25/10 Crowd Sourcing

 You can help a large crowd generate and sort their bold ideas for action in 30 minutes or less! With 25/10 Crowd Sourcing, you can spread innovations “out and up” as everyone notices the patterns in what emerges. Though it is fun, fast, and casual, it is a serious and valid way to generate an uncensored set of bold ideas and then to tap the wisdom of the whole group to identify the top ten. Surprises are frequent! This structure brings to life LS Principle #1, Include and Unleash Everyone.

Duration: 25m - 30m
Participants: 10 +
Difficulty:  Medium

Goal

Rapidly generate and sift a group’s most powerful actionable ideas

Materials

    Instructions

    Five Structural Elements – Min Specs

    1. Structuring Invitation

    “If you were ten times bolder, what big idea would you recommend? What first step would you take to get started? Let’s generate and sort your bold ideas for action and spread innovations as everyone notices the patterns in what emerges.”

    2. Space and Materials

    • Open space without chairs or tables
    • Participants will be standing and milling about
    • Index cards, one for each participant

    3. Participation Distribution

    • Roles include host and participants.
    • Minimum group size is fifteen.
    • Everyone is invited and has an equal opportunity to contribute.

    4. Group Configuration

    • Individually, to generate bold idea and first step and write on index card
    • Everyone standing to pass cards around
    • Pairs to exchange thoughts
    • Individually to score the card participants have in their hand
    • Whole group for sharing highest final scores and ideas

    5. Steps and Time Allocation

    Intro: Share the structuring invitation and describe a shared challenge. (3 min.)

    Generate Bold Ideas: Participants think of bold ideas for responding to the shared challenge. They write their boldest idea and the first step to implement it on an index card. Encourage people to write briefly and clearly. Tell them that spelling and grammar are much less important than their ideas! (5 min.)

    Move and Pass Cards: Participants take their card and a pen and move around the room. Each time they pass another person, they trade cards without looking at the new card. After one minute, they will hear a signal to stop moving. They will read the card in their hand, rate it on a scale of 1 to 5 (1 for low, 5 for high), and write their rating on the back. They should not look at any previous ratings until they have decided on a score. They will raise their cards in the air to signal they are ready for the next round. Demonstrate the process to clarify expectations. (2–3 min.) Invite participants to start Round 1. Repeat this process for five rounds. (5 min.)

    Add Scores: Participants add up the scores on the card they are holding. (2 min.)

    Countdown: Find the best-scoring ideas by counting down, beginning with “Who has a 25?” Stop when the top ten ideas have been identified and shared. (3–5 min.)

    Wrap-Up: Ask two questions to wrap up: Are you holding a wild-card idea that did not get a high score but is an intriguing option or long shot? Looking at everything we’ve come up with, where might these ideas take root and gather momentum? (2 min.) Taking It Online

    25/10 Crowdsourcing is not recommended for online use due to logistics.

    WHY? Purposes

    • Develop a group’s ability to quickly tap their own very diverse sources of wisdom
    • Obtain results that are more likely to endure because they were generated transparently from within and without imported advice
    • Spark synergy among diverse views while building coherence
    • Encourage novice innovators to think boldly and come up with practical first steps and testable hypotheses
    • Create an environment in which good ideas and focused experiments can bubble up

    Tips and Traps

    • Make sure participants are not reading the cards as they pass them or peeking at scores before they make their own score.
    • Scoring may be erratic; if a card has fewer or more than five ratings after Round 5, they can find the average and multiply by 5.
    • Invite the group to choose one big idea and first-action step and revise it so that it is expressed even more clearly and compellingly
    • Suggest a seriously fun but clear rating scale, for example: 1 = not your cup of tea to 5 = sends me over the moon. The crowd needs to understand and agree with the rating system if it is to be used for decisions.
    • As you start and demonstrate one exchange-and-scoring interaction, take your time and ask for feedback, particularly if it is a large group.
    • To make it hard to peek at scoring from earlier rounds, cover the back of the card with a Post-it note
    • Post all the cards on a wall or on tapestry paper, with the highest-scoring cards on the top

    Riffs and Variations

    • Use a different rating scale, such as “1 = not my cup of tea” to “5 = sends me over the moon.”
    • Instead of asking for bold ideas, change the question to something like “If you could unmake one decision that is holding you back, what would it be, and what is your first step to unmake it?” or “What courageous conversation are you not having, and what first step could spark your courage?”
    • Begin a meeting with 25/10 Crowdsourcing and then repeat it at the end, asking what ideas participants have that may be bolder and more actionable.
    • Move to developing action plans or to Options Place with your Top 10
    • Give more scoring weight to ideas or experiments with testable hypotheses. What evidence would show your idea works? How will you test your idea?
    • Array your Top 10 in an Agreement-Certainty Matrix or in the Ecocycle

    Examples

    • For prioritizing ideas and galvanizing the community after an Open Space Technology or “Unconference” (participant-driven) meeting
    • For illuminating bold ideas at the start of a conference or task-force meeting
    • For wrapping up an important meeting
    For a closing circle to share ideas and reinforce bonds among group members. See “Developing Competencies for Physician Education” in Part Three: Stories from the Field.

    Optional String

    Pair with Options Place to refine ideas and Purpose­-to-Practice and Principles Walk-Around to identify next steps.

    Attachments

    • 25_10 Crowdsourcing Resources (Slides).pptx
    • 25-10 cover image.PNG
    • 2510 Crowdsourcing.PNG

    Background

    Attribution: Liberating Structure developed by Henri Lipmanowicz and Keith McCandless. Inspired by improvisationalists, including Keith Johnstone.

    Source: Liberating Structures

    Author

    Liberating Structures are easy-to-learn microstructures that enhance relational coordination and trust. They quickly foster lively participation in groups of any size, making it possible to truly include and unleash everyone. Liberating Structures are a disruptive innovation that can replace more controlling or constraining approaches. Liberating Structures introduce tiny shifts in the way we meet, plan, decide and relate to one another. They put the innovative power once reserved for experts only in hands of everyone. Authored by Keith McCandless and Henri Lipmanowicz
    More about author

    0 Ratings 

    No ratings yet.

    2 Comments

  • I used this method to provide a structure for a brainstorming session. What I liked about this exercise that it provided enough ideas to choose from and at the end of the activity we were able to see the most popular ones
    over 7 years ago
  • This is a lovely and comprehensive description! Much appreciated! AND in terms of attribution, this is a version on Thiagi's 35, with a slight change to the ranking numbers (5X5 and take the top 10, rather that 5X7 is 35, and take the top few - whatever makes sense). Because we share so openly and widely in this community, it can be easy to forget that the person you learned an activity from probably learned it from someone else. And since we work in relationship to the real world and real groups, we modify things all the time as well. So attribution becomes a deliciously complex issue. The solution I have come to is to acknowledge my source as best I can with the admission that they may not have been the originator - and be open to learn who the originator was, if someone else knows.

    3 months ago
  • Please Log in or Sign up for a FREE SessionLab account to continue.