No Belgian University in WW Top-100

The Academic Ranking of World Universities just got published.

image

Not a single Belgian University in the Top-100. Leuven comes in at 102 and Ghent at 106.

I found this resource via Eric Drexler’s blog, which was focusing on Asian Universities.

The “Academic Ranking of World Universities” (ARWU) is widely regarded as the best objective, international measure of university quality, and the ARWU says that excellent universities in Asia are scarce.

This seemed to me to be out of line with reality, and on further investigation, I concluded that the ARWU has a strong negative bias as a measure of the current quality of rapidly advancing universities.

In examining a paper on the ARWU methodology [pdf], I found that its scores place great weight on numbers of Nobel Prizes and Fields Medals won, to publications in Science  and Nature , and to publications listed in the Science Citation Index. The problem is that, as a consequence, the scores are weighted toward cumulative numbers, which are poor measures of rapidly rising institutions, such as the leading universities in China and India. For example, if an identical twin of Harvard materialized in Somerville or Beijing today, its rank would be abysmal for years to come.

In summary, the much-cited Academic Ranking of World Universities is very much a lagging indicator of quality.

Although that nuance may be good for the Asian universities, this is bad news for the Belgian universities.

The university of Leuven was founded in 1425 ! That’s almost 600 years ago. So if the ARWU is measuring (lagging) current quality of universities, that’s really bad news for Leuven.

Also, the omni-presence of US-universities should be of some concern to our society – the European in particular. This is also reflected in the number of innovation think tanks that exist in the world. Most are from US origin. Most of their analysis have a very US domestic focus.

That’s why our upcoming European based Think Tank for Long Term Future will try to change that, and start from the rich and diverse European culture and history. We’ll have our kick-off meeting with a number of passionate creatives and local captains of industry on 24 Nov 2009.

However, regional or anti-regional focus should not be the focus. And we do not want to start from a laggard’s position, as a catching-up strategy is always a loosing strategy.

In our inter-connected world, we are moving towards a new world order, based on collective intelligence and collective intention, inspired by transhumanism. I am preparing a separate post on that.

The focus will be on ensuring that our next generation is well prepared for a new world order. Preparing those who will be our leaders in 2030 is the focus.

Stay tuned.

The Algorithmic Principle Behind Curiosity and Creativity

One of the very best presentations at last month’s Singularity Summit. And it comes from a European 😉

Lots of inspirarational slides and ideas, and – as a bonus – Jürgen is quite funny as well when presenting.

The Future by Chris Anderson

 

Big Think Interview with Chris Anderson

Chris_anderson

CHRIS ANDERSON

Editor-in-Chief, Wired

A conversation with the Editor-in-Chief of Wired Magazine and author of The Long Tail and Free: The Future of a Radical Price.

October 29, 2009  |  In Business & Economics, Science & Tech, Media & Internet

You can see the 36 min video here.

The full transcript is also available. Some extracts and quotes (red highlights by me)

On “free”:

What happened with the Internet is that it took computers and storage and bandwidth, silicone chips, spinning metal platters, and fiber optics and put them together. It turns out that Moore’s law falls in price 50 percent every 18 months. Storage and bandwidth fall in price every 14 and 12 months, each by 50 percent and they’re accelerating their race to zero even faster than Moore’s law. You put all three together and you have this general rule that anything you do on the internet, whatever it costs today, it will cost half as much a year from now. This has relatively profound consequences. First, it makes zero – It makes free not really a marketing gimmick but kind of an inevitable price. Not to say that everything is going to be free. The greatest misunderstanding of free is that everything’s going to be free.

At the same time, they have iTunes, a very successful way to sell music. In that case, what they’re selling is convenience, not music.

On “infinities” (see also Peter Hinssen’s Innotribe Keynote on “exploring the limits.”

