Wikinomics Chapter 10

Chapter 10: Collaborative Minds

This chapter is essentially an attempt to tie the rest of the book together neatly at the end. The four principles: Openness, peering, sharing, and acting globally are reinforced one more time.

The "innovator's Dilemma" is an interesting one. I think it is far-reaching though. Once you are the market leader, it's hard to stay on top. To be the "best" at anything, you have to constantly be on your guard. It's similar to being a great athlete. Being the best golfer in the world in 2006 only means you have to work harder to keep that position in 2007. You are the person to beat; everyone is training just to beat you. Last years workouts aren't going to cut it just like last years business plan isn't going to work anymore.

Next up, internet phones. Why not Skype? When I found out about this, I thought-what's the catch? Why isn't everyone doing it? I think organizations that aren't doing it will be doing it soon. Who pays long distance anymore? And really, on an individual level, who has land lines anymore?

The authors hint around at a sort of touchy subject: old people and technology. And by old people I mean not Net-gen. people. The book encourages people unfamiliar with facebook, you tube etc to try it out. Immediately, I envisioned trying to explain these things to co-workers who had no idea what I was talking about. Although the impending retirement of the baby boomers will affect the makeup of firms, it is unlikely that whole firms are going to exist of people under the age of 30. So my solution- Continuing Technology Education. Doctors have to keep up with advances in medicine, lawyers have to keep up with new laws, so why shouldn't businesses encourage employees to keep abreast of new technology.

One last takeaway is that of organizational flexibility and communication. If a CEO wants any of the principles discussed in wikinomics in her firm, she’s going to have to shape the culture in a manner that is open to things that have never been done before. Otherwise, employees are going to capitalize on their ideas elsewhere. It's a huge risk to say: this has never been done before, but we're going to try it. But the reward potential is there.

Wikinomics- Chapter 9

Chapter 9- The Wiki Workplace

This chapter was substantially more helpful than the last. The Geek Squad was a great example and gave insigt as to ow one might incorporate “wikinomics” principles into a business in the future. Although the Geek Squad ended up not using the original wiki as planned. But, would this work in a company that wasn’t made up of self-proclaimed Geeks?

Net Gen:
It’s interesting to think about how businesses are going to be run in the future when the “Net-generation” takes over. Are the principles of “wikinomics” going to be the exception or the rule? For Google, for Amazon, for all these “non-traditional” companies, how many failures were there? They are good examples, but doesn’t the average millionaire have 5 failures before striking it big? I wonder what the stats are for businesses.

As I’ve said before, I think one of the great things about our generation is a sort of disbelief when it comes to authority. We have question and we get answers. We do things our way. I’m promoting anarchy here. Just saying that it is good to ask why things are done a certain way and how they can be done better.

Bottoms up:
The bottom up approach is an interesting proposition. I would agree that a lot of times, employees have super valuable knowledge that managers are not tapping into. Especially those employees that interact with customers. Transparency-to a certain extent- is a good thing because all employees should be aware of what’s going on in a company. It’s a two-way street. Opening communication (either top down or bottom up) will lead to the other opening direction opening up- if people are willing to listen. The Sun Microsystems CEO’s blog is a great example…

As far as non-traditional business practices, I’m hoping that time allocation (google was the example in the book) is one of the first things to change. I’m seeing 3-day weekends becoming the norm fairly soon…. And if not, I'm holding out hope for fiesta or aloha Fridays...

Wikinomics Chapter 8

Chapter 8: The Global Plant Floor

Seriously? I’m starting to get annoyed with this book. Perhaps I’m being too critical, but it seems like the authors are just stating the obvious about the state of the world. Something I could figure out by skimming a newspaper. Maybe this book is geared towards those who are out of touch with technology or live under a rock… on an island… far, far away.

First, look at the examples given: Apple, Intel, Boeing, BMW. What do these firms have in common? Oh that’s right, they’re already successful. They’re names are recognized around the world and have been for quite some time.

The key element of this chapter is integrating supply chains into networks. This seems like a logical procession from the development of competitive advantages. I’m good at this, you’re good at that, so together, we can have a great product or be efficient, whatever the case may be. So then the supply chain evolved and now it’s the network. Instead of a typical supply chain,

We get:

Or something like that….

It is interesting that BMW is a prime example. I guess they’re safety standards are at an optimal point already and everyone is aware of that. (?). Also BMW has built up its brand so everyone equates BMW with high quality. In an undergrad management course, I remember the professor telling us that even if GM was 99% accurate in putting together its cars there would still be thousands of safety related problems per year. So it is kind of startling to me to think of BMW’s being put together and just working. Same goes for Boeing. It makes sense though that BMW would choose to concentrate on its marketing, etc. and leave the dirty work to up and coming specialists who are experts in digital engineering. I think the authors try to differentiate this “global collaboration” from outsourcing, but it is one and the same.

