Empfohlen
Weitere ähnliche Inhalte
Andere mochten auch
Ähnlich wie Learn Trends 2009 O Driscoll Nobuild
Ähnlich wie Learn Trends 2009 O Driscoll Nobuild (20)
Mehr von tonyodriscoll
Mehr von tonyodriscoll (13)
Kürzlich hochgeladen
Kürzlich hochgeladen (20)
Learn Trends 2009 O Driscoll Nobuild
- 1. Dr. Tony O’Driscoll Fuqua School of Business, Duke University The IMMernet Singularity How the Immersive Internet will Redefine Enterprise Learning and Collaboration
- 4. Slide: History Lesson 1585-1587
- 5. Slide: History Lesson 1585-1587
- 6. Slide: History Lesson 1585-1587
- 7. Slide: History Lesson 1585-1587
- 8. Slide: History Lesson 1585-1587
- 9. Slide: Mind the TRAP ! Now that we are moving from factory work to anytime, anyplace work, we need an anytime anyplace educational parallel.
- 10. Slide: Crossing the Chasm Knowing Formal Content Topic Learning Doing Informal Context Task Performing http://www.flickr.com/photos/hansvandevorst/216877526/
- 11. Slide: Seven Scary Problems Autonomous Learner Timing Packaging Performance Routinization Value Transfer Seven Scary Problems
- 12. Formal Informal Learning Performance Productivity Growth Compounded Marginalization Autonomous Learner Timing Packaging
- 13. Formal Informal Learning Performance Productivity Growth Compounded Marginalization Autonomous Learner Timing Packaging Performance
- 14. Formal Informal Learning Performance Productivity Growth Compounded Marginalization Autonomous Learner Timing Packaging Performance Routinization
- 15. Formal Informal Learning Performance Productivity Growth Compounded Marginalization Autonomous Learner Timing Packaging Performance Routinization Transfer
- 16. Slide: Web volution Connect “ TO” Connect “ THROUGH” Connect “ WITHIN”
- 17. Web 2.0 = UG X You Tube = User Generated CONTENT Digg = User Generated FILTERING del.icio.us = User Generated ORGANIZATION Blogs = User Generated COMMENTARY Technorati = User Generated PRIORITIZATION RSS = User Generated DISTRIBUTION Tags = User Generated TAXONOMY
- 18. Oxymoron Jumbo Shrimp Military Intelligence Death Benefit Civil War
- 19. KM 2.0 SOCIAL COMPUTING = KM 2.0
- 20. Slide: From / To STOCKS FLOWS
- 21. i-web
- 22. 2D Synchronous Learning Knowledge Sharing Spaces SharePoint Lotus Connections Groove Yahoo Groups Blackboard Webex Adobe Centra LiveMeeting Citrix Illuminate i-web
- 23. 2D Synchronous Learning Knowledge Sharing Spaces NETWORK ed Virtual Spaces SharePoint Lotus Connections Groove Yahoo Groups Blackboard Webex Adobe Centra LiveMeeting Citrix Illuminate i-web
- 24. 2D Synchronous Learning Web 2.0 Technologies Knowledge Sharing Spaces Webex Adobe Centra LiveMeeting Citrix Illuminate Blogs Wikis Tagging RSS Social Media SharePoint Lotus Connections Groove Yahoo Groups Blackboard NETWORK ed Virtual Spaces i-web
- 25. 2D Synchronous Learning Web 2.0 Technologies Knowledge Sharing Spaces Webex Adobe Centra LiveMeeting Citrix Illuminate Blogs Wikis Tagging RSS Social Media SharePoint Lotus Connections Groove Yahoo Groups Blackboard NETWORK ed Virtual Spaces i-web Dynamic KNOWLEDGE Discovery
- 26. 2D Synchronous Learning Web 2.0 Technologies Knowledge Sharing Spaces Webex Adobe Centra LiveMeeting Citrix Illuminate Blogs Wikis Tagging RSS Social Media SharePoint Lotus Connections Groove Yahoo Groups Blackboard NETWORK ed Virtual Spaces i-web Dynamic KNOWLEDGE Discovery Virtual World Technologies SecondLife Blue Mars ProtoSphere Teleplace Venuegen Olive
- 27. 2D Synchronous Learning Web 2.0 Technologies Knowledge Sharing Spaces Webex Adobe Centra LiveMeeting Citrix Illuminate Blogs Wikis Tagging RSS Social Media SharePoint Lotus Connections Groove Yahoo Groups Blackboard NETWORK ed Virtual Spaces i-web Dynamic KNOWLEDGE Discovery Virtual World Technologies SecondLife Blue Mars ProtoSphere Teleplace Venuegen Olive 3D Social Net WORK ing
- 28. 2D Synchronous Learning Web 2.0 Technologies Knowledge Sharing Spaces Webex Adobe Centra LiveMeeting Citrix Illuminate Blogs Wikis Tagging RSS Social Media SharePoint Lotus Connections Groove Yahoo Groups Blackboard NETWORK ed Virtual Spaces i-web Dynamic KNOWLEDGE Discovery Virtual World Technologies SecondLife Blue Mars ProtoSphere Teleplace Venuegen Olive 3D Social Net WORK ing 3D Synchronous LEARN ing
- 29. 2D Synchronous Learning Web 2.0 Technologies Knowledge Sharing Spaces Webex Adobe Centra LiveMeeting Citrix Illuminate Blogs Wikis Tagging RSS Social Media SharePoint Lotus Connections Groove Yahoo Groups Blackboard NETWORK ed Virtual Spaces i-web Dynamic KNOWLEDGE Discovery Virtual World Technologies SecondLife Blue Mars ProtoSphere Teleplace Venuegen Olive 3D Social Net WORK ing 3D Synchronous LEARN ing Immersive Interactive Intuitive Immediate
- 30. Knowledge Sharing Spaces NETWORK ed Virtual Spaces i-web Dynamic KNOWLEDGE Discovery 3D Social Net WORK ing 3D Synchronous LEARN ing Immersive Interactive Intuitive Immediate
- 31. Immersive Interactive Intuitive Immediate i-web
- 32. i-web
- 33. Slide: New Value Chain Information = Currency Individuals = Transport Interaction = Transfer Insight = Outcome i 4
- 34. Slide: Here Comes Everybody
Hinweis der Redaktion
- Web 1.0 is was all about the democratization of access. Industries like Financial Services, Banking, Retail, Travel and Government predictably saw value in providing their customers with access to information about their accounts so they could drive more transactions and thus generate more fees. Support industries to Web 1.0 like Technology Services, IT and Telecom rode the wave to support these industries in bringing the access value proposition to their clients Web 2.0 is all about the democratizaiton of participation and collaboration. Industries like Media and Entertainment, Publishing and Education see this as a discontinuity and threat to their meat and potatoes (or couch potato) audience that were traditionally passive consumers of media/content. This generation is NOT passive. They want to interact, collaborate and co-create. They want to be engaged in the creative process rather than just being a consumer of it. Murdoch sees this and bought MySpace. Google sees it and bought You Tube and we are witnessing a huge redefinition of how the Media and Entertainment industry develops and distributes content and a shift in business models around that new dynamic in how they extract value from the market for doing so. The democratization of participation and collaboration is also buttressed by a new set of economic platforms and a redefinition of the employer/employee contract. Sites such as e-Bay provide a platform for member driven value creation. The people who generate incomes from eBay are not eBay employees, they participate in the use of the platform provided by eBay (and Paypal etc...) to allow them to create their own value. Furthermore when we move into the research that we have been doing in MMORPGs it is clear the economies and affordance structures play a huge part in making the experience a success. So, as we shift from Web 1.0 to 2.0 it is not only the value proposition that is changing (i.e. From Access to Participation/Collaboration) but the underlying economic model that incents participation without requiring employment that is very interesting. As we move to the intersection of Web 2.0 and Web 3D we see another phenomenon. The democratizaiton of co-creation. A solid 2D example of this is Wikipedia. A collaboratively created dictionary for the world. Created by a volunteer workforce for the benefit of everyone worldwide. (Note similar parallels to the linux movement). Thus the notion of virtual co-creation is firmly established as a pattern at the edge of Web 2.0 With the advent of Web 3D we see significant opportunities for collaboration and innovation. Innovation is a creative process. It is socially constructed and emerges from interactivity. The 3D enviromnent is naturally suited to that and so it is only a matter of time before we move from Web 1.0 (Democratization of Access) to Web 2.0 (Democratization of Participation and Collaboration) to Web 3D (Enablement of true generative learning and co-creation distributed virtually across the world). If we believe Schrage that the prototype is the engine of innovation we now have a socially immersive environment where people all around the world can convene to communicate, collaborate and co-create in real time. If we look at Second Life and how that metaverse is set up where anyone can create anything using primitives, it is essentially establishing a platform that allows individuals to generate value without having to be an employee of 2L. Furthermore, it is providing a true collaborative environment where prototypes can be created and played with to make them better. Beyond that, the economy within the world allows us to examine in-world use that can help inform potentials for anything from business models to new automobile versions to be proved out before a penny is spent on atom based prototyping. An initial analysis of activity in the Metaverse coded by Function and Industry suggests that some industries are entering the metaverse more expediently than others, also we are seeing some patterns in how they are doing so: Leading with Learning and leading to Workforce Optimization or leading with Marketing and leading to Innovation/New Product development are two prevailing patterns (see pages 46-48). Given the success we had in providing support for Web 1.0 and 2.0, it seems only logical that we should be getting out ahead of the curve here to understand how we can be prepared to help our clients with the significant technological hurdles that will be required to participate in the value potential that the 3D web proposes. Notes from Jim S: This is a great deck and starts to get at the value proposition statement very well. One suggestion --- "democratization" (while a wonderful thing) should probably be replaced with "entrepreneurial