergy. Not everyone has the skill to work in teams and sometimes people need to be trained. This
strategy follows the collaboration suggested by both the EU and the Netherlands on innovation, this paper therefore continues to research collaboration through innovation.
In conclusion, this section has defined Conklin’s (2005) six characteristics and Roberts’ (2000) definition of a wicked problem. It has furthermore argued that MS is a wicked problem. Roberts’ (2000) paper indicates that there are three strategies for dealing with a wicked problem and that collaboration in innovation is needed. This paper discusses the collaborative strategy, which can be found in models such as collective innovation, which is the next level of innovation, and design thinking. The following section elaborates on innovation.
2.2. Innovation models
The above discussion means that this paper is seeking models that could solve wicked problems. Innovation has the necessary traits needed to solve problems, but it comes in many forms. There are two main streams in innovation with regard to the process. Firstly, there is incremental and episodic innovation, which is slow and takes place by means of small steps that are planned. Secondly, there is disruptive innovation, which is fast and radical
(Orlikowski & Hofman, 1997; Weick & Quinn, 1999). Many types of innovation models have been discussed over the years, including management innovation (M.J. Mol, 2008), open innovation (H. Chesbrough, 2003; Almidall et al., 2014) and Network innovation (A. Lundgren, 1995). These types of innovation are mostly product or producer orientated, although open innovation and Network innovation start to include the chain and even the consumers in the process. The main goal of innovation is to improve business models and
profit. However, wicked problems are larger than this, which means that one needs to look for another model of innovation. Much has been written in the scientific literature
concerning innovation and collaboration. The following level in innovation is called ‘Collective Innovation’ or collaborative innovation. This paper uses the definition of Collective Innovation given by Graaf and Duin (2013): “Bringing together a wide variety of public and private parties under supervision, to generate ideas and align those ideas in such a way that complementary solutions can be developed, integrated and implemented that genuinely reduce or solve the collective problems.” This statement has a great similarity with Roberts’ (2000) collaborative strategy on wicked problems discussed above.
Graaf and Duin (2013) compare the collective innovation process to other types of innovation processes. In terms of innovation goals collective innovation compares more on a social-level and has a broad scope of cooperation compared to other innovation processes, see Figure 2 of Graaf and Duin (2013). The main difference with open innovation is that this type of innovation addresses issues and ambitions on a societal level, often by means of public-private partnerships. Open innovation is focused on a smaller scale of cooperation and is more directed to a company’s business model. If wicked problems need to be solved in a collective way, it is better to have a broader set of resources available than only one company.
Figure 2 Various innovation approaches presented in terms of innovation goals and scope of cooperation. Graaf and Duin (2013).
Graaf and Duin’s (2013) case study on the Dutch baking sector provides a new lens through which to look at innovation. The most important role in the whole process is that of the “facilitator” who should focus on three things. These are the need to keep an open attitude when thinking about possible innovative solutions, give room to interested parties, and freely discuss the potential of the proposed solutions. While real empirical research still needs to be done, Graaf and Duin make a start in building results based on collective innovation.
During the same period that Graaf and Duin (2013) presented their research, more papers were produced on collective innovation. Sigwalt et al. (2012) presented a case study on French vineyards that boost biodiversity, in which the innovation came from individuals and from the farmers’ association. Individual farmers were unable to create biodiversity alone and needed each other in order to succeed collectively. Kyriakou and Nickerson (2013) seek to research collective innovation by measuring originality, which is done by computing the
distance between products as a function of shape distances. Avenali et al. (2013) produce a mechanism for supporting collective innovation, namely, the open contract-based challenge. This paper focuses on the contract around innovation that has been invented by multiple people. Garriga et al. (2012) state that:
Many of the costs, benefits and risks of open innovation can be traced to fundamental incentive problems. Thus, academic research has a critically important role to play, regarding risks and benefits, as there is a strong need to develop more fundamental theories and models that can elucidate the incentive mechanisms behind such innovation.
This means that open innovation has many benefits, but it also caries uncertainty and risks. The risk of losing intellectual property rights is an interesting risk. Do people who attend Hackathons go there in order to push their products, or do they want to help? This raises the question of why people attend the Hackathons, despite the fact that they could lose their ideas.
