Sapientia et Doctrina

Some words of wisdom from Anthony Bradley of Gartner:

Always choose to be “true to the community” over supporting the interests of a sponsor. Even though money comes from a sponsor. The power comes from the community. Without the community there is no power to attract sponsors. Think of it this way:

• If you lose a sponsor but keep the community, you will get another sponsor.
• If you keep the sponsor but then lose the community, you will lose all sponsors (including the one you tried to keep)

The same philosophy applies to all social media implementations. Being “true to the community” is paramount.

An excellent advice from Anthony Bradley of Gartner on Piloting Social Media:

“The most successful implementations I’ve seen don’t “pilot,” they execute on a planned increment. When you go to the community with a social media solution, go for real. So how do you mitigate risk? Mitigate risk with a carefully scoped purpose. Minimize the initial business purpose pursued but pursue that purpose with all the execution discipline it requires.”

More at:
http://blogs.gartner.com/anthony_bradley/2009/11/03/piloting-social-media-creates-more-risk-than-it-mitigates/

"Innovation is distinct from improvement in that it causes society to reorganize. It is distinct from problem solving and is perhaps more rigorously seen as new problem creation." (Group Partners)

Carol Rozwell of Gartner wrote in her blog:

Innovating is a little easier if we look for the opportunity in change rather than the threat.

The opportunity that Carol alludes to, of course, comes from the new problems created by innovation.

Source(s):

Group Partners. (n.d.). Innovation. Retrieved January 1, 2010, from Group Partners Wiki: http://www.grouppartnerswiki.net/index.php?title=Innovation

Speeches from the Enterprise 2.0 Conference in SF are available on [E2 TV]. I posted some interesting tweets from the conference attendees earlier, here are some more:

1. When people talk about “breaking down” silos they add fuel to the fire that E20 is a crock. Silos collaborate they don't break down. (@mikojava)
2. Change agents have always existed, 2.0 tech brings agents together (@nitinbadjatia)
3. Knowledge Management used to be a dusty destination, ent 2.0 allows it to be dynamic and responsive to individual requests (@paulmirvine)
4. @CarolineDangson: E2.0 should perhaps be considered more like digital dna, the knowledge backbone of an organization (@paulmirvine)
5. Start behind the firewall, open to all employees, educate rather than prohibit, trust is returned (@dcoleman100)
6. Clara Shih: people are using FB and Twitter so their friends can serve as social filters for content. (@cjnash)
7. @nenshad: “Marketing creates the brand, Support keeps the brand alive.” (@JuliaMak)
8. Luxury hotel implemented Six Sigma and eliminated it because it didn’t allow them to overdeliver on Customer Service (@uwehook)
9. E2.0 culture change: “Imagine if a store with low sales accused their customers of “resistance”!” (@timoelliott)
10. Adoption is not a matter of resistance. If your store that wasn’t being trafficked, would you blame resistance?(@marciamarcia)
11. “When you grow up on the internet, client-server looks like green screen today.” (@nenshad)
12. Nike talks about “lessons shared”, rather than “lessons learned”. (@lehaweslive)
13. @rotkapchen: Why do so many people use the term “enterprise-wide” then? Why not “enterprise-deep”? (@richardveryard)
14. @rotkapchen: The first sign that someone has absolutely no clue about E2.0…when they keep referring to “users”. (@ekolsky)
15. @marciamarcia: If culture eats strategy for breakfast, how do you feed culture? (@ajeanne)
16. Innovation occurs at the intersection of contextually disparate concepts brought together creatively and with an open mind(@paulguyandersen)

(source)

Enterprise 2.0 conference is in progress this week in SF. Most of the speeches are available on [E2 TV].  Here are some tweets from the Conference attendees:

1. trust, collaboration, network, engagement, task-driven, productivity-enhancement, defined-roles & responsibilities = 2.0 world (@ekolsky)
2. Content is no longer enough, context of persona is key to E20.
3. You can subscribe not only to a person feed, but also on tags.
4. people want to work in an org where what they do matters, aligns with their principles and beliefs, be part of something (@ekolsky)
5. The ethos has shifted from "need to know" to "responsibility to share" - Andrew McAfee
6. Forrester reports that 1 in 2 businesses will use E2.0 software.
7. Transparency does not eliminate the need for identity, security, etc
8. More features are not what people are looking for in #E20. Focus 80% of your efforts on the 20% that really make people socially productive
9. Use e2.0 for what you can't do with email, like journaling your work.
10. 3 challenges to successful E2.0 deployment are Risk, Control, and Trust. deal with up front. - Dion Hinchcliffe
11. Collaboration works best when it's in the flow of work- encourage interactions and multitiered adoption.
12. you're never going to get people to that happy sharing place unless its in their flow of work.
13. Key challenge with dedicated (standalone) enterprise microblogging platform is that it's not part of the workflow.
14. collaboration needs to move from a doc-centric solution to a conversation-centric solution
15. manage knowledge mostly by connecting people. Brains are just so much better than databases.
16. The point is not to teach people how to use computer, but facilitating Human-to-Human interaction through a computer.
17. "Business is conducted by people, not users" - @eugenelee

Source: Tweets from the Enterprise 2.0 2009 Conference (#E2Conf)

source

Professor McAfee's new Blog: The Digitization of Business (rss)

… is Now available

This layer, developed by Sunlight Labs, allows people to visualize stimulus package contributions through an augmented reality application on any iPhone and Android.

