Boxes and Arrows: Comments by Shiv Singh

Shiv Singh — Fri, 26 Jan 2007 14:53:11 GMT

Thank you for your thoughts. I consider eBay to be web 2.0 largely because of its participatory values and because each time an end user interacts with the service it makes the service stronger.

Having said that, I couldn’t agree more that these definitions aren’t water tight. Interestingly, eBay had a few web 2.0 characteristics before web 2.0 was coined. I am still waiting for more browser side interactivity on their site though.

Shiv Singh — Fri, 26 Jan 2007 14:53:11 GMT

Michael and Alok, thanks for your comments.

Michael, I couldn’t agree more with you about some of the challenges with measuring costs and benefits. Companies recognize that there is a knowledge problem but no one has really “cracked” it in terms of harnessing the culture, technology and people. Web 2.0 helps with the technology and the people components but less so with the culture of a specific company.

On the bright side, today more than ever, companies recognize the importance of managing information/knowledge dynamically. It is only a matter of time before we see some extremely innovative examples. Maybe we’ll see some of them in the Web 2.0 conference.

Talking of which, Alok based on my experience and the research I conducted recently, the large organizations are not being that innovative in terms of how they are leveraging web 2.0. By writing this article, I was hoping to learn a little more about what’s going on. From what I have seen so far, I have not been very impressed.

On a side note, at Avenue A | Razorfish we are experimenting with social networking on our intranet. I will let you know it develops. Google “Peers and Forrester” to learn about our last directory+social networking efforts. It was an innovative initiative led by our San Francisco office.

Shiv Singh — Fri, 26 Jan 2007 14:53:13 GMT

Thank you for all the feedback and the thoughts on Web 2.0. I really like the idea of capitalizing on “selfishness!”

Talking about Web 2.0 Google has released its web apps as an Office 2.0 type package. They’re worth checking out. I just came across a great blog which I recommend for anyone interested in Web 2.0 It’s called Original Signal.

Shiv Singh — Fri, 26 Jan 2007 14:53:22 GMT

Thank you for all your thoughts. I must admit that I’m intrigued by the principles behind group intelligence. The notion of a hundred brains being better than one while simplistic is very attractive.

At the heart of it all, I agree with Alexander that Web 2.0 is a user phenomena about contribution and collaboration. However, organizations will always find it challenging getting their employees to collaborate whether it be on a wiki, an internal blog or through some other interactive communication technology.

Hopefully, what the web 2.0 conversation will draw attention to is the fact that its the social and cultural factors that drive adoption the most in any collaboration context. There’s some good research coming out that discusses the relationshp between corporate culture, employee satisfaction, past collaboration experiences and the likelyhood of future collaboration. Companies with empty wikis should take a look at this research.

Shiv Singh — Fri, 26 Jan 2007 14:53:22 GMT

Just as a follow up, IBM has announced that they’re incorporating web 2.0 technologies into their collaboration suite that’s targeted at large enterprise customers. This is good news but I hope they’re asking their customers to think critically about how exactly they’ll use these tools before purchasing them.

Shiv Singh — Thu, 08 Feb 2007 10:27:01 GMT

Yes, absolutely even though we don’t recognize it often, academia does lead with a lot of web innovations. Both Tim Berners-Lee and Manuel Castells (a sociologist guru at Berkley) make this point. I’ll be bringing in people like Mark Granovetter, Linton Freeman and Barry Wellman into the article.

Shiv Singh — Thu, 08 Feb 2007 10:34:17 GMT

Great article! And the reality is that one has to live through being a first time manager to recognize the importance of some of the points made. Sometimes we may think we’re letting go when we’re actually controlling more than we should.

I agree with Dante’s point that in many organizations one can be a manager on one project and a contributor on another. Sometimes that’s a good way to balance the urge to design and the interest in leading a team or an initiative. Other companies don’t necessarily allow for that. Personal projects are also one way to stay in touch with actual design!

Shiv Singh — Thu, 02 Aug 2007 14:38:58 GMT

Thanks for the article, I found it insightful. Interestingly, I do believe (anecdotally speaking) that one of the reasons why we scroll more comfortably is because of the popularity of blogs. We’ve gotten used to scrolling down for more. Also, practically every Facebook, Google and My Space page forces you to scroll and that’s where more and more users are spending time. So in my view the “myth of the fold” deserved to be blasted!

Shiv Singh — Sun, 19 Aug 2007 04:20:31 GMT

Thanks for the review. Generally speaking, I find books on innovation distasteful. They seem to state the obvious, encourage people to “manage” the process of innovation and take too many words to say not too much at all. By the sound of it, this book seems different. Cheers.

Shiv Singh — Sat, 18 Aug 2007 17:59:14 GMT

Thanks Chris, I am glad you liked the story. I’ll check out your blog. Shiv

Shiv Singh — Sat, 08 Sep 2007 06:41:38 GMT

Dmitry,

Thank you for your feedback. I’m not sure if I agree with you completely about LinkedIn letting you connect with weak ties. Only if sign up for one of the paid accounts, do you really have easy access to potential weak ties. Otherwise, the way you reach others is restricted and it was even more difficult to connect with them earlier.

In terms of whether LinkedIn is an exception versus the norm in being able to differ between strong and weak ties, Facebook presents a different story. By virtue of letting you categorize your Friends, you have a place in which to “keep” your weak ties. The Limited Profile view also helps with this. However, with Facebook I’d really like the ability to create my own categories into which I can put people. I’m told that Plaxo does this with the new version of their software.

Nevertheless, thanks for the thoughts and I don’t mean to simply slam LinkedIn. It does some things really well and I’m an active user myself.

Shiv Singh — Fri, 07 Sep 2007 00:39:09 GMT

Thanks for sharing, you’ll probably find the next two parts interesting as well then. In those I talk about group formation and workplace scenarios. I noticed that your article highlights different research. It just goes to show much is out there in terms of quality research.

Shiv Singh — Mon, 10 Sep 2007 17:41:12 GMT

Interesting thoughts. Ning does encourage the creation of small, strong-tie networks. But it also encourages you to use your account to join multiple networks on the Ning platform. And in that sense, its helping you find ways to connect with weak ties. So in a sense there are two levels of affinity – first to Ning and then to your specific social networks within Ning.

Good question about the utilitarian versus social distinction. One can argue that all networks are social but that may not necessarily be the case. Those categories could work.

Shiv Singh — Thu, 20 Sep 2007 16:46:13 GMT

Melissa and Thomas, Thank you for your thoughts. I haven’t seen too much research on the visualization tools so it is hard for me to comment on them. On the surface and through my own experience, I can say this – they can be valuable if they truly provide information at different depths. Many visualization tools appear gimmicky because they provide either too little information or too abstract a view. Part of the problem is that a large screen is really required to take advantage of them.

Regarding the point about LinkedIn, what’s interesting is that different people have different perceptions of the roles of these networks. They also use them very differently. So while for one person, the comparisons maybe natural for another it maybe unfair. Still, your point is noted.

Shiv Singh — Thu, 13 Sep 2007 18:27:44 GMT

By the way Melissa, thank you sharing the wonderful list at Mashable.