Digital Effection

Another reason to hate lawyers...

2010-06-22T05:46:00.000-07:00

NYT has an article about how law schools are automatically inflating grades to make their students appear smarter to prospective employers. I do not even know where to begin. The article quotes Deans of some well-known schools as saying a wholesale grade inflation is warranted because their students are disadvantaged against other schools who do the same thing. Basically, it's ok for us to lose any sense of ethical standards because we are doing it to combat all of our competitors' low(ering) ethical standards.

One schools is even removing "C"s from the grading scale. To be fair, law schools have always tried to maintain a bell curve for grading, which put a lot of students in the "average" or middle. There's a shocker, mediocre attorneys.

The momentum for this move? Law school grads are not getting jobs! Another shocker. It's not like we have a surplus, or anything. Every college grad with a diploma can get into some kind of law school (which is not true for other professions, btw). Mount this on top of the ideas that students have about law jobs (mostly through media, Boston Legal, etc) and the idea that it pays a lot of money, and BAAM everyone wants to be a lawyer.

The Chronicle of Higher Ed has had a recurring theme of articles about PhD graduates in the humanities (esp. English). The authors argue about the ethics of encouraging students to get a PhD in English because there is a surplus. English PhDs have a difficult time finding a tenure-track position and many staff adjunct positions for years until a position opens. At my small college we had 120 applicants for an open English position. In the Business Department, we get about 25 resumes for open positions.

Will lawyers become like English PhDs? Working for peanuts and foraging for long-term work? Let's hope so. Honestly, if you believe in a [reasonably] free market, then all labor gluts eventually get worked out. The pain endured by manual laborers as we transitioned to a knowledge (and outsourced) economy has been great. The idea of the "life of the mind" for English PhDs must now being reconciled with the reality of "have no positions in your field". My dream of slowing the open faucet of new JDs might come from the market itself. Whether staunching the flow of law grads ever changes our litigious society is another question. Until we do reduce the numbers of lawyers, please understand, that they DESERVE higher grades. If anyone can make an argument for it sound ethical...it's lawyers.

Cost of Higher Ed...

2010-04-25T18:53:00.000-07:00

I follow the discussion on Higher Ed costs partly because I am an academic and partly because the costs of sharing need to be factored into any knowlede sharing model. Since Higher Ed is a primary knowledge sharing entitity, its cost structure should be interesting to knowledge folks.

Michael Feldstein, an Oracle employee and education blogger has a blog article about the cost of education and its relation to earning. He raises some great points and concludes the cost of an college degree might be in a bubble that could burst. I disagree.

I think the cost of college has risen dramatically compared to median income (check out Feldsteins graphs for some sobering illustrations). But I do not think many of the people that argue Higher Ed is at a tipping point are factoring in some significant variables. Some breif thoughts on the costs of Higher Ed:

Feldstein argues that an Associates Degree would take until age 29 to pay off. This is bad math. I think he's taking the average cost of a Bachelor's and halving it to get an A.S. degree. Most people get their A.S. degrees at technical and community colleges. The non-profit versions of these schools are some of the most cost-effective options available in the whole world.

Few pay MSRP. Very few students pay the stated tuition price for their education. A lot of analysts for college costs simply look at the stated price for tuition at at college and use this number. Each school has a discount rate. Many private schools have average discount rates in the 30-40% range. Knock off 35% from tuition rates and the equation changes.

Some of college cost is self-induced. Students want better/bigger dorm rooms, lounges, pools, organized activities, athletic programs for all levels (e.g. clubs), coffe bars, and fast Internet. These ammenities cost schools a lot of money. If you do not provide these features, students respond by not choosing your school.

Administration costs have skyrocketed. In Derek Bok's book Underachieving Colleges... he notes how the numbers of faculty has stayed consistent per capita over the decades but administrative positions have exploded. Dirty secret that no one in academia will address. Businesses add people when they can demonstrate the people add value (e.g. revenue) to the system. Not so with Higher Ed.

I do not think we can lay blame on one area. But we do need to examine the costs of Higher Education. We need models that reflect the complexity of the Higher Ed ecosystem. Maybe providing a range of cost options would work. It sure works for consumer products. Feldstein's off to a good start. But we need to factor all the variables before we can make simplistic assumptions about whether college still pays off...not to mention the fact that a better educated public is something that no one seems to be factoring.

Does Academic Writing Style Prevent Knowledge Application

2010-04-18T07:12:00.000-07:00

Rachel Toor has an excellent article in the Chronicle of Higher Ed (online) which discusses the writing style of academics. This article explores some of the problems with academic writing and prescribes some solutions from Orwell, who evidently recognized the pompous and unclear nature of academic writing during his day.

While this subject might initially seem tangential to KM, I think it is central to the gap between practitioners and academics. I am not advocating we turn complex research or ideas into bulleted lists. But the passive and obfuscating writing style that academics use is not conducive to knowledge sharing. Fellow academics will admit to not reading journals as thoroughly as they should (and they are the primary audience!). It is rare to find practitioners who read academic articles.

The solution? Reward the idea and the application of the idea, not how complex we can make the idea sound. This might actually be possible as journals lose their print foothold (read dominance) and are forced to consider alternative audiences, channels, and revenue models. However, if we stripped away some of the complexity behind the description of academic ideas, maybe many of the ideas would look a little silly and underdeveloped. But that's ok. Because we could widen the audience and succeed in building upon and applying ideas across disciplines. The comments to Ms. Toor's article seem to support the idea that even academics understand the problems with their writing. But I really don't see change coming. Many people have gotten tenure with silly or underdeveloped ideas cloaked in pretentious sounding language.

Steve Jobs...one advisor Obama missed at landing...

2010-04-05T06:17:00.000-07:00

The iPad and nationalized Health Insurance seem to have some strong similarities. Primarily, no one knows how useful or functional the thing will be. Both should have users asking the question "do I really need this thing?" Opinions over the iPad, like Washington, seems to be highly polarized.

Of course, this is where similarity ends. One was poorly packaged and sold to the public and one seems to be a hit already. Steve Jobs used a great marketing and hype machine to convince people that the iPad is something special. iPad specialness remains to be seen. But Obama could have taken a page from Steve Jobs' playbook: make it attractive, advertise it as functional, and make people think it is the best thing on the market.

The largest difference in my compare and contrast is the non-believers. iPad critics will write a few blogs, sigh how Apple is a cult of brainwashed people, and ultimately not buy the iPad (until ver. 3.0 comes out). Critics of healthcare recognize the importance of this bill to all users. So they are drawn to action for getting it right and getting input from all parts of healthcare.

Two important products. A huge set of important users. After the debut of the healthcare bill it seems to have fallen off the news cycle. Meanwhile, iPad stories are everywhere. Maybe we should change our coins...In Apple We Trust.

Stored Knowledge vs. Stream Knowledge

2010-03-25T07:15:00.000-07:00

A lot of new KM systems are built around microblog functionality. What I term streaming KM. A stream of information flows from all the people to whom you are connected in the system. Much like Twitter, you can send specific messages or mass distributed messages.

My issue with this functionality surrounds collection and long-term storage. What happens to these streamed messages? How to they get integrated into the collective knowledge (if there is such a thing) of the organization? Furthermore, how does context get applied to the meaning and content of the messages if you search?

Let me propose an example. Assume scientists at ABC company use Yammer within their large pharmaceutical company. One scientist sends a message to the group regarding the threshold level of chemical X permitted in the diffusion process for creating chemical Y. Several scientists respond with things like "it should be no more than 2"...or "research shows anything above 2.5 is ineffective..." How does this K get stored in the organization? First, the audience understands certain aspects of the message which a lay person may not. Possibly the 2 or 2.5 is micrograms per liter or whatever the amount might be. Without labels, the quantity might be useless to a search engine. Also, consider the whole stream is necessary to understand the meaning of the exchange, not just the reply. Finally, where does this information get stored so that it adds value to the company's KMS? Can the info make it's way to a database or KMS?

I really like the functionality of stream KM. I have been using Google Wave for research and for some consulting. But the lack of these modified social network systems to connect to corporate enterprise KM is a bit troubling...or might need a solution.

This might be why I like academia...

