Tuesday, June 11, 2013

8-Armed Service 2.0 Starfish

Web 2.0 Starfish

Upon Analysis of Literature written on Web 2.0 mainly by O'Reilly, Musser and Shuen, I compiled the practices (you can still call them patterns or principles) of Web 2.0 in 8-armed starfish shape. I borrowed the starfish analogy from the book "The Starfish & The Spider: The Unstoppable Power of Leaderless organizations" which enforces the meaning of the shift that happened from the centralized Web 1.0 to the decentralized Web 2.0. I'll write further posts on this later.


Service 2.0 Starfish

Based on Web 2.0 starfish, I prepared another starfish that represents the Web 2.0 principles in Service context. These principles serve as tentative and potential service 2.0 principles. I've rearranged the principles, and shifted some of the principles of web 2.0 to the core of the starfish and moved some of the concepts from the core to the arms as per the differences between Web 2.0 and Service 2.0. Following is the final shape of the 8-armed Service 2.0 Starfish.


 Each of the arms represent a strategy (could also be called principle or pattern) and 3 main core concepts rest in the center. The principles were rephrased to be more service-research friendly yet will rely on the content offered at each principle of the Web 2.0 for the discussion. 

The objective of the discussion to follow the formation of these principles is to reach an understanding of how applicable these principles are for the service domain, what new concepts they could offer and what final list of concepts to select from for further discussion. 

The discussion will utilize the content offered at O’Reilly’s work, in addition to the related content to the main principles from Musser’s work and the main strategies and related content from Shuen’s work. Detailed practices, debates, benefits and misconceptions will later be discussed only for the selected concepts for the study to focus on.

Activate & Harness Collective Customer-Created Value

This principle combines the “Harnessing Collective Intelligence” principle of O’Reilly and Musser and “Users Create Value” strategic principle of Shuen. 
The principle was phrased to reflect this combination of the activation and harnessing of the collective value. The phrasing also used the term “customer” rather than “user” as this specification is not required in this case. The “customer-created value” as a term was used to specify the type of value addressed, as the term “customer value” alone could be understood as value to customer (from the service) or value from customer (to the service firm).
 This principle includes discussion of the topics related to user activity and participation , architecture of participation, folksonomy, viral marketing, open-source, wisdom of crowds, crowdsourcing, network value and intelligence, implied metadata and human-device hybrid intelligence, cognitive surplus and network effects.
These concepts will be discussed in the light of the following corresponding concepts from the service and service marketing literature; co-creation, many-to-many marketing, service-dominant logic, mass collaboration, co-production, adoption.

Stay Lean and Open

This principle is another more business generalist-friendly phrasing for “Lightweight Models for Cost-Effective Scalability”. The discussion of this topic will include the concepts of commoditization, reuse, business model syndication, outsource, scaling of pricing and revenue models, scale with demand, open business models, loose-coupling vs tight-coupling, Syndication vs. coordination, design for hackability and remixibility, network effects. These concepts will be discussed in the light of the following concepts from service and service marketing literature; business models, outsource, dynamic reconfiguration of talent, velcro organization, lean startup.

Dynamically Syndicate Competences

This principle corresponds to Shuen’s strategic principle of “Dynamically Syndicate Competences”. 
This principle includes discussion of topics related to dynamic comptence syndication, SaaS, Mashups.
These concepts will be discussed in the light of the following related service and service marketing concepts; Dynamic competence syndication, dynamic reconfiguration of talent, collaborative consumption, peer production and abundance.

Recombine and Collaborate to Innovate

This principle combines the “Innovation in Assembly” principle of Musser, which was covered by O’Reilly under “Lightweight Programming Model” and “New Recombines with Old” innovation strategy of Shuen. 
This principle includes discussion of the topics related to platforms, interfaces and third party innovation, open platforms, customer involvement, co-development, hackability and remixibility, standards, business model and API integration, collaborative innovation, platform innovation, recombinant innovation,  
These concepts will be discussed in the light of the following corresponding concepts from the service and service marketing literature; new service development, customer innovation, co-development, service systems, collaborative consumption, co-creation, co-production.