I think the most profound thing about turning products into digital products from my prospective is that price becomes arbitrary. In the traditional world, there’s a pretty strong correlation between the cost of a product to make and the price you can charge for it. You charge something that’s slightly above the cost and the more competition there is, the less you can charge. It tends to drive prices down to the marginal cost. In digital products where the marginal cost is zero, the price can be anywhere from zero to infinity.

On “Cloud Computing”:

We talk about lowering the barriers to entry but you also want to lower the barriers to exit so that people don’t feel like they’re risking everything.

Open ID and open apps are two examples. I think we’re seeing these two battles play out and although Jonathon is absolutely right, that this is a risk, I perhaps have more confidence in the power of the marketplace to sort this out. I think that the one thing we’re sure about in this era is that we have choice, lots and lots of choice. If Facebook gets it wrong or if Twitter gets it wrong, there are a thousand other companies in the wings just waiting to get it righter. Knowing that, I believe –and so true for Google the elephant in the room on this– I think knowing that their hold on the consumer is not permanent, it’s not cast in stone and is only permitted as long as they serve the consumer better than the obvious alternatives, I believe, will keep them doing the right thing.

About “monopolies”:

I can only hope that the regulators move slowly because I don’t think the answers are clear and any answer we give today will be wrong tomorrow. I mean, today, isn’t it sort of absurd the fuss we made over Microsoft, now, in retrospect? Now Microsoft looks like the underdog right? We were so worried about their monologist abuse of the desktop. I mean, desktop, when was the last time you even saw your desktop?

About “going after small or big business (the next 1B$ business):

That model distributed innovation. Letting the community sort of invent products, try them out at small scale, figure out the bugs, whether there is real demand, and then use the big company’s power to scale them up to mass markets. That feels about right.

See also my yesterday’s blog post about Failure is NOT an Option.

On “what upcoming technology will disrupt the industry ?”

The simple answer to your question is the most disruptive thing I can see right now is the fact that you and I are carrying GPS chips in our pocket. If you have an iPhone in your pocket or any other smart phone, you’ve got a GPS chip. Now we’re not doing much with them right now but we have, for the first time in history, the capacity to link our physical world, the world we live in, to the virtual world.

I think GPS and the internet combined is a game changer. Now I’ll add just one thing on top of that. The fact that your phone is not just GPS and internet connection, but also other sensors, accelerometers, it has proximity sensors, light sensors, things like that. It could have other sensors. You know, we’ll see what we do with that. To what extent could that be used for health care? To what extent can that be used for, sort of, environmental monitoring? I don’t know but we now have nodes. We have smart nodes in people’s pockets, in their hands, spread all around the world, connected to each other and the internet that know where they are. I think that’s a big deal.

Anderson is also mentioning a company called 37Signals. Ever heard of them ?

image

37signals is a different approach in that they are relatively lean and targeted. They are not trying to become Microsoft. They know who they are. They were kind of born on the web and, as a result, the products sort of feel organically web centric.

And finally, on “Small is the new big”

Lower transaction cost was the advantage of the firm. Now we’re in an era where it’s completely reversed. Now big companies have bureaucracy. They have red tape. They have long procedures. They have certain profit requirements. The transaction costs are actually higher inside the walls of a big company than they are outside.

Bill Joy famously said that the smarter people in the world for any given project don’t work for you. That’s a problem if you can only work with people that work with you. I mean, why are you working with this guy? Is he the best person in world?

No, he’s the closest person in the world. Now it’s incredible easy to find the best person in the world and to get them to work with you. The internet has provided a sort of global lowering of transaction and so we can now, it’s often more efficient to look outside your company and, you know, I’m joking on some level. The idea of finding the right person via Elance versus your internal HR is actually often easier to go outside and get things done. What that’s done is that it’s said we have a diseconomy of scale with big companies. The bigger they are, the harder it is to get things done. Small companies are nimble. They’re focused. The cost base is lower. They don’t need big markets so they can target more narrow opportunities.

