• Share
  • Email
  • Embed
  • Like
  • Save
  • Private Content
FCVW Keynote 2010
 

FCVW Keynote 2010

on

  • 767 views

Presentation I will be delivering at FCVW next week.

Presentation I will be delivering at FCVW next week.

Statistics

Views

Total Views
767
Views on SlideShare
714
Embed Views
53

Actions

Likes
1
Downloads
12
Comments
0

2 Embeds 53

http://edlab.tc.columbia.edu 51
http://www.slideshare.net 2

Accessibility

Categories

Upload Details

Uploaded via as Microsoft PowerPoint

Usage Rights

© All Rights Reserved

Report content

Flagged as inappropriate Flag as inappropriate
Flag as inappropriate

Select your reason for flagging this presentation as inappropriate.

Cancel
  • Full Name Full Name Comment goes here.
    Are you sure you want to
    Your message goes here
    Processing…
Post Comment
Edit your comment
  • Web 1.0 is was all about the democratization of access. Industries like Financial Services, Banking, Retail, Travel and Government predictably saw value in providing their customers with access to information about their accounts so they could drive more transactions and thus generate more fees. Support industries to Web 1.0 like Technology Services, IT and Telecom rode the wave to support these industries in bringing the access value proposition to their clients Web 2.0 is all about the democratizaiton of participation and collaboration. Industries like Media and Entertainment, Publishing and Education see this as a discontinuity and threat to their meat and potatoes (or couch potato) audience that were traditionally passive consumers of media/content. This generation is NOT passive. They want to interact, collaborate and co-create. They want to be engaged in the creative process rather than just being a consumer of it. Murdoch sees this and bought MySpace. Google sees it and bought You Tube and we are witnessing a huge redefinition of how the Media and Entertainment industry develops and distributes content and a shift in business models around that new dynamic in how they extract value from the market for doing so. The democratization of participation and collaboration is also buttressed by a new set of economic platforms and a redefinition of the employer/employee contract. Sites such as e-Bay provide a platform for member driven value creation. The people who generate incomes from eBay are not eBay employees, they participate in the use of the platform provided by eBay (and Paypal etc...) to allow them to create their own value. Furthermore when we move into the research that we have been doing in MMORPGs it is clear the economies and affordance structures play a huge part in making the experience a success. So, as we shift from Web 1.0 to 2.0 it is not only the value proposition that is changing (i.e. From Access to Participation/Collaboration) but the underlying economic model that incents participation without requiring employment that is very interesting. As we move to the intersection of Web 2.0 and Web 3D we see another phenomenon. The democratizaiton of co-creation. A solid 2D example of this is Wikipedia. A collaboratively created dictionary for the world. Created by a volunteer workforce for the benefit of everyone worldwide. (Note similar parallels to the linux movement). Thus the notion of virtual co-creation is firmly established as a pattern at the edge of Web 2.0 With the advent of Web 3D we see significant opportunities for collaboration and innovation. Innovation is a creative process. It is socially constructed and emerges from interactivity. The 3D enviromnent is naturally suited to that and so it is only a matter of time before we move from Web 1.0 (Democratization of Access) to Web 2.0 (Democratization of Participation and Collaboration) to Web 3D (Enablement of true generative learning and co-creation distributed virtually across the world). If we believe Schrage that the prototype is the engine of innovation we now have a socially immersive environment where people all around the world can convene to communicate, collaborate and co-create in real time. If we look at Second Life and how that metaverse is set up where anyone can create anything using primitives, it is essentially establishing a platform that allows individuals to generate value without having to be an employee of 2L. Furthermore, it is providing a true collaborative environment where prototypes can be created and played with to make them better. Beyond that, the economy within the world allows us to examine in-world use that can help inform potentials for anything from business models to new automobile versions to be proved out before a penny is spent on atom based prototyping. An initial analysis of activity in the Metaverse coded by Function and Industry suggests that some industries are entering the metaverse more expediently than others, also we are seeing some patterns in how they are doing so: Leading with Learning and leading to Workforce Optimization or leading with Marketing and leading to Innovation/New Product development are two prevailing patterns (see pages 46-48). Given the success we had in providing support for Web 1.0 and 2.0, it seems only logical that we should be getting out ahead of the curve here to understand how we can be prepared to help our clients with the significant technological hurdles that will be required to participate in the value potential that the 3D web proposes. Notes from Jim S: This is a great deck and starts to get at the value proposition statement very well. One suggestion --- "democratization" (while a wonderful thing) should probably be replaced with "entrepreneurial capitalism" (search for Carl Schramm and Kauffman Foundation for deeper explanation of entrepreneurial capitalism). Per our discussion the other day, the megatrend that is happening is that entrepreneurs are creating "platforms" so instead of just having "employees" work for them, then are enabling "members or citizens" to work for them, and the entrepreneur gets a percentage ("tax"). The way to think about it, is to imagine you opened up a new nation, and people moved there, became citizens and started paying taxes. You get to make the rules and tax people. But why would anyone move to your nations -- short answer is better roads, telephones, and opportunities to work (create and capture value). So let's look at how these "platforms" versus "nations" analogy works for different players: eBay platform -- members can buy and sell, and eBay gets to tax each transaction (building up a reputation dossier on everyone, to make the world safer for commerce - governments keep citizens safe). Amazon platform -- members can add links to books, etc. to their own website, and if someone buys via their link, Amazon gives them a small percentage. Google platform - members can add AdLinks to their own website, and if somone clicks and buys via their link, Google gives them a small percentage. SecondLife plaftorm - members create products and services to sell, and SecondLife provides the infrastructure and currency markets in Linden dollars (the most direct analogy to setting up an "island nation"). The interesting thing to me is that most businesses in the real world need employees to make money (not all, but most) -- however, platform providers have a small number of employees that run the platform, but a large number fo members or citizens. The entrepreneurs generate wealth proportional to the number of members or citizens, more like a nation. Solow production functions for economic growth show that production increases in proportion to population, capital intensity, and knowledge and innovation growth. Entrepreneurial capitalists are trying to create platforms that enable members/citizens to do work that they would have to pay employees to do, and the member/citizens are willing to do the work without being an employee, because they too are entrepreneurial capitalists with opportunities to create value and be rewarded for it. In sum, I would suggest changing democratization to something more akin to entrepreneurial capitalism providing new platforms to allow people to create and capture value (Linden dollars, reputation, real dollars, etc.).
