 Commentary by James Todhunter Subscribe via Email or RSS |  Biography |
December 13, 2007
|
 | 
|
Crowd Innovation |
|
|
“Avoid the crowd. Do your own thinking independently. Be the chess player, not the chess piece.” Crowdsourcing seems to be a popular topic these days. But, I can’t help thinking that its popularity will be short lived. There doesn’t seem to be any credible evidence to support this practice as being particularly productive. Certainly no one can expect that the random crowd will demonstrate great insight and wisdom in helping to solve a problem. There are innumerable examples that show exactly the opposite to be true. Two well know examples of this are the 1630’s Dutch tulip frenzy and the witch-mania that was common throughout the Renaissance and Reformation periods. History teaches us that the wisdom of the crown is a fiction and that the intelligence of the mob regresses to the mean. While one can not rule out the possibility that a truly great concept may emerge from a lone voice within the crowd, this method of searching for great innovations can not be called efficient or repeatable. The crowd does not know or feel your pain; they know not what your goals are or what you value. This method is well likened to the search for the needle in the haystack--the larger the crowd, the larger and messier the haystack. Some people suggest that crowdsourcing is a natural extension of team collaboration. But this is not so. The dynamics of the crowd are not related to those of the team. More of the same is not the same. The best achievements in sustainable innovation are seen in those organizations that understand that the quest for innovation can not be divorced from internal expertise. This is not to say that external knowledge and contribution is not of value. In fact, the integration of external concept sources is vital to breaking free of natural inertial forces that develop within organizations. But this integration must be done in a rational manner guided by the in depth understanding of the enterprises capabilities, objectives, and the needs of the client. What do you think about crowdsourcing? [Crossposted from www.InnovatingToWin.com] |
|
Comments [8] | Permalink |
|
| Categories: General, Strategy | |
|
|
| posted by Ellen Domb [ http://www.trizpqrgroup.com ] | December 13, 2007 at 1:15 pm |
Your comments on crowdsourcing remind me of some feedback after TRIZ sessions--occasionally a non-politically correct participant will say "for once, I can stop pretending that I like being part of a team." Using the accumulated knowledge of human history is not the same as asking a crowd what to do--considerable skill (subject matter expertise, how to organize information, TRIZ structures) is needed to get anything useful. Crowdsourcing will have its niche of usefulness, especially in development of consumer products, where people who participate in influencing a product development are also likely to help with the word-of-mouth advertising. Let's check again in 6 months and see if the buzz has gone out of this. |
|
| posted by Navneet Bhushan [ http://innovationcrafting.blogspot.com ] | December 14, 2007 at 0:20 am |
The world is changing fundamentally. I really dont know how would one attribute the success of Open Source Movement - the self-organizing capability of crowds driven by selfish goals - yet working towards creating something that is not done by any top-down plan per se - is sweeping the existing command control structures - developed in the last millennium in ways that are unprecedented. Starfishes are the future organization structures not the spiders (to quote the current book of the same name) - I believe hierarchies had their day - it is the melting structures towards loosely coupled networks that are going to play bigger role then they had - the age of Co-Creation is here - in a disruptive way - in my opinion. Hence having a very strong negation of anything different is not really going to help enterprises to thrive - Choice of one path is oh -so last century :) - New millennium speaks for embracing all and leaving none! |
|
| posted by spacecadette [ http://filemp3tune.com ] | December 14, 2007 at 5:26 am |
Crowdsourcing may be popular today but it's been there as early as 18th century although the term was newly coined. Although the two examples you mentioned did not leave favorable results, it cannot be denied that there are many projects better done through this method at comparatively little cost. |
|
| posted by Anil Rathi [ http://www.ideacrossing.com ] | December 18, 2007 at 6:58 pm |
We've been sourcing new ideas from targeted crowds globally for over 5 years on behalf of our clients like Hilton, Whirlpool, AMEX & others via idea competitions and the reality is your bound to get duds. That shouldn't deter people from experimenting with activities that engage the crowds. To make a blanket statement that the "crowd does not know or feel your pain" or "the method is not efficient or repeatable" is unfounded. I will say your comment that "the larger the crowd the messier the haystack" is IMHO an accurate statement. If crowdsourcing is a giant free for all for ideas with little to no management, no structure, no processes, no incentives, etc. then a company is bound to get a bunch of 'raw' ideas that are may have taken a few minutes or seconds for members of the crowd to generate (ie. Dell's IdeaStorm). "Raw" ideas are nothing more than the content posted on a blog, left for interpretation by the reader. Who wants to sift through a bunch of raw ideas? On the other hand, a well designed, structured "crowdcasting" activity with carefully framed questions which channels ideas from targeted audiences will have a better chance of producing "refined" ideas. In summary, the more open-ended your crowd-xing activity is, the more open-ended "raw" ideas you'll receive. But, if you want to create a repeatable process for leveraging the crowd and increase the chances for more refined insights...the key is focus, structure and design of these activities. |