Open source software, hosted solutions, all this cloud stuff, those will lower the cost of starting a company. The internet has lowered the barrier of reaching products. These global markets of talent have lowered the cost of finding people the right people to work on your project. All of it is really creating an army of competitors to the large company model. Large companies are still great at mass but there is a long tail. And large companies are bad at the long tail. Small companies are perfect for the long tail. And we’re not going to see a battle between the two.

Failure is NOT an option (you don’t know until you try)

A couple of weeks ago, i was attending the Web 2.0 Summit. Actually, it is the Web² Summit (read as Web Squared).

If you want to stay up-to-date a little bit, a must read is the Web Squared Whitepaper. You can read it online here or download it here.

web2009_websquared-cover

One morning, i was taking the elevator to have breakfast. In front of me in the elevator was somebody i never met, but he had a conference badge. So i started a chat. By the time we got to the ground floor, i understood i was chatting with Don Dodge, Director Business Development Emerging Business Team at Microsoft. UPDATE: just learned via Don’s blog that he has left Microsoft

6a00d8341bf9da53ef00e550076d788834-150wi

I identified myself as part of SWIFT’s Innovation Team, we got connected, and Don invited me to join him for breakfast.

We chatted about innovation cultures and where we were coming from. About our deep DNA of FNAO (Failure is not an Option), and how people in such culture usually feel reluctant to come up with idea of dare to take risks.

Don told me i gave him inspiration for a new blog post on The Next Big Thing.

Never thought he would do this, but hey ! Today i received from Don a mail with a link to his post. I have copied it here below in it’s entirety. Don’t hesitate to comment on this blog on on Don’s blog.

BTW: i have invited Don to be part of our Innotribe @ Sibos 2010 in Amsterdam in Oct 2010 :-). Hope he accepts.

PS-1: I am not an “Exec”. I am just part of SWIFT’s Innovation Team.

PS-2: “Make a mistake and you are fired” is of course a metaphor to indicate that an FNAO culture does not promote taking risks and being innovative. Sometime to the contrary. But that metaphor does not change anything to the important message Don has for big and small companies trying to innovate.

+++ start Quote from Don’s Blog

Failure is NOT an option – Why this can be a bad strategy

An exec at a large European financial company recently told me his former CEO believed “Failure is not an option”. Great, I thought. This means they will do whatever it takes to succeed, try five or ten different approaches until it works, get the whole company focused on the goal, etc. No, he told me. What it means is “Make a mistake and you are fired.” Wow! Another example of the difference between startups and big companies. I have worked most of my career in startups where you are always pushing the envelope, taking big risks, where there are no obvious answers, and you just keep trying until you find the combination that works.

Poker ChessStartups play poker, big companies play chess – This “failure is not an option” discussion reminded me of the huge differences between startups and big companies. Success is not easy in either case, but the approaches are radically different. Using a game analogy, startups are more like poker players. They take big risks, they bluff, they make quick decisions, change direction constantly, and they keep their competitors off balance. Poker is an aggressive game where if you play your cards right you win big, and win fast. If you lose a hand you can come back and double your money in the next hand. There is no time to wallow over a loss. You did your best. Move on and your luck will be better next time. Chess is a different game. Both require incredible skill and talent. A great poker player is rarely a good chess player.

Big companies think long term. Like chess players they think four or five moves (years) ahead. They protect their assets, play defensively, think strategically, and carefully consider the options before making a move. Big companies have a lot to lose, while small companies don’t. Big companies leverage their assets (conservatively) and flex their muscles where they can. They go for incremental improvements in position. Big company CEOs, like chess players, work a long term strategy. Each short term move plays a part in a longer term strategy that is not visible to the casual observer. In fact, their strategy is often kept secret, and they take care to make sure their short term moves don’t reveal their long term plan. Strategy is a competitive advantage.

There is another interesting topic on how to make the transition from startup to successful big company, but we will save that for another day.

Fail Fast – If you are going to fail, do it fast and move on to the next thing.More in depth thoughts here. The only thing better than a “Yes” is a quick “NO”. When you are raising money, selling a customer, or trying to get a deal done, it is the long drawn out process that never ends that will kill you. It is the same thing with startups. Being successful is always the goal, but if it is going to fail…Fail fast.

