Socialtext People - looking behind the text

5 06 2008

I wish I could comment with a bit more depth, but these days are as awkward as usual of late (I’m down with a bit of a fever on top of the usual excess wordkload). Still I don’t want to miss commenting this: http://www.socialtext.com/products/features/Socialtext-People.php is a webcast explaining the latest beta of collaboration software maker (it’s already gone well beyond wikis) Socialtext. And yes, it’s a people directory, with many social networking trimmings (groups, subscriptions of the doings of friends), but in fact it’s actually just a very nice and efficient way of tracking the people behind the wikis (and blogs) and adding a “team” or “group” dimension to a large collaboration platform.

It’s not the only news they have (”Dashboard” is the other) on the way to Socialtext 3.0. It’s getting more and more interesting.

By the way, I suppose you know Socialtext is not the only one going “social” in this way. Alfresco’s new “social networking” layer is quite akin, but I don’t know if it’s able to track contributions from all the third-party software it integrates (blogs, forums, wikis), besides the document management part.

The point (if this post has one) is that people directories that enable users to see both ways (finding the author from the content, finding all the content by the author) are a great working tool that can actually be useful in sourcing expertise; indeed they should work much better than the usually current “official expert” directories present in most companies. If you throw in some nice team- and group-support features, so much the better.

Way to go. I’m lookimg forward to a more in-depth look… and maybe a customer demo.





Nomadismo, ubicuidad, y la vida iPhónica

2 05 2008

Esto fue un artículo para Macuarium.com que se fue extendiendo y extendiendo y poniendo progresivamente más metafísico :-). Ahora es demasiado largo para salir como artículo y tendrá que salir como serie… pero mientras tanto, si alguien quiere leer una opinión sobre hacia dónde nos lleva la penúltima evolución de la tecnología y sus modos de uso, puede ver el PDF aquí.

Vida iphónica como confluencia

La tesis esencial es sencilla: poco a poco, se están rompiendo las barreras de la informática corporativa. Cada vez es menos necesario estar “dentro de la red” para operar, y cada vez se usan más cosas de “fuera de la red”. Los departamentos de IT se resisten todo lo que pueden (aduciendo razones de seguridad), pero la evolución tecnológica está favoreciendo ese cambio y los usuarios les están buscando las vueltas. Poco a poco, la utilidad de estar encerrado en un mismo espacio físico para realizar tareas que no dependen de la proximidad física a nadie ni del acceso a unas aplicaciones ancladas a la red local, va desapareciendo.

Así como la Blackberry significó el despegue de directivos y comerciales (es decir, les despegó del asiento y del horario), el iPhone y tecnologías asociadas (widgets, interconexión Outlook, navegación web seria, interfaz usable y agradable, funciones lúdicas integradas) van a hacer despegar a mucha más gente.

Eso sí, el despegue real, el nomadismo, requiere más cosas que la capacidad de trabajar desde cualquier parte. Requiere unas “cualquier partes” adecuadas a las necesidades del trabajo. Entornos que se parecen más a cafés que a oficinas, o que al despacho en casa. Sitios que ofrecen la posibilidad de trabajar con gente cerca pero sin jerarquías… porque no se trabaja para la misma empresa.

Todo eso, y algunas cosas más, en ese PDF :-). Se aprecian opiniones.

Después de ésto, espero volver a mis raíces y dedicar el tiempo “de emekaeme” a la gestión de comunidades de práctica. Que ya va siendo hora :-).





Modelos de negocio Open Source: conversación con John Powell, CEO de Alfresco

27 04 2008

Aviso para navegantes: cuando decimos “hablando de Open Source” aquí, me refiero a los modelos de negocio, los pros, los contras, los socios, los competidores, los desarrolladores, y quizá a parte del camino por delante, pero no al código de Alfresco ni a la aplicación en sí. En la Alfresco Community Conference de Barcelona de la semana pasada había un montón de gente interesante, incluyendo a John Newton, Ian Howells, Kevin Cochrane, David Caruana y Nancy Garrity de Alfresco… y tuve que ir y entrevistar a John Powell sobre los aspectos de negocio y gestión de su empresa.

Y estoy muy contento de haberlo hecho. Y muy agradecido por las respuestas. Así que aquí va la traducción de la conversación transcrita.

Miguel Cornejo. Ya llevas tres años usando un modelo de negocio Open Source, dirigiendo una empresa radicalmente distinta de las que conocías. ¿Qué lecciones has aprendido?

John Powell. En general, el modelo de negocio Open Source hace más sencillos todos los aspectos de una empresa de software porque, sin tener que ocultar tu propiedad intelectual, puedes incorporar las grandes ideas de todos los interesados, puedes hacer que te ayuden en el desarrollo, en el control de calidad… y en la propagación de tu producto. Así que desde ese aspecto, lo hace todo realmente fácil.

El reto del modelo Open Source, para una empresa comercial de Open Source, es mantener el equilibrio entre la comunidad y los clientes suscriptores. Porque realmente, el cliente suscriptor sólo se va a suscribir si ve valor en ello, y siempre habrá gente en la comunidad que no se suscribirá nunca. Y tenemos que mantener el equilibrio correcto porque sin los clientes suscriptores no habría empresa y la comunidad perdería entonces el principal motor para el desarrollo de Alfresco.

MC. El papel de ese motor es una de las cosas que más me interesa comentar contigo. Así que veamos… John Newton (Presidente y CTO) dijo ayer que en torno al 10% del código actual de Alfresco viene de la comunidad.

JP. Sí.

MC. Pero qué parte de… también mencionásteis que la innovación viene de los límites. Así que, ¿qué parte del valor, del valor añadido más allá del núcleo de gestión documental [de Alfresco] se debe a la comunidad?

JP. Pienso que lo que hacen es darnos percepciones sobre un montón de aplicaciones prácticas. Como cualquiera que use software sabrá, cuando recibes software de un proveedor, muchas veces tienes un momento de “¿Porqué diablos pensaron que yo querría trabajar así?”, con el interface o con el flujo de trabajo o con lo que sea… así que pienso que lo que la comunidad nos aporta es mucho mejor feedback del que puede obtenerse jamás con los productos de código cerrado. Es decir, ellos pueden pegarse no sólo con el producto sino con el código, y extenderlo y mostrarte ejemplos concretos.

MC. De modo que podáis hacer “lo que la comunidad ordena” [cita de su charla de unas horas antes].

JP. Sí.

MC. Esto nos lleva a otra pregunta sobre la motivación de esos desarrolladores, porque algunos de ellos están desarrollando ese excelente interfaz de usuario vuestro nuevo sin que nadie les pague nada, sin presupuesto que digamos.

JP. Sí.

MC. Y ¿cómo se llega a implicar a alguien hasta ese punto?

JP. Cualquier proyecto Open Source depende predominantemente en gente con interés, quizá haciendo cosas a tiempo parcial o en su tiempo libre, como algo de investigación, o cualquier cosa útil, que con frecuencia se acaba incorporando. Por ejemplo algunas de las cosas que vimos hoy. Porque esa gente empleado por parners de Alfresco, están haciendo cosas interesantes pero también están mejorando su conocimiento, que luego pueden usar para probar a sus clientes en sus mercados que son realmente expertos, que tienen valor añadido. Así que…

MC. ¿Es una especie de “prueba de capacidad”?