Design & Operate for the Long Tail

This principle corresponds to Musser’s principle of “Leveraging the Long Tail” which is covered under O’Reilly’s principle of “The Web as Platform”. The principle is also addressed in more than a strategy of Shuen’s work. 
This principle includes discussion of topics related to long-tail, democratized production, democratized distribution, supply and demand, reputation systems and self-service.
These concepts will be discussed in the light of the following related service and service marketing concepts; long-tail, democratized innovation, mass collaboration, mass customization, personalization and co-production.

Offer Channel-Agnostic Distributed Services

This principle corresponds to O'Reilly's and Musser’s principle of “Software Above the Level of a Single Device”. 
This principle includes discussion of topics related to pervasiveness, Design patterns for smarter network edge, seamless integration, location awareness.
These concepts will be discussed in the light of the following related service and service marketing concepts; service systems, value networks, customer experience, experience network.

Manage & Access Data Assets

This principle corresponds to “Data is the next ‘intel inside’” principle of O’Reilly and Musser. This principle includes discussion of topics related to data-specific strategies, data-centric business models, data-ownership and access, competition from software to data ownership.
These concepts will be discussed in the light of the following related service and service marketing concepts; information availability, self-service.

Run a Perpetual Beta Service

This principle corresponds to “End of Software Life Cycle” principle of O’Reilly and “Perpetual Beta” principle of Musser. This principle includes discussion of topics related to co-development, real-time monitoring, time to market, design patterns.
These concepts will be discussed in the light of the following related service and service marketing concepts; agile service development, Gaps model of service quality.

At the moment, I'm considering rearranging these keywords under different categories in a sort of affinity diagram. This may help read the relationships differently and come up with different set of principles which are more relevant for service needs. 

How do you see these principles and the areas that discussion will cover for each? Do you expect application of these principles to enable and unfold new possibilities in the service research and practice?


Sunday, August 5, 2012

Considered Books

I've created a bookshelf on Shelfari for the books I'm considering for the theoretical framework. Utilizing Shelfari, books became easier to list than papers so I thought to start with sharing them with you until I'm able to compile a list of the papers and get them posted. The gadget on this blog on the lefthand side shows a list of those books. I'm also posting the gadget here in this post.



You can also access the bookshelf here:

http://www.shelfari.com/o1514838858

I'm trying to somehow limit my scope to the books that are available electronically and specially through kindle, but I'm open for suggestions for books you believe would offer an added value.

Principles of Web 2.0

In the previous post I shared with you the definitions of Web 2.0 in the process of looking at Service 2.0 as an inspiration of Web 2.0. In this post, I'll focus on the principles of Web 2.0 as per the work of Tim O'Reilly.




Principles of Web 2.0

In 2005, Tim O’Reilly has initially drawn the Web 2.0 meme map in a brainstorming session, which was later, cited in researches. When O’Reilly wrote his official paper in 2007 he didn’t include the meme map yet it remains available on the official article on the O’Reilly website. The meme map shows the concepts radiating from the core of web 2.0




In his paper, O’Reilly has listed the main principles, which could be used to differentiate Web 1.0 and Web 2.0 sites, businesses or companies. The following were the principles:
1.    The web as platform
2.    Harnessing collective Intelligence
3.    Data is the next Intel inside
4.    End of the software release cycle
5.    Lightweight programming models
6.    Software above the level of a single device
7.    Rich user experiences
In the conclusion he listed the main core competencies of Web 2.0 companies, which were with the similar spirit but not the same structure. The competencies were as follows:
1.    Services, not packaged software, with cost-effective scalability,
2.    Control over unique, hard-to-recreate data sources that get richer as more people use them,
3.    Trusting users as co-developers,
4.    Harnessing collective intelligence,
5.    Leveraging the long tail through customer self-service,
6.    Software above the level of a single device,
7.    Lightweight user interfaces, development models, AND business models.
In 2009 O’Reilly presented a new paper named “Web Squared: Web 2.0 Five Years On” where he stressed, redefined some older characters and add new ones. The new discussed 4 aspects about the web 2.0 included: sensory-oriented collective intelligence, the learning web, the information shadow of reality on the web, and the real-time collective mind.
The following represents a compiled summary of the principles of Web 2.0 as described by O’Reilly in his 2 papers:



