Networks, communication and problem solving:
Sometimes problem solving in groups of people can be harder than individually and sometimes it is easier. What is the difference in the problems, what characterises one from the other?
Everyone knows (well at least I do and I assume everyone else does) that as a group gets larger it’s average IQ drops. It’s capable of doing more, but in less smart ways… Many hands make light work, but too many cooks spoil the broth. Small groups of people often seem very able to take on large organisations, solving their problems by being very creative and agile, not brute forcing things through. I’m thinking here of comparing, say the BBC, with companies like Six Apart, Ludicorp (flickr) or even Google who took over the world with a couple of dozen people.
There are a bunch of other reasons why these people can create global phenomena, not the least because of the Internet, egalitarian tools for creation and green fields development. And I’ve not listed the hundreds if not thousands of failures either.
Much of this is down to the team effect. Organisational studies, management science, knowledge management, and all that malarkey know about teams. But why do teams work compared to organisations? Also why do teams fail to make a difference within an organisation? I’ve seen small companies and a monster one and even in the small ones, each team truly feels like the others are working against it, not with it. Is that a mislead perception or does it hint at the truth?
So what is the difference between a small group of people and a large one creatively? I think it must have something to do with the network effects; transmission and loss of information. Can this be solved by understanding the nature of networks of communication and information theory?
Is this anything new? I don’t think so but has anyone researched this before?
