So I think the problem was that organizations seemed to assume that the default solution was always to try to create new fulltime positions to solve problems. And I was seeing that as transaction costs shifted, there were some jobs that encompassed tasks that might be better done by multiple people, often people with expertise and perspective not available inside the organization. Adventures in Ideas: Crowd Control — an Interview With Shaun Abrahamson, Freakonomics.
In the article you don’t need more time, people and money, the classic solution to solve a problem was to hire a new person to do it. My response to a particular issue that seemed to demand more manpower was to put the task on a wiki and ask (incentivize) the existing team to complete it.
The whole open source phenomena is that when given a chance people will help out and make things happen, even if they are not specifically told to. No one has to direct, top down based upon a Six Sigma analysis, who has to work on what. We often don’t need more people. We just need to give more people the opportunity to match their skills and interest with what is going on in the organization.
The unholy trio request of time, money and people is pretty much a good indicator that we have not yet tried to do something innovative.
Have you tried an open source approach to getting things done when you believed that you needed more time, people or money?