Dan Woods wrote an interesting condemnation of the concept crowdsourcing in "The Myth of Crowdsourcing" (Forbes).
- Wouldn't a team of talented innovators be more effective than one?
- Taking into account different phases of a project or product, wouldn't it be helpful to integrate the end-users of the product as it is updated, redefined, and improved?
It seems to me, with crowdsourcing, the value comes in the open call in which you invite passionate/talented/intelligent people to contribute to your project rather than limiting it to your network/internal employees/etc.
I like his observation that one individual or team leads the crowdsourcing effort. But I don't see how that observation and opening your talent pool are mutually exclusive. Doesn't the undefined crowd make it more possible for a talented contributor to take part? The best idea might come from a source from a different professional field you never thought possible.
I'm sure Woods has an impressive background and has accomplished much, but he sounds like a crotchety old skeptic. Here's an interesting video summarizing crowdsourcing in case you're new to the concept.
Thank goodness someone else noticed this. Kudos. Dan Woods article seem to miss the boat on crowdsourcing, especially the example he used with wikipedia.
ReplyDeleteYes, individual contributors may be responsible for creating/maintaining a wiki. But you can not ignore the fact that these individual contributors are unique contributors. Not the same guy/gal. I felt Dan fit your description of a 'crotchety old skeptic' by overlooking such logic throughout the article.
The most important aspect of crowdsourcing may be the expansion of participation and the corresponding expansion of ideas this brings.
ReplyDeleteCrowdsourcing can reduce the problem of stovepiping in a project; imagine the problems that occur when the engineering, marketing and financial division of a company have no communication with each other.
While crowdsourcing has its own problems (many contributed ideas may be irrelevant) the combined expertise of the crowds participants can minimize them through the commenting process.
I also agree and feel that crowdsourcing has more potential positive outcomes than negative ones. Even though an individual can have a lot of wisdom, I think the ability to get a group together and facilitate discussion in most cases will bring out something useful and definitely a different perspective.
ReplyDeleteWhen you are in a crowd, I think it is easier to facilitate innovation. Especially a virtual one when you interact with people outside of your normal circle.
The Dan Woods article, missed the mark for me.
I like "crowdfishing" better (thanks KK).
ReplyDeleteThe "source" of the valuable information is not coming from the crowd. The source of the information is the experts. The act of finding said experts is just that- seeking, looking, "fishing."
When a job is outsourced to another company, the original firm FINDS the right people to do the job, then uses them as a reSOURCE for the job.
It's ok, you can call me crotchety too... although I would rather you didn't :)
Nice post, Andrew!
Carissa I like your word breakdown, and it helps validate the crotchety-ness of the opposing view.
ReplyDeleteBut no I won't call you crotchety. Just maybe fixated on terminology? (I mean that politely)
The world could call it wide-net-good-idea-getting-technique (crowdfishing is better). Makes no difference to me. But I do think its an effective/creative method to dig out solutions.