1.    The Web As Platform

a.    Value gets created in the service delivered over the platform (Google vs. Netscape case).
b.    The Value is co-created by the users and is facilitated by the software (Facebook, Twitter and YouTube cases)
c.    Long-tail focus through customer self-service and algorithmic data management (Adsense vs. Doubleclick case).
d.    Architecture of participation: new users bring new resources, the service gets better automatically as the network of users grows (BitTorrent vs. Akamai case).

2.    Harnessing Collective Intelligence

a.    The product is the collective work of the users. The product grows organically due to the user activity (eBay case).
b.    Provider’s role is to enable the context of user activity.
c.    Value is in the value of user participation to create flow around products offered (Amazon vs. barnesandnoble.com case).
d.    Radical Trust: with enough participants all flaws are shallow (Wikipedia case)
e.    Folksonomy: Allowing multiple overlapping customers’ categorization rather than provider’s own rigid categorization called taxonomy (del.icio.us and flickr cases)
f.     Viral marketing as recommendations propagating from one customer to another vs. traditional advertising (Sourceforge.net case).
g.    Open-source: or Open-anything as a product of collective-intelligence in production.
h.    Network effects are the key for dominance in Web 2.0 era.
i.      Blogosphere turned the web into a sort of a global brain with conversation going on all the time.
j.     The crowd of wisdom: The constant interactions of members of the crowd define the visibility and power of members or artifacts.
k.    We, the media: the audience decides what’s important and not the traditional media provider.
l.      Smart devices –not only humans- are feeding data all the time on location, speed, view, this data is being collected, presented and acted upon in real-time.
m.   The web is a marvel of crowdsourcing. (YouTube, Flickr, Twitter, MySpace and Facebook Cases)
n.    Applications are built to direct people to perform certain tasks. (Wikipedia, Amazon, Digg and Mechanical Turk Cases)
o.    The network gets smarter as it grows. Combination of devices capabilities, access to networks and crowdsourcing define a new level of intelligence.
p.    Discovering implied metadata, and building a database to capture that metadata and/or foster an ecosystem around it.

3.    Data is the Next "Intel Inside"

a.    Infoware: Products that are relying on databases as a main competency, where the data is the major asset.
b.    Control on over databases defines market control, and allows for financial returns and leveraging of network effects (YAHOO, Google, Amazon, eBay and Network Solutions cases).
c.    Ownership of data is the competitive edge and not the ownership of software which could be imitated or open-sourced (MapQuest vs. YAHOO, Microsoft and Google case).
d.    Enhancement of data by provider’s own efforts or by harnessing collective intelligence creates a huge added value on publicly available or easy-to-imitate databases (Amazon vs. Barnesandnoble.com case).
e.    Enhancement of data is a value that could be offered to other providers where the focus is shifted from the original data to the enhanced intermediate accessible new database as a data source. Providers could merge more than a source of data to enable services that never existed before (Google Maps, NavTeq & housingmaps.com case)
f.     The high expense & return in creating the data will put the data at the center of competition on ownership.
g.    Network-wide data systems could be formed to provide reliable aggregate data source systems. These data systems will be a major component in the “internet operating system” and will enable future applications (the case of identity systems relying on PayPal, Amazon 1-click and Google use of cell number as an Identifier).
h.    Open-Data: Due to the importance and criticality of ownership of data, data-owning providers (like Amazon) may start to be more enforcing for their data copyright policies. This will lead to the rise of free data movement leading to open data project as in the case of the proprietary software, free software movement and open-source (Wikipedia and Greasemonkey examples).

