Steven L. Johnson

  • Thumbnail

    Reflecting on all of the topics we’ve covered in this course… if you were writing a note to your future self: what is a key point you want to remember 5 years from now?

    • Looking into the future 5 years from now, there are many important topics we learned that could relate to my life. One in particular that I feel will be very fitting is digital identity, and how important it is to keep your image on the web as good as you possibly can. The reason I say this is because in 5 years I will be fairly new to the professional world and I would like myself to remember what I learned about this very topic. Whether it’s my own Facebook page or professional site about myself, there are so many factors to keep in mind when thinking about keeping your digital identify clean and professional. Even the little things, such as keeping my photos across sites consistent, I would like to remember because that may allow other people to remember who I am. You can never be sure of who is searching for you online or what intentions they have, and that is why I believe digital identity and the professionalism on the internet is something I would like to remember 5 years down the road.

    • Five years from now, I’d like to remember the importance of digital identity. This is one of the most important things we’ve learned in this course. In the past, I’ve been careful about what I’ve posted to social media when I was applying to college and auditioning for dance teams. However, now that I am growing into a young business professional, I realize how important it is to maintain a clean and appropriate online presence at all times. With the Internet becoming more and more integrated into businesses and business management, employers are only going to become more aware of their employees’ online image. As I look for jobs and internships, I understand the importance of a professional digital identity and am more conscious about my online activities. This is something I’d like to remember/ remain aware of in five, ten, thirty years.

    • I think the most important thing I should remember, as general as this sounds, is to just make sure I stay up to date on the changes and trends in technology. The technology is constantly changing at this point, with new software, platforms, and innovations, and it’s so easy to fall behind and get caught up in the tech I’ve been using from the past. I don’t want to become that old, or even just younger man who refuses to accept the updates that happen, and so by constantly reading up and trying to implement, new technology in my life, I can be more ready for even bigger changes in the future.

    • Five years from now I hope I keep in mind the importance of keeping a consistent digital identity. It can be very confusing/harmful if one does not maintain a consistent digital identity, especially if employers make separate inquiries of your online presence. I think maintaining an up to date digital identity does more good than harm. I have thought about “cutting the cord” with Facebook, Twitter, etc. but I think maintaining a professional/neutral profile on these sites is more beneficial than just not having one at all. I am not sure where I’ll be five years from now, but I hope I keep this message in mind.

    • 5 years from now:

      Always find the most efficient way to do things. Set up systems in such a way that allows you to maximize free time.

    • A key point I would want myself to remember 5 years from now is to always reevaluate the processes around me to see if they can be done more efficiently. I feel that we all too often grow used to the inefficiencies around us, but if they can be improved, they should be.

  • When you arrive today, please pick up your folder on the table in the back of classroom — it contains all of your completed activity worksheets for the course. It will be helpful to you in completing your […]

  • Here is a link to Quiz #12. It is due by start of class on Tuesday, April 21.

    http://goo.gl/forms/v5JAsw6uuG

    The quiz is open-book, open-notes. The quiz is graded pass/fail — you will receive credit for the […]

  • Thumbnail

    McKinsey & Company hosts an interesting interview with author and NYU professor Clay Shirky.

    We’re in a world now where, unlike the old “you print the magazine in advance” model, demand creates supply. […]

    • I think that abundance is worse for society than scarcity. I think that abundance changes peoples’ attitudes and standards of living for the worse; it creates a wasteful society. As a tree-hugger, I am all about preserving our natural resources, but there are so many Americans that couldn’t care less about this, or simply don’t know what they can do. They don’t realize that their overconsumption of everything is detrimental to the environment. We overproduce everything, and Americans are used to it. They use their things for a certain amount of time and then dispose of them because they have others. Clothes are an excellent example. We have so many clothes, and don’t use them for their entire useful lives. Instead, we dispose of them or give them away while they can still serve their purpose. This means that more clothes have to be produced, using more natural resources. In impoverished nations where there is a scarcity of clothing, people use their clothes until they are no longer able to be used. This is a much better model for environmental conservation. The other problem is that Americans are ignorant to the negative impacts that they have. They don’t consider what happens to the clothes that they get rid of, and it creates an attitude that waste is alright. In fact, waste is one of the biggest problems facing many nations; there’s too much of it and nowhere to put it all. This attitude is a detriment to society and shows that abundance is disruptive to society.

    • While scarcity may make it easier to handle the products/resources/information available because there is an easily measurable amount, it ultimately just leads to a different and not necessarily better society. Scarcity means just managing what’s available, sometimes through the creation of strict monopolies, like in the case of the music industry and distribution of music. However, abundance puts the common person in control of what is available to him or her. No longer must that person rely on one or two channels in control, but instead can find what is desired whenever. This can create a level of ignorance and groupthink based on if people just follow trends, but ultimately they are in control individually through abundance of anything.

    • This is a very deep question with no provable correct answer. In fact, I might argue that both scarcity and abundance are equally disruptive to society but in differing ways. When there is scarcity of something (say, a natural resource, or a necessity like food), people will clamor and obsess over it. In the event of scarcity, society as a whole is deprived, and society as a whole struggles to evolve due to lack of resources. However, when there is abundance of something, everyone has it and most people don’t appreciate it. Whatever is abundant is also trite, cheap, boring, and valueless. Abundance causes contentedness and complacency. When whatever you want is handed to you, you are not likely to be ambitious, curious, adventurous, and investigative. Overall, in my personal opinion, scarcity is probably worse than abundance. Scarcity involves a desire for something and no realistic way of obtaining it; scarcity lacks hope. Abundance, on the other hand, involves plentiful supply, comfort, and complacency. Abundance slows growth by slowing the urgent societal push for education, new innovations, inventions, problem-solving, and exploration.

    • I am not sure whether scarcity or abundance is better for society. I think that scarcity makes it easier for people to control things, making people more resourceful and less wasteful. At the same time, abundance allows for more choices. With abundance, people can make products and services more personalized and customized. Personally, I prefer abundance, because I like having freedom in my choice of goods, such as clothes. I don’t see abundance as disruptive to society. I see it as allowing individuals the freedom to make personal choices which is good.

    • Even though abundance has more of a positive quality, I do believe it is more disruptive to society when comparing it to scarcity. Abundance in some cases can lead to overconsumption and usually something is not truly abundant, it is abundant in respect to a specific culture or nation. Something like a crop or any other item for that matter could be abundant here in the US, but may not be abundant somewhere else in the world. Abundance also leads to a mindset for people that may make them think that certain items will always be there and that’s not always true in the real world. When looking at scarcity, I believe it allows people to have a better outlook on resources and when times do get tough, they are used to having constrictions on what they can consume. Another argument that I believe can be made is that if there is enough overconsumption of an abundant item, it can eventually become scarce. So overall, I believe when an item is more readily available, it leads to both immediate disruption in society and can have rippling effects if enough people act on the thought that certain items will always be abundant, and that is not always true in the world we live in.

    • Although both scarcity and abundance have negative implications on society, I think abundance will cause far more problems in the long-run. We live in a consumerist society where we buy, consume, and expel waste without even thinking twice. So much more stuff is produced in the US and other parts of the world than anyone needs, and it all just ends up in landfills. The vast abundance we experience in the US will ultimately lead to scarcity of natural resources and will cause more challenges for humans than ever. Not only with physical items, but an abundance of intellectual property isn’t always a good thing either. While we have endless information and digital goods at our fingertips, this has been a hard hit for the music and movie industry who are now competing at a more intense level than before the Internet. Anyone can access any given song or TV show or movie at any time, so people don’t buy hard copies of these items anymore. Overall, I think we as humans haven’t learned yet how to control and maintain abundance in a healthy way, and that will end up causing more problems than scarcity will.

    • Both scarcity and abundance have positive impacts and negative impacts on society. If there is an abundance of something in society, everyone with resources will be able to have as much of the product or service that they desire. When an item is very abundant it is easy to find and easy to obtain, so consumers can receive an abundant item with ease. However, if there is an abundance of an item, consumers will take it for granted and just use it recklessly without care because it is so easy to obtain. An example of abundance is gas, since there is so much gas you can drive around on every street corner and find a gas station where you can fill up your car. However, people use gas recklessly since it is so abundant. Gasoline will not be abundant forever, but since consumers think in the short term, gasoline is overused and abused. Scarcity also has positives and negatives, in that a scarce item is very precious, but it is not easy to obtain. Having a very scarce item is very precious, and people who demand scarce objects would not use them recklessly because of how difficult it is to obtain. The negative side to scarcity is that there would not be enough of the good to go around for everyone. In my opinion, neither is the ideal option but abundance is better for society than scarcity. I would rather have more of something now than nothing now.

    • This is a question that I don’t think really has a definite answer. Both of them have their positive and negative sides. Although abundance may have a bigger disruptive effect on society I would still choose it over scarcity. Abundance gives more options and choices and it leads to unlimited supply, which will fulfill everyone’s desires. With scarcity, people have to learn how to control the use of resource because of its limited supply, and people’s demand would not be supplied. Abundance may lead to overconsumption and waste but I think as a choice it would be a better option than scarcity.

    • There are advantages and disadvantages to both. Abundance can change a person’s attitude because it leads to a wasteful society. America is so used to overproducing everything that we don’t even realize we’re doing it anymore. “Overproducing” is our “normal” producing now. But, it also allows the population to grow which leads to a potentially higher GDP. Scarcity is detrimental to society because if materials are scarce, population could decrease. But, scarcity can also lead people to appreciate materials more. If more materials were non-renewable and scarce, people might recycle and reuse more and they would understand how much of a privilege over-productive behavior can be.

    • Scarcity verses abundance is based completely on supply and demand. Sure the internet allows for easier exchange of some products, but it doesn’t just eliminate the scarcity model like the prompt suggests. The scarcity model is based on the idea that firms will leave an industry if their profits can’t cover their costs, at the price set by the market. The change in the supply will then adjust the price. With digital information however, their is no cost to copy so even at a price of zero, suppliers have no disincentive to keep making copies. It doesn’t make these products worthless, it just makes them cost-less. The other benefit is that they don’t have a cost in physical space either. Over production doesn’t cause pollution or fill landfills, they just take up a little memory on a microscopic chip. More people enjoy a greater benefit, I don’t see any problem with that.

    • Both scarcity and abundance have positive and negative effects on society. Scarcity forces people to appreciate what they have, and therefore teaches them to be more enterprising. However, scarcity and deficits also lead to a lack of satisfaction, or even comfort. Abundance leads to a plethora of choices and leads to more options, which means products can be geared more personally to consumers. As a modern-day consumer in America, I am obviously more used to abundance than scarcity. I do not feel as if I am spoiled by many choices, because I still appreciate what is offered. As a society, however, we have possibly been tainted by all the options available to us. I do not see a problem with living in comfort rather than deficit, because it is better to have many options than to be forced to make something out of nothing.

