daren brabham stakeholder engagement conference 2010

Integrating Previously Uninvolved Stakeholdersin an Online Public Participation Program

The Next Stop Design Case

Daren C. Brabhamwith

Thomas W. SanchezKeith Bartholomew

Outline• The origins of crowdsourcing• Toward a typology of crowdsourcing• Crowdsourcing public participation in planning• A tour of Next Stop Design• Outcomes• Future Plans• Q & A

Me.

A Boy and His Shirts

A Struggle Over the Term• Challenges “in the form of an open call”• “An online, distributed problem solving and

production model”• Like anything in Wired, “crowdsourcing” was

an instant buzzword• Old wine in new bottles?• A bloated concept makes for unclear research

Toward a Typology• Toward a typology of crowdsourcing

approaches– Knowledge Discovery– Broadcast Search– Peer-Vetted Creative Production– Distributed Human Intelligence Tasking

• And what about open source, commons-based peer production, distributed computing, etc.?

Knowledge Discovery• Online communities challenged to uncover

existing knowledge in the network• Amplify discovery capabilities of an

organization with limited resources• Example: Peer-to-Patent

Knowledge Discovery

Knowledge Discovery• Similar in spirit to what Yochai Benkler calls

“commons-based peer production,” but not the same– Commons-based peer production (e.g., Wikipedia)

lacks a centralized set of tasks– A knowledge management and coordination

process

Broadcast Search• Online communities challenged to find

solutions to difficult problems• Casting a wide net finds the “lone gunman” –

the genius able to solve the problem• Examples: InnoCentive, Goldcorp Challenge

Broadcast Search

Peer-Vetted Creative Production• Online communities challenged to develop

and choose solutions to ideation problems• Inviting a lot of input—diverse input—brings

in many (different) ideas. And people “find the best stuff”

• Best idea is the one the market will support• Examples: Threadless, user-generated ads

Peer-Vetted Creative Production

Peer-Vetted Creative Production

Distributed Human Intelligence Tasking

• Online communities tasked to perform simple tasks that computers cannot do well

• Decomposing a problem/task requiring human intelligence into smaller pieces and distributing it is faster, better

• Examples: Amazon Mechanical Turk, Subvert & Profit

Distributed Human Intelligence Tasking

Distributed Human Intelligence Tasking

• Similar to distributed computing projects like SETI@Home, Rosetta@Home, etc.– Distributed computing lacks human intelligence– Use of “spare cycles” is similar, though• Bored at work? Make $0.03 clicking on things• Complicates the idea of separate work, play, and

“down” time

Why Does All of This Work?• Collective intelligence: we are smarter than me• Crowd wisdom– Aggregating individual input is sometimes better

than averaging ideas

• The Web coordinates effort– Speed, reach, asynchrony, anonymity, convergence

• Crowds are motivated– money, reputation, portfolio building, enjoyment, friends

Review: 4 Types, 4 Features• 4 types: knowledge discovery, broadcast search, peer-

vetted creative production, distributed human intelligence tasking

• 4 core features:– Hierarchical task management by an organization

(the “crowdsourcer”)– Crowdsourcer understands motivations of “crowds”– Crowdsourcing leverages human intelligence– Depends on the Web

Urban Planning & Public Participation• Urban planning central to many of today’s

biggest social and environmental problems• Urban planning uses public participation programs• Traditional public participation methods have

limitations– Interpersonal dynamics, special interest groups,

logistics, skewed demographics, one-way comm.

• Purpose is similar to peer-vetted creative production (ideation, market support)

Next Stop Design• Federal Transit Administration grant for

“Innovations in Public Participation”– In cooperation with the Utah Transit Authority

• Peer-vetted creative production approach• Bus stop design contest– Why bus stops? Common, complex, contained

Next Stop Design

Variety of Designs

Winners• 1st – “Folding Bus Stop” – 3.30– Thessaloniki, Greece

• 2nd – “Stop to Move” – 3.05– Mumbai, India

• 3rd – “Smart Stop” – 2.89– Sioux Falls, South Dakota

Final Breakdown• 29,855 visits• 316,141 page views (10.6 pages/visit)• 3,187 registered users• 260 bus stop designs• 11,058 votes cast

Final Breakdown• Countries/territories

visiting: 127– Top: US, UK, India,

Greece, Canada

• U.S. states visiting: 50, plus D.C.– Top: NY, CA, UT, TX,

LA

Final Breakdown• Users were riders– 48% rode bus “more than once a week” or “every day”– 57% rode bus at least once a week

• Users were new to the process– 68.5% had never attended a public meeting

• Diverse ages– 13-85 years old– 9% teens, 49% 20s, 21% 30s, 21% 40+

Outcomes• Crowdsourcing has potential for public

participation in urban planning. Model needs refinement.

• Replicated some of the limitations of traditional public participation methods

• Cheaters – 20 cheaters, 27.6% of votes– Accountability– Keep current score unknown

Findings So Far• Building online community is challenging

• Motivations are complex• Amateur – Professional Tension• Global – Local Tension

Future Plans• Continued interviews with participants– Motivations for participation– Perceptions of the project as effective for government– How they found out about the site

• “Expert” panel review of the winners• Code common themes in designs• Phase 2 – design a plan, not a structure• Publish source code, create toolkit

Thank You• Questions?