Tuesday, September 15, 2015

100 Days of Gratitude, Day 39 - Alexis Nadin

"When I first joined GlobalGiving as an intern in 2008, I was a firm believer in local solutions to local problems but, to be honest, I was skeptical about what small, community-based organizations could really accomplish.... But you proved me wrong. That first Open Challenge was a huge success. Twenty organizations from places like Nepal, Madagascar, Philippines, and Sierra Leone secured a spot on GlobalGiving."
That is from the blog post that Alexis Nadin wrote to project leaders announcing her departure from GlobalGiving.  As she says, she joined as an intern in 2008, but what she doesn't say is that within a few weeks, her colleagues and boss knew she was a "keeper."  Shortly after her internship, we hired her full time, and before long she was radically enhancing the way that GlobalGiving delivers value to project organizations around the world.

The messages coming in now from project leaders around the world are special because they show how Alexis combines technical excellence with real caring about people.  She knows that numbers are important - she is one of the reasons that GlobalGiving has helped channel nearly $200 million to 13,000 projects in 165 countries - but that people themselves are even more important.

Here is more from Alexis, who characteristically attributes everything she did to the people she was doing her best to assist:
In addition to the ins and outs of online fundraising and how to articulate and measure an organization’s impact, you’ve also taught me about the importance of building personal, human relationships.
Alexis is off to do some well-deserved traveling and then on to a graduate program in South Africa.  It's hard to believe it's been seven years since she joined.  But she achieved more in those seven years than many people do in their entire careers.

And I am really grateful for the chance to be part of an organization - and a real team -  that can attract and unleash the talents of someone like Alexis.  She is one of those people for whom "good enough" is never good enough.  She won't rest until something is GREAT, and then she makes it better.  She embodies the GlobalGiving ideal of "Never Settle."

Thank you, Alexis.

Tuesday, July 28, 2015

Of the people, by the people, and for the people

‘… for the popular principle of justice is to have equality according to number, not worth, and if this is the principle of justice prevailing, the multitude must of necessity be sovereign and the decision of the majority must be final and must constitute justice, for they say that each of the citizens ought to have an equal share; so that it results that in democracies the poor are more powerful than the rich, because there are more of them and whatever is decided by the majority is sovereign.’ (Aristotle, Politics, 4th century BCE)

Aristotle: whatever is decided by the majority is sovereign.
Aristotle: whatever is decided by the majority is sovereign.
In the 7th century BCE, Athens was in crisis. The Athenian aristocracy had abused its power for so long that ordinary people got fed up and revolted. There was widespread chaos and violence; day-to-day life seemed to be in a downward spiral. Finally, the aristocracy and people turned to a poet named Solon for mediation, and he negotiated a settlement, in 594 BCE, that created a sort of constitution. Solon’s constitution limited the power of the aristocracy, established rules for legal redress for all, and created forums where all male adults could at least participate in governance – though most power nonetheless remained with wealth holders.

Greeks and Romans’ slow progress towards democracy
Though Solon’s reforms were not entirely successful, they did presage the emergence of the Roman Republic, which lasted almost five centuries. Beginning around 500 BCE, Rome was governed by consuls selected by the wealthiest and most powerful citizens. The Roman Republic also had ‘assemblies’ that allowed ordinary citizens to cast ballots on many matters of public interest, but these assemblies did not have much power. Instead (according to the Roman historian Livy) they were ‘designed so that no one appeared to be excluded from an election and yet all of the clout resided with the leading men’.

Power gradually became more concentrated until Julius Caesar seized near total control as emperor in 49 BCE, setting in train centuries of dictatorship until the Roman Empire fell in 476 CE. Even after the fall of the Empire, dictatorship in various forms reined for over 700 years. Only when the Magna Carta was signed in 1215 did an elected parliament come back into existence for the first time in over 1,000 years. Since then, history can be read as a gradual but by no means smooth increase in the sovereignty of ordinary people, during which the elite try to give up as little power as possible while ‘appearing to exclude no one’ from the governance process.

Even in the US, the first country explicitly founded on the idea that, in Aristotle’s words, ‘whatever is decided by the majority is sovereign’, progress has been gradual. Initially only white males could vote, and it was only over the next 200 years that women and blacks were fully enfranchised. During that time, the elite tried all sorts of manoeuvres – including landownership and literacy requirements and even more recently voter ID laws – to avoid realizing the Aristotelian ideal of one person, one vote.