2010-03-11T10:27:00.000-08:00

On Tuesday I heard a presentation with Douglas Rushkoff and then I had lunch with him in a small group at my college. There are some fundamental areas about corporations and banks where I disagree with Rushkoff. But I found him to be a very unassuming and thoughtful guy. His thesis that life has become corporate and large corporations have ruined the fabric of life has traction with many people during the recession. His solution to work and produce value in your community (locally) has some true benefit, however, I think some of the conclusions are overly simplistic.

Tuesday evening I watched the movie "Helvetica" with my night class at another event and then had a discussion about printing with some Society of Design members. My work with KM, interactive design, and usability is somewhat tangential to the field of design, but my early days as a doc designer and technical communicator made me fascinated by this movie and subsequent discussion.

After coming home, I realized that I was tired. Not physically, but intellectually. Which is a great feeling. I do not typically feel this way after teaching, certainly not after mudane tasks like grading, and rarely while consulting. This is one of those days where the concepts, thoughts, and interesting dialogue overflows your capacity to comprehend (or at least contemplate and categorize) it all. Very satisfying.

Google claims MS is helping antitrust lawsuits...

2010-03-05T07:26:00.000-08:00

...or I could have entitled this "Search Your Own Algorithm for the term Naiveté."

InformationWeek reports that Google claims MS is waging a proxy war over antitrust litigation. MS appears to be providing legal assistance to small lawsuits that companies are filing against Google. These lawsuits appear to be legitimate and not frivolous. If they are legitimate, Google needs to stop complaining and get better lawyers. Stop ranting about how many PhDs you have and get some good attorneys (cannot believe I write this).

Seriously, the rhetoric on this subject is very interesting. We should be consistent in the way we apply criticism and argument. When MS was being sued by Netscape there were many in the IT/Business community who piled-on the antitrust rhetoric in an effort to keep MS in check. And this issue was over browsers which were being distributed for no cost.

Now, Google cries foul when the same thing is done to them. People, esp. open sourcerers, call MS the "Evil Empire". Somehow, MS is evil but Google, who has completely monopolized the ad search field, is "good". Is this because they have a trust statement that claims to be ethical? Personally, I like both companies. But the open sourcerers need a clue. Google is not OS. Just because they give a bunch of apps away for free does not make them OS. They can give away apps and products because they have a monopoly on search. Someone (e.g. advertisers) are paying to subsidize Voice, Docs, Webmaster, etc.

Competition is good. It makes products better, keeps costs down, and helps corporations remain user-centered. This is what Google Docs has done to MS Office. So why should reversed roles - MS vs. Google in the search advertising space - be any different?

The value of experts in knowledge sharing...

2009-12-30T05:57:00.000-08:00

I using the holidays for catching up on all types of reading. This summer David Weinberger wrote an interesting piece on experts in KM magazine. He argues that the traditional way of vetting "experts" has changed with the internet. I agree. Experts are critical to the success of knowledge sharing. Otherwise, we might think that the most important things in life are what people actually search for :)

We can use so many taxonomies to categorize experts. I keeping returning, however, to the division between the first two stages of knowledge: creation and transfer (kc/kt) and the last stage, application (ka). The division between “knowledge having and knowledge applying” has many important implications for experts, such as research vs. application, academic vs. practitioner, theory vs. practice, and R&D vs. operations.
I recall the Aristotelian taxonomy of knowledge theoria (theory), poiesis (production) and praxis (application). With some slight refinement, the Aristotelian model seems to fit experts very well. It is the action of the experts that allows us to move knowledge through these stages. Modern day researchers such as Nonaka and Takeuchi have recognized that organizational knowledge resides primarily in individuals. The idea of collective knowledge centers on the collective knowledge of individuals, not databases or robots. For me, the action taken by these experts is what moves the knowledge through its stages to application.

This is why the Web 2.0 revolution is exciting. It presents the opportunity for the exchange of knowledge between experts who maintain a theoretical, production, or applied perspective. Some experts are theory experts, even across disciplines. They categorize, refine, and explain the meaning of knowledge in terms of postmodernism, structuralism, constructivist, and many other theories that attempt to conceptualize the relationships between humans and knowledge. Other experts explore how we use these theories to explain how things work or why things are. Finally, the last group of experts takes these concepts, possibly with refinement, combination or even bastardization, and apply them to disciplines or tools where action takes place. There is a different granularity mixture between theoretical and applied for each set of experts, but the results move through the kc/kt/ka stages.

We can easily apply the concepts of Isaiah Berlin, who Weinberger mentions in his article, to this taxonomy. Some experts on theory are hedgehogs, knowing all of the theoretical explanations in one area or discipline. Some are foxes, aware of the many theories that explain different disciplines. Some foxes work to apply theories as an explanation across different disciplines. As an example, I posit the cognitive science theories, which span across the fields of learning, communication, Art, and discovery. If foxes leverage their breadth of knowledge, then hedgehogs leverage their depth. Experts are limited by time. Hedgehogs spend years with a focus on a discipline, set of theories, or area.

Ultimately, the categorization of experts as specialists or generalist achieves nothing if the underlying structure is not present to quickly identify these experts and permit knowledge sharing (with other experts and the community). This is what makes the role of experts so important to Web 2.0. Somewhere, among the clutter, we can identify, embrace, refine or refute, and share the knowledge of experts. It’s a brave new world….err networld.

Future of Advertising...

2009-11-27T05:32:00.000-08:00

JC Penney is running a series of videos called "Return to the Doghouse". This one is funny, but more importantly, I think points to the potential of the video medium. A few years ago American Express tried this with Seinfeld shorts written by Barry Levinson. I am convinced that the bandwidth and technical issues of the period ruined that experiment. Expect to see legitimate screen writers working with advertising agencies developing content for these shorts.

Kelso on Web 2.0 Monetization...Really!

2009-11-24T07:34:00.001-08:00

Which millenial/Gen Xer comes to mind when you think of Web 2.0 monetization? How about Ashton Kutcher? Seriously. This NYT article describes how Kutcher's focus on marrying media with brands and social networking is successful. Kutcher's Katalyst production company has forged the perfect mixture of Web 2.0, brands, and celebrities to build a formula for a new media company. Was Kelso on the top of your list of monetization gurus...didn't think so!

Initial Impressions from IDMAa

2009-11-08T07:36:00.000-08:00

I attended the International Digital Media Arts Association (IDMAa) conference at Ball State University the past several days. Some very compelling presentations. I heard Tom Kelley from IDEO speak about innovation, the architect Philip Beesley speak about building forms that approach "living", and Joe Mandese from MediaPost give a recursive overview of what he was blogging about during the conference. Mike and Michael (Bloxham and Holmes) discussed a media usage study underwritten by Nielsen to study the amount of video that consumers watch. Ball State University has been a leader in media usage studies since the seminal Middletown Studies.

A few initial thoughts:

Given my love for UCD and people-centric technology, Tom Kelley's comments about how anthropologists are some of the best people to identify innovative opportunities, seems intuitive... He calls it Veja due, looking at something you have expereinced before with a different perspective.

Often, it is the esoteric thinkers who build or develop things for the sole sake of beauty or interest, who spawn ideas. We need more people who make stuff because they can, not because they see a need.

Technologists are interested in what makes something "living". Approximating the living behavior, either through AI or sensation, seems to be the next step in computers at the bleeding edge...although this statement has probably been true for the last 30 years.

Art, Design, and Communication overlap as they feed technology innovation. More interdisciplinary research and collaboration is needed to spur innovation.

Everyone is still struggling over how to research social networking. The topic has worked its way into specific disciplines as functional areas of academia seek to apply traditional research methodology to something so new and amorphous.

Conferences like these always get the mind working and the fingers typing. GO IDMAa!

Has Twitter learned anything from the Dot-com bust?

2009-10-22T09:38:00.000-07:00

Evan Williams, the CEO of Twitter, hedges a bit when asked what is Twitter's revenue model in this video from the Web 2.0 Summit. He does acknowledge that they are working on the product and the quality of the product will influence revenue. Ok. Start with a good product that people really want and build customers. This was a good step for Twitter and one that was not taken by many revenue-less dot-com companies. However, there still needs to be a revenue model. Most of the companies that provide free services have revenue: Gmail/Google Search, Facebook/Advertising, etc. Twitter cannot survive on VC money forever. I find it a bit disconcerting that the CEO, who is responsible for the strategic and conceptual aspects of the operation, cannot even articulate how they will make money. Are they working on partnerships (one was announced today with Bing) and cannot disclose it. Or do they truly believe that building a great product MUST somehow eventually lead to making money?

Is email really dead?

