Tags
A few weeks ago, I noticed a contest on Stowe Boyd’s site to receive a free entry to the Social Business Edge conference coming up in April in NYC, and a chance to share the idea on stage. I just found out my entry is one of four that was selected. I’m copying it here, but I’d love to build it out with you:
How can the power and scope of social networks, combined with a human capital inventory, be used to facilitate shared creation and innovation?
It wasn’t that long ago that society was a byproduct of an industrial era, characterized by assembly lines, processes, and efficiency. Like the machines they operated, people were not expected to think, but to conform and become a cog – a replicable, interchangeable part of a machine. The problem is, humans weren’t designed for mechanization. We were designed to create.
With the rise of social tools, we’ve been publicly reclaiming ourselves – publishing blogs, joining social networks, and connecting and sharing information with each other on a global scale. As a result, a shift in values is underway, where privacy, gatekeeping, and the preference for information silos is being replaced with new expectations of publicy, openness and transparency. We’re still exploring the implications of this transition both for our personal identities and for the role of the business organization, but there’s the potential to redesign the system in a way that’s fair, participatory, and human.
But how?
A part of it is in understanding the composition of our social networks, and the skills, strengths, and relationships that are embedded within them. At the organizational level, knowledge is often separated by department, and at a larger scale it’s separated by the notions of producer verse consumer. These barriers no longer make sense. In order to take advantage of hidden insights and innovative ideas, there needs to be a way to understand who’s who and how to get the information flowing through the proper channels.
A tool that would map the connections within a network combined with a ‘human capital’ assessment could aid in this process. By mapping the network, one would understand the relationships between individuals and groups, how knowledge flows, and spot areas where communication channels could be opened and new connections made. A human capital inventory would be like a resume, but with context. It might show an individual’s past experience and affiliations and skills, but also include things like social capital, sphere of influence, reputation, inherent strengths, and personality type. This information would give clues as to how to create dynamic teams and at what stage of a process an individual’s skills would be best applied.
By creating transparency and open channels, a social learning environment is created, where managers become leaders and facilitators and everyone else becomes participants. This is opposite to being cogs in a machine – rather it encourages creativity, collaboration, and shared creation. It’s become apparent that a vast amount of knowledge exists within the structure of the network itself, and by creating the proper conditions for information to be shared and built upon, we can devise solutions that are better than zero-sum. Approaching problems with this mindset would have an amplifying effect that would scale beyond the limits of the organization.
#
So there’s the premise. The ideas are not new, but seem to exist currently in different places in different stages. For instance, the idea of measuring influence is currently being tested with services like Klout, and Tweetlevel. The Whuffie Bank is trying to devise a currency that’s built on reputation that could be redeemed for real and virtual products and services. And I was just alerted to a new startup, Jostle, that’s trying to help companies “harness and engage their human capital.”
On the other side, you have the people who are trying to understand how knowledge flows within an organization, and how the learning process works. I’ve picked up a lot of ideas about social network analysis from Valdis Krebs, the concept of Wirearchy from Jon Husband, and ways to bridge the gap between a networked enterprise and social learning from Harold Jarche and Frederic Domon.
Plus all the people doing work in Knowledge Management, (David Gurteen and Dave Snowden come to mind), Design Thinking (Arne van Oosterom), Social Business Design (David Armano, Peter Kim, Jeremiah Owyang), and the ‘big shift’ that’s impacting business strategy and innovation (John Hagel & John Seely Brown).
Plus all of you who make this blog worth visiting by adding your insights and comments to every post. I feel like all the pieces are out there, we just need to imagine how to bring them together. I’ve been throwing out this idea on Twitter, and getting some interesting thoughts, but 140 characters is too short, so I wanted to put it here to see where we could go with it.
I’m imagining some kind of a social tagging system that would travel with you, like a “live” version of your resume – which is currently a static and vague document that lacks the rich context that tells what you’re really all about. What would this look like? Could we somehow have a ‘human capital inventory’ that would list some of those inherent strengths that we possess? Descriptive words like adaptive, flexible, catalyst, playful, critical thinker, methodical, etc. Or some way to tag the contributions we made to specific projects or initiatives at work? And then could that be combined with a visualization of our social connections, both strong and weak ties, and the value we add to those various networks? And along with that, recommendations or compliments or testimonials, or some way to have individuals give you props.
How would this look? We’ve gotten so good at tagging the world around us, of creating folksonomies to understand everything around us. Isn’t it only a matter of time before we start tagging ourselves?
Further Reading
How reputation measurement will transform professional services
A Better Way to Rank Expertise Online
How Reputation Affects Knowledge Sharing Among Colleagues
HR and E2.0 The Beginnings of a Competency-Model Foundation
Social Network Analysis Case Studies (Valdis Krebs)
What makes an effective knowledge worker?
Social Networks Help Businesses Share Knowledge
Who Knows What?
Value Network Analysis
Pingback: uberVU - social comments
Congratulations Venessa on yours being one of just four selections. Your opportunity to share your idea – I assume this idea – on stage at the conference will go a long way toward galvanizing like-minded thought leaders in attendance on how best to go about bringing this about. What I wouldn’t give to be alongside the dais after the talk, after the exchanging of cards, when the real work begins to bring this original idea to fruition. Pay particular attention to those in attendance who are sketching – as opposed to note-taking – for this idea is crying out for some instant protyping and just plain creative sketching to help visualize what the tagging might look like. Kudos to you and keep up the great posts!
thanks randy!
it should be an amazing experience, and probably pretty surreal to be talking to people in real life that i’ve been reading for years. i can’t wait to see how this would look… i think data visualization & infographics are starting to get really interesting and comprehensible – i imagine it would look something like that.
the other thing that i’ve been thinking is that it would actually create many more opportunities and generate a lot more innovation. i was thinking, some people might immediately object, and say it wasn’t right to have their human capital/value ‘measured’ or visualized, and then others would somehow try to game the system to overstate their value. but i feel like those points would be unfounded, because every single human has strengths and talents. the problem has been that they’re often not utilized by the individual, and often times not even recognized. (i know it’s taken me years of soul-searching to figure out what i’m good at and what i like. ) well, what if we had this dynamic feedback system, that showed us how we can be more true to ourselves and our individual nature in order to actually amplify the system itself. i mean, what a feeling of power! and by power, i mean agency.
like any prototype, this tool would start out being crude, but i think the potential of it could be incredibly important for humans as we move forward and start understanding the world in a different way – as this huge playground made for co-creation. i think that as new economic models are put into place that support social production, this idea will take off at a larger societal level. in the meantime, experimenting with it at the organizational level, with just a handful of employees, will provide us with case studies to see how it actually works.
Venessa,
It is almost creepy — as you were posting this, I was posting my entry into the same contest (not selected, don’t think it will as I am too much of a corporate “stiff” by the social standards) in my blog. And your entry was what motivated me to do it.
I think you have something in your proposal, but i also think it is somewhat isolated from the corporate / business world. See, I see myself as a forward thinker (I am probably the only one) in business matters and i believe that everything you wrote and the concepts you are discussing are very applicable to businesses — and that is what i propose. Take the social and networks we have, and apply them to improve organizations relationships with their customers and partners and suppliers. This is going to be “my world” for the next few years, and what you write and do certainly has a lot of influence and value in my work — which I do appreciate.
