Text archives Help


Re: [projectvrm] Wicked problems vs. tame ones


Chronological Thread 
  • From: Peter Cranstone < >
  • To: Phil Windley < >
  • Cc: ProjectVRM list < >, Katherine Kern < >
  • Subject: Re: [projectvrm] Wicked problems vs. tame ones
  • Date: Thu, 23 Jan 2014 19:39:30 +0000
  • Accept-language: en-US
Phil,

Lets continue to walk down this path…

  • Hey Mr. or Mrs. Consumer please sign up for a Personal Cloud - cost is $3.00 a month (discounted for pre-payment)
  • Store all your personal data in the cloud
    • Please note that other people’s data may also be located on the same server as yours but in a virtual container (they have no idea what this means) but it’s all about security
    • We’re working to add vendors to this so you can build a personal relationship with them.
      • Customer really doesn’t know what this means but it sounds kind of cool
      • They’ll need to see the value proposition VERY quickly otherwise they’ll exit stage left

Ok so far. My data is in the cloud. Now i want to work with a vendor to do a ‘something’ 

  • Hey Mr. or Mrs. Consumer please download an app from our Vendor store (approved vendors only)
    • Note - who writes all these apps and how do they make money?
    • How long to build enough apps to support the ecosystem
    • Who pays for all this?
    • And this is why i say you need to use the browser which is more flexible than an app
  • Hey Mr. Vendor please use the following tools to integrate your backend services into the pCloud
    • Note - who writes all those tools, tests them, debugs them, revs them and how do they make money?
    • How long does all this take to build out?

Ok so far… But the data the Vendor needs to complete the process is not there - it’s in another pCloud - Oops how do i connect with that? Does the app support that other cloud?

I think you can see where i’m going. The ‘Design’ problem is the man in the middle or the pClouds/vClouds - an incredible amount of work has to go into getting this up and running and building an ecosystem to support it all.

=Big Upfront Costs.

Which is why i say until i see a VRM play with $3-$5m invested in it it’s going to be tough. There’s only two companies that i know of that can pull that off.




Peter
_________________________
Peter J. Cranstone
303.809.7342



  

On Jan 23, 2014, at 12:23 PM, Phil Windley < "> > wrote:

All those things used to be true of Web sites as well. Hosting companies sprang up to solve them. Initially they were expensive, even $100’s per month.  (BTW, I built  and ran ATT Small Business Hosting, so I’m familiar with this). Now it’s $2-3/month for pretty good hosting. It won’t be free but it will be affordable. 

I’m not sure why you think any of this has anything to do with VRM. VRM is a concept. If you had said:

Personal clouds [are] an awesome idea - but without a clear understanding of the cost and profit structure getting traction will remain difficult. 

I’d have understood, but nothing you’re saying is an argument about VRM. 


On January 23, 2014 at 12:05:08 PM, Peter Cranstone ( "> ) wrote:

Phil,

You’re now see the magnitude of the issues facing VRM. 

Lets forget trillions for a moment and just go with 100 million. In all likelihood you’re going to need to run these database inside a well managed cloud infrastructure, staffed by responsible knowledgable people (= cost). You’re going to need legal docs to explain the privacy policies and processes in place to manage the inevitable breech. All this data will have to be backed up all the time with full fault tolerance and always on. (= more cost) 

And that’s just to run the cloud - now for the fun part. How do you get users to type in all that data and then provide all the signaling mechanisms plus server side ‘enterprise’ ready tools to integrate with the vendors. (= lots of cost).

Can it done = Yes. Can it be done for free = No

And that’s the monster hiding under the bed here. Everybody keeps talking about Open Source like it’s the cure for cancer. It’s not - you need staff, marketing dollars, cloud infrastructure etc. With no discernible business model that generates revenue to support that cost there’s very little likelihood of a ‘sustainable’ (operative word here) solution being around for long. Lets face it - the customers data (pCloud) is currently on the vendors servers where they maintain it and get value from it. Moving it somewhere else might be fine until the second they can’t close a transaction due to downtime. 

VRM is an awesome idea - but without a clear understanding of the cost and profit structure getting traction will remain difficult. 



Peter
_________________________
Peter J. Cranstone
303.809.7342



  

On Jan 23, 2014, at 11:06 AM, Phil Windley < "> > wrote:

 


I think a more apt question is “what operating system are those clouds running?”  

I think there are plenty of hardware/operating solutions that could host personal clouds and the techniques for locking them down, self- hosting, etc. are well understood. That doesn’t mean it’s easy to do, but I don’t think that’s the central question. 

