What's Crowdsourcing Have to Do with It?

I enjoyed Dan Wood's recent Forbes article entitled, The Myth of Crowdsourcing. But, his argument is confusing. Here's the core of what he's saying:

But in the popular press, and in the minds of millions of people, the word crowdsourcing has created an illusion that there is a crowd that solves problems better than individuals. For the past 10 years, the buzz around open source has created a similar false impression. The notion of crowds creating solutions appeals to our desire to believe that working together we can do anything, but in terms of innovation it is just ridiculous.

There is no crowd in crowdsourcing. There are only virtuosos, usually uniquely talented, highly trained people who have worked for decades in a field. Frequently, these innovators have been funded through failure after failure. From their fervent brains spring new ideas. The crowd has nothing to do with it. The crowd solves nothing, creates nothing.

Hmmmm...

So, individuals innovate and groups don't. But what's that have to with crowdsourcing?

In Dan's article, you could easily substitute the word "company" with "crowd." Does Dan mean that companies can't innovate, as well? Can't Google innovate? Can't Pure Digital, the company that created the Flip Video camera, innovate?

Innovation is much more complicated than individuals innovate and groups can't. Time and time again, I've seen both. Ideas are always iterative. The idea that a singular virtuoso inventing something without any outside influence is naive.

Sir Issac Newton said it best:

"What Descartes did was a good step. You have added much several ways, and especially in taking the colours of thin plates into philosophical consideration. If I have seen a little further it is by standing on the shoulders of Giants."

What I do agree with in Dan's article is that without strong individual leadership, whether it's Linus Torvalds as the benevolent dictator of an open source community or Steve Jobs as a visionary corporate leader, a group needs a virtuoso to lead.

When you start to look at different kinds of groups, companies versus crowds, there are some interesting advantages that are beginning to emerge from crowds. First, most crowds are a meritocracy. They allow a virtuoso rise to the top without being held back by education, language, geography or title. Let the best idea win.

Yet, crowds still need to be directed. Ideas need to be edited and curated. Traditionally, it's what companies do well.

My hunch is that the future will be made up of hybrid groups. There will be small groups of highly talented editors and curators, that solicate ideas from larger virtual communities then combine the best ideas, shaping them into something truly amazing.

Comments

[Chris Wiggins]

Nicely put, John.

[JP]

This one is odd too:

"For the past 10 years, the buzz around open source has created a similar false impression."

Open source has solved more problems than one can begin to count. They have been solved quickly too. The Facebook, largest social media site in the world @ over 300 million, is built on the foundation of open source software.

Sweeping generalization to me. I agree with your hybrid theory fully.

@jaypiddy

[Evan Fry]

If this were on Facebook I would click on the "like" button.

[edwardboches]

Even if Dan's right, that it's sometimes the individual who cracks the code, it's the act of crowdsourcing that helps you find the individual. Innocentive has many examples of that. Or P&G, with its Swiffer. Anyone who's played in the space also knows that you're right re the benevolent dictator. But the real question is, what the hell is crowdsourcing? Is it a way to find the silver bullet? A technique for inspiring customer participation and viral spreading? Or simply an innovative way to hear what your market thinks and feels about you? I think it's all three. We should all stop criticizing the concept and learn to make it work for whatever purpose we have in mind.

[Lance Gentry]

Amen edwardboches. You can't find the nugget in the crowd without the crowd. Dan is missing the point. Crowdsourcing is a proven model. Naysayers are simply looking for attention...like the 4th grade kid who stole my lunch, ate it, and then said it wasn't good. As always you are too kind to your peers, JW.

[Chris Marks]

Dan spends the bulk of his article dismissing crowd sourcing as it is "commonly perceived." What he seems to be referring to is a crowd of unwashed, unemployable masses sitting at home trying to solve the world's most complex problems in their boxer shorts. There is no doubt that a "vituoso" would stand out among this crowd. Imagine, however, if you were able to tap into the crowd of virtuosos. Imagine the power of innovation and iteration that would occur among such a crowd. Maybe we shouldn't be steering away from crowd sourcing as much as steering away from crowd sourcing as it is "commonly perceived."

[Bernard Urban]

Crowds and the sharing they enable give context and useful meaning to an idea. Without the "wisdom of the crowd" ideas will never become more than just that: an idea. But add a crowd, add context and you're on the way to innovation and meaningful problem solving. Without a crowd, a virtuoso is a lonely man.

[Tim]

What a beautiful world this will be
What a glorious time to be free!

[Bruce DeBoer]

Good luck folks. I'm becoming an edwardboches fan. Everything I've seen tells me he gets it.

I go with the crowdsourcing criticism when it's talked about as a cheaper or higher value source for design, photography, production or whatever.

Trying to based a business on turning a previously value added creative product into a commodity that can be harvested like so much feed corn isn't going to be pretty. Just take a look at the stock photography business - Bill Gates has been suffering with his profit structure for years.

However, there is high value in crowd participation if you make the effort to look beyond cheap design and into sourcing the crowd for brand advocates.

[watch friends]

I loved the type ad commenting system very clean and very efficient.

Love to read more from you on the topic above