One more thing, the tagging you are asking for in your last couple of paragraphs — already exists. It may not be a tag-cloud, but your followers and following in Twitter, Friends and Fans in Facebook and basically all you do in social networks somewhat “tags” you by associati0n. The formal tag — is it really necessary? Does it have to be structured — or would an application that follows you around and “automagically” produces such a tag be sufficient? And, to make it more interesting, can we attach a reputation engine to it?
Cool stuff…
hi estaban,
i wouldn’t call you a corporate stiff! i think the work you and the rest of the #SCRM pack is doing is so important in getting the message out there!
i don’t think this proposal is isolated from the business world at all – the whole idea is that it’s for the business world. i think it would be incredibly valuable within an organization, so people across departments can start teaming up and sharing information & breaking down silos, and a dynamic visualization of your human/social capital would be a positive reinforcement loop: the more you give, the more impact you have within the system (unlike today, where people often get frustrated and stop contributing because they don’t get acknowledged or appreciated for their ideas). then take it out of the immediate organization, and include customers/clients. we’re learning how to include their feedback and ideas as part of the process of improving business. what would that look like when the feedback offered by a customer to a company weighs in on their personal capital assessment? i see it evolving more and more that the notion of us vs. them will get really fuzzy, and i see it having everything to do with the way knowledge is able to flow. that’s like…..the social glue that will allow for these very different structures. they’ll be plastic and malleable and agile, and held together by the desire to share knowledge and increase human understanding.
if that sounds too conceptual, take for example a beverage company. information flows about what constitutes good design of the packaging, about what’s tasty, about who can manufacture and ship the components, and customers respond with what they want, what they like, perhaps what they learn about what’s healthy for the body and making demands for these products to change accordingly. (i can’t help but think about the dangers of high fructose corn syrup, and when the day will come that people start saying “no” to being poisoned). having that open communication between everyone involved not only improves the company’s ability to give people a better product, but a discourse begins about what’s really good for people and how we can be producers/consumers in a way that’s sustainable and ethical.
in a sense, having some visual notion of your abilities and place within a network/networks would be a way to encourage citizenship. i just popped on wikipedia, it says:
“”Active citizenship” is the philosophy that citizens should work towards the betterment of their community through economic participation, public service, volunteer work, and other such efforts to improve life for all citizens.”
if this could be developed almost like a game, one that rewards participation and certain positive behaviors, it could be totally useful in society to help us learn to live in a way that makes sense. i mean, what do any of us really want? to be happy, to be fulfilled by what we do on a daily basis, to feel like we matter, to be understood. why shouldn’t we redesign the systems in which we live in a way that leads with THOSE values? can’t we still be productive as a society, to work, AND get those payoffs? i mean….. look at all the stuff we do online all the time: blogging, tweeting, sharing, etc etc….. WHY are we doing it? BECAUSE IT FEELS GOOD! why shouldn’t we set up the system so that we’re rewarded for those things, instead of rewarding dishonesty in business, where a few people reap enormous gains at the detriment of everyone else? i was reading something the other day that essentially said something like ‘when information/knowledge flows freely within a society, inequity becomes intolerable.’ i thought that was really interesting, and fits with this notion of an equal playing field for participation and production.
ok, got a little carried away there. but i hope i’ve framed it in a way that makes sense and seems applicable.
Very interesting concept that is the basis of the Master in Imagineering. Co-creating value configurations is opened up by communication technologies as it lowered the cost of collaboration. Businesses need to rethink themselves to transform to more meaningful organisations by offering a personal experience. Value is only created at the moment a service is regarded useful/meaningful.
Social network analysis is very useful to understand the human network that is co-creating that value.
Hope to see more people commenting and giving their vision. Very interesting.
For those who are getting curious:
See http://www.youtube.com/imagineeringacademy for short movies of (guest) lecturers talking about business innovation from the experience perspective
hi bobby,
i liked the video. “you don’t exist because you want to earn money, you exist because you want to be significant; you earn money so that you can keep on being significant to others.”
that’s definitely a paradigm shift for some companies! it all starts with the mindset, doesn’t it?
I think the networks are building all around us. There are other software sites like stackexchange.com (built by http://www.fogcreek.com/) which is a customizable ranked knowledge center used by a variety of expert circles. onstartups.com is one, and there are lots of others. Monster is a good place to have your resume, if you’re in the mass market for “cog” jobs, but I think a better product than a resume could be created.
Everything is coming and the one place to get it is the Internet. As far as creating or further facilitating innovation, I think there is room for such a product, but I’m not sure what it would look like, but it might already be in use. hmmm
I’m currently trying to innovate a plan for creating a place to test out new political paradigms. Sociopolitical game laboratory. Ever heard of eRepublik.com? They have over 300,000 users playing a flash-based version of politics, opinion publishing, economics, and military. I’ve played it, it’s not good because the players are very immature, but the ideas it captures are cool. The mechanics of the game are very effective. People are collaborating for fun, so we know that collaboration happens naturally for most people, even competitive male teenagers.
Innovation is removing as many barriers as possible to your user succeeding in their desire and it being fun. A tool to increase innovation… human brains connected via communication network…. aka our favorite, Twitter. 🙂
I think there is a lot to be said about how these networks are forming and capturing certain people, and I like how you’ve brought out some of whats there. As for tagging, we’ll be playing tag until we realize we’re all children and then will play tag some more. 😉
Your it!
have you seen this? http://www.urgentevoke.com/
Venessa, as always a very thought-provoking article (I have come to accept that as norm from you 🙂 ).
I am definitely fascinated with the idea of “networked capital” (human,social,physical)- and wouldn’t be surprised at all on this becoming a reality in the near future. The futurist part of me is excited about how this might completely change organizational structures in the coming years — and considerably level the playing field between for-profits & non-profits. Organizations will become super-lean with the bare minimum of permanent full-time employees — and will produce, deliver, and compete using a malleable workforce.
As to your question on how to do ‘social-tagging’, well, that requires a bit more thinking and rumination :-). And yes, we have our work cut out for us on this because of the complexity and dynamic nature of the problem.
Congrats on getting selected for the 4X4 slam.
Regards,
Ned
it makes me wonder what the organization of the future will even look like. it makes me wonder if there will be a big portion of the population that’s effectively a freelancer…. that contributes intensely on individual projects and then moves on, always building out their social connections and adding value in different capacities, and sometimes in completely different fields.
i wonder if the ‘social tagging’ thing will just work itself out. i know it has to be organic and dynamic – if you try to set up the rules for how it should work, it will fail. instead, the loose framework should be set up, and then the participants will decide how to tag.
“….that contributes intensely on individual projects and then moves on…”. I would agree with your thinking on this – mainly because more and more solutions are formed from leveraging interdisciplinary expertise (e.g now we have fields like sociology and anthropology contributing to how we create marketing strategies and product strategies).
On the tagging front, my thought on this is that in a successful model it will not be the participants who decide how to tag – but more likely “attributes/properties” assigned to various kind of involvement and these latch on to folks when they participate. This will also remove self-bias (where folks promote themselves without really having the know-how or capabilities).
Regards,
Ned
what do you mean by “attributes/properties”? examples?
