Mistaken intelligence gathering assumptions in a knowledge society

Enabling Collective Intelligence in Response to Emergencies (Part #4)

Much is made of the many communication facilities through which information can be gathered. The question to be asked is how fit they are in the case of emergencies, in the light of the common tendency to exaggerate their adequacy in the service of other agendas. The issue here is what is an outsider enabled to do with an insight that may be of some value. Examples of possibilities include:

write to a conventional newspaper, journal, etc -- possibly using online comment facilities regarding articles on the issue (as with the Guardian, for example)
telephone key people in such media
post a message on a discussion list
e-mail key individuals capable of passing on information to others who are better placed
use of social networking sites and facilities
contact the relevant parties (in the case BP or oil industry bodies)
contact relevant national government departments or agencies
contact relevant intergovernmental agencies
contact relevant nongovernmental agencies (in this case Friends of the Earth, Greenpeace, etc)
raise issues in face-to-face meetings, consultations and the like ("questions from the floor" etc)

Various considerations apply to one or more such possibilities inhibiting uptake of the message and its timely channelling to points where it can be appropriately considered:

phone communications: typically this involves being placed "on hold" or receive some kind of "brush off"
e-mail communications: typically, when unsolicited, these run the risk of being the victim of spam filtering
list postings: typically such lists are not designed to gather and store intelligence but rather to allow people to sound off in the moment. the content is then more or less instantly forgettable, although there is always the possibility that the communication will be copied on to more relevant lists and contexts. More problematic is the extent to which such lists may compete for content and have a vested interest in ensuring that it is not passed on to be juxtaposed or melded with related insights
key people to whom one has access typically are themselves aware of being in a similar situation of being unsure to whom information could be usefully communicated
relevant bodies: typically, as with academic bodies, when these do take up issues it is with considerable delay (as with journal issues, agenda setting for future meetings, etc). they are not designed to respond to emergencies
competent bodies: typically in the case of bodies much closer to the crisis (in this case oil industry bodies or BP itself), they are in a mode which is partly defensive, partly needing to assert that the relevant expertise if being applied, and partly challenging the qualifications of the communicant -- irrespective of the potential value of the suggestion

Especially problematic issues include:

all such facilities will claim, often claim vigorously and repeatedly, that they want the public to "write in" and "express their opinions" -- that they are attentive to such communications. However, as was illustrated by the BBC Blue Peter phone-in scandal (2007), the emphasis may well be on encouraging people in this way, but without the slightest attention of considering the replies, other than drawing one or other "out of the hat" in order to be able to claim publicly that attention is being given to such feedback. The ability to cite one or two is then used as evidence that all such comments are considered.
the logistics and cost of processing the volumes of input for which such facilities appeal. This may lead to cynical response to such feedback in terms of citing the number of replies as though this implied their content had been considered.
non-transparent processing of feedback in support of particular agendas, and notably to suppress unwelcome arguments
manufacturing of consensus, or presentation of information to create the appearance of consensus, as so dramatically evident in the case of the "climate change consensus" leading to significant discrediting of the scientific community (now paralleled by a discrediting of the oil industry and its claims)

There is therefore a dangerous commitment to pretence and to unsubstantiated claims of openness to ideas -- possibly to be considered as a perversion of democratic processes.

Such considerations are of much more urgent relevance in the case of emergencies. However they also apply in terms of the consideration of possible alternatives to policies under consideration, as argued in more detail previously (Framing the Global Future by Ignoring Alternatives: unfreezing categories as a vital necessity, 2009; Considering All the Strategic Options -- whilst ignoring alternatives and disclaiming cognitive protectionism, 2009; Enabling Strategies for Viable Futures, 2009).

It is within this context that both appreciation and caution is required in response to the creation of the Deepwater Horizon Response; the official site of the Deepawater Horizon Unified Command which notes:

BP has established a process to receive and review submitted suggestions, on how to stop the flow of oil or contain the spill emanating from the Mississippi Canyon 252 well. Proposals are reviewed for their technical feasibility and proof of application.

More than 7,800 ideas have been proposed to date. Given this quantity of technical proposals suggested by industry professionals and the public, it may take some time to technically review each one....Feasible solutions will be forwarded for additional consideration.

