Vivek Wadhwa at the Wall Street Journal: “Corporations have always relied on industry analysts, management consultants and in-house gurus for advice on strategy and competitiveness. Since these experts understand the products, markets and industry trends, they also get paid the big bucks.
But what experts do is analyze historical trends, extrapolate forward on a linear basis and protect the status quo — their field of expertise. And technologies are not progressing linearly anymore; they are advancing exponentially. Technology is advancing so rapidly that listening to people who just have domain knowledge and vested interests will put a company on the fastest path to failure. Experts are no longer the right people to turn to; they are a waste of money.
Just as the processing power of our computers doubles every 18 months, with prices falling and devices becoming smaller, fields such as medicine, robotics, artificial intelligence and synthetic biology are seeing accelerated change. Competition now comes from the places you least expect it to. The health-care industry, for example, is about to be disrupted by advances in sensors and artificial intelligence; lodging and transportation, by mobile apps; communications, by Wi-Fi and the Internet; and manufacturing, by robotics and 3-D printing.
To see the competition coming and develop strategies for survival, companies now need armies of people, not experts. The best knowledge comes from employees, customers and outside observers who aren’t constrained by their expertise or personal agendas. It is they who can best identify the new opportunities. The collective insight of large numbers of individuals is superior because of the diversity of ideas and breadth of knowledge that they bring. Companies need to learn from people with different skills and backgrounds — not from those confined to a department.
When used properly, crowdsourcing can be the most effective, least expensive way of solving problems.
Crowdsourcing can be as simple as asking employees to submit ideas via email or via online discussion boards, or it can assemble cross-disciplinary groups to exchange ideas and brainstorm. Internet platforms such as Zoho Connect, IdeaScale and GroupTie can facilitate group ideation by providing the ability to pose questions to a large number of people and having them discuss responses with each other.
Many of the ideas proposed by the crowd as well as the discussions will seem outlandish — especially if anonymity is allowed on discussion forums. And companies will surely hear things they won’t like. But this is exactly the input and out-of-the-box thinking that they need in order to survive and thrive in this era of exponential technologies….
Another way of harnessing the power of the crowd is to hold incentive competitions. These can solve problems, foster innovation and even create industries — just as the first XPRIZE did. Sponsored by the Ansari family, it offered a prize of $10 million to any team that could build a spacecraft capable of carrying three people to 100 kilometers above the earth’s surface, twice within two weeks. It was won by Burt Rutan in 2004, who launched a spacecraft called SpaceShipOne. Twenty-six teams, from seven countries, spent more than $100 million in competing. Since then, more than $1.5 billion has been invested in private space flight by companies such as Virgin Galactic, Armadillo Aerospace and Blue Origin, according to the XPRIZE Foundation….
Competitions needn’t be so grand. InnoCentive and HeroX, a spinoff from the XPRIZE Foundation, for example, allow prizes as small as a few thousand dollars for solving problems. A company or an individual can specify a problem and offer prizes for whoever comes up with the best idea to solve it. InnoCentive has already run thousands of public and inter-company competitions. The solutions they have crowdsourced have ranged from the development of biomarkers for Amyotrophic lateral sclerosis disease to dual-purpose solar lights for African villages….”
VoteATX
PressRelease: “Local volunteers have released a free application that helps Austin area residents find the best place to vote. The application, Vote ATX, is available at http://voteatx.us
Travis County voters have many options for voting. The Vote ATX application tries to answer the simple question, “Where is the best place I can go vote right now?” The application is location and calendar aware, and helps identify available voting places – even mobile voting locations that move during the day.
The City of Austin has incorporated the Vote ATX technology to power the voting place finder on its election page at http://www.austintexas.gov/vote
The Vote ATX application was developed by volunteers at Open Austin, and is provided as a free public service. …Open Austin is a citizen volunteer group that promotes open government, open data, and civic application development in Austin, Texas. Open Austin was formed in 2009 by citizens interested in the City of Austin web strategy. Open Austin is non-partisan and non-endorsing. It has conducted voter outreach campaigns in every City of Austin municipal election since 2011. Open Austin is on the web at www.open-austin.org“
Taproot Foundation Starts Online Matchmaker for Charities Seeking Pro Bono Help
Nicole Wallace at the Chronicle of Philanthropy: “The Taproot Foundation has created an online marketplace it hopes will become the Match.com of pro bono, linking skilled volunteers with nonprofits that need assistance in areas like marketing, database design, and strategic planning.
The new site, Taproot+, allows nonprofits to describe projects needing help. Taproot Foundation employees will review proposals and help improve any unclear project descriptions….