  • Web 1.0 is was all about the democratization of access. Industries like Financial Services, Banking, Retail, Travel and Government predictably saw value in providing their customers with access to information about their accounts so they could drive more transactions and thus generate more fees. Support industries to Web 1.0 like Technology Services, IT and Telecom rode the wave to support these industries in bringing the access value proposition to their clients Web 2.0 is all about the democratizaiton of participation and collaboration. Industries like Media and Entertainment, Publishing and Education see this as a discontinuity and threat to their meat and potatoes (or couch potato) audience that were traditionally passive consumers of media/content. This generation is NOT passive. They want to interact, collaborate and co-create. They want to be engaged in the creative process rather than just being a consumer of it. Murdoch sees this and bought MySpace. Google sees it and bought You Tube and we are witnessing a huge redefinition of how the Media and Entertainment industry develops and distributes content and a shift in business models around that new dynamic in how they extract value from the market for doing so. The democratization of participation and collaboration is also buttressed by a new set of economic platforms and a redefinition of the employer/employee contract. Sites such as e-Bay provide a platform for member driven value creation. The people who generate incomes from eBay are not eBay employees, they participate in the use of the platform provided by eBay (and Paypal etc...) to allow them to create their own value. Furthermore when we move into the research that we have been doing in MMORPGs it is clear the economies and affordance structures play a huge part in making the experience a success. So, as we shift from Web 1.0 to 2.0 it is not only the value proposition that is changing (i.e. From Access to Participation/Collaboration) but the underlying economic model that incents participation without requiring employment that is very interesting. As we move to the intersection of Web 2.0 and Web 3D we see another phenomenon. The democratizaiton of co-creation. A solid 2D example of this is Wikipedia. A collaboratively created dictionary for the world. Created by a volunteer workforce for the benefit of everyone worldwide. (Note similar parallels to the linux movement). Thus the notion of virtual co-creation is firmly established as a pattern at the edge of Web 2.0 With the advent of Web 3D we see significant opportunities for collaboration and innovation. Innovation is a creative process. It is socially constructed and emerges from interactivity. The 3D enviromnent is naturally suited to that and so it is only a matter of time before we move from Web 1.0 (Democratization of Access) to Web 2.0 (Democratization of Participation and Collaboration) to Web 3D (Enablement of true generative learning and co-creation distributed virtually across the world). If we believe Schrage that the prototype is the engine of innovation we now have a socially immersive environment where people all around the world can convene to communicate, collaborate and co-create in real time. If we look at Second Life and how that metaverse is set up where anyone can create anything using primitives, it is essentially establishing a platform that allows individuals to generate value without having to be an employee of 2L. Furthermore, it is providing a true collaborative environment where prototypes can be created and played with to make them better. Beyond that, the economy within the world allows us to examine in-world use that can help inform potentials for anything from business models to new automobile versions to be proved out before a penny is spent on atom based prototyping. An initial analysis of activity in the Metaverse coded by Function and Industry suggests that some industries are entering the metaverse more expediently than others, also we are seeing some patterns in how they are doing so: Leading with Learning and leading to Workforce Optimization or leading with Marketing and leading to Innovation/New Product development are two prevailing patterns (see pages 46-48). Given the success we had in providing support for Web 1.0 and 2.0, it seems only logical that we should be getting out ahead of the curve here to understand how we can be prepared to help our clients with the significant technological hurdles that will be required to participate in the value potential that the 3D web proposes. Notes from Jim S: This is a great deck and starts to get at the value proposition statement very well. One suggestion --- "democratization" (while a wonderful thing) should probably be replaced with "entrepreneurial capitalism" (search for Carl Schramm and Kauffman Foundation for deeper explanation of entrepreneurial capitalism). Per our discussion the other day, the megatrend that is happening is that entrepreneurs are creating "platforms" so instead of just having "employees" work for them, then are enabling "members or citizens" to work for them, and the entrepreneur gets a percentage ("tax"). The way to think about it, is to imagine you opened up a new nation, and people moved there, became citizens and started paying taxes. You get to make the rules and tax people. But why would anyone move to your nations -- short answer is better roads, telephones, and opportunities to work (create and capture value). So let's look at how these "platforms" versus "nations" analogy works for different players: eBay platform -- members can buy and sell, and eBay gets to tax each transaction (building up a reputation dossier on everyone, to make the world safer for commerce - governments keep citizens safe). Amazon platform -- members can add links to books, etc. to their own website, and if someone buys via their link, Amazon gives them a small percentage. Google platform - members can add AdLinks to their own website, and if somone clicks and buys via their link, Google gives them a small percentage. SecondLife plaftorm - members create products and services to sell, and SecondLife provides the infrastructure and currency markets in Linden dollars (the most direct analogy to setting up an "island nation"). The interesting thing to me is that most businesses in the real world need employees to make money (not all, but most) -- however, platform providers have a small number of employees that run the platform, but a large number fo members or citizens. The entrepreneurs generate wealth proportional to the number of members or citizens, more like a nation. Solow production functions for economic growth show that production increases in proportion to population, capital intensity, and knowledge and innovation growth. Entrepreneurial capitalists are trying to create platforms that enable members/citizens to do work that they would have to pay employees to do, and the member/citizens are willing to do the work without being an employee, because they too are entrepreneurial capitalists with opportunities to create value and be rewarded for it. In sum, I would suggest changing democratization to something more akin to entrepreneurial capitalism providing new platforms to allow people to create and capture value (Linden dollars, reputation, real dollars, etc.).
  • Web 1.0 is was all about the democratization of access. Industries like Financial Services, Banking, Retail, Travel and Government predictably saw value in providing their customers with access to information about their accounts so they could drive more transactions and thus generate more fees. Support industries to Web 1.0 like Technology Services, IT and Telecom rode the wave to support these industries in bringing the access value proposition to their clients Web 2.0 is all about the democratizaiton of participation and collaboration. Industries like Media and Entertainment, Publishing and Education see this as a discontinuity and threat to their meat and potatoes (or couch potato) audience that were traditionally passive consumers of media/content. This generation is NOT passive. They want to interact, collaborate and co-create. They want to be engaged in the creative process rather than just being a consumer of it. Murdoch sees this and bought MySpace. Google sees it and bought You Tube and we are witnessing a huge redefinition of how the Media and Entertainment industry develops and distributes content and a shift in business models around that new dynamic in how they extract value from the market for doing so. The democratization of participation and collaboration is also buttressed by a new set of economic platforms and a redefinition of the employer/employee contract. Sites such as e-Bay provide a platform for member driven value creation. The people who generate incomes from eBay are not eBay employees, they participate in the use of the platform provided by eBay (and Paypal etc...) to allow them to create their own value. Furthermore when we move into the research that we have been doing in MMORPGs it is clear the economies and affordance structures play a huge part in making the experience a success. So, as we shift from Web 1.0 to 2.0 it is not only the value proposition that is changing (i.e. From Access to Participation/Collaboration) but the underlying economic model that incents participation without requiring employment that is very interesting. As we move to the intersection of Web 2.0 and Web 3D we see another phenomenon. The democratizaiton of co-creation. A solid 2D example of this is Wikipedia. A collaboratively created dictionary for the world. Created by a volunteer workforce for the benefit of everyone worldwide. (Note similar parallels to the linux movement). Thus the notion of virtual co-creation is firmly established as a pattern at the edge of Web 2.0 With the advent of Web 3D we see significant opportunities for collaboration and innovation. Innovation is a creative process. It is socially constructed and emerges from interactivity. The 3D enviromnent is naturally suited to that and so it is only a matter of time before we move from Web 1.0 (Democratization of Access) to Web 2.0 (Democratization of Participation and Collaboration) to Web 3D (Enablement of true generative learning and co-creation distributed virtually across the world). If we believe Schrage that the prototype is the engine of innovation we now have a socially immersive environment where people all around the world can convene to communicate, collaborate and co-create in real time. If we look at Second Life and how that metaverse is set up where anyone can create anything using primitives, it is essentially establishing a platform that allows individuals to generate value without having to be an employee of 2L. Furthermore, it is providing a true collaborative environment where prototypes can be created and played with to make them better. Beyond