6

The Future of Crowdsourcing

As we have described it in this book, crowdsourcing concerns anyactivity that is able to be broken down and that can benefit from thediversity of a large number of people. On the other hand, theexpansion of the virtual world towards the real world is still inprocess. Undoubtedly, an innovation proposed on Innocentive willsubsequently take material form. For example, a new product may belaunched based on the proposed innovation. However, there is adiscontinuity in this process, as shown in Figure 6.1.

Crowdsourcing results in the suggestion of ideas that must then betransformed into products. This transformation phase has traditionallybeen managed by manufacturing facilities. The distribution circuit ofthe manufactured products to the crowd of clients is classic as well.Take the example of the manufacturing of logos for t-shirts. Thedesign portion of production will be carried out as part of acrowdsourcing operation (as on Threadless, for example). However,the manufacture and distribution of the t-shirts will remain traditional.

As Chris Anderson has brilliantly explained [AND 12], thedemocratization of two new technologies – 3D printers andlaser-cutting machines – has changed the game.

102 Crowdsourcing

Figure 6.1. Discontinuity in the crowdsourcing process

These types of device, connected to PCs with CAD (ComputerAided Design) software and then connected to the Internet, cause theabove-mentioned discontinuity to disappear. As with all newphenomena, it is difficult to measure the scope of this method, but itsusers already have a name: “Makers” (p. 21). Anderson lists the threecharacteristics of Makers as follows:

The Future of Crowdsourcing 103

1. People using digital desktop tools to create designs for new productsand prototype them (“digital DIY”).

2. A cultural norm to share those designs and collaborate with others inonline communities.

3. The use of common design file standards that allow anyone, if theydesire, to send their designs to commercial manufacturing services to beproduced in any number, just as easily as they can fabricate them on theirdesktop. This radically foreshortens the path from idea toentrepreneurship, just as the Web did in software, information, andcontent.

It is fascinating to observe that Anderson’s descriptions fallperfectly within the course of the crowdsourcing movement. Indeed,crowdsourcing is a democratization of the creation of ideas, andMakers are a democratization of the creation of products. These twomovements cannot but line up with one another; they share the samespirit, and above all the same effectiveness.

The figure below shows the expansion of the crowdsourcingdomain made possible by the democratization of production tools.

Figure 6.2. Expansion of the crowdsourcing domain:from the mind via bits down to the atom

Manufactured by crowd

104 Crowdsourcing

Here are two general examples:

The first example is an imaginary website; it does not exist, but itis a good illustration of this process. The site, which we will call“myrocknrollring.com”, sells fashion jewelry. It displays folderscontaining all sorts of rings. Certain Internet users group these designsaccording to their taste by voting for them or marking them. TheInternet users can then download the file, available in severalcompatible formats,1 and then make their own ring at home. They canalso suggest variants of these models and post them on the site. Ofcourse, this business model requires further refinement in order formryrocknrollring.com to be profitable.

The second example is real, and a bit disturbing. In October 2012,Wired magazine stated that Cody Wilson, a 25-year-old law student atthe University of Texas, proposed putting a model online that wouldallow a pistol to be made at home with a 3D printer.2 In December, thesame magazine named this young student as one of its 15 mostdangerous people. The first prototype was tested in May 2013, and ifthis model is widely distributed, there is a great risk of it beingimproved and that a proliferation of more and more innovativehandguns will occur.

Having given these two examples, let us return to the links betweencrowdsourcing and production. The crowdsourcing of production is away to avoid red tape. Anderson (p. 57) provides a before-and-aftersnapshot of personal manufacturing technologies. In the “before”state, three conditions must be fulfilled.

The product must be popular enough to be able to bemanufactured. Personal manufacturing technologies allow us to avoidthis limitation: a product that interests only a few people can easily bemanufactured at a constant cost. If the product becomes popular, atraditional mode of manufacture (based on economies of scale) willbecome necessary. Conversely, a product that interests a fewspecialists scattered over the globe is perfectly suited to the personalmanufacturing model. It becomes easy to have this product

1 OBJ, PLY, STL, SKP, 3DS, ZPR, ASE, IGES, DWG, WRL, DEA, IGES, IGS,STEP, STP, etc.2 http://www.wired.com/dangerroom/2012/10/3d-gun-blocked/.

The Future of Crowdsourcing 105

manufactured by a 3D facility near the client (if he or she does notpossess the necessary machinery). It is also possible to have severalvariants of the product manufactured in the same place and at thesame unit cost.

Secondly, the product must be popular enough to be transportedand routed by sellers. This limitation becomes meaningless, however,when the only component being transported is the computer designmodel. Moreover, this transmission has no particular limitations initself and its cost is negligible.

Finally, the third criterion is that the product must be popularenough for people to be able to know about its existence. Thedevelopment and business use of search engines has made informationpertaining to products especially easy to find.

After the appearance of personal production technologies, all of theconditions are present to eliminate these three types of obstacles. Inthis context, crowdsourcing is the device that allows us to bypassthese limitations:

– outsourcing of production to a crowd of people possessing 3Dprinters or laser-cutting machines;

– outsourcing of creativity via the sharing of models within thecrowd, and thus universal transmission of these models;

– outsourcing of micro-publicity by the crowd.

As we can see, crowdsourcing is not the cause of this phenomenonof democratization of production, but rather the commercial engine.

This future evolution allows us to complete the figure above(see Figure 3.4) by adding the following chart:

Crowd ExpertContent Generation 1 2Content Selection 3 4

Product Manufacturing 5 6

Table 6.1. Crowd and expert in a crowdsourcing and manufacturing operation

106 Crowdsourcing

These six cases constitute so many possibilities available to anorganization, and each route so many opportunities to manage anactivity. Take, for example, the route 1-4-5. The crowd proposes ideasfor new products; the company selects those that it feels are the mostrelevant, and makes files containing models available to the crowd.The crowd then manufactures these products.

The following routes may be considered:

– 1-3-6: full-crowdsourcing process;

– 1-4-6 or 2-4-6: half-crowdsourcing process;

– 2-4-5: crowdmanufacturing process alone;

– 1-4-5 or 2-3-5: half-crowdsourcing / half-crowdmanufacturingprocess;

– 1-3-5: full-crowdsourcing and manufacturing process.

As we can see, we now have access to a wide variety of processesin comparison with the traditional 2-4-6 process.