LinkedIn and ValueNetworks.com

[JT Maloney (IM: jheuristic)]

Hi –

LinkedIn is the de facto business-oriented social network site (SNS).  

If you are a LinkedIn user you will have noticed sharp improvements recently. LinkedIn offers a great set of new features, and over 30 million registered users. LinkedIn is firing on all cylinders. Recommended.

A ValueNetworks.com LinkedIn Group has been created for you. You are all pre-approved to join here:

http://www.linkedin.com/e/gis/3410

This Value-Networks Google Group will not go away, of course. The ValueNetworks.com LinkedIn Group will simply augment and expand the features of this Usenet group with the leading business SNS. The ValueNetworks.com LinkedIn Group is an important asset to the ever-expanding ValueNetworks.com constellation and ecosystems of practitioners, stakeholders, experts and users.

Cordially,

 

-j

 

 

Linkedin Background

Company

LinkedIn's CEO is Dan Nye. As of February 2007, founder and former CEO Reid Hoffman, previously an executive vice president of PayPal, remains President of Product and Chairman of the Board. LinkedIn is located in Mountain View, California, and funded by Greylock, Sequoia Capital, Bessemer Venture Partners, and the European Founders Fund. LinkedIn reached profitability in March 2006. On June 17, 2008, Sequoia Capital, Greylock Partners, and other venture capital firms purchased a 5% stake in the company for $53 million, giving the company a post-money valuation of approximately $1 billion.  

Groups

LinkedIn Groups is your destination to find and join communities of professionals based on common interest, experience, affiliation, and goals. Stay in touch with organizations, schools, and companies, network with professionals with similar interests and goals, and collaborate in a professional community online.

 

 

[jheuristic]

From Tech Crunch and Anderson Analytics:

Research findings by Anderson Analytics confirms what everyone already
suspects: LinkedIn users are rich.

http://www.linkedin.com/e/gis/3410

Nearly 60% of users have incomes of $93,000 or more. Executives with
an average income of
$104,000 make up 28% of the 2,000 random users polled for the study.
Another 30% are self-
identified “consultants” with an average income of $93,000.

People with lots of connections tend to make more money, according to
the study - those with
incomes between $200-$350k were seven times more likely to have at
least 150 connections
than lower income users.

The study segmented users into four categories: executives (28%),
networkers/consultants
(30%), late adopters (22%) (not sure what this is) and “exploring
options (20%).

Stop wasting time on Facebook and MySpace. Get yourself on LinkedIn
and add a couple of hundred connections.
Before you know it you’ll be pulling in $350k.

Your ValueNetworks.com LinkedIn Network:

http://www.linkedin.com/e/gis/3410


Cordially,

-j

[Don Steiny]

It LinkedIn a cause, or is it just that wealthy people have more
discretionary time? I am big on networking, but I am not convinced that
LinkedIn is a good source of it.

-Don

[Bala Pillai]

Don,

The combination of Linkedin and Facebook is powerful.

Why was Yellow Pages a very powerful advertising tool (as compared to other advertising mediums)? Because most of the folks who check out the Yellow Pages do so as they are buying, i.e they are serious buyers. On what vector is Linkedin better than other networks? It has folks who are serious to do deals.

Why combine in with Facebook? To solve the unfamiliarity/default low levels of trust/commitment, "humans-being-under-evolved for non-face-to-face" problem. I banter towards collaborating on Facebook with serious parties I identify on Linkedin.

cheers../bala
Bala Pillai
Sydney & Kuala Lumpur
Facebook: http://profile.to/balapillai

"Towards instantaneous synchronisation of minds that matter" -- see http://www.ryze.com/go/bala

[Brad Hoyt]

LinkedIn grew as a business network not a social network tool. With a
few exceptions most people on LinkedIn connect with people they know and
trust in the physical world. Other networking tools have not evolved
from that real world relational method are not business relationship driven.

brad

--
Brad Hoyt
Hoyt Consulting - Helping Organizations Leverage Their Know-how
www.hoytconsulting.com
Office: +1 515.949.3133
Mobile: +1 515.306.1544
fax: +1 515.322.0672
http://xri.net/=Brad.Hoyt

"In the United States today, we have more than our share of the nattering nabobs of negativism. They have formed their own 4-H Club -- the "hopeless, hysterical hypochondriacs of history." -- Spiro T. Agnew, 9/11/70

This email is confidential, may be legally privileged, and is for the intended recipient only. If you are not the intended recipient, please inform the sender and delete the email immediately.

