Producing the artefacts of produsage: The New Business Model

The gradual move from the industrial industry to an industry of produsage has caused fundamental changes in current business models. In the produsage age consumers have control over what is produced. The design phase of the industrial economy is no longer in house but increasingly done by consumers themselves. Using open source software, consumers can dictate what companies manufacturer or produce. The benefit to consumers is clearly evident – they get exactly what they want! The benefit for the producer, although they are yet to engage the technology fully,  is the fact that they now know exactly what the consumer wants, producing to their needs/wants without having to do extensive research to find what these needs/wants are. Fundamentally the way in which business makes money has not changed but rather it is the means by which they make this money that has. This new model is not only making money it is also saving money because it allows businesses to produce only what is guaranteed to sell. This new model can be seen to be moving away from an industrial focus of production to a production service provision.

Axel Bruns recognises that the new model “highlight[s] the fact that the industrial process is neither the natural nor necessarily the most productive or socially beneficial approach imaginable” and further that commercial operators will need to “focus not on a business model formulated around the sale of products, but around the provision of services both to the produsage community itself and to the wider community of the users of produsage artefacts”. Eric Von Hippel mentions that “the vast majority of manufacturers still think that product development and service development are always done by manufacturers, and that their job is always to find a need and fill it rather than sometimes find and commercialize and innovation that lead users have already adopted”. This preconception which is based on the industrial era, needs to change and as a society we need to not only adapt but capitalise on the opportunities the new technology is providing. It will be a gradual process but the new business model is definitely there.

A business example of this new model is ponoko.com. At ponoko.com you design the products you want and then  ponokos manufacturing will produce it for you, delivering your product to you. You also have the option to sell your designs further capitalising on these produsage ideas. Cleverly created, the consumer can be the producer and the seller, with ponoko being the provider of this structure and it works! Other examples include emachineshop.com, where the consumer designs objects such as car parts, door knobs etc, and spoonflower.com, where the consumer customises fabrics. These new business models show what Axel describes as overcoming the struggle between production and produsage and are further developments which harness the best elements of both models.

As a business professional this new, produsage based business model is something I will have to consider in my professional career. It is an increasing trend and very lucrative market if you get it right. Businesses need to be aware that there are alternative ways of doing business, away from the traditional industrial production chain and that these new models based on produsage work just as well and perhaps, even better.

Bridging the Pro/Am divide

The Pro/Am divide discusses the difference between folks and experts in folksonomies. Folksonomies structure the new knowledge space, a space where you do not necessarily need the skills or higher education to contribute. Due to this structure those who are educated and perceived to be the experts are continually at odds with the system. For example Larry Sanger, co-founder and chief promoter of Wikipedia, partly left the project due to his belief and experience that “someone whose expertise rests on having done extensive original research on a topic gets no particular respect”. On the flip side, one of the central, founding ideas of such produsage sites is that it flattens hierarchical structures therefore the idea that experts should gain “respect” is denying the ideals behind the structure. Furthermore is Sanger and the like saying we need a return to a less organic, bottom up structure? With this criticism the ideals behind collective intelligence are in question, that together, with contributions from the expert and the amateur, the information available is richer and more in depth. Collective intelligence and the abundance of information does not provide credibility or reliability, returning again to the pro/am divide and the ability for the expert to provide this structure.

Axel Bruns recognises that there is no real solution by describing the struggle between experts and folks, “between two different systems of representing knowledge: one the expert paradigm, which ultimately and ideally aims to develop well-behaved, universally accepted, and internally consistent understandings of the world, and one, the folksonomic paradigm, which allows for multiplicity, conflicts of interpretation, and the existence of a number of alternative representations of extant knowledge…” What Bruns describes is that between the expert and the folk they have different beliefs on knowledge creation and the fact that there will always be this divide because of the very nature of each individual and their inherent beliefs. Each defies each other therefore perhaps there can never be an even ground.

Larry Sanger recently established Citizendium which perhaps is an example of trying to achieve a middle ground. Citizendium is an alternative model to Wikipedia that is more respectful of expertise, aiming at providing reliability and quality not just quantity. Sanger talking about Wikipedia, claims that he “maintained from the start that something really could not be a credible encyclopedia without oversight by experts”. Perhaps sites like these that will meet the need for experts and their beliefs on the structure of information. Re confirming the expert belief Sanger states, “there are special requirements of nearly every serious community [which are] best served by relevant experts; and so I think a prominent role for the relevant experts should be written into the charter”.