With regard to the above discussion, collective innovation needs to be a solution to wicked problems and also needs to cope with the negative aspects of open innovation. In the research considered, open innovation usually involves new products and focuses on the rights of the innovators. However, collective innovation stands above that as it serves a higher level and a greater good by seeking to solve social problems. For this research project, that greater good is multiple sclerosis. By bringing together a broad social group in a Hackathon one is taking the first steps in collective innovation in order to cope with the wicked problem. This research will contribute to further research on collective innovation and in this way it can help to solve wicked problems by considering the conditions of the Hackathon. However, one can ask whether innovation by Hackathon is the way to solve the problems of MS. If one looks further one can see that design thinking has some similarities with collective innovation
and may be a part of a Hackathon. The following section explores design thinking in order to answer this question.
2.3. Design Thinking
Design thinking is not new but its definition has changed over the years. It is a process or discipline from the method of design to the solving of problems. Design thinking also seeks to add value to the product for the consumers. Kimbell (2011) has researched different ways of describing design thinking over the past decades. It started as a cognitive style that was seen as a science by Cross (1982), Schon (1983), and Rowe (1987) in the 1980s. The main focus in this research was on the individual designers and their purpose is problem solving. Individual designers were seen in isolation from their world and research was conducted on their problem solving skills, without incorporating their culture and world. The main goal of the design purpose was to solve problems that were badly structured within the traditional design disciplines. Buchanan (1992) then shifted the paradigm to design thinking as a general theory of design. Design came to be viewed as a field or discipline in which the focus was on taming wicked problems.
“Most people continue to think of technology in terms of its product rather than its form as a discipline of systematic thinking,” stated Buchanan (1992). Designing new technology is now seen more as a liberal art. Buchanan (1992) writes: “Others have placed material objects in the context of experience and action, asking new questions about how products function in situations of use and how they may contribute to or inhibit the flow of activities.” This is seen as a significant shift, and the design of the iPod and iPhone is the best
way to illustrate it. There are many products on the market with as many or more functions, but their success lies in the way in which their design is incorporated into these products. Apple’s success with these products was to incorporate the designers into the whole process of production. However, design thinking does not limit itself to products. It also involves the exploration of material objects as part of lager systems, cycles, and environments.
This new view can help one to understand the consequences of wicked problems and how to solve them. Later, in the mid-2000s, Cross (2006) and Dorst (2006) also used the cognitive style, while Brown (2009) and Martin (2009) focused more on innovation and businesses that were in need of innovation. The view shifted here from a resource to an organization. Contemporary businesses need to innovate in order to stay ahead of the competition. The do this by launching products faster that are relevant and easy to use for consumers. Prototyping and getting feedback from consumers in an early stage is essential. The designers not only design the product, but they also have to emphasize the way in which consumers use the product.
Liedtka (2015) argues that there is not yet a generally accepted definition of design thinking. There is therefore no clear definition of design thinking and it has changed over time. This research project uses the definition presented by Denning (2013), who argues that design thinking is the newest fashion for finding better solutions to problems. Denning (2013) states that: “Design thinking means to intentionally focus the design around the concerns, interests, and the values of the users.” This approach has three principal values that can be summarized as: 1. Many Eyes. 2. Customer Viewpoint. 3. Tangibility. The design thinking is collaborative (Many Eyes) with a clear focus on the problem (Customer Viewpoint) and prototyping, and one needs to try it out and learn from it (Tangibility). These three aspects can be argued to be elements that can be found in a Hackathon. Hackathons have small teams and start with challenges to reach a goal and at least deliver a prototype.
It can be asked why design thinking is different from Collective innovation. The main difference is that design thinking is focused on products, and puts the designers in touch with the people who need the products. By contrast, Collective innovation brings multiple roles together, and is not limited to only the designer and the consumer.
