Comments on: Collaboration 3.0

By: This is yet another test post « REWORK

This is yet another test post « REWORK — Sun, 17 Jan 2010 22:10:46 +0000

[...] Carlos Miceli argued that the future of collaboration is not in win-win transactions, but in a pay-it-forward type of interaction where one gives for the [...]

By: Weekend Reading: My fav’s from this week: 1/15/10 | Heather Villa

Weekend Reading: My fav’s from this week: 1/15/10 | Heather Villa — Fri, 15 Jan 2010 20:38:01 +0000

[...] Collaboration 3.0 [...]

By: bloominglater

bloominglater — Thu, 14 Jan 2010 20:03:42 +0000

no! you’re quite right! but, i think that the issue of monetization is always there – lurking between the sheets of collaboration. dirrrty! =)

By: Carlos Miceli

Carlos Miceli — Thu, 14 Jan 2010 13:11:21 +0000

Twitter is a good example.
But let’s refrain ourselves from talking about monetization. Collaboration does not need to involve money, just helping others accomplish their goals.

By: The Economy of Collaboration 3.0 | wordpost

The Economy of Collaboration 3.0 | wordpost — Thu, 14 Jan 2010 07:54:37 +0000

[...] Image: Jill ClardyRecently, Carlos Miceli argued that the future of collaboration is not in win-win transactions, but in a pay-it-forward type of interaction where one gives for the [...]

By: bloominglater

bloominglater — Wed, 13 Jan 2010 20:35:07 +0000

do you know what immediately came to mind as i read this post? twitter. i remember when i started “twittering” everyone thought it was stupid, but i kept telling them how much free help and support i was able to get. i told them how my world expanded – i was able to get information from people who would never be known in the MSM as “experts” and able to find great blogs – like this one. twitter is a perfect example of an engine that is mostly driven to help “just because.” there is no monetization – sure, some people want you to buy items or improve their blog stats by visiting their links, but i find that most just want to impart information and to help whenever they can. BUT – i think this works primarily because the folks that use Twitter haven’t found a way to necessarily monetize it. monetization is indirect and in order for Collaboration 3.0 to work, i suspect that there will need to be some form of indirect monetization.

By: Brett - DareToExpress.com

Brett - DareToExpress.com — Tue, 12 Jan 2010 23:23:30 +0000

Gotcha. I think we were saying the same thing, just in different ways.

Just to make sure we’re on the same page: you’re saying we should collaborate as an end, not a means to an end, and not expect returns? We produce because we like to produce and collaborate because we like to collaborate, and so on?

If so, then I find myself in perfect agreement.

By: Carlos Miceli

Carlos Miceli — Tue, 12 Jan 2010 23:09:47 +0000

Already covered that with David above

Production and creation for what? Money.

I think it’s perfectly scalable and I’m seeing with my own eyes more and more each day. The thing is that it requires a very specific personality for now, but I’m hoping that will change.

By: Brett - DareToExpress.com

Brett - DareToExpress.com — Tue, 12 Jan 2010 23:07:01 +0000

It depends. Do I think that the company is incredibly talented and deserves my funding? Do I think my investment in them will pay off in the future – with gains to be had by me or any of my fellow human beings? Do I like how they do business? All those questions are appropriate to establish context. In the vast majority of cases, I’d say I wouldn’t make that deal.

You bringing up business is interesting, because businesses have to make money to survive. That involves transaction – a cost. That cost is money. I don’t think collaboration can come down to money – it comes down to production and creation.

Collaboration, ideally, should happen for free and between individuals. That way, personal satisfaction DOES play a role in determining what and how people collaborate and who they collaborate with. I don’t know if this “free” collaboration-business-deal situation you have is scalable.

Consider this trap: what about the idea that you’re being selfish by helping out people? You derive enjoyment and good feelings from helping other people, so it must be a selfish thing, right?

By: Carlos Miceli

Carlos Miceli — Tue, 12 Jan 2010 22:58:41 +0000

And I’m saying that you are right. But, as opposed to 2.0, the motives here are irrelevant, because it would be irrational to expect something in return. You can wait, sure, but you would be disappointed most of the times.