    • I agree with Connor in regards to this statement. I feel like abundance has caused us to lose sight of the value of a dollar among other things. Everything in today’s society is almost too sensitive to demand. With scarcity, people learn to value and respect the limits of resources such as information, gasoline, computing power, etc. It’s almost as if we have become spoiled in a way. I’m not saying that increases in the standard of living are a bad thing, but if left unchecked, bounding increases can have negative macro effects.

    • After weighing the pros and cons of both arguments, I came to the conclusion that I myself personally prefer abundance over scarcity. Despite the negative long run effects abundance can have on society in general, it is because of abundance that new technology is made and solutions are found. For example, because gas is started to become more and more limited as a resource, people are now devising technology such as electronic cars that are green and saving. If there was no incentive to push for electronic cars, they would not be made and our quality of life would be relatively low.

    • I do think that abundance can be more disruptive to society than scarcity. Where I find this to be most true is in wasting time. If there is an abundance of something, people will spend unnecessary amounts of time picking out what they want, where if something is scarce, people really don’t have a choice and thus waste less time. Let’s take television for example. So there used to be time where TV channels were scarce and people only had a select few to choose from. Now, there is an abundance of TV channels. When the channels were scarce, people looked at two, maybe three channels and if nothing was on that they wanted to watch, they did something else. Now, with so many TV channels, people waste time flipping through each channel to find something, and by the time they flipped through them all, a new set of shows has come on so they repeat the process and just waste so much time. Another example is restaurants. There are some restaurants where food is “scarce” and they list several different options, then are those whose menus could be confused with novels. Now I’m not saying all of this abundance of choices is a bad thing, I’m just saying that it exists and it can cause people to waste some time that wouldn’t be wasted if the choices were limited.

    • Scarcity is more disruptive than abundance is from a consumer standpoint. Which is better is a different story. When we have too little of something, we often modify our behavior. Have just one bottle of water to last you throughout the day? You’re going to ration it very carefully. If you have ten, you can drink as much as you need to. There’s no modification in behavior when you have too much. If cereal brands X, Y, and Z used to be available, and you bought brand X, but now only brands Y and Z are available, then uh oh. But if you have brands A, B, C, X, Y, and Z, then you can still get brand X. Or maybe you’ll find something you like more than brand X.

    • I think that from a societal stand point that abundance is in fact more disruptive then scarcity. This is primarily because we view scarcity as a problem so we work as a society to fix it as best we can and to also get the most of the resources or items that are scares. By doing so we place a higher value on things that are scarce. But as we get better at producing certain products and begin to make them more accessible they begin to become less and less valuable. And since we are able to produce more of it, as a society we try to avoid the issue of scarcity by continuing to produce more and more of it, which becomes a problem. So in attempting to avoid one problem, we end up driving ourselves towards a different problem that we don’t view as a problem. So we continue to produce more and more, thus continuously decreasing the value of the item more and more till it becomes virtually worthless. And then in cases like that, what happens next? Do we stop producing that abundant item because it’s no longer valuable? What could be the consequences of doing something like that?

    • Abundance and scarcity each have economic and societal pros and cons. From a purely economic perspective, it is natural to assume that abundance is preferable to scarcity. In fact, economics would not exist of a social science if not for scarcity. However, if we think of the issue in a social or societal framework, the analysis becomes much more complicated. In my humble opinion, abundance, in and of itself, is not a terrible thing. But when the human element is injected into it, ethics and other social values may sometimes be compromised. People begin to care more about having more than about each other’s social and economic well-being. A society that champions abundance encourages this behavior. This is why I believe that if the contrast is viewed in a purely social lens, then abundance harms society more than scarcity. Mr. Shirky is correct in that society manages scarcity much better than it manages abundance. When we think of abundance, it is also important to consider relative versus absolute measures of abundance. As a steadfast advocate of capitalism, I believe that wealth is a good proxy for the somewhat ambiguous term ‘prosperity’. So, a high overall level of ‘abundance’ is great in my opinion. It is when the distribution of wealth becomes extremely disparate that society is at risk. It is not as necessary to use the relative/absolute framework when discussing scarcity.

    • Both can be disruptive while both can be helpful too it just depends on the situation. When there is something that is abundant, it is taken for granted and usually is cheap. For example Oil, it used to be abundant and we thought it would never run out but now, the resource is getting more scarce and because so the price is going up. Scarcity also has its ill effects, for example, i think of endangered animals. Many endangered animals are killed for their materials they posses wether it be ivory, pelts, etc… When they are abundant, their goods are not as highly valued but as they decrease in numbers the scarcity causes the goods price to increase leading to more poaching and killing. Even though both have negatives and positives a balance of the two creates a good society in my opinion.

    • I think abundance is more disruptive to society than scarcity for the reason stated in the excerpt: society knows how to deal with scarcity but not with abundance. For the most part, when we have a scarcity problem, we tend to value things more. However, if we have an abundance of something, we tend to undervalue. When we undervalue something we end up wasting and overusing, and this leads to another scarcity problem that society has deal with. Abundance is more disruptive because it creates more scarcity problems society has to deal with.

    • I think that abundance breeds its own types of problems, but it is not better or worse than scarcity, it is just different. For instance, abundance can lead to over saturation and can clog a market. On the other hand however the nature of the internet that leads to abundance is good. It allows many people to enter a market who would be otherwise unable to because of the steep costs. Anyone can now have a E-book “published’ by amazon or put on another website. This doesn’t say anything about the quality of the work however. Abundance can also lead to gluttony. How many people have binged watched Netflix shows?

    • I also believe that abundance and scarcity both have their pros and cons, but in regard to abundance, while I believe it does give seemingly infinite options to many consumers, it does pose a viable threat to society. Personally, I think that having access to so many things spoils consumers and undermines how much we value you music or movies as well, but my biggest concern is in regard to artistic creativity. It feels as though in the modern age, copyright means very little to society in a world where songs, books, and movies are all too easy to find for download from a source on the internet. While this seems like a perfect deal for consumers, I fear that it will get to the point where artists have to debate whether or not to continue their careers simply because no profit comes from it. I’m sure this is an issue many artists face today, but if it becomes any worse, I fear that artistic thinking will simply become extinct. If that were to happen, then music and art might be free for access to everyone, but the level of quality will plummet or it could disappear altogether. And if the latter occurs, I do believe that that would be a significant detriment to society.

    • There is no doubt that scarcity is disruptive to society. It can influence how economies, governments, and even individuals. However, for the most part society has existed with scarcity for a long enough time that it has developed models to predict behavior. A perfect example of how scarcity is predictable is how Wall Street reacts to Fed rate changes. In fact, The very definition of economics is as follows: “A social science that studies how individuals, governments, firms and nations make choices on allocating scarce resources to satisfy their unlimited wants.” Economics thus far have been models of how people, at both micro and macro scale, deal with scarcity. Whenever the internet, or any other technology, breaks down this model of scarcity, all of our models go out the window. We are in uncharted territory. The lack of ability to predict what is going to happen creates uncertainty and volatility. While scarcity is certainly disruptive to society, such as unforeseen shortages in oil, the abundance that technology can create has no predictive behavior. When marginal cost becomes zero, how do people react? We are only just now finding out, a little more every day.

    • I believe that scarcity is more disruptive to society than abundance. When resources are abundant there is less controversy over who has more than the next person instead of who has some while others have none. While this problem can still persist when there is an abundance of resource instead of a scarce number, it is obviously less prevalent in an abundant society. I do understand the author’s point that abundance rarely pushes individuals to solve social problems. When scarcity exists individuals strive to fix those problems through other means, but when resources are abundant individuals are more likely to be wasteful and not pursue alternative means of satisfying those needs because they do not have to.

    • I don’t think abundance necessarily leads to social change. Since scarcity leads society to manage its resources carefully, I think this would lead to more change through creative thinking than abundance would. When there is no difficulty in getting something, why would anyone attempt to change the process. It wouldn’t benefit them because people can already get whatever is abundant very easily. When it is harder to get something, then people might get creative in thinking of solutions on how to either increase the abundance of a certain thing or make the current amount last longer.

  • A few updates:

    No quiz this week. I will post the next (and final) quiz at the end of this week. It will cover two weeks of reading and be due on Tuesday, April 21.
    Quiz questions are due this Thursday, […]

  • Thumbnail

    It is said:

    The power of the wolf is in the pack. The power of the pack is in the wolf.

    How does this apply to digital platforms?

    • Obviously, this quote is referring to utility of digital platforms in helping users hunt and kill their prey. It could also be referring to the compounding usefulness of digital platforms as they grow. Many digital platforms are improved with the more people that use them. This strengthens the platform, while allowing it to better serve the individual users. This is especially true of social media platforms. Take Tinder, for example. Tinder does not have any revenue, currently, but its strength can be measured in the number of users that it has. This allows the app to grow and spread. This, in turn, allows the users to reap more benefits. The more widespread the app is, and the more users it has, the better for its users who will have a greater number of users to connect with.
      On this same topic, I will also say that Yik Yak seems to give its users a boost of confidence. There are many people on Yik Yak who allegedly find the courage to ask out their crushes because anonymous voters on the app supported them. This is an example of how the power of the pack is in the wolf.

    • Both sides of this quote relate closely to the idea of digital platforms. Take the first part of the quote, which states, “The power of the wolf is in the pack.” What this can translate to is that the power that an individual user has on some digital platform, or in any group for that matter, is only as powerful as the group it is in. Now this can also branch off to many different meanings, but what I interpret from this is that an individual is limited to its progressions and opportunities based on the type of group, or in this case, digital platform they are on. Users of a specific digital platform may be limited to their interactions based on the number of other users in the group (pack). Looking at the other side of the quote, “the power of the pack is in the wolf,” it shows the opposite view to the effectiveness of the digital platform. Here the quote can relate to the effectiveness of a digital platform based on the individuals that make up that specific platform. The basis that these individuals can be judged on is both the number of individuals and the quality of these individuals. The link that can be made between the quote and digital platforms is that the power of the platform is as powerful as the individuals that make up the platform population. This population can then be judged on both quantity and quality, quality measuring how often and effective they use the digital platform to its full capability.

    • The quote above refers to the idea that digital platforms become increasingly useful as the amount of users in the digital community expands. You would not want to use Twitter if nobody else used it, but you have to make a digital presence because everyone else is using the platform. If you are going to sign up for a dating website, you would want the website with the most users to increase the likelihood of you finding the right person. The same goes for many digital platforms, they become increasingly most useful and relevant as the user base grows. Also, the digital platform itself is defined solely based off its users, no users would mean no platform just as many users usually means strong platform. This ties in very closely with the wolf pack concept because a wolf pack is successful if it has many wolves and because a wolf pack is only as strong as its wolves. There are however some niche platforms that are only popular for their exclusiveness, and seems to get worse as more people use it. This is the reason Facebook has been dying off because it lost its exclusivity and everyone started using it and it become overused by adults, which made all of the kids leave and now it is mainly just a place where you can find out what people are doing from high school.

