Comments on: the (un)certain future of competitions

By: admin

admin — Mon, 21 Sep 2009 02:24:04 +0000

Ok, how’s this sound, and you can stop me if I’m being too simplistic, but it seems like we’ve identified two broad models of how crowdsourcing can operate. On the one hand we have something akin to threadless.com or Wikipedia. In this model, a crowd works to generate ideas or submissions, and a company profits. Simple I know, but bear with me. On the other hand – the second model – we have Netflix or Innocentive, where it is “people from outside of the discipline that solved the problems placed before them.”
Now for the sake of argument, if we accept those two models, where on that spectrum does NextStopDesign fall? If it’s the first model, I can’t help but find it slightly exploitive. This is where the company mass produces the design for its own gain. But if it’s the second model, you are hinting that NextStopDesign is making a value judgment, that a problem is being solved by people outside the discipline. And as imaginative as the designs are, I don’t think that NextStopDesign is proposing that these designs are better, simply because a crowd produced and voted on it. Or are they? Will NextStopDesign determine that the winning design solved the problem better than if the Utah City of Metropolitan Planning Board hired some local architects? And if so, what are your criteria for judgment. But again, I think it’s a question of implementation, and the murky nature of NextStopDesign’s intent. The website says it is an experiment in crowdsourcing “the best ideas and designs to build a better bus stop.” Which would certainly imply the second model.
Anyway, it’s a fascinating discussion and obviously something that, as an architect, I’d have a vested interest in following.

By: Christina

Christina — Sun, 20 Sep 2009 23:55:15 +0000

First – I think Brabham is a bit more critical of the profit element. The quote about profit at Threadless was directed from Jeff Howe who originally coined the term crowdsourcing. I believe he has quite a bit more enthusiasm for the profitability element associated with crowdsourcing. Brabham is much more critical of the profit element, and he definitely sees the exploitive element associated with the model. His main goal is in figuring out how it can be worked into a usable model for public good – for nonprofits and government to use to increase public participation.

I don’t think a comment box is anywhwere near as engaging or thoughtful as simply asking people to come up with something on their own and sort through those submissions – suggestion boxes assume that we have to work within the structures that already exist, where nextstopdesign allows people to imagine, think outside the box, and throw some of the rules away. Isn’t that how innovation happens?

I also think that local problems require both global and local reach. We need to start thinking more systemically, especially in the way we plan urban environments. Although someone in another country might not use this particular bus – they may have a valid experience that can shape the way transit happens. It is the exchange of these ideas, the crowd sifting, and the imagination that I am intrigued with – and it is that crowd sifting – where the crowd produces and the crowd chooses that really makes this a viable model. Lakhani noted through his research with Innocentive that it was people from outside of the discipline that solved the problems placed before them. So, if we know we can communicate beyond borders, and that an interdisciplinary approach can aid solutions – it seems to me that global reach is entirely appropriate.

I too will be interested in the results of nextstopdesign, especially since there will be another project proposed in October. I wonder how/what will change reflecting what they have learned so far.

