It can be downloaded here (French only).

“Territories as defined by government have become disconnected from the ecosystems in which people and business live and work. New ways of communicating have created an additional layer on top of these territories and ecosystems, ultimately defining new territories in which we have to coexist.

To conclude, the emergence of new territories creates the need for an evolution from democracy as we know it to participative democracy, with an unavoidable overlap between the 2 systems while they coexist, which will create tensions. But rather than deregulation, it calls for a redefinition of the role of government and of the culture we share. A lot of work still remains to be done and we should be ready for exciting times to come…”

The post Xavier Comtesse on the new ‘direct territories’ appeared first on P2P Foundation.

“When customers are no longer in a passive or self-service mode, but have become active — i.e., operating in a do-it-yourself, co-design or co-creative mode –, the traditional value chain of Michael Porter is no longer effective.”

Introduction:

Swiss “P2P Business” thinker Xavier Comtesse, whose modelling efforts on the direct economy we have covered before, continues his investigations, and has come up with a model for the new integrated and participative value chain.

Xavier Comtesse:

“When consumers turn into active stakeholders in the economy, they become integral part of the value creation process. A new dimension is thus opened: the “value chain 2.0. “

The model of the value chain 2.0 presented above takes into account the change of paradigms imposed by the active participation of ConsumActors in the economy. .”

The post Xavier Comtesse on Value Chain 2.0 appeared first on P2P Foundation.

This entry has received a erudite response by Angelique van Engelen, which is a recommended read on the monetization of attention. As she also discusses other contributions such as by Robin Good and makes many detailed observations, it is worth reading in full.

However, as she also explains my own purpose perhaps even better than I could have, and adds a clear view of the ‘process’ of choice and production (which may be lost in my own longer paragraphs), itis worth reproducing the model once again with her improvements.

Because she may have slightly different interpretations of my own model, I’m highlighting my divergences in bold. Please note that the first five stages are adapted from a previous modelling effort by Xavier Comtesse.

Angelique van Engelen:

“Michel Bauwens published a number of hybrid models which show how various types of peer-informed modes of production can find their way in economic conditions of scarcity. They also show what the models based on free sharing look like. Bauwens†models are brilliant, because they reflect a sliding scale illustrating the various cases in which producers are receding and consumers are dominating as well as the shift toward left and right of the actual exchange itself. Outlines like this are shining beacons of clarity because they facilitate a slight comprehension of a general world that is beginning to lag stretches behind the rise of an unfathomable particular.

This is the schematic Bauwens†model.

1. consumption

Consumer -> cash -> companyâ€s products/services made entirely by company

2. Self Service

Consumer -> choice -> cash -> companyâ€s products/services made entirely by company

3. DIY Do it yourself

Consumer -> degree of involvement in the value chain -> cash -> companyâ€s products/services made by the company

4. Co-design

Consumer -> customizing the product -> cash -> companyâ€s products/services for partial products made by the company

5. Co-creation

Consumer -> actual involvement in design/production -> (cash ->) open sourced produced product ->(possibly a company or not, ie Wikipedia).

This is where Xavier Comtesse puts open source, and he stops there in his direct economy model. However, I use the next part to define peer production models, and therefore, in my model, co-creation is not necessarily open source. You can have co-creation, for products that are proprietary.

6. Direct peer production of use value with no concern for monetization

Consumer -> idea -> (cash ->) consumer produced/manufactured product. Example: couchsurfing.com.

Important here is that cash is not necessary, but in theory possible.

7. Direct peer production of use value with concern for equitable monetization

Consumer community-> a commons -> peer production -> cash -> equitable production and commerce

Note that I wouldn’t use ‘consumer community’, as we are talking about both producers and consumers, users might be more correct, or as Axel Bruns says: “produsers”

8. Direct production of use value by groups with commons-oriented business ecology

Customer community -> ecology of business producing marketable, scarce goods through a foundation on non profit basis -> consumer consumes. (Linux)

Here I make a difference between the businesses creating added value on top of the commons, say IBM vs. Linux, and the foundations which run the infrastructure of the commons, such as the Wikimedia Foundation. They are not the same.

9. Direct production of use value by individuals with monetization of attention through proprietary platforms

Consumer -> (Intellectual) Product on a communal (proprietary) platform -> Cash -> Consumer (Web2.0)

10. Direct production of exchange value by groups: cooperative production

Consumer communities -> cooperative format of product -> cash -> consumer (Old model of producer cooperatives).

