1. THE HISTORY OF PRIZESOPEN INNOVATION PRIZE HISTORY TIMELINE*1714 1775 17951895 1900 19191567 2012 BRITISHALKALI NAPOLEANCHICAGODEUTSCHORTEIG LONGITUDEPRIZEFOOD TIMES-HERALD PRIZE PRIIZEPRIZEPRESERVATIONPRIZE FOR AUTO PRIZE MOTORSCHARLES LINDBERGH CROSSES THE ATLANTICRAYMOND ORTEIG 9 TEAMS SPEND $400K TO WIN $25K * Knowledge Ecology International, Research Note 2008:1 (http://url.ie/dzyk)

2. A PRIZE RENAISSANCETHE ANSARI X PRIZE $1BB+$100MM $10MM$2.5MMCREATING LEVERAGE: 26 different approaches proposed from a wide range of entrants (96-04). ARCA SPACE TRANSPORT DA VINCI PROJECT CANADIAN ARROW ROCKET PLANEARMADILLO AEROSPACE STAR CHASERPABLO DELEON 26 TEAMS / 7 NATIONS SPEND $100 MILLION TO WIN $10 MILLIONVIRGIN GALACTIC LEASES WINNING TECHNOLOGY 3 BILLION+ MEDIA IMPRESSIONS MOHAVE AEROSPACE VENTURES WINS $10 MILLION 3. PRIZE GROWTH & EXPERIMENTATION SUCCESS STORIES & CAUTIONARY TALES* (1970-2009)* McKinsey & Company (2009), And the Winner Is (http://url.ie/dzyj) 4. PRIZE INVESTMENT VENTURE PHILANTHROPY & INNOVATIVE GOVERNMENT Source of New Prize Capital (since 2000)*GROWINGSEGMENT* McKinsey & Company (2009), And the Winner Is (http://url.ie/dzyj) 5. A PRIZE TYPOLOGY*REWARDING OR AWARDING* Morgan, J (2008), Prize Induced Innovation. innovations, MIT Press, 3(4). (http://url.ie/dzym) 6. A PRIZE TYPOLOGY*A SHIFT IN AWARENESS Before 1991 After 1991* McKinsey & Company (2009), And the Winner Is (http://url.ie/dzyj) 7. A PRIZE TYPOLOGY*IDEATION OR DEMONSTRATION* Morgan, J (2008), Prize Induced Innovation. innovations, MIT Press, 3(4). (http://url.ie/dzym) 8. A STANDARD PRIZE TYPOLOGYFOUR QUADRANTS ACADEMICS,ADVOCATES & ENTREPREURS,KEY OPINIONINVESTORS &LEADERSRISK-TAKERS 9. PRIZE OUTCOMESTODAYS DISCUSSION 10. PRIZE PLANNING & DEVELOPMENTDRIVING INNOVATION & CHANGING PUBLIC PERCEPTIONS FEEDBACKUx 11. PRIZE PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT PRIZE INCENTIVES & OTHER DRIVERS FEEDBACKUx 12. PRIZE PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT NEW MINDSHARE & MEDIA FEEDBACKUx 13. PRIZE PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT CREDIBILITY & COVERAGE FEEDBACKUx 14. PRIZE PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT ENGINEERING THE PLAYER EXPERIENCEFEEDBACKPUxx 15. PRIZE PLANNING & DEVELOPMENTVERTICAL VALUE FEEDBACKFEEDBACKPUxx 16. PRIZE PLANNING & DEVELOPMENTLATERAL VALUE FEEDBACKFEEDBACKPUxx 17. THE ARGUMENT FOR OPEN PRIZES WHO ARE PRIZE SOLVERS?TOXICOLOGYDRUG PATHOLOGY FRACTAL ALGORITHMSDISCIPLINE + 3oDISCIPLINE + 8oDISCIPLINE + 9oDISCIPLINE + 4oDISCIPLINE + 5oDISCIPLINE + 6oDISCIPLINE + 7oDISCIPLINE + 10o CHRYSTALLOGRAPHY$25,000.00 NEW CHEMICALCOMPOUNDWINNERS