4.    End of the Software Release Cycle

a.    Looking at the software as a service rather than a product implies fundamental changes to business models.
b.    Operations are a core competency. Operations are more critical than the software artifact. Data has to be constantly and continuously maintained and operated.(the case of Google’s search algorithm vs. Google’s system administration, networking and load balancing). This implies change in the development tools suitable for building dynamic systems enabling the constant change.
c.    Users must be treated as co-developers.
d.    The move from “release early and release often” to the “perpetual beta”. Service may continue to be in beta mode years after release with.
e.    Frequent monthly, weekly & daily updates or even every-half-hour build update rate.
f.     Real-time monitoring of user-behavior and response to new features is a major new competency.
g.    This pace of development is a challenge for traditional providers who require radical change in their development lifecycles, design patters and corresponding business models and revenue sources.

5.    Lightweight Programming Models

a.    Simplicity guarantees higher adoption than complication. Simple models are highly adopted than formal corporate sophisticated models (Amazon’s case of 5% corporate SOAP and 95% simple REST).
b.    Allow for loosely coupled or fragile systems than tight corporate-bases coupled systems.
c.    Think Syndication and not coordination: Care more about getting the data to the other side rather than controlling the data on the other side.
d.    Design for Hackability and remixability: Decrease barriers for reusability. Allow users to access things the way they want when they want. Allow users to decrypt, hack, remix and reuse the components of the service creatively (Google Maps Case vs. ESRI).
e.    Move from “All rights reserved” to “some rights reserved”
f.     Innovation in assembly: Allow easy reuse and remix of existing services for a third-party to provide a new service. The abundance of accessible and reusable services’ components will allow for a new competition on the use of existing services to create new services. This availability will also give room for differentiation for existing providers who can reuse components from other services to enrich, renew and reposition their own.   

6.    Software Above the Level of a Single Device

a.    Allowing seamless integration of multiple devices, web and software.
b.    Devices will not only consume data but will also produce and report data (Car & traffic monitoring example).

7.    Rich User Experiences

a.    Development of the tools and standards allowed for the creation of interactive rich applications.
b.    The attempts from both directions of providing desktop-like rich web applications from one side and integrating web and online features continue to enhance the user experience.
c.    Rich Applications have the power of learning from user, accessing the user’s data and leveraging the architecture of participation and collective intelligence of the social network. 

What's Web 2.0?



As the first approach of defining Service 2.0 is through seeing Service 2.0 as an inspiration of Web 2.0, this post will share some contributions for defining Web 2.0.

The term ”Web 2.0” was first used in October 2004 in the first web 2.0 conference and in 3 years time it was cited 135 millions times on Google (O’Reilly 2007) . When first introduced, O’Reilly formulated their sense of Web 2.0 by the following example:



Since then, efforts have been done to study if Web 2.0 is more of a buzzword and marketing Jargon than a clear term with a clear definition, where does the web 1.0 end and where does the web 2.0 begin?(Madden et al 2006). Another research was done by Cormode and others in 2008 to come up with clear distinction between Web 1.0 and Web 2.0 and also between Web 2.0 and what could be mistakenly thought to be the whole Web 2.0 like social networking. 

In their systematic review for the terms health 2.0 and medicine 2.0 De Belt (et al 2010) have concluded that the term web 2.0 is currently accepted among authors and listed 2 definitions. The definitions they listed included O’Reilly’s definition of Web 2.0 as “a set of economic, social, and technology trends that collectively form the basis for the next generation of the Internet, a more mature, distinctive medium characterized by user participation, openness, and network effects” and Hansen’s definition of Web 2.0 as “a term which refers to improved communication and collaboration between people via social networking” and they concluded that the main clear difference is the move from uni-directional to multi-directional interaction. 

