Cat Johnson at Shareable: “In 2012, Seoul publicly announced its commitment to becoming a sharing city. It has since emerged as a leader of the global sharing movement and serves as a model for cities around the world. Supported by the municipal government and embedded in numerous parts of everyday life in Seoul, the Sharing City project has proven to be an inspiration to city leaders, entrepreneurs, and sharing enthusiasts around the world.
At the heart of Sharing City, Seoul is ShareHub, an online platform that connects users with sharing services, educates and informs the public about sharing initiatives, and serves as the online hub for the Sharing City, Seoul project. Now a year and a half into its existence, ShareHub, which is powered by Creative Commons Korea (CC Korea), has served 1.4 million visitors since launching, hosts more than 350 articles about sharing, and has played a key role in promoting sharing policies and projects. Shareable connected with Nanshil Kwon, manager of ShareHub, to find out more about the project, its role in promoting sharing culture, and the future of the sharing movement in Seoul….”
When Experts Are a Waste of Money
Vivek Wadhwa at the Wall Street Journal: “Corporations have always relied on industry analysts, management consultants and in-house gurus for advice on strategy and competitiveness. Since these experts understand the products, markets and industry trends, they also get paid the big bucks.
But what experts do is analyze historical trends, extrapolate forward on a linear basis and protect the status quo — their field of expertise. And technologies are not progressing linearly anymore; they are advancing exponentially. Technology is advancing so rapidly that listening to people who just have domain knowledge and vested interests will put a company on the fastest path to failure. Experts are no longer the right people to turn to; they are a waste of money.
Just as the processing power of our computers doubles every 18 months, with prices falling and devices becoming smaller, fields such as medicine, robotics, artificial intelligence and synthetic biology are seeing accelerated change. Competition now comes from the places you least expect it to. The health-care industry, for example, is about to be disrupted by advances in sensors and artificial intelligence; lodging and transportation, by mobile apps; communications, by Wi-Fi and the Internet; and manufacturing, by robotics and 3-D printing.
To see the competition coming and develop strategies for survival, companies now need armies of people, not experts. The best knowledge comes from employees, customers and outside observers who aren’t constrained by their expertise or personal agendas. It is they who can best identify the new opportunities. The collective insight of large numbers of individuals is superior because of the diversity of ideas and breadth of knowledge that they bring. Companies need to learn from people with different skills and backgrounds — not from those confined to a department.
When used properly, crowdsourcing can be the most effective, least expensive way of solving problems.
Crowdsourcing can be as simple as asking employees to submit ideas via email or via online discussion boards, or it can assemble cross-disciplinary groups to exchange ideas and brainstorm. Internet platforms such as Zoho Connect, IdeaScale and GroupTie can facilitate group ideation by providing the ability to pose questions to a large number of people and having them discuss responses with each other.
Many of the ideas proposed by the crowd as well as the discussions will seem outlandish — especially if anonymity is allowed on discussion forums. And companies will surely hear things they won’t like. But this is exactly the input and out-of-the-box thinking that they need in order to survive and thrive in this era of exponential technologies….
Another way of harnessing the power of the crowd is to hold incentive competitions. These can solve problems, foster innovation and even create industries — just as the first XPRIZE did. Sponsored by the Ansari family, it offered a prize of $10 million to any team that could build a spacecraft capable of carrying three people to 100 kilometers above the earth’s surface, twice within two weeks. It was won by Burt Rutan in 2004, who launched a spacecraft called SpaceShipOne. Twenty-six teams, from seven countries, spent more than $100 million in competing. Since then, more than $1.5 billion has been invested in private space flight by companies such as Virgin Galactic, Armadillo Aerospace and Blue Origin, according to the XPRIZE Foundation….
Competitions needn’t be so grand. InnoCentive and HeroX, a spinoff from the XPRIZE Foundation, for example, allow prizes as small as a few thousand dollars for solving problems. A company or an individual can specify a problem and offer prizes for whoever comes up with the best idea to solve it. InnoCentive has already run thousands of public and inter-company competitions. The solutions they have crowdsourced have ranged from the development of biomarkers for Amyotrophic lateral sclerosis disease to dual-purpose solar lights for African villages….”
Open Access Button
About the Open Access Button: “The key functions of the Open Access Button are finding free research, making more research available and also advocacy. Here’s how each works.
