The phenomenon of 'collaborative play', or shortened to make it more futuristic, Co-Play, in e-sport nowadays continues to emerge. In my opinion, I consider it as an activity of collective intelligence and collective ignorance simultaneously, if the player goes too far. Collective intelligence, because each individual who is part of the group has the same extrinsic and intrinsic motivation as explained by Cope in 'Collaborative intelligence part 5C' online class.

In this case, the external motivation is the rewards from the institution which materialized in 'level rank' and 'point' acquired from victory. The intrinsic motives, first, love and belonging, love for games, and a feeling of belonging to the ongoing session. Metaphorically speaking, although it does not rule out the possibility that it could actually occur, even if a thunderstorm raged around, a gamer was at least willing to 'leave' the ongoing session, a common integrity value is hugged tightly. Second, self-esteem, a feeling of self-confidence that sees individual contributions and achievements as something valuable and important. Two points drawn from Maslow's hierarchy of needs can even refute the theory itself because physiological needs such as clothing, food, and shelter could be ignored. For example, a gamer may not ignore personal hygiene, day-to-day responsibility, not eat for hours while the gamer is immersed in a fierce match.

From a pedagogical perspective, collective intelligence is never wrong, never bad. Instead, it is embraced. Collective intelligence is defined as a form of intelligence that results from cooperation, collaboration, and/or competition from a large number of individuals (McLoughlin and Lee, 2009). Co-Play has elements of knowledge sharing and competition which can also be used as a learning reinforcement for level or rank increment. In my opinion, that's good. Although there was a discrepancy in the form of using curses as the expression of encouragement instead of punishment.

However, it becomes paradoxical, because of the ‘too much’ collective intelligence, a self-destruct could take place, individuals can become completely ignorant, either stupidity of themselves, or stupidity manifested in blunt social abilities. Yes, as mentioned earlier, the fulfillment of physiology is not yet perfect, but rushing to jump to love and belonging and self-esteem frivolously. Achievements obtained from collective intelligence, be it "Division", "Points", "Level", and "Win rate" in such gamer account, could be highly questionable due to the ignorance that appears.

What is emphasized from this notion is the balance, collective intelligence should not disturb other components. In this case, collective intelligence is not the one to blame, it is the people. Humans who lose control in calibrating multiple purposes.

What can be learned?

In creating collective intelligence initiatives, organizations must pay high attention to the alignment of inputs, processes, outputs, outcomes, and strategic objectives to ensure the balance in the ecosystem and to keep control of the process to move to the right direction.

Inputs, processes, outputs, and outcomes are four interrelated parts of Value Flow Analysis. They are expressed as indicators to measure associated initiatives.

Example Value Flow Analysis for collective intelligence initiative in the workplace

Following up on the Value Flow Analysis above, I propose three types of collective intelligence orientation to help organizations set strategic objectives.

1. Competency-based. When collective intelligence is used solely to improve the skills and knowledge of each individual in the group.
2. Problem-based. When collective intelligence is used to solve common problems.
3. Task-based. Refers to day-to-day activities carried out collectively or initiated collaborative projects as the solution for such problem.

These three orientations can occur with or without intention, in the individuals' conscious or subconscious mind. They can occur alternately in an indeterminate order, simultaneously or in part.

Embodiment in workplace

1. Clarify strategic objectives
2. Identify potential areas for collective intelligence (CI) initiatives
3. Select appropriate indicators for each CI initiative
4. Set target for each indicator, example: Competency-based: 75% of employees master PowerBI; Problem-based: % Products delivered on time; Task-based: % Employees help others employee to complete task, % Employees access Knowledge Management platform to do task
5. Employ the right medium both online and onsite
6. Monitor the process of CI
7. Give immediate feedback
8. Report regularly
9. Acknowledge and reward the employees for their collaboration towards achieved outputs and outcomes

Ref:

• Lee, Mark J.W. and Catherine McLoughlin. "Applying Web 2.0 Tools in Hybrid Learning Designs." Handbook of Research on Hybrid Learning Models: Advanced Tools, Technologies, and Applications, edited by Fu Lee Wang, et al., IGI Global, 2010, pp. 371-392. http://doi:10.4018/978-1-60566-380-7.ch02