The key question is does each personal cloud present as a representative of a single entity and can we assure that that entity’s data is secure. 

I think it’s unlikely that every personal cloud will run on dedicated hardware. They will be on shared hardware. We’re not going to solve the security problem by going to dedicated hardware for most things and people. The problem is there’s going to be trillions of personal clouds (yeah, with a T) and the only way that’s possible is by running them in some kind of container on shared hardware. 

One key idea that makes me believe doing this securely is possible is that there’s no technical reason for the container to have access to the data. You could architect it so that the container that is hosting multiple clouds can’t get any more access than other cloud connections. 


On January 23, 2014 at 8:43:17 AM, Peter Cranstone ( "> ) wrote:

Katherine,

Another follow up - and this time a general question for everyone on this list. Here’s a picture from Respect Networks web site


In it there are multiple clouds. So here’s the questions...
  1. What operating system and hardware are those clouds running on
  2. What are the security policies - need legal docs here - regarding those clouds

And perhaps the most important question of all…

  • How many people’s data is stored on those cloud servers? 

Here’s what i’m getting at - imagine you have a million members, all there data is stored in one place - anyone hacks that one place they get access to an incredible array of data - much more so that Target.

Hackers can target an individuals device - but the rewards are so much less than the servers that store multiple users data.



Peter
_________________________
Peter J. Cranstone
303.809.7342



  

On Jan 23, 2014, at 8:26 AM, Peter Cranstone < "> > wrote:

Correction.

You can build a VRM solution on ANY platform - what you have to understand is the limitations of that platform/OS from a security standpoint. You can then accept (or not) those limitations and build a suitable defense in depth strategy via either additional hardware, software and or legal policies.

It all comes down to ‘risk mitigation’. Understand the business risks and make a decision. Target new the risks and accepted them - once hacked they sprang into action and limited the downside. This is just the cost of doing business these days. 

Also notice that Nieman Marcus got hacked as well - they made a ‘business decision’ not to tell anyone about it until after the holidays. They didn’t want to hurt the brand and have since applied the appropriate resources to mitigate additional risks.

In this day and age there’s no such thing as perfect security unless you have an unlimited budget. You just make a business decision on how to manage the fallout. Customers are used to it now.

They just expect a little more humility from the vendor that’s all.




Peter
_________________________
Peter J. Cranstone
303.809.7342



  

On Jan 23, 2014, at 7:48 AM, Peter Cranstone < "> > wrote:

The problem is wickedly simple: How do you build a VRMy product on this foundation? 

You can’t. I’ve built a secure OS - the only way it can be done is with both hardware and software, ‘Root Trust’, plus multiple ‘Rings’ along with Protection ID and compartmentalization for secure passwords. Itanium is the only architecture i know that can support this level of security unless you have a custom chip.

VRM cannot be made perfectly secure - you need a ‘defense in depth’ strategy i.e. insurance policies.

Anything can be hacked - all you need is time or the Patriot Act.


Peter
_________________________
Peter J. Cranstone
303.809.7342



  

On Jan 23, 2014, at 5:36 AM, Katherine Kern < "> > wrote:

Wicked Shit.

The wicked thrive in complexity. The more complex, the more opportunities to adapt to turning stuff into shit – sometimes just because they can.  

Been too busy building our space and website for the Creative Professional Community to contribute here lately.

But I have to chime in with one thought:

Imagine when TARGET was choosing a third party system for their POS system.  The written agreement had all sorts of legal mumbo jumbo about waiving any liability for anything.  BUT the sales rep reassured “our system is bullet proof – the lawyers and insurance company make us put that stuff in there.”  

That is the real world – business people who want to serve their customers with convenient, secure transaction systems.  Third parties who want to provide it but can not.  Lawyers trying to protect entrepreneurs from losing their house.  Customers who can only adapt to a new normal that gets lower by the day.

The problem is wickedly simple: How do you build a VRMy product on this foundation? 

The business case is obvious: secure financial transactions.

Governments have formed alliances to maintain a safe Space Station. How was this accomplished?

Happy New Year,

Katherine Kern

From: Doc Searls < "> >
Date: Monday, January 20, 2014 at 9:39 PM
To: David Brin < "> >
Cc: William Dyson < "> >, Peter Cranstone < "> >, Guy Higgins < "> >, Tom Crowl < "> >, ProjectVRM list < "> >, Andy Oram < "> >, "Grant, Frank (Perkins Coie)" < "> >
Subject: Re: [projectvrm] Wicked problems vs. tame ones

Somehow this also reminds me of what George Carlin said in "A place for my stuff"...

