Can We Succeed as Experts in the Age of the Internet?
telecommatt | June 29, 2008 I’m trying to wrap my mind around this post. It’s quite lengthy, but I guarantee you it will make you think.
Thing is, I’m not sure I completely agree. Does adding additional features really reduce the audience? Is it true that those who overspecialize in today’s world will not do well? What if the reverse is true?
For example, take an application that has very few features. All resources are focuses on two (two being an arbitrary small number) specific tasks. On it’s release, only people who need to perform those tasks will benefit from the application. Now add sixteen features and you’ve got sixteen times the likelihood of someone needing the application.
Think of all the social applications with open API’s. I’m using Clipmarks to post to my Wordpress blog, which will notify my Twitter followers of a new post, send an email to my subscribers, and provide an RSS feed for various news readers. My audience is expanded exponentially with each new feature that is tied into these open API’s.
Where I can see the scenario in the Mashable article taking place is in so-called expert applications. Perhaps there should be a distinction made between features and advanced or expert features, where deeper education regarding the problem being addressed is required to create a solution.
I see both of these scenarios happening simultaneously in many environments. My own workplace is a great example. The database application I maintain is extremely feature-rich. There are many modular pieces aimed at helping many intertwined but separate groups complete their job functions. By adding modular chunks to the application, we are able quickly accommodate a broader audience. At the same time, adding expert features to each module reduces the audience size of that module, but not of the application itself.
So, back to the question, do experts no longer matter in the days of the internet? How can that be the case, when the amount and depth of data available has increased exponentially? Simple put, I believe that there will no less need for experts in the information age. As above, both scenarios are occurring simultaneously. There is also the question of who will create the applications that reach the broadest audience? Wouldn’t it be someone with a very indepth and specialized knowledge of the problem being addressed? And wouldn’t they need features available to them to create a solution built that is for a broad audience?
Thing is, I’m not sure I completely agree. Does adding additional features really reduce the audience? Is it true that those who overspecialize in today’s world will not do well? What if the reverse is true?
For example, take an application that has very few features. All resources are focuses on two (two being an arbitrary small number) specific tasks. On it’s release, only people who need to perform those tasks will benefit from the application. Now add sixteen features and you’ve got sixteen times the likelihood of someone needing the application.
Think of all the social applications with open API’s. I’m using Clipmarks to post to my Wordpress blog, which will notify my Twitter followers of a new post, send an email to my subscribers, and provide an RSS feed for various news readers. My audience is expanded exponentially with each new feature that is tied into these open API’s.
Where I can see the scenario in the Mashable article taking place is in so-called expert applications. Perhaps there should be a distinction made between features and advanced or expert features, where deeper education regarding the problem being addressed is required to create a solution.
I see both of these scenarios happening simultaneously in many environments. My own workplace is a great example. The database application I maintain is extremely feature-rich. There are many modular pieces aimed at helping many intertwined but separate groups complete their job functions. By adding modular chunks to the application, we are able quickly accommodate a broader audience. At the same time, adding expert features to each module reduces the audience size of that module, but not of the application itself.
So, back to the question, do experts no longer matter in the days of the internet? How can that be the case, when the amount and depth of data available has increased exponentially? Simple put, I believe that there will no less need for experts in the information age. As above, both scenarios are occurring simultaneously. There is also the question of who will create the applications that reach the broadest audience? Wouldn’t it be someone with a very indepth and specialized knowledge of the problem being addressed? And wouldn’t they need features available to them to create a solution built that is for a broad audience?
|
Popularity: 16% [?]
Sphere: Related Contentnone
Hello, thank you for reading and replying to the article. I'd just like to emphasize that what I'm talking about here is not keeping it simple for simplicity's sake; I'm talking about keeping it simple and letting the community create the extra features for you. Twitter would be nothing without its API and all those wonderful little apps based on it.
Stan, thanks for clarifying. There is certainly something to be said for simplicity, and there are scores of failed Web 2.0 start-ups out there whose cause-of-death was that they tried to include everything out of the box. I don't think that there's always a clear answer, but in the end I think it comes down to who has a better understanding of the solution- the author(s) or the community?