Why is this history relevant?
Why is all this (admittedly stylized) history relevant? Because it is playing out in the aid and philanthropy fields right now. Will aid and philanthropy democratize themselves? Will aid agencies and foundations cede power and sovereignty to the people they are trying to serve, or will they do what the Romans and so many others have done, which is put in place ‘assemblies’ that give ordinary people the illusion of influence without real power? Recent trends appear to make real sovereignty for ordinary people a possibility, maybe for the first time in history. But history also teaches that progress is not guaranteed, and even breakthroughs such as the limited power sharing in Athens can be reversed for centuries. 
‘Will aid agencies and foundations cede power and sovereignty to the people they are trying to serve, or will they do what the Romans and so many others have done, which is put in place ‘assemblies’ that give ordinary people the illusion of influence without real power?’

Fortunately, three relatively new books shine a collective light on how we might make real progress in bringing Aristotelian ideas to the aid and philanthropy fields. These books are unlikely bedfellows, with only one of them addressing the work of aid agencies and foundations directly. But the other two have profound implications, and together they suggest how a series of conceptual, operational and technological developments might enable a fundamental shift that could allow people themselves to become the real makers of decisions about what they need to make their lives better.

Thanks for the Feedback
The first of these, Douglas Stone and Sheila Heen’s Thanks for the Feedback: The science and art of receiving feedback well (Portfolio Penguin, 2014) is about personal relationships, not modes of governing. It starts out by noting that each year in the US alone 877,000 spouses file for divorce, and 250,000 weddings are called off. Stone and Heen argue that the failure of these marriages is rooted in an inability to get feedback at a personal level – about what we say, how we act, what we wear, the words we use, the attention we pay to our partner’s needs. The same dynamic holds true with respect to our working relationships, which the authors argue is responsible for much of the unhappiness of poor productivity in the workplace.

40-42 ThanksForTheFeedback_paperback coverThe authors cite research showing that a ‘spouse’s willingness and ability to accept … input from their spouse is a key predictor of a healthy, stable marriage’. Similarly, ‘feedback-seeking behavior … has been linked to higher job satisfaction, greater creativity on the job, … lower turnover, … and higher performance ratings.’ They build the case that the ability to receive constructive feedback both increases happiness at the personal level and improves concrete outcomes as measured by stable marriages and productivity at work.

If the benefits are so powerful, what’s holding us back? The authors cite three ‘triggers’ that often make us shrink from seeking feedback. The first is the contentof the feedback, which we often perceive as unfair (‘that would have been impossible to get done’) or even plain wrong. The second is what the feedback implies about the relationship we have with the other person (‘that guy considers himself better than me’), and the third is about what the feedback implies about our personal identity (‘if I failed at that again, maybe I really am a loser’).

Thanks for the Feedback unpacks, in considerable but entertaining and accessible detail, where these triggers come from and then provides a whole series of practical exercises and mindset shifts to enable us to recognize the triggers and overcome them – all with the end goal of becoming more effective in our personal and professional relationships. Although there are many excellent insights, perhaps the most fundamental is the need to see things from the other’s perspective. The cultivation of empathy is key to disarming the content, relationship and identity triggers so that we can become happier and more productive in our personal relationships and at work.

The Ultimate Question 2.0
If Thanks for the Feedback is about the rich texture of relationships at a personal level, the second book, The Ultimate Question 2.0: How net promoter companies thrive in a customer-driven world by Fred Reichheld, with Rob Markey (HBR books, 2011)is about big, impersonal data at an organizational level. This book traces the evolution of a tool that nearly all leading companies in the US and many in Europe use to get feedback from customers – the Net Promoter Score, or NPS. Companies succeed if people buy their goods and services, and sales figures provide the ultimate feedback loop.

40-42 Ultimate QuestionTo better understand what’s driving sales (or the lack thereof), companies have historically deployed a wide array of tools, including focus groups and sophisticated surveys. However, something extraordinary has happened over the past decade. A large number of companies have found that asking a single question to customers is key to developing the internal systems to listen and respond to what customers want: ‘On a scale of 0-10, how likely are you to recommend our company (or product or service) to your friends or colleagues?’. Many companies then ask just one follow-up question: ‘Why do you say this?’.

