Wisdom of the Crowd
Decision Making
iChilles.com
Wisdom Of The Crowd
Decision Making
AN ENQUIRY INTO DECISION MAKING
BY USING THE WISDOM OF THE CROWD
Department of Industrial Design, Eindhoven University of
Technology
Design Research Team
ing. J.J. Siekmans
Client: “Stichting Toekomstbeeld der Techniek”
Maurits Kreijveld, project leader of the future study “wisdom of
the crowd” at Stichting Toekomstbeeld der Techniek
Coach
prof.dr. Ben Schouten
January, 2011
STT explores new trends and develops inspiring foresights on
technology and society. For that purpose STT facilitates a free space
in which enthusiastic stakeholders meet and construct creative views
on the future. The results serve as starting points for new initiatives,
such as applied research programs or public-private cooperation.
Project participants are the most important ambassadors of the
results, which are also distributed through the media, lectures and
workshops.
STT was established in 1968 by The Netherlands Royal Institute of
Engineers (KIVI). STT is a non-profit organization funded by the
Dutch government and business contributions. STTʼs advisory board
consists of around 30 members who are selected among contributors
and scientific institutions, all appointed on personal title. In addition,
STT hosts two academic chairs on futures studies and research. Do
take a look at current and past foresight projects and our recent
publications on our website.
Address:
P.O. Box 30424
2500 GK The Hague
the Netherlands
Telephone: +31 70 302 98 30
E-mail: info@stt.nl
iChilles.com
iChilles.com (pronounced as i-killies) is focussed on closing the gap
between engineers and designers. The name iChilles is a mix of
Achilles and the popular i-culture. The later stands for the modern day
information age, hence the “i” of information. As company we try to
find the achilles heel of your companyʼs products / services / business
models, and improve them by making it a design.
The social stigma forced onto designers often eludes the true nature
of what designers are capable of. Designers do not only make
aesthetic designs, but also have the capacity to analyze trends in the
market, discover hidden consumer values, set up entire projects and
more as can be read on our website.
The value of working with us becomes visible in projects as is
described in this booklet. Alternative insights are created, based on in
depth research. The capacity of bringing the findings of a research to
a product range is what could be described as the core value of a
industrial designer. As iChilles.com we add the business side of
design and the translation of engineering products to a design level.
Business model to a designer do not just concern cost-price
calculation ed. but also consumer crystallization.
Please visit the website, and feel free to ask for more information.
www.ichilles.com
info@ichilles.com
#
Special thanks to:
Dr. Koert van Mensvoort, MSc, MFA
Client Maurits Kreijveld, project leader of future study of
wisdom of the crowd at “Stichting Toekomstbeeld der Techniek”
prof.dr. Ben Schouten
Lois Reinert, for her pictures
6
Bas Reus, Social Tech Manager at Favela Fabric, for his expert
insights and feedback
Jos Wieleman, ABN Amro
Everyone who helped with the user tests and contributed to a
great design research project outcome
Abstract
Because of the internet, nowadays, more effective use of the
collective knowledge of a group can be made in a way that improves
knowledge and produces greater insight. This phenomenon is widely
referred to as the ʻwisdom of crowdʼ. The challenge of wisdom of the
crowd is the mechanism of aggregating different contributions and
finding a balance. Decision making processes are crucial in this
process. In this project three tools were developed to manage this
decision making process and allow for the process to be adjusted to
the character of the crowd.
The first concept is the Genome cards, that serve as an analyzing
tool for wisdom of the crowd systems, and also as a road mapping
tool for initiators whom want to start a system that makes use of the
crowd. The cards are laid out in a sequence called a string, thereby
answering the main questions of What?, Who? Why? and How? A
collection of these strings is called a genome and is a synonym for
the entire wisdom of the crowd system.
The second concept is the Genome Game where the Genome cards
are used to make the rules of the game. Basic rules as building a city
and moving a pawn are predetermined. The aim of this game is to
stimulate the players to think about political solutions to preserve
nature as the original project description depicted.
A digital solution called the Genome back-end is a websiteʼs backend that can be controlled by the crowd as well as the initiator, thus
allowing the website to change according to the wishes of the users.
An initiator whom wants to start up a wisdom of the crowd system
should make use of the trend of the crowd wanting more control, and
therefore make use of the Genome concept considering this includes
both the freedom to the crowd, and the control over the crowd.
7
Table of contents
1. Introduction 11
8
!
1.1 Design brief 12
!
1.2 Research questions 13
!
1.3 Methodology 15
!
1.4 Exploration 15
!
1.5 Scenarios 16
!
1.6 Proposition 16
2. Iteration I 19
!
2.1 Methodology 20
!
2.2 Literature study 20
!
2.3 Brainstorm 41
!
2.4 Scenario modeling (take I) 42
!
2.5 Expert evaluation 53
!
2.6 Reflection 54
3. Iteration II 57
!
3.1 Methodology 58
!
3.2 Feedback analysis 58
!
3.3 Scenario selection 58
!
3.4 User testing 61
!
3.5 Scenario modeling (take II) 68
!
3.6 Expert evaluation 73
!
3.7 Reflection 76
4. Iteration III 79
!
4.1 Methodology 80
!
4.2 Feedback analysis 80
!
4.3 Final proposition 81
!
4.4 Expert evaluation 92
!
4.5 Application of the RQʼs 92
Conclusion & Recommendations 95
References 96
Appendices 104
!
I Research recent digital crowdsourcing solutions 105
!
II Three scenarios 106
!
III SWOT analysis 110
!
IV User test denationaledialoog.nl 101
!
V Genome cards 116
9
INTRODUCTION
“Things should be made as simple as possible, but not to
simple” (Albert Einstein) V
10
Photo by Lois Reinert
INTRODUCTION
1.Introduction
The topic of this design research project has sprung to live as we
recently experienced a crash in our economic world. We have
become more aware then ever before what implications our
economic and industrious structures have for an influence on the
environment. As the natural world is more and more threatened,
humanity is about to steal herself from the richness nature can offer,
and all the knowledge that is still hidden within this fascinating world.
As a design researcher it is of upmost relevance to preserve this
source of inspiration, admiration and provider of goods. Nevertheless
people are already trying to reach consensus with mother nature and
so this report focusses on a specific element by which this can be
done. Using the intelligence of the crowd and determining the best
decision making process to control it can help entrepreneurs to
organize their wisdom of the crowd systems to be more profitable.
The aim is to form a birds eye perspective on ongoing discussions
surrounding decision making in a wisdom of the crowd platform,
using design methods to structure them, create new insights and
communicate these to a wider public. The outcome of this project will
be available to the public and will be input for the future study
“wisdom of the crowd” at the Stichting Toekomstbeeld der Techniek,
lead by Maurits Kreijveld.
Considering this is a Next Nature project it should explore the
changing notion of nature while mankind is cultivating nature more
and more and becoming more and more complex and
interconnected. In this Next Nature the dynamics of ʻthe crowdʼ will
play a great role.
11
INTRODUCTION
1.1 Design brief
Considering this research project had a different focus, the original
design brief is stated below.
~ As stated by Koert van Mensvoort ~
“The starting point of the Eco-Currency project is the hypothesis that
an important factor in our current environmental crisis is the
disconnect between the economical ecology and the environmental
ecology. With the latter we mean the ecology of plants, trees,
animals, and other organic material. Whereas the economical
ecology is defined by our financial system of market, money, goods
and other economical exchange. Our second working hypothesis
states that we could address environmental issues by linking the
economical sphere and the environmental sphere in a better way
than currently the case.
12
Before diving into an analysis we should address the question
whether it is necessary to be critical of addressing ecology as
metaphor or structure vis a vis ecology as an organic threatened
living environment that we are part of? Especially traditional
environmentalist might object to describing both spheres as
ʻecologiesʼ, and argue it is inconsiderate to use the same term for a
man–made system as well as for the older and deeper organic
ecology of nature. Surely they have a point here: the environmental
ecology is not only much older than the economical ecology, it also
presides it in the sense that the economical ecology cannot exits
without the environmental ecology. On the other hand we must
realize that, while the environmental ecology is threatened, the
economical ecology is currently the most threatening one. Hence it
should be taken seriously and not be waved aside as simply a manmade structure.
The fact that most people, at least in the western world, nowadays
worry more about the financial crisis and their mortgage rates, than
about hurricanes or floods exemplifies that the economical ecology
has increasingly become a ʻnext nature” with its own dynamics and
autonomy. Like a true nature, it can be benevolent and kind as well
as wild, cruel and unpredictable.”
INTRODUCTION
~ As added by the designer~
As for this research project the prior focus will be on the decision
process surrounding wisdom of the crowd systems. Arguments have
been proposed in favor and against the true benefit of making use of
such systems, this report will try to give a definitive answer to
whether or not the wisdom of the crowd can be beneficial and in
what way. Therefore the expression and definition of the EcoCurrency is not yet formulated and is not the main focus of this
report. We felt the urge to raise a more fundamental question on
which future wisdom of the crowd structures can be build. From this
knowledge a system can be thought up that serves the Eco-Currency
1.2 Research questions
As this project aims at a focus towards the Design Brief, the main
research question is therefore more specific:
“How can wisdom of the crowd / co-creation / crowd-sourcing be
employed to serve the decision making process?”
Leading up to this main research question are the sub-questions as
they are stated below:
1. What existing 'wisdom of the crowd' platforms exists that could
potentially be used? (Make a full analysis of pro & cons)
2. How is / will decision making (be) practiced?
3. What are the possibilities of going beyond the default webinterface? (think of physical, locative, or mobile solutions)
4. What are the objective guidelines that can be taken from the first
three questions?
5. How actively involved will the participants have to be?
6. What psychological and social effects contribute to decision
making?
7. How is the decision process best organized?
8. How do you aggregate such a process?
9. Is the collective good of the crowd an intelligent good?
13
INTRODUCTION
1.3 Methodology
The nature of this M1.2 project depicts that it is a research project.
Nevertheless this does not mean that it should consist solely out of
research, considering my designer background. An iterative
approach(I) should allow me to research with every iteration while still
working on concretizing the conclusion subtracted from the research.
The iterations are graphically displayed in figure 1.1 and described in
more detail below here.
Iteration I: The first iteration will start with answering the subquestions as they were stated in paragraph 1.2. This will result in an
insight knowledge which in turn would give rise to three design
scenarios. Presenting this at the mid-term exhibition and an expert
evaluation would provide me with feedback which can be analyzed in
the second iteration.
14
Iteration II: After analyzing the feedback from the first iteration, one
scenario will come out as the winner. This scenario will then be usertested and an evaluation of the result follows.
Iteration III: The third and final iteration will start with analyzing the
feedback from the user tests and concretizing this scenario to a final
proposal. Along with the opinion of experts and reflecting on them
will be the foundation of the final conclusion and recommendations.
1.4 Exploration
The main focus of this project is to broaden the view on intelligence
of the crowd based decision making. The eleven questions are used
as creator of a proper backbone to base the following iterations
upon.
The research will be explorative in order to maintain a wide viewing
angle on the matter. This in turn allows me to design openly and start
without any prior assumptions.
INTRODUCTION
Iteration I:
Iteration II:
Iteration III:
Fig.1.1: Description of the three research iterations (Analysis,
Conceptualization, Realization & Evaluation)
15
INTRODUCTION
1.5 Scenarios
Every scenario that is created is subdued to an expert evaluation in
order to get a perspective on their realistic nature. Conclusions,
assumptions and findings can then be validated or refuted
correspondingly.
This approach makes use of scenario based expert validation
methods used in other fields of design, thus allowing me to
communicate ideas quickly. The questions that will rise with the
scenarios will cover several levels(I,II), and so making their relevance
apparent after critically assessing the feedback.
Besides the three scenarios that will be brought back into one final
scenario, a video, presentation, a game or a prototype will be
delivered as final deliverables.
1.6 Proposition
16
Considering the design brief has been altered, it has been decided
that this report provides an overall proposition along with an
proposition based on the Eco-Currency. This outcome is based on
the design research and is thus open for debate. These discussable
conclusions function as a pavements for further development and
research.
17
END OF THE INTRODUCTION
I T E R AT I O N I
18
“Before the beginning of great brilliance, there must
be chaos. Before a brilliant person begins something
great, they must look foolish in the crowd.” V
Photo by Lois Reinert
I T E R AT I O N I
2.Iteration I
Iteration I
Wisdom of the crowd is a system where the initiator of a project
makes use of the productivity / ideas / creativity / opinions of the
crowd and so get for filled in his / her wishes. This chapter is about
finding out how this has been done in the past, present and will be
done in the future.
By using sub-questions that target specific fields of interest to the
main question, datum points are laid out to extrapolate a future
estimation upon. This will result into three design research scenarios,
and one extra to suit the original project description of the EcoCurrency.
From the research that is necessary to answer the sub-questions, a
method will be created that can easily analyze the make up of a
“wisdom of the crowd” system. This is useful when attempts are
made to make future assessments on the way these systems should
be organized.
By using scenario modeling and input from experts, the created
concepts get a more solid groundwork as they are initially derived
from research and logic reasoning.
19
I T E R AT I O N I
2.1 Methodology
The first iteration starts with answering the sub-questions as they
were stated earlier. This will result in an in depth knowledge which in
turn would give rise to three design scenarios. Presenting this at the
mid-term exhibition and to experts would provide me with feedback
which can be analyzed in the second iteration.
20
Fig.2.1: Iteration one (Analysis, Conceptualization, Realization & Evaluation)
2.2 Literature study
By researching papers, internet articles and other sources of
information a greater insight was gained which was used to fill in the
following sub-questions:
~ What existing 'wisdom of the crowd' platforms exists that could
potentially be used? ~
The first step in answering this question is to find out what solutions
there are that make use of the knowledge of the crowd. A table with a
few of the websites using wisdom of the crowd can be found in
appendix I. This table shows the “What?”, “Who?”, How?” and
“Why?” of these web-solutions. The implementation of these
questions was inspired by a research done by MIT in Cambridge.(IV)
This devision would make it possible to assign genes(IV) to each websolution. These genes function as parts of a greater structure as in
this case the entire wisdom of the crowd system.
I T E R AT I O N I
The genes will be used to make a genome, and so a formulated
structure can be derived from every wisdom of the crowd structure.
This makes it easier to subtract the relevant data from the structures
and comparing them. Furthermore the genomes (IV) can be altered or
extended giving new solutions for wisdoms of the crowds websites.
Who?
The crowd: With wisdom of the crowd systems, the most important
participant must be the crowd because its presence is the foundation
of the principle.
Individual: Every individual in a group can choose to participate in
an activity if and when they want to. For example, everyone can
submit a software module to the Linux platform, as other individuals
also do so in the group they are in.
Another example can be Wikipedia as anyone can submit an update,
or even a totally new article.
The strength of a crowd is that it is abundant and self-replenishing.
When a crowd looses member lets say because they reach a certain
age, other individuals join the crowd when they just come into the
relevant age group.
A weakness of the crowd is its consistence in intellect. Many different
individuals with many different intellectual backgrounds group
together to form the crowd. An organizer of the crowd could be
dealing with wide spread depth in solutions and / or concepts, and so
he or she needs a formidable decision making protocol to benefit
from the wisdom of the crowd.
Hierarchical organizations: These are the structures that currently
setup the wisdom of the crowd services and try to exploit them. The
basic definition for this gene would be an individual whom assigns an
other individual or group to a specific task.
An example of this can also be found within the Linux structure as
updates to software modules is reviewed by Torvalds and
21
I T E R AT I O N I
Lieutenants (staff) which are names for top decision making
hierarchical functions.(VI)
The real strength of a hierarchal structure is seen when more
elaborate tasks are performed by the crowd. Here the crowd is often
in fewer numbers, and for the individual of the crowd it is harder to
catch up with misdeeds of the hierarchical organization as they
require more in depth knowledge of the subject matter.
