CIGI 2013 Interoperability in innovation 2.

0
RENE LOPEZ-FLORES1, STEPHANE NEGNY1, JEAN-PIERRE BELAUD1, JEAN-MARC LE LANN1
UNIVERSITE DE TOULOUSE Institut National Polytechnique de Toulouse ENSIACET Laboratoire de Gnie Chimique Dpartement Procds et Systmes Industriels 4, alle Emile Monso BP 44362 31432 TOULOUSE CEDEX 4 FRANCE {rene.lopezflores, stephane.negny, jeanpierre.belaud, jeanmarc.lelann}@ensiacet.fr
1

Rsum - Ce document traite les lments d'interoprabilit identifis afin de dvelopper une plate-forme pour l'innovation systmatique dans la premire phase de conception dun produit. Cette plate-forme est base sur une stratgie d'innovation collaborative au sein d'un support de rseaux sociaux. L'objectif de notre travail est de concevoir, dvelopper et dployer une plate-forme pour une meilleure gestion des processus d'innovation dans un contexte ouvert. L'objectif de cette plate-forme est de faciliter l'interface entre les demandeurs et fournisseurs de solutions d'innovation, ainsi que d'offrir aux fournisseurs de solutions les instruments pour amliorer leur capacit innover. Mots cls -. Innovation systmatique, Collaboration, Design des produits, Rseaux sociaux, Interoprabilit Abstract This paper treats the interoperability elements identified to develop an information systems framework for systematic innovation in the first phase of product design. This framework is based on a collaborative innovation strategy within a social network media. The objective of our work is to conceive, develop and deploy a framework for better management of innovation process in an open context. The goal of this framework is to facilitate the interface between the innovation seekers and solution providers, as well as to offer solution providers the instruments to improve their capacity to create new and innovative ideas. Keywords Systematic innovation, Collaboration, Product design, Social Networking, Interoperability 1 INTRODUCTION AND PROBLEMATIC SITUATION 1.1 Introduction The innovation is a rich concept. It may be defined as a success element in economics, as a complex process for the management, as a key factor to develop new products, processes or profitable services in the industry. Whatever definition, there is a need in the industry for systematic methods and tools to manage innovation in a globalized environment. To overcome this problem, the advantages and challenges that the Web as a platform represents for the industry should be considered. In this paper we introduce the elements for a collaborative framework, which is still under development, to implement a process using systematic innovation methodologies. Interoperability and semantic interoperability have been identified as a means to create the conditions for efficiently drive collaboration. Firstly, there is an introduction to some general concepts about innovation, the ways to implement it and the problematic situation addressed. Secondly, is presented the interoperability as we envisaged it in the innovation process, the collaboration process and the strategic integration of ITCs. Thirdly, it is the presentation of our framework named iTSolver, and the structure that proposes interoperability in collaborative innovation. Finally, it is presented the results achieved and discussed the perspectives and work to come. 1.2 Innovative design in preliminary phase The approach for product design may differ according to the industrial practices. But in general it involves the following phases: (a) preliminary design, (b) detailed design and (c) final design. The phase of preliminary design (also known as conceptual design) groups the search activities for concepts and architectural design. This phase is decisive for the product success, and the innovation management should not depend on psychological techniques. Instead, the enterprises need formal methods and tools to ensure the development of innovative solutions. For Belleval et al. (Belleval, Deniaud, and Lerch 2010), the characteristics of innovative design are: the statement of a problem poorly defined and not resolved, the problem to solve has a number of contradictions, the achievement of a new solution, and the construction of new knowledge. In order to solve inventive problems or idea generation in preliminary design, the engineers make use of traditional methods such as: concept-knowledge theory, brainstorming, and trial-error. The drawbacks of these methods are the: randomness, the lack of systematization and the relay on individual talent. Unlike traditional methods, systematic innovation is regarding the systematic development of innovative problem solving and idea generation. The Theory of Inventive Problem Solving TRIZ is a set of methods and concept to systematize innovation. The advantage of TRIZ over other methods is that it is a heuristic based on scientific knowledge and the study of millions of patents; and not only a psychological approach (Cortes 2006). 1.3 Collaborative innovation The concept of collaborative innovation is an expression of the social aspect in innovation management. It reflects the recognition that technological innovations are less and less the