|
| posted by James Todhunter [ http://www.InnovatingToWin.com ] | December 19, 2007 at 2:30 pm |
Great comments, folks! So as to share your views with my other readers, I have (also) posted my thoughts on your comments on my blog, InnovatingToWin.com. Thanks, Jim ------------------------------------------------------------------- PART 1: It is always a pleasure to chat with Ellen Domb, and her comments are always very insightful. She responds saying, “Using the accumulated knowledge of human history is not the same as asking a crowd what to do--considerable skill (subject matter expertise, how to organize information, TRIZ structures) is needed to get anything useful.” I couldn’t agree more. The crowd may be able to provide grist for the mill, but there is a lot of work required to refine that raw material and derive something of value. There are better, faster ways to get there. Navneet Bhushan makes some good observations. He correctly identifies that open-source manufacuting (think Linux) is different from the concept of crowd-sourced innovation. Navneet continues on to say that, “… I believe hierarchies had their day - it is the melting structures towards loosely coupled networks that are going to play bigger role then they had - the age of Co-Creation is here - in a disruptive way ...” |
|
| posted by James Todhunter [ http://www.InnovatingToWin.com ] | December 20, 2007 at 7:52 pm |
PART 2: True enough, Navneet. But I don’t see sufficient examples to support crowdsourcing for innovation as an effective path for sustainable innovation practice. To meet this metric, we will need to see real evidence that the successes are more than mere chance would produce. Co-creation should definitely be leveraged, but in so doing companies can achieve strong, reliable results by managing their networks for greater relevance and alignment. Spacecadet suggests that crowdsourcing has been around for a long time and that, “…it cannot be denied that there are many projects better done through this method at comparatively little cost.” Well, Spacecadet… That all depends on what you call crowdsourcing. Today’s meaning of crowdsourcing for innovation really refers to a model of concept sourcing that was simply not possible until recently. Hence, your statement that it has been around since the 1800’s doesn’t stand up to scrutiny. Advances in technology have created a previously unknown capacity to connect with extremely broad communities and aggregate input. It is this scale of connection that purportedly will yield valuable results because the scale and bread of community is expected to cast a wide enough net to capture the right, high-value concepts. Unfortunately, there is no proof that this fundamental assertion has any credibility. Only time will tell. |
|
| posted by James Todhunter [ http://www.InnovatingToWin.com ] | December 20, 2007 at 7:55 pm |
PART 3: Anil Rathi expressed some very strong opinions on the subject calling some of my statements unfounded. It is curious to note that Anil goes on to say: “I will say your comment that "the larger the crowd the messier the haystack" is IMHO an accurate statement. If crowdsourcing is a giant free for all for ideas with little to no management, no structure, no processes, no incentives, etc. then a company is bound to get a bunch of 'raw' ideas that are may have taken a few minutes or seconds for members of the crowd to generate (ie. Dell's IdeaStorm). "Raw" ideas are nothing more than the content posted on a blog, left for interpretation by the reader. Who wants to sift through a bunch of raw ideas?” Gee whiz, Anil. I think you have just made my point quite eloquently! Anil goes on to state that better results are achieve by carefully selecting a targeted participant group and managing the process of concept gathering very carefully. He is exactly correct. There a number of practices and techniques for harnessing the knowledge and insights of target groups that yield great insight. Companies such as Johnson & Johnson and Frito-Lay have proven records of success with the application of these methods. However, these methods are not crowdsourcing. What do you think? |
|
| posted by Navneet Bhushan [ http://innovationcrafting.blogspot.com ] | December 20, 2007 at 10:21 pm |
Obviously - we are through this process of eliminating many of the methods (including open source software development - from where it all started - the kids showed the way - anyway) - reaching to a very narrow definition of crowd sourcing - which will go to dumb mob - creating lot of noise no value - Well James - it is your choice to reduce it to what ever suits - but one trend is clear - Social computing, web 2.0 and enterprise 2.0 and other new ways of collaborative technologies are making co-creation and crowd sourcing a reality - Innovation is the emergence of new or different from the interactions that are enabled - it is not a mob frenzy that we are talking about - we need to be inclusive! |
|