Bill Warner, founder of Avid Technologies, Wildfire Communications, etc, said recently “Some of you guys are so smart you turn what should have been a one year failure into a five year death march.” Entrepreneurs are resourceful, smart, and have that indomitable spirit that doesn’t allow them to quit. This can be good and bad. Sometimes it is better to “fold” and move on to the next game.

Hold ‘em or Fold ‘em? – “You got to know when to hold em, know when to fold em, know when to walk away, know when to run.” Kenny Rogers. The toughest decision any entrepreneur makes is giving up on a company. It just isn’t in their DNA to do it. In fact, they rarely decide to do it, it is the investors who finally make the call. How do they decide? It is really about passion and commitment – from the founders, investors, employees, and customers. If the passion is lost in any two of the four groups…it is probably time to “fold” and move on.

Fine line between success and failure – There are no easy and obvious answers. If it were easy everyone would have already done it. Timing and luck play a big part in success…bigger than most people will admit. There are four key elements to success in any business; great people, great idea, great timing, and luck. If you don’t have any two of the four…you are probably going to fail. I have seen startups with great people and a great idea that were too early (timing), or had bad luck on things they couldn’t control. They failed. The same idea tried five years later succeeded. Timing matters. The market needs to be ready to adopt your ideas. The answer is never obvious. You don’t know for sure until you try.

+++ End quote

Energy from Passionate Creatives

Fantastic blog by Hutch Carpenter about The Passionate Creatives. His blog is always quality. Always new content. Feeling deeply the pulse of the Enterprise 2.0 wave.

0990783

A lot in Hutch’s blog post reminded me about the book – The Cultural Creatives – How 50 million people are changing the world. By Paul H. Ray & Cherry Ruth Anderson.

418MH0BC23L._SL500_AA240_

In his recent blog entry, Hutch talks about “Passionate Creatives”.

Especially about passionate creatives at the edges.

Passionate creatives are everywhere among us, but they are not evenly distributed. They tend to gather on the edges where unmet needs intersect with unexploited capabilities.  Edges are fertile seedbeds for innovation.

Or also

Companies are best-served by allowing employees who are attracted to these changes to pursue innovative ways to address them. Why?

They get energy

They get an experimenter’s mentality. They get a happier workforce. Let employees exercise some form of self-organization to accomplish this.

The alternative may be incumbent staffers who have fallen into routines, or

have reason to protect

the status quo

This does not help companies address rising levels of volatility. Free the passionate creatives!

Makes me think of Red Monkey story by Jef Staes. I use it a lot. In every presentation about innovation. It’s where my audience does NOT loose me on my trip to the future.

Book_Wordcloud

Let me make another connection here. Just like Hutch, i would like to refer to  A Labor Day Manifesto for a New World by John Hagel.

John Hagel founded the Deloitte Center for Edge Innovation. And is having a fantastic blog The Big Shift. I had the honor of meeting John Hagel in person during the last Web 2.0 Summit. We had a brief chat on his possible participation to next years Innotribe @ Sibos 2010 in Amsterdam.

Have a look at the whole Labor Day Manifesto, and more specifically at the last paragraph:

Stop and think about the last truly great person who left your organization. First think about what made that employee great. We bet you name such characteristics as action-oriented, driven, passionate, fun, and genuine.

Now think about where that worker went. Chances are, to a position with a perceived promise of putting his or her talents to better use—moving into a role with greater challenges and opportunities to learn and make a difference. It wasn’t about money.

What a great test for each organization !

And there is also the interesting innovation blog from Stefan Lindegaard. In his 5 oct post Job Opening- Senior Innovation Manager he describes how difficult it is to find a senior innovation job:

I am sad to say this is just not the time to seek such a job. I see this in the networks I facilitate where many innovation leaders have lost their jobs in the past year. I have been in touch with several of them discussing their options and trying to help them move on. Actually, last year some of them got a new job pretty fast, but this is not happening now. It takes longer – if at all.

