Note: Where available, the PDF/Word icon below is provided to view the complete and fully formatted document
Disclaimer: The Parliamentary Library does not warrant the accuracy of closed captions. These are derived automatically from the broadcaster's signal.
Big Ideas -

View in ParlView

(generated from captions) get to the top in two. Ellyse

Perry is breaking records and

stereo ties. She has played

cricket against men, was the

youngest ever cricketer to play

for Australia, has helped win a

cricket World Cup. Ellyse

Perry, absolutely outstanding.

And has been asked to represent

her country again, this time in

soccer. I don't see it as

being anything that special,

compared to the achievements of

some of our most fantastic

athletes. If it's not such a

big deal, why don't we see more

athletes at the top in two

sports at the same time? One

of the main reasons is at the

top level of sport you need to

put in a lot of time and hard

work. AFL and Rugby players

train for about 11 months of

the year. So there's not much

time to do another sport.

Also, top athletes work on

getting their bodies into a particular shape, strength and

weight to give them the best

chance of succeeding in their

sport. In the end, sports

professionals will nearly

always choose just one port to

focus on. Everyone knows

Shane Warne as one of the

world's best spin bowlers. But

you probably didn't know that

he was once a promising footy

star, and even turned out for

St Kilda's reserves team. You

have probably seen Lleyton

Hewitt's passion on the tennis

court, but before this racquet

took up all his time he too was

a promising young footy

player. While Shane and

Lleyton gave up a sport when

they were young, there are some

players who try to do the

switch when they are much

older. Israel Folau is a huge

name in Rugby League, but was

lured over to the AFL with a

multimillion dollar pay packet.

He hasn't played a top flight

game yet but will have his work

cut out if he's going to

transfer his skills to a

different sport. As for

Ellyse, it's her coaches and

work ethic that have allowed

her to July cricket and soccer.

Her coaches reckon playing two

sports helps her deal with

pressure in competition. The

advice from sport experts is to

play as many sports as you can

while growing up, so you

develop lots of different

skills, like hand-eye

coordination, footwork,

agility, strength and fitness.

Don't be afraid to have a go at

anything, especially speaking

from the girls perspective,

just because the boys are playing doesn't mean you can't

play. The physical, mental and

social benefits I've received

from sport can be offered to

anyone, particularly young

girls. It's a really fantastic

thing, so I'd love to see more

girls being involved in sport

and enjoying it. With twice

the talent, it looks like

Ellyse is on track to have

double the success. Talented

girl. That's it for the show.

I'll see you next time. Closed Captions by CSI. This Program is Captioned Live. # Theme music I'm Waleed Aly. Hi there and welcome to Big Ideas, the wisdom of crowdsourcing. On today's show, of the internet and business. It's a term that's become a buzzword jobs, projects or problems It describes the act of outsourcing people, or crowd, to an undefined large group of the way things like Wikipedia work. through an open call, and UK design director Tom Hulme Serial entrepreneur has spent most of his working life services and enterprises developing new products, technology and even fashion brands, in retail, financial services, the stuff of changing the world. which doesn't exactly sound like in a Tanzanian high school, But after a stint teaching Hulme has redirected his energies for problem solving to establishing a global tool to spruik it far and wide. and he's on a mission is a fabulous idea An while he thinks crowdsourcing it's a rubbish term. crowdsourcing and what it is. So, let's dive first into this talk's title is crowdsourcing, Now, I've got to confess, even though I hate the term.

to prominence in 2006. So, it was - it kind of rose an article for Wired Magazine A guy called Jeff Howe wrote adopted by everybody. and it's kind of been bucket of ideas. It's an all encompassing to be slightly negative, Generally it's starting to be felt really transactional. because it feels

from people and giving nothing back. It feels like you're just taking the course of this talk you'll see And so to me and hopefully through the first incarnation that actually I think it's just that's going on. of something far, far more exciting crowdsourcing to date So, if we think about why it's nothing new. has the traction it does -

Revolution in say the 17th Century, Well, since certainly the Industrial efficient structures. we started building really all about just command and control. We were building structures that are

what you produce. They're about controlling to run them. And by definition it's expensive before people realised So, it was only a matter of time to take stuff from outside that it might make sense that sort of pyramidal hierarchy. that range all the way back. And there's examples of this is the Longitude Prize. I mean, one I'm inspired by So, in 1714 the British Government's of their ships, struggling to keep hold they kept running into islands, some close to here. probably including where we are They thought we need to know better to them. and that was exceptionally valuable a crowdsourcing competition. So they ran 20,000 pounds at the time, They ran a competition to award as you can imagine, which is huge amounts of money, enabled them to pinpoint for the person that actually within 20 nautical miles. the longditude of their ship commemorative plaque you can see here And this guy, who - John Harrison, he won that prize. is they actually incentivised people And the thing they did that was smart of progress. just to make little baby steps So, crowdsourcing is not new. we may all be hearing about it, It may suddenly be fashionable, hating it, loving it. talking about it, It's been around for ages. It's not new. of it in Australia, And you've got some good examples is 99designs. so one I find really inspiring It's an Australian company. now, I think, They've moved the head office, to the west coast on the States. about 45,000 projects But they've completed usually around brand, usually around communication design. But they're paying on average, designers, over $600,000 a month in prize money. So, it's effective, it has traction. And I think it will continue to have traction, because actually it's obvious the gap it fills. It enables you to grow your workforce with aligned incentives. You reward people when it works. So this stuff is pretty obvious to us. Like the idea that prizes enable you to gather new intellectual property. And actually, if you believe some advocates and proponents of it, you'd think that these types of prize based systems are absolutely the answer. Put simply, they work because you get a collection of people,

