Its certainly an interesting hypothesis and I wish you luck, but I can't see it working out the way it is now. What you're introducing has to be implemented fi

Its certainly an interesting hypothesis and I wish you luck, but I can't see it working out the way it is now. What you're introducing has to be implemented first as a cultural change by leadership, meaning larger organizations that exist today cannot simply adopt your system unless they fully dedicate themselves to changing. This is expensive and is pretty much guaranteed not to happen. This leaves your target market to small and medium, fast growing businesses. The problem here is that these smaller companies want productivity tools that accelerate growth instantly; not an organizational revamp for tomorrow. By the looks of it, it seems your product introduces more work and politics (IMO just as much bureaucracy as the system before) because members have to vote on initiatives, rate each other, etc. I can only guess that in a short matter of time, members stop caring about these artificial ratings or manipulate/game them, especially if management decides that "contribution rating" should be a form of how workers are paid. It is simply not a long-run solution; people don't want to casts votes everyday for the rest of their lives. Workers are motivated by their work, not extraneous organizational concerns. I'm not really sure if the efficiency trade-off nets positive. But I like your different thinking, and you may be on to something. //Bachelor of management & organizational studies...never thought I'd ever use it here lol.