capitalism" (search for Carl Schramm and Kauffman Foundation for deeper explanation of entrepreneurial capitalism). Per our discussion the other day, the megatrend that is happening is that entrepreneurs are creating "platforms" so instead of just having "employees" work for them, then are enabling "members or citizens" to work for them, and the entrepreneur gets a percentage ("tax"). The way to think about it, is to imagine you opened up a new nation, and people moved there, became citizens and started paying taxes. You get to make the rules and tax people. But why would anyone move to your nations -- short answer is better roads, telephones, and opportunities to work (create and capture value). So let's look at how these "platforms" versus "nations" analogy works for different players: eBay platform -- members can buy and sell, and eBay gets to tax each transaction (building up a reputation dossier on everyone, to make the world safer for commerce - governments keep citizens safe). Amazon platform -- members can add links to books, etc. to their own website, and if someone buys via their link, Amazon gives them a small percentage. Google platform - members can add AdLinks to their own website, and if somone clicks and buys via their link, Google gives them a small percentage. SecondLife plaftorm - members create products and services to sell, and SecondLife provides the infrastructure and currency markets in Linden dollars (the most direct analogy to setting up an "island nation"). The interesting thing to me is that most businesses in the real world need employees to make money (not all, but most) -- however, platform providers have a small number of employees that run the platform, but a large number fo members or citizens. The entrepreneurs generate wealth proportional to the number of members or citizens, more like a nation. Solow production functions for economic growth show that production increases in proportion to population, capital intensity, and knowledge and innovation growth. Entrepreneurial capitalists are trying to create platforms that enable members/citizens to do work that they would have to pay employees to do, and the member/citizens are willing to do the work without being an employee, because they too are entrepreneurial capitalists with opportunities to create value and be rewarded for it. In sum, I would suggest changing democratization to something more akin to entrepreneurial capitalism providing new platforms to allow people to create and capture value (Linden dollars, reputation, real dollars, etc.).
- Web 1.0 is was all about the democratization of access. Industries like Financial Services, Banking, Retail, Travel and Government predictably saw value in providing their customers with access to information about their accounts so they could drive more transactions and thus generate more fees. Support industries to Web 1.0 like Technology Services, IT and Telecom rode the wave to support these industries in bringing the access value proposition to their clients Web 2.0 is all about the democratizaiton of participation and collaboration. Industries like Media and Entertainment, Publishing and Education see this as a discontinuity and threat to their meat and potatoes (or couch potato) audience that were traditionally passive consumers of media/content. This generation is NOT passive. They want to interact, collaborate and co-create. They want to be engaged in the creative process rather than just being a consumer of it. Murdoch sees this and bought MySpace. Google sees it and bought You Tube and we are witnessing a huge redefinition of how the Media and Entertainment industry develops and distributes content and a shift in business models around that new dynamic in how they extract value from the market for doing so. The democratization of participation and collaboration is also buttressed by a new set of economic platforms and a redefinition of the employer/employee contract. Sites such as e-Bay provide a platform for member driven value creation. The people who generate incomes from eBay are not eBay employees, they participate in the use of the platform provided by eBay (and Paypal etc...) to allow them to create their own value. Furthermore when we move into the research that we have been doing in MMORPGs it is clear the economies and affordance structures play a huge part in making the experience a success. So, as we shift from Web 1.0 to 2.0 it is not only the value proposition that is changing (i.e. From Access to Participation/Collaboration) but the underlying economic model that incents participation without requiring employment that is very interesting. As we move to the intersection of Web 2.0 and Web 3D we see another phenomenon. The democratizaiton of co-creation. A solid 2D example of this is Wikipedia. A collaboratively created dictionary for the world. Created by a volunteer workforce for the benefit of everyone worldwide. (Note similar parallels to the linux movement). Thus the notion of virtual co-creation is firmly established as a pattern at the edge of Web 2.0 With the advent of Web 3D we see significant opportunities for collaboration and innovation. Innovation is a creative process. It is socially constructed and emerges from interactivity. The 3D enviromnent is naturally suited to that and so it is only a matter of time before we move from Web 1.0 (Democratization of Access) to Web 2.0 (Democratization of Participation and Collaboration) to Web 3D (Enablement of true generative learning and co-creation distributed virtually across the world). If we believe Schrage that the prototype is the engine of innovation we now have a socially immersive environment where people all around the world can convene to communicate, collaborate and co-create in real time. If we look at Second Life and how that metaverse is set up where anyone can create anything using primitives, it is essentially establishing a platform that allows individuals to generate value without having to be an employee of 2L. Furthermore, it is providing a true collaborative environment where prototypes can be created and played with to make them better. Beyond that, the economy within the world allows us to examine in-world use that can help inform potentials for anything from business models to new automobile versions to be proved out before a penny is spent on atom based prototyping. An initial analysis of activity in the Metaverse coded by Function and Industry suggests that some industries are entering the metaverse more expediently than others, also we are seeing some patterns in how they are doing so: Leading with Learning and leading to Workforce Optimization or leading with Marketing and leading to Innovation/New Product development are two prevailing patterns (see pages 46-48). Given the success we had in providing support for Web 1.0 and 2.0, it seems only logical that we should be getting out ahead of the curve here to understand how we can be prepared to help our clients with the significant technological hurdles that will be required to participate in the value potential that the 3D web proposes. Notes from Jim S: This is a great deck and starts to get at the value proposition statement very well. One suggestion --- "democratization" (while a wonderful thing) should probably be replaced with "entrepreneurial capitalism" (search for Carl Schramm and Kauffman Foundation for deeper explanation of entrepreneurial capitalism). Per our discussion the other day, the megatrend that is happening is that entrepreneurs are creating "platforms" so instead of just having "employees" work for them, then are enabling "members or citizens" to work for them, and the entrepreneur gets a percentage ("tax"). The way to think about it, is to imagine you opened up a new nation, and people moved there, became citizens and started paying taxes. You get to make the rules and tax people. But why would anyone move to your nations -- short answer is better roads, telephones, and opportunities to work (create and capture value). So let's look at how these "platforms" versus "nations" analogy works for different players: eBay platform -- members can buy and sell, and eBay gets to tax each transaction (building up a reputation dossier on everyone, to make the world safer for commerce - governments keep citizens safe). Amazon platform -- members can add links to books, etc. to their own website, and if someone buys via their link, Amazon gives them a small percentage. Google platform - members can add AdLinks to their own website, and if somone clicks and buys via their link, Google gives them a small percentage. SecondLife plaftorm - members create products and services to sell, and SecondLife provides the infrastructure and currency markets in Linden dollars (the most direct analogy to setting up an "island nation"). The interesting thing to me is that most businesses in the real world need employees to make money (not all, but most) -- however, platform providers have a small number of employees that run the platform, but a large number fo members or citizens. The entrepreneurs generate wealth proportional to the number of members or citizens, more like a nation. Solow production functions for economic growth show that production increases in proportion to population, capital intensity, and knowledge and innovation growth. Entrepreneurial capitalists are trying to create platforms that enable members/citizens to do work that they would have to pay employees to do, and the member/citizens are willing to do the work without being an employee, because they too are entrepreneurial capitalists with opportunities to create value and be rewarded for it. In sum, I would suggest changing democratization to something more akin to entrepreneurial capitalism providing new platforms to allow people to create and capture value (Linden dollars, reputation, real dollars, etc.).