The top of the hierarchical structure provides insight and knowledge
to the crowd, and decides over final subject matter as they are
relevant directly to the initiator. Besides being a provider, it functions
also as a controller of the crowd. As the hierarchal structure
maintains order.
Having full control over the crowd can in some cases be a weakness
as was demonstrated by Greenpeace, with their project of “naming a
whale”.
22
Greenpeace wanted to get more attention for its “safe the whale”
program(VII) and so decide to involve the crowd in naming a whale,
making the crowd more involved with the cause with the extra benefit
of creating publicity. Out of the names that were suggested, Mister
Splashy Pants was in favor with the crowd. Nevertheless
Greenpeace did not like it, especially not after this name was voted
to be the number one pick of the crowd. Therefore Greenpeace
decided to delay the final decision date with a week, to see whether
the crowd would choose one of the other names Greenpeace did
like.
The crowd was not happy about this decision and more social
networking sites, blogging websites and forum s were drawn into the
voting system, making the votes for Mister Splashy Pants go up even
more.
Finally the name selected by the crowd won, and Greenpeace
learned from the situation, as they now sale merchandise of Mister
Splashy Pants. It seems that giving total control to the crowd does
not have to be a threat to the quality of the outcome. Greenpeace did
I T E R AT I O N I
not only reach their goals, the crowd took them to a new income
level.
Fig.2.2: Mister Splashy pants logo made by the crowd, before (left) and after
(right) the postponed decision day. (3)
Why?
Price money: A large fraction of the total wisdom of the crowd based
websites offer the crowd financial gain through money prices. The
details can differ as some award the ten best and others the one that
delivers the single best concept.
Money is a suitable price for a crowd considering that the real value
of money can be determined by the individual of the person that
receives it. The wishes of the individuals within the crowd are
diverse, and so a price that is unrelated to specific wishes, but can
be exchanged to gain individual wishes is complementary.
Affection: Whenever an individual or group participates in a wisdom
of the crowd concept creation, affection with the project can come
from the pleasure they have being involved in the project.
Furthermore socializing with others during the process, contributing
to a cause and love for a brand can all cause affection.
Affection can become dangerous to a wisdom of the crowd project
when personal attachment gets entangled with group decisions. A
person can loose inspiration and motivation when a projects heads a
different direction then to his/her liking.
23
I T E R AT I O N I
Maintaining this admiration can give the wisdom of the crowd initiator
a loyal, dedicated and cheap group of workers whom are prepared
and capable to deliver high end deliverables.
Exposure: For example with the programmers of Linux software
modules, the programmers can gain recognition and exposure of
their skills by participating in the crowd. The crowd can feedback on
the individual and create value for him/her by acknowledging their
contribution.
This gene can have close ties with the affection gene because of the
personal link to the design. If so, exposure creates an extra motivator
for the individuals within the crowd.
What & how?
24
The questions “What & How?” can be divided into several basic
genes as they are described in the table below. The “What?” gene is
divided in the create & decide gene, the “How?” is divided in the
independent and dependent gene.
Table.2.1: Variations of the what & how gene (IV)
Independent
Dependent
Create
Collection
Collaboration
Decide
Individual decision
Group decision
Collection: The process of an individual creating concepts and / or
content within the crowd independent from each other is called
collection.
Besides the benefit of a potential fast amount of concepts acquired
through the crowd, selecting them needs a good decision making
process.
Contest: An important sub-gene is the contest gene where
individuals within the crowd compete with each other. The best ideas
I T E R AT I O N I
and concepts are moved upwards in appreciation and are rewarded
correspondingly. Either the crowd or the initiator determines the
winning concepts.
An example for this gene is the website Netflix(VIII) where an algorithm
delivered by the crowd, which makes an addition to the existing
algorithm of Netflix, can award the individual a price of $1 million.
Contests can create an environment where individuals within the
crowd no longer seek contact, or are unwilling to openly share ideas.
This can be counterproductive concerning the end goal. On the other
hand, rivalry can push individuals within the crowd to compete with
each other and take themselves to higher planes of creation.
Provide: This basically is a gene from prior to wisdom of the crowd
models as its main focus is providing information.
Collaboration: The collaboration gene is active when the crowd
solves a problem as an unity. In practice this is clearly visible in
Wikipediaʼs framework. When an article is approved by the staff of
Wikipedia, many individuals can update this article. As the article
passes through several iterations of development one can say that
the article has moved from an individual submission, to a
collaborative group submission as many individuals are now cowriter
of the article.
Group decision: When members of the crowd, assess work of
individuals within that crowd, one can speak of a group decision.
Group decisions can render an individual genius obsolete and so the
system looses valuable information. Nevertheless the group can also
expend a great idea by not creating it, but participating in the
concretization of it when this is to much work for an individual.
Voting: Is a sub-gene that means the group decides upon individual
work of crowd members by casting a vote. Digg.com is a typical
example, as the crowd votes for the most interesting article that will
be prominently displayed on the website.
25
I T E R AT I O N I
Again, the threat of loosing valuable information is present here. As
something interesting for the individual can be voted out because it
does not fit the interest of the crowd.
As was explained earlier in the story about Greenpeace the crowd
can in fact know better and force a different decision through voting.
Nevertheless it cant be stated on a single event that this is a
absolute good thing to practice.
Consensus: This gene functions on the mutual perception of all, or
nearly all individuals of the crowd. An example is Wikipedia with an
article that is finished. When it is finished, nobody changes itʼs
content anymore and so the crowd agrees that the article is finished.
26
Not all members of the crowd are actively participating and therefore
a consensus can only be reached by the active crowd, while the
consensus however should not have been reached yet. This can be
seen with very specific articles in Wikipedia where few people have
information about. An inactive individual can search for information
that he cannot find in the article, while the active community thinks
this article is completed.
The active crowd however does have more involvement in the
decision making process as they control the final version of the
articles. This creates value to them as they appreciated for delivering
to a final concept.
Averaging: By averaging the outcome of the crowd, a decision can
be derived. Amazon.com uses averaging with the rating of CDʼs as
members of the crowd leave their appreciation of the products
behind on the website in the form of stars.
As with voting, also averaging can eliminate the individual genius.
Nevertheless the decision making process is more circumstantial
and so the crowd can more easily recognize their personal input as
validated in the final result.
Prediction markets: Lets the crowd make estimations on the
probability of events.
I T E R AT I O N I
The benefit of this gene is that the crowd can spot trends, and even
create them. Nevertheless these trends are percentage based and
offer no absolute answer.
Individual decisions: This means that an individual within the crowd
can decide for him- or herself without the need of consensus with the
crowd in entirety. A visitor of youtube.com as an practical example for
this gene, as this individual watches a movie of his / her preference.
The full control of the individual can sometimes lead to negative
effects. As for example an individual can watch a video that has
content that is not suited for his or her age, then there is little control
over this and preventing him/her from watching the video.
The freedom of personal decision making creates a value on its own
considering that he or she is free to decide and thus has the feeling
of control.
Markets: This gene involves a formal exchange like money.
Ebay.com, a web shop, is a practical example of the implications of
this gene.
When it concerns digital markets, or practical markets, thieves and
conmen have always tried to make use of the naivety of the
individuals. For web-based solutions at least it can be said that no
physical harm can be done by these wrongdoers.
Social networks: The crowd shares content with each other. The
content can be pictures, video, stories and even themselves. It is up
to the individual of the crowd what they decide to send and receive to
and from the crowd.
Building the genome: As the genes of wisdom of the crowd
websites are now clear. It is possible to begin sequencing them into
genomes. These genomes can describe the entire wisdom of the
crowd system in recognizable and repeating patterns. When this is
applied, correlations, trends, strengths and weaknesses can more
easily be gathered. The standard model below shows the genes, and
the gene groups in the form of the four main questions, that are
discussed earlier this chapter.
27
I T E R AT I O N I
Standard model
28
Fig.2.3: The standard genome model (4)
The Linux example is worked out to show how making a genome
works. This is an example from the Linux decision framework
dedicated to allowing new software modules from the crowd. As
(1&2) the crowd creates new modules, (3) they do this for money or
glory and often (4) collaborate during the process. The “staff” of
Linux (5&6) decides what modules are relevant, and do this for their
love for the product and the glory received from peers. The final
decision (8) is based on hierarchy between different “staff” members.
When this is written down into a string it looks like this:
- [What = create; who = crowd; why = money/glory; how =
collaboration]
- [What = decide; who = Torvalds&lieutenants; why = love/glory; how
= hierarchy]
I T E R AT I O N I
Example: Linux
29
Fig.2.4: An example of the genome model (4)
~ How is/will decision making (be) practiced? ~
In order to extrapolate the future of wisdom of the crowd decision
making, two datum points are necessary. Last sub-questions
answered the current strategies. Following will be some past key
examples that, together with current key moments, will form the
groundwork for an extrapolation to the future.
Gathering information: Before wisdom of the crowd websites came
to the broad public and boomed, information was gathered through
interviews and user tests. One can say
that user testing is more personal
compared to the modern digital way
information is gathered from the crowd.
(5)
Fig.2.5: 99 Designs logo
I T E R AT I O N I
However the involvement of the user (crowd) is presently far greater.
Complete designs are delivered as with “99 designs” for example.
Recognition and awards are appointed to individuals of the crowd.
The shift from users as a source of just information (the old way), to
a crowd with information, and the capability to conceptualize this
(new way) is a leap in user-company relations.
The genes of the “old way” can be derived as:
- [What = provide information; who = crowd; why = money/glory;
how = collaboration]
- [What = decide; who = company; why =money; how = hierarchy]
The genes of the “new way” can be derived as:
- [What = create; who = crowd; why = money/glory; how =
collaboration]
- [What = decide; who = company; why = money; how = hierarchy]
30
The only change in these genomes is the role of the user/crowd as
they at first provide information with which the company can create a
profile and/or concept with. And in the “new way” the crowd creates
information and/or a concept for the company.
Concept selection: Concept
selection has been evolving
from creations by companies,
to complete control by the
crowd. As Lays does with their
crisps by letting the crowd
come up with a new taste, and
then letting the crowd select
from the three best tastes that
came out of the competition.
(IX)
Fig.2.6: Lays crisps contest (6)
A second example was already explained about naming a whale by
Greenpeace, where the crowd eventually took the decision process
I T E R AT I O N I
over completely, and got to pick the name of their liking against the
original wishes of Greenpeace.
This example shows an interesting change in the genome, namely:
- [What = create; who = company; why = exposure; how =
collaboration]
- [What = decide; who = crowd; why = glory; how = collaboration]
In this situation the crowd did not create a concept, but rather had to
choose the best one that was offered. So the roles are switches, the
company creates, and the crowd decides. However the, Greenpeace
wanted to have a say in the decision as the apparent outcome was
not the one they hoped for. Looking at the genome it is obvious that
this is a bad move, considering that the original intent of this system
was using the crowd for decision making. Taking back the control by
Greenpeace was “punished” by the crowd and so the crowd showed
there strength.
Product purchase: Modern day consumers are often researching
internet first, before buying a product online or in a store. This makes
the consumer smarter relative to pre-internet consumers. Although
the new technology is responsible for this change, it does change the
way consumers look at products and from that point of view buy
products. Consumers are more aware of the technical capabilities of
products, and so it is less likely they commit a bad purchase.
When these subject are compared and zoomed out, the governing
change in the decision process is more control. From concept to
realization, the crowd gets more control. When this progress line is
extrapolated then the control should keep on increasing by time.
~ What are the possibilities of going beyond the default webinterface? ~
Future technologies can push wisdom of the crowd systems as much
as the internet changed the crowd-company relations. The genes
that were set up earlier in this text can give a better understanding of
what these system would look like in the future.
31
I T E R AT I O N I
3D-printing: As printing evolves from 2D to 3D a new gene can
come alive in de wisdom of the crowd genome.
Table.2.3: Future variations of the how gene
32
Independent
Dependent
Create
Collection
Collaboration
Decide
Individual decision
Group decision
Realize
Production
Manufacturing
Table 2.3 shows a new governing gene called “realize”. This addition
is derived from the continuous increase of control of the crowd,
together with 3D-printing. It is imaginable that one day these printer
enter the consumer market and the crowd can be involved from
ideas to concept selection to finally creating. Naturally this can be
done independently, as an individual in a crowd selects a certain
product online, en prints it at home. This product then off course
arose from the knowledge of the crowd.
The second is a collaborative state
where for example multiple individuals
print a product to a final state. Lets say
there are different types of printers in
the future as there are now, only then
the differences are on a higher lane. For
example, one printer could print chips,
and the other can print aluminum, and
yet another can print electronics boards.
This group of three can then print most
electronic devices like phones, when
they find a suitable battery.
Fig.2.7: 3D-printed skull (7)
Cloud computing: Modern day internet connectivity along with highend computer power creates a new opportunity for making use of the
crowd. As the systems can be inked up to create a super computer
for individuals or organizations to use. This creates the new gene
called “compute”.
I T E R AT I O N I
Table.2.4: Future variation of the how gene
Compute
Independent
Dependent
Computing
Crowd computing
These can then be divided into the independent “computing” gene
and the dependent “cloud computing” gene.
Independent computing would mean the computational power one
has on its computer, and using it for a purpose opposed by the
crowd. This is a current day exploration as every web-based wisdom
of the crowd organizations makes use of it. Nevertheless the
dependent form is not that common yet. SETI did explore this option
by making a screensaver that researched their data on patterns to
prove alien life.(X)
Passive decision making: As Google recently announced a
technique (XI) that allows them to predict a flew epidemic, passive
decision making is starting to get a more prominent role in wisdom of
the crowd systems. As user searches the internet using Google, and
using keywords about their health complaints, Google can analyze
that input and derive a increase in health related issues. A future
estimation of this concept has already been thought up by the writer
os the Sci-Fi series “Caprica” (XII) where a young computer genius
uses the personal information left by the crowd on the internet to
reconstruct the soul of specific persons.
These three technology examples again show a more influential role
of the crowd in a system. As companies and organizations used to
outsource their manufacturing, they are now trying to make use of
the wisdom of the crowd. Realize that in most cases outsourcing was
intended for manufacturing purposes, and crowd sourcing still
functions within the rome of data collection and concept generation.
Nevertheless thanks to new technologies, the top two developments
might come together as the crowd starts producing without the
necessary help of companies. This results in a progress of going
from outsourcing, to crowd sourcing, to crowd production.
33
I T E R AT I O N I
~ What are the objective guidelines that can be taken from the first
three questions? ~
Guidelines for setting up a wisdom of the crowd website can be
divided into two groups. The first being the guidelines taken from the
current existing websites. The second group is based on the future
extrapolation.
Group one: Guidelines for current wisdom of the crowd websites
are:
1. Be clear - Be clear in the problem you wish to have solved, the
concept you would like the crowd to work on, clear about the value
exchange with all the stakeholders and be clear in you
communication and layout. The crowd should only be focussed on
solving the problem on hand, not wrestling through the website
trying to find out information.
34
2. Select the right decision model - When dealing with a problem or
any other reason to make use of the wisdom of the crowd. Make
sure that the right decision model is chosen. As research has
shown, complex problems are better dealt with hierarchy. And
simple problems should remain as open as possible.
3. Work with the right crowd - In order to get good concept back from
the crowd, the crowd has to be able to fit in the knowledge group
of the product or service for what wisdom of the crowd is being
used.
4. Create value - Whether it is money, respect, love, create value for
all stakeholders. Without proper value, the crowd will not be
attracted, and so no wisdom of the crowd to use. Just as important
is maintaining value. Mutual respect could be an example for this.
An individual of the crowd is not an office worker, and therefore
can step up more easily when he/she is upset.
5. Be open for change - Accept new genes whenever they arise.
They allow the wisdom of the crowd system to remain up to date.