Roberts (2015) has researched design thinking in healthcare and states that:
Much of the skepticism and frustration linked to the scale and pace of change and innovation within the current health system stems not from a lack of vision, effort or even resources; rather it arises from attempts to remake a healthcare model never designed to do the things now being asked of it. (Roberts, 2015)
The current and future challenges faced by healthcare are difficult and require a new approach and the development of new services, which will need to be better aligned with individual needs. The answers to these challenges will not be easy and neither will they be right for everyone. Roberts (2015) identifies three requirements of the design thinking framework. The first one is that health systems build capacity for the needs and desires of their latent stakeholders. The second one is to engage a broader set of voices. She advocates listening to voices outside healthcare who have a radical and different perspectives, which could lead to new insights and faster change. The third and last requirement is to start small-scale and rapid testing of multiple solutions with those who would benefit most from them. These three requirements could lead to a changed environment and a better future for healthcare. Roberts (2015) argues that not only could the future of health care be different, but that the integration of design thinking could provide the health systems with a way to respond to certain change and allow them to lead the change.
The main problem with this research is that it has not been tested. There is no method described and no data collected. Moreover, one can argue that this is a new approach and that the health care systems were not designed this way, which raises questions about adopting this approach. It is more likely that innovation will come from outside the health care system. With all the new technology and data available, people will themselves begin to start
innovations.
Design thinking is a method that can be used to help in Hackathons. The process of getting designers and engineers together, using the consumers’ experience (or thinking like consumers), prototyping, and validating are steps in the Hackathon process. This paper argues that the principles of design thinking will not solve wicked problems but that they can help the process of Hackathons. The following section researches and explains Hackathons.
2.4. Hackathons
Hackathons have existed since mid-2000s (Briscoe, 2014) and emerged from the
development of new software and new companies. Today there are Hackathons occurring every day. If one googles the word Hackathon, one finds millions of hits. However, not much research has been done on Hackathons and there are only 59 academic articles and 26
newspaper articles in the UvA database. The first article is from 1995, but the most research has been done from the mid-2000s to the present time. Hackathons take different forms and because of the minimal research conducted, it is difficult to describe the Hackathon model. Briscoe’s (2014) case studies observe nine general principles that include output-oriented events, inclusivity, the importance of learning and sharing, the value of failure, flexible
seating, the necessity of WiFi and electricity, a preference for whiteboards and windows with inspiring views, and allowing people to self-organize themselves into groups (sign-up sheets and web sign-up is best avoided). While group leaders should be encouraged, they should not be mandated. Participant teams should be encouraged to report failures and future roadmaps, as well as accomplishments.
Hackathons often are used within companies such as Facebook and Google in order to develop new products. Facebook has shared five tips for hosting a Hackathon (Burnham 2012). The first tip is that the teams should organize themselves. Facebook employees post their project idea on a wiki and anyone is allowed to join. The second tip concerns the place or space in which the Hackathon is held. “Some of our more successful hackathons have been
dependent on how we set up the space we work in,” says Engineering Manager Pedram
Keyani. The space needs to be big enough to comfortably fit everyone participating in the Hackathon. The third tip is to motivate the participants. One should ensure that one starts off with a motivational speech and that the executive staff supports it. The fourth tip concerns the presentation of the prototype. Two weeks after the Hackathon, three minutes of the prototype is presented, which allows it to be fine-tuned during these two weeks. The fifth and final tip is that the best projects should be followed up.
Raatikainen et al.’s (2013) case study describes the three main lessons learned in a Hackathon, namely, the preparation for a Hackathon, the practicalities of a Hackathon, and the Hackathon as innovation and a social activity. With regard to practicalities, it is team dynamics and motivation that are most important. The team members do not have to be familiar with each other in order to make it a success. The motivation for the individuals included a mini break from work, education, meeting new people, and learning what others do. Length, location, support, flow, and inter-team interaction were key for practicalities. The best length off a Hackathon was found to be from 12 to 36 hours. The location should be
off-site to be a success. Five topics were proposed in order for the Hackathon to be innovative and a social activity, namely, Ideation, the Nature of Ideas, Results, Demos, and Social benefits. It is better to start with an idea before the Hackathon so that there is enough hacking time left. Moreover, it is good to present the results at the end of the Hackathon and to give a demo so that everybody can see all the results.
This research on Hackathons was merely concerned with products and design, and was intended for a company. Location, motivation, and teams appear to be the most
important factors for Hackathons. The location should be a comfortable space in which all the hackers can be in one room and have a few rooms to retreat into. People are motivated to attend a Hackathon for different reasons, but their motivation often includes meeting new people. To be most creative, the teams should be comprised of four to six people with different occupations. However, this research focuses on Hackathons in health care and on the solving of wicked problems. Therefore, the following part of this study is concerned with using Hackathons to improve health care. The assumption is that the motivation and team composition will differ for Hackathons in the context of health care.
