Tag Archives: CriticalCity Upload

The apprentice crowdsorcerer: learning to hatch online communities

I am working on the construction of a new online community, that will be called Edgeryders. This is still a relatively new activity, that deploys a knowledge not entirely coded down yet. There is no instruction manual that, when adhered to, guarantees good results: some things work but not every time, others work more or less every time but we don’t know why.

It is not the first time I do this, and I am discovering that, even in such a wonderfully complex and unpredictable field, one can learn from experience. A lot. Some Edgeryders stuff we imported from the Kublai experience, like logo crowdsourcing and recruiting staff from the fledgling community. Other design decisions are inspired from projects of people I admire, projects like Evoke or CriticalCity Upload; and many are inspired by mistakes, both my own and other people’s.

It is a strange experience, both exhalting and humiliating. You are the crowdsorcerer, the expert, the person that can evoke order and meaning from the Great Net’s social magma. You try: you say your incantations, wave your magic wand and… something happens. Or not. Sometimes everything works just fine, and it’s hard to resist the temptation of claiming credit for it; other times everything you do backfires or fizzles out, and you can’t figure out what you are doing wrong to save your life. Maybe there is no mistake – and no credit to claim when things go well. Social dynamics is not deterministic, and even our best efforts can not guarantee good results in every case.

As far as I can see, the skill I am trying to develop – let’s call it crowdsorcery – requires:

thinking in probability (with high variance) rather than deterministically. An effective action is not the one that is sure to recruit ten good-level contributors, but the one that reaches out to one thousand random strangers. Nine hundred will ignore you, ninety will contribute really lame stuff, nine will give you good-level contibutions and one will have a stroke of genius that will turn the project on its head and influence the remaining ninety-nine (the nine hundred are probably a lost cause in every scenario). The trick is that no one, not even him- or herself, knows in advance who that random genius is: you just need to move in that general direction, and hope he or she will find you.
monitoring and reacting rather than planning and controlling (adaptive stance). It is cheaper and more effective: if a community displays a natural tropism, it makes more sense to encourage it and trying to figure out how to use it for your purposes than trying to fight it. In the online world, monitoring is practically free (even “deep monitoring” à la Dragon Trainer), so don’t be stingy with web analytics.
build a redundant theoretical arsenal instead of going pragmatic (“I do this because it works”). Theory asks interesting questions, and I find that trying to read your own work in the light of theory helps crowdsorcerers and -sorceresses to build themselves better tools and encourages their awareness of what they do. I am thinking a lot along a complexity science approach and using a little run-of-the-mill network math. For now.

These general principles translate into design choices. I have decided to devote a series of posts to the choices my team and I are making in the building of Edgeryders. You can find them here (for now, only the first one is online). If you find errors or have suggestions, we are listening.

Inclusione e distruzione creativa: il futuro dei fondi europei

8 Replies

La Commissione Europea gestisce un mucchio di soldi. Solo per i progetti dedicati allo sviluppo regionale stanzia poco meno di 350 miliardi di euro nel periodo 2007-2013; per la ricerca ci sono altri 50 miliardi, e così via. Secondo molte voci critiche, queste risorse vanno prevalentemente a finanziare progetti dei “soliti sospetti”: università, grandi imprese, enti territoriali, strutture della rappresentanza come sindacati. Questi soggetti sono in grado di gestire le complessità burocratiche di montare un progetto europeo (esempio: costituirsi in consorzi internazionali con almeno X partners in almeno Y paesi, di cui almeno uno deve essere un paese di nuovo ingresso nell’Unione per aumentare le chances di successo); ma non sono necessariamente quelli che usano le risorse nel modo migliore possibile. Al contrario le grandi organizzazioni hanno in genere costi amministrativi alti, molto middle management invece che personale operativo, bassa propensione al rischio.

Piccole e piccolissime imprese, giovani imprenditori, innovatori sociali, imprese creative – che sono spesso i soggetti più interessanti, in grado di contribuire in modo sostanziale allo sviluppo dei territori e alla ricerca – rimangono quasi sempre fuori dai giochi. In genere, scoraggiati dalla cultura burocratica e formalista di questi processi, non partecipano nemmeno; e quando partecipano perdono quasi sempre. Tutto questo è noto da tempo; negli ultimi tempi, però, questi soggetti stanno facendo sentire in modo sempre più chiaro la propria voce; e l’Europa comincia a rispondere. Il video qui sopra, prodotto dai miei amici di CriticalCity Upload in risposta a una call della Commissione Europea, ne è una prova: è stato mostrato in sessione plenaria alla Digital Agenda Assembly, davanti a 1200 persone tra cui il Commissario Neelie Kroes. Chi c’era mi assicura che gli applausi sono stati molto convinti.

