Enlighten, inspire, and learn to build a culture of innovation that disrupts your industry.

Let's get Small... and other BIG Ideas

Share this article

Consistently low rates
of engagement are, by and large, an accepted condition for those providing,
buying and using online crowdsourcing technology.  According to Neilsen (Participation of Inequality Theory), 90% of
invited users never participate in online communities.  Lithium's Dr.
Michael Wu explains Neilsen's rule
in more precise terms in his post 'The Economics of the 90:9:1'.  As an
economic buyer and practitioner of crowdsourcing solutions at Quest
, and later as a practice manager responsible for
customer success across 100+ Spigit
client innovation communities, I saw enough data to be comfortable with the
overall accuracy of the Neilsen rule.  There
are of course many factors and mitigation counter-measures that can influence
this ratio, but most require continuous heavy lifting described below.

Is it reasonable to
believe that some portion of that absent
90 population should be heard?  Are they not contributing out of
apathy or concern that their ideas/comments might be insufficient or bring
criticism or ridicule that will impact their standing within the organization?
 Have they simply made a calculation that the risk of participating
outweighs the potential reward?  
As consumers and
producers, are we satisfied when 90% of a targeted audience does not engage in
the conversation?  And is the 10% that does show up representative of the
population? Do we know why they showed up?  Should we base decisions on
that sampling?  Is there a correlation with voter
in elections'?In the interest of answering these questions
and in the spirit of author Arthur VanGundy (Getting to Innovation), let's rally around a
single macro-level question:
How might we improve reach and
participation in our innovation events by 5X... by 10X?
Some of the beliefs
presented in Tuesday's "Innovating
with 3i's" talk (Batterii CCO Chad Reynolds), are presented here as
the catalyst for the challenge:
 Stepping back helps us go forward
Stretching the lifecycle
upstream (north of ideation) into a less threatening inspiration capture,
curation or insight development space widens the top of the funnel and broadens
the potential pool and diversity of participants.  In this way we can
effectively lower the barriers to entry into the creativity process.  The
cost of the ticket is a simple story or inspirational nugget in a convenient
form (snapshot, note, photo, link, movie, tweet, etc.).  And you ought to
be able to begin your ride from a smart phone, tablet or laptop.
 Collaboration trumps competition
While two basic
crowdsourcing models exist (competitive selection of a winning result vs.
collaborative development of a number of alternatives), the overuse of
'competitive' game mechanics can diminish the very thing we say we value:
collaboration and respect for our employees and customers.  We must find
ways of engaging people without resorting to Jedi mind tricks that convert
every comment or vote into points used to win a game.  Not only is this
approach largely unwelcome in specific cultures, but it also negates the value
of teamwork.
Ideas are network of particles
The nature of creativity
is still a source of great mystery.  We continuously codify and calibrate
our learnings through posts and books in an attempt to help ourselves and
others on future journeys.  Steven Johnson does a wonderful job describing
the story of creativity in his book 'Where Good Ideas Come From, The Natural History of
Innovation Ideas
'.  In it he asserts the principles of serendipity, error, liquid networks,
slow hunch, exaptation and adjacent possibilities.  A system that mimics Johnson's
vision, elegantly capturing and depicting the lattice of particles that form ideas
and the rich lineage that's constructed over time between those social objects
and their finders or creators.  It would
explain the movement and development of memes, and expose in more explicit
terms the essential value of experimentation, failure and bad ideas whose
shoulders better ideas almost always stand. 
Lastly, this framework would enable organizations to more fully leverage
and justify their investment in knowledge management, a business practice that entered
a dormant stage (in many organizations) almost a decade ago after being maligned
as a 'solution looking for a problem'.
 Getting small is the key to activating the BIG crowd
To incite an online
crowd today, resource intensive non-value work-streams and Jedi techniques are
used in combination: innovation
contest management (contrived game mechanic), communications management (targeted messaging campaign), incentives management (intrinsic and
rewards), exclusivity
(appeal to vanity) and iron fist in velvet glove
(leadership trump card).  The big problem with this model is that it
simply doesn't scale down.  It's expensive and operationally inefficient
to plan, launch and sustain.  Given normal (unstimulated) participation
rates, we would need a crowd of 500 to produce an active population of 50.
 Of course we could hand-pick 50 highly-motivated participants if that's
what we're after, but these smaller talent pools would start to fatigue after a
few events.
Can we build a better
model?  Yes... please!  Let's start by designing experiences that
people actually want to be a part of.  Solve the most common
value-producing user stories that pivot on collaboration and self-actualization and design others for truly
special events.  Develop mechanisms that minimize any friction around ad
hoc sharing and teaming.  Present a co-creation canvas that welcomes and
bridges diverse thinking, learning and decisioning styles.
 Provide role-based tools that help admins and managers pre-form teams of
known and desired diversity (or homogeneity).  Likewise, provide the
flexibility for ad hoc teams to form and self-direct.  Advanced capabilities might
balance diverse perspectives with compatible collaboration styles as a means of
generating creative tension.  Perhaps this is closer to alchemy than
science today, but it leaves space for learnings that will move us closer to
this ideal as community data grows over time.  It should connect small
teams into the larger community or network where the benefits of big data can
be used to maximize participation and the value of our investment. This scaling
to a smaller crowd and engaging the individual, not scaling to thousands, is
the real challenge.
In-Person amplifies online... 1 + 1 = 11
Facilitated in-person
innovation labs (e.g. 1-day, 20-150 attendees) consistently capture close to
100% participation.  Invitees recognize that labs are a high-value
opportunity to learn something new in a non-threatening environment.
 Imagine Wiley Coyote chasing Roadrunner over the edge
of the cliff and arriving safely on the other side of the canyon.  That's
what's happening here.  Immersion labs inspire and incite experimentation.
 They help people forget to look down.  They create an infectious
spirit of play and wonderment of what's next.  They knock down the
functional and stature barriers that inhibit sharing (Marshmallows and Spaghetti).  They help
us find our flow, and that itch that's just gotta be
scratched. Participants walk away energized and sensitized to the possible.
 A co-creation platform should integrate in-person and online modalities
in a way that amplifies the business outcome.


