From co-creating ideas to finding open solutions
Open innovation and ideation platforms make it possible to quickly solve a problem or generate new ideas by tapping into external knowledge. The time savings and unprecedented opportunities offered by this approach are attracting more and more companies. Invented in the 2000s and popularized in the early 2010s, these platforms have seen steady growth ever since. Today, 95% of organizations already use open innovation, and over half integrate it into most of their projects. This democratization is reflected in the rise of innovation challenges proposed each year to external innovators, as well as in the growing number of specialized players.
For example, the platform Agorize claimed in 2023 a global community of 10 million innovators and over 300 major corporate clients. For its part, InnoCentive (now part of Wazoku) surpassed in 2025 the milestone of 2,500 resolved innovation challenges, with more than 200,000 ideas submitted and $60 million in rewards distributed. The platform ideXlab maps the expertise of more than one million innovative companies and 14 million experts worldwide.
Open innovation platforms serve as intermediaries between “seekers” (companies in search of innovation) and “solvers” (individuals, startups, labs providing solutions), organizing idea calls or solution challenges based on given issues—much like marketplaces for innovation. More often than not, this means connecting a company to a large pool of non-specialist contributors (idea crowdsourcing), or to a network of top experts (specialized solution sourcing).
Some open innovation platforms target specific communities, such as students, startups, or academic experts. Despite the diversity of these models, we can group these platforms into two main categories : those focused on collaborative ideation, and those aimed at problem-solving with external experts.
Idea platforms: harnessing collective intelligence
Idea generation platforms aim to harness “collective intelligence” by soliciting a large number of contributors to generate new ideas. Some are aimed at the general public, using a crowdsourcing approach that is open to everyone (examples include Spigit, Agorize, Wazoku, HeroX, etc.), while others focus on specific communities—for example, a company’s employees in the context of internal innovation (via collaborative solutions such as enterprise social networks). In the latter case, tools such as Jive or Microsoft Viva can be used to channel staff ideas.
These ideation platforms offer the possibility of restricting or expanding the target audience as needed. For example, some companies directly call on their consumers or fans to come up with ideas for improving products or campaigns. Coca-Cola, Oreo, and Patagonia have organized numerous idea contests of this type in recent years, where the best suggestion could lead to a new product or innovative advertising, with the initiator of the idea receiving a reward. More recently, LEGO has set up a community platform (LEGO Ideas) inviting fans of the brand to suggest future kits—several fan creations have been marketed as a result of this collaborative process (an approach that is part of the group’s open innovation strategy). Brands use these ideation challenges to strengthen the engagement of their community while benefiting from an external creative pool.
Problem-solving platforms: searching for the best experts
Unlike consumer ideation challenges, open innovation “solutions” platforms seek to solve complex technical problems by calling on the best external experts. This involves publishing a specific problem and disseminating it in a targeted manner to people likely to be able to solve it (scientists, engineers, specialized start-ups, etc.). The platform acts as an intermediary by providing access to a database of experts, managing the project (Q&A, proposal management), and often offering the client company (the “requestor”) the option of remaining anonymous to the solvers (in order to protect its confidentiality).
There are generally two types of intermediation models for these solution platforms:
- Expert marketplaces: this model allows any innovator or expert to register on the platform and be notified of new challenges that match their skills. Long-standing platforms such as InnoCentive and Innoget operate on this principle. It is a relatively simple model to set up, but it requires investment in brand awareness in order to attract enough qualified members. The largest online expert communities now have more than 400,000 to 500,000 members. For example, InnoCentive (InnoCentive@Work) built an international network of 375,000 solvers in its first decade of existence, and its integration into Wazoku now brings that base to nearly half a million experts. For their part, open ideation platforms can mobilize even more potential users (Agorize claims to have 10 million registered innovators), but this audience is less specialized. The disadvantage of the “marketplace” model lies in the heterogeneous qualifications of participants: it is difficult for these generalist platforms to accurately assess the expertise of each member or to be versatile in all the technical areas covered by the challenges.
