A diagram that should have gone in (I think)

Engagement spiral

This is something we didn't have time to work up properly, but is actually quite important (!) It answers the question about 'What kind of transactions/relationships' will go on as people engage with the OIE. This isn't all entirely online by any means - as with our other metaphors and illustrations from the virtual world, parallels can be seen with 'real life' - and sometimes you get some useful insights when comparing the two.. this is because one rarely analyses what's going on in 'real life' but looking at virtual world parallels makes it more obvious what's going on.

So, this diagram (a larger version is attached) reflects how people engage (and drift away) with social networking sites (according to interest, affinity, need & commitment) - but also with any network they engage with. (See Wax and Wane - the green line). First of all they come across the network (by whatever means - event, WOM etc). They decide level of commitment. This is easy to see on a social networking site such as this one: people can observe (lurk) without being known. Their access includes reading, searching, browsing, learning, picking up tips and contacts. Most of this may never be known or measured. On this site, people may also comment anonymously (pros and cons here).

Once people see value in being 'known', they register. Many benefits here on all sides; it's people and their ideas that enrich the network. For example, on this site you can start a thread; comment with attribution; people can contact you and know of your work. (eg on Facebook, you have to be registered and accepted as a friend to see someone else's photos. On MySpace you can choose to set your profile to private, so only registered friends can see it). At this point, OIE network members could qualify, say, to ask questions in the Experts Online area - rather than just browsing a sample of entries.

Once people have made themselves known to the OIE (registration via a data capture form), innovators (for example) might agree exchange visits - independently or supported by the progamme according to qualifying criteria. Similarly, they may request and qualify for a mentor visit. Moving from a passive recipient of help to a provider (eg becoming a mentor to others; becoming an Expert Online) will lead to a contract and a paid transaction. This type of trading will also occur beyond the realms of the programme; that is part of its aim. But Open Source exchange of ideas - online and offline - are still free for all.



OIE_engagement_large.JPG 118.95 KB


Does SMS have a role?

This week my car is in for repair and I put in a mortgage application.
I've received two SMS messages from the car people saying my car's 'in
the paint shop now' and then another saying 'it will be ready for
collection tomorrow'. And i've just got one saying 'Welcome to the
C&G and thank you for your application . . .'.

Could SMS help with the engagement with the Open Innovation Exchange?

Does SMS have a role?

Interesting idea, and we could have a look at that in the next stage of our development

diagram = logo?

Jane you are right, excellent image, (not sure about all the waving and waxing, I never went to a hairdresser). Could it not be adapted as a logo for OIE?


Why register?

A key thing here (I am talking about the online element here) is what you allow people to do without identifying themselves (registering) and then how arduous the registration process is. Presumably this could be modified as the OIE develops based on experience. What about having two levels of registration? With increasing levels of service.

Another key thing is how you encourage people to register. A failing with many online systems is that you don't know what you get until you register (no incentive to register there then). Perhaps giving read-only access to Experts Online to non-registrants would provide the necessary incentive.



I think registration is a level of commitment. I don't think it is neccessary for all interactions and contributions but without some basic levels of commitment, it is hard to form a working relationship. Saying who are and taking personal ownership and responsibility for your comments and ideas is important if there is a genuine working relationship rather than anonymous "hit and run"

Registration and trust

This is right I think. Basically, in the real world trust builds as a group gets to know each other. Certain interactions between people/organisations don't need trust (eg exchanging newsletters) but others do (eg managing a social enterprise/collaborating on an innovation). This follows through into the online world.

There is a scale I think: if people operate online anonymously little trust can be established; more trust can be created if people register and consistently use a pseudonym, even more trust is possible if people register with their real name, even more if they put up a profile, even more if they put their photo up(?). Um not sure about the photo.

Requiring registration is not about being exclusive it is about creating trusted online spaces that will support the interactions you want to take place.


recognising experts online


dear fellow anonymous, dave, and simon,

questioning read-only access to experts online is a great idea - why? because the question itself raises the issue of taking the fellowship of anonymous experts online for granted

the current practice of reifying self-proclaimed expertise by hiving off access to the experts online area amounts to indirectly rewarding those who wish to engage in non-selfless service without remaining open to others who may be genuinely seeking to collaborate and contribute in whatever guise they see as most non-threatening to the existing status quo at the time

gently does it - say these gentle folk

so, for example, it may be helpful to distinguish between the use of the name "anonymous" as a consistent psuedonym which is commonly chosen by individuated members of this open community of gentle folk, perhaps, from both simon's and dave's assumption (to date so far) that the use of the name "anonymous" can only possibly be interpreted to signify non-commitment to a cause

without irony, the staus quo's decision as to whether or not to open up the experts online area to read-only access reflects more on the OIE's commitment to open causes rather than reflecting meaningfully on the gentle folk who are choosing to stand firm by their right to non-register

the right to non-register is a public right of way, you know Tongue out

please help keep these paths open, and welcome, and then perhaps we may be permitted to enjoy rambling on a little further ...

good luck with next steps at all events

in service,

a pidgeon

Commitment vs Trust

Dear Pidgeon

This has made me think . . . you are right, to contribute anonymously does not equate to a lack of commitment at all, quite the opposite in fact. However, if you subscribe to Darwian principles (and I accept that not everyone does) then you are going to selective in who you trust.

You are going to trust someone more if (you feel) you know who they are. You will make quicker progress in whatever you do if you take (a calculated risk and accept) advice and guidance 'on trust' from people you know than relying on anonymous sources which you feel you have to double, and triple check before you can use.

a rat with wings

PS: Thanks the Lord for RSS - I would have missed this comment otherwise . .

education as public good

hello anonymous of post 20070607-21:09,

interested in your response to the preceding "anonymous" comment on the topic of recognising experts online

wondered if anyone had any thoughts on advocating taking trust on trust, which is what it seems that you are doing, in contrast to advocating an open learning community where all potential "expertise" should be available to read by all other potential "expertise" so that all readers can consider any emerging values in their own right (given caveat emptor or otherwise)

for example, our present dialogue is available for all to consider and re-consider and contribute to accordingly - this permits the (written) content of our dialogue at least to speak for itself in terms of value-added (if any) to any particular thread of a reader's understanding

if the OIE are seeking to continue privileging access to the experts online area to registered participants, this may not only be creating a potentially false economy of knowledge sharing, but may also be ignoring the educational values inherent in genuine open source community engagement (albeit unwittingly as yet)

in this sense, this idea of keeping open "public rights of way" by valuing the diversity of practices resulting in choosing to engage anonymously online sounds like it may become a bit of an acid test for the OIE in terms of their commitment to open source values

incidently, the diagram-that-should-have-gone-in originally shown above maybe should-not-have-gone-in-after-all with regards to its seemingly incomplete commitment to education as a public good

on the other hand, making the experts online area read-only at this stage could signal a positive step towards the OIE supporting open collaborative learning environments as a result of the commentaries that have here followed

as it currently stands, it may appear that the OIE is seeking to cherry-pick from a fuller commitment to open source community values on the basis of those it feels it may be able to turn a profit

importantly, there may be a practical reason for the OIE opting to take this sort of a stance, at this stage in our evolving political economy, but there is a world of difference between taking this stance: (a) out of ignorance; or (b) out of feigned ignorance; or (c) with careful consideration coupled with an open declaration of the principles underpinning this compromise sought, for the time being at least

open dialogue goes hand-in-hand with any newbie's emerging credibility within existing open source communities, and here's hoping this present exchange of open dialogue and potential deliberation can continue to be considered in like fashion

who knows - we may even find the experts online area becoming read-only in due course - and then again, we might not Sealed


Syndicate content