JP. Sí. Así que yo diría, es como… veamos, ¿de qué vale ir al gimnasio para tu trabajo? Bueno, probablemente si estás más despierto, más agudo y más en forma, vas a mejorar sus aptitudes laborales. Como poco, estos desarrolladores de la comunidad pueden mejorar su técnica, pueden hacerse más vendibles, y algunos de ellos pueden producir cosas realmente buenas que entonces pueden aportarse de nuevo a toda la comunidad.

MC. ¿Qué papel tienen entonces fabricantes de código propietario (cerrado) como SAP o Quark en el entorno de Alfresco? (Ambos están colaborando con la empresa en distintos aspectos).

JP. Desde la perspectiva de Alfresco como empresa, hay un importante papel para la colaboración con ese tipo de organizaciones, porque para muchos grandes clientes, ellos demuestran que Alfresco es un jugador a largo plazo y que está aquí para quedarse, y cuando ven a otras grandes empresas, en particular las del mundo de código cerrado, comprometerse con la tecnología de Alfresco y meterse en la cama con Alfresco, les da una buena seguridad. Desde la perspectiva de Alfresco, queremos trabajar con ellos porque reconocemos que tienen unas enormes bases de usuarios y que trabajando con ellos, si sólo una pequeña proporción de esa base de usuarios se interesa por Alfresco, es evidentemente bueno para Alfresco a largo plazo.

MC. Sí. Y acerca de la nueva versión 3.0 dirigida más hacia el ámbito del usuario final… me parece que estáis manteniendo estable el back-end de gestión documental donde se gestiona la artillería pesada, y ahora permitís a la gente persnalizar más la parte en contacto con el usuario final… pero me parece que vuestro competidor, más que Sharepoint, serían FileNet o Documentum.

JP. Sí. Bueno, creo que lo que estamos viendo es que con la versión 3.0 lo que estamos realmente haciendo es añadir una aplicación social a Alfresco. Así que el armazón de la plataforma de Alfresco seguirá ahí, para construir repositorios documentales a gran escala, para gestionar contenidos web a gran escala, o sites para la web. [La versión 3.0] no quita nada de éso, lo que hace es añadir una aplicación social en el centro del entorno, y creo que ésa es una de as principales diferencias que tenemos con Sharepoint. Porque Sharepoint no puede abordar bien el mundo web y no tienen la escalabilidad corporativa para gestionar grandes librerías de documentos. Así que desde nuestra perspectiva, la versión 3.0 pretende igualar el terreno de juego y dar a los clientes la capacidad de lanzarse a Alfresco del mismo modo que están lanzándose a Sharepoint. Pero la ventaja de Alfresco es que, una vez que se han lanzado, pueden ir en cualquier dirección, mientras que con Sharepoint van a estar muy limitados y atados, y obviamente por falta de opciones se van a ver atados a la plataforma Microsoft en el futuro.

MC. Y tanto. Te iba a preguntar más sobre Sharepoint, que como dices es mucho más limitado, pero me temo que tenemos muy poco tiempo (Aquí nos interrumpió un curioso pidiendo permiso para escuchar la conversación). Como iba diciendo, ¿cuáles serían las principales diferencias, más allá de la nueva capa social, respecto al modelo actual de aplicaciones de gestión documental, como FileNet o Documentum?

JP. Creo que la principal diferencia aquí es que venimos del mundo Open Source, y por ello habrá mucha más capacidad para extender y participar en la personalización y soporte con Alfresco que con Documentum o FileNet. Ahora bien, esos sistemas aún tendrán uso, y probablemente haya muchos cientos de años hombre de desarrollo en ellos, pero para la mayor parte de los clientes… no están tan interesados en esa herencia, lo que están buscando es una arquitectura moderna con la que ellos puedan seguir adelante.

MC. Así que ¿la diferencia sería esa flexibilidad y la capacidad de llevarles a donde quieren, cosa que no pasaría con un sistema propietario o “heredado”?

JP. Correcto.

MC. Muy bien. Ahora, pasando a otro tema, sois Open Source pero n seguís el modelo digamos “clásico” basado en una comunidad. Lo vuestro es un esfuerzo Open Source pilotado por una empresa. Esto ¿qué significa?

Evidentemente existe algún tipo de dirección, algún tipo de liderazgo o visión, que habéis estado aportando, no sólo la programación que hacéis en la empresa. Porque aunque la comunidad aporte parte del código, vosotros aportáis muchas cosas a ese esfuerzo. Así que sois Open Source, pero con un modelo diferente…

JP. Sí. Bueno, de hecho creo que tenemos la ventaja de haber podido aprender de otras grandes empresas que fueron pioneras con otras grandes comunidades, que fueron pioneras con el modelo de negocio Open Source. Y pienso que si miras a día de hoy, verás gente como SugarCRM, Alfresco, mySQL…

MC. … OpenBravo… (una empresa de Pamplona que conocemos bastante bien)

JP. OpenBravo, sí, conozco a esa gente. Verás que actuamente, hay algunas diferencias en nuestros modelos, pero verás que el modelo que tiende a emerger es muy similar. Una empresa que emplea probablemente al 90% de los desarrolladores principales, y realmente se compromete con el mantenimiento y soporte de ese producto en el futuro.

MC. Así que ¿lo ves como un modelo viable a largo plazo?

JP. Creo que seguirá habiendo algunos magníficos proyectos puros, hmm…

MC. ¿… “pilotados por la comunidad”?

JP. … pilotados por la comunidad, sí, pero creo que en algunas áreas particulares, especialmente donde la persistencia de los datos es muy muy importante para una empresa, entonces este matrimonio de la cultura comercial de empresa con el Open Source, es la solución ideal.

MC. Desde luego (…).

JP. Sabes, cualquier empresa, en un momento dado, quiere hacer negocios con otra empresa, y es difícil satisfacer éso con una difusa comunidad de desarrolladores. Ahora, para algunas aplicaciones que pueden no tener que ver con la persistencia de los datos clave de la empresa… hemos visto aquí presentaciones de clientes que quieren guardar contenidos durante mil años. Mil años está más allá de la imaginación de cualquier sistema actual, da igual lo que nadie diga (…). Pero sabes, creo que un modelo híbrido de hecho, donde estamos tratando de combinar lo mejor de ambos mundos, una organización comercial, contractual, con la que los clientes pueden sentirse seguros, con el soporte de una comunidad vibrante que evita el riesgo de quedar atados, como en el viejo modelo de los proveedores. Alfresco no puede secuestrar a su comunidad.

MC. Perfecto. Ahora, otro cambio de tema… al adentraros en la web 2.0 y la colaboración con esta capa de comunidad en la que estáis trabajando ahora, he visto que os habéis interesado mucho por cosas como la integración con Facebook pero hasta hoy no había visto mención a un componente de foros…

JP. De acuerdo. Necesitamos hacer más cosas sobre éso. Pero ésa siempre ha sido un área donde nos hemos dicho, no queremos inventar todas las formas de consumir y generar contenido, así que no estamos escribiendo un wiki, no estamos escribiendo un blog… queremos integrar esas capacidades. Lo que hemos estado construyendo hasta ahora es realmente la fontanería para hacer éso. Y creo que lo que tenemos que hacer ahora es conseguir más ejemplos de dónde la hemos llevado a la superficie… Si ves el site de Alfresco, el wiki que usamos, que es MediaWiki, está embebido dentro de Alfresco, de modo que el contenido es versionado y gestionado dentro de Alfresco.

