How will LinkedIn show us the $1B shine?

Put together on June 26, 2008 12:27 pm by Dimitris

LinkedIn was recently announced to have secured a 4th round of funding which translates to a value of 1 billion USD. And the question of course is was that too much? The various analysts are a bit hesitant to show surprise indicating a yes. But for the stuff that LinkedIn does now it seems to me it’s a tad too much.

When I first started using LinkedIn it seemed like it was meant to save me from the void that Facebook was trying to fill with noise. Until I realised that LinkedIn is also a bit of a void itself.

–

At face value LinkedIn seems to be just a very serious version of Facebook for the business oriented 30 somethings and above. Once you submit your data in it you’ve created a fancy, semi-dynamic resume and you can then proceed to the all too familiar process of friending people. And then… nothing. Just add more friends perhaps.

Unless you’re looking for a job there really doesn’t seem to be anything in LinkedIn for you. If you’re trying to move up the ladder, market yourself in a slightly different field or widen your customer base, LinkedIn and its multimillion strong database of people and (as of recently) companies is a useful tool. But if you aren’t on the job market - and admittedly even the most ambitious of us are on it relatively sparsely - perhaps the only feature worth revisiting LinkedIn for is its Q&A section.

–

This seems like a bad business model: in general sites like LinkedIn would want people interacting with their website as much as possible. But eventually I realised that LinkedIn is really not as obvious as Facebook. You have to do two things to get the most of it. Firstly, you need to subscribe to one of its premium packages - to allow yourself access to a broader array of services LinkedIn offers. And secondly you need to dig really deep in the details your entire social and business circle has submitted.

The former means, for example, that you will be able to ask questions to a broader range of experts - which would allow you to essentially perform mini-polls and do market research. The latter is probably less relevant for most users. For instance, salespeople needing to better relate to prospective customers and collaborators can make better use of the platform. Human resources people can also find a wealth of information in the LinkedIn databases.

–

But what if you’re not in the people business and you actually want to do things with all those networks of professionals? Surely loads of projects, productivity and problem solving is happening because of but outside LinkedIn. However, I think even more opportunities are left unexploited because of the focus of the service on networking alone.

I’m not talking about those that already have 16-hour jobs (which perhaps they have landed on due to their LinkedIn contacts) or those that already regularly tap on their connections. I’m talking about all those who’ve created a profile, visited it a couple of times and left the service there. Wouldn’t it be better if all those users were given a more obvious chance to contribute to projects? It would be very interesting to know the current activity LinkedIn profiles see. I bet there is a considerable fraction that is mostly passive.

–

So, I think LinkedIn should follow a two-fold approach in investing the money - although obviously to have secured it, they must have presented a damn good plan of what they will do with it.

Firstly, having proven that their networking features work, they should focus on offering actual productivity tools - or integration to similar services. The good thing with LinkedIn is that it already has its user base divided according to field. So, it should be comparatively easy to study what extension to their platform each field of professionals wants - and implement it. General use utilities such as wikis, mind-mapping software even project management packages could be offered to professionals regardless of field.

Now, obviously I’m not saying that LinkedIn spends effort and money in creating for example a mindmapping plugin to their website necessarily. But seamless integration with an existing service - yes, even outside LinkedIn walls - would benefit both the external service and LinkedIn. After all, LinkedIn is an OpenSocial proponent and they have already done something like this with Salesforce and BusinessWeek. Obviously, the example service in question would also gain by exposing itself to LinkedIn’s user base. So these are win-win deals with existing services. Alternatively, if such services can’t be persuaded, they can be acquired.

Secondly, LinkedIn has to actually make use of their app-building platform - the Intelligent Application Platform. It was announced quite a few months back and remained relatively unheard of since then. It is considerably closed - LinkedIn has to approve work made on it - but at the same time a huge opportunity for the LinkedIn community (and that includes the companies that are using it) to create apps and widgets the whole user base will benefit from. Essentially, this will put many a helping hand towards my earlier point: make LinkedIn do a lot more things than just networking.

–

Ultimately, such a strategy by LinkedIn may allow their entire user base - us - to tap on its ‘cognitive surplus‘ Clay Shirky was referring to in his recent talk. By that I mean, it might give us - or at least some of us - a platform through which we will evolve from passive video watchers, gift passers, vampire vs werewolf players and so on to something more creative and ambitious.

tags: analysis


Digg Digg | Del.icio.us Del.icio.us | Ma.gnolia Ma.gnolia | Newsvine Newsvine | Technorati Technorati

How far in the future are you looking?

