Text archives Help


Re: [projectvrm] Roadmap to VRM Utopia


Chronological Thread 
  • From: Doc Searls < >
  • To: Katherine Warman Kern < >
  • Cc: Mark Lizar < >, Devon Loffreto < >, Venessa Miemis < >, ProjectVRM list < >
  • Subject: Re: [projectvrm] Roadmap to VRM Utopia
  • Date: Wed, 18 May 2011 11:17:39 -0400
Some thoughts in the midst here.

First, there are lots of ways to aggregate demand. This ambition is as old as
business, and familiar to economics for the duration. The radical difference
today is that there are new Net- and Mobile-based ways of doing that, and
more coming along every day. Throw in "social" too, and VRM. (Am I wrong that
that's what's being proposed here?)

Second, VRM anchors its concerns, and its work, with individuals, and their
relations with other parties. One reason is that individual empowerment is a
hole, a greenfield, and has been ever since Industry won the Industrial
Revolution. Another is that there are certain things that only individuals,
as sovereign, autonomous, independent entities, can do. Many of these things
(such as freedom of contract) were either lost in the Industrial Age or have
yet to be gained in the Information Age that personal computing and the
Internet brought on. That age is just beginning.

Third, VRM-like and VRM are not the same, and we need to keep the
distinctions clear.

Fourth, I'm not sure a roadmap is possible for VRM, for the same reason a
roadmap for Western North America would not have been possible in the year
1800. We're facing a frontier here. For the work you and Mark are proposing,
maybe it is possible. But I'm not sure. In any case, we can see inevitable
directions for VRM. All of them require maximized autonomy and agency for
individuals. Not continuous improvement of the "your choice of captor"
marketplace model. (Not saying anybody is proposing that, but this is the
default model, even for many "free market" advocates.)

Fifth, I think VRM development can equip individuals in a number of ways that
will make pioneering move much faster, and open many more possibilities.
These include:

- Personal data stores, clouds, lockers, vaults, or whatever we end
up calling them
- Point-to-point protocols (and other means) for establishing trust
and conducting interactions
- Means for contracting and licensing freely with other parties
- Means for selectively and securely sharing data with trusted parties
- Means for programming engagement outside the client-server
("calf-cow") model
- Simple UI elements (the r-button might be one) that make clear both
action and state
- Fourth parties, distinguished from others by siding primarily with
the individual

The list can go on. Three more keys here:

- Standardization (including adoption of existing standards)
- Open source for base building materials
- Substitutable services
- Data portability
- Infrastructure that transcends proprietary platforms
- Plenty of APIs, especially for the individuals themselves
- Plenty of development tools
- Benefits made obvious to vendors and third parties

There are a zillion things that can be done here. The ones I care about most
are the ones that equip individuals, and that end up proving that free
customers are more valuable than captive ones.

I'm cool with parallel efforts, and ones that support VRM in other ways. But
I also want to make sure we make clear distinctions between those efforts and
VRM. If we don't, VRM risks being painted as yet another way to improve
marketing.

I saw that happen with Cluetrain. I don't want it to happen with VRM.

I'm also cool with batting around ideas (e.g. "open loyalty," which I still
think is killer), and I believe we need to be able to run down many paths
while co-thinking things out. I just want to keep our eyes on the VRM prize.

Doc

On May 18, 2011, at 10:24 AM, Katherine Warman Kern wrote:

> Consider that all this started with the idea of a reverse groupon.
> Specifically, individuals find others who share similar interests and
> develop the clout to get business to hear what they would pay more for
> instead of discounts.
>
> There seemed to be some interest in the clear economic upside as a means
> for drawing attention to the economic benefits of VRM-like tools to add to
> the ethical rationale.
>
> But there also seems to be some concern that this direction is not purely
> VRM in so far as it goes beyond amplifying individual voices in one to one
> conversations with companies by aggregating them into groups.
>
> Perhaps we can agree that the intent is to complement purely VRM tools.
> Because without them, individuals would not have the confidence to
> participate.
>
> Then maybe there would be more openness to how this roadmap evolves instead
> of trying to fit a round peg in a square hole and ending up with a
> redundant concept to what is already in development.
>
> Just a thought.
>
> Katherine Warman Kern
> 203.918.2617
>
> On May 18, 2011, at 7:54 AM, Mark Lizar
> < >
> wrote:
>
>> Excellent points and idea to progress a Roadmap.
>>
>>
>> On 16 May 2011, at 15:07, Devon Loffreto wrote:
>>
>>> Science/Tech/Law/Entrepreneurs don't always get it right... even though
>>> they want to... and conscious evolution requires forethought in advance
>>> of effort... so don't undervalue idea sharing. We are here to
>>> share-take-riff on the ideas of one another. Creativity by committee
>>> rarely works... but there are Individual creators in the midst. Time is
>>> not something you are going to speed up by being impatient with it. My
>>> $.02
>>>
>>> Devon
>>
>> Along with excellent guidance
>>
>>
>> On 15 May 2011, at 14:07, Katherine Warman Kern wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> Let's discuss specifically, what the individual customer will have to
>>> contribute to enjoy all the benefits, what actions come first vs later,
>>> and the barriers to taking action.
>>>
>>> Then let's consider how each feature and benefit will relate to
>>> motivating those actions. For example, some features and benefits are
>>> more important to:
>>> - reassuring
>>> - maintaining participation
>>> - differentiating from other choices
>>> - peaking curiosity to learn more
>>> - compelling each action necessary for an individual to enjoy the
>>> defining promise of this community.
>>
>> Roadmap steps
>> 1. Taking the time to start a roadmap with idea sharing.
>> 2. Talking the time to start the roadmap understanding what the customer
>> will have to contribute.
>>
>> Providing the customer with confidence enabling the customer to
>> contribute.
>>
>>
>>>> On Mon, May 16, 2011 at 7:38 AM, Katherine Warman Kern
>>>> < >
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> What would give you confidence in sharing info, not just for fun, but
>>>> because it could be a valuable asset?
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> - having more complete information to make wiser decisions
>>> +1 +1
>>
>>> > enabling me to identify and choose what is personally new,
>>> relevant and credible
>>
>> The more transaction information you are able to open (e.g. digitally
>> opening receipts, and loyalty cards) the more complete information will
>> be. Open Loyalty is about being able to take your data out of data
>> silo;s and aggregate the information shared.
>>
>>>>
>>>> - receiving opportunities for business ventures and productive
>>>> relationships to form
>>> +1 +1
>>> > revealing peers (friends or strangers) receptive to what I care
>>> about and businesses who want to do something about it.
>>
>>
>>>>
>>>> - being introduced to people i should know via my trust networks
>>> +1 +1
>>> > interacting without risking unwanted invasion of my "personal
>>> space," my personal identity being stolen, or my comments being hijacked
>>> for unintended purposes.
>>
>>
>> Ability to interact in non-identifying - e.g. identities based of
>> interests and other attributes
>>
>>>>
>>>> - getting paid
>>> +1
>>>>
>>
>> (from the customer perspective)
>> I think the scope of 'getting paid' should perhaps be expanded to getting
>> value,e.g. barter and trade, crowdsourcing, guitar lessons for math
>> lessons etc.
>>
>> For the infrastructure, or the service development and provision - getting
>> paid is very important. +1 having money to develop the service
>> infrastructure
>>
>>>
>>> This process will set priorities that may not be the same as thinking
>>> about them from strictly an operating point of view. But since the
>>> result starts from the customer's perspective, it will be aligned with
>>> the fundamental principle behind VRM.
>>
>> Starting with the customer Experience would the next step be evolving the
>> description of what should it be?
>>
>> Some (operating) ideas that I have for structuring the community effort
>> would be to create inter-related WG's - E.g.:
>> - Creating a core operating infrastructure & Services Group
>> - Creating a series of sub-groups
>> -- VRM Services - Listing and assessing - (allocating participants to sub
>> groups)
>> -- Customers
>> -- Vendors
>> -- Suppliers
>> -- Rights/Independence Services/Architecture
>>
>>
>> - Mark
>>


Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.19.

§