Finding free papers
Research published in journals that require you to pay to read can sometimes be accessed free in other places. These other copies are often very similar to the published version, but may lack nice formatting or be a version prior to peer review. These copies can be found in research repositories, on authors websites and many other places because they’re archived. To find these versions we identify the paper a user needs and effectively search on Google Scholar and CORE to find these copies and link them to the users.
Making more research, or information about papers available
If a free copy isn’t available we aim to make one. This is not a simple task and so we have to use a few different innovative strategies. First, we email the author of the research and ask them to make a copy of the research available – once they do this we’ll send it to everyone who needs it. Second, we create pages for each paper needed which, if shared, viewed, and linked to an author could see and provide their paper on. Third, we’re building ways to find associated information about a paper such as the facts contained, comments from people who’ve read it, related information and lay summaries.
Advocacy
Unfortunately the Open Access Button can only do so much, and isn’t a perfect or long term solution to this problem. The data and stories collected by the Button are used to help make the changes required to really solve this issue. We also support campaigns and grassroots advocates with this at openaccessbutton.org/action..”
New Frontiers in Open Innovation
New book edited by Henry Chesbrough, Wim Vanhaverbeke, and Joel West: “Companies have to innovate to stay competitive, and they have to collaborate with other organizations to innovate effectively. Although the benefits of “open innovation” have been described in detail before, underlying mechanisms how companies can be successful open innovators have not be understood well. A growing community of innovation management researchers started to develop different frameworks to understand open innovation in a more systematic way.
This book provides a thorough examination of research conducted to date on open innovation, as well as a comprehensive overview of what will be the most important, most promising and most relevant research topics in this area during the next decade. Open Innovation: Researching a new paradigm (OUP 2006) was the first initiative to bring open innovation closer to the academic community. Open innovation research has since then been growing in an exponential way and research has evolved in different and unexpected directions. As the research field is growing, it becomes increasingly difficult for young (and even experienced scholars) to keep an overview of the most important trends in open innovation research, of the research topics that are most promising for the coming years, and of the most interesting management challenges that are emerging in organizations practicing open innovation.
In the spirit of an open approach to innovation, the editors have engaged other scholars and practitioners to contribute some of their interesting insights in this book.”
Welcome to The Open Standard
“Welcome to The Open Standard.
From the beginning, Mozilla has dedicated itself to advocating for an open Web in wholehearted belief that open systems create more opportunity for everyone.
From its advocacy work to web literacy programs, to the creation of the Firefox browser, Mozilla has exemplified the journalism adage, “show, don’t tell.” It’s in that tradition that we’re excited to bring you The Open Standard, an original news site dedicated to covering the ideas and opinions that support the open, transparent and collaborative systems at work in our daily lives.
We advocate that open systems create healthier communities and more successful societies overall. We will cover everything from open source to open government and the need for transparency; privacy and security, the “Internet of Things” vs. “pervasive computing”, to education and if it’s keeping up with the technological changes. The bottom line? Open is better.
This is just the beginning. Over the next few months, The Open Standard will open itself to collaboration with you, our readers; everything from contributing to the site, to drawing our attention to uncovered issues, to crowdsourcing the news…”
From its advocacy work to web literacy programs, to the creation of the Firefox browser, Mozilla has exemplified the journalism adage, “show, don’t tell.” It’s in that tradition that we’re excited to bring you The Open Standard, an original news site dedicated to covering the ideas and opinions that support the open, transparent and collaborative systems at work in our daily lives.
We advocate that open systems create healthier communities and more successful societies overall. We will cover everything from open source to open government and the need for transparency; privacy and security, the “Internet of Things” vs. “pervasive computing”, to education and if it’s keeping up with the technological changes. The bottom line? Open is better.
This is just the beginning. Over the next few months, The Open Standard will open itself to collaboration with you, our readers; everything from contributing to the site, to drawing our attention to uncovered issues, to crowdsourcing the news…”
Google trial lets you chat with doctors when you search for symptoms
at Engadget: “Searching the web for symptoms of illness can be dangerous — you could identify a real condition, but you also risk scaring yourself for no reason through a misdiagnosis. Google might have a solution that puts your mind at ease, though. The company has confirmed to Engadget that it’s testing a Helpouts-style feature which offers video chats with doctors when you search for symptoms. While there aren’t many details of how this works in practice, the search card mentions that Google is covering the costs of any chats during the trial phase. You’ll likely have to pay for virtual appointments if and when the service is ever ready for prime time, then. That’s not ideal, but it could be much cheaper than seeing a physician in person….”