2.5. The Use of Hackathons in Health Care
This paper seeks to probe deeper into the use of Hackathons in health care. Only eleven articles exist on this topic. Swan (2012) discusses health care in the year 2050 with a brief allusion to a Hackathon. Hackathons could be a disruptive way of innovation in the future. This would enable the old and rigid culture of health care to innovate quicker and to become
more in line with the patients. Walker and Ko’s (2016) paper presents a timeline study on Hackathons in health care in the USA. They state that:
There have been more than 130 hacking events since 2010, with at least five continents hosting events and noted facility in both Boston and Silicon Valley. Hospitals have started to hold their own hackathons and seek ways to invest in their own, home-grown innovations. (Walker & Ko’s, 2016)
Likewise, DePasse et al. (2014) conclude that:
Although not all areas of health care are ‘hackable’, there is a great potential to apply development techniques used by high tech companies to health care. Hacking within medicine emphasizes needs-based solutions, cross-pollination of multidisciplinary stakeholders, and ‘pivoting’ or iterative design.
In this article, they advocate the use of Hackathons in health care to accelerate innovation. The Hacking Medicine Initiative researched the types of methods used for Hackathons and came up with a four steps model. It used the philosophies discussed in the previous sections, namely, design thinking and open innovation. The first step of the model is presenting the problem, pain points and gaps in sixty seconds. The second step is forming teams around the problem areas. In the next step an iterate process is started to brainstorm ideas, get feedback, practice pitches and identifying the business model. Using this approach, it researched the effects of Hackathons in Uganda and India, where they had successfully created
transformative innovation in health care. The self-proclaimed successes in this include over 100 innovations, five talent recruitments, and five technology development start-ups.
Li and Johnson (2015) researched a Hackathon concerned with strokes using an
observational and descriptive report of a Hackathon. Their conclusions were not very strong, but they created awareness and fostered innovation. The innovation they found used current
technology, but no prototypes or beta versions were made. The participants in the Hackathon were students from Brazil. Aungst (2015) also describes a student Hackathon, comprised of students from the Tufts School of Medicine. Aungst (2015) points out that Hackathons can be fun and innovative, and can help to bring people with multiple specialties and backgrounds together. The Hacking Health (Chowdhury, 2012) Hackathon was the first health-focused Hackathon in Canada. Chowdhury (2012) states that:
With the urgent need for disruptive innovation in health and the social barriers to change that currently exist, a group of young professionals spanning medicine, technology, and policy proposed an experiment to test whether the hackathon model could be applied not only to development of projects but also to interdisciplinary teams.
In this Hackathon the short-term goal was to develop working software. This software should improve health care by solving small problems, but the main goal was to establish a long-term collaboration between technology innovators and health care experts. This paper does not provide real evidence, but there is no reason to assume that its observations are untrue. The most interesting part in this paper tends to be the long-term collaboration. This
collaboration means multiple disciplines meeting each other that would not meet during normal workdays.
Although most articles dealing with Hackathons in health care are positive, there are some negative voices. Palmer (2014) argues that the challenges to health care are too
complicated for a Hackathon. He uses nonadherence to medication regiments as an example. A Hackathon conceived by a company called PillPack took over the management of a patient’s medicine regime. This solved one problem, but people still forget to take their pills and it therefore does not solve the whole problem. Palmer (2014) therefore concludes that Hackathons are only appropriate for small innovations using technology, rather than for
solving wicked problems. However, what he describes is a wicked problem, for when one solves one piece of the puzzle another emerges. It may be that the goal of the Hackathon was set too small, or that the right people did not attend. There is no real evidence to support his observations, but they cannot be ignored.
A question that arises is that of why people visit the Hackathons. What motivates them to attend? Research has shown that the key elements are collaborations, networking, mentoring, hands-on engagement in socially relevant computing projects, and community involvement (Mtsweni, 2015). However, Mtsweni’s (2015) research was based on students who needed to be enthusiastic about developing software. The incentives to innovate are a central element of innovation theory (Gachter et al. 2010). In addition, the team’s pro-social motivation supports team cooperation and team performance (Hu & Liden 2015).