Put together on June 18, 2008 12:00 pm by Dimitris

Here’s an idea or two to consider if you’re seriously interested in getting involved in the whole startup entrepreneurship world.

Let’s look at two cases which aren’t the best examples but still get the point across. First Firefox and then Twitter.

I was reading in Techcrunch the other day that the heads of Mozilla Firefox were thinking of using their browser to study internet traffic. Assuming this is done anonymously and most importantly transparently (good thing Firefox is open source, eh?) it’s a great idea. Firefox has tens of millions of users and they’re increasing. Its widely used not just in developed countries (where online habits are already under scrutiny) but also in places where online activity is still unexplored. Such a project would mean offering anyone the chance to download some data and try to make sense of what’s going on the web. If such data was free of course. Now, they could also charge for that - or some of that - information (lots of companies in their position would and do). They could probably get away with a mixed free and premium scheme provided they sold such a product much cheaper than existing companies (and, perhaps, free for non-commercial purposes). Also it could become a means to sustain Firefox and its - often accused of failing - functionality.

But whether they do or not sell it (or even make it in the first place) is not the point here. What’s important is how they got there. When people started making Firefox they weren’t aiming to measure and study the internet, did they? My bet is that their aim was simply a better browser. But what if they had started the other way around?

Inverted charge to successWhat if - in a hypothetical scenario - they indeed wanted to measure internet traffic - and profit from it? Wouldn’t creating a kick-ass, open source, trusted and respected browser that would eventually enjoy widespread adoption be an excellent way to get there? Not the instant gratification way of doing things like most start-ups aim for but a way nonetheless. Obviously, if Firefox had started as a startup back then (the way we talk about these things now) it would also require a business model that would support it until it got to the point of today’s popularity. (That model could just as well be the current search engine referral royalties that actually now translate to tens of millions of dollars in the Mozilla Foundation coffers.) And once established as a mainstream browser they could kick off their ‘real’ plans: studying internet traffic and capitalising on user statistics.

The important lesson there is that instead of thinking how to sell information (or ads or apps or whatever) directly, they could try first to make something a. that lots of people use, b. that lives in the same ‘field’ as their ultimate product and c. has a viable business model on its own too. And then employ that product and its userbase to reach their ultimate target.

Twitter on the other hand is half-way down the Firefox path. It’s enjoying initial success with the user and the developers, it’s got its share of problems to address (i.e. downtime) and it’s at a point just before becoming truly mainstream. I think its pretty obvious its creators are bootstrapping it still - in the sense they don’t know where it’s going. They have a mildly good idea that their service is attacking the short message communication niche and they have no idea how to monetise their service. They’d be extra brilliant if they knew the latter but the former is enough. The point is, similarly to Firefox, if they manage to create a large enough userbase (and keep it - by fighting off downtime and a slew of competitors) it will then be comparatively easy to create a revenue stream. It could be ads, premium services, API monetisation, other Google deals, whatever. But they’re correct in making their first aim in consolidating user numbers.

Do I have your attention?Essentially, what both Firefox and Twitter have been struggling for is our single most expensive and hard to get currency. That’s not our money but the two-faced coin of our time and our attention. And they both want (as any startup does too) loads and loads of our currency. Firefox more or less has it already, Twitter is getting there. Once our attention is secured the rest will follow.

(Also, note that in the case of Firefox (and Twitter should learn from that too) we give it our time and attention somehow without even noticing it!. In a creepy way Firefox may have gradually become something of a subconscious necessity. I’m no marketer but I’d bet anyone can tell you what an advantageous position that is. But I think I’ll leave that for another post:)

tags: lessons, product, analysis


Digg Digg | Del.icio.us Del.icio.us | Ma.gnolia Ma.gnolia | Newsvine Newsvine | Technorati Technorati

iPhone delivered - it’s Vodafone’s turn now

Put together on June 15, 2008 12:00 pm by Dimitris

I’m not sure which aspect of the iPhone (phone, music, internet) is more appealing to most users but to me it’s definitely the web on the go capabilities. And although in theory its probably the best option for that kind of thing before going to the next size scale of ultraportable PCs (think Asus Eee, MSI Wind, MacBook Air, etc), unfortunately the complete experience also relies on the underlying telco running the network.