MC. ¿Y se gestionan los usuarios y las skins también? Eso es lo que esperaba ver en cuanto a los foros. Sigo pensando que la mayor parte de la información no estructurada no está contenida en documentos, sino en conversaciones informales… de modo que si no las puedes gestionar, no estás gestionando el conocimiento de la empresa.

JP. Cierto.

MC. Así que ¿podemos decir que estáis trabajando en ello?

JP. Sí.

MC. Entonces… estas han sido más o menos las preguntas que quería hacerte.

JP. De acuerdo. Gracias.

MC. Gracias a tí.

La versión inglesa del documento ha sido verificada por el Sr Powell.

Si queréis leer más sobre modelos de negocio basados en código abierto, haced una búsqueda en este blog, porque es un tema recurrente… y me alegro de decir que la conversación con John Powell ha servido para reforzar mis ideas al respecto, aunque también haya aportado algunas sorpresas interesantes.





Talking Open Source with John Powell, Alfresco CEO

25 04 2008

A word of warning: “talking Open Source” here means talking about the business model, the pros, the cons, the competitors, the parters and the developers, and even some parts of the roadmap, but not the code or the Alfresco application itself. At this week’s Alfresco Community Conference in Barcelona there was a lot of other interesting people, not least Alfresco’s John Newton, Ian Howells, Kevin Cochrane, David Caruana and Nancy Garrity… and I had to go and interview John Powell about the business side of things.

And I’m very happy I did. And very thankful for the answers. So here goes the transcript.

Miguel Cornejo. You’ve been three years now with an Open Source business model, running a company radically different from what you were used to. What would be your takeaway?

John Powell. By and large, the Open Source business model makes all aspects of a software company’s easier because, without having to hide your intellectual property, you can get the great ideas from anyone who has an opinion on that, across the globe, to help you in the development, the QA [Quality Assurance]… and the propagation of your product. So from that aspect, it makes everything really really easy.

The challenge of the Open Source model, for a commercial Open Source company, is to keep the balance right between the community and the subscribing customer. Because really, the subcribing customer will only subscribe if he sees value, and there will always be people in the community who will never subscribe. And we have to get the balance right because without the subscribing customers there would be no company and the community would then lose the major engine for the development of Alfresco.

MC. The role of that engine is one of the most interesting parts I’d like to talk with you about. So you see… John Newton said yesterday that about 10% of current Alfresco code comes from the community.

JP. Yes.

MC. But what part of… you also mentioned that the leading edge is where innovation comes from. So what part of the value, the added value beyond the document management core [of Alfresco] comes from the community?

JP. I think what they do is they give us insights into a lot of the practical applications. As anyone who uses software would know, when you get software delivered from a software vendor, you often have a “Why did they even think I would work that way?” moment, with the interface or the workflow or whatever… so I think what the community does for us is it gives us much better feedback than you can ever achieve with the closed source products. That is, they can get to grips with not only product but also code, and extend that and show you concrete examples.

MC. So you then do “as the community directs” [quote from his talk earlier in the day].

JP. Yes.

MC. This leads to another question about what is the motivation of these developers, because some of them are developing that excellent new user interface you are working on without ayone paying them, without budget let’s say.

JP. Yes.

MC. So how do you involve people up to that level?

JP. Any Open Source project relies predominantly on people with an interest, perhaps doing something in their part-time or down-time, as like a bit of research, on anything useful, that often gets taken up. So for example some of the stuff we saw today. Because those guys employed by partners of Alfresco, they’re doing some interesting things but they’re also improving their knowledge that they’re then able to demonstrate to their customers in their market, that they actually are experts, they have added value. So…

MC. It would be a sort of “proof of competence”?

JP. Yes. So I would say, it’s a bit like… you see, what’s the value of going to the gymnasium to your job? Well, probably if you’re more awake, if you’re sharper, if you’re fitter, it’s going to improve your aptitude at work. At the very least, these community developers may improve their skills, they make themselves more marketable, and a few of them come up with really great stuff than can then feed back into the whole community.

MC. What’s the role of such proprietary software vendors such as Quark or SAP next to Alfresco [both are differently involved in deals with the company]?

JP. From Alfresco-the-company’s perspective, there is an important role to work with those types of organization, because for many of large customers, they demonstrate that Alfresco is a long-term player and here to stay, and when they see other large companies, particularly from the proprietary world, commiting to Alfresco technology and getting into bed with Alfresco, it gives them a good reassurance. From Alfresco’s perspective, we want to work with those companies because we acknowledge that they have huge user bases and by working of them, if only a small proportion of their user base becomes interested in Alfresco, it’s obviously a good thing for Alfresco in the long term.

MC. Yes. About the new 3.0 release focused more in the user end… it seems to me you’re keeping stable the document management back end where you manage the heavy metal, and now you allow people to customize more the user end of things… I feel your real competitor, rather than Sharepoint, would be FileNet or Documentum.

JP. Yes. Well, I think what we’re seeing is that with version 3.0 what we’re actually doing is we’re adding a social computing application to Alfresco. So Alfresco’s platform framework will still be there, to build large-scale document repositories, to have large-scale web content management, or internet-scale www sites. [Version 3.0] doesn’t remove anything from that, what it does is add a social computing application into the heart of the environment, and that is I think one of the key differentiators that we have to Sharepoint. Because Sharepoint cannont go into the www world and they haven’t got the enterprise scalability to tackle the large scale document libraries.

So from our perspective, the version 3.0 is all about leveling the playing field and giving customers the potential to jump into Alfresco the same way they’re jumping into Sharepoint. But the benefit of Alfresco is, once they jump in, then they can go in any of those other directions, whereas with Sharepoint they will be very very limited and constrained, and obviously through lack of choice they will be tied into a Microsoft stack in the future.

MC. Indeed. I was going to ask you further about Sharepoint, which as you say is very much limited, but I’m afraid we have very little time [Here a kind bystander asked to be allowed to listen in to the discussion]. As I was saying, what would be your key differentiators, beyond the social layer that’s new, against the current document management application model, like FileNet and Documentum?

JP. I think the key differentiator here is that we’re coming from the Open Source world, in that there will be much more capability to extend and participate in the customization and support with Alfresco that with Documentum or FileNet. Now, those systems will still have an application, and there’s probably many many hundreds of man years of development in those, but for most customers… they’re not that interested in that legacy, what they’re looking for is a modern architecture that they can take forward.

MC. So that would be [with] the flexibility and the ability to take them the way they want? Which wouldn’t happen in a proprietary or “legacy” system?

JP. That’s right.

MC. Very good. Now then, jumping a bit to a different subject, you are Open Source but you are not following the, let’s call it “classical”, community model. It’s a company-led Open Source effort. This means… what?