- Web 1.0 is was all about the democratization of access. Industries like Financial Services, Banking, Retail, Travel and Government predictably saw value in providing their customers with access to information about their accounts so they could drive more transactions and thus generate more fees. Support industries to Web 1.0 like Technology Services, IT and Telecom rode the wave to support these industries in bringing the access value proposition to their clients Web 2.0 is all about the democratizaiton of participation and collaboration. Industries like Media and Entertainment, Publishing and Education see this as a discontinuity and threat to their meat and potatoes (or couch potato) audience that were traditionally passive consumers of media/content. This generation is NOT passive. They want to interact, collaborate and co-create. They want to be engaged in the creative process rather than just being a consumer of it. Murdoch sees this and bought MySpace. Google sees it and bought You Tube and we are witnessing a huge redefinition of how the Media and Entertainment industry develops and distributes content and a shift in business models around that new dynamic in how they extract value from the market for doing so. The democratization of participation and collaboration is also buttressed by a new set of economic platforms and a redefinition of the employer/employee contract. Sites such as e-Bay provide a platform for member driven value creation. The people who generate incomes from eBay are not eBay employees, they participate in the use of the platform provided by eBay (and Paypal etc...) to allow them to create their own value. Furthermore when we move into the research that we have been doing in MMORPGs it is clear the economies and affordance structures play a huge part in making the experience a success. So, as we shift from Web 1.0 to 2.0 it is not only the value proposition that is changing (i.e. From Access to Participation/Collaboration) but the underlying economic model that incents participation without requiring employment that is very interesting. As we move to the intersection of Web 2.0 and Web 3D we see another phenomenon. The democratizaiton of co-creation. A solid 2D example of this is Wikipedia. A collaboratively created dictionary for the world. Created by a volunteer workforce for the benefit of everyone worldwide. (Note similar parallels to the linux movement). Thus the notion of virtual co-creation is firmly established as a pattern at the edge of Web 2.0 With the advent of Web 3D we see significant opportunities for collaboration and innovation. Innovation is a creative process. It is socially constructed and emerges from interactivity. The 3D enviromnent is naturally suited to that and so it is only a matter of time before we move from Web 1.0 (Democratization of Access) to Web 2.0 (Democratization of Participation and Collaboration) to Web 3D (Enablement of true generative learning and co-creation distributed virtually across the world). If we believe Schrage that the prototype is the engine of innovation we now have a socially immersive environment where people all around the world can convene to communicate, collaborate and co-create in real time. If we look at Second Life and how that metaverse is set up where anyone can create anything using primitives, it is essentially establishing a platform that allows individuals to generate value without having to be an employee of 2L. Furthermore, it is providing a true collaborative environment where prototypes can be created and played with to make them better. Beyond that, the economy within the world allows us to examine in-world use that can help inform potentials for anything from business models to new automobile versions to be proved out before a penny is spent on atom based prototyping. An initial analysis of activity in the Metaverse coded by Function and Industry suggests that some industries are entering the metaverse more expediently than others, also we are seeing some patterns in how they are doing so: Leading with Learning and leading to Workforce Optimization or leading with Marketing and leading to Innovation/New Product development are two prevailing patterns (see pages 46-48). Given the success we had in providing support for Web 1.0 and 2.0, it seems only logical that we should be getting out ahead of the curve here to understand how we can be prepared to help our clients with the significant technological hurdles that will be required to participate in the value potential that the 3D web proposes. Notes from Jim S: This is a great deck and starts to get at the value proposition statement very well. One suggestion --- "democratization" (while a wonderful thing) should probably be replaced with "entrepreneurial capitalism" (search for Carl Schramm and Kauffman Foundation for deeper explanation of entrepreneurial capitalism). Per our discussion the other day, the megatrend that is happening is that entrepreneurs are creating "platforms" so instead of just having "employees" work for them, then are enabling "members or citizens" to work for them, and the entrepreneur gets a percentage ("tax"). The way to think about it, is to imagine you opened up a new nation, and people moved there, became citizens and started paying taxes. You get to make the rules and tax people. But why would anyone move to your nations -- short answer is better roads, telephones, and opportunities to work (create and capture value). So let's look at how these "platforms" versus "nations" analogy works for different players: eBay platform -- members can buy and sell, and eBay gets to tax each transaction (building up a reputation dossier on everyone, to make the world safer for commerce - governments keep citizens safe). Amazon platform -- members can add links to books, etc. to their own website, and if someone buys via their link, Amazon gives them a small percentage. Google platform - members can add AdLinks to their own website, and if somone clicks and buys via their link, Google gives them a small percentage. SecondLife plaftorm - members create products and services to sell, and SecondLife provides the infrastructure and currency markets in Linden dollars (the most direct analogy to setting up an "island nation"). The interesting thing to me is that most businesses in the real world need employees to make money (not all, but most) -- however, platform providers have a small number of employees that run the platform, but a large number fo members or citizens. The entrepreneurs generate wealth proportional to the number of members or citizens, more like a nation. Solow production functions for economic growth show that production increases in proportion to population, capital intensity, and knowledge and innovation growth. Entrepreneurial capitalists are trying to create platforms that enable members/citizens to do work that they would have to pay employees to do, and the member/citizens are willing to do the work without being an employee, because they too are entrepreneurial capitalists with opportunities to create value and be rewarded for it. In sum, I would suggest changing democratization to something more akin to entrepreneurial capitalism providing new platforms to allow people to create and capture value (Linden dollars, reputation, real dollars, etc.).
- Web 1.0 is was all about the democratization of access. Industries like Financial Services, Banking, Retail, Travel and Government predictably saw value in providing their customers with access to information about their accounts so they could drive more transactions and thus generate more fees. Support industries to Web 1.0 like Technology Services, IT and Telecom rode the wave to support these industries in bringing the access value proposition to their clients Web 2.0 is all about the democratizaiton of participation and collaboration. Industries like Media and Entertainment, Publishing and Education see this as a discontinuity and threat to their meat and potatoes (or couch potato) audience that were traditionally passive consumers of media/content. This generation is NOT passive. They want to interact, collaborate and co-create. They want to be engaged in the creative process rather than just being a consumer of it. Murdoch sees this and bought MySpace. Google sees it and bought You Tube and we are witnessing a huge redefinition of how the Media and Entertainment industry develops and distributes content and a shift in business models around that new dynamic in how they extract value from the market for doing so. The democratization of participation and collaboration is also buttressed by a new set of economic platforms and a redefinition of the employer/employee contract. Sites such as e-Bay provide a platform for member driven value creation. The people who generate incomes from eBay are not eBay employees, they participate in the use of the platform provided by eBay (and Paypal etc...) to allow them to create their own value. Furthermore when we move into the research that we have been doing in MMORPGs it is clear the economies and affordance structures play a huge part in making the experience a success. So, as we shift from Web 1.0 to 2.0 it is not only the value proposition that is changing (i.e. From Access to Participation/Collaboration) but the underlying economic model that incents participation without requiring employment that is very interesting. As we move to the intersection of Web 2.0 and Web 3D we see another phenomenon. The democratizaiton of co-creation. A solid 2D example of this is Wikipedia. A collaboratively created dictionary for the world. Created by a volunteer workforce for the benefit of everyone worldwide. (Note similar parallels to the linux movement). Thus the notion of virtual co-creation is firmly established as a pattern at the edge of Web 2.0 With the advent of Web 3D we see significant opportunities for collaboration and innovation. Innovation is a creative process. It is socially constructed and emerges from interactivity. The 3D enviromnent is naturally suited to that and so it is only a matter of time before we move from Web 1.0 (Democratization of Access) to Web 2.0 (Democratization of Participation and Collaboration) to Web 3D (Enablement of true generative learning and co-creation distributed virtually across the world). If we believe Schrage that the prototype is the engine of innovation we now have a socially immersive environment where people all around the world can convene to communicate, collaborate and co-create in real time. If we look at Second Life and how that metaverse is set up where anyone can create anything using primitives, it is essentially establishing a platform that allows individuals to generate value without having to be an employee of 2L. Furthermore, it is providing a true collaborative environment where prototypes can be created and played with to make them better. Beyond that, the economy within the world allows us to examine in-world use that can help inform potentials for anything from business models to new automobile versions to be proved out before a penny is spent on atom based prototyping. An initial analysis of activity in the Metaverse coded by Function and Industry suggests that some industries are entering the metaverse more expediently than others, also we are seeing some patterns in how they are doing so: Leading with Learning and leading to Workforce Optimization or leading with Marketing and leading to Innovation/New Product development are two prevailing patterns (see pages 46-48). Given the success we had in providing support for Web 1.0 and 2.0, it seems only logical that we should be getting out ahead of the curve here to understand how we can be prepared to help our clients with the significant technological hurdles that will be required to participate in the value potential that the 3D web proposes. Notes from Jim S: This is a great deck and starts to get at the value proposition statement very well. One suggestion --- "democratization" (while a wonderful thing) should probably be replaced with "entrepreneurial capitalism" (search for Carl Schramm and Kauffman Foundation for deeper explanation of entrepreneurial capitalism). Per our discussion the other day, the megatrend that is happening is that entrepreneurs are creating "platforms" so instead of just having "employees" work for them, then are enabling "members or citizens" to work for them, and the entrepreneur gets a percentage ("tax"). The way to think about it, is to imagine you opened up a new nation, and people moved there, became citizens and started paying taxes. You get to make the rules and tax people. But why would anyone move to your nations -- short answer is better roads, telephones, and opportunities to work (create and capture value). So let's look at how these "platforms" versus "nations" analogy works for different players: eBay platform -- members can buy and sell, and eBay gets to tax each transaction (building up a reputation dossier on everyone, to make the world safer for commerce - governments keep citizens safe). Amazon platform -- members can add links to books, etc. to their own website, and if someone buys via their link, Amazon gives them a small percentage. Google platform - members can add AdLinks to their own website, and if somone clicks and buys via their link, Google gives them a small percentage. SecondLife plaftorm - members create products and services to sell, and SecondLife provides the infrastructure and currency markets in Linden dollars (the most direct analogy to setting up an "island nation"). The interesting thing to me is that most businesses in the real world need employees to make money (not all, but most) -- however, platform providers have a small number of employees that run the platform, but a large number fo members or citizens. The entrepreneurs generate wealth proportional to the number of members or citizens, more like a nation. Solow production functions for economic growth show that production increases in proportion to population, capital intensity, and knowledge and innovation growth. Entrepreneurial capitalists are trying to create platforms that enable members/citizens to do work that they would have to pay employees to do, and the member/citizens are willing to do the work without being an employee, because they too are entrepreneurial capitalists with opportunities to create value and be rewarded for it. In sum, I would suggest changing democratization to something more akin to entrepreneurial capitalism providing new platforms to allow people to create and capture value (Linden dollars, reputation, real dollars, etc.).
