by Dan Robles on 07/11/2010
Data are the raw material of the next economic paradigm. Data, information, knowledge, innovation, and wisdom are all related; but it all starts with data. In order to produce anything valuable in the domain of social capitalism, the creation and formation of data is hypercritical. The better the data, the better the information, knowledge, innovation, wisdom and culture that will follow. Each stage of transformation along the chain reaction from “data” to “culture” is an opportunity for both great value creation AND astonishing corruption.
Data are Kings:
Yet data are often collected and processed with very little vetting. We all know that information is most easily spun from the data collection process. We know that bad knowledge comes from bad information, and we know that unsuccessful innovation comes from inappropriate knowledge. Obviously, to be an unwise leader is to be unimaginative leader. A failed culture creates failed data…and the circle completes itself.
Data are an asset:
On the other hand, the ability to collect data is often the most tangible intellectual property that an organization can hold. It is easy to copy a patent but difficult to recreate the system that generates patents. Excellent data results in excellent technology from the moon landings to the Internet. The trick is that all assets must contain two components; a quantity and a quality. This means that some rigor is needed in the data collection process. When data are produced, the quantity is the “measurement” but the quality is the certainty or uncertainty that what is being measured is actually what is being observed.
Data Relationships
Phenomena such as art, politics, emotions, capital markets, and spirituality are difficult to measure because the item being observed exists as a function of the observer’s interaction with it. Still, the quality of the data includes the certainty that all data were measured the same way AND some disclosure of the uncertainty that remains. This is an area of great omission and where severe problems arise especially where the most people rely on the data to make decisions. The term “comparing apples to oranges” is a real problem and it is particularly elusive at very early and highly incremental stages of ideation.
Mouse goes squeak:
Often the people involved with the intensely small or incremental portion of the data design and collection process are the least powerful people in the supply chain. Often they have the least say in how the data is analyzed and certainly have no visibility of what happens upstream. It is tragically amusing that the dominant characteristic of most hierarchies is that each level of management “filters” the data from lower levels and delivers it to the next level where actions are authorized.
The Culture of Data
Social media is entering the human culture at an incredible rate. Social media has also shown us what happens when the good data becomes the important information, which increases knowledge among the most people leading to increasingly effective innovation and changing the conventional wisdom about an increasing diversity of subjects. Social Capitalism will replace Market Capitalism simply because the culture is superior.
Hint: Culture Produces The Data.
![[Slashdot]](http://slashdot.org/favicon.ico)
![[Digg]](http://digg.com/favicon.ico)
![[Reddit]](http://reddit.com/favicon.ico)
![[del.icio.us]](http://images.del.icio.us/static/img/delicious.small.gif)
![[Facebook]](http://www.facebook.com/favicon.ico)
![[Technorati]](http://technorati.com/favicon.ico)
![[Google]](http://www.google.com/favicon.ico)
![[StumbleUpon]](http://www.stumbleupon.com/favicon.ico)
by Jay Deragon on 07/02/2010
by Jay Deragon on 07/01/2010
There is a big difference between doing and knowing what to do. The difference separates the winners from the losers.
A lot of people and organizations are using social media because everyone is “doing it”. But doing it and knowing what to do with it are two totally different things.
If you do what other people do it becomes one big copy movement. Copying is repeating something somebody or everybody else does and then getting what everybody else gets, really nothing new.
You can repeat what someone else says yet not fully understanding the value of what they said. You can mimic what others do but it doesn’t mean you are mimicking what they know. Knowing something is reflected by how well you do that which you know. Doing something you don’t know is reflected by the poor results of what you do. All this being said do you follow what people do or what people know?
Knowing is an Art & Science
Gaining knowledge about anything and understanding how to apply that knowledge takes time and more importantly learning. Copying isn’t learning anything.
The art of learning is acquiring new knowledge, behaviors, skills, values, preferences or understanding, and may involve synthesizing different types of information. Progress over time tends to follow learning curves. Learning can also be gained from observation and the study of what is happening as a result of the underlying developments gained from observation.
The art of learning is knowing what to do with what knowledge you’ve gained. The science of knowing what to do comes from applying new knowledge to the creation of new value, for you and others to use. Knowledge is the essence of creating new value, copying doesn’t create new value it just follows and copies old value.
Doing vs. Knowing Social Media
Social media has become a big copy machine. This machine is copying old methods and trying to apply those methods to new knowledge, it doesn’t work.