I T E R AT I O N I
6. Vision - Have a vision to stimulate the crowd with. Although this
can be seen as a value, and this is true. Nevertheless it is
significant enough to be pointed out separately. A vision can also
help creating a goal-specific crowd that a wisdom of the crowd
company might want.
7. Diversity - Have diversity in the crowd to ensure unexpected
creativity.
8. Create an environment - Create a social network, possibly
products and services around your system to enhance the overall
feeling of participation of the crowd.
Group two: Additional guidelines for future wisdom of the crowd
websites are:
1. Reflect on the genome - Keep reflecting on the genome in order to
keep up with developments in the crowd, and with rising
technologies. Discover new genes, and insert them to create a
more stable future enterprise.
2. Create a negative factor - Make the crowd responsible for their
actions, as the wisdom of the crowd system is linked to other
social websites like social networking sites and Link-IN. This might
create real value and status as the crowd actions become part of
their portfolio. Negative behavior will in this way be countered and
will provide an enriched interaction level.
~ How actively involved will the participants have to be? ~
This sub-question has a current and future answer. As it is possible
to register how much stakeholders have to participate now, it is only
an estimation on what future participation looks like.
The crowd is key in both scenarios. What work they can offer
determines the effective outcome of such system. A change however
is the amount of control they get as a crowd. This does not
necessarily mean that the workload will increase per person, as
current demanding tasks have been handled by the crowd as well.
As is done many times with the website of 99 designs where the
35
I T E R AT I O N I
crowd can design a logo. This would take a lot of work when
designed by a team of designers, because they have to come up
with inspiration. The crowd however can post one idea per individual
and still be richer in content and originality then a group of designers.
Companies whom make use of he wisdom of the crowd concept
have to maintain a proper working relation with the crowd. To do so
they can choose to be actively involved with concept creation. Or let
the crowd form a community sense and let creativity run free.
Complexity of the concept determines the involvement of the
company. The more elaborate and complex the concept is, the more
company involvement and the more simplicity in the concept, the
less involvement of the initiator is needed.
The wisdom of the crowd websites naturally have to keep up with
web developments and sequential updates. Furthermore this is often
the medium that separates the crowd from the initiator and so
36
~ What psychological and social effects contribute to decision
making? ~
According to Sigmund Freud's crowd behavior theory (XIII) people
behave differently in a group then when they are acting and / or
thinking on their own. This could be a threat to the unique solutions
of the individual, and so to the wisdom of the crowd system.
Nevertheless the individualization (XIV) and anonymity that governs
the internet makes it so that although people act and behave in a
group considering the ties to each other, these are less bound as in
the physical world. Therefore we can assume that the liability of
group behavior and so group followers are less of a threat then
outside the contours of the internet.
In everyday life people can be, and are, hold accountable for their
actions. Nevertheless when the behavior of this same crowd is
analyzed when they are active online, borders of social construct
seem to fade. This effect could be a social evolution construct, and
that future generations do value the digital “other” more then people
do today.
I T E R AT I O N I
Or the digital social construct if faulty and is in need of changing.
This could be done with a negative feedback as was previously
suggested. This would mean that the digital social status that the
crowd maintains with for example Facebook and Linked-IN, could be
enhanced with a online behavioral status. A trend of this is already
visible as these websites already show the amount of activity one
contributes to a different wisdom of the crowd website. Nevertheless
this still means that no negative, and so corrective feedback is
displayed. (XV,XVI)
Perhaps a stronger demand for a strong balanced online social
portfolio could be enforced by business in the future as they now
already show interest in this matter when hiring new workers.
~ How is the decision process best organized? ~
Besides complying to the guidelines for setting up a wisdom of the
crowd based platform, there are additional guidelines for setting up
the decision process. As research shows, there is no single best
solution for the decision process in a wisdom of the crowd system.
Nevertheless, the depth of the concept on which the crowd is
working, does relate to the decision model. As the concept is simple,
the decision model is simple. And when the concept is complex, the
decision model is more complex.
The figure below shows a decision model as a company approaches
a website to make use of the wisdom of the crowd.
Outsource decision model: The wisdom of
the crowd website distributes the problem to
the crowd, and the crowd tries to come up with
concepts. The value for the crowd is often a
price along with potential credit by peers.
The decision of the best concept is taken by
the company as the website deals with
offering the price (money).
Fig.2.8: Outsource decision model
-
37
I T E R AT I O N I
The genomes for this process are:
- [What = create; who = crowd; why = money/glory/exposure; how =
collaboration]
- [What = decide; who = company; why = money; how = hierarchy]
Common decision model: The model below is the most common
model found on websites. The company and / or organizations that
makes a product and / or delivers a service, develops their own
website to access the crowd. The decision making often happens by
the company, but a trend is visible of companies selecting a top few
of the many, and then letting the crowd select the winner.
38
Fig.2.9 / 2.10 / 2.11: Crowd source decision model, Crowd control decision
model, Crowd production decision model
The genomes for this process are:
- [What = create; who = crowd; why = money/glory/exposure; how =
collaboration]
- [What = decide; who = company/; why = money; how = hierarchy]
Figure 2.10 shows a trend discussed in the last example. A company
uses a website to connect with the crowd, and the crowd offers
concepts and chooses the best concept.
The genomes for this process are:
- [What = create; who = crowd; why = money/glory/exposure; how =
collaboration]
- [What = decide; who = crowd; why = glory/exposure; how =
collaboration]
I T E R AT I O N I
- [What = create; who = company; why = money/exposure; how =
collaboration]
Crowd control decision model: As modern technologies like 3Dprinting and bio-printing progress, future projects could be entirely
crowd based as figure 2.11 on the previous page shows.
The genomes for this process are:
- [What = create; who = crowd; why = money/glory/exposure; how =
collaboration]
- [What = decide; who = crowd; why = glory/exposure; how =
collaboration]
- [What = Manufacture; who = crowd; why = glory/exposure/money;
how = collaboration]
~ How do you aggregate such a process? ~
By using the guidelines and choosing the correct decision model a
proper wisdom of the crowd system can be created. The decision
model should especially focus on the depth the concept or product
the crowd has to work with. Examining the genomes an initiator can
indicate with prior knowledge whether the system is going to work
and what behavior not to be expressed by the different stakeholders.
Internet remains the medium through which wisdom of the crowds
system will function. As the platform is still in growth, and so has not
yet reached its maximum, there is no apparent reason to assume
another technology taking over this role.
~ Is the collective good of the crowd an intelligent good? ~
In order to answers this question, it must first be know what is
considered as an intelligent crowd and what not. Considering the
history of this remark (XVII) it depends on two subjects.
The first subject considers how the individuals behave within the
crowd. As was stated earlier, social bounds that keep us structured in
our physical world often lack in the digital world. This behavior can,
39
I T E R AT I O N I
when negative, be counterproductive and so is seen as nonintelligent.
The second subject addresses the outcome of such wisdom of the
crowd projects. The cloud is often blamed for a poor outcome as it
can be in quantity or quality. As this design research report is trying
to show this is assumption is not a fact, and is probably due to a
poorly chosen / designed decision model. Nevertheless a poor
quantity or quality is considered as non-intelligent behavior of the
crowd.
Now it is stated what is, and what is not intelligent behavior of the
crowd, the sub-question can be researched and answered.
Reflecting on the past research, it has to be obvious that this
question is to black and white to answer. The crowd is not good or
bad, and there thoughts and concepts are not good or bad.
40
Nevertheless this question does indicate a negative emotion, or even
experience, when working with the wisdom of the crowd system. As
research has shown that the structure of the decision making
process and the structure of the wisdom of the crowd system
determines the level of success. A negative result in the wisdom of
the crowd process is actually not due to the crowd, but to the
organization.
Furthermore the result needs to be evaluated on the average.
Naturally there are deviations to the extreme negative from
individuals of the crowd. But similar deviations to the positive side
represents a sublime concept or idea. One could say; in order to
appreciate a sunny day, it has to rain form time to time.
2.3 Brainstorm
On the following page a brainstorm is printed. This is the prelude to
the scenario modeling that follows in scenario modeling, paragraph
2.4. The balloons represent different keywords of wisdom of the
crowd systems.
Values
Genome builder:
Different stakeholders
build their own genome
from the genes up
Crowdʼed hospital:
Groups within the crowd
can start up an hospital
as they print and place
simple organs
Causality:
Most of the things we do now
on the internet have no real
consequence to other,
however linking you activity to
sites like Linked IN could
change this and create more
awareness.
Wisdom of
the crowd
Crowd internet:
As mobile devices
become more capable
and powerful, they could
serve as a cloud server to
host a second internet
Crowd Reality Games:
Games that are played
now, are directly linked to
the real world. As for flight
control simulators that
could receive real time
data, and so the crowd
can give a suggestion to
the control tower for what
to do. The strength of the
crowd is the average
value coming out.
Individual
Technologies
TNT Crowd Company:
Crowd in control of conceptualization to
creation to deployment, everyone can
start a production line within the crowd.
I T E R AT I O N I
2.4 Scenario modeling (take I)
The upcoming scenarios are developed using drivers and inhibitors.
(III) When these arguments were written down on post-its, the post-its
are placed on a whiteboard to form specific themes. From these
themes the drivers and inhibitors are then evaluated on importance
and uncertainty, as from which two main topics are chosen. These
two topics are then the basis for one scenario. This process happens
in cooperations with fellow students and two experts from the
business field.
As this scenario setup requires a system / concept that can be
validated, we used the future “crowd production decision model”. We
do not speak of a “company” anymore considering the company is
now part of the crowd. The company sits within the crowd, or is a
group functioning as a company within the crowd.
42
This approach is normally concluded with a number of scenarios,
nevertheless it is left open considering this is a design research
project. Therefore a combination will be made between the
categorized brainstorm and the following scenarios setup. The most
widely covering and interesting ideas are selected for this scenario
modeling.
Scenario I: Opens with the question;
~ What will be the future properties of Genome Builder 2.0? ~
Inhibitors
Crowd issues:
Acceptance:
- What is the motivation towards the new relative to the old?
- Is the outcome of the system recognizable?
- Negative feedback from peers
- Does the system produce profit?
- Is the decision of the crowd what I want?
Usability:
- Is it still available to a broad public?
I T E R AT I O N I
- Can it be used without a learning curve?
- Can the result of the crowd be easily filtered and processed?
Security:
- Can a new process maintain the same feeling of security?
- How personal is the crowdʼs identity
- New designs are less protected?
- Theft is a risk
- Derivatives are a risk
Legal:
- Are not selected ideas still property of the company?
- What will happen to good ideas that are not chosen?
- What is the legal evidence of cooperation to exist?
Drivers
Crowd issues:
Acceptance:
- New technology is exciting
- Open source inspiration
- High level of participation
- Wanting to discover
- Hope for improvement
- Many potential workers
- More/better data collection
- Broader range of integrated services
Usability:
- More/better chances for the crowd to work together
- Production cannot come to a standstill
- Easier to filter concepts
Security:
- Protection against stealing ideas
Legal:
- Multiple stakeholders are working on the design with direct prove
online what makes a new idea proven to be yours
43
I T E R AT I O N I
Acceptance
Uncertainty
Usability
Legal
Security
Importance
Fig.2.12: Importance & uncertainty of scenario I
44
From the graph above, two subjects are selected that reach the
furthest in the upper right corner, as that illustrates a great
importance and a great uncertainty. These two subject are divided
into the pros & cons as is seen below. The names in the quadrant
suggest the scope the scenario should focus upon. As in this case it
will focus on the pros of acceptance and usability, and the cons of
acceptance.
Acceptance
pro
New school
Usability
against
Usability
pro
Old school
Acceptance
against
Fig.2.13: Two main scopes of scenario I
-
I T E R AT I O N I
New school: Future wisdom of the crowd websites could be based
on the Genome Builder 2.0 software and enables the crowd to
control the workings of the website.
The “new school” scenario describes that portion of the crowd that is
willing to explore and loves new technology. They are open for
change and are willing to participate in it.
Complications like security leaks are challenges to them instead of
threats. In a sense these users are the more pro users we see active
today on websites like Wikipedia.
Old school: This is the scenario that describes the more common
part of the crowd. They are less aware of all the depths of the
Genome Builder 2.0 and the techniques it uses. That is the reason
why they are more cautious making the full switch. Only time and
practical proven successes can drag them over the final line of
becoming a full admirer.
Scenario II: Opens with the question;
~ What will be the future properties of Crowd Internet? ~
Inhibitors
Crowd issues:
Acceptance:
- Is the internet worthy in content?
- Is the new internet integrated into the old?
- Are enough people willing to participate in it when launched?
- What about battery life of the mobile devices?
Usability:
- How do we navigate through the new internet versions?
- Can we access the old internet as well
- How is the personal information of my device shown?
Security:
- Is the content on my mobile device safe from other users?
- What about the sensitive information like my whereabouts?
45
I T E R AT I O N I
Legal:
- Who is responsible for hosting illegal sharing?
Drivers
Crowd issues:
Acceptance:
- New opportunities for an original internet that gets more closed up
by law as downloading becomes illegal
Usability:
- New opportunities
Security:
- The server changes of host, and so hacking the foundation of the
internet should be harder
Uncertainty
46
Legal:
- New laws are necessary to be created, give a second try on the
modern internet
Acceptance
Legal
Security
Usability
Importance
Fig.2.14: Importance & uncertainty of scenario II
I T E R AT I O N I
Acceptance
pro
Square
Dare devil
Security
against
Security
pro
Acceptance
against
Fig.2.15: Two main scopes of scenario II
Dare devil: Technology geeks and gadget enthusiasts will be more
than willing to participate in a project as such. As they want to work
on the front where all innovation happens, they actively seek out new
ventures.
Whether or not the system is top save, is no real big issue for them.
They are aware of it and use it as such. Confidence will grow as they
find out that development takes the project further.
Square: This group is not so active in seeking out new technologies
as their counterparts do. It makes them more of a “wait and see” kind
of people. Eventually, with the right product growth, they might get on
board.
Scenario III: Opens with the question;
~ What will be the future properties of Crowdʼed Hospital? ~
Inhibitors
Crowd issues:
Acceptance:
- Is it safe to use?
- How is research funded
47
I T E R AT I O N I
Usability:
- Are the doctors qualified?
- Is the hardware to experimental?
Security:
- How does the companyʼs experience and inside information kept
safe?
Legal:
- Who is to blame for bad organ designs?
- Are tweaks in the original design illegal?
- Is it accepted by heath care?
Drivers
48
Crowd issues:
Acceptance:
- In need of an organ
- Shorter waiting lists
- Start a company
- Can individually participate in the process
Usability:
- Easily accessible
- Research internet status
Security:
- Company name is immediately referenced to the internet
Legal:
- Provides a window for change in modern legal issues as the crowd
can vote for change by just using this system
I T E R AT I O N I
Legal
Acceptance
Uncertainty
Usability
Security
Importance
Fig.2.16: Importance & uncertainty of scenario III
Acceptance
pro
In need
Visionaries
Legal
against
49
Legal
pro
Acceptance
against
Fig.2.17: Importance & uncertainty of scenario III
Visionaries: The crowd in this scenario really wants to use the new
service that is offered. After legal issues have been dealt with, the
user can start to build up a trust foundation for this new system.
As users of a new system they can make use of the new
opportunities that will arise as tweaks are being made to original
human body parts.
I T E R AT I O N I
In need: This crowd is in need of medical attention but is not yet able
to have it due to long waiting lists. The new companies formed within
the crowd can offer a solution to them, nevertheless legal issues
prohibits them. Whether they are short on money, or health care
forbids such treatments, they are prohibited to make use of this new
medical solution.
~ What will be the future properties of TNT Crowd Company? ~
“This project has been setup for the potential use with the EcoCurrency. Furthermore this is an interesting field for decision making
and as a bonus, it suits the original project description. Later on in
the report this will change considering the advances made during the
iterations.”
Inhibitors
50
Crowd issues:
Acceptance:
- Sponsors might not have a commitment to the company as the
stakeholder “farmer” has
- Hard to reach the farmer as technology is needed for this
- How is good communication maintained?