    • My response to this discussion question would be altered depending on the nature of the digital platform in question. My assumption is that digital platforms, in this case, refer to social media platforms or other places where many users interact in a digital setting (like a massively-multiplayer online video game). With this assumption in mind, I believe that the derivation from the famous Rudyard Kipling quote applies perfectly. A digital platform’s strength lies in the number of people that use it (the pack); however, the quality of each individual user (the wolf) also has a major impact on the platform as a whole. In this sense, the strength of each individual wolf (the quality of each user) benefits the pack (all users of the platform); similarly, the strength of the pack (the overall quality of the platform based on its users) lies within the individual wolves (the individual users and the quality and quantity of information that they bring to the platform as a whole). Social media apps are a good example here. The more people that use a social media app, the more information is circulated; furthermore, the knowledge and reliability of each user has an impact on the quality of the social media app as a whole and the type of information that all the other “wolves” see.

    • I think that its pretty obvious how this quote can be applied to digital platforms. Since digital platforms require users in order to attract and retain more users, so you can say that the power of the digital platform is the users. This can be seen by almost any social media website or app because the only way they can attract more users is by having users in the first place. As seen by the games we’ve played last week, since the more customers you had the more customers you attracted each round. And with many digital platforms, if the platform is bigger, then the individual users can get more out of the app. For example the more people that use Youtube, Deviantart, or Vine, the more creators on those websites/apps get feedback and response on their creations. And the more positive feedback and responses the creators get, the more their popularity rises and the wider their influence spreads. So in cases like this the power of the creator is the digital platform.

    • This quotes refers to the relevance of a digital platform based on user numbers. The more people that use a digital platform, the more popular and well-known it becomes and the more potential users it attracts. This is especially relevant in social media platforms, such as Twitter, Instagram, Facebook, etc. If very few people used these sites, other people would say, “Why would I join this social media site, when there is barely a social aspect to it?” So, while the potential of a digital platform relies on its collective following (the “pack”), if one by one, users stopped using it, the power would truly lie in those individual users (the “wolves”) who comprise the pack.

    • The quote above refers to how digital platforms can improve or stay at a user-friendly plateau depending on how many people use it. Digital platforms tend to improve as a result of popularity, so they will become easier to use and will technologically improve if more people use it. Also, the popularity of some digital platforms will only keep increasing the amount of people using it. Essentially, its popularity will only make it more popular.
      However, there needs to be incentive for people to use certain digital platforms. which would lead to its popularity. The digital platform should draw in users in order to remain popular (“the power of the pack is in the wolf”).
      These two factors play off of each other to show that the digital platforms would not be popular if they did not have users, and would not have users if the platform was not good, which is perfectly portrayed by the stated quote.

    • Referring to the digital platform of Twitter, this quote is spot on. Twitter began as a social media company and developed as a smartphone app on a digital platform. “The power of the wolf in is the pack” refers to the power of Twitter being in the amount of users and tweets per hour or per day. When Twitter became public, it was due to the number of users it had accumulated. If there weren’t enough users, Twitter would not have gained any money in the stock market. “The power of the pack is in the wolf” means if the social media was shut down, the users would no longer have access to the account and would lose a social media platform. If the digital platform sucked, which means the app on smartphones sucked, people wouldn’t even download it and there would be no users.

    • This quote refers to the concept that as each additional user joins a digital platform, the benefit to each user gradually increases. The benefit of a networking platform is the connections it offers, and each additional user is an additional possible connection. It is the exact same way a wolf gains a greater benefit of protection from the pack. The individual wolf is very weak and can’t be a pack alone, just as it is impossible to have a digital platform with just one user. The invention of the internet essentially allowed computer “packs” to unite into on giant interconnected web, which has triggered a rapid development in technology across the world. It takes the power of the pack to a level that would be impossible in nature due to limited resources.

    • This quote applies to digital platforms because the convenience and usability of many digital platforms is dependent (to a certain extent) on the number of users it attracts. The .doc format is only the standard for word documents because Microsoft had the largest user base at the time it was created. Its metaphorical pack of wolves was the biggest of all tech companies. In the same token, many social media start-ups fail horribly because they cannot attract a user base big enough to yield benefits for the users. If no one uses the social network, then what use is it? I think this quote is pretty straightforward. Step your game up, professor.

    • This quote can be applied to digital platforms because digital platforms can’t function without users, so the power of digital platforms lies in its users, not the platform itself. This is particularly true for social media sites like Facebook and Twitter. Both of these sites started off with small user bases, and therefore the platform was somewhat weak. As more and more people joined, the more functional and useful the platforms became. Therefore, Facebook and Twitter could not progress as platforms without improving their user bases first. A stronger user base only encourages more people to join — if all your friends have a new social media app, then you will want it too in order to communicate on the same level with your social group. This makes it harder, however, to start a new digital platform, so many start-ups are probably unsuccessful.

    • The quote can apply to digital platforms that contain a lot of users. Social media platforms such as Facebook and Twitter are able to be so dominant in their market because of the number of users they contain. The whole reason why these platforms are able to function is the users. Without each and every one of us, these platforms would not be so existent in our daily lives. The higher their number of users is the higher the chance of new users joining is. The high amount of users provide these platforms the power that they have.

    • I applies because a electronic program is only useful if enough people can use it. There must be enough people on the platform to make programs feasible/profitable/successful. However a platform is only as strong as the amount of people who use it. For instance it does not matter how powerful a windows phone is hardware wise, if their are not enough programs on it to attract new users.

    • This concept we learned first hand when we did the games in class. Sites such as Linked-In and Facebook are only useful if they are used. This means that if people aren’t using these applications, the site becomes useless. As their user base gets bigger, the usefulness of the site also improves. This is why only charging the party that benefits from users and not the users themselves is such a successful tactic. For example Facebook does not charge for people to use their site, but the advertisers on the site pay a tremendous amount. These advertisers would not be successful if people did not use the site though, and people may not use it if they had to pay for it.

    • Platforms are two-sided networks. Consumers are attracted by low prices and, to a lesser degree, a large number of developers. Developers are attracted by a large number of consumers, and to a lesser degree, low prices. Therefore, platforms’ financial success often lies in the number of consumers they can attract and retain. The power of a platform is in the number of consumers and developers it has. But first, in order to build up a user and developer base, platforms must be good in their own right. They have to draw people to them. Platforms need to have consumers to survive, so platforms’ main goal is to be attractive enough to garner a lot of them.

    • This quote applies to digital platforms that are quite powerful, like Twitter, Instagram, and Facebook. This quote is saying how the platform is powerful because of the number it has, and the users can be “powerful” because they are using a powerful digital platform. For example, if no one was using Twitter, Twitter wouldn’t be popular and therefore not very powerful; however, because Twitter has such a huge following, it is quite a powerful platform. Also, because Twitter has such a huge following, more new users will want to join Twitter than a less popular social media platform because it is more popular. So in summary these social media platforms, like Twitter are very powerful because they have lots of users, and because they are very popular, they get more new users and become even more powerful.

    • This quote applies to digital platforms because it describes the relationship between many platforms, especially social media sites, and their users. It describes how sites such as Facebook and Twitter are powerful in their unique, individual functions to bring people and news together and select and highlight “hot” topics and posts. However, despite the good functionality of the sites themselves, the quote does a good job of pointing out that the power that the site offers can only be utilized when many people come together to actually use it together. In that sense, the sites are powerful tools to share information, but are only powerful because people actually use them and see the transferred information sent between themselves.

    • This quote applies to digital platforms because it is the way that many two-sided networks operate. Users of social sites like Facebook, Twitter, Instagram, etc. like using the service because their friends also use the service. So the “power” of the users is in the vast network of friends and potential friends that they have contact to through the network. Conversely, any social media site gains its power through the number of members on its site. The more members that are on a particular site, the more attractive it makes it to other potential users. This quote can apply to more services than just social media. It can also apply to ride sharing services like Lyft and Uber, which generate their market power by having a lot of drivers. The drivers get power from Uber being a vast network with many users.

    • Digital Platforms are only good when large number of users, use the platform. Then it can be said that a user only uses a digital platform when the pack is also using it. Look at social media sites for example. These sites are terrible if no one else wants to use it but when many individuals use it is strong, popular and many people want to use it. This doesn’t just apply to digital platforms but a lot of things in life in general. Look at phones for example. Why does everyone have the iPhone, because everyone else has iPhones.

    • I agree with what many people have already posted previously in that a digital platform is only as valuable as its users. It is a valuable coexistence in which a digital platform cannot truly be present if nobody uses it. For example, if one day 50% of Facebook users decided to leave for something else like Twitter, then comparatively speaking Facebook is now 50% weaker than it previously was. This is mainly because of the mutual relationship users and the digital platform share: by offering free services, Facebook lures in users who then generate revenue for them through ads. If no one were to use Facebook anymore, there is not really a true loss for users as the users are the wolves; however the pack such as Facebook will cease to exist. It is the users that make the digital platform.

    • This quote applies to digital platforms because a platform is generally only useful if there are a lot of users, and users will only use a platform if it has a lot of popular features. In this situation, the pack is the platform and the wolves are the users. It is a never-ending loop because they both feed off of each other. If you don’t have one, you are not going to get the other. This idea was reflected in the games we played in class, where new users signed up based on the price and also how many other users there were on that platform.

    • This is an interesting analogy for understanding the potential network effects of digital platforms. The first part – “the power of the wolf is in the pack” illustrates that a digital platform’s value is derived from the number of users subscribed to it. Network size and value to consumers are directly correlated in digital platforms, which we’ve also discovered through our activities in class. The other side – the power of the pack is in the wolf” – shows that, while the number of users is a significant consideration for consumers, the ability for its users to accomplish what they wish from participating in a network is dependent on the actual quality of the platform. Both sides of the phrase are equally important. I think that as consumers we tend to focus on the first part more than the second part. We see a platform and immediately consider how many people use it. Examining the quality and efficiency of the platform seems to require a deeper understanding; nonetheless, we consider it.

    • Digital platforms are powerful because they allow a large number of users to congregate and often function in a very singular way. However, these platforms have no power without the users themselves. Without users, even the most advanced digital platform is useless. There is a symbiotic relationship between digital platforms and users that is mutually beneficial. Digital platforms benefit users by connecting them to other users in a large number of ways, and users benefit digital platforms by giving them monetary support (either through advertising or donations) and can often channel users into certain causes.