that, the economy within the world allows us to examine in-world use that can help inform potentials for anything from business models to new automobile versions to be proved out before a penny is spent on atom based prototyping. An initial analysis of activity in the Metaverse coded by Function and Industry suggests that some industries are entering the metaverse more expediently than others, also we are seeing some patterns in how they are doing so: Leading with Learning and leading to Workforce Optimization or leading with Marketing and leading to Innovation/New Product development are two prevailing patterns (see pages 46-48). Given the success we had in providing support for Web 1.0 and 2.0, it seems only logical that we should be getting out ahead of the curve here to understand how we can be prepared to help our clients with the significant technological hurdles that will be required to participate in the value potential that the 3D web proposes. Notes from Jim S: This is a great deck and starts to get at the value proposition statement very well. One suggestion --- "democratization" (while a wonderful thing) should probably be replaced with "entrepreneurial capitalism" (search for Carl Schramm and Kauffman Foundation for deeper explanation of entrepreneurial capitalism). Per our discussion the other day, the megatrend that is happening is that entrepreneurs are creating "platforms" so instead of just having "employees" work for them, then are enabling "members or citizens" to work for them, and the entrepreneur gets a percentage ("tax"). The way to think about it, is to imagine you opened up a new nation, and people moved there, became citizens and started paying taxes. You get to make the rules and tax people. But why would anyone move to your nations -- short answer is better roads, telephones, and opportunities to work (create and capture value). So let's look at how these "platforms" versus "nations" analogy works for different players: eBay platform -- members can buy and sell, and eBay gets to tax each transaction (building up a reputation dossier on everyone, to make the world safer for commerce - governments keep citizens safe). Amazon platform -- members can add links to books, etc. to their own website, and if someone buys via their link, Amazon gives them a small percentage. Google platform - members can add AdLinks to their own website, and if somone clicks and buys via their link, Google gives them a small percentage. SecondLife plaftorm - members create products and services to sell, and SecondLife provides the infrastructure and currency markets in Linden dollars (the most direct analogy to setting up an "island nation"). The interesting thing to me is that most businesses in the real world need employees to make money (not all, but most) -- however, platform providers have a small number of employees that run the platform, but a large number fo members or citizens. The entrepreneurs generate wealth proportional to the number of members or citizens, more like a nation. Solow production functions for economic growth show that production increases in proportion to population, capital intensity, and knowledge and innovation growth. Entrepreneurial capitalists are trying to create platforms that enable members/citizens to do work that they would have to pay employees to do, and the member/citizens are willing to do the work without being an employee, because they too are entrepreneurial capitalists with opportunities to create value and be rewarded for it. In sum, I would suggest changing democratization to something more akin to entrepreneurial capitalism providing new platforms to allow people to create and capture value (Linden dollars, reputation, real dollars, etc.).
  • Web 1.0 is was all about the democratization of access. Industries like Financial Services, Banking, Retail, Travel and Government predictably saw value in providing their customers with access to information about their accounts so they could drive more transactions and thus generate more fees. Support industries to Web 1.0 like Technology Services, IT and Telecom rode the wave to support these industries in bringing the access value proposition to their clients Web 2.0 is all about the democratizaiton of participation and collaboration. Industries like Media and Entertainment, Publishing and Education see this as a discontinuity and threat to their meat and potatoes (or couch potato) audience that were traditionally passive consumers of media/content. This generation is NOT passive. They want to interact, collaborate and co-create. They want to be engaged in the creative process rather than just being a consumer of it. Murdoch sees this and bought MySpace. Google sees it and bought You Tube and we are witnessing a huge redefinition of how the Media and Entertainment industry develops and distributes content and a shift in business models around that new dynamic in how they extract value from the market for doing so. The democratization of participation and collaboration is also buttressed by a new set of economic platforms and a redefinition of the employer/employee contract. Sites such as e-Bay provide a platform for member driven value creation. The people who generate incomes from eBay are not eBay employees, they participate in the use of the platform provided by eBay (and Paypal etc...) to allow them to create their own value. Furthermore when we move into the research that we have been doing in MMORPGs it is clear the economies and affordance structures play a huge part in making the experience a success. So, as we shift from Web 1.0 to 2.0 it is not only the value proposition that is changing (i.e. From Access to Participation/Collaboration) but the underlying economic model that incents participation without requiring employment that is very interesting. As we move to the intersection of Web 2.0 and Web 3D we see another phenomenon. The democratizaiton of co-creation. A solid 2D example of this is Wikipedia. A collaboratively created dictionary for the world. Created by a volunteer workforce for the benefit of everyone worldwide. (Note similar parallels to the linux movement). Thus the notion of virtual co-creation is firmly established as a pattern at the edge of Web 2.0 With the advent of Web 3D we see significant opportunities for collaboration and innovation. Innovation is a creative process. It is socially constructed and emerges from interactivity. The 3D enviromnent is naturally suited to that and so it is only a matter of time before we move from Web 1.0 (Democratization of Access) to Web 2.0 (Democratization of Participation and Collaboration) to Web 3D (Enablement of true generative learning and co-creation distributed virtually across the world). If we believe Schrage that the prototype is the engine of innovation we now have a socially immersive environment where people all around the world can convene to communicate, collaborate and co-create in real time. If we look at Second Life and how that metaverse is set up where anyone can create anything using primitives, it is essentially establishing a platform that allows individuals to generate value without having to be an employee of 2L. Furthermore, it is providing a true collaborative environment where prototypes can be created and played with to make them better. Beyond that, the economy within the world allows us to examine in-world use that can help inform potentials for anything from business models to new automobile versions to be proved out before a penny is spent on atom based prototyping. An initial analysis of activity in the Metaverse coded by Function and Industry suggests that some industries are entering the metaverse more expediently than others, also we are seeing some patterns in how they are doing so: Leading with Learning and leading to Workforce Optimization or leading with Marketing and leading to Innovation/New Product development are two prevailing patterns (see pages 46-48). Given the success we had in providing support for Web 1.0 and 2.0, it seems only logical that we should be getting out ahead of the curve here to understand how we can be prepared to help our clients with the significant technological hurdles that will be required to participate in the value potential that the 3D web proposes. Notes from Jim S: This is a great deck and starts to get at the value proposition statement very well. One suggestion --- "democratization" (while a wonderful thing) should probably be replaced with "entrepreneurial capitalism" (search for Carl Schramm and Kauffman Foundation for deeper explanation of entrepreneurial capitalism). Per our discussion the other day, the megatrend that is happening is that entrepreneurs are creating "platforms" so instead of just having "employees" work for them, then are enabling "members or citizens" to work for them, and the entrepreneur gets a percentage ("tax"). The way to think about it, is to imagine you opened up a new nation, and people moved there, became citizens and started paying taxes. You get to make the rules and tax people. But why would anyone move to your nations -- short answer is better roads, telephones, and opportunities to work (create and capture value). So let's look at how these "platforms" versus "nations" analogy works for different players: eBay platform -- members can buy and sell, and eBay gets to tax each transaction (building up a reputation dossier on everyone, to make the world safer for commerce - governments keep citizens safe). Amazon platform -- members can add links