Social technology, used correctly, represents the escalation of knowledge given to crowds who know how to apply the new knowledge to solving problems or creating new value. People want to solve problems and access new value. People don’t want the same old communications (marketing & advertising) that doesn’t solve a problem or create new value.
Those that copy current uses of social media are not likely to help others solve problems or create new value. Mass media has approached people as if they are copy machines. Social media, optimized to its fullest value, approaches people by sharing solutions that solve problems or new value created by and for people’s use.
Consider that 7 out of 10 people (70%) using social media aren’t creating new value or helping anyone solve a problem. Why? Because all they are doing is using social media to push a message that isn’t relevant to solving problems or creating new value. In other words they are doing what they’ve always done and getting what they always got.
Doing something different and getting more than you’ve gotten in the past requires you to know what to do which isn’t what you’ve done. It is learning what people want and doing what you know that helps people know what to do.
Knowing what to do is more productive than doing what others do. Get it?
by Dan Robles on 06/26/2010
“Group Buying” was an idea that first surfaced during the “dot com” boom and ultimately failed to build any momentum. The idea is again gaining popularity in the era of social media where scalability can be introduced as aggregation cost diminish on applications such as Facebook and Twitter.
Ditch the gatekeeper, axe the marketers, lose the spam.
My first reaction is to find the most unsavory business transactions today and eliminate all the unnecessary middle men and their costs, gateways, noise pollution, and inefficiencies.
Why can’t there be one cell phone store where I can buy anything for any mobile device? Why do I have to pay to use my credit card and pay to not use my credit card? Why am I still treated like a terrorist precisely when I am doing everything that I can to avoid terrorists?
There are some glimmers on the horizon.
Applications such as SocialBuy, Groupon, and Living Social, use their social media platforms that offer vouchers for steep discounts on a variety of goods, once a minimum threshold of consumers is reached. People have an economic incentive to promote products in their social network (on Facebook and Twitter) in order to reach those thresholds more rapidly and consistently.
Product Networks?
Suppose the group buying experience could aggregate packages of products. Strategic products would then be aggregated as ”A Network of Products” that together increase net value. Yes, you heard me…a ‘combination of products’ with Twitter followers. A zip car, a movie ticket, Segway rental, and a dinner coupon could be aggregated into an entertainment / shopping package.
This is not so strange.
Apple’s enduring success is very much a model of commercial social aggregation. Nobody can compete with an iPhone without also offering iTunes, iMovie, iPad, and all the social trappings of the iStore. Perhaps Google, with its social commercial network can compete resulting in a duopoly. Group buying can empower the smaller players and bust monopolies in an infinite array of combinations.
Why not air travel?
The door-to-door travel time and social cost to fly between two small cities, say, 500 miles apart using commercial airlines is greater than just driving. There is no other alternative, sans high-speed rail, and the economic result is that the two cities remain small with very little new commerce or diffusion of new ideas that air travel benefits a region. People just don’t travel much between, say, Omaha NE and Cheyenne, WY.
Yet, small city pairs within 500 miles have strong extended family roots, migration patterns, and social network density. It would be relatively easy to offer Group Buying on a 20-25 seat private airplane for less than the cost of driving; and in 1/10 the time!
The travel package could include ground transportation, shopping coupons, and maybe even a A zip car, a movie ticket, Segway rental, and a dinner coupon could be aggregated into an entertainment / shopping package.
Every small city economic development agency in the country should be in this business of building social networks and matching them with product networks between other small city pairs…
by Jay Deragon on 06/24/2010
Everyone shops at grocery stores. We need food to sustain life. Ever wonder whether all things social will change the grocery shopping experience?
Below is an infographic illustrating what grocery brands are and aren’t using social and what traction they are creating with it. Now look closely and you’ll see that Publix has no presence whatsoever within the social graph. Does it matter? What are the implications and are others creating value using social?
Let’s look at these issues further.
Grocery stores contain many brands under one roof. The difference grocery chains represent different experiences based on the environments they create for the shopper and “deals” they offer weekly. Most grocery chains use traditional media to advertise their specials to local geographic communities. They insert fliers into newspapers, send out direct mail to promote this weeks specials and run television ads through local networks. In other words they rely on old media (newspapers are dieing a slow death) and old anti-green coupon models to pull traffic into their stores. Haven’t they heard (WSJ) that the internet has taken over ad revenue from newspapers and print media?
