Drumss Site

Recently I reported some corporate backlash against James Surowiecki`s ideas in The Wisdom of Crowds and its message that, if organizations were smart, they could dump a lot of expensive senior executive and consultant/expert baggage and get better decisions by putting critical questions collectively to employees, customers and appropriately `qualified` elements of the `general public`.The objections point out that `crowds` are not great at doing everything. But that`s exactly Surowiecki`s point: The very things that crowds are good at are precisely those things that executives, consultants and experts pride themselves on doing. A couple of readers asked me if I could distill Surowiecki`s arguments into some kind of decision tree to decide who is best to make decisions. This is my response.We need to start by looking at who the alternative decision-makers are, and what knowledge, skills and talents they offer that are relevant to the decision-making process:Knowledge of the Problem (Context)Knowledge of Solutions that Have WorkedExperience Solving Similar Problems (Know-How)Knowledge of People that Can Help Solve the ProblemAbility to Imagine New Solutions that Might WorkKnowledge of Tools, Models `amp; Methods that Can HelpExecutives,Consultants,Sr. Managers,Other `Experts`ModerateModerateModerateModerateLowModerate to HighCreatives, Working IndividuallyLow (High after briefing)Low (High after briefing)ModerateModerateHighModerate to HighCreatives, Working CollectivelyLow (High after briefing)Moderate (High after briefing)ModerateHighHighHighQualified `Crowd`: Co-WorkersHighHighHighHighLowLowQualified `Crowd`: Current `amp; Potential CustomersVery HighModerateVery HighHighLowLowQualified `Crowd`: Informed PublicHighModerateHighHighLowLowResearchersLow (High after research)Low (High after research)LowLow (High after research)LowLow (High after research)Each IndividualVariesVariesVariesVariesVariesVariesThese would be, I think, Surowiecki`s assessments, based on the research in his book. They are also mine, based on thirty years of varied business experience. The reason why executives, consultants, senior managers and other experts don`t rate `high` in any of the six categories of relevant capacities for decision making is (a) they are usually individuals, and can only know as much as any busy individual can know, (b) in the case of outside experts, they lack experience/context actually working for the organization, and (c) in large organizations executives are paradoxically sheltered from awareness of problems due to the "bad news doesn`t travel upwards" (because "they shoot the messenger") information behaviour that is endemic to our society. For those who haven`t read The Wisdom of Crowds, a `qualified crowd` is one that is (i) intellectually diverse, (ii) independent and objective, (iii) each member has access to unique knowledge, (iv) each member is basically informed, and (v) each member is appreciative of (cares about) the problem or decision at hand. Surowiecki identifies five things that qualified crowds can -- if asked appropriately -- be very good at: ascertaining (all the) pertinent facts surrounding an issuepredicting outcomes making a decision among a discrete set or finite range of alternativesdetermining an optimal process to follow (in simple or complicated situations, but not complex ones)assessing causality (in simple or complicated situations, but not complex ones) In all except the first type, the crowd must be given a set or range of alternatives to choose from, and, when they are,`nbsp;Surowiecki says, the `errors` in judgement tend to cancel each other out, so that the crowd`s consensus tends to be consistently better than that of executives, consultants and other experts. If you don`t buy this, you`ll have to read the book -- his argument is compelling and well-substantiated (it`s also intuitively sensible).In situations of the first type, ascertaining (all the) pertinent facts surrounding an issue, the crowd is contributing more collective knowledge than any small group of `experts` could hope to have, and are `better` at doing this by sheer dint of numbers.So what happens in the real world when important decisions must be made? In my experience, this is the typical process:The executives decide whether they have sufficient knowledge of the problem, sufficient knowledge of solutions that have worked in the past in similar situations, sufficient experience solving similar problems, sufficient knowledge of people who can help solve the problem, and sufficient knowledge of relevant tools, models and methods that can help. Usually they decide they already have all these things (or feel they should have them) so they do not consult others. If they don`t, they tend to bring in outside experts, who lack contextual knowledge of the problem. They may involve researchers. They are unlikely to involve other subordinates in the organization, or customers.The executives decide whether they have sufficient capability to imagine new solutions that might work to solve the problem. Usually they decide they do (or feel they should) so they do not consult others. If they don`t they tend to bring in outside experts, who lack contextual knowledge of the problem. They may involve creative people within the organization, either individually or collectively. They are unlikely to involve other subordinates in the organization, or customers.The executives decide all by themselves which of the alternative solutions that have come from steps 1 and 2 to implement. That, after all, is why they`re paid the big bucks.If you accept the capacities in the chart above, the result of this `business as usual` process is clearly