2009-10-13T09:27:00.000-07:00

Wall St. Journal has an interesting article on the demise of email. The growth of other digital communication channels like Twitter and Facebook have slowed the growth of email. The article rationalizes that email worked the way we used to work: logging onto the Internet and checking things; newer technologies work the way we now work: always connected via computers and mobile devices.

The article also provides a metaphor that information is like a constant stream (or river) which things are placed into. From an enterprise standpoint, I do not think email is going anywhere. The value of email is that you can schedule a time to read and answer it. Millenials might be used to instantly responding to messages and thus email is tough for them. That might work for students. But when these students get into the workplace and need an hour to write a report, they are going to find out how inconvenient it is to answer an IM or read a bunch of tweets while trying to focus on an important assignment.

Multitasking, you argue? Psychologists have proven the brain is incapable of true multitasking. We simply split our capacity among activities we are doing. This has pretty much been proven by driving behind anyone who is in a serious cell phone conversation while attempting thought-related driving maneuvers.

The article makes several assumption or omission errors. First, there is a document trail which Twitter and Facebook do not leave behind, especially important for the enterprise. Second, anything large and mature is not going to experience huge growth because it is alread large and mature, leaving it with less room to grow (duh). We saw this when e-commerce became a mature technology/industry. The article does not address the role of spam and efforts to control it on growth, either.

I think Twitter (and enterprise one-to-many technologies like yammer) will supplant some email. I think Facebook and direct messaging through Facebook will also have an effect on email growth. The value to these technologies is that they will provide a more seamless and transparent interaction between work and play. Technology has wrought a rather negative effect on the work/play relationship, possibly these communication channels can improve that relationship. But email going dead in the enterprise in favor of Twitter? Doubt it. The article has a great quote that provokes some thought,

"You can argue that because we have more ways to send more messages, we spend more time doing it."

These technologies, email included, should increase productivity. Checking multiple channels and responding to business and personal communication in real-time will not improve productivity...unless people meld their work and play together into one virtual lifestyle. Don't agree with my? Leave a comment...I'll check it when I check my email.

Am I alone in my concern for traditional media?

2009-10-12T13:51:00.001-07:00

FastCompany has an article about Rupert Murdoch criticizing Google for aggregating news. It is easy to take pot shots at the traditional media and people like Murdoch who create traditional content. Their unwillingness to embrace Web 2.0 and their slowly decaying model of print journalism does make them look antiquated.

Let's not forget, however, that people like Murdoch still have a viable revenue model for news and he stills pays journalists who fact check and seek confirming sources. In the late 1990's the courts prevented aggregators from showing a newspaper website site and wrapping their own advertisements around it. This is different, but not much. Google is certainly going to put ads on content which Murdoch companies developed. How would you feel if this was your news company?

I am no protectionist. But I see a big problem with the demise of traditional news companies. Bloggers do not fact check, bloggers do not get two sources, and bloggers forward on dubious stories because they have no way of confirming them. If we are left to bloggers for news we will lose investigative journalism (what's left of it) and accurate reporting. Our "news" will become a webmash of rumor, innuendo, and gossip.

If companies like Murdoch's cannot get paid for developing quality content, then we will all suffer. Won't it be ironic when the wide, open, and free distribution provided by the 'Net destroys the quality of the content we seek to distribute?

Google is blunt...and so am I

2009-09-03T06:33:00.001-07:00

Articles report that Google has been blunt about its 100 minute outage, saying "...it's a big deal..." Let me be blunt. You are an idiot if you use Gmail for critical or business oriented email.

I have a Gmail account as well as Google voice, adwords, analytics, THIS BLOG, etc. I love Google services because they are free and generally functional. But I do not depend on any of Google's services for mission critical services. And you shouldn't, either.

Google's services are like open source, you get what you pay for. Many times, that works out. But sometimes, it doesn't, and when you are not a paying customer, there is no solution. Now, maybe you can argue that every system goes down. Maybe you think the two public RIM outages were serious and provide a counter argument to my position. If you are a RIM BB customer, you have the satisfaction of being heard, changing to the iPhone, or asking for some refunds. As a paying customer, you have options. Also, you have some sympathy from customers who probably experienced the same outage. With Gmail, none of these options exist. No dialogue, no sympathy, and no respect. If you cannot handle a serice delaying for 1.5 hours then don't use the service. Odd that I would defend Google, but, you get what you pay for...many people in technology and Web 2.0 are going to figure this out now that the Ad revenue model is showing some cracks.

What is an expert?

2009-07-24T20:23:00.000-07:00

We can use so many taxonomies to categorize experts. I keeping returning, however, to the division between the first two stages of knowledge: creation and transfer (kc/kt) and the last stage, application (ka). The division between “knowledge having and knowledge applying” has many important implications for experts, such as research vs. application, academic vs. practitioner, theory vs. practice, and R&D vs. operations.

I recall the Aristotelian taxonomy of knowledge theoria (theory), poiesis (production) and praxis (application). With some slight refinement, the Aristotelian model seems to fit experts very well. It is the action of the experts that allows us to move knowledge through these stages. Modern day researchers such as Nonaka and Takeuchi have recognized that organizational knowledge resides primarily in individuals. The idea of collective knowledge is centered on the collective knowledge of individuals, not databases or robots. For me, the action taken by these experts is what moves the knowledge through its stages to application.

This is why the Web 2.0 revolution is exciting. It presents the opportunity for the exchange of knowledge between experts which have a theoretical, production, or applied perspective. Some experts are theory experts, even across disciplines. They categorize, refine, and explain the meaning of knowledge in terms of postmodernism, structuralism, constructivist, and many other theories which tie into how we exist as humans. Other experts explore how we use these theories to explain how things work or why things are. Finally, the last group of experts takes these concepts, possibly with refinement, combination or even bastardization, and applies them to disciplines or tools where action takes place. The granularity is different for each set of experts but the results move through the kc/kt/ka stages.

Scary Times in the 4th Estate

2009-07-21T05:15:00.000-07:00

Last evening I had dinner with 2 friends. The three of us each has a communications background and we began talking about the sad state of journalism. I have not posted much about the state of journalism. At times I have deemed journalism to be outside of the Web 2.0/KM topics I follow. But journalism IS strongly related to KM. Reputable sources of journalistic information are critical to individuals and organizations. Look at how the WSJ continues to succeed at a subscription-model for revenue because if its solid information.

Ultimately, the state of journalism affects KM as well as our basic liberties. Without sounding pompous, it is the journalists who have uncovered the corruption, scandal, and outrageous behavior among people which has helped to keep society honest. Who will do this in the digital fourth estate? My fear is that no one will. Unfortunately, investigative journalism takes time and no longer yields financial return for most newspapers.

I mix a few local anecdotes with some national ones for effect. The Allentown (PA) Morning Call laid off 70 people from the newsroom. This is a paper from a small metro area. It has a subscription rate of slightly over a 100k. How many people does the Call's news room even employ? Stories abound from Denver, Seattle, and other 2nd-tier metro markets about newspapers closing or moving to online only editions. Many small market papers, including the local Lancaster PA newspaper, have consolidated morning and late editions. While this might sound reasonable in the age of digital journalism, it drastically cuts down on the advertising space that keep the newspaper going.

The problem is that people do not know there is a problem. They think blogs and Twitter have replaced traditional media. So what if newspapers go the way of garment manufacturers, steel mills, and A.M radio, we have replacements, right? We can not replace the media with technology. Blogs, Twitter, and Satellite radio are only means to publish information, not create the content itself. If our media are only focused on Jacko's funeral, Brittany's rehab, and the latest success of vampire movies, who keeps us informed about serious events and happenings? Who produces the quality investigative journlism on regional and local companies, politicians, and events?

I do not have an answer, but I feel the need to keep asking the question. Consider for a moment, that the egregious behavior of 2008 Wall St and banking exploits took place with a strong financial media. What are the consequences for not having any real media to disseminate information and keep the arms of industry, government, and education honest? If corruption happens in the woods and no is there to hear it...is it really illegal?

Show me the Money $$$

2009-07-10T05:14:00.001-07:00

The latest buzz is about Google and its foray into building an operating system for netbooks. Reporters love to report that Google is going after all of Microsoft's business. After all, people love any kind of competition and the news knows it (politics, legal battles, war). But no one in the press seems to be paying any attention to the fact that Google gives away all of its services that compete with Microsoft.