The primary business models for grocery chains are convenience (place and selections), price (deals), experience (service) and environments (ambiance). Each appeals to different consumer markets while some appeal to a variety of consumer markets. For instance I experience (service) and environments (ambiance) of Publix’s but when I want to stock up on Diet Coke I’ll go to Walmart because they always have the lower price. In my town Publix and Walmart are less than a mile apart from each other.
Social Media & Grocery Chains
One wonders how social media could apply to creating value for grocery chains. Given the early stages of social media today most chains haven’t figured out the value but some sense the need to be present and expect future developments will create ways to apply the medium to the grocery shopping experience. At the same time brands within grocery stores seem to be going direct to consumers using social technology.
One of the main reasons for this is that brands often uploads unique deals to their Facebook Fan pages or Twitter accounts which are restricted to its followers. Doing so enables the brands to create brand awareness, stir conversations and create incentives for sharing while also providing the brand with valuable customer data. Some examples:
- Oreo, Kraft’s cookie line, completed the top five, with 4.7 million supporters on Facebook.
- Red Bull has made the biggest impression on YouTube, with nearly 69,000 people having taken on the status of “subscribers” and viewing a variety of interviews, ads and extreme sports clips. This is supplemented by the energy drink’s four million fans on Facebook.
Should Brands & Grocery Stores Collaborate?
It would seem logical and efficient that if grocery stores and brands collaborated on use of social media to drive traffic to a store and purchases of brand incentives both entities would win. Sub-optimizing the efforts means both entities are spending more and being less effective. Then again such collaboration may cause channel conflicts for the brands in terms of reaching relevant consumers with relative messages. Would it be a Walmart or Coca Cola message? Why not one message from both but the channels maybe different by place and time intervals.
The future of social media will evolve into productive mediums, methods and cross functional modes of promotion. Envision your credit/debit card provider informing you, via mobile or on-line messaging, that brand X and store Y have a special this week and that special coupon or incentive can be downloaded to your debit/credit card at the click of a button. If you make the purchase of brand X at store Y then the discount or incentive will automatically be applied to your purchase. What if you then were able to share these incentives with your friends and direct deposit said incentives to their cards?
Just maybe the innovation for grocery chains is not only innovative uses of social media but with social currency as described. If so then the market might ask Publix, where are you?
Based on the data listed above it would seem as though Walmart and Target are best positioned to pull more customers. What say you?
by Jay Deragon on 06/21/2010
The 
awareness of “social media” has created an explosive growth in providers offering people and businesses an array of services. At the same time the growth in firms looking to hire “social media managers and strategist” as increased 400% in less than two years.
The current perceived value of these services and positions are low. The average pay scale for a new “social media hire” is $80,000 or less. The average pricing on outside services are low because most sell task oriented products and services, rather than strategic and knowledge based services. The value of the markets offering has diluted the “real value” and propagated a serious lack of understanding, knowledge.
The demand for using and understanding social media will continue however the value of understanding how, what, when, where, who and why just went to a new level.
The High End Knowledge Providers Just Jumped Into the Game
Nielsen and McKinsey form Joint Venture to Help Companies Use Social Media Intelligence for Superior Business Performance
The Nielsen Company (Nielsen) and McKinsey & Company (McKinsey) announced a global joint venture, NM Incite, created to help leading companies harness the power of social media intelligence to drive superior business performance. NM Incite gives companies the capabilities to better understand, value and take advantage of the rich insights made possible by social media.
The important statements within the recent press release are:
- “Our venture with McKinsey will extend our ability to help clients answer one of the central questions facing CEO’s, how to unleash the promise of social media,” said David Calhoun, CEO of Nielsen.
- “Our clients want to take full advantage of what is possible. NM Incite will fuse social media with the enterprise, creating new opportunities, efficiencies and competitive advantage.”
- “As our clients’ needs evolve, so our firm continuously innovates in the way we work,” said Dominic Barton, Global Managing Director of McKinsey.
- “Social media is an increasingly critical issue for business leaders and an area of untapped opportunity for many of our clients.”
- This joint venture will equip institutions with real-time insights to help their leaders drive better results.”
- “Senior executives of global companies instinctively recognize the possibilities of incorporating social media insight and capability into their organizations. They simply need help to make it a reality.”
