Midland Accent

Doc Searls points me to this accent test.

Tells me I’ve got no accent. Hmph.

What American accent do you have?

Your Result: The Midland
 

“You have a Midland accent” is just another way of saying “you don’t have an accent.” You probably are from the Midland (Pennsylvania, southern Ohio, southern Indiana, southern Illinois, and Missouri) but then for all we know you could be from Florida or Charleston or one of those big southern cities like Atlanta or Dallas. You have a good voice for TV and radio.

The West
 
Boston
 
North Central
 
The Inland North
 
The South
 
Philadelphia
 
The Northeast
 
What American accent do you have?
Quiz Created on GoToQuiz
Posted in Uncategorized | Comments Off on Midland Accent

Microsoft & Personal Health Records, Take 1

Microsoft launched its Personal Health Record initiative yesterday, according to the New York Times:

The company’s consumer health offering includes a personal health record, as well as Internet search tailored for health queries, under the name Microsoft HealthVault (www.healthvault.com).

The personal information, Microsoft said, will be stored in a secure, encrypted database. Its privacy controls, the company said, are set entirely by the individual, including what information goes in and who gets to see it. The HealthVault searches are conducted anonymously, Microsoft said, and will not be linked to any personal information in a HealthVault personal health record.

This is definitely a step in the right direction, using Personal Data Stores for managing health records, with fine grained access rights management so users can set privileges for multiple health vendors. It’s a classic VRM use case, undoubtedly implemented with full HIPAA compliance.

For those willing to trust Microsoft, their privacy assurances seem reasonable (full policy):

  1. The Microsoft HealthVault record you create is controlled by you.
  2. You decide what goes into your HealthVault record.
  3. You decide who can see and use your information on a case-by-case basis.
  4. We do not use your health information for commercial purposes unless we ask and you clearly tell us we may.

Unfortunately, it doesn’t look like Microsoft is promoting any open standards (no surprise there), nor allowing users a way to download what is stored in their health record. Does that mean if we want that data out, we can only go through a Microsoft-approved medical partner? If so, does that mean that Microsoft actually owns the data… and not the patient? If so, that’s disturbing.

The full text of the Health Vault privacy statement makes this sound like a feature, using full FUD mode to scare users into thinking Microsoft control is a good thing:

To help provide better protection of your information, the information transfer from your computer to the Service is one way; the Service does not transfer your Health Record information back to your computer.

So, minor points for Microsoft. Kudos for showing the way to a smarter way for managing Personal Health Records and shame on them for not doing it in a way that is completely transparent and open for all users.

I’ve sent the folks at Health Vault an email asking about export and ownership. I’ll let you know what I hear back, if anything.

Posted in Personal Data Store, ProjectVRM, Vendor Relationship Management | 5 Comments

The Four Steps to the Epiphany

Steven Gary Blank’s The Four Steps to the Epiphany

Review

I’ve read a lot of startup books and been involved in several efforts of varying success. Blank’s book is the first how-to-guide that provides clear, unequivocal directions for taking a brilliant product idea and turning it into to a successful, thriving company.

Fans of Geoffrey Moore’s Crossing the Chasm will appreciate the additional depth of Blank’s honest and rigorous approach to finding the right product-market fit. Moore’s bowling alley idea is powerful, but Blank takes that concept and tells you precisely how you should go about discovering the right initial market for your product and then how to reliably grow into that market. His horror stories are insightful and balanced by constructive success stories, with some of the most illuminating juxtaposed within the same market, such as Webvan’s brutal failure and Tesco’s wild success in the online grocery business.

The book has some challenges when it gets to the details about positioning and branding, but those are areas many people have problems with… and a sore spot for me with even some of the more widely quoted yet insufficient books out there. Fortunately, Blank isn’t wrong in those areas, so much as just fails to make the most of the classics of Riese & Trout’s Positioning: The Battle for Your Mind, 20th Anniversary Edition and Aaker’s Building Strong Brands as they apply to the startup. [I also recommend Holt’s How Brands Become Icons: The Principles of Cultural Branding for those looking for brilliant insights in building effective brands.]

My other small nitpick is that the book has surprisingly low production values, with numerous typos and printed on a seemingly depression era yellow paper. Perhaps Blank is simply following his own advice, minimizing upfront costs while he discovers the right product-market fit. I hope so, because at least that shows consistent reasoning.

Despite its failings, this book’s strength building both a conceptual and practical framework for guiding product development in innovation-driven companies makes it a must read for anyone leading entrepreneurial product innovation.