- Web 1.0 is was all about the democratization of access. Industries like Financial Services, Banking, Retail, Travel and Government predictably saw value in providing their customers with access to information about their accounts so they could drive more transactions and thus generate more fees. Support industries to Web 1.0 like Technology Services, IT and Telecom rode the wave to support these industries in bringing the access value proposition to their clients Web 2.0 is all about the democratizaiton of participation and collaboration. Industries like Media and Entertainment, Publishing and Education see this as a discontinuity and threat to their meat and potatoes (or couch potato) audience that were traditionally passive consumers of media/content. This generation is NOT passive. They want to interact, collaborate and co-create. They want to be engaged in the creative process rather than just being a consumer of it. Murdoch sees this and bought MySpace. Google sees it and bought You Tube and we are witnessing a huge redefinition of how the Media and Entertainment industry develops and distributes content and a shift in business models around that new dynamic in how they extract value from the market for doing so. The democratization of participation and collaboration is also buttressed by a new set of economic platforms and a redefinition of the employer/employee contract. Sites such as e-Bay provide a platform for member driven value creation. The people who generate incomes from eBay are not eBay employees, they participate in the use of the platform provided by eBay (and Paypal etc...) to allow them to create their own value. Furthermore when we move into the research that we have been doing in MMORPGs it is clear the economies and affordance structures play a huge part in making the experience a success. So, as we shift from Web 1.0 to 2.0 it is not only the value proposition that is changing (i.e. From Access to Participation/Collaboration) but the underlying economic model that incents participation without requiring employment that is very interesting. As we move to the intersection of Web 2.0 and Web 3D we see another phenomenon. The democratizaiton of co-creation. A solid 2D example of this is Wikipedia. A collaboratively created dictionary for the world. Created by a volunteer workforce for the benefit of everyone worldwide. (Note similar parallels to the linux movement). Thus the notion of virtual co-creation is firmly established as a pattern at the edge of Web 2.0 With the advent of Web 3D we see significant opportunities for collaboration and innovation. Innovation is a creative process. It is socially constructed and emerges from interactivity. The 3D enviromnent is naturally suited to that and so it is only a matter of time before we move from Web 1.0 (Democratization of Access) to Web 2.0 (Democratization of Participation and Collaboration) to Web 3D (Enablement of true generative learning and co-creation distributed virtually across the world). If we believe Schrage that the prototype is the engine of innovation we now have a socially immersive environment where people all around the world can convene to communicate, collaborate and co-create in real time. If we look at Second Life and how that metaverse is set up where anyone can create anything using primitives, it is essentially establishing a platform that allows individuals to generate value without having to be an employee of 2L. Furthermore, it is providing a true collaborative environment where prototypes can be created and played with to make them better. Beyond that, the economy within the world allows us to examine in-world use that can help inform potentials for anything from business models to new automobile versions to be proved out before a penny is spent on atom based prototyping. An initial analysis of activity in the Metaverse coded by Function and Industry suggests that some industries are entering the metaverse more expediently than others, also we are seeing some patterns in how they are doing so: Leading with Learning and leading to Workforce Optimization or leading with Marketing and leading to Innovation/New Product development are two prevailing patterns (see pages 46-48). Given the success we had in providing support for Web 1.0 and 2.0, it seems only logical that we should be getting out ahead of the curve here to understand how we can be prepared to help our clients with the significant technological hurdles that will be required to participate in the value potential that the 3D web proposes. Notes from Jim S: This is a great deck and starts to get at the value proposition statement very well. One suggestion --- "democratization" (while a wonderful thing) should probably be replaced with "entrepreneurial capitalism" (search for Carl Schramm and Kauffman Foundation for deeper explanation of entrepreneurial capitalism). Per our discussion the other day, the megatrend that is happening is that entrepreneurs are creating "platforms" so instead of just having "employees" work for them, then are enabling "members or citizens" to work for them, and the entrepreneur gets a percentage ("tax"). The way to think about it, is to imagine you opened up a new nation, and people moved there, became citizens and started paying taxes. You get to make the rules and tax people. But why would anyone move to your nations -- short answer is better roads, telephones, and opportunities to work (create and capture value). So let's look at how these "platforms" versus "nations" analogy works for different players: eBay platform -- members can buy and sell, and eBay gets to tax each transaction (building up a reputation dossier on everyone, to make the world safer for commerce - governments keep citizens safe). Amazon platform -- members can add links to books, etc. to their own website, and if someone buys via their link, Amazon gives them a small percentage. Google platform - members can add AdLinks to their own website, and if somone clicks and buys via their link, Google gives them a small percentage. SecondLife plaftorm - members create products and services to sell, and SecondLife provides the infrastructure and currency markets in Linden dollars (the most direct analogy to setting up an "island nation"). The interesting thing to me is that most businesses in the real world need employees to make money (not all, but most) -- however, platform providers have a small number of employees that run the platform, but a large number fo members or citizens. The entrepreneurs generate wealth proportional to the number of members or citizens, more like a nation. Solow production functions for economic growth show that production increases in proportion to population, capital intensity, and knowledge and innovation growth. Entrepreneurial capitalists are trying to create platforms that enable members/citizens to do work that they would have to pay employees to do, and the member/citizens are willing to do the work without being an employee, because they too are entrepreneurial capitalists with opportunities to create value and be rewarded for it. In sum, I would suggest changing democratization to something more akin to entrepreneurial capitalism providing new platforms to allow people to create and capture value (Linden dollars, reputation, real dollars, etc.).