People looking to share their skills can browse projects on the site. Some charities ask for in-person help, while other projects can use volunteers working remotely. In some cases, Taproot will post the projects on sites run by partner organizations, like the LinkedIn for Volunteers, to help find the right volunteer. As the site grows, the group plans to work closely with other pro bono organizations, like NPower and DataKind.
“We want to make sure that we’re helping on the front end,” says Ms. Hamburg. “But once that project description is created, we want to make sure that the nonprofit is accessing the best talent out there, no matter where it is.
After a nonprofit and pro bono volunteer agree to work together, Taproot+ helps them plan the steps of the project and set deadlines for milestones, which are tracked on the site…”
Tell Everyone: Why We Share & Why It Matters
Book review by Tim Currie: “Were the people sharing these stories outraged by Doug Ford’s use of an ethnic stereotype? Joyfully amused at the ongoing campaign gaffes? Or saddened by the state of public discourse at a democratic forum? All of these emotions likely played a part in driving social shares. But a growing body of research suggests some emotions are more influential than others.
Alfred Hermida’s new book, Tell Everyone: Why We Share & Why It Matters, takes us through that research—and a pile more, from Pew Center data on the makeup of our friends lists to a Yahoo! study on the nature of social influencers. One of Hermida’s accomplishments is to have woven that research into a breezy narrative crammed with examples from recent headlines.
Not up on the concept of cognitive dissonance? Homophily? Pluralistic ignorance? Or situational awareness? Not a deal breaker. Just in time for Halloween, Tell Everyone (Doubleday Canada) is a social science literature review masquerading as light bedside reading from the business management section. Hermida has tucked the academic sourcing into 21 pages of endnotes and offered a highly readable 217-page tour of social movements, revolutions, journalistic gaffes and corporate PR disasters.
The UBC journalism professor moves easily from chronicling the activities of Boston Marathon Redditors to Tahrir Square YouTubers to Japanese earthquake tweeters. He dips frequently into the past for context, highlighting the roles of French Revolution-era salon “bloggers,” 18th-century Portuguese earthquake pamphleteers and First World War German pilots.
Indeed, this book is only marginally about journalism, made clear by the absence of a reference to “news” in its title. It is at least as much about sociology and marketing.
Mathew Ingram argued recently that journalism’s biggest competitors don’t look like journalism. Hermida would no doubt agree. The Daily Show’s blurring of comedy and journalism is now a familiar ingredient in people’s information diet, he writes. And with nearly every news event, “the reporting by journalists sits alongside the accounts, experiences, opinions and hopes of millions of others.” Journalistic accounts didn’t define Mitt Romney’s 2012 U.S. presidential campaign, he notes; thousands of users did, with their “binders full of women” meme.
Hermida devotes a chapter to chronicling the ways in which consumers are asserting themselves in the marketplace—and the ways in which brands are reacting. The communications team at Domino’s Pizza failed to engage YouTube users over a gross gag video made by two of its employees in 2009. But Lionsgate films effectively incorporated user-generated content into its promotions for the 2012 Hunger Games movie. Some of the examples are well known but their value lies in the considerable context Hermida provides.
Other chapters highlight the role of social media in the wake of natural disasters and how users—and researchers—are working to identify hoaxes.
Tell Everyone is the latest in a small but growing number of mass-market books aiming to distill social media research from the ivory tower. The most notable is Wharton School professor Jonah Berger’s 2013 book Contagious: Why Things Catch On. Hermida discusses the influential 2009 research conducted by Berger and his colleague Katherine Milkman into stories on the New York Times most-emailed list. Those conclusions now greatly influence the work of social media editors.
But, in this instance at least, the lively pacing of the book sacrifices some valuable detail.
Hermida explores the studies’ main conclusion: positive content is more viral than negative content, but the key is the presence of activating emotions in the user, such as joy or anger. However, the chapter gives only a cursory mention to a finding Berger discusses at length in Contagious—the surprisingly frequent presence of science stories in the list of most-emailed articles. The emotion at play is awe—what Berger characterizes as not quite joy, but a complex sense of surprise, unexpectedness or mystery. It’s an important aspect of our still-evolving understanding of how we use social media….”
Alfred Hermida’s new book, Tell Everyone: Why We Share & Why It Matters, takes us through that research—and a pile more, from Pew Center data on the makeup of our friends lists to a Yahoo! study on the nature of social influencers. One of Hermida’s accomplishments is to have woven that research into a breezy narrative crammed with examples from recent headlines.