cheers

By: admin

admin — Sun, 20 Sep 2009 17:47:43 +0000

Dear Christina, thank you for your response, there’s a lot of great questions to think about in there.
Starting with Threadless.com, which is an amazingly successful business model. I actually did read Brabham’s thoughts on Threadless (I have researched some of Brabham’s work on crowdsourcing, I even linked to it in the third paragraph. And I totally agree with you that it is both fascinating and well thought-out.) but again, from the gamut of “public good” to massive profits, I get the impression that Brabham’s sympathies are more closely aligned with the profit potential. This is evidenced by his conclusion re: threadless that they pulled in gross of “18 million in 2006, all with fewer than 20 employees.” (http://www.darenbrabham.com/files/brabhamplanning.pdf , page 251, paragraph 2). And would closely align with his own definition (ibid, 251, paragraph 1) of crowdsourcing that I quoted: “….the winning ideas are awarded some form of a bounty, and the company mass produces the idea for its own gain.” But anyway, trying to discern Brabham’s intentions on such a vast topic is probably futile and not nearly as interesting as looking at how transparency and public participation can be achieved in architecture.
So, using the Threadless analogy, how does that apply to NextStopDesign? I get the first part, people vote on something, but where does the implementation happen? Will NextStopDesign eventually manufacture bus stops, only in Utah, or everywhere in the country? What if the design the crowd votes for is wildly impractical and requires materials and manufacturing assistance from a number of discontinuous building trades and the assistance of consultants in the fields of engineering, fabrication, lighting, etc. There’s a fundamental difference between Threadless producing and selling the same shirt with a different graphic and building a bus stop. This may be why some architectural competitions welcome public input, but also rely on the consultation of a “panel of experts” to advise on the thousands of variables that are necessary to actually build something.
I agree with you that NextStopDesign is a step toward transparency and public participation, and the democratization of design through the internet can be a great thing. Check out this competition by the AIA that is held through facebook: http://www.facebook.com/event.php?eid=171304305336, here they’re using an existing network – Facebook – so there’s already a built in respectability rating, no one is anonymous, and the winner is chosen by peer voting. But again, like NextStopDesign, actually implementing the winning scheme is outside the scope of the competition.
This is a really interesting question you asked: “What does it mean to have a panel of experts anymore, if they are disconnected from the people who are actually using the bus?” and I’ll answer it with another question. Do you think the internet, with its global reach, is an appropriate means to solve a localized problem: the design of a Utah bus stop? For instance, via the NextStopDesign twitter feed, they are receiving votes and submissions from Kazakhstan. And while I’m sure the Kazakhs are great people (with the possible exception of Borat), there is no way you could argue that they are the ones using the bus. Wouldn’t a more appropriate response simply be to place a suggestion box outside the existing bus stop on the University of Utah’s campus where the connection between user and designer would be the strongest? But maybe because of the nature of the crowd, the overseas votes are simply a small part of the overall mass?
Anyway, I’m looking forward to the results of the NextStopDesign competition and seeing the conclusions that Brabham and others parse out from them.
Best, John

By: christina

christina — Sun, 20 Sep 2009 14:00:57 +0000

I think your understanding of crowdsourcing is a bit too narrow, and that you aren’t reading the research. Had you read some of Brabham’s peer reviewed and published articles – you might have a different understanding of crowdsourcing. I’m not entirely sure he is praising the crowdsourcing model as “good” but is more researching it as a way of understanding how crowds participate online, and more importantly, if this can be a model used for public good – in a way that for profit companies use it to make money. My understanding is that crowdsourcing can be democratic BECAUSE the crowd chooses, not just offers suggestions, but actually sorts through the options and picks a winner. If you look at other crowdsourcing sites like threadless.com or innocentive you can see that the crowd doesn’t always operate in a simply self motivated way, but that they are genuinely offering critique and feedback for other designers. Furthermore, nextstopdesign is a prototype, and a means for opening up the design process for public good – therefore, if it is for the public – should there necessarily be a major incentive? What does it mean to have a panel of experts anymore, if they are disconnected from the people who are actually using the bus? Shouldn’t those who use the bus have a more accessible means for putting forth ideas and designs – and shouldn’t those ideas carry as much weight as the architects who don’t take the bus? Just some questions to think about….
I suppose I see nextstopdesign as more of a step toward transparency and public participation, than a way of getting the “best design”. I have read several of Brabham’s articles, and the research and work he is doing on crowdsourcing is some of the most innovative out there. I highly recommend you read some of it – instead of simply looking at wikipedia – to get a more holistic idea of how he views and hopes to use crowdsourcing. He has an article in Planning Theory and Convergence that both approach the idea of crowdsourcing with enthusiasm and caution…….http://darenbrabham.com/research.html
check it out

By: Rick Boyer

Rick Boyer — Sat, 19 Sep 2009 21:16:26 +0000

A friend of mine just emailed me one of your articles from a while back. I read that one a few more. Really enjoy your blog. Thanks