Conversations are markets?

Here are some observations and insights that were shared on social media this past fortnight. I call these Friday’s Finds.

@ayeletb: “I want to live in a world of possibilities and experiments; not a cookie cutter world, unless I am baking.“

“If you want to do something new, you have to stop doing something old. – Peter Drucker” – HT @reuvengorsht

@alanwbrown: “The cluetrain changed my life … seriously! So very interesting reading RT @johngoode: Is IoT waiting for Cluetrain?

Cluetrain states: The Market is the Conversation. Could that be reversed? The Conversation is the Market? If so, Cluetrain is what IoT is waiting for:

1. Individuals, Cities, Infrastructure and local authorities produce (and later, sell) IoT data.

2. Google, Amazon, Intel or similar builds a Meaning Engine: an IoT ingest warehouse. It publishes API’s for consuming data (for which it pays) and produces insight (which it sells).

I have no doubt the lawyers will do quite well from privacy, safeguarding and ownership matters.

Abstracts of Three Meta-Analysis Studies of Serious Games by Karl Kapp – via @downes

The most interesting result of this survey of meta-studies of serious games: “Learners learned less from simulation games than comparison instructional methods when the instruction the comparison group received as a substitute for the game actively engaged them in the learning experience (so activity, not game elements seems to increase the learning).” Which accords with what we know about learning.

@ForbesAmerican companies spend almost $14 billion annually on leadership development training.

Studies have found that adult learners in a lecture setting forget nearly 50% of what they learn within two weeks. And consider that the most highly trained leaders – CEOs – are often not able to translate their knowledge into experience. The Center for Creative Leadership found that 38% of new chief executives fail in their first 18 months on the job.

Learning lessons from successful KM projects.

I found myself reflecting last night, as I flew back to the UK, that perhaps the difference between the winners and those in second and third place lies not in structure nor in process, but in far more intangible areas, and that when collecting lessons from winners we need to look more at the softer aspects.[trust, relationships, rigour & control]

@plevey: “Intéressante expo Duchamp à Beaubourg [Paris]. Le “Nu descendant l’escalier” a *choqué*… les cubistes, en leur temps!”

nu descendant

Leave a Reply

  • (will not be published)