Wednesday, March 18. 2015
Layers of News Media over time - Business will be no different(from Baekdalmedia.com)
We've written about this a few times on Broadstuff, but not for Social Business. I wrote about this application of Riepl's Law to Enterprsises over at the Agile Elephant Blog, but in short:
It’s never going to happen. Email will be here for a long time still, so get used to living with it. Social Business systems that can’t cope with email will die a long time before email will.
The reason for this is that, in the entire history of new media from the invention of speech onwards, newer and further developed types of media never replace the existing modes of media and their usage patterns. Instead, a convergence takes place in their field, leading to a different way and field of use for these older forms. The diagram above shows how mewdia generations have gone in News, it will be no different for Business communications. (Source Baekdalmedia.com)
This observation is called Riepl’s Law.
This was first noticed by Wolfgang Riepl. Riepl was the chief editor of Nuremberg’s biggest newspaper at the time, and was stated as above in his dissertation about ancient modes of news communications.
Tuesday, March 10. 2015
News this week that GigaOm and FriendFeed have closed down.
GigaOm was one of the (better, IMO) Tech blogs-cum-digital news sites, the problem was (i) so many others also opened up at the same time, and (a salutary lesson) GigaOm was more about sound analysis rather than froth or shilling. If there is one lesson from Digital media it is that heavyweight content usually sinks, we are still largely in the "digital weeds" phase of ecosystem development in digital media . TechCrunch* soild itself to AOL, this does raise questions of whether there will be a larger shakeout soon.
Friendfeed was one of the (many) experimental social network approaches trid out in the 'noughties - some modes like Twitter & Facebook "stuck", many didn't. Joost, Seesmic, Plurk....remember them? The Friendfeed founders were smart, and Google bought Friendfeed for its people, but the product was left (as so often) to wither slowly on a decaying vine.
In reality though, the two are merely part of the huge evolutionary process going on as part of the overall Digital Transformation into Homo Surfiens, no different to the huge experimemntation of say the shift of shipping from sail to steam, or development of aircraft, or any other radical new technology you can mention. A huge number of experiments are tried in the Darwinian soup of technology evolution, some climb up the slippery stick and make it as "best ways forward" and jump the chasm, the others are subsumed into the mud silt at the bottom of the evolutionary ecosystem as experiments that failed....till next time.
Ashes to ashes, dust to dust, startups to silt.... but the overall Digital Transformation continues apace. It's often salutary to think back on the world 5, 10, 15, 20 years ago and look at what has changed in ICT as Moore's law carries on carrying on. And just think, if it wasm't for Edison we'd be surfing our tablets by candlelight....
*Update - I note its founder, Mike Arrington, tweeted today that he was glad he never took outside funding for TechCrunch. Therein probably hangs a tale. To paraphrase Tolstoy, all succesful companies are the same, every failed company fails in its own way.
Monday, March 9. 2015
I published a summary of the Lecko report on Social Business is France 2015 over on the Agile Elephant blog, in two parts:
- Research into the evolution of deployment and what companies are doing
There is quite a lot that is useful for UK and other countries rather than being just France specific. The most powerful part of the work however, in my view, is the analysis of 35 software packages against c 550 datapoints (see analysis diagram of one package, Jive, above), its a very good way of comparing for selection and "best fit" analysis, also allows them to make a much more transparent "Gartner Quadrant" estimate (see below)
Tuesday, February 10. 2015
Bjoern Negelmann and the Gartner Hype Curve of Social Business
I wrote up 2 notes in our Agile Elephant Blog (over here and here) on the state of Social Business today, but here is a summary:
In essence I buy Bjoern Negelmann's analysis at the Enterprise 2.0 Summit in Paris last week that it is in the Slough of Despond phase, and the only way is up (see picture above).
This is confirmed in my view by the latest McKInsey report on the subfect, which essentially notes that it is here to stay, and more and more companies expect to expand its usage.