Usability:
- Farmers need an introduction to a computer
- Companies might use it for personal gain
- What is the project fails?
Security:
- What is the crowd acts as a company?
- Who can hack that status in the system?
Legal:
- What illegal deals can be made by the stakeholders?
- How can it be made mandatory for the companies to participate?
- What if the investment points, Eco-Currency, is not reached?
I T E R AT I O N I
Drivers
Crowd issues:
Acceptance:
- Stakeholders are connected
- Farmers can seek out new opportunities that might be even more
profitable
- Build for a greater future
Usability:
- Online CV of your company
- Gateway for companies to maintain fabrication methods?
Security:
- Process of the undertaking reviewed by the crowd
Legal:
- Give an opportunity to sell shares?
Acceptance
Uncertainty
Usability
Legal
Security
Importance
Fig.2.18: Importance & uncertainty of scenario IV
51
I T E R AT I O N I
Acceptance
pro
Eco-go
Usability
against
Usability
pro
Eco-no
Acceptance
against
Fig.2.19: Importance & uncertainty of scenario IV
52
Eco-go: The acceptance of the model is growing easily as more
farmers get provided with the technology to maintain communication
with stakeholders. Considering communication is key, the model has
to perfect this and stimulate companies to use it. Although legal
issues are great, the system will ultimately be successful or not
depending on the level of communication.
The farmers in this scenario are eager to explore new ways and
therefore want to participate in conservation. Nevertheless they also
want to make money and therefore see the benefit of being
connected to a large financial market.
Eco-no: Here the farmers have a hard time, or a hard head in using
the communication tool offered to them. The step from practical to
digital, and vise versa is to big for them. Mediators could offer a
solution as they manage a specific region that is represented online.
Exhibition scenarios: The scenarios are worked out to be
presented at the midterm exhibition as they are displayed in
appendix II
I T E R AT I O N I
2.5 Expert evaluation
Evaluation by experts active in the field of wisdom of the crowd
platform have helped gaining insights on the validity of these
scenarios as they will be described below.
~ Bas Reus, Social Tech Manager at Favela Fabric ~
Playful interaction: Mister Reus clearly stated that the future of
wisdom of the crowd systems would more and more depend on
playful interactions like games. He highly recommends awarding the
crowd with values like appreciation and recognition instead of giving
them a money price. A game would allow an initiator of a wisdom of
the crowd system to these values more easily considering they are
the foundation of regular games.
Alternative currencies: When discussing the Eco-Currency, Mister
Reus gave an example of raising a different kind of currency or
actually a value. He notes that soldiers and officers in the army have
ranks, but that the weigher of a promoted soldiers does not differ that
much from a lower class soldier. The soldiers are motivated to get a
promotion through rank and respect they get from peers. Also the job
itself is a driver concerning that the promoted soldier gets more
responsibility. This might not be a driver for everyone, just as more
respect from peers does not have to be, but it could effect a large
portion of the group to be stimulated in carrying out their function the
best they can.
~ Maurits Kreijveld, client & project leader of future study of wisdom
of the crowd at “Stichting Toekomstbeeld der Techniek” ~
Variation of decision making: Mister Kreijveld confirmed that there
is a high value in a diversity of decision making models relative to the
goal they are used for. The relation was set between political
systems and systems used online. As even nowadays we have many
forms of democracy, and even dictatorships. Concerning to the
Genome Builder 2.0 concept this could be of high value when it
could ad genes to the entire evolving genome.
53
I T E R AT I O N I
2.6 Reflection
This orienting iteration gave a clear perspective on the depth that
coincides with decision making. Clearly many studies are done, and
still can be done to fully understand the deeper roots of human
motivations and actions, especially with the more recent online
personification of people.
A key feature that has been discovered is the value of multiple
decision making models. Not only for users, but also for the initiators
as all people, and every project differs from one an other. The
Genome Builder therefore seems to be a step in the right direction as
it offer stability in the form of a model, and still the flexibility for
personal preference and choice.
54
Many possibilities present themselves for future innovations when
dealing with the wisdom of the crowd. However it has been chosen
to focus on the near future, and the technologies that exist today, or
in the near future to make the roadmap towards these new goals
more easily recognizable.
The gene and genome method are a good way to research data
because it can transform a great amount of data into a few
sentences. As a concept it has the benefit of flexibility and a new
form of control. This as both the crowd and the initiator can appeal to
the workings of the wisdom of the crowd system.
55
E N D O F I T E R AT I O N I
I T E R AT I O N I I
56
“Whatever is unknown is magnified” (Publius Cornelius Tacitus) V
Photo by Lois Reinert
I T E R AT I O N I I
3.Iteration II
Iteration II
A SWOT analysis concludes the numerous concept given in the
previous iteration to just the most important, backed up by
arguments.
This iteration will furthermore have a more hands on approach as
test are developed and acted out with the help of probes. This in
order to further the development of the concepts from the previous
iteration.
As a more final concept is developed, the first tests can be found in
this chapter. Naturally all evolutions are considered with experts as
they can be found in this second iteration.
57
I T E R AT I O N I I
3.1 Methodology
The first iteration will start with answering the sub-questions as they
were stated earlier. This will result in an in depth knowledge which in
turn would give rise to three design scenarios. Presenting this at the
mid-term exhibition and an expert evaluation would provide me with
feedback which can be analyzed in the second iteration.
58
Fig.3.1: Iteration two (Analysis, Conceptualization, Realization & Evaluation)
3.2 Feedback analysis
The feedback that Bas Reus gave concerning a reward for the crowd
with appreciation and recognition instead of price money is
interesting considering a game naturally possesses these elements.
As many people invest a lot of time and effort in getting status within
a game, practically for just the return of fun and recognition. This
could be an interesting approach for an Eco-Currency concept.
Mister Kreijveld noted that the richness of modern day political
structures could influence the Genome Builder concept. As for each
different wisdom of the crowd websiteʼs problem, there is a different
approach for addressing the crowd.
3.3 Scenario selection
In order to from downsize the three scenarios, plus an additional
scenario for the Eco-Currency concept, a SWOT analysis (XXV) is
performed for all concepts. This should give a clear overview of all
I T E R AT I O N I I
the positive and negative points of the concept, enabling a selection
of the best, or a merger of the best features into one. The aim is to
end up with one decision model concept and one Eco-Currency
concept.
SWOT analysis: The SWOT analysis shows arguments for and
against the different concepts as is seen in appendix III. From the
SWOT an analysis can be made on which two concepts could be
complementary as it is stated in the first iteration that the decision
model chosen for the system is key for the success of such a
system.
The “Crowdʼed Hospital” soon gives way as it does not address the
ecological issues stated for the Eco-Currency at all. The same thing
can be said for the “Causality” and “Crowd Internet” concept. As the
“Causality” concept could be part of the structure of a wisdom of the
crowd system. The “Crowd Internet” concept does stimulate
communication what could be valuable as an open source of
communication that in its turn could stimulate the market. However
that is a research on itʼs own. The “Genome Builder” and “Crowd
Reality Game” concepts are compatible as the former is more of a
structural concept and the latter is more of a visual concept of
potential the same structural concept.
The two concepts are complementary as the threat for the “Genome
Builder” is that people might make mistakes in selecting a certain
genes or genomes. Besides the crowd trying to filter this out, the
crowd is actively experiencing what their changes to the system
cause in the game, and so makes the crowd more aware of their
mistakes and the consequences.
Emergent systems: Implementing the trend of the community
gaining more control over the wisdom of the crowd system, the
concept should appeal to more people. The “Genome Builder”
enables this trend to be implemented with the game. As the crowd
can modify, suggest and vote off different options of the game.
Genome Builder cards probe: The Genome builder concept will be
tested by making cards on which different solutions of the questions;
What?, Who?, Why? and How? Are displayed. On the back of the
59
I T E R AT I O N I I
cards the solutions are described shortly. This functionality of the
cards represents the portion that could be chosen by the crowd when
they modify the programming of a website. A finished function-set
that contains all the main questions is called a string. An example of
the cards is visible below in figure 3.2.
60
Fig.3.2: Genome Cards concept-probe
Genome Game: Besides this game containing the Genome Builder,
further functionality has not been established till thus far. Therefore a
brainstorm was organized with people from different disciplines
representing the diversity of the crowd, and a different source
solution then from a designer. The four persons in question have a
background in; management, urban design, sociology and
economics. The former has extensive board game experience and is
therefore especially valuable to this team. To maintain some control,
and oversee the progress I took part in this brainstorm as well.
The game should in general be played as Farmville.com is played. A
relative simple layout with integrated communication with a social
networking site like Facebook.com.
Below here there are several quotes that were taken from the
brainstorm about what the game should look like after the idea of the
Genome Builder was explained to the participants.
~ Periodically based game for continuing testing of ideas ~
I T E R AT I O N I I
In order to maintain testing of concepts, the game must allow a
periodic reset. Initially this was thought to be on a fixed base. But
later this was changed to a self-killing system. This means that there
are several tables that a player could be assigned to. Here one plays
the game with all the alterations this local crowd suggests. The
longer the game can run the better this local crowd is performing in
making suitable changes in the game. When the game ends in
bankruptcy or in total devastation of nature, the table resets, and the
players are organized randomly over all the available tables.
~ Initiator law ~
Certain laws within the game can be forced by the initiator of the
system to test out certain principles and concepts. Naturally these
can be voted of as well as they are still open to the crowd due to the
genome builder.
~ Corporate strategy ~
If one individual within the crowd is good in economic growth of his
business, but less in the ecological growth. Contracts could be
signed with other players to maintain a good balance between nature
and economics. This could lead to an effect as we see today as the
western world is prospering with technology, as third world countries
do not. But nevertheless these third world countries do often possess
the greatest amounts of ecological value. This division is not wanted
considering that local ecological prosperity is stronger in dealing with
pollution. (XVIII) Therefore a rule within the game might be that building
green around the business could give more income. Then
cooperation between individuals within the crowd is still beneficial.
3.5 User testing
Because both concepts are bound to each other, this first test will try
to determine the functionality of the Genome builder concept. The
outcome of this test should determine the potential of the two
becoming a worthwhile undertaking.
61
I T E R AT I O N I I
Realize: By printing cards that illustrate the different functionalities.
People can make different strings for an existing website. The cards
are low fidelity in order to serve as a probe. (III)
The different colors help the user recognize what type of card he or
she is holding. There are many potential options, and so many cards
and therefore it could be hard to find the right one.
Along with the prefabricated cards, every main question has a
number of empty cards in its deck to allow the user to create their
own cards and expend the system.
62
User test #1: Before the test actually began, all test subjects were
introduced with the website; www.denationaledialoog.nl. They were
asked to register and try to use the websiteʼs different functions. The
website itself is a place where the crowd is used to give ideas, and
talk about concepts initiated by the initiator in this case being the
government. People can start their own topic by sending a letter and
acquiring support from the crowd. The topics mostly concern political
issues that concern the public. The test subjects were asked to
browse around and see whether they would like to chance certain
aspects of it.
After this introduction all 24 people in total are asked to perform a
website research with the genome builder concept. This means they
get a standard layout of the Genome Builder cards as the website is
now, and can adapt it by their wishes. The standard layout is seen in
appendix IV along with the alterations the test subjects made when
using the Genome Builder cards.
The test subjects were gathered within the community of Eindhoven
and Groningen outside the direct influence of the TU/Industrial
Design. This was done intentionally because the test should give
answers for people who do not question every single layout and
function as a designer is trained to do so.
As is seen in appendix IV, the functional layout consists out of four
main themes as is the case with the website. The following four
themes within the website mean:
#
I T E R AT I O N I I
Talk along: This theme handles certain topics on which
the public or the crowd can react upon. The crowd can
give ideas and search for solutions. The best ideas are
offered to the government and can be transformed to a
lobby, which is theme four.
Take part: Here the crowd is asked to share their plans
and find support from the crowd. The aimed result is that
the crowd will then realize this goal in the physical world.
Co-design: Experts and opinion makers share their
concepts on the website, where the crowd on itʼs turn can
react upon them and discuss about it. The hope is that the
experts come to new insights and ideas and publish their
new findings in articles and newspapers.
Lobbyʼs: Start a lobby with a solution written down in the
form of a letter and post this in the website. Co-write with
other people their letters in order to improve them, as they
will do so in return as well. Find at least 50 people to join and support
the letter and the case will be offered to the governmentʼs office;
public matters. After they read the letter they will reply with a answer
to the initiators, being the crowd in this instance.
Results test #1: Prior to the introduction of the Genome Builder
cards only two persons wanted to change a function on the website.
This lack of change might be because they are not that familiar with
the website, as a regular user is and therefore did not see any fitting
change. Or they simply submit to a well aesthetically designed
website as being well developed.
Nevertheless the contrast is significant when these results are
compared with the alterations people made with the help of the
Genome Builder cards. As when testing with probes, the probes are
often not aesthetic and focussed on the functionality of the system
only. The cards make it possible for every aesthetic wisdom of the
crowd system to be analyzed as if with a probe.
Even through play the test subjects discovered that other options are
possible for the functionality of the website, and this got them going
63
I T E R AT I O N I I
into changing more. The details of the quantity and quality of the
changes is discussed in the next paragraph.
Additions
Changed
What?
18% | 100%
How?
26% | 69%
29% | 60%
Who?
27% | 65%
64
Why?
Fig.3.3: User test results
The image above shows the changes that were made with the
genome cards. Most of the changes are “Who?” (29%) and
“Why?” (27%) based. From these “Who?” and “Why?” questions,
relatively 60% and 65% are new additions to the website.
User test #2: The second user test concerned the Genome card
game played by two of my friends and me. The simple probe like
cards are included, along with the initial version of the game. The
main mission for this test is to find out whether or not people can
work with the genome cards concept within other platforms like
games. Considering the cards are rooted in the decision making,
they should function within any system where decisions have to be
made.
I T E R AT I O N I I
The first version of the game is shown below in figure 3.4. The game
exists out of islands with 6 edges. Every edge is a potential
connection for another resource. The resources; grain, wood,
bronze, oil, water, rice, gold, metal and wool are distributed over the
entire playing field by shuffling them and randomly laying them down.
The central bank, glaciers, rainforest and united nations are special
cards for which the players can make rules by using the genome
cards. For each element attached to a village / city, the players get a
resource card (see figure 3.4 lower left corner for an example) every
turn.
65
Fig.3.4: Genome Game (take I)
Each player starts with one village and the surrounding resources.
Villages can evolve into great cities in four steps. Each step costs
resources predefined by the players with the genome cards. For
soldiers / scouts the same decision has to be made ahead of the
game. The soldier / scout its role is to explore new terrain, after
I T E R AT I O N I I
which the islands can be turned facing with the image upwards.
These newly discovered resources are then distributed only once to
the player who sent the scout. Only a village can give the players a
permanent income from this new source.
The soldier role is for defense or attack of a city / resource. This way
players can maintain the growth of other players, of stimulate their
own. No territory is really owned by any player, only defended.
The small buttons in red and green with the numbers inside them
resemble the balance between economy and ecology. As for
example in the picture the numbers 6 & 7 are displayed. This means
that this player has six city points (red) and 7 ecology points (green).
66
Each resource is valued with one point, destroying one costs the
player a ecology point. The villages can evolve four times, and are
therefore worth four points at their maximum evolution. The player
with the largest number of resources linked to his or her cities get
three pint bonus. As the player with the largest cities gets one extra
bonus point. This can help players achieve the winning number of
points faster, as they have decided the necessary number of points
to win, before the game started.
Results test #2: Before the test started their was no prior set up of
how the islands are supposed to be placed before playing, aside for
every island connected to the first city. The players came up with this
triangular shaped solution with only the initial city platform and
balance island exposed.
