I had an intriguing interchange with Derek Rey on his blog, Beyond Banner, here .  Derek paraphrased an interview on NPR’s Talk of the Nation Science Friday with Tim O’Reilly. Tim is known for coining “Web 2.0,” when referring to the second coming of the web after the dot-com bust. The discussion looked back on social media in 2008, and Tim shared some predictions.  Tim describes Web 2.0 as “designing systems that get better with the more people who use them.”

The underlying premise behind the interview, Derek’s post, and our interchange, is that second-wave companies are all about human connection. They provide and derive value out of that connectivity. YouTube, Facebook, Twitter, Flickr, even Wikipedia all provide value implicitly or explicitly. Data is compiled from what users specifically share, or implicit data is mined through studying behavior such as link history. Example: “other Amazon users who purchased this book also purchased . . .

In the interview, O’Reilly also emphasized “ambient intimacy” via Twitter and Flickr use, citing how he can be up to date on virtually anyone via their posts.  He therefore can maintain connection with them without traditional forms of interaction.   O’Reilly doesn’t feel obligated to keep up with his thousands of followers, though. He sees Twitter as a “river flowing by and you can dip in when you want.”

O’Reilly predicts the future of the web rests in collaboration and platform. The One platform will be the platform, and, according to O’Reilly, the mobile device will sense and drive application development. This happened on Twitter during the Mumbai hostage incident, and with the Motrin mommy kerfluffle. This spells the end of the personal computer.

Derek wanted feedback:

• Do we see Twitter as a “river” to dip in and out at will?
• What did we think about The ONE network, and
• How would mobile devices evolve to replace the computer?
• What did we think about implicit equity?
• How did we see this transition playing out?

My thoughts:

Twitter is to the surface as The ONE would be the depth, or layers, perhaps. The space limitation on Twitter confines, and breaking out via links is necessary to get more information. So, if Twitter is a river, then The ONE would be an ocean. A user could feasibly play in bays, inlets and harbors (much as we self-group now) or choose to dive more deeply. The vastness of The ONE network could be intimidating, inaccessible, or self-limiting. The breadth of knowledge and accessibility could be exhilarating, foster commonalities, and remove barriers.

If The ONE is the ocean, then what about The Cloud? Will we jump out of the ocean like porpoises or breaching whales to bite off or park our personal data in The Cloud, and then resume our swim? Are we already doing this with multiple platforms? Would you want to be a storage drive manufacturer with this looming? If you are providing archive storage and retrieval services, what does The One mean to your business model?

Does ambient intimacy preclude real intimacy within nuclear relationships? Could it actually improve relationships by providing insight? Just think, as a mom, I wouldn’t have been bothered by hearing “Nothing” in response to my asking what happened at school today! When I look at my kids’ Facebook pages, am I really making an ambient intimacy deposit in our relationship instead of spying?  On the other hand, I want to tell Pete my thoughts, and I don’t want to have to look for his reactions in a tweet. The cliché is about partners instant messaging or emailing each other when they’re sitting right next to each other, right?

What kinds of capitalization are going to occur with this value? There is already considerable discussion at stops like HarvardBusiness.org about valuing things that are currently non-products and capitalizing on their exchange. Will our society and economy continue to move along the continuum of product – information – relationship?

Derek pointed out that ambient intimacy might be a good way to share a massive amount of information with a large group, and then create more nuclear relationships from that group. How many nuclear relationships can an individual have? He’s thinking about connecting brands and the relationships around brands, forming new communities and conversations. Is this redefining macro relationships into a more micro perception, or the reverse? I don’t want someone appropriating my ambient intimacy for evil purpose (like subliminal advertising, etc). So, how do we layer permission into ambient intimacy?  What protective measures are necessary?

Improved and optimized mobile devices fit in with Pete’s and my goal to be able to work from anywhere even better than notebook computers and smartphones. I reminded Derek that we old folks would like bigger screens on our phones, if you please. Already, the desktop computer is a dinosaur, no?

I also think that we can look to history to confirm Tim O’Reilly’s predictions. Historically, humans have “circled the wagons” in times of economic threat (the Great Depression), climate change (post-Renaissance, the 19th century cold wave), or conflict to retreat to their familiars. The craving for “small’ is already manifesting itself in micro-economic solutions. (Seth Godin, Small is the New Big).

We mistrust complicated organizations and bemoan the problems encountered in dealing with “too big” corporations. We’d rather go to the neighborhood hardware store than Home Depot. We want our entrepreneurial endeavors to be impervious to failure by operating lean and unencumbered with layers of management. (Howard Lindzon, Too Small to Fail). Underground economies in barter and cash payments under the table are on the rise.  Society and the economy is re-forming.

The paradigm evolves when we think of the connectivity and intimacy we crave unrestrained by physical proximity.  No longer may someone be “geographically undesirable.”  Commenters on this blog are from all parts of the globe, yet our connections are real and satisfying.

What if The ONE blows the possibilities of even more satisfying collaboration and relationship-building right out of the analogical water? We think it’s already happening. What say you?