I have been arguing for years with people that free is not good for users in the long-term. When no one pays, there is no institutional commitment to the product. It's doubtful that Google is going to shelf Googledocs anytime soon. But if you build a business or an organizational process around Googledocs, what is the long-term commitment of Google if no one pays for the software?

Such is the question with a Chrome operating system. Google is absolutely correct that netbooks need a fast, clean, and fast-loading OS. But will people be able to use an OS that relys on bandwidth, which is how Chrome is supposedly built? I know I use my netbook for trips and traveling. I can think of many times I was at airports, beach vacations, and rural road trips where I had no bandwidth but still wanted to write, compose, work on a PowerPoint, or play a game.

More importantly, where is the revenue model for Chrome? Will Google finally leverage its brand and charge something for a product? Or will we be saddled with an OS that serves us ads while we're online? Or worse, a product which has no revenue stream at all.

Eventually, Google needs to grow beyond ads. The dent which the economy has had on advertising and the limitation for ad growth has turned Google into a mature company. While people consider them an innovator, I reserve judgement until they develop a product with an actual revenue model. Then we can call Google a competitor to MS.

Frankie says Relax...

2009-07-06T17:41:00.000-07:00

L. Gordon Crovitz has a WSJ piece about how humans will survive and adapt to new technologies like Twitter. I agree. For me, however, there are some caveats to Web 2.0 technologies so I offer a few more thoughts:

1. Information literacy is critical. Many young people still do not grasp the importance of critical thinking skills when evaluating information.

2. Twitter and social networking are revolutionary from the perspective of how (not what) we seek. Instead of searching, which was the standard just 4 years ago (pull), we now get information from our social or work network (push).

3. It will be interesting to see whether the deep thinking required for innovation or revolutionary ideas is impacted by our multi-tasking tendencies. Will creative thinkers still be able to have "Aha" moments...or will the buzzing of the blackberry kill these opportunities?

4. Younger workers don't see the situation as info overload. They call it life. People like me frame it as info overload based on the limited quantity of information that was available to me when I entered the workforce in the late 80's. I suspect that millennials will transition just fine into a transparent work/play relationship.

5. Human adaptation is the most important aspect of Web 2.0. We have adapted what Jurgen Habermas calls tools, techniques and technology to take us places well beyond what the inventors ever imagined.

Optimism should be the order of the day. But let's not get too giddy. There is still a lot of work to be done in socio-technical areas of organizations and companies.

Tools driving strategy…the new Dot-com model?

2009-06-24T08:19:00.000-07:00

This morning I was walking over the parking lot to my college office and I came across a Craftsman screwdriver on the side of the lot. It had been run over a few times but was in good shape. I started to bend down to take it along when I realized that I had several screwdrivers of that size, including a Craftsman. I thought, “I already have enough tools.” My next steps to my office led to thinking about too many tools and then tool overload from a digital perspective. We are not just overloaded with information, we are beginning to be overloaded with tools. Keeping up FB, MySpace, Twitter, blogs, and wikis is a monumental task. The other day I came across the Carsonified page, where Carson basically keeps a log of all the many web services that exist. Admirable and necessary, but getting to be a bit overwhelming. Unfortunately, tool overload has led to poor strategic planning.

Following smart and insightful people on Web 2.0 platforms certainly makes me more engaged and knowledgeable. Occasionally, I have something to add to the conversation. I fear, however, that enterprises are implementing Web 2.0 tools without developing a cohesive strategy. Developing a strategy featuring Twitter, blogs, wikis, and web services is not the right path. Developing a strategy using Twitter, blogs, wikis, and web services is the proper way to proceed. The difference is monumental. Using these tools requires a strategy which has goals, objectives, and assessment. It typically starts with a goal that states “we want to use microblogging technologies to establish many-to-many relationships with current customers which will improve accessory sales by 20%.” This goal is followed by tactics, probably using Twitter coordinated with something like Cotweet, to begin the microblogging process. Experimentation with Twitter is a good thing. But recognize that Twitter is a microblogging tool and there needs to be a corporate microblogging strategy which includes coordination, tactics, assessment, and training.

Understand the difference between featuring and using. Using implies that the tools may change, are additive and sometimes transient, and that use is backed by a strategy which has concrete goals and objectives (and assessment). Featuring says that we are making decisions based on tools rather than strategy (aka tactics vs. strategy, if you have strategic planning experience). No one should base future decisions on tactics. You should base future decisions on strategy. Tool overload has obfuscated this simple dictum for some companies. The pace of Web 2.0 tool growth has made some companies shelve their strategic plans. Strategy still needs to drive tool decisions. Don’t let strategy be driven by tools. Don’t let people tell you that we’re entering a new paradigm and strategy is too slow. Don’t let it be dot-com paradigm ignorance all over again.

Why I do like Yahoo

2009-06-08T07:16:00.000-07:00

I do not have Yahoo set as my homepage and generally only use the finance section of Yahoo. But I do think the company has value and a future. First, I really like Carol Bartz. She has a good interview at the All Thing D conference which makes it apparent as to why Yahoo pursued her management talent.

More than Bartz, however, is my gut feeling that we are focusing too much on search. I think, and have stated in this blog, that search is huge. Not just internet search, but enterprise search, which is going to explode in the next few years. Any type of search begins with a need, this is why search is such a good fit for the advertising revenue model. There is a lot more information needs beyond search, however. Think of all the viral, news, and tool information that you have acquired. Most of it did not come from search. Content is still king. Social networking is great for many types of information, but we still need content from trusted sources (not that my facebook friends are not trusted!). Communities are good at commentary, opinion, and ideas. Not always the greatest at journalism, facts, and even objectivity.

I think Bartz will optimize Yahoo's best assets through her ability to lead people.

Which CoPT?

2009-05-26T20:57:00.000-07:00

In the research and reading process on Communities of Practice Theory (CoPT) I came across a really interesting article by Andrew Cox written in 2005. Cox argues that there are actually four interpretations of CoPs: Lave and Wenger's original from 1991, Brown and Duguid's conceptualization from 1991, Wenger from 1998, and Wenger, McDermott and Snyder from 2002. A researcher or writer should situate his/her work in one of these four variations of CoP theory in order to properly establish and define CoP.

The paper provides a solid overview of the history and transformation of CoP theory. The author clear shows how Etienne Wenger has shifted from CoP as a learning theory to CoP as a managerial tool. While it is sometimes difficult to gain useful nuggets for industry from academic papers, this paper is a worthwhile read. It is essential to define, bound, and situate your CoP (or at least let the bottom up process define it). The Cox article provides some concrete distinctions which can help you understand the history and development of CoP.

Search and Rescue...they are going to be (oops, are) BIG...

2009-04-13T06:19:00.000-07:00

Two significant problems exist with most social media. The first problem is that marketers are actually the most interested people in having an exchange with you. I know, you might have 500 "friends" on FaceBook or MySpace, a loyal cadre of followers on your blog (even if they are 11 year olds), and gazillions of IM addresses. But the more people in your network, the more the marketers actually want a dialogue with you. Second problem - the whole web of social media is supported by the ad revenue model. Ultimately, the web will become one large advertisement as everybody seeks to monetize their content.

Consider this story about affiliate programs sending fake Twitter tweets filled with ads. This should not come as a surprise. Just when Twitter began to show some promise beyond "what I had for breakfast"...the advertisers took over. As a person who sometimes develops marketing strategy, I find some of these tactics in Web 2.0 unique, annoying, and sometimes creepy. But it provides some opportunites. I like to call it Search and Rescue. The search part has grown due to the challenges finding of information on the ever-growing Internet. Google? Yeah, still doing pretty well. Rescue is my term for all the technologies which save us from the creepy and annoying effects of the ad revenue model: spam filters, virus/worm checkers, ad blockers, identity protectors, widgets for FB and MySpace which limit ads, etc. I could decry all the annoying stuff created by the ad revenue model. Since this is my blog, I just might in the future. For now, I think I'm going to find some Search an Rescue stocks and try to capitalize...

Society Was Never Improved…by knowing the color of Paris Hilton’s Rolls Royce…

2009-04-10T09:07:00.000-07:00

Last summer the Wikipedians met in Egypt (metaphorical?).One seemingly positive result from so much interest, use, and traffic at Wikipedia is that the repository has cut down on the incidence of controversial content and wars between differing opinions. This reduction of controversy to civility, censorship, and bland entries is precisely why Wikipedia might never become a world-changing service. For now, it is simply a repository of facts.