Venessa,
I have felt that in today’s world many folks place more value on pure and tangible outputs – which in turn make many people (especially younger ones) to wordsmith their resume and/or linkedin profile to suite that bias (to get a job, get into school, secure a contract etc.). This (imho) actually hinders us in getting to know someone and what their real strengths are.
Here is what I meant by attributes/properties. In the world I am envisioning, things like resume/vita would become superfluous. Along the lines of an Openid, there would be an id that identifies you and as you move through your life engaging in various activities (whether it is generating an idea for a project, commenting adn contributing on blogs, applying an existing framework in a new domain, etc.) pre-defined “properties” or value-adds from that activity will latch on to this id (similar to getting tagged I guess). These properties are nothing but ‘hashtag-like’ descriptions on the exact nature of your contribution – and is searchable. This way (a) the person is what they are based on their actions, (b) someone with a need can search and find someone specifically with a combination of what they are looking for and (c) integration of various fields becomes easier as now you are not looking at the person’s background (whether they are an english major, a sociology major or a marketing major) as much as what value they provided in a given context.
Anyway, I know there are a lot of holes in my proposition above (this is more like thinking aloud than a deeply thought out solution) but I feel good about the possiblity of actually heading in this direction.
Regards,
Ned
i don’t have that much to say about reputation stuff more than’s said here, or that bruce sterling laughed up as ‘the star system’ in ~the caryatids~.
what i’d hope as trust becomes more documented (and potentially ugly) is that it helps us achieve shorter work weeks, by making better matches and better teams, rather than loading up the best respected with super-overtime hours other people need to feed their families.
quality work is important, but the frantically workaholic should get a hobby, not extra houses and bigger cars.
can ‘greedy’ be one of the tags?
i think you’re right, and a lot of the people who are thinking about the future of work have said that we’ll have to actually embrace leisure much more. (how bad could that be!?) as we get more efficient, and machines take over rote tasks, we’ll have more time to do what we want, to be creative, have fun. we just have to figure out a way to set that up so that when you’re not working you don’t starve to death. and what about medical bills? it’s an enormous issue that requires rethinking how society fundamentally works. i don’t think that what i imagine will manifest within my lifetime…. i’d love to be wrong about that…. but there would need to be a huge catalyst to really get that change going. i guess it starts with conversations like these.
I find your post fascinating and timely. Through this process of re-imagining how the Great Reset will transform society, and how to proceed from here, I’ve been examining and playing with different ideas, many of which you have addressed here. I think one very important principle to address is the issue of power, and subsequent power dynamics. Industrial age competitive models preclude the open source world that is inevitable. How do we incentivize/demonstrate the benefits of collaboration during this transitional time, when the very thought of such activities threatens the power dynamic of the powers that be? How can we create a visual representation which elucidates the different types of networks a la Valdis Krebs? What kind of tool can be created to, in real time, demonstrate the dynamic connecting and reconnecting, learning and unlearning? Compelling questions.
hi sandy,
i was reading this document the other day, Social Networks in Silicon Valley, which looks at how social networks are structured in silicon valley and why it’s such a hotbed for innovation. it mentions how interconnected the people are (educators, venture capitalists, lawyers, headhunters, engineers, trade groups, etc) and also how interconnected the industries are (Stanford + Silicon Valley industry). it’s an interesting analysis, and to me points out the value of highly flexible and collaborative structures. you mention ‘industrial age competitive models’ – i’d say you can still have a highly competitive environment, but still have the flexibility for collaboration across industry. as far as how to demonstrate the benefits of collaboration – i feel like we can look at case study after case study, and those companies who refuse to adapt will simply die. if there are certain people within an organization that have entrenched views on how an organization should be run, and are committed to a hierarchical structure, they probably need to be replaced. it seems the power dynamic issue will work itself out.
Krebs has created is an Organizational Adaptability Quotient, http://bit.ly/8SNxyN which seems like a good thing to measure. the potentiality for an organization to change. i could see that as being a constantly updated metric, sending up a red flag that the organization is becoming too rigid if the number starts getting out of whack. what else would we look at? some kind of visualization of the connections within an organization, and how knowledge flows. then i’d also be interested in knowing how the amount of time spent on informal learning/sharing correlates to performance and idea generation. and then what about individual skills/strengths? i wonder if as our jobs become more about knowledge work, we’ll be measuring our abilities to expand and leverage our networks and how quickly we can access “good” information and then understand what to do with it.
Venessa, what a lovely piece and wanted to make a remark about it.
BARRIERS
Whilst I agree with you that barriers do not make sense in this new construct we would seem niaive to pretend otherwise and my thought uis that the new tool needs to make these boundaries explicit – a sort of “why are you here”
FUTURE PREDICTORS OF PERFORMANCE
I share your vision of being able to have a tool that can see how all the things you mention like social capital, sphere of influence, reputation etc are mapped. Have you any thought about how this would lead to future performance? Or is this a tacit skill that we all think we have in abundance?
IDENTITY / RELATIONSHIPS
I love your list of influencers that you mentioned – I agree with all of them and would like to include further people (sorry I have no names) who are looking at how these new abilities to connect with people are shaping our new identities. For many people what they “do” is a key aspect to who they are and their identity is built on the social standing that this creates. I’d really like to know who could advice on the anthropology of teams etc to help to mix the ingredient parts together – Oh is that leadership 🙂
TAGGING
I do love your aspect of tagging and indexing people. I would think that the adaptive nature of twitter in itself is self sorting people or have you got other thoughts.
Thank you again for the piece it certainly made me think.
mike,
re: Barriers. what did you mean about making boundaries explicit/why are you here? i didn’t understand
re: Future Performance. i think this kind of visibility of where you stand would be a positive motivator for future performance. think about how this currently looks within organizations. much of what you do may not be acknowledged or noticed or encouraged, and eventually you just stop doing it. i think this will almost be seen as a game, where we’d be excited to improve. i think everyone likes to know where they stand, and it’s frustrating when there’s not enough feedback, or all you get is an annual review, and that’s supposed to be enough to tell you where/how to improve. what if there was this constant feedback loop – where the more knowledgeable you become, and the more you share that expertise, the higher your value becomes. instead of being rewarded for just following rules and doing as told, what if rewards were gotten for learning, taking risks, and building relationships? and i feel like this wouldn’t be a score or a number necessarily……. because if we’re just chasing the number it misses the point…. but somehow more of a level? or a degree? i’m trying to imagine what that would look like. but for instance, they say that innovation happens on the edge of chaos… so part of our desired visualization is to actually have a constantly changing set of connections, both strong and weak ties, with a wide range of diversity from those ties. (this is where the human capital stuff would come in…. some way to see the diversity of your connections). you want that diversity in order to innovate, but then you also want a degree of redundancy. ugh, it’s complex!
re: identity – that’s a really good point, about what they do being a key aspect of who they are. that’s been really important in my mind too. i feel like a lot of people either aren’t fully aware of their own talents, or are in positions in which they aren’t able to use them fully – i feel like if we made this aspect more transparent, people could get better at their natural talents. once it’s identified how they best operate, they can be injected into projects where they utilize those strenghts.
re: tagging. i’m not sure yet. maybe it would involve personality traits combined with recommendations combined with…. i’m not sure. still thinking about this. 🙂
Formally quantified reputation is already an integral part to many online communities, and has been for years. Slashdot’s karma and moderation system in particular have allowed it to maintain a level of quality in comments, despite its huge user-base. LinkedIn has the very beginnings of a résumé/social capital blend. And then there’s the concrete world and its credit scores, etc. We’re starting to see the reputation portability, with services like Disqus tracking user’s comments, and more importantly the moderation on those comments, from one site to the next. Now, with the forays into measuring reputation by network impact instead of just direct moderation, it’s not difficult to imagine a portable, unified reputation system. It’s ‘just’ a matter of pulling all the pieces together.
