I’m writing a post on Value Networks and Web 2.0, but since I’m collecting some information prior to posting it, I’d like to try posting a dummy article. Let’s see what happens.

I’ll be talking about Value Chains, Value Constellation and what I think Web 2.0 implies to businesses today.

Just my thoughts.

This dummy post will be removed once the real one is published. Then, more has to come

Abbandono una volta l’Inglese per tornare alla mia amata madre lingua, l’Italiano. In questi giorni il numero di lettori è sicuramente calato… quindi mi dedico a chi vorrà leggermi dalle Alpi alla Sicilia. Ho letto un articolo nel blog di Nicola Fiabane sui vari strumenti di “social networking” oggi più utilizzati. Anche se l’elenco non è esaustivo (e sono convinto che non volesse esserlo, limitandosi ad elencare i tools utilizzati dall’autore), sicuramente comprende siti/applicazioni che da quasi sconosciute all’inizio del 2006, sono divenute la punta di quell’Iceberg che è il cosiddetto web 2.0.

Io stesso nel mio precedente articolo ho annoverato tra i requisiti di questi strumenti la “massa critica”. Massa critica che però deve essere reale. E lo sottolineo. Perchè noto assai spesso che queste reti sociali sono fatte di collegamenti tra persone che non si sono nemmeno mai scambiate una parola (con qualsiasi mezzo). C’è tanta massa che però non conta! Io stesso su Linkedin ho qualcosa come 80 connessioni. Ma di quegli 80 almeno una ventina sono persone che ho a mala pena incontrato e che quindi non posso ritenere effettivamente parte della mia massa.

Giro la questione. Linkedin si poggia su un’enorme catena di S.Antonio mondiale. Io ho contatti con 10 persone e ciascuna di esse a contatti con altre 10 persone (per semplicità assumiamo che siano tutte diverse e non ci siano contatti comuni). Bhè allora io posso dire di avere a portata di clic 110 esseri umani. E così via… Ha senso in uno strumento chiuso, che ha tutti i suoi limiti nell’esserlo (non facile gestione, regole decise dal proprietario del sito, etc etc), ha senso per lo scopo di Linkedin.

Ma ha senso una massa di 110 persone su Facebook o Twitter, se è fatta come quella di Linkedin? Secondo me la risposta è il classico “it depends”, dipende dall’uso che se ne vuole fare. Per me Facebook/Twitter servono per tenermi in contatto con amici più o meno lontani. Non mi serve per questioni di affari e di conseguenza se anche non so quel che sta facendo ora un artigiano australiano che dorme quando io sono sveglio, bhè non è poi un grande problema.

In these days, following some friends, I’ve started using and testing tools like twitter and tumblr, as well as signin in Facebook. I knew about them since months but before I haven’t found the stimulus to try them.

I do believe that all these apps where we all can become publishers of content, require a specific factor to become relevant to each one of us. The critical mass. One of the success factor of eBay, that allow it to become a market killer although no being the first e-auction service launched, has been the user rating system. This is an earlier exemple of what this web 2.0 is all about and is sustained by the fact of having a critical mass of users and therefore judgers. You still can sell and buy in eBay if you are a newbe to it, but, expecially if you want to promote your items, it is really clear that who don’t know you would like to have information prior to place an order and send mony.

You need the critical mass behind. But how can you get it? Answers can be multiple and the various web tools that are emerging today allow you to obtain it in an easier wey (for exemple the various feed aggregator services).

On the other way you need to gain respect from the users. It may then mean posting something interesting in your blog, having an interesting profile in your Linkedin account. That makes the difference from being a writer or a contributor on the web.

I’ll get back on this subject later on

Although someone states that as of today we are living in a “flat” world (see Thomas Friedman’s The World is Flat), in my personal opinion we should still consider it partially “rounded”.

The flat world is the earth where no boundaries are anymore present: where there are no more readers and authors but only contributors, where you can handle a job for someone else even if you live in another continent, where universal collaboration is the new motto.

Is it really this way? I wonder if this view is mainly valid for the English speaking countries. Among all things, anyone should recognize that the language IS the main barrier that we all face in the world. You can outsource the maintenance of your software to anyone in India, but if the application is written in Italian? Well, then you need to interpose a filter between the two, the Italian owner and the Indian outsourcer.

And it means a lot to me! It means that the barrier is still in place! And the filter is a way to bypass it, like an undunnel bored to go beyond the obstacle.

Moreover, we keep hearing about the Web 2.0, but many of those who claim it, do not even know what it really is. Web 2.0 is much more than the Twitters, the Tumblrs and the Flickrs. Is a new way of behaving in the World. This is the real force that put all of us on the same level, where no cultural difference is relevant and where we chickens can all express ourselves and give our own little contribution.

Again, Web 2.0, are we really using it? I think we are yet in an early innovators phase, where just a few people uses it and the majority do not even know of its exsistence. For sure Web 2.0 won’t change much of our lifestyles… we’ll keep meeting with friends, having dinners and going on holiday. But we’ll have new ways for doing it! I will be able to share my day with people living far away from me, choose restaurants based on the location I’m searching and the value given by users, and similarly for my vacations…

To summarize, to me the positive side of this globalization (because this is what it is all about) is that we people will have the power to judge and vote without any influence from the major forces that today are present (see politicians, journalists, preachers, etc). It will be a world of do-it-yourself-by-sharing-with-others, where we will gain more power in deciding what to do as we will have more information to evaluate it properly.

Moreover, the world will tend to become more similar to a flat plate overtime, but will never stop having its rounded corners. Not all boundaries will be abolished, not all limitations will be cancelled.

Think about this. I’m Italian, I normally speak Italian (of course), but to make this posting readable by foreingers I had to write it in English. Isn’t this yet a barrier to a fully flat world?