to books, etc. to their own website, and if someone buys via their link, Amazon gives them a small percentage. Google platform - members can add AdLinks to their own website, and if somone clicks and buys via their link, Google gives them a small percentage. SecondLife plaftorm - members create products and services to sell, and SecondLife provides the infrastructure and currency markets in Linden dollars (the most direct analogy to setting up an "island nation"). The interesting thing to me is that most businesses in the real world need employees to make money (not all, but most) -- however, platform providers have a small number of employees that run the platform, but a large number fo members or citizens. The entrepreneurs generate wealth proportional to the number of members or citizens, more like a nation. Solow production functions for economic growth show that production increases in proportion to population, capital intensity, and knowledge and innovation growth. Entrepreneurial capitalists are trying to create platforms that enable members/citizens to do work that they would have to pay employees to do, and the member/citizens are willing to do the work without being an employee, because they too are entrepreneurial capitalists with opportunities to create value and be rewarded for it. In sum, I would suggest changing democratization to something more akin to entrepreneurial capitalism providing new platforms to allow people to create and capture value (Linden dollars, reputation, real dollars, etc.).
  • Web 1.0 is was all about the democratization of access. Industries like Financial Services, Banking, Retail, Travel and Government predictably saw value in providing their customers with access to information about their accounts so they could drive more transactions and thus generate more fees. Support industries to Web 1.0 like Technology Services, IT and Telecom rode the wave to support these industries in bringing the access value proposition to their clients Web 2.0 is all about the democratizaiton of participation and collaboration. Industries like Media and Entertainment, Publishing and Education see this as a discontinuity and threat to their meat and potatoes (or couch potato) audience that were traditionally passive consumers of media/content. This generation is NOT passive. They want to interact, collaborate and co-create. They want to be engaged in the creative process rather than just being a consumer of it. Murdoch sees this and bought MySpace. Google sees it and bought You Tube and we are witnessing a huge redefinition of how the Media and Entertainment industry develops and distributes content and a shift in business models around that new dynamic in how they extract value from the market for doing so. The democratization of participation and collaboration is also buttressed by a new set of economic platforms and a redefinition of the employer/employee contract. Sites such as e-Bay provide a platform for member driven value creation. The people who generate incomes from eBay are not eBay employees, they participate in the use of the platform provided by eBay (and Paypal etc...) to allow them to create their own value. Furthermore when we move into the research that we have been doing in MMORPGs it is clear the economies and affordance structures play a huge part in making the experience a success. So, as we shift from Web 1.0 to 2.0 it is not only the value proposition that is changing (i.e. From Access to Participation/Collaboration) but the underlying economic model that incents participation without requiring employment that is very interesting. As we move to the intersection of Web 2.0 and Web 3D we see another phenomenon. The democratizaiton of co-creation. A solid 2D example of this is Wikipedia. A collaboratively created dictionary for the world. Created by a volunteer workforce for the benefit of everyone worldwide. (Note similar parallels to the linux movement). Thus the notion of virtual co-creation is firmly established as a pattern at the edge of Web 2.0 With the advent of Web 3D we see significant opportunities for collaboration and innovation. Innovation is a creative process. It is socially constructed and emerges from interactivity. The 3D enviromnent is naturally suited to that and so it is only a matter of time before we move from Web 1.0 (Democratization of Access) to Web 2.0 (Democratization of Participation and Collaboration) to Web 3D (Enablement of true generative learning and co-creation distributed virtually across the world). If we believe Schrage that the prototype is the engine of innovation we now have a socially immersive environment where people all around the world can convene to communicate, collaborate and co-create in real time. If we look at Second Life and how that metaverse is set up where anyone can create anything using primitives, it is essentially establishing a platform that allows individuals to generate value without having to be an employee of 2L. Furthermore, it is providing a true collaborative environment where prototypes can be created and played with to make them better. Beyond that, the economy within the world allows us to examine in-world use that can help inform potentials for anything from business models to new automobile versions to be proved out before a penny is spent on atom based prototyping. An initial analysis of activity in the Metaverse coded by Function and Industry suggests that some industries are entering the metaverse more expediently than others, also we are seeing some patterns in how they are doing so: Leading with Learning and leading to Workforce Optimization or leading with Marketing and leading to Innovation/New Product development are two prevailing patterns (see pages 46-48). Given the success we had in providing support for Web 1.0 and 2.0, it seems only logical that we should be getting out ahead of the curve here to understand how we can be prepared to help our clients with the significant technological hurdles that will be required to participate in the value potential that the 3D web proposes. Notes from Jim S: This is a great deck and starts to get at the value proposition statement very well. One suggestion --- "democratization" (while a wonderful thing) should probably be replaced with "entrepreneurial capitalism" (search for Carl Schramm and Kauffman Foundation for deeper explanation of entrepreneurial capitalism). Per our discussion the other day, the megatrend that is happening is that entrepreneurs are creating "platforms" so instead of just having "employees" work for them, then are enabling "members or citizens" to work for them, and the entrepreneur gets a percentage ("tax"). The way to think about it, is to imagine you opened up a new nation, and people moved there, became citizens and started paying taxes. You get to make the rules and tax people. But why would anyone move to your nations -- short answer is better roads, telephones, and opportunities to work (create and capture value). So let's look at how these "platforms" versus "nations" analogy works for different players: eBay platform -- members can buy and sell, and eBay gets to tax each transaction (building up a reputation dossier on everyone, to make the world safer for commerce - governments keep citizens safe). Amazon platform -- members can add links to books, etc. to their own website, and if someone buys via their link, Amazon gives them a small percentage. Google platform - members can add AdLinks to their own website, and if somone clicks and buys via their link, Google gives them a small percentage. SecondLife plaftorm - members create products and services to sell, and SecondLife provides the infrastructure and currency markets in Linden dollars (the most direct analogy to setting up an "island nation"). The interesting thing to me is that most businesses in the real world need employees to make money (not all, but most) -- however, platform providers have a small number of employees that run the platform, but a large number fo members or citizens. The entrepreneurs generate wealth proportional to the number of members or citizens, more like a nation. Solow production functions for economic growth show that production increases in proportion to population, capital intensity, and knowledge and innovation growth. Entrepreneurial capitalists are trying to create platforms that enable members/citizens to do work that they would have to pay employees to do, and the member/citizens are willing to do the work without being an employee, because they too are entrepreneurial capitalists with opportunities to create value and be rewarded for it. In sum, I would suggest changing democratization to something more akin to entrepreneurial capitalism providing new platforms to allow people to create and capture value (Linden dollars, reputation, real dollars, etc.).