The question now becomes context, which is intrinsic to informal reputation; the community which provides the reputation also defines the reputation’s scope and context. On Twitter, Venessa, you noted that the system must have integrity and cannot be gamed — essential for any trust-based system. As reputation becomes increasingly portable, it must bring context with it. Otherwise, there is no reason to trust that the reputation is legitimate or has the same weight.
This is where tagging will be essential, giving context and meaning to the reputation. As Esteban mentions, there is already tagging in the form of relationships, but those aren’t descriptive in the way tags are generally understood, so I prefer to call that weighting. Wefollow is a user-powered Twitter directory, but it’s not social. It is limited in that only you can tag yourself. The actual social tagging systems are starting to appear, but only in raw form and, in the case of Twitter’s lists, mostly as a by-product (I think).
I don’t know if Twitter had this intent when establishing the list feature, but what they created was a tagging system that’s both weighted and descriptive. The name of the list gives you the descriptive tag, while the followers of the list and list creator give it weight. Then, instead of looking at the people on a certain list, you look at the lists a certain person is on. This shows you how known they are, and how they are known. Plus, you can compare it to Wefollow, and see how the person thinks of themselves, or wants to be thought of, versus the actual perception.
For example, Venessa, on Wefollow you tag yourself with ‘tech’, ‘social media’, ‘education’, ‘innovation’, and ‘strategy’. (I’m picking on you as my self-provided data set is miniscule.) Looking at your lists, ‘tech’, ‘innovation’, and ‘social media’ are some of the most common, not including the hybrid lists like ‘social innovation’. Number one happens to be ‘social media’. Interestingly, education is present, but relatively minimally represented. Also, ‘strategy’ is barely there, with just a few lists. However, ‘design’ and ‘future’ — and variations of both — are considerably more common, at about the same frequency as ‘tech’. This isn’t a surprise as Twitter itself is more the realm of techy, social media oriented types, and not so much education, yet.
All the pieces are there. It’ll be really interesting to see how they come together and interact to create what seems to be the inevitable tag-filled ‘reputation score’ that spans both the concrete and virtual world. I’m especially curious how it handles the “on the Internet, nobody knows you’re a dog” property of identity on the Web.
Ahh, the space of more than 140 characters…
“This is where tagging will be essential, giving context and meaning to the reputation.”
Completely agree.
With any kind of informal (Googling) or formal (some social capitol visualization thing) practice that creates a repository of our online interactions, context becomes SO important.
For example, a status update on my Facebook account that is goofy and conversational might get a lot of attention with “Likes” and replies, while a formal, serious update on Twitter or a blog post may not. Measured purely by quantifiable attention, the importance of these two contributions to the Web are not equal to their conceptual weight. The blog post or Twitter update may mean more to less people and therefore surpass the Facebook update in importance. Keeping interactions in context (which online space? Who’s the audience? When was it posted? etc.) is essential for any kind of social capitol tagging system.
Daniel Solove talks a bunch about the dangers of digital dossiers without context in “Understanding Privacy.”
interesting, i hadn’t really thought about lists. and i completely forgot about wefollow – i have to update that! switch out “education” for “learning” (sad that those are different things).
p.s. someone just forwarded me this link to a twitter app that generates a tag cloud from your twitter lists: http://bit.ly/3RaGh6
also, your comment focuses on the reputation aspect, but i’m thinking of something more inclusive. in a way, something that would start to bridge the gap between ‘work self’ and ‘actual self’. (whatever that means). i feel like there’s often a disconnect between what we do for a living and what we’re good at/what we enjoy. i’m thinking that by having this inclusive bundle of info around us that would combine work skills with inherent strengths with social connections and social impact/value, we’d be able to start aligning ourselves better with doing things we’re naturally good at and interested in, which would help us excel at what we do.
I focused on reputation because there are already plenty of ways to express yourself online. One could even argue there are too many ways, since you can make yourself appear to be pretty much anyone. It’s the reputation around the persona you create that gives that persona authority. There are sites all over for blogging, microblogging, creating public profiles, and social networking. Also, reputation includes what you know about other people, and what those other people know about other people. Self expression doesn’t tell you much about the connections on the network.
LinkedIn has somewhat of a combination between self expression and reputation, with their recommendation system. It definitely would be neat, and helpful, if that were expanded to be much more general. In your society of freelancers, someone looking to hire a talented wood carver could scour the reputation information for people who are known for being a good wood carver, not just people who do it professionally; in particular, the ideal person for the job might not even consider doing wood carving professionally, even if they don’t exactly like their job, because they have never treated it as more than a hobby. Likewise, a talented wood carver stuck being a “CAD monkey” could look for professional wood carvers to connect with, as a way to break into the industry.
You bring up a good point about the disconnect between work self and actual self. I know plenty of people who do a job to pay the bills, not because they like it. All of these self-expression services, aside from specialized ones like LinkedIn, are fairly removed conceptually from the business world — often they’re actually banned on company networks as well. Also, these sites are geared toward being outputs instead of inputs. They’re focused on expressing yourself, not informing yourself about who you really are or what you’re really good at. Yes, you can get informal feedback from your connections, but they might just tell you what you want to hear. This is also why I focused on reputation, because recognizing something you don’t already know requires stepping outside of your personal bubble. Reputation — in a very general sense — is a way to do this; it provides a way for people to give you feedback about what they recognize as being important about you.
Reputation does entirely depend on your deliberate and unintentional outward presentations. It can only consist of what other people know about you. Taking full advantage of a reputation-based system requires really putting yourself out there and seeing what resonates. The only difference between a formal reputation system, particularly on the Web, and the informal ones in society already is that it’s much more apparent what other people think about you, for better or worse. Plus, it’s easier to factor in the source of the contribution of a part of your reputation, which can be immensely helpful in determining the accuracy and weight of any subjective information.
BTW: That tag cloud site was interesting, though by wrapping the data in a tag cloud it really limits what you can learn from it.
it all comes down to alignment, but before we can align networks to facilitate innovation we must first become conscious of this purpose driven innovation.
What your suggesting is not creation but unfolding what already exists, it’s all there we just can’t see it yet, and to see it we must align ourselves, instead of crossing paths
My research has shown that this system is an inductive thinking one which states that any obsevation becomes tentative hypothesis once patterns emerge to base a solid theory.
What is this solid theory for me? That the right information in the right order at the right time results in the right success, in order to do that it must coincide with a filtering system, this filtering system is driven by purpose and regardless of what we see on a conscous level today there is a bigger picture unfolding the more we align the more it unfolds.
Mastermind groups is a perfect example of this, from a inductive thinking process i have noticed that better information or the context of that informatin surfaces when we have aligned the people (human capital) with the purpose that works within this filtering system.