There is evidently some kind of direction, some kind of leadership or vision, that you’ve been providing, not just coding in-house. Because even if the community does some part of the code, you do provide a lot of things to that effort. So you’re Open Source, but with a different model…

JP. Yes. Well, in fact I think we have the advantage that we got to learn from another great companies that pioneered another great communities, that pioneered the Open Source model. And I think that if you look at today, you’ll see people like SugarCRM, Alfresco, mySQL…

MC. … OpenBravo… [Based in Pamplona, sort of friends of the house]

JP. OpenBravo, yes, I know these guys. You’ll see that actually, there are some differences in our model, but you’ll see the model is tending to come out in a very similar direction. A company that employs probably 90% of the core developers, and really commits to the maintenance and support of that product through the future.

MC. So you see that as a viable long term model for the future?

JP. I think there still be some great true, hmm…

MC. … “community-driven”?

JP. … community driven projects, yes, but I think in some particular areas, particularly where the persistence of data is very very important to a company, then this marriage of a commercial company culture with Open Source, is the ideal solution.

MC. Absolutely [ ].

JP. You know, any company, at some point in time, they like another company to do business with, and it’s quite hard to satisfy that when it’s a difuse community of developers. Now, for some applications that may not be about the persistence of core company data… We’ve heard here presentations from customers who are looking to keep content for a thousand years. You know, a thousand years is way beyond the imagination of, I don’t care what anyone says, of any computer system today [ ]. But you know, I think a hybrid model in effect, where we’re trying to bring the best of both worlds, a commercial, contractual-based organization where customers can feel secure in that, with the support of a vibrant community to avoid the risk for the customer of the old vendor lock-in proposition. Alfresco cannot hijack its community.

MC. Perfect. Now, another jump in the subject… As you get into web 2.0 and collaboration for this community layer that you’re working in right now, I’ve seen you’ve been very interested in things like the Facebook integration but until today I saw no mention of a forum component, a bulletin board system…

JP. OK. We need to do more on that. But it’s always been an area where we’ve said, we don’t want to be inventing all of the ways of consuming and generating content, so we don’t write a wiki, we don’t write a blog… We want to integrate those capabilities. But what we’ve been building so far is really the plumbing to do that. And I think what we need to do now is get more examples of where we’ve actually surfaced those… If you look at the Alfresco website, the wiki that we use, which is MediaWiki, is embedded inside Alfresco, so the content is versioned and managed inside Alfresco.

MC. And the users and skins are too? That’s what I was looking forward to see on the bulletin board side. I still believe most of the unstructured information is not handled in documents, but in informal conversations… so if you can’t handle that, you can’t handle the company’s knowledge.

JP. Right.

MC. So you’re working on that, we can say?

JP. Yes.

MC. Then… that would be more or less all I wanted to ask.

JP. OK. Thank you.

MC. Thanks a lot.

Another cautionary note: as soon as Mr Powell’s had a chance to have a look at the transcript, it will be corrected of any mistakes he finds. So enjoy them while you can.





Alfresco European Community Conference, day 2 (updated)

22 04 2008

(Yes, you guessed it, I’ve been tinkering with he Pompeu Fabra’s wifi network for half an hour and now we’re about to begin the sessions, so this looks like being brief).

Yesterday was supposed to be a rather closed day for partners and developers, which I attended by kind invitation. A rather interesting event, in many senses. To name a few:

  • The people, of course. Some interesting developers, with either interesting stories, or connections, or business possibilities.
  • The story. I already know Alfresco, but not at the deep-developer level. Some of the things getting done with it (integrations, mostly) are worth seeing, especially when explained by the authors. And the upcoming Alfresco 3.0 Community edition, with its huge emphasis on interface (”presentation layer”) and configurability (”customization”) while keeping the fundamentals (document model, backend) in place… was interesing.
  • The open source. As an industry-conference habitual, it’s quite interesting to see how the Alfresco people interact with their developers and partner ecosystem. Not just integrating the most notable coding aditions into the main product (something, say, FileNet would have to pay for, or deal with very differently as a paid add-on), but actually drafting developers to help with the upcoming redesign. Doing it live, too, in the room.

That said, yesterday’s venue wasn’t right (lots of noise). I really can’t find any other thing to complain of :-). Today’s sessions, open to all, are more standard-looking. John Powell is doing the intro, and I have to save batteries, so next comment may come tomorrow (seeing as the wifi network and I get along :-)).

Update: well, three hours into it, it looks like I’ll be able to have a short talk with Mr Powell later on, sort of an interview. Will come handy for the piece I’m writing on Alfresco 3.0’s declared roadmap and intentions. If you have any question suggestions, do comment them here, fast :-). I’ll be doing it old-style, handbook and all: didn’t plan for it.





Rethinking social networks (II): the community core

26 03 2008

This is the continuation of an article on the nature of online social networking services and their likely evolution (the result of too much time spent analysing them and designing one). In the previous article, I was forward enough to propose a definition of them as:

permission-based mutual awareness and communication services. They allow us to build “white-lists” to filter out people, and keep only those we trust and appreciate enough to share delicate (or personal) information with, or to allow to intrude upon our time.

That is a social network, redux. The rest is incidental to the focus of the network: it can be social, creative, or professional in varying degrees, and will thus offer filter-associated services to further those ends.

In other words, a social network service is an utility, not a content provider.”

But that is hardly the complete picture. Because, at its core, online social networking services are not just about the networking, but about the community-generated content.

Community within

The filtering mechanism in a social network’s “friend of a friend” system fulfils exactly the same role than any (healthy) online community: finding like-minded people whom you can trust. An online community provides not just a list of like minded people but also a reputation gauge (you can observe their long-term activity and some often some more immediate signs of trustworthyness).

Also, a community emerges around conversations and shared items (links at Digg, articles at Wikipedia, photos at Flickr, videos at YouTube, job offers at LinkedIn, cracked software at MacSerialJunkie, solutions to common problems at communities of practice). Most often those items coalesce around “seeded” or editorial content: user-generated content emerges in answer to original, resource-generated content. And at online social networking services, these communities are fostered as the best way to expand the immediate personal network through finding other peers (Facebook groups are a prime example).

In other words, online social networking services are often (if not always) a symbiont of online communities. The bare network goes nowhere.

Network effects in the community and the network

The social networks add specific services that rely on the “white-listing” of specific people (not every community member is a friend you would trust or reccomend or wish to play with). Some are as silly as Facebook’s Vampire-and-zombie games. Some are as practical as LinkedIn’s endorsement requests. Some are oriented to other network users, some are visible to all. What they all rely on is the ability to give different sets of people different access to your data and your time (or inbox).

Most communities have to deal with a similar problem. At Macuarium, buy-and-sell activity (sort of classifieds) is limited to certain users whose trajectory is well known.

But there is something less intuitive here: whereas a community (and especially a community of practice) benefits from network effects, increasing in value as more and more people become members… a social network balances on a different wire: if too many people join a person’s specific network, it becomes useless. If it’s too easy to contact someone, it degenerates into spam (see Facebook).

The reason is self-evident: the type of information you share on an online community is not as sensitive as what you share with your social network (or at least it shouldn’t). You can rather safely publish your contact details in your CV at LinkedIn, but you really shouldn’t post them in a web forum. Or to coin another definition: The value of a network is not given only by its potential size, but also by the user’s ability to restrict its actual size.

All in all, they are quite different animals.

Is there a synergy for Communities of Practice?

