Prediction Markets at Google

This was a very intriguing article. I was unaware of prediction markets, let alone their apparent practical application in corporations. I have mixed feelings, though. While I'm impressed with their accuracy and think there is definitely truth in the "collective intelligence" idea, running effective markets seems like it requires a lot of extra time from employees. And to echo Olympia Press, the VP of the online sales group, there are people whose job it is to answer these kinds of questions and make these determinations using sophisticated forecasting tools. So why use prediction systems as well?
I was incredibly surprised to hear how little the Google employees were motivated my monetary prizes, and were more interested in the social/reputational rewards. At my company, it's hard to get employees to participate in any kind of contest without offering some type of monetary reward or "points" that can be accumulated and traded in for prizes or money. But it's also no secret that Google has a unique culture and that these motivators clearly work well in this culture. I'm just not sure that you could get the same response from other "typical" corporations without different incentives.
I also wondered if Cowgill's proposed strategy of making "confidentiality optional and disclosure by default" would actual deter any people from participating in the markets. If they're not confident that they have adequate information about any of the markets, would they be discouraged from even attempting to participate for fear of having their poor trading history exposed to all of the company? They may choose not to play at all.

LinkedIn and Facebook

Until I read this case, I didn't know that LinkedIn actually provided any services. I thought it was merely a website to network and view or create professional connections. I was surprised to read about how robust it is in terms of finding someone with particular qualifications within either your immediate network, or the network of someone with whom you're connected. However, I'm not sure that I'd be willing to pay for expanded search capabilities as an end-user. I thought it was interesting that when LinkedIn gave its members the option of being contacted without a referral, 92% of members chose not to participate.


Facebook is a phenomenon that continues to amaze me from the sheer volume of people who have joined it and have continued to join it. It's interesting to note that Zuckerberg seems to employ a "beg for forgiveness rather than ask for permission" strategy when it comes to implementing new services or characteristics on Facebook, having now issued 2 apologies for invading users' privacy. As an occassional Facebook user myself, I enjoy it for the opportunity to reconnect with friends with whom I've lost touch. What I dislike about it is seeing updates from people who seem to think that everyone they're "friends" with wants to know every detail about their day, from what they had for each meal to what their kids got stuck in their hair/nose/shoe that day. Facebook Connect brings this sense of narcissism to an entire new level. I have no interest in knowing who bought what from which website or who just booked a trip on Expedia, and I certainly don't want all of my "friends" knowing that information about me.

Wikis & Wikipedia

I've never really respected Wikipedia as a viable source for information. Sure, it can be useful for finding the years that Justin Timberlake was on "The Mickey Mouse Club" or the name of the actress who played Sloane in "Ferris Bueller's Day Off" (Mia Sara), but I would never specifically go to it for serious information. (On the other hand, I have a friend who is an orthopedic surgeon who says he occasionally refers to Wikipedia while on the job for relevant info. Do not use him as your orthopedic surgeon.) However, having read the article and learning that Wikipedia's structure and governance is pretty robust, I have a little more respect for it. I was previously unaware that there was even a way for articles to be deleted, so this fact also adds to its legitimacy.
Conversely, I think there is real value to having wikis in the workplace. My former company set up wikis for the international supply chain department, where I worked. Because of time zone differences and language barriers, the wikis proved to be a very useful central repository for processes, standard operating procedures, and frequently-used forms. It was a great way for business partners across the world to share information and get questions answered quickly and efficiently. As mentioned in the "Wikis at DrKW" article, when giving unrestricted editing access to employees across the company, you have to trust that the wikis will be used and respected for their intended purpose. If that is a significant concern for your company, I think the strategy that needs to be revisited lies within recruiting, hiring and managing; not within information-sharing.