Teams are therefore essential for Hackathons, but how big must they be and how does one find the best teams? Ingham et al. (1974) studied group sizes and their related
performance. In a pulling competition, it was found that groups sized from three to six persons are the most optimal. It was also found that trust is key if high-tech start-ups are to build team member commitment (Wang & Wu, 2012). Joy’s (2005) research on motivation in innovation indicates that people who innovate have a need to be different and have
innovation expectancy. Given this, one can ask what kind of people one needs in a team in order for a Hackathon to be successful.
Considering the personality traits of team members, the Big Five personality traits quickly emerged, which are also known as the five-factor model (FFM). The FFM has five factors that describe someone’s personality, namely, Openness to Experience,
discussed considerably in science history, but this paper relies on Goldberg’s (1993) findings. Goldberg (1993) states that:
In order for any field of science to advance, it is necessary to have an accepted
classification scheme for accumulating and categorizing empirical findings. We believe that the robustness of the 5-factor model provides a meaningful framework for
formulating and testing hypotheses relating individual differences in personality to a wide range of criteria in personnel psychology, especially in the subfields of personnel
selection, performance appraisal, and training and development.
It has been established that Hackathons use a diverse set of skills, such as engineering, designers, etc., and this paper therefore argues that are multiple personalities should be available during the Hackathon. In the upcoming paragraph the comparison is made between Hackathons and Hackathons in health care.
2.6. Comparison of Hackathon versus Hackathons in health care
Comparing Hackathons to Hackathons in health care, there are no great differences found in the literature. Hackathons are disruptive, fun and solve problems. The main reasons for attendance to Hackathons is learning and networking (Briscoe, 2014). Hackathons often start with presentations on the main problem or challenge, and then individuals form groups around their preferred subject. The groups start brainstorming and prototyping in a large room to ensure competition and synergy. Duration of these Hackathons is mainly two days and happens during the weekend. Alongside the iterative process of brainstorming and
Hackathon. Workshops frequently focus on business models and how to give a presentation. At the end of the event the prototypes are presented to judges who reward the winners with prices. Looking at the Hackathon models as described in the previous paragraphs, there are three phases found for having a Hackathon.
The first phase is preparing for the Hackathon. One has to look for a space that fits all the participants, that is stimulation for spending two days in that room and have basic utilities available such as Wi-Fi and bathrooms. Participants have to sign in to the Hackathon and the most preferable way is online. During the event sufficient food and beverages need to be supplied, this takes some planning in advance. Hired professionals often provide workshops, which are given during a Hackathon. These professionals have to be searched and selected before the event. Other activities include marketing, keep a website up to date, arranging security, awards, gain partners and so on and so forth.
Secondly a presentation of the problem kicks off the Hackathon. The pain points are described and participants get a good view of the subject they are most interested in. The participants can subscribe to a specific subject and thus forming teams. These teams should have, as much as possible, teams members with different jobs and/or specialties. After
forming the teams the ‘hacking’ commences. During the iterative brainstorm, prototyping and testing the participants often follow workshops. Closing the Hackathon consists of each team presenting their product with a business model. The judges select a winner who is granted an award.
The last phase consists of a follow up on the winners. Awards often include further prototyping a product or producing the end product. Following up upon the Hackathon appears to be a crucial one. In some cases new business emerge from a Hackathon and thus fabricating the product for consumers. Several prototypes need more research in order to be a
final product. Therefore some awards consist of follow up programs containing resources to support the development. Following up on prototypes could lead to new participants in the next Hackathon
This chapter discussed the term wicked problem and formed a definition of the term. After that the most suitable innovation model to solve this kind of problems was searched. The collaboration model seems to be the best fitting innovation model. Design thinking is often linked to innovation and collaboration, but it was not the model that could solve wicked problems in health care. We now know what Hackathons are and what their most important conditions are. Hackathons bring people together who would normally never meet during business hours, and therefore play a facilitating role in collaboration. Hackathons also are a disruptive and quick way to innovate and therefore present the best model for bringing faster innovation into health care in the Netherlands. They could also possibly solve MS. We have also seen what Hackathons are and have tried to extend the existing theory. Concluding this paragraph, there is scientific data about Hackathons and Hackathons in health care;
nevertheless there is no sign of studies about MS Hackathons. The UvA library, google scholar and Pubmed Health show no scientific papers about MS Hackathons. This paper presented that there are Hackathons, however there is no case study about MS to be found. This study addresses this scientific gap by researching the case of the MS Hackathon
organized by the VvAA. In this research the model of DePasse et al. (2014) will be combined with the model of Briscoe (2014) in order to make the framework of a Hackathon for MS. In this research we address two questions and test it with the MS Hackathon case: Does a Hackathon solve wicked problems and are the conditions of DePasse et al. (2014) and Briscoe (2014) found in the case? The following chapter formulates the research questions and describes the method used in this study.
