Useful Thinking About Big Data

Ever wonder why “Big Data” is referred to in terms of somebody’s solution, tool, application, utility?

And why that doesn’t offer much value to you?

You know there must be some value...otherwise why all the noise?

The best way to define Big Data is in terms of how you are currently using it. You aren’t? Bugger!

In that case, “Big Data,” like the blind guy said, “is like a wall.”

Like the blind guys and the elephant, we are going to have to construct a model that is useful and entertaining for you. Here goes:

Web 1.0,   Web 2.0,   Web 3.0

Web 1.0 was that gray background on your computer screen with black type, “Hi, I’m computer programmer. Here is a picture of me and my dog!” That was 1995. I was artsy, so I had flaming letters, proving I had more research than taste.

Today, Web 1.0 continues on corporate websites with tabs like, “Our Team,” “Vision,” and “Shopping Cart.” A billboard in cyberspace, hiding the countryside above the big tubes

.

Web 2,0 is adding two-way conversations, the back and forth, often with hilarious or cringey  results. From trolling right up to creating new ideas, organizations, and things.

The Cluetrain Manifesto alerted us to the coming of Web 2.0, with the first thesis, All markets are conversations. If you've staked your claim on Google Plus or LinkedIn, you are a Web 2 resident.

Web 3.0 is repurposing what has already been loaded into the web.

For Web 3.0, the words, pictures, and ideas have often already been loaded into the Internet. Not all, but the ease of using existing data makes gathering whatever else is needed much lower cost. Repurposing existing data creates another round of value.

Examples are pictures of winsome cats and a caption, “I can has cheezburger?” to all the privileged and then stolen boilerplate in the legal universe, to everything everyone knows about our health, wealth, and happiness. That whole pile is big data, and the people telling you about it have clever hacks to connect pieces of that data into useful piles.

Scary? Could be.

Miraculous? Sometimes.

Will people be swindled? Always.

Will people be helped? More.

But the work of making it work is not magic. It is figuring out what goes where.

Doc Searls, an author of the previously mentioned Cluetrain, has been working on Vendor Relationship Management (VRM).

Customer Relationship Management allows siding salesmen to know what time you sit down to dinner so they can call. VRM allows you to make the best choice when you want something, and not spend time with it when you don’t.

Thankfully, Big Data and VRM are largely an open source collaboration, so you can find it and see what others are doing.

And yes, it’s bad what fast buck artists, lawyers, and legislators are trying to do to you. But yes, it’s good how you’ll be able to improve your life with the resources that are available to you.

The internet is so big it creates an opportunity for advantage from scaling and availability that we have never seen before. Sturgeon’s Law (Ninety per cent of everything is crud) notwithstanding, there are tremendous opportunities.

What we learned from the App Economy is:

1. First in gets the biggest reward,
2. Nothing is ever so completely finished that it can't be radically improved, and
3. Collaboration outproduces closed systems.

Be on the lookout for a use of Big Data/Web 3.0 that will help you a lot.

Open Source Leadership – A useful way of seeing the world

Join us on Monday July 15^th for The Changing Social Paradigm - How It Affects the Job Market, for details about this free presentation: 40Plus Washington, DC.

Wikipedia – To Tell The Truth

Dick Davies attended The Hamilton Project at Brookings conference about education and the Wikipedia came up as a 'problem'. I have talked with many teachers and they tend to poo-poo Wikipedia as a serious reference source – in fact, they prohibit the students from using it when doing projects.

I recall in school, before the internet, reading a synopsis in the Encyclopedia Britannica and not finding any of the cited references at the local libraries. With no opportunity to review source materials I was left to rely on the viewpoint of the writers.

The Britannica was limited by print space available for it's content – its style was abstracts. The editors' work was reviewed by a panel of editors for accuracy and unbiased writing (for those so inclined, metrics: 100 editors, 4,400 contributors, 65,000+ articles).

Wikipedia has a whole community to write articles, offer additional content, and challenge errors or misstatements, as well as an army of volunteer editors to improve the entries (metrics: 275 editors, 100,000 contributors, 23,000,000+ articles). Since the internet is virtually infinite, Wikipedia has not been hampered by the space limitations of print media – it has plenty of room for more lengthy articles and extensive hyperlink bibliographies to supplement the articles. Live links are available instantly from the computer

Before the internet, a significant research consideration was finding data; now with its vast content available, the consideration now is filtering to get relevant data. The Britannica filters the content as a result of the space considerations, whereas Wikipedia is inclusive and the content is filtered on relevancy by external tools.

The Google Search Box typically returns a Wikipedia cite among the top three or four results – a good first filter and introduction to the topic. The live links following the article cite additional sources of information and easily expand the depth of the research. Teachers instill in students that single-source research is not a reliable path to knowledge and these links make multiple sources easier to find since the material has already been filtered.