I also think the fact that two "New New" memes - "Digital Transformation" and "Enterprise Social Networks" are now riding on its coat, tails tells you that it's hitting early mass markets. But last word to the McKinsey analysis of "what comes next":
Begin with a targeted approach, then broaden impact. While the overall adoption of social tools remains widespread, the results indicate that most companies use them intensely in only a few functional processes. Yet the successful use of social in sales-and-marketing processes suggests how much more potential value is at stake in other parts of the business. To get the most value out of social technologies, companies should focus on specific cases where these tools could be implemented in a targeted way. A company already using social tools could broaden the technologies’ impact by adopting them in areas such as operations, where they are used less often now.
From the Slough of Despond, the only way is up.....
Saturday, January 31. 2015
The British Army has resurrected the Chindits, one of the special force units used in WW2 to operate behind enemy lines - in their case to operate behind Japanese lines in Burma. It was formed by Brigadier Orde Wingate following a successful usage of Boer commando style tactics in the British/Commonwealth reconquest of Italian East Africa in 1940.
The new Chindits are to fight behind the lines in the digital wars - Torygraph:
...the new unit's focus will be on "unconventional" non-lethal, non-military methods such as "shaping behaviours through the use of dynamic narratives", an Army spokesman said.
It's part of the (belated, in my opinion) realisation among Western armies that from the end of the Korean War onwards, asymmetric warfare is the new "conventional" warfare. The new Chindits are designed to combine "conventional" irregular warfare psy-ops and disinformation techniques with a major digital capability to use social media and other digital information technologies.
One thing to keep in mind - the Chindit experiment ultimately failed militarily, their raids were characterised by dysentry wracked men carrying huge loads marching uselessly for days without contacting any enemy, high casualty rates due to disease not enemy action, and US (air) support was essential to keep them in the field*. They were retained more for PR purposes on the home front than any military effectiveness.
One hopes that the same will not happen now.....
(*This is not a criticism of the brave men who served in the Chindits, it's that an approach finessed for dry African conditions ultimately did not work owing to the jungle environment)
Friday, January 16. 2015
Google to stop making Glass "In present form"
Google is to stop producing its wearable technology Google Glass in its present form, but is still committed to the idea of smart glasses, the company has said.
In a statement posted to its Google+ account, the company said the Glass team would move out of the “Google X” incubator labs and become a separate division. What the "New New" form will be is anybody's guess, but I'd suspect it will be less obvious to other people more than anything else, to stop both the "Glasshole" problem and to not alert other people so visibly that its filming and recoding them. Somehow I don't think they will relinquish the "hoovering up all that data" play.
In other news today, UK hypermarket chain Tesco has just launched an app for Google Glass...talk about timing. While the aim is largely laudable, it seems like yet another unfortunately timed play from this beleagured retailer.
Update - Had a Twitter discussion with Steve Bowbrick, his point being that the Google Glass busiiness model (very expensive device that records other people as UGC) has been rejected (by the public). I am less sure that Google will let go of it, as with Facebook I suspect it will be a 1 step back, 2 steps forward when you're not looking sort ofplay - I think it will be interesting to see what 2.0 does.
Thursday, January 15. 2015
The next edition of Charlie Hebdo went on sale on Wednesday, and the production run was up from 60,000 to c 5 million - and rather than c 25% of 60,000 copies being remaindered, this time 5 million was probably not enough. (The money will be going to support the families of those killed, though there is a bit of a sour note starting with people trying to sell copies on eBay)
If the aim of the shootings was to cow Hebdo and its satire it has been a complete failure so far, and also far any attempt to further inflame France (if anything the UK media seems more cowed than the French).
But (and this is why the subject surfaces on this digital tech blog) modern online technology probably has quite a lot to do with this beng different to what it may have been even a few years ago. In short, my thesis is that the huge amount of user generated content has both increased ordinary citizen participtaion globally, and lessened the ability of the various vested interest armed camps to twist this to various agendas. My thesis is that, (so far anyway):
Firstly, using violence or banning to suppress unwelcome media is hardly a new trick, and it usually works if there is no way to route around it - but if it can be routed around it often produces the opposite effect, i.e. drives a far larger distribution and hence support base for the victims. (This is why banning stuff always backfires if the material can find a route out, as it incites more, not less people to take an interest). Digital media, including video and image based media, was a major part of that alternative channel here.