Not up on the concept of cognitive dissonance? Homophily? Pluralistic ignorance? Or situational awareness? Not a deal breaker. Just in time for Halloween, Tell Everyone (Doubleday Canada) is a social science literature review masquerading as light bedside reading from the business management section. Hermida has tucked the academic sourcing into 21 pages of endnotes and offered a highly readable 217-page tour of social movements, revolutions, journalistic gaffes and corporate PR disasters.
The UBC journalism professor moves easily from chronicling the activities of Boston Marathon Redditors to Tahrir Square YouTubers to Japanese earthquake tweeters. He dips frequently into the past for context, highlighting the roles of French Revolution-era salon “bloggers,” 18th-century Portuguese earthquake pamphleteers and First World War German pilots.
Indeed, this book is only marginally about journalism, made clear by the absence of a reference to “news” in its title. It is at least as much about sociology and marketing.
Mathew Ingram argued recently that journalism’s biggest competitors don’t look like journalism. Hermida would no doubt agree. The Daily Show’s blurring of comedy and journalism is now a familiar ingredient in people’s information diet, he writes. And with nearly every news event, “the reporting by journalists sits alongside the accounts, experiences, opinions and hopes of millions of others.” Journalistic accounts didn’t define Mitt Romney’s 2012 U.S. presidential campaign, he notes; thousands of users did, with their “binders full of women” meme.
Hermida devotes a chapter to chronicling the ways in which consumers are asserting themselves in the marketplace—and the ways in which brands are reacting. The communications team at Domino’s Pizza failed to engage YouTube users over a gross gag video made by two of its employees in 2009. But Lionsgate films effectively incorporated user-generated content into its promotions for the 2012 Hunger Games movie. Some of the examples are well known but their value lies in the considerable context Hermida provides.
Other chapters highlight the role of social media in the wake of natural disasters and how users—and researchers—are working to identify hoaxes.
Tell Everyone is the latest in a small but growing number of mass-market books aiming to distill social media research from the ivory tower. The most notable is Wharton School professor Jonah Berger’s 2013 book Contagious: Why Things Catch On. Hermida discusses the influential 2009 research conducted by Berger and his colleague Katherine Milkman into stories on the New York Times most-emailed list. Those conclusions now greatly influence the work of social media editors.
But, in this instance at least, the lively pacing of the book sacrifices some valuable detail.
Hermida explores the studies’ main conclusion: positive content is more viral than negative content, but the key is the presence of activating emotions in the user, such as joy or anger. However, the chapter gives only a cursory mention to a finding Berger discusses at length in Contagious—the surprisingly frequent presence of science stories in the list of most-emailed articles. The emotion at play is awe—what Berger characterizes as not quite joy, but a complex sense of surprise, unexpectedness or mystery. It’s an important aspect of our still-evolving understanding of how we use social media….”
Ebola and big data: Call for help
The Economist: “WITH at least 4,500 people dead, public-health authorities in west Africa and worldwide are struggling to contain Ebola. Borders have been closed, air passengers screened, schools suspended. But a promising tool for epidemiologists lies unused: mobile-phone data.
When people make mobile-phone calls, the network generates a call data record (CDR) containing such information as the phone numbers of the caller and receiver, the time of the call and the tower that handled it—which gives a rough indication of the device’s location. This information provides researchers with an insight into mobility patterns. Indeed phone companies use these data to decide where to build base stations and thus improve their networks, and city planners use them to identify places to extend public transport.
But perhaps the most exciting use of CDRs is in the field of epidemiology. Until recently the standard way to model the spread of a disease relied on extrapolating trends from census data and surveys. CDRs, by contrast, are empirical, immediate and updated in real time. You do not have to guess where people will flee to or move. Researchers have used them to map malaria outbreaks in Kenya and Namibia and to monitor the public response to government health warnings during Mexico’s swine-flu epidemic in 2009. Models of population movements during a cholera outbreak in Haiti following the earthquake in 2010 used CDRs and provided the best estimates of where aid was most needed.
Doing the same with Ebola would be hard: in west Africa most people do not own a phone. But CDRs are nevertheless better than simulations based on stale, unreliable statistics. If researchers could track population flows from an area where an outbreak had occurred, they could see where it would be likeliest to break out next—and therefore where they should deploy their limited resources. Yet despite months of talks, and the efforts of the mobile-network operators’ trade association and several smaller UN agencies, telecoms firms have not let researchers use the data (see article).
One excuse is privacy, which is certainly a legitimate worry, particularly in countries fresh from civil war, or where tribal tensions exist. But the phone data can be anonymised and aggregated in a way that alleviates these concerns. A bigger problem is institutional inertia. Big data is a new field. The people who grasp the benefits of examining mobile-phone usage tend to be young, and lack the clout to free them for research use.”
