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.