Every week or two it seems that another example of ways that software, network dynamics, bidding and negotiation between sets of skills, collaboration, cooperation and similar activities are leading to an emerging synthesis of social networking, brainstorming, collaborative work, predictive markets, and peer-to-peer negotiations (see Michel Bauwen’s work on Peer-to-Peer Economies)
.
“Knowledge workers own the means of production in a Knowledge Economy” - P. Drucker
.
Kluster is a platform for crowdsourcing and then organizing and putting to use skills, energy and availability on projects and initiatives. It presented (unveiled itself ?) at the recent TED conference in Monterey, California.
Here’s an excerpt of the early review from ReadWriteWeb.
Crowdsourcing firm Kluster officially launched yesterday at the TED conference, which is underway this week in Monterey, California. Founder Ben Kaufman, who bankrolled the company in part with money from the sale of his last company Mophie, has organized a gimmick over the course of the TED conference he hopes will prove Kluster’s worth. Kaufman intends to let TED attendees — and users from around the world — design a completely new product over the course of 72 hours.
The idea behind Kluster is that a group of passionate people working together can come up with better solutions for any decision-making problem than a single person. Whether that is planning an event, designing a new logo, or creating a new product, Kluster believes their system can.
[ Snip … ]
The Kluster system works by breaking down products into manageable chunks. For each chunk (or “phase”), people submit what are called “sparks.” Sparks are proposed solutions for that phase. For each spark, other participants can submit “amps” — which are improvements to that idea. Users also assign “watts” to sparks and amps they like. Watts work kind of like investments. You accrue points based on participation and other factors, and can invest those points (watts) in ideas you like.
Then an algorithm that takes into account “each user’s successes, failures, reputation, areas of expertise, and overall history” goes to work to determine which sparks are the best. Companies interested in using the Kluster system, put up cash prizes that are doled out along the way (at the completion of each phase).
It seems more like wirearchy than hierarchy as an organizing principle to me .. though I am sure that pertinent elements of hierarchy based on direction (setting up of initiatives), ranking and filtering will come into play.
It will be very interesting to see how much organized work will resemble this form of organization in another ten years. I hope I am around to see and comment.
Of course it’s silly .. but this post by Hugh Macleod titled “Buckets” got me thinking …
If nature was designed like today’s business and software, water would trickle down the valley in buckets, from bucket to bucket.
More specifically:
We have wireless in coffee shops, Skyping on transatlantic flights, Blackberries, smartphones and laptops wherever we go - why not let (server based) systems do the delivery of work-orders, run the events, do the transactions and capture the data? Why not have the flows defined with loops and warts and all ready to be refined daily as the organisations learns and grows?
“Anataxonomy” and “Flow”, combine those two principles and use the wonders of technology accordingly.
So what does this mean? Sure, we’re already getting used to the idea of big commercial Open-Source software companies like Spikesource. But what about non-software? Open-Source Exxon’s? Open-Source General Motors’s?
This is when “Flow” starts getting REALLY important.
.
Smart knowledgeable people who have studied deeply the issue of why hierarchy seems such a durable concept tell us to get used to it … they say that there are good reasons why hierarchies thrive, even in the face of increasing flows of information and spreading forms of networked semi-transparency.
But hierarchies don’t have to remain static … and this is one of the big deficiencies in current models and with the existing tools of organizational design. Think about it. How often are there reorganizations, changes to departmental structures, downsizing, mergers or acquisitions - and the org chart gets tossed up in the air like a set of pick-up sticks. In the case of larger organizations, the “pick-up sticks” always come down in highly-organized, very neat looking boxes with straight lines that essentially state … “this is the right design .. this time we’ve got it” !
Until the next change.
Really, organizational structures are basically a rolling flow of change. Why the assumption of stability, of more-or-less static structure ? In my opinion, it’s just that many executive and management types don’t really like the feelings of messiness and control based only on engagement and willingness that accompany the conditions of continuous change.
So … what if work meant that at different times and for different projects, you could get *tagged* with different tags for different skills, and *linked* with other relevant of pertinent skill and personality *tags*, and so on ? Then, these new-style indicators (of capability) could be combined with availability / scheduling optimization software, and you’d have the basic format for a new form of organization chart.
Hierarchies could be developed at a specific time, for as long as may be necessary, and may involve different people or peoples depending upon the situation, the problems and the desired or hoped-for outcomes. So too for teams and purpose-focused networks of skills, abilities, competencies, willingness and availability.
If you stop and think about it for a moment, you can almost *feel* that this would probably seem more natural and more probably effective. But, we have a large legacy system in place.