11. Direct production of exchange value by individuals

Consumer-> product distributed using local infrastructure for distributed production-> cash -> consumer (Ebay, a person designing something that operates a machine in a far off place to churn out the product)”

The post Modelling the new business practices based on participation appeared first on P2P Foundation.

I have reworked Roger Hart’s Ladder of Participation to account for the different modalities of community-corporate cooperation and engagement, based on the key variable of who controls the overall framework.

Indeed, despite its usefullness, I find that Xavier Comtesseâ€s approach presents a limited view of use of social innovation by corporations only, thereby leaving out autonomous peer production.

The following is a rework of Xavierâ€s proposal, with documentary links showing which practices correspond. I have formulated it from the point of view of a corporate institution.

1. Consumers: you make, they consume. The classic model.

2. Self-service: you make, they go get it themselves. This is where consumers start becoming prosumers, but the parameters of the cooperation are totally set by the producing corporation. Itâ€s really not much more than a strategy of externalization of costs. Think of ATMâ€s and gas stations. We could call it simple externalization.

3. Do-it-yourself: you design, they make it themselves. One step further, pioneered by the likes of Ikea, where the consumers, re-assembles the product himself. Complex externalization of business processes.

4. Company-based Crowdsourcing. The company organizes a value chain which lets the wider public produce the value, but under the control of the company.

See the examples of Crowdsourced Design, Crowdsourced Advertizing and Crowdfunding.

5. Co-design: you set the parameters, but you design it together

For examples, see here http://www.p2pfoundation.net/Co-Design

This is possible because the process of Mass Amateurization has created what Charles Leadbeater calls the Pro-Am Revolution and users are now demanding a say in how their products are designed.

Customers are creating their media, their networks (see also here http://www.p2pfoundation.net/User-Capitalized_Networks); they are demanding Customer-centric Brands

6. Co-creativity: you both create cooperatively. In this stage, the corporation does not even set the parameters, the prosumer is an equal partner in the development of new products. Perhaps the industrial model of the adventure sports material makers would fit here.

For examples, see here http://www.p2pfoundation.net/Co-Creation

7. Sharing communities create the value, Web 2.0 proprietary platforms, attempt to monetize participation.

See my concept of Netarchical Capitalism which tries to account for the new role of such platforms.

Here should also fit the network of minipreneurs that we discussed earlier. Sharing communities do not care about monetization, but minipreneurs do, but they have a similar relationship to proprietary platforms.

See the items on Revenue-Sharing and Rewards for Contributions.

8. Peer production proper: communities create the value, using a Commons, with assistance from corporations who attempt to create derivative streams of value. Linux is the paradigmatic example.

Production without manufacturer is now possible and the open source software is showing a thriving ecology of cooperation between communities and businesses.

See our entry on Open Source Commercialization and on the specific Open Source or Free Software Business Models

There is no reason that this model of self-organized open peer to peer design communities should be confined to the world of software and would not be able to do physical product design .

Agro-blogger writes:

“Let us imagine an active online community participating in vibrant discussions and sharing of Appropriate Technology plans and experiences. Let us imagine the AT equivalent of a sourceforge.net, a place where designers and field workers can go to download plans of greenhouses, beehives, water pumps, animal traction implements, and biodiesel equipment. And, within the legal framework of an AT General Public License (GPL), those plans can be used freely, modified, and republished under the same AT GPL. IRC channels dedicated to specific programmatic areas could serve as a dynamic forum where “newbies” can gain wisdom and insight from experienced field practitioners.”

We can foresee new models that combine Open Design Communities , and separate physical production of physical commodities.

See our category here http://www.p2pfoundation.net/Category:Design for an idea of how much movement there is in this sector

What is being built or designed right now?

