|
|
|
| You are not authorized to post a reply. |
|
pdunne
Posts:5
 |
| 11/02/2006 2:11 PM |
 Alert
|
After viewing this site a number of times I kept returning to the questions above as related to a "business book".
In the Narrator's Introduction I found the following sentence:
"The central premise of our book and community is that large groups of people can, and in many cases should, take responsibility for business functions that are currently performed by companies or experts."
I immediately thought that while the foregoing may be true, what does that have to do with running a profitable business.
There are numerous businesses that make more money by hiding information rather than by sharing it with their customers and suppliers. Health care, insurance, credit cards, come immediately to mind.
The case examples of successes I have seen so far in the initially drafted chapters, are essentially companies outsourcing (to customers) both marketing and a research and development functions. The companies are using these strategies so that they can capture value essentially for free, and the customers derive some benefit from seeing products that they want and need being constantly improved. In these cases, it's a win-win. Cases that are cited for competitors actually cooperating with each other translate into a the creation of a larger pie, with their relative share of the larger pie undiminished. These cases also result in a win-win
This is great for particular kinds of businesses, but I'm not sure it has the wide applicability that you envision.
Also I can't tell if you intend that the book be descriptive or prescriptive.
|
|
|
|
|
barry
Posts:72
|
| 11/03/2006 6:11 AM |
Alert
|
PDunne
Thank you for your comments.
1. we want the book to be both prescriptive and descriptive
2. we are looking for case studies where they also provide real wins for the community providing the resources and capabilities - www.prosper.com and
3. we are seeking to better understand what is working and what is not as communities and social networks begin to truly impact companies.
any help that you can give us would be greatlly appreciated (e.g. feel free to contribute to the chapters or continue this discussion)
Barry |
|
|
|
|
zby
Posts:5
|
| 11/03/2006 10:10 AM |
Alert
|
| There is also the question of what companies are if not large groups of people. |
|
|
|
|
joe_flum
Posts:151
|
| 11/04/2006 5:14 PM |
Alert
|
Let's address each of these three points:
"1. we want the book to be both prescriptive and descriptive"
I don't think any of us should forget that the use of community interaction and user innovation is a relatively young field of research, and in being so young, there are still no hard and fast rules. We are in many respects in that fertile land of really discovering what the benefits are of integrating these ideas into our business structures. We are also going to make a lot of mistakes. But that should not stop us from trying to test and prove these concepts.
So yes, we must be descriptive in understanding what is currently being done throughout the world, and in as many different contexts as possible. The focus on case studies that I am currently seeing in the chapters outlined is a good start, but we must allow room for their lessons to really come together into a solid premise or theory. This is where me must be prescriptive.
To be prescriptive though, we must have a collective agreement on the goal or objective of the book. The premise is great, but what are we looking for? What is it that we feel limited by in our current understanding of business structure and organization? Are we looking for a redefinition of the role business plays in the overall society or is it simply the desire to increase profits? Or perhaps we are trying to play catch-up with the ideas.
I suppose it all come down to vision. For this book to really make sense, we need to allow the multitude of ideas that will be generated to coellesce into a unified argument.
"2. we are looking for case studies where they also provide real wins for the community providing the resources and capabilities - www.prosper.com"
Not much to say here other than the necesity to structure these case studies somewhat. In relation to the first point, our case studies will be pieces in a larger puzzle, so how can we ensure that those pieces all fit together? Writing conventions, and providing a specific focus to each area is one way to go. The point would be to provide enough structure to prevent chaos, while not overlly restricting creative expression.
"3. we are seeking to better understand what is working and what is not as communities and social networks begin to truly impact companies."
I think of all the points, this is really the most important to consider, in that this book will contribute to fleshing out a largely amorfous and undefined phenomena. I personally would like to see this project form a starting point for the development of an on-going framework or methodology related to social/community driven business. There is no chance that we will cover all possible aspects of the field in one book, so it makes sense to consider writing the book as a primer for the continued exploration of the benefits and draw-backs involved.
|
|
|
|
|
barry
Posts:72
|
| 11/05/2006 6:30 AM |
Alert
|
great post - and we agree completely. It our intent to make the writing of this book a 'primer for the continued exploration of the benefits and the draw backs involved' of communities in every day business, government and not-for-profit, initiatives. How do you think we should better express that vision through out this initiative?