Don’t misunderstand me, Wikipedia is a great repository of facts. Old school traditionalists in my field, higher education, love to bash Wikipedia and normally fail to grasp the new way that people access, combine, and collaborate to make knowledge. But the elimination of controversy and disagreement essentially reduces Wikipedia to a fact checker. Which is my point, mankind was never furthered (or impeded, for that matter), by the color choice for a celebrity’s car or the accepted birthdate of jazz. New and good things come from controversy. Controversy makes people evaluate their position, thoughts, beliefs, and actions. Controversial opinions, products, and people make us uncomfortable but leave an impact, even if it is a stronger resolve for what we already believe.

I don’t know the answer to how Wikipedia can store and even foster the controversies that occur in our societies. I don’t know how Wikipedia can take a controversy like the Israel/Palestine disagreement and portray it so that society understands the complexities, difficulties, and history. I suspect, having been a writer all my life, that we need narratives, opinions, and long detailed pieces. We need good journalism, photographs, and people from both sides of the conflict weighing in with content. All of this content will cause different people have different opinions. This breadth of opinion is what ultimately spurs people to action and furthers society. A Wikipedia entry with the timeline of the history behind the Israeli/Palestine conflict is not going to change the world. It will never come close to chronicling the issue for future generations. Until Wikipedia stirs someone to action…it is just a bunch of facts.

The Cost of Free

2009-03-17T05:46:00.000-07:00

The news that the Seattle Post Intelligencer was closing and shrinking to a small, Internet-only publication should be good news to those people (like me) who want to see journalism move to the digital age. But it isn't good news. Seattle loses its oldest newspaper and the true guts of the newsroom, hard and investigative news, is eviscerated, never again to work for the people of Seattle.

I've been a proponent of the positive changes the Internet has wrought from the beginning of the commercialization stage (circa '95). I've coded html, laughed at ridiculous dot-coms, embraced Web 2.0, played around with OS software, and initially decried the tactics of the music industry and RIAA. So I feel like I'm balanced on the issue of free stuff on the Internet. There is a cost to free. Just like the TV commercials that offer free gifts along with your purchase (YOU PAY ONLY SHIPPING), free has a cost on the Internet. Look at the cost of free:

Traditional journalism is endangered because the ad revenue model of the Internet cannot replace the traditional advertising model
Free classifieds have decimated newspapers and free classifieds papers to the point of extinction
Free music has changed the landscape of the music industry
Free software - Open Source software is great - is everywhere, but who is actually paying for the development of it?
Free movies now flood the market with the growth of bandwidth

In some form, people will ultimately pay for free. In music, it comes at the expense of the artists and record labels, who no longer receive revenue to back bands. In film, it comes at the expense of movie companies, who lose out on revenue for future production. If this doesn't make you shed a tear, then consider the loss of journalism. It is the journalists who expose corruption, follow dirty money, promote transparency, and force leaders of all walks of life to maintain integrity. It is not called the fourth estate lightly. When we lose the people asking the hard questions of Wall St, by gaining the fluff journalists who ask Paris Hilton about her new boyfriend, we lose more than people. We lose our ability to know. We lose our ability to "smell a rat", "follow the money", and "catch them in the act".

In regards to big cities, the competition between big newspapers is what often leads to the best investigative reporting. Sure, it leads to some exaggeration and sometimes pulling the trigger before confirmation. But it keeps us informed and it keeps a lot of entities honest. If we lose this, we begin to lose true democracy. I don't know how to monetize news information. I don't know how to encourage the average reader to care, just a little, about important events beyond Hollywood and style. But I do know that if we lose it because we think it's free...we are definitely going to pay for it.

Where is the UCD in future cars?

2009-02-12T07:00:00.001-08:00

The greening of America has brought attention to many of our wasteful behaviors (and rightly so). One thing is clear as car manufacturers roll out energy efficient models - to save energy, cars need to be smaller. The problem is that we are a physically large society that is used to space in our cars. This is true for everyone, even commuters! The suburbanites who take a gaggle of kids to soccer, school, or play practice will be slow to relinquish their car space. We have physically gotten larger as a society, both height and weight. Unless we all turn into health conscious vegans, there is little chance of a quick reversal. Look at the tricycle car in the photo. Do these two handsome models look like the average American? Did you see the photo of six-foot-six (I think) GM CEO Wagoner getting out of the Chevy Volt when the car manufacturers went begging for money? Priceless. This guy, million dollar salary aside, would never purchase this car. It simply is not comfortable for a guy of his size.

I know cars need to weigh less and still be crash safe. I understand the complexity of building a truly fuel-efficient car that can be mass produced at a reasonable cost. But car designers, environmentalists, and other stakeholders in the system need to understand something about User Centered Design (UCD). People aren't going to become smaller to accomodate a car. Families aren't going to stop having kids just so they can fit into a small car. Sure, our behavior is wasteful. Let's start to address this with public policy (like we have with recycling). Over time, we can encourage people to adapt to smaller vehicles. Expecting that everyone will want a Volt or Prius by 2010 is simply not reasonable. Small cars are uncomfortable for the mainstream America. Let's acknowledge this as we work towards better fuel efficiency and recognize that significant transition steps must occur to get people into smaller vehicles.

Al Gore's son drives a Prius (I know this because I saw he was busted for drugs in it in a news story). But I'll guarantee you Al, who gained weight like the rest of America, isn't tooling around on trips in this car. I fact, if you google Al Gore and car, you get a bunch of photos where he is chauffeured around in Audis and Benz's. Because he's a hypocrite? No, I honestly don't think so. Because he's a typical overweight American? Bingo!

Puzzling AMD Cloud Strategy

2009-01-10T04:59:00.000-08:00

WSJ reported on Friday that AMD is building a huge supercomputer to deliver cloud computing experiences to gamers. In a nutshell, the system would permit the company to deliver "specialized" hardware and software to users, thus limiting the use of the processor (or graphics chip).

Excuse me, but isn't AMD in the business of supplying the very chips which they are looking to reduce dependence on? If this system enables smart phones and other simple devices to run games in a web browser, as proposed, wouldn't that make a PC or device with a robust chip virtually obsolete?

If I read this correctly, is this a bet that chips won't rule, and even if they do, it will be Intel that rules them? Or is this simply a hedge because everything in IT seems to be "cloud" these days?

Funny Student Evaluation...Pretty Much Says it All!

2008-12-19T13:20:00.001-08:00

I taught two sections of Organizational Communications this semester. Some students in the course struggled to write effectively for business. Some students don't comprehend why using a hesitation form (umm...ahhhh) after every sentence yields a mediocre presentation grade. Check out this word-for-word evaluation that a student submitted (using an online survey instrument) about me:

"The professor was inappropriate toward students. He lacks communication skills even though that is course he is supposed to teach. Grades too harshly on presentations when this is practice...there should more presentations with smaller points fixed to them. THe videotaping was rediculous " (forgot the period).

Fortunately, the positive comments about the course were well-written. Maybe there is a correlation?
:)

Don't Start Drink'n Our Own KoolAide...Yet

2008-12-01T12:46:00.001-08:00

The blogosphere is filled with odes to Obama and the change he'll bring. We certainly need some change and I hope he's the answer. My problem is not with Obama, but with the "crowdsourcing" advocates who think Obama will rule by checking Facebook.

Web 2.0 is great for campaigning. Truthfully, it's especially great if you're a Democrat and have a high proportion of younger voters. Howard Dean was the first to show this, not Obama. Obama can take credit for actually getting the social network crowd to vote and contribute. Dean was a bit early on this front. Some PR groups have annointed the Facebook crowd as the next face of public policy makers. I think, however, that people who believe their voice will be heard because of a Facebook group are drinking their own KoolAide. I'm a technophile and I still believe these collaborative tools can move us towards a more collaborative democracy. But in the next 8 years? Unlikely.

Campaigning for change is one thing. Everyone wants change. The problem is that even people who support Obama have different opinions of change. Unions want card check rules, employers want tax breaks, middle class wants less taxes but more services, and everyone has a different opinion on how to change the economy and our global image. Wrapped into this fray is a Congress that wants to take money home to get re-elected and a judiciary that remains very conservative. The forces which will come to control Obama's decisions will remain traditional. Large constituencies will be heard, lobbied for, and remain influencial.