sub-optimal. Consultants and other outside experts bring precisely the capacities that the executives already have, and none of the ones they lack. Involving researchers and creatives will improve the quality of the decision somewhat, but not as much as involving the crowd. And that assumes that nothing gets lost in the `translation` of knowledge between the researchers, creative people and executives. What`s worse, many researchers and creative people will tell the executives what they want to hear, not necessarily the truth -- they lack the independence and objectivity that `qualify` a crowd.Here by contrast is the optimal process, for complicated (not complex) problems:The executives identify and qualify a crowd of co-workers, customers (including prospective customers) and informed members of the public, and interview them, in interactive sessions witnessed by the organization`s creative people, to augment their (the executives` and the crowd`s) collective`nbsp;knowledge of the problem,`nbsp;knowledge of solutions that have worked in the past in similar situations,`nbsp;experience solving similar problems, knowledge of people who can help solve the problem, and knowledge of relevant tools, models and methods that can help.The executives then charge the creative people (who by virtue of their involvement in step 1 now have a deep contextual understanding of the problem and how to approach it) with imagining new solutions that might work to solve the problem, working both individually and as a team. These creative people do not assess or rank these potential solutions -- their job is simply to identify alternatives.The executives then canvass the crowd from step 1, presenting them with the solutions that have worked in past, those which the executives based on their experience think have potential, plus the alternatives that were surfaced in step 2. The crowd makes the final decision.This learn-analyze-imagine-assess-decide-on-action process involves each group of stakeholders doing what they do best. If there are appropriate incentives for the crowd (and sometimes that`s as simple as recognition and thanks), this process need not be cumbersome, and to some extent it can be automated (members of the `crowd` can to some extent self-qualify by going through an online qualification survey, and step 3 can also be done entirely online). It is course frightening to executives, because it reveals their true, limited value in the decision-making process. In fact just about anyone can perform the three steps above (they are mostly administrative and facilitative), bringing into question the need for highly-paid executives, and a hierarchical decision-making organizational structure, at all. So this approach is clearly more amenable to egalitarian, non-hierarchical organizations. It`s also bad news for the consultants and outside experts -- they aren`t needed in the process at all.Here, from an earlier article, are 25 business problems that such an approach might solve:How can we improve employee productivity?How can we reduce business/credit/security risk?How can we become more innovative?Should we outsource IT, KM, HR and/or marketing?Which of these new product ideas will be successful?What price should we sell this new or old product for?How will sales/prices be affected by future innovations?How will sales be affected by inflation, int. rates etc?How will material `amp; labour costs change in the future?How can we reduce our fixed costs `amp; overhead?How can we increase our market or customer share?How can we (a) find or (b) keep the best people?Which acquisitions should we make, at what price?How much is our company worth?What service/community wraparounds would work?How much should we be paying staff, management?Which companies should we partner with?Which functions should we centralize, decentralize?How should we penetrate a new market/demographic?How can we increase customer satisfaction/retention?Which suppliers should we use?How can we reduce employee theft, fraud, error?Where are we paying more taxes than we have to?How should we protect our intellectual property?What new businesses should we start, or spin off?I said that the above process is optimal for complicated problems. What about complex problems, like these?:`nbsp;Should our central bank raise interest rates next month, and by how much?`nbsp;What is the $US going to be worth, relative to the Euro or a global currency basket, this time next year?`nbsp;Which alternative voting system is the best?`nbsp;What`s the best way to motivate people in the third world to have fewer children?`nbsp;How could we break our dependence on fossil fuels within the next decade?What`s the answer to eliminating popular support in many countries for terrorist attacks?How can we fairly reduce global disparities between rich and poor, and improve distribution mechanisms to get resources desperately needed by the poor to their destinations?