The authors also insinuate (not too subtly ) that BMW should open up even further. Yes, it works for Amazon because they sell books (and assorted other products). They don’t sell vehicles which we view as safe little bubbles that transport us from here to there. Book accidents don’t kill people, but car crashes do. Slight difference.

Finally, at the end the authors encourage the readers to ponder the global plant floor + healthcare. I’m just not feeling it.

Wikinomics-Chapter 7

Chapter 7: Platforms for Participation

It took me until the middle of this chapter to figure out exactly what “platforms” are. From what I understand, they provide a foundation upon which collaboration is placed. The main examples used (eBay, Amazon, and Google) don’t really seem like platforms for collaboration to me though. But maybe that’s because I’m looking at this as a consumer, not a developer. Also, the Amazon success story sounds really great, but I feel that capitalism is still at work and collaboration is still an ideal. Was Amazon operating the same way before they were raking in the big bucks? Probably not. I think that once organizations have established themselves as very successful, it’s much easier to participate in novel business practices because they already have financial security.

The People Finder that was formed in the aftermath of Katrina was really inspiring. Normally, the system would have taken a lot of capital to develop. But it is amazing what can get done when it has to. Why aren’t great things like this happening every day? No sense of urgency? People aren’t motivated to things unless they’re going to get something out of it?

As far as government information being available to the public, I think it’s long overdue. I’m not sure what the status of information is now, but I’m sure it’s not where it should be. The area where I have experience is legal research. LexisNexis and Westlaw have taken every statute, every case, etc. from every jurisdiction and organized it all in a way that it is (somewhat) easy to find what you are looking for. You can search by issue, by statute by case, by party name, etc. The catch is that they charge hundreds of dollars per search. (as law students, we get free access to both). Anything that is “public” information should be available (and easily searched) for free.

I just checked out Scorecard and although the data for Leon County is a little old…. It is still a good start.

Follow Up on Ch. 6

An article on Slate about the less than up to date laws...


Actually, it's a series and this article is on point too. I think Lessig (quoted in the article) is the law professor quoted in Wikinomics also.

Tolerated Use: The Copyright Problem

In case you don't feel like reading the whole article, this quote sums it up:

"The formal result of that is what we have today: a copyright law that covers almost everything we do in the digital world.

But the paradox is that the current law is so expansive and extreme that the very firms that first sought it cannot even make use of it. Nor would they want to. In a well-functioning political system, the copyright law might be reformed in a grand negotiation between all interested parties, with the long-term goal of separating out the harmful infringement from the harmless. But in 21^st-century America, that's not a result our political system is capable of reaching."

Wikinomics Chapter 6

Chapter 6- New Alexandrians

While reading this chapter, I kept thinking to myself, where does this fit in? What does this chapter have to do with anything and why did they put it here? Supposedly the New Alexandrians are organizations, individuals, and the like who fathom the importance of “openness.”

An example is the Human Genome Project. It would make sense that the aggregate of the knowledge of millions of scientists and researchers working together would be more effective and efficient than if they were working independently. In the case of this project, it was true. However, Chapter 6 offers evidence that pharmaceutical developments are not advancing at the rate that they should be (or we would expect them to be.) The authors try to explain how software open sourcing is much easier than scientific research. But, shouldn’t they be using software to do the scientific research?

In my notes, I wrote down that competition does not equal innovation. I’m not sure what that means, but what I think I had in mind was that this is the same problem all over again: incentives are not aligned. Pharmaceutical companies are not out to save the world or eradicate every disease. These companies make products to keep you alive enough to sell you more products that solve problems you did not even know you had. Have you ever listened to/read the side effects of sleeping pills like Lunesta, etc.? Seriously, I’d rather lay awake all night than have to deal with memory loss, dizziness, lightheadedness, changes in behavior and thinking, withdrawal, Etc. But, I digress. So, although there is competition, pharmaceutical companies can be profitable without saving the world. University partnerships might be a step in the right direction.

Finally, the last point I have written down is: is law keeping up with society? I would have to say-negative. But has it ever? No. As far as IP rights, there are public policy, ethical, and legal arguments. But seeing as how it’s taken this long to get IP protection where it is now, I don’t think the courts (or congress) are going to rush into any scaling back efforts. So where does that leave us? In the grey area, as usual.

