Enterprise2.0 Case Study: Toronto Transit Camp

Uploaded on

Applying the Barcamp unconference model to an organizational challenge. Community-driven Cocreation or Focus Group 2.0?

Applying the Barcamp unconference model to an organizational challenge. Community-driven Cocreation or Focus Group 2.0?

More in: Business , Technology
  • Full Name Full Name Comment goes here.
    Are you sure you want to
    Your message goes here
  • Looking great, Bookmarked as one of my favourites!
    Are you sure you want to
    Your message goes here
No Downloads


Total Views
On Slideshare
From Embeds
Number of Embeds



Embeds 0

No embeds

Report content

Flagged as inappropriate Flag as inappropriate
Flag as inappropriate

Select your reason for flagging this presentation as inappropriate.

    No notes for slide


  • 1. 1 Case Study: Toronto Transit Camp Community-Driven Open Innovation or Focus Group 2.0? Copyright Remarkk Consulting, 2007. Distributed under a Creative Commons license: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/2.5/ca/
  • 2. 2 Online community meets physical place.
  • 3. 3
  • 4. 4 Timeline: December, 2006: TTC’s web site RFP January 1, 2007: Toronto blogs call for help January 3, 2007: TTC Chair signals openness January 10, 2007: Web geek brainstorm February 4, 2007: Transit Camp event
  • 5. 5 Toronto Transit Camp “Not a complaints department, a solutions playground” Passion and fun meet practice Diverse communities Design Slam Cultural change Instantiating community Modelling for replication
  • 6. 6 Results for TTC Noticeable shift in relationship: from combative to collaborative A new model for community engagement and communication New open-source projects: openttc.ca, opentransit.info TTC received expertise unavailable in-house New strategies for a web site RFP: embraces community and peer-production concept maximizes brand and service impact with limited resources
  • 7. 7 Social Web New tools and online-enabled communities are signalling a new paradigm of knowledge production.
  • 8. 8 New Lenses: Communities Communities of Practice Communities of Proximity Communities of Interest Communities of Values
  • 9. 9 Open Creative Communities Open: no artificial barriers to entry; membership comes from creative citizenship, both professional and amateur Creative: production of ideas and inventions that are personal, original and meaningful Community: any group of individuals who interact and share some common characteristics
  • 10. 10 Modeling TransitCamp Discovery and play passion fun practice Intersections of communities professional and amateur interest groups and creators Community leadership values self-interest
  • 11. 11 Collaboration
  • 12. 12 Co-Creation Rules Yes, and... Love the 1%ers Make an offer to do something Get vernacular What you want me to do, and why? Make mistakes Give me a platform Lower barriers Create opportunity Let the mess show Play Share your secrets Understand the environment Be changed Work at it Show the humanity Adapted from J. Moore & J. Cherkoff, http://www.changethis.com/29.03.CoCreationRules,
  • 13. 13 Commons-Based Peer-Production Granular Transparency Modular Monitoring Integratable Peer-review Self-selected Discipline Fast/efficient communication Fairness Trust construction Institutional sustainability Norm creation Benkler, The Wealth of Networks: http://www.benkler.org/wealth_of_networks/index.php/Main_Page
  • 14. 14 What is compelling to me?
  • 15. 15 Design for Energy Communities are naturally occurring social systems Social systems demonstrate emergent biological properties Starts with passion and human desires Intentional communities require design of a loose framework of rules/norms Play is what happens in the space between the rules Tapping emergence means activating passion and the play instinct
  • 16. 16 What is the Opportunity?
  • 17. 17 Social Computing Behaviour Late Boomer Early Boomer Gen Y (18-26) Gen X (27-40) Seniors (61+) (41-50) (51-61) 30% 19% 12% 7% 5% Creators 34% 25% 18% 15% 11% Critics 18% 16% 15% 16% 11% Collectors 57% 29% 15% 8% 6% Joiners 54% 41% 31% 26% 19% Spectators 21% 42% 54% 61% 70% Inactives Source: Charlene Li, “Social Technographics”; Forrester Research, 2007