2. Who I am? Father of two boys Evangelist of business models based on collaboration and social networking. Chief Officer of nContacto Expert on Enterprise Communities of Practice WW Compliance Manager in the business of Printing Systems Management at HP Former CFO and Controller for Hewlett Packard Venezuela. Chemical Engineer (ITESO Guadalajara) MBA in Finance (ITESM campus Guadalajara) Experienced educator President of the Houston Chapter of the Mexican Talent Network Co-founder and active member of the Alumni Association ITESM in Houston (Ex-A-Tecs) Follow Me: pplopez.mp twitter.com/pplopez www.inkedin.com/in/joseluislopez facebook.com/jose.luis.lopez.mota friendfeed.com/pplopez pplopez.tumblr.com pplopez.posterous.com stumbleupon.com/stumbler/PePeLopez delicious.com/pplopez www.slideshare.net/pplopez PP_Lopez 2
3. Topics What is Web 2.0 ? Principles of Web 2.0 Understanding effects of Web 2.0 Communities How to start Enterprise 2.0 3
6. “Web 1.0 was Commerce Web 2.0 is People” - Ross Mayfield 6
7. Web 2.0 The term Web 2.0 refers to a second generation of services available on the World Wide Web that lets people collaborate and share information online. closer experience to desktop applications than the traditional static Web pages (Web 1.0). allow for mass participation (web-based social software - blogs and wikis). the phrase refers to one or more of the following: The transition of websites from isolated information silos to sources of content and functionality -> computing platforms serving web applications to end users Approach to creating and distributing Web content itself (open communication, decentralization of authority, freedom to share and re-use, and "the market as a conversation“) A more organized and categorized content A shift in economic value of the web, possibly surpassing that of the dot com boom of the late 1990s A marketing term to differentiate new web businesses from those of the dot com boom The resurgence of excitement around the possibilities of innovative web applications and services http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Web_2.0 7
8. WWW was born! Web 2.0 Conference Linkedin Facebook Google Twitter sixdegrees Friendster Mosaic (Netscape) Yahoo! MySpace History .com Bubble Source: Wikipedia 8
14. Consumer mind-shifts... Only 42% of consumers say they even “somewhat” trust newspapers Consumer trust is falling Consumers are less brand loyal 52% of consumers say brand trumps price, down from 59% in 2000 Consumer-to-consumer activities growing C2C eCommerce, messaging, blogs, camera phones, video phones Consumers are customizing products and services 10% - 40% of customers develop or modify products Source: Forrester 12
15. What’s Changed Web 2.0 attributes differ from those of traditional web apps in numerous ways 13
20. Principles of Web 2.0 No Products, but Services Customization Focus on the “Long Tail” Harnessing Collective Intelligence Specialized Database Who owns the data End of Software Release Cycle Software above the level of a single device 18
21. No Products but Services “There are no products, only solutions” Not what customer wants but why they want A problem solving approach Simple Solutions 19
23. Customization Every individual is unique Some people want to be different Allow him to choose instead of forcing him to use what you have made Make him feel home 21
25. Focus on the “Long Tail” Reach out to the entire web To the edges and not just to the centre, to the long tail and not the just the head Put everything there Leverage customer-self service 23
27. Harnessing Collective Intelligence Network effects from user contribution are the key to market dominance in Web 2.0 era The Wisdom of crowds – Users add value Systems designed to encourage participation Pay for people to do it – ‘gimme five’ Get volunteers to perform the same task Inspired by the open source community Mutual benefits e.g. P2P sharing It requires radical experiment in trust 25
29. Specialized Database Every significant application to date has been backed by a specialized database Database management is the core competency of Web 2.0 companies “Infoware” rather than merely “software” 27
31. Who owns the data Control over data has led to market control and oversized financial returns It will provide a sustainable competitive advantage to the company Especially is data sources are expensive to create or amenable to increasing returns via network effects Race is to own certain classes of core data e.g. naukri.com, 99acre, yahoo 29
33. End of the Software Release Cycle “Release Early and Release Often” “Perpetual BETA” Daily operations must become a core competency Software will cease to perform unless it is maintained on a daily basis Real time monitoring of user behavior 31
