Is it a good idea to encourage ALL employees to trade in these markets? Should insiders and/or highly uninformed people be allowed to trade? Do they help or hurt the market?
It's good to make prediction markets optional, but provide encouragement. Some people do it for fun and entertainment, while others might be more interested in recognition and in some cases rewards. I think if employees were forced to trade in the markets they may become less accurate/reliable because interest would be lowered and time and energy put into the decision making would be less; trades would be careless, not thought through.
It's interesting the people running projects can make their own predictions about when a project will finish. However, from my experience, even if you are an insider (it's your project), you still don't know when you might hit a road block. Isn't that the problem? Plus for a corporate prediction market, isn't everyone kind of an insider for parts of the market (obviously some more than others).
So, yes, I think highly informed individuals (insiders) should be allowed to trade. They may have an advantage against other traders but I don't think it will skew the results needed from the prediction markets. "Collective intelligence" comes into play and the knowledge of the group is more accurate than that of the most intelligent person in that group.
Wednesday, April 22, 2009
Thursday, April 16, 2009
Threadless
In what other industries or areas would Threadless’ community-driven product development model work well? And not so well?
T-shirts and apparel is a great place for this Threadless type of community. It is a place for artists to submit their work, community members to comment and score the work and most importantly T-shirts and apparel (onsies and hoodies) can be printed cheaply. I think the creative/artist aspect of the business model as well as the low cost product set it up for success. Other factors are of course the top management team really working for the community.
I could see this kind of product development working for actual art work too. I'd be surprised if it hadn't already been tried. The shipping for this kind of thing might be more expensive because of the shape of the art work. Tubes for posters, or if artwork was actually framed or matted it would also be more expensive than balling up a Tshirt for distribution. However, the cost of printing the work might be cheaper than printing on Tshirts. The CCO commented that a lot of different industries have tried to use this business model, but have started their sites, with revenue and profit in mind of course, which is why he thinks they have failed. Threadless started as a community-based site and then rolled into a money making venture. The founders are grounded and don't forget that their community drives their success.
As the Threadless team is contemplating rolling out into the retail sector they are still focused on thier success factor, thier community. What would the Threadless community think about Threadless going retail?
T-shirts and apparel is a great place for this Threadless type of community. It is a place for artists to submit their work, community members to comment and score the work and most importantly T-shirts and apparel (onsies and hoodies) can be printed cheaply. I think the creative/artist aspect of the business model as well as the low cost product set it up for success. Other factors are of course the top management team really working for the community.
I could see this kind of product development working for actual art work too. I'd be surprised if it hadn't already been tried. The shipping for this kind of thing might be more expensive because of the shape of the art work. Tubes for posters, or if artwork was actually framed or matted it would also be more expensive than balling up a Tshirt for distribution. However, the cost of printing the work might be cheaper than printing on Tshirts. The CCO commented that a lot of different industries have tried to use this business model, but have started their sites, with revenue and profit in mind of course, which is why he thinks they have failed. Threadless started as a community-based site and then rolled into a money making venture. The founders are grounded and don't forget that their community drives their success.
As the Threadless team is contemplating rolling out into the retail sector they are still focused on thier success factor, thier community. What would the Threadless community think about Threadless going retail?
Thursday, April 9, 2009
Friendster and LinkedIn
Online social networks have become ubiquitous in the past few years. What forms of value do users get from these services and who is most likely to sign up on LinkedIn versus other sites?
Social networking sites provide users/members with the ability to create an online network of friends and/or colleagues. Users take advantage of this network in different ways. Some individuals like to be narcissistic and tell EVERYONE what they are doing all the time and post endless photos of themselves. Others use it to post pictures they can share with friends and keep in touch. In some examples people can find long lost friends and family. A friend's husband recently got in touch with his 20 year old son whom he had never met via Facebook and they are planning an actual meeting. So their new-found virtual relationship is actually leading to a son meeting a father he has never known. Other simple stories occur such as reuniting with childhood friends.