[Scott Allen]

Having studied LinkedIn closely since its inception, I'll weigh in with my three cents of informed opinion:

Don Steiny asked:
> Is LinkedIn a cause, or is it just that wealthy people have more discretionary time?

I would posit that it is because wealthy people have LESS discretionary time -- certainly than the people who inhabit other social networking sites. The wealthy -- successful entrepreneurs, executives, professionals -- buy into LinkedIn's core model of NOT being a networking community, but rather a networking utility.

From the About LinkedIn page:
-----------------------------
LinkedIn’s simple philosophy: Relationships Matter

Your professional relationships are key to your professional success.
Our mission is to help you be more effective in your daily work and open doors to opportunities using the professional relationships you already have.

This isn’t networking—it’s what networking should be.
Forget exchanging business cards with acquaintances that don’t know your work, or trying to renew professional ties when you need a favor.
-----------------------------

LinkedIn was designed to be more of an extended Rolodex than a virtual cocktail party. LinkedIn's core value proposition enables significant improvements in efficiency for search/discovery within your extended network:

http://www.linkedintelligence.com/why-use-linkedin

LinkedIn's value proposition is about efficiency. This often gets lost in the fact that the people who are most visible on LinkedIn (and in the social media universe) are those who are investing an unusual amount of time in it. But there's absolutely NO evidence that these people have any more success with it than the silent, invisible millions who use it in accordance with its original intention. In fact, I've encountered dozens of success stories from people who have only 100-200 connections and use it fairly passively.

Don Steiny:

> I am big on networking, but I am not convinced that LinkedIn is a good source of it.

Start with a frame of reference shift. Think of LinkedIn as a networking utility, not a networking source. I've collected over 100 business cases for using LinkedIn from a variety of sources. Most are a significant improvement over other alternatives:

http://www.linkedintelligence.com/smart-ways-to-use-linkedin

Also, I will readily admit that it's non-obvious how to use LinkedIn to actually strengthen relationships, i.e., not just as a utility, but it is possible to. Here are some ideas on how:

http://www.linkedintelligence.com/character-7-ways-to-not-just-have-it-but-show-it-on-linkedin

I hope that offers some useful perspective on the question at hand, as well as the potential utility of LinkedIn.

Scott Allen
http://TheVirtualHandshake.com

[Joe Wharton]

LinkedIn is used by people who will take the initiative to make things happen - whether they are rich or just "wannabe's". Rather than Don's comment below about the wealthy, it is more relevant to say that those who benefit from LinkedIn's business-focused network will individually step out and act on their personal goals. These people either have succeeded or will succeed - and yes, may even become rich. The real value is that they worked for something, rather than having it handed to them.

In another reference to Don's comment, LinkedIn is a cause in that the business people who use it effectively are passionate about generating an income and promoting their careers (and receiving the benefits of doing so). It is not a social network with its freeflowing social interaction; it is a focused communications tool with a specific business goal. And, it is open to anyone who will take the time and has the drive to pursue that goal. He is correct that LinkedIn is not a good social networking tool - it is not intended to be. The people who use LinkedIn generally do not use it to fill discretionary time; they often leave it behind after work (and may even turn to a social network to relax).

Joe

[Kathleen Marvin]

We could also add that you can participate for free. Which pretty much
eliminates the class/wealth argument.

-Kathleen Marvin

[Don Steiny]

Bala,

This may well be true, but I have not been able to find evidence
that it is. I wold be interested to see it.

-Don

[Bala Pillai]

Don,

Ahhh, if you are a strict, after-the-fact empiricist and frown upon forecasting/conceptualising, then you'll have to be a follower and follower alone. Not the innovator's position I am afraid.  You'll have to wait for several more years before the business models for resourcing the ongoing surveys and metrics of the extent of success of Linkedin come along and are implemented.  And that might be too late (that's what the root of a tree in search of water would say of your approach).

cheers../bala

[Don Steiny]

Bala,

The only problem with that is that most businesses fail and it is
not always reasonable to invest in things just because they are popular.
LinkedIn can make money as a media play as well as other models, the
question of what it is is still open. Anecdotal evidence is the worst
kind. It also would not make sense to ask a Honda salesman for
recommendations about other types of cars to buy, the self interest of
the information source is something worth considering. It is not
unreasonable to wonder if there is some basis for it, especially since
at this point it is hardly an "innovation" and has been around for
quilte a while. There are so many next big things right now it is
difficult to choose. I started the Institute for Social Network
Analysis of the Economy in 2002, so as far as I am concerned, you are
late to gate. Social networks are the old new thing.