Posted in Uncategorized | Comments Off on The Four Steps to the Epiphany

Childhood Dreams…

Many thanks to Robin Hunicke for pointing me to this absolutely wonderful reminder of why childhood dreams are so important.

As Robin says, if you haven’t seen it already, take a moment and do. You might start with the Wall Street Journal article about Randy’s “last lecture.”

I’ve not met Randy, but I’m glad Robin introduced me to him in time to appreciate him and his work.

Posted in Science | Comments Off on Childhood Dreams…

Why Search needs VRM

Much laughter and thanks to Cory Doctorow for a send up of the Googlefuture, Scroogled. I’ll add a subtitle: “Learning to love Google nation.”

Cory’s tale noir makes it crystal clear why Search needs VRM-style solutions to deal with user control of query and clickstream data. Google isn’t about to let you fully edit or delete your unsavory history any time soon (what a boon that they now promise to anonymize after 18 months). Other efforts, like APML, mostly seem to be beautiful ways to aggregate personal data from everywhere you go and everything you do online… with minimal talk about how you control access to it. John Batelles Data Bill of Rights and similar efforts show promise, but none specifically address how we resolve Search as digital trail of inherently privacy-busting data. Even within the Identity and VRM communities, there has been precious little talk about how to put users in control of their relationships with Search providers, which is to say VRM for Search.

SwitchBook is still essentially in stealth mode, which means I won’t yet say much, except that we think our approach to Search addresses some of these problems, offering a privacy-savvy framework for user-centric Search. We can’t make Google give up your data, but we can create new ways to Search the web that fundamentally reshape how your Search history and results are managed. There’s a reason I’m a big supporter of VRM and it has everything to do with putting the user in control of where and how they Search, while leveraging an incredibly rich personal data store as they do so.

Posted in Personal Data Store, ProjectVRM, Vendor Relationship Management | Comments Off on Why Search needs VRM

Change of Ages

David Hull recently responded to my post-Information Age article suggesting that we are in fact, just at the end of the beginning rather than the end of the Information Age itself:

I like the article, I like the argument, but I don’t quite like the conclusion. As Churchill said, this is not the end. It is not even the beginning of the end. But it is, perhaps, the end of the beginning.

What has happened is that we have moved from information scarcity to information abundance. You could just as well argue that this marks the beginning of the real information age. In which case I think Joe is saying the same thing, except that instead of “real information age” we should call it something else.

Since I didn’t attempt to name the next Great Age, I can’t wholly disagree with Dave. Perhaps it will come to be known as the “real” information age. However, I think Dave’s missing the point of my post. In fact, Dave’s later comments reinforce that assessment:

For that matter, when did the “classic” information age start? Did it start when it became possible for someone to make a living dealing solely in information? That would be quite a while ago. Did it start when information management allowed geographically large entities to persist over time? Also quite a ways back.

Did it start when people on opposite sides of a continent could communicate with each other instantaneously or nearly so? That would be sometime in the 19th century. When the first modern computer was built? Mid-20th. The first PC? The first use of the term internet? Take your pick.

Ages are not mutually exclusive. We are still very much in the industrial age. New industrial products and processes are invented all the time. Large parts of the world remain largely unindustrialized — even as they build out their information infrastructure.

Great Ages are, by definition, mutually exclusive. This is a subtle semantic distinction, yet it is the essence of my article. Great Ages are periods in time when individuals uniquely define themselves in the artifacts of that age–or perhaps historians have come to define people based on the fundamental artifacts of their Age. Take the Bronze Age for example. The impact of bronze was so transformational that it redefined the political, economic, and social fabric of every civilization it touched. Bronze defined the lifestyle of the people who lived through the Bronze Age.

With this definition, no two Great Ages can co-exist. When people start defining themselves in different terms, it becomes a different age. The evidence suggests that significant conversations are growing in our society which are inherently post-information. That is, people are starting to explore and adopt post-information perspectives as part of their self-identity. Not everybody, but perhaps enough to reach a tipping point soon, if it hasn’t already.

Dave suggests we are still in the Industrial Age because we still have industrial aspects of our world. However, we are beginning to leave the Industrial Age as I define Great Ages, because we are starting to define ourselves beyond the industrial context. Sure, we continue to innovate in industry and spread the first-world model of industry to the rest of the world. But the former is more about industry’s enduring value and the latter is about the uneven pace of progress. Neither of which touch on the self-defining characteristics of the leading wave of civilization.

