Blogs
Wisdom of crowds — except at work?
James Surowiecki has written about The Wisdom of Crowds, and many Web 2.0 services such as Wikipedia are based on the idea of “crowdsourcing,” as Wired magazine put it — aggregating contributions from many people to produce some kind of definitive result. But does that kind of thing work in the enterprise? J.P. Rangaswami, a former economist and financial journalist who blogs at Confused of Calcutta, has a great post in response to a recent opinion piece in Inc. magazine that argues it does not.
The piece by David Freedman has the ring of Nick “The Prophet of Web 2.0 Doom” Carr about it, with comments such as “the effectiveness of groups, teamwork, collaboration, and consensus is largely a myth” and “Our bias toward groups is counterproductive. And the technology of ubiquitous connectedness is making the problem worse.” A cheerful guy, this David Freedman. He goes on to cite numerous studies that find “groupthink” is a serious problem in corporations, because “groups often breed a false confidence that leads to unsound decisions none of the individuals in the group would have made on their own.”
It’s worth noting that much of what Freedman is talking about when it comes to group decisions — and by extension decisions that are made by collaborative tools such as email, online conference tools, etc. — is a problem because of inter-company dynamics such as being afraid that your boss might find out that you said his idea was the stupidest thing you’ve ever heard. To the extent that Web 2.0 apps help take advantage of “anonymous” groups, as it were, this isn’t a problem.
In any case, I won’t summarize all of Freedman’s arguments here. It’s worth reading them — and comments such as “Simply put, when you make it easy for everyone to put in his two cents, with little filtering or accountability, the scum tends to rise to the top.” And it’s worth reading what Rangaswami says in response.
While Freedman dismisses virtually all collaborative software as being just another producer of noise, when what is needed are strong individuals making decisions alone (nice management model, Dave — were you in the army by any chance?) Rangaswami makes the argument for informed consensus, which Web 2.0-style tools can help to bring about.
license
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial-No Derivative Works 2.5 Canada License.
subscribe
grazr
TwitterCount
busted tees
Discussion
Comments for “Wisdom of crowds — except at work?”
Add New Comment
Viewing 4 Comments
Thanks. Your comment is awaiting approval by a moderator.
Do you already have an account? Log in and claim this comment.
Do you already have an account? Log in and claim this comment.
PART 1 - I believe crowds are great at brainstorming, bringing great ideas to the forefront and debating the pro's and con's of different ways to skin a cat.
How great the process turns out all depends on leadership and the carte blanche environment it creates. If the crowd is fearless and know they won't suffer any consequences for disagreeing with those in higher power, the result can be magical. If there is even a hint of fear, you might as well not even begin the process.
PART 2 - The best crowd can't and shouldn't be relied on to create the final product (document, website, etc.). At the end of the day, leadership needs to take the crowd's best ideas, decide which ones to incorporate and create the final product.
I can tell you that I love the process. Though I always have firm ideas on how to get something done, I always leave the door wide open for someone to prove how their idea is better. I challenge them but also make sure they know they have carte blanche. If they can prove it, I incorporate it. When it happens, it's a great feeling for both me and the other person/group - and it happens often enough to make me continue keeping the door open.
Conclusion - Freedman is wrong.
Best,
George
Do you already have an account? Log in and claim this comment.
Do you already have an account? Log in and claim this comment.
I think it's easy for each side of the debate to come up with
examples of where crowdsourcing works, and where it doesn't
work.
Mr. Freedmans example, while fair, miss some of the critical
points James points out in his book for what crowds need to
be effective - specifically independence, and a vested interest
in the outcome.
We are strong believers in crowdsourcing. At Cambrian House
we use the crowds rank our upcoming product ideas. We even
use the crowds to then help us build them.
Anyone will always be able to come up with an example of how
a crowd has been mislead (stock markets), but I don't again
with Mr. Freeman when he says collaboration of crowds does
not work.
All the best,
Jonathan Rasmusson
Community Evangelist
www.cambrianhouse.com
Do you already have an account? Log in and claim this comment.
Add New Comment
Trackbacks