`nbsp;How can we motivate both polluters and the public to take appropriate steps to stop global warming?How can we create a health care system that offers quality, universal care affordably?How can we create an education system that teaches critical life skills and enables its graduates to be self-sufficient, productive, and informed, engaged citizens?The process for such problems must of necessity be emergent, rather than prescriptive as for merely complicated problems. Such problems do not lend themselves to (anywhere near) `complete` knowledge, rigorous analysis, determination of clear causality, or predictability. In fact, such problems don`t have `solutions` per se at all. What can emerge is a collective understanding sufficient to allow all of the participants in the process to contribute knowledgeably, positively and responsibly to addressing the problem in self-organized adaptive ways, individually and collectively, in the context of their own lives and work. This process is essentially the same process that indigenous cultures have used for millennia to address such problems, and the same process used by `complex system` methodologies like Open Space:The project champions constitute themselves and selected researchers (perhaps including a qualified or self-qualified crowd) to collect, organize and share as much relevant information as possible about the problem/issue.The project champions then invite anyone with sufficient passion around the issue to commit appropriate time and energy to the project, to study the information collected in step 1 and attend one or more facilitated, self-managed sessions to explore and discuss the problem/issue. Those who accept the invitation become in effect a second self-qualified crowd.The project champions document the proceedings of these sessions and facilitate the organization of groups to pursue collective actions emerging from them, involving attendees and others as appropriate. But, most importantly, each attendee is charged with the responsibility to pursue individual actions and to individually initiate other collective actions involving non-attendees, that they think make sense in the context of their own life and work as a result of the understanding they have acquired from the sessions.This learn-explore-imagine-converse-emerge-let-self-decide-on-action process is structurally similar but significantly different in methodology and responsibility than that outlined above for complicated problems. Each process respects the different characteristics of the problem/issue and appreciates the need for a different approach to it.What I have observed over the past few years is encouraging: Organizations with enlightened leadership (and leaders with modest egos) appear to intuitively appreciate the limitations of the `boss-decides-in-a-vacuum` approach to management, and are starting to involve line staff and customers more in at least the information-gathering (step 1) part of the decision-making process. This isn`t tapping the wisdom of crowds but it`s a big step in the right direction. Some organizations are even beginning to realize that prescriptive `solutions` to complex problems (and generally all problems that involve human behaviour and interaction are complex) don`t work, and are starting to devolve authority and responsibility to individuals on the front line to make more tactical decisions. I`ve seen less willingness to involve creative minds in organizations in imagining alternative solutions, to actually devolve decision-making authority to crowds, or to give individuals decentralized authority and responsibility to make strategic decisions. But perhaps as some brave organizations start to do this, successfully, others will follow.Laterally-thinking readers will probably have realized that these processes aren`t limited to business or even organizational contexts. Think about its application to problems in a family context, where the larger community is the `crowd` (if you`re lucky enough to live in a community whose members know and care enough about each other to qualify as a crowd under Surowiecki`s five criteria) -- and you`ll understand what `it takes a village to raise a child` could really mean.

I`ve written before about Jim Merkel`s book Radical Simplicity, and "living simpler" is a key component of my What You Can Do (to Help Save the World) list. But I`ve never really spelled out how each one of us can achieve a radically simpler lifestyle without hardship or significant sacrifice. So now I will:Building `amp; Maintaining a Simpler Home: Buy or build a home that is designed for living simply. Follow the Japanese model -- movable walls, multi-purpose, reconfigurable rooms, and no wasted space. Use the roof as a permaculture garden, a solar collector, a meditation space, a water collector. Landscape with native species that don`t need watering, herbicides and pesticides to flourish. Use simple, durable construction methods and learn to do your own repairs and preventative maintenance. Share your tools, know-how and time with others in your community helping them and allowing them to help you build and maintain your home.Simpler Furnishings: Build storage into walls, so you don`t need furniture for storage. Consider flooring (padded -- but not with chemical-laden carpets -- or cushion-covered) that obviates the need for seating. Make both seating and tables portable, adjustable and multi-purpose. Make them simple. Make them yourself, so you can repair and maintain them yourself. Simpler Utilities: Insulate. Use renewable energy sources. Collect rainwater. Use graywater for irrigation and other purposes. Use compact fluorescent and LCD lights. Use timers and setback thermostats. Turn off heat, A/C and lights when you`re away or not using them. Dress to be comfortable when it`s 80`#176;F indoors in summer and 60`#176;F in winter, and set thermostats accordingly.Eating Simpler: Learn to make meals out of simple, unprocessed, raw ingredients. Buy local, organic and fair trade products, and avoid processed and chemical-laden foods. Learn to cook simple, quick meals. Follow the French model -- learn about sauces, herbs and spices and how they simply make raw foods exotic and nuanced. Become a vegan.Dressing Simpler: Buy local, durable, hand-made clothing and personal-care products made from natural ingredients and free of slave labour, animal products and animal testing. Learn to make your own clothes, jewelery, accessories and personal-care products. Climate