-Don

[kpkfusion]

Linked In has done a solid job of creating value within a networked
environment for the user community. And it has done an okay job of
achieving value conversion although the billion dollar valuation is
aggressive. That being said - the experience doesn't feel like a
"social network". And maybe that is okay. Don's description of it
being a utility is more accurate than not.

Maybe the learning is not so much centric to Linked In, as it is to
the network characteristics of Linked In versus other types of
business networks. What do we associate with each, and what does each
tell us about ourselves? Let me do a quick take:

(1) Linked In: I think of a great way to reduce my degrees of
separation to others in the network, to learn how to get in touch with
others. Our sales reps find ways to penetrate organizational networks
by locating decision makers within prospective customers. We receive a
number of resumes from potential hires who use linked in for
discovery, one of which is a senior technology leader who of himself
provided so much value that finding him alone completely justifies the
limited amount of time invested in the use of the service. What I
don't think of: A place that I would go to be social and to discuss
policy, social or other issues - to organize for a purpose. Being
"linked" doesn't mean being "social" or expressive. So the fact that
we are loosely connected (are aware of each other) doesn't mean that
we are going to build exchanges having value. Don is right in this
sense: Also, what is the compelling call to action? What is the long
term model once business professionals are connected?

(2) Diigo: But can shared Web research (html pages), content, shared
by those to whom I connect around the behavior of sharing that content
- be so compelling that I organize expressive, social behaviors? No.
Like Linked In, I am thankful for the opportunity to bookmark and
share my research, but am not compelled to organize social behaviors
around discussion of that content - even though the social tools are
very strong in Diigo.

(3) Slideshare: Same as Diigo. Insert slide decks versus html pages.

(4) Scribd: Same as Diigo and Slideshare, but insert "documents."

So the point is that all are valuable utilities, but none provide
compelling social experiences that foster learning and discovery
through peer to peer exchanges having value.

On the other hand:

(1) Twitter coupled with either and/or Tweet Deck and Twittelator,
Wow. Frequent exchanges of content with those who I do and don't know
that lead to discovery. Many exchanges by those trusted peers that I
follow have Tiny urls that enable access to all forms of content.
Maybe we don't care where the content itself resides. Might be almost
irrelevant. The frequency and quality of the exchanges might in and of
itself build social attention. Twitter reminds us of the power of
intermittent stimulus. The most disorganized and unexpected exchanges
somehow create some of the greatest interest and network value. (is
there a business model there?). But what looks like a utility, is more
social than the networks that try to define themselves as social.

(2) Yammer. Talk about smart. Take the best of twitter, but make it
private with complete transparency to those within the network. This
service completely changes the game within organizations by flattening
out the communication stream. It is unbelievable how much new value is
created by real time connections across mobile and/or desktop. And the
business model? Not apparent, but maybe brilliant. Once your network
is established and value is proven, administration privileges cost $1
per seat. Think about that. The first time an employee leaves and you
want to establish administration rights to remove them, you pay $1 per
all seats in the network per month. Someone has done the math
undoubtedly. Say that it grows to 5M members. That is $5M per month.
Not bad. Makes sense. Also feels social because we will share more
freely with fellow employees.

Why is it that though there is an excellent set of tools and
compelling content on the Value Networks site, we are connected on
this a Google discussion board? Why is it that after an elaborate
endorsement of Linked In and its wonderful group tools, again, this
group uses this less elegant discussion board?

Interesting questions. Is it because we are finding very compelling,
unique, thought from leaders who we do not otherwise know? Or is it
the fact that we also receive excellent calls to action in the daily
emails that remind us that we might discover dialogue that is
compelling and relevant? Or is it because the top level goals drive
user value first, with economic outcomes being a non-obvious secondary
possibility? Seems unique.

I come because with a high probability of success, I am going to
encounter people like all of you who have developed excellent points
of view on questions like these, and from whom I can learn something
that I don't know - which is often.

I guess to Don's point, there is a good reason to enable networks with
different organizing principles, often creating member value, without
necessarily creating financial outcomes for the organizing entity ( at
least direct outcomes). Other times we may find organizing principles
that support large networks that have unexpectedly strong financial
outcomes and feasibility.