The Grid Beam Building System, at http://www.p2pfoundation.net/Grid_Beam_Building_System

The Hexayurt, at http://www.p2pfoundation.net/Hexayurt

Movisi Open Design Furniture, at http://www.p2pfoundation.net/Movisi_Open_Design_Furniture

Open Cores, at http://www.p2pfoundation.net/Open_Cores and other Open Computing Hardware, at http://www.p2pfoundation.net/Open_Hardware

Open Source Green Vehicle, at http://www.p2pfoundation.net/Open_Source_Green_Vehicle

Open Source Scooter http://www.p2pfoundation.net/Open_Source_Scooter

The Ronja Wireless Device at http://www.p2pfoundation.net/Twibright_Ronja_Open_Wireless_Networking_Device

Open Source Sewing patterns, at http://www.p2pfoundation.net/Open_Source_Sewing_Patterns

Velomobiles http://www.p2pfoundation.net/Open_Source_Velomobile_Development_Project

Open Energy http://www.p2pfoundation.net/SHPEGS_Open_Energy_Project

9. Peer production with cooperative production: peer producers create their own vehicles for monetization.

The OS Alliance is an example of this

Equity-based licenses are being designed for this practice

10. Peer production communities or sharing communities place themselves explicitely outside of the monetary economy.

This is the domain of the Adventure Economy :

“”We coin the term adventure economy to refer to a gift economy that is pay-forward, in-person, global and among strangers. In any economy, there are challenges in allocating resources effectively and avoiding abuse, but these are of special concern in non-market economies among strangers, where we don’t have the information mechanisms of the price system nor of social relations, and we are also missing the risk-reduction mechanisms of contracts.”

The Center for Adventure Economics is trying to define metrics for this

A wide variety of Peer to Peer Exchanges has already been created for such sharing and there are many initiatives to create a better technical infrastructure so that even more social cooperation can occur

The post What kind of economy are we moving to? 3. A hierarchy of engagement between companies and communities appeared first on P2P Foundation.

In P2P theory, I distinguish at least 3 business models that are emerging through peer production.

One is precisely that: there is now a sharing economy, where people share value, but mostly from motivations of individual expression and recognition, for which they need platforms, which are proprietary, and fund themselves precisely through such an attention economy.

The other format is commons-oriented peer production, where it is communities that create value, and because they are cooperating, they have stronger links, and have their own platforms, usually managed by for-benefit institutions such as the Mozilla Foundation, and around them, evolve a number of businesses.

In Crowdsourcing, companies integrate distributed production in their value chain, without giving up control.

Alternatively, platforms may be create as a vehicle for direct user production to occur. This is also the domain of Desktop Manufacturing and the ecology of companies gravitating around minipreneurs and Networked Micro Agencies . Note that in terms of the hierarchy of engagement between companies and peer communities, both models are quite different.

Of such a model, David Bollier writes:

“One of the best ways to stimulate competition, innovation and lower prices is for participants in a market to honor the commons (a shared pool of resources, a minimal set of safety or performance standards) and then to compete “on top” of the commons. Instead of being able to reap easy profits from monopoly control over something everyone needs — say, a computer operating system like Windows — a company must work harder to “add value” in more specialized ways.”

2. The Direct Economy model led by User Innovation

So, what we have now is a polarity between communities (commons-based or sharing-based) and institutions such as for-profit companies.

This is why Xavier Comtesse coined the term of the Direct Economy:

“In a system of direct democracy, sovereignty is lodged with the citizens – or at least, with those among them that choose to actively participate in the system. They can not only pick among prepackaged options (vote) or candidates (election) but they also can deeply co-shape the policy process. Switzerland is probably the strongest case: here new laws can be put forth, and even the Constitution modified, by citizens’ initiative.

Translate that into business terms and we have a description of a system where consumers have a direct influence on what companies develop and produce for them. The more informed, opinionated and wired (socially connected) they are, the more they are likely to make use of this influence and to try to organize it – exactly as in a direct democracy system. “

The direct economyâ€s conclusions are beyond doubt:

1) Users are becoming a dominant factor

2) Corporations need to adopt new practices to involve the users.

The Law of Asymmetric Competition , which posits that companies that use open/free, participatory, and commons-oriented tactics and strategies will function better.

For this to work, companies will have to adopt Edge Competencies (on how to deal with their edge, i.e. surrounding customers and communities) as well as Open Innovation , not just internally, but to be able to co-evolve with diffuse innovation processes, driven by Lead User communities. However, please note that the Open Innovation concept is often used in a much too limited way, as opening up innovation between companies only.

There is now an increasingly important field of study, which had been pioneered by Erik von Hippelâ€s the Democratization of Innovation, which is centered on such User-centered Innovation and it is developing User Innovation Theory in order to understand the User-Generated Ecosystem, and its important expressions such as the explosion in User-Generated Content.