Just to give you an idea of how bad the job situation looks like: There are less than 20 companies on Monster.com in the U.S looking for senior innovation managers and offering interesting challenges.

Somewhere in the middle there is a great advice for people wanting to work with innovation:

So my advice to all the people working with innovation right now is this: If you really want to work with innovation, then

your current job

is most likely the best chance to do this.

My dream scenario is that – in these times of crisis, with efficiency programs cutting out the best when focusing solely on efficiency and allowing managers to settle old bills with team members that took the risk to innovate – that the group of passionate creatives on the edges of every company will stand-up, claim their space, and fight to destruct the cynicism that reigns in some many companies.

The root cause for this unbearable cynicism are usually power-games between silos. These power games are putting a major barrier to success to any CEO shouting “change” at the top, as the change – or desire thereto – does not permeate into the lower echelons of the organization, and therefore remains nothing more than

a big illusion

This is the difference between old and new game.

In the new game, we don’t shoot at Red Monkeys, we don’t fire the guys who have the courage to take risk. On the contrary,

we protect them,

expose care, and

channel the energy

for the better of the company

I met a couple of those passionate creatives recently:

what an energy !

If only we could turn the negative cynicism energy into a positive creative energy.

Who feels energized by this ? Let’s join forces. Let me know who you and where you are.

Google and Finance 2.0

Umair Haque has written an Open Letter to Google titled “Can Google take on Wall Street – and Win ?”

It starts with: “Dear Google,…”

and goes on with:

Every day, you handle more searches than the NYSE handles trades — and that difference, I’m guessing, is about to hit an order of magnitude more. Every day, you connect people, businesses, and communities in deeper and tighter ways than besuited beancounters do. From my tiny perspective, it seems that you just might be in the best position of any organization in the world to take on Finance 2.0.

Umair’s open letter is nothing more (or less) than

asking Google to implement

his Finance 2.0 Manifesto

written some months ago, and commented in this blog here. I strongly recommend to read the Manifesto.

And he continues:

What would a Googlier

finance industry resemble?

What would a more Googly set of capital markets look like? That’s the $12 trillion dollar question. After all, markets are just search engines — remember?

You still think you’re in the media business. You’re not. In the 21st century, everyone’s in the same business: the awesomeness business. It doesn’t matter what you make, as long as it offers maximum awesomeness. And right now, better finance would be pretty awesome.

Yesterday, you used to change the world. If you think a bit harder, a bit smarter, a bit more disruptively — you still can. If you don’t — well, the biggest catfish in a parched, dried up pond sure ain’t the smartest catfish.

And he gives some “leading” examples:

Tracked, ValueCruncher, StockTwits, and many more are the leading edge of a revolution — a revolution in what finance has been for the last several centuries, and what it must become in the 21st.

Something i don’t like in Umair’s post is the polarizing tone as if all in financials services is bad, and Google is “doing good” and Google being positioned as the solution to cure world hunger. Although i have already promoted many times on his blog that

polarization fosters innovation

Also, the “leading” examples offered above are putting Google in its traditional role of information manager, searcher of information.

I believe we could also look at Google as a utility. They have some great tools that could be applied in a big way to financial services. What if for example a neutral party would host a federated Google Wave as a SaaS solution for the financial market ? Running on a secure messaging platform like SWIFT ? Next generation person to person communication ? Or apply the same technology to do Collateral Margin calls for example ? Where every new call is a new Call “wave”. Think about it.

There is of course a lot i like in this article, especially the implicit push for extreme – even “impossible” innovation. Last week, i was attending the 11th European Conference on Creativity and Innovation. One of the keynotes came from Mark Raison, titled “The Power of Impossible”

Look at this presentation. Internalize it. And then let’s play-back Umair’s open letter with The Power of the Impossible in mind.

What would happen then ?

PS: Mark Raison is on my target speaker list for Innotribe @ Sibos 2010.

