Facebook PixelA site where businesses can post their problems and selective groups of people solve them for them
Create newCreate new

A site where businesses can post their problems and selective groups of people solve them for them

Image credit: Photo by fauxels from Pexels

Contrived _voice
Contrived _voice Jan 20, 2022
Please leave the feedback on this idea

Is it original or innovative?


Is it feasible?


Is it targeting an unsolved problem?


Is it concisely described?

Bounty for the best solution

Provide a bounty for the best solution

Bounties attract serious brainpower to the challenge.

Currency *
Who gets the Bounty *
Think of it like crisis management using focus groups. A business has a problem that they need a solution to, Say expanding to a new region or a marketing strategy for a new product, or a change in management style. They ask for the best way to do something and they get answers.
  1. Cancel culture- We live in an era where one slip up and the entire world cancels you. Internal teams although diverse can't keep up with every new movement or social rationale. The public, however, can and you can channel that for profit.
  2. Diversify opinions- Cultures, nationalistic principles, regional ideals and viewpoints are not something that can really be understood by reading about. Getting a mixed up group of as many people as you can all working toward a solution for you is an Ideal situation.
  3. Avoid generalization errors. Helps avoid businesses from coming off as tacky to their intended market.This happens when you ask people who studied a group of people what that group wants instead of asking the actual group.
  4. Work from home movement- With ongoing shifts in workplace structure, working remoteley is getting popular. A virtual office with an active global crisis managemement system would be a big help in making that shift.
  5. Winning over new markets- With information from "in-crowds", even niche markets can be accessed easily and a brand can make products specifically for them.
How it works
Once hired as part of the team you choose which groups of the general demographic you belong to based on your own ideations, culture as well as groups you belong to. These act like tags and grouping people with similar tags together creates an idea pool of people with the same general principles bt each slightly different from each other. The pools will also tend to show polarizations showing vastl differences in principles but also the points at which they overlap.
The whole group must agree not to get personal or take opinions from other members personally, That is the only condition. The goal is to reach a mutually agreeable solution while avoiding all social biases.
Everyone is annonymous to other members of the group and only moderators know the actual identity of everyone. An identity tag is provided to keep tag of ones contribution and a track record can be recorded to determine the most useful participants.
A company presents it's problems to the owner of the site. After which using an algorithm to choose people randomly from the target demgraphic using their own tags . A room is created ands a deadline for a solution set.
Answer Process
Once a room is generated the members assess the problems and come up with different solutions, Then without external influence, the menbers of the room arrange the solutions in terms of which is more pallateable to the groups they associate with and identify the most agreeable solution for everyone involved. Other alternative paths to reach the same goal could also be presented.Once a solution is found a draft is written and presented to the company. If it is a desirable solution the company accepts it and the room is disbanded, If not he room takes in the feedback and makes the necessary accomodations.
Why this is the best framework
  1. Allow companies to get willing feedback from different groups by simply joining as many tags as they need together.
  2. The annonymity means people can be honest without letting their pride as members of a group affect their responses.
  3. It gives people of opposing opinins a chance to work togethe on a project that is mutually beneficial to them and in the process they get a better understanding of each other.
  4. It also allows for personal growth as interaction with other open minded individuals of different education and culture is enriching to your worldview.
  5. It's self correcting nature. If fixing problems is what you do, it is inevitable to end up correcting yourself.
  6. It could act as a psychological model by asking the participants annually how working there has shifted their perspective on matters. Such a model could be used to find ways to help people get along despite their differences.
Identifying where you stand on matters personally, without external influence should always be the first step before weighing in your opinion on any matter.
Creative contributions

Focused groups a.k.a. brainstorming jurors concept

jnikola Jan 21, 2022
The idea is interesting and reminds me of the jury in the American jurisdiction system. A jury is a sworn body of people convened to find facts on questions officially submitted to them by a court or to set a penalty or judgment. Your idea of focused groups could work in a similar way for the important questions of private or state companies (would that make the focused groups a "brainstorming jury"? :D)
Some ideas on how it could work
Registering as a "juror"
You could enter the pool of "brainstorming jurors" by registering to a site (entering personal data, verification by the ID, filling the questionnaire).
Selection of the members of the "focus" groups
Based on the type, size and the nature of the problem or the question asked, members of the "brainstorming jury" or the focused group could be selected reasonably random. That means the company would have to fill a question form where the nature of the problem would be determined and categorized. That would affect the "random" selection of the groups, by narrowing the choice, but leaving the random factor partially intact.
Finding solutions or answers
The focus of the selected "brainstorming jurors" would be 100% on the problem or the question they got enrolled in. The companies they work in would not be legally forced to pay the workers for the time spend in the "brainstorming jury", but would have to allow them to get back to work normally. The problem-solving/brainstorming process should be guided by the cooperators, to ensure the fastest and the most efficient solution delivery.
Paying system
The same as the real jurors, the proposed "brainstorming jurors" would also be paid per day rate (50$ per day in US).

What do you think about this comparison and the ideas I proposed? Do they fit in your original concept? What things do you agree or disagree on?
Please leave the feedback on this idea
Contrived _voice
Contrived _voice2 years ago
That's an interesting parallel
I kind of wanted to avoid a random room. If there could be a way to know what kind of people were participating in the room at any given session, it would be more marketable. My vision was a way to get microfluctuations in the principles within a group that has roughly the same beliefs and use the statistical logic of sampling to find solutions that should work for everyone involved. If you could ask the jurors to sort themselves independently first, The system could still work.
I agree with you on everything else.
I could add on the payment method. What if the solution had a bounty on it and the members of the room split the bounties? This system rewards results not time invested. This way there is an incentive to provide a solution as soon as possible.
Please leave the feedback on this idea
jnikola2 years ago
Contrived _voice I understand why you wanted to avoid random groups and yes, independent sorting would help.
Bounties are definitely another paying option that could be implemented. In some cases, it could work better than per hour rates, but I am always afraid that setting a fixed amount could predefine expectations, the size, and/or the importance of the problem. That way, people/companies who can't pay big bounties will almost always get a lower quality of brainstormers' engagement. Also, members who contribute more would be paid the same as those who didn't come up with a solution (unless somehow determined who contributed how much). That way, bounties still attract people and manage to engage collaboration between them through competitiveness. On the other hand, per hour rates could engage collaborative brainstorming through the fight for the same goal. But these are just my thoughts, feel free to comment :)
Please leave the feedback on this idea
Contrived _voice
Contrived _voice2 years ago
J. Nikola I see. What if there was an entirely new payment style?. Awards for solutions has the faults you've mentioned. Is there a way you can incentivize finding the most solutions in the shortest time while at the same time fostering collaboration?
Here's a thought, what if you paid the solvers per hour but tipped the greatest contributor. The catch is you let the solvers decide what the best solution is and who is responsible for it. The poll could be anonymous. Further, the tip is only given if two-thirds agree on the same person. This way after each session everyone is forced to recognize the contributions of others instead of their own. Thoughts?
Please leave the feedback on this idea

Add your creative contribution

0 / 200

Added via the text editor

Sign up or


Guest sign up

* Indicates a required field

By using this platform you agree to our terms of service and privacy policy.

General comments