After this first step, the players made rules
for as many situations as they could
imagine being necessary. No political
decision were made considering the players
probably did not know what to expect.
Instead they determined what the costs
were of each decision in the game as
evolving a city and building a soldier /
scout.
Fig.3.5: Genome Game user test placement
I T E R AT I O N I I
As the game progressed, the table became a mess with cards as
can be seen in the image below. Genome cards rules, resource
cards in the bank, and resource cards of the players made the
gameplay difficult. Also because the players continuously had to look
at the cards at the far end of the table to see what rule their action
has to deal with.
67
Fig.3.6: Genome Game user test
During the game there were two political decisions made by the
players in consensus as it shows in figure 3.7.
The first decision was to move the army of the “United Nations”. As
the players decided that with the island of the United Nations the
player that controls this island gets three free armies to its disposal.
The armies can be transported all three at the same time, as with
normal soldiers the resources have to be paid for each soldier
individually.
The second rules was for controlling growth of an individual players
as he builds to many cities to fast, and with a lack of environmental
conscience. Therefore the person who has build four city points, has
I T E R AT I O N I I
Fig.3.7: Genome Game user test
68
to pay three resource cards to the bank each turn. This limits the
potential of that player to grow as he did before and so balance the
changes among the players.
The second rules was for controlling growth of an individual players
as he builds to many cities to fast, and with a lack of environmental
conscience. Therefore the person who has build four city points, has
to pay three resource cards to the bank each turn. This limits the
potential of that player to grow as he did before and so balance the
changes among the players.
Both decisions were made via consensus, and caused the end result
of two players finishing close in points. Nearly the whole card map
was exposed and played on by the players.
3.6 Scenario modeling (take II)
The two concepts from iteration are now developed into two more
proven concepts. The first being the genome cards, the second is the
genome game that includes the genome cards enabling the players
I T E R AT I O N I I
to make the rules. The text below described the scenario modeling
for both concepts.
Scenario IV: Opens with the question;
~ What will be the future properties of Genome Builder as a card
set? ~
Inhibitors
Crowd issues:
Acceptance:
- Can every user access these cards? (price)
- Are the cards easy to learn how to work with?
- Who decides over the final functionality when the cards are drawn?
Usability:
- Are there to many cards for the user to choose from?
- Are the messages on the cards clear to the user
- What are the cards durability?
- Are there enough cards in the deck?
- How can an user submit a new card?
Security:
- Can an initiator maintain focus on the mission of its project?
Legal:
- What are the rights of new submissions for new card topics?
Drivers
Crowd issues:
Acceptance:
- The cards have a simple layout and are aesthetic
Usability:
- The cards have a clear and simple message
- The method opens up the user to the functionality
- The cards offer a roadmap for future undertakings
69
I T E R AT I O N I I
- Easily altering a system by changing cards
- Interactive and visual for a whole group to work with
Security:
- Create a groundwork for a project
Legal:
- Easily make variations on patented systems
Acceptance
Uncertainty
Usability
Security
Legal
70
Importance
Fig.3.8: Importance & uncertainty of scenario IV
Acceptance
pro
Bold
Usability
against
Usability
pro
Fear
Acceptance
against
Fig.3.9: Two main scopes of scenario IV
I T E R AT I O N I I
Bold: A company with the eyes on the future decides to start a new
wisdom of the crowd website. To plan the functionality of this system,
they use the Genome Builder cards to map the whole system. As
they do they determine who has the control over what function string.
This way the company is in control, but gives the crowd the freedom
they want considering the trend of transparency and freedom of
websites that is currently growing on the internet.
Fear: This initiator of a wisdom of the crowd website also has his eye
on the future but is afraid to give the crowd to much control. They do
wish to benefit from the strength of the crowd as they can deliver in
great numbers, but fear the quality of the crowd as it comes to key
systems like managing a website.
Scenario V: Opens with the question;
~ What will be the future properties of Genome Game? ~
Inhibitors
Crowd issues:
Acceptance:
- Is the game still fun?
- Are the users smart enough to make the rules of the game?
- Is the game expensive?
- How many players can play together?
Usability:
- What if the players cant reach consensus about a new rule?
- Which rules are permanent?
- Which rules can be changed?
- How long will the game take to play?
- Is the game familiar enough in the basic rules to be played by the
masses?
- Is the playing field as a bard game stable enough for real play?
Security:
- Are player vulnerable to get singled out?
71
I T E R AT I O N I I
Drivers
Crowd issues:
Acceptance:
- The basic game resembles other popular games
- The game is less dependent on chance
- The game has more depth then most other board games
- Each game is different which can create more excitement
- The game can be expended with other islands with unique
functions and abilities
Usability:
- The players can define their own parameters
Security:
- Players can limit a game from being won easily by an individual by
making rules
72
Acceptance
Uncertainty
Usability
Security
Legal
Importance
Fig.3.10: Importance & uncertainty of scenario V
From the graph above, two subjects are selected that reach the
furthest in the upper right corner, as that illustrates a great
importance and a great uncertainty. These two subject are divided
into the pros & cons as is seen below. The names in the quadrant
suggest the scope the scenario should focus upon. As in this case it
I T E R AT I O N I I
will focus on the pros of acceptance and usability, and the cons of
acceptance alongside the pro of usability.
Acceptance
pro
Game Proʼs
Usability
against
Usability
pro
New gamers
Acceptance
against
Fig.3.11: Two main scopes of scenario V
Game Professionals: This group is well known with both online and
boardgames. They like to take on the risk of a game where the rules
can change and see this as a challenge. These experienced players
like to make the game as complex as they can handle and aim make
this game last for hours.
New gamers: Newbies as they are called by the more experienced
gamers might resist to a game without every rule being preset.
Unless one of the more experience players takes control, these
layers will not pick up the game.
3.6 Expert evaluation
~ Bas Reus, Social Tech Manager at Favela Fabric ~
Test #1 expert evaluation: Mister Reus acknowledged most of the
adjustments made by the Genome cards as valid, and added that the
website has not been updated since it was finished a couple years
ago. The website was built on demand from the government and
therefore was a single investment for both parties. If the site would
get updated, the changes the crowd recommended would have been
73
I T E R AT I O N I I
included as test done by him and his team came up with the same
answers. Below here is a graph that shows the acknowledgments of
Mister Reus on the changed made by the crowd.
Changed total (- added)
18%
Appreciated change
Additions
Appriciated additions
50%
18%
60%
Fig.3.12: Change & appreciation results from user test
Mister Reus further added that the genome cards could be used to
serve as a tool for brainstorming when a new project is launched. He
therefore also asked me for a deck of cards for him to use when this
project is finished.
~ Mister Wieleman, former director of ABN Amro Netherands ~
74
Mister Wieleman from ABN showed his fear for letting the crowd
control a wisdom of the crowd system. He came with the example of
an estimate by the crowd which goes as follows; mister Wieleman
asked a group of people to estimate the contents of a bag with
sweets. They all did, but where far off from the actual number of
sweets inside the bag.
This example shows parallels with the example used earlier in this
report when the weight of an animal was estimated by the crowd.
Nevertheless the estimate of the crowd in this example was
compared with the estimate of experts. In this case the crowd did
better then the experts. It would be interesting when experts would
have made an estimate just like the crowd in mister Wielemanʼs test.
Following by a comparison between the crowd - the experts and the
factual contents of the bag of sweets.
When this difference was offered to mister Wieleman, a better
understanding of the genome cards came to light. Especially the
designer active within the design team at ABN could see the
I T E R AT I O N I I
potential of using the cards to give control away, in a controlled
environment of the genome cards.
Finally some of the users suggested that these cards lacked the
functionality of letting the crowd change the new string they have
made, and the matter in which this is done.
Test #2 expert evaluation: Tho two players of the genome game
both have extensive knowledge of both online and boardgames.
Therefore they can be considered as experts, and also because they
are users in a user focussed research.
The game should have more rules written down at the start of the
game. Trading, moving a soldier and building a city should already
be decided. This would make it more realistic and less of an hassle
when players start the game.
The rules that are made during the game, or rules that are changed
during the game should be on a fixed point, for example at the start
of each round. This makes it possible for all players to prepare for
the upcoming rules, and makes singling out a player more difficult.
The game should have less resources as it has now. Besides the
practicality of this during play, it also better fits the simplified
representation of the real world.
There should be more organizations included like the united nations
and the international bank to give the game more diversity and
unsuspected plot twists.
Finally the players offered an idea that is based on the cultural
differences of people. By giving each player a different cultural
background, variations in resources paid for evolutions of cities etc.
could be made.
3.8 Reflection
As the Genome cards at first started out as a probe, it soon became
a concept as feedback from the users and experts were very positive
about the possibilities it offers. Therefore the term concept-probe
75
I T E R AT I O N I I
came to be. Narrowing down the ideas into fewer concepts actually
gave rise to a new concept thanks to the iterative design process.
The strength of the Genome cards strongly influenced the progress
of the rest of the project as the awareness of its potential grew. The
Genome cards easily allow user and initiators to analyze a wisdom of
the crowd system, and also allow them to control a system.
Creating a game along with the cards turned out to be more difficult
then expected as it became chaotic and hard to play because of all
the cards and loose ends. This opened up a great respect for gameconstruction as it is often taken for granted how fun and easy a game
is to play.
76
77
E N D O F I T E R AT I O N I I
I T E R AT I O N I I I
78
“Nothing is more difficult, and therefore more precious,
than to be able to decide.” (Napoleon Bonaparte)
Photo by Lois Reinert
I T E R AT I O N I I I
4.Iteration III
Iteration III
This third and final iteration will include the last extrapolations made
from research done in the past iterations. Findings and conclusion
have forced the concepts and ideas to evolve into a set of three
concepts. Each one of them is explained and illustrated in the
following chapter.
Furthermore the initial research question with which the first iteration
started are reviewed again in comparison with the final concepts.
This will show the progress the concepts have made and the
futuristic abilities they possess.
79
I T E R AT I O N I I I
4.1 Methodology
By using the feedback, the final proposition can be drawn. An expert
evaluation and a reflection will conclude this design research project.
Fig.4.1: Iteration three (Analysis, Conceptualization, Realization &
Evaluation)
80
4.2 Feedback analysis
The genome cards function as an eye opener for users in being able
to change the functionality of a website. Using the cards help them to
get despatched from the aesthetic website and look solely on the
functionality.
Considering this card probe was made with cards, it sometimes was
a hassle for people to find the right cards they were looking for.
Nevertheless a online version could and should function better as
information can be organized better this way.
The Genome cards have gone from probe to concept as two experts
already showed interest in using this method for brainstorming ahead
of starting a wisdom of the crowd system. Along with the game this
project then counts three concepts.
Users suggested that the cards should have a functionality that
shows how the strings can be changed by the crowd. This iteration
I T E R AT I O N I I I
will deal with this problem considering this is a viable argument as
the concept relies on the crowd having control over the functionality.
The Genome game should be drastically simplified if it should be fun
to play. There was to much happening on the table outside the game
and therefore some elements have to go.
Rules should be added at fixed points within the game, as the
players like to prepare for a new decision string being added.
Variations and plot twists can be stimulated with more special cards
like the UN and international bank.
The players will not play for a different culture, because this makes
the game more complex again, as it is already on the edge of an
easy to play game due to all the factors build in.
Genome Builder back-end concept take #2: This concept was
formerly known as the Genome Builder. This has been changed due
to the recognition in the name as website nowadays already have a
back-end where user can modify the layout of a website.
Nevertheless this is only accessible for a select community, and does
not include the crowd.
It has been proven through the probes in the last iteration that the
Genome cards can work with the crowd, the cards can be digitalized
for even a larger mass. With digitalizing the cards it means that the
cards are transcribed to the web. As the options and functionality of a
website can be modified by the crowd by using the website back-end
that includes the Genome cards functions as they are presented in
this iteration and in appendix V.
4.3 Final proposition
Genome Cards: This card deck contains two types of cards. The
first is the type with the main questions; Who?, What?, Why? and
How?. The user can select out of many variations in answers for
these questions, and thus make a functional roadmap of the wisdom
of the crowd system that gets analyzed or build. How the user can do
this is described on a card delivered with this deck. It explains in
81
I T E R AT I O N I I I
steps how function- strings as one of
them is seen on the right here are made.
The second type are the smaller cards
that say who can control this functionstring. This extra option is especially
important for those organizations that
fear giving control away to the
crowd, as here they can
determine how much
control they are
willing to give away
and in what manner.
82
Genome Game: Most
games have a predetermined set of rules,
and players often expect
this to be the case.
However, inspired by the
trend of the crowd gaining
control, this game originates
as a test scenario where it is
researched whether it is
possible to apply the genome cards to
another system then a wisdom of the
crowd service as is commonly know on
websites.
The box of the game contains the
genome card deck, the game islands,
resource cards and pawns for each
player. The islands that make up the
playing field are shown in the picture
below.
The islands can be placed by the
following patterns as this is also
described in the rules of the game
delivered with the box.
Fig.4.2: Genome Cards
I T E R AT I O N I I I
83
Fig.4.3: Genome Game
Fig.4.4a: Genome Game configurations
I T E R AT I O N I I I
Fig.4.4b: Genome Game configurations
84
The islands each have a different meaning. Nevertheless there is a
bipartition; there are resource cards and special cards. The special
cards consist out of cities, war islands, no build islands and special
ability islands. All the islands are described below as the resource
islands are explained first.
Fig.4.5: Genome Game resources
When a city is connected to an island as is seen above, the players
can get the corresponding resource card for it with every turn. Each
card shows a -1 that means that the player has to take one point of
its total when he or she decides to build a city on this fertile ground,
or when the player is acting out war over this island. Oil has a -2 sign
because it is a precious resource. For each resource island
connected to a city, the player receives a point.
I T E R AT I O N I I I
Fig.4.6: Genome Game Resource cards
Above the resource cards are shown as the player receives them
from the bank. These can be exchanged with the bank to build cities,
move a pawn, build a resource island and start a war. The cost of
these investments are shown on the islands as can be seen in the
pictures below.
85
Fig.4.7 Genome Game city islands
The first city gives the player the opportunity to select 3 resource
cards every turn. These have to be the kind that is connected to the
playerʼs island. When he or she pays for the evolution that is marked
on the island, the income of goods gets higher. From level three on
the player also receives an extra defense dice. This matters when
the players are at war using the war island. The first city gives the
owner one city point, and with each evolution a point is added up to
the maximum of four.
The war island costs are relatively high because
diplomacy is wanted instead of war. When a player
does decide to bring war, he pays the resources
necessary and that allows him to throw three times
with three dices. The winner is decided with the
best out of three throws, summing up the total eyes
on the dices with every throw and scoring them to
the opponent. The defensing party get to defend
with two dices, unless he has evolved the city that
Fig.4.8: War
island
I T E R AT I O N I I I
is attacked beyond level two. In that case this player can defend with
three dices. The war island will stay on the board until the player
whom paid for the island is on turn again in the next round. This
offers the player that is attacked the opportunity to attack the players
that attacked him. War islands can be placed anywhere on the board
at any time within the turn of a player.
War scorches the earth, and therefore ruins the
resource beneath it. In the game this means that
after the war is over, a no build island has to be
placed. On this island there can only be more war,
until a player pays for a new resource as is
described on the island.
Fig.4.9: No Build island
86
For both the rainforest and the
glacier islands it means that when
a players destroys them, the
player gets two penalty points.
When a city is next to a rainforest,
this player can collect a resource
of his or her choice from the bank.
Fig.4.10: Rainforest & Glaciers
The glacier gives the player an
islands
extra defend dice at all times for
all cities. All special islands and resource islands can be shared by
the players. This gives an extra twist in the game as competition is
bound with the special cards.