To be continued!

The post What kind of economy are we moving to? 2. Overview of the main business models appeared first on P2P Foundation.

So I’m very happy to find a model that gives a more full spectrum model of such participation and interaction, and was developed by Sherry Arnstein, already in the sixties, time of rebirth and flowering of participative civil society movements. The graph is here.

Here’s is the commentary to understand that model:

“The bottom rungs of the ladder are (1) Manipulation and (2) Therapy. These two rungs describe levels of “non-participation” that have been contrived by some to substitute for genuine participation. Their real objective is not to enable people to participate in planning or conducting programs, but to enable powerholders to ‘educate’ or ‘cure’ the participants. Rungs 3 and 4 progress to levels of ‘tokenism’ that allow the have-nots to hear and to have a voice: (3) Informing and (4) Consultation. When they are proffered by powerholders as the total extent of participation, citizens may indeed hear and be heard. But under these conditions they lack the power to insure that their views will be heeded by the powerful. When participation is restricted to these levels, there is no follow-through, no ‘muscle,’ hence no assurance of changing the status quo. Rung (5) Placation is simply a higher level tokenism because the ground rules allow have-nots to advise, but retain for the powerholders the continued right to decide.

Further up the ladder are levels of citizen power with increasing degrees of decision-making clout. Citizens can enter into a (6) Partnership that enables them to negotiate and engage in trade-offs with traditional power holders. At the topmost rungs, (7) Delegated Power and (8) Citizen Control, have-not citizens obtain the majority of decision-making seats, or full managerial power.”

A very similar model, though much simplified, can be applied to collective decision-making on science and technology, see our entry on Scientific Democracy for more details.

You can easily spot the common ground between the 2 interpretations, above and below:

The 3 phases of scientific democracy are

– Phase 1, the ‘deficit’ model where by the public is considered to be without expert knowledge and in need of education by scientific experts

It’s assumption that the less educated people are more distrustful is in fact contradicted by sociological studies showing the exact opposite. Distrust increases with education.

– Phase 2, the ‘public debate’ model, in which the primacy of scientific expertise is tempered by the recognition of differentiated local knowledge within the public. This gives rise to public dialogue models such as citizen conferences, focus groups, etc..

– Phase 3, the co-production of knowledge model, in which the whole process of knowledge building implies an integration of experts and citizens (In phase 2, two forms of knowledge are considered separate)

Finally, for comparative purposes as to how such a hierarchy of engagement could apply to politics more generally, here is the model for a ladder of deliberation, developed by Tom Atlee. Interestingly, and that’s why his approach is important, he reverses the main logic, recognizing a logic of unfoldment starting from civil society itself, rather than starting from the institutional world.

1. Citizen dialogue and deliberation (of any and all kinds) (e.g., conversation cafes)

2. Citizen dialogue and deliberation with a coherent outcome (i.e., whole-group statements, actions or outcomes) (e.g., deliberative polling)

3. Citizen dialogue and deliberation with a coherent outcome that plugs into policy-making and decision-making (usually in an advisory role) (e.g., National Issues Forums)

4. Citizen dialogue and deliberation with a coherent outcome that plugs into policy-making and decision-making where the citizens are selected to reflect the diversity of the community (e.g., citizen deliberative councils)

5. Citizen dialogue and deliberation with a coherent outcome that plugs into policy-making and decision-making where the citizens are selected to reflect the diversity of the community and the whole process is officially institutionalized (e.g., consensus conferences)

6. Citizen dialogue and deliberation with a coherent outcome that plugs into policy-making and decision-making where the citizens are selected to reflect the diversity of the community and the whole process is officially institutionalized and empowered such that it drives policy-making (e.g., B.C.’s Citizens Assembly)

7. A democratic political and governance system that is grounded in 1-6 above at least as much — or more than — in the competitive lobbying, voting, litigating modes of politics.

The post The Ladder of Participation: models for interaction between peer projects and institutions appeared first on P2P Foundation.

Information on Xavier Comtesse’s work can be found here.

Excerpts:

LAST November, engineers in the healthcare division of General Electric (GE) unveiled something called the “LightSpeed VCT”, a scanner that can create a startlingly good three-dimensional image of a beating heart. This spring Staples, an American office-supplies retailer, will stock its shelves with a gadget called a “wordlock”, a padlock that uses words instead of numbers. In Munich, meanwhile, engineers at BMW have begun prototyping telematics (combining computing and telecoms) and online services for a new generation of luxury cars. The connection? In each case, the firm’s customers have played a big part (GE, BMW) or the leading role (Staples) in designing the product.