or is it Vodafone's invoice? The reason I’m being a bit doubtful comes from the practices I’ve seen from Greek telcos and in particular Vodafone. Apart from the general trend in the Greek providers to overprice both mobile devices and pricing plans there is some additional worrying indication. The Greek market (and I suspect this is the same for a number of other countries too) is not that mature in terms of online browsing. As a result there is a lack of respectable data plans; Vodafone at my last check had just an option for 30 MB/month for approx. 3 euros - after that there was a charge of 6 per MB (1 euro more than the EU average). Wind offers a similarly priced unlimited data plan but I haven’t had the chance to use it. In general, I get the impression that carriers (here at least) are still just experimenting with mobile web browsing. Hopefully the iPhone’s expected widespread adoption can help with that and at the very least urge all carriers to have unlimited data plans.

Even worse for Vodafone in particular, I encountered additional problems in my mobile web browsing. Now, I must admit that I’ve only seen them in my rather old K320i Sony Ericsson device but when I tried to get help from their customer support by filing a question I got no satisfactory answer. The reason as far as I could understand was a combination of my hardware and native software (i.e. my clunky mobile) and Vodafone’s configuration. They route data traffic through a different APN (wap.vodafone.gr) for my first 30MB free data package compared to the general purpose web browsing APN (internet.vodafone.gr) in which charges per MB apply immediately. Instead of sorting the problem with Vodafone, I tried using Opera Mini. That solved most of my access problems and decided to stop pursuing it with them.

the horror
All this knowledge of the inner workings of their system is not a result of me working for Vodafone Greece. Rather, I was forced to understand them when some unexpected charges appeared at my monthly Vodafone bill. The long struggle with their customer support system started then and it left me rather disappointed basically because I was expecting better response times from them, better knowledge of the problem and their system and a bit more interest in actually resolving the disparity. For the record, the overcharge was due to them not informing me when I first subscribed to the ‘first 30MB free’ offer how to activate that profile on my mobile. The problem itself was sorted after literally months of calls and waiting - a significant problem in itself. Fortunately, at least they eventually did the decent thing to refund the overcharging. (Hint: If you ever get entangled in similar problems, just ask directly for the manager - saves enormous amounts of effort.)

Ok, apart from the whining (which I just had to get off my system), it should be pretty obvious why I’m suspicious and where I’m getting at. Is Vodafone really ready to take on the web-surfing crowd? Other telco’s around the world should be facing a similar challenge. Some of their customers might be regular users who incidentally might add surfing to their habits. But I suspect that the vast majority of iPhone buyers will be more knowledgeable and expecting a higher level of services and support. Will telcos in mobile markets that are not internet-mature make it?

I guess a few of us will have to ’sacrifice’ ourselves to test the waters. Oh, well…

tags: product, analysis


Digg Digg | Del.icio.us Del.icio.us | Ma.gnolia Ma.gnolia | Newsvine Newsvine | Technorati Technorati

iPhone reaches our expectations

Put together on June 12, 2008 8:45 pm by Dimitris

So the next iPhone has been announced to arrive July 11.

And it looks like it will be a success both among those of the cult as well as among outside supposedly more objective minds. And what’s not to like? Sleek design as usual, multi-touch screen, 3G speeds, GPS unit, web browsing, Office syncing capabilities, games, app developing and distribution and a lot more. Even the price looks right. More than right - for a piece of equipment like this it could even be considered past affordable: yes, cheap! You have to really dig deep or be a miser (or both) to find a downside or two, no?

Truth be told on the user side I really couldn’t find any. Having put my hands on the current version briefly it actually is a bit of drag to type in it. I guess however it’ll take us less time to get used to compared to the waiting for an improvement on that. Also, perhaps the lack of a second camera since the new iteration of the iPhone is all about 3G and video call capabilities would really be nice. But this all would give the device just another 5%. Since it’s already at 110% we don’t mind that much. Instead, I expect that Apple will manage to increase its iPhone following user base considerably due to the low price.

There are a few things worth mentioning on the developer front though. As always Apple’s insistence on keeping their platform closed is in iPhone 2.0 as well, as one would expect. In layman’s terms, it takes the form of a push server which all apps running on the iPhone will be using as a channel for updates, messages and general functionality towards the user. I haven’t really played around with the iPhone SDK to fully understand the consequences in app-building. I suspect though that single point which will be firmly under Apple’s control will become quite limiting both to users and developers. That was one of the main drawbacks of the SDK in the first place as well, of course.