outcome of an individual companys isolated efforts (Nieto and Santamaria 2007). According to Nieto and Santamaria, collaboration with suppliers, clients and research organizations has a positive impact on the novelty of innovations. In addition to collaboration, the integration and management of internal and external knowledge, is important to improve the levels of innovativeness and competitiveness. Collaborative innovation means to gain access to external sources of technological knowledge and skills. The collaborative social aspect of innovation, not only represents a paradigm shift in the conceptualization of innovation process, but also it requires the support of collaborative technologies (Standing and Kiniti 2011; Hsig and Kohn 2011). These problems are studied by a relative new paradigm in innovation management named Open Innovation. Open Innovation (Chesbrough 2003) is a paradigm that promotes the collaboration with external actors to the company, and the purposive use of inflows and outflows of knowledge. Although, in large multinational companies there is a growing interest to enhance their innovation capabilities using the Open Innovation (OI) paradigm, still there are many concerns. One of the most challenging for academics and practitioners is related to how implement OI process (Mortara and Minshall 2011; Chiaroni, Chiesa, and Frattini 2011). To solve this problem, researchers propose the use of Information Technologies (IT), mainly Web technologies (See Table 1.1).
Table 1.1 Implementations of Open Innovation

technologies influenced by innovation theories to develop informatics systems with the goal of assisting enterprises throughout any stage or the entire innovation process. The development of this research field faces multiple challenges; the influence of newer innovation methods and paradigms, and the explosive evolution in the field of InformationCommunications Technologies. Open CAI 2.0 is the next evolutionary step in the CAI development (Hsig and Kohn 2011). Hsig and Kohn defined Open CAI 2.0, as a category of CAI-tools that use technologies following the Web 2.0 paradigm to implement innovation methods, in order to open access of organizations to a large audience of external actors, and enable them to interact in different activities of the innovation process. The characteristics and empirical conceptualization about Open CAI 2.0 tools are still under discussion. However, (Hrastinski et al. 2010) identifies four types of innovation systems: (1) Idea management system, (2) Problem solving system, (3) Innovation marketplace and (4) Innovation analysis system. This work aims to contribute in the (2) type, with a problem solving framework based on systematic innovation techniques (actually using TRIZ methods). It is worth to highlight that for the next design phase named embodiment design, the innovation process is considerably influenced by the Computer Aided Design systems and by the adoption of suitable methods, which are out of the scope of this research. 1.5 Problematic Situation In the current industrial context, it is desirable to have tools and approaches to help product design in preliminary phase, which propose innovative solutions. In this work we present the elements for an Open CAI 2.0 framework, to support the preliminary stages in product design based on a systematic innovation approach. In the development, interoperability is considered as the mechanism by which collaborative innovation is done systematically and efficiently. Thus, the interoperability is treated in three axes: social networking, innovation process and ITCs integration. 2
INTEROPERABILITY IN COLLABORATIVE INNOVATION

Proposal Use of wikis

Description Showing how organizations can use wikis to support innovation process (Standing and Kiniti 2011). Implementation Studying how firms move from a of Open Close to and Open Innovation Innovation paradigm (Chiaroni, Chiesa, and Frattini 2011;Mortara and Minshall 2011). Collaborative Analysis of the role of different types networks of collaborative networks in achieving product innovations (Nieto and Santamaria 2007; Gloor 2006; L. Wang et al. 2002). Open CAI 2.0 Development of Computer Aided Innovation in the era of Open Innovation and Web 2.0 (Hsig and Kohn 2011). Use of Studying about the use of Semantic semantic web Web technologies to support Open Innovation process (Carbone et al. 2012; K. Wang and Takahashi 2012) B2B virtual Developing strategies of business-tocommunities business (B2B) virtual communities (Tickle, Adebanjo, and Michaelides 2011). The concept of Open CAI 2.0 seems to promise an interesting research area, to provide industry with solutions for product design in preliminary phase. 1.4 Computer Aided Innovation In the past decades, various computer solutions have been developed to support the different activities of the innovation process. The research field to lead the effort is known as Computer Aided Innovation (CAI). Although, there is not a widely accepted definition, based on (Leon 2009) is possible to describe CAI as follows: discipline in Computer Aided