they contribute ideas, someone moderates it in closed way so the intellectual property stays safe, so you can use it, and then it gets ranked and the prizes are awarded. So this is like the most obvious interpretation of crowdsourcing and it's been pretty successful. You know, the closest to the Longitude Prize that we've had in recent history is the Netflix Prize.

In 2006 Netflix announced that if they could find people that would improve their algorithm for actually recommending which video you'd like by just 10% they'd give you $1 million. And actually it was won with 20 minutes to spare in 2009. And it had been won by combining heaps of people's different ideas together. Even things around your emotion and how your memory works on different days. So, this stuff will continue. So, I could stop this talk here and say, 'Great, prizes are the answer. We can all stop worrying about alternatives. Let's just run heaps of prizes.' But I think that's kind of the early version. It's 1.0 of crowdsourcing. There's much more interesting stuff coming. So to highlight that point, I'd love to show you a video - well, it's actually an advert - from 1997, for Microsoft Encarta. So, I think you should remember it - it was certainly for sale as a CD here. New collages and over 5,000 links embedded to websites. When you're hungry for information, who're you gonna call? Microsoft Encarta '97 Encyclopedia Deluxe. Hold the fries. OK, hold the fries. OK, so this guy thought he had the solution, he's looking pretty smug about it. Microsoft thought they had the solution. They bought materials, intellectual property, from encyclopedias. They were convinced they had it sussed. They were convinced that no-one else would offer a better encyclopedia out there. But we all know that something different came on the scene and actually something else came on the scene that contributed to them closing Encarta in 2009. And that was Wikipedia. So, last year Wikipedia had its ten billionth edit. Ten billion edits by people that basically were not remunerated in this traditional approach. There's no prize-based system in Wikipedia. This is the stuff that gets me really excited. It's open systems, it's network collaboration, rather than traditional prize-based closed systems. And they look distinctly different to the prize based systems. There's clever design in there. There's a huge community you can tap into. People move in and out of the community. We'll talk about the incentives to participate a little later. But you can see it's completely different.

The systems basically have to run where ideas run. They sort of revolve around this system. They're thrown out by people if they don't like them. It's a self-moderated system. It feels and looks completely different to the hierarchy we saw before.

It no longer is that sort of triangle, the pyramidal structure. It's more like a network. And networks are interesting. When you're designing systems, networks are more interesting than pyramids, because they enable kind of Darwinistic emergent stuff to grow. They enable nodes to fall away, nodes to re-grow. And that stuff is completely different, it's a different approach. Less Newtonian, sort of, dictatorial efficiency, and more adaptability emerges, Darwinistic thinking.

So, that kind of leads you to the question - is Wikipedia just a complete freak? 150,000 English speaking editors - is it just a one-off or is this an unstoppable trend? And probably the best way to answer that question, one of the places we turn to when thinking about it - you know, the gentleman who created the most famous triangular framework in human history on humanistic psychology, Abraham Maslow. He created the hierarchy of needs, which whether we like it or not, we all sort of ascribe to. This is the stuff that gets us going and there's been awful examples where we've had to focus on the bottom of the pyramid again, around safety and physiological security, but actually, the fact that we're all sat in this room is testament to the fact that you guys are shooting up the pyramid, you're on your way up. And if you look at those needs - what keeps us all happy - sense of belonging, sense of esteem, self-actualisation. The question is - are we finding new ways to actually meet those. Now, if we were sat in this room 30 years ago,

we probably would have said the way to get your sense of esteem, your sense of belonging was the American dream. So like - 2.4 kids, 2.4 homes, 2.4 cars, whatever - it's materialism, but it's radically changed recently.

The Global Financial Crisis, which you guys, I learnt this week, call GFC, which took me ages to figure out what you were talking about, but I now understand and it's a big issue. So that's changed, I think, the way that we actually seek belonging and esteem and self-actualisation. You guys have had experiences towards the tail end of this year that - incredibly difficult for, certainly me, to understand how complex and painful the process was, but if I sort of look at the web-based communities that are growing around topics like this, you can see it's triggered changes. So the question is - how's all of this stuff changing what Maslow knew that we all wanted to achieve? And I think it's changing all three.

