That is what I meant: what has changed is the cost and ubiquity of IT not what it can do. Some apps only work when cost and ubiquity (ie critical mass) exist.

Personally, I also don’t believe in a technologically deterministic point of view. Technology doesn’t drive things, it only enables change.

As a simple example lots of people claimed email would change organisations in important ways (the distribution of power, knowledge etc). But it didn’t – all it did was speed things up a bit (and leave a better trail than paper).

For me, it is people and social change that change things. Technology follows.

The difference today, to me, seems to be that people are changing things, and when they do cheap ubiquitous technology is there to facilitate and enable.

Pete

Also, is it possible that you and I will find it too long/boring, but the ‘general’ reader who may not be a digital person might find it useful to know that this stuff is happening, even if it has been a trend for 30 years? I’m trying to also cater for the broad audience rather than the digerati.

Comment on First Friday was helpful as prompted me to go deeper with what I was trying to express.

Think you’re right about Competition too (dammit!). Thank you…

But personally I found the whole IT bit too long.

Re: APIs etc there was a thing called EDI back in the day. M&S and other retailers have been using the idea of open APIs into their businesses for decades. The thinking has moved from B2B to B2C, but really what is different now?

I think you gave some reasons in the previous section – that openness is becoming endemic. But maybe it is worth stating that the motives have changed even if the technology hasn’t changed much.

Similarly, the battle between closed proprietary systems and open ones has been around for – to my knowledge – 30 years plus.

The question that springs to mind is what is different now? Why is Apple in trouble this time? (Or if it isn’t why not?)

Re Feelings – I don’t agree that everyone needs to show their true feelings. In my opinion, congruence isn’t being open about all feelings. It is about knowing and understanding our own feelings and revealing these to others in the light of our empathy for their feelings for them and our respect for them and their needs.

The First Friday example doesn’t work for me. Companies have been doing this for ever. Google certainly didn’t invent the idea. I’d lose it completely – or say why it is different now and therefore interesting.

Finally, I think you need to say more about competition. This is worth a book on its own – but for me it is much more than “nuanced”. Competition – which is a real cultural issue – changes radically in a new environment.

Competition (as we have previously understood it) only makes sense in a world of scarcity and underlying a lot of what you are saying about openness is the opposite of scarcity – an abundance of easily replicated information and data.

Hope that helps

Re the benefits. What about the time and mental energy saved by not having to remember one’s lies or part truths?

What about the time and money saved by not having to build expensive systems to keep things secret (eg I worked for one corporation that built a separate network just for its HR people so there was no risk of anyone apart from HR knowing what the top earners earned).

Can you give some examples of how collaboration is much easier when people know the facts? Ie some corporates don’t share basic financial information – how then can employees be expected to solve problems, with only partial info?

Is it worth saying something about who gains (or think they gain) from the opposite of openness?

Hope that helps

Finding out what drives one to control for example. Finding out why another seeks fame, or riches. This is the inner journey I am referring to.