Spending more time in the problem space allows us to think more deeply and
differently ' and that makes for better solutions.
The journey to a truly
engaged community begins not with the asking of the question and testing the
crowd while they compete, rather with creating an environment where new ideas
can be built. Question the Question.  For example, a typical
crowd-sourcing question may be, "How can we improve customer
service?"  The Batterii approach is to start with a cool hunting
expedition, seeking examples of great customer service today from any industry.
 Build on the elements of these experiences and divide the large crowd
into sub teams that have similar or dissimilar beliefs.  Customer service
is a function of training or technology or people or product quality etc.
 These teams question the question together and approach the solution with
fresh perspectives and constructive-disruptive thinking.  People will tell
you a story and welcome building and making that story better.
What Next?
The opportunity for a
next generation solution is ripe.  Let me know what you think.  Have
I gone too far... not far enough?  What am I missing?  Dive in, but
don't expect any points ;-)
Author, Joe Messina (jmessina@batterii.com) is based in
Cincinnati, Ohio and serves as EVP of Strategy for Batterii. The Batterii collaboration
platform connects you, your coworkers and customers in a real-time experience
to collect inspiration, build and execute big ideas.  What makes Batterii
different is their proven success as innovation practitioners and
entrepreneurs, leading business change from within world-class organizations
(Apple, Allstate, EDS, Gap, IBM, Landor, Lockheed, Nielsen, P&G, Possible
Worldwide, Siemens, Siemens, Sun Microsystems, Quest Diagnostics) and architecting
innovation strategies and programs working outside-in for Global 2000 clients.

Share this article

Upcoming event

FEI USA: Front End of Innovation

28 - 29 Oct 2020
FEI Presents: Leading Innovation in a Digital World
Go to site