«
»

Opportunity ’09: micro-messaging based collaboration

A ripe red jalapeño cut open to show the seeds

Image via Wikipedia

My focus heading into 2009 is micro-messaging based collaboration. From where I sit I think it will have a profound effect on the way we organize resources to get things done and will mark a fundamental shift in shape of the organizations and systems of our future.

Some key features of this are:

  • Broadly accessibile: easy (web-based), distributed (available in any site), portable (sms compatible)
  • Action oriented: every interaction is a contribution, every contribution builds relationship
  • Interest driven: fluidly find, follow, and do things that *are* interesting at every moment

I’m tackling this through two tracks:

  • The Social Venture Commons (SVC): open-source micro-messaging based collaboration platform (non-profit/charitable)
  • 3P Launch Co (3PL): SVC based tool and property developer (for-profit)

Within those there are 4 core components that I already see emerging from the SVC platform:

  • application to formal organizations that are incorporating a degree of peer-production (VenTwits)
  • application to groups as a lightweight rapid action support system (GroupTwits)
  • application to tasks for seamless real-time management
  • personal context engine (semantic history)

The core platform is currently in development and I’m working on some founding partnerships for the SVC to support innovation integration, social tech incubation and organizational capacity. For the for-profit arm we are working to launch our first property (beta) by February.

In January I am seeking a seed round of up to $250,000 invested as either charitable donation (into SVC) or as a convertible debenture into 3PL (also need a new name). The structure being resolved for 3PL will include substantial equity participation for SVC and for founding collaborators in 3PL. Further equity/revenue participation will  be designed into each tool/property created in 3PL to further support peer-production.

At the core of all of this is this notion of peer-produced organizations. We’re off to a great start thanks to huge contributions by Joseph Dee and Matt Nish-Lapidus and there are already a handful of others starting to make their mark in this to. While I’m not stupid enough to think this is going to be easy or that there is any guarantee of success by conventional measures, everything in my experience and my body tells me that we are hitting on something that has the potential to make profound change and we’re going to have a heck of a great ride trying.

There’s never been a better time to make change – and never been a time where we as global citizens are as much in need. Giddyup!

Reblog this post [with Zemanta]

Tags: , ,

This entry was posted on Friday, January 2nd, 2009 at 2:37 pm and is filed under Ventures. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.

  • Michael,
    There is another key element to a good venture, which is the customer. I see here that you are looking for cash, have you considered the people that you are planning to help with the technology you are building? If there is enough of a problem, they may be willing to pay for consulting to build the solution or glue pieces together that would start resolving the issue they have.
    And I would say that these days even investors will require that to consider the investment. I am just curious where you stand on this side. Are customers also lined up through peer process?
  • I would not be surprised if the first customers were the original creators themselves.

    The first round of capital (e.g. funding, donation) will help take SVC and 3PL to a state where the platform can be used by the broader venture community...
  • The money I'm raising now is more what I call love money - people that trust
    in and want to support me. The purpose of the round is to be able to quicken
    the pace of development. The next round I definitely see as likely to
    heavily involve users. As for revenue/customers - I want to first see how it
    used and what happens with before we determine the most appropriate revenue
    streams.
  • The money I'm raising now is more what I call love money - people that trust
    in and want to support me. The purpose of the round is to be able to quicken
    the pace of development. The next round I definitely see as likely to
    heavily involve users. As for revenue/customers - I want to first see how it
    used and what happens with before we determine the most appropriate revenue
    streams.
  • - "Action oriented": love the focus on creating value at any size. Finding a way to value and compensate for "micro-interactions", kind of a standard micropayments for work, would be interesting.
    - Small question on "Interest driven": is the goal more about empowering the user to find all the projects they should be working on, or for the projects to find all the users that would be interested? Is it more from the contributor or the project perspective, or is it a simple answer of needing both filters?

    The most interesting part is the intersection of technology and culture, in creating the technological platforms for cultural / organizational change. What SVC "competes" against is any way to create organizations or projects, and given the more fluid nature of how we band to together we create value not only do we need new tools, but also new "rules" for interaction. It's fun creating value on the edge :)
  • Taylor, thanks again. You're right about what we are competing with - we're building another additive/alternative to org/projec collaboration that's based on an emergent culture of collaboration enabled (and influenced) by micro-message interactions. Culture is a big piece in this thing and something I think we really have to pay attention to.

