chieftech’s blog

Wired magazine's Steven Levy says the 'Hackers' of the late 20th century set the philosophical base for the digital information age of today -- and he says their mind-set will shape our future.

I remember reading an electronic copy of Steven Levy's Hackers book downloaded to a PDA (I'm pretty sure, if I recall correctly, I had a Psion Series 5 at the time) during my daily commute across Sydney harbour back in the later part of the 1990s. I remember it feeling quite subversive just to be reading an electronic text, while everyone else had their heads stuck in a newspaper! Of course, the beauty of this book is that it challenges the common view of what hacking culture is all about - less about being illegal and more about being collaborative, through open technologies and an open and experimental culture.

In this radio interview with Levy, he comments:

There were so many people who read my book and told me it changed their lives, and this was then a fantastic experience. For me, to see so many people who have read my book saying it had an effect on them.

I'm not sure this book changed my life, but it certainly was very influential. It really must rank along with other books like Cluetrain (which Euan Semple reminded us about in his workshop at Headshift yesterday) and Being Digital as one of the classics of the digital era. BTW It appears that Hackers has recently been re-released as an updated 25th anniversary edition.

PS. What other *classics* of the digital era would you recommend? Feel free to add your suggestions to the comments.

Hopefully I won't be accused of being a troll, because I'm not hiding behind anonymity here on this blog. However, I can't find any way to sugar coat this: I found this book both disappointing and frustrating.

Disappointing because my expectations had been built up by the promotion surrounding the author and this book. Frustrating because the critical thinking I was expecting lacked clarity and depth.

This doesn't mean there aren't some interesting ideas in the book. Certainly, we should explore issues such as how the Internet affects our ability to be creative (and earn a living from being creative), and how it changes how we think and behave. But I'm simply not convinced by the author's arguments (or rather, the way they are articulated in this book). Also, while the main thrust of Lanier's manifesto is focused on the impact of information technology on dumbing down and control of how we create and exchange meaning, I think he fails to address another important aspect of people and culture, being relationships.

If anything I formed the impression that far from being unhappy with the digital world, the author is simply disappointed with the industrial revolution that is taking place online. He says on many occasions that he isn't anti-Web - in fact his concluding argument attempts to demonstrate that point - but his nostalgia for the past is obvious. His problem then is perhaps that the Web has suddenly been invaded by the Proles*. And perhaps that is the core of the warning in this book that you will need to answer for yourself - has 1984 come to pass or is this just another conspiracy novel?

BTW Compared to the book, Lanier's essay on Digital Maoism is worth reading.

*Yes, the irony of linking to Wikipedia is noted :-)

I look at kids who complain about having only a 4 Mps Internet access or about having an 8 rather than 32 Gb iPhones, who can do their home assignments by effortlessly accessing information from the Internet without even processing it, who measure their coolness not by what they know but by how many Facebook friends or Twitter followers they have.

I wonder how this generation will be able to cope with the extraordinary problems of scarcity of resources (oil, water, food) that we are going to leave to them as our legacy. And I feel that only blending our ability to master scarce resources and find individual solutions with their ability to socialize and crowdsource will move us all forward. But what I do not see is how that balance is being determined, developed or enforced from when they are in school to when they join the workforce and beyond.

Very much in the vein of the Digital Nation documentary, Andrea DiMaio's reflective post on his fears for the generation of digital natives ultimately points to a broader theme of the conflict between scarcity and abundance thinking.

Personally, I'm slightly more optimistic about the situation. But equally as much as the digital generation needs to learn about dealing with scarcity in the physical world, I think that the generation of digital immigrants (and perhaps the digital laggards) that DiMaio describes also need to take some time to reflect deeply on the power of digital abundance and how that abundance can be brought to bare on issues of scarcity.

Our social web tools must start to understand the strength of ties, that we have stronger relationships with some people than with others. And with this knowledge they need to adapt.

There are three kinds of relationship ties:

• Strong ties: People we care deeply about.
• Weak ties: People we are loosely connected to, like friends of friends.
• Temporary ties: People we don’t know, and interact with temporarily.

A great Boxes and Arrows article on the need design social apps to reflect the different needs of strong, weak and temporary relationship ties.

The focus here is on public Web applications, so I suspect some minor refinements might be needs if you were building an application being used within an organisation or some other network, where the trust dynamics are different. For example, inside an organisation roles and position in the hierarchy provides an additional trust structure to use (although bear in mind, it does not necessarily embody social capital based trust).

At some point this would probably also be a good model to add to the Project 8 materials, to provide more depth to the user experience principles we put forward.

