Wikinomics and collaborative publishing

I spent the afternoon at a workshop organized by Sitra. It focused on the future of the Internet. This was actually our second workshop out of four. We are building a foresight "report" which will be ready in summer08. This time Anthony Williams who is the co-author of Wikinomics - How Mass Collaboration Changes Everything book (2007) started the session.

In his talk he focused on four aspects: web2.0, Net Generation, social revolution and economical revolution. Before getting into the topics, we learned that his company New Paradigm is currently focusing on anything and everything ending with 2.0. It is a bit annoying to hear these version numbers while at the same the speaker stresses the role of the users. Why they do not talk about change in mode or style of use instead of empty/multifarious catchwords and 101000110-language? Also is this (the current web) really the second version of the Internet? I tend to disagree.

Anyhow, the talk itself was too overall, too obvious and not too innovative from my viewpoint. BUT it did raise some ideas and questions which I am just going to list here.

NETGEN
- Is it useful to coin different terms for generations (x, y, c, Millennials, iGen, NetGen...) or perhaps try to describe the change in how people have learned to use the net, what are the factors for cultural change, how much that actually is a question of generations of users?
- Don't get me wrong, I like to categorize youth into generations as well (to be able to focus better on one mass and/or highlight some changes) but that should not be the only thing to look at because there are clear differences within youth which might e.g. relate to location (country side/city, central/remote, cultural differences etc.)
- Is it cool to say that you do not read newspapers?
- Is it because of the medium or wrong type of content? Both?
- What will be the generation after Net Generation? When? How does it differ from NetGen?
- Demographic aging in North America & Europe vs. India, China and African countries
- Is the number of youth in correlation with innovativeness?
- How much innovativeness is related to cultural atmosphere and various enablers?








3D WEB
- Mr. Williams was convinced that the future of the web will be "multimedia 3D". I totally agree with multimedia but what's the case with 3D? Aren't we expecting to get involved real time, anywhere, anytime and as conveniently as possible?
- What is the role of 3D environments in the business life?
- Companies certainly look for ways to utilize blogs, wikis, Jaikus, etc.
- Does the new modes of operation include 3D?
- Open innovation in 3D?
- Who would like to use 3D via a cell phone?

REVOLUTION
- Isn't revolution intially social?
- Why it has to be revolution [instead of e.g. evolution]?
- Paradigm shift.

Any good living lab models out there?

In Finland many research projects got public funding (by Tekes, EU etc.). Funding is linked with personal experience (=longer courier and better business network) and/or enthusiasm; "sisu" (guts) to come up with a good R&D consortium. Too often the result is just another report or a prototype which will never be utilized commercially. That is because researchers get more steady income and more opportunities for experimenting at a research institution and companies have not really put that much effort to the project because it is publicly funded. Also some companies lack strategic solutions and operational model on how to turn a prototype into a product. Anyhow this has a lot to do with individuals and their will to take the project further. This IMHO is the key.

For example Google has promoted innovative solution to allow anyone to put 20% of their time to a personal project. This is very interesting because it motivates people but also gives responsibility. That would mean people have the will and the way plus good network of like-minded people around them. Another interesting example is Wikipedia. It is an online living lab where crowdsourcing and self-regulation is the key. This time the will is not as clear as the way.

Key words such as living labs, open or systemic innovations and community generated content have often been mentioned in touch with more experimental product development. In Finland Forum Virium Helsinki has put up Helsinki Living Lab project which tries to find ways to active citizens to contribute and improve communal services. Sound dull, right? The trick is to make a dull thing interesting and motivate people to take more active role in decision making and/or influence decision makers.

What would be the best model to come up with new solutions? Would it be open innovation, traditional public research project model, operator model, event/campaign model or sponsor model? How to make it more fun, interesting and personal? How to motivate people to participate in testing and innovating better services? Currently people seem to give feedback only if they are unsatisfied (=angry). They are able to point out the problem but who would link that to perhaps bigger strategical solution or a challenge especially if the problem concern e.g. two different operational units or bureau in Helsinki?

What I am asking here is: What would be the best living lab/citizen innovation model? Do other cities, countries… have any excellent models they would like to share? Would living lab type of solution increase citizens wellbeing in general? Would it even be possible to activate them or are people just too lazy? What do you think? All comments highly appreciated!