Many online community tools are starting to provide some basic “networking”. Invision Board software has long offered the possibility to not just blacklist specific community members, but also to mark others as friends… and also, to exhibit some more personal information in your user profile (pictures, visitors, gender). One of Joomla’s most popular components is CommunityBuilder, which happens to be a social network builder.

Indeed, just as social networking thrives around communities, networks can add a dimension to communities. Whether or not that dimension fits in with the community’s goals is another matter: if you’re designing a community of practice, fostering closed groups of friends looks rather counter-productive. But it can be turned to good, or so our early research seems to indicate.

Planning for social networking as a purely social, casual “friending” tool for self-expression could be an option, but seems to add little to a CoP beyond entertainment value. Since pages served are sometimes useful (advertising-financed communities), this is not irrelevant.

On the other hand, tapping into the implicit (or even explicit) endorsement quality of those “friending” actions can add serious value to a CoP’s own services where they rely on reputation, and open business opportunities through the use of connections.

The catch is that those services that benefit most from a network are essentially those that are not exactly part of the community, but rather add-ons that feed on them. Examples are the classifieds section, or the job board, or the freelancer market… or indeed, the business introduction service (even inside a firm, finding the right person can be a problem). Most of them lately seem in the company of social network business models, but almost useless without a wider community pool.

Even niche marketing (staple of social networks’ monetisation theory) relies less on narrow networks than in wider, affinity communities. Convergence is unavoidable.

And we will be there :-).





Rethinking social networks (I): essence and evolution

26 03 2008

This week, the topic of social networks is all over the place; indeed it even stars on The Economist (once and twice). Just like when a shoeshine boy starts talking stock tips, that means the topic has gone definitely mainstream. Only this time it’s not a completely bad thing.

Still, the Economist has fallen on this year’s truism: they repeat the oft-heard arguments about people wanting to either connect with people who are not registered in their walled garden of choice, or wanting to move their whole profile and friend list to another service. They are both false, IMHO. And the solutions touted (independently managed personal profiles, open ID management) are tangential to the issue.

Social networking services are essentially (let’s coin a definition) permission-based mutual awareness and communication services. They allow us to build “white-lists” to filter out people, and keep only those we trust and appreciate enough to share delicate (or personal) information with, or to allow to intrude upon our time.

That is a social network, redux. The rest is incidental to the focus of the network: it can be social, creative, or professional in varying degrees, and will thus offer filter-associated services to further those ends.

In other words, a social network service is an utility, not a content provider. It’s closer to an operating system than to a web portal. The differences are serious, as we will see.

What the journalists talk about

The shoe… sorry, the article authors criticize the (apparently constraining) need to visit each network’s home page to make use of their services. This is not a universal truth: witness Linkedin’s plugins for several of their services. It is simply a consequence of some of the network’s revenue generation models… and of the technology they use, to a lesser extent. There is nothing in the essence of a network that requires the visit - even if it’s often the most convenient way to access it - and the evolution towards distributed access is already marching on.

Something else The Economist comments as news is mostly old-hat too. Most existing online services are already drawing heavily on the primary networking tool, the email: contact lists are routinely exploited to find people you want to add to your network, if not to grade the type of information that is shown to them.

That’s where the Economist hits a real bugbear of social network users: they often wish they could (discreetly so as not to give offence) rate the type of “friend” that someone is, in order to allow them more (or less) restricted access to their information and their inbox. This is currently in its early infancy, but the need grows larger as the main networks lose their original specialised character and attempt to mix contacts from several spheres (social, business, family, casual). As far as I’m aware, nobody’s yet offering a non-offensive, effective grading system.

The false bugbears

Now let’s see the truisms, because they’re rather important.

First, it’s been stated that users would like networks to be transparent (be a member of one, freely access members of others). Even if each network’s services were the same, I don’t think it’s true. You use a network because you like the way it handles the filter, and because the people you want to allow in are mostly using that service. You don’t go about putting profiles just anywhere (unless you’re a compulsive networker or a total newbie), and making your profile acessable from anywhere would be just the same. Imagine your sister’s friends in Facebook asking for contact to your LinkedIn data. Or viceversa.

The second (jump network with your full friend list) is scarier still. Imagine the shock of finding yourself in your friend’s new network service, accesible to another (and possibly totally different) sphere of his contacts, subject to different access filtering rules. No way.

Garden walls are there for a reason

What the users (we) want is a way to handle profiles in a coherent way. Interconnection, but definitely not transparency. Allow your preferred network to “encapsulate” and handle your data (or maybe just part of it, to make it more complicated) but also allow it to speak to other systems so you can add a contact whose data is not housed in the “home” network; your network should only be allowed to access and present the data that your friend has allowed for that kind of connection (i.e. the brief resumé, or the Flickr feed, or the blog feed, or whatever). And viceversa: once you have connected two profiles (put them in each others’ white-lists) it would be nice to be able to message from one to the other.

But that does not require transparency. That requires standards (for cross-identification and access to data)… and a very coherent and strong way to filter and grade access. The standards are easy to build on today’s technology (Mugshot already allows members to see an aggregation of your friends’ activities on other networks, Facebook communicates with any external email account, Google is pushing common building blocks). The filters are not here yet, as already mentioned. With that in place, things like Flickr feeds or LinkedIn miniresumés (already available to the masses) could get their versions for “friends in other networks”.

OpenID, or any unified login system that allows a person to have a single set of data for identifying themselves in several services, is a reasonably good idea (whatever the security risks of a single point of entry for so much data). It would help to build those Mugshot-type aggregations.

All in all, the walls are more important than the gates: the value of the network is in the quality of the filter. If the services it allows are relevant for your goals, your people will happily join. But if you can’t restrict access to your data, you can’t publish it safely, and the network loses its point.

The future?

As far as I can see, it looks like we’ll either see services that are able to coherently aggregate other, specialised services (the way Mugshot is very slowly going), or generalist services that allow much more precise and efficient filtering of information and access according to “friend profiles”, thus becoming completely different environments depending on the use they’re given.

The first way (integrating outside data) is urgently demanded, if imperfectly supported. The second is just as urgently demanded, as the large network services swell beyond usefulness into spam-generation machines.

And of course, there is the actual services offered on top of those white-lists of contacts and contacts of contacts. There needs to be a lot of innovation in that field if the social network companies hope to become really serious businesses in their own sake. Because they mostly aren’t, yet… and some bubbles will eventually burst. That’s one point The Economist got right.





Windows into communities: conversations and the “dynamic community” concept

11 03 2008

I’m up to the ears in work these days and posting a bit slowly, but I don’t want to forget about this piece. Eric Hoffer has come, from a semantic web perspective, to an interesting issue. Or two.

The first is technology. He outlines a vision where he can gather the threads of relevant conversations from different communities (board- or list-supported conversations) as well as those running at (and across) blogs. All filtered according to domain and person interests (i.e. just the issues and the people he chooses to follow).

This is in fact quite closer  than one might think. Most blogs are efficently tagged according to domain, and track links quite well; a better-built RSS reader with appropriate filters could enable the blog part of his vision. Tagging forum posts and threads is not as widespread but it’s already started (pushed by search engine optimization, to be fair) and most are already quite proficient at generating RSS feeds; again, filtering well-tagged feeds for interesting domains and authors should not be impossible (whenever tagging becomes widespread).

So his vision of a personal, “virtual”, tailored community is not impossible. Indeed, there may be a business model not far from the surface, there.

