| One more correction...
When I drew the circle with VRM inside personal clouds, the context was planning for IIW, not organizing the two categories.
We could represent the two as overlapping Venn circles, because VRM covers some territory personal clouds do not, and vice versa; but I think the two topics are different enough to warrant some other kind of representation.
Another topic that's important to consider is Life Management Platforms, which was a very active track at EIC this past week in Munich. See:
I'm hoping Craig Burton and others from KuppingerCole can weigh on the topic on one or the other of our two lists, since there is a lot of sorting out to do.
Something to think about: big old and new companies, as well as start-ups and open source development projects, are looking at the larger space here — the one where individuals have a lot more agency than they used to have — and trying to make sense of it. We need to help them, along with everybody else, do that.
Doc
On May 16, 2013, at 5:33 PM, Lisa LeVasseur <
">
> wrote: Thanks Doc! I’ll make the updates and make it publically available somewhere. (I’ll also respond more thoughtfully later….just running out the door.) Lisa Good slides. Some edits... - "Life Management Platforms" (LMPs) not "Systems" - On Slide 7, I'm not sure "good" and "bad" are helpful sorts, but if you stick with it, I'll make some points that you can sort out any way you like... VRM was coined as the customer-side counterpart of CRM. It makes the literal sense to those familiar with an $18 billion business category, even though it is much broader than that. By the way, it was, and remains, market tested. I didn't like it at first, but adoption happened and I chose not to fight it. KuppingerCole's good efforts withstanding, "Life Management Platforms" has little traction so far, and not a lot of visibility either. KC is looking to change that, however, and plans many more conferences, and not just in Europe. Craig Burton also gave it a great deal more definition here in Munich this week, however. That may help after it goes up on the Web. The problem with all of the items in the Slide 7 chart is that there are many developers whose work belongs in one or more of the categories, but are damned if they're going to say so, because to belong to a category makes them look less like a leader in a field they alone define. In other words, they would rather belong to no category than any of these. That said, I like Life Management Platforms more than I like VRM, though less than I like personal clouds. Let me unpack that a bit. What LMP needs is to be adopted outside the KC orbit, which is mostly big European companies that do not have VRM, data sharing, privacy by design, or most of this other good stuff anywhere near their bones. But as long as KC doesn't come to IIW or participate outside their own sphere (with the exception of Craig Burton), that's a bit of a long shot. But, again, that may change as KC broadens out. Personal clouds has the advantage of mojo with developers, and the proven ability to attract people to meetups, the wiki, and the list. I also think it makes the same great historically ironic sense as personal computing did back in 1982. Before computing got personal, it was entirely corporate. Likewise, before clouds got personal, it was entirely corporate too. The main problem we have, I believe, is that many of us (me included) keep trying to sell our ideas to big companies which, as Phil made clear in the "What will it take?" session at IIW, basically hate those ideas because they feel threatened by them. The best answer for that may be this classic cartoon by Hugh McLeod:
Sure thing. I signed up for an account today, so as soon as I can write to it…. these slides are very useful. Could I convince you to put a link to them -- or even prose -- up on the personal-clouds.org wiki somewhere? A tiny bit tangential, but the Kuppinger terminology is another example of the proliferation of different names for [fundamentally] the same guiding principles. I’m attaching a brief inventory of some of the terminology I’ve observed thus far and some ideas around the necessary lexicon, which, if we could align, might provide clarity and understanding outside of our collective community. And help simplify the message to external forces such as the investor community. PS. The pros/cons analysis is my opinion, and was performed with an eye also towards our company’s customer-facing language. Another outstanding post. I think we should add to the wiki a reading list of canonical or near-canonical works on VRM. This and a number of others from Phil should be there. Among early works should be Joe's original point-of-integration post and series on user driven services and Adriana's on -driven vs. -centric. Here in Munich I'm giving a keynote at 6pm today (+9 hr from San Francisco) on The Internet of Me and My Things. The talk needs to have an identity angle, since this is an identity conference. The audience is mostly guys in suits from Europe, but with a smattering of geeks and young entrepreneurs, as well as some IIW veterans (Craig Burton, Pamela Dingle, Paul Madsen, Mike Jones, Kim Cameron, Colin Wallis, Nat Sakamura, et. al.). Kuppinger Cole, which puts on EIC, frames VRM within a larger circle called Life Management Platforms. QS and personal clouds are in there too. I'll be speaking into that context as well. Depending on your list, personal clouds or VRM+CRM is the interest in this blog post about SquareTag: Regardless, relationships are what are front and center. ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
" style="color: purple; text-decoration: underline; ">
To be removed from the list, send any message to:
" style="color: purple; text-decoration: underline; ">
For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.pde.cc/lists/info/personal-clouds
|