Knetwit: Understanding Napster from the other side

Knetwit

I was interviewed by the BC student newspaper for my reaction on a website that I had never heard of before – Knetwit.com.   The site is targeted toward college students, enabling them to share notes from their classes.  If students upload thier notes, they are provided with rewards known as “koin.  I had a surprisingly unfavorable reaction to this site.

Fortunately, since its business model is entirely ad-driven, my suspicion is that it won’t survive for long.  Why didn’t people learn from the dot-com bust that a purely ad-driven model won’t work in the long term?  Google Ad-words is not a business strategy.  Of course, I think the whole premise is a bit silly and college-centric, but that’s what they probably said about Facebook, too.

I don’t think my negative reaction comes from the fact that the information from our class might be available to others.   I am more than happy to give away virtually all of my notes, lectures, and insights to students from the class for free.  I am also happy for our course material to be used beyond the class.  Combined with the fact that our wiki and blogposts are publicly available on the Internet, people can access a remarkable amount of our course information online without taking the course.  I’d even like to start video podcasting my courses in the near future.

I think my discomfort comes from the fact that I am resentful that someone else is trying to profit from my intellectual contribution – notes from my class – that I am choosing to give away for free.  I do think it’s fair use to use any of our course material for your own personal use or in you job (that’s what business schools are here for).   I don’t think its OK for people to take this free content I have given to try and sell to others.  Of course, if I give it away for free, why would there be any buyers?  Maybe that’s why the company won’t survive.

Change.gov

Change.gov

I had a friend that worked heavily with the Obama campaign using their social networking methods.  She indicated the other day that Obama intends to keep his networks in place in an effort to do grass-roots lobbying of congress on particular issues.  We could be in for a truly transformational government if the administration uses these tools (effectively) to create an active democracy that involves more than casting a ballot every 4 years.  Of course, it won’t go as smoothly as any of us would hope – and it certainly won’t create any sort of Utopian vision.

Nevertheless, it seems like Obama is keeping good to his word.  He has launched “change.gov” as a mechanism by which to communicate the details of his transition to power.  It will be interesting to follow what information he communicates through this site and how he uses it to continue to generate enthusiasm for his initiatives.

Interestingly, you can also apply for a job with the administration through the site.  I would love to see the applications he gets through the site.  I went ahead and registered my name to see how it would play out.  Right now, all it does is collect your information with the promise of links to the full application in the future.  I’ll keep you informed about how things go. The cynical side of me says its just a ploy to collect personal information, but I’ll withhold judgment.

Of course, I have absolutely no intention of leaving BC for anything short of a cabinet-level job (and we all know how likely that is), but -hey- I’d help out on a task force or something.  Of course, I was invited to do the same thing for Deval Patrick, which was one of the most painful meetings I have ever sat through.  Let’s just say that government culture doesn’t exactly mesh with a Web 2.0-enabled organization.  It will be interesting to see this push of Web 2.0 tools into governing and whether it will take hold or not.

The reply email is below.

Hello Gerald, 

Thank you for your interest in joining the Obama-Biden Administration.  Within a few days, you will receive an email with a link to the more complete on-line application.  Please be patient, as we are trying to respond promptly to the large number of people who are interested in working in the Administration.

Managing in a Web 2.0 world

I have mentioned on more that one occasion that I think one of the key differences of Web 2.0 tools in business settings is the fact that neither IT nor management need to decide to adopt the tools – the employees can do it without anyone’s permission.   I remember only 10 – 15 years ago or so having a discussion with a CEO friend of mine about whether he should provide Internet and email access for his employees.  He ran a technology company, no less.   Today, many  can’t imagine doing business without constant, mobile Internet access.  Nevertheless, that decision made 10 – 15 years ago means that employees can adopt Web 2.0 tools without managerial permission or knowledge.

One company I recently consulted for was surprised that 2500 of their employees were on a dedicated Facebook network for their workplace.  Work teams can decide on their own to set up wiki for project tasks outside the company firewall.  Any employee can start a blog within minutes.

Unlike previous technologies, the decision regarding the use of Web 2.0 tools in organizations is not whether to adopt the tools, but how should we manage the inevitable adoption.   As managers wrestle with managing in a Web 2.0 world, several tips may be helpful:

1) Establish Web 2.0 policies, even if you don’t formally adopt the tools.  “Just don’t do it” will not likely be an effective policy.  Managers can make it clear what type of information should and should not be shared using these tools.  Also, are certain tools “off limits” from company computers?   These tools can be valuable for helping people perform their work, but common-sense guidelines can and should be set.