34. End of the Software Release Cycle 32 www.docs.google.com
35. Software above the level of a Single Device The PC is no longer the only access device for internet applications Applications that are limited to a single device are less valuable than those that are connected. Design your application from the get-go to integrate services across handheld devices, PCs, and internet servers. 33
38. So to understand how to do business in a 2.0 world… You are better off understanding Human 1.0 – not as individuals, but as hyper-social creatures You do not need to understand the Web 2.0 technologies 36
42. What are the important Human 1.0 Hyper-Social Traits Reciprocity – it’s a reflex that allows us to be the only super-social species without all being brothers and sisters Social framework - Evaluating things vs. market framework Fairness - The role of fairness and punishment in assessing situations Mimicking Others - The importance of looking cool and imitating others Herding and self-herding – We like to gather Meritocracy – Status and reputation matters Source: The Hyper-Social Organization – F. Gossieaux & E. Moran 40
43. Hyper-Social companies think differently: a recap Think tribe – not market segment We need to find groups of people who have something in common based on their behavior, not their market characteristics Think knowledge network – not information channel The most important conversations in communities happen in networks of people, not between the company and the community. Think human-centricity – not company-centricity The human has to be at the center of everything you do, not the company Think emergent messiness – not hierarchical fixed processes People will want to see responses to their suggestions, even if it does not fit your community goals – FAST Source: The Hyper-Social Organization – F. Gossieaux & E. Moran 41
44. Turning a business process into a social process Running traditional programs using social media platforms Source: The Hyper-Social Organization – F. Gossieaux & E. Moran 42
45. Turning a business process into a social process Running programs based on human reciprocity and social contracts to get others Source: The Hyper-Social Organization – F. Gossieaux & E. Moran 43
51. 3 Types of Communities Communities of Passion - have the richest and most formal set of activities, governance, and structure Communities of Practice - are less formal and are based on common work specialties Communities of Interest - are for topics that don’t require formal communities but need threaded discussions for collaboration and knowledge sharing 49
52.
53. Develops members to fit into this role, be proficient in this role, and actively help others to develop in this role
61. Motivation: stay current on the topic and ask questionsfacebook.com Group EXATEC HOUSTON - ITEMS 52
62. Richard McDermott on Communitieswww.mcdermottconsulting.com Healthy communities have a driving purpose, clear activities, and a sense of accomplishment Communities are becoming integrated into organizations Community facilitationand participation are real work and require time Core community members are well-connected through meetings and ongoing contact Healthy communities have high management expectations and support The heart of a community of practice: peer-to-peer relationships responsibility for stewarding a body of knowledge membership crosses boundaries room for dealing with whatever comes up 53
63. Patterns of contribution 1% active contributors 9% occasional contributors The 1-9-90 rule Number of contributions 90% readers (aka ‘lurkers’) Number of participants Source:Jacob Nielsonwww.useit.com/alertbox/participation_inequality.html 54
64. The “1% Rule” For every 100 people online only 1 person will create content and 10 will “interact” with it. The other 89 will just view it. Each day at YouTube there are 100 million downloads and 65,000 uploads 50% of all Wikipedia article edits are done by 0.7% of users, and more than 70% of all articles have been written by just 1.8% of all users In Yahoo Groups, 1% of the user population might start a group; 10% of the user population might participate actively. 100% of the user population benefits from the activities of the above groups Source: The Guardian 55
65. Members of an active community 90% Outsiders 9% Lurkers Facilitators Contributors 1% Activist Facilitator en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1%25_rule_(Internet_culture) 56
67. Levels of Engagement Become an expert Become a mentor Write a blog Ask a question (with attribution) Comment (with attribution) Level of engagement Register Waxing and Waning Interest Comment (Anonymously) Browse, search, learn (Anonymously) Type of engagement 58