David Navetta, Esq. CIPP, has published an interesting blog post on the topic of Legal Implications of Cloud Computing.

Mr. Navetta emphasize the need to understand the increasingly complex and interlocking relationships in the Cloud:

The party with whom a company is dealing will often not be the party actually processing data or providing computing services.  This poses compliance challenges (e.g. how to perform/show due diligence) and  contracting challenges (e.g. how to obtain/enforce contractual rights / remedies when one or two layers removed from the company actually doing the processing).

The blog post also highlights the need for proper data retention and destruction policies.

What if the SaaS provider is working on a Cloud Platform that creates residual copies of data that the Cloud User has a legal obligation to delete? What if the SaaS provider works with a Cloud Platform that does not have the technology or capability to properly wipe data? Even if the Cloud Platform has these capabilities, what if the SaaS provider has not negotiated for the right to obtain these services?

My thoughts on Legal Obligation to Delete:

Internet has created a world where "absolute destruction" of data is not easy to achieve. Even when the services are hosted in-house, this type of data destruction is not possible. There could be replicas, backups, off-site backups, DR backups, user created offline replicas, user archives and even printed copies.

I think what is a more achievable is delete in context. Data that loses its context, loses its meaning and is not of much use. So going back to Cloud Services, when I delete an email from my SaaS powered Inbox, the SaaS provider may still have some residual "Sharded" copies of the data. But these residual copies have completely lost their context. And as you traverse down the layers of Cloud Service aggregators (Saas –> PaaS –> IaaS), this residual data becomes more and more meaningless. Re-animating an email from this sharded residual data would be like trying to re-construct a needle by searching for its pieces in a haystack! :-)

Background:

A constitutional right  granted in many Latin American countries is "Habeas Data" i.e. the right to own your data. Habeas Data can be brought up by any citizen against any manual or automated data register to find out what information is held about his or her person. That person can request the rectification, actualization or even the "destruction" of the personal data held.

Question:

Can a writ of Habeas Data be issued to a Foreign Entity?

My thoughts:

Any volitional disclosure of PII to a entity that is not under the jurisdiction of the said Country would not be covered by this (IMO).  Besides, how would you obtain a writ of Habeas Data for an entity that is outside of the jurisdiction of issuing authority?

Your thoughts:

Please share your thoughts on this as comments below:

For limited time only :

Sign up here

Tanya L. Forsheit, Esq., CIPP writes about the EU Data Protection Directive and Cloud Computing:

The most notable thing about the EU Directive and member state laws for purposes of cloud computing is this -- in the absence of specific compliance mechanisms, the EU prohibits (yes, you read correctly, prohibits) the transfer of personal information of EU residents out of the EU to the US and the vast majority of countries around the world.

What does this mean for cloud computing?  If you want to put data in the cloud that includes personal information of EU residents (and that might be something as simple as an email address or employment information), and the data will flow from the EU to almost anywhere in the world, you cannot simple throw the data in the cloud and hope for the best.  You need to have, at a minimum, one or more of the following:

• International Safe Harbor^† Certification (which allows data transfer from the EU to the US, but not from the EU to other countries);

• model contracts (which allow data transfer from the EU to non-US countries, but do not always work well with multi-tiered vendor relationships); or

• Binding Corporate Rules (which are designed for a multinational company and therefore may not function well for cloud provider relationships).

Read more .. ..

† Safe Harbor Act also known as the European Union Data Protection Directive

1. The act prohibits the transfer of personal data to non-European Union nations that do not meet the European "adequacy" standard for privacy protection.
2. US based companies should try to obtain Safe Harbor Certifications
3. Slightly higher standard than California Privacy Laws. Somewhere between EU and US
4. Requires you to do the work up-front. 6 months - 1 year of work required. Annual re-certification required
5. Attaining Safe Harbor certification elevates reputation of the company

You must love your [SaaS] vendor. You must trust your [SaaS] vendor. You must have your [SaaS] vendor's cell, home and wife's cell phone number. Your [SaaS] vendor is your lifeline. Do your research, make sure your cloud computing vendor has been in business for a long time, and with reasonable certainty, will continue to be in business for a long time. If a bank can go under, so can a cloud computing company. Maybe the answer is to use several different clouds. Don't put all of your documents into one cloud. Diversify. It's a tough economy out there, and at any given time, any company could be trudging up the bankruptcy court steps. The best you can do is to protect yourself as best you can.

Read more