2.1 Interoperability Baird (Baird 2007) describes interoperability as: the ability of people, organizations, and systems to interact and effectively exchange and use information. Tsilas (Tsilas 2007), simplifies it, as the mechanism to connect people, data and diverse systems. It is not intend to debate the nature of interoperability. However, in order to better understand its meaning, it is necessary to reference the memory of Accreditation to Supervise Research (in French Habilitation Diriger des Recherches) by Panetto (Panetto 2006). The Interoperability Capability Model introduced in the memory presents 5 interoperability levels: Isolated, Connected, Functional, Domain and Enterprise. Instead, another study by Obrst (Obrst 2004) identifies 6 interoperability levels: Data, Object, component, application, system and enterprise. While, these levels of interoperability are crossed with three types of interoperability: Syntactic, Structural and Semantic. These levels and interoperability types are useful as a reference in the development of collaborative innovation. The amount of heterogeneous knowledge exchanged in the open environments of collaborative innovation is wildly increasing; moreover, the problem grows while coupling the great source of data and information that the Web provides

(i.e. Open Linked Data). In this sense, there is a need to formally agree in advance upon terms and meanings. One approach to achieve interoperability is by the means of semantic interoperability. 2.1.1 Semantic interoperability Semantic interoperability concerns with the exchange of highlevel context sensitive information over heterogeneous knowledge sources (Ouksel and Sheth 1999). Semantic interoperability ensures that these exchanges make sense. For (Nardin, Brando, and Sichman 2011) there are three solutions for dealing with semantic interoperability: centralized, decentralized and hybrid. In the centralized solution, all actors use the same common ontology to interact with other actors. Instead, in the decentralized solution, each actor has its own ontology to internally represent information, and to interact with other actors it is necessary a mapping among ontologies. In the hybrid solution, each actor has its own internal ontology to represent the domain, and uses a common domain otology for interaction. Baird introduces ontology (Baird 2007), as semantic data set representing concepts, relationships, and other distinctions that are relevant for modeling a domain. In previous works, there is evidence of the application of ontologies and semantic web technologies in innovation management. For example in (Dutra 2009), Druta focuses on collaborative design conflict resolution. By using particular representation models, and then transform them into ontologies instances, and merge them together to get a final product design. Another example is (Stankovic 2012), in this work Stankovic threats the convergence of the social Web and the semantic Web technologies, to contribute to the emergence of innovation.

TRIZ theory provides a set of tools and concepts for systematic innovation, designed to help solve problems and create new, innovative ideas. In order to integrate these set of tools in a collaborative innovation platform, it is necessary to overcome different difficulties as: How to organize them in an intuitive process? How to deploy them in a collaborative environment? How to manage the existing and generated knowledge? We identified the interoperability as a common aspect related to all this problems. The interoperability emerges from the implication of new ways to organize efficiently the innovation process to enable actors to collaborate, by using ICT. The use of ICT with the objective to ensure the interoperability has a strong connection with the problematic of knowledge management. In the other hand, the models developed to analyze the interoperability may become knowledge repositories to understand the way the innovation process is organized. However, the management and preservation of semantics contained in these models remain difficult. Thus, semantics in the innovation process need to be formalized (Moalla, Panetto, and Boucher 2012). The ontologies are the most flexible structures to organize the identified knowledge in order to bring a rich interoperation between the models identified in the innovation process. 2.4 Information and Communication Technologies integration The use of Information and Communication Technologies (ICT) in industry leads achieving an unprecedented levels of innovation and interoperability (Tsilas 2007). While talking about ICT, the term Web technologies have become the most common. In particular Web 2.0 and Semantic Web technologies are of the interest on this research. The Web 2.0 (OReilly 2007) is the platform through which social networks provide their services (i.e. Facebook, LinkedIn and MySpace). A Web 2.0 application may allow users to interact and collaborate with each other in a social media. For the implementation of ontologies and semantic interoperability, Web technologies provide a stack of standards grouped in the Semantic Web (Berners-Lee, Hendler, and Lassila 2001). The convergence of both technologies leads to assist in developing applications that facilitate interactive information sharing, interoperability and collaboration.

