Erik Sundelöf

entrepreneur, thinker and Swede

Building the trust in technology….

150 150 eriks

Currently I am reading Nicholas Carr’s book Does IT matter? and even though I might not agree with everything, some of the conclusions made really makes sense. It has got me thinking in more general terms of how we are behaving when we are faced with (new) technology and what technology we actually need.

The thought started during a walk to Tressider (a student collection point at the Campus of Stanford University) for a coffee with some fellows in the middle of September. We started to talk about whether we had the right to give technology to extreme rural areas in the world. I posed the question: “Do we have the right not too?” We ended up agreeing that the question did not have a simple answer.

I thought more about the problem and ended up with two simple questions that should be answer in any development process of technology:

  • Should we give or do we need the technology solution?
  • What is the technology solution that is needed?

It really is as simple as that, as there will always be a solution in technology, but should one might question if and how we should use it. It is very easy to get lost in the buzz about new technologies. As I have said in many blogs before this one technology is a tool, but easy. However, the exposure of technology to humans is far from free of compexity.

Looking at social entrepreneurship gives a lot of useful input in the problem. The problem is building a technology solution that can and will be used by the audience. For me that is creating a trusted solution. Social entrepreneurs use technology as tools to make a difference mostly rural areas around the world. People in thise areas are quite new to being exposure to technology and that really changes how technology should be presented and in what form they are developed. Basically if a pen and a paper is what the audience will trust, then paper and a pen is the right technology solution.

I talked to Uuve Sauga, one of the fellows, about the idea I had for this blog and during the very interesting discussion, she summarized the social entrepreneurs work as “being able to take that first look at the persons needs, desires and constraints”. Nothing can be more truthful. The right solution should bridge solution and needs of the audience via the technology. This actually mean that this development process is applicable everywhere – both in the developed and the developing world. It might result in that the solutions for our “problems” in the developed world are found by looking at the needs of the people in the developing world. Quite ironic actually, yet this “irony” have been identified previously looking at Hernando de Soto’s book “The Mystery of Capital”. In the book, he concluded the problem of “formal capital” in the developing world and the high presence of self-assembled entrepreneurs in those areas.

This topic has now been realised by big high-tech companies such as Intel and Nokia. The needs of the audience is quite different, and the requirement of the developed products in those areas are very different from the believied needs in the developed world. This process started when these companies started to look att the emerging markets around the world. Both the seminars we had with Marko Ahtisaari, Nokia, and John Sherry, Intel, emphasized this new twist of development.

Personally I salute this change in direction of the development, and will anxiously follow and participate in it. While we are at it we might even start to question to the extent that we are consuming technology. I for sure am starting to do so and trying to cut down as much as my work permit me to. I want to have the control over my life, not technology. What is so cool about it is that it really makes the development process more appealing to me.

Use the highest possible level of technology, but hide the technology as much as possible. Make the technology more personal.

To quote one of the best slogans ever written: “Mmm, I like it.”

The social entrepreneur…

150 150 eriks

I had a chat yesterday about an entry I wrote some weeks ago about a nightly walk down by the beach. She told me that the lyrics of the song (Fix You by Coldplay), made a big impression of one of her friends. That got me thinking of the text some more.

I am currently taking part in a fellowship program – Reuters Digital Vision Program- which brings together a group of experienced social entrepreneurs from the world corners. But what is a social entrepreneur really? I remember an explanation made by a student in the beginning of the program: A social entrepreneur is a person that both values a positive balance in the checking account and social impact of his/her work. Of course there is a discussion whether the social impact is the more important part, and today an article is illustrating that discussion, where there is an interview of the founder of Ebay and the Omidyar foundation, Pierre Omidyar, where he discuss the nature of social entrepreneurship. This is an ongoing discussion that probably will continue for sometime now.

Personally, I believe that social entrepreneurship is about trying… trying to make difference… trying to help somebody without asking for something in return. The movie "Pass It Forward" defines it so well. We should help people that needs that extra hand, and give pieces of ourselves.

Tears stream down your face
When you lose something you cannot replace
And I will try to fix you

… because I will definately try.

The identity of the blogosphere

150 150 eriks

I read an article today about teenagers and blogs. In the short article some figures are presented on the differences between the blogging by youths and adults. Only one out of 14 adults is writing blogs, while there is one out of five youths writing. Even more interesting these figures become for the reading of blogs. Furthermore is one out of four adults reading blogs online, but almost four out of ten youths are reading blogs. That is in itself interesting, yet not surprising as youths seems to be more adaptable to new techniques, which another article partly addresses.

There are however another result presented in the article that is more interesting considering there has been a lot of buzz around the blogosphere and then especially questions like What is a blog? How should we blog? The nature of impact by blogging has been discussed a lot, and especially the movement of open source journalism have emphasized the political effect of blogging. It however seems like the youths mainly use the blogging to keep in touch with each other and communicate, which might not be that surprising. Even if the social effect is not the dominating part of blogging it surely is a major part of it.

That makes me wonder if it is not so that the majority of the blogs really are “social blogs”, primarily used in the sense of online diaries, and not for the purpose of ‘marketing’ political ideas, at least not directly. Maybe the blogs are more beginning to take the form of small social communities, bond together by the people that reads and discuss blogs. Thus it seems and partly based on the article mentioned, that the blogs are not part of the new corporate blogging sphere nor part of the open source journalism such as Instapundit. That raises a provocative question without any answer from me…

Is the blogosphere really the major ‘threath’ to the Big Media that everybody says it is?

Reflections on Web 2.0…

150 150 eriks

I read a blog by Nicholas Carr about the amorality of Web 2.0 with the focus on Wikipedia hype. I decided to write a blog with some reflections on it. Please read it for a full discussion of the problem. Do not get me wrong, I truly believe in the power of the users and applaud the new Web 2.0 movement. However is it free from complexity? I think everything cooks down to if we are ready for it or not. Unfortunately I at present time do not think we as humanity on the whole are fully ready yet. I however could be convinced…

Technology is a tool, nothing else. We should never forget the purpose of technology is to help us, not the technology in itself. If we want to save (or at least change the world), we have to do it ourselves, but probably with the help of technology. Yet technology in itself actually does very little, which is one component of the complexity. Another component is that "technicians" always have to reflect on the awareness and readiness of the users to be exposed of new technology of the users that we develop these new technologies for. That is the problem lies in us as well as the new technologies.

Before we can assure that we are ready to handle the new technology and we have adjusted the technology so that it reflects how we work, the ultimate vision will not be fulfilled. We are getting there, and it is the right direction to go as we are then going back the read-and-write web again as it goes back to what Tim Berners-Lee and his colleagues intended from the beginning..

Only time will tell if Web 2.0 is the "salvation of the problems of the web", but I think we cannot be totally blind to the fact that it is much easier to destroy than to create, but I also know as the telling goes: “Rome was not built in a day…"  Nevertheless, I am truly excited to see what happens…

I love rocky rides, so count me in!