Apple’s spin on the matter is that it allows for better power management and longer battery times. Applications won’t be constantly running at the background to be ready to bring up their activity to the user. That would mean eating up battery life and CPU cycles - leading the iPhone to quick and painful death (for the day). Instead the push servers which will be in constant contact with all registered users’ iPhones will push app activity to it whenever it’s required saving the iPhone effort and juice. And that’s a damn good excuse for Apple to retain considerable control of what apps are running on the iPhone, when and by whom. Yes, combining the billing information with data from the push server logs creates a vast wealth of user data that can be used for a number of design or marketing purposes (pick depending on your disposition). So it’s a win-win situation for Apple and no user can (nor really will) complain. After all, most of us just want stuff to work - and probably won’t even care if we give Apple (or third parties) a constant ping for e.g. our GPS whereabouts.

The alternative I would have liked for Apple would be to relinquish at least some of that control and do two things. For one thing, they could take the hard approach of actually trying to work on innovative ideas on hardware (i.e. battery) or software (i.e. power conservation apps) that would solve the problem - not work around it. They’ve done similar breakthroughs in the past with their iPod click-wheel and their iPhone multitouch screen. For another, they should let users and developers decide what they do with their devices. That’s very un-Apple and probably would deprive them of a serious revenue stream but it would pay back in terms of larger sales, broader brand recognition, considerably more growth in iPhone apps etc. But that’s not the Jobs way.

In any case, fortunately we have two more chances - Android and LiMo - coming up later in the year and they promise more openness and flexibility both to users and developers. Given the real winner in iPhone 2.0 - its price - I will probably get one - but only in waiting until their competitors are here.

tags: product, analysis


Digg Digg | Del.icio.us Del.icio.us | Ma.gnolia Ma.gnolia | Newsvine Newsvine | Technorati Technorati

Some data overload is welcome

Put together on June 8, 2008 5:52 pm by Dimitris

Numbers in a graph may appear more complex than they really are When people discuss where things are heading towards in the whole social media and online technologies field, most questions very often end up being a matter of proportion and demographics. In other words, a considerable obstacle in making sense of developments is whether ‘more people tend to do X over Y’, ‘which part of those people are more likely to respond to a certain event’ and so on.

Obviously, it’s nearly impossible to make such predictions in advance with any accuracy - but some estimates can be made. And if you’re looking to offer a (web) service of some sort such intelligent guesses may actually make the difference between making an impact and entirely missing the point.

At the very least, being able to base your assumptions on some sound numbers may not provide a foolproof strategy (is there such a thing anyway?) but it will definitely help in convincing others to join your cause. These ‘others’ can vary from clients who will be persuaded to use your service to institutions or individuals who might be willing to invest in your service.

This is nothing new of course. In fact, the provision of such industry information has been an industry in itself for a long time already. As a result, it’s quite hard to find relevant and up-to-date data that are also affordable and worth it; typically, such a report on a single subject can cost several hundreds of euros. True, certain companies can afford corporate account access to these information services. But what about the smaller players? A two-people team or a small startup cannot afford such accounts. I guess they can just go by their gut feeling or just rely on Google.

(This is similar to the academic circle wherein well funded and established universities have easy access to most important scientific journals whereas other institutions and individuals have to struggle to get even basic data)

There might be another way however. I’ve compiled a rough list of sources where the nearest thing to such information can be found - for free.

So some information is out there; I bet more can be found when one knows where to look. I will update this post if I find more sources. Feel free to add your own sources at the comments section.

tags: Uncategorized


Digg Digg | Del.icio.us Del.icio.us | Ma.gnolia Ma.gnolia | Newsvine Newsvine | Technorati Technorati

When Twitter eventually scales

Put together on June 6, 2008 9:07 pm by Dimitris

These days everyone seems to be either cursing Twitter for being down or discussing the difficulties the app has to face to scale. True, it’s been very annoying but their problem has been solved in similar settings. Twitter needs to - at least according to the TechCrunch community - to ‘merely’ apply off-the-shelf technology or hire people who’ve been there - which it actually has done. It’s been done before. It will take time and some smart work to solve the challenges but it can be done. And semi-thankfully Twitter people return feedback to their users in microblogging-mode only and even miss out on their community management obligations - all in order to get there as soon as they can.