    • This quote refers to the need of any digital platform to have a strong base through its users, and the need of users to have a strong platform that supports their interests. There needs to be a need and a benefit on both sides, or else the platform will not gain traction and fail while the users move on to another platform that may be better able to support them. The impetus is on the platform to gain the support initially, but then falls on the users in order to continue supporting the platform

  • Here are the details for the reflection journal assignment.
    To Submit
    Email to steven@temple.edu as a Word or PDF file. You may submit the assignment to me any time between the final class meeting (Thursday, […]

  • Here is a link to Quiz #11. It is due by start of class on Tuesday, April 7.

    https://docs.google.com/forms/d/14ip-DzoSioJCDRzyV-giwpdjCDwGN7OdD68IVGphIU8/viewform

    The quiz is open-book, open-notes. The quiz […]

  • ThumbnailAs noted in this AdWeek infographic most social network services have minimum age restrictions of at least 13 years of age or older.

    Do you think this is an adequate restriction? Do you think the age should […]

    • My first thought was that thirteen is a little young. After giving it more thought, however, I believe that most thirteen year olds are old enough to use social media like Twitter and Facebook. If I had kids I probably would not want them to be on social media until fifteen or sixteen, but because social media has permeated our culture so much, I consider it inevitable for younger kids to be active on these kinds of website. Therefore instead of resisting the uncomfortable idea of kids as young as thirteen having social media accounts, I would rather focus on teaching kids to use social media responsibly. I understand that the problems associated with kids using these services could be plentiful. Bullying comes to mind, as does the possibility that kids could become overly exposed to matters appropriate only for adults. So if the age restriction were to be moved at all, I would much rather see it go up than down.

    • I think that the age limits that are set, are appropriate, but I do not think that they are enforceable. Any child that can read knows that when a restriction pops up on a website, asking for their age, they need to write that they were born 40 years ago. The first time they do it, they may be afraid of the repercussions, but as soon as they muster the courage to do it for the first time, they realize that absolutely nothing bad will happen to them if they lie about their age. In fact, they not only get away without punishment, but they are rewarded with all the adult content that they can now access.
      What we need to do is find a way to enforce these age restrictions. I propose that for the first the government start cracking down on these little hoodlums that lie about their age. The FBI should figure out a way to determine when a child is accessing content that they should not be accessing, and they should arrest these children, and sentence them to death. This program can run for a month, or until a couple million children have been caught. Then no other child will ever want to lie about their age, again. Problem solved.
      Alternatively, I think that a more feasible solution would be to somehow have every cell phone linked to its owner. Whenever an individual tries to access a site or app that requires verification of age, the site will call the phone number that the individual inputs, and get verification from the phone. Every kid above the age of 13 has a phone anyway, so although it may be a little intrusive, it would not be too difficult to link the phones to this information. Furthermore, a child would have to get the permission of his/her parent to access any age-restricted material because they would be too afraid to input a parents’ phone number without their permission.

    • User age restrictions for apps and social media are understandable, but they are not enforceable. I’m not entirely sure how these age restrictions are determined. I assume the designers/programmers want to reach as many people as possible and don’t care at all how old the users are. If it were up to them, in most cases, their apps and websites would not have age requirements, unless of course the intended audience is a very limited age group. Thus, I assume that (normally) some government organization like the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) imposes the age restrictions based on the quality and quantity of the “adult content” present. The core purpose of these age restrictions is probably to prevent children from viewing adult content or interfering with adult interactions. This makes sense. That being said, I don’t think age restrictions are effective or realistic. Anyone can lie about their age on the internet and create an account on a website with a false identity. After children navigate around these minor roadblocks with ease, they can look at pornography, read inappropriate adult language, and interact with potentially-dangerous strangers. Therefore, the age restrictions are essentially useless. From a societal perspective, the restrictions are necessary, because they act as warnings that adult content lie beyond. However, there is no realistic way to increase the effectiveness of the age restrictions. I would not want to live in a society where I was required to provide documents proving my identity before using a website. So I don’t think the age restrictions should be changed or eliminated; I think they serve a purpose: warning about adult content. But they do not actually prevent children from viewing the content.

    • I think that the age restrictions are adequate and fair for each of the sites that has them. I don’t think that a lot of people actually follow these age restrictions. I think that they serve the general purpose giving the parents an idea of what kind of content their kids will be seeing on the sites or apps. However for the most part they are not enforceable and it’s easy for kids to lie about their age. Kids are growing up maturity-wise it seems at a higher rate so they are attempting to be older sooner. When children use services that are geared towards adults it tends to make them grow up even faster because they are exposed to things much sooner then they would naturally.

    • I don’t think age restrictions are necessary because they are so easy to get around. I don’t doubt that parents are concerned with how accessible questionable material on the internet is, however, I feel that more personal restrictions dictated by parents are the only solution to this problem. Parents should limit time on the computer and open dialogue about what their children are using the internet for, rather than placing ineffective restrictions upon web access.

      A major component of this issue is that children are usually much more technologically adept than their parents. The older generation, in this case, needs to make an effort to understand how certain technologies, such as Youtube work. From there, they can better enforce rules, because they’ll actually have a clue what’s going on.

    • I agree with most of these age restrictions on social media sites, however they cannot be enforced. If a 12 year old wanted to sign up for Twitter, Facebook, or LinkedIn they could easily just lie about their birthday. Also, it would be silly to make social media sites further check the age of its users by asking for birth certificates or social security numbers. I consider this as more of a suggested age requirement, but it is really up to the parents. I was not allowed to have a Facebook or Myspace (back when Myspace was a thing) until I was 13 or 14. It is up to parents to control the digital identity of their children up to a certain age. When children go on social media sites meant for adults, they can see and read things not suitable for their ages. I’ve seen some horribly offensive posts on Twitter and Facebook, and if a 12 or 13 year old saw that, there would definitely be a problem. Younger kids also have a lower tolerance to addiction to social media sites that could make them socially awkward in real life. If a child spends too much time on social media or online in general, real life interactions may become difficult. Also, a 14 year old really has no business being on LinkedIn, LinkedIn should be a site for college seniors and up because it is a very professional environment where students, employees, and employers can all interact and connect with each other and a 14 year old should not have a part of that.

    • I think these age restrictions are fine, but they are not able to be enforced. When I was younger, if a website asked me for my age, I would put my birth year as 1950 or something. There is virtually no way a website could check every single user’s information to confirm they meet that particular website’s age requirements. I think parents would need to be the middle man in this situation. Parents know best about what is appropriate for his/her child based on their age and level of maturity. If a parent is okay with their 12 year old having a Facebook profile, then that is his/her decision; if a parent does not want his/her child having a Facebook account until sophomore year of high school, then that is his/her decision. Also, some things that are posted online are offensive, graphic, inappropriate, mean, etc., so a parent really needs to monitor his/her child’s online activity.

    • I think the age restrictions are appropriate, but like others have said, not enforceable. There is no stopping a 12 year old from entering a birth year for a person aged 13. While people can post whatever to these social media sites (Facebook, Twitter…), children 13+ can choose what to follow and what to see. I think there are movies, or teenage shows, rated PG-13 that share a lot of the same information as social media sites. Instead of trying to limit what a 13 year old can see, we should be exposing them to the kind of stuff they already talk about with their peers and teaching them how to handle the information. Teens are running into problems younger and younger due to “hiding” things from them. Parents should be coaching them through the peer pressures and social media issues so that when they do see and talk about this stuff, they are prepared instead of blindsided and lead in the wrong direction. All in all, I knew what social media tells teens today well before I was 13 because kids talk about it on buses and homeroom already anyway.

    • I believe that the age restrictions are more or less fair and thought-out for the websites that they relate to.However, this does not mean that they are well-enforced or followed. In fact, I clearly remember that as a twelve year old, I had no problem with lying about my birth date so that I could use Myspace/Facebook/etc. I think the purpose of the age restrictions is so that if a parent wants to blame a social network for their twelve year old seeing something “inappropriate”, then the social network could state that the child shouldn’t have been on the website in the first place. The ages are also stated so that parents or the kids using them could have a general idea of the type of content involved in the websites. Overall, though, these “rules” cannot be enforced, and possibly only increase kids’ curiosity as to the content involved in them. I feel like if kids at younger ages can have no problem with finding adult content on TV, magazines, etc. then they can just as easily see these websites.

    • Unfortunately, there really isn’t any website a child can’t access. There really isn’t any way social media and other sites can enforce their age restrictions, because anyone can lie about their age and not see any real repercussions. Ultimately, it’s up to the parents to use website-blockers and other programs to control what their kids can and can’t access online, since the websites themselves have little to no way to determine how old their users are. I do think the age restrictions listed on the infographic seem fair, but certainly should not be any younger than they are. If there is a better way of enforcing these age restrictions, I think it would prevent problems like cyber bullying and children being put into bad situations like communicating with adults they don’t know or viewing age-inappropriate content. However, this enforcement might be seen as an invasion of privacy as certain info might need to be heavily tracked by the website. Overall, I do not see websites making any changes to enforce their age restrictions and that responsibility will always fall on parents.

    • For the listed apps and services, I think that their respective minimum age requirements are reasonable. Even though these services have age limits, it’s difficult to enforce them, much to the dismay of some parents. Age requirements don’t seem to deter underage users. I know that when I signed up for MySpace and Facebook, I was well under the minimum age. Some of the major problems of children using websites for older individuals is the lack of understanding of online information and privacy. Thankfully, I’ve been wary of my online presence from an early age, so my profiles on MySpace and Facebook contained mostly fake information. (I no longer use either of those old accounts.) Obviously, a fake birthday was needed to make myself old enough to create an account. Also, children might see content that really isn’t appropriate for them. Some really inappropriate pictures pop up on Facebook, Twitter, etc., and this is what makes the Internet a headache for parents. Parents generally don’t want their children to be exposed to drugs and nudity in any form or fashion when they’re too young to fully comprehend what they are. It’s difficult for parents to police their children’s usage of apps and services though website-blockers and phone restrictions can help.

    • I think the age restrictions are useless. There is no way to keep children off of social media sites. Especially today when most children are better with technology than the adults who are supposed to be protecting them. The only way to control this problem is to teach children about the dangers that can be found online. Especially when children are at very vulnerable ages and are feeling very alone. It is something that must be addressed with family members and setting household rules.

    • For most of these age restrictions, I do think the age requirements are appropriate and kids at or above the given age will not have extreme problems on these services. But some of these age requirements I do not agree with and I think that some should have higher age requirements for a number of reasons. Some of these social network services that should definitely be increased in age requirements should be Tinder and LinkedIn. Tinder’s age restriction is 17 but there are many older adults that could be 5 years older than the 17-year olds and 17 is not the age that you become an adult, so I would argue that the age should be 18 for Tinder. Also, the age restriction of 14 for LinkedIn is very young. LinkedIn is meant for professionals in the workforce or people seeking work, not young kids. I would say an appropriate minimum age for LinkedIn would be 17. There could be a variety of issues when kids use services that are intended for adults. One very obvious issue is that there can be legal issues when adults interact with kids that are on these social media sites. Adults can either manipulate these kids or kids can manipulate the adults to making them think they are older than they really are. Also, kids are much more immature than adults for the most part, and to allow them to be on professional sites or adult websites is a bad idea and there is nothing positive that can come out of it for either party.

