Unlocking Collective Genius: An Interview on Crowdsulting and Problem Solving
What exactly is “crowdsulting,” and how does it differ from traditional consulting or simple crowdsourcing?
That’s the perfect place to start. At weinvolve, we define crowdsulting as a structured, strategic fusion of crowdsourcing and consulting. Traditional consulting relies on a small group of elite experts who diagnose a problem from the outside and prescribe a solution. Crowdsourcing, on the other hand, often gathers raw ideas from a large, unguided group. Crowdsulting sits in the middle. It’s a managed process where we engage a large, diverse collective—employees, customers, partners, or even the public—not just to generate ideas, but to analyze, refine, and co-create solutions. The key difference is the “collective problem solving” framework. We don’t just ask for votes or suggestions; we guide the crowd through a structured methodology to build consensus and actionable strategies. It’s about harnessing the wisdom of the crowd, not just its noise.
Why is collective problem solving more effective than relying on a handful of internal experts?
This goes to the heart of why weinvolve exists. A small group of experts, no matter how brilliant, suffers from cognitive biases, groupthink, and limited perspectives. They see the problem through the same lens. Collective problem solving, by contrast, taps into a much wider range of experiences, knowledge, and cognitive styles. When you involve a crowd that is diverse in function, geography, and seniority, you get a richer, more nuanced understanding of the challenge. The crowd can identify blind spots that experts miss. Furthermore, when people participate in crafting the solution, they are far more committed to implementing it. You get better answers and higher buy-in simultaneously. It’s a double win for any organization.
What are the most common challenges organizations face when trying to implement a crowdsulting initiative?
The biggest hurdle is often a lack of trust and a fear of losing control. Leaders worry that opening up a problem to a large group will lead to chaos, irrelevant ideas, or a loss of authority. This is a valid concern, but it stems from confusing crowdsulting with unmanaged crowdsourcing. The second major challenge is poor problem framing. If you ask a vague question like “How can we innovate?” you will get a thousand scattered answers. A successful crowdsulting project requires a precise, well-defined challenge that is broken down into digestible parts. Finally, there is the issue of engagement. You cannot simply post a problem and expect magic. You need a curated process that motivates participation, provides feedback loops, and demonstrates that the crowd’s input is genuinely valued. Without that, you get low engagement and shallow contributions.
Can you walk us through a typical crowdsulting process for a complex business problem?
Certainly. Let’s say a company is struggling with supply chain disruptions. First, we work with leadership to frame the core challenge. Instead of “fix the supply chain,” we might break it into sub-questions like “How can we increase supplier redundancy?” or “What alternative logistics routes are viable?”. Second, we identify and invite the right crowd—this could include procurement staff, warehouse managers, logistics partners, and even frontline salespeople who see customer impacts. Third, we launch a structured, time-bound “ideation sprint” where participants submit ideas. This is not a free-for-all; we use prompts and constraints to focus thinking. Fourth, the crowd itself refines and builds upon the best ideas through a collaborative filtering process. Fifth, we use a voting and consensus-building mechanism to surface the top 3-5 most robust solutions. Finally, we package these into a strategic recommendation report for leadership. The entire process is transparent, and participants see how their input shaped the final outcome.
How do you ensure the quality of ideas in a crowdsulting process, given that you are opening the door to a large number of people?
Quality is not a byproduct of luck; it is engineered. We use several techniques. First, we use “scaffolding.” We provide frameworks, data points, and examples to help participants think more deeply. Second, we employ a multi-stage evaluation system. Ideas are not judged by a single expert. Instead, peers within the crowd rate ideas on criteria like feasibility, impact, and novelty. This peer-review mechanism naturally filters out weak or off-topic contributions. Third, we use “idea building” rather than just “idea submission.” A participant might post a raw concept, and then others are encouraged to ask clarifying questions or suggest modifications. This collaborative refinement dramatically improves quality. Finally, we always have a small team of weinvolve facilitators monitoring the process, stepping in to redirect conversations or ask probing questions. The crowd does the heavy lifting, but we provide the guardrails.
What types of problems are best suited for a crowdsulting approach, and which are not?
Crowdsulting excels at “wicked problems”—those that are complex, ambiguous, and have no single right answer. Examples include strategic pivots, customer experience redesign, sustainability challenges, and internal process optimization. It is also fantastic for problems that require cross-functional buy-in. However, it is not a good fit for problems that require deep, narrow technical expertise that only a few people in the world possess, or for problems that are purely operational and have a known, repeatable solution. You wouldn’t crowdsult how to fix a specific software bug or how to calculate a tax liability. The key is to match the complexity and need for diverse perspectives to the methodology.
How does weinvolve measure the success of a crowdsulting project beyond just the number of ideas generated?
We measure success on three levels. First, outcome success: Did the process produce a clear, actionable strategy that the organization can implement? We track the adoption rate of recommended solutions. Second, process success: Was the engagement deep and meaningful? We look at participation rates, the quality of interactions, and the level of collaboration. Third, cultural success: Did the process build trust and a sense of ownership? We survey participants to see if they feel more connected to the organization and more confident in its leadership. A truly successful crowdsulting project not only solves a problem but also strengthens the collective problem solving muscle of the organization for the future. The ultimate metric is not just a good answer, but a more capable and engaged organization.
Replica Panerai Uhren
Replica Audemars Piguet Watches