Ebola’s Information Paradox
It was a full seven days after Baby Lewis became ill, and four days after the Soho residents began dying in mass numbers, before the outbreak warranted the slightest mention in the London papers, a few short lines indicating that seven people had died in the neighborhood. (The report understated the growing death toll by an order of magnitude.) It took two entire weeks before the press began treating the outbreak as a major news event for the city.
Within Soho, the information channels were equally unreliable. Rumors spread throughout the neighborhood that the entire city had succumbed at the same casualty rate, and that London was facing a catastrophe on the scale of the Great Fire of 1666. But this proved to be nothing more than rumor. Because the Soho crisis had originated with a single-point source — the poisoned well — its range was limited compared with its intensity. If you lived near the Broad Street well, you were in grave danger. If you didn’t, you were likely to be unaffected.
Compare this pattern of information flow to the way news spreads now. On Thursday, Craig Spencer, a New York doctor, was given a diagnosis of Ebola after presenting a high fever, and the entire world learned of the test result within hours of the patient himself learning it. News spread with similar velocity several weeks ago with the Dallas Ebola victim, Thomas Duncan. In a sense, it took news of the cholera outbreak a week to travel the 20 blocks from Soho to Fleet Street in 1854; today, the news travels at nearly the speed of light, as data traverses fiber-optic cables. Thanks to that technology, the news channels have been on permanent Ebola watch for weeks now, despite the fact that, as the joke went on Twitter, more Americans have been married to Kim Kardashian than have died in the United States from Ebola.
As societies and technologies evolve, the velocities vary with which disease and information can spread. The tremendous population density of London in the 19th century enabled the cholera bacterium to spread through a neighborhood with terrifying speed, while the information about that terror moved more slowly. This was good news for the mental well-being of England’s wider population, which was spared the anxiety of following the death count as if it were a stock ticker. But it was terrible from a public health standpoint; the epidemic had largely faded before the official institutions of public health even realized the magnitude of the outbreak….
Information travels faster than viruses do now. This is why we are afraid. But this is also why we are safe.”
USAID establishes its first open data policy
Billy Mitchell at FedScoop: “The U.S. Agency for International Development jumped on the open data wave last week, announcing its first-ever policy to share its data sets and tools with the public on a central repository.
Referred to as Automated Directives System 579, the open data policy is a hat tip to President Barack Obama’s directive on transparency and open government five years ago and comes after the agency’s Frontiers in Development Forum in September addressing pathways for innovation for its mission to provide support to impoverished countries. With the new policy, USAID will provide a framework to open its agency-funded data to the public and publish it in a central location, making it easy to consume and use.
“USAID has long been a data-driven and evidence-based Agency, but never has the need been greater to share our data with a diverse set of partners—including the general public—to improve development outcomes,” wrote Angelique Crumbly, USAID’s performance improvement officer, and Brandon Pustejovsky, chief data officer for USAID, in a blog post. “For the first time in history, we have the tools, technologies and approaches to end extreme poverty within two decades. And while many of these new innovations were featured at our recent Frontiers in Development Forum, we also recognize that they largely rely on an ongoing stream of data (and new insights generated by that data) to ensure their appropriate application.”…
USAID’s DDL and open data will be hosted on the USAID website, where there’s already a long list of databases hosted. USAID also started a GitHub page for any feedback on the data”
From the smart city to the wise city: The role of universities in place-based leadership
Paper by Hambleton, R.: “For a variety of reasons the notion of the smart city has grown in popularity and some even claim that all cities now have to be ‘smart’. For example, some digital enthusiasts argue that advances in Information and Communication Technologies (ICT) are ushering in a new era in which pervasive electronic connections will inevitably lead to significant changes that make cities more liveable and more democratic. This paper will cast a critical eye over these claims. It will unpack the smart city rhetoric and show that, in fact, three competing perspectives are struggling for ascendancy within the smart cities discourse: 1) The digital city (emphasising a strong commitment to the use of ICT in governance), 2) The green city (reflecting the growing use of the US phrase smart growth, which is concerned to apply sound urban planning principles), and 3) The learning city (emphasising the way in which cities learn, network and innovate). Five digital danger zones will be identified and discussed. This analysis will suggest that scholars and policy makers who wish to improve the quality of life in cities should focus their attention on wisdom, not smartness. Civic leaders need to exercise judgement based on values if they are to create inclusive, sustainable cities. It is not enough to be clever, quick, ingenious, nor will it help if Big Data is superseded by Even Bigger Data. Universities can play a much more active role in place-based leadership in the cities where they are located. To do this effectively they need to reconsider the nature of modern scholarship. The paper will show how a growing number of universities are doing precisely this. Two respected examples will be presented to show how urban universities, if they are committed to engaged scholarship, can make a significant contribution to the creation of the wise city.”