Business leaders, the real ones, understand the value of acquiring and applying new knowledge. The value of new knowledge is relevant to providing strategic advantages to an organizations market position. Real leaders pay premium prices for gaining knowledge that enables them to gain stronger market positions. Note the emphasis of value in the above quotes from the press release.
McKinsey & Company is a global management consulting firm dedicated to helping the world’s leading organizations address their strategic challenges. The Nielsen Company is a global information and media company with leading market positions in media measurement, online intelligence, mobile measurement, trade shows and business publications.
What do you get when you put the core competencies of McKinsey and Nielsen together? A combined knowledge inventory that elevates new knowledge based on strategic insights into the use of information and media, social media.
The McKinsey/Nielsen partnership is a game changer in many ways. It will elevate the conversations and raise the bar of expectations for sound strategic advice based on knowledge from all the existing suppliers. It will also produce more innovation from what McKinsey/Nielsen discover and create with their clients. Innovation is priceless!
The social game just shifted to higher expectations for value based on strategy and not task.
by Dan Robles on 06/19/2010
I recently attended another one of those economic development summits where a bunch of people with long titles gets a chance to speak on a panel touting the mysterious benefits of a mysterious innovation clusters that create mysterious wealth that can only be realized if their mysterious department is funded.
Nearly every speaker concluded with the following paraphrase: “if only government would fund this or that, everything will be fine”, or, “if only corporations would fund this or that, then we’ll all be better off”
Uhmmm…sorry to break the news, it ain’t gunna happen.
Innovation clusters are all the rage in regional economic development circles. Actually, they are “industrial clusters” because several companies in similar industries collocate in the same geographical area. The industrial cluster then attracts supporting industry and often causes the migration of educated and motivated people to the prospect of jobs. I suspect the ‘innovation’ moniker comes from the notion that new ideas will somehow result from similarity of ideals and purpose.
Group Think Tanks
There are, however, a few drawbacks to industry clusters; they are vulnerable to stagnation, silos, and external shocks. As companies become organized and technologies mature, patents and trade secrets take hold. As they ‘go public’, SEC regulation effectively places a gag order on everyone and sharing slows while stagnation sets in.
Soon after, dozens of nimble companies consolidate into a single giant to achieve economies of scale. Finally, silos form under the weight of multiple layers of management while jobs are mechanized or outsourced.
Then, something somewhere happens to shock the cluster; the end of the cold war leveled the So Cal aerospace cluster. 9/11 busted the Seattle Aerospace cluster. The dot.com bomb stunted Seattle, Silicon Valley, and Route 128. Hurricanes and environmental disasters hit the petroleum cluster, stem cell and genetic engineering legislation stalled biotechnology, and corruption continues to shock financial institutions. At the end of the cycle, companies divest, people defect and a new planet starts to form someplace else.
Remember “scrubbing bubbles”?
While occasional cleansing, in a Schumpeterian sense, is good for industries, the extreme volatility takes a horrendous toll on that invisible turbine of the economic engine – social fabric. Families, friendships, professional networks are strained or collapse and those who dedicate their life to a career path – the pure innovator themselves – can be left marginalized by obsolescence.
The term “Innovation Clusters” makes for a good soundbite for politicians because it fits on the “Jobs R Us” banner they can stand in front of (thumbs up) for the next election cycle. The term keeps funds flowing to organizations to publish studies that conclude that more studies are needed. Maybe these summits ought to be renamed to Cluster Funks because that is largely what they actually promote.
by Dan Robles on 06/18/2010
The cadence of modern globalization has been set by the steady drive to lower labor costs across the world. Not surprisingly, the greatest threat to the global economy is social instability. As usual, political boundaries are drawn to keep people isolated from each other. The new twist is that Social Media arises because people are trying to reorganize themselves. Now, Crowdsourcing moves the eternal struggle to a new battle field.
There are two ways that the tools of the knowledge economy can integrate. 1. People are successful at reorganizing so that when the financial system does collapse, they can deploy a social currency to trade among each other. Or, 2. Social Media will become the new substrate of exploitation. Let me explain:
Turking is a phenomenon of crowdsourcing where people perform simple tasks on-line for money. Highly intellectual tasks are broken down into small components easily managed by a simple human decision. Each of these simple human decisions are sent out to humans to perform. The results are then re-combined to become a high value knowledge economy product.