68. Start Contributing Identify Yourself Search & Explore Content Know more About Save & Share Links / Bookmarks Subscribe Store & Distribute Documents 59
69. Start Contributing Express & Discuss Ideas Communicate & Get Feedback Learn & Share Knowledge Produce & publish content Invite to Events Work together 60
71. The “Long Tail” of Work Multi-tasking Enriched jobs, several roles Broad span of control, flat organizations Tons of emails daily Calendar overloaded of meetings and calls 3-digits number of direct contacts People located around the world Multi-language, multi-cultures Phone, email, instant messaging, virtual meetings, twitter, facebook, etc. Did I mention face-2-face (occasionally)? Only 24 hours at day….. 62
72. Fundamental Shifts on Organizations More virtual, few human interaction Communities requires face-to-face meetings Micro formats of knowledge PowerPoint slides, no longer reports People is not reading, they are scanning Tragedy of knowledge common sense
74. Exploration & Production Senior VP Mares Exploration Drilling Production Avery McWatters Milavec Ramirez Production Reservoir Geology Petrophysical Hassan Hopper Dhillon Crossley Sutherland Waring Smith Myers Cordoza Keller Angelo Klimchuck Mitchell Schultz Zaheer Formal vs. Informal Structures What Do You Notice When You Compare the Formal and Informal Structures? Formal Structure (Org Chart) Informal Structure (revealed in ONA) Hussan Milavec Hopper Waring Dhillon Mitchell Mares Zaheer Myers Avery Smith Schultz Keller Cordoza McWatters Crossley Angelo Sutherland Ramirez Klimchuck
75. Enterprise 2.0 Informal, less structure, knowledge-based work of a company Balance of formal structures and informal networking IT enabled application of Web 2.0 to corporate environment SLATES Enterprise-wide Social Networks Hyper-Collaboration Wiki-culture 66
76. Components of Enterprise 2.0 Six components (SLATES): Search Links Authoring Tags Extensions Signals 67 http://sloanreview.mit.edu/smr/issue/2006/spring/06/
77. Levels of Collaboration Groups utilizing systems to make sense and share complex materials and data Core product enhanced by a social component, deeper participation to interact Low-barrier social involvement like voting and the recording of personal participation
78. Key decisions needed for success A Receptive Culture A Common Platform An Informal Rollout Managerial Support 69
84. Socialize Think, then share URL it! Be Transparent Be Personal Contribute Be reciprocal Set the stage 75
85. Create your Digital Identity Show who you are Express yourself Know your tools Keep simple Know your audience 76 My profile My blog My feeds My tags My pictures My presentations My places My videos
94. Six Themes of the Long Tail age There are far more niche goods than hits Cost of reaching those niches is now falling dramatically. New “filters” can drive demand down the Tail Once there’s a massively expanded variety and the filters to sort throught it, the demand curve flattens There are so many niche products that collectively they can compromise a market rivaling the hits. Then, the natural shape of demand is revealed A Long Tail is just culture unfiltered by economic scarcity 85
99. Slidegraphy Web 2.0 – The Social Web (this presentation!) http://www.slideshare.net/PPLopez/web-20-the-social-web-6806313 What is Web 2.0 www.slideshare.net/adunne/what-is-web-20-157107 Web 2.0 Tools to inspire www.slideshare.net/tippydawn/web-20-tools-to-inspire Web 2.0 www.slideshare.net/kikollan/an-introduction-to-web-20-the-user-role An introduction to Web 2.0 www.slideshare.net/kikollan/an-introduction-to-web-20-the-user-role Webinar: The Hyper-Social Organization www.slideshare.net/AwarenessLIVE/webinar-the-hypersocial-organization 90
Bienvenidos a estasesionparaintroducirnos y entender el concepto de Web 2.0Hubieraqueridoestarfisicamente con Uds. Nada se iguala al contacto personal, cara a cara, peroaprovechando la tecnologia y esoesalgoquevamos a verhoy, podemoshacerlo en forma virtual.Empecemos
Ese soy yo.Una de mispasiones y confiesoquetengovarias, es el tema de lasredessociales y la grancapacidad de estas de generacionobrasmaestras a traves de lo queyollamo Hyper Collaboration.Es asicomoyo me me he integrado a trabajarconjuntamente con Luis y Leonel en estosproyectosqueyollamo de evangelizacion.Trabajo y de ahicomo, en HP. Mi experienciaprofesionalesdiversa y gracias a Dios me ha permitidoconocermuchagente y culturasdiviersas.Aquitienen mi perfil o identidad digital paraseguir en contacto. Porciertoquemasadelantehablaremos de ello.