We almost always retain the machinery of our prior ages, even as our cultural identity moves on. The farm is a great thing; a factory farm is far more productive. The factory is a great thing; a knowledge factory is far more profitable. The Information age defines itself by its flow of information, but folks are already craving, experimenting, and searching for new means of engagement and production, searching for ways to put information back into its role as an enabler rather than the focus of our attention.

Consider the winding down of the Industrial Age. (I did not live through this transition, but I accept the bits and pieces I have learned from various media–for I am a child of the Information Age). The hippies of the 1960’s heralded the end of the Industrial Age, but they did not define what came after. Instead, hippies became yuppies and arguably failed to escape the materialist culture they had railed against in their youth. (We should forgive them; when you grow up indoctrinated to certain world views, it is incredibly hard to change.) This counter culture wasn’t new, it echoed Fitzgerald’s The Great Gatsby (1925) as well as the even more timely precursor, the beatniks of the ’50s. But what the cultural revolution did was ignite a nationwide celebration of counter culture, and in so doing, opened up the mainstream world-view to the short comings of the industrial era American Dream–demanding a new definition. Consider Hair and Easy Rider for two of the most powerful demands of the time. The message: life isn’t about a 9-5 job, working your way up the career ladder, buying a home in the burbs, settling down with 2.5 kids. That was a pastiche of a marketer’s brochure of post World War II America. People cried out for something different, something better.

In the course of time, that something better became the subcontractor/entrepreneur-fueled economy of the 1990’s, telecommuting virtual organizations, Internet start-ups and stock option plans. In short, the Information Age.

In the same way, there are voices engaging the world today that herald the end of the Information Age. I won’t repeat the examples from the previous post, but I will add Into The Wild (official site) to the list of cultural artifacts harkening for a new age. The movie isn’t out yet, but the trailers and buzz are encouraging. Nothing rings more true about that movie than that it is a tale of one man’s journey to define himself beyond the trappings of his parent’s Industrial Age world. A morality tale of the end of one Great Age, told so that we can resonate at the end of another.

Posted in Uncategorized | 1 Comment

Leaving the Information Age

Say goodbye to the Information Age. It’s already over.

Ok, not over, completely. These things take time. You don’t just end an “Age” in an instant. But take a look around you and you’ll start to see the beginnings of the end, just about everywhere.

The last Great Age, the Industrial Age, started sometime around the invention of the steam engine, rallied with the internal combustion engine, and soared into its zenith with the jet engines.

We briefly flirted with an Atomic Age, which lasted about ten years before perhaps morphing into the Nuclear Age. You might have thought we got post nuclear when we stopped worrying about the Bomb and won the cold war, but there appears to be a nuclear renaissance ahead, thanks to both proliferation and the resurgence of nuclear energy (no green house gases, just glowing green waste…). Somewhere overlapping the Nuclear Age was about a decade we call the Space Age–thanks to Kennedy’s push to put a man on the moon by the end of the 60’s.

But the Atomic Age, the Nuclear Age, even the Space Age, they don’t mark profound changes in the average human life.

I won’t get into the uneven distribution of “progress” in today’s world, but let me make a brief signpost to point out that when I say “we”, I mean those of us blessed enough to participate generally in the first world.

When we figured out how to create factories, how to industrialize production, we profoundly changed the way we live and work. The Atomic age didn’t do that. It mostly affected the political and international landscape leaving the rest of us to continue our modern industrial lifestyle. So, not a Great Age. Just an age. Similarly, the Space Age may have inspired TV shows and science fiction, complete with new global heroes both real and imagined, but other than Tang and Teflon, it had minimal impact on our daily lives.

In contrast, the Information Age has radically changed the modern lifestyle. Computers and networks and telecommunications have profoundly disrupted and re-invented some of the most important elements of our society. How we buy and sell. How we communicate. How we socialize. How we commit crimes and how we enforce our laws. Even how we sin and how we fall in love. Without doubt the Information Age is one of the Great Ages, affecting the lives of almost everyone fortunate enough to be living in the first world.

So, how can I say it is over? What about the iPhone? Google? Web 2.0? Second Life and World of Warcraft? Or even one of my own favorite initiatives, Vendor Relationship Management (VRM)? Aren’t we still in the thick of it?

It is true that the machinery of the Information Age is here to stay, both in terms of infrastructure and social structure. After all, we didn’t give up factories or unions at the end of the Industrial Age. Nor did we abandon farming when we moved from the Agrarian Age to the Industrial–although we have lost “barn raising” as a social activity. Farms and factories became less important in the modern context as more people found ways to live without them as a major part of their life. Instead, we reinvented both in the image of the new age. We industrialized our farms and re-engineered our factories around information.