Is Scoble the big bird?

So it will happen. In the next couple of months we will have a stable Twitter platform. Then what? How will Twitter expand?

The next step for the app would be to broaden its userbase - leave the geekdom and ‘go mainstream’. Probably the easier way is to create a mobile client (with iPhone, Android and LiMo support preferably) which - apart from offering the usual Twitter functionality - can tap into a phone’s actual address book. The client should allow me to check who in my address book is already using Twitter - and offer to follow them. That check can happen based on my contacts’ stored phone numbers or email addresses. Similarly, all contacts I select can also be notified that I’m on Twitter and be given an option to follow me back.

But what about my friends and acquaintances that have never heard of Twitter (and obviously don’t follow me)? They should be the real target and I should be able to invite them over by SMS. If they have an internet-enabled mobile, I should be able to SMS them the online location of the Twitter client so that they can download it and repeat what I’ve done. If their mobile is not internet-enabled, a combination of SMS and online actions could be used to go onboard - but totally internetless mobiles will gradually become fewer and fewer anyway.

Twitter anywhere anyhow

And that solves the biggest hurdle I know of for someone to join Twitter: the fact that they are all alone in it when starting up. Having no friends means that most people abandon it after giving it a spin, if at all. I’ve seen it happen lots of times. However, if their actual social circle is already on it, if people who they speak to regularly on the phone are already using it, adoption will be rapid - and viral (literally)! Seeing their friends use Twitter (by receiving their SMS updates) will allow them to ‘get it’ immediately.

SMS is a vital aspect of Twitter - which, note, is only shared amongst competitors by long-lost-within-Google Jaiku. SMS is important since so far mobiles really have limited access to the web both due to bandwidth and lack of decent mobile applications but also due to cost. Wi-fi phones are not that widespread, wireless coverage is spreading but is not ubiquitous and transferring data over GSM (or EDGE for that matter) networks is either too slow or too costly. So, what are we left with? SMS. Twitter’s platform is based on message brevity and it can become our first attempt to link the online and physical world.

Nuff said

(Note that although the existing public Twitter API does not offer access to telephone numbers Twitter itself should have access to such information. That’s why this app can only be developed by Twitter itself and not a third party the way things are now. Either that or the API should somehow be expanded.)

tags: analysis, idea


Digg Digg | Del.icio.us Del.icio.us | Ma.gnolia Ma.gnolia | Newsvine Newsvine | Technorati Technorati

We are our social networks. Or will be.

Put together on June 3, 2008 10:29 am by Dimitris

Given the trends we’ve seen in the past few years social networks seem to have a long road ahead of them before maturing. This is both a good thing and a bad thing. It’s bad because socnets are still in a ‘raw’ and underdeveloped state. That’s because of data portability issues but also because most people - except perhaps from musicians - are still trying to figure out exactly what to do with them. But it’s also good as it implies that truly widespread - think mainstream - adoption is not really here yet. And although Facebook and MySpace may be able to brag of being meanstream - they’re just two networks. Granted, they’re huge but it’s just them basically.

I think that in the next couple of years with the help of data portability facilitated by most major players (it is in the best interest of everyone involved to have portable data) social networks will become even more abundant, more diversified and actually useful and relevant. Marc Andreesen has already foreseen this (years ago) and has positioned himself in a quite advantageous position behind the controls of Ning. If you want to set up an expandable, customised social network almost as easily as setting up a blog, Ning can provide this relatively painlessly - so you can focus on the ’socialising’ bit rather on the ‘creating and maintaining it’.

And so it will be, as more and more people get online and work and live online the necessity to collaborate and share experiences will drive socnets usage - upwards. Users will be able to find and join networks based on their jobs, location, interests, etc. The networks each person belongs and the extent and way they contribute (in the broadest of senses) to them will be part of their identity. The trail they leave behind - including comments they’ve made, events they have participated in, games they played and so on, will be as important as the more static information that already exists in peoples’ profiles (e.g. age, previous jobs, etc).

In other words, people will be increasingly defined by what they choose to spend their most precious asset on. And that asset is none other than their time. This is nothing new of course; it already holds true in the physical world whether we realise it or not. It always has been the case. The difference is that now in the digital world it is easier to quantify how we spend our time, visualise it, archive it and share it (or in the best case scenario allo w it to be private).