Con questo problema in mente, il Dipartimento Affari Regionali della Presidenza del Consiglio dei Ministri sta mettendo in piedi Opera, uno strumento per elaborare progetti europei in modalità peer-to-peer (una community aperta verrà lanciata a settembre). Uno degli aspetti più interessanti è la possibilità di ricercare possibili partners, ma anche di votarne e commentarne l’agire. I partners affidabili, veloci e collaborativi vengono segnalati dalla community — e questo aiuterà l’emersione di partenariati e progetti migliori, accrescendo in media l’impatto della spesa. Il progetto Opera è esplicitamente ispirato a Kublai, un progetto che ho contribuito a fondare nel 2008 e diretto fino a qualche mese fa. In effetti, il gruppo di Opera fa capo a Studiare Sviluppo, società in-house del Ministero dell’Economia che ha lavorato anche su Kublai. Sono contento e orgoglioso che il lavoro del mio team e mio abbia ispirato un’altra amministrazione centrale.

Kublai e Opera usano le logiche del web 2.0 per ottenere un risultato affascinante: rendere le politiche pubbliche su cui lavorano più inclusive e più efficienti al tempo stesso. La maggiore inclusività apre la porta all’ingresso di nuovi soggetti, veloci ed innovativi; e questi, conquistando una fetta delle risorse in palio, accrescono l’efficienza del sistema (non è un vantaggio marginale: CCU, incubata in Kublai, ha un costo per utente coinvolto 30 volte inferiore a quello dei progetti di e-participation europei). Non è sorprendente, perché le politiche pubbliche camminano con le gambe delle persone, e cambiando i giocatori si cambia il gioco. Resta da vedere se gli innovatori delle politiche pubbliche riusciranno a proteggere le iniziative come Opera dalle inevitabili contromosse di chi finora si è avvantaggiato dei criteri di assegnazione dei fondi europei. La distruzione creativa non piace a tutti.

Inclusion is disruption: the future of European funding

4 Replies

The European Commission manages a lot of money. Just regional development projects are allocated a little less than 350 billion euro over the 2007-2013 period; research is allocated another 50 billion, and on it goes. Many critics complain that these resources end up funding mainly “the usual suspects”: universities, large corporations, public authorities, trade unions. These players can deal with the bureaucratic complexities of mounting a European project (for example, build a consortium with at least X partners in Y countries, one of which should be a new member State to increase chances of being funded); but they are not necessarily the most effective at using the money to everyone’s advantage. On the contrary, large organizations tend to have large overheads, a lot of middle management as opposed to line-of-fire staff, low propensity to risk.

Small and micro enterprises, young entrepreneurs, social innovators, creative businesses – often the most interesting players, who can contribute substantially to regional development, research and many more things beside, are left out of the game. As a rule they get demoralized by the formalistic, bureaucratic culture of these processes, and they don’t even bother to bid for funding; when they do bid, they almost always lose. All this has been clear for a long time; as of lately these people have been making themselves heard in a an unusually clear way, and Europe is starting to react. The video above, produced by my friends at CriticalCity Upload, proves the point: it has been shown in a plenary session at the Digital Agenda Assembly, as 1,200 people – including Commissioner Neelie Kroes – watched. Attendees reported the audience responded with thunderous applause.

With this problem in mind, the Department of Regional Affairs at the Prime Minister’s Office is building a project called Opera, a tool to build European project in a peer-to-peer modality (an open community will launch in September). One of its most fascinating features is the possibility to search for possible partners, and to comment and rate their performance. The community spots reliable, fast, collaborative partners and makes it easier to find them — and this will help the emergence of better partnerships and better projects, increasing the efficiency of that funding. The Opera project is explicitly inspired from Kublai, a project I helped launch in 2008 and directed until earlier this year. The Opera team promanates from Studiare Sviluppo, an in-house company of Italy’s central administration that also worked on Kublai. I am happy and proud that the work done by me and my tea, has helped inspire other Central administrations.

Kublai and Opera make use of Web.20 to get to a fascinating result: making public policies more inclusive and more efficient at the same time. Enhanced inclusivity stems from opening the door wide open to get on new agents that are fast and innovative; and these, cutting a slice of the pie for themselves, increase overall efficiency (the efficiency gain is impressive: CriticalCity Upload – incubated in Kublai – has a cost per user reached that is one thirtieth of European e-participation projects). It is not so surprising, because public policies work through people, and chaning the players is a great way to change the game. It remains to be seen whether policy innovators will manage to protect iniatives like Opera from the inevitable backlash of incumbents, that have so far gotten a very confortable deal under the present system. For all the talk of Creative Destruction, not everybody likes creative destrucion.