I’m right there with you on those questions. I’ve got more questions than theories at this point. So this post is as much about thinking out loud (or on screen) than it is arguing reality. I could quite easily be wrong.

It’s also what I meant when I wondered “How do you harness this opportunity?” I think the activity and usage we’re seeing is more than just about feeling happy and connected. Certainly the connection is important, but I suspect it’s a means to an end.

I wonder to what degree you could say people see potential, but don’t realise what their needs are yet?

I’m inclined to think there is opportunity in all this. There’s so much information being made available - and by multiple demographics, niches, and communities - and to a fair degree this is unsolicited information, so in a sense you’re getting an untainted glimpse into people’s lives in a way that was not really possible before.

So in that sense there’s opportunity for research - both academic and market - as well as gaining reality checks about satisfaction on services (we’re seeing more and more instances in which disgruntled Twitter users get responses from service providers as a result of their Tweets).

I’m also wondering if, in some cases, what we’re seeing in the noise is the precursor to the tangible outcomes you mentioned, or even the formulation of off-shoot communities that will ultimately produce these outcomes.

For example are the discussions we’re seeing the initial stages of identify forming - or perhaps more accurately an attempt at carving out an identity? Or even brainstorming ideas that haven’t fully materialised yet.

For example would this be comparable to lurkers on Linux forums who have a distinct interest in the community but haven’t reached the stage where they feel a part of it?

I’ll add to this train of thought as ideas and questions come. Thanks for the thoughts - they’ve been very thought-provoking.

Cheers,

Mike

Perhaps the size, the breadth, or how homogeneous the information base are helpful factors. A couple people isn’t helpful. A bunch of people who think like you do isn’t helpful.

When you talk about open source software, there is an outcome which is tangible like the linux kernel or Wordpress. But there’s more than that, it’s identity forming as well: something that comes from submitting a patch which is accepted by the community. It’s also hierarchical, some programmers for various reasons rise to the top of the pack.

Twitter and blogging has these aspects minus the tangible outcome (perhaps the outcome is just entertainment or knowledge or ideas or inspiration).

From the Wikipedia article:

“The “Delphi Effect” appears to be synonymous with the Delphi method. The Delphi method is based on the assumption that group, as opposed to individual, judgement of trends can improve the validity of forecasts. It was developed at RAND Corporation in the early 1950s in a project funded by the US Air Force. It has been used ever since, together with various modifications and reformulations, such as the Imen-Delphi procedure.”

The Wikipedia article on the Delphi method is located here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Delphi_method

The fact the article indicates the Delphi method is based on an “assumption” is interesting and makes me wonder the extent to which the model and the “effect” Raymond discusses are based in hard research versus relatively softer observation.

Will add to this as I discover more…

Cheers,

Mike