The second issue he raises is a social one, but he raises it only implicitly.

OK, let’s assume the reader works, and that it’s viable to participate in those conversations (registration issues, participation interfaces… at a basic level, there doesn’t need to be any integration). The user can sit in the middle of his virtual “dynamic community” and follow any conversation, and even dip into them at will.

The question is, is that really a community?

Yes, it’s a window into a “conversation space”. Yes, it’s a domain. It can be a community in a wide, lax sense (as in “the worldwide coal-mining community”). I’ve heard it called a “domain community”. But I don’t think it’s really any sort of community.

In as much as a community is a social construct, with some shared procedures, goals and culture, and some personal affinity stemming from all of those, and not just a set of streams of information, it’s not.

Participation is not everything it takes to belong to a community. Remember the “honourable lurker” concept? And there’s participation without belonging, both legitimate and parasitic.

Eric’s reader would give us a window into many communities, into many disparate societies and their conversations. But it would only gives us fragments (the bits and pieces that we state we’re interested in). We would get all the domain context, but we would miss most of the social contex. We could be universal lurkers (and sometime participants) but not members.

Now, don’t get me wrong: I want Eric’s viewer as soon as someone builds it :-). It’ll save me a lot of time for staying abreast of what’s going on.

I’m just stressing that a community is more than nodes and information streams. It just doesn’t fit in the reader.





Google Sites early review: aiming at Sharepoint

29 02 2008

Yesterday I received Google’s announcement that the rebirth of Jotspot as a Google App is now usable. Indeed better than usable, but that’s another issue.

Jotspot used to be a well-reputed free hosted wiki, but I was never familiar with it. I’ve been tinkering with Google Sites for a longish while now, so I can explain it to our users (Macuarium runs Google Aps under the macus.net domain for our collaborators and patrons) and I thought I’d share the impression.

1. Full collaboration site, for teams or particulars

In short, that’s what Google Sites enables you to build for every Apps user in your domain. Indeed, several sites per user. It reminds me very strongly of Microsoft Sharepoint in more than one sense.

The site’s home pages are designed so as to easily incorporate content blocks so very similar to Sharepoint webparts that one can’t help noticing.

And the site owner can fine-tune access to the wiki editing and viewing rights (everyone, all members of the domain, selected members of the domain; it makes it quite intuitive too). Something crucial for corporate use.

2. Template and wizard driven.

Google Sites can be full sites, not just wikis, and the app comes with some predefined templates (and I’m not talking graphics here) to build different types of sections: document repositories, blog pages (news, with comments), lists, dashboards (collections of widgets, here called “gadgets”), freeform. Everything as wizard-driven as possible. Setting up specific types of sections is a cinch.

The above mentioned gadgets can also be included in pages or menus. They can show from document listings to calendars to Picasa albums to many other things, and I suspect they’re even more flexible than that: it seems they can draw on the same type of modules than Google personal pages.

And yes, there’s several styles for the site design. Nothing fancy yet.

3. Wiki philosophy, ease of integration

The wiki way of doing things permeates the sites: pages are editable (if you have permissions) using a very competent visual editor, old versions are kept, new changes are tracked (and you can subscribe to them). While editing, you can easily integrate content from any of the Apps (and other sources) into the page, directly from the pull-down menus (which will invoke the appropriate wizard).

4. Navigation and site “tags”

The navigation menu is a weak point. By default, you have to use the site map link to find pages. In order to expand the navigation menu you need to go to site design and add individual existing pages; not a complex trip, but new pages should appear automatically (or at least there should be a way to configure it so). This is cramping.
On the other hand, there’s a very interesting twist. Every domain seems to have a sites listing page (something nice). And every site can be defined by its author as belonging to a series of “categories”. These categories act as tags: a site can belong to several, and categories are added to the list as they are used. Sort of a folksonomy, only you can still keep your corporate organizational tabs.

In short: this is the clincher

I know of several organizations that are already using Google Apps under their own domain instead of an internally-run intranet. My (still neccesarily brief) experiment with Google Sites suggests that now one can build a perfectly serious collaboration intranet without installing a single app. These wikis (project pages, collaboration sites, personal sites) may be improved upon but are very decent solutions. The ability to integrate the rest of the Apps in their environment makes all of them more interesting. This is almost a full operating environment (ERPs excluded, although one can see how “gadgets” can become ways to solve that).

All in all, I’ve just become convinced that Google’s vision of “software as a service” makes sense. As a customer.





Jotspot returns as Google Sites

28 02 2008

Now this is a press release I like:

Greetings!

We’re contacting everyone who’s expressed interest in learning of
JotSpot registration re-openings on the JotSpot website. And
today, we’re excited to announce that JotSpot is working on Google
infrastructure and has been re-launched as Google Sites.

Google Sites is the latest offering from Google Apps, a suite of
products designed to improve communication and collaboration
amongst employees, students, and groups. Google Sites makes
creating a team web site as easy as editing a document. You can
quickly gather a variety of information in one place — including
videos, calendars, presentations, attachments, and gadgets — and
easily share it for viewing or editing with a small group, their
entire organization, or the world.

To get started with Google Sites, you’ll first need to sign up for
the Google Apps edition that’s right for you (if you’re not
already a Google Apps user). Start the sign-up process at:

http://sites.google.com

Sincerely,

The Google Apps Team
Google Inc.
1600 Amphitheatre Parkway
Mountain View, CA 94043)

Go get it :-). I’m already tinkering and it looks great.





An unexpected almost prize

27 02 2008

I just learned that the project I’m leading for a Spanish public agency almost won a prize yesterday. In fact we came in first finalist for the Computing Magazine 2008 prize for the “best ECM project of the year” in Spain.

ECM is acronym for “Enterprise Content Management” for those of you who don’t do letter soups, it covers document management and web content management and many things in between. And the almost prize is rather sweet for a number of reasons:

  • This is the first public acknowledgement (hey, we’re in print and all) for my work for Getronics; there have been several nice things said about my work for Macuarium (we even won ReD magazine’s “Best Spanish website” back in 2001) and I’m quite satisfied about the acknowledgement of my KM work (the eventual expert panel and the ear of people I respect)… but Getronics actually pays my salary, so it’s nice. Unusual, and nice.
  • It’s a commendation for my boss’ decision to support me: that project started as a disaster until I tore the claws of an incompetent project director off it and took responsibility for everything myself. That was really hard to do and yet another career risk, but it now seems it was the right decision. Especially comparing with the results of the projects that remained in his hands (no comment).
  • It’s such a small thing of a project. It runs on MS SQL Server, while the competitors are all big Oracle boys. It uses French-born Eversuite as the platform, instead of EMC Documentum or Vignette as the winner and second finalist do. It’s such a tiny team, when faced by the groups that did the other projects (most of the time, a single analyst coded - a real artist, Jose Luis- while I managed, dealt with the the customer and designed the app). A tenth of the budget. And yet its effect on customer processes is deep and wide enough to leave that mark.
  • [I thought that] The project that came in third place is… from the company that just bought Getronics’ Spanish operations. So it looks like the people who will run the show here at least know about these things enough to do almost as well as us ;-). [Actually, I got it wrong, it's by a different competitor].

