Text archives Help


Re: [projectvrm] Roadmap to VRM Utopia


Chronological Thread 
  • From: Katherine Warman Kern < >
  • To: Devon Loffreto < >
  • Cc: ProjectVRM list < >
  • Subject: Re: [projectvrm] Roadmap to VRM Utopia
  • Date: Wed, 18 May 2011 13:51:50 -0400
On May 18, 2011, at 11:43 AM, Devon Loffreto < "> "> > wrote:

Doc,
That is one meaty response and should go on the VRM billboard for all to see at every pass.
Make this part BIG:
"VRM-like and VRM are not the same"
Devon

On Wed, May 18, 2011 at 11:17 AM, Doc Searls < "> "> "> > wrote:
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?)

I am unaware of any attempts to aggregate demand that are a) bottom up and b) give both individuals and business more confidence that the odds of being rewarded for time and money spent are any better than they are now.

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.

It is clear that this Project NOPUORG (reverse groupon) concept is not consistent with VRM.  (which is why I wrote the e- mail).  And why I propose it as a complement to VRM. 

The power of numbers to build individual confidence is well known. Some groups are better than others. The premise for linking Project NOPUORG to VRM is because an indirect benefit of VRM tools for individuals is to make better groups.  

I believe there is mutual benefit to VRM because these groups would in turn demonstrate the value of VRM to both individuals and business.  For example, in Crosbie's description below our objective would be to eliminate the word "probably", specify the number of others, and negotiate a price those numbers are willing to pay if their expectations are met.
   
"For example, consider money-backed propositions for new products from prospective purchasers, e.g.
'i, and probably umpteen thousand others, will pay you/anyone $1 if at least
N of product X is produced and sold - at whatever market price',

Specifically, individuals willing to pay a business to solve a problem find enough others who also care to get the attention of one or more businesses to pitch their solutions and negotiate a price. 

The number of individuals who care enough to participate builds everyone's confidence.  The individual is even more confident in raising their expectations when they know others care too.  Individuals are more confident negotiating price because of their numbers.  The business is more confident there is enough demand to invest time and money instead of guessing what will sell, who will buy it, and where to reach them . . . and then hoping.  So yes this group-built-on-VRM empowered individuals concept might be interpreted as a better marketing tool.  But if we clearly establish that it is a separate but complementary project then we can maintain a Chinese wall between VRM and project NOPOURG.

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.

I'm not sure I understand what "open loyalty" means?  would love to learn more.

Separately, mapping the unknown is in my genes since I have an ancestor who was the first to map Virginia.  I suspect mapping accelerated pioneering by increasing confidence.  And if developing a roadmap for Project NOPOURG helped accelerate VRM tool development wouldn't that be a value?

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.

§