The world of networks seems fairly unpredictable when it comes to
forecasting financial results - complex to say the least.

[JT Maloney (IM: jheuristic)]

Hi --

 

Thanks for all the comments about LinkedIn. Yes, LinkedIn is useful. It makes people more productive. Productive people have less, not more time. Thus, they have flocked to LinkedIn. The LinkedIn logic simple: productive people create more wealth than non-productive people. That’s all.

 

Today I get invitations to join social network sites/services (SNS) like Nexopia, Bebo, Facebook, Hi5, MySpace, Tagged, Xing, Skyrock, Orkut, Ning, Friendster, Twitter, Plaxo, Doostang, ecademy, to name a few. Newsflash: I do not care that you added me as a friend on your latest SNS. I am not joining. I do not know what they are. I do not care either. I am not a teenager. I am way too busy!    

 

There is a stupefying, choking amount of SNS hubris and hyperbole. For example, I heard a CEO for a shiny new SNS outfit, in a lofty presentation at a major research university, say emphatically his offering would obsolete email in 2-years. God help us. Email is a mainstay social network application has been and will be for decades.

 

As usual, it is not the particular application, which are easy to create. Rather, it is about the data, particularly the roles and links, that are critically important, and extremely hard to (re)create. VNA Professional Edition for example furnishes an entirely new capability to capture, see, probe, discuss, merge, negotiate, store, retrieve, change, print, syndicate, expand, analyze, share, optimize and ultimately master these data, roles, links and exchanges.

 

Also, there is a fundamental social reorientation of business underway. From an anthropological and market perspective,  all business is social, always was, always will be. For example, markets are simply social arrangements for the exchange of goods and services. Economics and business is just one important sub-discipline of sociology. (Don’t suggest that to your favorite economist or local economics professor. It might upset her.)

 

Today, and in the future, the proportion of social activity for productivity and innovation and is growing sharply. Socializing is work and wealth creation inhabits value networks.

 

Used to be well-crafted processes and physicality drove tangible productivity growth. The low-hanging fruit of process reengineering has been picked clean. In large part the business process song has been played. It is still important, but it is the background tune, the enterprise Musak.  We are fast entering the complex, post-process, value network era of the enterprise, business, the environment and civil society.

 

Business networks and social networks are not mutually exclusive.

 

Like BPR in the ‘90s, value network analysis (VNA) is the lingua franca of your post-process world.  

 

Finally, Google Group recommendations like LinkedIn are not taken lightly. They are given years, sometimes decades to form. For example, if you are reading this you are already using pervasive social network technologies like email (1969) and Usenet (1979). The rest is history.

 

Pay attention to Scott Allen. He is really providing the needed, pratical thought leadership for SNS:

 

“LinkedIn was designed to be more of an extended Rolodex than a virtual cocktail party. LinkedIn's core value proposition enables significant improvements in efficiency for search/discovery within your extended network.”

 

That’s the business model too.

 

Cheers,

 

-j

 

 

-----Original Message-----
From: Value-N...@googlegroups.com [mailto:Value-N...@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of Joe Wharton
Sent: Wednesday, November 05, 2008 8:07 PM
To: Value-N...@googlegroups.com
Subject: RE: LinkedIn and ValueNetworks.com

 

 

LinkedIn is used by people who will take the initiative to make things..

[Don Steiny]

John,

Thanks for this, one coment, how do we know that LinkedIn makes
people more productive. Are we sure that it is better than other CRMs?
I am not saying that it isn't, I don't know, but I think "if LinkedIn is
the killer CRM, why is salesforce.com still doing well? In all these
cases it is easy to assume things are true just because everyone says
they are true.

-Don

>
> Hi --
>
>
>
> Thanks for all the comments about LinkedIn. Yes, LinkedIn is useful.
> It makes people more productive. Productive people have less, not more
> time. Thus, they have flocked to LinkedIn. The LinkedIn logic simple:
> productive people create more wealth than non-productive people.

> That’s all.