The argument behind Wikipedia, as for example providing to the amateurs, is the attitude that to make an entry or an amendment the individual must know about the topic therefore who is to say they are not an expert. This introduces the idea on what defines an expert and the idea perhaps that an expert/amateur is better modelled on a continuum. Those who support the Wikipedia bottom up approach could find Sanger’s view on why expertise needs special consideration in contributions to information as very narrow minded and furthermore denying the ideals behind produsage and collective intelligence that such sites as Wikipedia foster.

In summary, as Bruns recognises there will always be the divide between the expert and the folk due to their individual attitudes and beliefs towards knowledge creation.

Wikipedia: Do we trust it?

Is wikipedia an unbiased, unscripted, free from propaganda source? Is it referable? Does it speak the truth? Is it based on fact or opinion? Who edits on wikipedia, is it anyone? Is it totally unconstricted? Is it voluntary? Who is anyone? Can we edit information on ourselves?

Wikipedia is described by the site as “a free, multilingual encyclopedia project supported by the non-profit Wikimedia Foundation.Wikipedia’s 12 million articles have been written collaboratively by volunteers around the world, and almost all of its articles can be edited by anyone who can access the Wikipedia website“. As Wikipedia recognises there are many problems with the site, it is accused of having systemic bias and inconsistencies and target its policy of favoring consensus over credentials in its editorial process. Its reliability and accuracy are also issues identified and it’s ability to be susceptible to vandalism and the addition of spurious or unverified information is also criticised.

The Problems…

Simon Waldman from the UK Guardian speaks about how Wikipedia should have been a recipe for disaster but rather it has become one of the Internets largest success stories. He mentioned the main problem is lack of authority; “With printed publications, the publishers have to ensure that their data is reliable, as their livelihood depends on it. But with something like this, all that goes out the window” (Philip Bradley – librarian and Internet consultant). Without lack of authority readers cannot be sure if something is correct as there is no over riding person providing a check routine. Furthermore with no authority vandalism occurs. It is argued that authority is placed on the users of Wikipedia, that it is their role to fix incorrect or vandalised entries and that this can ultimately lead to a perfect entry. The fact that Wikipedia is never fixed means that the quality of entries is constantly changing. This means, as founder Jimmy Wales admits, “The average quality of the entries is pretty good, but on any given day, any given entry might be up or down” this means that Wikipedia can never be reliable or perfect.

The ABC reports that in 2007 the Defence Department blocked staff from editing Wikipedia as it was found they had made over 5000 changes, from the removal of anti-Liberal comments to the correction of factual information on the Defense force. It was also found that staff from the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet were also found to have made edits to Wikipedia on topics such as the “children overboard” affair. The fact that anyone can edit Wikipedia means that it can suit political and business objectives therefore definitely not being a representation of an unbiased truth. Another example, from the US, the store Wal-Mart changed the entry from wages 20% less than competitors to wages doubling minimum wage, to appear more favorable. Public Relations and communication professionals are monitoring Wikipedia as it is a powerful tool for shaping information in pursuit of organisational goals.

So, do we trust it?

This decision is up to the individual and perhaps how they intend to use the entry. Individually I use wikipedia as a basic background source of information and as a source that will lead to other references. Knowing the critisms we can make executive decisions on how Wikipedia will be used in our research.

Citizen Journalism: Our Say, Our Voice

Defined by We Media, Citizen Journalism is “the act of a citizen, or a group of citizens, playing an active role in the process of collecting, reporting, analyzing and disseminating news and information”. Its intent “is to provide independent, reliable, accurate, wide-ranging and relevant information that a democracy requires”. It operates under a bottom up approach, pined in democracy where there is no governing authority. Individuals can and are encouraged to write about everything and anything. By the opening of traditional journalistic structures, Citizen Journalism builds a community of collective intelligence as well as a greater abundance of information.

Placed in a historical context…Why this change?

Media theorist Ithiel de Sola Pool (1983) anticipated correctly that journalists would take up the Internet quickly to enhance their professional capacities. The Internet gave journalists a vastly expanded access to information and new channels for distribution. Furthermore as the Internet was opening up methods of communication for journalists, its pervasive and accessible nature, enabled just about anyone to publish information or news. For the first time in history, the Internet, was and is still acting as the world’s greatest publishing system. The Internets decentralisation philosophy and its ability to initiate collaboration, is extremely powerful in creating multiple and varying information agents. As the Internet evolves these publishing tools also evolve and it is the ease and access of these tools such as weblogging that enable further publishing and collaborating activities. Citizen Journalism is enabled to flourish in social and collaborate media, that the every evolving Internet promotes.