- Web 1.0 is was all about the democratization of access. Industries like Financial Services, Banking, Retail, Travel and Government predictably saw value in providing their customers with access to information about their accounts so they could drive more transactions and thus generate more fees. Support industries to Web 1.0 like Technology Services, IT and Telecom rode the wave to support these industries in bringing the access value proposition to their clients Web 2.0 is all about the democratizaiton of participation and collaboration. Industries like Media and Entertainment, Publishing and Education see this as a discontinuity and threat to their meat and potatoes (or couch potato) audience that were traditionally passive consumers of media/content. This generation is NOT passive. They want to interact, collaborate and co-create. They want to be engaged in the creative process rather than just being a consumer of it. Murdoch sees this and bought MySpace. Google sees it and bought You Tube and we are witnessing a huge redefinition of how the Media and Entertainment industry develops and distributes content and a shift in business models around that new dynamic in how they extract value from the market for doing so. The democratization of participation and collaboration is also buttressed by a new set of economic platforms and a redefinition of the employer/employee contract. Sites such as e-Bay provide a platform for member driven value creation. The people who generate incomes from eBay are not eBay employees, they participate in the use of the platform provided by eBay (and Paypal etc...) to allow them to create their own value. Furthermore when we move into the research that we have been doing in MMORPGs it is clear the economies and affordance structures play a huge part in making the experience a success. So, as we shift from Web 1.0 to 2.0 it is not only the value proposition that is changing (i.e. From Access to Participation/Collaboration) but the underlying economic model that incents participation without requiring employment that is very interesting. As we move to the intersection of Web 2.0 and Web 3D we see another phenomenon. The democratizaiton of co-creation. A solid 2D example of this is Wikipedia. A collaboratively created dictionary for the world. Created by a volunteer workforce for the benefit of everyone worldwide. (Note similar parallels to the linux movement). Thus the notion of virtual co-creation is firmly established as a pattern at the edge of Web 2.0 With the advent of Web 3D we see significant opportunities for collaboration and innovation. Innovation is a creative process. It is socially constructed and emerges from interactivity. The 3D enviromnent is naturally suited to that and so it is only a matter of time before we move from Web 1.0 (Democratization of Access) to Web 2.0 (Democratization of Participation and Collaboration) to Web 3D (Enablement of true generative learning and co-creation distributed virtually across the world). If we believe Schrage that the prototype is the engine of innovation we now have a socially immersive environment where people all around the world can convene to communicate, collaborate and co-create in real time. If we look at Second Life and how that metaverse is set up where anyone can create anything using primitives, it is essentially establishing a platform that allows individuals to generate value without having to be an employee of 2L. Furthermore, it is providing a true collaborative environment where prototypes can be created and played with to make them better. Beyond that, the economy within the world allows us to examine in-world use that can help inform potentials for anything from business models to new automobile versions to be proved out before a penny is spent on atom based prototyping. An initial analysis of activity in the Metaverse coded by Function and Industry suggests that some industries are entering the metaverse more expediently than others, also we are seeing some patterns in how they are doing so: Leading with Learning and leading to Workforce Optimization or leading with Marketing and leading to Innovation/New Product development are two prevailing patterns (see pages 46-48). Given the success we had in providing support for Web 1.0 and 2.0, it seems only logical that we should be getting out ahead of the curve here to understand how we can be prepared to help our clients with the significant technological hurdles that will be required to participate in the value potential that the 3D web proposes. Notes from Jim S: This is a great deck and starts to get at the value proposition statement very well. One suggestion --- "democratization" (while a wonderful thing) should probably be replaced with "entrepreneurial capitalism" (search for Carl Schramm and Kauffman Foundation for deeper explanation of entrepreneurial capitalism). Per our discussion the other day, the megatrend that is happening is that entrepreneurs are creating "platforms" so instead of just having "employees" work for them, then are enabling "members or citizens" to work for them, and the entrepreneur gets a percentage ("tax"). The way to think about it, is to imagine you opened up a new nation, and people moved there, became citizens and started paying taxes. You get to make the rules and tax people. But why would anyone move to your nations -- short answer is better roads, telephones, and opportunities to work (create and capture value). So let's look at how these "platforms" versus "nations" analogy works for different players: eBay platform -- members can buy and sell, and eBay gets to tax each transaction (building up a reputation dossier on everyone, to make the world safer for commerce - governments keep citizens safe). Amazon platform -- members can add links to books, etc. to their own website, and if someone buys via their link, Amazon gives them a small percentage. Google platform - members can add AdLinks to their own website, and if somone clicks and buys via their link, Google gives them a small percentage. SecondLife plaftorm - members create products and services to sell, and SecondLife provides the infrastructure and currency markets in Linden dollars (the most direct analogy to setting up an "island nation"). The interesting thing to me is that most businesses in the real world need employees to make money (not all, but most) -- however, platform providers have a small number of employees that run the platform, but a large number fo members or citizens. The entrepreneurs generate wealth proportional to the number of members or citizens, more like a nation. Solow production functions for economic growth show that production increases in proportion to population, capital intensity, and knowledge and innovation growth. Entrepreneurial capitalists are trying to create platforms that enable members/citizens to do work that they would have to pay employees to do, and the member/citizens are willing to do the work without being an employee, because they too are entrepreneurial capitalists with opportunities to create value and be rewarded for it. In sum, I would suggest changing democratization to something more akin to entrepreneurial capitalism providing new platforms to allow people to create and capture value (Linden dollars, reputation, real dollars, etc.).
- Web 1.0 is was all about the democratization of access. Industries like Financial Services, Banking, Retail, Travel and Government predictably saw value in providing their customers with access to information about their accounts so they could drive more transactions and thus generate more fees. Support industries to Web 1.0 like Technology Services, IT and Telecom rode the wave to support these industries in bringing the access value proposition to their clients Web 2.0 is all about the democratizaiton of participation and collaboration. Industries like Media and Entertainment, Publishing and Education see this as a discontinuity and threat to their meat and potatoes (or couch potato) audience that were traditionally passive consumers of media/content. This generation is NOT passive. They want to interact, collaborate and co-create. They want to be engaged in the creative process rather than just being a consumer of it. Murdoch sees this and bought MySpace. Google sees it and bought You Tube and we are witnessing a huge redefinition of how the Media and Entertainment industry develops and distributes content and a shift in business models around that new dynamic in how they extract value from the market for doing so. The democratization of participation and collaboration is also buttressed by a new set of economic platforms and a redefinition of the employer/employee contract. Sites such as e-Bay provide a platform for member driven value creation. The people who generate incomes from eBay are not eBay employees, they participate in the use of the platform provided by eBay (and Paypal etc...) to allow them to create their own value. Furthermore when we move into the research that we have been doing in MMORPGs it is clear the economies and affordance structures play a huge part in making the experience a success. So, as we shift from Web 1.0 to 2.0 it is not only the value proposition that is changing (i.e. From Access to Participation/Collaboration) but the underlying economic model that incents participation without requiring employment that is very interesting. As we move to the intersection of Web 2.0 and Web 3D we see another phenomenon. The democratizaiton of co-creation. A solid 2D example of this is Wikipedia. A collaboratively created dictionary for the world. Created by a volunteer workforce for the benefit of everyone worldwide. (Note similar parallels to the linux movement). Thus the notion of virtual co-creation is firmly established as a pattern at the edge of Web 2.0 With the advent of Web 3D we see significant opportunities for collaboration and innovation. Innovation is a creative process. It is socially constructed and emerges from interactivity. The 3D enviromnent is naturally suited to that and so it is only a matter of time before we move from Web 1.0 (Democratization of Access) to Web 2.0 (Democratization of Participation and Collaboration) to Web 3D (Enablement of true generative learning and co-creation distributed virtually across the world). If we believe Schrage that the prototype is the engine of innovation we now have a socially immersive environment where people all around the world can convene to communicate, collaborate and co-create in real time. If we look at Second Life and how that metaverse is set up where anyone can create anything using primitives, it is essentially establishing a platform that allows individuals to generate value without having to be an employee of 2L. Furthermore, it is providing a true collaborative environment where prototypes can be created and played with to make them better. Beyond that, the economy within the world allows us to examine in-world use that can help inform potentials for anything from business models to new automobile versions to be proved out before a penny is spent on atom based prototyping. An initial analysis of activity in the Metaverse coded by Function and Industry suggests that some industries are entering the metaverse more expediently than others, also we are seeing some patterns in how they are doing so: Leading with Learning and leading to Workforce Optimization or leading with Marketing and leading to Innovation/New Product development are two prevailing patterns (see pages 46-48). Given the success we had in providing support for Web 1.0 and 2.0, it seems only logical that we should be getting out ahead of the curve here to understand how we can be prepared to help our clients with the significant technological hurdles that will be required to participate in the value potential that the 3D web proposes. Notes from Jim S: This is a great deck and starts to get at the value proposition statement very well. One suggestion --- "democratization" (while a wonderful thing) should probably be replaced with "entrepreneurial capitalism" (search for Carl Schramm and Kauffman Foundation for deeper explanation of entrepreneurial capitalism). Per our discussion the other day, the megatrend that is happening is that entrepreneurs are creating "platforms" so instead of just having "employees" work for them, then are enabling "members or citizens" to work for them, and the entrepreneur gets a percentage ("tax"). The way to think about it, is to imagine you opened up a new nation, and people moved there, became citizens and started paying taxes. You get to make the rules and tax people. But why would anyone move to your nations -- short answer is better roads, telephones, and opportunities to work (create and capture value). So let's look at how these "platforms" versus "nations" analogy works for different players: eBay platform -- members can buy and sell, and eBay gets to tax each transaction (building up a reputation dossier on everyone, to make the world safer for commerce - governments keep citizens safe). Amazon platform -- members can add links to books, etc. to their own website, and if someone buys via their link, Amazon gives them a small percentage. Google platform - members can add AdLinks to their own website, and if somone clicks and buys via their link, Google gives them a small percentage. SecondLife plaftorm - members create products and services to sell, and SecondLife provides the infrastructure and currency markets in Linden dollars (the most direct analogy to setting up an "island nation"). The interesting thing to me is that most businesses in the real world need employees to make money (not all, but most) -- however, platform providers have a small number of employees that run the platform, but a large number fo members or citizens. The entrepreneurs generate wealth proportional to the number of members or citizens, more like a nation. Solow production functions for economic growth show that production increases in proportion to population, capital intensity, and knowledge and innovation growth. Entrepreneurial capitalists are trying to create platforms that enable members/citizens to do work that they would have to pay employees to do, and the member/citizens are willing to do the work without being an employee, because they too are entrepreneurial capitalists with opportunities to create value and be rewarded for it. In sum, I would suggest changing democratization to something more akin to entrepreneurial capitalism providing new platforms to allow people to create and capture value (Linden dollars, reputation, real dollars, etc.).