Hmmm …
Back in the mid-1980’s there was a brief eruption of self-managing teams and what was called socio-technical work systems, where some of these types of issues were addressed - except that then the concepts of *knowledge work*, and mechanisms for manipulating information flows, like tags and hyperlinks, were only really fringe ideas.
Not anymore … but the org charts and the performance management and compensation practices are still (generally) what were used 30 and 20 and 10 years ago.
How much longer will yesteryear’s tools continue to suffice ?
This is basically the question Gary Hamel addresses in his recent book The Future of Management.
.
The Web is a near-ideal mechanism in which to culture new strains of social organization. From Craigslist to MySpace to FaceBook to Second Life to eHarmony, from instant messaging to podcasting, blogging, video chat and virtual worlds, the Internet is radically changing the ways in which people find romance, manage friendships, share insights, learn, build communities, and more.
For the moment, though, most of this joyous and frenzied experimentation is taking place outside the plush-carpeted hallways of the corporate old guard.
I find this ironic.
While no company would put up with a 1940’s-era phone system, or forgo the efficiency-enhancing benefits of modern IT, that’s exactly what companies are doing when they fail to exploit the Web’s potential to transform the way work of management is accomplished. Most managers still see the Internet as a productivity tool, or as a way of delivering 24/7 customer service. Some understand its power to upend old business models. but few have faced up to fact that sooner or later, the web is going to turn our smoke-stack management model on its head.
We recently released a new report in our Future of Small business forecast series called “The New Artisan Economy.” In the report we talk about the re-emergence of artisans as an economic force.
Next-gen knowledge artisans are amplified versions of their pre-industrial counterparts. Equipped with and augmented by technology, they rely on their human capital and skill to solve complex problems and develop new ideas, products and services. Highly productive, knowledge artisans are capable individually and in small groups of producing goods and services that used to take substantially larger teams and resources. In addition to redefining how work is done, knowledge artisans are creating new organizational structures and business models.
As our economy continues its shift towards ideas and innovation, the new knowledge artisans will be crucial to competitive success. Corporations will need to better understand knowledge artisans and how they work. They will also need to design work policies, organizational models and IT infrastructures that attract, retain and support knowledge artisans.
The new knowledge artisans share several important characteristics. First, they tend to have excellent end-user IT skills and expect to have access to the latest tools. Most knowledge artisans are power Internet users and comfortable with a wide range of IT and internet applications and software.
Knowledge artisans are highly collaborative. Because they often work in distributed, cross functional and cross organizational teams, they understand the importance of information sharing.
Knowledge artisans use a broad mix of collaboration tools to communicate with and share information across their teams.
Knowledge artisans tend to be analytical. The rise of the Internet has created vast new pools of data and information. Knowledge artisans understand the need to convert these complex data streams into useful and actionable information. Using analytical business tools and data visualization, knowledge artisans are shifting decision making from gut-instincts towards objective analysis.
Knowledge artisans are mobile and connected, but not “always on.” They tend to work from a variety of locations and are always connected. But being connected does not mean always-on. Instead knowledge artisans work when and where it best suits their needs. They schedule their own hours, choose their work location and even pick projects and teams that interest them. While knowledge artisans work very hard and put in long hours, they want to work “on their time” and “on their terms.”
Knowledge artisans are looking for values-based work. Knowledge artisans want to work in a manner that reflects their life values. The values knowledge artisans mention most are work/life balance, sustainable business practices, social responsibility and giving back to the broader community. We also hear knowledge artisans talking about “meaningful work”, “working independently”, and the pride of using their knowledge and skills to accomplish something.
The competition for skilled knowledge artisans will be intense. These highly valuable workers have many career options and job choices. Corporations that fail to develop business policies and IT infrastructures that support knowledge artisans will lose them – and come under increasing competitive pressure from firms that are able to attract, retain and support knowledge artisans.
Share: These icons link to social bookmarking sites where readers can share and discover new web pages.
The AppGap is a blog and resource on the future of work and how new tools are addressing age-old challenges of organization, collaboration, and innovation. But it is also an idea: that there remains a gap between the toolset that exists and what's needed... More about us.
We recently convened several leading thinkers for an excellent roundtable-style public conference call on the "future of work". The discussion was moderated by Bill Lucchini and included Steve King, Research Fellow at the Institute for the Future, Jim Ware, co-founder of the Future of Work and a contributor to this blog, and Yankee Analyst Josh Holbrook. We've now made the recording available - visit this post to listen to it and feel free to follow up with commentary and questions.
