| If we are to keep the VRM acronym, but extend and point it to its domain-neutral CORE, then ...Value Relationship Management … does the trick well. customer - vendor patient - care provider employee - employee traveller - mobility portal student - edu institute citizen - government ...
luk
On 21 May 2014, at 10:11, Graham Reginald Hill <
">
> wrote:
Hi Doc
I much prefer a simple set of statements as an emergent definition of MeCommerce to a fixed definition. I have not yet met a fixed definition (of almost anything) that one couldn't drive a coach and horses through. Just look at how the American Marketing Association has had to continuously adapt its (still flawed) definition of marketing (https://www.ama.org/AboutAMA/Pages/Definition-of-Marketing.aspx).
The simple set of statements that you originally provided - although some of the statements have phenomenological issues - have allowed the various flavours of MeCommerce to emerge from their interaction as it has evolved over time. This is in roughly in alignment with how most practitioners see strategy formulation today; as a set of simple rules that define a portfolio of different options (see Kathleen Eisenhardt, 'Strategy as Simple Rules' http://www.dallascap.com/pdfs/StrategyasSimpleRules.pdf).
Principle 1. If you replace the word 'customer', should you not also replace the word 'vendor'? The two words are ontologically linked together. Looking beyond the traditional dyadic buyer-seller view, both are actors in a value network (see Elke den Ouden, 'Designing New Ecosystems: The Value Flow Model (Chapter 9 in Design United, ‘Advanced Design Methods for Successful Innovation) http://www.3tu.nl/du/en/downloads/ADM-2013-Book-screen-version.pdf).
Principle 3. If data is generated during interactions bewteen customers and vendors, should not both parties have a right to control the use of the data? Data is a resource from which value is only created when it is integrated with other resources to enable value to be co-created during an interaction between a customer and a vendor (see Vargo & Akaka on 'Value Cocreation and Service Systems (Re)Formation' http://www.sdlogic.net/uploads/2/7/3/5/2735531/vargoakaka2012.pdf) It is the VALUE that is co-created that reaklly matters, not the data per se. Just ask any (normal) customer.
Best regards from sunny Edinburgh, Graham
Gesendet: Dienstag, 20. Mai 2014 um 21:53 Uhr
Von: "Doc Searls" <
">
>
An:
">
Cc: "Devon M T Loffreto" <
">
>, "ProjectVRM list" <
">
>
Betreff: Re: [projectvrm] #Backtobasics the VRM principles: two questions
Legal is the most difficult one. In The Intention Economy I devoted two chapters (and then some) to the challenge, and probably spent more time on that one issue than on any other.
The story is that freedom of contract is a base principle of civilized life. But, for the last century and a half, so is mass manufacture, distribution and retailing, which require coercive "contracts of adhesion" for scale: to deal in one way with many "end" users or customers.
It might be that we will never move on from this state, which Friedrich Kessler described at canonical length in his 1943 paper, "Contracts of Adhesion: Some Thoughts on Freedom of Contract." Kessler lamented loss of freedoms brought on by adhesive (i.e. standard-form coercive) contracts, and could hardly imagine a future industrial condition where old-fashioned — and preferable — freedom of contract would again prevail.
But then the Internet happened, and we can imagine something better. Here is what I imagined (for some point in the future) on page 9 of the book:
It’s Your Law
These terms, which respect ancient freedom of contract values, are standard ones chosen by you from a list at Customer Commons (Customer Commons.org), which was organized in 2011 and grew out of ProjectVRM at the Berkman Center for Internet & Society at Harvard University, with help from the Information Sharing Workgroup. By now, Customer Commons has compiled many choices of standard terms for individuals and organizations—all described in ways that can easily be compared and matched up automatically. As with Creative Commons (on which Customer Commons was modeled), computers, lawyers, and ordinary people can easily read the terms.
This is an end state. It will take years before we have this. In the meantime we need to scaffold up other things that will accomplish some, if not all, of what we would like in the ideal world.
But we do need to work in that direction. I think it is a mistake to settle for the status quo.
IMHO.
Doc
OK so for me
1. "individual" works better than customer (a point Iain has been making for years).
2. the fourth principle "must be able to assert their own terms of engagement" needs testing a bit. If we leave every user to try to set their own terms then the big corps will always win as they do now. But if VRM means standard individual-friendly agreements so companies can deal in bulk with individuals on terms that suit the individual then we have progress. ("if we're not together, we're nowt" - Rochdate pioneers as per my VRM day t-shirt)
Would something like "must be able to engage on terms accepted by the community as suiting the individual" cover it?
William
|