- Web 1.0 is was all about the democratization of access. Industries like Financial Services, Banking, Retail, Travel and Government predictably saw value in providing their customers with access to information about their accounts so they could drive more transactions and thus generate more fees. Support industries to Web 1.0 like Technology Services, IT and Telecom rode the wave to support these industries in bringing the access value proposition to their clients Web 2.0 is all about the democratizaiton of participation and collaboration. Industries like Media and Entertainment, Publishing and Education see this as a discontinuity and threat to their meat and potatoes (or couch potato) audience that were traditionally passive consumers of media/content. This generation is NOT passive. They want to interact, collaborate and co-create. They want to be engaged in the creative process rather than just being a consumer of it. Murdoch sees this and bought MySpace. Google sees it and bought You Tube and we are witnessing a huge redefinition of how the Media and Entertainment industry develops and distributes content and a shift in business models around that new dynamic in how they extract value from the market for doing so. The democratization of participation and collaboration is also buttressed by a new set of economic platforms and a redefinition of the employer/employee contract. Sites such as e-Bay provide a platform for member driven value creation. The people who generate incomes from eBay are not eBay employees, they participate in the use of the platform provided by eBay (and Paypal etc...) to allow them to create their own value. Furthermore when we move into the research that we have been doing in MMORPGs it is clear the economies and affordance structures play a huge part in making the experience a success. So, as we shift from Web 1.0 to 2.0 it is not only the value proposition that is changing (i.e. From Access to Participation/Collaboration) but the underlying economic model that incents participation without requiring employment that is very interesting. As we move to the intersection of Web 2.0 and Web 3D we see another phenomenon. The democratizaiton of co-creation. A solid 2D example of this is Wikipedia. A collaboratively created dictionary for the world. Created by a volunteer workforce for the benefit of everyone worldwide. (Note similar parallels to the linux movement). Thus the notion of virtual co-creation is firmly established as a pattern at the edge of Web 2.0 With the advent of Web 3D we see significant opportunities for collaboration and innovation. Innovation is a creative process. It is socially constructed and emerges from interactivity. The 3D enviromnent is naturally suited to that and so it is only a matter of time before we move from Web 1.0 (Democratization of Access) to Web 2.0 (Democratization of Participation and Collaboration) to Web 3D (Enablement of true generative learning and co-creation distributed virtually across the world). If we believe Schrage that the prototype is the engine of innovation we now have a socially immersive environment where people all around the world can convene to communicate, collaborate and co-create in real time. If we look at Second Life and how that metaverse is set up where anyone can create anything using primitives, it is essentially establishing a platform that allows individuals to generate value without having to be an employee of 2L. Furthermore, it is providing a true collaborative environment where prototypes can be created and played with to make them better. Beyond that, the economy within the world allows us to examine in-world use that can help inform potentials for anything from business models to new automobile versions to be proved out before a penny is spent on atom based prototyping. An initial analysis of activity in the Metaverse coded by Function and Industry suggests that some industries are entering the metaverse more expediently than others, also we are seeing some patterns in how they are doing so: Leading with Learning and leading to Workforce Optimization or leading with Marketing and leading to Innovation/New Product development are two prevailing patterns (see pages 46-48). Given the success we had in providing support for Web 1.0 and 2.0, it seems only logical that we should be getting out ahead of the curve here to understand how we can be prepared to help our clients with the significant technological hurdles that will be required to participate in the value potential that the 3D web proposes. Notes from Jim S: This is a great deck and starts to get at the value proposition statement very well. One suggestion --- "democratization" (while a wonderful thing) should probably be replaced with "entrepreneurial capitalism" (search for Carl Schramm and Kauffman Foundation for deeper explanation of entrepreneurial capitalism). Per our discussion the other day, the megatrend that is happening is that entrepreneurs are creating "platforms" so instead of just having "employees" work for them, then are enabling "members or citizens" to work for them, and the entrepreneur gets a percentage ("tax"). The way to think about it, is to imagine you opened up a new nation, and people moved there, became citizens and started paying taxes. You get to make the rules and tax people. But why would anyone move to your nations -- short answer is better roads, telephones, and opportunities to work (create and capture value). So let's look at how these "platforms" versus "nations" analogy works for different players: eBay platform -- members can buy and sell, and eBay gets to tax each transaction (building up a reputation dossier on everyone, to make the world safer for commerce - governments keep citizens safe). Amazon platform -- members can add links to books, etc. to their own website, and if someone buys via their link, Amazon gives them a small percentage. Google platform - members can add AdLinks to their own website, and if somone clicks and buys via their link, Google gives them a small percentage. SecondLife plaftorm - members create products and services to sell, and SecondLife provides the infrastructure and currency markets in Linden dollars (the most direct analogy to setting up an "island nation"). The interesting thing to me is that most businesses in the real world need employees to make money (not all, but most) -- however, platform providers have a small number of employees that run the platform, but a large number fo members or citizens. The entrepreneurs generate wealth proportional to the number of members or citizens, more like a nation. Solow production functions for economic growth show that production increases in proportion to population, capital intensity, and knowledge and innovation growth. Entrepreneurial capitalists are trying to create platforms that enable members/citizens to do work that they would have to pay employees to do, and the member/citizens are willing to do the work without being an employee, because they too are entrepreneurial capitalists with opportunities to create value and be rewarded for it. In sum, I would suggest changing democratization to something more akin to entrepreneurial capitalism providing new platforms to allow people to create and capture value (Linden dollars, reputation, real dollars, etc.).
- Web 1.0 is was all about the democratization of access. Industries like Financial Services, Banking, Retail, Travel and Government predictably saw value in providing their customers with access to information about their accounts so they could drive more transactions and thus generate more fees. Support industries to Web 1.0 like Technology Services, IT and Telecom rode the wave to support these industries in bringing the access value proposition to their clients Web 2.0 is all about the democratizaiton of participation and collaboration. Industries like Media and Entertainment, Publishing and Education see this as a discontinuity and threat to their meat and potatoes (or couch potato) audience that were traditionally passive consumers of media/content. This generation is NOT passive. They want to interact, collaborate and co-create. They want to be engaged in the creative process rather than just being a consumer of it. Murdoch sees this and bought MySpace. Google sees it and bought You Tube and we are witnessing a huge redefinition of how the Media and Entertainment industry develops and distributes content and a shift in business models around that new dynamic in how they extract value from the market for doing so. The democratization of participation and collaboration is also buttressed by a new set of economic platforms and a redefinition of the employer/employee contract. Sites such as e-Bay provide a platform for member driven value creation. The people who generate incomes from eBay are not eBay employees, they participate in the use of the platform provided by eBay (and Paypal etc...) to allow them to create their own value. Furthermore when we move into the research that we have been doing in MMORPGs it is clear the economies and affordance structures play a huge part in making the experience a success. So, as we shift from Web 1.0 to 2.0 it is not only the value proposition that is changing (i.e. From Access to Participation/Collaboration) but the underlying economic model that incents participation without requiring employment that is very interesting. As we move to the intersection of Web 2.0 and Web 3D we see another phenomenon. The democratizaiton of co-creation. A solid 2D example of this is Wikipedia. A collaboratively created dictionary for the world. Created by a volunteer workforce for the benefit of everyone worldwide. (Note similar parallels to the linux movement). Thus the notion of virtual co-creation is firmly established as a pattern at the edge of Web 2.0 With the advent of Web 3D we see significant opportunities for collaboration and innovation. Innovation is a creative process. It is socially constructed and emerges from interactivity. The 3D enviromnent is naturally suited to that and so it is only a matter of time before we move from Web 1.0 (Democratization of Access) to Web 2.0 (Democratization of Participation and Collaboration) to Web 3D (Enablement of true generative learning and co-creation distributed virtually across the world). If we believe Schrage that the prototype is the engine of innovation we now have a socially immersive environment where people all around the world can convene to communicate, collaborate and co-create in real time. If we look at Second Life and how that metaverse is set up where anyone can create anything using primitives, it is essentially establishing a platform that allows individuals to generate value without having to be an employee of 2L. Furthermore, it is providing a true collaborative environment where prototypes can be created and played with to make them better. Beyond that, the economy within the world allows us to examine in-world use that can help inform potentials for anything from business models to new automobile versions to be proved out before a penny is spent on atom based prototyping. An initial analysis of activity in the Metaverse coded by Function and Industry suggests that some industries are entering the metaverse more expediently than others, also we are seeing some patterns in how they are doing so: Leading with Learning and leading to Workforce Optimization or leading with Marketing and leading to Innovation/New Product development are two prevailing patterns (see pages 46-48). Given the success we had in providing support for Web 1.0 and 2.0, it seems only logical that we should be getting out ahead of the curve here to understand how we can be prepared to help our clients with the significant technological hurdles that will be required to participate in the value potential that the 3D web proposes. Notes from Jim S: This is a great deck and starts to get at the value proposition statement very well. One suggestion --- "democratization" (while a wonderful thing) should probably be replaced with "entrepreneurial capitalism" (search for Carl Schramm and Kauffman Foundation for deeper explanation of entrepreneurial capitalism). Per our discussion the other day, the megatrend that is happening is that entrepreneurs are creating "platforms" so instead of just having "employees" work for them, then are enabling "members or citizens" to work for them, and the entrepreneur gets a percentage ("tax"). The way to think about it, is to imagine you opened up a new nation, and people moved there, became citizens and started paying taxes. You get to make the rules and tax people. But why would anyone move to your nations -- short answer is better roads, telephones, and opportunities to work (create and capture value). So let's look at how these "platforms" versus "nations" analogy works for different players: eBay platform -- members can buy and sell, and eBay gets to tax each transaction (building up a reputation dossier on everyone, to make the world safer for commerce - governments keep citizens safe). Amazon platform -- members can add links to books, etc. to their own website, and if someone buys via their link, Amazon gives them a small percentage. Google platform - members can add AdLinks to their own website, and if somone clicks and buys via their link, Google gives them a small percentage. SecondLife plaftorm - members create products and services to sell, and SecondLife provides the infrastructure and currency markets in Linden dollars (the most direct analogy to setting up an "island nation"). The interesting thing to me is that most businesses in the real world need employees to make money (not all, but most) -- however, platform providers have a small number of employees that run the platform, but a large number fo members or citizens. The entrepreneurs generate wealth proportional to the number of members or citizens, more like a nation. Solow production functions for economic growth show that production increases in proportion to population, capital intensity, and knowledge and innovation growth. Entrepreneurial capitalists are trying to create platforms that enable members/citizens to do work that they would have to pay employees to do, and the member/citizens are willing to do the work without being an employee, because they too are entrepreneurial capitalists with opportunities to create value and be rewarded for it. In sum, I would suggest changing democratization to something more akin to entrepreneurial capitalism providing new platforms to allow people to create and capture value (Linden dollars, reputation, real dollars, etc.).