User participation is now an established feature of the economy, spreading from product development and software to a much broader base of activities, such as marketing and manufacturing, and sectors, including social media, automotives and cosmetics, among others. Early analyses of user participation pointed to the importance of building large communities, creating effective incentives for participation and implementing more flexible forms of organization. Looking back a few years later, the good news is that active participation continues to spread. The bad news is that harnessing participation is more difficult than we thought. Stimulating a continuous flow of high-quality contributions should be the focus of companies that want to take advantage of user participation.

Well, actually, if you've been hanging around knowledge management and collaboration for a while you wouldn't expect it to be easy :-)

I still think Clay Shirky sums this up best - you need:

"a successful fusion of a plausible promise, an effective tool, and an acceptable bargain with the users"

The stakes a are high for Project Eden, the codename for a long term project to rollout a single electronic document and records management system across all arms of Australia's Defence forces.

The scale of the project is huge and the final cost is expected to lie somewhere between $A100m-$A500m.
Defence estimates it will need to handle 50,000 users within two years and up to 100 million new objects per annum. There will be users at up to 600 locations in Australian and overseas .

Defence has been evaluating vendors since 2006 and has missed previously announced deadlines for making a selection.

I felt very nervous reading this.

I've previously been involved in a very large electronic document and records management system (EDRMS) project for a large international mining company using one of the major systems, so I have a pretty good idea of what the ADF is trying to achieve. I also have a pretty good idea about the challenges, which aren't necessarily technological (and where there are, there aren't necessarily what you might think).

One of the things that concerns me about any implementation like this is that we confuse the desire for a single information system architecture (e.g. one logical EDRMS system to rule them all) with creating a homogeneous information environment that they will try to make everyone use.

This goes beyond simply making the EDRMS easy to use. The typical approach is to use a uniform user interface to meet that goal but all we really end up doing is meeting the lowest common denominator rather than actually satisfying different user needs. Similarly, we also risk ending up with a rigid information architecture that makes the conceptual information system architecture easier to implement, but doesn't actually fit how work is done.

Often these things look great to the guy designing them from his desk in a nice air conditioned office, but the view is very different once you are on the ground (or in my case, 500 metres underground).

Of course, it doesn't have to be that way. I hope they are considering:

• The organisational change aspects and dealing with what I call the "what's in it for me gap" (a user-centred design approach is essential);
• Applying open information access policies within the ADF, with information restricted by exception and managed through activity monitoring and version tracking*;
• How they can apply a Web Oriented Architecture approach, and standards like CMIS, concepts like De-perimeterisation, and even new database architectures like NoSQL; and
• Learning from recent experiences of applying social computing techniques to how people organise, discover and use information (rather than just relying on taxonomies and mechanical search engine techniques).

*Radical I know, but necessary unless you want to end up with a more complex and expensive version of the existing file shares! This isn't about changing information security classifications, but about dealing with information, which is currently hidden by obscurity.

Curation is the process by which aggregate data is imbued with personalised trust.

Good quote from JP.

Just a thought: Curation is not the same as creating content, in the way for example that a pro-blogger earns a living like any other advertising driven channel. So with that in mind, I wonder, can someone make a living (a job, a business, etc) from being a digital curator? Or is it something that is purely social and altruistic?

In other words, can we buy this kind of trust and are we willing to pay for it?

Business Information Managers

Twenty percent of business managers rated the information that they get from IT as poor, according to the Gartner Business Pulse survey conducted from June through August 2009*. "Information management has never been an explicit job role: IT manages the technology, business manages the domain, but who manages the information?" said Ms Logan. "Companies have allowed a huge gap to open up, and consequently, everyone has been the manager of their own information."

There will be an increasing trend to combine business and information management expertise in a single role, carried out by a single person, rather than a "business and IT partnership" with two people, two hierarchies and two sets of reporting relationships. One company already taking this approach achieved all its objectives including a cost reduction for the department of 10 percent in the first year. Gartner expects 20 percent of companies to employ business information managers by 2013, compared with 5 percent in 2009.

Of the four roles (the other three: Legal and IT Hybrids, Digital Archivists and Enterprise Information Architects) I think this is one of the most important. The role is actually very familiar to me and I'm not sure if its a new role as such, but more of a recognition that IT serves a direct purpose in an organisation.

Its also interesting to think about it in the context of this CIO magazine article, which challenges the typical service orientation of the IT department:

"The alternatives begin with a radically different model of the relationship between IT and the rest of the business -- that IT must be integrated into the heart of the enterprise, and everyone in IT must collaborate as a peer with those in the business who need what they do."

I wonder what impact such a role would have on the adoption of Web 2.0 inside and outside the firewall?

Hat tip to Michael.