Barry |
|
|
|
|
1ofus
Posts:103
|
| 11/06/2006 9:05 PM |
Alert
|
I wrote a lengthy reply earlier today but do not know where it went! Help.
Lilly |
|
|
|
|
joe_flum
Posts:151
|
| 11/06/2006 9:56 PM |
Alert
|
Let's breakdown the problem, perhaps if we can separate out a bit of the complexity we can continue the discussion in multiple threads and get more people involved in the overall discussion.
If we put ourselves in the shoes of our reader, we may shed some light on the best way to present the material.
1) I open up the book, what do I see? Since we are talking about an introductory level text (or maybe we aren't, but it should be defined), then we can assume that I know nothing about the subject. Maybe I've heard the buzz in my own company, or maybe I'm simply looking for a way to take that next step with my business. The point is, that I need to be oriented.
So it makes sense that the first phase/section of the book provides me with enough theory and context for me to make the most out of the sections that follow.
Let's assume that we already have the those theories identified and we can move forward. The key here is identify the logic of the book, and then we can add details in to how it is delivered.
I personally learn much better when I can get down into the details of 'why' this is all important to me. I don't need to see the proof right off the bat, we have the rest of the book to back up our claims.
2) I'm now fairly well briefed on what the dominant minds are thinking about with regards to leveraging communities and social-networking. I understand the factors involved in creating truly intelligent groups, and know the ins-and-outs of how networks function (hubs, usage incentives, etc etc).
But now I need to get myself back down to earth. I need to see the theory put into practice. This is where the case studies really come into their own. We could intersperse the studies in between the theory (Douglas Hofstaeder shows a great example of this with an alternating writing style for his book "Goedel, Escher & Bach").
Throughout the case studies, I think it's important to stress the how the study relates back to the theory. It may sound obvious, but in many of the books I've read with case-studies, each study is fairly separate and makes no direct reference to the overall discourse of the book. It sort of like the publishers just sticking together a bunch of like objects without reflecting on what each means to the whole.
We could address this issue possible through a follow-up section in each case study that provides individual reflections from the individuals of the community. Perhaps we could use a transcript format where we present the communities thoughts as though it were a round table discussion.
The point simply being to amplify our real-world examples with community driven dialogue.
3) So now I really understand how this stuff works. I've seen it working in numerous other business and my understanding of the theory has deepened considerably. But what can I do with it?
I always enjoy the books which don't leave me hanging. Those that provide the stepping stones for truly integrating the theory into my life and practice are the books which I come back to time and time again. If we stray too far on the theoretical side, or too anlaysis based on the case-studies, we risk the book becoming a academic exercise.
I like to think (and theory backs me up on this) that community and social-networks are an emergent phenemona. Their real power comes from the finite interactions that hold the potential for complex behaviour. In thinking about this, should our book not then be focused on the business community at large, with practical help for allowing business on all scales of the economy to integrate our ideas.
This all translates to the framework that I mentioned in a previous post. A framework in its essence is not a how-to, but moreso a how-maybe. It should serve the role of defining the main issues to take into account and the biggest questions required to move forward.
In my company, we use a framework called the DSDM. (http://www.dsdm.org) It's a software development/business management methodology for agile businesses. While I don't need to go into the details of it's methodology, it is an example of a community driven method that has been developed over the course of more than ten years. It, like this project was based on collecting real-world experience and organizing the lessons for others to take advantage. I strongly recommend that you check it out simply for ideas of how to present a framework.
Ok, sorry about the length of this post, my time is limited and it all comes in spurts ;)
|
|
|
|
|
joe_flum
Posts:151
|
| 11/06/2006 10:18 PM |
Alert
|
No to respond directly to the question:
"How do you think we should better express that vision through out this initiative?"
I think we need to really identify the limitations that we have with the current tool set that the site offers the community. I'm not sure if the initiative is open-source or at least open to help, but I would definately be interested in helping expand the site's capabilities.
But here are some ideas:
1) Wiki's and threaded forums are great, but they lack the creative interaction of a more immediate medium. I think it is imperitive that we create a regular series of "virtual encounters" for the community. I know you are planning podcasts, real-world encounters, perhaps directed time-limited discussions. The point is, that these kinds of interactions will be super critical to allow for significant advances on key topics.
