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