LinkedIn opens up... a little

The well-known networking site LinkedIn is normally used by its members to share their professional profile, and sometimes for answering questions in the Q&A.

Recently, they have started offering other services than just being an advanced and electronic curriculum vitae. Instead of trying to develop services and applications themselves, they have opened up the platform for a restricted number of applications that are used widely by professionals, such as Huddle (productivity software), Box.net (sharing documents online), and Slideshare (sharing presentations).

This is not really a surprise. Each successful social software or service (iGoogle, Facebook, iPhone, MySpace, Skype, ... etc.) uses the collective intelligence of many software developers and organizations worldwide by allowing other services run on their specific platform. These services become platforms for all kinds of different useful or funny services and thus enrich the experience and usefulness for the end-user. Meanwhile, the company, organization, or person behind the application (in many cases: individual hobbyists) has another platform for his/her services, and a much larger audience.
"LinkedIn Applications" shows you an entire page dedicated to the few services that are allowed on it. On it, you can indicate which of the services you already use, or want to use. In my case this is Slideshare, a very useful and free Internet service for sharing, viewing, using, managing, and discussing presentations (including audio). Relevant information of the Slideshare service, which you continue to use, is synchronized with the Slideshare application on LinkedIn. This means that your LinkedIn profile becomes richer by including Slideshare. In the future, LinkedIn will undoubtly allow many more professional applications on their site, if it aligns with the professional identity of the service and agrees to their terms.

Allowing external services on your social networking site is not an option: it is the only way to be able to address the changing demands and make use of the full potential the Web really has. PEERS does the same, but with two notes in the margin;

• Applications need to align with the interests of the organization or users on the platform. Since we customize our software according to the needs of the client (each organization requires a different setting, service, and sometimes even language), this variable.
• Important content creation and interaction services are local services, not external services. Why? Because PEERS IMS is a learning system, and learns from the interactions and contributions of its users. If these happen on an external closed platform, the system cannot learn, and users are active without building up rich profiles. Still, in some cases we can make agreements with the external party to use their data, but these processes and agreements can be quite tedious.
  

What LinkedIn has done, shows in a very simple manner how social and professional networking will be shaped the coming years.

Bookreview: The Keen Bubble

Two months ago, I went to Felix Meritis in Amsterdam, where Andrew Keen held a debate about his book "The Cult of the Amateur". I heard of him before, and consulted his blog a number of times, which did not draw my attention very much. I thought he made a point through exaggeration, and nothing wrong with it if, at least, there is some data and reasonable argumentation backing his statements. I was quite interested if he would convince me, because I thought it was good to hear something about the negative side of Web 2.0. And negative it was.

It turned out to be pretty disappointing, both the lecture of Keen, which was somewhat engaging, using many examples and being very enthusiastic and cynical, and the reply by the other persons who were invited. Although examples can be engaging and create more understanding about a subject, you can hardly generalize them into always-true statements, since.. well, they are examples. But that was exactly what Keen was doing, examples prove his point of view.. a pretty childish way of argumentation, which he used extensively in his book as well.

Andrew Keen is an angry man. He is angry at anything that resembles Web 2.0, he despises creations of amateurs online, filesharing, remixing of content, and he embraces everything that came before Web 2.0. In his anger, it must have been very hard for him to follow a consistent line of reasoning. The argumentation in the book is so lousy, I think I have never seen such lousy reasoning. And I don't get it. Although he admires and continuously points out the advantages and necessity of cultural gatekeepers, working at traditional media companies, it seems like he had not had any editor at all. This was exactly the point made by Stanford Law professor Lawrence Lessig, in his very funny review about the book.

The basic argument in the book is that Web 2.0, or the ability of anyone able to contribute anything (from news to videos to music) online, diminishes the traditional structures and organizations in the media industry. This will damage our culture and in the end ruin it. Because anyone can put anything online, the quality is becoming less reliable of what you read and see, and more intertwined with commerce etc. There are so many flaws in this piece of rubbish, that it seems a Sisyphean task trying to document them. Maybe.... in a collective effort we could do that, as has been intended by Lawrence Lessig.