2.2 Social networking In the innovation process, humans are the most important element because they are the creative actors able to transform information in knowledge, and the knowledge in solutions. Thus, organizing cooperation between actors becomes the core of the process. Social networks allows interaction of different users without the need of meet each participant among them; giving rise to a phenomenon known as the network effect (Esteban-Gil et al. 2012): the more users participate in a network, the more are the benefits they get from it. The 3 COLLABORATIVE INNOVATION ELEMENTS FOR AN OPEN interaction of users through the innovation process in a social CAI 2.0 FRAMEWORK network produces semantic content. The semantic content can As indicated previously, the implementation of collaborative be integrated in a knowledge base, in order to exploit it by innovation patterns is the convergence of different aspects; in capitalization methods. Nevertheless, the design of the model the development of this framework three are identified: a to identify the useful knowledge is not an easy task. It is possible to capture the semantic content in a social network formal process, technology integration and the organization of with semantic web technologies, but the representation of the people to work. These concerns are related to an aspect studied social interaction implicates the adoption of interoperability by different research areas: interoperability. aspects in order to exchange information without losing Taking into account the principles of the Open Innovation paradigm, and the state of art in Web technologies, in this semantics. Semantic representation of social networks is treated by the section we are addressing the question of using interoperability projects such as: Friend of a Friend (FOAF) or the in a social networking context to promote collaboration within Semantically-Interlinked Online Communities (SIOCs). FOAF an innovation process. is a RDF vocabulary describing people, the links between them The elements for collaborative innovation proposed, are and the things they create and do (Brickley and Miller 2010). mainly centered in the design phase. The interest to improve SIOCs is aimed at expressing information about the nature, collaborative innovation in design, and particularly the stage of structure and content of online communities (Passant et al. conceptual design, lies in that it is perhaps the most crucial task of new product development (L. Wang et al. 2002). 2010). The methodology to develop the framework discussed in this 2.3 Systematic innovation process paper is based on models, which aim to represent the The development of systematic innovation arranges the innovation process, the collaboration process and the semantic elements needed to assist solution providers in their tasks. The representation of information exchanged. The purpose is to

have captured the different elements to support an innovation process based on social networking, knowledge management and the adoption of interoperability aspects. The different stages of the process are not executed in a linear mode; instead, the process follows an asynchronous pattern. Each user works on the data separately within a shared modeling space. Activities assigned to different members are achieved at distinct times. The framework core (see Figure 1) is the main model that integrates the aspects of: supporting collaborative work and implementing an innovation process.

Figure 1 Framework basic structure

The basic components in the iTSolver structure are described as: Innovation process: Exploits the most utilized (and easy to use) TRIZ concepts and tools combined with CBR in the model TRIZ-CBR (explained better in the section 3.1.1). Collaboration process: This module has the support for the four basic operations in a collaborative environment (Spector and Edmonds 2002): 1) Communication among various users; 2) Coordination of users activities; 3) Collaboration among user groups on the creation, modification and dissemination of artifacts and products; and, 4) Control processes to ensure integrity and to track the progress of projects 3.1.1 Innovation process The core of the innovation process is the model TRIZ-CBR (G. Cortes Robles, Negny, and Le Lann 2009). This model proposes the integration of the Theory of Inventive Problem Solving (TRIZ), and the Case-Based Reasoning (CBR) process in order to conceive a solving process, capable to guide creativity while generating innovative solutions and also to store, index and reuse knowledge with the aim to accelerate the innovation process (Figure 2).

