User Driven Services

From Project VRM
Revision as of 11:33, 28 November 2009 by <bdi>KruGer</bdi> (talk | contribs)
Jump to navigation Jump to search

User Driven Services – Joe Andrieu

Introduced a series of blog posts for user driven services See blog: [1]

Issues that arose that led to the idea of user driven services to tackle the general issues of interactions between individuals and a system

See blog for definitions

But in general – a System is something built for a particular goal

User is an individual – not a computer an actual individual

Services is an interaction that creates value

User driven service definition

“Services that maximize value creation by maximizing user control and authority.”

There are a spectrum of possibilities

And there is a continuum of “user driven services”

You could argue that Google, for instance, is very user driven… on a first order level

But they don’t conform to many of the characteristics

  1. impulse form the User
  2. Control
  3. Transparcncy
  4. Data portability
  5. Service endpoint portability
  6. Self hosting
  7. User generativity
  8. Improvability
  9. Self-managed identity
  10. Duty of Care

Question - what do you see as the value of adding all these criteria over the relatively random stuff that’s going on

Answer from Joe – this is the basis for many conversations. And the conversation regarding VRM was always future. User-driven gives a way to ground it in specific instances… like whether a mobile app to tie into a company internet, he wanted to make it more user-driven.

We’re part of a huge transformation of our society, started with The Enlightenment… just figuring out what it means on the internet

Doc: the problem comes up even since Ben Franklin…

Added it includes time travel… The pace of correspondence is so much faster

Added 4th party discussion makes it more easy to define crisply and clearly

Now we need to define what “fouth party is” because “vrm is not about user-driven, it’s about how the end-statement changes everything.” It’s transformational if you can address the end-state

User-driven has instances. Whereas Fourth-party is a category of participant or service provider (not always acting on behalf of the user)

Google figures that they would win in the “open” game with their semantic labeling and they expose their APIs to let them

Joe – for Switchbook, we think our algorithms are better.

Issue raised – “User driven works for some ?? and not others…

Doc says – the characteristics define a number of bullets that dictate how you let people in without locking them in and locking them down.

Joe – like Umar Haque (phonetic)…

He has some this and shares the core tenet that, we’re not doing a moral argument. We’re coming from the idea that there’s money left on the table because of faster response time and less waste.

It’s economically stupid to do it the old way.

Service enpoint portability – you can change service provider without anyting falling apart

Self-hosting = you control the dagt

User-generative = means that the user should be able to add value

Improvability is the “A” in NEA…

Self managed ID – to be dealt with

Duty of care

Doc’s question – who does this apply to? Different users may attach more or less importance to each one

But the service provider has to do them all and be responsive to all requirements and maintain sustainable advantage… But not locking people in.

1) reprise: Impulse of user - this is not about data mining… it is about the system responding to a gesture of intent.

The internet is really good at this.

Q: is this really targeting individuals… The service needs to be at the architectural level and this is about an individual interacting with a service (that could be a 4th party interacting with a 2nd party on behalf of the first party)

E.g. that will come up is a personal RFP… but it might benefit from group interaction because it could be group buying

e.g. might be eBay because it aggregates a whole lot of sellers.

Alan Mitchell – says that your describing a cell that interacts with a larger organism…

A: This is the pattern of behaviors that make the cell survivable for the organism to live. It’s that system level that I’m trying to describe

Doc: a distinction is that we start with the individual (cell) how do we give it the right nutrients to support VRM, not just consumer – like Consumer Reports. That’s not are starting point.

Joe: it’s part of our Jui Jitsu… where we shift the weight.

Don Marti talks about the upside down buyers guide – putting the buyers in control

2) control – Users control the services… E.g. can

Control is not a great word – but the gang put that down. Users should have control

Also comment that service provider should respect the directives of the user.

Issue is whether this expects too much of the user. You could also grant it to tohers.

Doc – we are pouring all sort of responsibility on the users… BUT SO ARE VENDORS – with self-service and all. But then again, we can make control as simple as possible.

The issue is whether there is a “standard default arrangement” (policies) which is how the things are all the time.

The fact is that if people don’t vote… They’re happy.

It’s something you tackle at the policy level… it is distributable, but fluid. Bo said “episodic” you care to control what you care about it.

Next up (not discussed ) is “terms of service” that VRM asserts…

Transparency is straightforward – people let you know what they want you to know… Alain asked does it apply to all the discounts and incentives etc…

A: this is about increasing value by maximizing control and authority

Q2: this is a principle of design – so it has to do with how the service is designed.

A: well the system does require design..

Q3- therefore the user is not in control and it’s not transparent.

A: the people who design the system define reality. Because we’re using Web technology and that’s already defvined. But the term “transparency” has a water’s edge.

But the question is, “Where do you draw the line?” like motives, margins and incentives are a big part of transparency.

Allain’s answer is that “for a fourth party service” transpareny has to include motives and incentives.

Is transparency “full disclosure”

A: there are five categories of transparency…

This is a new dimension of the Caveat Emptor akin to the FDA having all the

Transparency is not a “dictate” it is something that user driven services will need to be survivable… and it means clear understanding of policy.

Alain – we’re getting to the heart of the organizational world where the vendor needs to assert what it does not intend to be transparent.

Darius – in the real world, the service provider will publish service agreements and people will operate under it and it will either work or it won’t.

It is not the primary place where people make a decision.

Q: is there a registry where people could log on and check

Bill Washburn – there should be a dialogue around a quantitative approach to transparency to a qualitative view regarding “what should be the major areas of concern.”

So this will be rescheduled to tomorrow.

Suggestion is to talk about “defining 4th party services in a way that would have a ‘rulebook’ with criteria that should be conformed to”

Joe was wondering whether you could apply these criteria to Web based activity… like SMTP or Web Hosting. sikis izle porno izle sex izle sikis sikis izle sikis hiphop kelebek chat kelebek sohbet chat sohbet chat porno porno izle porno siteleri sex mynet sohbet chat rap kelebek gay chat sevişme cinsel sohbet