Collective intelligence at the heart of the pandemic

About Mehdi Elmoukhliss, Doctor in Collective Intelligence

The pandemic is a tidal wave, a wave of profound change. What about collective intelligence at this time?

(Mehdi Elmoukhliss) For the first time, it posed a global problem requiring rapid solutions to prevent its spread, reduce the number of victims and limit its impact on the economy.
As a result, the world was faced with a serious and complex problem for which the solution was not known. But unlike past crises, our contemporaries have digital tools that allow them to be informed in real time of developments in the world and, better still, to interact easily.
In theory, the presence of a common enemy (the virus), a shared objective (to protect oneself against it), and the possibility of helping each other at a distance, provides fertile ground for the emergence of collective intelligence: in the face of danger, we abandon our differences to focus on our survival.
And indeed, thousands of individuals have begun to exchange their ideas and information, giving the impression that the whole of humanity has mobilized to find a solution collectively.
But what concrete solutions have these contributions brought? Can we really talk about collective intelligence? While we can be pleased with certain successes (for example, I am thinking of the massive relaying of the idea of using Decathlon's diving mask for intubated people), the results remain slim compared to the volume of exchanges. And we can see that in October 2020 the problem persists.
Unfortunately, COVID has above all allowed us to see to what extent online debates are pre-empted by polemics, fake news and negative emotions. For example, social networks have shown their limits (now well known): they constitute echo chambers that reinforce what is already believed, leaving little room for the diversity that CI needs. Massive participation has thus resulted in massive hubbub. The expected collective intelligence does not seem to have brought major solutions. I am therefore not sure that one can speak of collective intelligence in this period of crisis, with the possible exception of isolated initiatives.

So no acceleration of CI mobilization?

(ME) I wouldn't say that. While CI on social networks is not very visible, it has, on the other hand, been widely mobilized in many organizations. Employees have had to adapt to a particular context in record time and find solutions, often remotely. COVID has created hierarchical air bubbles: orders and processes have given way to the "do-it-yourself", "do-it-yourself" approach to new solutions. Organizations have become places for experimenting with new practices and new ideas. The future will tell us which organizations and configurations have been the most effective in managing chaos, and what conclusions can be drawn from them to promote CI.
**The health crisis has especially increased the need to mobilize CI. The problem is that most current collaborative technologies are struggling to do so, mainly because they confuse "collaboration" with "emulation. I would add that there is a problem with the efficiency of the solutions: there is a huge waste when thousands of people are invited to participate, but their contributions are under-exploited. At best, they feed into a reporting of emerging themes, where their singularities and complementarities should be highlighted more. The health crisis thus accentuates the need to develop new IC "catalyst " tools.

Consequently, is COVID a hindrance or an opportunity for the platforms? What is at stake for platform publishers today, during the pandemic?

(ME) If COVID has not allowed a strong collective intelligence to emerge, it is less because individuals are quick to squabble than because of the design of the platforms. Collaborative platforms are also subject to significant biases. To make a long story short, I would say that they are still places for the expression of conformism (e.g., favouring consensus discourses) where they should favour the expression of critical thinking and constructive controversy. In this respect, COVID represents an opportunity for the platforms: we have an increased need for platforms designed to foster collective intelligence. Now is the time to stand out!
Secondly, COVID has drastically accelerated the digital transformation of organizations. It has broken down the barriers to videoconferencing and teleworking, and, more generally, it has highlighted the benefits that can be derived from digital technology. It has helped convince many managers and employees to adopt digitalization. This crisis is therefore playing a role in accelerating the acceptance of technology, whether by individuals (employees, citizens) or organizations (large accounts as well as SMEs). Remote collaboration is no longer a niche for innovative companies: it has become mainstream. For platforms, this means more political will to support these initiatives, and more participants.
But this enthusiasm needs to be tempered. Above all, COVID is a serious social and economic crisis. On the social side, many people are falling ill, including decision-makers, and key parts of an organization are in quarantine. This makes it more difficult to capture the attention of organizations. It is also an economic crisis: the time is ripe for economy. This is not good news for platforms, which will have to adapt their prices to a gloomy economic environment. The proposed solutions must provide real added value and a tangible return on investment.

Evolutions in collective intelligence

Work on collective intelligence is more than ten years old now, where are we today?