There's examples all around Australian society at the moment that show us that you guys are changing an interpretation of belonging and esteem. This is a start-up actually. It started in Bondi - sorry, it started over down in Sydney. It's got 40 car brands now. And basically you can rent out your own car to people for the day, so it's more about access than ownership. That's a big change in that pyramid. You no longer need to own everything. Another interpretation of that that I think's doing incredibly, is the garage sale, again this started in Bondi in Sydney. There's 1,613 sales up there, where people are literally just selling stuff they don't really need. In London we've got this explosion of storage companies. They're everywhere. I mean, what a wonderful way of showing people they've got more than they need. That materialism is kind of shifting. So it's more about access. We understand that. And we're finding new ways to signal belonging. This is an interesting way of signaling belonging. As of last week, 20 million people had favourited Barack Obama's Facebook page. That's 3% of the users of Facebook. It's unbelievable. People are using it as a way of showing what they belong to. It's kind of an emerging tribalism. It's a different way of showing. So you guys - you can see this 100,000 people have liked Julia Gillard's page. I don't know what that means. That's 1%, by the way, of Australia's 10 million Facebook users, rather than 3% of the world's, which is interesting in itself. That's probably an important statistic if you're a politician. I'd think pretty hard about what that means. That being said, there are causes that are motivating huge numbers of Australians. So, 2% of Australia's 22 million people have actually participated in GetUp, which you guys know more about than me, but it seems a wonderful campaign for actually churning into action. It's a way of demonstrating new esteem, new belonging and potentially self-actualisation. So, I was trying to think through a way of showing how this desire to learn or participate is changing and Google trends, for you guys, is a really fun tool to do it. So, every time you put a search thread into Google, you make Google smarter.

You make it cleverer. You're doing all the work for them. They just need to run the numbers and predict. And if you do Google trends on two searches in Australia - So, this is just searching in Australia. I thought, the internet, people often search for discounts and people also search for how to do stuff. And if you look at that change I think it symbolised this inflection we're seeing of how people are finding new ways to self-actualise. So, this blue flatline you see is people searching for discounts it's practically unchanged. Look at the green line which is people searching for how to do stuff on the internet. It's hugely changing. This is us finding new ways to actually meet Maslow's needs. An example, which expires - inspires me -

not expires me, that would be hideous - inspires me is a lady called Lauren Luke. She's a 27-year-old single mum, up north in the UK. She was passionate about makeup. She started putting how-to videos online. To date, she's had 108 million views. 108 million views - she's actually in partnership with her own makeup line. She's self-actualising - it became incredibly valuable. I love this. What you can't see here is within a day of the wedding - 'Kate Middleton royal wedding day makeup look' assuming that's Kate's makeup she's showing, but the number of views speaks for itself, 20,000 within 40 hours. She's so fast to react and people love her, because she's honest. So another way of looking at Maslow's hierarchy or thinking about these needs -

and I'm happy to send any of you this framework - it's a framework by a guy called Karim Lakhani, at Harvard Business School, and he kind of plotted out all the needs against extrinsic motivations. Money. I think crowdsourcing usually operates here, that's why I'm less excited about it, because there's all of this other space that probably creates more, sort of, drive towards Maslow's needs. So I'm excited about that stuff. And I think we see it everywhere - just as a, sort of, separate but I think important example. Khaled Saeed, a 28-year-old, he was allegedly murdered by police in June of 2010. It didn't make any noise. A really amazing guy called Whael Ghonim, who actually works at Google, set up a Facebook page, it had half a million 'likes' and it basically triggered the day of rage on Jan 25th at Tahrir Square in Egypt. It triggered the start of a revolution. I think actually he does a better job of explaining why this is different and why this meets this new participation economy that I was talking about before. So I'll let you listen to him explain it.

The moment we announced on the page the locations, they shut down Facebook. But I had a backup plan. I used Google Groups to send a mass mail campaign to all these people in order to tell them, 'Here are the locations, and please spread it among your friends.' And everyone knew eventually. So definitely technology played a great role here, you know, it helped keeping people informed, it helped making all of us collaborate. I called this 'revolution 2.0'. Revolution 2.0 is - I say that our revolution is like Wikipedia, OK. you don't know the names of the people contributing the content.

This is exactly what happened. Revolution 2.0 in Egypt was exactly the same. Everyone was contributing small pieces, bits and pieces, we drew this whole picture of a revolution, and that picture - no-one is the hero in that picture. So when he talks about drawing the picture, he talks about creating the playing field with technology that enables these emergent behaviours. If you look at Jan 25th or the uprising on Twitter, the noise, you see this is acutely true. Whereas in the past, you would have had this pyramidal shape - for some reason the red's not projecting well - but the ones that look black are actually Egyptian language,

the ones hare that are in blue, you can see here, would be English language. So you can see him, and he's probably recognised as one of the most influential characters here. He didn't own the influence in any way. So it's exactly what we're talking about. It reminds us completely of this sort of network-based approach. It reminded us completely that actually the pyramid that was in power has transitioned and this Darwinistic view has replaced it. So my view, and that's kind of the first half of what I'd love to share with you, is that this participation, more than just doing it for cash, more than doing it just for the obvious extrinsic motivators, is here to stay. And it's gonna grow, if anything. So then the question for me, at IDEO, and the question for all of us at IDEO was actually what does this mean? What does it mean for IDEO? We're a global innovation company and we help our clients grow. We help them grow through creating new brands, services, business models, products, interaction design websites. This stuff's as important as it's ever been. But this participation had the opportunity to make it better - it's disruptive, but it could potentially make IDEO's offer better. If you look at the stuff that IDEO really believes in, the first thing is that we believe passionately in diversity. I never work in a team at IDEO with people with the same skill set as me. Thank goodness. It'd be boring.