features concerning the problem description, the ideal solution is as well stated in order to propose a guide for the search direction of the future solution. Then the problem is stated as a contradiction coupled with the whole problem description (contradiction and the other features) used to explore the memory content for a similar problem. At this point of the synergy process, two different sub processes can take place: 1. The retrieval offers a sufficiently similar problem or set of problems. Such a situation leads to the evaluation of the associated solutions to decide which solution or solving strategy has to be used as initial solution. Here the similarity between two problems is calculated with a similarity global function like nearest neighbor algorithm. 2. The memory does not have any similar solved case or sufficiently similar case (the similarity global function has a too small value). Under this condition, the system offers inventive principles associated to the contradiction, by which a satisfactory solution could be derived. The matrix finds its initial use. Whatever the chosen sub-process, both converge to a proposed initial solution. Then the solution obtained is revised, tested and repaired if necessary with the aim to produce a satisfactory solution. Finally, the new solution is incorporated in the memory in order to be reutilized in the future. The resolution proposed in model TRIZ-CBR has demonstrated its efficiency as it is reported by (Guillermo Cortes Robles et al. 2009; G. Cortes Robles, Negny, and Le Lann 2008; Negny et al. 2012; Hu et al. 2011; Lee and Deng 2006). 3.1.2 Collaboration process The framework deploys a process based on TRIZ-CBR model to assist users in the resolution of technical or physical contradictions within a Web 2.0 application. The resolution process starts after the user creates an entity called project. The project structures all the information aspects concerned with the resolution process. In the study of innovation through collaboration, the process as a conceptual object or tool- has a central role, because it arranges the activities and actors. The collaboration process we propose is center in the aspects to allow different actors cooperate with an objective common, developing innovative solution. Those aspects are: 1. Provide tools to facilitate communication among users. 2. Coordination of activities performed by users. 3. Allow users collaborate to create, edit and share projects. 4. Create collaboration groups. 5. To ensure the integrity of information on projects and keep tracking the progress. The actors involved in the process are: the project owner, project collaborator and mutual exclusion control. The Figure 3 is a model in Business Process Model and Notation (BPMN) to describe the collaboration process. In certain way, the project owner is who has more control in the management of a project. After the project creation, he is responsible to create collaboration groups and share the project. To share the project, there are three possibilities: invite registered users, invite created groups and invite by using email address. In the task Edit project, the user access to the innovation process described in section 3.1.1. In the edition, the collaborator accesses the same options to modify the project as the project owner. The mutual exclusion control accesses the project resource in order to maintain information integrity. When a user edits a project, the project enters in a blocking status to achieve mutual exclusion and to ensure that

Figure 2 Model TRIZ-CBR (G. Cortes Robles, Negny, and Le Lann 2009)

The resolution process in the Figure 2 is composed by the following steps. The preliminary step is to collect data on the handling problem and to describe it. Before filling the five

Figure 3 Collaboration process

no other user will modify it at the same time. A timer protects the blocking status to avoid infinite blockage, in case the user does not make any change after certain period. The mutual exclusion finishes when the user ends the edition, or by the mutual exclusion control, when the timer is over. Then, the project resource is released. In addition, the collaborative approach in our development follows the principles of a Web 2.0 application: participation and usability. Every user can participate either creating a new project, or making contributions to others projects. The emergence of Web 2.0 applications has changed the way people interact through digital media. Although remote collaboration has been applied for several years, the immediacy and feedback capabilities offered by new technologies allow the creation of more interoperable systems. In order to accomplish it, the systems development of collaboration teams should allow information exchange through a friendly and easy to use visual structure. The user interface for collaboration in the framework includes components that allow the exchange of information at different levels. This information enables each user to understand the proposals and contributions from the other members through the innovation process. The Figure 4 is a graphic representation derived from usability and interaction parameters. Elements in Figure 4.a, 4.b, 4.c and 4.h are the principal system sections for communication and information exchange components. For example, Figure 4.a is the space to create, edit or modify the projects. In Figure 4.d there is the workspace to edit the projects, which includes a marker of progress and color indicators of the current section the user is working in. In Figure 4.e there are components to reduce communication errors. Figure 4.g includes widgets where it is possible to access basic elements of the most popular social networks. As a way to incorporate a semantic search of possible project, profile, journal and web content