Fig.4.11 Special islands
The islands above are the most special islands in the game. The
United Nations island allows the players connected to it to exchange
a resource card out of his deck with the bank with every turn. The
central bank island allows a player to get one resource card of
I T E R AT I O N I I I
choice from each player at the table every turn. For both the United
Nations island, as for the central bank island it takes three winning
strikes with three war islands to destroy the special island. However,
the winning strikes do not have to be coming from just one player, as
each player can attack the island and try to stop the enemy. The
Greenpeace island however cannot be destroyed because the
compassion of Greenpeace cant be eliminated. This island gives the
players the ability to protest against an action of an enemy at any
time of the game. For example when a player wants to evolve a city,
a player connected to the Greenpeace island can prevent this from
happening. This is only allowed for one turn, and can be countered
when the other player is connected to the Greenpeace island as well.
Special cards are not recognized as victory point except for the
glaciers and rainforest which give the player two extra points for
each island.
Players can move the pawn over the islands by paying
one oil and a wool resource. This can be done an
unlimited number of times during each turn. With this
pawn new cities can be created as the resources
connected to the pawn are open for building upon by the
player. A pawn can not be attacked or lost at any time. It
is possible for two or more pawns to be positioned on
the same island, and even on a city.
Fig.4.12 Pawn
The genome cards are played and added at every start of a playing
round, and will only take effect the round after allowing players to
prepare for the potential damage that a decision can do. With small
numbers as it is with a total number of players below six, all the
players have to agree on the new ruling. From six players on
however the genome cards will be taken to the next step. Voting for a
new decision string is then an option because of the greater number,
and the possibly of players to play together in teams.
When a player cannot exchange a resource card with a fellow player,
he or she can exchange four cards out of his or her deck with the
bank for a resource of choice. This can be done an unlimited amount
of times during a players turn.
87
I T E R AT I O N I I I
As is dictated in the rules of the game sheet that comes with this
game, players are forced to think of the balance between economy
and ecology. Players can make rules for example that the balance
between city points and nature point should be equal at least. If not
so, the players that do not honor this get a penalty of some kind
decided by the players.
An online version of this game would allow even greater number
then six as tables can be created more easily because more players
are available.
Genome back-end: Below here an example is shown of the
Genome back-end with the website denationaledialoog.nl. The
website looks as at always did but for one thing.
88
Fig.4.13 Genome Builder
A logo of the Genome back-end is shown on the upper right corner.
This allows the user to recognize the Genome back-end possibilities,
and that this is implemented in this website.
I T E R AT I O N I I I
By clicking on the icon, the user is taken
to the login page. This is a separate login
from the website as the Genome backend is registered for one account, for all
websites that account uses. This enables
the system to test the behavior of users,
and stimulate good behavior, or punish
bad behavior. Think of this as an user is
trying to manipulate a certain rule only to
his or her favor, then this is unwanted
behavior for the crowd, and so is seen as
abuse of the system.
Fig.4.14 Genome Builder
logo
The picture below shows the login screen where the user fills in a
user name and password. This will then take him to the actual
Genome back-end. New user can register here by clicking on the
link.
89
Fig.4.15 Genome Builder login
I T E R AT I O N I I I
90
Fig.4.16 Genome Builder strings
Ones logged in, the user sees the function strings of the website he
or she visited earlier. Beside each main question a short description
made by the initiator is shown. By clicking on more, more information
will be shown when it is available. When the log out is hit, the
questions appear whether the user wishes to log out, or to return to
the original website.
Clicking on the main questions permits the user to change choice
formerly made by the initiator. Naturally an explanation of this gene is
asked from the user.
When the user submits his or her changes, it is compared with
changes other people made in order to find duplicates. When the
changes are duplicate, they will combined, and making the
alterations will counts as a vote for the new string. When the
changes are unique, the string is added to the list of solutions,
through which the crowd can scroll through as is indicated by the
arrows.
I T E R AT I O N I I I
The bars on the upper right show the progress of the stringʼs
acceptance. It shows for example the number of people that already
have voted for or against, and the number of people that still have to
vote.
The left corner and the top show options for displaying the strings as
for example alphabetical or new releases etc.
What further connects the user is the ability to talk about the strings
by using a forum connected to every string. Everyone who is
registered can post here. This allows initiators to explain why a
certain change is bad and the other way around.
On both figure 4.16 and 4.17 the main questions have different
colored option on top of them. These options are the control
functions of the string. Here the user can select who can change the
string and how.
91
Fig.4.17 Genome Builder forum
I T E R AT I O N I I I
4.4 Expert evaluation
~ Ben Schouten, Coach ~
Mister Schouten wondered who is going to make the changes
suggested by the crowd? As he could imagine that some of the
options need expert knowledge of for example programming to
change.
This indeed could be the case, but in that instance the initiator of the
system could use the tool as a information gathering tool for their
technical staff. A hierarchical solution, with the crowd involved.
Further expert feedback will come during the final exhibition as the
expert Bas Reus, client Maurits Kreijveld and coach Ben Schouten
are invited to talk about the final concepts.
4.5 Application of the RQʼs
92
The research questions that were set
report guided the process to a final
research, all the questions posed in
reexamined and filled in relative to the
developed.
up at the beginning of this
concept. To conclude the
the first chapter are now
final concept that has been
~ What existing 'wisdom of the crowd' platforms exists that could
potentially be used? ~
The more popular and booming platform for wisdom of the crowd
networking takes place on the internet. As wisdom of the crowd
systems require fast amounts of communication and thus information
transaction, the internet has already proven as a reliable platform for
this system and for other system that have similar requirements.
The near future of wisdom of the crowd systems will continue to use
the internet as a communication means, but as the Genome Builder
concept shows in a different way. The trend of control by the crowd
will continue to spread and grow in time, and therefore the systems
will adapt to this demand.
I T E R AT I O N I I I
~ How is/will decision making (be) practiced? ~
As the research has shown, there is no single best way to deal with
decision making within a wisdom of the crowd system. This relates
with the approach used in politics as we see numerous solution of
democracy and even entirely different solutions as dictatorships.
Considering this argument, future wisdom of the crowd system will
as they do now, make use of several different decision making
models. The difference will be the control over this model. Currently
the initiator determines what decision making model is used. The
concepts thought up in this reports at least shares this with the
crowd, or lets the crowd in full control.
Mutually as important is the choice of model for the wisdom of the
crowd system and the continuity of it. As it has happened in the past
that initiators change their roadmap of the system, thus making the
users upset because they potentially do not like the changes.
By using the Genome cards, a clear view on the working of the
system is gained, and allows the initiator to suggest changes.
Considering the system is undergoing continuous changes due to
the crowds input, they should be less opposed to changes in
general. This Later has not yet been researched but is an estimation.
~ What are the possibilities of going beyond the default webinterface? ~
Using the Genome cards makes it possible to analyze existing, or
start new wisdom of the crowd systems. Therefore this option leaves
the domain of the currently ruling online medium. The future might
offer more possibilities as they are described in this report,
nevertheless this report is focussed towards a concept of the near
future where the internet will at first maintain the best position.
~ How actively involved will the participants have to be? ~
Considering the trend of increased control by the crowd, participants
will have to be involved more and more. At the same time control is
needed as the system has to stay functional.
93
I T E R AT I O N I I I
The Genome back-end provides a solution for the website based
wisdom of the crowd system. As it closely involves the users, and
allows the initiator to set the amount of control.
Furthermore the Genome back-end is a single program, applicable to
many other websites, therefore offering a recognizable standard
solution for user to control a website with.
~ What psychological and social effects contribute to decision
making? ~
These effects are just as important as the way the system deals with
it. And as so many different effects are known and expressed, a
system that properly fits the participants should address all the
effects. The power of the Genome concept is that people can add the
functionality to a system when their psychological and / or socials
needs are not met. Therefore the concept should adapt itself to the
users, and grow along with the users.
94
~ How is the decision process best organized? ~
Organization of such a system should be transparent and controlled
openly. The Genome back-end and the Genome concept in a whole
allows such control as the participants can change the decision
making process along with the functionality of the system. Initiators
can even assume a participants role and decide together with the
users.
Furthermore the different decision making models we now know for
example in politics or business could find their way to the Genome
back-end thanks to the users. This makes the system divers and
broadly applicable, just as its target group.
~ Is the collective good of the crowd an intelligent good? ~
It has been shown through research that the crowd is indeed able to
make changes that experts would do as well. Therefore it has been
confirmed that it is not the crowd that is stupid or smart or faulty, it
depends on the decision model what outcome a wisdom of the crowd
system has.
CONCLUSION
5.Conclusion
& Recommendations
Decision making is vital in a wisdom of the crowd system, as the fast
communication stream has to be managed properly. The difficulty in
this lies in the diversity of intellect and value of the input given by the
crowd.
As research furthered during this design research project, the
Genome concept nurtured three concepts that incorporate the basic
structure. All these three concepts work on the trend to give the
crowd more control, which was decided after researching current
solutions of wisdom of the crowd systems.
The genome concept works with small crowds from three persons up
to more as it was tested with the Genome Game. A larger number as
crowd could bring other points of interest to light but were not tested
in this report.
An initiator whom wants to start up a wisdom of the crowd system
should make use of the trend of the crowd wanting more control, and
therefore make use of the Genome concept considering this includes
both the freedom to the crowd, and the control over the crowd.
For companies there should not be fear to let the crowd control the
system, as with a proper decision making model the crowd can have
the freedom of choice, and still be controlled on a higher level.
95
References
Information:
I. Iterative design method, retrieved October 12th, 2010, from http://en.wikipedia.org/
wiki/Iterative_design
II. Yvonne Rogers, Helen Sharp & Jennifer J. Preece (2007). Interaction Design:
beyond human computer interaction. (p.472-577). West Sussex, England: John
Wiley & Sons Ltd.
III. A. Albrecht (TTT); M. Behrens (UGF); T. Mans- field (NPL); W. McMeechan
(Nationwide); M. Rejman-Greene (Editor, BT); M. Savasta- no (IBB), P. Statham
(CESG); C. Schmidt (TTT); B. Schouten (CWI); M. Walsh (Daon). (2003).
BIOVISION Roadmap for Biometrics in Europe to 2010). IST-2001-38236
96
IV. List of crowdsourcing websites, retrieved January 2nd, 2011, from http://
crowdsourcingexamples.pbworks.com/w/page/16668404/FrontPage
V. Quotes, retrieved January 2nd, 2011, from http://thinkexist.com/search/
searchquotation.asp?search=crowd+decision
VI. Linux and open source, retrieved January 2nd, 2011, from http://
blogs.techrepublic.com.com/opensource/?p=31
VII.Mister splashy pants, retrieved January 2nd, 2011, from http://
www.greenpeace.org/international/en/news/features/splashy-101207/
VIII.Netflix algortim price, Wikipedia, retrieved January 2nd, 2011, from http://
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Netflix_Prize
IX. Lays wisdom of the crowd concept competition, retrieved january 2nd, 2011, from
http://www.lays.nl/?gclid=CMjm192C3KQCFUSGDgodgRLe-g
X. Alan Shimel (2010). Crowd computing. Retrieved January 2nd, 2011, http://
www.networkworld.com/community/blog/crowd-computing-sounds-dangerous-me
XI. Google epidemic, retrieved January 2nd, 2011, from http://www.seoconsult.com/
seo-news/google/google-to-predict-next-flu-epidemic.html
XII.Carpica, retrieved January 2nd, 2011, from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Caprica_
(TV_series)
REFERENCES
XIII.Crowd psychology, Wikipedia, retrieved January 2nd, 2011, from http://
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crowd_psychology
XIV.Individualization, retrieved January 2nd, 2011, from http://ezinearticles.com/?
Individualization-in-Online-Marketing&id=5301389
XV.Facebook, retrieved January 2nd, 2011, from www.facebook.com
XVI.Linked in, retrieved January 2nd, 2011, from www.linkedin.com
XVII.Stefan Herzog and Ralph Hertwig, Wisdom of the crowd, retrieved January 2nd,
2011, from http://psycho.unibas.ch/en/research/research-projects
XVIII.Google: TED, Local, Farming, Retrieved January 2nd, 2011
XIX.Swarm intelligence, Wikipedia, retrieved January 2nd, 2011, from http://
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Swarm_intelligence
XX.Andrew Jeavons, Beyond crowdsourcing, retrieved January 2nd, 2011, from http://
researchaccess.com/author/andrew
XXI.Han Long Li (2003). Speltheorie en toepassingen. Vrije Universiteit Faculteit der
Exacte Wetenschappen, Studierichting Bedrijfswiskunde en Informatica (BWI)
XXII.Usman Haque. Notes on the design of participatory systems for the city or for a
planet.
XXIII.Craig Lambert (2006). The Marketplace of Perceptions. Harvard magazine
XXIV.Thomas W. Malone, Robert Laubacher, and Chrysanthos Dellarocas (2009).
Harnessing Crowds: Mapping the Genome of Collective Intelligence. MIT Center
for Collective Intelligence Massachusetts Institute of Technology Cambridge, MA
XXV.SWOT analysis, retrieved January 2nd, 2011, from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/
SWOT_analysis
Images:
1. Leafed branch, retrieved January 2nd, 2011, from http://blog.ecosmart.com/wpcontent/leaf.jpg
2. Logo “Stichting toekomstbeeld der techniek”, retrieved January 2nd, 2011, from
http://www.stt.nl/Verkenningen/
Wisdom_of_the_crowd_en_de_toekomst_van_besluitvorming.aspx?
objectName=ForesightShow&fstId=41
3. Logo mister Splashy pants, retrieved January 2nd, 2011, from http://
focussearch.com.au/blog/social-media-saving-the-whales-mr-splashy-pants/
4. Double helix, retrieved January 2nd, 2011, from http://www.chiropracticlifeblog.com/
is-it-bad-luck-bad-germs-and-bad-genes/
97
6. Lays, retrieved January 2nd, 2011, from http://www.lays.nl/
7. 3-D print of a skull, retrieved January 2nd, 2011, http://www.3dventures.com/
implants-orthopedics-maxillo-facial-3d-printing/
8. Logo Linked in, retrieved January 2nd, 2011, from http://www.frankvanderleeden.nl/
images/LinkedIn.jpg
9. Picture of an iPhone, retrieved January 2nd, 2011, from http://www.windeiphone.nl/
10.Silhouette man, retrieved January 2nd, 2011, from http://boincoid.sourceforge.net/
silhouette.jpg
11.Computer silhouette, retrieved January 2nd, 2011, from http://www.wpclipart.com/
computer/people_on_computers/At_Computer_silhouette_LCD.png
12.Computer silhouette, retrieved January 2nd, 2011, from http://cache4.assetcache.net/xc/98432024.jpg?
