Open Government Experiments-TwoCodeGirls

From crowdresearch
Jump to: navigation, search

Based on the rapid prototyping of three organizational models (as suggested by Trygve), our thoughts on it are:

For the Leadership Board to take part in any experiment, it’s power needs to be clearly defined, i.e. What it can and cannot do. Right now, our Leadership board has only been partially defined i.e. the leaders have been chosen, the rules that govern them need to be formalized.

Suggested Plan:

We suggest the following schedule:

  • Week 1: Run a prototyping process for deciding the rules and scope (dos/donts) of the Leadership Board.
  • Subsequently, we have 1 week each of the three forms of governance.
  • Have 2 ideas running parallelly, one “major idea” (eg: rules for LB or pricing) and one “minor idea” of lesser interest (eg: mission statement of the platform). The motive behind this is to figure out which governance model is best suited to resolve a particular problem type.
  • Run the experiments in order of:
    1. Leadership Board (T. An Oligarachical/Top Down approach. Will solicit input from the crowd, but it will be non-binding)
    2. Democracy (T. An administrative/paternal model. Will engage the crowd through voting, committees, etc. Sometimes binding, sometimes not)
    3. Open allocation/Self governance. (T. Push all decisions down into the crowd. Individuals gravitate to the problems/issues that interest them and execute accordingly)
We run experiments in this order so that the results of the first experiment don’t alter/affect the results of the second and so on. No overlap
  • There are two scenarios we need to consider:
    • Governance model during the BUILD phase of the project(which is now)
    • Governance model during the LIVE phase of the project( which is when the platform is in effect )
  • We also need to figure out what problems need to be addressed in each phase(Build & Live) because the problems faced in one phase may not be valid in another phase

Some Concerns:

  • Crowd response is erratic. If an experiment success is considering participation as one of the factors, erraticness needs to be weighed in.( for example as we get closer to the deadline we’ll have more participants so it might alter the results of the second iteration of the experiment assuming have another round)
  • Results from one experiment might spill into the other. Suppose one experiment already covers the major solutions for the issues, people might be reluctant to bring it up again in the second experiment and will become repetitive.
  • T. We will use survey's to capture most data. What other approaches (NLP?) can we fold in to capture sentiment, idea transfer, Trust and satisfaction?
  • T. How do we identify and pair off the features?


Survey Questions: We would like to build off of the survey questioning begun during the voting experiment, and carry over relevant questions, dig deeper into some areas, etc. But, we would also like to up the level of research sophistication and deploy new methods and approaches. As we are evaluating organizational models there are two themes to probe: Decision Making of the Model and Participation of the crowd. With regards to the first: Are some models better served to solve/address certain type problems in certain environments? As for the later, in solving problems, how engaged is the crowd? What type of contributions and level of engagement is required to successfully make/execute on, a decision. Will there be a clustering of activity around one problem? Does one Organizational Model facilitate 'better' engagement and knowledge transfer? While we'd love to find a perfect organizational solution, in case that doesn't happen, what are the trade offs and the relative benefits. How much hierarchy does a crowd need? We will ask the same set of questions at the end of each week.

SOME PROPOSED QUESTIONS:

  • We will ask census/demographic questions?
  • Please rate your level of participation?
  • Did the model engage you (Can a model prompt participation or is it all about free will:)) (This is different from engaging ideas stated below)
  • What are your trust factors? (Everyone trusts differently...need that baseline as part of asking do you trust...see next questions)
  • Do you trust the leadership? (Looking for trust transference: Is there dissonance between Model and People)
  • Do you trust the decisions of Leadership (As opposed to asking if they like the decision)
  • Was there a more desireable alternative? If so, please explain.
  • Were your ideas/comments engaged? (Using engagement as a baseline for evaluating power sharing)
  • Regardless, how did you feel about the engagement process of the model (Not sure we should use 'feel')
  • Were your ideas/comments deployed?
  • How did you feel about the implementation process (Again, not sure about using feel)
  • What did you like about the organizational model (Or, fashion this question so its a rating)
  • What did you dislike (Or, fashion this question so its a rating)
  • How transparent was the process?
  • Were you satisfied with the outcome
  • What improvements/suggestions would you make
  • What feature did you work on?
  • Why did you choose this (Over the other?)
  • On a scale of importance, rate this feature


Satisfaction and Trust when measured in other domains (Consumer Satisfaction, Political Exit Polls) are measured against a well defined template. For example: Political Satisfaction Survey's will ask against the standard template/themes: The economy, Security, Social Issues, etc. Satisfaction is the sum total of responses in those channels...Can we borrow from those themes, or make educated 'guesses' (Contribution, participation, Trust,) as to what they may be?