without thought

More recently, my research has taken a very different tack but one which is almost in line with what I have been writing about so far on this Blog. Having looked into it further and given myself time to reflect on all the data out there, I have come to the conclusion that I no longer believe in the church of mass collaboration. However, this is not to say that I don’t believe companies like Innocentive aren’t producing the goods (how could you go wrong with 130,000 people at your disposal) but I twigged something when I thought back on something their CEO told the BBC in the program ‘Eureka Democracy!’ on Peter Day’s series ‘In Business’. On the program Dwayne Spradlin tells Peter Day that they calculate roughly 10% of their ’solvers’ are responsible for the majority of their solutions or innovations. How could I overlook this one very important detail? Putting it into context we now move from the many to many to the ‘law of the few’ (as detailed in Malcolm Gladwell’s book ‘The Tipping Point’). When I reviewed this concept carefully, I came to the conclusion that certain basic tenants such as the 80/20 rule still apply to things like social networking or could it even be Chris Anderson’s equation in the ‘The Long Tail’? (98/2) The bell was finally struck for me this evening when I read the post ‘Digg, Wikipedia, and the myth of Web 2.0 democracy’ on the Blog Noor’s List. Chris Wilson makes some very valid points, pertinent to the whole Web 2.0 mass collaboration hyper bowl. Further reflection has caused me to draw an analogy between this research (what I call my back end research) and my front end research covered in The Bottom Bracket (which relates to the more practical elements of my course). On The Bottom Bracket, part of my research has been concerned with the subject of ‘lead user’ innovation in the field of Bicycles. What I have discovered so far is that in the case of BMX’s and Mountain Bikes, both innovations seem to have come from small groups of young enthusiasts operating out of California. The subsequent modifications these parties made to their bicycles were then either picked up on and adopted by industry, or they took them to industry themselves resulting in two new forms of Bicycle. Eric Von Hippel in his book ‘Democratizing Innovation’ uses a very similar example of extreme Wind Surfing, developed it seems by a small group of professionals in Hawaii. It may also be worth noting that Von Hippel’s study again records the fact that 10% of users are reported has having made modifications to their consumer goods; whether that be a bicycle or gortex rain jacket. So logic might then dictate that by simple process of reversal, we now arrive at a point where we have harnessed the wind power of human invention (resulting in bottom up hierarchy’s rather than top down). This is all good in theory but does it actually work like this?

Crowds, unlike elements such as wind and wave, do not always work inclusively and there are many variables. In the end, ventures such as Kluster will be lead by the few rather than the many, culminating in an elite group that will in turn exclude the remaining 80/98 percent (_19). However, and just to re-iterate, I’m not saying companies like Innocentive don’t find solutions to problems, what I am saying is that what they replace is nothing more than good old fashioned open competition.

Humble beginnings

A good example of open competition can be read about in Dava Sobel’s book ‘Longitude’ (a book that describes itself as being ‘The true story of a lone genius who solved the greatest scientific problem of his time.’) and a visit to Amazon’s site provides us with further synopsis

“Lacking the ability to measure their longitude, sailors throughout the great ages of exploration had been literally lost at sea as soon as they lost sight of land [...] The quest for a solution had occupied scientists and their patrons for the better part of two centuries when, in 1714, Parliament upped the ante by offering a king’s ransom (GBP20,000) to anyone whose method or device proved successful. [...] The scientific establishment throughout Europe – from Galileo to Sir Isaac Newton – had mapped the heavens in both hemispheres in its certain pursuit of a celestial answer. In stark contrast, one man, John Harrison, dared to imagine a mechanical solution.”

Not to spoil the ending of the book but in terms of there being a semiotic evaluation of historic plot, Longitude is the story of David and Goliath with time thrown in as a signifier. Gifted amateur Harrison achieves the unobtainable against all odds when (’Eureka!’) he solves the problem that has dogged so many of the educated minds before him.

The journey

This all fits in with something else I have been reading about; mythology. And, as mentioned before, Joseph Campbell. Campbell is most noted for categorising mythologies from around the world, concluding that all myths conform to one basic structure, the ‘Monomyth’. Campbell more famously wrote about the ‘Monomyth’ in the book ‘Hero with a thousand faces’. Currently, I am reading ‘Joseph Campbell, An Introduction’ by Robert A. Segal in which Segal tries to explain the underlying concepts behind the ‘Monomyth’. According to Segal, one of the crucial elements that Campbell sees in the Hero’s journey is that his quest is carried out not only for himself but for the good of all humanity, the Hero’s journey ultimately involves the dissolution of his ego which in turn leads to enlightenment and wisdom (enter the Buddha, Jesus Christ). On his journey the hero, starting out at point A, goes through transformation resulting in point B. Ultimately we all identify with the hero’s journey because it reflects our own personal metamorphosis. The mythology surrounding open innovation is the same mythology found in the story of King Arthur; when an unlikely candidate pulls the sword from the stone. Historical figure such as Harrison fit into this ‘Arc’ also as do a whole host of other contemporary innovators, who capture our imagination and compel us to believe.

A Hero’s return

The recent Wispa campaign, launched by Cadbury’s last year, is a very good example of how reversing a mythical structure like David & Goliath can work in the favor of a PR campaign, only this time Goliath (or the ‘we’) slaughters David (the problem) with not just a single sling shot but many. The result being that in the case of the Wispa campaign, consumers truly believed they were involved in re-instating their favorite confectionery using the fabled ‘power of the we’ Facebook groups and therefor acted out the Heroe’s journey.

In essence it seems to me that with Web 2.0, Campbell’s mythological structures appear once more only this time in reverse. Is upside down the the only innovation Web 2.0 has to offer us?

I am reminded of a book I once read by the founder of the Hell’s Angel Motorcycle Club; Sonny Barger. Barger claims that he and his Angels were responsible for a lot of the modifications that Harley Davidson later adopted; such as ape handle bars and long seats. But I was also reminded of something else Barger mentions. Before they named themselves ‘The Hell’s Angels’, the gang were known as something else

‘The One-Percenters’.