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.
Thursday, March 26, 2009
Blogs at Dresdner Kleinwort Wasserstein
What are the advantages and disadvantages of implementing internal versus external employee blogs in a corporate setting? Are there certain industries where one of these strategies makes more sense?
The obvious advantage of implementing internal vs. external blogs is that there are less resources required for editing of internal blogs as they are only internal and do not need to be prepared for an external audience. Internal blogs can be highly effective in disseminating information as well as bringing up issues and topics they may otherwise be ignored by other forms of internal corporate communications. However, corporations must also be aware of the fact that bloggers can also go off-topic, so blogs may become irrelevant and lead to unproductive employee behavior.
The benefits of external blogging include an innovative corporate culture and easy and fast global communication. Issues and topics that are not disseminated via traditional media forms can be discussed and discussed endlessly in blogs. However, corporate external blogging requires extensive resources. IT infrastructure needs to be developed and maintained and review for compliance for appropriate content need to be conducted. Additionally, if an adverse post gets released there can be dire ramifications.
Certain industries should probably not entertain the idea of external blogging, especially on any sort of large scale or unmonitored form. These industries could include finance, psychology, high-tech and government among others. These industries are highly regulated and any client information or company secrets that are released could have a highly negative impact and the benefits of disseminating instantaneous and spontaneous information would not outweigh the costs.
The obvious advantage of implementing internal vs. external blogs is that there are less resources required for editing of internal blogs as they are only internal and do not need to be prepared for an external audience. Internal blogs can be highly effective in disseminating information as well as bringing up issues and topics they may otherwise be ignored by other forms of internal corporate communications. However, corporations must also be aware of the fact that bloggers can also go off-topic, so blogs may become irrelevant and lead to unproductive employee behavior.
The benefits of external blogging include an innovative corporate culture and easy and fast global communication. Issues and topics that are not disseminated via traditional media forms can be discussed and discussed endlessly in blogs. However, corporate external blogging requires extensive resources. IT infrastructure needs to be developed and maintained and review for compliance for appropriate content need to be conducted. Additionally, if an adverse post gets released there can be dire ramifications.
Certain industries should probably not entertain the idea of external blogging, especially on any sort of large scale or unmonitored form. These industries could include finance, psychology, high-tech and government among others. These industries are highly regulated and any client information or company secrets that are released could have a highly negative impact and the benefits of disseminating instantaneous and spontaneous information would not outweigh the costs.
Thursday, March 19, 2009
iPod vs. Cell Phone: A Mobile Music Revolution
Has the digital music market irreversibly tipped in Apple’s favor?
Right now it appears this way. As the case domonstrates there have been major efforts to hone in on the digital music marketshare, but Apple just keeps gobbling up more and more of the market. In addition, Apple stayed ahead of the market by coming out with the iPhone, the first touchscreen phone that was actually successful, incorporating the full functionality of thier existing iPod and adding web capabilities among other things. If Apple would have decided not to enter the mobile phone market there would have been an open door for a new entrant, but Apple made the right move and are moving in the direction of Monopoly.
Another point to think about is who really wants to still enter the digital music market. Has anyone turned a profit? And what is the future of digital music. It's hard to tell where iPods and other devices are in the product cycle. If Apple remains innovative and continues to be the first-mover in the digital (and next era of music) music world they will be hard to beat.
Right now it appears this way. As the case domonstrates there have been major efforts to hone in on the digital music marketshare, but Apple just keeps gobbling up more and more of the market. In addition, Apple stayed ahead of the market by coming out with the iPhone, the first touchscreen phone that was actually successful, incorporating the full functionality of thier existing iPod and adding web capabilities among other things. If Apple would have decided not to enter the mobile phone market there would have been an open door for a new entrant, but Apple made the right move and are moving in the direction of Monopoly.
Another point to think about is who really wants to still enter the digital music market. Has anyone turned a profit? And what is the future of digital music. It's hard to tell where iPods and other devices are in the product cycle. If Apple remains innovative and continues to be the first-mover in the digital (and next era of music) music world they will be hard to beat.
Wednesday, February 25, 2009
Google Inc.
Is search a winner-take-all business?
At this point, 2009, past the date of this case, it would appear that search is a winner-take-all business. However, the industry has a lot of big names (Microsoft, Yahoo, and AOL) that are most likely not going to take a backseat while Google takes over the market. Competing with Google as a search engine, is not an easy task, but technology and computer engineering maintain continuous growth. I obviously would not now what the next "algorithm" or similar program could be to compete with Google's search engine. There are high barriers to entry in the market, but once a competitively successful framework for search is developed, there are low switching costs to consumers since search engines are free.
On the other hand, Google and the "search" market may end up like the web browser market. Internet Explorer took over the market, it's a free service and the is bundled with Microsoft's operating systems. Now that Google has Google Desktop, Gmail, Blogger, etc. it is easy to become completely dependent on Google as your one and ONLY search engine. It's right at your fingertips for any search you want. The major difference is that search engines are very profitable from their advertising. Web browsers would not attract a lot of competition. It's not a profitable industry (?), but search engines are profitable, so rivals can be expected in the future.
At this point, 2009, past the date of this case, it would appear that search is a winner-take-all business. However, the industry has a lot of big names (Microsoft, Yahoo, and AOL) that are most likely not going to take a backseat while Google takes over the market. Competing with Google as a search engine, is not an easy task, but technology and computer engineering maintain continuous growth. I obviously would not now what the next "algorithm" or similar program could be to compete with Google's search engine. There are high barriers to entry in the market, but once a competitively successful framework for search is developed, there are low switching costs to consumers since search engines are free.
On the other hand, Google and the "search" market may end up like the web browser market. Internet Explorer took over the market, it's a free service and the is bundled with Microsoft's operating systems. Now that Google has Google Desktop, Gmail, Blogger, etc. it is easy to become completely dependent on Google as your one and ONLY search engine. It's right at your fingertips for any search you want. The major difference is that search engines are very profitable from their advertising. Web browsers would not attract a lot of competition. It's not a profitable industry (?), but search engines are profitable, so rivals can be expected in the future.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)