Professor David Wolber has used a social networking tool for people-tagging called Peoplicious to create an "expert systems" group -- "those interested in tools for locating experts" -- from the links included in John Tropea's survey article called The different ways of finding experts.
One of my recent blog postings is included in the Tropea article, so I'm included in Wolber's "expert systems" group.
All in Social Networking
Paul Carney provided this insightful comment on my earlier post titled What if Communities Don’t Share Their Expertise?:
Keeping people connected in order to share expertise is a great idea, but the problem is that those people who have a large amount of knowledge tend to grow very large networks.
Once upon a time I helped manage a complex post-merger system consolidation project where two mainframe based systems were being integrated. The client hadn’t done a lot of projects like that and hired outside consultants to help with the project planning, management, and execution.
We found out quickly that a few key client staff members were extremely scarce resources. One was a senior consultant who had been brought back by the client after his retirement. He was, hands-down, THE absolute expert on the target system’s very large and very complex database. I’ll call him “Alex.”
My friend Luis Suarez takes me to task for my post on expertise managment. He makes some very good points but I differ somewhat with how he interprets the role of “communities” within an organization. He says:
Wendy Piersall is one of many bloggers commenting about Friendster's being granted a patent by the US Patent & Trademark Office for an implementation of social networking. The Friendster patent claim was originally filed in 2003. The patent was issued in late June of this year. There are many interesting views floating around in the blogosphere about this, for example:
* This is what happens when the patent examination process takes so long.
* This will stifle innovation.
* This will stimulate innovation.
* Friendster's fortunes are in decline so it will have to take up suing people to make money.
* Networking services like Linkedin will end up paying huge license fees and will have to shut down free subscriptions.
* Some attorneys are going to make a lot of money over this.
OK, call me clue less. But I don't care if Amanda is leaving Rocketboom. It's about as important to me as Katie Couric moving to the network evening news.
Have we reached a "tipping point" for enterprise acceptance of Web 2.0? According to Martin LaMonica's Corporate America Wakes Up to Web 2.0, published June 26, 2006 on ZDNet News, we may have.
I'm using Raw Sugar as a research tool. Here's what I added to my Raw Sugar directory as a description:
Every now and then it helps to be reminded of the basics:
* Make the phone call.
* Get the face to face meeting.
* Thank the prospect.
* Have your elevator speech ready.
* Offer to help.
* Keep in touch (Garrison Keillor's suggestion).
* If you can't say anythng nice about somebody, don't say anything at all (My mom's suggestion).
Expertise Management and World of Warcraft
While researching the topic “expertise management” as a follow up to earlier articles posted here, I came across a fascinating article concerning the automated construction of an “expertise database” that I think has some relevance for enterprise expertise management.
In the first article in this series I commented on the web based evolution of systems for matching up experts (and their expertise) with users based on relationship management and social software technologies.
In this article I discuss the implementation of such systems within large organizations
Remember near the end of the first MATRIX movie, our heroes were fighting it out on the roof of an office building. They needed a helicopter – fast:
* Tank: Operator.
* Trinity: Tank, I need a pilot program for a V-212 helicopter. Hurry…. Let’s go.
Trinity, already a member of a tightly knit community, knew the right person to call, got a download of her program, and the rest is history.
Should We Be Able to Buy and Sell our Personal Financial and Medical Data?
When I first heard about USA Today breaking the NSA domestic phone spying scandal involving the major long distance phone companies, I wasn’t surprised. I won’t even be surprised when, in the next few months, word leaks out that Federal agencies are also involved in non-court-approved electronic screening of domestic call traffic looking for specific words and word combinations.
I am puzzled by the seemingly robust nature of the US economy and the lack of a melt-down due to runaway gasoline prices. I still remember the inflationary hardships caused on the 1970’s by rapid rises in crude oil prices and the inflationary spiral that priced so many people out of the housing market due to huge rises in interest rates.
Why do economic conditions seem smoother now despite massive trade imbalances, crushing federal deficits, and an unending commitment to costly (in terms of blood and money) foreign adventures such as Iraq?
Is it the Internet?
Are DRM (Digital Rights Management) systems compatible with the current growth in the use of blogging and social networking technologies that actively promote the sharing of information? Maybe not.
Basically, “Web 2.0″ means different things to different people.
* To the programmer, it’s a set of tools and techniques that have the potential for fundamentally altering how network based applications and data are managed and delivered.
* For start-ups and venture capitalists, it’s an opportunity to get in on the ground floor of another bubble.
* For the corporate CIO or IT manager, it’s another set of technologies and architectures to be adopted and supported in an era of continued I.T. department budget strains.
* For newer or smaller companies, it’s an opportunity to acquire technical and business process infrastructure at a fraction of the investment made by older and legacy companies.
* For the marketing manager it’s an opportunity to “end-run” a traditionally unresponsive I.T. department.
* For the CEO of an established legacy industry, it’s a threat of loss of control over customer relations.
* For the customer it’s an opportunity to establish and maintain relationships that are both personally fulfilling and empowering in the face of the traditional power of larger institutions.
A progress report on the Peer to Patent Project has been published in the form of a useful PowerPoint presentation available here. The presentation, by Professor Beth S. Noveck of the New York Law School, was scheduled for presentation on March 23, 2006 at the University of Michigan.
I haven’t really decided how “revolutionary” web 2.0 applications are. One school of thought is that web 2.0 applications like blogs, podcasts, and wikis are “just another set of channels” to be considered in the overall mix of ways to manage communications with one’s target markets and customers. There’s another school of thought, though, that suggests that the interactivity and social networking aspects of Web 2.0 are finamentally changing the balance of power and influence in the marketplace in a profound way. I come down somewhere in the middle.
Who Controls Personal Data?
Back in the Day, my favorite Latin quote was an example of the Ablative Absolute: “Eo Imperium Tenente, Eventum Timeo.” Loosely translated, this means, “Because he holds the power, I fear the outcome.” In some ways, fear and uncertainty exist today since, in many cases, people don’t understand, or even know, who has the “power” over how their personal data are used.
What is "Personal Data?"
When you start reading up on personal data and the definition of ownership, you quickly get caught up in questions about "what is property?" and "what data about me do I really own?"
These are tricky questions.