In addition, the shootings have generated furious discussion about a multiplicity of conflicting issues to a new level of distribution and intensity. There are many interlocked issues - Freedom of speech vs Causing needless Offence; What observances can a religion rightfully demand of non-believers; Is this religious fundamentalism or a cynical use of religion for political ends, What is the role of Satire - to only speak truth unto power, or to poke at any sacred cows, etc etc etc.
It has engaged millions of people all across the world like nothing I've looked at online before, and (I can't prove this on my very limited analysis to date, however I think this is true based on what I've looked at so far) I think we're not merely seeing the all too usual polarisation and a spit-at-your-camp approach that contentious issues usually take, there is actually some hope that we are still in an Age of Reason.
At this "interesting" time in history this is something that can only do good in this writer's opinion....
Tuesday, January 13. 2015
I heard our Prime Minister was proposing to ban encrypyed messaging services in the UK (from the NYT Bits section - I prefer US papers' take on UK tech politics, they are usually more informed and detached than UK pundits):
“Are we going to allow a means of communications which it simply isn’t possible to read?” Mr. Cameron said at an event on Monday, in reference to services like WhatsApp, Snapchat and other encrypted online applications. “My answer to that question is: ‘No, we must not.’ ”
Of course the comment was sparked by the Charlie Hebdo shootings, and the need to dress ones weak tells up as strongly as possible, and also that we have a general election in a few months so the Tories (the party of lawnorder) are all competing with each other to seem more draconian than thou while shuffling for post election pole positions. And of course it is only due to be execuited when everyone has forgtten about it, long after the election, if he wins.
Any restriction on these online services, however, would not take effect until 2016, at the earliest, and it remained unclear how the British government could stop people from using these apps, which are used by hundreds of millions of people worldwide.
Except that it's unworkable (but you all knew that already).
The reason is that it can't work - or rather, it can to an extent, insofar as the average Brit will be unable to prevent being spied on for life (assuming all the commercial providers acquiesce - I'm less sceptical of this happening than some pundits on this) - is that the real bad guys will know exactly how to get around this all, so will do so. Of course so will all the UK tech experts, but they will immediately be suspected of nefarious designs - way to go to shut down a potentially lucrative UK stake in an emerging high value industry.
Also, by all accounts the impact of digital surveillance has been far less effective in staving off all these impending Bad Things than good old fashioned spying has. Most recent terror events (including Paris) have happened because authorities dropped their physical surveillance of known bad people, or forgot to tell each other who they knew was up to something. Thus, building a MegaData store of bigger haystacks to find needles in is probably not going to help enormously.
This way, all you will probably wind up with is permanent mass surveillance of civil society and little impact on the criminals you are after.
Mind you, from a State point of view that may be a totally desirable outcome, as all States like to control communications as naturally as they like to tax, and as a bonus it stifles all those irritating critics to boot. Every one of these events first brings cries of "we must not allow this to damage our free way of life" followed shortly by proposals to do just that.
There is a terrible irony that to so many of our glorious leaders, the best way they can think of to protect our freedom is to stifle it.
A better approach by far would be to carry on doing what has been shown to work already, and probably also be prepared to have a mature discussion with the Geat British Public about something that we alreeady know - you can't do anything that is 100% effective here.
Friday, January 9. 2015
This is a strong sign of defending free speech
These....not so much
It is of course a given that every right thinking media organ in the Free World believes in Free Speech, and all would of course passionately and vehemently subscribe to Voltaire's maxim* that:
"I do not agree with what you have to say, but I'll defend to the death your right to say it"
Until the Charlie Hebdo shootings.
Then it immediately became very clear that defending Charlie Hebdo's right to say what they said may actually mean defending it to (your) death. And at this point we started to see a certain amount of wilting of resolve. The main resort of the brave free world mediarati was to backward shuffle to clicktivism, to wit "Je Suis Charlie" - easy to tweet, blog, say etc - but what precisely does it mean?. Will those proclaiming it from their barricades actually defend free speech to their deaths?
