Canadian Government Executive - Volume 22 - Issue 2

19 / 32

February 2016 // Canadian Government Executive / 19
Leadership
instruments to reach public ends. Crowd-
sourcing is not the act of making data
available. Whatever services or “apps” are
developed from it by the private sector
stay in private hands: government cannot
“crowdsource” something it does not own.
Others have used “crowdsourcing” as a
synonym for consultation. Governments
have long sought consultation with the
public. Using a computer does not instant-
ly make an ordinary consultation into a
“crowdsource.”
Finally, “crowdsourcing” has been used to
re-label fundraising through the use of the
Internet. Again, the only transformation in
this instance is technological, not the act it-
self: the contributors are known, the sums
they have contributed are known, but their
choices have not affected the outcome be-
yond the size of its final “gift”.
Regardless of the form of crowdsourcing,
anonymous individuals have shown that
they can provide a valuable service to the
state. They collectively can bring an intel-
ligence, skill or effort to a wide variety of
tasks. They can juggle and test ideas, and
can draw attention to new sources of infor-
mation.
Types of Crowdsourcing
in the Public Sector
There are three broad categories in crowd-
sourcing:
“Crowdcontests” involve using the in-
ternet to create a competition to generate
either a new idea or get people to test a
product. Typically, the exercise ends with
a winner (or a series of winners) who will
receive some compensation for their ef-
fort. For example, in the United States,
Challenge.gov inventories all of the gov-
ernment’s challenge and prize competi-
tions. These include technical, scientific,
ideation, and creative competitions where
the U.S. government seeks innovative solu-
tions. Canadian governments have seldom
used this tool.
“Macrotasking,” applies when the
Internet is used to attract and identify in-
dividuals with specialized skills and then
contract with them to perform certain
tasks, both physical and intellectual. In this
case, as in the first, the internet was used to
find (or “source”) expertise; but no “winner”
is named. Canadian governments have
done a good deal of work in this regard.
• Many municipalities, for instance, have
crowdsourced the work of “spring clean-
ups” to restore their parks and common
areas after the long winters.
• Library and Archives Canada has
“crowdsourced” its Project Naming pro-
gram. This is an effort to tie names to
photos taken of the Inuit in the North-
west Territories in the 1920s, 1930s and
1940s.
• The Ontario Ministry of the Environ-
ment’s enlisted citizen-scientists in
helping governments collect data. Its
award-winning “Lake Partner Program”
has been in practice for over twenty
years.
• The city of Richmond Hill director-level
inaugurated a Road Watch Program in
2002 to monitor traffic and to collect in-
formation.
“Crowdfunding” refers to when the in-
ternet is used to raise small amounts of
money from multitudes of donors for par-
ticular projects. As in the first two, the In-
ternet is used to access a broader range of
like-minded individuals scattered across
the territory (or indeed the globe) who
likely would not be aware of the need.
Crowdfunding is used to ease fundraising
for charitable causes but also increasingly
to direct priorities.
• The Government of Canada has used
crowdsourcing to direct the amount
of money it sends to disaster stricken
countries as grants-in-aid by “matching”
private citizen donations to registered
charitable organizations working in spe-
cific countries. This is not an exercise
in merely raising money, but in using
crowdsourcing to shape policy (in terms
of the size of the financial contribution).
• The Canada Culture Endowment Fund
(originally Canadian Arts and Heritage
Sustainability Program) has matched
funds donated by community members.
• In Quebec, Placements Culture has
matched donations to arts projects up
to $250,000 (Government of Québec and
community foundations launch gener-
ous matching grants program).
• British Columbia’s The British Colum-
bia Arts Renaissance Fund has matched
donations up to the limit of $350,000.
In all cases, the departments have dem-
onstrated a willingness to share with the
“crowd” in deciding the final level of con-
tributions.
The key feature in a crowdsourced ac-
tivity is that the State is yielding impor-
tant parts of the policy cycle. While it
may set the agenda (though most often it
does not) and will set the parameters of a
policy or program, the implementation of
the projects and its outputs are dependent
on the crowd in this governance-sharing
mechanism. In effect, the state is also com-
mitting itself to follow the lead of citizens
in allocating government contributions
to international aid or to cultural/artistic
entreprises. This is potentially transforma-
tive of the relationship between the state
and the citizen who, through this process,
not only sees himself or herself as an agent
but as a partner of the direction the gov-
ernment will take.
Certainly, crowdsourcing has offered clear
benefits. In addition to tangible help (rep-
resenting the savings of incalculable sums
of money) crowdsourcing has also opened
for government a new form of community
building. While crowdsourcing could apply
to many aspects of government activity, it
would not apply to all. It yields many goods,
and has the merit of not being coercive—
only volunteers will join the crowd—but its
output is entirely dependent on non-state
actors. To ensure success, the state must be
diligent and the public service must deploy
inventiveness and imagination.
Governments have been experimenting
with various forms of crowdsourcing and
from their early experience a number of
lessons can be drawn. First, crowdsourc-
ing has worked in that it allowed tasks to
be performed at a much lower costs than
if State employees did the work. Govern-
ments have proven that they could define
the tasks with clarity and make use of the
labour offered voluntarily.
States have also learned from the crowd
and improved their efforts over repeated at-
tempts. Crowdsourcing will not replace the
state. Crowds have little sense of mission
beyond the task at hand, and cannot be re-
lied upon to strategize on behalf of the state.
Moreover, crowds can be unruly, uncoop-
erative and plainly incompetent. Their use
(and usefulness) will depend on the state’s
ability to marshal them in the right way for
the right tasks at the right time. The task of
motivating (by making it fun, challenging or
pointing to a public good) and recognizing/
rewarding (through prizes and distinctions)
will assume a greater part of the state’s con-
cerns.
Suggested Reading
Patrice Dutil, “Crowdsourcing as a new
Instrument in the Government’s Arsenal:
Explorations and C onsiderations” Cana-
dian Public Administration, September
2015.