Over the last few days, I've been trend-hunting -- political trends and technology trends. And picked up Arianna Huffington's note on the "All for good" initiative. To me, the potential impact of this site is huge, not only is it a demonstrator of how the grassroots can serve and be served. But, it also shapes how the governed and the governors interact.

As our notion of goverment and governance transforms, the concept of community widens in scope and participatory democracy becomes more practical. I also wonder what the concept of the nation-state will be like in 2020. Anyway, what is also fascinating at this point in time is watching technology develop against the backdrop of business and political challenges -- we are witnessing continuous innovation. This innovation seems to be backed up political will in the US, consider a recent remark by the newly appointed US Federal CTO Aneesh Chopra “My job is to serve as the innovation platform champion in addressing private market opportunities in support of public priorities” (see this link and my Norwegian language post on my own aspirations for the Norwegian context).

Switching tracks for just a second: I picked up this TEDtalks speech by the prolific and eclectic Ray Kurzweil, as he presented the background for establishing the Singularity University. The university, captures my own sense for the need for inter-disciplinary thinking and the need for our leaders - public service and commerce - to prepare for the digital society. And we need to expect more from our leaders (for the politicians I still these that I posed at the end of this post) . To get a sense of the rate of development watch V Ramachandran's mind-boggling lecture of the abilities of the brain (the last 5 mins will surprise you). Research like this is well on its way to removing barriers of prejudice and of what is possible and what is not.

And as technology and science provide a basis for a digital society, we must educate at all levels of society -- and I hope our effort is strong for the grassroots. Afterall, it is at the grassroots where the problems and opportunities are experienced. It is at the grassroots we can hope to harness the mental and physical abilities in large numbers. Where also these large numbers can bring about the change and stimulate innovation. If crowdsourcing can work for Innocentive, why can't it work for communities? Which is why I am optimistic of what "All for good" and similar sites can inspire.

The browser is the new desktop! Last september, I commented Google's launch of Chrome with thoughts along those lines. Having watched the demo of Google Wave yesterday, I am even more convinced that the browser is the new desktop (screenshots from 7:40 into the video)

For our digital society, this development brings the power of the web and computing closer to the masses - consumers at all levels of society. The ubiquity of the mobile phone with built-in browsers paves the way for broadbased access to the masses. Admittedly, it will be a while before the phones morph to mobile internet devices (MIDs), but the potential is definitely there. And soon the MID will be the new PC.

It is tempting to view Wave as Google's "reply" to Microsoft's Bing and Vine services. And while its a bit hard to nail these Microsoft services, I suspect Wave will catalyse Redmond in "bringing it together".

Aside: Interestingly Google is copying Microsoft's market approach - i.e. targetting the developer community. But with a big difference, they are making this product Open Source. In my mind, I can see that this competition is going to benefit everyone... except probably the manipulators and lobbyist. Transparency and mass-participation are getting powerful tools!

I'm confident that the difficult challenges with technology will be solved as the masses put these technologies to use in regular tasks at work and in social contexts -- to support their work and improve their lives. The developments in Wave and Vine definitely encourage sharing of knowledge and co-creation. Thus promoting crowdsourcing as a means of value-creation and
innovation. I revisted the Harvard Business review article "Disruptive innovation for social change" by Clayton Christensen that I blogged here.

I am reminded once again that disruption is continuous -- happening as we speak; that there is no such thing as a revolution, just rapid evolution.

Us Now is definitely a film to watch for those of us interested in the way grassroots movements are exploiting collaborative technologies. Director Ivo Gomley has manged to capture many aspects and examples in the documentary. Also thanks to Sermo for making this happen.

After nearly 4 years of blogging on the topic of the Digital Society -- often times meandering out on to my technology-jaunts -- I have for the first time got a sense of this phenomenon -- Society 2.0 or "deep democracy" -- taking root. I could hardly contain my excitement watching the different examples. Was also busy tweeting to capture my thoughts for later blogging (some tweets in Norwegian).

The debate that followed the screening was not really a debate -- the speakers were more or less in agreement on most issues. Which is just fine. We got some "confirmation to proceed"; what is needed now is to sustain the level of discussion and find ways to uncover the real issues in making Society 2.0 happen. The general election in Sept this year is very tempting to try out some ideas to get the issue up on the table. Anyone out there with ideas?

In earlier posts, I talked about the need to get law-makers and businesses to get together. Watching the film today, I am convinced we must hurry if we are to give ourselves time to evolve our societies and influence the global world order over the next 10-20 years. I would like to see a multi-discplinary think-tank (TT) formed; comprising political scientists, social scientists, computer scientists and business organisations to name a few players. This TT should take no more than 6-9 months to propose a long-term approach (say 4-5 years) to revise some laws and policies for eg in areas like education, healthcare, civil law, welfare and employment. Make changes that are more favourable to this "deep democracy" we want to happen. This will not be a revolution, but a very fast evolution.

In earlier posts I talked about Norway as a test-bed for creating services for the digital world. I'm not quite sure right now. It appears that maybe Norway does not have "enough pain" to want to stretch itself to experiment with participative decision-making. I guess the old adage "If it ain't broke, don't fix it" holds true. However, I'm not giving up the thought completely. Two areas I'd love to see more work is in Education adn Health care.

Watch this space...

The blogosphere is alive with Microsoft's patent (link) for pay-as-you-go hardware services. There are a number of patents being filed and awarded and Microsoft has its fair share. What makes this different? I have two thoughts on this event relevance and the innovation process.

