transparency

Michael, whom I was lucky to meet a while ago now, wrote today he was a bad blogger. I understand the holding back and the internal sensors some of us have that preclude us from hitting the publish button. Call it good sense, call it being gutless. there’s no value judgment here.

What made me push the button on this topic was that I read this long tail post immediately after. In it, Chris Anderson writes about radical transparency, which rather than comprising the unscripted and direct communication from officers and employees alike about ‘non-critical’ matters. involves instead:

The whole product development process laid bare, and opened to customer input. Management in public, via blog. CEOs venting, without benefit of legal counsel, in late-night postings.

Anderson’s praise for radical transparency may stem from his own experience. He wrote a (great) book which I understand sells very well, after having presented more than key ideas in his blog as he completed the end-product. His reward, as he writes was incredible feedback and actual input to the book.

What could be then the preconditions for radical transparency to provide benefits to its generators:

- does ownership of your idea-product need to be unassailable from a legal/expert/etc viewpoint?

- should you assume that your idea-product can be (easily) duplicable , and it’s only time that gives you the opportunity to jump into the next innovation cycle (therefore, there’s only the benefit of feedback to be reaped)

mmmm