Take for example my scrm mastermind group, from that inductive thinking process i observed several dozen people on the topics, after months of observation i noticed patterns in the information surfaceing from several people, though they were talking about the same thing in essence each individual brought their own to the group.
What was left was to align that information into a group that consists now of five individuals, these five individuals are the network facilitating innovation because the alignment of their human capital strives to give better context.
i totally agree. it’s not inventing anything, it’s exposing what’s already there. there are interesting opportunities arising b/c of the rate of diffusion of info now… for instance, pre-gutenberg, it took many years for culture change, because it took a certain amount of time for memes to spread… then print sped up the process, getting ideas out faster……now we have lightening speed via internet. culture can (potentially) change very quickly, if you get an idea to enough minds who choose to accept it. and we can watch this process happen. so the ability for pattern recognition is so much greater. we don’t have to do a historical analysis over the course of 100 years to understand how things had changed. we can watch patterns emerge in years, or months, or days. and we can also course-correct because we can see those patterns in “real time.”
yours is a perfect example. you observed, saw the patterns, saw where the value was coming from in the specific niche you’re interested in (SCRM), and brought those people together. so you have a range of people who are grasping for some similar idea in different ways, giving you that diversity that’s necessary. at the same time, each of you has your own network, and many weak ties with people who are interesting but perhaps not interested in scrm. so by bringing together that mastermind group, you’re not necessarily creating an echo chamber or ‘groupthink’, because each of you is still connected to a diversity of ideas outside of your specific area. and that may be where the innovative idea comes from. it’s not that your group is necessarily so awesome, but each of you has the idea to synthesize information that you’re getting from a range of areas, and seeing how that might be applied to scrm.
at least, that’s how i’m imagining the idea of ‘tapping the network.’ i don’t want to put words in your mouth, so let me know if i’m off base!
Hi Venessa,
You are totally on based to your reply.
This is why you will notice many gurus do not follow many people, my observations have indicated to me that those that are looking to create more insight into their work only follow a strategic alignment of people that will give them what they need and in turn feed that network with the collaborative insight with their specific attribues, experiences.
You’ve used the term “complex adaptive system” what makes it complex is that this is not a linear process, it’s a dimensional one, connecting dots, but prior to connecting dots, we must see the dots.
The dots represent human capital, the daily activities that come out create a placement of that dot, and the lines to connect thoughs dots are the facilitation of innovation.
My question is how can we do it analytically with artifical intellgience?
Pingback: Curated Stories Feb. 22, 2010
it makes me wonder what the organization of the future will even look like. it makes me wonder if there will be a big portion of the population that’s effectively a freelancer…. that contributes intensely on individual projects and then moves on, always building out their social connections and adding value in different capacities, and sometimes in completely different fields.
I once upon a time wrote a short essay titled “In Networks, Our Agreements Are our Structures”. I still think this will be the case.
Arguably, it is today too .. it’s just somewhat more generic and is labelled a “social contract” .. no ?
define what you mean by social contract. like Rousseau’s social contract? or Hobbes’s? i mean, i don’t think we have much of a social contract today at all. i think we’re on the verge of system collapse because the idea of a social contract is a fiction, while the reality is abuse and inequality. i think the idea of a social contract is something we strive for, like the idea of a democracy is something we strive for, but we don’t have either. i just saw this lovely story – Wall Street bonuses surge 17% in ’09 to $20.3 billion. i’m not going to pretend to understand how Wall Street works, but me paying taxes to bail out an industry so they can get more bonuses violates any social contract i can imagine.
if the human population is the sum total of the variables, then i am a variable, my variable belongs in the mix, the degree of influence and capacity of necessity is measured to some extent based on topic or interest of choice.
It’s like a powerplay in hockey, five men have been working together to create the end result ( a goal) those five individuals practice the powerplay together constantly, and even though they may not play together on a regular shift lines, when a powerplay happens they come together. (not necessarily the best players, but the best alignment of players)
Crowdsourcing and open innovation are showing that this can work, but where these types of things will improve will be deciphering the broadness of it, and narrowing it down to infuence and capacity.
Instead of throwing out a question to the world, and waiting for responses, what we are looking for is placing a question inside a filtering system and out comes the perfect alignment to answer it.
This is how i view social contract.
Very interesting post!
What about some component being a kind of digital portfolio about our online identities? Projects we’ve worked on and distributed online, ideas we’ve shared via blogs and Twitter, etc. Kind of like a LinkedIn resume, but presenting all the work we have put in to contributing to the networked public sphere via all our other online identity outlets? Even comments such as this one could show up under a “discussions” header or something.
This is related to Karl Fisch’s idea of building a “digital footprint.” In terms of education, he says, we should have students start thinking about building a digital footprint, or persistent online identity, early on. Then, those who understand how to adequately participate in the network will have a huge advantage over those who don’t when they are inevitably Googled later on for college acceptance or emplyment.
Check out his posts on this concept here http://thefischbowl.blogspot.com/2009/06/student-display-names-i-was-wrong.html, here http://thefischbowl.blogspot.com/2009/07/digital-footprint-growth-model.html and here http://thefischbowl.blogspot.com/2010/02/google-apps-for-education-is-it-right.html
hi jason,
thanks for links to the digital footprint posts – actually really similar to my last post – The Importance of Managing Your Online Reputation. i’m encouraged when i see these same ideas popping up across fields…aligning our ideas so we can co-create the reality we want.
i’m with you on the digital portfolio idea. i’ve been thinking of that too. people are overwhelmed by too many social networks and having to repeatedly enter info in multiple locations. so how would we get around that? what if this tool/app could be like a browser extension, or have a component like that which would travel with you around the web, and automatically pull info into your profile? like you said about comments – what if all the comments you left on other blogs would be logged somewhere, and that somehow factored in to your ‘digital literacy’ assessment. again, though, it would have to be ‘intelligent’ in some way, so that you couldn’t cheat. anyone can leave a comment on a blog that says “nice post!”. well, how valuable is that comment? verse your comment, which includes some ideas and also links to other relevant information. that’s immediately more valuable. and because you’ve provided valuable thoughts & links publicly, that would impact your social capital assessment as well. (am i crazy, or does this actually sound like fun?) basically, you get rewarded for THINKING.
Jason, there are already (as no doubt you know) a bunch of “pegs in the ground” with respect to digital dossiers / portfolios, and various attempts to authentic and validate profile, expertise, authority and reputation.
And there are emerging web services to do this for people working in a networked organization (i.e. Jostle) … no doubt someone(s) will crack the code .. essential and (I think) inevitable.
Hi Venessa
Congrats. I like the way you are already engaging people in collaborating and being responsive to comments. Good luck at the conference I’ll be watching out to see how it goes for you.
I think we are already tagging ourselves.
You might be interested to have a look at http://personas.media.mit.edu/
“It uses sophisticated natural language processing and the Internet to create a data portrait of one’s aggregated online identity. In short, Personas shows you how the Internet sees you.
Personas demonstrates the computer’s uncanny insights and its inadvertent errors, such as the mischaracterizations caused by the inability to separate data from multiple owners of the same name.”