Estos son los temas.Hemosdecido con Luis abrirlo en dos sesiones, debido a la riqueza de contenido y en base a queestamosconvencidosque les va a ser de muchautilidad, y sobretodoofrecerlesunaampliaperspectiva del tema.
Iniciamos. En estarepresentacion, talvez no se note muybienproyectado. Reensambla un poco los distintosagentes de cambio en estaolaquellamaremos Web 2.0
Web 2.0 es un movimiento social, no es un paquete de tecnologias, comoexpresaadecuadamente Ross Mayfield. Unaevangelizadoratemprana de web 2.0Ross Mayfield is co-founder, Chairman and President, and former CEO[1] of Socialtext Incorporated, an enterprise social software company based in Palo Alto, California.[2] He is also a regular blogger and public speaker.
Estaesunarepresentaciongrafica de la historia de Web 2.0, que en realidad a sidounaevolucion en tiemposdemasiadorecientes.In 1989, while working at CERN, Tim Berners-Lee invented a network-based implementation of the hypertext concept. By releasing his invention to public use, he ensured the technology would become widespread.[50] For his work in developing the World Wide Web, Berners-Lee received the Millennium technology prize in 2004. One early popular web browser, modeled after HyperCard, was ViolaWWW.During the late 1980s, the first Internet service provider (ISP) companies were formed. Companies like PSINet, UUNET, Netcom, and Portal Software were formed to provide service to the regional research networks and provide alternate network access, UUCP-based email and Usenet News to the public. The first commercial dialup ISP in the United States was The World, opened in 1989.[33]A potential turning point for the World Wide Web began with the introduction[51] of the Mosaic web browser[52] in 1993, a graphical browser developed by a team at the National Center for Supercomputing Applications at the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign (NCSA-UIUC), led by Marc Andreessen. Funding for Mosaic came from the High-Performance Computing and Communications Initiative, a funding program initiated by the High Performance Computing and Communication Act of 1991 also known as the Gore Bill.[53] Indeed, Mosaic's graphical interface soon became more popular than Gopher, which at the time was primarily text-based, and the WWW became the preferred interface for accessing the Internet. (Gore's reference to his role in "creating the Internet", however, was ridiculed in his presidential election campaign. See the full article Al Gore and information technology).Mosaic was eventually superseded in 1994 by Andreessen's Netscape Navigator, which replaced Mosaic as the world's most popular browser. While it held this title for some time, eventually competition from Internet Explorer and a variety of other browsers almost completely displaced it. Another important event held on January 11, 1994, was The Superhighway Summit at UCLA's Royce Hall. This was the "first public conference bringing together all of the major industry, government and academic leaders in the field [and] also began the national dialogue about the Information Superhighway and its implications."[54]As the Web grew, search engines and Web directories were created to track pages on the Web and allow people to find things. The first full-text Web search engine was WebCrawler in 1994. Before WebCrawler, only Web page titles were searched. Another early search engine, Lycos, was created in 1993 as a university project, and was the first to achieve commercial success. During the late 1990s, both Web directories and Web search engines were popular—Yahoo! (founded 1994) and Altavista (founded 1995) were the respective industry leaders. By August 2001, the directory model had begun to give way to search engines, tracking the rise of Google (founded 1998), which had developed new approaches to relevancy ranking. Directory features, while still commonly available, became after-thoughts to search engines.Suddenly the low price of reaching millions worldwide, and the possibility of selling to or hearing from those people at the same moment when they were reached, promised to overturn established business dogma in advertising, mail-order sales, customer relationship management, and many more areas. The web was a new killer app—it could bring together unrelated buyers and sellers in seamless and low-cost ways. Visionaries around the world developed new business models, and ran to their nearest venture capitalist. While some of the new entrepreneurs had experience in business and economics, the majority were simply people with ideas, and didn't manage the capital influx prudently. Additionally, many dot-com business plans were predicated on the assumption that by using the Internet, they would bypass the distribution channels of existing businesses and therefore not have to compete with them; when the established businesses with strong existing brands developed their own Internet presence, these hopes were shattered, and the newcomers were left attempting to break into markets dominated by larger, more established businesses. Many did not have the ability to do so.The dot-com bubble burst on March 10, 2000, when the technology heavy NASDAQ Composite index peaked at 5,048.62[60] (intra-day peak 5,132.52), more than double its value just a year before. By 2001, the