Related articles by Zemanta

• Media Literacy: Making Sense Of New Technologies And Media by George Siemens – Jan 3 09
• Power Twitter For Firefox: Inline Media, Integrated Search And A Lot More

THE ONE is a post from: Passing Thru

Grand Portage Dancer by Pete Wuebker

We’ve been thinking about leaders and followers.  With the recent American election came the oft-repeated mantra of hope and change.  This was articulated by some as the promise of a reunification of polarized elements within American society.  Worthy objectives included a better relationship with other countries, and a collectivization of spirit that could be marshaled to do good in the world.  In order for this all to occur, leaders will need to bridge and encourage connectivity.  Good leaders will work well within their respective tribes, but we’ve seen that truly great leaders are those who are able to consort with disparate groups in order to achieve.  They need to be thinking outside the tribe.

There has been a wealth of information and theory put forth recently on the universality of tribal characteristics.  Seth Godin has written a powerful book, Tribes – We Need You to Lead Us, that addresses the dynamics of leadership in the context of tribalism.  Members of the related Triiibes network (of which I am one) recently put together an E-book that explained what we have learned about all things tribal (you can download it for free here).

Great leaders are emerging now who have passion and the skills needed to make a difference.  Bold, somewhat heretical moves will ensure not only a following, but innovative solutions.  While we all can’t be President of the United States (and who really would want to?), we can use the characteristics of a good tribal leader to make a difference in our own sphere of influence.  We can make better families, better companies, better communities, and better selves.  What do we need to consider?

Tribal instincts are strong.  Everyone wants to be part of something.  It’s in our genetic make-up.  People have tribed since they’ve walked the earth.  The affiliation with a tribe serves to appropriate the attributes of the tribe and use them to extend our own influence.  We take on tribal beliefs because they strengthen our own beliefs and address our fears by reducing them.

Tribal benefits are powerful. The benefit from tribes is that non-tribal members associate us with tribal characteristics and assign credibility to us.  The feeling of belonging has deep psychological benefits.  Belonging fosters fulfillment, stability, satisfaction, unity, and a sense of contribution.  We need to feel valued and important to others.

While anonymity is appealing in some ways, to be constantly anonymous devalues our self-worth. When someone acknowledges our humanity, even by something as simple as knowing what drink we like, it reinforces … our sense of belonging. – Melinda Messineo

Tribes can splinter when priorities compete. In humanity’s earliest days, we hunted for food.  Successful tribes had strong hunters, and non-hunting members sought the tribe with the most food.  Well-fed non-hunters drew pictures on the cave walls.  And, as a friend of ours recently put, “Then someone decided the pictures should hold the same value as the meat someone dragged home, and you had two extremely pissed off factions, because neither felt appreciated.”

Rival tribes co-exist in parallel. For three years within every U.S. election cycle, liberals and conservatives manage to cohabit within the country’s borders.  Then, just prior to the election, as the campaigns ramp up the intensity, an eruptive catalyst sparks a series of skirmishes.  Recently, the cease-fire has barely held post-election.  Political leaders within each tribe connect intermittently with the rival tribe, but a divide is in place.

Strong leaders appeal to more than one tribe. Webs of tribes coalesce and unite, then disassociate again.  Even when unification has occurred the need to separate and identify differences will still surface.  Like individual Protestant denominations that meet to make doctrinal decisions and define policy, individual tribes will insist on a degree of autonomy within a coalition.  We need to constantly know what we control and who the other is.

E pluribus unum. Out of many, one. - U.S. motto.

A greater, universal need has to emerge. Most of us were one after 9/11.  Many of us wistfully reference that unity of spirit during the weeks after the tragedy.  We united against a common threat, to right a wrong, to be part of something greater than ourselves.  The civil rights movement was born out of similar elements and took on a life of its own.

External pressure to unify will meet resistance. The movement toward unification must appear to come from within.  Pete and I learned this first-hand when we attempted to blend our families.  Our teens and other family members were heavily vested in the status quo.  Our wants did not translate into their needs.  Obama will exhort and cajole his skeptics, but unless they decide themselves that the affiliation is of benefit to them and their tribe, nothing will happen.  Should a unified effort be necessary to save the economy from more dire circumstances, or if there is a physical threat from outside our tribes, we’ll be all in.  Dwight D. Eisenhower knew that good leadership “is the art of getting someone to do something you want done because he wants to do it.”

Successful tribal blending will acknowledge differences and identify commonalities. What can Obama, or any other leader, do to unite different tribes?  A good leader will recognize that eliminating or minimizing tribal autonomy will not coerce cooperation.  The difference in political success between the two super-powers – the United States and the Soviet Union – couldn’t be more stark.  The Soviet Union failed because it held its consortium together by force, not by choice.  Our teenagers didn’t feel they had sufficient choices, and so they resisted blending.

What is universally held? Our Declaration of Independence states, “We hold these truths to be self-evident,”  and goes on to list them.  Good leaders identify what is held in common, and speak to those precepts.  Great leaders also realize individual needs and validate contributions with attention and rewards.  They know that playing it safe is often the greatest risk of all in a changing world.

What needs to happen? Bold, dynamic moves framed within the context of common precepts will ensure progress, and might spark greatness.  Abandon fear of failure and replace it with commitment.  Embrace risk as a positive factor.  Connections and ways of connecting need to be easy.  Faith and passion, with tenacity, will make progress.  Transparency will provide information and knowledge, and maintain authenticity.  Choose progress and do what’s right.

THINKING OUTSIDE THE TRIBE is a post from: Passing Thru