Skip Links

Network World

Paul McNamara

MIT looks to give 'group think' a good name

By Paul McNamara on Tue, 10/10/06 - 1:55pm.

Think about it as conventional wisdom -- refined, and with the negative connotation replaced by a healthy dose of applied technology.
 
With Friday's public opening of the MIT Center for Collective Intelligence (formerly the Center for Coordination Science), researchers there hope to address this central question: "How can people and computers be connected so that -- collectively -- they act more intelligently than any individuals, groups, or computers have ever done before?"
 
In anticipation of the event, I put a few questions to CCI Director Thomas Malone, a management professor and author of the "The Future of Work."
 
"We'll announce one specific project at the launch event," said Malone. "As described in the launch event press release, the project will involve a group of perhaps thousands of people collectively writing a business book Wikipedia-style.  We also expect to have projects on prediction markets, global climate change, and many other topics.
 
The book will be called "We Are Smarter Than Me" -- more than 300 individuals have already signed on to participate -- and involves the Wharton Business School, Shared Insights and Pearson Publishing.
 
 
 So what's to be found in all of this academic noodling for those who put their heads down and plow through IT jobs every day?
 
"I believe that many people will be doing lots of 'natural experiments' with collective intelligence in the next few years -- with or without us," Malone says. "But I think that, as university-based researchers, we can help companies in several ways:
 
-- "By systematically finding and describing interesting examples of collective intelligence that people are trying anyway, we can help speed up the process by which network professionals and others can learn from each other's experience.
 
-- "By developing and analyzing new examples of collective intelligence ourselves, we can help advance the state-of-the-art of technologies and organizational approaches that companies can use.
 
-- "By developing theories to explain all these things, we can help network professionals and others understand new ways of organizing themselves that would never have been possible before but that may be far more efficient, flexible, and innovative than traditional ways of organizing.
 
"To help do these things, we expect to work with a select group of companies as sponsors of our research.  In some cases, these or other companies will also be research sites where we will study innovative examples of collective intelligence."
 
What prompted the renaming and refocusing of the old Center for Coordination Science into CCI?
 
"While the work we expect to do in CCI could have been done in the previously named center, we feel that 'collective intelligence' is a much more exciting way to frame what we want to do," Malone says.  "This new name emphasizes the exciting possibilities before us, and it has captured the enthusiasm of many people around MIT with whom we had never worked before."
 
Friday's CCI launch event will include a live Webcast.

Good think - use a consensus

0
By Michael Chin (not verified) on Wed, 10/11/2006 - 1:07am.

Hi Paul

I am extremely insterested in your article because only recently I, and some others, were involved in a mind consensus (the number of people is unknown).

We found that it is good at resolving issues that are important to the group, great at developing new ideas and good for a laugh (most important) - also found it to be very inspirational in whatever field one is doing.

The trick is to begin by conversation and letting the conversation flow as more people join in and ask questions. provide answers etc.

Thought you would like to know.

Regards

Have you thought about ...

0
By Paul McNamara on Fri, 10/13/2006 - 8:19am.

... patenting that "business process?" I think you're really on to something there.

name

0
By william readling (not verified) on Wed, 10/11/2006 - 8:20am.

The name for this already exists. It is refered to as a market.

name (market)

0
By Larry Mills (not verified) on Wed, 10/11/2006 - 11:00am.

Actually, the market would be competing intelligence not cooperating intelligence.

You bring up an important but subtle aspect of this issue because at some point, competition (being part of human nature) will emerge from the cooperation, just as it has at the higher levels of integration in the open source world.

Still, I believe that explicitly facing the ideal of cooperation is an important step in evolving societies beyond base levels of competition.

antithesis

0
By Brian Stovall (not verified) on Wed, 10/11/2006 - 1:00pm.

I suspect that a market is actually the direct opposite of what we're talking about here. As the poster above mentioned, a market is lots of tiny little interests squabbling with each other instead of working together.

