A while back I posted a reference to Freeman Dyson's article on "our Biotech Future".
http://www.nybooks.com/articles/20370 I think there was only one response about Freeman's madness and the inevitable disaster such an approache would have. Here are two articles not at all related to our biotech future, but to the potential of crowdsourcing for finding solutions to tough problems. For even the toughest of R&D problems, there are often people out there with innovative solutions already on their shelves or in their back pockets. The trick for corporate executives is finding and gaining access to those individuals. Our research with a company that broadcasts technological problems into the ether-and gets back solid results-has given us a profile of the kind of people most likely to solve R&D puzzles. We wonder whether firms might be able to emulate this method to draw new insights from the talents and expertise of their own employees. http://harvardbusinessonline.hbsp.harvard.edu/hbsp/hbr/articles/article.jsp?ml_action=get-article&articleID=F0705H&ml_page=1&ml_subscriber=true The other interesting article focused primarily on crowdsourcing is an interview by Randy Burge of Alpheus Bingham co-founder of Innocentive. http://www.wired.com/techbiz/media/news/2007/07/crowdsourcing_diversity?currentPage=all Here is a quote from the article that is relevant to Freeman Dyson's vision: Q: Right. The chances of being the solver to solve a challenge are remote. The risk compared to the time spent is very high, I think. A: You are right. That was one of the things that we didn't know whether anyone would do in the beginning. Why would anybody assume the risk? We were thinking about this from the perspective of the pharma industry. This sector is heavily burdened, so as to be crumbling under its risk profile. The industry failure rates combined with the amount of the investment that companies have to make before they know whether they have a success are huge challenges. (emphasis mine). In a way, industry wanted to distribute that risk to the marketplace. Well, the marketplace should be efficient and should say no. But, what we discovered was that the risk the contributors take on is not equal to the risk that is offloaded. The industry risk that is offloaded is informed only by the probabilities of success and the costs and the investment structure - front-loaded and back-loaded, those kinds of things. Inside an R&D operation in a company, I have to take a chance on a research project and give it to a scientist who has the time available and hope for the best, with all my bets placed on the output of that one person or team. The solvers, by self-selecting, have already managed away a big part of their risks. With the solvers, you may get 10,000 solvers to look at it, and say, "Nah, nothing happens to me, I am moving on to the next challenge." Then one solver looks at the challenge and has an Archimedes moment. Maybe the challenge reminds them of something, or touches an area where the solver is curious about anyway. Finally, solvers will tackle challenges because of the reasons behind the research. To fight Lou Gehrig's disease, or whatever, the solver may say, "I have a PhD in biochemistry and I am going to look into that challenge," or it might be, "My brother has Lou Gehrig's disease so I want to do anything I can to further the research on it." The idea of risk, risk of doing and perhaps in some instances the risk of not doing. Both have to be assessed and managed. Freeman does acknowledge the dangers of the approach he speaks of. Danger which may be largely mitigated with safety parameters built into the technology. Tools given to the masses have always been perceived as a folly and an ultimate danger. But only by distributing them can the greatest dangers be avoided. A million eyes to find problems, find solutions, to watch. For anyone who has not read David Brin's "Transparent Society" and/or Bruce Sterling's "Shaping Things" these ideas can generally only be understood with a risk management framework based on the industrial hierarchical and perhaps elitist perspective. However, these risk are much less when one conceives of the future context with the tools being developed now. When one had to orchestrate huge military endeavours, secrecy was essential. When one has to achieve agility and rapid response to unforeseeable events - secrecy becomes a liability. I believe we are moving to a socio-techno civilization where we must manage 'one world', and for that - transperency, agility and self-organization are key. In short the world of work will increasingly have to become more networked and self-organized, with tools and transparency for everyone. The above ideas are also inextricable from the (perhaps half-baked) ideas on money that have have been proposing. john John Verdon Sr. Strategic HR Analyst Directorate Military Personnel Force Development Department of National Defence Major-General George R. Pearkes Building 101 Colonel By Drive. Ottawa Ontario K1A 0K2 voice: 992-6246 FAX: 995-5785 email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] "Searching for the pattern which connects.... and to know the difference that makes a difference" Sapare Aude _______________________________________________ Futurework mailing list Futurework@fes.uwaterloo.ca http://fes.uwaterloo.ca/mailman/listinfo/futurework