  • Web 1.0 is was all about the democratization of access. Industries like Financial Services, Banking, Retail, Travel and Government predictably saw value in providing their customers with access to information about their accounts so they could drive more transactions and thus generate more fees. Support industries to Web 1.0 like Technology Services, IT and Telecom rode the wave to support these industries in bringing the access value proposition to their clients Web 2.0 is all about the democratizaiton of participation and collaboration. Industries like Media and Entertainment, Publishing and Education see this as a discontinuity and threat to their meat and potatoes (or couch potato) audience that were traditionally passive consumers of media/content. This generation is NOT passive. They want to interact, collaborate and co-create. They want to be engaged in the creative process rather than just being a consumer of it. Murdoch sees this and bought MySpace. Google sees it and bought You Tube and we are witnessing a huge redefinition of how the Media and Entertainment industry develops and distributes content and a shift in business models around that new dynamic in how they extract value from the market for doing so. The democratization of participation and collaboration is also buttressed by a new set of economic platforms and a redefinition of the employer/employee contract. Sites such as e-Bay provide a platform for member driven value creation. The people who generate incomes from eBay are not eBay employees, they participate in the use of the platform provided by eBay (and Paypal etc...) to allow them to create their own value. Furthermore when we move into the research that we have been doing in MMORPGs it is clear the economies and affordance structures play a huge part in making the experience a success. So, as we shift from Web 1.0 to 2.0 it is not only the value proposition that is changing (i.e. From Access to Participation/Collaboration) but the underlying economic model that incents participation without requiring employment that is very interesting. As we move to the intersection of Web 2.0 and Web 3D we see another phenomenon. The democratizaiton of co-creation. A solid 2D example of this is Wikipedia. A collaboratively created dictionary for the world. Created by a volunteer workforce for the benefit of everyone worldwide. (Note similar parallels to the linux movement). Thus the notion of virtual co-creation is firmly established as a pattern at the edge of Web 2.0 With the advent of Web 3D we see significant opportunities for collaboration and innovation. Innovation is a creative process. It is socially constructed and emerges from interactivity. The 3D enviromnent is naturally suited to that and so it is only a matter of time before we move from Web 1.0 (Democratization of Access) to Web 2.0 (Democratization of Participation and Collaboration) to Web 3D (Enablement of true generative learning and co-creation distributed virtually across the world). If we believe Schrage that the prototype is the engine of innovation we now have a socially immersive environment where people all around the world can convene to communicate, collaborate and co-create in real time. If we look at Second Life and how that metaverse is set up where anyone can create anything using primitives, it is essentially establishing a platform that allows individuals to generate value without having to be an employee of 2L. Furthermore, it is providing a true collaborative environment where prototypes can be created and played with to make them better. Beyond that, the economy within the world allows us to examine in-world use that can help inform potentials for anything from business models to new automobile versions to be proved out before a penny is spent on atom based prototyping. An initial analysis of activity in the Metaverse coded by Function and Industry suggests that some industries are entering the metaverse more expediently than others, also we are seeing some patterns in how they are doing so: Leading with Learning and leading to Workforce Optimization or leading with Marketing and leading to Innovation/New Product development are two prevailing patterns (see pages 46-48). Given the success we had in providing support for Web 1.0 and 2.0, it seems only logical that we should be getting out ahead of the curve here to understand how we can be prepared to help our clients with the significant technological hurdles that will be required to participate in the value potential that the 3D web proposes. Notes from Jim S: This is a great deck and starts to get at the value proposition statement very well. One suggestion --- "democratization" (while a wonderful thing) should probably be replaced with "entrepreneurial capitalism" (search for Carl Schramm and Kauffman Foundation for deeper explanation of entrepreneurial capitalism). Per our discussion the other day, the megatrend that is happening is that entrepreneurs are creating "platforms" so instead of just having "employees" work for them, then are enabling "members or citizens" to work for them, and the entrepreneur gets a percentage ("tax"). The way to think about it, is to imagine you opened up a new nation, and people moved there, became citizens and started paying taxes. You get to make the rules and tax people. But why would anyone move to your nations -- short answer is better roads, telephones, and opportunities to work (create and capture value). So let's look at how these "platforms" versus "nations" analogy works for different players: eBay platform -- members can buy and sell, and eBay gets to tax each transaction (building up a reputation dossier on everyone, to make the world safer for commerce - governments keep citizens safe). Amazon platform -- members can add links to books, etc. to their own website, and if someone buys via their link, Amazon gives them a small percentage. Google platform - members can add AdLinks to their own website, and if somone clicks and buys via their link, Google gives them a small percentage. SecondLife plaftorm - members create products and services to sell, and SecondLife provides the infrastructure and currency markets in Linden dollars (the most direct analogy to setting up an "island nation"). The interesting thing to me is that most businesses in the real world need employees to make money (not all, but most) -- however, platform providers have a small number of employees that run the platform, but a large number fo members or citizens. The entrepreneurs generate wealth proportional to the number of members or citizens, more like a nation. Solow production functions for economic growth show that production increases in proportion to population, capital intensity, and knowledge and innovation growth. Entrepreneurial capitalists are trying to create platforms that enable members/citizens to do work that they would have to pay employees to do, and the member/citizens are willing to do the work without being an employee, because they too are entrepreneurial capitalists with opportunities to create value and be rewarded for it. In sum, I would suggest changing democratization to something more akin to entrepreneurial capitalism providing new platforms to allow people to create and capture value (Linden dollars, reputation, real dollars, etc.).
  • Web 1.0 is was all about the democratization of access. Industries like Financial Services, Banking, Retail, Travel and Government predictably saw value in providing their customers with access to information about their accounts so they could drive more transactions and thus generate more fees. Support industries to Web 1.0 like Technology Services, IT and Telecom rode the wave to support these industries in bringing the access value proposition to their clients Web 2.0 is all about the democratizaiton of participation and collaboration. Industries like Media and Entertainment, Publishing and Education see this as a discontinuity and threat to their meat and potatoes (or couch potato) audience that were traditionally passive consumers of media/content. This generation is NOT passive. They want to interact, collaborate and co-create. They want to be engaged in the creative process rather than just being a consumer of it. Murdoch sees this and bought MySpace. Google sees it and bought You Tube and we are witnessing a huge redefinition of how the Media and Entertainment industry develops and distributes content and a shift in business models around that new dynamic in how they extract value from the market for doing so. The democratization of participation and collaboration is also buttressed by a new set of economic platforms and a redefinition of the employer/employee contract. Sites such as e-Bay provide a platform for member driven value creation. The people who generate incomes from eBay are not eBay employees, they participate in the use of the platform provided by eBay (and Paypal etc...) to allow them to create their own value. Furthermore when we move into the research that we have been doing in MMORPGs it is clear the economies and affordance structures play a huge part in making the experience a success. So, as we shift from Web 1.0 to 2.0 it is not only the value proposition that is changing (i.e. From Access to Participation/Collaboration) but the underlying economic model that incents participation without requiring employment that is very interesting. As we move to the intersection of Web 2.0 and Web 3D we see another phenomenon. The democratizaiton of co-creation. A solid 2D example of this is Wikipedia. A collaboratively created dictionary for the world. Created by a volunteer workforce for the benefit of everyone worldwide. (Note similar parallels to the linux movement). Thus the notion of virtual co-creation is firmly established as a pattern at the edge of Web 2.0 With the advent of Web 3D we see significant opportunities for collaboration and innovation. Innovation is a creative process. It is socially constructed and emerges from interactivity. The 3D enviromnent is naturally suited to that and so it is only a matter of time before we move from Web 1.0 (Democratization of Access) to Web 2.0 (Democratization of Participation and Collaboration) to