Wikinomics-Chapter 5

Chapter 5- Prosumers

Prosumers seem like the next logical step from customer customization such as NikeID products, etc. What better way to guarantee the success of a product than to let customer design it themselves. This chapter compares “hacking” and “creating.” Two sides of the same coin. Whatever you call it, it’s going to happen. The key is to turn it into a positive (creating) and capitalize on it. (ie, Lego)

Secondlife:

At first I thought it was ridiculous. Now, after reading and learning, I’m tempted to try it out. Stories like that of “Anshe Chung” (who has made a lot of money in secondlife) make me think, why am I not getting in before this thing takes off and making money? On the other side, my “first life” takes up a lot of my time. The thing about these communities is that it’s kind of like a black hole for time. But maybe that’s what some people are looking for, an escape from their first life. Aside from interesting income tax conundrums, it will be fascinating to see where second life ends up. (That is, where the “prosumers” take it)

YouTube:

YouTube offers a great video library. It’s been going on for a few years, but I always thought that people who had videos on their MySpace and Facebook pages were ridiculous. It was too overwhelming. But I recently discovered the greatness of YouTube when I wanted to share a certain segment of the “Gingervitis” South Park Episode with my sister. While this mass compilation of videos is an awesome tool, there are many concerns. For example, the UF “Don’t taser me, bro” incident. While the kid clearly knew what he was doing, the UF police looked like morons. I don’t have a problem with that, but if you are UF, it gives a whole new meaning to negative press. And on an individual level, my friend always jokes that he can never run for office because there are too many YouTube videos of him singing bad karaoke. While funny, it is also true.

In conclusion, Prosumers… True? False? Good? Bad? Innovative? What does the instant gratification generation do when they get what they want? They want more

Wikinomics Chapter 4

Ideagoras are places (websites) where companies can “post” problems/issues and receive solutions. Although they do end up paying, the process is much cheaper than investing millions in R&D. To me, it seems more beneficial to firms than open source products because it allows matching problems with solutions. Once again, I see major conflicts stemming from IP Rights disputes. The authors point out that it is harder to transfer ideas and technology. With EBay, tangible property is being bought, but with sites such as innocentive.com and yet2.com, it allows for some ambiguity. I just skimmed the innocentive.com FAQ and it appears that the “solver” must transfer ownership of IP rights over to the “seeker” before accepting the cash reward. Rewards typically range from $10,000 to $100,000. If you came up with something really great, couldn’t you make more than $100,000 by patenting or copyrighting it yourself? I guess there’s always that option before you sign it away. Ideagoras seem great for businesses for certain types of “problems.” It would not be wise to place too much in the hands of an innovator who doesn’t even work for your company.

I’m not sure what type of requirements there are for submitting a solution, but ideagoras coud potentially give rise to very diverse solutions. A grad student in India or a Russian chemist could submit solutions, thus making the world that much smaller. On the flip side, firms in other countries could try to utilize this resource to get ahead. Citizens from other countries could potentially benefit and contribute to our economy without even being physically present.

In the last part of the chapter, the book talks about competing without innovation (ex: Dell v. HP). I think it is only a matter of time before firms will not be able to compete without innovating. Products and services are being updated way too fast for a firm to stand still. In today’s economy, if companies don’t improve their product, consumers will still desire the next step and find a way to implement it themselves.

Wikinomics Chapter 3

Peer Pioneers:

This chapter delves into peer pioneers and gives more examples.
One point that is made is that in favor of these open source communities is that the contributors are individuals, not employees of a specific company. I think this argument goes both ways though. While it is a lot cheaper for companies to use open source than pay their employees to create something, there is no guarantee that they are going to get the exact product that they need. There is problem with incentives may be unaligned. The communities are not profit driven while companies are. When a company embraces this new way of doing things, it gives up control which is unsettling to many managers. Also, as IBM learned, employees have to learn to play by the ‘community’ rules where a sort of organic hierarchy emerges.

On the other side, the great thing about open source is that through constantly improving, it eases the implementation and testing part challenges of introducing new software. Bugs are eradicated almost immediately.

An interesting discord exists between the commons and private sector. (socialism v. capitalism??) I think that open source is a new sort of commons. Generally, it is a small number of people working for the good of all of society. It is interesting to me because the problems with commons typically are that of social loafing, free riders, etc. I’m not sure if the problem is magnified here or if it can be avoided by redefining who is included in the ‘commons.’ Perhaps this is merely more evidence of the technology revolution. Do we have to decide between what’s best for the commons (or society in general) or keeping or economy going (by promoting capitalism)? Are we making ourselves obsolete by allowing open source to find solutions for everyone? Or are the old encyclopedia salesman going to be able to find a new job since wikipedia has put them out of business? The authors seem to think that it is possible in the pharmaceutical industry to increase the overall welfare of society while still keeping it competitive.