2) Make the tools available, even if you don’t mandate their usage.  If employees want to blog, use wikis, or join social networks, it may be a good idea to make sure that you provide the tools they are going to use.  A manager would much rather a work group use a secure, enterprise-grade wiki like Socialtext, than a free and unsecure wiki environment like WetPaint.  If they are going to use the tools, you may want to give them the opportunities to do it right.

3) If you do decide to adopt Web 2.0 more aggressively for your business, make sure you teach the people how to use the tools correctly (and learn how to do so yourself).  Since Web 2.0 tools are so flexible and adaptable, they are more dependent on effective interpersonal processes than previous generations of technology.  Since you can do almost anything with Web 2.0, be sure you are adopting the tools in a way that will meet the business goals you have for them.

So, what have I missed?  What other things should managers know about managing in a Web 2.0 world?

Tech Joy

Tech Joy

While reading Joy’s post I was struck with the following thought:  I wonder if the increased turnout among young people in the election is partially a result of Web 2.0 tools in general.  For my generation (the TV generation), people were accustomed to sitting back and being part of the audience.  For today’s generation, they are accustomed to giving their feedback.  Could this conditioning of offering one’s opinion through Web 2.0 tools have led more young people to be willing to offer their opinions through voting.  Hmm.  I wonder how one could test that hypothesis (academic geekness showing here, ignore that last line).

GDW Blog: Jerry Kane on “Wisdom” � Mercurial Mentions in IT

GDW Blog: Jerry Kane on “Wisdom” � Mercurial Mentions in IT

I think this has been a genuinely interesting conversation around the structure of the class.  The fact that you guys are engaging at this level suggests that you’ve got the hang of this “Wisdom of Crowds/Web 2.0″ stuff.  As an aside, I have been overwhelmingly pleased at the overall level of quality of blog posts.  I admit that I thought it was a bit of a gamble to introduce this requirement, but I think it has really added to the class.

So, I have been thinking about whether and why bonus points might be effective (incidentally, I am not particularly committed to it, it’s just worked in situations in the past).  Here’s why I think they might work.

1) It changes the audience.  With the professor giving the grades, you have an audience of 1 (me) with everyone else overhearing.  My fear is that the blog posts would become very academic, but not very interesting.  So, my hope is that the bonus points also make you think about what your classmates would enjoy.

2) It provides immediate feedback.  When you know what types of blog posts are likely to get rewarded, you are more likely to model on the successful posts.  Since I can’t grade until the end of the semester (and I’m glad I don’t, because my standards would have been way too low), students would have no guidance.

That said, I wonder whether it’s the transparency, not the bonus points, that create the desired effect.  What’s unusual about this educational model is that all the deliverables (save the exams) are public to other students.  Thus, you see what other students are doing and raise your own performance to match.  So, is it the bonus points or the transparency that has resulted in the strong in-class blogosphere?

I also wonder if its something about the blog platform itself.  Last year, I used a common class-wide blog that was interesting, but not nearly as high-quality as what is happening in this class.  Might it be that because you have an independent voice and virtual presence associated with you that you put more time and work into it?

Of course, I didn’t offer bonus points last year either….

Socialtext 3.0

Last night we had Alan Lepofsky, the Director of Marketing for SocialText, introduce us to the new SocialText 3.0 platform.  I thought I would reflect on some observations from that visit, and invite others in the class to comment as well.

Some thoughts:

1) I thought it was interesting the degree of functionality with which Alan was using the ST 3.0 platform compared to how we are using it in class.  Web 2.0 tools are part technolology and part social process.  I think ST has the technology part down reasonably well, but it’s transferring the processes that is more challenging.  I consider myself a relatively strong user of the platform, but I wasn’t aware of much of the functionality or ways it can be used.  So, if I have difficulty using it, 1) how are other companies learning of the new features and potential processes and 2) how can managers communicate these new processes to their employees.  I like the flexibility ST offers, but flexibility also comes with additional work.

2) Speaking of flexibility, I am somewhat underwhelmed with the ST people module, at least so far.   Three points here.

a) I am surprised that people don’t have more flexibility about their profile.  For instance, there are pre-designated fields for supervisor and assistant.  I have more than one assistant.  What do I do then?  I am surprised that a Wiki company has developed such a rigid approach to profiles.  Why not give people a Wiki area to create their own profiles.

b) I am also disappointed the user pages don’t provide more history about each user.  Do I really care about the last 20 edits someone made, or do I want to know their usage history across many months, what pages they are editing most, etc.  I can certainly envision business uses for this data, especially in a large company, and I am surprised ST doesn’t provide this functionality.

c) Lastly, I am surprised that ST still doesn’t support any type of messaging or commenting between users.  ST signals is nice, but there may be times when I want to raise an issue with a partiuclar user that may not relate directly to any particular wikipage.  If they are really looking to become a social networking tool, they need to let people communicate with one another.