MySpace and Facebook and the "has been" Friendster are positioned for social networking. Other networking sites, like LinkedIn are positioned more for the career persons. Career persons can use LinkedIn to reconnect with old colleagues and they have a instantly updated address book to stay in touch with these colleagues. LinkedIn can also be used for business opportunities, either to "advertise" your service (basically make it known what you do), post a job position and look for job opportunities. LinkedIn in focuses on ones career attributes rather than personal attributes. It is basically a lot less fun that the social networking sites, but serves its purpose, creating a network of business professionals.
Social networking sites provide users/members with the ability to create an online network of friends and/or colleagues. Users take advantage of this network in different ways. Some individuals like to be narcissistic and tell EVERYONE what they are doing all the time and post endless photos of themselves. Others use it to post pictures they can share with friends and keep in touch. In some examples people can find long lost friends and family. A friend's husband recently got in touch with his 20 year old son whom he had never met via Facebook and they are planning an actual meeting. So their new-found virtual relationship is actually leading to a son meeting a father he has never known. Other simple stories occur such as reuniting with childhood friends.
MySpace and Facebook and the "has been" Friendster are positioned for social networking. Other networking sites, like LinkedIn are positioned more for the career persons. Career persons can use LinkedIn to reconnect with old colleagues and they have a instantly updated address book to stay in touch with these colleagues. LinkedIn can also be used for business opportunities, either to "advertise" your service (basically make it known what you do), post a job position and look for job opportunities. LinkedIn in focuses on ones career attributes rather than personal attributes. It is basically a lot less fun that the social networking sites, but serves its purpose, creating a network of business professionals.
Thursday, April 2, 2009
Wikipedia
How do Wikipedia’s processes for creating and modifying articles ever lead to high-quality results?
That is an extremely difficult question to answer, especially after reading exactly how the process works. I suppose the best answer came from the "Wiki's at Dresdner Kleinwort Wasserstein" case, a quote from the founder of Wikipedia, "The Wiki model is different because it gives you an incentive when you are writing. If you write something that annoys other people, it's just going to be deleted. So if you want your writing to survive you really have to strive to be cooperative and helpful."
This statement holds a lot of ground when it comes to a corporate wiki, or wiki's on a smaller scale than Wikipedia. The incredible amount of information on Wikipedia and the level of accuracy it maintains is astonishing. In some cases it holds a better reputation than Encyclopedia Britannica and overall, the accuracy of Wikipedia is not far behind Encyclopedia Britannica.
I suppose Wikipedia survives on a system of checks and balances. Yes, it is an open source to anyone, but questionable information is quickly brought to the forefront of the "organization" and immediately reviewed, a five-day process to "include or delete" information.
Wikipedia is a non-profit organization. It is difficult to comprehend the level of inforamtion and effort that has been put into such a project. Wikipedia also accepts donations. Donations used to be solicited on the homepage and I think the donations were in the $millions$. Not only do people donate time, but money. Wikipedia is a phenomenon.
That is an extremely difficult question to answer, especially after reading exactly how the process works. I suppose the best answer came from the "Wiki's at Dresdner Kleinwort Wasserstein" case, a quote from the founder of Wikipedia, "The Wiki model is different because it gives you an incentive when you are writing. If you write something that annoys other people, it's just going to be deleted. So if you want your writing to survive you really have to strive to be cooperative and helpful."
This statement holds a lot of ground when it comes to a corporate wiki, or wiki's on a smaller scale than Wikipedia. The incredible amount of information on Wikipedia and the level of accuracy it maintains is astonishing. In some cases it holds a better reputation than Encyclopedia Britannica and overall, the accuracy of Wikipedia is not far behind Encyclopedia Britannica.
I suppose Wikipedia survives on a system of checks and balances. Yes, it is an open source to anyone, but questionable information is quickly brought to the forefront of the "organization" and immediately reviewed, a five-day process to "include or delete" information.
Wikipedia is a non-profit organization. It is difficult to comprehend the level of inforamtion and effort that has been put into such a project. Wikipedia also accepts donations. Donations used to be solicited on the homepage and I think the donations were in the $millions$. Not only do people donate time, but money. Wikipedia is a phenomenon.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)