Experts; Who needs them ?

We look up to experts. We have respect for their knowledge. We are always on the look-out for the expert. In the field of Knowledge Management it's one of the holy grails to find the experts. My question is "What value do they have? and if so when ?".

There is a lot of evidence that experts fail and fail time after time. 90 percent of the fund managers underperformed the S&P 500 the last 15 years, only 2% of all companies listed on the stock exchange in the early 20th century are still around to tell their expert opinion. They had the best CEO's and hired the best experts and they are no more. These experts made crucial decisions based upon their believes, opinions and predictions. Can we trust these opinions ?
Here are a couple of predictions of some experts;

"Who the hell wants to hear actors talk?"
H. M. Warner, co-founder of Warner Brothers, 1927.

"There is not the slightest indication that nuclear energy will ever be obtainable. It would mean that the atom would have to be shattered at will."
Albert Einstein, 1932.

"Heavier-than-air flying machines are impossible."
Lord Kelvin, British mathematician and physicist, president of the British Royal Society, 1895.

"Everything that can be invented has been invented."
Charles H. Duell, an official at the US patent office, 1899.

"In all likelihood world inflation is over."
International Monetary Fund Ceo, 1959.

"That virus is a pussycat."
Dr. Peter Duesberg, molecular-biology professor at U.C. Berkeley, on HIV, 1988.

"There is no reason anyone would want a computer in their home."
Ken Olson, president, chairman and founder of Digital Equipment Corp. (DEC)

"I think there is a world market, for maybe five computers..."
IBM chief Thomas Watson 1943

more>>

The problem with experts is that they know everything about nothing (a very thin slice of something). Then again a generalist knows nothing about everything. James Surowiecki argues in his book "The wisdom of crowds" that the real expert is the crowd, the group.

To make the crowd smart four key characteristics should be fulfilled;

1. it needs to be diverse, so that people are bringing different pieces of information to the table.
2. it needs to be decentralized, so that no one at the top is dictating the crowd's answer.
3. the people in the crowd need to be independent, so that they pay attention mostly to their own information, and not worrying about what everyone around them thinks.
4. it needs a way of summarizing people's opinions into one collective verdict.

So, do experts have value or should we rely on groups?

I think they have, and this is when;
1. They should be part of the group
The expert is an essential part of the crowd. But they have to be just one of many; they have the same value as the next person when aggregating the individual opinions of the group.
2. Experts have operational value in the now
If something has to be done now, in the present, you need the best man possible. You can't have some idiot executing or solving a problem he knows nothing about.
3. Bring the expert to the problem, not the problem to the expert
Let the experts bid for problems, the highest bid gets it. This is essential to success. If you are going to use an expert, apply this or otherwise just use the group you'll be better off. Why?

a. How do you know which problem to bring/give to which expert?
Firstly, you are not an expert on the problem, that's why you needed an expert in the first place. You can't make that judgment call. Secondly, you don't know what he knows, or better said what his expertise exactly is. Probably he knows best.
If you violate this, there a good chance that you giving the wrong problem to the wrong expert.

b. The problem is always framed by time. You want it solved now. What if the expert doesn't have time? How do you know he has time? If he is recognized as "the expert", he will probably be flooded with requests. You'll be competing and/or escalating for his time with fellow colleagues and peer management. Only the expert knows if he has time and/or the resources to solve it within the giving timeframe.

c. An expert is only an expert by proof not by demand. So if he publicly bids for the assignment, gets it and succeeds, his expertise will be reinforced by proof. For the expert this very satisfactory and a driver to perform, he is the soul expert, nobody else outbid him.

As a result the right problem will end up at the right expert, who has the time, the drive and the passion to work on the problem. We rely on demand and supply in other areas, why not here?

And remember in the end we, the knowledge workers, are all experts in our own right, aren't we?