Regards
Roisin
thanks Roisin! someone had shown me that before but i’d forgotten about it. it’s an interesting concept, but doesn’t make sense without context. for instance, it shows the “online”category to be of equivalent size to a “sports” category, and both of those categories are kind of small compared to the others. i spend about 10 hours a day online, and i’ve never played sports, nor do i watch sports, so i’m confused as to what that assessment even means. also, i just ran my name twice in a row, and the visualization came out differently, which i don’t understand. but i like the idea of how it *could* work.
Fascinating Venessa. I agree how this relates to what we were discussing last night, a different metric for managers and in media these could replace the retched performace reviews. Well done and good luck!
define what you mean by social contract. like Rousseau’s social contract? or Hobbes’s? i mean, i don’t think we have much of a social contract today at all. i think we’re on the verge of system collapse because the idea of a social contract is a fiction, while the reality is abuse and inequality. i think the idea of a social contract is something we strive for, like the idea of a democracy is something we strive for, but we don’t have either.
Yes. but 1) it’s the jargon business people understand, and 2) it IS being redefined .. by being eroded, disintegrated, crumbling .. however you want to describe the disappearance of what reflected a symbiotic but perhaps patriarchal arrangement that people in society understood.
We should keep using the term … to help more and more people understand what they understood (and / or maybe expected) will no longer be available to them. Something else will appear .. it seems clear to me that it is up to the human beings, in the networks, to force the issues, to ensure that not only power and money have their interests served. It’s up to us .. to create a new social contract.
i agree it’s up to us. i think this idea here will help us manifest it, like a groundswell. no waiting for the system to change. we need to just start making up new systems that serve our best interests, and living in better alignment with our values. what’s the wonderful buckminster fuller quote?….. oh yeah:
“You never change things by fighting the existing reality. To change something, build a new model that makes the existing model obsolete.”
Congrats, and thanks, Venessa for the honor of “intwiting” to this conversation. I have not had a look to read the 29 responses, just jumping in.
I think you collect a lot of the right pieces to the puzzle, and in the process I feel we are grappling for adequate vocabulary. Human relations and personal assessment of connections and value are old and sage ideas, connected to tribes. Rather new is calling it ‘human capital inventory’. I think I see where you want us to go with is, and it is great, just this wording strikes me as coming from an industrial financial complex – one of the kinds of institutions that we aim to transcend, no?
A register of qualifications, experience, connectedness, and key performance indicators like influence feel like another a byproduct of an industrial era, characterized by assembly lines, processes, and efficiency. What I would start from is a hybrid of self-introduction, self-declaration backed up by publicly shared records if the individual so wishes.
Yes, successful networking is built on trust. If all you have is virtual traces it may take longer to build that trust than if you meet someone through a friend’s introduction. If network media offer such augmentation to our personal catalog of evaluation criteria, I think we can be happy.
thanks for comments. so, ‘inventory’ is too industrial/financial-ish. fair enough. can you suggest other words that could be used that can serve as a bridge between what many people understand and what we aspire to?
i can imagine a scenario where there are no corporations or big business, but rather ideas that people gather around and work on because they feel passionately about them and WANT to see them accomplished. the world is not ready to hear that quite yet. i think there needs to be something intermediary, some stepping-stone that provides the path from point A to point B. does that make sense? so how can this be presented in a way that doesn’t feel completely foreign, yet alludes to something even greater?
can you share more what you mean by “a hybrid of self-introduction, self-declaration backed up by publicly shared records”?
Hmm, the self declaration is a personal profile. May include a section of “willing to answer questions about “. The endorsement could be the public response to that, whether people trust or do not. Like how many rather this person as close friend, freiend, acquaintance, foreign, enemy and so on. Hybrid of self-declaration and shared reputation. Add an element of certification, like public ID and you are mirroring how we deal on a personal level. We grade the need for verifyablr assurance by the risk and importance of the interaction we are about to engage in. As in polite society.
To build on the above –
A useful self-portrayal might include:
1. My values
2. Things I am willing to take questions about
3. How best to contact me on different subjects, if you are a known acquaintance (or come referred by a close contact of mine)
4. How best to contact me on different subjects, if you are a stranger to me
5. The timeframe in which you can expect a response from me
6. What I am pursuing right now – in case you’d like to try to help me first on something I’m doing (which for most people would be a good way of getting me interested in helping you)
7. How much time and availability I usually make for new inquiries and projects, and whether now is a “usual time”
8. Key members of my social network (perhaps for business people something like my first circle of “LinkedIn” connections) – in case you know any of them. Thn, if you happen to know any of them, you can contact them for an introduction (and raise your odds) or else contact them and find out what’s the best way to approach me and what to expect when you do (e.g., “If you send him an email and haven’t heard in two days, try again. He doesn’t mind being re-emailed”).
In fact, if these could be put into a standardized form like something like the Vcard and were made available by people (e.g., on their website) then they would be searchable. In his blog Unstructured Adventures, Taylor Davidson has coined the phrase “personal API”; he means something a little different than I do, but I think the phrase captures well “a machine-readable publicly available version of how best to interact with me”.
Have you seen this ?
http://www.ethicaleconomy.com/
i like the idea. i really like the list and definitions of values. thank you
Yeah .. it’s nifty attaching actions to values .. makes things visible and trackable. The tools effectively create a platform for this, and can be used for a company, a working groups, members of a community, etc.
Hello Venessa,
This is certainly an interesting idea that would provide useful information. However, even when we succeed in doing this correctly, will we have mapped and measured the right things and will we have chosen the right individuals?
I don’t know, but do I have two concerns. These are rather general and not that much against your basic idea.
First, social networks exist because individuals want to express themselves, connect with friends and family, exchange information, etc. However, we must not forget that behind every social network there is always a company.
Now, these companies might not always have a real business plan, but at the end, their reason for being is rarely to create a better world, but to make a profit and preferably, a big one.
Therefore, given their venture capital based financials, the standard approach of these companies is always focused on growth, ruthless growth and this translates into the look-and-feel of the platform where all aspects and metrics that are growth-oriented are heavily promoted. More is always better.
So, to what extent will the resulting metrics reflect “real social dynamics” or merely the side effects of a for-growth business strategy?
Second, in all these discussions, we always seem to think that social networking is a level playing field for all participants. It is not.
Fortunately enough, our human race represents a broad mixture of cultures, preferences, ambitions and personalities. Some of us are very extrovert, others are very introvert individuals. All have their merit and their place in our society and this diversity is generally seen as an advantage, a basis for creativity and innovation.
Now, in social network environments, such differences in personality will also be reflected in the way individuals use (or do not use) these platforms. In addition, given the nature of these platforms, in combination with the above-mentioned focus on growth, small differences in personality are likely to result in huge differences in usage and metrics.
The net result will be a bias in favour of certain groups of personalities. Whether this is a bad thing or not is impossible to judge. The only thing I can say is that the resulting “influence base” will be different from what we have today. In addition, this influence base will be more homogeneous, more concentrated around specific personality profiles, hence representing a loss of diversity.
The future will tell whether we really took this path and whether it was the right path to walk. But remember, on the path of evolution, there is no coming back.
MarcB
hi marc,
on your first point: behind every social network is a company.
i’m not clear as to what that has to do with anything. i’m talking about a personal profile that travels with an individual across platforms, and also aggregates activity to provide a context within relationships. i’m not understanding how that relates to social networks being companies. please clarify.
