{"id":513,"date":"2006-09-11T23:28:27","date_gmt":"2006-09-12T03:28:27","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/www.mathewingram.com\/work\/2006\/09\/11\/wisdom-of-crowds-except-at-work\/"},"modified":"2006-09-11T23:28:27","modified_gmt":"2006-09-12T03:28:27","slug":"wisdom-of-crowds-except-at-work","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/mathewingram.com\/work\/2006\/09\/11\/wisdom-of-crowds-except-at-work\/","title":{"rendered":"Wisdom of crowds &#8212; except at work?"},"content":{"rendered":"<p>James Surowiecki has written about <i>The Wisdom of Crowds<\/i>, and many Web 2.0 services such as Wikipedia are based on the idea of &#8220;crowdsourcing,&#8221; as Wired magazine put it &#8212; aggregating contributions from many people to produce some kind of definitive result. But does that kind of thing work in the enterprise? J.P. Rangaswami, a former economist and financial journalist who blogs at Confused of Calcutta, has <a href=\"http:\/\/confusedofcalcutta.com\/2006\/09\/10\/on-social-software-and-consensus\/\">a great post<\/a> in response to a <a href=\"http:\/\/www.inc.com\/magazine\/20060901\/column-freedman.html\">recent opinion piece<\/a> in Inc. magazine that argues it does not.<\/p>\n<p>The piece by David Freedman has the ring of Nick &#8220;The Prophet of Web 2.0 Doom&#8221; Carr about it, with comments such as &#8220;the effectiveness of groups, teamwork, collaboration, and consensus is largely a myth&#8221; and &#8220;Our bias toward groups is counterproductive. And the technology of ubiquitous connectedness is making the problem worse.&#8221; A cheerful guy, this David Freedman. He goes on to cite numerous studies that find &#8220;groupthink&#8221; is a serious problem in corporations, because &#8220;groups often breed a false confidence that leads to unsound decisions none of the individuals in the group would have made on their own.&#8221;<\/p>\n<p>It&#8217;s worth noting that much of what Freedman is talking about when it comes to group decisions &#8212; and by extension decisions that are made by collaborative tools such as email, online conference tools, etc. &#8212; is a problem because of inter-company dynamics such as being afraid that your boss might find out that you said his idea was the stupidest thing you&#8217;ve ever heard. To the extent that Web 2.0 apps help take advantage of &#8220;anonymous&#8221; groups, as it were, this isn&#8217;t a problem.<\/p>\n<p>In any case, I won&#8217;t summarize all of Freedman&#8217;s arguments here. It&#8217;s worth reading them &#8212; and comments such as &#8220;Simply put, when you make it easy for everyone to put in his two cents, with little filtering or accountability, the scum tends to rise to the top.&#8221; And it&#8217;s worth reading what Rangaswami says in response. <\/p>\n<p>While Freedman dismisses virtually all collaborative software as being just another producer of noise, when what is needed are strong individuals making decisions alone (nice management model, Dave &#8212; were you in the army by any chance?) Rangaswami makes the argument for informed consensus, which Web 2.0-style tools can help to bring about.<\/p>\n<div class=\"syndication-links\"><\/div>","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>James Surowiecki has written about The Wisdom of Crowds, and many Web 2.0 services such as Wikipedia are based on the idea of &#8220;crowdsourcing,&#8221; as Wired magazine put it &#8212; aggregating contributions from many people to produce some kind of definitive result. But does that kind of thing work in the enterprise? J.P. Rangaswami, a &hellip; <\/p>\n<p class=\"link-more\"><a href=\"https:\/\/mathewingram.com\/work\/2006\/09\/11\/wisdom-of-crowds-except-at-work\/\" class=\"more-link\">Continue reading<span class=\"screen-reader-text\"> &#8220;Wisdom of crowds &#8212; except at work?&#8221;<\/span><\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_crsspst_to_mathewingramblogwordpresscom":false,"mf2_syndication":[],"footnotes":"","jetpack_publicize_message":"","jetpack_publicize_feature_enabled":true,"jetpack_social_post_already_shared":false,"jetpack_social_options":{"image_generator_settings":{"template":"highway","default_image_id":0,"font":"","enabled":false},"version":2},"jetpack_post_was_ever_published":false},"categories":[1],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-513","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-uncategorized"],"jetpack_publicize_connections":[],"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/mathewingram.com\/work\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/513","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/mathewingram.com\/work\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/mathewingram.com\/work\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/mathewingram.com\/work\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/mathewingram.com\/work\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=513"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/mathewingram.com\/work\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/513\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/mathewingram.com\/work\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=513"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/mathewingram.com\/work\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=513"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/mathewingram.com\/work\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=513"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}