- Web 1.0 is was all about the democratization of access. Industries like Financial Services, Banking, Retail, Travel and Government predictably saw value in providing their customers with access to information about their accounts so they could drive more transactions and thus generate more fees. Support industries to Web 1.0 like Technology Services, IT and Telecom rode the wave to support these industries in bringing the access value proposition to their clients Web 2.0 is all about the democratizaiton of participation and collaboration. Industries like Media and Entertainment, Publishing and Education see this as a discontinuity and threat to their meat and potatoes (or couch potato) audience that were traditionally passive consumers of media/content. This generation is NOT passive. They want to interact, collaborate and co-create. They want to be engaged in the creative process rather than just being a consumer of it. Murdoch sees this and bought MySpace. Google sees it and bought You Tube and we are witnessing a huge redefinition of how the Media and Entertainment industry develops and distributes content and a shift in business models around that new dynamic in how they extract value from the market for doing so. The democratization of participation and collaboration is also buttressed by a new set of economic platforms and a redefinition of the employer/employee contract. Sites such as e-Bay provide a platform for member driven value creation. The people who generate incomes from eBay are not eBay employees, they participate in the use of the platform provided by eBay (and Paypal etc...) to allow them to create their own value. Furthermore when we move into the research that we have been doing in MMORPGs it is clear the economies and affordance structures play a huge part in making the experience a success. So, as we shift from Web 1.0 to 2.0 it is not only the value proposition that is changing (i.e. From Access to Participation/Collaboration) but the underlying economic model that incents participation without requiring employment that is very interesting. As we move to the intersection of Web 2.0 and Web 3D we see another phenomenon. The democratizaiton of co-creation. A solid 2D example of this is Wikipedia. A collaboratively created dictionary for the world. Created by a volunteer workforce for the benefit of everyone worldwide. (Note similar parallels to the linux movement). Thus the notion of virtual co-creation is firmly established as a pattern at the edge of Web 2.0 With the advent of Web 3D we see significant opportunities for collaboration and innovation. Innovation is a creative process. It is socially constructed and emerges from interactivity. The 3D enviromnent is naturally suited to that and so it is only a matter of time before we move from Web 1.0 (Democratization of Access) to Web 2.0 (Democratization of Participation and Collaboration) to Web 3D (Enablement of true generative learning and co-creation distributed virtually across the world). If we believe Schrage that the prototype is the engine of innovation we now have a socially immersive environment where people all around the world can convene to communicate, collaborate and co-create in real time. If we look at Second Life and how that metaverse is set up where anyone can create anything using primitives, it is essentially establishing a platform that allows individuals to generate value without having to be an employee of 2L. Furthermore, it is providing a true collaborative environment where prototypes can be created and played with to make them better. Beyond that, the economy within the world allows us to examine in-world use that can help inform potentials for anything from business models to new automobile versions to be proved out before a penny is spent on atom based prototyping. An initial analysis of activity in the Metaverse coded by Function and Industry suggests that some industries are entering the metaverse more expediently than others, also we are seeing some patterns in how they are doing so: Leading with Learning and leading to Workforce Optimization or leading with Marketing and leading to Innovation/New Product development are two prevailing patterns (see pages 46-48). Given the success we had in providing support for Web 1.0 and 2.0, it seems only logical that we should be getting out ahead of the curve here to understand how we can be prepared to help our clients with the significant technological hurdles that will be required to participate in the value potential that the 3D web proposes. Notes from Jim S: This is a great deck and starts to get at the value proposition statement very well. One suggestion --- "democratization" (while a wonderful thing) should probably be replaced with "entrepreneurial capitalism" (search for Carl Schramm and Kauffman Foundation for deeper explanation of entrepreneurial capitalism). Per our discussion the other day, the megatrend that is happening is that entrepreneurs are creating "platforms" so instead of just having "employees" work for them, then are enabling "members or citizens" to work for them, and the entrepreneur gets a percentage ("tax"). The way to think about it, is to imagine you opened up a new nation, and people moved there, became citizens and started paying taxes. You get to make the rules and tax people. But why would anyone move to your nations -- short answer is better roads, telephones, and opportunities to work (create and capture value). So let's look at how these "platforms" versus "nations" analogy works for different players: eBay platform -- members can buy and sell, and eBay gets to tax each transaction (building up a reputation dossier on everyone, to make the world safer for commerce - governments keep citizens safe). Amazon platform -- members can add links to books, etc. to their own website, and if someone buys via their link, Amazon gives them a small percentage. Google platform - members can add AdLinks to their own website, and if somone clicks and buys via their link, Google gives them a small percentage. SecondLife plaftorm - members create products and services to sell, and SecondLife provides the infrastructure and currency markets in Linden dollars (the most direct analogy to setting up an "island nation"). The interesting thing to me is that most businesses in the real world need employees to make money (not all, but most) -- however, platform providers have a small number of employees that run the platform, but a large number fo members or citizens. The entrepreneurs generate wealth proportional to the number of members or citizens, more like a nation. Solow production functions for economic growth show that production increases in proportion to population, capital intensity, and knowledge and innovation growth. Entrepreneurial capitalists are trying to create platforms that enable members/citizens to do work that they would have to pay employees to do, and the member/citizens are willing to do the work without being an employee, because they too are entrepreneurial capitalists with opportunities to create value and be rewarded for it. In sum, I would suggest changing democratization to something more akin to entrepreneurial capitalism providing new platforms to allow people to create and capture value (Linden dollars, reputation, real dollars, etc.).
