some interesting and helpful perspectives; thanks…

Paul

Often there is no solution at the level of presenting problems because they are symptoms of underlying dynamics. Said another way, the thinking that creates the problem cannot solve the problem it created. Over-concern with data security looks to me like a symptom of significant competitive rivalries, dangerous market conditions and an imposing escalation of constraints. Protection rackets look safe, rather than costly, harmful or alienating when our minds are certain about dangerous circumstances. Making excuses would vanish as soon as competitors get eliminated, the global recession turns around and enterprises are awash in cash, credit and profitability. Sadly, there’s no solution at the level of the presenting problem.

Technological innovations first appear as things. We “make a thing” of them that then fuels the Garner hype cycle pattern. The thing generates lots of high profile media coverage because it’s news. The thing is getting conceived as a “sustaining innovation” to keep the established institutions on life support. Meanwhile low profile “alpha geeks” ( O’Reilly) are figuring out what the thing is good for, applicable to and functioning as in many different contexts. This is the lull in the hype while the apps, tools and processes get invented backstage. The “beta geeks” then get beyond the functionality to inventors. They realize how it functions for the targeted users, use cases and user experiences. This “function of the functionality” can be monetized as useful services, solutions to customer problems and value “in the eyes of the beholder”. These innovations may be disruptive to incumbent institutions while serving clouds of registered users, content generators, cultural creatives, and voluntary contributors. Clouds of servers appear to remain as a thing on my radar, while clouds of data are beginning to migrate into disruptive, monetized value propositions that serve clouds of users.

Life in horizontal space is very different from vertical spaces. In horizontal space we think with questions and learn more everyday. Our minds our open to other perspectives, mindsets, viewpoints and outlooks. We find common ground that deepens the value of our distinctive offerings. We benefit from others’ openness, transparency and accessibility. We expose ourselves to ‘drinking from a fire hose” of content to then filter, vet and selectively consider. We share what we’re realizing through blogs, comment boxes, tweets, emails, podcasts, etc.
— In vertical spaces, we think with “one right answer” to each question, established positions, rigid categories and clever rationalizations. Our minds are closed to contradictions, antagonists, and threats to our composure. We deceive ourselves in order to remain in our comfort zones. We find people who do NOT push our hot buttons, expose our incompetency or challenge our authority. We’re in a pressure cooker of productivity, conformity and compliance. We experience great difficulty seeing both sides of “our shared issue”, making nuanced tradeoffs or keeping conflicting incentives in balance. We go overboard by idealizing one side of the opportunity space while neglecting the other at great cost to ourselves and our constituencies. We cannot conceive of what we’re doing to ourselves or the situation. Our plates are full of those pressures confined to the vertical space.

I hope you find these perspectives useful.