Web 3D (Enablement of true generative learning and co-creation distributed virtually across the world). If we believe Schrage that the prototype is the engine of innovation we now have a socially immersive environment where people all around the world can convene to communicate, collaborate and co-create in real time. If we look at Second Life and how that metaverse is set up where anyone can create anything using primitives, it is essentially establishing a platform that allows individuals to generate value without having to be an employee of 2L. Furthermore, it is providing a true collaborative environment where prototypes can be created and played with to make them better. Beyond that, the economy within the world allows us to examine in-world use that can help inform potentials for anything from business models to new automobile versions to be proved out before a penny is spent on atom based prototyping. An initial analysis of activity in the Metaverse coded by Function and Industry suggests that some industries are entering the metaverse more expediently than others, also we are seeing some patterns in how they are doing so: Leading with Learning and leading to Workforce Optimization or leading with Marketing and leading to Innovation/New Product development are two prevailing patterns (see pages 46-48). Given the success we had in providing support for Web 1.0 and 2.0, it seems only logical that we should be getting out ahead of the curve here to understand how we can be prepared to help our clients with the significant technological hurdles that will be required to participate in the value potential that the 3D web proposes. Notes from Jim S: This is a great deck and starts to get at the value proposition statement very well. One suggestion --- "democratization" (while a wonderful thing) should probably be replaced with "entrepreneurial capitalism" (search for Carl Schramm and Kauffman Foundation for deeper explanation of entrepreneurial capitalism). Per our discussion the other day, the megatrend that is happening is that entrepreneurs are creating "platforms" so instead of just having "employees" work for them, then are enabling "members or citizens" to work for them, and the entrepreneur gets a percentage ("tax"). The way to think about it, is to imagine you opened up a new nation, and people moved there, became citizens and started paying taxes. You get to make the rules and tax people. But why would anyone move to your nations -- short answer is better roads, telephones, and opportunities to work (create and capture value). So let's look at how these "platforms" versus "nations" analogy works for different players: eBay platform -- members can buy and sell, and eBay gets to tax each transaction (building up a reputation dossier on everyone, to make the world safer for commerce - governments keep citizens safe). Amazon platform -- members can add links to books, etc. to their own website, and if someone buys via their link, Amazon gives them a small percentage. Google platform - members can add AdLinks to their own website, and if somone clicks and buys via their link, Google gives them a small percentage. SecondLife plaftorm - members create products and services to sell, and SecondLife provides the infrastructure and currency markets in Linden dollars (the most direct analogy to setting up an "island nation"). The interesting thing to me is that most businesses in the real world need employees to make money (not all, but most) -- however, platform providers have a small number of employees that run the platform, but a large number fo members or citizens. The entrepreneurs generate wealth proportional to the number of members or citizens, more like a nation. Solow production functions for economic growth show that production increases in proportion to population, capital intensity, and knowledge and innovation growth. Entrepreneurial capitalists are trying to create platforms that enable members/citizens to do work that they would have to pay employees to do, and the member/citizens are willing to do the work without being an employee, because they too are entrepreneurial capitalists with opportunities to create value and be rewarded for it. In sum, I would suggest changing democratization to something more akin to entrepreneurial capitalism providing new platforms to allow people to create and capture value (Linden dollars, reputation, real dollars, etc.).
  • Web 1.0 is was all about the democratization of access. Industries like Financial Services, Banking, Retail, Travel and Government predictably saw value in providing their customers with access to information about their accounts so they could drive more transactions and thus generate more fees. Support industries to Web 1.0 like Technology Services, IT and Telecom rode the wave to support these industries in bringing the access value proposition to their clients Web 2.0 is all about the democratizaiton of participation and collaboration. Industries like Media and Entertainment, Publishing and Education see this as a discontinuity and threat to their meat and potatoes (or couch potato) audience that were traditionally passive consumers of media/content. This generation is NOT passive. They want to interact, collaborate and co-create. They want to be engaged in the creative process rather than just being a consumer of it. Murdoch sees this and bought MySpace. Google sees it and bought You Tube and we are witnessing a huge redefinition of how the Media and Entertainment industry develops and distributes content and a shift in business models around that new dynamic in how they extract value from the market for doing so. The democratization of participation and collaboration is also buttressed by a new set of economic platforms and a redefinition of the employer/employee contract. Sites such as e-Bay provide a platform for member driven value creation. The people who generate incomes from eBay are not eBay employees, they participate in the use of the platform provided by eBay (and Paypal etc...) to allow them to create their own value. Furthermore when we move into the research that we have been doing in MMORPGs it is clear the economies and affordance structures play a huge part in making the experience a success. So, as we shift from Web 1.0 to 2.0 it is not only the value proposition that is changing (i.e. From Access to Participation/Collaboration) but the underlying economic model that incents participation without requiring employment that is very interesting. As we move to the intersection of Web 2.0 and Web 3D we see another phenomenon. The democratizaiton of co-creation. A solid 2D example of this is Wikipedia. A collaboratively created dictionary for the world. Created by a volunteer workforce for the benefit of everyone worldwide. (Note similar parallels to the linux movement). Thus the notion of virtual co-creation is firmly established as a pattern at the edge of Web 2.0 With the advent of Web 3D we see significant opportunities for collaboration and innovation. Innovation is a creative process. It is socially constructed and emerges from interactivity. The 3D enviromnent is naturally suited to that and so it is only a matter of time before we move from Web 1.0 (Democratization of Access) to Web 2.0 (Democratization of Participation and Collaboration) to Web 3D (Enablement of true generative learning and co-creation distributed virtually across the world). If we believe Schrage that the prototype is the engine of innovation we now have a socially immersive environment where people all around the world can convene to communicate, collaborate and co-create in real time. If we look at Second Life and how that metaverse is set up where anyone can create anything using primitives, it is essentially establishing a platform that allows individuals to generate value without having to be an employee of 2L. Furthermore, it is providing a true collaborative environment where prototypes can be created and played with to make them better. Beyond that, the economy within the world allows us to examine in-world use that can help inform potentials for anything from business models to new automobile versions to be proved out before a penny is spent on atom based prototyping. An initial analysis of activity in the Metaverse coded by Function and Industry suggests that some industries are entering the metaverse more expediently than others, also we are seeing some patterns in how they are doing so: Leading with Learning and leading to Workforce Optimization or leading with Marketing and leading to Innovation/New Product development are two prevailing patterns (see pages 46-48). Given the success we had in providing support for Web 1.0 and 2.0, it seems only logical that we should be getting out ahead of the curve here to understand how we can be prepared to help our clients with the significant technological hurdles that will be required to participate in the value potential that the 3D web proposes. Notes from Jim S: This is a great deck and starts to get at the value proposition statement very well. One suggestion --- "democratization" (while a wonderful thing) should probably be replaced with "entrepreneurial capitalism" (search for Carl Schramm and Kauffman Foundation for deeper explanation of entrepreneurial capitalism). Per our discussion the other day, the megatrend that is happening is that entrepreneurs are creating "platforms" so instead of just having "employees" work for them, then are enabling "members or citizens" to work for them, and the