As people from current generations get elected the social networking trend will become a public affairs device. But not this year...or next year. Too many old school control issues exist for Twitter to be the next policy research tool. Money and power count. 20,000 people without money or power on Ning.com only count during an election, not after.

The Technorati are quick to label the Obama campaign as historic. I think the campaign's use of technology was masterful. To get elected. Now that Obama is putting together people in his adminstration he'll stop checking Facebook and start asking his cabinet. There are many reasons why I predict this, but be assured that yelling at the top of your lungs on Twitter won't get you heard after the election.

Howard Dean started using technology. Obama perfected it for the campaign. If you think the next logical step, one crowdsourced public voice will come quickly (e.g. like during Obama's reign) you're drinking your own Koolaide.

Society was never improved…by knowing the color of Paris Hilton’s Rolls Royce…

2008-08-10T07:44:00.001-07:00

One seemingly positive result from so much interest, use, and traffic at Wikipedia is that the repository has cut down on the incidence of controversial content and wars between differing opinions. This reduction of controversy to civility, censorship, and bland entries is precisely why Wikipedia might never become a world-changing service. For now, it is simply a repository of facts.

Don’t misunderstand me, Wikipedia is a great repository of facts. Old school traditionalists in my field, higher education, love to bash Wikipedia and normally fail to grasp the new way that people access, combine, and collaborate to make knowledge. But the elimination of controversy and disagreement essentially reduces Wikipedia to a fact checker. Which is my point, mankind was never furthered (or impeded, for that matter), by the color choice for a celebrity’s car or the accepted birthdate of jazz. New and good things come from controversy. Controversy makes people evaluate their position, thoughts, beliefs, and actions. Controversial opinions, products, and people make us uncomfortable but make an impact, even if it is a stronger resolve for what we already believe.

I don’t know the answer to how Wikipedia can store and even foster the controversies that occur in our societies. I don’t know how Wikipedia can take a controversy like the Israel/Palestine disagreement and portray it so that society understands the complexities, difficulties, and history. I suspect, having been a writer all my life, that we need narratives, opinions, and long detailed pieces. We need good journalism, photographs, and people from both sides of the conflict weighing in with content. All of this content will cause different people have different opinions. This breadth of opinion is what ultimately spurs people to action and furthers society. A Wikipedia entry with the timeline of the history behind the Israeli/Palestine conflict is not going to change the world. It will never come close to chronicling the issue for future generations. And it will probably not stir anyone reading it to action.

The world is not facts. The world is emotion, color, imagery, disagreement, acceptance, and non-acceptance. I’m not really sure that Wikipedia can do all that with some text and bullet points. Until it can, we shouldn’t credit Wikipedia with being a “library” or being like the “library of Alexandria”. We should credit it for being a repository of facts, some true, some stretched. None really have much potential to change the world.

Was vertical social media preceded by...the web?

2008-07-15T19:17:00.000-07:00

WSJ's "All Things Digital" section has a video where journalist Kara Swisher interviews Demand Media's Richard Rosenblatt. Let me say that Rosenblatt seems like a very intelligent yet grounded guy. None of the proto-typical ranting and nonsense that spews from many Silicon Valley entrepreneurs who are drinking their own juice. Rosenblatt was the co-founder of MySpace and sold it to News Corp. He comments in the interview about how his new company builds vertical social networking communities. For example, if you are an impassioned golfer, why go to Facebook and join a golf group? Why not go directly to an online group specifically for golf? I agree completely.

The growth of the web foretold this phenomena. Destination websites that served as general knowledge pages (Yahoo, for example), helped connect us to different and new webpages. Gradually, we began to visit the pages we knew and that led to less surfing and less need for a general directory. We still search a lot. But not for new web destinations, mostly for new information.

I think Rosenblatt has it right. But our behavior on the web in the 90's was a pre-cursor to our behavior today. In viewing it from this perspective, one doesn't need to wonder why Yahoo is in trouble. And we have to admit that Yang is stuck in the past drinking his own juice if he thinks a Google ad pact can save Yahoo from the fundamental change in audience behavior.

The Inability to Model KT...Due to the Unpredictibility of Humans

2008-07-01T05:19:00.000-07:00

If business was predictable, business theorists could create several models for business operations, make them Open Source, accept donations and consulting, and retire to a place more suitable for thinking. But the unpredictability of business is what makes it interesting. Business is filled with quantitative measurement of itself. Manufacturing companies collect data on raw materials, optimum manufacturing cycles, environmental factors, and just-in-time inventory. Services industries have adapted this analytical perspective of work, examining customer satisfaction rates, average support call time, and other customer based metrics. Service sector companies in the knowledge economy appear to have a much harder time than manufacturers in creating a template for the perfect product. Much of the work is what Robert Reich calls Symbolic/Analytical and requires analysis and decision. Injecting human beings into the business equation sometimes creates a level of unpredictability that cannot be measured. Human unpredictability accounts for two significant problems in the enterprise: first, it makes the modeling of many business processes very difficult due to the inconsistency of human thought and action. Second, it stymies the ability to create a clear model of knowledge management due to the human interaction that needs to occur for knowledge creation and transfer.

KM is not a set of known processes that function consistently. Imagine that your enterprise wants to upgrade its database capabilities. So you license an Oracle database and integrate it into your ERP system. You pay Oracle for some support, add some knowledgeable staff members, conduct training, and pay an integrator to complete the project. Never easy, but once the database is optimized the processes that control the DB and employees is fairly consistent. You can measure all types of metrics from the database and using standard protocols you can guarantee consistent behavior from the database and the people accessing specific kinds of data. This isn’t the case with KM integration. There is no component (like a database) that forces a significant amount of consistency on the processes. In a KM collection effort, some employees feel incentivized to enter information and some don’t’. The sharing of data is inconsistent. Some people share due to relationships and projects. Some prejudicially don’t share due to poor relationships or turf wars. Collaborative exchanges resulting from cross-functional projects might vary and subject matter experts in important areas retire and take a goldmine of untapped information to the flower beds, golf courses, and beach houses of retirement. All of this inconsistency cries for a unified model. But how do we create a model that accounts for human inconsistency and the randomness of some KM exchanges?

Am I the ONLY communications professional sick of advertising?

2008-06-13T11:57:00.000-07:00

I love communications. I've been involved in marcomm, technical writing, advertising, PR, and technology for my whole professional life. But I'm a bit downtrodden by the idea that a huge percentage of people in the knowledge economy spend their time contemplating where to put more ads. Consider this quote from a online advertising listserv that receieved:

[quote] "To date, it's been one of those Holy Grails of the advertising business, and agencies have invested goodly sums in both proprietary and syndicated research to get at the answer of this seemingly idealistic "seamless media plan." Here's how the scenario goes: "Joe's radio alarm clock wakes him at 5:30 a.m. tuned to a local news/weather report. (Bam! Broadcast an ad message relevant to starting his day.) Joe turns on the local TV news channel while he quaffs his morning cup of java. (Reach him with a TV ad impression.) He unfolds the a.m. newspaper, or more likely, clicks on its site. (Serve him a banner or print ad.) He checks his morning inbox. (Send him an email marketing offer.) Then he's on his way out the door (ping him with a mobile marketing message.) Then driving to the train station. (Reach him with a.m. radio drive time.) On his daily commute. (Expose him to transit ads.) And so on and so forth throughout his day -- until he rests his head on his pillow for the only seven-hour respite from the commercial marketing world. [end quote]

I'm sick of ads. I love creative ads online, in print, and around town. But I think our existence will be a rather bland and dull one if we cannot perform a function online, drive somewhere, or use our cellphone without seeing an ad. Despite the appearances of the last few years, consumers in the U.S. DO have a limited amount to spend. This disposable income has already reached close to the limit. So a crush of more ads will create two scenarios: people become so disenchanted with ads that they no longer pay attention to them or the ads work, but it pulls disposable income away from another source, that source must create more ads to maintain market share and a big, never-ending ad war of ensues.

Am I the only communicator that doesn't want to see our society filled up with ads?

The Next Big Thing...Technology to Support Business Culture (not just function)

2008-05-23T05:57:00.000-07:00

4-17-08

Driving into work I was listening to a story about how people across the world were rioting over food prices. Even some Middle East countries, flush with oil money, had riots over the cost of food. As the impact of high oil prices begins to constrict around business I began to postulate how technology can make business less reliant on oil.