    • I don’t believe age restrictions that social media sites set have any impact on who actually ends up using the site. The most advanced way that websites prevent children from registering is by asking them their birth date. This is more so that the website can claim they have an age restriction rather than an actual attempt to prevent children from using their services. Any while these websites aren’t usually inappropriate for children, filtering of posts is usually limited and children can be exposed to all kinds of adult material. Social media sites have also become a major concern when it comes to cyber bullying. Children feel a lesser sense of responsibility for words they type rather than say, and they don’t consider the impact their words can have on their peers. Cyber bullying has led to suicide in many cases which shows just how out of hand kinds can get when using social media.

    • I believe this is rather standard for age restrictions regarding these sites. Although in theory the age should be much lower like many people have stated previously, it is extremely easy to lie about your age online without any serious repercussions, and the age where kids tend to be more internet savvy is usually in their teens, which is how the majority of these sites limit the ages. The only negative thing that can occur besides corruption of the mind is possibly these young gullible teenagers falling for some scams and using their parents’ credit card for some sites.

    • I think that these are adequate age restrictions, but as some of my classmates said before me are not really enforceable. If someone underage wanted to access these websites, they easily could. All they would have to do was lie about their birthday and say they were older than they actually are. I feel that these age restrictions serve more as age suggestions for parents than age restrictions. Some parents might be totally fine with their 11 or 12-year-old accessing Facebook and Twitter, while other parents wouldn’t want their child to access it until 13 or 14. I don’t think that the age restrictions need to be changed at all. When children use products targeted for adults they are getting exposed to things that they might not be ready for. For example, there are some very vulgar tweets and posts with extremely strong language out there that no 13 year old would need to see. So to a degree when children use products designed for adults they almost grow up quicker and lose their innocence quicker than their peers.

    • I think this is an adequate restriction and the age limit sounds reasonable. Although these restrictions are present they are not very enforceable. It is the parent’s responsibility to monitor what their children are able to access since a user can easily lie about his age when opening an account or accessing a site. Computers don’t have a way to track and confirm information about a user; such as their birth date. These restrictions really don’t have much use apart from giving a warning or general idea of what the site may contain.

    • Age limits are an odd thing, simply because anyone can lie about their age to get on to these social media sites.However I actually think age media limitations should be lowered and sites should instead filter and tailor there sites towards the younger user. Instead of allowing younger children to use the sights with adults, the site should be a “facebook” for children and they can only be friends with other kids that their parents or another guardian has chosen and accepted. Along with that every child under a certain age has to have their facebook or media account attached to a legal guardian. Now the age barrier can obviously still be bypassed by lying, however how hard is it for these companies to see how long ago an email was made and inquire more information to verify an age. The reasoning for lowering this is that hopefully under a parents supervision, these kids can develop proper social media habits for their future use.

    • The age limits are appropriate, but as multiple people have already pointed out, they are not enforceable. It is too easy for a kid to just lie about their age and accept the terms offered by the website. I think the restrictions are just there more for the company’s sake to clear them of any liability from any harm that an underage person could come by from using the site. Most of the age limits set for the sites seem appropriate and I don’t think they need to be changed. Children can be harmed by using sites built for adults because some of the content on these sites might discuss adult topics that they might not be ready to hear.

    • I think the age restrictions are fine as is because making them higher or lower is useless. I think age restrictions would be a great way to protect kids from seeing what they should not be seeing hypothetically, but are useless in the real world because kids are smart enough to set their birthday far back enough to meet the age requirement for any website. Other then parental controls, I don’t think there is any way to keep a child of a certain social media website. I also think it should be up to parents to decide when their children should access social media because different kids have different maturity levels and are able to handle different responsibilities.

    • As most people have said, the age restrictions are basically pointless because they are so easy to get around. I bet most of us can admit we’ve lied about our age for something like them more than once in our lives. People are saying that there should be more enforcement at the company and federal level, but ultimately it comes down to the parents and how they handle the accessibility. There are ways to block sites and restrict apps, and it is up to the parents to show their kids why they aren’t ready for some of these apps. The company puts on the age minimum to reduce liability and it would very tough and pointless to have some kind of government oversight on the matter.

    • I do believe that this is a pointless restriction. It is so easy to lie about one’s age on the internet, that trying to lock content based on age is silly. There is no way to varifiy what one’s age actually is. Many parents also make Facebook profiles for their young children, which I find a little disturbing. I believe that anyone who wants to access age restricted content will access it regardless of the safety measures in place.

    • Looking at the listed social media sites, I would say that if users on all the sites interacted with only other users of the same age, the age limits might actually be adequate. I believe the problem arises though when younger users end up being exposed to content uploaded by much older users. This is particularly relevant I believe to the sites with the lowest restrictions, such as Facebook and Instagram. The issue does not lie in the fact that middle school students are interacting with each other over the web. The only issue I see is when older users start to post content that is inappropriate for the younger users and they see it. In that case, I would say even say that 13 may be too low of an age restriction and it should be higher by a few years.
      However, I believe a much bigger problem than what the on-paper age restrictions are is how teenagers face almost no risk by simply lying on the registration page and saying they are older and creating an account anyway. While I spent time in Korea, I learned that because of a big issue of gaming addiction in the nation, they had begun to implement an age restriction for certain online games. How they implemented it though was quite bold in my opinion but showed how serious I think the government really way. For the selected games, they decided to add another requirement when creating an account which was a specific code that was unique to every person. This code is somewhat similar to the social security number of US citizens and so can identify a specific person, and therefore their age. This erased the ability for under-aged kids from playing the games. I’m sure that kids there eventually found a way around it, like borrowing an older cousin’s perhaps, and I’m quite certain that such a controversial policy would not be implemented in the US because a breach of security, but until steps similar to these are taken, I do not believe the issue of age restrictions will ever be able to be resolved.

    • I think that for some social media sites that the age restrictions should be higher than they are currently. Certain social media sites have adult content that is easily accessible to a younger audience because they have access to these sites. I think that users can make an account at a younger age, but have restrictions imposed on their account depending on their age. I understand that for certain sites, if not all, it is extremely difficult to verify a user’s age. Anyone can put in a false age to get around the age restrictions so I don’t think that any stricter age restrictions would do much, even if they should be implemented.

    • The problem is that age is not a perfect indicator of maturity and readiness to interact on social media. There will be 14 and 15 year old children that use social media for positive purposes and can successfully navigate various websites. Other children, on the other hand, may not be ready to do so even into their upper teenage years. Unfortunately, this may require changing the minimum age of various social media sites. Parent’s permission is a great way of mediating this. Some parents may know that their children can successfully be a part of social media, granting permission for younger children. Others may no that they cannot do so.

  • Thank you all for your consistent engagement and high quality work in this course!

    All grading is complete in the Blackboard Gradebook — including final course grades.

    Please let me know in the next 48 […]

  • Here is a link to Quiz #10. It is due by start of class on Tuesday, March 31.

    https://docs.google.com/forms/d/1aCkmqcrWnWL3B1No5PQZGy8bUJZDkS93CI50UQlrc7o/viewform

    The quiz is open-book, open-notes. The quiz […]

  • Sir Tim Berners-Lee speaks out on data ownership:

    The data we create about ourselves should be owned by each of us, not by the large companies that harvest it, the Tim Berners-Lee, the inventor of the world wide […]

    • Honestly, the fact that I have never thought about this issue before, indicates to me that I could care less about retaining ownership to my own data. I understand that companies are using the data collected on me to market their products to me, but for one thing, I don’t particularly mind that, and for another, I don’t know what I would do with the data if I had control of it. I don’t mind that companies use my data to market their products and services directly to me because this often makes my life easier. If a grocery store keeps track of the items that I purchase, and gives me a coupon when I check out for a product that I frequently purchase, that’s great because it saves me money. If its a coupon for a product that I’ve never bought, or don’t buy frequently, that’s fine as well because I’ll either disregard the coupon, or I’ll use it to experience something new that I might like. Perhaps, though, the only reason I don’t have an issue with this is that I am not an impulse buyer. Regardless, I don’t know what I would do with my own data if I had control of it, so somebody might as well make use of it. Furthermore, in order for me to gain access to my own data, somebody has to make money. Some company has to design a system to track and record my data, and they won’t do that for free, so I guess I find this idea a bit unfeasible in the first place.

    • I find this question difficult to answer; like Connor Rattey, I have never considered this possibility before. But that doesn’t mean that the concept should not be pondered. I suppose that access to my own data would allow me to gain perspective on myself and help me make better decisions. I could retain detailed records about my debit card/credit card purchases, my online activities, my social media interactions, and so on. This gold mine of information about myself might help me better manage my finances, make better lifestyle choices, and improve my time management. That being said, I don’t think it is realistic to expect companies to disclose this type of information, and I think it might be unsafe for this type of sensitive information to be distributed to individuals all over the world. Companies harbor power, and information often represents power at this point in history. Furthermore, companies go to great lengths to protect private customer information and prevent it from falling into the wrong hands. Sometimes they fail, like Target did recently in its data breach crisis, to keep customer information safe. But most of the time, companies keep our data secure from hackers and criminals. If each individual managed his/her own data, instances of identity theft and online crime might increase. All personal information would be in the hands of the individual, and not all individuals would take the necessary steps to protect themselves from hackers and criminals. I think having better access to my data would be valuable to my own decision making, but it would not be very safe. Sensitive, personal data is probably safest with major companies that have systems in place to protect such information.

    • Like Connor and Nathan I really haven’t thought much about the topic of who has access to and uses data about me and my habits. After thinking about it for a bit I really don’t mind having this data be used for marketing research and campaigns from companies, this is primarily because like Connor said it makes things a lot easier because advertisements can be geared towards my interests and make things easier for me. Whether things are better in that I got a coupon for something I normally buy, or I’m shown a video ad for a movie or video game that seems interesting, I have no reason to complain. Also, there is a large amount of data that is being collected on us and I doubt that all of this information is being used by the company that is collecting it. In cases like this, where data is being unused, the company may sell access to that data granting other companies the information they need. I really don’t see this as a bad thing either because the data is in the end being used for the same purpose, which is to make the customer experience better overall. And as for it being practical for individual users collecting their own information and using it, I have no idea how one would use data about them self. For the most part people don’t know, or even care to know, how many seconds they spend watching an ad or how many times they watch a specific video. If someone wanted to have this information about them self then there are plenty of ways they can look at the information they need for themselves. There are apps or programs you can get that will track what you do when online, or you can simply monitor yourself and get the data on yourself that you need. If only individuals have access to their data, then there is a great chance that it will simply go unused and under utilized.