entrepreneur gets a percentage ("tax"). The way to think about it, is to imagine you opened up a new nation, and people moved there, became citizens and started paying taxes. You get to make the rules and tax people. But why would anyone move to your nations -- short answer is better roads, telephones, and opportunities to work (create and capture value). So let's look at how these "platforms" versus "nations" analogy works for different players: eBay platform -- members can buy and sell, and eBay gets to tax each transaction (building up a reputation dossier on everyone, to make the world safer for commerce - governments keep citizens safe). Amazon platform -- members can add links to books, etc. to their own website, and if someone buys via their link, Amazon gives them a small percentage. Google platform - members can add AdLinks to their own website, and if somone clicks and buys via their link, Google gives them a small percentage. SecondLife plaftorm - members create products and services to sell, and SecondLife provides the infrastructure and currency markets in Linden dollars (the most direct analogy to setting up an "island nation"). The interesting thing to me is that most businesses in the real world need employees to make money (not all, but most) -- however, platform providers have a small number of employees that run the platform, but a large number fo members or citizens. The entrepreneurs generate wealth proportional to the number of members or citizens, more like a nation. Solow production functions for economic growth show that production increases in proportion to population, capital intensity, and knowledge and innovation growth. Entrepreneurial capitalists are trying to create platforms that enable members/citizens to do work that they would have to pay employees to do, and the member/citizens are willing to do the work without being an employee, because they too are entrepreneurial capitalists with opportunities to create value and be rewarded for it. In sum, I would suggest changing democratization to something more akin to entrepreneurial capitalism providing new platforms to allow people to create and capture value (Linden dollars, reputation, real dollars, etc.).
  • Web 1.0 is was all about the democratization of access. Industries like Financial Services, Banking, Retail, Travel and Government predictably saw value in providing their customers with access to information about their accounts so they could drive more transactions and thus generate more fees. Support industries to Web 1.0 like Technology Services, IT and Telecom rode the wave to support these industries in bringing the access value proposition to their clients Web 2.0 is all about the democratizaiton of participation and collaboration. Industries like Media and Entertainment, Publishing and Education see this as a discontinuity and threat to their meat and potatoes (or couch potato) audience that were traditionally passive consumers of media/content. This generation is NOT passive. They want to interact, collaborate and co-create. They want to be engaged in the creative process rather than just being a consumer of it. Murdoch sees this and bought MySpace. Google sees it and bought You Tube and we are witnessing a huge redefinition of how the Media and Entertainment industry develops and distributes content and a shift in business models around that new dynamic in how they extract value from the market for doing so. The democratization of participation and collaboration is also buttressed by a new set of economic platforms and a redefinition of the employer/employee contract. Sites such as e-Bay provide a platform for member driven value creation. The people who generate incomes from eBay are not eBay employees, they participate in the use of the platform provided by eBay (and Paypal etc...) to allow them to create their own value. Furthermore when we move into the research that we have been doing in MMORPGs it is clear the economies and affordance structures play a huge part in making the experience a success. So, as we shift from Web 1.0 to 2.0 it is not only the value proposition that is changing (i.e. From Access to Participation/Collaboration) but the underlying economic model that incents participation without requiring employment that is very interesting. As we move to the intersection of Web 2.0 and Web 3D we see another phenomenon. The democratizaiton of co-creation. A solid 2D example of this is Wikipedia. A collaboratively created dictionary for the world. Created by a volunteer workforce for the benefit of everyone worldwide. (Note similar parallels to the linux movement). Thus the notion of virtual co-creation is firmly established as a pattern at the edge of Web 2.0 With the advent of Web 3D we see significant opportunities for collaboration and innovation. Innovation is a creative process. It is socially constructed and emerges from interactivity. The 3D enviromnent is naturally suited to that and so it is only a matter of time before we move from Web 1.0 (Democratization of Access) to Web 2.0 (Democratization of Participation and Collaboration) to Web 3D (Enablement of true generative learning and co-creation distributed virtually across the world). If we believe Schrage that the prototype is the engine of innovation we now have a socially immersive environment where people all around the world can convene to communicate, collaborate and co-create in real time. If we look at Second Life and how that metaverse is set up where anyone can create anything using primitives, it is essentially establishing a platform that allows individuals to generate value without having to be an employee of 2L. Furthermore, it is providing a true collaborative environment where prototypes can be created and played with to make them better. Beyond that, the economy within the world allows us to examine in-world use that can help inform potentials for anything from business models to new automobile versions to be proved out before a penny is spent on atom based prototyping. An initial analysis of activity in the Metaverse coded by Function and Industry suggests that some industries are entering the metaverse more expediently than others, also we are seeing some patterns in how they are doing so: Leading with Learning and leading to Workforce Optimization or leading with Marketing and leading to Innovation/New Product development are two prevailing patterns (see pages 46-48). Given the success we had in providing support for Web 1.0 and 2.0, it seems only logical that we should be getting out ahead of the curve here to understand how we can be prepared to help our clients with the significant technological hurdles that will be required to participate in the value potential that the 3D web proposes. Notes from Jim S: This is a great deck and starts to get at the value proposition statement very well. One suggestion --- "democratization" (while a wonderful thing) should probably be replaced with "entrepreneurial capitalism" (search for Carl Schramm and Kauffman Foundation for deeper explanation of entrepreneurial capitalism). Per our discussion the other day, the megatrend that is happening is that entrepreneurs are creating "platforms" so instead of just having "employees" work for them, then are enabling "members or citizens" to work for them, and the entrepreneur gets a percentage ("tax"). The way to think about it, is to imagine you opened up a new nation, and people moved there, became citizens and started paying taxes. You get to make the rules and tax people. But why would anyone move to your nations -- short answer is better roads, telephones, and opportunities to work (create and capture value). So let's look at how these "platforms" versus "nations" analogy works for different players: eBay platform -- members can buy and sell, and eBay gets to tax each transaction (building up a reputation dossier on everyone, to make the world safer for commerce - governments keep citizens safe). Amazon platform -- members can add links to books, etc. to their own website, and if someone buys via their link, Amazon gives them a small percentage. Google platform - members can add AdLinks to their own website, and if somone clicks and buys via their link, Google gives them a small percentage. SecondLife plaftorm - members create products and services to sell, and SecondLife provides the infrastructure and currency markets in Linden dollars (the most direct analogy to setting up an "island nation"). The interesting thing to me is that most businesses in the real world need employees to make money (not all, but most) -- however, platform providers have a small number of employees that run the platform, but a large number fo members or citizens. The entrepreneurs generate wealth proportional to the number of members or citizens, more like a nation. Solow production functions for economic growth show that production increases in proportion to population, capital intensity, and knowledge and innovation growth. Entrepreneurial capitalists are trying to create platforms that enable members/citizens to do work that they would have to pay employees to do, and the member/citizens are willing to do the work without being an employee, because they too are entrepreneurial capitalists with opportunities to create value and be rewarded for it. In sum, I would suggest changing democratization to something more akin to entrepreneurial capitalism providing new platforms to allow people to create and capture value (Linden dollars, reputation, real dollars, etc.).

