Author: JP

Have you ever noticed that whenever you try and describe something “new”, there is a tendency to use words that relate to the “old” thing it replaces? I guess it’s human nature. The trouble is, quite often this leads to a misunderstanding of what the new thing is about. As Einstein is reputed to have said,

The significant problems we face cannot be solved at the same level of thinking we were at when we created them

Which is why, whenever I get a chance, I try and use an example from a completely different field to try and explain what I’m saying.

Take software platforms. A month ago I wrote this post,  describing them as multisided open marketplaces. Many of you “got” what I was talking about, many of you didn’t. So here’s a view from a different perspective.

What American Idol can teach us about software platforms:

Let us think of American Idol as a platform, and see what happens. [In the UK, if you prefer, you can use the same arguments for X Factor, there is no real difference.]

• The platform is open to all, with no barriers to entry. You only have to watch the early stages to know this is true.
• There are no fees to be paid by entrants. Instead, the platform makes money by advertising, and by charging for the voting process. An interesting version of The Because Effect.
• Everyone understands what the platform is for, but not everyone uses the platform as it was intended. There is a whole industry of spin-offs generated, ranging from merchandising and out-takes through to the alternative careers that have been launched. How else can you explain a Sanjaya or an Eye-Of-The-Tiger? So no surprise, you now have American Idol video games and syndicated series as well.
• While success has its roots in openness of access, the real value is in the quality of what emerges, which requires excellent moderation. Yes, it’s true, Simon Cowell is a 1000lb gorilla.
• While moderation is important, it is the market that sets the standard: what really matters is what the people think. Which is why the moderators can’t start believing in their own propaganda. 
• A good platform transcends national and cultural boundaries. It’s not just about X Factor and American Idol and Indian Idol (I understand there are 10 X Factors and ) but also Classical Idol and Country & Western Idol and Left-Handed Yodelling While Drunk Idol. Believe it or not, there is actually an American Inventor series.
  
• Scalability is an essential ingredient. If people couldn’t get through at vote times, there would be no platform; if people could not choose from a variety of ways to get through, there would be no platform.

Enough said.  Just stuff to think about. Comments welcome.

Early comments and conversations suggest that I didn’t get my point across when discussing the moods and changes of various armed services organisations with respect to emerging technologies.

The point I was trying to make was this:

An integral, essential part of the web as it is today is its writeability, its “liveness”. When you comment on a blog or add an entry to Wikipedia, what you are doing is uploading text. It is no different from what you do when you contribute a photograph to Flickr or a video to YouTube.

This writeability is key. It is what allows conversations to take place, learning to take place, democratised innovation to take place, culture to form and morph. It is what makes today’s web what it is.

You don’t have to participate. But you must have the right to. That is what makes today’s web different from yesterday’s web. Any organisation which seeks to gain value from today’s web needs to understand this. The web is two-way. So when you want to take advantage of YouTube, you need to understand this two-way-ness. And be part of it.

Sure, there is a difference between text and audio and image and video. To us. But not to the computer. As Bob Frankston keeps reminding me, it’s all bits. Nothing else. Deciding not to allow access to YouTube or Flickr or last.fm is a perfectly reasonable thing for the military to do. But that decision is a two-way decision. Neither up nor down. Or both.

That’s what I meant when I saw the “usual suspects being wheeled out”. Argue about security, sure. Argue about money, sure. But don’t argue about the two-way nature of the web and still expect to gain value from it.

I was reminded of the existence of this during a completely different conversation over at Gordon Cook’s discussion group. Fascinating talk, provides an unusual and lively view of aspects of computing history. I think it’s important for all of us to revisit such conversations and discussions, it will help us do the right thing when it comes to the internet, intellectual property rights and identity.

For people who have the time and the inclination, there’s a hefty slide presentation available via the same link, you may find it worth while to listen to the audio while working the presentation yourself. Don’t be put off by the double misspelling of Von Neumann on the site; the talk is of high quality, as are a number of the other sessions organised by the IT Conversations guys.

Three headlines I saw today, suggesting the shape of arguments to come:

1. Bandwidth leap for British forces

2.  US Military takes Iraq war to YouTube

3.  US blocks soldiers from websites

I find the trend interesting and just slightly worrying. Let me explain why. Of course the military have the right to make judgment calls on the economics and security of technology investments. It’s not just the military, every commercial enterprise has that right.

The trouble is, I fear the reasons for the pushback are different. My suspicion is the following:

Enlightened people in the US military encouraged adoption of toolsets like YouTube. This was a hard and sustained argument, and the outcome was reason for optimism. The same thing seemed to be happening in the UK as well, by the way, I remember a story about a satirical version of the Amarillo video making its way on to YouTube; the video was made by a UK soldier.

Then something changed, and the usual suspects were wheeled out:

• They’re using too much bandwidth, this has got to stop.
• They are meant to be working, this has got to stop.
• What they’re doing is a threat to security, this has got to stop.

The question is, why? What event made the enlightened group lose momentum and give up the high ground? How come the usual suspects were allowed to surface again? This argument is going to surface and resurface at pretty much every major enterprise, so we all need to learn. Any comments or views?

People have been very quick to add the suffix 2.0 to pretty much everything that’s going on nowadays, and as quick to argue about what 2.0 means in each context. I don’t particularly care one way or the other; my interests are in the tools and techniques that emerge, who uses them and why, how culture shapes their usage, how culture is shaped by their usage.

So I land up looking for good examples of “new” tools and techniques, just to see what can be done, what is being done. Many times, these things aren’t new per se, they’re just new to me. Then, as time passes, people get better with the techniques; there comes a point when we start seeing cultural adoption, and then it’s only a matter of time before we see them come into the mainstream.

Here are some examples of stuff I find interesting in this respect:

• showing some of the joys of shockwave animation: you can almost feel the fun Dustball must have had putting this sequence together at cookiedoughrecords
• showing what can be done with stop motion video: Here’s my favourite Tony v Paul session
• showing what happens when books meet the digital age: take a look at Dave Werner talking about Cadence of Seasons

I’m not “waxing lyrical” about them, nor am I claiming these are best-of-breed. All I am saying is that I’ve learnt some things by visiting the links, and I’m sharing them with you just in case you find them of interest as well. The premise is the same as that which drove me into experimenting with Second Life, or, for that matter, World of Warcraft. Unless I see what’s happening, I cannot figure out what else I can do with such stuff, how I can apply the techniques in the context of enterprise information.

It’s strange, but most of the time, the place I land up is somewhere between enterprise information and education. Maybe there’s a reason. Maybe the next generation of enterprise information will actually have a great deal to do with education, as we begin, finally, to reap the rewards of knowledge management.