Government

Better Government Through Crowdsourcing

Can Americans' collective wisdom solve our collective problems?

|

Greg Beato
TerryColon.com

Approximately 220 million Americans are eligible to vote, but only 130 million or so are likely to cast a ballot next November. While the 90 million who fail to make a trip to the polls will inspire hot takes and handwringing about the public's apathy and its deleterious impact on democracy, what about the apathy on the other side of the transaction?

The United States is a network of 330 million people, all with different interests, aptitudes, skills, and experience. Yet the primary way the government attempts to tap their collective brainpower on a regular basis is by asking them all the same simple questions at election time. Candidate A or Candidate B? Yes or No on Proposition X?

Over the last two decades, great efforts have been made to use technology to democratize campaign fundraising and help people become more engaged and informed voters. In contrast, little attention has been paid to a far more ambitious and potentially transformative quest: using technology to help people become more engaged and productive citizens, in ways that truly harness the full range of their skills and expertise.

One effort to do exactly that is Challenge.gov. Created in 2010 and run by the General Services Administration (GSA), it offers a common platform where federal agencies list prize competitions open to the public. In April, for example, the Department of Defense (DOD) announced that it's seeking a turbine engine with two or more times the fuel efficiency of current small turbines and three or more times the power-to-weight ratio of a standard aviation piston engine. And it will pay $2 million to the first person or team who successfully fulfills these requirements.

In its first five years of existence, Challenge.gov hasn't generated a huge amount of attention or activity. To date, approximately 70 federal agencies have posted around 400 competitions, eliciting responses from 50,000 or so "solvers" and awarding $90 million in prizes.

But even with this small data set, the versatility and potential usefulness of Challenge.gov is clear. Some agencies are simply using it as a kind of outreach or publicity tool. In one recent contest, for example, the Department of Consumer Safety challenged schoolkids to create posters that convey the dangers of carbon monoxide poisoning.

Others, however, are essentially using the website as a new form of procurement. In some instances, the goods or services they seek are fairly general. The National Institute on Drug Abuse is now offering $100,000 for "bold new ideas" on how to manage and improve the clinical quality of addiction treatment. Others are far more specific. NASA recently solicited designs for a 3D printable handrail clamp assembly for the International Space Station.

Traditionally, federal agencies engaged in procurement write very detailed specifications about what they're looking for, circulate requests for proposals in established channels like FBO.gov, then evaluate the proposals that come in.

This approach essentially encourages the agencies themselves to frame and shape potential solutions, and to determine which of these proposed solutions will provide the best result. Shifting the frameworks of procurement to a prize format, however, alters the process. Instead of trying to define and thus solve problems in advance, agencies define a more general outcome they're seeking to achieve without telling potential vendors exactly how to pursue it.

Jim Adams, NASA's acting chief technologist, addressed this dynamic in a May 2014 report on prizes published by the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy. "NASA is one of many organizations that follow a strict procedural approach to solutions," Adams exclaimed. "This is valuable, but has the potential to blind problem solvers to alternative solutions."

Like most crowdsourcing platforms, Challenge.gov shifts much of the risk and resource investment to potential creators. Federal agencies can describe what they're looking for in more general terms, then evaluate actual solutions, not just proposals. And ultimately, they only have to pay for outcomes, not development efforts. While various parties will attempt to deliver the more efficient turbine engine the DOD is hoping to find, the government will only pay the $2 million prize if someone does in fact build an engine that meets its specifications.

And it's not just that these kinds of platforms only reward positive outcomes. Typically, they also end up leveraging the incentive money they offer several times over. In the case of the NASA handrail clamp assembly challenge, the total prize money offered was just $2,000. But it attracted 474 entries. Had NASA been paying market rates to even just the top 10 percent of these entrants for the time they spent designing their submissions, its costs would have been far higher.

In general, crowdsourcing platforms inspire innovation by putting problems in front of more eyes. And Challenge.gov is already working in this fashion. Aaron Foss, who won a 2012 Federal Trade Commission challenge that sought new methods of helping consumers block telemarketing robocalls, told Forbes that he "never would have worked on the robocall problem if not for the challenge." Similarly, a NASA survey of approximately 3,000 challenge participants found that 81 percent had never previously responded to government requests for proposals.

In addition to more eyes, crowdsourcing platforms like Challenge.gov tend to attract fresh eyes—i.e., people with skills and knowledge that may be useful in a given domain, but who aren't specialists in that area. Because they aren't familiar with which types of approaches should yield potential solutions, they often pursue unconventional methods that turn out to also be effective.