2nd point: social network as level playing field.
i disagree that offline personality necessarily correlates to online personality. i’m highly introverted offline, but here i feel like i can express myself more clearly and i interact with many people every day. you mention that “small diff in personality results in huge diff in usage & metrics” – again, i’m talking about something that will exist within a networked environment, so it requires participation. and i would imagine usage time would be factored in, so even if a person didn’t interact with the frequency as another, they could have comparable engagement based on the quality of their interactions.
and i don’t think there would be a loss of diversity.. again, the idea is that there are many kinds of strengths, and by allowing their expression we’ll encourage the diversity. i think i made a mistake by using the word “metrics,” because it’s not quite what i mean. it wouldn’t be a number, it would be context. it’s qualitative, and informs a higher level of understanding, instead of distilling complexity down to a chart.
@ David Friedman … I like what you have posted.
Hi Venessa – excellent post and congratulations on your selection.
You’re absolutely right about the convergance of many different disciplines being required for this shift in work. I did a post last year where I paid homage to the many thought leaders in these areas and there is some overlap between our lists: http://www.orbitalrpm.com/2009/a-loud-shout-out-to-the-newest-bzzzzzzword-social-business-design/
And to your points around visualizing this in an organization, I wrote about that in Jan using the analogy of Dark Matter in the Universe to make the point about how SNA and VNA can help with this: http://www.orbitalrpm.com/2010/2010-a-social-odyssey/
You’re on the right track about how these things will help with innovation – that’s how we combo them together for our Innovation Management solution:)
We should chat further…
thanks for those links. nice list of thought leaders too, btw – i’ve heard of/read most, but a few new ones i’ll be checking out.
Have you taken a look at SocialWhois? http://www.socialwhois.com/
It seems that it might be the beginnings of what you are talking about, only it was created for different purpose. It was designed to help people find other people with interests that match their own, so you can connect with them either on the SocialWhois site, or through the social networks listed on a person’s profile.
The idea of tagging ourselves made me think of it, since that is an essential part of it. On the main page of a person’s profile, when you click a tag, you are taken to a page with a list of everyone else on the site that shares that interest.
There is also a Disqus powered public inbox if the user has set it up, and the tags on the inbox page go to a page for that topic, where one can leave testimonials or discus that topic with that person.
Profiles also include a person’s Twitter or Friendfeed activities.
Kind of like a Google profile on steroids, except that it had all this stuff long before Buzz was unveiled by Google, and then added to profiles.
Maybe you should talk to the developer about your ideas: http://www.socialwhois.com/directeur
i hadn’t heard of it. thank you, i’ll check it out.
Hello Venessa and thank you for calling my attention to this post of yours, it is indeed an excellent post as some of the comments have mentioned, there are a few issues however that I find carry the ‘familiar or old’ (still in place I’m afraid) system with them and will not permit an innovative motion within the minds of the hyperconnected crowd.
You wrote:”
1. “The problem is, humans weren’t designed for mechanization. We were designed to create.”
W: the wording here is problematic, humans were not designed to create, that would be a fallacious assumption, we are embodied minds engaged in multiplying our emergent properties, and though true that we were not ‘designed’ for mechanization, our past history as a civilization shows how easy it is to fall prey to that particular mode of interactionism.
2. “We’re still exploring the implications of this transition both for our personal identities and for the role of the business organization, but there’s the potential to redesign the system in a way that’s fair, participatory, and human.”
W: indeed we are in the process of exploration and venturing into quite unknown fields of human expansion into the infosphere, however if we are to redesign the system so the terms of participation and ‘fairness’, humane and mutual intersubjective co-dependence receive a re-defined authority we need a self-mapping relevance. A self mapping relevance I understand as the process of carving one’s identity in the infosphere without carrying unnecessary luggage from M-space, unless modulated for specific purposes. (Examples abound, here’s one: ‘of what relevance is the information about you\me as a male\female unless we are on a dating site?), redesigning the system asks of us to partition the information we provide in a relevant manner. So relevance becomes a centering axis of the transition.
3. “In order to take advantage of hidden insights and innovative ideas, there needs to be a way to understand who’s who and how to get the information flowing through the proper channels.”
W: Yes indeed, however the information flows irrespective of our efforts, our failures are fundamentally troubles of parsing the info into relevant modularity (hence becoming actionable knowledge items). The who’s who in walled garden communities is fairly simple, in extended and open hyperconnected communities; flow becomes more important than pixilated identities- the stream of relevance, cross pollination of ideas allow innovation, a certain relaxed attitude in this case is highly recommended, we thrive through taking pleasure in communication, novelty and originality in this case are by products of a coherent flow.
4. “human capital”-
W: highly problematic (to my aesthetic needs of course), as I see it, by using systemic\economic terminologies, the very meaning embedded in the desire to redesign the interaction fails, to allow the best of all to come forth – the usage of a capital assessment will imply a categorization that most I surmise will not ‘like’, my proposal in this case again is the usage of pertinent modules , a list of which when cohered, updated and upgraded by the person in question will permit self mapping as an aesthetic experience of self description, allowing both the emergence of the best in creativity, innovation and shared insights. We all desire a better world, a world in which we are seen and presented to each other not as resources\capital but as sentient evolving and emoting entities.
5. “how knowledge flows”
W: again my aesthetic, not knowledge flows- data pervades, info flows, knowledge emerges, insights become apparent, creativity flourishes, innovation ensues.
6. “A human capital inventory would be like a resume, but with context.”
W: problematic – see the above about capital, but inventory follows the same trend, change the language yet make it accessible and sentiency takes over the mechanism. In a certain sense, implying that hyperconnectivity is about organization and business (and marketing and so on, since it is all an ‘attention economy’) lowers the threshold of desire for change and creates the appearance (though I am certain that is not your meaning and intent) of same old continuation of experience in the M world by other means (socnets and the like).
7. “It might show an individual’s past experience and affiliations and skills, but also include things like social capital, sphere of influence, reputation,
Inherent strengths, and personality type.”
W: definitely yes, however we need a modular map, see relevance and pertinence. Maybe ‘public engagement’ –instead of social capital, ‘space, or extent of interactivity’ instead of ‘sphere of influence’, ‘hyperconnected recognition’ instead of reputation.
8. I feel like all the pieces are out there, we just need to imagine how to bring them together.
W: I am not certain all the pieces are out there but there is no doubt that many are in place, putting them together will require of us a level of ingenuity and pragmatism the like of which we are hard pressed in creating in most cases.
There is more but it will have to wait.
I admire the diligence and persistence of your quest, and would love to see you gaining more leverage for the ideas you are pushing forward, you are in fact carving an identity in the infosphere that is both relevant and trustworthy.
thank you
w,
so glad i brought the post to your attention, and so glad you responded! i thought you might help me deconstruct it a bit. 😉
1. “humans were not designed to create……we are embodied minds engaged in multiplying our emergent properties”
is ‘multiplying our emergent properties’ not creation? should i rephrase to call it ‘manifestion?’ what are you defining as our ’emergent properties?’ and i’d say we most certainly are designed to create…..but it becomes a philosophical conversation.