permitting, stop wearing clothes entirely. Simpler Fun: Learn how to entertain at home, simply, creatively and inexpensively, instead of having to "go out" to have fun. Rediscover simple pleasures and share them with your community: sandlot sports, massage, non-electronic games (like cards and charades), meditation, making love, conversation, hands-on hobbies, playing with children and animals.Simpler Transportation: Remember that every minute you spend walking adds three minutes to your healthy life, so it "takes" no time at all. Put a carrier and light on your bicycle and use it. Use virtual presence technology to reduce the need to travel. Carpool. Drive a hybrid. Avoid flying as much as possible. Simpler Investment: Pay off your debts. Don`t get into debt. Don`t buy on impulse. Buy stuff that lasts. Invest your time and energy in things that will make you self-sufficient and resilient and which are recession-proof, like your own sustainable business, know-how and fitness. Donate cash you don`t need to responsible causes you believe in -- they`ll invest your money with more focus and care than you probably can. If you can, work less -- and recapture time that will save you nearly as much as you have foregone in income, that will simplify your life further.Simpler Health Care: Take charge of your own health -- illness prevention, diagnosis and first-line treatment. Preventing illness is cheaper and simpler than coping with it, but it takes an investment of time. Learn how the system works, and when it works in the interest of the patient and when it works against it. Simpler Education: Learn, and teach, how to learn. When you and those you love have acquired that, use it to acquire critical life skills, through self-education, collaborative learning and home-schooling.None of these lifestyle changes entails deprivation or forfeiture. Living with less `stuff` is a matter of sufficiency, not efficiency or self-sacrifice. Living simpler isn`t something you do for altruistic reasons -- it provides the very real, tangible, personal benefits of greater independence and self-sufficiency, resilience, control over your own life, personal freedom, more time for things that matter, better health and well-being, and greater personal happiness. If you doubt this, consider this scenario:Imagine you are single and free from any urgent responsibilities and commitments, and you meet someone, K, at a party, to whom you are strongly attracted in every sense. K invites you to spend the weekend together at the intentional community in which s/he lives. You agree, and spend a blissful, hedonistic and educational weekend. K spends hours each day paying attention to and appreciating your body, your mind and your ideas: Kissing, hugging, caressing, arousing, satiating, washing you, brushing your hair, massaging you, walking, talking, just sharing the moment, moonlight, candle-light, learning, teaching. At the end of the weekend K invites you to stay for sixty days and learn and explore more about K and the community. You are able to arrange for work sabbaticals and to defer scheduled activities, so you say yes. Over the next sixty days you discover that the intentional community is clothing-optional and polyamory and that most of its members are young, healthy, attractive people who were invited before you by K or by one of K`s loves. On a couple of occasions, with K`s approval and encouragement, you experience brief polyamory experiences yourself. The community exemplifies a radically simple lifestyle in every respect and has implemented the ten steps listed above. People in the community rarely leave their communal home, but entertain many visitors, and the group seems extremely happy, healthy, friction-free and egalitarian. You grow to love many of the members of the community.Now the sixty days is up and you are invited to join the community on a more-or-less permanent basis. You ask what you should do about your job, your home, and all your possessions still waiting for your return. K tells you you can quit your job, and that all that would be expected from you is to spend an hour or so a day continuing to do the work you have been doing voluntarily and joyfully for the last sixty days -- gardening, cooking and coaching some of the community`s home-schooled children. S/he also says you can sell or give away your possessions -- you haven`t missed them and won`t need them anymore -- and that you are welcome to leave the proceeds in the bank in case you ever decide to leave the community. Would you say yes?This scenario makes the decision on adopting a radically simple lifestyle easy: It`s just a choice of yes or no. My purpose for including it is to help you imagine what such a lifestyle might be like, and appreciate that it is not a subsistence lifestyle but a very rich and fulfilling one. The scenario also demonstrates that radical simplicity is easier to achieve and sustain when it is done with others in community instead of just by you, or you and those in your household, alone. That`s not to suggest that doing so alone, or just with your family, is not possible or worthwhile -- just that by taking it to the next, intentional community-wide level, radical simplicity becomes easier, more sustainable, more powerful.Achieving radical simplicity is a measured process, not something to be achieved overnight. To get there, use the process that successful weight-loss and other lifestyle change programs use: Set reasonable goals, take it one step at a time, and measure your progress over the long term towards an ultimate target. Don`t worry about progress or setbacks. It`s enough to be on your way. It`s the journey that counts. Fare forward, fellow voyager.