matches related to the current projects topic and necessities; a new section is proposed in Figure 4.i to represent the results of the automatic results than the system allow users to access to complement their solution process within the system.

Figure 4 Graphic user interface

Elements for an ontology in collaborative innovation The ontology we envisage for collaborative innovation aims to be domain ontology of the social network interaction and TRIZ concepts, in specifying their base notions. The class diagram in Figure 5 introduces the concepts identified to compose the ontology. The partially vocabulary compiled for the TRIZ domain, are the theorys main concepts that are used by experts: Contradiction, Resources, Ideal Final Result and Solution. In addition, this compilation comprises the concepts for modeling a social environment for creating and collaborating within the resolution process: Profile, Project, Dashboard and Notification. Finally, the ontology includes the concepts for experiences capitalization using CBR, those concepts are: CBR case, Problem description and Case solution.

3.1.3

Figure 5 Collaborative innovation domain concepts

This first model will evolve to formalize the ontology using Web Ontology Language (OWL) as representation language. In addition there is a work in progress to compile more vocabulary from TRIZ theory, and from other systematic innovation methods. A perspective is to integrate the ontology with external sources of information, i.e. Open Linked Data. 4 CONCLUSION AND PERSPECTIVES

To achieve collaborative innovation in an open context, it is necessary to overcome different problems. In this paper some of these difficulties have been presented: social interaction, knowledge management and the definition of an innovation process. A solution based on interoperability elements is proposed. The interoperability is addressed from different perspectives: as a means to coordinate efficiently the actors in the innovation process, to integrate the innovation process with ICTs and to establish a common vocabulary throughout ontology to integrate the framework into de semantic Web. The framework is under development, still there is work to be developed. Open Linked Data seems to provide a rich source of knowledge that may be includes in the resolution process. In addition, the knowledge captured in the ontology may be exploited by techniques such as collective intelligence. In the next evolution of iTSolver framework, we plan to integrate an innovation broker to automatically create semantically-empowered relationships between the registered users (TRIZ experts, engineers and academicals) within the platform, based on their interactions. Finally, it is required the validation through the internet or an intranet network. The validation will be done for innovation in the process engineering domain. 5 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

This work is sponsored by the Mexican National Council for Science and Technology (CONACyT) and the Government of France through the French embassy in Mexico. 6 REFERENCES

Baird, Stacy Avery. 2007. Government Role in Developing an Interoperability Ecosystem. In Proceedings of the 1st International Conference on Theory and Practice of Electronic Governance, 6568. ICEGOV 07. New York, NY, USA: ACM. doi:10.1145/1328057.1328073. http://doi.acm.org/10.1145/1328057.1328073.