2. “we need a self-mapping relevance”
i agree that relevance is central. and maybe a part of that is self-filtering. putting in an effort to be signal vs. noise. i think this kind of fits in with the idea of understanding how to operate on the web as a “digital literacy”
3. “flow becomes more important than pixilated identities”
yes, but it’s also helpful to have some information about a person’s interests, specialty, or expertise, don’t you think? and that could be generated as simply as by allowing a tagging system to evolve…. like an example from above about twitter – you tag yourself on wefollow, but others tag you via lists, so we can at least build a general framework for understanding who people are.
4. “human capital – highly problematic”
sigh. you’re right. i don’t want to package humanity as commodity… i was trying to package it in language that i thought would be more digestible for a business-minded audience. that was my own bias….assuming that a phrase like that would necessarily work any better than calling it Whuffie. originally i had imagined something that would be like an Emergence Level visualization……. whoa. i just remembered that the first blog i ever had was titled ‘maslow’s apex’….ha…..apparently i’ve been thinking about this for over a decade. do you think people are generally ready to start thinking about their strengths in terms of self-actualization? hmmmm
5. “data pervades, info flows, knowledge emerges, insights become apparent, creativity flourishes, innovation ensues”
lovely.
6. “problematic – see the above about capital, but inventory follows the same trend”
again, agree. what words can be used that can be a stepping stone to help with the transition. i used the word inventory because people know what inventory means….it’s comfortable at least. my concern is that if everything is spoken about with a language that feels really foreign, it’s going to come off as highly theoretical and not practically implementable. i don’t want that. hell, maybe i don’t have to call it anything at all. i don’t care what they call it, i just want the idea to be accessible.
7. “Maybe ‘public engagement’ –instead of social capital, ‘space, or extent of interactivity’ instead of ‘sphere of influence’, ‘hyperconnected recognition’ instead of reputation.”
excellent suggestions
8. “I am not certain all the pieces are out there…”
i imagine that whatever it is that i’m talking about will continue to evolve over years…decades? longer? forever? maybe there aren’t any pieces at all and there’s nothing that we need to define or know ultimately. but we’re definitely not living in that reality right now, so in the meantime….conversation….debate…..iteration….action……and so on……
v
Would this be a format for personal profiles to engage talents in innovation?
– Surface layer: “standing offers” of attention, in-kind help, or other gifts or trades that a person is ready to make (these could be public or semi-public)
– Inner layer: projects (present, planned, and potential) and deep values (in civic, business, and/or personal frames of reference) that are linked to the surface layer offers
Creators of the profiles might opt to limit access to the inner layer. Access to the deeper values/project maps could be “earned” through discovery challenges such as used by Whaboo.com, which is a social game to foster person-to-person understanding.
Access also might be earned through other interactions that build trust. Karma points might be earned through mutual feedback in person-person interactions via the surface-layer standing offers. Karma points might also be earned through well-received acts of giving (either content-creation or acts of connecting) to a network or community of shared interest.
With these layers in place, trust and deeply aligned relationships could emerge to foster innovation and productive exchange. Over time, participants might also grow comfortable with delegating resources and to others included in their trustnet (“extended self”), speeding the ability of the network to turn shared visions into action.
What do you think?
Best,
Mark
@openworld
Best,
Mark Frazier
@openworld
I take LinkedIn testimonials with a grain of salt. They’re unfailingly positive, and often asked for by the “incumbent”.
If you’re active on the Web, Google still gives a pretty decent look at “reputation”, given that the algorithm bears some relation to citation analysis methodology.
Combined assessments of Profile, Expertise, Authority and Reputation can lend some oomph to credibility. Trust between people, which has significant leverage, is the most difficult of all, since it is essentially tacit.
Pingback: Top Ten Links Week 8 | Librarian by Day
Pingback: What You Should Read This Weekend – GigaOM
funny you should mention a social tagging system, I’ll update this site in a few weeks with a link to one 🙂
Pingback: What You Should Read This Weekend [GigaOM] | BYOHosting.com Blogs
I’m the founder of Jostle (www.jostle.me), which has been kindly mentioned a few times here. Indeed we have developed a new kind of platform that makes it easy to capture the ever-evolving relationship networks in an enterprise and makes this usable through rich visualizations. We use our dynamic understanding of “people clusters” (formal teams, collaborations or an ad hoc group found through search) to facilitate collaboration, team work, knowledge sharing and communication. Please let me know if there is anything I can do to help your project along.
hi brad,
i’m curious about what your tool will look like. do you plan to have any demo videos available on the site?
We are currently focussed on helping our alpha customers succeed and learning from them. So it will be a month or two before we invest in such things. But happy to provide you and other interests folks a sneak one-on-one preview via Skype (email brad@jostle.me to arrange).
Excellent post, an excellent idea about how to push towards the next revolution of this era. Actually a friend of mine and I have been discussing something related to it in private, maybe we can share some insights later on, it is up to him.
Just let me add 2 comments about the tools you mentioned:
Klout: Seems to be pretty mediocre way of solving the problem, although the idea is good, in my experience it resulted a pretty bad result what I obtained from it.
http://thewhuffiebank.org/ was made by a friend of mine from argentina, called santi siri, director of popego.com check him out, he also did another very interesting tool with innovative ideas which is called http://www.semantictool.com Regarding analyzing texts and trends from the web.
And the last tools I am starting to inestigate is: http://www.gist.com, I think you might find this really interesting.
Hope you find this usefull
Pingback: Why do you share? « emergent by design
Pingback: Using social networks to build the new society – Are we on the right path? | The Xpragmatic View « TugaK
Hi there, You have done an excellent job. I will certainly digg it and
personally suggest to my friends. I’m sure they will be benefited from this web
site.
Hi to every one, as Ι am truly eager օf readiոg this website’s post
to be updated regularly. It incpudes nic information.
I am really happy to read this weblog posts which carries
lots of useful data, thanks for providing these kinds of data.
We really are giving out Ten Namecoin to our
very lucky winner of a blog website manager with the decided on
prize discount code. The final results will be available in 4-weeks time.
Your own prize code is: CHVPP10
I am a wordpress plugin programmer. We’ve developed a plugin that will obtain web browsers contact
information onto your database without having their communication and interaction.
I happen to be on the lookout for beta evaluators and furthermore, as
you might be gaining substantial numbers of targeted traffic,
I am taking into account your internet page.
Are you still interested?
Allow for our cause. Our own partner was just told they have this.
We need to exhibit our aid!
This paragraph will help the internet visitors for creating new webpage or even a weblog from start to end.
Est-il possible de vous prendre 2-3 lignes pour un site web
?
We stumbled over here different web page and thought I might as
well check things out. I like what I see so now i’m following you.
Look forward to looking over your web page repeatedly.
C’est un vrai bonheur de lire ce poste
Provide for our cause. Our acquaintance was just informed
they have this. It is good to provide our help and support!
It’s a shame you don’t have a donate button! I’d definitely donate to this superb blog!
I guess for now i’ll settle for bookmarking and
adding your RSS feed to my Google account. I look forward to
fresh updates and will talk about this website with my Facebook group.
Chat soon!
Whether you’re facing deportation or just have a desire to make all things equal
by the American Left from their own over a span of three to four years.
As the recorder captured the agent’s words and a lilting Guyanese accent,
he laid out his terms in an easy, painless
process.