How does innovation happen? The familiar story involves boffins in academic institutes and R&D labs. But lately, corporate practice has begun to challenge this old-fashioned notion. Open-source software development is already well-known. Less so is the fact that Bell, an American bicycle-helmet maker, has collected hundreds of ideas for new products from its customers, and is putting several of them into production. Or that Electronic Arts (EA), a maker of computer games, ships programming tools to its customers, posts their modifications online and works their creations into new games. And so on. Not only is the customer king: now he is market-research head, R&D chief and product-development manager, too.

This is not all new. Researchers such as Nikolaus Franke at the University of Vienna and Christian Lüthje at the Technical University of Hamburg have demonstrated the importance of past user contributions to the evolution of everything from sporting equipment to construction materials and scientific instruments. But the rise of online communities, together with the development of powerful and easy-to-use design tools, seems to be boosting the phenomenon, as well as bringing it to the attention of a wider audience, says Eric Von Hippel of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, who is about to publish a book, “Democratising Innovation” (MIT Press). “User innovation has always been around,” he says. “The difference is that people can no longer deny that it is happening.” Indeed, it is “very likely that the majority of innovation happens this way,” says Mr Von Hippel. Such innovation, he says, has a “much higher rate of success”.

According to Mr Von Hippel, in the past firms have mostly resisted customer innovation or not known what to do with it. American farmers were lobbying manufacturers to make cars with detachable back seats as early as 1909. It took Detroit more than a decade to “invent” the pick-up truck. Even now, carmakers respond to customer modifications such as performance-exhaust systems by voiding the warranty. Within three weeks of launching “Mindstorms”, a build-it-yourself robot development system, in 1997, Lego was facing around 1,000 hackers who had downloaded its operating system, vastly improved it, and posted their work freely online. After a long stunned silence, Lego appears to have accepted the merits of this community’s work: programs written in hacker language may now be uploaded to the Mindstorms website, for example.

BMW’s efforts to harness the creativity of its customers began two years ago, says Joerg Reimann, the firm’s head of marketing innovation management, when it posted a toolkit on its website. This toolkit let BMW’s customers develop ideas showing how the firm could take advantage of advances in telematics and in-car online services. From the 1,000 customers who used the toolkit, BMW chose 15 and invited them to meet its engineers in Munich. Some of their ideas (which remain under wraps for now) have since reached the prototype stage, says BMW. “They were so happy to be invited by us, and that our technical experts were interested in their ideas,” says Mr Reimann. “They didn’t want any money.” BMW is now broadening its customer-innovation efforts.

Westwood Studios, a game developer now owned by EA, first noticed its customers innovating its products after the launch of a game, “Red Alert”, in 1996: gamers were making new content for existing games and posting it freely on fan websites. Westwood “made a conscious decision to embrace this phenomenon”, says Mike Verdu of EA. Soon it was shipping basic game-development tools with its games, and by 1999 had a dedicated department to feed designers and producers working on new projects with customer innovations of existing ones. “The fan community has had a tremendous influence on game design,” says Mr Verdu, “and the games are better as a result.”

Traditionally, firms have innovated by sending out market researchers to discover “unmet needs” among their customers. These researchers report back. The firm decides which ideas to develop and hands them over to project-development teams. Studies suggest that about three-quarters of such projects fail. Harnessing customer innovation requires different methods, says Mr Von Hippel. Instead of taking the temperature of a representative sample of customers, firms must identify the few special customers who innovate.

Researchers call such customers “lead users”. GE’s healthcare division calls them “luminaries”. They tend to be well-published doctors and research scientists from leading medical institutions, says GE, which brings up to 25 luminaries together at regular medical advisory board sessions to discuss the evolution of GE’s technology. GE then shares some of its advanced technology with a subset of luminaries who form an “inner sanctum of good friends”, says Sholom Ackelsberg of GE Healthcare. GE’s products then emerge from collaboration with these groups.

Staples found its luminaries by holding a competition among customers to come up with new product ideas. It got 8,300 submissions, says Michael Collins, boss of the Big Idea Group, a start-up firm that helped Staples to organise its competition.