Belleval, C., I. Deniaud, and C. Lerch. 2010. Modele de Conception a Base de Reseau de Contradictions. Le Cas de La Conception Des Microsatelites Au Cnes. Information Science for Decision Making 40. http://www.enim.fr/mosim2010/english/articles/149.p df. Brickley, D., and L. Miller. 2010. FOAF Vocabulary Specification 0.98. Namespace Document 9. http://ontogenealogy.com/documents/2012/08/foafvocabulary-specification-0-98-20100809.pdf. Carbone, Francesco, Jess Contreras, Josefa Z. Hernndez, and Jose Manuel Gomez-Perez. 2012. Open Innovation in an Enterprise 3.0 Framework: Three Case Studies. Expert Systems with Applications. doi:10.1016/j.eswa.2012.02.015. http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S095 741741200259X. Chesbrough, Henry. 2003. Open Innovation: The New Imperative for Creating and Profiting from Technology. Harvard Business Press. Chiaroni, Davide, Vittorio Chiesa, and Federico Frattini. 2011. The Open Innovation Journey: How Firms Dynamically Implement the Emerging Innovation Management Paradigm. Technovation 31 (1) (January): 3443. doi:10.1016/j.technovation.2009.08.007. Cortes, Guillermo. 2006. Management de linnovation technologique et des connaissances: synergie entre la thorie TRIZ et le Raisonnement Partir de Cas. Toulouse: Institut National Polytechnique De Toulouse. http://ethesis.inptoulouse.fr/archive/00000388/01/cortesrobles.pdf. Cortes Robles, G., S. Negny, and J. M Le Lann. 2008. Design Acceleration in Chemical Engineering. Chemical Engineering and Processing: Process Intensification 47 (11): 20192028. . 2009. Case-based Reasoning and TRIZ: A Coupling for Innovative Conception in Chemical Engineering. Chemical Engineering and Processing: Process Intensification 48 (1): 239249. Cortes Robles, Guillermo, Giner Alor Hernndez, Alberto Aguilar Lasserre, and Rubn Posada Gmez. 2009. Accelerating the Knowledge Innovation Process. In Human Centered Design, edited by Masaaki Kurosu, 5619:184192. Lecture Notes in Computer Science. Springer Berlin / Heidelberg.

http://www.springerlink.com/content/r347510408k68 g88/abstract/. Dutra, Moiss Lima. 2009. An Ontology-based Approach to Manage Conflicts in Collaborative Design. Universit Claude Bernard - Lyon I, Universidade nova de Lisboa. http://tel.archives-ouvertes.fr/tel00692473. Esteban-Gil, Angel, Francisco Garcia-Sanchez, Rafael Valencia-Garcia, and Jesualdo T. Fernandez-Breis. 2012. SocialBROKER: A Collaborative Social Space for Gathering Semantically-enhanced Financial Information. Expert Systems with Applications 39 (10) (August): 97159722. doi:10.1016/j.eswa.2012.02.093. Gloor, Peter A. 2006. Swarm Creativity: Competitive Advantage Through Collaborative Innovation Networks. 1st ed. Oxford University Press, USA. Hrastinski, S., N.Z. Kviselius, H. Ozan, and M. Edenius. 2010. A Review of Technologies for Open Innovation: Characteristics and Future Trends. In System Sciences (HICSS), 2010 43rd Hawaii International Conference On, 1 10. doi:10.1109/HICSS.2010.29. Hu, Zhuo, Yong Zhao, Yang Chen, and Dong Xiang. 2011. An Improved TRIZ-CBR Model for Rapidly Innovative Design. Advanced Materials Research 308-310 (August): 126131. doi:10.4028/www.scientific.net/AMR.308-310.126. Hsig, Stefan, and Stefan Kohn. 2011. Open CAI 2.0 Computer Aided Innovation in the Era of Open Innovation and Web 2.0. Computers in Industry 62 (4) (May): 407413. doi:10.1016/j.compind.2010.12.003. Lee, Y. C., and Y. S. Deng. 2006. A Design System Integrating TRIZ Method and Case-Based Reasoning Approach. In Proceedings of the 8th International DDSS Conference, 387402. http://gsct3237.kaist.ac.kr/elib/Conferences/DDSS/2006/PDF/DDSS2006-PB387.pdf. Leon, Noel. 2009. The Future of Computer-aided Innovation. Computers in Industry 60 (8) (October): 539550. doi:10.1016/j.compind.2009.05.010. Moalla, N., H. Panetto, and X. Boucher. 2012. Interoprabilit Et Partage de Connaissances. Ingnierie Des Systmes dInformation (ISI) (4): 7 17. Mortara, Letizia, and Tim Minshall. 2011. How Do Large Multinational Companies Implement Open Innovation? Technovation 31 (1011) (October): 586597. doi:10.1016/j.technovation.2011.05.002. Nardin, Luis G., Anarosa A.F. Brando, and Jaime S. Sichman. 2011. Experiments on Semantic Interoperability of Agent Reputation Models Using the SOARI Architecture. Engineering Applications of Artificial Intelligence 24 (8) (December): 14611471. doi:10.1016/j.engappai.2011.05.004. Negny, S., J.P. Belaud, G. Cortes Robles, E. Roldan Reyes, and J. Barragan Ferrer. 2012. Toward an Ecoinnovative Method Based on a Better Use of Resources: Application to Chemical Process Preliminary Design. Journal of Cleaner Production 32 (September): 101113. doi:10.1016/j.jclepro.2012.03.023. Nieto, M J, and L. Santamaria. 2007. The Importance of Diverse Collaborative Networks for the Novelty of

