OWP liVe Report

93

MARK GREEVEN & CYRIL BOUQUET

Too fewexperts navigating a pandemic “You cannot just get a group of smart people into a roomto determine the answers to for the country,” Bouquet pointed out. But that is preciselywhatmost countries did: they appointed a small group of highly qualified experts, Escoubès noted. “But why didn’t we tap into awider community of experts? “COVID-19 is an ecosystemproblem, dealingwith the entire health industry. About amillion people inFrancewould have a partial, limited viewon some of the dimensions of the problem– doctors, nurses, assistant nurses, pharmacists,” he said.

experts, data architects, viralmarketing experts, psychologists, and so on? That is about 2million people. If you go one step further, what about educated amateurs – either people directly affected by the problem, or peoplewith a dedication for the issue at stake?” Possible challenges Use of MCI is new, and will challenge the conventional mindset – the idea that we should have a handful of “experts” in charge. There is also confusion between collective intelligence and collective decisions – MCI does not mean corporate democracy, Greeven said. Leadersmust still weigh the pros and cons of each idea, but this should be conducted in a transparent way between topmanagement. This group should

then offer feedback to all employees and stakeholders.

Driving engagement This is untapped potential today, said Greeven. This is a new field, but it is relevant now.

Organizations typically make decisions with just a few key people, he explained.

“But imagine if you could involve all stakeholders and include their perhaps diverging perspectives,” he said. The collective intelligence process is not just about generating insight, it is about generating engagement.

“Why didn’t we call on related experts, people likemathematicians, network