VouliWatch – Empowering Democracy in Greece
Proposal at IndieGogo: “In the wake of the economic crisis and in a country where politics has all too often been beset by scandals and corruption, Vouliwatch aims to help develop an open and accountable political system that uses new digital technology to promote citizen participation in the political process and to rebuild trust in parliamentary democracy. In the heyday of Ancient Greek democracy, citizens actively participated in political dialogue, and Vouliwatch aims to revive this essential aspect of a democratic society through the use of digital technology.
How it actually works!
Vouliwatch is a digital platform that offers Greek citizens the opportunity to publicly question MPs and MEPs on the topic of their choice, and to hold their elected representatives accountable for their parliamentary activity. It is loosely modelled on similar initiatives that are already running successfully in other countries (Ireland, Luxemburg, Tunisia, Germany, France and Austria)….
Crowdsourcing/bottom up approach
The platform also gives users the chance to influence political debate and to focus the attention of both the media and the politicians on issues that citizens believe are important and are not being discussed widely.Vouliwatch offers citizens the chance to share their ideas and experiences and to make proposals to parliament for political action. The community of users can then comment on and rate them. A Google map application depicts all submitted data with the option of filtering based on different criteria (location; subject categories such as e.g. education, tourism, etc.). Every 2 months all submitted data is summarized in a report and sent to all MPs by our team, as food for thought and action. Vouliwatch will then publish and promote any resulting parliamentary reaction….”
A taxonomy of crowdsourcing based on task complexity
Paper by Robbie T. Nakatsu et al at the Journal of Information Science: “Although a great many different crowdsourcing approaches are available to those seeking to accomplish individual or organizational tasks, little research attention has yet been given to characterizing how those approaches might be based on task characteristics. To that end, we conducted an extensive review of the crowdsourcing landscape, including a look at what types of taxonomies are currently available. Our review found that no taxonomy explored the multidimensional nature of task complexity. This paper develops a taxonomy whose specific intent is the classification of approaches in terms of the types of tasks for which they are best suited. To develop this task-based taxonomy, we followed an iterative approach that considered over 100 well-known examples of crowdsourcing. The taxonomy considers three dimensions of task complexity: (a) task structure – is the task well-defined, or does it require a more open-ended solution; (2) task interdependence – can the task be solved by an individual, or does it require a community of problem solvers; and (3) task commitment – what level of commitment is expected from crowd members? Based on this taxonomy, we identify seven categories of crowdsourcing and discuss prototypical examples of each approach. Furnished with such an understanding, one should be able to determine which crowdsourcing approach is most suitable for a particular task situation.”
New Technology and the Prevention of Violence and Conflict
Report edited by Francesco Mancini for the International Peace Institute: “In an era of unprecedented interconnectivity, this report explores the ways in which new technologies can assist international actors, governments, and civil society organizations to more effectively prevent violence and conflict. It examines the contributions that cell phones, social media, crowdsourcing, crisis mapping, blogging, and big data analytics can make to short-term efforts to forestall crises and to long-term initiatives to address the root causes of violence.
Five case studies assess the use of such tools in a variety of regions (Africa, Asia, Latin America) experiencing different types of violence (criminal violence, election-related violence, armed conflict, short-term crisis) in different political contexts (restrictive and collaborative governments).
Drawing on lessons and insights from across the cases, the authors outline a how-to guide for leveraging new technology in conflict-prevention efforts:
1. Examine all tools.
2. Consider the context.
3. Do no harm.
4. Integrate local input.
5. Help information flow horizontally.
6. Establish consensus regarding data use.
7. Foster partnerships for better results.”
Crowdsourcing and collaborative translation: mass phenomena or silent threat to translation studies?
Article by Alberto Fernandez Costales: ” This article explores the emerging phenomenon of amateur translation and tries to shed some light on the implications this process may have both for Translation Studies as an academic discipline and for the translation industry itself. The paper comments on the main activities included within the concept of fan translation and approaches the terminological issues concerning the categorization of “non-professional translation”. In addition, the article focuses on the existing differences between collaborative translation and crowdsourcing, and posits new hypotheses regarding the development of these initiatives and the possible erosion of the boundaries which separate them. The question of who-does-what in the industry of translation is a major issue to be addressed in order to gain a clear view of the global state of translation today.”