Product Innovation. Technovation 27 (6-7): 367 377. Obrst, L. J. 2004. Ontologies and Semantic Web for Semantic Interoperability. 2004 Semantic Technologies for eGovernment Conference. USA. OReilly, T. 2007. What Is Web 2.0: Design Patterns and Business Models for the Next Generation of Software. Communications & Strategies (1): 17. Ouksel, A. M., and A. Sheth. 1999. Semantic Interoperability in Global Information Systems. SIGMOD Rec. 28 (1) (March): 512. doi:10.1145/309844.309849. Panetto, Herv. 2006. Meta-modles Et Modles Pour Lintgration Et Linteroprabilit Des Applications Dentreprises de Production. Universit Henri Poincar - Nancy I. http://tel.archives-ouvertes.fr/tel00119423. Passant, A., U. Bojrs, J. Breslin, and S. Decker. 2010. The SIOC Project: Semantically-interlinked Online Communities, from Humans to Machines. Coordination, Organizations, Institutions and Norms in Agent Systems V: 179194. Spector, J. M., and G. S. Edmonds. 2002. Knowledge Management in Instructional Design. ERIC Clearinghouse on Information and Technology. http://ibstpi.org/_dev/archived/backup/Downloads/Sp ector-edmonds-km-id.pdf. Standing, Craig, and Sarah Kiniti. 2011. How Can Organizations Use Wikis for Innovation? Technovation 31 (7) (July): 287295. doi:10.1016/j.technovation.2011.02.005. Stankovic, Milan. 2010. Open Innovation and Semantic Web: Problem Solver Search on Linked Data. Semantic Web Conference Corpus, November 7, 9th edition. http://data.semanticweb.org/conference/iswc/2010/pa per/439. . 2012. Convergence Entre Web Social Et Web Smantique. Application Linnovation Laide Du Web. Http://www.theses.fr. December 7. http://www.theses.fr/s60303. Tickle, Matthew, Dotun Adebanjo, and Zenon Michaelides. 2011. Developmental Approaches to B2B Virtual Communities. Technovation 31 (7) (July): 296308. doi:10.1016/j.technovation.2011.04.002. Tsilas, Nicos L. 2007. Enabling Open Innovation and Interoperability: Recommendations for Policymakers. In Proceedings of the 1st International Conference on Theory and Practice of Electronic Governance, 5356. ICEGOV 07. New York, NY, USA: ACM. doi:10.1145/1328057.1328071. http://doi.acm.org/10.1145/1328057.1328071. Wang, Kai, and Akio Takahashi. 2012. Semantic Web Based Innovative Design Knowledge Modeling for Collaborative Design. Expert Systems with Applications 39 (5) (April): 56165624. doi:10.1016/j.eswa.2011.11.056. Wang, Lihui, Weiming Shen, Helen Xie, Joseph Neelamkavil, and Ajit Pardasani. 2002. Collaborative Conceptual Designstate of the Art and Future Trends. Computer-Aided Design 34 (13) (November): 981 996. doi:10.1016/S0010-4485(01)00157-9.