3. Data and Method
This chapter will cover the research design that is being used in this paper, the conceptual model, the research questions and the data and validity. The last part of this chapter will describe the selected case.
3.1. Research Design
The discussion of wicked problems and innovation leads to the presentation of the research question. This paper sets out to seek the conditions for a successful collective innovation that can solve a wicked problem and the research focuses on the MS Hackathon. There are two major constraints to this research, namely, time and the availability of
Hackathons especially with the subject MS. The Hackathon observed in this study is unique in the Netherlands and fits within the time frame. Because of the explorative nature of this study and the feasibility of the time frame, the research design uses an exploratory single case study. Yinn (2014) has found this type of research is most suitable for investigating a
complex event. Yinn (2014) states that a single-case study is appropriate under certain circumstances, including the following three motivations: if it represents the critical case in testing a well-formulated theory, if it represents an extreme or unique case, and finally if it is the revelatory case. There has been no scientific description of a MS Hackathon.
The use of a single case study in this research can be defended due to the fact that this is a unique event in the Netherlands. No other studies of Hackathons for MS have been found. There are only a few Hackathons for MS in the rest of the world, which are held in Belgium and America, but no study has been done on them. Eisenhardt and Graebner (2007)
argue that when researchers are using cases to build theory, they need to justify that the research question is better addressed by theory building than by theory-testing research. Researchers often feel the need to explain why they use a theory-building study in the first pages that none of the readers are interested in the explanation. Eisenhardt and Graebner (2007) describe the opportunities and challenges that arise in building theory from cases. The case study does not exist to test a hypothesis, but rather to the develop theory. The literature review found that collaboration and innovation are needed in health care, that MS is a wicked problem, and that wicked problems can be solved by innovation. Providing a new source of data on existing knowledge is the research contribution of this paper.
Single case studies often have a limited generalizability because their findings are hard to replicate in other cases. Therefore the reliability will be of a high degree on the data triangulation, this will be more explained in the next paragraph. In order to have a better generalizability the models of DePasse (2014) and conditions of Briscoe (2014) will be used. In the literature review wicked problems are described and collective innovation tends to be the best innovation model to solve wicked problems. Both these concepts come together in the Hackathon model. The Hackathon has specific conditions in order to be successful, this leads to the following conceptual model:
Figure 3 Conceptual model.
From this conceptual model the following research questions (RQ) were formulated:
1. Can the conditions of Briscoe (2014) be found in the MS Hackathon?
1.1 Is the event output-oriented?
1.2 Is the event hosted in an inspiring room?
1.3 Learning and sharing are encouraged?
1.4 Are failures encouraged?
1.5 Are flexible seating, electricity and Wi-Fi available?
1.6 Are participants allowed to self-organize into groups?
1.7 Are participant teams encouraged to report failures and future roadmaps?
1.8 Are group leaders not required?
1.9 Is there age, technical background and gender inclusivity?
2. Can the four steps of DePasse (2014) be found in the MS Hackathon?
2.1 Is the problem described?
2.2 Do teams form around problem areas?
2.3 Is there an iterative brainstorm process?
2.4 Do teams present solution with work created?
3.2. Data Collection and Validity
On the 21st and 22nd of May the first ever MS Hackathon was held in the Netherlands. Mobile Doctors, who were interviewed and provided inside information on the Hackathon, organized the MS Hackathon. The researcher was accredited as a Hackathon expert and was therefore allowed to retrieve data and gain access to the event. The data are derived from observations and interviews during the MS Hackathon, data presented at the Hackathon and on the
website. Two semi-structured qualitative interviews are held after the Hackathon in order to get a higher degree of construct validity and data triangulation. The interviews will take place after the Hackathon in order to see if the observations made by the researcher are matched with that of the interviewees. The interviewees are two of the organizers of the MS
Hackathon. Selecting the case was not difficult since this was the first MS Hackathon in the Netherlands during the time of selecting. The following paragraph describes the MS
Hackathon.