This could bring up interesting philosophical issues. Free-market, Adam Smith-style economics holds that if we remove restrictions on these competing actors, and let them fight it out, then society will naturally progress as a result of that competition, for everyone's benefit. (I, personally, think this is BS.) A solid theory of "collaborative intelligence" could provide an important argument against that, and in favor of a cooperative economics rather than a competitive one.

competition vs. cooperation

0
By Bill Hopkins (not verified) on Thu, 10/12/2006 - 5:14pm.

Both cooperation and competition are essential for progress. Cooperation, as put forth in the article, has many minds contributing to a single goal. Competition ensures that new directions are not overlooked for the sake of maintaining a status quo. This is true in the area of scientific research as well as in economics. If it weren't for visionary individuals splitting company with the establishment, we would not be anywhere near where we are in almost any field.

Condition for free markets

0
By Kevin Poore (not verified) on Mon, 10/16/2006 - 7:06am.

Don't forget that "free-market, Adam Smith-style economics" is conditioned on all actors in the market having perfect (or at least "the same") information. Without this information, a market is not actually free.

A project such as MIT's should help to improve the functioning of markets, rather than work against them. What it does work against are those who benefit from currently un-free markets. (To a pro-market fan such as myself, this is a good thing.)

Collaborative art

0
By mosaicparadise.com (not verified) on Wed, 10/11/2006 - 11:11am.

We have experimented collaborative art. You can have a look of our current beta version of this project at :
http://www.mosaicparadise.com

regards

Required Characteristics

0
By Robert Loest (not verified) on Mon, 10/16/2006 - 8:14am.

Improving intelligence collectively is definitely possible. A mutual fund actually run by its shareholders would be one good example. Can they be smarter collectively than even the best portfolio managers?

A few things are essential:
1. Critical mass. Don't know the number, but at least hundreds I'd guess;
2. No restrictions on feedback in any form - discussion, linking articles, voting, many-to-one, one-to-many, and many to many;
3. Diversity in the shareholder population;
4. A centralized website on which all this discussion can take place;
5. A nominating and voting process for each stock buy or sale;
6. Participation is critical - if they don't participate within a certain period (maybe with probation for first offense), their shares are redeemed at current NAV and a check sent them.

Democracy was originally set up as a collective governing intelligence. It's an amazing model for its time, and one that can be copied to our benefit in other fields, and the Internet should make it more doable.

The CARLA Concept(TM) as Groupthink Methodology

0
By Laura Benjamin (not verified) on Thu, 12/07/2006 - 4:15pm.

Hi Paul,

I am particularly excited about the focus and collaborative efforts to harness multiple minds for problem solving. I have found that communication among individuals is consistently stifled and have developed a communication model to free people up so they can speak up.

Too many times, people are afraid to put their heads together because they are labeled as "not a team player" or a "negativist" or "web blanket" when their ideas contradict the norm.

Managers don't know how to encourage employees to think critically because they haven't been taught facilitation skills. Employees sometimes expect the boss to solve all the problems for them.

So at the risk of self-promotion, here is the communication model I've developed that helps people interact in a problem solving, collaborative manner to make better decisions, to deeply explore all issues and end up with innovative solutions:

The C.A.R.L.A. Concept(TM):
C - What are the circumstances, changes or challenges we face?
A - What are the actions we've already taken?
R - What are the results we've already achieved?
L - What are the lessons we've learned?
A - What's another approach or alternative approaches?

Yes, it's simple, but it's amazing how it frees people up to think about all the possibilities. The military is using it for "after-action" reports, teachers use it to help students with decision-making skills, managers use it to get more/better information from their employees. The applications just go on and on.

Can ya tell I'm committed to this? Folks who want more information can visit the website above or go to http://www.carlaconcept.com

Can't wait to hear more about the MIT initiative! Faith Popcorn in her book, "Dictionary of the Future" referenced the term "knowledge blockage" which is the communication challenge of the next century despite all the money we spend on intranets and other communication channels.

It all comes down to whether people feel safe enough to venture their opinion, doesn't it?

Best regards,
Laura Benjamin

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.
Welcome, visitor. Register Log in
About Buzzblog