When I read, “The impetus behind the GCW is simple – one of the main problems that we face in addressing global challenges is that there are too many players in the game” I became concerned that the basis of the project assumes that people are not aligned with an implicit central authority (which defines what is a problem, which solutions are appropriate, and how success is measured).

In any endeavor where the government is appointing experts we can be confident that there first priority will be the self interest of the government rather than the actual interest at hand. Global challenges by their nature may also be very controversial (or they really wouldn’t be challenges would they?). Arab/Israeli peace; Iran nuclear threat; global warming (et al) all involve difficult sacrifices that would be tempting to solve through cooercive measures that involve discounting a perspective (or many) through a consensus that benefits some at the expense of others.

Perhaps a better approach (from a Wikinomics perspective) would be to create those matrices that allow and encourage the non traditional (and perhaps undesirable) definitions and solutions and prevent them from being marginalized. The experts at Goldcorp may very well have wanted to control the problem and solution tables based on preferred formulae rather than taking big risks on wild ideas. (Also the notion of Wisdom of the Crowds where diversity of thought gives better solutions than expert opinion and central control.)