The software housed on Google Code supports data-visualization and manipulation that let users create new versions of the original video (=data). You can – of course -share your product with your friends, embed it into your iGoogle page or upload it to the dedicated YouTube group to show off your creativity.

Video-creation is a tough topic for user-generated content as it involves time, dedication and proper tools (same is true for games) to create value.

This step might lead the way into cross-fertilized content-creation and viral marketing campaigns. It certainly offers new ways to engage with the customers/audience and give them something (a so-called social object) to play with/share. Gotta observe this!

Related posts

• Links (0)
• Links (0)
• webware (write)stuff (0)
• Values of Networks (0)
• Transparency (0)

Harnessing the value propositions of networks is probably one of the biggest business challenges for the next 10 years to come. If you are in the IT business analyst business it clearly indicates that you need to provide communication tools beyond corporate intra/extranets.

Well – social networks+ collaboration are going to have a bright future I’d say. But only if they are aligned with corporate strategy and communications or better vice versa. That’s the entry point for consulting. Not the IT- department (except you are selling commodity)

Stanford Social Innovation Review : The Greening of Wal-Mart (March 11, 2008): “At the heart of Wal-Mart’s business sustainability strategy is a shift from generating value through price-based, transactional interactions toward generating value from longer-term, collaborative relationships with nonprofits, suppliers, and other external stakeholders. Through its sustainable value networks, Wal-Mart gains a whole-system perspective that helps the retailer find profitable ways to address environmental issues such as fishery depletion, climate change, and pollution. In exchange, nonprofit network members stand to make giant leaps toward their missions because of the scale of Wal-Mart’s operations. And suppliers enjoy not only the stability that closer relationships with the retail giant brings, but also the assistance and guidance of Wal-Mart’s nonprofit partners.”

Related posts

• webware (write)stuff (0)
• Transparency (0)
• Traction Roots – Doug Engelbart (0)
• The Storage Context (0)
• The Collaboration Factor of Innovation (0)

One thing keep in mind: the game creator is a tool kit for open innovation to stress Eric Von Hippel.
We are serious guys after all!

Uploaded with Skitch!

Related posts

• webware (write)stuff (0)
• Values of Networks (0)
• Transparency (0)
• Traction Roots – Doug Engelbart (0)
• The Storage Context (0)

I’m moving to Lugano, Switzerland in November to be part of a fantastic international team that’s on a quest for innovating the mobile gameosphere.
And no, I don’t speak Italian yet.

Related posts

• Links (5)
• Links (0)
• playyoo’s first (0)
• Links (0)
• Links (1)

Venture Blog: “According to figures out this week from Dow Jones VentureOne and Ernst & Young, Web 2.0 investment fell in the US to $357m in the first six months of the year. This compares to a doubling of investment in Europe to $51.5m over the same period.”

Related posts

• Transparency (0)
• The Storage Context (0)
• The Collaboration Factor of Innovation (0)
• Storage as a (European) service. (1)
• Spam and Sales (0)

CEOs Must Be Designers, Not Just Hire Them. Think Steve Jobs And iPhone.: “[tag-ice]Innovation[/tag-ice] is no longer just about new technology per se. It is about new models of [tag-tec]organization[/tag-tec]. Design is no longer just about form anymore but is a method of thinking that can let you to see around corners. And the high tech breakthroughs that do count today are not about speed and performance but about [tag-tec]collaboration[/tag-tec], conversation and co-creation. That’s what Web 2.0 is all about.

Innovation, design, and technology are all flowing into one another to form a single river of roaring change radically altering our culture, and especially business culture.”

Related posts

• Transparency (0)
• The Storage Context (0)
• The Collaboration Factor of Innovation (0)
• Storage as a (European) service. (1)
• Spam and Sales (0)

So what’s at stake in the e-portfolio business? And what’s the connection to Facebook?

It’s only a few weeks since I deal with e-portfolios. My perspective and interest is derived from my experience with social software and web 2.0 applications and concepts and of course my 10 years of working at a university.

My working definition for e-portfolios goes along those lines published by IMS.

ePortfolios are collections of personal information about a learner that represent accomplishments, goals, experiences, and other personalized records that a learner can present to schools, employers, or other entities. Typical uses of ePortfolios go beyond the traditional concept of a transcript to include applying for jobs, designing personalized learning, and tracking career planning.

and extend a little further: e-portfolios are digital representations of a person and thus need to be an integral part of a person’s digital life. Thus e-portfolios need to be either aggregators of data or citizens in bigger digital environments.

Now this somehow contradicts what is happening at universities, school authorities and in the software industry. And please hold on, in a view lines I’ll link to the Facebook revelation.