bubble's deflation was running full speed. A majority of the dot-coms had ceased trading, after having burnt through their venture capital and IPO capital, often without ever making a profit.Though differing from many current social networking sites in that it asks not "Who can I connect with?" but rather, "Who can I connect with that was once a schoolmate of mine?" Classmates.com proved almost immediately that the idea of a virtual reunion was a good one. Early users could not create profiles, but they could locate long-lost grade school chums, menacing school bullies and maybe even that prom date they just couldn’t forget. It was a hit almost immediately, and even today the service boasts some 40 million registered accounts.That same level of success can’t be said for SixDegrees.com. Sporting a name based on the theory somehow associated with actor Kevin Bacon that no person is separated by more than six degrees from another, the site sprung up in 1997 and was one of the very first to allow its users to create profiles, invite friends, organize groups, and surf other user profiles. Its founders worked the six degrees angle hard by encouraging members to bring more people into the fold. Unfortunately, this "encouragement" ultimately became a bit too pushy for many, and the site slowly de-evolved into a loose association of computer users and numerous complaints of spam-filled membership drives. SixDegrees.com folded completely just after the turn of the millenniumIn 2002, social networking hit really its stride with the launch of Friendster. Friendster used a degree of separation concept similar to that of the now-defunct SixDegrees.com, refined it into a routine dubbed the "Circle of Friends" (wherein the pathways connecting two people are displayed), and promoted the idea that a rich online community can exist only between people who truly have common bonds. And it ensured there were plenty of ways to discover those bonds.Introduced just a year later in 2003, LinkedIn took a decidedly more serious, sober approach to the social networking phenomenon. Rather than being a mere playground for former classmates, teenagers, and cyberspace Don Juans, LinkedIn was, and still is, a networking resource for businesspeople who want to connect with other professionals. In fact, LinkedIn contacts are referred to as "connections." Today, LinkedIn boasts more than 30 million members.More than tripling that number, according to recent estimates, is MySpace, also launched in 2003. Though it no longer resides upon the social networking throne in many English-speaking countries – that honor now belongs toFacebook in places like Canada and the UK – MySpace remains the perennial favorite in the USA. It does so by tempting the key young adult demographic with music, music videos, and a funky, feature-filled environment. It looked and felt hipper than major competitor Friendster right from the start, and it conducted a campaign of sorts in the early days to show alienated Friendster users just what they were missing.It is, however, the ubiquitous Facebook that now leads the global social networking pack. Founded, like many social networking sites, by university students who initially peddled their product to other university students, Facebook launched in 2004 as a Harvard-only exercise and remained a campus-oriented site for two full years before finally opening to the general public in 2006. Yet even by that time, Facebook was seriously big business, with tens of millions of dollars already invested, and Silicon Valley bigwigs such as billionaire PayPal co-founder Peter Thiel firmly behind it.The secret of Facebook’s success (it now currently boasts in excess of 150 million users) is a subject of some debate. Some point to its ease of use, others to its multitude of easily-accessed features, and still others to a far simpler factor – its memorable, descriptive name. A highly targeted advertising model certainly hasn’t hurt, nor did financial injections, such as the $60 million from noted Hong Kong tycoon Li Ka-shing in 2007. Regardless, there’s agreement on one thing – Facebook promotes both honesty and openness. It seems people really enjoy being themselves, and throwing that openness out there for all to seTwitter. Essentially a micro-blogging "What are you doing at the moment?" site where users keep contacts informed of everyday events through bite-size morsels they post from their computer or handheld device, the service got off to a very good start when launched in 2006. Its continued popularity notwithstanding, Twitter has nevertheless come under some criticism for taking the "staying in touch" thing too farThe term "Web 2.0" was coined in 1999 by Darcy DiNucci, a consultant on electronic information design (information architecture). In her article, "Fragmented Future", DiNucci writes:[6][7][8]The Web we know now, which loads into a browser window in essentially static screenfulls, is only an embryo of the Web to come. The first glimmerings of Web 2.0 are beginning to appear, and we are just starting to see how that embryo might develop. The Web will be understood not as screenfulls of text and graphics but as a transport mechanism, the ether through which interactivity happens. It will [...] appear on your computer screen, [...] on your TV set [...] your car dashboard [...] your cell phone [...] hand-held game machines [...] maybe even your microwave oven.Her use of the term deals mainly with Web design, aesthetics, and the interconnection of everyday objects with the Internet; she argues that the Web is "fragmenting" due to the widespread use of portable Web-ready devices. Her article is aimed at designers, reminding them to code for an ever-increasing variety of hardware. As such, her use of the term hints at, but does not directly relate to, the current uses of the term.The term Web 2.0 did not resurface until 2003.