What companies discovered was that the complexity of the information they had been collecting through bespoke tools tailored to their specific products and services obfuscated understanding and impeded responsiveness. They realized that the greater the complexity, the easier it was for people in the company to make excuses about the quality or cost of their products (‘these pesky customers just don’t understand that it’s impossible to have a phone that also surfs the web!’). Second, they discovered that the idiosyncratic nature of their tools made it impossible to compare themselves with other companies, even in the same industry (‘sure our customers hate us, but they hate our competitors too!’). 
‘A large number of companies have found that asking a single question to customers is key to developing the internal systems to listen and respond to what customers want.’

The NPS methodology, by contrast, cuts straight to the chase: how many of our customers like what we sell them so much they would recommend us to friends and family? How do we compare to others in the industry? If the answers to those questions are not positive, then there is a strong incentive to seek out and address why. Suddenly, the importance of the more complex data being collected becomes clear, and the case for not only analysing but acting on the data becomes urgent.

The Ultimate Question 2.0 contains important details about the methodology for calculating the NPS and the social dynamics of how and why companies, both individually and collectively, converged on this approach. It also reviews the considerable evidence that this approach leads to greater productivity, innovation and customer satisfaction at companies that use it systematically. As with Thanks for the Feedback, the writing is accessible and entertaining, and for most readers will be filled with ‘aha!’ moments that bring a smile to the lips.

Harnessing the Power of Collective Learning
The third book, edited by Roy Steiner and Duncan Hanks, Harnessing the Power of Collective Learning ( manuscript under preparation for publication), is an eye-opening and encouraging compilation of examples of how some aid organizations are listening to the people they seek to serve. The 11 case studies (each written by someone from inside the organization) highlight how new attitudes (it’s the right thing to allow people to participate in programme design), tools (SMS on mobile phones) and processes (design thinking that incorporates people’s feedback into programme design) make it possible to learn and adapt aid programmes much more nimbly and iteratively. Any aid organization serious about improving its performance would be remiss not to reflect on how these case studies might help them to see new possibilities for listening and learning.

capture-20150527-135421One of the key challenges identified in this book is ‘closing the loop’ – ie getting the organization to act on the information it gleans through better listening. The best chapters are candid about the difficulties in adapting, changing, or even cancelling programmes when doing so would be costly or imperil the career advancement of individuals or funding for the organization. The diversity of new approaches highlighted in this book raises the question of whether some consolidation and convergence analogous to the Net Promoter methodology will be needed to create the pressures for organizations not only to listen but also to respond to what people themselves want to make their lives better.

The most provocative part of this book, however, may be the introduction. One of the authors reports how he and a foundation colleague climbed the steps of the presidential palace in Ethiopia, home to one of the most repressive regimes in Africa, to present the findings of a new agriculture extension study based on a nine-month participatory process to the prime minister. The author reports his ‘trepidation’ because the process itself – of listening to ordinary farmers – might be threatening to the authoritarian regime. He also felt he was taking a big risk within his own organization by relying so heavily on insights from farmers themselves instead of on the technological breakthroughs the foundation’s programmes typically relied on. Compounding his nervousness was the fact that one of the benefactors of the foundation had made a personal deal with the former prime minister to conduct the study. 
‘Was this project in Ethiopia successful because it provided what the Roman poet Juvenal described, as “bread and circuses”.’

In the end, all turned out well. The prime minister was happy, because he could see how this approach might better attract financial support (and political legitimacy) from the more than ten aid agencies and foundations that later provided millions of dollars to implement the new strategy.  The author’s organization, and its benefactor, were also presumably pleased, since the study enabled them to show leadership among their funding peers in trying to improve agricultural productivity in a desperately poor country. 
‘Or did it serve to push the system down a path towards a situation where, in Aristotle’s words, ‘whatever is decided by the majority is sovereign’?’

But this outcome, in this fraught context, points directly back to the evolution of democracy discussed at the beginning of this review, and to the larger issues at stake: Was this project in Ethiopia successful because it provided what the Roman poet Juvenal described, in the first century CE, as ‘bread and circuses’ – keeping the people fed and diverted just enough to take the heat off their demands for real democracy so that the elite could remain in power? Or did it serve to push the system down a path towards a situation where, in Aristotle’s words, ‘whatever is decided by the majority is sovereign’? That is the big question that faces all of us who, through our work in aid and philanthropy, hope to make the world a better place.

Dennis Whittle is director and co-founder of Feedback Labs. Email dennis @ feedbacklabs.org

This article originally appeared in Alliance Magazine.