>
>
>
> Today I get invitations to join social network sites/services (SNS)

> like *Nexopia, Bebo, Facebook, Hi5, MySpace, Tagged, Xing, Skyrock,
> Orkut, Ning, Friendster, Twitter, Plaxo, Doostang, ecademy, *to name a
> few. /Newsflash/: I do not care that you added me as a friend on your

> latest SNS. I am not joining. I do not know what they are. I do not
> care either. I am not a teenager. I am way too busy!
>
>
>
> There is a stupefying, choking amount of SNS hubris and hyperbole. For
> example, I heard a CEO for a shiny new SNS outfit, in a lofty
> presentation at a major research university, say emphatically his
> offering would obsolete email in 2-years. God help us. Email is a
> mainstay social network application has been and will be for decades.
>
>
>
> As usual, it is not the particular application, which are easy to
> create. Rather, it is about the data, particularly the roles and
> links, that are critically important, and extremely hard to

> (re)create. *VNA Professional Edition* for example furnishes an

> entirely new capability to capture, see, probe, discuss, merge,
> negotiate, store, retrieve, change, print, syndicate, expand, analyze,
> share, optimize and ultimately master these data, roles, links and
> exchanges.
>
>
>
> Also, there is a fundamental social reorientation of business
> underway. From an anthropological and market perspective, all
> business is social, always was, always will be. For example, markets
> are simply social arrangements for the exchange of goods and services.
> Economics and business is just one important sub-discipline of

> sociology. (Don’t suggest that to your favorite economist or local

> economics professor. It might upset her.)
>
>
>
> Today, and in the future, the proportion of social activity for
> productivity and innovation and is growing sharply. Socializing is
> work and wealth creation inhabits value networks.
>
>
>
> Used to be well-crafted processes and physicality drove tangible
> productivity growth. The low-hanging fruit of process reengineering
> has been picked clean. In large part the business process song has
> been played. It is still important, but it is the background tune, the
> enterprise Musak. We are fast entering the complex, post-process,
> value network era of the enterprise, business, the environment and
> civil society.
>
>
>
> Business networks and social networks are not mutually exclusive.
>
>
>

> Like BPR in the ‘90s, value network analysis (VNA) is the /lingua
> franca/ of your post-process world.

>
>
>
> Finally, Google Group recommendations like LinkedIn are not taken
> lightly. They are given years, sometimes decades to form. For example,
> if you are reading this you are already using pervasive social network
> technologies like email (1969) and Usenet (1979). The rest is history.
>
>
>

> Pay attention to *Scott Allen*. He is really providing the needed,

> pratical thought leadership for SNS:
>
>
>

> /“LinkedIn was designed to be more of an extended Rolodex than a

> virtual cocktail party. LinkedIn's core value proposition enables
> significant improvements in efficiency for search/discovery within

> your extended network.†/
>
>
>
> That’s the business model too.

[JT Maloney (IM: jheuristic)]

Hi Kim --

 

Thanks for the message.

 

"...we are connected on this a Google discussion board? Why is it that after an elaborate endorsement of Linked In and its wonderful group tools..."

 

The message on LinkedIn was not an endorsement. It was not elaborate. It is a practical recommendation to raise productivity for board mates and nurture the value networks ecosystem.

 

"...this group uses this less elegant discussion board?"

 

Usenet is not inelegant. The reason it is used is because it is used. Period. It matters little how technology works, it matters how it gets used.

 

It is common and fatal mistake to underestimate the power of archetype to often frustrating but essential business properties and behaviors like collaboration. For example,

 

- The mail archetype, couriered documents, has been in play since 2400BC. It is now called email and it is here to stay.

- The bulletin board, public written messages, have been in around even longer. It is now called Usenet aka Google Groups.

- The conversation, informal interchange of thoughts, has been out there a while too. It's now called Skype and clusters.  

 

Etcetera, etcetera.

 

Not sure what the network archetype is for Twits.

 

There are legends of examples where well-meaning 'experts' try and implement vendor & media-hyped collaboration 'seats' -- only to have it fail 100% with confidence. Hundreds of billions have been wasted. Often well-intention people are really self-absorbed technologists with little human comprehension. It is not to be harsh, but look around, they are everywhere!

 

With only a rudimentary understanding of value networks and analysis, the vaunted collaboration and community application subsystems are quickly abandoned as a principal, secondary or even tertiary requirement for effective business collaboration and communities of practice. Gasp! Yes, it is blasphemous to zealous IT vendors, but it is a miracle to workers, a huge relief.     

 

So, what is the archetype for value networks and analysis? Nature. It has been around a pretty long time too. If we get out of Her way, it is here to stay.