Privacy Identity Innovation: Innovator Spotlight
pii2014: “Every year, we invite a select group of startup CEOs to present their technologies on stage at Privacy Identity Innovation as part of the Innovator Spotlight program. This year’s conference (pii2014) is taking place November 12-14 in Silicon Valley, and we’re excited to announce that the following eight companies will be participating in the pii2014 Innovator Spotlight:
* BeehiveID – Led by CEO Mary Haskett, BeehiveID is a global identity validation service that enables trust by identifying bad actors online BEFORE they have a chance to commit fraud.
* Five – Led by CEO Nikita Bier, Five is a mobile chat app crafted around the experience of a house party. With Five, you can browse thousands of rooms and have conversations about any topic.
* Glimpse – Led by CEO Elissa Shevinsky, Glimpse is a private (disappearing) photo messaging app just for groups.
* Humin – Led by CEO Ankur Jain, Humin is a phone and contacts app designed to think about people the way you naturally do by remembering the context of your relationships and letting you search them the way you think.
* Kpass – Led by CEO Dan Nelson, Kpass is an identity platform that provides brands, apps and developers with an easy-to-implement technology solution to help manage the notice and consent requirements for the Children’s Online Privacy Protection Act (COPPA) laws.
* Meeco – Led by CEO Katryna Dow, Meeco is a Life Management Platform that offers an all-in-one solution for you to transact online, collect your own personal data, and be more anonymous with greater control over your own privacy.
* TrustLayers – Led by CEO Adam Towvim, TrustLayers is privacy intelligence for big data. TrustLayers enables confident use of personal data, keeping companies secure in the knowledge that the organization team is following the rules.
* Virtru – Led by CEO John Ackerly, Virtru is the first company to make email privacy accessible to everyone. With a single plug-in, Virtru empowers individuals and businesses to control who receives, reviews, and retains their digital information — wherever it travels, throughout its lifespan.
Learn more about the startups on the Innovator Spotlight page…”
European Union Open Data Portal
About: “The European Union Open Data Portal is the single point of access to a growing range of data from the institutions and other bodies of the European Union (EU). Data are free for you to use and reuse for commercial or non-commercial purposes.
By providing easy and free access to data, the portal aims to promote their innovative use and unleash their economic potential. It also aims to help foster the transparency and the accountability of the institutions and other bodies of the EU.
The EU Open Data Portal is managed by the Publications Office of the European Union. Implementation of the EU’s open data policy is the responsibility of the Directorate-General for Communications Networks, Content and Technology of the European Commission.
By providing easy and free access to data, the portal aims to promote their innovative use and unleash their economic potential. It also aims to help foster the transparency and the accountability of the institutions and other bodies of the EU.
The EU Open Data Portal is managed by the Publications Office of the European Union. Implementation of the EU’s open data policy is the responsibility of the Directorate-General for Communications Networks, Content and Technology of the European Commission.
What can I find on the portal?
The portal provides a metadata catalogue giving access to data from the institutions and other bodies of the EU. To facilitate reuse, these metadata are based on common encoding rules and standardized vocabularies.To learn more, see Linked Data.
Data are available in both human and machine readable formats for immediate reuse. You will also find a selection of applications built around EU data.To learn more, see Applications.How can I reuse these data?
As a general principle, you can reuse data free of charge, provided that the source is acknowledged (see legal notice).Specific conditions on reuse, related mostly to the protection of third-party intellectual property rights, apply to a small number of data. A link to these conditions is displayed on the relevant data pages.
How can I participate in the portal?
Another important goal of the portal is to engage with the user community around EU open data. You can participate by:
The portal provides a metadata catalogue giving access to data from the institutions and other bodies of the EU. To facilitate reuse, these metadata are based on common encoding rules and standardized vocabularies.To learn more, see Linked Data.
Data are available in both human and machine readable formats for immediate reuse. You will also find a selection of applications built around EU data.To learn more, see Applications.How can I reuse these data?
As a general principle, you can reuse data free of charge, provided that the source is acknowledged (see legal notice).Specific conditions on reuse, related mostly to the protection of third-party intellectual property rights, apply to a small number of data. A link to these conditions is displayed on the relevant data pages.
How can I participate in the portal?
Another important goal of the portal is to engage with the user community around EU open data. You can participate by:
- suggesting datasets,
- giving your feedback and suggestions, and
- sharing your apps or the use you have made with the data from the portal.