[9][10][11][12] These authors focus on the concepts currently associated with the term where, as Scott Dietzen puts it, "the Web becomes a universal, standards-based integration platform".[11] John Robb wrote: "What is Web 2.0? It is a system that breaks with the old model of centralized Web sites and moves the power of the Web/Internet to the desktop."[12]In 2004, the term began its rise in popularity when O'Reilly Media and MediaLive hosted the first Web 2.0 conference. In their opening remarks, John Battelle and Tim O'Reilly outlined their definition of the "Web as Platform", where software applications are built upon the Web as opposed to upon the desktop. The unique aspect of this migration, they argued, is that "customers are building your business for you".[13] They argued that the activities of users generating content (in the form of ideas, text, videos, or pictures) could be "harnessed" to create value. O'Reilly and Battelle contrasted Web 2.0 with what they called "Web 1.0". They associated Web 1.0 with the business models of Netscape and the Encyclopædia Britannica Online. For example,Netscape framed "the web as platform" in terms of the old software paradigm: their flagship product was the web browser, a desktop application, and their strategy was to use their dominance in the browser market to establish a market for high-priced server products. Control over standards for displaying content and applications in the browser would, in theory, give Netscape the kind of market power enjoyed by Microsoft in the PC market. Much like the "horseless carriage" framed the automobile as an extension of the familiar, Netscape promoted a "webtop" to replace the desktop, and planned to populate that webtop with information updates and applets pushed to the webtop by information providers who would purchase Netscape servers.[14]In short, Netscape focused on creating software, updating it on occasion, and distributing it to the end users. O'Reilly contrasted this with Google, a company which did not at the time focus on producing software, such as a browser, but instead focused on providing a service based on data such as the links Web page authors make between sites. Google exploits this user-generated content to offer Web search based on reputation through its "page rank" algorithm. Unlike software, which undergoes scheduled releases, such services are constantly updated, a process called "the perpetual beta". A similar difference can be seen between the Encyclopædia Britannica Online and Wikipedia: while the Britannica relies upon experts to create articles and releases them periodically in publications, Wikipedia relies on trust in anonymous users to constantly and quickly build content. Wikipedia is not based on expertise but rather an adaptation of the open source software adage"given enough eyeballs, all bugs are shallow", and it produces and updates articles constantly. O'Reilly's Web 2.0 conferences have been held every year since 2004, attracting entrepreneurs, large companies, and technology reporters.In terms of the lay public, the term Web 2.0 was largely championed by bloggers and by technology journalists, culminating in the 2006 TIME magazine Person of The Year (You).[15] That is, TIMEselected the masses of users who were participating in content creation on social networks, blogs, wikis, and media sharing sites. In the cover story, Lev Grossman explains:It's a story about community and collaboration on a scale never seen before. It's about the cosmic compendium of knowledge Wikipedia and the million-channel people's network YouTubeand the online metropolis MySpace. It's about the many wresting power from the few and helping one another for nothing and how that will not only change the world, but also change the way the world changes.Since that time, Web 2.0 has found a place in the lexicon; in 2009 Global Language Monitor declared it to be the one-millionth English word.[16]
Peroesto ha sidounaevolucion. Y paraelloiniciemos de lo quellamaremos Human 1.0 o lo quesomosnosotroscuandointeractuamos en forma viva y directa. Este terminofueacunadoporFrancois Gossieaux en sulibro Hyper Social Organization. No esotracosanosotroscomohumanossomosanimalessociales. Fuimos la primeraespeciedondeconvivimos y intercambiamos con individuosque no son consanguineos, quenosintegramos en tribus o grupos de distintoorigen.Human 1.0Live, person-to-person interactionConventional social environments of neighborhoods, religious organizations, or schoolsSocialWeb 1.0Static content delivery systems such as web sites, message boards or list servesWeb 2.0Rich user-generated content and dynamic interaction. Mobile, ubiquitous, and continuous (real-time) computingSocial again!