They concluded that 2 meanings of Web 2.0 could be spotted from definitions. The first meaning is that Web 2.0 is a combination of technological developments while the other is that Web 2.0 is not the technology but it’s what the technology enables of empowering people (De Belt et al 2010, P. 6).  Eijkman presented another definition of Web 2.0 as ”new internet services which enable users to collaboratively create, share and recreate knowledge from multiple sources, leverage collective intelligence and organize action” which is more focused on the value that gets created on the platform than the platform itself. 

Through his highly cited paper on the topic, O’Reilly has separately highlighted 3 major characteristics of Web 2.0 as the most important ones where he literally said “Web 2.0 is …” These 3 characteristics were “harnessing collective intelligence”, “We, The media” (meaning that the audience decides what’s important) and “The network as a platform”. 

Sunday, March 18, 2012

Service 2.0 Cafe Outcome- ServDes 2012, What Would You Add?

So one of the major activities that took place in the Service 2.0 workshop at ServDes 2012 was the Service 2.0 cafe. 9 ServDes attendees contributed their insights to 4 main areas in 15 minutes. This activity took place before I shared my initial listing of service 2.0 principles with participants (according to analysis of Tim O'Reilly's work on Web 2.0). The 4 areas and the insights shared were as follows:

Themes & Principles


The question here was mainly about what's Service 2.0? What will be the main themes and principles of the next generation of services?
Insights:
  1. We get busier & busier
  2. Shared Values
  3. Community-based
  4. Anonymous
  5. Ubiquity
  6. We are all service providers
  7. Connected People & Services
  8. Too much connection
  9. Interaction
  10. Feedback
  11. Apple
  12. Mobile
  13. Fun
  14. Distraction
  15. Nihilism
  16. Bottom-up attitude
  17. Shortened Cycle-time for Everything
  18. Democracy
  19. Pre-Emptive Complaint Resolution
  20. Visibility on the person
  21. Private+public= Priuk
  22. Augmented
  23. How to more often arrange physical meeting with friends
  24. Channel-agnostic
  25. Anarchy
  26. Increasing quality & reducing costs
  27. In-Sourcing
  28. Re-use & recycle
  29. Display how to act more friendly to the nature
  30. Local/global issues
  31. Tailored
  32. Multi-sensory
  33. Soft Values
  34. What would you add? ......

Trends & Forces


The question here is about what will get us there? What will be the trends and forces that will cause Service 2.0 to become reality?
Insights:


  1. Disaster Capitalism
  2. Distributed Everything
  3. Retro Nostalgia
  4. Rapid Pace
  5. Crowd-sourcing
  6. Legislation
  7. Sharing
  8. Company Power
  9. Nature Resources
  10. Tension between “Slow” ideology (consumer) and fast finance.
  11. Financial Crises
  12. Communities
  13. Open Knowledge
  14. New Technologies
  15. Detribalization
  16. Retribalization
  17. Personalization
  18. Crowd-funding
  19. Piracy
  20. Efficiency
  21. Social Media
  22. SaaS (the cloud)
  23. Poverty vs. super richness
  24. Accountability
  25. Politics
  26. What’s after user innovation?
  27. Information Sharing
  28. Global Warming
  29. Liberation
  30. Management Newspeak
  31. Customization
  32. Open-source
  33. Ecology
  34. Transport
  35. Empowerment
  36. Freedom
  37. Depends on small investments from big audience.
  38. Democracy
  39. Fast phenomena
  40. Externalization of Memory
  41. Commoditization
  42. Free Will
  43. Strong-Media Dependency
  44. Misuse of Technology/Things
  45. What would you add? ......