3.3. MS Hackathon: The Case Study
The MS Hackathon comprises the case study for this research project. On the 21st and 22nd of
May 2016, a Hackathon was organized by Mobile Doctors and MoveS. Mobile Doctors is a department of the VvAA and technology greatly impacted the VvAA members. Mobile Doctors seeks to be the business compass that delivers the most optimum and best profits by
using the possibilities offered by new innovations. Mobile Doctors believes that together they can improve the quality of the health care and do this by creating a space in which: “Health care innovators inspire each other to judge, implement and improve practical digital
applications and to share the knowledge about these innovations.” Mobile Doctors does this by providing an online and offline platform where health care innovators can share their stories.
MoveS states on the Hackathon website (www.mshackathon.nl) that:
The MoveS Foundation wants to inspire more people to move against MS and to give everyone an opportunity to do so. We do this by organizing flagship events such as the MS Hackathon, Climbing against MS and Arena Moves. MoveS also facilitates others to start organizing their own event, Your MoveS. In the future there will be an MS-free world. But until we get there we want people with MS to keep moving. To explore their possibilities. With positive vibes. MoveS supports all contributions, big or small. We strongly believe it is not the size that matters, but the movement itself. Together we can raise funds that make a difference.
MS is a demyelinating disease, which was responsible for 20,000 deaths worldwide in 2013. There is no known cure for MS, but this Hackathon seeks to improve the lives of MS patients and/or to improve medical research. Two challenges are defined for the Hackathon in the fields of patients and family and in the field of doctors and researchers. The Hackathon would make a dream come true for patients and their families if it succeeded in improving communication between patients and their peers, or by the ultimate goal of finding a cure. It is also hoped that the Hackathon will result in innovative medical research solutions that give better insight into the day-to-day lives of people with MS. Within these two challenges, seven goals are defined. These are: Finding new ways to communicate with doctors, enabling the
sharing of experiences with family and friends, learning about treatments and planning, providing insight into the variability of MS, providing insight into the disease’s impact on daily living, finding new ways to track the course of the disease, and ultimately improving the quality of life for people with MS.
The Hackathon had 12 judges, 21 teams, and more than 24 experts to assist the teams. The teams could only enter if the group size ranges from four to ten people and the team members had diverse occupations. Thus a team of five doctors and one engineer would not qualify as a team. Diversity of the team members was there to have all the traits needed in the Hackathon. Over the two days, 150 people started hacking, but they also had to follow a program. Some workshops were required over these two days and some were optional. The required workshops were intended to get the best presentations to the judges. The subjects of the workshops included the business model and how to give a presentation (to a big
audience). The optional workshops included expert presentations on the data and technology promoted by the sponsors.
MS Hackathon program
21 May 2016 May 22, 2016
Welcome & registration 08:00-09:00 Breakfast time 08:00-09:00 Opening presentation 09:00-09:30 Workshop (required) 10:00-10:30
Team presentation 09:30-10:00 Workshops 11:00-15:00
Hackathon time 10:00- and counting… Catered lunch 13:00-14:00
Catered lunch 13:00-14:00 Deadline 17:00
Workshop (required) 15:00-15:30 Dinner time 17:00-18:00 Workshops 15:30-18:00 Preparing technical equipment 17:00-19:00 Dinner time 19:00-20:00 Pitches (Part 1) 19:00-20:00 Break 20:00-20:15 Pitches (Part 2) 20:15-21:10 Jury time 21:10-21-30 Award ceremony 21:30-21:45 Drinks 21:45-22:15
The Hackathon was located in the PWC-buildings in Amsterdam. The opening presentation was held in a restaurant area where the two of the organizers motivated the hackers on why they were there and what they were there for, namely, MS. The facilitator of the location spoke about MS and outlined the house rules. All of these three speakers were in some way connected to MS. Each team was given a minute in which to present their team and each team had a connection to MS. Some teams included a person with MS, while others had friends or family members with MS. The teams then headed off to their own rooms to hack. The teams’ rooms were located on two floors and each floor had a sleeping area.