After this chapter, I understand more of the benefits and advantage to open sourcing and “peer” productions. Applying this to the business context, for me it underlines how important it is to be flexible and to constantly keep getting better. Because the moment you become complacent because you think you’re ahead with your amazing product, the competition is going to be coming up with something better. And everyone is a competitor. If any end user sees a way to improve upon your product or make something better, it is now possible for them to compete on a large scale. (ex: the guy who started UnderArmour, Google, Etc.)

Wikinomics Chapter 2

Call me greedy, but I’m having trouble understanding how people benefit from giving stuff away for free. Like the author who publishes “e-books.” How does that pay the bills? One time while traveling, I stumbled upon an author who was doing a book signing for her book (“West of the Equator”) and I was really interested in buying the book because had heard of a different book with the same general story line but from a much earlier time period. I didn’t have any cash on me because I was at the beach, so she just gave me a copy of the book. I read it, enjoyed it, and made my mom read it. Other than that, I haven’t done a lot of promoting. It is kind of similar with the music industry, I think that’s why Sony did what they did in trying to protect cd’s from being copied. But now we have ITunes and similar programs where you can download songs for fairly cheap. Also, MySpace allowing people to put songs on their profiles, is kind of an example of free advertisement and promotion by sharing for free. Personally, when I want to explore new music, I search MySpace music by the genre I’m in the mood for.

About Blogging:

I remember when I used to just look at people’s homepages. But now with the ease of blogging, anyone can put whatever they want out there. I used to think that blogs were all about self-indulgence and that people should just buy a journal or go to therapy. But now, I think that blogs have evolved. I’m ok with blogging with a purpose. For example, browsing people’s travel blogs is a way to get ideas about where and what to visit. In my future travels, I will probably try to do one of my own.

The Net Generation:

Tapscott (author 1) is a Canadian who is around 60 years old. (I found this on Wikipedia). I wonder how he did research about the “Net Geneartion. Is he analyzing from the outside or did he get an inside perspective? Either way, I think he is fairly accurate. I consider myself part of the net generation. I think that the best part is that we have questions and we find a way to answer them. Because we are “skeptical of authority” and “scrutinizers,” it pushes emergence and evolution even faster. Instead of complaining about things we change them. There are positives, but how are we going to run the world? How will our internet and social networking expertise affect the way we run businesses? What happens when we oversee the IT people who make sure employees are not accessing MySpace or Facebook from work computers? It’s a little scary.

Wikinomics-Chapter 1

Wikinomics: Sharing. Starts with the example of the gold company that opened their operation to everyone and they got back accurate guesses as to where the next gold deposits would be found. It sounds good because it worked. But what if it didn’t work? Is that possible or does sharing mean that things are going to improve and going to work? While this process sounds great in theory, I’d be a little hesitant to share a lot of my business for free with the hopes of it growing and getting better. Hopefully this book will convince me otherwise.

Linux is always the example but is that just the techie way of doing things? Look at apple, the first computer, those hippies that didn’t get rich weren’t upset, they were just glad that they were able to be a part of it. I’m skeptical as to the applications of “wikinomics.” In some industries- for example pharmaceuticals- I think it could be great. We need answer to problems and the best way if for everyone to put their heads together…As the book mentions, companies could still stay profitable b/c of patents, etc. But I’m not sure how this type of collaboration would affect competition in other industries.

As far as Web 2.0. I am fascinated. I started using the internet when I was 12 or 13. E-mail was super fun, but only a few of my friends had email. So my other favorite internet past times were checking out people “homepages,” compiling cool quotes, seeing what went on in the chatrooms I was not supposed to be in, and playing music trivia games. I think that what the internet has become now is a compilation of those chat rooms and homepages. They have merged into “social networking” sites. I think Facebook and MySpace, just to name a few, are changing personal relationships and friendships as we know them. In some ways, they’re great tools to sort of keep tabs on old friends and friends that are spread out around the world. The downside is that it is hard to maintain privacy. Back to technology, I think that these sites are, in a way, a response to the advent of new personal devices (blackberries, PDA, iphones, etc.) A lot of times, new technology has efficiency at its root and so it cuts down on face to face time. As a result, people join these communities to still feel as if they’re getting that human interaction and that they still belong.