 Devil Advocacy

The question here is about Why it will not happen? Why it will not work or may not work?
Insights:

  1. Loss of “Cultural Values (Globalization)
  2. Identity Loss
  3. Cultural Issues
  4. Everything is English (monoculture)
  5. No trust
  6. Increasing standardization (Google, Facebook, Linkedin)
  7. With services you need to be more organized
  8. “I don’t want services all the time” , Leave me alone!
  9. Trust
  10. We want authorities, reliable sources
  11. Empty buzzwords 2.0
  12. Access
  13. Cost to participate?
  14. Polarization
  15. Internet gap (poor people excluded)
  16. Exclusion through non-adoption/ Techno-discrimination
  17. No one gets profit
  18. Alienation
  19. All services make us passive
  20. Human relationship is NOT a service
  21. Google is making us stupid. Do we need more of that?
  22. What’s the real implication?
  23. Negative side/ effects
  24. New-age rubbish
  25. Loss of ownership
  26. Who’s responsible for problems?
  27. Reduced wages for everyone due to lower cost business models.
  28. The governments don’t support it (taxing, laws)
  29. Costs & Ownership
  30. Is it really a solution? The right way?
  31. There’s too much bureaucracy
  32. Chaos
  33. Lobby’s influence
  34. “Trolling” makes content less trustworthy/ relevant
  35. Privacy
  36. You don’t have a nucleus devoted to continue
  37. Big brother effect
  38. Lack of privacy
  39. We don’t need more people …(couldn’t figure the word here).. for us.
  40. What would you add? ......

Example Service Concepts

I asked participants if they have existing or non-existing example service concepts that from their point of view are Service 2.0 concepts. They were so generous to share the following. Many of them were new to me:
Insights
  1. Adopt a field/ free farm
  2. Help your neighbor
  3. Personnel health program online
  4. Carpooling
  5. Ubuntu, LoCo events
  6. Connect people with same interests locally
  7. Audible
  8. Patient LikeMe (healthcare)
  9. Education for developing countries
  10. Disease Web Forums
  11. Couch Surfing (Hospitality)
  12. Airbnb
  13. Pre-Emptive Healthcare: Bio-monitoring, doctor calls at a sign of trouble.
  14. Interface with healthcare
  15. Microfinance
  16. MyPolice
  17. Online Health profile (Healthcare)
  18. Live Video Detailing (Healthcare)
  19. City gardening
  20. Innocentive.com
  21. E-Textbook Subscription (not sales)
  22. Book-crossing (Education)
  23. Ravintola päivä (Restaurant Day)
  24. Book-bridge
  25. Biblio Burro (Donkey Library)
  26. TED Talk
  27. Khan Academy
  28. Sustainable-everyday
  29. Living in communities (communal apartments).
  30. Wikipedia
  31. Flat Swapping
  32. Kallio Block Party
  33. Sharing equipment in a flat.
  34. What would you add? ......


I here shared all the insights I received from the participants with no interference. It was a very short activity of 15 minutes in the 1:30 hours workshop. They were so interactive and started to actively move between tables and pour thoughts in a very fast pace. They were just amazing!
I would like to thank them here by name (unfortunately 2 names are missing):
  • Lasse Karvonen
  • Rob Grossi
  • Eirik Fatland
  • Thomas Schönweitz
  • Natalia Agudelo
  • Iris Tomaszewski
  • Kati Reijonen

All photos are taken by (Thomas Schönweitz from whitespring) flickr.com/whitespring_eu Thanks Thomas!

Now, What would you add?

Tuesday, February 14, 2012

Moon 2.0: Is almost 5.0 years old

Yes! It's that old, and it's not any of Google's April fool. Officially known as Google Lunar X Prize, The initiative is a space competition organized by the X Prize Foundation, and sponsored by Google. The challenge calls for privately-funded spaceflight teams to compete in successfully launching, landing, and then traveling across the surface of the Moon with a robot, while also sending back to Earth specified images and other data.

I know services are a lot more complicated, and that service systems and value networks are way sophisticated, but isn't it about time to look at "Service 2.0" and say: "Yes, we can!"


1 More Open-Source Hardware Example

I came across this example which Tim O'Reilly tweeted on:




What are you waiting for Service folks?!