ARE 6 DEGREES OR MORESEPARATED FROM THE TARGET DISCIPLINEKEY TRAITS OF PROBLEM SOLVERS: Winners are technically or socially marginal to problemdomains (increasing distance between problem domain & personal expertise).EFFECTIVE TRAITS OF PRIZE DESIGN: The more intellectually diverse the pool of competitors themore likely problems get solved (in science women are more likely to win).Problems exhibiting high uncertainty (multi-dimensional inputs) benefit most from contests. 18. ENSURING TRAINSPARENCY & FAIRNESS NORMALIZATIONOBJECTIVE CRITERIASUBJECTIVE CRITERIA TRAIT RUBRICS (HOW IS CONTENT JUDGED?): STATISTICAL NORMALIZATION:5-10+Reviews/Proposal 19. SUBJECTIVE CRITERIA OPEN, FAIR & DILIGENTSUBMISSIONSNORMALIZATION BANDWIDTHJUDGING(PROPOSALS) (REVIEWS PER PROPOSAL)(TIME TO JUDGE)(REVIEW PANELS) 10 JUDGES5 REVIEWS/PROPOSAL1 HOUR/PROPOSAL20 PROPOSALS(10 PROPOSALS/JUDGE)(100 REVIEWS)(100 HOURS OF JUDGING) (10 HOURS/JUDGE)5 REVIEWS/PROPOSAL3 HOURS/PROPOSAL 10 JUDGES20 PROPOSALS(100 REVIEWS)(300 HOURS OF JUDGING) (10 PROPOSALS/JUDGE) (30 HOURS/JUDGE)25 JUDGES5 REVIEWS/PROPOSAL 3 HOURS/PROPOSAL100 PROPOSALS (200 PROPOSALS/JUDGE)(500 REVIEWS)(1,500 HOURS OF JUDGING)(100 HOURS/JUDGE) 100 JUDGES5 REVIEWS/PROPOSAL 3 HOURS/PROPOSAL (100 PROPOSALS/JUDGE)200 PROPOSALS (1,000 REVIEWS) (3,000 HOURS OF JUDGING)(300 HOURS/JUDGE) 20. SAMPLE PRIZE MARKETING CAMPAIGN AT WHAT COST?$ $ $$$(A B C)DE$10+ MM (USD) MEDIA BUDGET 21. OUTREACH TACTICS & COMMUNICATIONSTIGER TEAMS & NETWORKING INDUSTRY ASSOCIATIONSLOCAL GOVERNMENTREGIONALSUBJECTAUTHORITIESMATTEREXPERTS NONPROFITSACADEMIC FOUNDATIONS INSTITUIONS COMMERCIALINTERESTS INVESTORSPHILANTHROPISTS EMPLOYERS CREDIBLECONNECTORSCOMMUNITY ACTIVISTSBUSINESSINCUBATORS 22. TRACKING PRIZE OUTCOMESMEASURING AGAINST GOALS & OBJECTIVES 23. A PRIZE PROCESSSTAGES & GATES REFERRAL MODULEREFERRAL NETWORK1(NETWORKING INTERESTS) (VIRAL DISTRIBUTION) REGISTRATION MODULEREVIEW PROCESS2 (FORMALIZING INTEREST) (ADMINISTRATIVE) CONTRACT: PART ONEY/N3(MEDIA RIGHTS/WARRANTIES)REVIEW PROCESS (LEGAL & COMPLIANCE) CONTRACT: PART TWO4 (COMPLIANCE) Y/N SUBMISSION MODULE51 (RECEIVING PROPOSALS) REVIEW PROCESS(CRITICAL)52 VARIABLE DATA SET Y/N6AWARD MODULE (TRANSFER/CEREMONY)AWARD 24. MAPPING THE PROCESSSUPPORTING DOCUMENTATIONSTAGE TWO: Teams Registering to Compete1 REFERRAL MODULEREVIEW PROCESS(CAPTURING CANDIDATES) (ADMINISTRATIVE)REGISTRATION MODULEFollow-up2(SCREENING CANDIDATES)SUPPORTING DOCUMENTATION: REGISTRATION PACKAGE (AGREEMENT) N/Y AgreementNEGOTIATETERMSEnsures:Compliance;PASS TO Media Rights;SUBMISSIONLogistics. 25. INSPIRING A PRIZE CULTURESTART WITH UNDERSTANDING BASIC MOTIVES