70,000 Feet

Via Nova Spivacks Twitter account: “See this video of flight in U2 to 70,000 feet. I went to nearly 90,000 in 1999. This gives a good feel for it. http://bit.ly/14WdGJ

Space flights will be quite ordinary in 2025. That’s a little more than 15 years from now. I may still live then.

For our think tank long term future.

Re-Inventing Wall Street: Finance 2.0

When Umair Hague posts something on his blog, i always take some extra quality time to read.

110-umair-haque

Umair Haque is Director of the Havas Media Lab, a new kind of strategic advisor that helps investors, entrepreneurs, and firms experiment with, craft, and drive radical management, business model, and strategic innovation.

Always sharp, and always in for a good controversy and/or polarizing opinion. I am a strong believer in polarization being a big driver for Innovation.

Have a look at his latest blog post titled “Reinventing Wall Street from the Bottom Up

Some super-quotes:

Welcome to the new trickle-down economics. Here’s how it works:

  1. Banks massively misallocate capital.
  2. The government uses money reserved for public goods — education, transportation, healthcare — to bail out banks instead.
  3. The bailout should trickle down, as lending to businesses and consumers alike sparks economic activity.
  4. No effort to settle bad debt is made; little reform of corporate governance, industry structure, or competition is necessary — because banks are too big to fail.
  5. Little oversight of steps 2, 3, or 4 are necessary, because markets are perfect resource allocators, and market actors are rational.

Result? In trade terms, a shock worse than the Great Depression, as Paul Krugman has noted.

In employment terms, a lost generation.

In monetary terms, a flight from the dollar.

In microeconomic terms, the stagnation of America’s industrial base.

If it weren’t for Apple, Google, and a handful of old-school companies pursuing dramatic reinvention, like Wal-Mart, we would be in a Great Depression.

In macroeconomic terms, value is transferred from you, me, and our grandchildren to Wall St — permanently.

And also:

The greatest transfer of wealth in history is taking place. It is already roughly worth a year’s output of the entire United States, or about 5% of the entire world’s output.

Or…

It’s is faith-based economics — and it’s Barack Obama’s biggest mistake. (Consider for a moment that 20+ per cent of hedge funds misrepresent info.) For years, George Bush hunted for phantom WMDs, while terrorist networks flourished under his nose. Now Barack Obama is hunting for a phantom prosperity, while the greatest robbery in the world is happening right under his nose.

In the same blog post, he is referring to his Finance 2.0 Manifesto, published back in April 2009, where he makes 9 recommendations for a better financial system. I have cut & pasted the whole lot, not because i am lazy, but because the context is worthwhile reading as well (orange/red highlighting by myself)

Edge funds. An edge fund is the opposite of a hedge fund. Where hedge funds are opaque, edge funds are transparent. Where hedge funds are closed, edge funds are open. Where hedge funds are run for near-term gains, edge funds are in it for the long run. Where hedge funds create artificial book value, edge funds create value that accrues to real people and society. Where hedge funds focus on long and short transactions, edge funds focus on relationships. Think Marketocracy on steroids.

Macro and microcurrencies. A currency tied to national interests determined by a political elite? That’s so 20th century 16th century. A better financial system needs better currencies. Finance 2,0 will be built on microcurrencies and macrocurrencies: currencies which operate hyperlocally and transnationally. Why? Because people shouldn’t have to bear collective responsibility for bankers looting or regulators cahooting. In the 21st century, the quiet tyranny of economic collective responsibility is intellectually bankrupt: it is fundamentally unjust, deeply inefficient, and vastly value-destructive.

Social banks. Despite what marketers tell you, banks do not exist to maximize profits. They exist to maximize the safety of deposits. We’ve been taken for a very expensive ride. Next-generation banks will be structured as social enterprises — because the incentives to safeguard deposits and reinvest profits for the common good perfectly converge to a dominant strategy for long-run value creation.