Structurally the Britannica approach may offer control and consistency, but is limited by available resources (i.e., staff). Wikipedia is an open-source collaborative venture of contributors creating content and a community devoted to making it better and collectively assuring acceptable results – much like ancient tribes did before cities and laws were established.

The Wikipedia project is a good example of how users can create, populate, and regulate a resource by collaboration and an evolving community of dedicated volunteers.

Are there other situations where a similar collaborative approach could produce results. How about an application in your organization?

Open Source – It's Not Just Software, Baby!

Initially, open source was an approach to developing software among coders, which was like Spanky, Darla, and the Our Gang kids “puttin' on a show.” Everyone contributed what they had (sharing resources) and did what they knew (collaborate) – and the show was always a success.

The open source approach is a philosophy, a culture, a means of tapping the doer's knowledge and experience without the complication of burdensome overhead.

It can be as simple as taking the path of helping a chronically tardy employee discover the effect of his lateness on coworkers, then giving him an alarm clock to acknowledge the commitment of being there on time.

In this environment, an audiophile can develop a hobby of finding old high-end equipment into a viable business by working with a warehouser and an eBay seller – a 3-person collaboration which is a poster child for the Makers Economy.

As agencies move further into government as a platform (GAAP) with information and answers easily available on-line, and reliable channels for filing required documents, the experienced 'live person' is available to work with the smaller percentage of unusual cases instead of reading to the general caller from the regs and procedures.

Open source leadership is recognizing the value of the knowledge and experience which resides throughout the organization and finding ways of applying it to get results.

The New Normal is the resulting change from traditional methods to address issues brought about by open source thinking. It's like having the doers and managers smiling at a problem and saying in unison “We've got an app for that!”

Business as usual is unusual – are you evolving or just waiting for it to return to normal?

Chris Anderson’s Hierarchy of Reward

Verisign had a mind bending Building A Better Internet program at the Newseum in Washington DC. Three pages of good notes, huge respect for the people on stage (2011 Judges Video). There will be posts on this program for months.

The keynote was Chris Anderson.

I’ve seen Chris Anderson before. His presentations are the equivalent of understanding a Neal Stephenson book in 20 minutes, an intellectual athletic event. This presentation was another fireworks performance.

By day he is editor in chief of Wired Magazine. At other times he runs the open source drone software foundation, has a couple of companies and writes books that change the current business paradigm. He does good Dad, too.

While discussing a half dozen other ideas Chris laid out his hierarchy of reward for his open source tribe.

Chris has stepped up to open source management of a business of things on the internet of things.

His last stick of dynamite over the side of the boat is, “Atoms Are The New Bits.” Now, that’s a bumpersticker!

Your thoughts?

Our next presentation is BlogLab - Improve Your Blogs! Thursday December 8, 8:30 am - 1 pm. Learn more at http://bit.ly/WMRBlogLab

Open Or Complete?

I read a lot of commenting from open source enthusiasts about the disadvantages of what is not “open,” which frequently gets into philosophical concepts.

I don’t derive much value from philosophical working. I work for successful completion. And I use open tools and other tools, often measuring one against the other.

There is a difference in completion between between “open” products and that other stuff, which I would like to define in this post.

For starters, I say the opposite of “open” is “complete.”

The old joke is, “A man is incomplete before marriage. Then he is finished.” Be careful what you wish for.

When I sit down to write, I start from a variety of templates, which I have developed to speed the writing process. Whether it is code, a web page, report, spreadsheet, brochure, presentation, or post, I have specific templates. And when I start something new, the first thing I do is reason out my template. I write against time, so working freehand is not an option.

Following the smartphone “open vs Apple” discussion, the beauty of the Apple product is that it executes almost everything it is designed to do with wonderful ease. If you want it to do something it is not designed to do, well, you’re out of luck. Ask the guys who would like to Skype on their iPhones. So as long as you stay within the parameters handed to you by the designers, that is the phone for you.

If, you have some strong feelings about what you want your phone to do for you, with different software or connected to different hardware, then open software is easier to bend to your will. Apps are increasingly easier to write, and I know people who are running custom apps they built for themselves, to shave some time off here, alerting them to something there, watching their television using their phone as their remote.

The question is, “How involved do you want to get?”

The first question when writing your first app is, “What do I want it to do?” That gets easier by the fifth app.

Over time, leading thinkers get more involved in improving their experience with their tools, shaving off some time here, automating a process there.

To me, that is the purpose of “open.” Getting leverage performance with minimum understanding is the purpose of “complete.”

You pays your money and you takes your choice.

SalesLab’s next Rainmaker, (Number 8!) is Google + Your Personal Website, Fast, Free, and Findable! the first 300 seconds of the Capital Technology Management Hub, at 6 pm, Tuesday, October 11^th. The headliner is Overcoming Mobile Challenges in the Federal Government - Sponsored by TeqCorner, featuring Ferhan Hamid, CEO and Vikrant Binjrajka, CTO of INADEV.