In this chapter (page 65):
peer production - the concept and questions to answer.
Peer Production - Why it Worked - compares case studies of innovative firms.
Peer Production - Seeing the Challenges - describes obstacles or challenges to peer production.
Peer production is a revolutionary new mode of value creation that harnesses the power of mass collaboration. Linux, MySpace, and Wikipedia are pioneering examples, but potential to expand these methods extends to virtually all information-based products and services, and increasingly physical things. What can we learn from the “peer pioneers?” Where is this phenomenon headed? How can "for profit" companies and even non-profits collaborate with self-organizing communities to innovate faster and better than competitors? What are the risks?
Q: How should companies manage these modes? What are your predictions for how peer production will play out in your company or sector?
The “Open Source” world starts with the wonderful assumption that everybody is smarter than anybody, the wisdom of the crowd. The herd is being heard. While this collective is capable of intelligence, uncovering truth, and producing collective wisdom (beyond what an individual may produce) - success is not automatic. The collective must avoid groupthink and create a venue where the best ideas and contributions bubble to the surface. It must overcome Sturgeon's Law (90% of everything produced is "crud") while mindful that many truly great contributions only look that way in hindsight.
Organizations will need to understand the full impact of deploying Collaboration technologies. Traditional command and control would dictate that there needs to be an overarching strategy, architecture, and governance in place in order to be successful. However, that type of deployment fails far more than it succeeds. Traditional organizations tend to focus on the measurements of failure. That is to say, they focus on the technology and infrastructure which only ensure that you don’t fail but has little to do with success. Success comes from a bottom up framework that allows for exponential growth of both content and usage. Content and usage are measurements of success; the only way to truly succeed in the organization is to gain mass adoption of the technology which results in a massive change in culture. Some organizations will choose this change while others will be forced into it by competitive forces.
Q: How does peer-production rise above the lowest common denominator? What do wikipedia, eclipse, and other similar venues tell us about bringing out the best of the collective, amid the challenges that stand in the way?
Welcome to the world of "and" doing a lot of things at the same time, continuous fragmented attention. Reading a story, and shouting back at it in real-time. Content can being divided into two groups: the unconnected-uninitiated, digital homeless, world of the static billboard; and the Blackberry (crackberry) Playahs, who create, the consumer generated content –and guess who's doing the dividing? How long will these two groups of content survive apart? Will they eventually collide?
The human potential movement was all potential and very little movement. This is something different. This is not TV in drag. The new way to consume "media" is not the old way heated up in a microwave for 15 seconds.
Shift Happens! You can teach an old dogma new tricks. This ain't no ---- Jeanne Dixon Effect, the more predictions you make, the more likely you will have a hit. This is the new normal.
Q: What mechanisms exist to weed out the insanity and keep the best?
A lot of the criticism of Wikipedia is based on the fact that experts in a field feel that the voices of those less familiar with the subject pollute the truth.
Q: Can more input accelerate knowledge creation if there is no framework or structure as to how the information will be shared, discussed and converted into knowledge?
More input can lead to greater knowledge creation, but can the information be absorbed? Socially generated content expands information, adding to the problem of information overload. Each information "input" and how it is received can create stress and distraction. Discussion boards exemplify fragmented information. One sifts through it attempting to find that "nugget" or answer in search of knowledge. A recent CIO Insight Article suggests that IT organizations need to address information overload. Information needs to be presented in formats other then text and links. Mindmaps and logical diagrams, for example, are great ways to "jog one's memory". Wikis should incorporate visual knowledge tools such as this and other mechanisms, lest it become too text centric.
Another critical feature in today's Long Tail society is information filtering. Information overload creates more noise, so it is imperative to develop excellent signal to noise filters. One of the key reasons why sites like MySpace.com are so useful and popular, is that they have excellent signal to noise filters built in. Users are able to find what they are looking for based on community filtering. An interesting signal filtering example is Criteo which has developed a signal to noise filtering technology based on mass input. This is a clear case where we have mass collaboration and community but no sharing or self organization.
Consider adding to the playbook a testing phase where a wiki is used to a) create a knowledge base on a topic and b) is tested on people who have no prior knowledge of that topic.
Are there cases where a firm appears to have applied one of the seven frameworks, but upon closer inspection fell short? For example, in the TV world the L-Word ran a competition allowing fans to co-create an episode. In reality, what the L-Word did was allow fans to submit scripts which were then voted on by fans. It would have been interesting if the TV show set up a wiki to produce an episode created by both the fans and the writers. Another example is Nokia's concept lounge which appears to allows users to design the next Nokia phone. However, this also falls short, as it appears to be more of a design contest. Although neither firm hit the mark, it does appear as if many firms are circling wagons and with a little adjustment will begin to get it right.
contributed by remy on Jan 15 3:11pm
comment on above:
I think all collaboration ligitimately has a scope. Just because we can have open collaboration with no boundaries doesn't mean it is the only legitimate way. If we had an instance of collaboration on the best surgical technique, boundaries of participation would be quite important. So perhaps there are criteria that suggest wheteher participation is limited in some way to ensure that the outcome is safe, true, etc. I assume that collaboration on this chapter has been limited to certain people.
contributed by tlseeve on Jan 23 12:25pm
Collaboration on this chapter has been 'limited' to those that have signed up and signed on. :)
Let me clarify my previous entry just a bit. Collaboration is not there for the sake of itself. Each collaborative effort exists in some form or another...an example being I would not collaborate on a nuclear physics wiki....I would however perhaps make an entry into wikipedia, or particpiate in a stock market wiki or an aviation wiki since these are the skills I have in order to contribute something valuable. If I were to attempt to participate in a physics wiki I am sure that I would be asked to lewave very quickly.
Collaboration is important in two ways...for development of new technology and as a new technology work environment.
contributed by gfarmer on Jan 23 5:47pm
Part of the problem with wiki objectives may be the belief that the longer the effort and the greater the number of contributors, the better the result. Instead, if the wiki is first fitted with compartments and these become filled by some metric, the collaboration phase is complete. Put another way, I believe a wiki needs four things; a clearly stated and finite purpose, a beginning, a middle, and an end. It is a divergent activity, and should be refined later using a convergent objectives supported only by the passionate few.
contributed by Bob Iliff on Feb 5 7:56am
Page Last Updated: Apr 22 3:03am by Critt Jarvis