"Ever notice that your shit is stuff and other people's stuff is shit?" A fused spine corollary, perhaps. :-)

Doc

On Jan 20, 2014, at 11:09 AM, David Brin < "> > wrote:

I find fascinating the human propensity to suffer from the political equivalent of fused-spine…the ability to notice threats in only one direction. 

Americans - especially - are raised by art and films and songs that celebrate Suspicion of Authority (SoA). Moreover, we are each of us encouraged to think "I invented SoA!"  Admit it, you relish the delusion that you are the only one (maybe with a few friends... and some helpful folks in mass media) who notices what is REALLY going on! The rest of your neighbors are mostly bleating sheep.  Only… it's funny how those "sheep" look at you the same way.

The SoA reflex is fundamental in America.  Liberals see Big Brother trying to arise out of conniving oligarchs and faceless corporations.  Conservatives perceive Big Brother emerging from snooty academics and meddling bureaucrats.  Both fears are well-founded!  But when we focus in one direction, we tend to ignore the looming elites who are "on our side."

And those elites will encourage this tunnel vision. "Look over there!" they scream.  "Keep staring over there!"

Hence the fused spine effect.  And hence culture war.  No, make that phase three of the American Civil War. Undermining the American genius at vigorous, can-do problem solving pragmatism. A genius that always involved using an agile mix of methods, from individual initiative to market solutions to consensus-chosen joint projects paid for via government of the people, by the people. 

 We are now being talked into HATING elements of that mixed suite of tools. Gee, I wonder who would benefit from that?  (Hint. Ever look at the list of top owners of cable news outlets?)

Me? I consider myself a child of Adam Smith and Robert Heinlein.  I'd be a "libertarian" except that once-noble word was hijacked by cult-followers of a mad Russian woman sci fi author. I do want market solutions!|

I am also able to admit that, across 6000 years, 99% of societies saw their markets and freedom crushed by private owner-lord-oligarchs, the great failure mode that destroyed human progress for 60 centuries.  And failure to admit -- or even look at -- that basic fact is blatant proof that half our citizens… and some of you bright fellows -- suffer from political fused-spine syndrome.

Is socialism dangerous?  Hell yes!  I hated the USSR and I am scared of any politburo. But to claim that Sweden is hell on Earth, or that skyrocketing rates of US wealth and income disparity - approaching the levels of 1789 France - aren't deadly perils to our Great Experiment?  That isn't just fused-spine.  It is fused brain.  

 "Class war" has always existed, except during the brief post-FDR heyday of the American Middle Class. Watch as that middle class returns to levels of radicalization not seen since the 1930s, as they realize that "class war" is always waged aggressively from above.

See a chiropractor.  Learn to see lurking Big Brothers in ALL directions.  The Great Experiment has always been about agility and flexibility.  Even plants are able to face new directions.

Try turning your head.

 

From: William Dyson < "> >
To: Peter Cranstone < "> >
Cc: Guy Higgins < "> >; Tom Crowl < "> >; Doc Searls < "> >; ProjectVRM list < "> >; Andy Oram < "> >; "Grant, Frank (Perkins Coie)" < "> >; David Brin < "> >
Sent: Monday, January 20, 2014 10:19 AM
Subject: Re: [projectvrm] Wicked problems vs. tame ones

So lets start with …. what is your alternative version for Healthcare ?
On Jan 20, 2014, at 9:57 AM, Peter Cranstone < "> > wrote:

Well said.

We almost have the perfect ‘social state’. Our own laziness is contributing to the following Govt. control. On a scale of 1 to 10 apply your own judgement to each of the following 8 criteria.  

1) Healthcare 
2) Poverty 
3) Debt 
4) Gun Control 
5) Welfare 
6) Education
7) Religion 
8) Class Warfare 

As a foreigner coming to the USA 25 years ago the number i would have placed on the above would not have amounted to more than 10 out of 80. Now the number is climbing far closer to 80. Healthcare is perhaps the straw that will most affect ‘we the people’. 

It’s the one thing that i can see that truly affects everyone - and it may just be where the Govt.’s reach exceeds it’s grasp. 

We’ll see.


Peter
_________________________
Peter J. Cranstone
303.809.7342
<PastedGraphic-2.png>


  

On Jan 20, 2014, at 9:56 AM, Guy Higgins < "> > wrote:

I don’t think that government “by the poor” is any better than government “by the rich.”  We have an excellent mechanism in place right now — democracy!  The problem is that we’re too lazy to participate and so we choose the “default option” (re-elect the incumbents) far too often, or we don’t vote at all (the new mayor of NYC was elected by something like 8% of the voters), or we vote for the person who most strikes our fancy (better looking, great sound bites, etc).  None of these lead us to a good government.  