Friday, May 08, 2015

Why is Your Boss Such an A**hole?

In 2010, Bob Sutton from Stanford University wrote a great book called The No Asshole Rule: Building a Civilized Workplace and Surviving One that Isn't.  This book was sitting on my desk when, a year later, I got a call from a dean at Princeton asking me to come teach a course on organizational behavior to mid-career and advanced graduate students.

I asked what she wanted me to teach, and she said,  "The students graduate from here all revved up with idealism and excellent analytical skills, but soon after returning to the workplace they usually end up hating their bosses and disillusioned because they don't know how to navigate organizations."

"Great," I replied. "I am a little busy taking it easy after working my butt off for the last twenty-five years, but if you send me the syllabus, I will consider it."

"There's no syllabus," she replied. "You have to make it up.  And you owe us one, because we gave you a full scholarship to grad school back in 1983."

So I had no choice, and I agreed.  As I started thinking about the course, I figured it might be useful if, instead of getting angry or cynical once they returned to work, students could get insights into why their bosses and colleagues were behaving badly.  What if they were prepared for certain pathologies and could be armed with a few judo-like strategies for working with the pathologies instead of against them?

I did a bunch of reading and thinking and came up with a syllabus and sent it in to the registrar's office.  A couple days later my phone rang, and it was a guy from the registrar's office.

"What will the course title be?" he asked me.

"I don't know," I replied.  "How about Why Your Boss is such an Asshole - or Sometimes Your Boss Really is An Asshole, but Often She is Just Responding to Incentives."

Silence for a couple of beats.  "Umm...we can't use the 'A' word in a course title," he replied slowly, and then his voice got lower, almost a whisper:  "I would personally love to take that course, but we usually have titles that are more turgid."

"Ok, well then, how about something boring like "Tools for Organizational Analysis and Reform: Surviving and Thriving in Public Organizations?"

"That's perfect!" he said brightly.

Many people have asked me about this course, so I am posting it here.

Monday, November 03, 2014

100 Days of Gratitude, Day 38 - Chris McGoff

Chris McGoff, Universe Denter
A visitor asked me recently how, in 2001 at the age of 40, I changed from a successful World Bank expert to an entrepreneur whose goal is to unleash the expertise of the "crowd."

I briefly recounted my story and referred them to my TED talk. But when my visitor left, I realized that I had failed to tell them about a profound influence on my transformation - someone from whom I learned things that I still use every day.

That someone was Chris McGoff.  Chris and his firm, GDSS, had been hired by the World Bank to work on high-level issues with senior management.  Chris helped us design a number of breakthrough approaches to strategy and change involving the president, managing directors, and vice presidents.

On the side, Chris also helped Mari and me design something that has had an even greater lasting impact - the Innovation and Development Marketplaces, which were the probably the first-ever global crowdsourced venture events for ideas related to international development and poverty reduction.  Unlike the work with senior management, Chris's work on the marketplaces was initially much lower profile, and given the long hours and startup-like environment, I am sure his firm barely broke even on the engagement with us.

One day, I asked Chris why he and his team were spending so much overtime helping us create something completely new and untested - something that could fail completely.

"Because," he said, "if it works, it will dent the universe.  And I think it is going to work."

He was right - the marketplaces did work, so well in fact that Mari and I left the Bank to launch GlobalGiving. which has now funded over 10,000 projects in 162 countries.  Just as important as the skills Chris taught me (you can read about them in his book, which I recommend), was the aspiration of denting the universe - in other words trying to do something that makes the world a better place.  Those words resonate still, including with a new initiative called Feedback Labs I have co-founded.

I do have one big regret.  As Mari and I were leaving the Bank, Gary Hamel and Robert Wood were writing an article for the Harvard Business Review about the Development Marketplace.  For editorial reasons, the authors wanted to keep the "cast of characters" short.  Mari and I were featured, but they left out Chris* , whose dent in the universe has rippled powerfully outwards over the past fifteen years.

Thank you, Chris.

*They also left out Monika Weber-Fahr, whose exceptional management of the day to day preparations was critical to success.
Share on Facebook

Tuesday, October 28, 2014

Revenues, Votes and [X] in Philanthropy?

Beyond Compliance, a new paper from the Center for High Impact Philanthropy and Wharton Social Impact Initiative is the best summary I have seen of tools that non-profits and donors can use to measure impact. It also contains some rare common sense that can help readers chart a reasonable and feasible approach.