 

Cheers,

 

John

 

 

John Maloney

john.m...@valuenetworks.com 

 

Sarah Jones, Administration

sarah...@valuenetworks.com

Tel: 978-468-0267

Fax: 206-984-2429

 

 

-----Original Message-----
From: Value-N...@googlegroups.com [mailto:Value-N...@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of kpkfusion
Sent: Monday, November 10, 2008 8:13 PM
To: Value Networks
Subject: Re: LinkedIn and ValueNetworks.com

 

 

Linked In has done a solid job of creating value within a networked

[JT Maloney (IM: jheuristic)]

Hi Don -- Good question. Personally, I've learned to avoid discussions on technological determinism, social constructivism and philosophy in general on Usenet. It is great topic, but poorly suited to volleys of terse text. It is worthwhile, and people can pursue it here ---

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Technological_determinism

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Technological_constructivism

Besides that, these themes are better suited to the pub!

-j

-----Original Message-----
From: Value-N...@googlegroups.com [mailto:Value-N...@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of Don Steiny
Sent: Tuesday, November 11, 2008 8:35 AM
To: Value-N...@googlegroups.com
Subject: Re: LinkedIn and ValueNetworks.com

[David Meggitt]

Check out interaction: cause--effect of innovatons here
http://value-networks.googlegroups.com/web/Value%20contributed%20by%20innovators.jpg?hl=en&gsc=EGJ-dAsAAACLgdVXY9MX2gSalUw6sGFc

On Nov 11, 5:02 pm, "JT Maloney \(IM: jheuristic\)"

> -Don- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

[Dawn DeBruyn at WeMeUs]

Don, I usually just lurk up here, but on this I have to speak up: LinkedIn is not a CRM - whatever you make think it is (or is not) in the way of a social network, people finder, or even just a list with informative links - and doesn't impact salesforce.com's success.


Dawn DeBruyn, CEO & Co-founder
Office Phone: 650-728-7136x22
Cell Phone: 650-438-7937
Home Phone: 650-728-9160

www.wemeus.com

-----Original Message-----
From: Value-N...@googlegroups.com [mailto:Value-N...@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of Don Steiny
Sent: Tuesday, November 11, 2008 8:35 AM
To: Value-N...@googlegroups.com
Subject: Re: LinkedIn and ValueNetworks.com

[Don Steiny]

Dawn,

What is its purpose? The most common answer I get when I have a
room full of people is that people put their new contacts there and the
contacts keep up the information so it is more accurate. The other
answer I get is that people use it to soften the territory when they are
doing cold calls. They say "you may not know me, but we both know
so-and-so" or "I went to the same school as you." This is an
improvement on the old trick they used to teach sales people of looking
around the office for something in common. It was discussed in Caldini's
Influence book ages ago. Salespeople for years have kept track of who
introduced them, people's birthdays and relatives and much more, it
seems that LinkedIn makes this job easier and in some cases more
reliable. I was basically saying the opposite, not that LinkedIn
impacts salesforce, but the other way around, I am not going to use
Salesforce, I am not disciplined enough in that respect. LinkeIn is
great because I can just type in the name of people I got on business
cards and I have them in a "Rolodex." People I know that are serious
write information on people's cards, type all the information in before
they go to sleep that night and generally do many of the things that
LinkedIn does as part of their jobs. But that is pretty sloppy on my
part and if I was a salesperson, I would have to put more time into such
things. If I did I would use a tool like salesforce.com and LinkedIn
would be adjunct at best.

-Don

> Don, I usually just lurk up here, but on this I have to speak up: LinkedIn is not a CRM - whatever you make think it is (or is not) in the way of a social network, people finder, or even just a list with informative links - and doesn't impact salesforce.com's success.
>
>
> Dawn DeBruyn, CEO & Co-founder
> Office Phone: 650-728-7136x22
> Cell Phone: 650-438-7937
> Home Phone: 650-728-9160
>
> www.wemeus.com
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Value-N...@googlegroups.com [mailto:Value-N...@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of Don Steiny
> Sent: Tuesday, November 11, 2008 8:35 AM
> To: Value-N...@googlegroups.com
> Subject: Re: LinkedIn and ValueNetworks.com
>
>
> John,
>
> Thanks for this, one coment, how do we know that LinkedIn makes people more productive. Are we sure that it is better than other CRMs?
> I am not saying that it isn't, I don't know, but I think "if LinkedIn is the killer CRM, why is salesforce.com still doing well? In all these cases it is easy to assume things are true just because everyone says they are true.
>
> -Don
>
>> Hi --
>>
>>
>>
>> Thanks for all the comments about LinkedIn. Yes, LinkedIn is useful.
>> It makes people more productive. Productive people have less, not more
>> time. Thus, they have flocked to LinkedIn. The LinkedIn logic simple:
>> productive people create more wealth than non-productive people.