Although the book flaws in a substantial way (factual errors & bad argumentation), the basic point made in the book has some significance: quality of information and trust in people and information is decreasing in an ever-expanding online information space. There is a lot of rubbish online, and maybe, it has become less easy for kids and adults to distinguish high quality from low quality. Still, technology also enables people to overcome these problems. PEERS is one of these technologies that enables information to be linked (back) to persons, persons with reputations and the ability to judge and evaluate information and people. This will create a dynamic hierarchy, in which people and information can be better found and trusted.

All in all.. don't bother reading the book.. just pick up the main message, which has some truth in it. As technology creates problems, don't forget it can also solve them. When I get hold of a book that offers a more substantiated critique and better advice in how to deal with the egalitarian characteristics of the Internet, I will post it here as well.

Peers in 5 questions: Interview with the founders

Interview with the founders of Peers: Job Timmermans & Gerrit Jan van 't Veen

You started in 2006, what was your vision to start this company?

In 2006, Web 2.0 technologies were becoming very popular. We liked the idea of empowering people and democratization, but we thought that in certain contexts, the egalitarian characteristic of these technologies is not desired. Sometimes, not everyone is equal, and should not have an equal vote, especially in information-rich environments. We saw a growing need for a new type of hierarchy to be able to cope with the ever-expanding body of information and knowledge online. We wanted to create a system that enables people to easily judge quality of people and information in a dynamic fashion: creating dynamic hierarchies. Something can be valuable and of high quality in one context, and of no value in another.

So, how do you create a dynamic hierarchy?

We think that quality can be determined by the activities or production of a knowledge worker in combination with the evaluation of his or her peers. For instance, someone writes a blogpost, which is read by a number of readers, some of which are knowledgeable about the content of the blogpost. In current web-environments, rating and evaluating is sometimes possible, but equally divided amongst the readers or selected group of people. Within the Peers Interaction Framework, the vote, evaluation, or link of an expert within a certain context is worth more than the vote, evaluation, or link of an amateur within that context. In another context, this hierarchy can be turned upside down, and the amateur can suddenly be the expert, and the expert the amateur. Many different attributes or elements are connected to a user profile that determine the authority of this user within certain contexts. We think that this can form the basis for the creation of more efficient and agile network organization structures.

If I get it right, Peers creates profiles based on the online activities of a user? Could you make this a bit clearer?

Correct, profiles are created based on the metadata generated from the online activities of users, and the way these online activities are evaluated by other people in the network. You could say that a profile consists of different profile elements (metadata): static elements concern the elements that can be entered by the user, such as date of birth, location, and other personal info, and dynamic information, which happens with Peers algorithms and interaction with users. The latter depends on the User Interface we build around it, but you can imagine data about users, usage, ratings, recommendations, links, and more.
By the way… it is possible to give people a jump-start, when they already possess a fair amount of authority, by including their existing resources (papers, reports, blogposts, etc.) and ranking a profile.

What is the ultimate objective of Peers?

Our main objective is the creation of software products that does 2 things: on the one hand it stimulates and rewards the sharing of knowledge (within networks), and on the other it increases the likelihood of objects (people, information, problems) being connected correctly. These two objectives are linked: through sharing and being active in a network, a better profile is created, which increases your presence and authority. Our ultimate goal is the creation of a global network of open and closed communities with millions of knowledge workers.

Which problems does Peers solve/address?

In an economy that is increasingly dynamic and changing, with shorter lifecycles of products and services, the classical organization or hierarchy of information does not function anymore. The value of people/expertise and information objects always relates to its context. Peers creates more transparency, because it improves the (contextual) evaluation of people and information objects. This is done through adding metadata automatically, and, clearly, by peers. Besides transparency for organization, network and individual, Peers also increases effectiveness, since people are allocated to solve problems within their own domain, and are connected to the right persons and information resources. Some possible uses could be:

• Rapidly creating a team of experts to solve a problem or address an issue;
• Communicate and collaborate efficiently (small search effort).

The possibilities of Peers are numerous, but the most important advantage it gives it that it creates rapid insight into quality of people and information within the right context.