I was struck by the paper's conclusion that there is  “an (over) abundance of resources for funders and non profits, sometimes leading to confusion.” To me this gets to the root of the problem, which is that impact measurement is supply driven rather than demand-driven.  

What do I mean by this?

In the commercial sector, no one talks about an overabundance of measurement tools leading to confusion.  Instead, companies are always looking for new and better tools that measure what their customers want and like.  Why?  Because they will go out of business if people don’t buy their products.   

In democracies, the same dynamic has led to increasing sophistication with polling, focus groups, etc, because politicians need to know what their constituents care about.  If politicians fall out of touch, they get booted out of office.  

Revenues serve to focus the mind in market economies, just as votes do in democracies.  Few would argue that markets or democracies are perfect, but these forms of economy and government seem to  perform better than all the other forms that have been tried from time to time (to paraphrase Churchill). Markets and democracies both function better with rich sources of analysis and information. But all of that information is valuable because it drives toward simple, bottom-line metrics - revenues and votes.

What might be the equivalent of "revenues' or "votes" for the aid and philanthropy sectors? That is a great question that I am pleased to be addressing in the time ahead with Katherina Rosqueta, Cecily Wallman-Stokes, and their colleagues at the Center for High Impact Philanthropy and the Wharton Social Impact Initiative.  If you have ideas, sign up at Feedback Labs, and let's see if we can make some progress together.  

Entrepreneurship as Experimentation

"The solution of the economic problem of society is... always a voyage of exploration into the unknown."

That is Friedrich Hayek, as quoted in Entrepreneurship as Experimentation, a new paper that Michael Clemens flagged to me recently.  It emphasizes the important disruptive impact that entrepreneurship has on society.  But it's also a refreshing antidote to so much of the nonsense that is written about entrepreneurship.

Much effort (and hot air) has gone into honing the selection of entrepreneurs by venture capitalists, incubators, academics, and philanthropic funders.  Some people claim to be able to have knock-out tests for "real" entrepreneurs and/or have a rigorous way of assessing the likelihood new ventures will succeed.

But the reality is different:

  • Nearly two-thirds of all startups fail.
  • Only six to eight percent of startups generate good returns to venture investors.
  • Even the best venture capitalists are unable to predict which of their investments will succeed.

Seasoned venture capitalists understand the implications.  The key, in the words of the authors, is to "democratize entry and facilitate efficient failure."  Good venture firms create a large portfolio of experiments, look for ways to reduce the cost of experimentation, gain early information about likely success (through methods like the lean startup approach), and quickly exit investments that are not paying off.

The same "democratization of entry" approach is now underway in the citizen sector through GlobalGiving and other platforms.   A small group of people is now even starting to think about democratization of entry in the government sector.  In both sectors, facilitating efficient failure will be crucial.  Efficient failure requires effective feedback loops, and a number of interesting operational and funding collaboratives are now underway.

Stay tuned.

Monday, October 27, 2014

100 Days of Gratitude, Day 37 - Sally Osberg

Sally Osberg
"This is just something we have to take a chance on."

That was Sally Osberg, president of the Skoll Foundation, in early 2002, months after we launched GlobalGiving. Mari and I had a great idea, but little track record in making markets for good on the new-ish World Wide Web.

Our site was extremely crude, with none of the polish and few of the features it has now. Still, we had launched what would currently be called our minimum viable product - a platform that had already intermediated a few donations to organizations overseas. We had at least taken the first step, gone from zero to one.  The promise of what it could unleash was tremendous, if still uncertain.

The Skoll Foundation thus became one of our earliest backers, and injected critical resources at a crucial period of our early life. Without that money, we might well not be in existence today. And since we were the first global crowdfunding and crowdsourcing site "for good" on the web, I like to think we played at least a small role in encouraging the emergence of so many other great "crowd-x" sites such as KivaKickStarter, and Indiegogo. (The pathbreaking, education-focused DonorsChoose started around the same time we did, and we learned a huge amount from them along the way.)

Since that initial investment from Skoll Foundation, GlobalGiving has helped mobilized over $150 million from hundreds of thousands of donors and companies to more than 10,000 projects in 160+ countries. We have made it possible, for the first time in history, for nearly every socially oriented group in the world to have their ideas heard and compete in the global marketplace for funding.  As we now embark on phase two of our vision, which is to create a virtuous cycle between quality and quantity, it is time to take a moment and say:

"Sally (and Jeff!) - your foresight and willingness to take a risk at an early stage helped put a dent on history.  Thank you."