Even companies that perform this service for major corporations are astonished that people would work for so little money. Academic studies declare that people are motivated by something other than money. Somehow Turking provides people with hope, self, validation, and all sorts of great personal benefit – otherwise they would not be doing it. This is good, right?
Wrong….people are desperate and turking is the last treadmill on the rat race to the bottom.
The idea that someone would work for free in order to gain “reputation” is built on the assumption that some “brand” is backing the reputation. Brands don’t exist – they are fictitious. Brands are what marketers say the are. Turking lets brands monetize their story line with cheap, invisible, and powerless labor force scattered around the world.
All the asset with none of the liability – and they call it a social miracle?
Most “turking” does not pay enough to cover the cost of the education required to complete the task. It costs a society countless thousands of dollars to teach and nurture a child to read and make good decision. Yet, the net payback is under 1.00 dollar per hour for the simplest turking tasks and net 5-10 dollars per hour for higher orders of analysis requiring specific and proficient skills. If the turk work is rejected or they lose the “contest” they are not paid and their IP is stolen – no recourse, no rebuttal.
Worse yet, turkers from impoverished countries are valued relative to the disfunction of their economy, not their inherent intellect and creativity. This sets up a tragic dynamic where it becomes, again, in the best interest of some enterprise that the poor countries remain poor and dysfunctional. As such, the inherent intellectual and creative value of their people can be efficiently transferred to the shareholders.
There are social media alternatives under development by The Ingenesist Project and others that allow people to organize and sell their own information. Applications are being devised that allow people to self organize into productive communities and to reward the nurturing and sharing of knowledge assets in community economic system. Dynamic business systems are under development that reward high integrity and punish low integrity.
The great question of our time is: Who will win, financial currency or social currency?
by Jay Deragon on 06/11/2010
When business leaders initially begin to learn about all things social many don’t understand the language. While they believe they understand marketing, advertising and PR they seem lost when it come to discussing social media. Why?
It could be that all things social represent a different language and of course unless you understand the language you cannot comprehend the meaning of the subject being discussed.
Language is power. Language isn’t only what we use to communicate; it also determines how we think. In a post-social media world, we must learn to articulate a new, elevated vocabulary, and concepts that the C-suite can appreciate while giving the concept of “social media” the respect it deserves. Otherwise unless we understand the language of both parties neither will gain any new understanding.
Elevating the Vocabulary
Language is transitory and always evolving. New words, emerge on an ongoing basis to better explain emerging concepts. There are, in fact, nearly 1,000 new words added daily to the Urban Dictionary. Many are slang terms with limited life spans. Others take root and become part of our broader vocabulary.
In 1999, when The Cluetrain Manifesto was released, we struggled to understand the term “markets are conversations” and then a new language emerged to explain the new paradigm that was emerging that required new ways of thinking. The term “social media” first began to emerge around 2003 to describe the impact of two way markets of conversations through the emergence of social technology. Then the term took off and subsequently took on numerous meanings. When a term has numerous meaning the vocabulary used to describe it becomes confusing and takes on a language of its own.
It Depends on What the Meaning of the Word “Is” Is
Bill Clinton’s phrase “It depends on what the meaning of the word ‘is’ is..” became famous as he dodged questions concerning his affair with Monica Lewinsky. The same is true when you ask the C-Suite questions relevant to what is social media and what is its value? The answers are akin to it depends on what the meaning of “is” is. Well kind of the same thing. The fact is that few in the C-Suite consider the disruptive nature of social media gone wild until it goes wild on them. Bill Clinton avoided the truth about his affair. The C-Suite avoids admitting what they don’t understand about social media.
To understand something thoroughly you must listen to the language. To not gain an understanding of social media means you cannot hear that which you don’t understand.
The language of all things social carries new meaning to old familiar issues. Social media is pragmatic to some but not to others. Pragmatic is defined as relating to matters of fact or practical affairs often to the exclusion of intellectual or artistic matters : practical as opposed to idealistic. Pragmatic leaders with power have had no time or inclination to deal with…social media. Now that social media is enabling people to gain more power, pragmatic leaders will have to find the time to learn and understand social media and its language.