One can actually measure just how much any media outlet is "je suis" Charlie. There is an arcane part of game theory that looks at the actions people take to prove how strongly they support a proposition, idea or movement. The wording changes for these actions, they were called "tells" in my day (before poker grabbed the term) so I will use "tells". In general a strong "tell" is when someone gives something significant of themself (time, money, effort), or puts something of theirs at risk to back a position. A weak tell is when they will put very little of their assets or themselves at any risk.
Thus "clicktivism" - activists clicking buttons on social media - is a very weak tell. It's part of a general trend towards weak tell approaches that the digital world has facilitated, aka "slacktivism" - it's an easy and convenient out. Je Suis Charlie is, on its own, is merely one of these - you risk nothing, commit nothing, it just takes a click of a button to show how deeply you care. So of course most of the chatterati became Charlie for the day.
But what shouid be the response of those brave "free world" agencies with real voices, i.e our free press, be? Many ordinary people actually came out onto the streets that night, which is in itself a stronger tell than any form of slacktivism, and from a game theory "tells" point of view made it clear that our brave mediarati were leading from the rear. So what was the press going to do with their organs of mass distribution the next day?
Should they exhibit "strong tells" - prove their refusal to bow down, publish the same cartoons that got Charlie Hebdo staff killed and be damned?. Or publically proclaim they will subscribe to Charlie Hebdo (as Arnold Schwarzeneger has), or will they financially support Charlie Hebdo (as Google et al have). Or maybe even make it clear you will retaliate (As Anonymous has).
Or should one exhibit very "weak tells" - fulminate on one's op-ed pages about the right to free speech, draw a few "safe for work" cartoons, clicktivise "Je Suis Charlie Hebdo" prominently - but don't publish anything directly risky, and then argue for a host of reasons one couldn't possibly take the risk of upsetting people who may want to hurt you.
There is of course the tried and trusted victim blaming gambit - blaming the Charlie Hebdo people for bringing it all on themselves, as the FT (among others) tried - the game theory of the anti-tell I suppose.
In effect, quite a few continental European media outlets, Huffpo and many independent bloggers & cartoonists chose the strong tell, publishing Hebdo or other strongly satirical cartoons and being potentially damned, whereas most of the Anglo American free press and chatterati pundits - those proud upholders of free speech in their own lunchtimes - basically bottled it and then resorted to various Chamberlainesque arguments to excuse themselves. Je sort of suis Charlie for today isn't very convincing.
By their tells shall ye know them.....
By the way - Voltaire also said:
To hold a pen is to be at war.
You heard it in 1766 first, so it should hardly be a surprise now....
*Actually, it wasn't Voltaire who said that about defending free speech, strictly speaking, it was one of his biographers - but it is the sort of thing he would say. And arguably if anyone needed defending from the religious and other fundamentalists of the day it was Voltaire, who was one of the founders of the hard edged satirical tradition that people like Charlie Hebdo continue, and he did it at a time when many people did kill you for your opinions. If Voltaire was alive today, and lampooned todays' sacred cows as vociferously as he did those of the 1700's in his books like Candide, he would be strung from the gibbet of every religious and special interest extremist group on the planet today, and the Anglo-American chatterati would be baying for his blood along with them)
Thursday, January 8. 2015
There is a crisis in the British Accident & Emergency (A&E) system at the moment, the causes are are a "perfect storm" of previous decisions, mainly around reduction in funding in the end to end care system overall, and the usual crop of winter bugs, especially ones that over-impact the ever-increasing numbers of elderly. But this week I discovered a possible self-inflicted cause - their own expert self-diagnosis system on the NHS website will erroneously send people who can safely medicate at home to A&E.
(As I understand it is the same system that the medically unqualified telephone helpers on the 111 system use for diagnosis, with similar results, it would seem).
TL;DR- I would suggest the NHS expert system is too poor a model of symptoms and then defaults to the lowest risk position - i.e. to send anybody with the slightest probabiliy of something serious to A&E, causing an unwarranted increase in demand for the most expensive part of the formal medical sytem. And that this lesson applies to similar expert systems being touted everywhere by the Technorati as the Next Big Thing.