How is this taking form?

Citizen Journalism is based on the “publish, then filter” model rather than the traditional “filter, then publish” model. The forms of citizen journalism are as follows:

Discussion groups: The oldest and most popular means of citizen journalism, include bulletin boards and forums to mailing lists and chat rooms.

User-generated content: This is a medium produced my news sites themselves designed to collect content from their audiences for their audiences. It collects full-length articles, advice/tips, journals, reviews, calendar events, useful links, photos and more. Once collected, this content appears online without the approval from editorial review (although sometimes not always the case).

Weblogs: A web page made up of inherently short, frequent updates of text or entries that are arranged from the recent to the oldest. Context and purpose of this tool varies greatly, they can take the form anywhere from diary to journalistic community news to collaborative discussion groups in a corporate setting.

Collaborative publishing: Complex, open-source systems that allow collaborative creation and distribution of news and information. Most commonly today they take the form of groupware meaning Web or desktop based applications.

Peer-to-Peer: Applications in which people can use the internet to communicate or share and distribute digital files with each other other directly or through a mediating Web server.

XML Syndication: An XML specification called RSS, Rich Site Summary. It typically contains a list of headlines, summaries and links recently published by the given site. Click on the headline and the link takes you to the article on the source’s site.

Open vs. Closed: Open communal, open exculsive, closed and partially closed describes this varing form. The way in which the community is governed in terms of the power given to those participating, describes where the technology fits along the scale.

Examples of Citizen Journalism sites:

Ohmynews International

Malaysiakini

Crickey

Newmatilda.com

Online Opinion

Independent Media Center

GroundReport

iReport.com

Produsage: Producer, User and Vice Versa

The term produsage is based on the fundamental concept that the term ‘production’ is no longer accurate to describe the way consumers engage with emerging new media products such as Wikipedia. It is based in the context of a parallelized, decentralized community where members do not produce content, ideas and knowledge in the traditional sense of production. The user now generates content. This means that the role of ‘consumer’ and ‘end user’ have disappeared and become blurred in this new production process.  The content produced can be described as ‘collective intelligence‘ therefore is a greater outcome of knowledge and can enable a gradual improvement in quality as well as speed of production. To describe this role and such activity the term ‘produsage’ has been introduced.

Key Principals of Produsage:

1. Open Participation, Communal Evaluation: Within a produsage community participants are able to examine, evaluate and add contributions to their predecessors and the ability to do this affects the outcome of a strong and increasing quality. Participation is invited from a range of potential contributors and produsage environments are generally open to all comers.
2. Fluid Hierarchy, Ad Hoc Meritocracy: Based on the idea that all individuals skills and abilities are not equal but that they all have an  equal ability to contribute worthily to the project. It departs from traditional, hierarchical organisational models. Project leaders arise from the community based on the quality of their contributions.
3. Unfinished Artifacts, Continuing Process: The process of produsage remains continually unfinished and infinitely continuing due to its nature and principals. For instance produsage does not work towards the completion of products but rather it is engaged in a evolutionary process which is aimed at the gradual improvement of  the community’s shared content.
4. Common Property, Individual Rewards: Produsage is based on the assumption that content created in such a process will continue to be available to all future participants and to those participants who have already made a contribution. Participation in produsage projects is generally motivated by the ability of produsers to contribute to a shared, communal purpose.

Impacts and Implications:

Information and information production is central to developed nations’ economies and societies therefore produsage process and related practices have now also become central. Produsage extends into the widening range of information knowledge, and creative work, coming to affect culture itself and is the indicator of the new participatory, convergence culture. Produsage will affect media organisations, as the traditional producers and distributors of cultural content, as it will diminish their position at the end of the production value chain and reduces them to the level of all other participants in the network.  There is also the potential, working off the examples of Amazon and Google, for dominant new corporations based on convergent models to emerge. Furthermore on a larger scale, produsuage as power could lead to the ongoing demise of many beliefs, rituals, formal requirements and laws of which modern society revolves around. Bruns confirms this and believes that “a fundamental reconfiguation of our  cultural and intellectual life and thus of society and democracy itself” may occur due.