Fair markets. Markets are free like a shark is a fish. Anyone can play — but only at the risk of being manipulated, looted, and defrauded by the deepest-pocketed. The anonymous arms-length transactions orthodox economics lionizes are, in practice, just a hyperefficient mechanism for front-running, predatory trading, and bid rigging. Next-generation markets aren’t just free: they’re fair. They are markets where information about reputation, reliability, and relationship thickness are hardwired into the DNA.

Stakeholder communities. Institutional investors are so 20th century. Centralizing control over our biggest corporations in the hands of a bunch of old dudes asleep at the wheel was as good an idea as the spork: interesting in theory, useless in practice. Tomorrow’s radical innovators are already updating corporate governance for the 21st century, by letting communities of stakeholders shape managerial decision-making. Think mega-Etsy.

Whisper bullhorns. Why is trading such a great business? Because traders have access to info that you don’t. Why can’t everyone get in on the whisper circuit that powers prop desk profits? Because no radical innovator has taken on the challenge yet of amplifying the secretive whisper circuit into a blaring bullhorn. But imagine if the rumours that drive share prices up and down on trading desks were Twitterfied. The result would be a financial revolution: the market power Big Trading enjoys would vaporize faster than you can say "insider info."

Googlizing financial instruments. What business is Wall Street really in? The business of hoarding information: to seek a so-called informational edge. Of course, markets don’t work if everybody’s hiding info — they only work when people are revealing it. Google can help me find a tennis racquet, Match can help me find a date, and Last.fm can help me find some tracks to rip — but who can help me find a better place to put my cash that effortlessly? No one. And that’s a massive reason why we’re stuck with a 1.0 financial economy.

Anti-ratings. Your credit is rated mercilessly. But does anyone rate lenders — not to mention brokers, banks, and investors? Today’s crisis would have been far less severe if consumers had access to knowledge about who was a trustworthy lender — and who was going to sell them the financial equivalent of a roadside bomb. Credit ratings alone cannot create more efficient financial markets — doing so requires better information about both buyers and sellers of every kind of financial product.

Open source modeling. Every bank built the same models. Every bank built the same flawed models. Every bank built the same flawed models on similarly erroneous assumptions. How dumb is that? Incredibly. Unleashing the power of open source to vaporize this black hole of incompetence is going to be a tremendously powerful path to innovation. The peer review, voluntary contribution, and always-on negotiation at the heart of the open source model create powerful incentives for quality — which is exactly what the hare-brained quants at banks lacked.

Finance 1.0 cannot power growth 2.0. Yesterday’s finance cannot power tomorrow’s prosperity. Bailouts, taxes, nationalization, regulation are what your discussions this week are focused on. These can limit the depth and intensity of the crash. But what they cannot do is build a radically more efficient, productive, and effective financial system.

See also my previous post about Peter Thiel and the Singularity, where he said that credit only works in a growth society.

That requires a better kind of finance altogether — one designed not merely to make the worst among us richer, but

to make us all authentically, meaningfully wealthier.

That’s why finance 2.0 is the future.

This is the sort or personal and corporate values we want to discuss as underpinning for our Long Term Future. Hence the need for the Think Tank we are building from Flanders to gather like minded authentic people who do care about our next generations.

The Power of Choice

Great post on the confused of calcutta.

How consumerization of IT now really starts hitting the enterprise. Quite obvious, and i am sure you too use more and more external tools like Google Docs, iPhone Apps, Drop-It and other company external services to get your job done.

The article however is on something more profound that is emerging. The power of choice, and how companies need to plan to design services to be “choice-able”:

The more intriguing questions of choice come up when you look at how tasks and resources get allocated to each other within an enterprise. Firms exist at least partly because they serve to reduce transaction costs. They could borrow capital cheaply, obtain global reach and scale, attract and retain staff by the provision of pay and benefits. At least that was the theory; over the years those advantages have dwindled: enterprise credit ratings aren’t what they used to be, the internet lowers the barrier for global reach and scale, security of tenure is no longer to be assumed and benefits sometimes  become millstones around legacy operations. So yes, firms are changing.

