Wikinomics

Wikinomics to me was an interesting book to read, because I had not heard of the term before, although I had thought of such a business model. Before I get started with the book review and thoughts on it, I'd like to stress out, that I am not a great fan of WikiPedia (in this review also referred to as WP) and using it as a great example for collaboration. It is true, that I (and I guess the majority of internet users) use WikiPedia on a daily basis, but taking WikiPedia's operating system to be a business model (or role-model for everything) raises many negative outcomes to my mind. The majority of those negative outcomes consists of (in my mind "facts") situations, where peers are not equal in terms of knowledge, there is no common goal between them and there is a lack of motivation (therefore outcome quality) because of no monetary or social (e.g. fame) for efforts made with a project using WP model. Getting ahead of myself, I revalued my convictions on the subject as Wicinomics made it clear(er) to me, that the old business models cannot be viable soon any more.

The Perfect Storm to me was not a surprising chapter as I and I guess all of the students in IT-studies see the web as the number one (and maybe the only) social ground today and tomorrow. Therefore I wouldn't call the concept of web as a new realm (internet as the sole ground for communication and business etc.) but rather an inevitability that has happened. The most important notion however is (and I agree) that the people (the youth) who have grown up collaborating over the web, wont simply dump that habit when entering the work-force, but rather insists on taking the elements of on-line collaboration to the workplace (and ways of working).

The Peer Pioneers as expected placed a strong favouritism on WikiPedia and Linux. The fact the IBM adopted Linux as their main operating system years ago, was not new to me, but it was interesting to read, what the company thought and experienced on the subject while the switch was made and lived through. I have to agree with the authors, that in the case of WikiPedia, it is simply astonishing how fast knowledge on a fresh topic can be created, argued over and therefore optimized to be more truthful. I myself used WikiPedia to follow through Georgia-Russia war, which in Estonia's media sphere was too pro-Georgia and anti-Russia (as always). The statement at the end of the chapter (Peer production is here to stay) is a bold, but true one, as we can see how in the last ten years or so there has been a shift from enjoying the salary to enjoying the work. And when you enjoy your work, you do not deal with it from 9 to 5, but rather constantly (in this case, it is even somewhat wrong to call it work, rather field of interest).

Ideagoras introduced for the first time when reading Wicinomics strong examples of peer production that I had not heard before. Examples of scientist working in InnoCentive, the widespread use of freelance researchers by P&G and so forth were the ones, I had not or event thought of before. The idea of sharing copyright (more precisely patentable) information over web-based platforms is fascinating. And I think the authors made quite clear the benefits waiting for all the firms that adapt this kind of peer-to-peer sharing (decrease of R&D costs, increase of innovation).

The Prosumers was the chapter, were the authors truly revealed their Nostradamus-like capabilities. On page 134 (and before) there is a discussion what should (the year under discussion is 2006 I presume) do with user-iniatied supplements to it's hardware product iPod. At that time (and even today) a lot of techie-users upgraded their iPods firmware, only to widen the capabilities of the musicplayer. Apple on the other hand saw it as an infringement of the copyright guarding it's products. It was noted by the authors, that although Apple did not legally react to the techies dealing with things like that, they should have lauded this kind of user activity and implement it on their R&D. It is now clear that in some way Apple has done it, with the introduction of iPhone and it's App Store, which offers easy steps for anybody to create software, thus raising the products capabilities, while gaining revenue (as Apple too). It is one of the examples were former consumers are now producers and consumers altogether, and the producer part can only increase from now one, further implementing the role of a company as a provider of infrastructure, leaving the content to it's user base (Second Life, Ning.com).

The New Alexandrians focused a great deal on the Humane Genome Project, taking parallels from one of the worlds scientifically fruitful era (the era of Alexander the Great). It was repeatedly stressed that companies have only to gain from sharing information, even it the information is patentable and therefore easily to be profiteered from. The key factor fighting the latter is the inevitable situation - the more participants working on a common goal the more positive outcome is there for everybody. One could say that "too many cooks spoil the broth" but if the making of the product (broth) is structuralised, equal amongst the makers and common-goaled, then the difficulties relating to peer-productions are overcome by the fastness and overall acceptability of the outcome.

Platforms for Participation introduced a wide set of different user-managed platforms that are available to us today. To take an example - I use different social platforms (social networks) to communicate with my friends, I use different collaboration platforms (web-based office utilities) to co-work with my co-students and  I use different publication platforms to distribute my thoughts on things and to lead communities I am a leader to. The authors focused on this subject to the rhetorical battle between conventional wisdom vs. innovative economy, when it comes to being opened in terms of IP (e.g. free software). I think they hit the nails head with that comparison, as it is a widespread fear, that when you distribute your IP using open-source (nonmarket) principles, you only loose and gain nothing. But as described on Wicinomics, you do gain, by expanding the workforce (world wide peer production) without monetary increases, re-accelerate your company's R&D outcome and gain information from your customers (prosumers) to better evolve your product.


The Global Plant Floor focused a great deal on possibilities of peer production, now talking industrially. The example of Lifan was quite troubling to be, as Lifan is a company, who gain success by copying Japanese motor-cycles Yamaha, Suzuki etc.So is it ethical to praise a company, who's success is based on stealing? Of course we know Lifan is successful. But it isn't very hard to be a "revenue-star" in an economy like China, where labor is cheap and governmental control over companies (pollution, labor-politics) is low. Boeing situation isn't a better example - building air-planes like LEGOs is innovative at start, but we do not comprehend yet, what it will do to the companies success in the long terms. I do fear, that Boeing's Japanese suppliers will soon start to develop their own airplanes, again copying main schemes from Boeing, who is being innovative open. I as a customer would be please - more competition is better. But as a investor? I simply wouldn't invest in Boeing.

The Wiki Workplace had a terrific example with Geek Squad. When reading the text, I simply imagined the great company and how great would I feel working there. Geek Squad leader Stephens revelation about "forcing the use of wikis vs. bottom-to-management communication (Battlefield 2 online multiplayer game as a communication channel - GREAT :))" was inspiring to read. I myself have lived through repeatedly new "innovative communication channels" which have been forced on me, in different companies. I do believe that managers cannot decide, how their employees communicate in work-terms. Managers can only offer platforms, of which employees choose the best or most suitable for them. 

Collaborative Minds introduced to the biggest problem facing internet today: old media conglomerates trying to control the content of the web, by offering many authoritative control mechanisms against home user. I do admit piracy is a big problem, but I personally don't consume music at all. I listen to it in concerts or over radio, but that's it. In terms of movies, I go to cinemas (when younger, I did download over torrents, but not anymore, mainly because of the lack of time) and software - I really don't have much software on my PC, because I use company's or school's laptops. So forcing some sort of revenue model over the internet users is not only against innovation, as Tapscott says, but against my human rights.

Enterprise 2.0 to me is all of the above. But the main idea is that managers should embrace the ongoing new. Enterprise as a form is itself a "new-ity" - tendencies to stabilize one's environment, control it's consumers, employees are against the spirit of free market.


Review based on "Wikinomics" by Don Tapscott & Anthony D. Williams 2008.