We move from one great age to another when, as a Society, we let go of the trappings of the previous age and begin to define ourselves in new terms, absent the defining elements of yesteryear. We no longer think of ourselves as farmers or factory workers… the Information Age has knowledge workers, and we largely define ourselves by the information accessories in our lifestyle: our iPod, our MySpace page, our blog, when in previous ages it may have been our car, our company, or our home town, livestock or crop.

But aren’t these defining accessories Information Age artifacts? Yep. And while they may seem hot today, their days are already numbered. I don’t know how to see the future to what the next Great Age is going to be… any of a number of developments could come to define it: nanotechnology, genetic engineering, even a return to global religious militarism, God forbid (pun intended, folks).

What I can see is that many of the most engaging and compelling conversations in our society today are decidedly post-Information Age.

Consider this. The Industrial Age was an age of STUFF. The amazing material wealth generated by modern industrial engines was staggering, and as Sears Robuck and Henry Ford brought that material wealth to the people, we came to define ourselves by how much stuff we had. “Keeping up with the Joneses,” we rallied. The accumulation of stuff became the calling card of America. “He who dies with the most toys wins.” We luxuriated in our newfound wealth as a huge middle class was born from workers who began to earn enough to actually buy the things they were making. When it comes down to it, the Industrial Age was all about MORE STUFF. Making it. Selling it. Buying it. Consuming it.

So it is fitting that the end of the Industrial Age began not so much with the invention of computers (in the 1950s) or the Internet (1969)–these were merely the instruments of what came to replace it. Rather, the end of the Industrial Age began with the realization by many people that perhaps we don’t need all that STUFF. It started to end when we started to question, in significant numbers, the defining foundation of the age: do we really need more stuff? The Great Gatsby (1925) by F. Scott Fitzgerald was a post-industrial tirade against the American Dream, but it wasn’t until mainstream America caught up with the concept after World War II that we began to think about and define ourselves en masse as something more than the sum of the bounty of our industrial might.

The late Anita Roddick, who passed away this month, tapped into this with The Body Shop‘s line of products that weren’t about more stuff, but rather about a different kind of better stuff, about products that were both good for you and good for the world. In fact, the entire movement towards sustainability has, in its roots, the necessary realization that we must move to a post-industrial world, a world that isn’t defined by our stuff. As cable television and the Internet invaded our homes, we began to find that we could satisfy many of our wants and desires through Information rather than physical goods. It was liberating, intoxicating, and led to one of the most outrageous economic bubbles since the heyday of the Industrial Age triggered the Great Depression.

Similarly, the Information Age is, (surpise!), defined by MORE information. More channels. More telephones. More email. More websites. More advertising. More media.

And in a (perhaps) surprisingly short period, we now find ourselves echoing a new version of the mantra that ended the Industrial Age: “Enough! We don’t need so much Information!”

Consider the evidence:

TMI

Perhaps the most light-hearted evidence is the oft-used phrase “Too much information” or the blithely concise “TMI” when someone divulges more details than the listener really wants to hear… typically about things you don’t even want me to mention in this article.

Google

We also see it in embodied in the most powerful brand of the Age. Google has always stood for making the overwhelming complexity of the Internet, simple. Hence, the clean look, the great results, the fast response. Google knew that you didn’t want everything that’s out there on the Internet–if you wanted that you might try the cacophonous Yahoo! What you want, is just what you want, nothing more, nothing less. Give me what I’m looking for, and leave the rest of that stuff out there. (And kudos, btw, to Google for pulling back recently from productmania to refocus on their core value proposition.)

Blink

How about Blink by Malcom Gladwell? Gladwell outlines just how powerful it can be to think less, evaluate less information, and “thinslice” complex problems, in an instant. Less information: better results. Here’s a quote that is crystal clear about the frustration of the Information Age:

We live in a world saturated with information. We have virtually unlimited amounts of data at our fingertips at all times, and we’re well versed in the arguments about the dangers of not knowing enough and not doing our homework. But what I have sensed is an enormous frustration with the unexpected costs of knowing too much, of being inundated with information. We have come to confuse information with understanding. (p264 in the April 2007 paperback edition)

Gladwell goes on to illustrate through uncanny stories, both anecdotal and scientific, of how we can and do make split-second decisions on the most minute sets of data. Sometimes our bias in those moments can steer us astray, but when managed correctly, those “instant” decisions are not just as good, they can be better than those made in full conscious analysis of all available data. The message is clear. If you can distill your decision making to just the right subset of the data and you prime yourself correctly, you can make better decisions with less information.