People complain (on rare occasion) about how their personal data is being taken and used without their permission, but almost no one (present company excepted) actually does anything about it.

Electing the best people to govern us is the same problem faced by VRM — we have to get enough people interested in the idea (government or VRM) for them to invest their personal effort in participating intelligently.  I’m not holding my breath …

Guy


RE: " liberating customers from systems that value holding them captive is the core challenge of VRM"

I agree... and I'm not trying to be political here (at least not in a Left/Right sense) but would add that this is a reflection of the quandary that the individual faces in relationship to large interests (both public and private) which has existed since the birth of agriculture...

And that its that relationship that must be addressed.

This doesn't mean that wandering into the weeds of political ideology can solve it... but it does mean that stronger mechanisms for customer/citizen/user feedback to both government and private interests may be required to secure the customer/vendor relationship as well as others.

I don't like to be a broken record... but both the micropayment and the core it requires are essential to the empowerment of the individual vis-a-vis these large sectors.

This conclusion arises out of a recognition that excessive* wealth and power concentration is (unfortunately)... a sort of natural cancer which we see seems to almost inevitably arise in scaled human societies.

I suggest this is a 'natural' result of the altruism dilemma... which has consequences an ideological altruism may ameliorate but not eliminate.

In fact... while I don't hold my breath... rule by poor people (sortition?) would likely lessen this problem... simply because the poor WANT to be rich... so overall (and evidence supports it)...

they're fine with some making more for others... and reward for innovation and hard work... and would NOT demand a total leveling... or all become bums 'leaching off the state"....

However the rich DON'T want to be poor... and this accelerates the concentration problem which comes with the altruism dilemma... when they're in charge.

Maybe this little 'theory' sounds silly or simplistic... but I think I'm on to something. 

Its not about leveling the society... its about leveling the landscape.



On Sun, Jan 19, 2014 at 11:44 AM, Doc Searls < "> > wrote:
That's good. I like "rugged landscape."

Links:

<http://www.lsa.umich.edu/polisci/people/faculty/ci.pagescott_ci.detail>
<http://vserver1.cscs.lsa.umich.edu/~spage/>
<http://vserver1.cscs.lsa.umich.edu/complexadaptivesystems/>
<http://knackeredhack.com/2007/04/30/how-chippy-do-you-like-your-ice-cream/#more-166>
<https://www.aasa.org/SchoolAdministratorArticle.aspx?id=4758>
<http://bit.ly/19FstmJ>



On Jan 19, 2014, at 9:43 AM, Guy Higgins < "> > wrote:

> It strikes me that this set of bullets describing wicked problems also
> applies to problems involving complex adaptive systems.  Inherently, VRM
> is dealing with complex adaptive systems involving players who want to
> control their private data and players who want to make use of other
> player¹s private data.  Scott Page uses the term ³rugged landscape² to
> create an image of a solution space in which there are numerous potential
> solutions (peaks) and it is not obvious nor easy to determine which
> solution is optimal.  Scott goes on from that image to one he calls
> ³dancing landscapes² in which the attributes of a rugged landscape apply
> but the peaks and valleys all change in response to the actions of players
> in the solutions space and even in response to externalities.  This latter
> solution space of dancing landscapes is where complex adaptive solutions
> and wicked problems dwell.
>
> Don¹t know if this perspective is helpful or not ‹ but fer what it¹s worth
> Š
>
> Guy
>
> On 1/19/14, 10:04 , "Doc Searls" < "> > wrote:
>
>> The quoted passage below showed up in another list. It looked to me like
>> it might be relevant to VRM, so I'm sharing it.
>>
>> Here is the original:
>> <http://www.uctc.net/mwebber/Rittel+Webber+Dilemmas+General_Theory_of_Plan
>> ning.pdf>
>>
>> While the excerpt below lays out what "wicked" problems are, what
>> intrigues me is that it poses them against "tame" ones.
>>
>> I think the problem of customer captivity is not the captivity itself,
>> but the valuing of it ‹ and the normative nature of value systems, even
>> when those systems later fall into discredit and abandonment. And I think
>> my problem with marketing-framed answers to the questions raised by VRM
>> ambitions is that they strike me ‹ in the context posed by this piece ‹
>> as tame. I don't mean that in a negative way. I mean it in the sense that
>> marketing is a mature, deep and well-understood field. What VRM poses is
>> the idea of free customers, which marketing on the whole doesn't care a
>> lot about or would rather not see. (Perhaps Graham can correct me on
>> that, or shed more light on the matter.) In any case, marketing is a
>> corporate practice, and VRM is about personal ones. Today we have a
>> limited box of tools at customers' disposal. VRM seeks to add more tools
>> to that box.
>>
>> I suggest that liberating customers from systems that value holding them
>> captive is the core challenge of VRM. There are other challenges in the
>> shaft behind that arrowhead, such as making VRM work. But liberation is
>> key. I think doing that is a wicked problem.
>>
>> Einstein said (or is said to have said ‹ it's not clear), "You cannot
>> solve a problem with the same level of thinking that created it." I
>> suggest that a corollary might be, "Wicked problems are ones that cannot
>> be solved from any level place," meaning any tame (mature,
>> well-understood) place.
>>
>> Obviously, those places don't go away. Newton's proven theories did not
>> cease to apply when those of relativity theory and quantum mechanics came
>> along. But the thinking that yielded the latter was not Newtonian. It was
>> different. Einstein credited "the gift of fantasy" for his own insights.
>>
>> Anyway, those are some digressive thoughts on a Sunday morning. I'd
>> tighten them up if we didn't have guests. But we do, so there ya go.
>>
>> Doc
>>
>>
>>
>>> Excerpted from:
>>> Rittel, H., & Webber, M. (1973). ³Dilemmas in a General Theory of
>>> Planning,² Policy Sciences, 4, 155-169.
>>>
>>> Wicked Problems
>>> According to Rittel and Webber, wicked problems have 10 characteristics:
>>>     € Wicked problems have no definitive formulation. Formulating the
>>> problem and the solution is essentially the same task. Each attempt at
>>> creating a solution changes your understanding of the problem.
>>>     € Wicked problems have no stopping rule. Since you can't define the
>>> problem in any single way, it's difficult to tell when it's resolved.
>>> The problem-solving process ends when resources are depleted,
>>> stakeholders lose interest or political realities change.
>>>     € Solutions to wicked problems are not true-or-false, but good-or-bad.
>>> Since there are no unambiguous criteria for deciding if the problem is
>>> resolved, getting all stakeholders to agree that a resolution is "good
>>> enough" can be a challenge, but getting to a ³good enough² resolution
>>> may be the best we can do.
>>>     € There is no immediate or ultimate test of a solution to a wicked
>>> problem. Since there is no singular description of a wicked problem, and
>>> since the very act of intervention has at least the potential to change
>>> that which we deem to be ³the problem,² there is no one way to test the
>>> success of the proposed resolution.
>>>     € Every implemented solution to a wicked problem has consequences.
>>> Solutions to such problems generate waves of consequences, and it's
>>> impossible to know, in advance and completely, how these waves will
>>> eventually play out.
>>>     € Wicked problems don't have a well-described set of potential
>>> solutions. Various stakeholders have differing views of acceptable
>>> solutions. It's a matter of judgment as to when enough potential
>>> solutions have emerged and which should be pursued.
>>>     € Each wicked problem is essentially unique. There are no "classes" of
>>> solutions that can be applied, a priori, to a specific case. "Part of
>>> the art of dealing with wicked problems is the art of not knowing too
>>> early what type of solution to apply."
>>>     € Each wicked problem can be considered a symptom of another problem.
>>> A wicked problem is a set of interlocking issues and constraints that
>>> change over time, embedded in a dynamic social context. But, more
>>> importantly, each proposed resolution of a particular description of ³a
>>> problem² should be expected to generate its own set of unique problems.
>>>     € The causes of a wicked problem can be explained in numerous ways.
>>> There are many stakeholders who will have various and changing ideas
>>> about what might be a problem, what might be causing it and how to
>>> resolve it. There is no way to sort these different explanations into
>>> sets of ³correct/incorrect.²
>>>     € The planner (designer) has no right to be wrong. Scientists are
>>> expected to formulate hypotheses, which may or may not be supportable by
>>> evidence. Designers don't have such a luxury‹they're expected to get
>>> things right. People get hurt, when planners are ³wrong.² Yet, there
>>> will always be some condition under which planners will be wrong.
>>>
>>>
>
>












Attachment: 7cd61a6b-95e1-42f0-ad4d-bf1722c8983b@exch022.domain.local
Description: 7cd61a6b-95e1-42f0-ad4d-bf1722c8983b@exch022.domain.local


Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.19.