Already we see manifestations of this in action. Think of lifestreaming applications and services like FriendFeed in which you get to share thoughts and bookmarks. Facebook’s timelines are another example: it’s the trail of actions we leave behind us when in that walled garden. For the time being, this is all very fragmented and it’s hard to see it happening. But we’re getting there.

tags: analysis, idea


Digg Digg | Del.icio.us Del.icio.us | Ma.gnolia Ma.gnolia | Newsvine Newsvine | Technorati Technorati

Why RSS Reader Zero?

Put together on May 31, 2008 1:05 pm by Dimitris

Following up on my previous post, obviously getting your news reader to 0 is not the goal in itself. I think our feed readers are a means to organise the information received - a tool to help put things in context. It is basically the next incarnation of the newspaper and it’s there to take its role - maybe on its own or perhaps in conjunction with other tools (e.g Twitter, Friendfeed, etc).

However, this is no small task and RSS Readers are not quite there yet. Until they do, they can still help us however: in actually making something out of the information we have subscribed to. A way to see this is that the information we receive in our Reader’s feeds is, in a sense, a form of currency. One which people value and as such can be ’spent’ or offered to build relationships, strengthen communities or simply interesting ideas.

A good article can be read and shared specifically with an acquaintance or with a broader audience (think Google Reader Shared). If they see its importance and perhaps start a conversation on it, some common ground has been created for creating or strengthening the relationship with these people. And that should work way better than adding them as a friend in Facebook: you actually have things to talk about instead of exchanging virtual gifts and vampire bites. Turning the argument around, I believe that platforms (or developers on such platforms) like Facebook need to focus more on actual conversations in order to actually become useful - and eventually avoid becoming obsolete.

In addition to this, a piece of news drawn from the web and poured into a community (a mailing list, your local twitter-sphere, your LinkedIn network etc) that can acknowledge its importance adds value to that community. It actually gives it reason to be as the people involved in it get the message that if they stick around there’s valuable information for them there. Every bit of information contributed and appreciated is a drop of glue that adds strength to the community. But equally importantly for the person offering the information it makes them valuable and respected to the community. It’s an indirect way, other than the aforementioned one, to connect with peers.

And of course, information or combination of information that is turned into a new post presenting an well-rounded point of view is as I’ve said what’s missing from the blogosphere: insight, opinion and character - as compared to simple reproduction of memes. It’s ‘easy’ to scour the net for information - and it’s been made even easier with tools like search engines and RSS readers - to the extent that being able to find things is considered a given. However, managing to combine all these strands of news threads into a single, coherent, relatively brief creation that actually is something new and useful is the challenge. And it is there that your RSS Reader can help you in doing half the job: filtering out the trivial and focusing on the action-worthy items.

The other half - crafting something worth reading by focusing on the action items - is left up to you. If you manage to add to this new mix of information you have created a bit of (preferably your) character then you have succeeded in contributing to the signal - rather than the noise.

tags: analysis


Digg Digg | Del.icio.us Del.icio.us | Ma.gnolia Ma.gnolia | Newsvine Newsvine | Technorati Technorati

RSS Reader Zero

Put together on May 28, 2008 9:14 pm by Dimitris

Despite the fact that I haven’t updated for a bit I’ve been following the recent developments and among other things I got around to watching the famous Merlin Mann Inbox Zero talk. Now, it’s all inspiring (despite it being based on common sense) and MM’s a great speaker but, to be honest, it wasn’t that relevant to me. The reason is simple and it’s that I’m not receiving a ton of email like I guess he does.

I am receiving a ton of news items though - in Google Reader. Finding a way to ‘process’ them efficiently would be ideal and it is in that front that MM’s talk helped me improve my practices in using RSS feeds. So, in his steps, here is my “Reader Zero” version.

(As a sidenote, maybe it’s only natural that those of us who live in the physical borders of the digital world - cf Greece - don’t have that much of an email problem: we haven’t got that many real-life acquaintances to bombard us with correspondence - hence we rely on RSS feeds.)

Anyway, I do this in a two-stage method. First, I devote a few seconds per feed to decide if this item will be useful to me or a friend or acquaintance of mine. If not, I simply mark it as read, ignore it and move on. If I do see some use in it, I star/mark it for future reference. This step can easily be done with minimum concentration and even while on the road. Or from my puny internet-enabled mobile screen as is the case these days I spend at the border.