(ME) Current research on collective intelligence focuses on several relatively different lines of research. First of all, there is work on collective evaluation ("the wisdom of crowds"). Initially, research has shown that evaluations (or predictions) proposed by diverse, numerous and independent individuals can equal or even surpass those formulated by a few experts. However, after a few years of enthusiasm, it is now accepted that collective evaluations are most often subject to significant bias. Mobilizing the wisdom of the crowds remains a delicate exercise. Evaluation or predictive systems must be designed with particular care to reduce the occurrence of these systematic biases. Current research is focusing on how to limit these biases a priori, or how to correct them a posteriori.
Then there is the work on collective IQ, which shows that small groups are better than others at performing a wide variety of complex tasks. Early research at MIT highlighted the critical role of certain interactions and emotional intelligence. Since then, however, several studies have failed to confirm these findings. Current research is aimed at resolving this debate.
More recently, there has emerged a current of research on hybrid collective intelligence, which studies how to foster collective intelligence through artificial intelligence (and vice versa). For example, there is talk of promoting collective intelligence through nudge (discreetly getting individuals to adopt this or that behavior), recommendation algorithms (of ideas, content, people) and conversational agents (chatbots). **The objective is to combine collective intelligence and artificial intelligence to create hybrid intelligence systems. From my point of view, this is one of the most interesting areas of research in ICR.

What is the role of AI in these developments?

(ME) AI should not be seen as opposed to CI. In the anthropocene era, it is more a question of fostering their symbiosis. AI is indeed a key element to mobilize collective intelligence. Here is how it can be used:

The simplest and most obvious application is to have him take over tedious tasks with little added value (e.g. sorting content, checking information), so that employees can focus on the essentials.
AI can facilitate the connection between people, ideas and content through recommendation engines that judiciously combine principles such as similarity, complementarity and randomness.
Promote just-in-time: offer content or advice to the right people at the right time to promote CI at the most appropriate time. Studies have shown, for example, that software that can ask a person questions at the right time can help them be more creative in virtual meetings.
Identifying the key success factors to better predict success: Advances in neural networks now make it possible, if we have collaboration data, to identify many success factors, whether quantitative or qualitative (e.g. the degree of connectivity between individuals, the speed of conversations, the content of exchanges, the degree of emotion etc.).
I would add that there is a major technological lock that needs to be lifted if we want to improve the application of AI to collaborative activities: moving the technology from automatic text analysis (identifying words) to semantic analysis (identifying meaning). Indeed, much of the meaning of contributions still escapes virtual machines. The good news is that AI is making massive strides in this direction every month. We will soon be able to exploit semantic network analysis tools, which is very promising to help collectives to develop and discuss proposals. Another good news is that the massive volume of information made available by the digitization of exchanges (especially due to the health crisis) promises to provide AI with enough to improve its models.

Finally, are there any new types of players to be expected on the market in the coming years?

(ME) There are a great many collaborative tools available, and the virtual collaboration market has become more mature in recent years. So it is possible that we may see a concentration of the sector, where large players integrate smaller players with complementary technology, large customer portfolios or dynamic communities.
Having said that, it is important to remember the current context, which is particular since we are seeing an increase in virtual collaboration with a parallel decrease in IT budgets: if the market is growing in volume, it is possible that it will stagnate in value. This configuration is conducive to the disruption of the sector: small players who enable a rapid return on investment thanks to innovative solutions may gain speed from the large players in the market, who are less agile or less innovative.
I'm thinking, for example, of cross-platform solutions, which would enable bridges to be built between the various existing collaborative tools and their communities. These solutions promise considerable performance gains if they use their central position as leverage.
I'm also thinking of solutions that allow the scope of collaboration to be broadened. To ensure their survival, companies must go beyond the market, which means adopting an open stance in listening to their stakeholders and exploring new opportunities. Positioning themselves beyond the market is a complex exercise that is difficult for a single organization to handle, because there are many weak signals, and the scope of possibilities is immense. There is a high risk of wasting resources. It must therefore federate its allies to act collectively: competition is shifting from competition between organizations to competition between ecosystems. In an environment marked by the specialization of players, platforms that support heterogeneous interactions at the scale of an ecosystem can also change the competitive game.

(JF) Thanks Mehdi
(ME) Thank you!

Find Mehdi on :

Linkedin : https://www.linkedin.com/in/mehdi-elmoukhliss-phd-0b779419/
Twitter : https://twitter.com/MehdiElmoukhlis

InterviewsInterview of Mehdi Elmoukhliss, PHD in Collective Intelligence

Get notified when we’re launching.