Mark Montgomery

Mark Montgomery

23p

6 comments posted · 0 followers · following 0

13 years ago @ Knowledge@Wharton - Is Business-centric So... · 0 replies · +1 points

BTW, in speaking of bubbles, I and many others are primarily referring to investment and valuation-- the oversupply of capital, which causes all kinds of problems reverberating throughout our economy, not least of which is a drought in other overlooked and important areas of technology. And also-- to the quote in article, I began working on an enterprise social networking system in 1998 towards a spin out as discussed here from our GWIN Pro, which was in many ways the grandfather of combined, social/learning network for thought leaders, that included the editors of this journal, Harvard, FT, WSJ, and most others--drawn by a WEF type membership. Our Kyield system has roots in those early experiments. One of many things we learned was to be extremely careful about sharing advanced tech on the web that can be reverse engineered by a minority of cultures with far more money readily available than morals or ethics.

13 years ago @ Knowledge@Wharton - Is Business-centric So... · 0 replies · +7 points

Most professors I know are using twitter, but not for the consumer noise most are familiar with, rather to share information easily and quickly. Similarly, on Facebook the most intelligent people I know have the most friends. It's a more functional replacement for email that bogged us all down-- that isn't discussed here, and should have been.

The author also misses several other points in this otherwise good piece, not least of which is the need to share information with customers and partners, monitor feedback, and importantly-- introduce advanced analytics that isn't available otherwise.

I am not kind to the hype in software, and consumer social is absolutely in bubble territory, but we need to remind ourselves that collaboration--indeed computing, was originally designed for the workplace. That the enterprise is relying primarily on consumer innovation (not just in collaboration or social-- look at Apple) speaks to the dysfunction of organizational cultures more than it does how humans work best together, and with which tools.

Truth be known, and few if any have studied this issue as long or detailed as I have:

- boards are often the last to know that their companies are failing
- true meritocracy doesn't exist in most organizations due to lack of structured information (meaning false assumptions and/or missing information dominates)
- the interests of the knowledge workers and organizations are often misaligned, which can be improved substantially with properly structured data
- virtually all human caused crises can be prevented with properly structured and designed networks, including many multi-billion dollar cases we've identified in private companies in the past five years
- large bureaucratic enterprises are among the least innovative orgs on the planet, due primarily to cultures that protect and defend instead of working together to improve, and smothering creativity of individuals in the process

Yes consumer social software is primitive for enterprise use. Yes it is largely a waste of time to use tools designed for different purposes, but it's equally true that most don't understand how to use the tools. No the functionality needed in the enterprise is not simply an incremental evolution of existing platforms.

It's best for leaders of large organizations to seek revolutionary improvement given the extremely poor performance of many in crisis prevention and innovation.

Here is a generic short video on structured data for the enterprise that provides a summary on why revolutionary change is needed. Those silos exist in large part due to incompatible languages and high costs of integration in legacy systems-- if you want to learn about hype in software, and the damage done to customers and society, take a look at lock-in and the relationship to voluntary data standards, comparing say to interoperability in the electric grid or plumbing infrastructure for comparison.
http://semanticweb.com/semantic-web-elevator-pitc...

This article clearly supports the status quo. How's that working-and for whom?

Either organizations are about people or they aren't. If they are, as I am absolutely certain, then we've just scratched the surface of what is already possible, and those who refuse to adopt technologies that provide a tailored competitive advantage will continue to suffer the consequences. That has been true since the invention of the wheel, if not before. And all along the way some Neanderthals have successfully convinced their tribes that starting fires is a waste of time, or learning how to use a microscope was too laborious given the obvious fact that their current tools (eyes) worked just fine.

Now excuse me while I click the twitter button above and share this article with chief influencers and on LinkedIn that includes all manner of customers to Wharton.

Mark Montgomery
Founder & CEO
Kyield http://www.kyield.com

13 years ago @ Knowledge@Wharton - How Group Dynamics May... · 0 replies · +1 points

Good piece and long overdue, however I take issue with the quote on Amazon. Amazon required about $4billion and many years to break even -- so there is just a tad bit of ignorance in our society -- including leading business schools, on what it is required to take even the best (protected or not) ideas to market these days, which is of course the underlying structural problem in our economy. Another that is related by culture is the exploitation of the most creative by the entrenched, which is enabled and rewarded with this otherwise wonderful medium, and it is not accidental. Those who design the infrastructure are among the primary beneficiaries of an architecture that is designed for exploitation.

13 years ago @ Knowledge@Wharton - How Group Dynamics May... · 0 replies · +1 points

There is an enormous difference between potential and realized creativity -- of course most people free from brain damage have the capacity for creativity, and equally true that in a world driven by scale and bureaucracy very few do the work necessary, which is why it's so damaging to exploit those who do-- the dominant trend in our society today.

13 years ago @ Feld Thoughts - New Life Experience - ... · 0 replies · +1 points

Hello Brad,

My wife had to have an MRI a few years ago and we didn't have insurance at the time, so I worked some basic consumer magic, finding one of the best in the region-- according to both her Neurologist and independent research, for less than half the cost of average. The range quoted if memory serves for a very specific brain scan was between $1800 and $6000, which was only one of many experiences that demonstrate room for value improvement in what is widely considered to be among the most dysfunctional markets (least efficient doesn't seem to quite describe the phenom). A lot of room for disruption in HC, and badly needed-- .02--MM

13 years ago @ Feld Thoughts - An Angel Investor Grou... · 0 replies · +1 points

I agree with you on this and quite a few other issues Brad -- we obviously have far too many fools and far too few entrepreneurs investing -- particularly of the type that have built sustainable businesses. When we were operating our fund I received invitations constantly from those who charge fees-- often substantial.

Add it to the long list of self-defeating practices out there today-- and we wonder why so few jobs are being created?