The Zero Inbox

Have you heard of the 43 Folders Inbox Zero tutorial and video? From the introduction:

Clearly, the problem of email overload is taking a toll on all our time, productivity, and sanity, mainly because most of us lack a cohesive system for processing our messages and converting them into appropriate actions as quickly as possible.

Too much email! Nicely written and well worth the plunge. You’ll appreciate it. And as a post-email junky, you’ll find yourself liberated from one of the Information Age’s most consuming behemoths.

Burning Man

Have you heard of Burning Man? Arguably the most happening annual ritual qua week-long party on the planet. Not the largest, but certainly an indulgence of the hippest order, where the many of the most adventurous, most “out there”, and most creative head to the Nevada desert to unplug and reinvent themselves in a microcosmic society, disjoint from the “real world.” It is a ritual in unplugging from our information drenched reality to celebrate the physicality of life in the brutal extremes of desert heat, sandstorms, dust, and frigid cold nights, with only ice, coffee, and porta-potties provided as basic civic services (the first two for a fee). The rest you provide for yourself in a form of “Radical Self Reliance” that is a core principle of the event. Why would anyone endure such extremes? In large part because it is incredibly, primally, satisfying to extract yourself from the world of information overload and engage with real people in an real–albeit redefined–world. Whether you like it or not, Burning Man is a undeniably relevant celebration of the post-Information Age human experience.

VRM

In its small way, VRM is also contributing to this trend to reduce information overload. VRM redefines customer relationships with vendors by focusing on what individuals have and need, rather than what vendors have to offer. Rather than trying to index and analyze everything, just capture what’s near the user, and give people tools to leverage what they do know to have smarter, more rewarding engagements with vendors. The result will be a system focused on the individual and his or her relationship to vendors, rather than an aggregated, centralized knowledge base, index, or repository of all the world’s information.

These are but a few examples of how we, as a society, are starting to realize that perhaps we have too much information at hand. That instead, what we need is better, more meaningful information. As more and more of us define ourselves as something more than the information we consume and create, we are accelerating the end of the Information Age and clearing the ground for something new.

Of course, the end of the Information Age isn’t a particularly new or original concept. Just as Fitzgerald pre-dated, yet ultimately helped catalyze, society’s transition from the Industrial Age, so too have others observed and written about the post-Information Age.

Here are a few of note:

From Being Digital (chapter 13) by Nicholas Negroponte, quoted at http://archives.obs-us.com/obs/english/books/nn/ch13c01.htm

“The transition from an industrial age to a post-industrial or information age has been discussed so much and for so long that we may not have noticed that we are passing into a post- information age…

In the post-information age, we often have an audience the size of one. Everything is made to order, and information is extremely personalized. A widely held assumption is that individualization is the extrapolation of narrowcasting–you go from a large to a small to a smaller group, ultimately to the individual. By the time you have my address, my marital status, my age, my income, my car brand, my purchases, my drinking habits, and my taxes, you have me–a demographic unit of one.

And from Andy Orem “What comes after the information age” published just this last week at O’Reilly Radar:

But the Information Age was surprisingly short. In an age of Wikipedia, powerful search engines, and forums loaded with insights from volunteers, information is truly becoming free (economically), and thus worth even less than agriculture or manufacturing. So what has replaced information as the source of value?

The answer is expertise. Because most activities offering a good return on investment require some rule-breaking–some challenge to assumptions, some paradigm shift–everyone looks for experts who can manipulate current practice nimbly and see beyond current practice. We are all seeking guides and mentors.

What’s fun is actually seeing the transition with your own eyes, rather than hearing or reading about it as an intellectual exercise.

Take a look around you, in your own life and work. You might be surprised how often you find yourself craving less information and culling the dead bits from your data (can you say “Spam Filter?” I knew you could.). As you do, savor the end of the Information Age and the beginning of something new…

Posted in ProjectVRM, Search, Vendor Relationship Management | 18 Comments

Kudos to Six Apart for opening up the social graph

In case you haven’t already heard it elsewhere, Dave Recordon has announced that Six Apart is opening its social graph.

Kudos to Dave & the rest of the team at Six Apart for opening up the data silo.

There remain several access rights management issues around reusing one’s social graph, but getting the data out of the silo into user control is a critical first step towards more powerful VRM-style applications that leverage individual’s social networks.

