Bruce MacVarish Notes

Aggregating Value

Peter Kim has a short post describing the guiding principle of :

Aggregate or Be Aggregated

Peter writes:

"Functional integration of ecosystems is emerging as the path towards maximizing value creation within our increasingly digital world. To own an industry leadership position, you need to own the experience.

Aggregate or be aggregated. Keep this in mind as you encounter offers to publish and syndicate your content, explore new opportunities for customers/members/users, and consider how your relationship will be monetized by the company that's helping you out."

The principle reminded me of an earlier post on the value of aggregating communications where I wrote:

The enterprise is shifting from a space/file software model to a time/stream based software model where the real-time interactions of business users have a past, a present and a future.   

New value for business users - and revenue for enterprises - will come from aggregating, analyzing and filtering these interaction signals enabled by the real-time web.

I agree with Peter.  Value creation is found in aggregating content, streams, interactions and conversations for users in a more useful and powerful way than competitors.  

Platform Strategies Evolve

While most platforms evolve from "killer apps" to powerful platforms, Bijan Sabet highlights how new platforms are emerging without developing an application first.

From Bijan, examples include:

Yodlee for banking apps

Twilio for voice and sms apps

Cardspring for payment card apps

Clever for education apps

Onswipe for touch web apps

These “platform first” companies are getting traction because

a) they are solving an extremely messy (understatement) problem behind the scenes

b) their APIs are simple & clean. the ease of developing apps on these platforms are capital efficient (e.g. compare this with the old days of mobile app development pre iOS)

c) they are supporting and creating an ecosystem to flourish where the previous ecosystem was broken. The apps want the platform to succeed because the pain and mess previously felt was unbearable. 

d) roles are fairly well understood between platform and developer. everyone leaves a little money on the table on both sides to get to a happy place. 

I still like the idea of app first, platform second. In the best case, the app provider that has platform ambitions can dogfood the same API that they give developers.

But it’s no longer the only way to get a platform started.

It’s interesting to think about other markets where a “platform first” company could emerge

Federated Content Delivery Networks

EdgeCast Networks has announced their vision for a federation platform that enables the exchange of content between independent Content Delivery Network operators.

As we've seen with the introduction of federated communications and enterprise applications, the introduction of federated content may well change the content delivery landscape.

It is worth looking at 3 patents related to the federation of content:

Systems and Methods for Invoking Commands Across a Federation (1)

Systems and Methods for Invoking Commands Across a Federation (2)

Systems and Methods to Uniquely Identify Assets in a Federation

I believe in the value of federation for enterprise users and IT organizations to enable new, powerful communication and collaboration networks. 

While the EdgeCast approach is interesting, it has not applied the lessons, architectures or models that have been proven in other federated solutions.  It is an interesting step in the right direction, but a solution that could create new value for enterprises and CDNs with broader, unconstrained thinking.

 

Nike+ Fuelband

 

There is new, untold value when offering innovative experiences for users that help them monitor, analyze, share and shape behavior.

 

Cooperation Flows

I've posted before of the shift toward conversations and relationships within the enterprise and how new value and productivity would come from flow based collaboration apps.

I believe the enterprise is:

• Being redefined around people - not tasks or processes
• Improving productivity by unlocking people's conversations and relationships - not focusing on transactions
• Delivering new value through the flow of my many, loosely coupled interactions of cooperation - not tightly coupled, structured constraints of collaboration.

I found alignment and agreement with these points when reading JP Rangaswami's insightful summary of how workflows of the past are different from collaboration flows of today.

 

JP writes:

"Workflows, like trains, worked in well-defined, closed systems.

Collaboration flows, on the other hand, are like rivers and oceans.

As the Cluetrain guys said, markets are conversations. The oceans and rivers of collaboration flows include all these conversations. The conversations themselves are manifestations of relationships, some bilateral, some multilateral. Sometimes they lead to transactions, surfaced by the capability as seen in the context.

What are these conversations? There’s nothing special about them. Here’s a loose classification of the types of conversations one would see in the workplace:

• Questions needing answers (Hey, how do I do this? Here’s how. Where can I find this? Here it is. Who really knows this? Here’s who)
• Sharing of experiences (I just installed this app, and it was *useless*. Here’s why. I just read this book and it was *fantastic. Here’s why)
• Feedback (I really found your answer helpful. I couldn’t have done this without you.)
• Social filtering (I rate this answer more than the others. I think you should see this so I will +1 it or Like it or RT it.)
• Status reporting (I’m here doing this, I’m there doing that)
• Alerts potentially needing action (If THIS then THAT, coming from a litany of sources)

...and a little later...

These conversations have been going on for aeons. But there’s one major difference. And that is this: the conversations are recorded. Persisted. Archived. So they’re auditable. Searchable. Findable. Besides this, there are other significant differences:

• The conversations are made visible immediately , in real-time
• They come wrapped in context, auto date and time stamped, author identified, location mapped, topic tagged
• The context can be enriched by other participants
• They’re channel- and device-independent; conversations can start in one medium, move to another. They can start on blogs, move to twitter, move to synchronous sound.
• They’re time- and space-shiftable. Synchronous and asynchronous. Mobile in design.
• They work on “publish-subscribe” networked models rather than broadcast and hierarch

I'm also reminded of this comparison of Collaboration vs. Cooperation by @shiftctrlesc and a number of posts by Stowe Boyd about cooperation, flows and the future of work.