    • I don’t really mind that companies use my data. For most companies, internet users’ data is used to make the customer experience better, by providing relevant advertisements, discounts, and general content. Some people argue that this is an invasion of privacy; ads are inevitable, and personally, I’d at least want this pop-up / sidebar content to be relevant. Sometimes I have discovered new websites and products from these personalized ads. I don’t see anything wrong with companies using my data. I suppose internet users could come together and “sell” their data to companies, but no one truly cares enough to advocate for legal ownership of their data.

    • I do not mind that companies take my data, provided that I give it to them in some way. If I put my contact information or an address or some other piece of personal data into a website like Facebook, I can’t be upset that they used that data to increase their ability to do business. I am not a person who believes that big corporations and the government are using all of our data to track us and have control over us. I believe companies only use your data if it can help the company provide a better experience to the consumer. If I get better customer service and a better overall customer experience just because a company knows a little bit more about me because of big data, I am very satisfied with that trade off. As for each individual owning their own data legally, we do but we choose to put it on the internet and provide it to companies for them to use as well. There would be know big data if the everyday consumer did not provide big data. I am comfortable with giving information to companies and allowing them to use it, so long as it results in a better customer experience.

    • I guess it all depends on what data it is that is being collected. Like my classmates said before me, if companies are using data like which sites I visit and how often to advertise products to me, I don’t think that’s a problem. I think that people have a problem with their personal information like address, phone number, and credit card info being used by companies when they don’t know what they’re using it for. I don’t think this really happens, and companies really just want to know minimal information about you in order to better market their products to you. Therefore, I don’t think it’s necessary for each of us to have legal ownership of our data. At the end of the day, it’s the choice of the individual to put certain information about themselves online, and people need to expect that that information may be used by companies. Personally, I am okay with giving up ownership of my data if it means a better experience online.

    • I don’t agree with the statement that we are giving up ownership of our data in exchange for free services. That would imply that some sort of agreement had been made. In actuality, companies just use whatever data they have access to and they don’t even tell users that they are doing it. And while nothing was physically stolen, the website does benefit from the individuals data without their knowledge, which seems pretty unethical. I’ve never really flt victimized by a company using my data for targeted advertising or anything else, but hearing that my data could be useful to me if I had possession of it makes me feel more like something is being taken from me. And I definitely don’t think that companies use this data to make my online experience better, I think they just use it to sell more avertising. I’m not sure exactly what the prompt means by “rich” data or what its practical use is but I would be very interested to hear more about how we could take control of our own data.

    • No, I do not believe that each of us should have legal ownership of our own data in most cases. Where I believe it is ok for companies to take advantage of my data is when I put something out onto the web that I know and accept the fact that it is open to the public. If I do not block my social media or use any other websites and input information on these sites that I know can be viewed by others, I do not see a problem with other people using this information. On the other hand, if I have private information and a company takes advantage of this information, I think that is where I believe people should have legal ownership of their data. I personally do not think individuals can combine data to make it more valuable as compared to how data is collected now. I do not think enough people could come together with their specific information and produce a better product because I do not think they can connect the dots from each person’s specific information and make that good of a story out of the data. Overall, I am satisfied with giving up my own data (data that I agree to be made public) because it leads to better overall collective data then I think could ever be collaborated any other way.

    • This is a very touchy subject that has only come to light in the past few years. On the one hand through the Internet and “big data” there is more that can be learned about what is going on inside the minds of people than ever before. On the other hand though it is scary to think that our actions are being recorded and used as information. I think that the information we produce as a people though is so valuable that companies will not stop using it no matter the ethical dilemma. I think that having access to the information known about you though would also be really interesting. To see the information you give to “big data” would be scary but also could help you to manage your own online identity.

    • I think it depends on what data. It is perfectly fine when google tracks my recent search history to show advertisements for products that I have been looking at. If anything, it creates a more fulfilling and efficient user experience. Claiming to own the data from my internet usage would be like someone claiming to own a table at a restaurant they go to. There are, however, limits to the extent of this. There is a certain point where collecting more data on users just becomes unnecessary and a waste of money. Certain things like private conversations online should not be subject to data mining.

    • In agreement with most of those who responded before me, I do not personally care if companies use my data. Most of these companies collect people’s data in order to improve the customer’s overall online experience. The data collected allows companies to show us coupons and ads that relate to things that we search or purchase. I do not really see this as an invasion of privacy, because they are using the data collected to improve our feedback. The ads on the sidebar will occur regardless of whether data is collected from us or not. Also, the fact that I have never thought about this shows that I definitely do not mind my data being collected and I have no desire to sell my data to the companies. I end up benefiting from the ads due to the fact that they are relevant to my interests.

    • Like most of my classmates said before me, I honestly don’t care giving up ownership of my data. For starters, I wouldn’t know what to do to make my data more valuable, and quite frankly probably wouldn’t want to spend the time and energy to do so. Individuals could in theory combine their data to make it more useful and valuable, but it would take an individual who knows what to do with the data and has the time to do it. I’m perfectly fine giving up my data in exchange for free services supported by ads. Also, if the companies that have my data are using it properly the ads I receive would be for products or services that I would be interested in and if I were to click on the ad and maybe buy the product , so in the end, both me and the company would be benefitting from my data.

    • The idea that individuals with direct control over small bits of data can enhance it in the right ways seems far-fetched at best. Companies collect and pay for this data to look for trends and help support decisions over the long run. While it is often used in the form of ads that appear on your screen, isn’t it better for you to get personalized marketing as opposed to random, impersonal marketing anyway? And companies use this data for much more than just ads. I work for a company that helps provide digital information on customers where they also voluntarily submit their data through logging on to the company’s WiFi that hires us. That data can then be used to help business owners see what is more popular when and help them make better informed business decisions to provide more of what the consumer wants. Individual data alone means nothing to an individual, which is why the concept big data exists in the first place.

    • As Internet users, I think that we are not entitled to sole ownership of our data. By surfing the web, we are providing our personal information to the public. It is impossible our data to remain ours alone. Some people enjoy the targeted advertising that they receive. Personally, I’m not a fan of it. I also don’t like to let Google know where I am, so I keep my location services off. Though I accept the reality that my online data is not mine, I like to retain some semblance of control and separation which is why I use add-ons like Ghostery. I don’t see the benefits of rich data. I have multiple Google accounts and therefore multiple YouTube accounts. One is my main account on which I keep track of channels I’m subscribed to and I have videos that I’ve favorited. Sometimes, I will watch a couple YouTube videos when I happen to be logged in on another account. I have somewhat peculiar browsing habits (or maybe they’re not that peculiar. I’m not sure) in which I use private browsing to log into a Google account that isn’t my primary one. I have noticed, when I do this, some things that I search for on Google will appear in suggested videos. Though the web surfing is clearly coming from the same computer and presumably, the same user, the theme of the suggestions that appeared while I was logged in on the other account doesn’t usually appear when I browse YouTube with my primary account, and I like it that way. I imagine that “rich” data would basically have all of that stuff under my personae, but it doesn’t seem to be that way quite yet, which is what I prefer.

    • I believe that it doesn’t really matter either way if we hold legal ownership of our own data or not. Like a previous reading said, our data online does not really show a complete profile of who that person is; rather it depicts a persona. Therefore, it should not matter too much if our data is exposed to companies or not. I actually find it sometimes even convenient when some sites like Amazon recommend me some items based on my past searches. However, like someone has previously stated, if our data is too personal and too complete to the point companies can attain and spread through the internet your real name, birthday, phone number, etc, then it gets very complicated. I still remember a video regarding digital footprints on how somebody tracked a person’s location through a picture uploaded on the internet. These things get more than a bit dangerous. Other than that I am completely fine with spreading my data.

    • I agree with many of my peers thoughts in that I don’t believe I have legal ownership of my data. I am using these services that they have provided mostly for free so why cant they get something out of it. Plus, this data helps these companies develop products and also make interesting and useful observations that can better our understanding of human behavior. In terms of packaging the data, I find that an interesting thought, but financially I don’t see much value in it considering that I don’t believe companies will pay enough per person to make it worthwhile. Also, it might result in less genuine responses because people know that their data is being seen and used and might cause people to be less authentic.

    • I do not believe that I am the sole owner of my data and that I do not have a legal right to the data that I produce while using services on the internet. I am willing to give up the rights to this data because it is practical for me to do so. Without companies harvesting this data, I feel that I would have to begin to pay for a number of sites that I currently use for free such as Youtube, Facebook, Twitter, etc. These companies are able to make money because they can use the data that I have created to better target ads towards me. I personally do not care about the ads that come up when I am using these sites because I prefer them to having to pay to use the site. It is a topic worthy of debate, but until I suffer more than having an ad targeted towards me, I do not mind my data being used by these companies.

    • I don’t mind when companies use my data because any data I give out, is data I don’t mind being known. I make sure not to publish my phone number, email or location on social media sites unless the site is private or to select people. Companies who use my recent searches and computer history typically target their advertisements which make it easier for me to find what I am looking for. Unless it comes to airline and ticket searches. I find the more I search for airplane tickets, the higher the prices go and it has nothing to do with time crunching in. As for what someone mentioned about coupons, I love that I get coupons at the grocery store for things I just purchased in my basket. I get to use them the next time I come and get another gallon of milk. I would not know how to make my “big data” turn into “rich data” so it’s probably better this way.

    • I do not believe I have sole legal ownership of my data. I also do not mind my data being shared online because I do not put anything I would have an issue with other seeing online. I think its useful when companies use your data because it allows for ads to be geared towards your own personal interests. I find it useful when retail sites have my previous searches and orders saved because it is a quick and easy reference point if I want to look up something regarding a past purchase. Also, on sites such as Youtube or Netflix, I don’t mind my data being used because they recommend movies or videos I may enjoy that I have never heard of.

    • I am honestly very indifferent to this issue, although it seems to be a very hot topic at the time. I am not entitled to sole ownership of the data I create on the internet because I am authoring usually through the means of other websites. When I put Temple University as my college on my Facebook profile, I am voluntarily giving Facebook that information. By syncing my contact list with Snapchat I am voluntarily giving them that information in order to use the app more seamlessly. I don’t know if users can combine data to make it more valuable, but ad services definitely can. By researching correlations between demographics, activities, interests, and eventual purchasing tendencies, they can better aim marketing. I can see the risk that this poses, but I have faith in the market that punishes immoral behavior of companies when it is exposed, and in the whistle-blowing capacity of the media to expose exploitative practices of businesses.

    • I personally do not mind not having complete control of my data. The shear amount of data that people have stored makes mine inconsequential, almost depersonalized. It is not like a bunch of people in a board room are talking specifically about my data, they are talking about trends and data they found by analyzing thousands of people’s. Another good thing I’ve heard regarding private data is this, “if you are not paying, you are the product.” It is how many free web-services operate, and I feel that it is a small price to pay for it.