Tuesday, June 10, 2014

25 Websites, Blogs, Books, & Courses I'd Like to See

  1. CouldBe
  2. MaybeMaybeNot
  3. ConfirmingMyBias
  4. A Sample of One
  5. Unbiased But With a Variance of Infinity (HT Jeff Hammer)
  6. Optimizing Around the Wrong Mean
  7. Embroidering on the Head of a Pin
  8. Much Ado About the Wrong Thing
  9. What Is The Role of Intelligence
  10. Things We Used to Think (and Might Again in the Future)
  11. What Do We Know, and How Do We Know It?
  12. How Should I Know?
  13. Maybe I am Wrong
  14. Fifty-one Percent
  15. Until Proven Wrong
  16. MostLikely.com
  17. OnTheMargin.com
  18. Not The View of the Author
  19. Stealing Home
  20. Causation, not Correlation ;)
  21. Drinking My Own Kool-Aid
  22. Eating My Own Dog Food
  23. Less Quantity, More Quality
  24. Mean Time to Moron
  25. Push to Failure

Monday, June 02, 2014

100 Days of Gratitude, Day 36 - Barbara Gee

The Awesome Barbara Gee
There are many early but unheralded heroes of GlobalGiving, such as Randy Komisar and Debra Dunn.  But none played a more important role than Barbara Gee, who sat Mari and me down at her kitchen table in Menlo Park in late 2000 and said "So you don't have a business plan? That's ok; let's write one right now."

Barb had been recommended to us by Randy, who knew her from their days at the legendary Silicon Graphics (and before that she was at Hewlett Packard).  He knew that Barb was a bleeding heart who wanted to put her hard core business skills to work for good.

Starting a new organization from scratch after fifteen years as a bureaucrat was terrifying, to say the least.  We knew absolutely nothing about marketing, website technology, product development, financial statements - not even about how to establish and run a payroll or HR system.  All of those things had been done for us at the World Bank.  Startups require a lot of bluster, and in the early days that was pretty much all I felt I had.

No matter.  Barbara was our guide to how to think about and run a business.  She was extremely matter of fact, and taught us how to delve into new areas and just make decisions, knowing that we would have to revisit those decisions in the future.  She helped us work on pitches, think about business development, manage tech firms - you name it.  She even put us up in her garage apartment (the one with the bathroom in the kitchen!) on our first few trips to the west coast.

Barb has done many interesting socially innovative things over the past decade, and she is now VP of the Anita Borg Institute, a powerful network of women in technology.  The other day I realized that, for all the help she gave to us - and by extension to the 10,000 projects in 144 countries that GlobalGiving has supported - we paid her the sum of exactly zero dollars and zero cents.

This was not our intent; in the early years we had no money.  But I still feel bad about that, because  I for one believe that highly committed and competent people should not have to always "do good for free" by volunteering their time.  So I will be looking for an opportunity to re-pay Barbara part of what she has earned.  (I seem to recall that Barbara is a Buddhist, so the good news is that I can pay her in my and her next life if not this one.)

Thank you for everything, Barbara.

Share on Facebook

Tuesday, April 08, 2014

Regular people out-forecast CIA agents

What's so challenging about all of this is the idea that you can get very accurate predictions about geopolitical events without access to secret information. In addition, access to classified information doesn't automatically and necessarily give you an edge over a smart group of average citizens doing Google searches from their kitchen tables.
That is from a recent NPR piece about how a group of regular citizens have been able to make more accurate forecasts than CIA experts.  To its credit, the CIA actually sponsored this work, in collaboration with Philip Tetlock, whose work I have blogged about before.  It also gives further weight to the importance of taking a dose of humility along with your own perceived expertise.

The CIA official who helped sponsor the work remains hopeful that experts still have a role, however:
Matheny doesn't think there's any risk that it will replace intelligence services as they exist. 
"I think it's a complement to methods rather than a substitute," he said. 
Matheny said that though Good Judgment predictions have been extremely accurate on the questions they've asked so far, it's not clear that this process will work in every situation. 
"There are likely to be other types of questions for which open source information isn't likely to be enough," he added.

Share on Facebook