v=1&c=IWSAsset&k=2&d=B53F616F4B95E553C550D37E09F906E1AB4C4B1814
4DAA5A70A64D47898A66E96F12EEA9B6A8E6AF
98
13.Silhouette active people, retrieved January 2nd, 2011, from http://
www.allfreelogo.com/images/vector-thumb/active-pople-silhouettes-prev1226316753zSF152.jpg
14.Silhouette couple, retrieved January 2nd, 2011, from http://
inlinethumb56.webshots.com/7031/1089229786036056965S425x425Q85.jpg
15.Silhouette busy man, retrieved January 2nd, 2011, from http://s3.amazonaws.com/
pixmac-preview/black-silhouette-man-on-white-4.jpg
16.Samsung phone, retrieved January 2nd, 2011, from http://www.letsgomobile.org/
images/news/samsung/samsung-soulb.jpg
17.Man OK silhouette, retrieved January 2nd, 2011, from http://www.fotosearch.com/
bthumb/PHT/PHT025/PAA025000072.jpg
18.Silhouette woman with gun, retrieved January 2nd, 2011, from http://
preparednesspro.files.wordpress.com/2009/09/women-and-guns-silhouette.jpg
19.Falling man silhouette, retrieved January 2nd, 2011, from http://bethlapides.com/
images/falling.sil.jpg
20.Silhouettes, retrieved January 2nd, 2011, from http://www.dreamstime.com/royaltyfree-stock-images-silhouettes-man-and-women-vector-image1964399
21.3D-printer, retrieved January 2nd, 2011, from http://replicatorinc.com/blog/wpcontent/uploads/2009/06/desktop-factory-3d-printer2.jpg
REFERENCES
5. Logo 99designs, retrieved January 2nd, 2011, from http://99designs.com
22.Silhouette group, retrieved January 2nd, 2011, from http://www.laisietu.com/wpcontent/uploads/BusinessPeopleSilhouetteWoman.jpg
23.Silhouette desk, retrieved January 2nd, 2011, from http://www.ddk.com.au/product/
256/Silhouette_Crescent_Executive_Desk_and_Return_1_main.jpg
24.Silhouette hands, retrieved January 2nd, 2011, from http://image.shutterstock.com/
display_pic_with_logo/101406/101406,1205153711,2/stock-vector-hand-silhouetteshowing-one-two-three-four-and-five-fingers-10228537.jpg
25.Silhouette man with horse, retrieved january 2nd, 2011, from http://
image.shutterstock.com/display_pic_with_logo/222646/222646,1283869668,4/
stock-vector-silhouette-farmer-plowing-with-horse-60531703.jpg
26.Silhouette torso, retrieved January 2nd, 2011, from http://www.clker.com/cliparts/
5/9/4/c/12198090531909861341man%20silhouette.svg.med.png
27.Silhouette man with hat, retrieved January 2nd, 2011, from http://
www.bentlyagrowdynamics.com/images/peopleimage.jpg
28.Silhouette man in suit, retrieved from January 2nd, 2011, from http://www.sxc.hu/
pic/m/b/ba/barunpatro/1021575_businessman_silhouette.jpg
29.Silhouette skyline, retrieved January 2nd, 2011, from http://
image.shutterstock.com/display_pic_with_logo/283486/283486,1249140043,11/
stock-vector-building-silhouettes-34581274.jpg
30.Genome cards bear, retrieved January 2nd, 2011, from http://www.alleganyart.com/
jounal.html
31. Genome cards computer, retrieved January 2nd, 2011, from http://www.positivefeedback.com/Issue41/ca_davey.htm
32.Genome cards arrows, retrieved January 2nd, 2011, from http://
thejournalistachronicle.wordpress.com/2009/05/page/2/
33.Genome cards Michelangelo, January 2nd, 2011, from http://artchive.com/artchive/
M/michelangelo/creation.jpg.html
34.Genome cards animation, retrieved January 2nd, 2011, from http://
www.animationarchive.org/?cat=130
35.Genome cards kid with ice, retrieved January 2nd, 2011, from http://
www.chaaps.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/10/consume.png
36.Genome cards, gun in chopper retrieved January 2nd, 2011, from http://
www.guncopter.com/images/gallery/uh-1n-minigun.jpg
37.Genome cards office building, Wikipedia, retrieved January 2nd, 2011, from http://
commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/
File:RICOH_Company_Head_Office_Building_2007-1.jpg
99
38.Genome cards holding hands, retrieved January 2nd, 2011, from http://
societies.dsu.ca/pass/websiteimages/
social_software_impact_individual_organizations.jpg
39.Genome cards dancing crowd, retrieved January 2nd, 2011, from http://
www.officialpsds.com/Crowd-stock762.html
40.Genome cards man on mountain, retrieved January 2nd, 2011, from http://
www.padmaali.com/individualTherapy.htm
41.Genome cards dancing man, retrieved January 2nd, 2011, from http://
westmidlandsdance.com/
42.Genome cards man playing cards, retrieved January 2nd, 2011, from http://
www.ibiblio.org/wm/paint/auth/cezanne/players/
43.Genome cards money bag, retrieved January 2nd, 2011, from http://
www.massagemarketingmentor.com/
44.Genome cards lions, retrieved January 2nd, 2011, from http://
paginasfraternaschicoxavier.blogspot.com/2010/11/afeicoes.html
45.Genome cards hands, retrieved January 2nd, 2011, from http://www.wolf-howl.com/
seo/no-more-link-begging-4-engagement-methods-for-content-based-link-building/
100
46.Genome cards statue of liberty, retrieved January 2nd, 2011, from http://
www.digitaljournal.com/image/50702
47.Genome cards head, retrieved January 2nd, 2011, from http://www.fluxtrends.com/
web/images/stories/2010contributors/
flux_trends_cover_to_be_made_into_sticker.jpg
48.Genome cards money, retrieved January 2nd, 2011, from http://
getfreepaypalmoney.com/
49.Genome cards handshake, retrieved January 2nd, 2011, from http://
www.expresspros.com/us/jobgenius/2008/08/
50.Genome cards lighthouse, retrieved January 2nd, 2011, from http://
www.neatorama.com/2009/01/23/amazing-long-exposure-photos/
51.Genome cards parking ticket, retrieved January 2nd, 2011, from http://
commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Parking_ticket.JPG
52.Genome cards calculator, retrieved January 2nd, 2011, from http://
www.nctaxaccounting.com/images/tax_cpa.jpg
53.Genome cards Donal Duck, retrieved January 2nd, 2011, from http://
nwtaxperts.com/jokes.html
54.Genome cards Mohammed Ali, retrieved January 2nd, 2011, from http://
www.wgr550.com/pages/3652598.php?
55.Genome cards Uncle Sam, Wikipedia, retrieved January 2nd, 2011, from http://
commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Uncle_Sam_(pointing_finger).jpg
56.Genome cards hands, retrieved January 2nd, 2011, from http://www.flickr.com/
photos/7723857@N02/3408373083/
57.Genome cards scale, retrieved January 2nd, 2011, from http://
picasaweb.google.com/lh/photo/c3LZh-c4UHNWQFNsw7fPmA
58.Genome cards hands holding, retrieved January 2nd, 2011, from http://
www2.domusmedica.be/Page.aspx?id=1178
59.Genome cards airplane, retrieved January 2nd, 2011, from http://
aviationknowledge.wikidot.com/aviation:aircraft-use
60.Genome cards stones, retrieved January 2nd, 2011, from http://
www.groupfacilitation.net/
61.Genome cards fruit from the market, retrieved January 2nd, 2011, from http://
m80im.com/newsroom/tag/farmers-market/#fbid=a04-LFi3QuP
62.Genome cards Roman forum, retrieved January 2nd, 2011, from http://
romeapartmentsforrentlp.wordpress.com/2008/08/06/the-roman-forum-–-what-is-it/
63.Genome cards chess piece, retrieved January 2nd, 2011, from http://
getincomeblog.com/analyzing-competition-for-entrepreneurial-success/
64.Genome cards image, retrieved November 3rd, 2010, from http://
www.freepsdgraphics.com/cgi-sys/suspendedpage.cgi
65.Genome cards matrix, retrieved January 2nd, 2011, from http://wallpaper-s.org/
12__Bio-Grid_Computing.htm
66.Genome cards single chess piece, retrieved January 2nd, 2011, from http://
www.cardinalohara.com/campus-life/clubs-organizations/chess-club/
67.Genome cards Roman Forum large, retrieved January 2nd, 2011, from http://
commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Forum_Romanum_Rom.jpg
68.Genome cards newspaper, retrieved January 2nd, 2011, from http://
visualparadox.com/wallpapers/newspaper1600.htm
69.Genome cards man on hill, retrieved January 2nd, 2011, from http://
nielsm987.wordpress.com/2010/11/15/cloud-computing-deel-1-op-kantoor/
70.Genome cards hands on pile, retrieved January 2nd, 2011, from http://
blog.taigacompany.com/blog/sustainability-business-life-environment/0/0/beyondtransparency-business-models-for-stakeholder-engagement
101
71.Genome cards gears, retrieved January 2nd, 2011, from http://
www.transactint.com/
72.Genome cards blog, retrieved January 2nd, 2011, from http://www.flickr.com/
photos/inju/278659657/
73.Genome cards vote, retrieved January 2nd, 2011, from http://americasright.com/?
p=6590
74.Genome cards oven, retrieved January 2nd, 2011, from http://www.planseegroup.com/download_ENG_HTML.htm
75.Genome cards @, retrieved January 2nd, 2011, from http://www.pcpro.co.uk/blogs/
tag/email/
76.Genome cards papers, retrieved January 2nd, 2011, from http://
www.theclimategroup.org/in-the-headlines/
77.Genome cards brain, retrieved January 2nd, 2011, from http://www.jarche.com/
2009/10/pkm-our-part-of-the-social-learning-contract/
78.Genome cards man near a tree, retrieved January 2nd, 2011, from http://
drlove9779.blogspot.com/
102
79.Genome game one dollar bill, retrieved January 2nd, 2011, from http://
www.flickr.com/photos/neverblog/1018963718/
80.Genome game grain, retrieved January 2nd, 2011, from http://www.topnews.in/
grain-sized-fossil-helps-unspool-climate-change-mystery-2234123
81.Genome game concrete, retrieved January 2nd, 2011, from http://www.bu.edu/
sjmag/scimag2008/Story%20pages/Self-Healing%20materials.html
82.Genome game glacier, retrieved January 2nd, 2011, from http://
wp1028798.wp049.webpack.hosteurope.de/en/index.php?
option=com_content&task=blogsection&id=9&Itemid=67
83.Genome game united nations flag, retrieved January 2nd, 2011, from http://
commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Flag_of_the_United_Nations.png
84.Genome game wool, retrieved January 2nd, 2011, from http://
www.spindancechurros.com/products.html
85.Genome game rainforest, retrieved January 2nd, 2011, from http://www.tropicalrainforest-animals.com/
86.Genome game stones, retrieved January 2nd, 2011, from http://
www.lughertexture.com/index.php?
option=com_rsgallery2&page=inline&id=356&Itemid=2
REFERENCES
87.Genome game barrels, retrieved January 2nd, 2011, from http://www.123rf.com/
photo_2470254_rusty-oil-barrels--corroding-containers-for-oil-and-other-fuel.html
88.Genome game steel pipes, retrieved January 2nd, 2011, from http://
www.tradeget.com/free_list/p90817/O72977/
china_seamlesserwssaw_4andquot_to_24andquot20090719.html
89.Genome game soldier, retrieved January 2nd, 2011, from http://www.au.af.mil/au/
awc/cliparmy/1-1a.htm
90.Genome game tree, retrieved January 2nd, 2011, from http://www.clker.com/
clipart-13124.html
91.Genome game bills, retrieved January 2nd, 2011, from http://
onlymoments.files.wordpress.com/2008/09/money.jpg
92.Genome game trees, retrieved January 2nd, 2011, from http://tribwekchron.com/
wp-content/uploads/2010/06/forest.jpg
93.Genome game bomb, retrieved January 2nd, 2011, from http://www.disinfo.com/
2008/12/the-atom-bomb-was-invented-once-the-secret-history-of-nuclearproliferation-2/
94.Genome game pig, retrieved January 2nd, 2011, from http://bakati.com/s~q-pig
%20save%20silhouette.aspx
95.Genome game picture of a tower, retrieved January 2nd, 2011, from http://
nl.photaki.com/pictures-toren-p6
96.Genome game hardened lava, retrieved January 2nd, 2011, from http://
news.byu.edu/archive01-dec-lavastory.aspx
97.Genome game Greenpeace, retrieved January 2nd, 2011, from http://www.vhcn.nl/
uploads/images/logo/greenpeace-logo2.jpg
98.Genome game colosseum, retrieved Janaury 2nd, 2011, from http://www.
123rf.com/photo_6839689_roman-colosseum-illustration.html
99.Genome game pyramids, retrieved January 2nd, 2011, from http://
www.cs.washington.edu/homes/peter/seamcarver/final-web/peter-ktuite.html
100.Genome game opera building, retrieved January 2nd, 2011, from http://
www.flickr.com/photos/jamescridland/3503924818/
101.Genome game Taj Mahal, retrieved January 2nd, 2011, from http://www.
123rf.com/photo_5777234_taj-mahal-vector-silhouette.html
102.Earth in hand, retrieved January 2nd, 2011, from http://www.ci.berkeley.ca.us/
uploadedImages/Mayor/Level_3__-General/EarthInHand.gif
103
Appendices
I"
II"
III"
IV"
V"
104
Research current digital crowd sourcing solutions " 105
Three scenarios " "
"
"
"
"
"
106
SWOT analysis" "
"
"
"
"
"
110
User test denationaledialoog.nl " "
"
"
111
Genome cards " "
"
"
"
"
"
116
Appendix I
Company?
(company
name)
Subject?
(what is
crowdsourced)
Where?
(country)
99designs
Graphic Design Australia
AddictLab
Advertising,
General
Article One
Partners
U.S. Patent
Reform / Prior
Art Research
ArtistShare
Battle of
concepts
Blellow
Music
Advertising
creative
General
Belgium
What?
(crowd sourcing strategy)
Who?
(crowd sourcing
strategy)
How?
(what gene is
represented?)
Why?
(what are the values
of the participants?)
Create
New ideas
Crowd
Collection
Price money
Decide
What is the
best idea
Company
Hierarchy
Get lots of ideas and
money return if no
good
Create
New ideas
Crowd
Collection
Publish
Decide
What is the
best idea
CS-Company
Hierarchy
Ongoing income of
ideas
Create
Deliver
product
Crowd
Price money
Get the price money,
get 5% of annual profit
and get researcher
points for status
Decide
Best product
Client
Consensus
Get in depth research
on lower cost
Share
Connections
CS-Company
Collection
Get % profit
Create
Music
Collection
Affection
Share
Music
Social network
Get more exposure
and albums sales
Decide
Listen/follow
Crowd
Social network
Get more information
from an artist
Share
Problem
Company
Collection
Ideas
Create
Concepts
Section of the
crowd
Collection
Price money
Share
Problems/
concepts
CS-Company
Social network
Money
Share
Knowledge
Crowd
Social network
Affection
Share
Knowledge
CS-Company
Social network
Money
Create
Designs
Crowd
Collection
Affection/money
Decide
Best designs
CS-Company
Hierarchy
Money
Share
Designs/
concepts
Crowd
Collection
Money
Decide
Buy concept
Companies
Hierarchy
Affection/money
Crowd
Collection
Affection
Company
Manufacture
Money
Crowd
Collection
Affection
Crowd
Collection
Affection
Company
Manufacture
Money
CS-Company
Collection
Money
USA
USA
USA
USA
Bon bon
kaku
Graphic design Finland
BootB
Advertising,
creative
industries
Russia/
USA
Create
Brewtopia
Brewery
Australia
Decide
Brownbook
Business/
general
Cafe Press
Accessories,
Clothes,
Shopping
Cambrian
House
General
Section of the
crowd
Section of the
crowd
UK
Share
Create
USA
Decide
Canada
Custom
designs
Custom
designs
Business
directory
Custom
designs
Custom
designs
Share
Community
Create
Concepts ed. Crowd
Collection
Affection/money
Decide
Best concepts
Company
ed.
Hierarchy
Money
105
Company!
Continuous link!
crowd
NEW
8. Another individual is working on programming a new decision
model to upload to the website using genome builder
website
7. The crowd votes for the
new decision model
Possible link!
Link outside model
Crowd
Value Chain Model
company
company
The value chain model below displays the crowd in a
central position. All stakeholders deal with each other
through the website. The companies are just as free to
adjust the websiteʼs genome as the crowd is.
Money (large)!
6. The crowd votes on his
proposition
10462
VOTES
Money (small)
!
Product
3. He learns that the crowd
can only choose top 10
Experience!
2. User uploads a picture to
take part in a contest
Exposure
5. … he can select and offer
a new decision approach
Service!
4. As the website uses
genome builder...
1. Individual in crowd uses
website A
User!
The crowd determines the functionality of the
“wisdom of the crowds” website
Genome Builder 2.0
Company!
7. … a new open and crowd
sourced internet
Internet NR.2
4. … and an internet
connection for sharing
e
1. Individual in crowd uses
mobile phone
User!