    As for the finding focus - I think it has to be both ways but the finding support I think needs to first be removing barriers to the finding process. In my experience, things that help us find what we are looking for (other than simpky supporting the search) are disappointing. It's an issue of semantics being outmatched by context and momentary interest. With the people I follow on twitter for example there is no shortage of interesting things I am exposed to. At the beginning, the track feature helped me find some followers I didn't know in different areas. Now I find it just through wherever I'm interested enough to click to in my tweetsream. Discovery as the new cocaine presentation by the mrtweet folks really gets at some of this. The trick is putting it in practice and I think twitter did a great job on that end too - essentially by doing less.

    Finally as for the micro-payments, I do think there could be some very good applications for this but am also hesitant about how having the payment functionality might actually change the culture around the interaction. Culture, tone, quality of interaction changes when people are being motivated by financial gain. Financial gain should follow v lead interaction/contributions. Which interestingly loops back to the venture value share conversation on the other post.

    Great fun - thanks!
  • Awesome. We've talked about competing crowdsourcing platforms in other discussions: I think the reason most emerging collaborative platform models emphasize the "destination" or "continued involvement" model is because that is the model of customer engagement we're familiar with, and because that's how the crowdsourcing providers get paid.

    The SVC model is based on a different culture: contribute and stay in or get out, but contribute.

    Imagine how the organization model would be different if all interactions were contributions, if every interaction created value rather than allocated value. Is it possible to reduce the need / ability to dilute contributions with politicing, bureaucracy, et. al.?

    With that lens, good point around micro-payments; micro-payments for micro-interactions and micro-creations of value would focus the system on the small rather than the large; in the end we're all guided by the incentive systems we live in. Or, and I believe SVC is an example of this, we create new incentive systems :)
  • 1. I think Fred Wilson and maybe others (Umair has hinted at this) have made points around the idea of "user-owned" software/companies. Essentially that's what we're talking about here. ALL of us involved in this project are excited about it because WE WANT TO USE IT. That is: if it existed already, we'd be using it like crazy and would be blown away by the opportunity to own a piece of it through the contributions or "karma" we put into it. For software/orgs with simple network f/x, we know theoretically that each added user contributes value to the whole. We're just formalizing that.

    2. I like the idea of using a simple karma system that, at a certain point, vests in terms of equity/warrants/whatever. I like the Hacker News karma system. Haven't played with StockTwits much, don't know if they have implemented something like that yet.

    3. Even in a REALLY high quality community that's of medium scale (e.g. Hacker News), there is still a fair amount of people patting each other on the back about things for which they have no business sharing opinions. Discuss.

    ;-)
  • I could use it every single day. I would outsource my life using it. Seriously.

    Imagine if everyone outsourced their life to the point where our personal lives to access the same economies of scale that companies create.
  • reblogged
  • thanks!
  • the thing is - we can quickly easily scale bigger than the biggest
    corporation and scale can happen around a single action and the disapate
    just as quickly. kool-aid or not... this is a going to be crazy. btw...
    when are you doing your sxsw panel?
  • SXSW date is still being scheduled, preliminary date is Sunday, March 15th...
  • Hmmm... maybe I should go. We'll be live x2.
  • can you say a little more about 3? not sure I'm following.
  • I was trying to respond to Taylor's phrase "if all interactions were contributions"

    Some "contritbutions" won't be positive, they'll be "negative" or otherwise objectively "bad advice" or "wrong."

    I think that the benevolent dictator/uberusers will probably figure this stuff out easily, though.
  • If the community is incented to filter out or eliminate the unnecessary "patting on the back", they will.
  • ah... i see... i'm so looking forward to being able to actually use this and
    seeing what happens.
  • You sir are on fire - love your insights and framing -> your CONTRIBUTIONS!
  • I think its sounding better and better. Glad to be following along :)
  • and thanks to you for following!
blog comments powered by Disqus