Relevant RSS feeds; Web 2.0, New Media, and more

These weblogs keep you updated about new (releases of) software, and explaining and evaluating new tools and technologies.

• The Read-Write Web is one of the most visited website online about new technologies. Interesting to look into to get an idea of what is going on in the Silicon Valley and backdoor garages in the world.
• Mashable and TechCrunch are two other, similar blogs on new technologies.
  
• Robin Good is an expert in new media, and writes clearly about new technologies, and their use within enterprises.
• Andy Baio, an independent journalist and software enterpreneur, aggregates and describes interesting issues online.
• Open Culture is a cool blog about media, culture, and more. Lots of interesting lists, podcasts, and other resources.
• The Freakonomics Blog is about economics, specializing on contemporary issues and trends.
• The TED Blog, of the famous conference on Technology, Entertainment, and Design (Ideas Worth Spreading), hosting the most famous speakers in the world.
• Lifehack.org is the essential weblog on the new phenomenon of lifehacking: tips and tricks to enhance the way you work, learn, and live.

If you don't know how to use RSS, please consult this post [LINK].

Relevant RSS feeds; Learning

When we talk about knowledge management, we clearly also talk about learning. As knowledge management is clearly influenced by technology, so it learning. Possibly not the most basic and physical notion of learning, but merely the way we conduct learning activities. Technology can enhance these activities, by better representing the processes involved in learning. There are a million interesting blogs about learning, but we focus here on organizational learning, network learning, personal learning environments, and technology-enhanced learning.

• Jay Cross is a learning expert, and focuses on Informal Learning and enterprises.
• George Siemens is the academic behind the Connectivism Learning Theory, a front-runner and avid blogger in the field of learning.
• This weblog focuses on e-learning 2.0 and personal learning environments.
• Green Chameleon is a weblog that treats Knowledge Management issues.
• Harold Jarche also treats Knowledge Management, and other learning issues.
• Stephen Downes has one of the most popular aggregators on topics like learning, technology, and philosophy. On another blog, his personal, usually a bit more philosophical, can be read.
  
• EduCause feed on their quarterly magazine: very interesting topics, high quality articles.
• Henry Jenkins is an expert and MIT professor in new media, and author of the best-selling "Convergence Culture".
• Leigh Blackall is an Australian education expert and blogger.
• Ray Schroeder regularly posts some interesting things about learning and education.
• growing changing learning creating by blogger Tom Haskins shows interesting insights, options and possibilities concerning learning.. very well written.
• Tony Karrer´s blog covers trends in eLearning and more broadly the use of technology that aims to improve human performance.
• Will Richardson, author of "Blogs, Wikis, and Podcasts, and other Powerful Tools for the Classroom" shares his thoughts and online musings.
• Tony Hirst, who works for the Open University, explores the potential of Web 2.0 techniques and applications in higher and distance education, informal and lifelong learning.
• OER Blogs show many different blogs and Open Educational Resources (OER: Freely available, adaptable resources that can be used for learning).
  

If you don't know how to use RSS, please consult this post [LINK].

Relevant RSS feeds; Future of Work

Regarding the tomorrow's workplace in our networked economy, we suggest the following RSS feeds and blogs;

• Andrew McAfee (Harvard Business School) investigates how managers can most effectively select, implement, and use Information Technology (IT) to achieve business goals. He coined the name "Enterprise 2.0".
• This blog shares ideas and hopes to generate discussion on enterprise 2.0, business blogs, web 2.0 and knowledge management to provide value to organizations through practical applications. New trends and technologies are covered with a switch to art, music, travel, and food on the weekends.
  
• The Relationship Economy is a very interesting blog by Jay Deragon about how and why the economy is changing due to technological advances.
• Dion Hinchcliffe approaches Web 2.0 and Enterprise 2.0 issues from a more technological perspective, but does it in understandable language and great illustrations.
• David Weinberger, author of "Everything is Miscellaneous" and "Small Pieces Loosely Joined", and co-author of "the Cluetrain Manifesto", updates readers of his blog about organization and knowledge management, and about"how we’re pulling ourselves together now that we’ve blown ourselves to bits".
• The Innovation Factory is a very interesting Dutch blog (in English) focusing on open innovation, crowdsourcing, andstrategy, specifically relating to vision and tools of enterprise 2.0.
• Another interesting blog about Work 2.0 - News, views, and reviews.
  