In some ways, we’ve already begun the process. Virtual teams, reduced travel using videoconferencing, and working from home all contribute to oil savings. The biggest shortcoming in this first wave of distributed work environment is the challenge for the communication that occurs between colleagues. This cultural communication, as I term it, is essential to business success. More than just the water cooler talk, it involves seeing people in meetings, reading body language, and being able to pop into someone’s office for advice or feedback. A lack of opportunity to communicate in a face-to-face environment is what prevents managers, supervisors, and other team/department oriented workers from working from home. In some cases, this type of human interaction is what separates our home environment from our work environment and give us a sense that we’re “working”.

Anecdotally, which is my way of saying I have no research but my own experiences, this type of interaction varies in frequency. Some days, it seems like meetings, conversation, and group problem solving dominate one’s day. Other days, one just hunkers down with the door closed while churning out documents, reports, and deliverables. Herein lies the challenge. When we’re working in our office or cubicle, we might as well be working in our basement. There is no advantage, given technology, to be at the office. But when we’re needed – for a meeting, for feedback, for an immediate problem, then the accessibility for communication, and especially face-to-face communication, becomes an issue. And while the telephone has some merit, nothing beats a 20 minute impromptu face-to-face team meeting to overcome a new challenge and re-energize the effort.

So the next big thing in business, prompted by the oil prices, commuting, and the inefficiency of driving (even with cell phones), is Virtual Reality. I’m not sure how it will work, but it will be a technology, despite some unevenness of implementation, that will rise to dominate how we do business. I’m interested to what you feel how this virtual reality will take form. Here are some of my ideas:

 Holograms- I don’t know much about 3-D technology. I do know that scans, compression, and transmission of all kinds of images have progressed to the point where this might be feasible.

 Virtual World – If Second Life could be controlled by your real movement and if SL could show emotion, it might be worth actually using. SL has a lot of potential, but it still needs more input from your REAL avatar, you. For casual and recreational users of SL, the fact that nothing in SL needs to connect to their real life, body, or feelings is exhilarating. In order to do business and communicate, this feature is a drawback.

 Video – no company is really enthused about videoconferencing because the technical requirements prevent spontaneity and, let’s face it, we all look bad 2D. Some work needs to be done to get this technology usable.

Currently, technology has been refined to support the functional aspects of our jobs: documents, conversations, analysis tools, and access to corporate resources. The next big thing will be the recognition that place isn’t important as long as we can replicate the important human interactions that occur in the corporate office. If we can, then everyone can work from home a few days a week, save the fuel and commute time, and still have the sense that they “worked”. Virtual Reality Distributed Work, trust me Dustin, it’s the next big thing….!

DCOM 290: Online Advertising and PR

2008-02-05T06:04:00.000-08:00

I am teaching online advertising and pr to an undergraduate class this semester. Here are their blogs on the subject of online advertising:

Dan Hoover
http://dhoover.blogspot.com/

Drew Autenrieth
http://dautenrieth.blogspot.com/

Zach Barkus
http://zbarkus.blogspot.com/

Ben Wagner
http://benjaminswagner.blogspot.com/

Tony Gorick
http://coastermaniaccp.wordpress.com/

Kristin Huber
http://onlineadvertisinghuber.blogspot.com/

Lauren Sanford
http://lsanford.blogspot.com/

Jamie Booker
http://jamiecbooker.blogspot.com/

Jen Schwalm
http://jenniferschwalm.blogspot.com/

Google vs. Wikipedia...

2007-12-17T21:31:00.000-08:00

Google has announced a collaborative encyclopedia that will feature experts writing on topics. Some FLOSS and Wikipedia supporters think this is a bad thing. I'm not sure why. Yes, Google wants to put ads on the pages (call Knols). And yes, maybe we should keep an eye out to make sure that knols aren't given precedence in organic search results. But seriously, do you really believe we can take all the wonderful wisdom of the world and store it in the servers of a non-profit organization that makes money from donations?

Capitalism and free markets have made everything more efficient, useful, and accessible in terms of the Internet. Why should Societal KM be any different? Google innovates because it has talent and money. Not all innovation needs money, but very few innovation projects succeed without it. Who's going to pay for Wikipedia as terabytes of data are added? What are the long-term consequences of people involved in FLOSS projects literally dying, losing interest, or, God Forbid, waking up one day and realizing that there is economic value in their efforts which they aren't getting paid for. I vote for Google. Because, you know, anyone who's motto is "Do no Evil" seems like a good candidate for something.

While the debate rages, however, I am interested to see what a knol looks like. This site might be more like the About.com expert model than Wikipedia. No one seems to sense that connection.

1/2 laptop per child...

2007-11-23T18:44:00.000-08:00

Nicholas Negroponte is upset because Intel is picking on him and his One Laptop Per Child (OLPC) project. While it appears that Intel has made peace and joined the OLPC board, its competing product called Classmate is selling well in foreign countries. Intel's Classmate, which uses MS Windows software, is an interesting case study. Many countries are telling Negroponte, who is on leave from his MIT position, that they can't go wrong with "Windows" and questioning who will train and support the OLPC computers.

The FLOSS (Free/Libre Open Source Software) community has always said that foreign countries would embrace Open Source software due to its low cost. But what if the shortage of talented support staff in developing countries pushes them to Windows? Microsoft is offering a cheap version of Windows to many foreign countries. Interestingly, Intel got involved in developing Classmate because it's fierce competitor, AMD, was providing chips to the OLPC project.

I've always admired Negroponte's idea. But he can't be mad that the free market has stepped in. If his true goal is to put inexpensive technology in the hands of emerging nations then it doesn't matter who gets there first, non-profits or companies. But if his ego and lack of knowlege about free markets block the path to a collaborative solution, then shame on him. He should be proud that it was his effort has spurred industry to emulate his OLPC computer. But sometimes, academics (and I am one), aren't the best people to run multi-million dollar projects.

IDMAa

2007-11-10T13:09:00.000-08:00

I just returned from the International Digital Media Arts Association conference in nearby Philadelphia. The conference is centered on academic digital media programs and the organization has provided some great networking and knowledge opportunities to me over the last five years. While I enjoyed learning about college programs, I especially enjoyed the commercial media companies that came to show their work. Peter Rivera from AOL spoke about how the new AOL is about content and media. Two executives from the highly successful creative agency Schematic showed some impressive work and spoke about the need for "fearless" problem solving employees with broad skills and training.

More than anything, though, the commercial enterprises validated our program at LVC. People spoke about the importance of technological education that is interdisciplinary develops critical thinking, emphasizes problem solving, and builds skills for adaptive learning. It's a theme across the spectrum of technology and high tech companies. If you don't know what kind of company you'll be in 5 years, then you need people that can learn and adapt to the changes that technology and the marketplace bring.

Social Tolerance for Disagreement

2007-08-02T08:43:00.000-07:00

Warning: this is not a technology post. As a I tell my students, you need to engage in the world around you. This is this THAT kind of post.

But it's not really a political post. Ward Churchill, the academic from Colorado who said that the World Trade Center was filled with "little Eichmanns" during the 9/11 bombings, was fired. The university claims it was due to research misconduct and not the the comment he made. I don't really care. My interest is the ACLU and supporters who ran to his aid to cry "academic freedom". Where were these supporters when Lawrence Summers said that men are better at math that women when Summers was President of Harvard? No one said that was protected by academic freedom (even though he was an administrator, he certainly deserved the freedom faculty have).

I don't agree with either statements made by Churchill or Summers. But that doesn't mean I favor canning them, either. Welcome to the dirty secret of academia, we're tolerant here...to comments that come from the left. We ARE NOT tolerant here in academia for comments that are conservative, critical of people or groups that we consider "diversity groups", or comments that favor business, capitalism, or money. You can make all the outlandish comments you want if it's leftist. If you get fired, well count on help from individuals and groups "committed" to academic freedom - the ACLU, and others who hold out academia as the last bastian of tolerance and egalitarianism. When these tolerant police come running into save you, please don't ever mention that you shop at Wal-mart, outsource your web projects to India, believe in strict interpretation of the bible, or don't favor homosexual marriage. Because they'll leave faster than they've assembled.

We need tolerance for disagreement in this country. Not tolerance for any particular group of people, idea, or worldview. The polarization of politics and the hateful nature of social discourse has only begun to draw attention to this problem. Let me know if you have ideas on how I can build tolerance for disagreement into college classes.

Where I have been?