Despite all that change, some things haven’t changed. Management structures exist to define and agree objectives, to prioritise activities in the context of those objectives, to allocate scarce resources to the completion of those objectives, to monitor feedback on performance and to intervene when and where appropriate, to fix problems, overcome obstacles, resolve conflicts.

and

People choosing what they do, when and how they do it, where they do it, what services and tools they need to do it, what devices they use. All possible. All being done now. But not holistically across the enterprise anywhere.

For that we need to architect our services differently. Which is where outside-in design comes in, designing for the customer, designing to provide that customer with choice. At a level of abstraction, everyone’s a customer. Your actual customers. Your trading partners. Your supply chain. And your staff.

Privacy is dead

This blog post is triggered by a start-up demonstration i saw at DEMOFall2009 some weeks ago.

The demo was about an iPhone application called “datecheck” aka “creepfinder”

You can find the video here.

Not that i am interested in on-line or real-life dating – i am happily married – but in essence the application allows me to do a check on my date. It basically crawls the internet, twitter, facebook, and  – in the US – public data such as your real-estate tax income and even criminal records.

The end-result is that i find data about criminal records about my future fiancée, full real-estate data about what house he/she lives in, family composition, real-estate tax-income etc

The US government also is getting quite open and transparent on its own data. Have a look at www.data.gov

image

And these days all these data are accessible via API’s to take data OUT of these systems. Some API’s like twitter, facebook etc also allow you to INPUT data via for example Tweetdeck, Seismic, and many others. I would love to have something that not only allows me to INPUT my Tweets, but also something that allows me to input and maintain my personal profile data, across services. See also at the end of this post.

For the US government data, you see start appearing end-consumer apps that let you search through this massive amount of for example government contractor’s data with quite advanced intelligence tools in the hand of the citizen.

In stead of FBI (Federal) it’s becoming

CBI (Citizen’s Bureau of Investigation).

It says “analysis for the people, by the people”. I would add “"about the people”

image

All this is sold as “transparency” and “democracy”, and those are of course very important values.

But – and I don’t know about you – I start more and more FEELING quite uncomfortable about all this. Not that i have to hide anything, or that i have a criminal record (at least not that I am aware of ;-), but I do FEEL all this is quite intrusive.

As most of you know, in my previous life i was quite close to the Belgian eID project (electronic identity card). The card also allows you to access the on-line government database, where I can look at my OWN data and check who in the government has accessed those data.

But i believe we should make a big plea for the appliance of Law #1 of Kim Cameron’s Laws of Identity:

image

That’s easy said, but how do you enforce that. I took the pain to look at the privacy policy of Twitter (see http://twitter.com/privacy). In essence – as a user – i have nothing to say. I have 2 choices: to use twitter and accept the privacy policy, or not use it. But how many of the many million Twitter users have ever read the privacy policy ? How many know what sort of deep intelligence engines are crawling all these data that i released to the net WITH A DIFFERENT PURPOSE ?

This is not Twitter specific. It applies to Facebook, Friendfeed, or any other form of social network or service.

In my opinion, i would like to have something where i can control what data about myself i want to release to what service and in what context. I update my information there once, and have also guarantee that my profile information is consistent across Twitter, Facebook or even event/conference sites that these days more and more use their own social media piece of technology.

Of course you would need a highly trusted party to deal with these data. I think i would even be prepared to pay a price for my privacy.

This concept of a central digital vault comes pretty close to eMe, the winner of the Innotribe idea-contest at Sibos 2009 some weeks ago. But they started from “mydata” and information and documents related to financial services. If you start thinking privacy and putting control of data back into the user’s hands, you get a much more powerful proposition.

I would like to hear the opinion of a number of identity and privacy experts that are following this blog

UPDATE: Can’t help it, but just at the same time as i published this post, Guy Kawasaki tweeted the following URL:

 http://holykaw.alltop.com/why-you-should-think-before-you-tweet