In essence, then, crowdsourcing is a supremely democratic mechanism: It starts with the assumption that everyone has something potentially valuable to contribute. Voting, jury service, and other forms of civic engagement, like commenting on proposed government rules, make this assumption as well, but they're all far more proscriptive in the ways they permit individuals to perform those actions. When you vote, you must follow the same basic set of processes as everyone else.

What makes participating in a Challenge.gov contest so unique in terms of civic engagement is how much latitude it gives to participants. Like voting and jury service, it's an explicitly collective activity that can help instill a sense of being a part of something greater than oneself. But it's also explicitly geared to individuals. It asks people to identify areas of interest to them where they think their unique skills and attributes may help them provide a solution that will ultimately be of value to all. In this regard, it both plays to our growing preference for highly autonomous and narrowly tailored experiences and promotes comity as well. We're all in this together, America, trying to invent the wearable alcohol biosensor!

And of course there's the lure of cash prizes. On the one hand, market-based civic engagement may not seem like civic engagement at all. But the federal government already spends hundreds of billions of dollars a year on procurement. Shifting some of that activity to a platform that is more open, transparent, and competitive than traditional channels will likely cost less, not more. And a greater number of participants will have a shot at the money that does get spent.

In the end, the democratic promise of Challenge.gov is so great it almost seems like a mistake to leave it in the hands of the government. What it needs is a Jeff Bezos or a Pierre Omidyar at the helm, someone with the expertise and the capital to take it from 100 challenges a year to 100 challenges a day. Or perhaps we should make it a self-directed contest: The first person who figures out how to triple Challenge.gov's traffic wins a million dollars.

Related: Should the Government Regulate Paid Dinner Parties?

NEXT: VID: The U.S. Patent System is Broken: Derek Khanna on Trolling and Low-Quality Patents

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. Someone should make a website that, on one page, tracks each federal politcian’s constituency’s policy preferences and priorities, tracks the politcian’s campaign donations, and tracks that politcian’s legislative actions in terms of where the money goes, and sees how those all line up.

    I know you could get that information in separate places, but seeing it all together would be quite illuminating.

    I’m surprised it’s not out there already.

    1. While I have never looked closely at the site, David Horowitz attempted something like what you describe with http://discoverthenetworks.com.

  2. Yet the primary way the government attempts to tap their collective brainpower on a regular basis is by asking them all the same simple questions at election time. Candidate A or Candidate B? Yes or No on Proposition X?

    You think it’s a bug. It’s actually a highly-desired feature.

  3. The answer is NO. Collective anything is the reason why this country and much of the rest of the world is so f***ed in the first place.

    1. Actually, the use of force to impose the will of the governing class is the reason the world is so fueled up in the first place.

    2. The internet, smart phones, supercomputers, and everything else that’s mission critical runs on Linux. Your have numerous corporations sinking millions of dollars into a system that generates a collective benefit for everyone. The big difference is that these payments are not mandatory, they’re voluntary.

      Collectivism is perfectly fine when the participates use voluntary associations to reap a collective benefit. What’s not okay is when there’s a government forced mandate to participate in such a program.

  4. Yet the primary way the government attempts to tap their collective brainpower on a regular basis is by asking them all the same simple questions at election time. Candidate A or Candidate B? Yes or No on Proposition X?
    .
    I wouldn’t put too much stock in the assertion that voting is even a way government attempts to tap their collective brainpower, much less the primary way. Electioneering seems to consist primarily of depending on the fundamental lack of collective brainpower.

  5. It was interesting. I didn’t mind the fact that there was no romantic interest. Gives you more time for action but you more nice video check this way and comment me
    Best Home Deal ??????? http://www.workweb40.com

  6. Let’s use our collective brainpower to get the government to bugger off instead.

  7. Put the Government back under the restrictions outlined in the Constitution and Bill of Rights, and this might be a decent idea. As matter stand, it strikes me as a way for agencies with agendas (all of them) to gin up enthusiasm for “projects” that are none of their – of the crowd’s – goddamned business. “Look, see how many people participated? How can you say we shouldn’t do that!?!”

    How about an ongoing contest; Anyone who can document that an agency, section, or office can’t account for 10% of its budget or $1,000,000 (whichever is less) gets that agency’s budget for the next year as a prize, and the agency is disbanded and cannot be re-formed for at least five years.

    Migod, can you imagine the schweaming?