At the time of writing (31 May 2010) links are provided to related discussions (170 Tweets, 30 Buzz, 920 Facebook, 23 Diggs). It is not immediately clear when the site was created in relation to the start of the crisis. Of concern is the extent to which this approach has been conflated with BP's heavy investment in portraying itself via the media as preoccupied with the environment -- an approach readily framed by critics as "greenwashing". This would be a logical way of absorbing the energy of critics by taking their suggestions and effectively placing them "on hold".

Deepwater Horizon Response
Agency: Department of Homeland Security Office: United States Coast Guard (USCG)
Solicitation Number: HSCG32-10-R-R00019
(featured in an interview on Fix it: Bill Nye on oil disaster suggestions, CNN, 10 June 2010;
see CNN iReport, Oil disaster views and solutions)

FAQ on US Federal Business Opportunities
Where can I find the U.S. Coast Guard's announcement seeking innovative technological ideas
supporting the Deepwater Horizon Response efforts for the oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico?

The United States Coast Guard Research and Development Center (USCG RDC) issued Broad Agency Announcement (BAA) HSCG32-10-R-R00019 for the purpose of organizing the collection of -- and enhancing the Deepwater Horizon Response Team assessment of -- technology assistance offers in five technology gap areas: Oil Sensing Improvements to Response and Detection, Oil Wellhead Control and Submerged Oil Response, Traditional Oil Spill Response Technologies, Alternative Oil Spill Response Technologies, Oil Spill Damage Assessment and Restoration. Follow the instructions outlined in the BAA for submitting White Papers (written description of the idea) to the USCG RDC. [Primary point of contact: RDC-BAA-DHR@uscg.mil]

The attached Broad Agency Announcement (BAA) [4 June 2010] issued under the provisions of the Federal Acquisition Regulations (FAR), Subparts 6.102(d)(2) and 35.016, provides for the submission of White Papers (written description of the idea) in support of the Deepwater Horizon Response.

All submitted White Papers meeting the requirements of this BAA will be reviewed and evaluated as they are received. Each White Paper will undergo an initial screening. The initial screening will result in a determination that either (1) the White Paper has a potential for immediate benefit to the spill response effort, (2) the White Paper submission needs more detailed investigation or evaluation and will be forwarded to the appropriate Government Agency overseeing that portion of the Deepwater Horizon Response (EPA, MMS, NOAA, or USCG), or (3) the White Paper submission does not support this incident. A Contracting Officer will provide a response to all properly submitted White papers identifying the initial screening determination.

Other oil slick crowdsourcing projects (as identified on CNN iReport):
http://grassrootsmapping.org/
http://www.gulfcoastspill.com/
http://oilspill.labucketbrigade.org/

15 June (Addendum) : A seemingly unrelated BP Oil Spill Suggestion Box crowdsourcing initiative has been established by Michael J. Evans (BP Oil News: Independent Reporting on the BP Deepwater Horizon Gulf Oil Spillout). Its website notes on 31 May 2010 the establishment by BP of a telephone hotline to take oil spill suggestions from the public. On 10 June, David Teeghman (4 Feasible Oil-spill Ideas from the Public, Discovery News) reported that the Deepwater Horizon Response facility had received more than 8,000 suggestions and had been shared on Facebook more than 1,500 times. Other reports indicated that in May, BP had fielded about 60,000 calls that yielded approximately 10,000 suggestions; about 2,500 individuals submitted forms with more detailed information, and BP further scrutinized 700 of those concepts (Oil Spill Solutions Sought Online, Information Week, 4 June 2010). Over 5,000 suggestions were now being received daily. BP and the U.S. Coast Guard reportedly had a 40-member team of technical and operational personnel charged with figuring out if any of the ideas had merit. On 9 June 2010, BBC News (The oil spill: Your solutions) reported on its solicitation of solutions from the general public (Finlo Rohrer, Can ordinary people think of a way to stop the oil? BBC News, 3 June 2010). Other media have reported on their own efforts at soliciting suggestions, and on the crowdsourcing process in general (Robert Mackey, Times Readers Suggest Fixes for Oil Spill, The New York Times, 3 June 2010). Attention has been widely drawn to the challenges of crowdsourcing (Lance Winslow, BP Oil Spill - Crowd Sourcing to Find the Solution - Weeding Through the Suggestions, EzineArticles.com, 27 May 2010). On 3 June 2010, a technology company launched a new website WhatShouldBPDo.com aimed to leverage such crowdsourcing by capturing a pool of useful and innovative ideas from concerned citizens around the world -- designed to organize the thousands of ideas flooding the telephone lines and e-mail inboxes of government agencies and oil company offices since the original explosion.