2) There needs to be a form for collaborative filtering. If we learn from the news feed community, or popular 2.0 sites, all of them are making excellent use of user evaluation and rating of the content. Right now I don't see (maybe I missed it), the ability to vote or pump up the quality of a text. With the Wiki, we run the risk of writing so much between everyone that the editors (or core team) will find it very difficult to edit things down to a cohesive argument.
Instead we could provide mechanisms for the users to validate ideas. Those ideas that everyone agrees are important would naturally rise up in the document. For instance if I rate between 1 to 5 every edit, after a period of time, we could filter each article for only those ideas rated above 4. This is a very common practice in forums such as Slashdot.org and sites like digg.com. The main thing is to allow the best of the best to self-organize.
3) Another tool that is of excellent benefit to the group is an editing history. Perhaps the site admins have access to this, but we need to consider the rest of the users. Basically what it is, is the capacity to highlight or identify what was added to a document and what was changed. Admins normally have the ability to return the document to a previous point (which is extremely usefull if a particular avenue of thought turns out to be a dead-end).
By giving the user visual feedback of how the document is evolving, it allows any member to see where the document is going to and thus contribute. Some great examples of this are at http://www.writeboard.com and http://www.codingmonkeys.de/subedthaedit/
Writeboard is a free collaborative writing software online and SubEthaEdit is an excellent collaborative software development tool. While writeboard is a little more helpful to our context, SubEthaEdit has some great ideas (integrated chat and real-time multi-edits)
Anyways, this should give us some more ideas. I'll leave you all with that for now, and check back in a bit.
cheers,
joe |
|
|
|
|
pdunne
Posts:5
|
| 11/07/2006 9:53 AM |
Alert
|
To continue this general discussion.
There are any number of ways to analyze why some communities thrive and others wither and die, but I think one of the most productive for this enterprise would be to use the concepts in one of the best business books I have ever read.
Its a book by Adam Brandenburger and Barry Nalebuff titled Co-Opetition: A Revolution Mindset That Combines Competition and Cooperation, ISBN 0-385-47950-6.
The book applies game theory to business and has a useful acronym for the analytical concepts to capture why some things work brilliantly and why others don't. It's about creating value or destroying it.
The book uses an acronym PARTS for analyzing things in terms of game theory, and would be useful here for analyzing why some communities are successful.
Players: Who are the necessary players in such a community? Which ones are critical? Which ones are irrelevant? Do we have the correct ones?
Added Value: Who brings added value to the table and how are they compensated?
Rules: How do you construct them? Who gets to make them? Who gets to change them? Are there any?
Tactics: The jockeying for position among competing alternatives.
Scope: Why this particular sandbox? Are there others to be joined in. Are there areas which should be excluded?
|
|
|
|
|
iphazard
Posts:87
|
| 11/07/2006 10:54 AM |
Alert
|
[quote]Posted By 1ofus on 11/06/2006 9:05 PM
I wrote a lengthy reply earlier today but do not know where it went! Help.
Lilly[/quote]
Lilly, I'm so sorry that you are having difficulties here. I don't see a record of your previous post in this thread. I'm looking at some potential issues, but it doesn't look terribly promising at this point.:(
Isaac |
|
|
|
|
iphazard
Posts:87
|
| 11/07/2006 11:13 AM |
Alert
|
pdunne,
I have not read Co-Opetition but the PARTS acronym does seem to apply very nicely to both communities as a whole and to our We Are Smarter community.
All of these questions need to be answered in order to have a successful community. As Joe correctly points out, the rules of the commnuity game are very new and not set in stone.
A number of suggestions have been made that we create a new chapter about what makes a community successful, with some how-to steps. This chapter would be an ideal place to describe the PARTS model.
I will add this idea to the "suggested chapters" section today.
Isaac Hazard
Community Manager |
|
|
|
|
joe_flum
Posts:151
|
| 11/08/2006 7:13 PM |
Alert
|
Lilly, the reason you're "lengthy post" did not get written, is due to a time-out in the session. This also happened to me. The site appears to places a time limit on how long you can go with no activity before it logs you out. While you were writing, you technically weren't moving through the site, and so the site thought that you had left.
There are two ways around this:
1) Write that long post of yours in TextPad or Word. when everything is set, copy and paste it into the post form. This way you can take as long as you like and you won't lose anything.
2) You can trick the system, by opening up a second window and logging yourself into the site again. As long as you don't close the browser, the site will now recognize that you are still there. Once you've logged in, go back to your long post and hit submit.