Service!
Experience!
Money (small)
6. As all the mobiles devices
work together as ...
3. New mobile phones have
much data on them...
Product
8. Mobile devices their contents will look like a normal webpage
on internet NR. 2
5. As the internet connection
is not in use, it is a server
2. As do many others with
him within the crowd
Exposure
Continuous link!
Possible link!
Link outside model
Crowd
Internet
NR.2
Value Chain Model
The flow of values is very simple in this model, as user
create a new internet platform for people to surf on and
the crowd acts as a host server.
Money (large)!
Creating a second internet and a third,
a fourth, a fifth...
Crowd Internet
Company!
Service!
Exposure
Experience!
+
Money (small)
+
=
4. … and start a walk-in hospital, where everybody can visit and
get good medical care from professionals
2. Until a group within the
crowd comes together...
Product
5. As the medical staff is part of a larger crowd, updates in organs and bones etc. are continuously
shared on the internet.
finger bone 2.0
3. … with the new 3DBioprinter...
1. When a person get injured, or is in need of small surgery, he or
she used to go the hospital
User!
Continuous link!
Possible link!
Link outside model
Crowd
crowd
Internet
NR.2
company
Value Chain Model
Group within
the crowd
As the crowd is central, companies and groups within
the crowd communicate with each other by using the
internet. Products are in this case body parts or body
affiliated products. The service are the updates that
come from the crowd and companies.
Money (large)!
Medical care by your peers with the use of
3D-Bioprinters
Crowdʼed Hospital
Company!
Service!
Experience!
TNTCC
2. Until another farmer
explains him TNTCC
Exposure
!!!
Money (small)
3. Surprised to hear he can
start a company online
Product
5. The business has to invest as to comply with the amount of
Eco-currency they have to invest
Eco-Currency
6. The bigger the company,
the higher the investment
4. The website brings the farmer and the business representative into contact to form a deal about
preserving the farmers land, and still keep it profitable. TNTCC mediates in this
1. A farmer wants to cut
down trees for cultivation
User!
Continuous link!
Possible link!
Link outside model
Crowd
crowd
Internet
NR.2
company
Value Chain Model
farmer
companies
A farmer is contacted by the crowd or companies that
function within the crowd about setting up a new
company. This company will address the way the land of
the farmer is used. The farmer can make financial deals
with the investors, as the companies are obligated to
invest in this project by the government.
Money (large)!
The crowd exists out of small companies working
(in)dependently for the same purpose
TNT Crowd Company
Strength
Genome Builder
Crowded Hospital
Crowd Internet
TNT Crowd
Company
Causality
Crowd Reality
Games
110
Weakness
Opportunity
- Crowd can actively upload
modules of decision
- Allow the crowd to control
- Initiators have to give away protocols
the website as it runs
a large part of being in
- Make use of the crowd
- Makes use of a trend
control
intellect in exchange of
currently growing
values (not necessary
money)
- Waiting lists can be
- Is reliable on future
- Groups within the crowd
diminished
developments
can stat a hospital
- Greater expansion as the
- An alternative to the
- Technology could not be
set up is easier then the
common internet
ready yet
standard internet lines
- Communication between
fractions is difficult
- Many attempts on the
concerning the number of
- Loads of opportunities to
same target deliver higher fractions
start a company
probability on success
- Enforcing behavior might
stimulate resistance to the
concept
- Give a more in depth
- A negative status could
- Enforcing people to
insight in the individualʼs
become a driver for people behave better on the
behavior within the crowd to misbehave
internet
- Less in need of physical
employees
- Offer more balanced
solutions to problems
- Are all stakeholder and
- Potential to make money
normally tackled by one
possibilities incorporated in
instead of spending money
individual or a small
the game?
group
- Crowd performs without
the direct need of
financial gain of the crowd
Threats
- The crowd could make a
mistake in choosing
decision modules
- Internet could be unstable
- People might boycott the
concept
- People might not have the
necessary resources to
join the system
- People might not want this
level of intimacy because
of fear for a bad reputation
- Are there enough people
participating
- Are there enough people
that keep on playing the
game over a long period
What? Who? Why? How?
Crowd
What? Who? Why? How?
Organization
What? Who? Why? How?
Crowd
Information
Affection
Social
Forum
Wisdom of the crowd
Network
What? Who? Why? How?
What? Who? Why? How?
x 19: affection / exposure
What? Who? Why? How?
What? Who? Why? How?
Forum
What? Who? Why? How?
Exposure
What? Who? Why? How?
Ideas
New topics
Opinion
x 19: create by the crowd
Create
Create
Share
What? Who? Why? How?
What? Who? Why? How?
What? Who? Why? How?
111
Voting
x 4: hard voting, voting with
background
What? Who? Why? How?
Affection
What? Who? Why? How?
x 4: initiator
In!vidual
What? Who? Why? How?
Quality of an opinion
Decide
What? Who? Why? How?
Appendix IV
Ideas
What? Who? Why? How?
Organization
New topics / plans
What? Who? Why? How?
Crowd
What? Who? Why? How?
Affection
What? Who? Why? How?
Forum
Plans / ideas
What? Who? Why? How?
Crowd
What? Who? Why? How?
Affection
What? Who? Why? How?
Forum
network
Social
What? Who? Why? How?
Exposure
What? Who? Why? How?
Share
Create
Share
What? Who? Why? How?
What? Who? Why? How?
What? Who? Why? How?
112
Forum
What? Who? Why? How?
Affection
What? Who? Why? How?
Crowd
What? Who? Why? How?
Plans with open topic
line
x 16
Create
What? Who? Why? How?
Plans with open
subject line
Forum
What? Who? Why? How?
Affection
What? Who? Why? How?
Crowd
What? Who? Why? How?
x7
Create
What? Who? Why? How?
Appendix IV
In"vidual
In"vidual
Section of !
What? Who? Why? How?
What? Who? Why? How?
production
+1 / -1
Voting
Affection
Affection
Gr$p
What? Who? Why? How?
What? Who? Why? How?
crowd
What? Who? Why? How?
What? Who? Why? How?
Quality of opinion
What? Who? Why? How?
Plans
Decide
Realize
x 12
What? Who? Why? How?
What? Who? Why? How?
113
Crowd
Initiator
Section of !
What? Who? Why? How?
Affection
What? Who? Why? How?
Forum
What? Who? Why? How?
Affection
What? Who? Why? How?
Forum
Experts / opinion
makers
crowd
What? Who? Why? How?
Opinion
Vision
What? Who? Why? How?
Share
Share
What? Who? Why? How?
What? Who? Why? How?
What? Who? Why? How?
Appendix IV
In!vidual
Initiator
Section of !
What? Who? Why? How?
Forum
Affection
What? Who? Why? How?
Forum
Affection
What? Who? Why? How?
Publ#h
Newspapers etc.
Affection
What? Who? Why? How?
What? Who? Why? How?
Crowd
Appendix IV
For or against
Total 50 votes for gets
reply
Voting
x 12: Other number
What? Who? Why? How?
Affection
What? Who? Why? How?
In!vidual
What? Who? Why? How?
Support an opinion
More extensive letter
What? Who? Why? How?
Su#o$
What? Who? Why? How?
Create
What? Who? Why? How?
What? Who? Why? How?
Experts / opinion
makers
crowd
What? Who? Why? How?
Lobby by mailing a
letter
Insights into articles
What? Who? Why? How?
Create
Realize
What? Who? Why? How?
What? Who? Why? How?
What? Who? Why? How?
114
What? Who? Why? How?
What? Who? Why? How?
Organization
What? Who? Why? How?
Section of !
What? Who? Why? How?
In#vidual
What? Who? Why? How?
Forum
Reaction on the letter
Status
Affection
dec$ion
What? Who? Why? How?
What? Who? Why? How?
Publieke zaak
Support or add to the
letter, set during
posting
Opinion
crowd
Decide
Create
In#vidual
What? Who? Why? How?
What? Who? Why? How?
115
Blog
What? Who? Why? How?
Exposure
What? Who? Why? How?
WOC website
Organization
Section of !
crowd
What? Who? Why? How?
What? Who? Why? How?
Two types of lobby
Create
What? Who? Why? How?
Appendix IV
•
•
•
•
•
who has the control over
of the card
Look at the back of this card
the card here
of the implementation of
Write down a description
string-questions
The title / subject
this card-string and how!
The four main
(
What? Who? Why? How?
Rules of the game #1
Think of a function you wish
to change...
Choose the corresponding
“What?” card that best fits the
function of what you would
like to change
Then choose “Who?” is going to
fulfill this new function
What is the motivation of this
person or group to participate?
Write that down on the “Who?”
card.
Then choose “How” this
should be realized
Decide
Create
Connection triangle; choose
What? Who? Why? How?
What? Who? Why? How?
)
Consume
What? Who? Why? How?
Compute
What? Who? Why? How?
Appendix V
Realize
What? Who? Why? How?
Share
What? Who? Why? How?
Realize a concept
in practice
Share ideas / concepts /
resources, you name it!
Appendix V
Use computer power to solve a
problem
Consume a good or service
A group or small selection
from the crowd
Decide over a subject,
concept, idea, law etc.
Regular cards have a
along with a corresponding
description of the subject,
image shown here...
- TAKE CONTROL & HAVE FUN! -
necessary
A dot with a question mark
means that this card is
placing the smaller
control-cards on top of each
card-string (see the triangle)
No triangle = no further cards
Determine who & how the cardstrings can be changed by
Rules of the game #2
Creating an idea / concept /
scenario, or any other matter
•
•
dependent on a card with the
same color the dot has. Place
this extra card on the side of
the initial card with the dot
What? Who? Why? How?
What? Who? Why? How?
What? Who? Why? How?
What? Who? Why? How?
What? Who? Why? How?
What? Who? Why? How?
Appendix V
What? Who? Why? How?
What? Who? Why? How?
Appendix V
Organization
Company
What? Who? Why? How?
Players
Initiator
What? Who? Why? How?
Stakeholders
crowd
Section of !
?
What? Who? Why? How?
What? Who? Why? How?
What? Who? Why? How?
What? Who? Why? How?
Appendix V
In"vidual
What? Who? Why? How?
Crowd
What? Who? Why? How?
Select the crowd as your
target group
One individual within a
business or the crowd
Appendix V
An institution or a non-profit
organization
A group or small selection
from the crowd
A company or business
All the players of a game are
stakeholders
Non-profit or profitable
stakeholder(s), as long as they
are the initiator
A stakeholder is an
individual or group that
contributes to the whole
What? Who? Why? How?
What? Who? Why? How?
What? Who? Why? How?
What? Who? Why? How?
?
?
Appendix V
What? Who? Why? How?
What? Who? Why? How?
What? Who? Why? How?
What? Who? Why? How?
Appendix V
What? Who? Why? How?
Affection
What? Who? Why? How?
Respect
What? Who? Why? How?
P!ce money
What? Who? Why? How?
Exposure
Trend
Money
Appendix V
What? Who? Why? How?
Status
What? Who? Why? How?
What? Who? Why? How?
Return favor
What? Who? Why? How?
Status relative to peers or
stakeholders can be a strong
motivational factor
Trends can create affiliation
and a wide spread of the cause
Appendix V
Offering a return favor could be
as great, or even greater then
the favor initially offered
With money, work based on
hours can be translated to
independent value
Affection can be a strong
motivator when a participant
affiliates with the cause
Respect is closely related to
affiliation, the difference being
that respect can be indifferent
Price money is unaffected by
personal wishes and therefore
widely applicable
For example; the initiator could
be motivated by exposure of its
brand
What? Who? Why? How?
What? Who? Why? How?
GENOME
BUILDER
iChilles.com
- TAKE CONTROL & HAVE FUN! -
Information
Fee
Fine
What? Who? Why? How?
What? Who? Why? How?
What? Who? Why? How?
Appendix V
What? Who? Why? How?
Knowled!
What? Who? Why? How?
Knowledge is a good that can
enrich the individual or group
Appendix V
Information can be textual,
conceptual and even idea
based
Pay a fee for a concept /
service / idea etc.
For example; a fine could be
initiated by the crowd to people
who behave inadequate
What? Who? Why? How?
What? Who? Why? How?
What? Who? Why? How?
What? Who? Why? How?
What? Who? Why? How?
What? Who? Why? How?
Appendix V
What? Who? Why? How?
What? Who? Why? How?
Appendix V
What? Who? Why? How?
Collaboration
What? Who? Why? How?
Provide
Averaging
Consensus
Appendix V
What? Who? Why? How?
Voting
What? Who? Why? How?
What? Who? Why? How?
Gr#p dec$ion
?
?
Contest
What? Who? Why? How?
What? Who? Why? How?
Collection
What? Who? Why? How?
For example; vote for the best
concept / idea etc.
For example; average the
results coming from a voting
round
Appendix V
Decide about the focus /
direction etc. with a team
Come to an agreement within a
group, with the groupʼs effort
Compete with other
stakeholders for having the
best idea / concept etc.
Work together with stakeholder
as for example; businesses /
institutes / groups etc.
An individual within a larger
whole creates a concept /
idea /scenario etc.
Provide ideas / concepts /
scenarios / information etc.
What? Who? Why? How?
Forum
What? Who? Why? How?
Crowd computing
What? Who? Why? How?
Market
What? Who? Why? How?
Production
Computing
What? Who? Why? How?
dec"ion
In!vidual
What? Who? Why? How?
Appendix V
Social network
What? Who? Why? How?
Pre!ction markets
What? Who? Why? How?
Lets a group make estimations
on the probability of events
For example; using a forum
with members to create a
community
Appendix V
For example; a stakeholderʼs
choice to switch on his
computer and participate
online
Using an individualʼs computer
to compute a problem /
concept etc.
Use a forum to enable
participants to upload files
and information
Using a groupʼs resources of
computing power to compute a
concept etc.
For example; a system like
eBay where products can be
bought and sold by participants
Individually produce a practical
solution for a concept / idea
etc.
What? Who? Why? How?
Blog
What? Who? Why? How?
Publ!h
What? Who? Why? How?
Manufacture
What? Who? Why? How?
E-Mail
Passive dec!ion
What? Who? Why? How?
Appendix V
What? Who? Why? How?
Gr$p production
?
?
Poll
What? Who? Why? How?
What? Who? Why? How?
Produce a practical solution for
a concept / idea etc. With a
group
Appendix V
For example; allowing a
stakeholder to gather and
analyze data from participants
without their direct knowledge
Create a poll where
participants can vote for their
preference
Publish in papers / magazines /
tabloids etc.
Share concepts / ideas etc. On
a blog
Produce a practical solution
with professional stakeholders
like businesses etc.
For example; use e-mail as a
trafficking agent to
communicate
What? Who? Why? How?
What? Who? Why? How?
What? Who? Why? How?
What? Who? Why? How?
What? Who? Why? How?
What? Who? Why? How?
Appendix V
What? Who? Why? How?
What? Who? Why? How?
Appendix V
VOTING (end date)
SECTION OF THE CROWD
VOTING (end date)
….…….……….……….………..
….…….……….……….………..
CONSENSUS
PLAYERS
CONSENSUS
….…….……….……….………..
….…….……….……….………..
….…….……….……….………..
….…….……….……….………..
INITIATOR
CROWD
CROWD
Appendix V
….…….……….……….………..
….…….……….……….………..
VOTING (number of votes)
CONSENSUS
CROWD
….…….……….……….………..
….…….……….……….………..
….…….……….……….………..
….…….……….……….………..
….…….……….……….………..
….…….……….……….………..
….…….……….……….………..
….…….……….……….………..
….…….……….……….………..
….…….……….……….………..
….…….……….……….………..
….…….……….……….………..
….…….……….……….………..
….…….……….……….………..
….…….……….……….………..
….…….……….……….………..
….…….……….……….………..
….…….……….……….………..
….…….……….……….………..
….…….……….……….………..
Appendix V