As a result of the above, while JP makes a distinction between workflows and collaboration flows, I believe we should make the same type of distinction between collaboration flows and cooperation flows.

For me, the enterprise is being rebuilt around people, conversations and relationships powered by many, many loosely coupled interactions and cooperation flows.

Creating Value from Information Assets

To Facebook, you're worth about $81. Your friendships are worth $0.62 per connection. Each “Like” or post is worth about $.03. When added up, information generated from your (and all other Facebook users')  friendships, likes, posts and pages accounted for $68B in Facebook's planned IPO.

From the WSJ post on how Facebook creates and values information:

The Financial Value of Facebook’s Information Assets

"The value of all the information Facebook collects is in the hinterland between its reported balance sheet book value of $6.6 billion and the anticipated post-IPO market value. Facebook is a pure information-based business; it doesn’t buy, make or sell anything else. Using Facebook’s own conservative valuation of $75 billion, its information value gap is more than $68 billion.

What information has Facebook collected from you and me? Facebook reports it has 845 million Monthly Active Users (“MAUs”) as of December 2011, up from 608 million in 2010 and 360 million in 2009. Facebook claims users punch the “Like” button or post a comment 2.7 billion times per day. Estimates suggest about half of those are “Likes” and half are some form of written content. Based on Facebook’s recent trajectory, this extrapolates to 2.11 trillion pieces of monetizable content collected during the past three years. Facebook’s filing also discloses that it has 37 million pages with 10 or more “Likes,” while other sources indicate Facebook hosts nearly 22,000 business pages. Its 845 million users, each with an average of 130 friends, equates to 109 billion friendships. Facebook’s S-1 corroborates this figure as “over 100 billion friend connections.”

Dividing Facebook’s 2.11 trillion pieces of content into this market-to-book valuation differential indicates that each “Like” you click or item you post will be worth about $.03 to Facebook or its future investing public.

Because Facebook actually generated $3.7 billion on these information assets last year, the realized value of its information portfolio is only 1/20th its investor-anticipated potential. Facebook and its investors plainly expect this gap to be closed through its information monetization capabilities. Information value gaps aren’t unique to Facebook — Google and other information-centric businesses experience the same gaps."

How is your business creating value from the information you and/or your users generate while using your product?

"Most organizations do not benefit from a global pool of data-churning staff and a pure information-based business model. But to remain competitive, they must continually become more information-centric. This starts with CIOs considering what sources of information are available both internally and externally, envisioning how this information can be deployed in transformative ways, and valuing and managing information as an actual corporate asset."

Want to start finding the answer?   Read just about anything written by Hal Varian including "Information Rules".

Frames and the Personal Cloud

Forrester's Frank Gillett recently published a new report on the growth of tablets titled "Tablets will rule the future Personal Computing Landscape"

Of specific interest to me was Frank's view on how tablets and a new form of personal computer they call "frames" will interact with the personal cloud.

"We predict a new form of PC, called frames, that will rise as a result of tablets and other technology innovations and why tablets will cannibalize laptops but not the new forms of desktop PCs."

This graphic illustrates the interaction between personal mobile devices like phones and tablets with (i) a desktop "frame" for productivity and creation and (ii) the personal cloud.  

I like the vision ... and believe in the opportunity of synchronized, brokered and context-aware personal cloud services that power today's and tomorrow's mobile devices.

Google Unlocks Voice Data

Google announced that starting today, you can download a copy of all your Google Voice and other communications data.  

This is a huge move by Google that unlocks new value for end users, for application vendors and advertisers by enabling new ways to benefit from our communications and conversation data.

The value of voice communications is no longer found in the connecting of conversations but rather in the data, analytics and relevance derived from the conversation content.

 

 

 

The Value of Average Influencers

Liz Gannes interviews Duncan Watts about a number of topics included in his new book "Everything is Obvious".

I found his perspective on the challenges, reality and research focused on "Influencers" very interesting (about 3:17).  

He suggests it is very difficult to identify the very few people that have strong influence in the network... and the results are often disappointing.

Instead, Watts sees research on influence moving toward finding the very many people that have "some" level of influence in the network.  

It would seem that Watts sees more value in finding the "average many" influencers instead of the "vital few".

 

 

Human Behavior as the start of Social Design

Jenn Webb interviewed Paul Adams in prep for Web 2.0 Expo scheduled for later this month.  

The interview is well worth a read. You should also keep an eye out for Paul's forth coming book titled "Social Circles" (I've already pre-ordered).   

One of many interesting quotes from Paul's interview includes: 

"Our (mobile) phone, or whatever we carry around with us, will probably be our primary source and producer of social media data, so it's important that when we use it, we're not burdened by its place in the ecosystem — for example, by seeing constant privacy controls or too many invasive alerts."

Paul Adams, Global Brand Experience Manager, Facebook

For me, it is interesting to think about his reference to "whatever we carry around with us will probably be our primary source of social media data".  

What about you?