The experts also had their own room to which they could retreat. The experts consisted of both individuals and teams from different companies. IBM, Apple, and PWC were among the largest teams of experts who were there to help the hacking teams. The individual experts were mainly people with MS, doctors, experts in business models, and designers. The experts swamped the teams in the first few hours, but most of the teams needed those hours to
brainstorm their ideas. The teams that needed to brainstorm closed the doors making it a threshold for the experts to come in. There were two workshops that were required for each team during the Hackathon and each team had to send one member to follow the workshops on presentation and how to make a business model.
The personal relationship with the problem of MS was remarkable. Each team had a personal link to MS, which made them dedicated to solving the problems of MS. Normal Hackathons are there to produce products and services and companies such as Facebook and Google use Hackathons to produce innovations. For example, Facebook’s like button is the product of a Hackathon. Moreover, most of the experts also had a link to MS. Whether the experts were people with MS, or doctors or other professionals; they almost all had someone in their surroundings with MS. This made this Hackathon a special case.
After a long session where all teams pitched their prototypes and business models the judges selected three teams for the prizes. Team Neurokeys presented a working prototype of an app that tracked the typing of the MS patient. The simplicity and scaling of this app were the strong points according to the judges. Neurokeys was awarded first prize with funding and support from SchubergPhilis and Many2More. They won an accelerator program for a year at IBM and 200 hours of advice from PwC. Team Orikami came in second with their app that sees the tiredness of a patient with an app that tracks the eyes. Their idea was inspired during the conversations of MS patients during the Hackathon. A hospital, VUmc, contacted the team after the presentation whether they could cooperate on an existing research in the hospital. Team Technasium Schaersvoorde, a team of high school students, won third place. They developed ‘Vacation Maps’, a website to give MS patients a carefree holiday. On the website MS patients could fill in the environmental factors which gave them the least inconvenience, when and where they would like to go on holiday. Potential partners contacted the team afterwards to develop the website.
4. Results
This chapter presents the results to the research questions.
The first research question was: Can the nine conditions of Briscoe (2014) be found in the MS Hackathon? A Hackathon starts with the presentation of the problem, which is then divided into topics. Each individual can sign up for the topics that they like or that they think they could contribute the most to. This Hackathon started differently. Because of the media exposure it received, the teams started to sign up as complete teams. Moreover, the team
members had to have different occupations and they were not allowed to have eight doctors in one team. This diversity and the upfront selection of the teams are different from normal Hackathons. People were allowed to self-organize their team upfront of the event. However there were some restrictions regarding the teams composition. Teams also had to sign in a contact person in case of emergency and for contact with the organization of the Hackathon. There were no team leaders. Therefore RQ 1.6, 1.8, 1.9 and 2.1 are supported. The teams did not form during the event and the problem was known before the start, which does not support RQ 2.2. There is some evidence supporting RQ 2.2 since the problems are known before the start of the Hackathon and the teams are free to select their own team members.
The location where the teams spent their days was different from normal Hackathons, which are located in one large room. This Hackathon had different rooms for each team and most of the time the teams stayed in their own room with the door locked. This did not promote collectiveness as the teams hardly spoke to each other. Hackathons are supposed to bring people together to improve ideas, which did not occur in this Hackathon, although there was one team that collected all the ideas and data from the other teams. This was their
business model and tried to improve the view on MS for doctors. During the workshops teams send one participant to the workshop to attend. Workshops were held in larger rooms, which also applies for the starting presentation, residence hall, dining hall and final
presentation of the groups. One room was designed as a laboratory where prototypes could be tested. Throughout the buildings were enough different spaces to gather as a team. Flexible seating was therefore supported (RQ 1.5). All the rooms were fitted with enough outlets for the laptops and WI-FI widespread available. This supports RQs 1.5 and 1.2.
Different was that experts are not always available at Hackathons, while this Hackathon had more than 24 experts on standby for the whole weekend. Not only did the experts give presentations and workshops to the teams, but they were also there to validate