    1. Anyone who can document that an agency, section, or office can’t account for 10% of its budget or $1,000,000 (whichever is less) gets that agency’s budget for the next year as a prize, and the agency is disbanded and cannot be re-formed for at least five years.

      Well, there goes DoD ….

      1. I’d give ’em a short grace period to get their a$$ in gear, but then, yeah. Also most of Congress’ operations, Health and (in)Human (dis)Services, etc.. Bet the IRS would be squared away, though?.

  8. Big government should not be crowd sourcing anything!

    The crowds should be more involved at local government levels so that a big government is no longer necessary and is thus forced to reduce in size due to insufficient demand.

    That’s how it works in my fantasy…

    1. I have to say, I strongly suspect that on the National level any “crowdsourcing” will tend to be bread and circuses intended to distract us from just how lousy a job our Masters are doing.

      1. Gov’t just wants to hitch its wagon to a popular movement and claim it as its own.

        Shortly post-9/11, I remember having a “wait, what?” reaction to the gov’t passing a bill handing tons of cash to the victims of 9/11, even though BILLIONS had already been voluntarily donated from around the globe, and many victims has plenty of insurance to aid their families. It exemplified to me the nuttiness of the “BE SEEN DOING SOMETHING” driving force in Washington. And of course, years later much of the federal funds (collected in taxes) were still locked up because nobody could figure out what to do with them and how to allocate them. A crappy solution to a non-existent problem.

        1. The same thing explains why the TSA is such a collection of incompetent loons. People demanded that The Government DO SOMETHING about airport security. Now, all the useful people in the Bush administration knew perfectly well that the next nutjob who tried to take over a jet full of U.S. Citizens was going to be found in the overhead luggage compartment in somewhat used condition. But if they didn’t “Do Something” their enemies in Congress would beat them over the head with the fact; “why are you coming to us for more funding for (name actually useful program here), you haven’t done anything about Airport Security!”

          So, they created TSA, tave it a budget, and went back to paying attention to something that mattered, insuring that the agency would be made up of cowboys, empire builders, and people one jump ahead of a termination hearing at their last agency.

          1. “(name actually useful program here)”

            You couldn’t think of one either?

  9. HOW MUCH MONEY ARE YOU MAKING ON FACEBOOK?
    SEE HOW I make #90,000 MONTHLY
    This is called Information Marketing – I will Set it up For You
    Check ON Link for an account statement
    Add Me and then send me a Message if You are Interested.
    BEST HOME DEAL????? http://www.times-report.com

  10. Hey Reason, can we get a button to flag these bots and then you guys can just automatically block them from rendering?

    1. I think a better solution would be a “kill file”: you indicate people or phrases that you simply don’t want to see in your browser.

  11. I can see the temptation here. One of the major arguments against central planning has always been that no one person or committee can have enough information about a complex system (such as human interaction in the markets) to direct it effectively and without great harm.

    It’s easy to believe that “problem-solving” types could be persuaded that modern technology (lots of tracking data, crowd-computing, etc) could finally give us ALL the knowledge we need to bring about the perfect order. As envisioned by Top Men of course.

    It’s still bunk. Dangerous, seductive, bunk.

    Fuck off, slavers.

    1. “One of the major arguments against central planning has always been that no one person or committee can have enough information about a complex system (such as human interaction in the markets) to direct it effectively and without great harm.”

      Last time I heard that major argument I had an 8 bit processor.

  12. “Crowdsourcing for government” is called the free market. It works exactly how “crowdsourcing for government” should work, namely it forces people to indicate how much they want something or believe in something by how much money they are willing to invest/pay for it.

    Efforts like challenge.gov are either an attempt at mob rule, or simply a fig leaf for crony capitalism and government corruption.

    1. Exactly. The Liberal Intellectual Radical Progressives SAY they want a big, “let’s consult everybody” method for allocating resources and setting prices, but they absolutely do not mean it. Because that is The Market. And they HATE The Market, because it keeps telling them that nobody wants what THEY want.

  13. This is the dumbest thing I have read at Reason, with the exception of the “mandatory health insurance now” article, which even Reason pretends to ignore.

    What would be better, if the government didn’t have all these projects to begin with, and let taxpayers keep their money.

    If there is a demand for such a thing, then people will make it on their own, without the need for a government contest…

  14. I’m leaning towards a woodchipper.

  15. Google pay 97$ per hour my last pay check was $8500 working 1o hours a week online. My younger brother friend has been averaging 12k for months now and he works about 22 hours a week. I cant believe how easy it was once I tried it out.
    This is wha- I do…… ?????? http://www.netcash5.com

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.