>> That’s all.

>>
>>
>>
>> Today I get invitations to join social network sites/services (SNS)
>> like *Nexopia, Bebo, Facebook, Hi5, MySpace, Tagged, Xing, Skyrock,
>> Orkut, Ning, Friendster, Twitter, Plaxo, Doostang, ecademy, *to name a
>> few. /Newsflash/: I do not care that you added me as a friend on your
>> latest SNS. I am not joining. I do not know what they are. I do not
>> care either. I am not a teenager. I am way too busy!
>>
>>
>>
>> There is a stupefying, choking amount of SNS hubris and hyperbole. For
>> example, I heard a CEO for a shiny new SNS outfit, in a lofty
>> presentation at a major research university, say emphatically his
>> offering would obsolete email in 2-years. God help us. Email is a
>> mainstay social network application has been and will be for decades.
>>
>>
>>
>> As usual, it is not the particular application, which are easy to
>> create. Rather, it is about the data, particularly the roles and
>> links, that are critically important, and extremely hard to
>> (re)create. *VNA Professional Edition* for example furnishes an
>> entirely new capability to capture, see, probe, discuss, merge,
>> negotiate, store, retrieve, change, print, syndicate, expand, analyze,
>> share, optimize and ultimately master these data, roles, links and
>> exchanges.
>>
>>
>>
>> Also, there is a fundamental social reorientation of business
>> underway. From an anthropological and market perspective, all
>> business is social, always was, always will be. For example, markets
>> are simply social arrangements for the exchange of goods and services.
>> Economics and business is just one important sub-discipline of

>> sociology. (Don’t suggest that to your favorite economist or local

>> economics professor. It might upset her.)
>>
>>
>>
>> Today, and in the future, the proportion of social activity for
>> productivity and innovation and is growing sharply. Socializing is
>> work and wealth creation inhabits value networks.
>>
>>
>>
>> Used to be well-crafted processes and physicality drove tangible
>> productivity growth. The low-hanging fruit of process reengineering
>> has been picked clean. In large part the business process song has
>> been played. It is still important, but it is the background tune, the
>> enterprise Musak. We are fast entering the complex, post-process,
>> value network era of the enterprise, business, the environment and
>> civil society.
>>
>>
>>
>> Business networks and social networks are not mutually exclusive.
>>
>>
>>

>> Like BPR in the ‘90s, value network analysis (VNA) is the /lingua

>> franca/ of your post-process world.
>>
>>
>>
>> Finally, Google Group recommendations like LinkedIn are not taken
>> lightly. They are given years, sometimes decades to form. For example,
>> if you are reading this you are already using pervasive social network
>> technologies like email (1969) and Usenet (1979). The rest is history.
>>
>>
>>
>> Pay attention to *Scott Allen*. He is really providing the needed,
>> pratical thought leadership for SNS:
>>
>>
>>

>> /“LinkedIn was designed to be more of an extended Rolodex than a

>> virtual cocktail party. LinkedIn's core value proposition enables
>> significant improvements in efficiency for search/discovery within

>> your extended network.†/
>>
>>
>>
>> That’s the business model too.

[Don Steiny]

David,

You might want to read "A Treatise On Human Understanding" by David
Hume. It has a wonderful discussion of cause and effect. I tend to think
that "cause" is a difficult concept at best and that Hume's point that
repeated observation is what leads us to causes. For instance, since
everything we drop falls, we say something causes this, gravity.
However, we do not really know what gravity 'is" or how it "causes"
things to happen. we can make predictions. In the drawing that you
posted there are bubbles with names and arrows connecting the bubbles.
If I want to repeatedly observe, say "energizers" or "drivers" having an
effect on "innovation" I would need to be able to see repeated and
repeatable instances of energizers causing innovation. However, how do I
see "innovation?" Innovation is a story we tell after the fact. It is
defined as creating economic benefit, so until there is economic
benefit, we can't tell if something is an innovation (inventions are not
innovation). Looking backwards we might find an "energizer" that was
part of the process. Even if we could identify these things in some way
that everyone agreed on, it still has not predictive value. Each of the
parts becomes what it is because we identify it as such in the present
and then work backwards.

