ORCM Architecture Model Transcendence, part 2

Persistence-based limitations override

(source: http://erelations.info/orcm-architecture-model-part-2/)

ORCM Architecture Model Transcendence, part 2: Persistence-based limitations override

Relations created online have some advantages over offline relations, at least in a business context. Such an advantage is transcendence over persistence-related limitations.

Throughout its history humanity used two main forms of communications: speaking and writing (there is also sign language but it is used on a smaller scale). The former can have a powerful timely impact but its relevance fades over time, while the latter tends to retain a greater degree of importance throughout the years. For example, tribal cultures with exclusively oral-based traditional knowledge tend to fade away while cultures based around writing-based knowledge thrived. This is simply based on the fact that sounds are invoked than disappear while written forms of communication remain by default (although they do disappear when we shred/burn the piece of paper it is displayed on, etc.). But even that rule is changing now as online websites/sharing software/social networks (YouTube and all) are introducing the concept of massive distribution/dissemination of oral communications. Still, the oral form of communication is harder to control than the written form; for example SEO functions are based on written words and the software is not able to scan for spoken words (well surely some guys are drilling down this stuff as I write so it should revolutionize online marketing practices soon to the immense joy of SEO-obsessed marketing capitalists). Could a dying/dead native language be saved/brought back to life through social media propagation then? Why not.

Online relations do not really introduce the concept of an «eternal» communication, as those already existed in one way or the other. For example, the Egyptian papyrus are dated thousand years old and still exist today; those drawings on some cave wall could also be considered early forms of communication (maybe there were a bunch of keywords in that drawing, who knows). We could then assume that there can be a form of persistence regarding traditional forms of communications (writing, drawing, folkloric songs, etc.). Social media just does that in a gigantic, enormous scale. Those Egyptian papyrus were «managed» by kings (pharaohs, tsars, or their equivalent), i.e. only the elite of society could read and then write. Even when having acquired the knowledge of writing one would still have to gain access to proper tools and materials to engrave writing into stone. Whereas a handful of people controlled written communications around that time, today almost anyone can gain access to a device (pc, tablet, smartphone, gaming console, etc.) that will enable her or him to post something in the cloud, where it will exist and stay «alive» for everyone to see (well, potentially lots of people), this for an unlimited time (in theory).

But there is no magic there. Although fairly improbable, let's say there is a revolution/war/insurrection of some kind where Taliban-like figures seize power on a worldwide scale. They could then judge the online world as too hard to control, perceive it as a potential threat that enables people to collaborate, acquire and diffuse knowledge, evolve and take part in such similar, evil-inclined activities. To make it short those guys decide to «destroy the Net». They go to where cloud servers of ABC Inc. are located and blow them up, destroy those big cables under the sea, block all power sources and force us to cut wood and burn it to survive the cold months, etc. So there you go, all this social media stuff is gone. Yes, it will not happen but the mere fact that this kind of scenario is technically possible to some degree just serves as a reminder that underneath all this unfathomable online 2.0 magic you still need an IT infrastructure.

Part 3 (final part) of this thematic dissertation will discuss diffusion-based limitations related to online VS offline communications.

Transforming reality through corporate vision

Transforming reality through corporate vision

People are born and eventually come of age and pass away. This is not necessarily the case with corporate entities. Those strange forms of life may survive through one main aspect: the vision located at the core of their heart; one could say that the corporate vision is the soul of a corporation, the principle governing its behavior pattern adopted through various roles and situations.

A strong corporate vision is not based exclusively on reality: it transforms, creates reality... It may not care – or want to care... - that you perceive it as being disconnected from "facts on the ground"; acknowledging a perception that would differ from the corporate vision may be undesirable, since it may then prevent the corporate vision from becoming a reality. Hence a too strong focus or obsession with reality may not help a vision take shape and subsequently materialize. On the contrary, being "open" to a perception that is compatible with the corporate vision could help it become a reality; thus adopting a particular attitude of desiring to conform to the corporate vision can contribute in transforming the "real world". And then, the corporate vision will become real: "facts on the ground" will be aligned with said vision and will thus be perceived as more true/natural and less as an artificial perception based on a distorted viewpoint.

This process, which could be akin in some aspects to an organized form of systemic brainwash/propaganda, is not necessarily negative in its inherent nature, though: it strives to achieve perennity of the corporation through dissemination of its vision, i.e. "business culture", in order to convert, dominate, gain strength. Ethics of behavior is not particularly relevant in the case of a corporate entity (other than for image-building purposes) since its primary will is to never cease to exist; it will then take actions required to assure its ultimate sustainability and survival; the moral aspect of activities undertaken to this effect is a human element while corporations are not human, even though they are created and managed/controlled by humans (like, for example, an animal being directed by a human does not make said animal become a human itself). It could then be assumed that corporations are governed through different sets of rules than individuals.

A corporate entity that would never fail to regenerate and propagate its core vision could, in theory, "never die" and survive eternally.

eRelations @ C2-MTL

C2-MTL EVENT

C2-MTL Website : http://c2mtl.com/

We were invited at the C2-MTL event on Friday May 25th. We were lucky because the ticket price for this 3 day event was 3200$. It was an event centered around start-ups, commerce and creativity and how those ingredients work together to achieve success. Some major Canadian stars were present like Julie Payette (the astronaut) and Guy Laliberté (Cirque du Soleil).

My honest opinion was that it was all about the glitters, the stars, the marketing, the shows and the place more than about the content. I went to a conference called the Start Up Mindset and then to a Question Period with some panelists. Well Julie Payette didn't seem very comfortable especially about the internet or start-up themes and was referring to her experience in space with no apparent link to the context of the conference... In space it is difficult to be creative especially when the spaceship has a technical problem and a detailed list is telling you what to do!

The Start Up team with Tara Hunt, Marc Gingras and Sylvain Carle was interesting. 

You could see that these people had a hands-on experience about this kind of business and the very real risk of failure. Still this part of the conference ended too soon (20-25 min) leaving the audience asking for more!

In perspective we had a very nice day at the C2-MTL event but would like to have more people who deal with the harsh reality of an eBusiness, a start-up or a social media website. It is through collaboration that we can learn from our mistakes and exchange valuable information to get our project further!

Participation & Collaboration IS 2.0

I hear a lot about the technical aspects of upgrading an individual or an organization to a 2.0 level/state, etc. There are lots of features on social media tools, and how to use them for business purposes to strengthen a brand, etc. 

We are beginning to see more and more ads in main social networks and this trend does not show any signs of losing steam. What I fear is that a couple years ago we had intranets of a private nature, now social media is generally open to the public, and if the marketing aspect becomes too strong, perhaps individuals and organizations will go back to private networks and isolate their information stream from the general public in order to cut themselves from the "spamming", i.e. automation of "user-generated" content. 

That will be a blow to the internet in its inherent nature: transparent and free. But some would say the the Web is becoming more and more like TV: more ads & control, less freedom.

What I would like to see is the focus remaining on what seems like the most important aspects of social media: participation & collaboration. The interactive nature of social networks is best when genuine; let's not spoil that through automated content-generation processes and programmed functions. Or can it be done while keeping control over content quality? Interesting topic...