FCVW Keynote 2010 FCVW Keynote 2010 Presentation Transcript

  • Dr. Tony O’Driscoll Fuqua School of Business, Duke University Learning in 3D How Web 2.0 and the Immersive Internet are Changing the Game in Learning
  • Slide: Is there anybody… OUT THERE? #lrn3d
  • O n My Mind
  •  
  • Book Structure
    • PART I: EXPLORING THE POSSIBILITIES
      • Here Comes the Immersive Internet
      • Learning to Change
      • Escaping Flatland
    • PART II: BUILDING A BLUEPRINT
      • Architecting Learning Experiences
      • Designing by Archetype
      • Learning from Experience
      • PART III: BREAKING NEW GROUND
      • Overcoming ADDIE Addlement
      • Steps to Successful Enterprise Adoption
      • Rules from Revolutionaries
      • PART IV: JUST BEYOND THE HORIZON
      • Back to the Future
  • Chapter 1 Here comes the Immernet
  • Oxymoron Knowledge MANAGEMENT Jumbo Shrimp Death Benefit
  • KM Promise Just: In Time Enough For Me
  • KM Reality http://www.slideshare.net/trib/knowledge-worker-20 Structured Information STOCKS
  • Slide: From / To STOCKS FLOWS
  • Slide: Meet Jessica OMG, I AM SO BUSTED! . . . Mom found the bottle of vodka Tyler got us in the trunk of the car. . . .Get everyone on FB right NOW
  • KM 2.0 SOCIAL COMPUTING = KM 2.0
  • Slide: Here Comes Everybody
  • Slide: Getting things done requires good connections, both the human kind and the Internet kind. Schooling has confused us into thinking that learning was equivalent to pouring content into people’s heads. It’s more practical to think of learning as optimizing our networks. Learning=Net WORK ing
  • From Individual Skills to Team Insights Slide: Individual Team Skills Insights Collective Cabability Individual Competency Tune your Network Close your Skill Gaps From SME to SMN
  • Slide: New Value Chain Information = Currency Individuals = Transport Interaction = Transfer Insight = Outcome i 4
  • i web 2D Synchronous Learning Knowledge Sharing Spaces Share Point Lotus Team Room Groove Yahoo Groups Blackboard WebEx Adobe Centra Live Meeting Citrix G2M Illuminate
  • i web 2D Synchronous Learning Knowledge Sharing Spaces NETWORK ed Virtual Spaces Share Point Lotus Team Room Groove Yahoo Groups Blackboard WebEx Adobe Centra Live Meeting Citrix G2M Illuminate
  • 2D Synchronous Learning Web 2.0 Technologies Knowledge Sharing Spaces Webex Adobe Centra LiveMeeting Citrix Illuminate Blogs Wikis Tagging RSS Social Media SharePoint Lotus TeamRoom Groove Yahoo Groups Blackboard NETWORK ed Virtual Spaces i web
  • 2D Synchronous Learning Knowledge Sharing Spaces WebEx Adobe Centra Live Meeting Citrix G2M Illuminate Share Point Lotus Team Room Groove Yahoo Groups Blackboard NETWORKed Virtual Spaces Dynamic KNOWLEDGE Discovery Web 2.0 Technologies Blogs Wikis Tagging RSS Social Media i web
  • 2D Synchronous Learning Knowledge Sharing Spaces Virtual World Technologies WebEx Adobe Centra Citrix G2M LiveMeeting Second Life Venuegen ProtoSphere Open Cobalt NETWORKed Virtual Spaces Dynamic KNOWLEDGE Discovery Share Point Lotus Team Room Groove Yahoo Groups Blackboard Web 2.0 Technologies Blogs Wikis Tagging RSS Social Media i web
  • 2D Synchronous Learning Knowledge Sharing Spaces Virtual World Technologies WebEx Adobe Centra Citrix G2M LiveMeeting Second Life Venuegen ProtoSphere Open Cobalt NETWORKed Virtual Spaces Dynamic KNOWLEDGE Discovery Share Point Lotus Team Room Groove Yahoo Groups Blackboard Web 2.0 Technologies Blogs Wikis Tagging RSS Social Media i web 3D Social Net WORK ing
  • 2D Synchronous Learning Knowledge Sharing Spaces Virtual World Technologies WebEx Adobe Centra Citrix G2M LiveMeeting Second Life Venuegen ProtoSphere Open Cobalt NETWORKed Virtual Spaces Dynamic KNOWLEDGE Discovery Share Point Lotus Team Room Groove Yahoo Groups Blackboard Web 2.0 Technologies Blogs Wikis Tagging RSS Social Media i web 3D Social NetWORKing 3D Synchronous LEARN ing
  • 2D Synchronous Learning Knowledge Sharing Spaces Virtual World Technologies WebEx Adobe Centra Citrix G2M LiveMeeting Second Life Venuegen ProtoSphere Open Cobalt NETWORKed Virtual Spaces Dynamic KNOWLEDGE Discovery Share Point Lotus Team Room Groove Yahoo Groups Blackboard Web 2.0 Technologies Blogs Wikis Tagging RSS Social Media i web 3D Social NetWORKing 3D Synchronous LEARNing Immersive Interactive Intuitive Immediate
  • Dynamic KNOWLEDGE Discovery i 4 Immersive Interactive Intuitive Immediate i-web Singularity
  • Chapter 2 Learning to Change
  • Slide: Meet Megan 1585-1587
  • Chapter 3 Escaping Flatland
  • Slide: Life Imitates Art From TRON to AVATAR
  • Slide: Unbounded Space Social Interaction Communities User Created Content Business Unbounded Space Social Interaction Communities User Created Content Business Opportunity Bound by a Narrative Defined Roles NPCs Rules Tokens Ranks and Levels Alphabet Soup
  • 3D Learning Experience Meet Jane and Jack 2D Synchronous Learning
  • Slide: Immersion * Interactivity = ENGAGEMENT I*I=E Equation (I*I) + (C*C) =E
  • Chapter 4 Architecting Learning Experiences
  • Architectural Alignment
  • Chapter 6 Learning from Experience
  • Grounded in Experience
  • Challenge/Objectives Why 3D? Solution Benefit/Result
      • Develop executive understanding of their firms’ diversity and inclusion strategy
      • Educate participants on micro inequities in the workplace
      • Increase participant knowledge on how to communicate effectively about diversity
      • Foster networking and best practice sharing
      • Diversity and Inclusion rely heavily on synthesis of personal experience
      • Use of carefully crafted activities in which participants play specific roles is core to pedagogy
      • Need to simultaneously accommodate 1500+ virtual participants at the summit in a compelling way
      • Travel and Lodging Cost Avoidance: $1,617,000
      • Negative Productivity Avoidance: 900 Days
      • Environmental Impact Avoidance: 450,000 pounds of Carbon Dioxide Equivalent
    Microsoft/Sodexo Case
  • Challenge/Objectives Why 3D? Solution Benefit/Result
      • On average a new hire will take in excess of 130 hours of formal learning in the first year
      • From time-of-hire to first Inventory Observation can be as little as 4 months
      • Wanted to find out if 3DLE design might be more efficient in transferring IO knowledge and more effective in preparing participants to successfully execute an IO
      • Inventory Observations are situational and contextual in nature
      • Application of theory varies significantly based on the situation on the ground
      • Unanticipated situations on the ground require quick decisions that ensure the IO is completed accurately and expediently
      • 3DLE participants learned and retained as much as their ILT counterparts.
      • Cost and Time requirement for 3DLE was less than ILT for same knowledge retention outcome
      • 3DLE participants felt less confident in their ability to perform an inventory observation than their ILT counterparts
    Ernst & Young Case
  • Challenge/Objectives Why 3D? Solution Benefit/Result
      • Experiment with 3D installation design to avoid having to make costly physical mock ups
      • Engage people outside the museum in a co-create installation design process
      • Explore feasibility of leveraging 3D technologies to stage virtual exhibitions
      • The Museum’s narrative exhibition must affect visitors not only intellectually, but also emotionally
      • Wanted to explore whether or not virtual installations could create visceral experiences for participants
      • The Kristallnacht exhibition succeeded in delivering a kinetic, intellectual and visceral learning experience for participants.
      • Experience drove participants to ask how they should go about donating to the museum
    USHMM Case
  • Challenge/Objectives Why 3D? Solution Benefit/Result
      • 117 people die each day in motor vehicle crashes
      • For every minute that a lane is closed, the chance of a second collision goes up 3%
      • Achieving quick clearance reduces fatalities and pollution and increases productivity via the efficient flow of goods
      • First responder decisions and actions are very situational and contextual in nature.
      • Cost of traditional learning approach is very high (Hollywood style role play).
      • Cost to scale and align training practices across functions (Police, EMS, Fire) and States/Counties was prohibitive
      • Able to situate first responders from states up and down the east cost within authentic 3DLE experiences drives alignment around best practices for quick clearance at a cost that is significantly less that conducting physical training
    CATT Case
  • Challenge/Objectives Why 3D? Solution Benefit/Result
      • 750 Global Graduates traditionally engaged in a physical Global Graduate Forum in London
      • Increased economic pressures required a different graduate development opportunity that still addressed the objectives of GGF
      • Existing technological alternatives were deemed insufficient to ensure a positive experience for GGF participants
      • Needed a technology solution that created an immersive experience for pariticpants
      • Wanted to move instructional design to a problem-based model
      • Needed an environment that enabled spontaneous networking between graduates and company executives
      • Participant evaluation scores were favorable for business relevance, learning transfer and networking
      • Cost was less than 10% of that the previous physical GGF ($5M)
      • Virtual format allowed for increased participation from those at a distance
    BP Case
  • FWI E&Y USHMM Maps
  • CATT BP Maps
  • Chapter 9 Rules from Revolutionaries
      • RULE 1: Change the NAME Game
      • RULE 2: Build a Grass Roots Community
      • RULE 3: Begin with Business Issues
      • RULE 4: Connect to Core Motivation
      • RULE 5: Select the Right Pilots
      • RULE 6: Pilot Early and Often
      • RULE 7: Focus on the First Hour
      • RULE 8: Begin with the Familiar
      • RULE 9: Build an Evidence Base
      • RULE 10: Prime the Scale Pump
    New Rules!
  • Get Fired Up ! Embrace Net WORK ed Learning NOW !
  • Slide: Connect http://wadatripp.wordpress.com http://www.karlkapp.blogspot.com Tony’s Blog Karl’s Blog Facebook Fan Page http://www.learningin3d.info/ Book Home Page