• The Future of Work is a blog with ongoing reports and conversations related to the changing nature of work. Their goal is to foster community, conversation, and mutual learning about the future of work and the forces driving change.
• Web Worker Daily treats the life of electronic freelancers (e-lancers), tools they can use, and more.

If you do not know how to use RSS, please consult this post.

Relevant references; Knowledge Management

Unfree resources....
For people who have access to scholarly articles or want to buy books, the following list contains many interesting ones, mostly about knowledge management.

• Andriessen, J.H.E. and Vartiainen, M. (2005) Mobile virtual work: a new paradigm? Heidelberg: Springer
• Brown, J.S. and Duguid, P. (1991) Knowledge and organisation: a social-practice perspective. Organisation Science. Vol. 12, No. 2, pp198-213
• Chen, C. and Huang, J. (2007) How organizational climate and structure affect knowledge management - The social interaction perspective. International Journal of Information Management. Vol. 27, No. 2, pp. 104–118
• Davenport, T.H. and Prusak, L. (2000) Working knowledge. Boston: Harvard Business School Press.
• Drucker, P.F. (1998) The future that has already happened. The Futurist. Vol 32, No. , pp. 16-18
• Efimova, L. and Grudin, J. (2007) Crossing Boundaries: A Case Study of Employee Blogging. In: Proceedings of the 40th Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences (HICSS-40), pp. 86-96
• Fahey, L. and Prusak, L. (1998) The eleven deadliest sins of knowledge management. California Management Review. Vol. 40, No. 3, pp. 265-276
• Golder, S. A. and Huberman, B. A. (2006) Usage Patterns of Collaborative Tagging Systems. Journal of Information Science. Vol. 32, No. 2, pp. 198-208
• Hansen, M.T., Nohria, N. and Tierny, T. (1999) What’s your strategy for managing knowledge? Harvard Business Review. March/April, p. 106-116
• Harmsen, B.A. (2007) Expert role: enterprise knowledge management. MGMT 4290 Business Strategy, University of Denver, Daniels College of Business
• Holowetzki, A. (2002) The relationship between knowledge management and organizational culture: An examination of cultural factors that support the flow and management of knowledge within an organization. Master of Science graduation thesis. Applied Information Management and the Graduate School of the University of Oregon.
• Jakubic, M. (2007) Exploring the knowledge landscape: four emerging views of knowledge. Journal of knowledge management. Vol. 11, No. 4, pp. 6-19
• Jongeneel, C. (2008) Learning search engines how to read (In Dutch: Zoekmachines leren lezen) Computable 1 februari 2008
• Levin, D.Z. and Cross, R. (2004) The strength of weak ties you can trust: The mediating role of trust in effective knowledge transfer. Management Science. Vol. 50, No. 11, pp. 1477–1490
• Matuszak, G. (2007) Enterprise 2.0: Fad or Future? The Business Role for Social Software Platforms. KPMG International
• Oliver, S and Kandadi, K.R. (2006) How to develop knowledge culture in organizations? A multiple case study of large distributed organizations. Journal of Knowledge Management. Vol. 10, No. 4, pp. 6-24
• Oosten, W. van (2007) Wikis in the corporate environment: Managing knowledge the Wiki way in an adhocracy. Master thesis report. Faculty Systems Engineering, Policy Analysis and Management of the Delft University of Technology
• Park, H., Ribiere, V., and Schulte Jr. W.D. (2004) Critical attributes of organizational culture that promote knowledge management implementation success. Journal of Knowledge Management. Vol 8, No. 3, pp. 106-117
• Tsoukas, H. and Vladimirou, E (2001) What is organizational knowledge? Journal of Man-agement Studies. Vol. 38, No. 7, pp. 973-993
• Wenger, E. (2000) Communities of Practice and social learning systems. Organisation articles. Vol. 7, No. 2, pp. 225-245