The second stage involves requires more attention and finding a large-ish chunk of time at my desk to process the items which have been starred - I actually know for sure they are of some use. I go through all the starred items and select one of the following:

So that’s the main idea. Quickly sort the bulk of my feeds into ‘ignore’ and ‘action’ categories at any time during the day. Then, when you get to a more quiet time and place revisit the ‘action’ items and… do them.

(Disclaimer: of course, the most important help in managing information is to actually have a number of items that can be handled. So to get there I did the brave thing and culled my feeds to only a few over 100. And I don’t feel I’m missing out on much, really.)

tags: analysis, idea


Digg Digg | Del.icio.us Del.icio.us | Ma.gnolia Ma.gnolia | Newsvine Newsvine | Technorati Technorati

Experiment: Role-Playing Games in innovation, part 2

Put together on May 8, 2008 12:03 pm by Dimitris

So, continued from my previous post, here’s what I am suggesting. Two to four people get together and try to come up with a few realistic guidelines about what the world (or a part of the world) might look like. It’s important to focus on things that are relatively feasible – in other words, much as I’d like to involve the word ‘jetpack’ I don’t see this being very probable in the next few years. No detailed work is necessary. Just basic things such as answering questions like what the main energy sources are, what is the political state of a country of interest, what are the social circumstances (in terms of employment, poverty, racism, etc), what major technological and scientific advances have been achieved and so on. Then, one member of the team is chosen to run the world (i.e. be the game master – previous experience on the role is highly recommended) and come up with the basics of a scenario while the rest create characters and roleplay that scenario.

Both the characters and the scenario though are just vehicles to explore the main focus of the game – which is the world itself or one aspect of it (e.g. future communication, personal relationships, sociological changes, impact of technology, etc). To use an example, if the group wanted to explore, how journalism was to evolve in a few years from now, the characters could play the roles of a politician and a journalist while the plot could revolve around e.g. a political scandal and the efforts of the former to cover it up and of the latter to expose it. Within that plot, various courses of action could be tested for their effect. E.g. the journalist could set up a video blog presenting evidence and campaigning against that politician while the politician could respond by setting his own PR campaign.

So, where’s the innovation in all that (apart from using RPGs for a different than the usual purpose)? Well, obviously, this kind of game is not about winning (as most RPGs aren’t) or about who has the most realistic grasp of what’s going to happen but rather about play-testing how things will work in the future. In fact, it’s not about that either. It’s about talking and hypothesizing what it will all be like – both before the game starts to agree on the rough guidelines and after the game has started and players react to various challenges. The roleplaying will be pretty arbitrary after all and just in the minds of participants. But putting yourself in the shoes of a character and being required to think, talk and react within a future possible setting can provide insights about that setting that simply trying to imagine the future won’t reach. While I was playing the scenario I mentioned in the previous post I had plenty of insights (that were also inspiring after the actual game) regarding how communication and what is now called the social media would evolve.

RPGs can also be used as I suggest here to better understand and expose the needs and the psychology of a target audience. They can be used to provide sanity checks on whether a new approach on doing things will work as expected or not. It’s about helping identify how the human factor fits in a new idea – something often missing when people come up with a new concept. Of course, it’s not like setting up a usability team or actually doing market research with polls etc. It’s meant to provide insight to the innovator from within her, i.e. by allowing her to adopt a fresh first-hand perspective. It’s also meant to provide perspective by discussing with fellow interested individuals who are also in a similar frame – i.e. not just wildly speculating.

And to take things one step further and add extra value to the idea, this whole process of the group of people getting together to decide on the world and a scenario and play it all out, could be recorded and uploaded in segments in a dedicated website. Technically, I believe this is already feasible – although serving hours of video might prove a bit costly even with torrent technology. But having all session episodes available for viewing could hopefully inspire others and stimulate further discussion on the subject.

Oh, and I didn’t mention that at the same time a new version of web TV (RPTV?) along with volumes of content from it will drop-off as a by product of this experiment. And all that while basically having fun and playing a game with some friends.

tags: idea


Digg Digg | Del.icio.us Del.icio.us | Ma.gnolia Ma.gnolia | Newsvine Newsvine | Technorati Technorati
Error in my_thread_global_end(): 1 threads didn't exit