It's eclectic. The teams are eclectic. We also believe passionately in going to extremes. So if I'm interested in what's happening in a sort of market around credit, I don't just fixate on your average customer today,

because I know that they're not the customer of the future. It's the guys at the extremes that migrate across. They become the mass market. So we look to them. And the final thing that we do is we passionately belive in designing systems. The days of being able to just differentiate around form of an object are long gone - it gets copied. People fall into the trap of saying Apple's a success because their laptops are beautiful. They are, but their service, their brand, their retail, the fact they opened up developer tools to developers, they were beautiful as well, it created a system. So we design systems for our clients. And when you take all of those three things together, it was our belief actually that harnessing the wisdom of crowds, or what we would prefer to say collaborating with crowds, would offer huge value to IDEO. And we did what we always do - we kind of build stuff to be able to think it through. And we prototyped. So in this case we prototyped OpenIDEO by creating a Facebook page called Big Conversations just to see whether people would be interested in talking with us. Historically brands are a monologue - they just talk to their consumers, their clients. We wanted to see whether we had permission to have a dialogue. And we learned we did. So we started designing OpenIDEO. One of the ladies that designed it with me is here. Hi, Anne.

She's here today. We've had fun this week,

working through a sort of physical version of OpenIDEO. I'll talk a little bit more about that at the end. But I'd love to share with you what we've created, and actually why, I hope, it fits with IDEO's brand. Because there's no perfect website to anything. You can only have the best possible solution for your community.

So when you guys are collaborating, your solution needs to look very different to IDEO's, which needs to look different to my personal one. It's all different, it's based on the community.

So hopefully when you think about what's precious to IDEO, you'll see why we designed OpenIDEO as we have. HULME V/O: For a while now, IDEO designers have been keen to put the best bits of the creative process online, and invite everyone to join in.

OpenIDEO is a global community that will draw on your optimism, inspiration, ideas and opinions, to solve problems together, for the collective social good. Each challenge starts with a big question, something to get all of us thinking. Next comes the inspiration phase, in which we all post inspiring things that we've seen out there that might help us solve the big question. The more visual the posts, the better.

Images, videos and stories will all help to get everyone going. After inspiring one another,

it's time to flex our creative muscles in the concepting phase - how would you solve this problem? Post your solutions and show everyone how you plan to make it a reality. If someone else's idea sparks something for you, you can build on it. OpenIDEO was designed with this way of working in mind. This is where you get to collaborate with other people, and where the magic really happens. Once concepts are fully formed, they're put through the evaluation phase. This process is exactly as it sounds. You rate and comment on the concepts that you believe will best solve the problem, according to the given criteria. The concepts that rise to the top in the evaluation phase win, with the winning idea being available for development by the challenge sponsor. Your participation in each phase,

plus how much you've collaborated with others, all add up to your design quotient, or DQ for short, which you can choose to publicise or keep private.

It offers you feedback and recognition. And because we're all good at different parts of the creative process, we'll all have slightly different DQs. Just like in all good brainstorming sessions, we're going for quantity as well as quality - the more you add, collaborate and critique in any phase, the bigger DQ you'll rack up. The DQ will become a badge of honour for community members over time. In a nutshell, we've created an open online tool that takes you through the creative process. (Happy music)

It's highly visual, collaborative, generates feedback, and most importantly, it's fun to use. OpenIDEO offers its community inspiration and recognition. The site will be as good as its input. And we're looking forward to seeing what it becomes. Cool. I think it's self-explanatory. So I thought what we could perhaps close out with, I've kind of included everything in the participation economy, and so I thought I'd maybe take you through the train of questions that I ask people when they're interested in operating this space. And I do it fairly systematically because we really know never to start with, for example, technology. So let's whiz through the ten questions I ask every client if they're interested in open innovation or collaboration, and I'll Tweet out the final slide which will actually be all of these, listed out, in case they inspire any of your own thinking. And actually part of what I'll do is I'll reference the challenge we've just run with the Queensland government, and then the Ideas festival, which hopefully some of you guys participated in, because actually I think it's a wonderful example. We got engagement around this challenge, that we kind of haven't seen before. We had 617 concepts submitted over the last eight weeks and the quality has been unbelievably good - we just spent two days in a workshop helping flesh them out before they go up onto the site for continued collaboration. We were absolutely inspired by the quality. So let's go through what we've learnt, and the ten questions, and then let's have some questions and answers. The first thing that we've learnt is you have to take unbelievable care with the question that you ask your community. If you haven't got a good idea of what you want to learn don't even start, because all you'll get back is noise. The only certainty is if you ask a bad question, you're gonna get a bad answer. If you actually decide to design whole systems, you have to allow more time, so understand what touchpoints you want designed if it is design you're doing, understand what the playing field is, to help people understand that. So when we set a question, we know, we've learned, it's gotta be inspiring, it's gotta be short, and it's gotta be a real call to action. But the question is not static. 20 years ago we could, we could ask a question and it would remain unchanged. We know now that actually questions are completely dynamic. They change. So we know that actually the media coverage around OpenIDEO kind of changes the feel of what the question is.