- Web 1.0 is was all about the democratization of access. Industries like Financial Services, Banking, Retail, Travel and Government predictably saw value in providing their customers with access to information about their accounts so they could drive more transactions and thus generate more fees. Support industries to Web 1.0 like Technology Services, IT and Telecom rode the wave to support these industries in bringing the access value proposition to their clients Web 2.0 is all about the democratizaiton of participation and collaboration. Industries like Media and Entertainment, Publishing and Education see this as a discontinuity and threat to their meat and potatoes (or couch potato) audience that were traditionally passive consumers of media/content. This generation is NOT passive. They want to interact, collaborate and co-create. They want to be engaged in the creative process rather than just being a consumer of it. Murdoch sees this and bought MySpace. Google sees it and bought You Tube and we are witnessing a huge redefinition of how the Media and Entertainment industry develops and distributes content and a shift in business models around that new dynamic in how they extract value from the market for doing so. The democratization of participation and collaboration is also buttressed by a new set of economic platforms and a redefinition of the employer/employee contract. Sites such as e-Bay provide a platform for member driven value creation. The people who generate incomes from eBay are not eBay employees, they participate in the use of the platform provided by eBay (and Paypal etc...) to allow them to create their own value. Furthermore when we move into the research that we have been doing in MMORPGs it is clear the economies and affordance structures play a huge part in making the experience a success. So, as we shift from Web 1.0 to 2.0 it is not only the value proposition that is changing (i.e. From Access to Participation/Collaboration) but the underlying economic model that incents participation without requiring employment that is very interesting. As we move to the intersection of Web 2.0 and Web 3D we see another phenomenon. The democratizaiton of co-creation. A solid 2D example of this is Wikipedia. A collaboratively created dictionary for the world. Created by a volunteer workforce for the benefit of everyone worldwide. (Note similar parallels to the linux movement). Thus the notion of virtual co-creation is firmly established as a pattern at the edge of Web 2.0 With the advent of Web 3D we see significant opportunities for collaboration and innovation. Innovation is a creative process. It is socially constructed and emerges from interactivity. The 3D enviromnent is naturally suited to that and so it is only a matter of time before we move from Web 1.0 (Democratization of Access) to Web 2.0 (Democratization of Participation and Collaboration) to Web 3D (Enablement of true generative learning and co-creation distributed virtually across the world). If we believe Schrage that the prototype is the engine of innovation we now have a socially immersive environment where people all around the world can convene to communicate, collaborate and co-create in real time. If we look at Second Life and how that metaverse is set up where anyone can create anything using primitives, it is essentially establishing a platform that allows individuals to generate value without having to be an employee of 2L. Furthermore, it is providing a true collaborative environment where prototypes can be created and played with to make them better. Beyond that, the economy within the world allows us to examine in-world use that can help inform potentials for anything from business models to new automobile versions to be proved out before a penny is spent on atom based prototyping. An initial analysis of activity in the Metaverse coded by Function and Industry suggests that some industries are entering the metaverse more expediently than others, also we are seeing some patterns in how they are doing so: Leading with Learning and leading to Workforce Optimization or leading with Marketing and leading to Innovation/New Product development are two prevailing patterns (see pages 46-48). Given the success we had in providing support for Web 1.0 and 2.0, it seems only logical that we should be getting out ahead of the curve here to understand how we can be prepared to help our clients with the significant technological hurdles that will be required to participate in the value potential that the 3D web proposes. Notes from Jim S: This is a great deck and starts to get at the value proposition statement very well. One suggestion --- "democratization" (while a wonderful thing) should probably be replaced with "entrepreneurial capitalism" (search for Carl Schramm and Kauffman Foundation for deeper explanation of entrepreneurial capitalism). Per our discussion the other day, the megatrend that is happening is that entrepreneurs are creating "platforms" so instead of just having "employees" work for them, then are enabling "members or citizens" to work for them, and the entrepreneur gets a percentage ("tax"). The way to think about it, is to imagine you opened up a new nation, and people moved there, became citizens and started paying taxes. You get to make the rules and tax people. But why would anyone move to your nations -- short answer is better roads, telephones, and opportunities to work (create and capture value). So let's look at how these "platforms" versus "nations" analogy works for different players: eBay platform -- members can buy and sell, and eBay gets to tax each transaction (building up a reputation dossier on everyone, to make the world safer for commerce - governments keep citizens safe). Amazon platform -- members can add links to books, etc. to their own website, and if someone buys via their link, Amazon gives them a small percentage. Google platform - members can add AdLinks to their own website, and if somone clicks and buys via their link, Google gives them a small percentage. SecondLife plaftorm - members create products and services to sell, and SecondLife provides the infrastructure and currency markets in Linden dollars (the most direct analogy to setting up an "island nation"). The interesting thing to me is that most businesses in the real world need employees to make money (not all, but most) -- however, platform providers have a small number of employees that run the platform, but a large number fo members or citizens. The entrepreneurs generate wealth proportional to the number of members or citizens, more like a nation. Solow production functions for economic growth show that production increases in proportion to population, capital intensity, and knowledge and innovation growth. Entrepreneurial capitalists are trying to create platforms that enable members/citizens to do work that they would have to pay employees to do, and the member/citizens are willing to do the work without being an employee, because they too are entrepreneurial capitalists with opportunities to create value and be rewarded for it. In sum, I would suggest changing democratization to something more akin to entrepreneurial capitalism providing new platforms to allow people to create and capture value (Linden dollars, reputation, real dollars, etc.).
- Web 1.0 is was all about the democratization of access. Industries like Financial Services, Banking, Retail, Travel and Government predictably saw value in providing their customers with access to information about their accounts so they could drive more transactions and thus generate more fees. Support industries to Web 1.0 like Technology Services, IT and Telecom rode the wave to support these industries in bringing the access value proposition to their clients Web 2.0 is all about the democratizaiton of participation and collaboration. Industries like Media and Entertainment, Publishing and Education see this as a discontinuity and threat to their meat and potatoes (or couch potato) audience that were traditionally passive consumers of media/content. This generation is NOT passive. They want to interact, collaborate and co-create. They want to be engaged in the creative process rather than just being a consumer of it. Murdoch sees this and bought MySpace. Google sees it and bought You Tube and we are witnessing a huge redefinition of how the Media and Entertainment industry develops and distributes content and a shift in business models around that new dynamic in how they extract value from the market for doing so. The democratization of participation and collaboration is also buttressed by a new set of economic platforms and a redefinition of the employer/employee contract. Sites such as e-Bay provide a platform for member driven value creation. The people who generate incomes from eBay are not eBay employees, they participate in the use of the platform provided by eBay (and Paypal etc...) to allow them to create their own value. Furthermore when we move into the research that we have been doing in MMORPGs it is clear the economies and affordance structures play a huge part in making the experience a success. So, as we shift from Web 1.0 to 2.0 it is not only the value proposition that is changing (i.e. From Access to Participation/Collaboration) but the underlying economic model that incents participation without requiring employment that is very interesting. As we move to the intersection of Web 2.0 and Web 3D we see another phenomenon. The democratizaiton of co-creation. A solid 2D example of this is Wikipedia. A collaboratively created dictionary for the world. Created by a volunteer workforce for the benefit of everyone worldwide. (Note similar parallels to the linux movement). Thus the notion of virtual co-creation is firmly established as a pattern at the edge of Web 2.0 With the advent of Web 3D we see significant opportunities for collaboration and innovation. Innovation is a creative process. It is socially constructed and emerges from interactivity. The 3D enviromnent is naturally suited to that and so it is only a matter of time before we move from Web 1.0 (Democratization of Access) to Web 2.0 (Democratization of Participation and Collaboration) to Web 3D (Enablement of true generative learning and co-creation distributed virtually across the world). If we believe Schrage that the prototype is the engine of innovation we now have a socially immersive environment where people all around the world can convene to communicate, collaborate and co-create in real time. If we look at Second Life and how that metaverse is set up where anyone can create anything using primitives, it is essentially establishing a platform that allows individuals to generate value without having to be an employee of 2L. Furthermore, it is providing a true collaborative environment where prototypes can be created and played with to make them better. Beyond that, the economy within the world allows us to examine in-world use that can help inform potentials for anything from business models to new automobile versions to be proved out before a penny is spent on atom based prototyping. An initial analysis of activity in the Metaverse coded by Function and Industry suggests that some industries are entering the metaverse more expediently than others, also we are seeing some patterns in how they are doing so: Leading with Learning and leading to Workforce Optimization or leading with Marketing and leading to Innovation/New Product development are two prevailing patterns (see pages 46-48). Given the success we had in providing support for Web 1.0 and 2.0, it seems only logical that we should be getting out ahead of the curve here to understand how we can be prepared to help our clients with the significant technological hurdles that will be required to participate in the value potential that the 3D web proposes. Notes from Jim S: This is a great deck and starts to get at the value proposition statement very well. One suggestion --- "democratization" (while a wonderful thing) should probably be replaced with "entrepreneurial capitalism" (search for Carl Schramm and Kauffman Foundation for deeper explanation of entrepreneurial capitalism). Per our discussion the other day, the megatrend that is happening is that entrepreneurs are creating "platforms" so instead of just having "employees" work for them, then are enabling "members or citizens" to work for them, and the entrepreneur gets a percentage ("tax"). The way to think about it, is to imagine you opened up a new nation, and people moved there, became citizens and started paying taxes. You get to make the rules and tax people. But why would anyone move to your nations -- short answer is better roads, telephones, and opportunities to work (create and capture value). So let's look at how these "platforms" versus "nations" analogy works for different players: eBay platform -- members can buy and sell, and eBay gets to tax each transaction (building up a reputation dossier on everyone, to make the world safer for commerce - governments keep citizens safe). Amazon platform -- members can add links to books, etc. to their own website, and if someone buys via their link, Amazon gives them a small percentage. Google platform - members can add AdLinks to their own website, and if somone clicks and buys via their link, Google gives them a small percentage. SecondLife plaftorm - members create products and services to sell, and SecondLife provides the infrastructure and currency markets in Linden dollars (the most direct analogy to setting up an "island nation"). The interesting thing to me is that most businesses in the real world need employees to make money (not all, but most) -- however, platform providers have a small number of employees that run the platform, but a large number fo members or citizens. The entrepreneurs generate wealth proportional to the number of members or citizens, more like a nation. Solow production functions for economic growth show that production increases in proportion to population, capital intensity, and knowledge and innovation growth. Entrepreneurial capitalists are trying to create platforms that enable members/citizens to do work that they would have to pay employees to do, and the member/citizens are willing to do the work without being an employee, because they too are entrepreneurial capitalists with opportunities to create value and be rewarded for it. In sum, I would suggest changing democratization to something more akin to entrepreneurial capitalism providing new platforms to allow people to create and capture value (Linden dollars, reputation, real dollars, etc.).