At the heart of most thinking about innovation is the belief that people expect to be paid for their creative work: hence the need to protect and reward the creation of intellectual property. One really exciting thing about user-led innovation is that customers seem willing to donate their creativity freely, says Mr Von Hippel. This may be because it is their only practical option: patents are costly to get and often provide only weak protection. Some people may value the enhanced reputation and network effects of freely revealing their work more than any money they could make by patenting it. Either way, some firms are starting to believe that there really is such a thing as a free lunch.

The post Book of the Week: Xavier Comtesse’s Direct Economy, part 2 appeared first on P2P Foundation.

His report contains insights, analysis, and interesting cases studies, as well as a model of levels of participation, which we are quoting in this first installment from an English summary and translation of the original French-language report.

Check out Xavier Comtesse here.

Excerpts:

“The model was the result of observations from Swissquote Inc, where intermediaries had become agents of change within the company and had help transform it into a hyperproductive company.

The model has since then been refined, with the definition of the “transformActors” and “ConsumActors”, and the classification of knowledge (inspired from Mathematics) and interactivity along the 2 axis of a matrix. The model has also been validated against 3 real cases with 3 Swiss companies: Swissquote, Largeur.com and Cla-Val.

The Model

1. The problem:

low cost offshoring, baby boomers reaching retirement age, etc… create tension in the economy. And the answer is not in lowering costs, but rather in achieving high productivity.

2. The solution:

changing Consumers into ConsumActors. We have heard of crowdsourcing, but the real underlying change is that the customers are getting more involved into the value chain.

3. Technologies of Cooperation

While technology helps improve processes, the real value behind these technologies is the shift in the interactivity between the producers and the consumers: consumers are getting used to getting more and more involved into the process (self service, product configuration and customization, etc…)

4. Levels of interactivity

The level of interactivity that is possible with ConsumActors can be classified as follows:

4.1 Passive consumption:

The consumer is getting products or services with no real interaction and no real choice. He has to take whatever is available.

4.2 Self Service

The consumer is now given the ability to choose between various products or services. This first step is already a huge step forward, as the consumer can go around the vendor to pick and choose what he wants.

4.3 DIY: Do It Yourself

At this level, the consumer starts getting involved in the value chain. This is what IKEA offers, where you are not just buying a product, you are actually also delivering it to your home and building it yourself. This case is an example of the first disruption from the standard retail value chain.

4.4 Co-design

At this level, the consumer starts adding value by customizing the product and therefore defining his needs himself (as opposed to buying a product defined by the product management team). This is what Dell is asking from customers when they have to pick and choose options to build a computer.

4.5 Co-creation

This is the ultimate level of involvement, where the consumer is actually involved in the design of the product or service itself. This is what Open Source does for developers, and what Wikipedia does for knowledge consumers. Similarly Procter and Gamble has a “Connect and Develop” program that lets innovators define products.

The post Book of the Week: Xavier Comtesse’s Direct Economy appeared first on P2P Foundation.

Peer to peer is the relational dynamic at work in distributed networks, with the latter having as requirements the freedom of agents to engage in cooperation.

Peer production is also defined by:

– voluntary engagement

– a production process under the control of the participants

– universal access property regimes

– there is no direct link between input and output (non-reciprocal character of peer production), i.e. there can be no payment directly linked to the production.

Most corporate-driven crowdsourcing will only apply the very first principle, i.e. voluntary engagement; they will aim to drive the production process; and the results will be proprietary. Finally, they will introduce payment or Revenue Sharing schemes. In terms of the hierarchy of engagement, crowdsourcing is more akin to swarming than to the collective intelligence of an intentional community.

Of course, crowdsourcing remains an important trend, and one that will profoundly restructure the economic environment.

We would like to point our readers to two interesting analytical approaches to crowdsourcing.

One is an extensive study of corporate strategies by Xavier Comtesse, who coins this model the direct economy, and we are excerpting his study as Book of the Week on our French blog.

In English, we recommend the interesting model by a Finnish researcher, called the FLIRT Model of Crowdsourcing.

The post Why crowdsourcing isn’t peer production appeared first on P2P Foundation.

For background see also the recent discussion on engagement that has been doing the rounds of the Blogosphere.

The post Peer production from the point of view of corporations: a hierarchy of engagement appeared first on P2P Foundation.