That's completely out of our control, which is fine. The terms and conditions, the evaluation criteria, the partners, but also the initial contributions to the site completely change the question. And one of the things we learned, we designed early on, was we learned that we could feature inspiration

to help direct the community. So when we see something we love, we feature it. Otherwise actually people get anchored by the most recent contribution.

The first thing to do is really understand the question you're asking. The next thing we always ask ourselves is actually who's well equipped to answer it? If I've got one set of questions, I might choose to - and, you know, it's a chemistry-based question, OpenIDEO wouldn't necessarily be the right community. If I've got a question that required deep knowledge, or alternatively, requires, you know, people with a specific skill set in a specific part of the world, you need to make sure they're in your community. So ask yourself who can answer your big question, and then go to where they are. Our community managers - we have Meena Kadri, who's here today - spend a lot of time helping bring new community into challenges to make sure the quality stays high. It's really important to us. And our community has grown - we're up to just under 16,000 users from 178 countries. I actually said in a presentation about two weeks ago that it was from 200 countries, and there are only 195! I'm slightly embarrassed about that still, but Google Analytics presents it as countries and territories, so that was awful. But yeah, we have 178 countries. There's 195. We're continuously looking for more coverage because we value diversity, that's important to us. And we see that effect the contributions. I was inspired by this on our recent Australian, Queensland food challenge. This guy that you see up here, photographed with us at an event in London not so long ago, he's one of the biggest contributors. And he was contributing builds around surf culture, and he lives in Latvia. So inspiring that you give people access that they never had before. Historically the access was you just had to go to a good design school, etcetera, now we all have access, we can all self-actualise. The next question is how are you gonna motivate people? Money's fine. Like, I have no problem with - I'm probably not personally excited by crowdsourcing using financial rewards so much, because I think it makes so many other motivations you see up here difficult. You can see the motivations here. Money, the ultimate extrinsic motivator, it often totally collapses a lot of the other stuff. I get more excited about all of these. So, when we designed OpenIDEO, we made it more community-based solution, rather than a market-based solution, which you can imagine. So actually, people contribute, I think, to OpenIDEO, for knowledge. They contribute for recognition. You can see the design quotient - this is my one here, where actually we tell people about their participation in the site and they can choose to reveal it or not. We find virtually everyone reveals it, which I think is insightful, it's interesting, we can learn from that. But the other thing that we learn is people start to import these into the real world. We see job applications with DQs, we see blogs with people's DQs. So inspiring to see it just spill out, and we encourage it. We actually give an embed code so people can do it themselves. The next question you guys need to ask

if you're interested in open innovation is what's the process you're gonna run? And the more complex the process, the more careful you have to be.

So, this is kind of a representation of IDEO's process. We set a challenge, we look for inspiration, we synthesise it,

we then come up with ideas, we prototype it, often in a sort of feedback loop here,

and then we evaluate and launch. Not all of those are really well suited to having everyone participate initially, so we focused on inspiration, concepting and evaluation, stuff that the crowd are really well suited to help with, that they can feel like they're adding real value with. And you can see the other question, of course, is do you want your system to be open or closed?

We've already talked about that. So when you look at OpenIDEO, you understand why we have inspiration, concepting and evaluation, effectively - applause here - it makes sense, you can see the logic behind that decision. We also value collaboration. I talked about that earlier. We have diverse people working together, so we want them to collaborate, and we build these network maps to show people what it means, but you have to design for collaboration, you can't just wait for it to happen. Crowd funding systems - tough to foster collaboration. That's not a bad thing, but you just have to be mindful of it. So we deliberately designed for different units of engagement around collaboration. Applauding something or commenting on something takes hardly any time, it's kind of our acquisition into the site. And then deeper relationships around building on or new content and celebrating collaboration here, all really important ways to drive collaboration. This is a good example, actually, just to show you. So, this guy lives in Washington, a guy called Sina Mossayeb. He's one of our lead users, he always contributes amazing stuff.

This was actually on the food production challenge, so the Queensland challenge again. He contributed the idea of an iPhone app to help connect and inform. To give you an idea to around the sort of collaboration, so this was his work you see here. This is his iPhone app, he's designed it to a pretty good level of granularity. It's lovely to see. And you can also see down on the right, here, 'built on this'. So these are all other concepts where people have taken his and migrated them into their own content. You can see how our network diagrams form now. And then finally you can see the other type of collaboration

which is commenting and it's pretty unbelievable - the richness of people's contributions. They - we actually learnt a huge amount from it. Initially we didn't really, kind of, celebrate comments. We didn't expect it to evolve but we reacted pretty quickly and we even now allow things like applauding comments because we saw people having conversation threads in the comments. A behaviour we didn't expect. And then final, for, just a share, maintain a drum beat if you're going to grow a community. Don't think - there's no free lunch. A lot of people turn to this stuff because they think it's cheap or it's easy, it's hard work. Just catch up with our community manager, Mina, who lives in New Zealand and works a lot of time just making sure there's a drum beat if you want to learn more about that. It's incredibly difficult. To give you an idea, this is an OpenIDEO, you can see, actually, Mina tweeted, I just grabbed this, not so long ago, you can see she's tweeting a huge amount to keep the buzz going. And actually, you know, making sure

that people can continue to stay interested with what's happening. Also, if you guys are using open systems, collaboration, remember there is a whole world outside the platform and celebrate it. If you think that you've got to control a community, you're history.