Incidentally, this is something that has begun to concern me about
network analysis in general. To many of the "predictions" are a
consequence of analyzing the present and then imagining what could have
caused it. It can be shown that the attributes of agents cannot account
for social structure. It is probably just a coincidence that simple
models that create networks that have some relationship at a macro level
(scale free, Small World, whatever). The overall problem is that we are
in many different types of networks and that agent based representation
usually do not take that into account.

-Don

[Kathleen Marvin]

Here's an article in the current issue of Business Week on Linked-In's
business model, its founder Reid Hoffman, and how likely it is that it will
survive the recession.

rdgs
Kathleen Marvin

----- Original Message -----
From: "kpkfusion" <kpk...@neighborhoodamerica.com>
To: "Value Networks" <Value-N...@googlegroups.com>
Sent: Monday, November 10, 2008 8:13 PM

Subject: Re: LinkedIn and ValueNetworks.com

[Kathleen Marvin]

woops - didn't paste the link
http://www.businessweek.com/magazine/content/08_46/b4108062378720.htm

[David Meggitt]

Ha!! Don..I had intended to slip in and out quietly.

This is nothing much to do with LinkedIn, but is has to do with value
networks, so..

Coincidentally, I do intend to read David Hume, but in the context of
gaining deeper understanding of his influence on Adam Smith and the
development of the mechanistic model of work that begat the industrial
revolution, so will cover cause-effect en route. Thank you for that.

The diagram was based on the work of George Por (GP) and covered four
types of innovation. Lines linked the innovations with the
descriptions as stated. I do believe there was an assumption that the
direction of the arrows indicated an influence...maybe cause - effect
was too strong. Maybe, too, we can get GP to comment.

The diagram you see here with bubbles with names and arrows follows
the value network (VN) convention, but I'm sure you know this! I have
simply transposed GP to VN.
Please note, though, the following meanings that I attach to the
symbols in the diagram:-
> The bubbles refer to "innovators" which are real people or roles played by real people in a group of ANY size
> The arrows indicate deliverables - we will ignore whether they are "tangible" or "intangible" - another value network feature
> The receipt by a group of people of such a deliverable will have an impact on them - we can reflect how that may play itself out - a fascinating study to pursue, perhaps.
> I do not consider this an agent based representation, because..
In general we are modelling both the formal processes and the informal
networks that real people engage in (via activities bundled into tasks
as part of roles et al)
> For me, this involves recognising the social and (de)energising nature of the interactions, although to handle this effectively, one needs to connect the value network analysis to other techniques.
> As such, at a certain level of analysis, one can examine for patterns of interactions and think in terms of agent - based interactions and predictions. Accordingly, at that level, your final paragraph applies, but not for me to rise to!

This is a partial response, Don, but I hope helpful to some extent.

David

> >http://value-networks.googlegroups.com/web/Value%20contributed%20by%2...

[Dawn DeBruyn at WeMeUs]

Don, my roots are in sales and business development, and from that perspective I use/have used LI as a information gathering tool to identify the key people that I need to reach and to learn more about them; I continue to use it in that capacity in just about every area that I'm interfacing with someone else. I have also used it extensively as a resource in finding people for my team, advisors, etc. But when it comes to keeping track of the information about all of those people, LinkedIn is not where I do that - ACT used to be my "CRM", now of course I've moved all that to WeMeUs.

[jheuristic]

The Economist Intelligence Unit conducted a survey of 406 senior
executives worldwide and found that 79% of respondents see SNS as a
way to boost revenues and cut costs. They said that, “perhaps the most
interesting finding is that a full 85% of C-suite executives see an
opportunity to increase revenue and/or margins, versus 75% of middle
management.”

http://tinyurl.com/5jo3j5

-j


On Nov 3, 8:18 am, "JT Maloney \(IM: jheuristic\)"
<jheuris...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Hi -

[jheuristic]

Hi --

The LinkedIn Value Networks group is very popular and growing sharply!

http://www.linkedin.com/groups?gid=3410

Dozens and dozens of new sign-ups since 3 Nov 2008.

It is great to see the pictures and profiles of members. Drop in and
browse around!

IF you are readingh this, you are pre-approved to join.

Cheers!

-j

> >http://www.linkedin.com/e/gis/3410- Hide quoted text -