Hey wiki comics is advertising some pharmacy links you can find below. Sorry for any inconvenience. Hope you can understand... Links are below: Tadalafil Citrate | generic cialis 10 mg | tadalafil citrate 10mg | tadalafil citrate 5mg | generic cialis 40 mg |

Business - Written by on Thursday, November 6, 2008 12:46 - 5 Comments

Denis Hancock
The wisdom of crowds vs. uniquely qualified minds

The sub-title for wikinomics is how mass collaboration changes everything, which naturally creates the visual of an enormous amount of people working together towards a common end. In turn, it is hardly a surprise that if you look up wikinomics on Amazon, one the books it is most commonly purchased with is Surowiecki’s The Wisdom of Crowds, which argues that “under the right circumstances, groups are remarkably intelligent, and are often smarter than the smartest people in them.” From my experience over the last couple of years, that’s exactly what people immediately start thinking about when they contemplate applying wikinomics principles to their business models – how to effectively leverage the wisdom of crowds.

However, I’m increasingly thinking that this perspective is causing people to miss out on a lot of important lessons. In order to explain why, one has to look no further than the very first story told in the first chapter of wikinomics – GoldCorp. It’s about how Rob McEwen decided to publicly release their proprietary geological data on the web, and hold a contest to see who could best help them find gold on their property. It was a remarkable success, and “catapulted an under performing $100 million company into a $9 Billion juggernaut.

This was (and is) a great wikinomics success story, but it was not really a case of “how groups are remarkably intelligent, and are often smarter than the smartest people in them.” It was not really a case of a whole bunch of people working together. Instead, it was a simple (and powerful) example of how a company could leverage the web, an open IP strategy, and a high dollar value contest in order to attract the best, uniquely qualified minds in the world. Other major examples in the book – such as P&G’s use of Innocentive in the Ideagoras section – have similar themes to them as well.

This is an important distinction in my mind – and one that people often miss. If you work through all the examples of “wikinomics in action” in the book and on this blog, some of them are about harnessing the wisdom of crowds, and others are about attracting uniquely qualified minds. As one would expect, the strategies required for success on one side are very different from the strategies required for success on the other. This is a particularly interesting area to explore as the issue of incentives for collaboration become more important.

For example, one of the areas I’m most interested in is prosumerism – when customers become actively engaged in the creation of goods and services. A lot of companies are naturally attracted to the idea, generally for some combination of lower R&D  costs, better innovation, and higher levels of customer engagement. However, as more and more companies become interested in the area, they are competing with each other for the attention of prosumers, which is where the incentives issue comes up – how do I get prosumers to work with me instead of somebody else?

Companies that come at this issue from the perspective of the wisdom of crowds generally quickly run into a problem – how do I allocate and share rewards across the (hopefully huge) mass of contributors? It’s hardly a trivial problem, because once dollars and cents come into play issues of “fairness” often trump what economists would consider “rational behavior.”

So for example, let’s say you and I are working together on a project, and are both making $0. You come to me with a proposal where we each keep doing what we’re doing, but now I will earn $10 for my contributions, and you will earn $100,000. Based on rational economic behavior, I would accept this proposal, as something is better than nothing. But many studies have proven that humans don’t behave this way – I’m for more likely to reject your offer, even though it makes me better off, because I deem it “unfair”.

So if you are trying to figure out how to distribute rewards across a huge crowd of contributors in a wikinomics-enabled business model, you could easily see how this issue could wreck the whole thing. If you share rewards somewhat equally, not only might the per-person amount be too trivial to matter, but those that contribute the most might get pissed off. If you try to distribute the rewards based on contribution to a group collaboration, it’s not only quite hard to figure out, but if the “masses” perceive it to be unfair they might just revolt and blow the whole collaborative model.

On the other hand, an incentive model that focuses strictly on the “uniquely qualified minds” seems a lot easier to pull off. GoldCorp and Innocentive are great examples of this using a contest model – and as noted, there really isn’t much “mass collaboration” going on in either. The big challenge right now is finding that middle ground. Recently I’ve written about Brownbook.net and Parlus, which are but two examples of companies building what look to be “mass collaboration” business models. Each are trying to use financial incentives to draw people in, and each are (rightfully in my mind) structuring these incentives to attract and reward the top contributors / uniquely qualified minds, rather than a huge mass of collaborators. But how to make it work remains a tricky question.

But I don’t want to get TOO far into those weeds here. Key point: those that associate wikinomics with only the wisdom of crowds aren’t going to see the whole picture.



5 Comments

You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. Responses are currently closed, but you can trackback from your own site.

Luc Gendron
Nov 6, 2008 14:28

Denis, you’re touching a sensitive point on co-creation environment durability and synergy. I’m passionnate about this challenge for quite a while.

Besides increasing credibility and exposure of the “uniquely qualified minds”, there is two aspects to consider in term of contribution R.O.I.: Web environment’s operation revenues and asset value. Contributors should be able to become more partners of this Web environment than just cheap labor for the one(s) who initiated it.

I believe the model which will be able to adress both will attrack those “uniquely qualified minds” for a longer period of time and keep refreshing the synergy and this famous “wisdom of crowds”.

I have something in mind that I would like to test if I can find the right partners. I’ll let you know if I succeed.

Jeff Crites
Nov 6, 2008 14:51

Great post, great thoughts on the diffence between collaboration using Crowdsourcing and Crowdcasting. I compare open innovation crowdsourcing to fishing in the open sea for ideas and solutions. Crowdcasting (also called narrowcasting) – tapping Uniquely Qualified Minds in this case – is like fishing in a stocked pond.

Wikinomics » Blog Archive » Reference Extract: Just like Google, if all Google’s results were decided by librarians
Nov 13, 2008 22:33

[...] 13th, 2008, 10:33pm Last week, Denis wrote an insightful post on the wisdom of crowds vs. uniquely qualified minds. In it, he argued [...]

¿Cómo haremos para desaparecer? » Inteligencia colectiva y Open Innovation
Dec 10, 2008 9:51

[...] con acierto que en ambos casos, concurso y colección, el objetivo perseguido es atraer a “the best uniquely qualified minds in the world“. Esto es, no se trata de iniciativas para crear desde el conjunto sino para explicitar lo [...]

allan wallace
Jun 27, 2009 20:15

If you can attract “the best, uniquely qualified minds in the world” you can accomplish almost anything. The trick seems to be first becoming *the most uniquely exceptional, collaborative resource in the world.*

Shall we start?

Now available in paperback!
Don Tapscott and Anthony D. William's latest collaboration, Macrowikinomics: New Solutions for a Connected Planet. Learn more.

Business - Oct 5, 2010 12:00 - 0 Comments

DRM and us

More In Business


Entertainment - Aug 3, 2010 13:14 - 2 Comments

Want to see the future? Look to the games

More In Entertainment


Society - Aug 6, 2010 8:19 - 4 Comments

The Empire strikes a light

More In Society