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?!

Sunday, February 12, 2012

Service 2.0 Full Presentation at ServDes 2012

Your comments and insights are more than appreciated ... 
Service 2.0 Full Workshop for ServDes 2012

Why Service 2.0?

This is a post that I would like to make sure is here when I'm moving the blog as it contains the first dialogue on the blog. I will post it here on behalf of all those who were involved in the discussion and will try to add the details as possible

Original Post by a visitor:


In service Design there are a lot of tools that are all focusing on building positive customer experiences and this include in some cases the collection of customer needs and wants before designing the service. So, why do I need to use service2.0 concepts if I can depend on other tools of Service Design to achieve the same objectives?

My Comment:
First of all we're trying the blog here for the first time and tumblr looks a bit different from other systems. But in general this is a post by a blog visitor and he submitted through the post to the hub feature and it got published. But once published the name of the visitor is not being displayed. We hope to figure this out soon.
In reply to the question, Service 2.0 is not a service design tool or set of tools, but it's a rather new paradigm on services that tackle many aspects. Although not defined or fully defined yet which is the role of all of us, we can detect general themes of Service 2.0 as openness, agility, crowd-creation, personalization. For service design in particular and from the initial research at the topic, service 2.0 thinking implies, services that are designed to be remixed with other services and easily hacked by others to adapt and modify which is called hackability and remixability. Service 2.0 also depends on loose coupling of service system components. It also adopts agility and perpetual beta as concepts for development.

Service 2.0 also implies a different way of seeing the customer. So it's not only about researching the customer, or involving customer in design or development or even in co-producing the service, in service 2.0 the customer is the main creator of the service either for himself or for others while providers only provide very rich, integrated and open service delivery platforms.



Comment by Terriwada:


Mahmoud,
I don't have much background in the discussion on Service 2.0, but what you mention here is really interesting. I am a huge proponent for co-creation and co-design and I have employed many service design tools in order to facilitate these approaches. When you mention 'co-producing' I can immediately draw connections to projects that I am familiar with.

"in service 2.0 the customer is the main creator of the service either for himself or for others" -- this concept is somewhat unfamiliar to me... but very intriguing. Do you have any kinds of examples of this type of service design? To me this brings to mind many blogging platforms, like wordpress, which allow users to create and manage their own sites and content. Is this along the lines of what is intended by service 2.0?



My Comment:


Yes, but our main proposal here is for services in the offline world. Technology could be a facilitator sometimes but it's not the main theme. I've organized a workshop on Service 2.0 in ServDes 2012 and participants presented Service 2.0 concepts which I'll post in few days. But I've already mentioned in the workshop examples of 2.0 things that happen in the major sense in the offline world. for Example check "Open Source Ecology project" http://opensourceecology.org/ . Revolutions that took place in Egypt, Tunisia are also 2.0 oriented. Check revolution 2.0 . There's also the Google X Prize which is informally called Moon 2.0 which is about the first privately-funded team that could land a robot on the moon. We're here talking about the power of the crowd and the power of the individual.



"Service 2.0 Port" @ ServDes 2012





"service 2.0 port" was there at ServDes 2012 and was happy to host the brilliant ideas on the next generation of services.
 The ports welcomes participants saying:

"I’m ur “service 2.0 port”. u say it here, I take it to the world and the future … What do u have for me today?! Grab a post-it sticky and post something in any of the awesome colorful areas. U can always take it straight 2 brother (service 2.0 hub) & he does the job with other younger siblings on Twitter, Facebook, Linkedin. U normally find him hanging around service2.org"
The port gives you 6 areas that are just as colorful as the future to post your insights for the ServDes attendees. The port will take them online and share them with the world.
  • Service 2 .... What's it like?
  • Enabling forces n' trends?
  • 4-words example concepts
  • Any devil advocate?
  • Think it's cool? u serious? why?
  • Yeah, what else?

"YouMarket" The New Era in Marketing Thought


  • From Market with to You Market
  • From Co-Creation to Crow-Creation

From Web 2.0 to Service 2.0 Keywords



Keywords used to research Service 2.0 as an inspiration of Web 2.0 phenomena

From Web 2.0 to Service 2.0

Service 2.0 could be looked at from 2 points of view, both points of view are considered. The first point of view is looking at service 2.0 as an inspiration from the Web 2.0 phenomena. The second point of view looks at service 2.0 as a development of earlier service thought; which could be referred to in this regard as service 1.0. This figure demonstrates the first point of view.

Literature Review Methodology



So the Project includes a theoretical framework work and a practical research work. The image highlights the methodology for the theoretical framework.

Open Hardware Already, What About Open-Services?

So, What's "Service 2.0 Project"?

"Anticipation of Service 2.0: in Exploration of the Next Generation of Services" is a thesis research project in service innovation & design at the Laurea University of Applied Sciences, Leppävaara- Finland. The project utilizes crowdsourcing, service design methods and futures studies tools to explore the next generation of services.
The research leverages the contributions of researchers, practitioners and customers to define how the next generation of services looks like.
The project utilizes online and offline tools to capture contributions and insights.

Earlier Versions of Service 2.0 Logo





The first trial on the Service 2.0 Logo

My Tentative Plan

So Service 2.0 by far was a very winning concept. I didn't expect all that interest in the topic and even for a while after the discussions were concluded I used to receive votes for Service 2.0. I then decided to work on Service 2.0 and presented my first plan of the topic with the idea being still very vague at that time.

Project Sponsorship Proposal

And at a point of time I thought to find partners for my research projects here in the region. So I developed a proposal on the project and gave them the right to vote on the project topic as well, but I guess the initiative was not that interesting.

Yeah, Me and My Thesis Topic

Yeah, so a year ago I used to come up with a new thesis topic for every trip to Finland. I would see Katri Ojasalo and tell her about the topic I'm thinking about and she would say "Great! Go ahead and start". I would go back to Riyadh and the next month I would come back with a new topic. When it was time to officially start my thesis work and present a tentative plan, I filtered all the topics I came up with throughout the months like "Experience-dominant Logic" and settled for 5 topics to pick from. I posted them with a brief description on my blog and opened discussions on them on 8 service-related LinkedIn groups. I asked researchers and practitioners about what they'd like researched. I believed that my thesis is a product that I would like to make sure is needed from my customers before I decide to work on it. This link includes my 5 topics and the discussion that took place for over a week in 8 groups.

What Would You Vote For? 5 Topics for Service Innovation & Design Research

My First Thought Ever on Service 2.0

This is where everything started; the whole thought on Service 2.0. I was working on a service design project in the hospitality field and was thinking if Web 2.0 concepts jumped to the offline service world, how would things look like? So I started by writing this post on "

Hospitality 2.0: Intro and Community Engagement In SD and Delivery"

The Hub Established

Ok, so this is the service 2.0 central online presence for the time being, in a couple of weeks it will become the blog while the main site gets launched. Until then, I'll post few posts to get everyone on track specially with ServDes being in less than a week.