Besides all that, our marketing people say that if a tiny little project, without either a powerful technology partner or a powerful patron customer, ever wins this kinds of prizes… they’ll think the magazine’s editors are not doing their job well. A case of sour grapes surely :-), but still: the winner is a splashy, pushy regional government and the second finalist is the Spanish national bank, and you already know the platforms they’re using, so hmmm.

So, you know, today I’m rather surprised and rather happy. An almost prize for my real job. Go figure.

[Edited to correct a mistaken impression]





Stephen Collins’ “Power to the People” presentation

21 02 2008

Another Joitske-found surprise. This presentation is neither new (mid 2007) nor groundbreaking, but it does convey -contundently- the social-tool part of effective knowledge management, from the worker’s perspective. Yes, it can be criticised on several counts, but whatever we say, it’s worth looking over.

You can find it here. Go. Now.





iSimulate and the golden rules for building CoPs

21 02 2008

The World Bank’s latest online tool is looking great. More specifically, it looks like an impressive bait for the macroeconomist in the wild (or in business, or in academia). I’ve just taken it, hook and all, and look forward to the account activation.

But let’s stick to the topic. Thanks to a message by Gauresh Rajadhyaksha at Joitske Hulsebosch’s blog (in a very relevant post, too), I’ve been pottering around the place and registering for the “private beta service”. It’s interesting in more ways than one (this 2006 document highlights the origin and workings of the idea), but since it’s intrinsic value will be lost to non-dismal-scientists, let’s head to the part that will be useful to CoP managers and promoters.

Mr Rajadhyaksh’s presentation of the social side of iSimulate (the last link above) highlights an object lesson in community building, IMHO. On paper, they have hit all bases:

Offer a distinctive bait. They’re actually giving away access to the World Bank models and data in a convenient web interface. Not every CoP builder can do that, but every one should seek to find something relevant to would-be members, something useful, directly related to the domain, something that is a traffic real draw in itself. It can be articles, it can be services, it can be whatever as long as it’s significant.

In other words, a front-loaded CoP promotion initiative works better than one that expects would-be members to do all the work of building the initial content and usefulness.

- Engage users in building something together, and make it easy. I have yet to test it, but on paper they have done it too. By encouraging users to upload complementary datasets and models, as well as tinkering with the available ones to run their own simulations, they are opening the way to building significantly valuable resources through user contribution and sharing. Just as any CoP worth its salt will stress building their own sort of knowledge objects, be them link lists or papers or useful discussion threads.

In other words, users (CoP members) are not customers but collaborators. This perspective is key. At iSimulate it is stressed by building environments in which all those tinkerings and innovations can be commented and shared, but also by the proclaimed goal to build something greater that the original resource.

- Allow for particular perspectives. The ground covered by iSimulate users is large, and the uses of those simulations are very varied. In other words, there are many distinct subdomains with different possible conversations. The service caters to this by offering public and private work areas and “project blogs” incardinated in the platform.

In other words, they are giving elbow room to the emergence of an ecosystem of interest groups, that should ultimately allow the community to organise meaningfully around topics and projects. Their approach seems more hands-off than I’d reccomend (many found-your-own-group projects get tangled and abandoned) but then, the target group and their use of the resource are not conventional.

- Promote recognition. Another nail they seem to be hitting with definite intent is the reputation-building driver for participation. In most professional fields it will be harder, but academics (and freelance consultants) can often be goaded into very productive sharing by making sure that their contributions are visible to parties that can be interested in more of them (i.e. faculties or prospective customers). Not all CoP members care that much, but everyone likes at least a bit of recognition… and resents the lack of it.

In their case, this means a very serious focus on attribution to the author of the perspective or the originator of the dataset. Balancing attribution and co-creation is a difficult act, since the originator need not be the person ultimately making the most relevant contribution (indeed it may be the work of many), but it needs to be got right to fend off the risk of a diaspora toward independent blogs or closed working groups.

- Reach out. Last but not least, using the grapevine (blogs, personal networks) as they seem to be doing is a good start. When founding a CoP, you don’t need massive attention, but you do need to get the eye of as many of the people that you want to either form the core, or to start directing others your way. Bloggers in your domain are a good start. Related communities or networks are another. People with a close interest in the bait material (in this case, World Bank economists themselves, who seem to be using it and to have used its predecessor). All the usual mass promotion channels come later.

The practice that seems to make the difference is making it direct, and making it personal. Interesting people in a project is better done by giving it a face and a voice, someone who can answer questions and ask for help, a person (or a team) who can convey the goals and the motivations and get other involved. At the early stage, it works much better than any number of press comuniqués.

Let’s see what happens

On paper, iSimulate can become a very interesting resource and the core of a very relevant community of practice (or more). I’ll be following it… and I hope to participate as a member, as far as time and abilities allow. One sometimes wishes not to have gone to work so far from traditional economics as I have.

One sometimes wishes not to have turned down a contract to act as “knowledge analyst” at a similar World Bank project last year, too. Not least because (as the iSimulate social design shows, and I had the chance to find out during the interviews) they actually seem to know what they’re doing.

But transplanting the family was not in the book. More’s the pity, and here’s wishing them the best of luck :-).





Websense: arbitrary tagging in Spanish

11 02 2008

Websense throws good parties, I can attest to that. They also provide one of the leading “censorware” programs for monitoring and blocking the access of employees to those pesky sites out there on the internet. Think “parental control” for the organization.

I’ve got something good to say of them: they react fast when you point out a mistake. But I’ve got two bad ones to add:

  • First, they have a decidedly bad tagging (”categorising”) system for Spanish-language sites, which leads to Websense blocking navigation to hundreds or thousands of perfectly legitimate, useful business (or IT) information sources and references, with a special predilection for those using blog machinery.
  • And second, the method they offer to suggest the recategorization of a site is as well hidden as it can possibly be. It requires registration and inspiration to find it, and is not indicated as such anywhere in the navigation.

Using censorware to prevent the misuse of internet in the enterprise was never a brilliant idea: most of the time-wasters get through, either directly or after some user tunes the installation (coincidentally, it seems most of the times the favourite sites and resources of the IT managers get through). Meanwhile, hundreds or thousands of resources get blind-killed thanks to the category classification. Because it is not perfect.

I’m willing to admit the possibility that the Websense categories work better in English (even though I’ve seen dozens of knowledge management sites screened out). But my experience with Spanish-language niche media is downright disastrous. It almost looks as if they’d categorised Spanish blogs en masse to the “Social networking and personal page” category, and relied on customer messages to save the worthy and ask for recategorisation.

So, if you find an unduly blocked site while surfing from work, and see their name in the blocking page, please register with Websense and then go to https://www.websense.com/SupportPortal/SiteLookup.aspx … and do all of us a favour.

PS - Just tried to join the e-Mint group at Yahoo, and got a Websense blocking the join page as “Web Chat”… while Websense declares it is in the “Search Engines and Portals” category. Someone clarified them already and the change has not spread, or is it gremlins?





Moderation in virtual reality environments

6 02 2008

For better or worse, I’ve never been a fan of virtual reality. As far as I can tell, they don’t have many of the traits I expect in an efficient information-sharing environment, and several drawbacks. As for the gaming value, I don’t care much, either.

The saving grace is their ability to engage the attention and provide a pleasant environment (for some). In other words, given the right circumstances, it works. I’m talking, evidently, about the use of Second Life as a management and community-building tool.