Relevance - Microsoft is a software ecosystem company (Cusamano of MIT calls it a platform company - which I feel is a narrow definition). Microsoft has built a formidable partner network that it depends on. So this patent appears to be more of a message to their partners (and the market) that the entire ecosystem needs to be renewed to take part in the software-as-a-service (SaaS) wave. It is interesting, that hardware vendors that are factored into the SaaS equation., as hardware players are often times ignored when discussing the SaaS wave. Could this spark a wave of more cloud-infrastructure providers? and not just the likes of Amazon and Google? Providers who would be enticed to provide SaaS platforms like Azure which was launched earlier this year. I recall Microsoft attempting a pay-as-you-go subscription model for its enterprise software sometime in 2002-2003. The model and the billing engine was in place but not rolled out. I guess CIOs were not quite ready to budget for software as a billed service - it was just too unpredictable. But, maybe now that PUPM ("per user per month") is commonplace, CIOs maybe more willing to discuss this. It will be interesting to see how Green IT, the economic downturn and other events and marketing hype shape this developement.

Innovation process - Microsoft has been a great follower and superb software business operator but not often considered as an innovator. I do not wish to debate what constitutes innovation and what does not, however I believe that innovation in product companies (eg Apple) is different from platform companies (Cisco) and is different from ecosystem companies (Microsoft). And that Microsoft is not doing enough to innovate. However, what is interesting about this patent is that Microsoft filed for patent in June 2007, and would have probably have been working on it for at least a year before that - and must have battled for at least a few months before that to secure funding. So we are talking about an "idea to patent" cycle of 2-3 years. And the hard part is still to come - to make the idea viable and pay off! There are many questions that need to be answered like how to secure intellectual property rights, how to fund open innovation, how to capitalise on investments in research and my favourite - how do we calibrate or overhaul our education system so that we can think and act "glocal".

The next year is going to show us many examples of innovations in the SaaS space. I believe this will drive service-based businesses to greater heights. Programming the web is getting real. And consumer/citizen-centered design will be the dominant way to create services.

Happy new year!

Last week, on my blog on Digital wellbeing I posted about Medical Tourism as the next level of outsourcing. Having just returned from a trip to India, I could see how medical services were being increasingly commercialised and could relate to the analyses about the "business potential" of medical tourism.

Yesterday, I got to learn of a completely new area of outsourcing -- lifestyle outsourcing (my term). Calling this virtual gaming gold, this BBC article explains how gaming is becoming a means of livelihood for people in the developing world. Developing skills by playing games and then offering services to lift other players' skills to the next level is a source of income for many. Selling virtual goods for real money is another source of income.

"Neccessity is the mother of invention" is an old saying; the internet era will show us creative solutions to address the challenges of poverty.... at least this is what I hope for.

Meanwhile, I am studying the potential of teaching/tutoring outsourcing, and see some creative businesses like HeyMath and EduComp have already taken the service+software business model to the education space. The US' No Child Left Behind act is also driving the business opportunity.

Services without boundaries is here to stay ... Exploring new frontiers have always had an element of lawlessness. At some stage we will need rules and regulations to allow serious players to act. What can - or should - government and trade organisations do? or should the "market" decide? Standardisation has a significant role to play here.

In the Dec. 2006 issue of the Harvard Business Review, Clayton Christensen and others present "Disruptive Innovation for Social Change". The article leverages Christensen's "disruptive innovation" model to make some interesting observations and examples to explain the phenomenon of the Digital Society (my term, not theirs). Linking it to "innovation" is not unexpected, but hardly needed as far as I can tell from their 5 distinct characteristics (see abstract below). So while we may probably end up hearing a lot about "catalytic innovation" I hope the article will help channel energies in driving societal change.

My own take on the article is that there are some good points to help bring government and business together. And while it comes across as more of an "what is"-explanatory note; I am looking for the "how to". I sense that welfare-based societies like those of Northern Europe, in particular the Nordics or Canada have an advantage. Their earlier investments in societal infrastructure, can be digitized to lead the next wave of civilisation (Google "neotechnic" & "third wave"). Further, I think multi-national firms can be great catalysts, by involving their employees in this innovation. After all, employees are also citizens of of their (local) societies....

Abstract of the HBR article below (the highlights are my own).

Countries, organizations, and individuals around the globe spend aggressively to solve social problems, but these efforts often fail to deliver. Misdirected investment is the primary reason for that failure. Most of the money earmarked for social initiatives goes to organizations that are structured to support specific groups of recipients, often with sophisticated solutions. Such organizations rarely reach the broader populations that could be served by simpler alternatives. There is, however, an effective way to get to those underserved populations. The authors call it "catalytic innovation." Based on Clayton Christensen's disruptive-innovation model, catalytic innovations challenge organizational incumbents by offering simpler, good-enough solutions aimed at underserved groups. Unlike disruptive innovations, though, catalytic innovations are focused on creating social change. Catalytic innovators are defined by five distinct qualities. First, they create social change through scaling and replication. Second, they meet a need that is either overserved (that is, the existing solution is more complex than necessary for many people) or not served at all. Third, the products and services they offer are simpler and cheaper than alternatives, but recipients view them as good enough. Fourth, they bring in resources in ways that initially seem unattractive to incumbents. And fifth, they are often ignored, put down, or even discouraged by existing organizations, which don't see the catalytic innovators' solutions as viable.

As the authors show through examples in health care, education, and economic development, both nonprofit and for-profit groups are finding ways to create catalytic innovation that drives social change. The HBR Spotlight on Making a Real Difference explores a pair of vexing questions: How should executives think about corporate social responsibility? and Why is it that the billions of dollars invested in social sector institutions haven't begun to solve our basic problems? Both articles have smart, original things to say about how business leaders can make a real difference. A company that aligns its strategy with its CSR to invest in disruptive social sector innovations might change the world.