Conches

Social Impact Metrics

I just wrote a post over at the Salesforce.com Nonprofit Blog on Social Impact Metrics.

http://blogs.salesforce.com/nonprofit/2008/12/social-impact-a.html

Web 3.0: WE can't let THEM decide it for US

Here is how Wikipedia defines it:

Web 3.0, a phrase coined by John Markoff of the New York Times in 2006, refers to a supposed third generation of Internet-based services that collectively comprise what might be called 'the intelligent Web'—such as those using semantic web, microformats, natural language search, data mining, machine learning, recommendation agents, and artificial intelligence technologies—which emphasize machine-facilitated understanding of information in order to provide a more productive and intuitive user experience.

Nova Spivack defines Web 3.0 as the third decade of the Web (2010–2020) during which he suggests several major complementary technology trends will reach new levels of maturity simultaneously including:...

This stuff makes great sense and it is a logical extension of web 2.0; actually, I would suggest that it IS web 2.0.  We will see the rise the semantic web and various sense making tools will emerge to help us filter and discover.  However, what I see in the definitions above is really, really, really interactive television where the USER has great control of the information that they can digest.  What is massively wrong about this definition is that it's nothing new.  It's a feature set. 

It is unreasonable to version the Internet in terms of features.  If features were the only variable then we are surely well past web 3.0.  So what do I think web 3.0 is...

Salesforce.com Foundation

I don't blog about my J O B much.  However, we just put on an event in NY that I am very proud of.  (...of which I am very proud.) 

I started at Salesforce.com Foundation in September of 2000.   In that year we donated our first instance of salesforce.com to a nonprofit organization, Business Today.  It wasn't until 2004 that we hit triple digits.  As of today, we have donated licenses to over 3,000 nonprofits in 56+ countries.  It is reasonable to say that our work has increased the efficacy of the global social sector.  (Maybe a very small amount but it is a reasonable thing to say.)

A new lens for philanthropy

In a recent meeting with a bunch o' foundation folks, we were talking all around the issues relating to impact.  The conversation moved in a lot of different directions talking about things like philanthropy markets, and identifying a "unit of good", and how it is impossible to identify a unit of good, and accountability and transparency and who is accountable to whom and who needs to be transparent...  As the conversation rambled, I began to crystallize how I think about this.

The End Game
A just and equitable world without suffering.  To understand if we are moving in the right direction we need a lot of data and we need to all (philantropists, nonprofits, clients, and observers) be the solution we want to see.

A Reference Grid
I believe that we need to fight against the reflex to apply a financial metaphor to understand comparative good.  The financial metaphor is attractive because it gives us the ability to compare the goodness of one organization with the goodness of another.  However, this comparison is only relevant from the perspective of a donor.  And, it is only relevant to a donor that is concerned with the specific effect of his unique contribution.  It is this paradigm that drives the marketplace metaphor where product is packaged to be digested by the consumer.  Unfortunately, in this paradigm, the consumer is the donor; therefore, the product is marketed to him.  The goal is to create an environment where everyone is focused squarely on solving social problems without the noise that is created when two masters (donors and progress towards solution) compete for attention.

So, what I have tried to create in the graph is a way to examine efficacy along a three dimensional grid.  Efficiency speaks to transactional cost.  Impact speaks to social outcomes.  And, transparency speaks to an individual's or organization's ability to play well with others.  The more transparent you are, the better able you are to collaborate on solutions, to iterate through possibilities and improvements and to aggregate data so that regional and global progress can be made visible. 

The nexus of the grid represents zero where there is no Efficiency, Impact or Transparency.  The negative side is also important to examine.  For example, the negative end of the transparency spectrum moves from opaque to obfuscation.

We can plot an individual or an organization on this grid or it can be used as a way to understand more generalized progress towards solutions.  It is critical that we move beyond the granular approach of following a dollar from privilege to impact where accountability structures focus on the transactional layer, completely missing the donors and only tangentially focusing on solutions to problems.  Instead, we need and hold everyone as accountable to creating solutions.  We can only be successful if we are all impactful, efficient and transparent.

Social Impact Data Collection

Some Principles    

• The Observer Effect    
• Technology is not IT (in the Jack Kerouac sense of the word)    
• Data Collection close to the ground    
• Open Data    
• Decentralized    
• Full Spectrum

Network Coding and NetNeutrality

So, I really wish that I could write a super intelligent post on this topic but since I con only just barely understand what Network Coding is I can only have some very loosely joined opinions about it's implications.  Here goes.  There is a great article from the Scientific American that got me thinking about this. 

clipped from www.sciam.com Breaking Network Logjams An approach called network coding could dramatically enhance the efficiency and reliability of communications networks. At its core is the strange notion that transmitting evidence about messages can be more useful than conveying the messages themselves By MICHELLE EFFROS, RALF KOETTER and MURIEL MÉDARD

Comcast Flexing its "Information Services" Muscle

The basic argument against NetNeutrality is that 1) telecommunication company's need to have the flexibility to innovate in response to a rapidly changing industry which correlates to; regulation = bad. 2) Companies won't invidiously block or filter content because it is bad for business.

I have blogged on this in the past a bit.

clipped from www.washingtonpost.com

Comcast Blocks Some Internet Traffic

By PETER SVENSSON

The Associated Press Friday, October 19, 2007; 6:32 PM

 

NEW YORK -- Comcast Corp. actively interferes with attempts by some of its high-speed Internet subscribers to share files online, a move that runs counter to the tradition of treating all types of Net traffic equally.

TechNet Innovation Summit

Just sat sat through a taping of the Charlie Rose Show at Zellerbach Hall and sponsorred by TechNet and billed as an Innovation Summit. Participating were John Chambers, Chairman and CEO, Cisco Systems; John Chen, Chairman, President and CEO, Sybase; and Laura Tyson, Professor Haas Business and Public Policy Group, UC Berkeley.  I was stunned by the broad agreement on two things: 1) K12 education is broken and it must be fixed, 2) social networking, web2 tools represent the next wave of innovation that will increase productivity in the neighborhood of 5%.

The specifics of why to use a hammer or a screwdriver

 I am very interested in the dynamics of why an organization chooses one technical tool over another.  There is a lot of discussion/resources on the web of how to pick specific tools for specific reasons as well as more general guidelines.  I thought I would take a moment to explore the more human side of the equation...

Emotional:

• I invented the screwdriver
• I just really want to hit something 

Situational:

• Got to do it now, got to do it quickly
• Got NO money
• Got to stick two things together that have never been stuck together before.
• I only have a hammer and a bunch of screws 

Aspirational:

• Things should be stuck together firmly, with bonds that will last forever, never rust and bring great joy.
• We will scale our ability to stick things together so that all together-stickers everywhere will be fully empowered to stick things together in a manner that is culturally appropriate, programatically relevant, and ubiquitously effective."

Simple Network Visualization for the Left and the Right

I hope to write more in the near future on networks, specifically how physical networks (first tier, consumer, ethernet, wireless, freeway, buildings, trails, etc) relate to human networks and relationships.  For now, I wanted to explore something very straight forward.