They'll reject it. So we celebrate all of the interesting emergent stuff we see and most of it we have no control over. So one example would be our Yammer groups. So these are pretty heavy users that have celebrated their own conversation groups that we kind of participate in but we had nothing to do with. Another I find inspiring, which makes sense given there's no online or offline really anymore,

it's all blended, is people actually meet on twitter - fans of OpenIDEO, and actually go to restaurants and meet. They have what they call 'tweet ups.' They've had them in New York, Washington, San Francisco. People that have never met together but knew they had a common interest in social good through this platform. Again, we choose not to go. The traditional approach is to grab hold of it and do sound bites with everyone, video it. We choose not to go because we want these emergent things to flourish. And then the final couple is actually

celebrate the journey as well as the destination. So, a lot of, for example, crowdsourcing sites you just celebrate the thing that pops out the other end.

Think about the journey and what it means. Think about the engagement it has the potential to create. We regularly post blogs where we celebrate just the small steps. It can be incredibly impactful. And finally - final two, most importantly, show impact. Our community is uniting around wanting positive impact. So we have to show it where we can. We have a team in Ghana at the moment actually prototyping, in Accra, the solution of a toilet that was actually developed on the site. We'll celebrate that almost more than getting a new challenge. It's unbelievably important. And we've been celebrating impact actually over the last 48 hours in workshops to refine the concepts from the Queensland challenge. It's so exciting to see, kind of, in this case, local farmers, politicians, entrepreneurs, students get together around a common aim and build out these ideas and turn them into quick, actionable steps rather than just theorising and trying to change the world all at once from the macro level. And the final one I wanted to share

is kind of a heart warming story for me and it was also a great learning story. So, if you have worked in traditional website type businesses, you're taught to hate lurkers.

So a lurker is someone that basically just watches from the sidelines of the site. Doesn't want to commit, probably isn't actually traditionally that interested in the site. One thing happened at the end of last year that completely changed my perspective of where the lurkers are important. And it was a Christmas card that we got from a lady called Bernadette Kwan in Malaysia. I looked at her profile, she'd never contributed to the site. She'd registered, but she's not even applauded something. I would have said, lurker, not interested, how do we convert her? And she sent this hand drawn Christmas card. And the effort she put into this told me that she was actually engaged in the topic and reminded me that actually the lurkers sometimes have a lot of the power and actually, kind of, take a lot of the value in a positive way. So those are the questions I ask but you can see there's some systematic order and it's interesting how little technology features in it. Technology's an enabler, the real question is what do you want to achieve and who's able of achieving it? So, thank you very much, these are my details, thank you. (Applause) Great stuff, Tom, fantastic. Can I just ask one question? Yeah, fire away. Where does this leave the notion of intellectual property? The collaborative world of innovation

is very different from the idea of the inventor, the idea and the profit that comes from the idea. This blows it away completely, doesn't it? I don't think it necessarily blows it away, I think it just redefines where value lives. I think we, through, you know - a lot of the last 100 years have placed a lot of value in ideas and one of the things we've learnt is actually ideas, given technology, are almost commodotised now. I've started a couple of businesses and with both of them, people have consistently said to me afterwards, 'Oh, I had that idea, I've had that idea.'

Everyone has access to all ideas and if you believe that's true then you know the value is in execution. And if the value is in execution, I'm optimistic that it doesn't matter if some of the, sort of, traditional defensive intellectual property collapses away. And I think we see, particularly in the software industry which is a leading indicator of this, open source, being a fascinating example, where the value is about creating ecosystems and also Creative Commons is an example where you can kind of see people learning - moving up Maslow's hierarchy in a positive way without collapsing the system. Yeah. There's exceptions to the rules but I think it's kind of a net positive that we move away from that defensive thinking. OK, I want to take some questions or comments from the floor because there must surely be some feedback. Do we have someone with a microphone at all or will people just yell? because there must surely be some feedback. I was thinking the music industry's a classic industry, isn't it, that's moved from that old paradigm of the big organisation signing up the individual artist to now, basically the artist establishing their own website, getting their music out there, having control really over their own destiny and the audience and the participants being involved in that. It's an amazing example, like the music industry was productised, so the value was in the CD. But the smart companies have realised that actually you can't contain piracy, you have to work with it. So you look for adjacent values. A lot of the money's moved to live events, which you'd expect. A lot of the money has moved to systems like you have here, I think X Factor, do you have Australian Idol or something similar? If you think about that model,