It will be interesting to see how users and developers respond.

Posted in Vendor Relationship Management | Comments Off on Kudos to Six Apart for opening up the social graph

Working for a living…

Thanks Jamie Rubin for a nice little video:
Difficult jobs

My job is always challenging and difficult but it’s nothing compared to what this guy does everyday. I have no idea where this video comes from but it’s fascinating.

(via B.L. Ochman)

Posted in Uncategorized | Comments Off on Working for a living…

Marc Andreessen hits three nails on the head…

But is perhaps missing the biggest nail of all.

I’ve been enjoying Marc Andreessen’s blogging since he started. Always well written, often insightful, and tapping a wealth of Internet and entrepreneurial experience, his posts are at the top of my reading list.

One of his latest maps out the power of platforms, especially as they apply to the Internet.

A few quotes:

Let’s start with a basic definition. From a previous post:

A “platform” is a system that can be programmed and therefore customized by outside developers — users — and in that way, adapted to countless needs and niches that the platform’s original developers could not have possibly contemplated, much less had time to accommodate.

Absolutely.

The key term in the definition of platform is “programmed”. If you can program it, then it’s a platform. If you can’t, then it’s not.

Nice and clear. Marc then goes on to talk about three different levels of platforms [edits for brevity]:

Level 1 is what I call an “Access API”.

This is the kind of Internet platform that is most common today. This is typically a platform provided in the form of a web services API — which will typically be accessed using an access protocol such as REST or SOAP.

Architecturally, the key thing to understand about this kind of platform is that the developer’s application code lives outside the platform — the code executes somewhere else, on a server elsewhere on the Internet that is provided by the developer. The application calls the web services API over the Internet to access data and services provided by the platform — by the core system — and then the application does its thing, on its own. That’s why I call this an “Access API” — the key point is that the API is accessed from outside the core system.

Level 2 is what I call a “Plug-In API”.

This is the kind of platform approach that historically has been used in end-user applications to let developers build new functions that can be injected, or “plug in”, to the core system and its user interface.

Level 3 is what I call a “Runtime Environment”.

In a Level 3 platform, the huge difference is that the third-party application code actually runs inside the platform — developer code is uploaded and runs online, inside the core system. For this reason, in casual conversation I refer to Level 3 platforms as “online platforms”. Let me explain.

  • A Level 1 platform’s apps run elsewhere, and call into the platform via a web services API to draw on data and services — this is how Flickr does it.
  • A Level 2 platform’s apps run elsewhere, but inject functionality into the platform via a plug-in API — this is how Facebook does it. Most likely, a Level 2 platform’s apps also call into the platform via a web services API to draw on data and services.
  • A Level 3 platform’s apps run inside the platform itself — the platform provides the “runtime environment” within which the app’s code runs.

Put in plain English? A Level 3 platform’s developers upload their code into the platform itself, which is where that code runs. As a developer on a Level 3 platform, you don’t need your own servers, your own storage, your own database, your own bandwidth, nothing… in fact, often, all you will really need is a browser. The platform itself handles everything required to run your application on your behalf.

This is a nice breakdown. Marc has lots of great examples to clarify what he’s talking about, and it is cool to see that what we are trying to do at SwitchBook is a create a Level 3 platform for search built around the idea of a Search Document as the means of managing user input and tracking partial results for complex searches.

Yet, I also think Marc is missing out on the most powerful platform of all: platforms that are completed distributed and designed to run on other peoples platforms. This “Level 4” Platform is something Marc is intimately familiar with. After all, the Mosaic browser he wrote and browser vendor Netscape were at the core of taking the World Wide Web to mainstream success. Clearly, the web is programmable by users. It is a platform. But what makes it so absolutely amazing is that as a platform, it handles none of your application for you, but defines services and protocols so that any number of vendors can provide a specific hosting solution that is 100% interoperable with the rest of the platform. Level 4 platforms spawn other platforms and assimilate existing applications. They are incredibly powerful and even harder to build than the others Marc spoke about.

Vendor Relationship Managment (VRM) is working to create a Level 4 platform that turns CRM upside down, providing tools for individuals to manage their relationships with vendors. As such, we aren’t attempting to build one particular application, we are building a framework for which any number of service providers could offer applications and hosting platforms. It’s not a small challenge, but we think its the right way to do it.

I’m curious how Marc would look at the idea of Level 4 platforms.

Posted in ProjectVRM, Vendor Relationship Management | 3 Comments