The value of experts in knowledge sharing...

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...

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!

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

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?

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?

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?

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

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?

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

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 $$$

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...

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?

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

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?

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...

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…

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

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?

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

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?