Trust still matters!
Surely it should come as no surprise to us that there are some basic characteristics that have always been and will probably always be required for successful human interactions, including those augmented by technology. One of these attributes—at the top of the list, some might argue—is that of trust. It’s a good example of something that has been a necessary component of success throughout human history, and is one that continues to reign supreme in our latest and greatest technology-infused solutions.
For example, years ago Tim Berners-Lee had what he termed “the web of trust” at the top of his list. His 
vision of the architecture of the web and its future, laid out in his famous “birthday cake” diagram, placed trust at the top. As the excerpt below from the World Wide Web Consortium (W3C0) explains:
"The Web is a collaborative medium, not read-only like a magazine. In fact, the first Web browser was also an editor, though most people today think of browsing as primarily viewing, not interacting. To promote a more collaborative environment, we must build a "Web of Trust" that offers confidentiality, instills confidence, and makes it possible for people to take responsibility for (or be accountable for) what they publish on the Web. "
In my previous postings, such as "Trust as a competency?! - Part 1 and Part 2" and "Trust is Good!", I too have commented that trust can be thought of as a human competency and one which we can work on improving. Stephen MR Covey has most recently done the most to promote this notion in his book “The Speed of Trust: The one thing that changes everything”.
Trusted Advisors:
I was reminded of the importance of trust while I was reviewing “Groundswell: Winning in a World Transformed by Social Technologies” the recent study by Forrester Research, which was written by Charlene Li and Josh Bernoff. A Crave review "Study: Our friends are the best product reviewers" touches on trust and mentions this same study. I would have added to the title "even if we've never met them"! FastCompany also had a good review on this study, including an interesting excerpt of one chapter.
As you can see from the graphic below, topping the list (83%) is the opinions of friends or acquaintances who have used the product or service. I suspect most of us would have guessed that. But I was surprised at the continued high regard for information on the manufacturer’s site (69%) and the low scoring of online reviews by a blogger (30%).
What stood out even more though was the collective power that is emerging from the feedback loops of reviews by a variety of sources of consumers. By my count, reviews from other consumers make up 5 or 6 out of the top 10 sources listed in this study (depending on whether you count bloggers as consumers).
This study seems mostly right based on my personal experiences and habits. When I’m looking for a new product or service, my first quest is to seek out the recommendations and reviews of others who have already used them, and then I too check out the manufacturer’s site. But the key distinction here, as noted in the study, is the reliance on the manufacturer’s site to give me “information” (or what I would say is more accurately called data), on their products and services rather than the opinions, which all the other sources represent. Like those in the study, I value the opinions of those whose values and preferences I know, but I also value highly the opinions of those I’ve never met, but who have used the products or services I’m interested in.
Context = Relevance = Value
Better yet, I’m even more interested in and value the opinions of those who share some of my interests and contexts. Using myself as an example, I’m what is referred to as a “bluewater cruiser”, someone who lives aboard their sailboat full time traveling the world’s waterways and oceans. If I’m looking for some decision support for solutions to some of my boating-related needs (when aren’t I?!), my hierarchy of relevance might progress from boats to sailboats to liveaboards on sailboats to bluewater (open ocean) liveaboards on sailboats. Each one of these additional levels of context typically represents a very significant jump in relevance, such as the difference between what would matter if you were a weekend sailor rather than living aboard full time. So when I’m looking for solutions to problems and am trying to make better decisions and choices, finding others “like me” in this momentary set of conditions is of huge value.
Snowflakes One and All!
I suspect that my limited example how my contextual hierarchy can be relevant to me is not the shared by even one of you. Certainly there is no question that I have a penchant for the extreme. But try this: take a few minutes right now to come up with just one example of a hierarchy of relevance for something you have recently been needing some “decision support” for. Got it? Now ask yourself, "How many others reading OCOT would share the same list?" Probably few to none, depending on how much detail or how many levels you put into your hierarchy. Equally, however, I’m sure that if you took that same list and looked elsewhere on the web, you’d find a group of people who do indeed share many of these same attributes, and thus you will have found a highly valuable resource for making your decision or choice.