The idea is laudable - you go online or ring up the 111 helpers and "self provision" your diagnosis, and potentially self treat, thus saving the expensive professional medical system a lot of time, capacity & money. An excellent idea, especially as the "family doctor" system in the UK only really operates for about 10 out of 24 hours at best, and even to access that in a hurry is damn difficult if you are working. So you go to the online help out of hours, or even in hours if you can't get an appointment that day.The flaw is that both the web system and the tele-helper are relying on an Expert Algorithm, that unfortunately isn't.
This is how it (doesn't) work. A member of my family started getting pretty ill with aching limbs, nausea and vomiting, and a blinding headache. If you go on the symptom website with any permutation of these symptoms, the system soon decides that you may have meningitis, a very nasty condition, and tells you to get to A&E post haste, if not sooner.
However, these symptoms are also the near-identical symptoms for Norivirus, or Winter-Flu, a nasty bug but one that can be safely self treated at home in the vast majority of cases.
Needless to say, the probability of my family member having Norivirus with those symptoms, in winter, while the bug is occurring at its max, is infinitely more likely than having meninigitis. The expert system does not seem to have this "probabiity" function however, and appears to default straight to a lowest risk stance "this could be meningitis - go to A&E now!"
Even so, this Expert System is probably OK for the single case - but now scale it to a country of 50 million or so people, make it the easiest method of getting advice, scale down on the more skilled alternative (aka "doctors") as a second opinion and and multiply me by all the other people getting hit by the current Norivrus bug going round, and you have very likely generated a large number of unnecessary visits to A&E by the "Worried-not-quite-well" who have had the bejeezus frightened out of them by having an automated system that can't discriminate properly between a dangerous condition and a nasty winter bug, and drops to the lowest risk position of "get thee to A&E".
Also, you'd expect the system to try and do a few clarifying questions, given the huge difference in potential outcomes in a diagnosis of norivirus vs meningitis. There are a few to be fair - far fewer than I'd have expected though - but even then they are odd. For example, one question is "have you flown in from abroad in the last 3 weeks". Well yes, we have, as a matter of fact. But I was then expecting the system to ask where from - we flew in from alpine Europe, not exactly a dangerous disease hothouse. Now I don't know if the lack of the "where did you fly from" question in this "Expert" system was to make it easier to use, or to not offend anyone, but to my mind it was a pretty useless way of separating norivirus from meningitis.
The main issue with the question chain though, was you sat there looking at the screen thinking that none of these options properly described the issue - where was the "other/tell us what really happened/that isn't right" button?
Anyway, our diagnosis was sorted by talking to a real expert system - our doctor - over the telephone the next morning. "Oh yes, there is a lot of it going round right now, here's a prescription coming via email, go to XXX pharmacy and pick up the medicine". Five minutes on the 'phone with a real expert system = no panicked visit to A&E, no blocking resources for those who need it more, etc etc. But to use this option you (i) have to take the risk that it isn't meningitis on yourself over an anxious night, and (ii) have the self confidence that is probably the right call despite the prevalence of lurid medical "advice" Google gives at the touch of a button. Not a good failsafe resort for a nationally deployed medical expert system.
I would therefore bet a lot of money that a lot of people, especially out of hours, used that website or 111 and, when told to get to A&E PDQ, went there in a panic and helped no little bit in creating the huge crunch in A&E over the last few days. It may have only been a small % uplift, but the way capacity constrained complex systems work is they don't degrade linearly, they degrade in a non linear (aka accelleratingly worse) mode until they collapse.
Now it is something of a belief in the Technorati that these expert systems are inevitable and will be the saviour of many services/automate many people out of jobs/be the great leap forward for mankind etc etc (choose your Future of Technology belief set) but this experience maps onto something far more prosaic that I have seen repeatedly in the 30 or so years I've been building system models and simulations, to wit that:
- no simulation ever captures the overall complexity of reality
In other words, be very careful of how these early-day expert systems are deployed, as their errors could cost a hell of a lot more than the theoretical savings they may generate (unless, as in the case of the banks in 2007/8, you can make the public pay of course).
(Page 1 of 270, totaling 2699 entries) » next page
More Broad Stuff
Poll of the Week
Will Augmented reality just be a flash in the pan?
Creative Commons Licence
Original content in this work is licensed under a Creative Commons License