they've taken the most expensive bit of the music industry which was artist and repertoire, like searching for talent and they've totally democratised it. They've even gone further. They get all of us to pay by voting to say what we want to buy. So they've turned a cost to a revenue, extraordinary model. So we see, I find it inspiring, the music industry, actually. and I think publishing will follow many of the things we've seen in terms of the evolution. So anyway, I'm - OK. MAN: Yeah, Tom, you pointed out how you actually benefit

by tying all the ends together to finally get a result. That's the way I read your message. People come up with the idea, then you share it right through to product or success, which ever way you like to believe it. So, I want to ask this question - to the Hawke Government many years ago, I put up an idea

that there ought to be a Department of Ideas

as part of the Federal Government. Now, the purpose of it was it would register all the ideas, doesn't matter whether it was an invention or whatever which is along the lines of what you're saying. And the idea being that the person would get the recognition of having it in the register and if ultimately others want to take it up they're able to link up with that person. And if it ultimately is developed, well, then there's the protection there and this is where the Government came in. That the Government would give protection so you could see that whether it's an invention or some other way, so people get rewards in different ways.

Some people might make money but the ideas could be better government, Doesn't matter, doesn't have to be - you know, or an invention. But the registration of the idea leads to recognition and that means that there's a good chance the idea can be adopted because others will build on it,

exactly as what you said there. And ultimately the success will come from adoption of the idea whether it's an invention or whatever. What's your comment?

It sounds like you were way ahead of us in terms of the philosophy. I think I liked two things in what you said, the first is, you know, the traditional patent approach we just talked about is the idea you can kind of ring fence intellectual property. And a lot of the incentives are actually not - you have what you call submarine patterns, where people hide their ideas. It's unbelievable, they're hiding their ideas in case someone else uses it so that they can -

it's kind of like piracy to me, it's a shocking approach. So, what I liked in your interpretation, your evolution of the idea of traditional patterns is you did two things - you give some recognition without promising the world. Because if you promise the world to inventors nothing ever happens because they have over inflated ideas of how much an idea's worth. And secondly, what I loved about what you were saying, which still doesn't happen enough, is you create an open market

where you're actually sharing ideas so they're accessible. And we don't have enough of that either.

Like, if you look at the patent offices globally, they're - I'm sure you've looked at patents in the past, they're unbelievably, sort of, long and complex things. It's an inaccessible system to date. So, I think if we all shared more ideas and we're open about more ideas, similar to what you see in open source now, with software, the world will be better placed. I applaud you for thinking about it before I certainly did. Ahead of the curve, well done. Yeah. WOMAN: Hello, um, I was just interested about how you've set this up as an online forum, obviously,

but they say, well people say, that there's a loss of conversation and the art of conversation. I was just wondering if you see a social loss to these conversations being made online? It's a great question. I don't think they're better or worse, I just think they're different. And I think we have to accept it. We're actually - I think our ability to converse has been constrained by technology because technology hasn't really understood it or been adapted fully to it. But I think we see that changing. So a couple of stories just to bring that to life, I met someone at AT&T not so long ago who's daughter was a 12-year-old in the States and he said her phone bill, over a month, was one minute of voice calls and 6,000 text messages. So we just have to accept that people using these technologies are finding new ways to communicate.

People did it with the telegraph, we found ways of actually shortening speech so that the telegraph was a useful tool.

The same thing is happening with the internet. It's different, not necessarily better or worse,

and I kind of celebrate that. The thing that scares me is how many clients I meet stop their staff using Facebook, using Twitter, using basically all the tools that enable you to build these muscles to operate in this new economy. So, I don't necessarily think it's better or worse, I just think it's perhaps an evolution of conversation and I'm excited by new technology actually facilitating it in exciting new ways. Like video Skype is an unbelievable enabler of the, sort of, beneficial, eye contact that you're perhaps referring to. So, it's exciting to watch evolve. There's lots of, sort of, potential for it to improve further. eye contact Talking about the evaluation phase,

in the phases you had up on the presentation before, what is your feeling with regard to whether it should be a democratic evaluation phase or not, like whether you should be recognising somebody with a deep strength in a field or somebody who is a newcomer, an amateur in a field should have the same amount of say when it comes to evaluating ideas? Absolutely cracking question. We wrestled with this loads. And the answer, I think, is it depends entirely on the question that you've asked. So, if you're asking people to evaluate a polymer's ability to stay solid at 15,000 Kelvin, I think I probably wouldn't use the wisdom of the crowd. Whereas, you know, if you can - and I think there's more potential to use the wisdom of the crowd