Recommender systems are helping to synthesize the often overwhelming volume of such input and feedback from these sources of opinions and reviews. These systems reveal patterns and key factors that characterize our very personal usage patterns and preferences—ones that even we are often not aware. They constitute some of the evolution of what Erik Duval and I are referring to as The Snowflake Effect (see also "Do blind people dream?" and "Musical Snowflakes Continue to Fall All Around Us" for some recent examples). In this case, it means that we are increasingly able to tweak and tune these recommender systems and decision support tools to be ever more relevant to the combination of conditions and circumstances that make every one of our situations into one that is truly unique...like every snowflake. Using the results of the Forester study as an example, consider the multiplication factor that comes into play when you can not only get reviews and feedback from friends and other consumers, but you can narrow this down to those who share your values, interests, preferences, and the like.
The Value of Communities
I raise all of this in light of the continued interest in (and lots of hype about) “communities”. I think, at their simplest level, communities can be two or more people with something in common. This study points toward one particularly tangible and powerful attribute of communities—as a collection point and source of reviews, recommendations, and opinions, which we will continue to value highly and use daily to help us make decisions. It is likely safe for me to assume that anyone reading this has the distinct advantage and privilege of living in an environment of plentitude and abundance and perhaps the greatest challenge presented by such an existence is that of making more and better decisions and choices.
Unlike those in Groundswell study, I place a very high value on the opinions of other bloggers, but I would note that more and more of these are blogs from those who share some similar and relevant characteristics with me as it relates to my decision support needs. Using my previous sailing example, some of my best sources of decision support come via other blue water cruisers who are using blogs as a way to document their experiences, and especially those with whom I share other specific similarities, such as routes, locations, ship type, engines, rigging, etc. Many of these bloggers are also typically members of larger online communities, such as one I frequent a lot lately comprised of other bluewater cruisers who are on the west coast of the Americas and are heading south. So this is another example of contextual hierarchy. You can probably imagine the extremely high value that this select group offers for helping me to make better decisions on everything from finding great anchorages to route planning, weather updates, recommended (and not) equipment. And, of course, I’m able to add value back by posting my feedback with answers and responses to questions posed on the community site and by posting my experiences and observations to my own sailing blog.
Personal? Professional?
Best of all perhaps, the extremely high value of these sources that provide highly relevant decision support seem not to be bound by the distinctions of "personal" versus "professional". Hence, we are seeing the increasing use and value of more “professional” sources, such as LinkedIn and other sites, such as FaceBook and MySpace, for very job-related and professional applications. They are certainly not limited to use by any one demographic group, such as the “younger generations”....whatever that means. After all, what could be more personal than one’s vocations, jobs, hobbies and work? All the more exacerbated by the blurring distinction between one’s “personal life” and “work life” (for better and for worse, I might add).
But before I digress any further, this blog is called Off Course – On Target for a reason you know, I’ll leave it at that for today. My purpose in this posting is to observe the growing need for continuous improvement to the decision support structures we use so that we can all survive and thrive in the new economies of abundance and a world of exponential change. For me, these are a wonderful combination of timeless human attributes such as trust and conversation augmented with new capabilities and reach provided by technology. Let’s do keep in mind that as a percentage of the world’s 6.6 billion population, a minority of us are privileged enough to live in these economies of abundance and have these very good problems to solve. As we work to have this abundance flow to all, so too will we be helping by developing effective decision support structures, habits, and techniques to share and accompany the spread of abundance.
I’d be curious and anxious to hear some of the other attributes and sources that you are using for your own decision support. What helps you make more and better choices from the exponentially growing list of options? Which tools and services are you using? Which new techniques and habits are you trying? What do some of your contextual hierarchies look like? Who, what, and where do you go for opinions to help make decisions and using "trust" as a delimiter, how would you rank these?
Comments