Estascaricaturasnosmuestran los cambios de patrones en los usuarios
My yahoo, Google Homepage, myspaceFirefox extensions
Leverage customer-self service e.g. Google, StumbleUpon, orkut
Amazon, ebay - User reviews, similar items, most popular, Wikipedia – content can be added/edited by any web user,Flickr – tagging images Cloudmark – Spam emails
E.g. Amazon, Google, Ebay
Automate the maintenance process Real time monitoring of user behaviorMicrosoft – upgrades every 2-3 yrFlickr- Deploy new build up to every half hr“Put two or three new features on some part of the site everyday, and if user don’t adopt them, take them out. If they like them roll them out on entire site” - Anonymous
La tecnologiapor mucho tiemposeparo a los individuos y laslimitaciones de comunicacionhicieronquelascorporacionesutilizarnmecanismosmasivos de comunicacionparaenviar los mensajes TV, radio, publicidad. La comunicacion era 1 a muchos, con pocasposibilidades de tenerdialogoinverso. Llamo a esto la tirania de la publicidad.
Reciprocity – a reflex why are social being helping one anotherWe lie to ourselves and others, and we tell people what we think they want to hearHumans have an innate sense of fairness = keeps reciprocal society working
IS NOTPR by blogging press releases, lead gen by spamming community members, recruiting through spray and pray over Twitter, etc
Running programs based on human reciprocity and social contracts to get others, whose job it isn’t to do so, to help you do your job – customer support with the help of all employees and customers, product innovation with customers and detractors, etc.TAPPING INTO PASSION, AND HUMAN 1.0 TRAIT
Lurkers = mirones
Less interaction face-to-face (email), man-to-man (answer machine)Amazing difference when we have real connection, rich communication face-to-faceTrend to reduce the size of packages of information.Videoclips, podcast, powerpoint slidesTremendous risk to fell in absurd extremes
Search for any information platform to be valuable, its users must be able to find what they are looking forLinks are an excellent guide to what’s important and provide structure to online content.Authoring. Internet blogs and Wikepedia have shown that many people have a desire to authorTags. After better searching mechanisms, what experienced users wanted most from their companies’ intranet was better categorization of content. The categorization system that emerges from tagging is called a Folksonomy (a categorization system developed overt time by folks)Extensions. Moderately “smart” computers take tagging one step further by automating some of the work of categorization and pattern matching. They use algorithms to say to users, “if you liked that, then by extension you’ll like this.”Signals. Even with powerful tools to search and categorize platform content, a user can easily feel overwhelmed. Signal users when new content of interest appears (email alerts, syndication). Aggregators periodically queries sites of interest for new notices, downloads them, put them in order and display their headlines.
Lightweight Social ProcessesLow-barrier social involvement like voting and the recording of personal participationDIGGLast.fmCraiglistDel.icio.usAmazonNetvibesCollaborative information structuresCore product enhanced by a social component, deeper participation to interactFacebookOdeoDeveloper NetworksHigh End CollaborationGroups utilizing systems to make sense and share complex materials and dataOpen Source projectsCouchsurfing
Think, then shareRedo how you work and manage your dayYour contributions should be globally visible (everyone can access) and persistent (can be consulted and searched for)URL itLink to the reference; enrich your commentsPromote reuse of informationBe TransparentAuthenticSeed your repoPeople want the truthBe personalRight balance of virtual and face-to-face interactionsCollaboration is beyond a virtual workspace; it is a matter of peopleEngage People. Get PassionCreate you Digital IdentityBe secureContributeKeep simpleSet the stagePlace for people to meet and give and get help