I just spotted this in the On-fac mailing list, from Sylvia Currie. It might be useful for those wanting to dabble hands-on with it:

Attention all SL enthusiasts! Please join us for this seminar
discussion at SCoPE: http://scope.lidc.sfu.ca

Key Competencies for Second Life Moderators: February 7 - 16, 2008

Facilitator: Gilly Salmon

Description:
Many educators are familiar with Salmon’s 5 stage model for
e-moderating. How should this model be revised for Second Life
moderators? Gilly invites you to join her in a 10-day discussion to
identify the key competencies required of moderators in a virtual world.

This work will inform the upcoming SL training for moderators as part
of the MOOSE project (MOdelling Of SecondLife Environments)

Here is a direct link to the seminar:
http://scope.lidc.sfu.ca/mod/forum/view.php?id=868

SCoPE activities are free and open to the public.





Abril: Conferencia europea de Alfresco en Barcelona

4 02 2008

Entre otros muchos datos interesantes, el boletín de Enero de Alfresco (recién llegado) informa de que durante el mes de Abril, en fecha por confirmar, esperan celebrar en Barcelona la Alfresco European Community Conference.

Si es como el resto de las que están haciendo, se trata de una conferencia gratuita (eso sí, los asistentes corren con los gastos de comidas y alojamiento) con elementos de formación, presentación de producto y el imprescindible networking. El programa “tentativo” para el evento equivalente de San José (California) previsto para Marzo incluye:

  • 09:00 - 09:30 Registro
  • 09:30 - 10:00 Bienvenida y presentación ejecutiva
  • 10:00 - 11:30 Roadmap de la cartera de productos y comentarios
  • 11:30 - 11:45 Descanso
  • 11:45 - 12:45 Implementación de Alfresco - Taller de mejores prácticas
  • 12:45 - 13:45 Comida
  • 13:30 - 14:15 Caso de estudio de implementación
  • 14:15 - 15:00 Caso de estudio de mejores prácticas
  • 15:00 - 15:15 Descanso
  • 15:15 - 16:15 Mesa redonda de preguntas a los expertos
  • 16:15 - 17:00 Comentarios finales y cierre
  • 17:00 Bebidas en lugar por definir

Como es tradicional, dudo de que mi estimado empleador tenga a bien enviarme al evento, pero no sería la primera vez que eso no resulta un problema. Y tengo la impresión de que, si se confirma, va a ser de las ocasiones que merezcan la pena.

¡Ah! También han anunciado que SAP Ventures es ahora un accionista de la empresa, una alianza con Quark (de la que confieso que ya sabía algo) a añadir a la larga serie de colaboradores (por ejemplo, Adobe), un evento de formación en Madrid el 11 de Marzo, y una larga serie de indicadores de aceptación que da gusto verlos.





SocialText joins Lotus Connections

22 01 2008

Well, this should be interesting news. According to the Socialtext blog, there has just been an announcement (unreported as yet by IBM) of collaboration. Socialtext and IBM plan to integrate the wiki software of the first into the “social networking” (I’d rather say “collaboration”) platform of the second.

It’s a move that can help Socialtext consolidate its position as the main reference in corporate wikis (with Atlassian’s permission) as well as giving IBM a reliable and very effective wiki plugin. Not a bad thing to have, nor a new idea: Microsoft’s Sharepoint ships with a really bad wiki component but hooks up with Socialtext (and others) too.

Here’s wishing them well. I imagine Luis Suarez was involved in all this, somewhere :-). If they can get Socialtext to speed up their translation efforts, I’ll even applaud.





Valdis Krebs on network graphs and online community

10 01 2008

For quite a long time, I’ve come to respect the work of Valdis Krebs. As a pioneer in the concept of social network analysis and its application, and as a “network weaver” (something close to a community manager but less domain-related) but especially as someone able to convey what all that means.

A couple of days ago at Patrick Lambe’s Green Chameleon blog (Patrick, do your remember about that draft paper :-D) I saw a link to this: he’s mapped the “typical online community” and graphed it, but he’s also taken the time to explain some of the key phenomena of a community in terms of networks and their representation. While of course there’s a lot more to the story, the parts he tells are so very well told (and so plainly visible with his graphs) that I’m sure he’s built a very useful reference. I’m bound to use it, for one, and I hope many people come to the SNA toolset that way.

I don’t know if the work is recent or not, but it looks so. If you already knew it, please excuse the repetition :-).





A blog reborn (and put on steroids)

23 12 2007

No, I’m not talking about emekaeme :-). Sadly, the low-activity period does not look like ceasing soon. Way too busy.

But on the meantime, one more of the goals of the period is taking shape. The blog iPhoniac.com (or iPhoniac Central, to give it its proper name) started life almost exactly a year ago, as a full-model blog spinoff from the Macuarium website. It was used to battle-test some ideas and learn about the machinery; it’s one thing to know all about blogging theory, and yet another to develop a practical handle on the technique.

After a year and many things learned (indeed, this blog was just one of the unwitting results of the experiment: our lead collaborator Fernando Tellado is now a widely recognised accomplished blogger on his own right) we’ve launched a new version of iPhoniac, complete with a wider and refreshed team of bloggers, a new work structure (Fernando is now formally director and I’m leaving the day-to-day, almost, to snoopervise as executive editor), and even a new business model, far from the almost-NGO one of Macuarium.com.

And it’s zooming on ahead, well above the results of its previous incarnation. I look forward to learning at least as much from this new age as from the first. And -if you’re interested in iPhones, cell phones or MP3 players- you can too.

Also, with a bit of luck, we’ll get to report on the management perspective from time to time :-).





Social networks and the new year

19 12 2007

I just came across this fine piece at CIO.com. It gives an analyst’s opinion on the relevant trends in that space for 2008. More specifically, it talks about the business model and the “technology” for Facebook, MySpace and LinkedIn.

While I broadly agree with the comments (Facebook needs to consolidate its game, MySpace needs an “extreme makeover”, LinkedIn’s persistence of vision could pay off) it’s hard not to wonder why the analyst confuses social networks with professional networks, and thus misses the difference it makes for their business models and their technology adoption. The reason those three social networking sites thrive is because they’re substantially different in target, user base, user behaviours… and ultimately, business models. Indeed the only one without a clear model is FaceBook; MySpace published a beautiful promo-paper on theirs last year, and LinkedIn hasn’t budged from its course for a long time.

But the worst part of the article is probably that it ignores two large trends: vertical networks and private networks. The first is exemplified by Xing, which offers dozens of different flavours and customised networks within the same infrastructure. And the second is growing more and more in demand: large companies want to leverage the business part of social networking technology within their intranets.

A network’s value for its user depends on its size. Too small, and it really adds nothing to your own set of acquaintaces and friends. Too large and you’re pestered by people you don’t know or care about. I don’t turn down many people on LinkedIn; I’m thinking of deleting my Facebook profile because of unwanted contacts.

The odds that people will seek a better mix of privacy and networking than is currently on offer are great, as is the tendency to build a “single profile” that can be plugged into different networks and managed once, with network-specific appendixes and cross-network relationships. Vertical networks and open standards are maturing. None of those trends are addressed in the article… and I’ll bet they will be prominent in 2008.