Interesting line of thought inspired by Ross Mayfield’s post Blog-based Research
Model, where he talks about research services shifting “from the end analysis product
(.pdf) to the open process of research”. That is, instead of relying upon bulky and
expensive PDFs from the traditional analyst companies (Gartner and so forth), we are
seeing blogs form a new open and ‘on-flowing’ (to coin a phrase) research model. Open
because so-called amateurs can contribute to this research model, not just the elite
analysts, and ‘on-flowing’ because it is an ongoing process of information flow. But what
makes a good “open research” analyst? Ross points to James Enck’s
post, which lists 3 examples:
“I select these three [Andy (http://andyabramson.blogs.com/voipwatch/),
Om (www.gigaom.com), and Martin (www.telepocalypse.net)] because they, to my mind,
demonstrate the highly individual qualities of blogs which collectively deliver what
brokers’ research typically lacks. All three have very sensitive BS meters, and are not
afraid to court controversy. All three possess wide expertise and that rare quality of
360-degree, joined-up thinking, which allows them to consider the broader implications of
what Company A is saying/doing […]”
James goes on to describe a potential business model for a “cross-sector investment
research platform incorporating realtime tools (I mean blogging, IM, video conferencing
and collaboration) rather than .pdfs and spam.” So he sees this as a business model and
so does Ross. For my purposes, I see it as an opportunity and also a validation of my
approach to blogging (longer, analytical posts).
I then clicked through to Andy Abramson’s blog (one of the 3 referenced by James) and
scrolled down to find a reference to Asymmetrical
thinking, which caught my eye. In that post, Andy described two of his business
mentors and he says of one of them:
“Ken, who was the master of controversy for the sake of change for the
better, was my first mentor in what I now call Asymmetrical thinking. This started when I
was 16 and the discussions about how things were, what they meant and how the
implications impacted a set group were what Ken’s daily interactions gave me. More
important was the reading of Ken’s writing on issues and matters. Long, page after page
discussions that often put people in the proverbial box because Ken presented facts, line
by line, word by word, and often to the chagrin of the offending party.
It clearly explains to me now why I blog the way I do.”
That extract led me to google on the phrase “Asymmetrical thinking”, which linked me
to an article entitled When
Uncertain Try Asymmetry, by a fellow called Watts Wacker. Mr Wacker said:
“The strategic approach that is the first that we have embraced is an
asymmetrical strategic orientation. When you design a strategy with an asymmetrical
framework you look at the strengths of an adversary… not their weaknesses.”
NB: asymmetric means
“having no balance or symmetry”.
Watts Wacker finishes his article with this gem:
“We used to count on the mainstream defining where the fringe would
reside. Now, it’s the fringe that dictates the mainstream.”
The fringe dictates the mainstream…I love it! That’s a feature of all original
thinking – how could it be original otherwise? There’s a great Kierkegaard quote that I’ve blogged before, which
starts: “Truth always rests with the minority, and the minority is always stronger than
the majority…”
All this reminds me of the recent Wired article The Long Tail. Well, the
Wired article was more saying that the fringe (or the edges) is just as viable a market
as the mainstream. But the concepts are not that far apart in tone… a lot of our
thinking or business or marketing is increasingly at the edges. Blogging opens up that
edge thinking to potentially a worldwide audience. I like to come up with catchy new
terms :-), so I’ll call this type of blogging Asymmetrical Analytics.
So after all this hyperlink travelling, where have I ended up? Well I’ve also been
browsing Dave Pollard’s series of posts on
how to build a Natural Enterprise. I got onto that via one of his recent posts –
which was a call for IT people to build products or services that address fundamental
human needs, instead of building more geeky toys. Dave put it like this:
“If KM people are the most creative in the company, IT people are the
sharpest analytical thinkers. […] Here’s my point: For restless and dissatisfied IT
people, unlike their KM counterparts, there is an alternative, a career path that could
really make a difference: Science-Based Enterprises. Your bright, disciplined analytical
minds are desperately needed to develop practical new technologies that can solve the
global problems of our world.
I think I’m half KM / half IT, but in any case it’s clear to me that open research
models and natural enterprises both require thinking at the edges (asymmetrically) in
order to succeed. I see my blog as an ongoing research flow – perhaps even the foundation
for my own natural enterprise!