    • While I don’t believe we have ownership over our data, the ethical decision would be for companies to provide the option to opt out of data collection. Information regarding my preferences discovered through pattern recognition can’t be owned, however it can be leveraged. If I know, based on my friends buying history, that she prefers blue shirts over red shirts, I will leverage that information to make a decision on what to buy her for her birthday. Similarly, the interactions have online contain information whether or not it is eventually leveraged. Businesses have the means to leverage this information which I believe is valid. However, this process because unethical whenever businesses use invasive and deceptive methods collect more data.

    • While on the surface having legal ownership of one’s own data sounds beneficial, honestly I do not believe an average consumer would be able to utilize complete data on oneself enough for it to be helpful. It is true that people may be able to discover a little more about him/herself by looking at all the data because one can see his/her own shopping habits or clearly see what one has a interest in. But because all the data is based on a person, that person should have some idea of what the data is going to tell them, even without looking at it. The data is only telling a person more about him/herself, which the person should already know quite well. With that said, knowing that companies have so much data on individuals is still unnerving, but in my opinion is a better use of it than consumers having it for themselves.

    • I agree that individuals should legally own their data. However, when such data is voluntarily submitted to companies who, in turn, enhance their services to customers, the issue of data ownership should be out of the picture. When data is combined to be more valuable, it benefits customers and the companies that use the data. It is important to remember that the companies that mine data do so with data that was voluntarily supplied by its customers. Personally, I am okay with giving up ownership of data in return for enhanced services. The data should always originate from the individual consumers’ ownership in my opinion. The decision to release personal data to companies should always be the customers’, not the companies. And companies should work on being transparent in the use and scope of the consumer data they use.

  • That’s great to hear Ademola. I’m glad you enjoyed the case!

  • Summary

    Readings for the next three classes are assigned on the Readings page.
    The final two Learn IT assignments are provided below. (Remember, there is no Learn IT #4.)

    Learn IT #5

    Due: Hard copy due […]

  • ThumbnailReflecting on everything we’ve covered in this course… if you were writing a note to your future self what is a key point you want to remember 5 years from now?

    Photo by Usinglight.

    • Reflecting back about the class I want my future self who is currently focused on cloud based ERPs to remember that in the last decade technology has changed dramatically and continues to evolve. If you focus only on what you are comfortable with today your skills will diminish and become invalid. In order to stay competitive from either a personal perspective or a business perspective you need to continue to enhance your knowledge and skills and it can easily be done by participating in communities of practice and cloud based learning management systems.

    • Not sure where I will be in five years. But, I am writing a note to myself reminding me not to fire the IT guy when his budget is twice what my executive committee expected for our global IT initiative. As Michael noted earlier, technology is constantly changing and there is no true comfort zone in that arena. We need to continually adapt to the changes to stay ahead of the competition. With so many of our case studies, the IT efforts were disconnected from corporate mission due to lack of attention paid or overall lack of understanding for the importance of IT development. Even though my IT guy is probably asking for more than his project truly needs (don’t we all?), I’m going to take more time to learn the why and how’s of his proposal before making my decision to ensure this area of my business is working at its full potential to help move the company forward.

      • Rich, I cracked up about your post, but it is so true. I think it easy to forget how important IT is to our business as a whole and easy to cut when it comes to budget. They are an important aspect of all we do, though.

    • In five years so many things will change. So I would remind myself to be open to technology as it is an important part of our world today. Take the time to learn and understand the functionalities behind the systems in order to understand how and why the information gathered is the way it is. In my project today, learning about the configurations and all the AAI’s that are going into the ERP system is not a natural thing for me to do, but understanding is an important part in ensuring data accuracy and integrity moving forward. Look into the future I know the use of the cloud will continue to be an important part of the One Morgan community as we continue to evolve. For my career and my companies success is never fear technology. Embrace it and learn along in order to infuse the technology into our successes.

    • Five years ahead, no doubt Radiohead’s clever marketing maneuvers and Yelp’s systemically biased reviews may be obsolete, to be replaced by other examples of business models that have successfully leveraged information technology. But I do hope to challenge myself to foster a culture of innovation using enlightening concepts I learned in our MIS class. I have long recognized the value of integrating the perspectives, skills and experience of many on devising a solution or creating a new service or product, but after our readings, I have gained appreciation for establishing processes and networks to foster creativity learning to new services or products. In the past I would have thought that offering freedom and independence in the workplace would comprise the most effectives ways to build a culture of innovation. But as our MIS course–and our MBA program–have shown, establishing more structure — such as through programs like open innovation and networks like communities of practice — allows for robust exchange of ideas and feedback, by connecting external and internal partners who actively engage with one another to create products and services, leading to novel solutions that transform our technologies, our markets and our lives.

    • Five years from now I hope that whenever I am “in doubt” that I will “go to the web!” As a 50-something, I have been conditioned to explore everything that is in front of me when I am looking for an answer…look through files, look through notes, look through things I’ve saved on my computer. This course has taught me how much more there is on the web, with the google analytics exercise foremost among the examples of the availability of cloud computing, but also to be able to find and grab music from new artists from somewhere besides iTunes, and before searching for a lodging on expedia or travelocity to look to these other sites like Airbnb, 3rd home, etc.

    • Five years from now I would like to continue to utilize technology to be more efficient in my personal and professional life. As technology develops I never want to fall out of practice and I want to continue to be knowledgeable in what is being offered. I also want to be more aware of how the systems within my company are being used and be aware any changes that may impact my department. I also think it’s worth joining internal communities of practice for other departments within my organization, like IT or programming, to get a better understanding of what their hot topics are.

    • The fundamental thought from our first WebEx session was something like this…..Technology is expanding the opportunity of what a business (person) can do, therefore we need to understand these opportunities in order to expand/improve on our current state and offerings. Five years from now, I’m not sure where I will be in the job market but I will be a tearful Mom sending off my daughter to college. I will impress upon her the advantages of learning the basics of a simpler programming language like JavaScript and the importance of not only social media but technology as a whole.

    • The key point I want to take away from this class when reflecting on this note is to remember the importance of creating a culture that embraces open innovation, or to find a firm to work for that embraces all that open innovation has to offer.
      through open innovation I want to make sure that technology aligns with the goals of our organization and we are constantly reflecting on the business model of our firm to determine how technology can assist with our customer relationships, value propositions, etc. Hopefully we are evaluating what the firm is doing and can decide if we should view technology along the lines of Strassman, Hammer and Champy, or the GAO model.
      Through open innovation I hope we are able to talk about things like cloud computing and deciding if it still the best way for us to operate or if we should be looking at what is new. Through the course of our conversations we need to remember that when new technology is introduced there may be a period of skepticism. This should not deter any decisions but should be viewed as an opportunity to educate anyone who has doubts.

    • I’m not sure where I’ll be in five years (geography-wise or career-wise), but I would like to remember a few main concepts from this class:
      – Disruption can be caused by abundance, not just scarcity, and the results of that disruption can eliminate an existing company’s business model. I had not really thought about disruption that way.
      – Providing ample resources for IT is a necessity for business continuity and competitiveness, not an option. Granted, I already thought that way, but the class has given me examples and evidence needed to support that “discussion” when having it with decision makers.
      – Implementing structure (and gaining buy-in) around concepts of open innovation will lead to more effective results than just soliciting ideas.
      – If I want to stay abreast of coding languages, I need to just schedule time for myself to learn them through sites like Lynda.com or Codecademy. If I don’t schedule it, then it won’t happen.

      All of these concepts will hopefully help me offer the services and expertise necessary to better serve my existing clients and allow me to grow my independent consulting business (assuming I’m still self-employed).

    • In 5 years from now, I think the message will continue to remain the same although the environment and the tools needed will have likely changed and been replaced with newer versions or models / ideas. The key takeaway is to embrace technology or it will pass you by. Continue to challenge yourself to explore and discover the new clouds or the new airbnbs that will be the wave of the future or the disruptive model in 2020.

    • I would say the overarching theme I will remember about this course is how important IT is and that it is becoming more important as we progress into the future. I think back to the readings about the cloud and the lesson we did using Google docs. As this is seemingly today’s disruptive innovation, I will have to remember where it started at in five years when it becomes more the market than the disruptive force. Being an economist-minded guy myself, the disruptive innovation idea is something I will want to remember, as it really lays a clear path of new technology or market disruption and something that is applicable in all areas of business.

    • The key point that I want to remember is that when disruption is created by abundance, embrace it and find ways to be innovative and adjust by relinquishing prior models and coming up with something new that correlates with what is taking place or will be taking place within that environment. I would want my future self to maintain an open mind and be aware of what is taking place in the world and what opportunities there may be going forward in regards to technology. I would want to remind myself to constantly strive to keep getting better and not get complacent and sucked into the status quo. Things have progressed so much in the last 5 years alone, it will be interesting and exciting to see what the next 5 years bring.

    • In five years…I am going to be looking for those Amazon drones. When I first saw Jeff Bezos drone delivery idea on “60 Minutes” I thought, “This guy doesn’t get told no much cause that is never going to happen.” Well, I’m wrong!! LOL. The FAA (Federal Aviation Administration) gave Amazon permission last week to start testing drones outdoors with some rule restrictions including flying below 400 feet and daytime operation. It may take years, maybe even more than five before we see unmanned drone delivery like Bezos envisions but Amazon is on their way.

      The Amazon case resonated with me and showed several key technology points. Technology investment can lead to an unexpected business opportunity. Amazon Web Services grew out of Amazon’s expertise in creating their own technology infrastructure to support their e-commerce business. Creating an entire business unit from their willingness to share what they have learned is smart business. Cloud services will be the storage and file transfer mechanism for many years to come. Technology requires collaboration, partnership, or buying external expertise. To meet their business needs and to have sufficient technological operations, companies should look to external resources like Amazon Web Services, to maximize technology function. Utilizing external expertise can save money, time, and get companies focused on their main business goal – examining means to increase profit. Technology is vital to business. No doubt, technology is highly important at Amazon and is the unifier across all business platforms. If companies want sustainability – especially in this digital age – technology is central to communication, data sharing, profitability and growth.

      Innovation is key too, especially for those companies that can invest in it. Who knows if drone delivery will supplant the UPS man from coming to your door? Amazon will be in the forefront of this technology and could turn this into another business opportunityrevenue stream. I admit – I am anxious to find out.

      http://www.nytimes.com/2015/03/20/technology/amazon-wins-approval-to-test-delivery-drones-outdoors.html?_r=0

    • As many others have stated, in five years from now I’d like to remember that abundance is much more disruptive than scarcity. That message really resonated with me upon reading it, and is a key point I would want to remember, as it will transcend different fields and appears to be a timeless message. Regardless of what technology is prevalent at the time, if that technology becomes excessively available it will no longer be relevant. That message will push be to always strive to be better, different and innovative. I would also like to remind myself of Lyda.com as a resource. This resource will be valuable for many years and can allow me to brush up on existing skillsets or create new ones.