From my point of view 3 main issues are at stake (on different levels of course) in the gradually rising e-portfolio business. This is not a comprehensive list by any means and very unsystematic. Only a blog permits that opportunity .

So, well those three issues are:
- interoperability (portability)
- sales strategies (integration into administration software)
- adoption (is an e-portfolio really going to be a digital representation or just a little more than a storage for official data needed for school and work)

On Adoption: The most important issue is the decisive question: do I have an e-portfolio because I want one or because I need one. Well the latter is very likely. So after that decision the questions stays: can I make it my place or is compliance with institutions the overall guiding principle. If it’s going to be my place – and we are far away from that – than it needs to be some sort of personal space with extensions into institutional requirements and not vice versa. Well this approach might be different from an institutional perspective.

On Interoperability: Aside from that portability is a first concern because you might want/need to move from one (e-portfolio) application (=institution) to another. But does that really matter? It does at least as long as an e-portfolio is part of your institutional life. If the institutional compliance is achieved via webservices and mashups that might be different. Than interoperability is about using and displaying data that resides here and there and portability is more a question of moving your digital presence along your idiosyncratic preferences to other applications.

On Sales Strategies: to make this post short. I could imagine that Facebook or any other user-centered application (note: social graph) that is able to offer decent APIs could host those modules/plugins that are needed for institutional e-portfolios. I think it makes particularly sense to develop an e-portfolio at my preferred personal digital presence and mashup data with several institutions where necessary instead of having my real digital presence at – for instance – Facebook and my faked one at my school’s application.

And here is the innovation: schools, authorities and software vendors need to conceive of those requirements that are needed and offer either open platform (such that belong to users) that have APIS for that matter or better provide modules for existing platforms. And Facbook’s F8 is just a nice example.

Update:
An alternative take on that topc by Stephen Downes : Open Educational Resource

Update 2:
Very interesting remarks on that entire issue from Tony Hirst.

Related posts

• Transparency (0)
• The Collaboration Factor of Innovation (0)
• Social Software and Competitive Intelligence (0)
• ROME is gettin closer (0)
• Lost | Gained (2)

writewith:
- Upload documents to the web
- Assign tasks to others and share docs with them
- Edit together, chat, and see changes as soon as they happen
- Comprehensive history for each doc

I just think that only those application services will survive in the market that somehow integrate with [tag-tec]storage service providers[/tag-tec]. [tag-tec]Zoho[/tag-tec] is doing that successfully already by offering their services via APIs to Omnidrive and Box.net. Editgrid integrates with Centraldesktop and Salesforce, which represents a different take on the topic of integration. If you’d ask me I vote for the storage service provider (SSP) integration or even better both. [tag-tec]Writewith[/tag-tec] should hurry they offer some neat functionality.

Other competitors: Buzzword (virtualubiquity) (flash.based), thinkfree (web-office suite)

Related posts

• Goo(gle)sphere (0)
• Values of Networks (0)
• Transparency (0)
• Traction Roots – Doug Engelbart (0)
• The Storage Context (0)

Web 2.0’s Future All Depends On IT’s Future: “What the LEF describes to me is IT developing into more of an interactive, bi-directional department that concentrates less on policing and more on supporting its employees.”
Read/Write Web

Good article. But isn’t that what IBM is actually doing: from hardware to software and eventually to consulting. If so they know in the end the clients will buy their hard/software. So one might wonder if this all about securing the software business.

Thus I’m not sure if the cited LEF report points into the more realistic direction (of the future role of IT) of having IT departments support their inhouse clients and guide them through the jungle of available applications and services. As long as the default [tag-tec]enterprise[/tag-tec] exists IT will control the tools available. And as long as they do that they will stay the most conservative departments of an enterprise, Having said that I think that (inhouse IT) consulting will ultimately turn into controlling and restricting. It’s simply that I don’t think that IT departments ever changed an enterprise from an organizational and cultural standpoint. Although the latter is necessary as lot of people agree. So – again – those who are in charge (the executives and sometimes the employees) need to understand and see the benefits of everything [tag-tec]Web2.0[/tag-tec] and beyond.

Finally I’d say the future of [tag-ice]Web2.0[/tag-ice] depends on the diffusion of [tag-tec]innovation[/tag-tec] principles and service providers and vendors being able to cross the chasm.

Related posts

• Openess For Profit (0)
• IT follows culture (0)
• communicate don’t architect (0)
• An industrial view on Intranets and ahead (0)
• who pays for it (0)

Related posts

• Transparency (0)
• The Collaboration Factor of Innovation (0)
• Storage as a (European) service. (1)
• Spam and Sales (0)
• Social Software and Competitive Intelligence (0)