2007-07-17T06:31:00.000-07:00

Yes, I haven't posted in quite some time. I've been in New Zealand with my family and a group of my college students. You can see all of our posts from NZ off our NZ blog. I used the time to not blog about technology, business or anything work related for 6 months. A true international experience to re-adjust. I did do some research on the knowledge transfer between academics and practitioners in NZ. I also taught a class. But a break from the normal is always good. I'm back!

Google wants your health records.

2007-07-17T06:04:00.001-07:00

I'm all for solving problems. It's what I've been doing in business for almost 20 years. But Google solving the healthcare records problem by maintaining your records doesn't diagnose well for me. Google sees a future with people in charge of their own healthcare records. This part is good. The part where Google keeps feeding me ads based on my record is not so good. Google only gets revenue from ONE place, advertising. So it presumably has a better relationship with its advertisers than it has with me. Does this seem like the company you want to protect you're super-secret private medical records?

Don't get me wrong, I'm a communications professional and love advertising. But ads have their limits (at least to me). I don't envision a world where advertising revenue can be used to solve all of our social problems. I think our government, despite its methodical slowness, still has the best shot at this.

Certainly, Google's solution has its problems. Remember when MS wanted to keep all your passwords with Passport? Multiply that by 1000 when it comes to sensitive medical information. Maybe this trend of knowing everyone's personal stuff - blogging your personal stuff, people knowing where you're at, and all things celebrity - has an upshot. Possibly, by the time Google gets health records uncranked, people won't care if others see their medical records. They'll mash their medical records with their e-harmony dating profile, bank statement, and twitter GPS location. "Hi, I'm a mildly diabetic obsessive compulsive Leo who loves horses, kayaking, and books by James Paterson and I have a $351.42 in my bank checking account after my last check cleared for my car payment while I was sitting at Cyndi's House of Nails on 16th St." Maybe transparency isn't such a good thing...

Old Media Extends Life Expectancy with New Media

2006-12-27T20:25:00.000-08:00

I watched the TBS show "The Funniest Television Commercials" this evening. I was struck how the life expectancy of some traditional shows have been extended by the Internet. Much of the content from the TV show was advertised as being online at veryfunnyads.com. The website also includes bonus ads and commercials deemed to explicit for TV.

Two issues take form with Hollywood and the Internet. Traditional TV shows that air only one time can extend their life expectancy with the use of the internet. A second theme is that the Internet can be used as a custom filter to show content not appropriate for mainstream media (everyone has known that, but now the networks are catching on!).

The beautiful fit between Hollywood and the Internet lies in the compatibility of the media. If you're a company and want to put your content on the Internet you need to take a print based communications structure and make it digital. Making Flash presentations for your products, creating a digital map of the world and linking your sales forces, creating back-end databases and building an interactive experience. All Hollywood needs to do is convert NTSC to mpg or Quicktime and build a simple interface. Compare YouTube's interface with that of General Electric.

Content is still king! AOL was wise to buy Time Warner...they just didn't wait long enough or build the structure to take advantage of it. Look for the emergence of Hollywood on the Internet in 2007.

Tom Cruise Cocktail Methods would break a server

2006-07-17T08:40:00.000-07:00

A company now places RFID tags on bottles in bars to to track the tilt angle and length of pour from the bartender. The story is here. The RFID system knows the length of pour and reconciles bottle usage with the Point of Sale (POS) system to see if the correct ingredients were used.

I have always had a balanced view of privacy. Many times I disagree with EFF because the fights seem to be so narrow and lack relevance to the digital masses. But I am NOW starting to get a bit nervous over RFID tags. Their potential to turn routine and normally discrete tasks into an Orwellian nightmare are suddenly becoming tangible.

On the hand, I might just be able to find the perfect gin and tonic. Cool!

Maybe start with a sex wiki or religion wiki...

2006-07-06T05:37:00.000-07:00

Jimbo Wales, founder of Wikipedia has begun to launch a campaign wiki for the masses to discuss politics. It's noteworthy, of course, because he believes that people from all political persuasions can discuss, argue, and debate using this wiki. I'd like it to succeed. I joined the mailing list and I'm hopeful. But if I was a betting man, I'd put my money on failure.

Greek classical rhetoric contains a valuable theory called stasis, which uses questions to find the location of agreement among competing arguments (or people). This is the challenge of using a wiki to stimulate debate in politics - can parties find stasis? In other words, can they even agree on the points of disagreement. Rhetoric (the true art, not the pejorative term) seeks to invent the proper argument or language based on the point of stasis. It cannot overcome the emotional attachment people have to their political beliefs.

I'd like to believe I'm open to changing my opinion. But not always. Oddly enough, my experience with academia shows that professors are one of the worst groups for changing opinions related to politics or social sciences (where no absolute evidence exists). Even when evidence is shown towards the contrary, professors deconstruct the research to justify their beliefs.

Jimbo's wiki has many analogs in business technology. The technology exists in business to share knowledge and negotiate situations. Unfortuately, the culture and organizational behavior (or maturity) hasn't caught up. Stories abound of employees that won't put important knowledge into the company system because they feel it's their competitive advantage or they don't see the individal ROI.

Jimbo's campaign wiki is a wonderful technology that will provide a technology platform for people of different political beliefs to debate. The question is, are humans ready or equipped?

On Democracy, Balance, and Freedom

2006-07-05T07:08:00.000-07:00

I didn't post anything on the 4th, plenty of people have great posts about our country and indepence day. Many of this country's biggest intellectual critics live here, have lived here, or were educated here. This is an interesting, because when you read their commentary, many, like Noam Chomsky, usually reconcile their criticism of US foreign policy (or whatever they criticize) with comments that concede the U.S. is still the most free and most fair country in the world.

In reflection on what makes this country great, here's what I argue: balance. We balance the powers of the Legislative, Executive, and Judicial branches. We have the balancing effect of the fourth estate, the media. We have political balance between Republicans, Democrats, and other parties/ideologies. We have balance between the federal government and the states. We even balance things that our founding fathers felt might negatively impact the health of the country, like church and state (technically, it's separation, but balance is really more appropriate).

As radical alternatives to democracy re-appear, like elements of what Hugo Chavez proposes in Venezuela, it's important to understand the link between democracy, balance and freedom. When you achieve some level of balance you achieve freedom. Marxists are all about balance. The marxist line will tell you there is no theory that better balances people than marxism. Unfortunately, the marxist balance treats everyone the same, which isn't really balance. Not to mention that most communists and marxists have not truly achieved treating everyone equally. Marxists (and communists) have failed to achieve balance in every country where it's been used as a political economy. The problem, it seems, is that balance needs to respect the individual. Some individuals want the security of a job, some the challenge of owning a business, and some don't want to work at all. To fulfill all these various needs is a balance only democracy can achieve.

Marxism and communism espouse balance. Unfortunately, these ideologies don't balance government power or authority, freedom of the press, individual rights, dissent, or economic reform.

Hugo Chavez will fail in Venezuela. But not because the U.S. doesn't agree with him. Chavez will fail because he has no respect for balance. He can buy his populace off with cheap gas and socialistic reforms at the start. But he can't keep it going, because it's not balanced...and never will be.

The U.S. is not perfect. We deserve criticism and we make mistakes. But we are a democracy. We have many freedoms and we have achieved some balance in our country. Keeping vigilance over this balance is what will continue to make this country one of the greatest countries in the history of the world.

Net Neutrality

2006-07-02T09:39:00.000-07:00

I think there are few examples of neutrality...maybe only Switzerland! This net neutrality issue is like most complex telco/techno issues - you can't be certain who's on what side, why, or who might benefit.

Certainly this is a bill about corporations vs. corporations. This is really not about "consumers". On one side is the delivery (i.e. Comcast) and the other side is the content (i.e. Yahoo). Classic confrontation between the dichotomy of Internet functions.

Both sides have arguments. The deliverers say they cannot reach every man, woman, and child with bandwidth unless they have some exclusivity (monopoly) and legislation that deters competition. So, for example, it would be difficult to take some of the huge pile of cash they make from providing bandwidth to Philadelphia and build basic infrastructure to middle-nowhere-PA.

The content providers, on the other hand, make themselves out as "for the consumer". This isn't really the case. It just means that content providers would be free from deliverers in terms of how they reach the end user. There certainly is a real fear that Verizon or Comcast might discriminate against Google or Amazon. But over-regulation is not the answer, either.

We'll see where it goes from here.