if you smartly shape the evaluation criteria. So, one of the things we learnt early on is that actually people have a disproportionate bias to beautifully presented stuff. It's kind of a risk in the system. So, you could have a good idea badly presented a bad idea beautifully presented and people have a natural cognitive bias to the later. One of the things we've tried to do is enable fully freeform evaluation questions so that we can help shape people's thinking so it'd be great if you actually participated on the site when we switched to evaluation, which will happen very shortly, in a couple of weeks, for the Queensland Challenge and you'll see that we'll list out - firstly, we don't ask everyone to evaluate everything, we're reducing the number to evaluate because it would just be to much work and then we're asking people to evaluate against specific criteria that we've thought quite long and hard about, just to make sure that we're judging for the right reasons rather than the aesthetics or the stuff that might matter less. Does that answer your question? So, is OpenIDEO an open platform? Like, if we have a website that we actually want to generate ideas from and have collaborators, we'd obviously set up our own system but if we wanted to hook into your user base, is there any facility for that? Do you have an Open API or is there any method of linking into what you've got? Yeah, so we're... API is basically the ability to plug other sites into OpenIDEO, so it enables you to smooth transitions between the two but actually it means a heap of different stuff and we're developing versions of it. So, we're starting initially - the kind of low-hanging fruit for us is to enable people to pull a feed of all the data that comes from OpenIDEO so they can be creative about it. We see some lovely data visualisations of early interpretations of this. The next level of complexity I think you're referring to is actually when we sort of deep-root an API where, for example, people could drop their own challenge into OpenIDEO. I'm excited about the potential of that. We just have a kind of duty to our community to be very careful about how we do it, so what you will see is that as we move to explore new APIs we'll do it in a really sensitive way

and we'll make sure we'll learn as quickly as we can but I find it quite hard to imagine a system where we enable everyone to throw anything at the community because they just get overwhelmed. Does that make sense? Um, hello, are you the next Mark Zuckerberg or are you a demon? Definitely not, he's far cleverer than me? I'm just saying, I think there's amazing potential to shape and create and I was just blown away by some of the demonstrations that you had on the Queensland situation about food

and I just think that is incredible if you can - why I used the word Zuckerberg, to very huge as if you grow from small to take this concept to the world, in and of itself. then that's fascinating power I think it's interesting, because - I'm excited about these systems a slight difference is with any individual. in which the power doesn't reside an incredibly smart system Whereas, I think Facebook's a huge degree of control. and they probably exercise what we're doing So, we probably would define

the playing field more as about as defining and we enable the community their roles on the team not just to sort of self-select to change the rules of the game. but also at times the level of control. So, we probably don't exercise I think they're very different net positives. and I actually think they're both We don't know where we it'll go - the direction you're describing. I hope we go a little way to Tom. Thank you for your presentation day, the political fallout I'm just interested in to crowdsourcing or the sense that if we keep going a political position, and the notion of where rather than the old paradigm are we heading to a future and the conservatives, of the radicals we're going to have of people have decided whatever a particular group this is the way we do it now the community wants because this is what a sense of this is what I stand for rather than the politicians having and this is where I'm going? a great question. I think it's basically I wrestle with this there's a right or wrong answer. and I don't think, again, in the media industry It's particularly prevalent with politics enormously and actually overlaps in politics. because of the power of media And I think, actually, at the moment which is quite healthy, we're at an inflection point, where we have a bit of both. or ideas - let me reframe that - The question is, I think, opinions I think, is completely commoditised. content like news, is in the way you present ideas, The value is in curation, it's actually the way you package the ideas. and it's the way you execute that's the case, which I do, If you believe fundamentally the Huffington Post, which is why I kind of applaud I applaud all of it, I applaud the New York Times, I applaud politicians. the transparency I'm excited about some of this has the potential to create it kind of brings everyone and the fact that actually potentially to a critical mass of knowledge, whereby people are judged better is more meritocratic. and potentially the world So, I see some scary scenarios fostered online, where you get kind of radicalism elements of that with Al-Qaeda, you know, we've seen potentially themselves into groups where people can sort of self-select and they never see anything else. But I think it's kind of happened through human history. Through human history we've been constrained by the Dunbar number, which is the people in a social network

who we can remember, effectively, which is like 120 or 150 people. If you were born into a radical group at that time, like the certain religious groups that we've seen in the States

all around the world, where they bring kids up through that and it's the same experience. So, I don't think - I think a lot of the challenges and the threats of people behaving immorally or behaving for non-altruistic reasons exists in both systems. I think it's all of our jobs, now we have greater access, to make sure we keep those in check as best we can. OK, I think we're going to have to wrap this because we're right on the knocker and I know there's plenty more questions but will you please join me in giving a hand to Tom Hulme. (Applause) UK design entrepreneur Tom Hulme on the wisdom of crowdsourcing from Brisbane's Festival of Ideas. That's it for today's Big Ideas but if sourcing the best talks is something that rocks your world, check out the massive range at our website at the address on your screen. I'm Waleed Aly, see you again. Closed Captions by CSI This Program is Captioned


Up, up and away - domestic

airlines get air bosh after -

get airborne after a day of

cancellations. Politicians win

a crucial vote in Athens, heading off a tragedy for the

rest of Europe. We need everyone that we cannot stand

it any more. We cannot stand

any other measures, economical

or financial measures. The

passion and the Picasso proves a big winner for the Australian university. The donor is

someone who is very passionate

about science and the advancement of science. And

Angus and Julia Stone clean up

at the APRAs. I'm so happy that we're altogether and we're