- Targeted expert search platforms: a second, more proactive model involves the platform itself identifying the most relevant experts on a given subject and inviting them to propose a solution. Players such as ideXlab have developed this approach by using data mining techniques (scientific publications, patents, etc.) to find suitable profiles, then contacting these experts directly. Similarly, technology monitoring and scouting solutions such as StartUs Insights use AI to detect start-ups or laboratories at the forefront of a given field. This targeted open innovation model is more complex to operate (it requires advanced data analysis and networking capabilities), but has several advantages. It can be applied to any type of subject, even highly specialized or niche ones, and it ensures the relevance of the contributors solicited (since they are pre-selected for their skills). In addition, confidentiality is better controlled: challenges are not published publicly on the web but sent directly to identified experts, which avoids exposing the company’s needs to the public eye.
Trends and key figures in open innovation
To better understand the recent activity of open innovation platforms, let’s examine some post-2020 trends in figures.
Sustained growth and widespread adoption of the practice
The innovation challenge market continues to grow rapidly. As mentioned earlier, the vast majority of large companies now include open innovation in their strategy, and 71% even plan to increase their investments in this area within the next two years. This growth is reflected in a sharp rise in the number of challenges published compared to the early 2010s.
Likewise, the number of involved actors has exploded: solver networks that once had just tens of thousands of members a decade ago now count in the hundreds of thousands. This boom is not only quantitative, but also geographic and sector-specific. Open innovation hubs have developed worldwide: for example, London, Paris, and New York host a large number of corporate open innovation labs. Singapore also launched a national portal uniting open innovation challenges (Open Innovation Network), which has enabled hundreds of local companies to connect with innovative startups since 2019.
In parallel, there has been a proliferation of public or academic initiatives adopting these models (government innovation contests, open labs, etc.), further contributing to the overall rise of open innovation.
More challenges, often on a smaller scale
With the spread of open innovation across companies of all sizes, we are seeing a proliferation of smaller-scale challenges alongside major contests offering large prize pools. In 2013, challenges offering financial rewards had an average prize of around €20,000, and those under €10,000 already accounted for nearly half of all platform projects (whereas they were almost nonexistent just two years earlier). This trend accelerated after 2020: more and more challenges now target specific issues with modest rewards. Today, most innovation contests launched by companies offer prizes ranging from a few thousand to several tens of thousands of euros, making the tool accessible to SMEs with limited innovation budgets. For instance, tool manufacturer Husqvarna recently launched a challenge on biodiversity protection (specifically, invasive species control), with a €5,000 prize for the winner. Likewise, UK retail chain Waitrose regularly solicits ideas via Wazoku on topics such as service or packaging improvement, offering symbolic rewards.
At the other end of the spectrum, “big challenge” type contests have not disappeared—on the contrary, they are often led by public or industrial actors to tackle global issues, and come with very large prize pools. For example, the 2025 edition of the Global Prize for Innovation in Water (led by the Saudi Water Authority) offers $1.8 million in rewards and funding for pilot solutions to support sustainable water access. Similarly, the U.S. Department of Energy launched a $5.1 million contest for wind turbine recycling at end-of-life. Between these two extremes, we find more “classic” challenges launched by large companies, typically offering prizes between €10,000 and €100,000, depending on the problem’s complexity and the expected value of the solution. The decline in average prize size observed in recent years is explained by the massive increase in small-scale “standard” challenges, though this has not eliminated much larger initiatives offered in parallel. This evolution reflects a more systematic integration of open innovation into R&D processes: companies now use it not only for major breakthrough projects, but also to solve smaller-scale problems or to explore adjacent opportunities at lower cost.
An average resolution time of around three months
The average duration of an open innovation challenge remains around 90 days (three months) for the solution submission phase—a figure that has remained relatively stable compared to the previous decade. However, there is significant variability depending on the nature of the challenges and the philosophy of the platforms. Some platforms favor short timeframes of 6 to 8 weeks to maintain momentum and respond to rapidly evolving needs (this is often the case for ideation contests or digitally focused hackathons). Others allow for longer periods, up to 5 or 6 months, especially when the problem requires in-depth R&D or complex prototypes—for instance, this is the case with the approach used by Innoget, which structures its calls over extended durations. This difference also stems in part from the nature of the topics: calls for targeted technology transfer (e.g., finding an alternative chemical compound for a given formulation) tend to be resolved more quickly, as the experts capable of responding are few and easily identifiable. In contrast, broad ideation challenges (e.g., imagining new applications for a material) often benefit from longer timelines to gather a wide variety of ideas.