While many business leaders consider themselves pragmatic they do not understand pragmatics and they should if they want to understand social media. Pragmatics studies the ways in which context contributes to meaning. Pragmatics encompasses talk in interaction and other approaches to language behavior in philosophy, sociology, and linguistics. It studies how the transmission of meaning depends not only on the linguistic knowledge (e.g. grammar, lexicon etc.) of the speaker and listener, but also on the context of the utterance, knowledge about the status of those involved, the inferred intent of the speaker, and so on.
The ability to understand “markets of conversations” intended meaning is called pragmatic competence. Pragmatic awareness is regarded as one of the most challenging aspects of language learning, and comes only through experience. However, without context to meaning experience doesn’t insure understanding.
Just because you use social media doesn’t mean you really know why others do. How pragmatic is that?
by Jay Deragon on 06/10/2010
What motivates adult participation within social media?
When we look at the psychology of human behavior we can begin to understand certain motivations which draw adults to social media.
Abraham Maslow published his theory of human motivation in 1943. Its popularity continues unabated. Like his colleague Carl Rogers, Maslow believed that actualization was the driving force of human personality, a concept he captures in his 1954 book, Motivation and Personality Maslow’s great insight was to place actualization into a hierarchy of motivation.
Self actualization, as he called it, is the highest drive, but before a person can turn to it, he or she must satisfy other, lower motivations like hunger, safety and belonging. The hierarchy has five levels.
1. Physiological (hunger, thirst, shelter, sex, etc.)
2. Safety (security, protection from physical and emotional harm)
3. Social (affection, belonging, acceptance, friendship)
4. Esteem (also called ego). The internal ones are self respect, autonomy, achievement and the external ones are status, recognition, and attention.
5. Self actualization (doing things)
Maslow points out that the hierarchy is dynamic; the dominant need is always shifting. The hierarchy does not exist by itself, but is affected by the situation and the general culture. Satisfaction is relative. Douglas McGregor makes it the building block for his Theory X and Theory Y. Mihalyi Csikszentmihalyi continues the tradition in his concept of “flow.” Today’s example of self actualization is the engagement of the human network with social media.
Some have noted that Maslow’s hierarchy follows the life cycle. A newborn baby’s needs are almost entirely physiological. As the baby grows, it needs safety, then love. Toddlers are eager for social interaction. Teenagers are anxious about social needs; young adults are concerned with esteem and only more mature people transcend the first four levels to spend much time self actualizing.
Based on the observations across numerous social platforms and reflection on the past definitions of human motivation we can see that social media provides a primary motivation for adults. Maslow defines self actualization as growth-motivated rather than deficiency-motivated.
What things are adults doing with social that that enhance individual growth? Based on observations and interview we will provide a general categorization of the factors that enhance individual growth for adults participating in social media forums.
- The Learning Factor: With all the hype, craze and media coverage of social media, i.e. Facebook, Twitter and Linkedin, many adults are drawn to the medium to learn what the hype is all about.
- The Connection Factor: Once adults enter networks and learn the “tools of the trade” many are amazed to find the presence of other adults they know and many they don’t already engaged with the medium.
- The Affinity Factor: Adults begin to find association with groups, causes, forums, media and other affinities which relate to their interest both personally and professionally.
- The Business Factor: There is an exponential growth of business opportunities that adults are learning to facilitate using social media as the medium to reach relevant and relative markets.
- The Creative Factor: Adults, and their businesses, are applying creative ways to use the technology behind social computing to extend its value to both personal and professional needs.
- The Expectation Factor: When you consider the creative possibilities of social media adults expect the formation of some economic and social value to be derived from their participation whether currently or in the future.
The expectation of individual growth and satisfaction is high.These factors combined with the media hype over social media are the motivating issues which are driving millions of adults to the medium at annual growth rates of 100% and more. The opportunity to capitalize economically is emerging quickly. Word of mouth will fuel growth rates faster than any other technological medium in our past. The growth and related factors will usher in The Relationship Economy. An economy whose dynamics are not fueled by past institutional media methods rather media produced by and from the people called the human network.
The dynamics are changing and subsequently business models, cultures and relationships will change.
Data are the raw material of the next economic paradigm. Data, information, knowledge, innovation, and wisdom are all related; but it all starts with data. In order to produce anything valuable in the domain of social capitalism, the creation and formation of data is hypercritical. The better the data, the better the information, knowledge, innovation, wisdom and culture that will follow. Each stage of transformation along the chain reaction from “data” to “culture” is an opportunity for both great value creation AND astonishing corruption.