Those gripes aside, I do think they are moving in the right direction with the platform.  I think there is great potential in where they hope to go.  What do you think about the ST platform and their plans for the future?

What happens when you actually use Web 2.0?

One of the most interesting parts of my MBA class this semester has been the NML assignments (incidentally, based on midterm evaluations, the students agree).   Of course, I use the term “interesting” intentionally, because I don’t think that any of the students, or the professor for that matter, has had a uniformly positive or negative experience with them.  Some of the lessons I am learning:

• Web 2.0 tools take up alot of time.  It’s hard to remember to post, to follow others’ activity, and generally keep up with all of the activity (no matter how genuinely interesting I may find it).   As a case in point, it’s hard to believe I haven’t posted in two weeks.  I think the trick is to find a good way to identify the content you are interested in.  This likely means that Web 2.0 can’t just be a casual engagement, you have to learn to use the tools to get what you want out of them.  Otherwise it can be a bit overwhelming.
• I am surprised at how many people are concerned with privacy – even people who are very active Web users.  I think I just learned a long time ago that the concept of privacy is out the window, whether we like it or not.   Sarah Palin is a good case in point – people hacked her email account using publicly available information.  We are living in a world where anything can appear online at any time.  For most of us, other people just don’t care enough to pay attention.   Attention, not information, is the scarcity in today’s world.
• Whether or not they are just sucking up to the professor, most people seem to have at least gotten some value out of the tools and have figured out how to use them relatively easily.  To be honest, I had gotten my TA’s all ready to field a host of questions about the tools, but people simply haven’t had to contact them.   What I find most intersesting are the ways that my students are using the tools that I had not even considered.
• I am beginning to see the value of ubiquity – the ability to access the internet anytime/anywhere.  I’ve lost some good thoughts simply because I wasn’t in a place to write on my blog when I had them.

Just some thoughts, more later

Questions I am asked

Last Friday (prior to the so-called financial apocalyse of today), I spoke about my use of Web 2.0 to BC’s parents weekend.   I got some questions about my appraoches that tend to crop up again and again, so I thought I’d address them here.

1) You’re an IT prof.  Will the Web 2.0 tools work in other settings?  To answer this question, I use the example of Alan Kafka, a geosciences prof here at BC.  He started experimenting with wiki methdos in the classroom after a talk I gave to the faculty.  He emailed me to let me know that he had similar positive results as I have.  I joke that it doesn’t get much slower than geosciences, so we’ve covered all ends of the spectrum.

2) Do students still need to come to class if everything is online?  Actually my experience is that it is MORE important to be in class regularly in a Web 2.0 setting.  Yes, it is easy to miss class from time to time and catch up easily becuase of all the information online.  On the other hand, there is SO much information online that it quickly becomes impossible to filter the important infomration from the unimportant stuff.  Students who have tried not attending tend to score in the 30s on my exam.

3) Do young students perform better than older students?  In the beginning, yes.  Students who are under the age of 23 (having had Facebook in their college years) are already immersed in the Web 2.0 culture.  Older students (i.e. older than 23) usually take a bit of catching up – but it doesn’t take long.  The tools are so user-friendly these days that it’s easy to get the hang of it.

Web-Based Carpooling Startups

Web-Based Carpooling Startups

I thought that this was an interesting new application for Web 2.0 tools- carpooling.  Companies subscribe to the service for their employees, who can then search the database for people who have similar travel schedules.  The advantage to this service is that you can find people who travel your general route even though they may not work in the same company.

The main drawback to this service, as I see it, is that carpooling isn’t just about getting from point A to point B.  You’re trapped in a car with someone for 30 minutes to an hour, all sorts of different factors some into play – the most obvious of which being safety but also the fact that I have to sit right next to a perfect stranger for an hour.  I wonder if they have features that allow people to state what kind of rider they are (talker or non talker), and then let their carpool buddies rate their attractiveness as a carpool partner (did they stiff you on gas money, do they only shower every 3rd day, were they a safe driver?).  I’m all for technological networks and I believe that – in theory – a service like this might be better than relying on who you know personally.   The problem is that (with carpooling at least) it makes it hard to back out if its not a good fit.  The person knows who you are and where you work and you’ll have to tell them electronically at least  “I don’t like riding with you…find someone else.”  I think I’d want some advance sense of who I’m letting into my car.   The death of old-style face-to-face networks have been greatly exaggerated.

Ubiquity…case in point.

Mozilla Labs » Blog Archive » Introducing Ubiquity

Here’s an announcement by Firefox about a new extension that allows users to create mashups (a combination of data from a variety of web-based resources) using natural language.  This could be a powerful way for normal users to begin to harness the power of the web at a new level.  I wonder why Google doesn’t fund more efforts like these, rather than try to develop their own Web platform.