I had a brief conversation today via Twitter about crowdsourcing and its application within large corporate structures like governments. Which drew in the subject of accountability.
Crowdsourcing is not a formal process. It’s a process of inviting input from a crowd, not to take credit for the outcome but to get things done. It’s an informal focus group, or a hi-tech suggestion box.
BusinessWeek published an article in June 2009 about Crowdsourcing and innovation and how, during an economic downturn, it allows people and companies to do more with less.
People don’t contribute because they want recognition, but because they want to contribute their knowledge to help produce a valuable outcome that can be further shared. They want to be part of a community and a goal. They add their two cents because they can’t take on the project themselves, but are happy to contribute in some small way. Crowdsourcing works for these reasons and more.
Formalizing the process too much takes the umph out of it. It sucks the wind out of the sails.
So how do things work when someone needs to be formally accountable for a project that incorporates some form of crowdsourcing? Can “tried-and-true” methods of top-down accountability be adapted to horizontal practices like these? Or do some new hybrid models for accountability need to be used?
I’ve loved to experiment since I was knee-high to a grasshopper, so I say new models need to be tried. Of course good judgment needs to be exercised, but there are always newer and better ways to do things. The more a culture is open to trying ideas, the sooner they can be tested, refined and incorporated in to our books of best practices.
Imagine wide-scale horizontal participation from within your organization, and maybe from without as well, with the singular goal of making things better. It makes me bristle with anticipation and excitement because together, who knows what we can achieve?
The article in BusinessWeek brings up some important considerations around the potential devaluation of the work talented individuals do within certain industries. I’m confident that solutions will be found and balance reached.
What do you think? Can we capture opportunities to test new models of governance and focus the collective expertise within organizations, customer bases and groups of citizens?
Rick – I agree with a lot of what you are saying here, particularly the idea that formalizing it takes the “umph” out of it, or in other words limits people’s interest and ability to meaningfully contribute.
I think there is a ton of potential in this space, for organizations to crowdsource and pull from talent both within and from outside their organizational walls.
But I also think that at some point, people only do contribute because they want to be recognized. This recognition might not be a thank you from the CEO at the company picnic, nor might it be a fat bonus cheque at the end of the year, but they still want some sort of recognition that they’ve done good.