If by chance you click submit and it loads the front page, just hit the back button to retrieve your text and then follow the rest of step 2.
hope this helps everyone out.
cheers,
joe |
|
|
|
|
1ofus
Posts:103
|
| 11/09/2006 3:15 PM |
Alert
|
Isaac and Joe,
thanks fo looking and for the explanation. I was definitely at it for a while!
Never mind, one never knows why it is good it did not go, right.
I am also interested in helping with a chapter/ or two.
Lilly |
|
|
|
|
datruss
Posts:13
|
| 11/13/2006 5:28 PM |
Alert
|
Great post Joe,
I wish I read it before adding to the General Site Discussions here:
http://www.wearesmarter.org/communitytools/discussthebook/tabid/80/forumid/3/postid/256/view/topic/Default.aspx
Tagging would work very well on top of voting- especially since it will bring like minded ideas together to be compared before voting occurs. |
|
|
|
|
zby
Posts:5
|
| 11/17/2006 7:03 AM |
Alert
|
Excuse me repeting my question - but perhaps with a bit more explanations I'll receive some answer?
Starting as the first post in this thread with the quote:
"The central premise of our book and community is that large groups of people can, and in many cases should, take responsibility for business functions that are currently performed by companies or experts."
My understanding is that companies are "large group of people" (plus some legal infrastructure), so the whole premise is a tautology when read literally. A more appriopriate premise would be "large groups of people don't need any more any additional legal frameworks to ..." |
|
|
|
|
iphazard
Posts:87
|
| 11/17/2006 7:22 AM |
Alert
|
zby,
Companies are large groups of people, true. However they are run by executive teams and the general structure is hierachical, not communal. The traditional model is that companies are segmented into small groups of people and individuals to perform specific functions.
The central premise questions this traditional model. Should these specialized functions be given over to large groups. The groups can be the company as a whole, the company and its customers, a community of like monded professionals, etc.
Does this help answer the question? |
|
|
|
|
1ofus
Posts:103
|
| 11/17/2006 10:20 AM |
Alert
|
I hear both and think that you do agree, but only up to a point. Namely, current organisational structures do not work well when lots and in many cases most of the workers are knowledge workers. I believe we agree on this.
It is from here on that we seem to differ. One premise is that we need to take all this quite gradually. So, no issues with the functional splits as thy are, just with th ways in which these functions are discharged organisationally - hierarchy vs community. Another view i that the whole lot is up fo grabs.
I tend to belong to the latter group. Ther is nothing special to separations of functions as they are now. They evolved with time. Management as a discipline is not really a science and has nho good explanation for distinctions made with functions.
Hence, I support the plea for really engaging and stronger premise! |
|
|
|
|
iphazard
Posts:87
|
| 11/17/2006 11:42 AM |
Alert
|
1 of us,
I think that a number of our Wharton and Sloan members might disagree with your statement that management is not a science. But I hear what you are saying.
The most concise statement of the book's premise is this:
"We believe communities will prove valuable to business. We want to explore all of the ways this is true."
By valuable we certainly do mean that it affects the bottom and top line of the enterprise. i.e. communities will both increase revenue AND decrease cost.
We propose that an exploration of each traditionally defined business function is a good place to start this discussion. It is certainly possible, even likely, that some of these functions will not be impacted by community. It is also likely that there will be new functions of businesses, new business challenges, that are created by community. However, thise likelihoods do not necessarily need to change the central premise.
This is not to say that I am averse to changeing the premise at this early stage. Let's start talking about it here and if a wiki change is necessary we should go ahead and do it..
Of course ultimately the community will define the premise throught our contributions to the wiki and the statement of the premise will need to be modified as we go.
|
|
|
|
|
joe_flum
Posts:151
|
| 11/17/2006 11:51 AM |
Alert
|
just my 2 cents... In general a thesis statement (which is much like our premise) cannot be fully articulated until the bulk of the writing has been done. I am of the opinion that we could easily get bogged down in a long discussion about how the premise should be, and in doing so, lose track of moving forward in the other challenges.
But, after having said that, discussion is important on all the points, this one included, so why don't we look at the underlying theme here:
How can communities change traditional corporate models?
|
|
|
|
|
1ofus
Posts:103
|
| 11/17/2006 11:59 AM |
Alert
|
So, the starting point is Belief! If so, that surely is not how a scientist would express it.
I hope you see what I mean about management and science then. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|