It is also important to consider the selection and evaluation time following the submission deadline: for a large international challenge, the organizer may take several weeks to analyze the proposals internally, test proofs of concept, and select the winner. In total, the entire life cycle of a challenge (from launch to announcement of results) often spans 4 to 6 months. For example, the Open Innovation Challenges organized in Singapore in 2024 included a three-month call for solutions phase followed by prototyping and demonstration phases, with the entire process taking approximately five months before the final selection. Despite these delays, open innovation enables companies to arrive at solutions in a matter of months where traditional internal development would often have taken much longer.
Formats for collaboration: contract research tops the list of partnerships
Finally, let’s take a look at the nature of the collaborations that arise from these open innovation platforms. Posting a question or challenge is only one step: once a solution has been found or an idea selected, how does the “requesting” company actually exploit this external innovation? The choice of method and terms vary depending on the nature of the project and the maturity of the solution provided, ranging from a simple theoretical idea to a proven technology requiring a licensing agreement.
According to available data, the most common format on open innovation platforms remains contract research. In more than half of cases, the company will enter into an agreement with the solution provider to finance the further development or adaptation of its technology for a specific application. This “contractual R&D” model is particularly attractive because it offers optimal leverage by allowing the company to capitalize on existing research results while acquiring (often exclusive) rights to the solution at a reasonable cost compared to 100% in-house development. In concrete terms, this can take the form of an R&D service contract, a maturation grant paid to a laboratory, or a proof-of-concept financed by a start-up.
The second common format is technology licensing. The company negotiates a license agreement with the problem solver (or their employer). For example, a company that has found a new innovative material through a challenge may sign a license agreement with the laboratory that invented it to use this material in its own products. Next come more advanced co-developments and partnerships (arrangements where the company and the solver jointly develop a product, sharing risks and intellectual property). This format often corresponds to more ambitious or strategic projects and involves a long-term relationship.
Since 2020, there has also been a rise in incubation and acceleration models linked to open innovation. Rather than simple one-shot contracts, major groups now integrate external innovators into accelerator programs or venture client schemes. In this model, the “reward” for the winning startup is not just financial—it may take the form of a supplier contract or a pilot project deployed within the company, and sometimes even equity participation. For example, the Urban Odyssey program by Icade or the LVMH open call for projects offers selected startups the opportunity to become suppliers for the group or to benefit from its infrastructure to grow their business.
Conclusion
In the space of a decade, the range of open innovation platforms has become firmly established and the practice has become commonplace in many organizations. The number of transactions and collaborations resulting from these platforms has grown exponentially, and open innovation is now used for both large-scale technology projects and smaller-scale issues within companies. Global leaders such as NASA, General Electric, and L’Oréal use it, as do medium-sized companies in a variety of sectors. The approach has proven itself in terms of the speed and diversity of the solutions obtained.
That said, the full potential of open innovation is still far from being fully tapped. Some traditional industries or regions are only just beginning to adopt it, and many companies are still experimenting without fully benefiting from it. For example, only a minority (22%) of large groups currently rate the results of their open innovation initiatives as “excellent” — a sign that there are still challenges to overcome in optimizing the integration of external ideas. Internal acceleration, intellectual property management, and the transformation of ideas into concrete outcomes are all key areas of focus to maximize the ROI of open innovation.
Yet, the momentum is clear: open innovation is gradually establishing itself as an essential strategic lever for innovating faster and more effectively by opening up to the ecosystem. The coming years could see even broader adoption (including among SMEs, the public sector, etc.), as solver communities grow larger and new forms of online collaboration emerge. In 2023, 75% of large companies stated that open innovation is essential to address the major challenges they face. This conviction, fueled by advances in digital platforms (AI, automated matching, etc.), suggests that open innovation and ideation platforms still have a bright future ahead—to the benefit of all innovators, whether inside or outside the organization.
