1 / 16

Storyboard for Innovation: Web 2.0

Storyboard for Innovation: Web 2.0. By Crystal Mosley. Need. Collaboration and sharing information Global diversity Flexibility and convenience Common work and storage space. Research. Developers: Tim Berners-Lee and Robert Cailliau Findings: Web 2.0-

myrrh
Télécharger la présentation

Storyboard for Innovation: Web 2.0

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Storyboard for Innovation:Web 2.0 By Crystal Mosley

  2. Need • Collaboration and sharing information • Global diversity • Flexibility and convenience • Common work and storage space

  3. Research • Developers: Tim Berners-Lee and Robert Cailliau • Findings: Web 2.0- • Services, not packaged software, with cost-effective scalability • Control over unique, hard-to-recreate data sources that get richer as more people use them • Trusting users as co-developers • Leveraging the long tail through customer self-service • Harnessing collective intelligence

  4. Research Continued • Examples: Wikis, blogs, Flickr, Google, Tagging, Wikipedia, del.icious, Facebook, MySpace, You Tube, RSS Feeds, etc. • Lead Thinkers: • Tim O’Reilly and John Battelle • Production: • Built upon the World Wide Web (W3 or Web 1.0) platform to involve the users, allowing customers to build businesses, and users to publish valuable knowledge collectively.

  5. Development • Development Problems: • Clarifying and explaining the innovation. Considered a “piece of jargon” that no one truly understood what it meant. • Criticisms include hackers and spam easily exposed to files and data on computers. • Intended Audience: • Anyone that is seeking information and/or wants to publish on the web in collaboration with others (experts and non-experts).

  6. Commercialization • Production/Manufacturing: • Developed on the basis of Lotus mashup technology • Packaging: • Service/software available online • Marketing: • O’ Reilly Media annual conferences • Web 2.0 technologies • Distribution: • Available to anyone with Internet access and connects to the World Wide Web.

  7. Time Line of Diffusion for Web 2.0 • 2006-2007: Knowledge Stage • 2008-2009: Persuasion Stage • 2010: Decision Stage • 2011-2013: Implementation Stage • 2014-2015: Confirmation Stage • Supportive information for timeline decision. http://globalhumancapital.org/?p=675

  8. Communication Channels • Face-to-face Conversations • Online Conversations • Emails • Blogs • Wikis • Social networks • Conferences • Technology • Business • http://globalhumancapital.org/?p=675

  9. Adoption and the S-Curve Early Late Majority Majority *Innovation went thru another adoption curve. Early Adopters Innovators Laggards • http://globalhumancapital.org/?p=675

  10. Perceived Attributes of Web 2.0 • Innovators : • media specialists, technology specialists, and technology support team • Early Adopters: • technology savvy teachers and new graduates (1st year teachers) • Laggards-: • veteran teachers • Most Useful Perceived Attributes: • observability and relative advantage will show product results and benefits

  11. Critical Mass • Centralized vs. Decentralized • Decentralization is the preferred diffusion system • Horizontal networking amongst peers • Shared diffusion decision • Users experiments with the product • Informal evaluations • Problem-centered approach

  12. Change Agents • Key Change Agents: Teachers, administrators, and parents that are willing and determined to address the needs of the students within the school and community. • Use of Seven Roles: • Identify and discuss a need • Exchange information with others that can help impact the process of change • Analyzing the problem • Develop possible solutions and began action • Determine level of stability and respond accordingly

  13. Critical Mass • Web 2.0 has reached critical mass • Many students (higher education) use: • Social networking • Wikis • Blogs • Google docs • E-Portfolios • or other Web 2.0 supported tools • Web 3.0 is developing

  14. Champion’s Role • Need for Innovation- • Collaborating and sharing • Globalization • Common work area • Convenience • Innovation Match to Need- • Web 2.0 Capabilities • Users interact with other users • Website content can be changed • Applications: blogs, wikis, social networking, video sharing, mashups, etc.

  15. Explored Web Sites • http://adaptivepath.com/images/publications/essays/What_puts_the_2_in_Web_20.pdf • http://www.informationweek.com/1113/IDweb20_timeline.jhtml;jsessionid=QELI10FFQPAYZQE1GHRSKH4ATMY32JVN • http://web20ineducation.wikispaces.com/Intro • http://globalhumancapital.org/?p=267 • http://www.socialnetworkroadmap.com/index/?p=76

  16. Explored Web Sites • http://globalhumancapital.org/?p=675 • http://globalhumancapital.org/?p=34 • http://globalhumancapital.org/?p=1023 • http://knowledge.smu.edu.sg/article.cfm?articleid=1189 • http://swiki.cs.colorado.edu/CSCW2008-Web20/uploads/wilensky.pdf 2.0

More Related