    • The message 5 years from now will carry on the major themes we learned in this class. Technology continues to be a transformative agent in disrupting major business models and will continue to act as a change agent in business and society. Computing and technology will continue to be consumerized with more and more services moving into the cloud. Commoditization of core computing services like storage and computer will continue with services like AWS offering computing resources at a fraction of the costs with the ability to scale resources to virtually meet any demand. Technology will continue to innovate and Moore’s Law will ultimately be broken with even greater power available to users. Technology will be pervasive in the daily lives of people including those who technophobic with the advent of self driving cars, wearable computing and faster broadband in every home.

    • IT trends come and go, so the key point I want to remember 5 years from now is that IT learning opportunities are available to whomever spends the time to seek them out. Resources like Lynda.com and Code Academy offer a wealth of knowledge right at your fingertips. I had taken some coding courses prior to this class and had forgotten how fun it can be. The main focus for me in pursuing my MBA is to find out what area of business fascinates me most so that I can pursue it as my next career move. I believe these resources will help me define that area of focus a bit more easily.

  • ThumbnailReflecting on everything we’ve covered in this course… if you were writing a note to your future self what is a key point you want to remember 5 years from now?

    Photo by Usinglight.

    • As this course reminds us, a lot can and will change in 5 years! My key point would be to remind myself to use technology to embrace those changes similar to the experiences in this course. I am not particularly tech savvy, so operating in the cloud with Google Drive and using new software like Google Sheets was new for me as well as learning new presentation software called Prezi (as part of the lynda.com exercise) and even trying my hand at simple programming. So I would remind myself to continue to push myself out of my comfort zone like I did in this class and to try and take advantage of the great technology advances that the future will surely bring.

    • This course lets me understand that the web is the gateway to knowledge and information. Dont be afraid and use it liberally and often.

    • A key point that I would want to remember is to be on the lookout for new technology that could have an impact on how information is shared and used, and to be more open to embracing and taking advantage of new technology. As we saw in the course, technology can change industries quickly so I want to make sure I stay on top of what is being developed and introduced.

    • 5 years from now I would like to remember that information technology changes are inevitable and to be open to learning more about IT. As I adopt any new IT changes I would also like to remember that there are two sides to the coin and look at the risk that may come with the change so that I can take precaution against any negative effects such as data breach.

    • Embrace innovations, disruptions, and different ways of doing things like Airbnb, Google Drive, Cloud Computing, and Radiohead. Continue to be vigilant and be mindful of hackers and security breaches as Target and Sony have experienced. Learn from the successes and mistakes when leveraging IT as corporate change initiatives as Wyeth and Siemens have done.

    • Spend less time chasing perfection and more time trying out possibilities.

    • I learned that for IT projects to be successful, their goals should be strategically aligned with those of the organization overall.

    • Technology makes innovative ideas feasible and it is critical to project what infrastructure is necessary to maintain competitive advantage.

    • In 5 years from now I would remind myself to seek out those organizations that embraced innovation and incorporated new technologies from the previous 5 years. It should not be hard to find them, they will likely be some of the most successful and highly visible.

    • Key points that I would remind myself is that innovation and IT is ever-changing. That not all IT is safe and secure and to be mindful of this when using/sending and receiving any kind of data. Things are changing at lightning speed so it is important to stay ahead and read where these changes are taking place. That not all is as it seems, as in the Uber case and Airbnb. That music will always be ‘free’ from somewhere but at what cost to artists. And lastly, not to be afraid of trying new things as in the programming assignment and the lynda,com assignment

    • The important thing to remember five years from now and beyond is to allow yourself to be dynamic. With things changing and developing as rapidly as they have in the last few years, you need to be able to adapt or you will get left in the dust. Even better than adapting is being out in front of sweeping changes.

    • A key point that I would write to my future self is to be willing to learn and to be adaptable. One thing I learned in this course is that IT is constantly changing, what I learned fifteen years ago is nothing like what I’ve learned the last few works nor will it be the same in five years. Basically I need to commit to learning new tools as often as possible and utilize IT functions in my day to day tasks. I think my future success is contingent upon my commitment to learning new skills. Of all the concepts and tools, I think Lynda.com will be something that will help me attain this goal.

    • The key point I want to remember 5 years from now is to use this same mental exercise to examine innovative technology around me, and not to be so myopic as to only envision it in its current state. By that I mean, disruptive innovation may not seem to be all that disruptive at first, and therefor may be dismissed as not significant unless it is examined for how it may continue to improve, and eventually replace the current way that a specific industry does business. So, I will be envisioning innovation with an eye towards how it will change that product or service that it may only marginally be affecting now.

  • ThumbnailReflecting on everything we’ve covered in this course… if you were writing a note to your future self what is a key point you want to remember 5 years from now?

    Photo by Usinglight.

    • MIS5001 SP2015 reinforced that I need to work smarter not harder to keep up with the almost overwhelming way knowledge keeps growing and technology is developing. I’m intrigued by new learning platforms I have been introduced to and encouraged that such platforms are likely to grow in number, complexity and depth and availability. Five years from now I hope to still be intrigued by the opportunities innovation offers, and think I will be better prepared to deal with open innovation that occurs internal in an organization where I am engaged as well as external innovation, and use my new understanding of information management to better evaluate the impact of a project.

    • In the face of the increasing reliance on EMR and other IT infrastructural changes,especially in the medical field, I think it’s important to remember to be ahead of the ball. Rather than attempting to cope at the last minute with these changes, they should be anticipated, prepared for, and embraced. I hope to remember not to buckle under the pressure of this rapidly evolving aspect of daily practice, especially in medicine, but to make sure stay on top of developments, understand their impact, and prepare accordingly. In every instance that we encountered in this course, successful navigation of this increasingly omnipresent aspect of business required an acceptance of change and ability to adapt to it.

    • Note to self, five years forward:
      Information Technology (IT) is essentially about the BIG PICTURE: innovation, marketing, management, responsiveness, vision, strategic planning, and many more. IT infrastructure should be conceived at the same time a business idea is conceived. It should also be carried along every business initiative, and never lag behind.

      • * fast-forward*

        • Prior to the beginning of this course, I had looked forward to the “hands-on” aspect of IT such as the Learn IT! Assignments we completed. In contrast, I ended up learning that IT entails a lot more than that. It’s about the aggregate picture: Innovation, marketing, management, responsiveness, vision, strategic planning, and many more. IT infrastructure should be conceived at the same time a business idea is conceived. It should also be carried along every business initiative, and never lag behind.

          Hence, five years from now, I will make sure that the lessons learned during this course stay with me. Every bit of the knowledge gained here is essential for a successful IT practice anywhere in the world.

    • Five years have passed and you probably retained very little of what you learned in class. However, hopefully, you are still thinking outside the box, and have used the basic knowledge you learn in MIS to continue your search to perfection.

    • If I was talking to my future self, I would remind myself of the following. First off IT should be viewed as more than just a support department but if positioned correctly it could be a competitive advantage for your company. Next, IT changes every day, just because you are up on the latest technology now doesn’t mean it will still apply 2 months from now. Thirdly, hackers are getting smarter and smarter, investing in a top-notch security system is worth it in the end. Fourth, programming is not as hard as it looks, if you study it you can do it. Fifth, online training sites such as Lynda are the way of the future and will cut down on overhead spend of live trainers.

    • Five years from now: remember that IT must be integrated as a valuable part of the entire corporate business model; especially considering all of the advances in technology that have been made possible since 2015. It is value added department that, when used properly and efficiently, can offer a significant competitive advantage. When first starting out, how the network infrastructure will be designed, employed, and protected are critical upfront decisions that must be tackled while taking into account the realistic opportunities to scale the business. An initial decision must be made on whether or not cloud computing and virtualization services are more cost effective over the long-term as opposed to building an organic IT architecture and platforms. No matter what: make sure you have the right people in the right positions making aggressive decisions and staying abreast of potential cyber threats and emerging technologies.

    • I would remind myself of where technology was five years ago (2015) and how far things have come along. Technology is today, tomorrow, and future. The progresses made in technology in five years will be leaps ahead of where we are today. I would also remond myself to never take technology for face value as it will continue to shape our society.

    • The message to myself in five years, and everyday, will be, “technology is here to help not hurt.” I often find myself fighting against new technology because I’m very comfortable with my current set up. I need to remind myself that taking the time to learn and adopt new technologies almost always results in more efficiency. The beginning phases can be challenging but stick with it, don’t fight against it. Technology will only continue to advance and change so I will need to remember that I too will need to advance and change with it. Embrace technology and make it work for you, not against you.

    • Note to self, remember as critical as technology is, in finance applications continue to use it as an enable. Continue to look for ways to maximize the use of technology by helping to improve existing processes. Remember the importance of personal communication, try to continue to communicate directly rather than use technology as a crutch to avoid speaking one on one.

      • Excellent post !

        Efficiency is a word that rings bell to me. It is an ideal that I have warmly embraced both at work and in personal life. And technology is in the center of it.

    • Dear Me,
      You should remember that information technology is deeply involved in our modern world and it changes rapidly. To compete, businesses must appreciate IT as the backbone of an organization, anticipate technical developments (at the very least, stay current), uphold the importance of cyber security and challenge organizational strategy via an information technology perspective.

    • Technology will constantly change/evolve and whatever is the standard today we will look back and laugh and wonder why we did it that way. I think companies will budget wisely and continue to make the necessary investments in tech to stay ahead of the game and with the most up-to-date technologies.

    • If I were to advise myself 5 years from now, specific to course topics and learning; I would remind myself to look deeper into technology processes. Previously, I was very focused on the end result and the user experience. Even being in a profession that sells technology, my primary thought has always been to consider what the application or software might do, but not often about what went into development and design. Experience with coding and digging into how organizations make technology decisions has certainly rounded out my perspective and understanding. None of these decisions exist or happen in a vacuum. My future self should continue to seek the big picture in all things technology and not take the development path for granted.

    • First, I would remind myself that 40 is the new 20. Then, I’d tell myself to keep looking for new educational challenges to undertake. I hope that in 5 years I’ll be on my way to mastering ‘digital marketing’. After I complete my MBA in December, I’m considering Temple’s digital innovation marketing program. To remain relevant as a marketer of the future, it’s necessary to stay ahead of the ‘digital revolution’ learning curve.

  • ThumbnailOverall

    Review the earlier post on case analyses.
    Case Analysis #2 is due in a single PDF file submitted via the course Blackboard site no later than 11:59PM on Wednesday, March 25. A submission that is […]

    • The Sony India case study was a great read! Growing up watching a lot of Bollywood movies, I can attest that the films were often music-oriented, making them a two-in-one bundle of entertainment. Oh, the choreographies were superb, too!

      The launch of the hit song “Kolaveri Di” was truly an ingenious concept. The song is still generating views on YouTube.

      Lastly, I learned a lot more about the music industry than I had ever known.

      Thank you !

  • Here are the questions for the first group break-out of the evening.

    Deliverable: answer these questions:

    Considering the companies that you work for, are there any products or services that the company […]

  • Load More