[p2p-research] RS: corporate vs. mission enterprise models for online platforms

[Michel Bauwens]

Dear Mayo,

whatever you have time for, there is no rush, and an audio piece would be
really great,

in the meantime, I have presented your ideas here:
http://blog.p2pfoundation.net/phyles-for-platforms-comparing-the-corporate-and-the-mission-enterprise-model-for-the-infrastructure-provision-of-online-communities/2010/10/12

thanks for your great work!

Michel


 Phyles for platforms: Comparing the Corporate and the Mission Enterprise
Model for the infrastructure provision of online
communities<http://blog.p2pfoundation.net/phyles-for-platforms-comparing-the-corporate-and-the-mission-enterprise-model-for-the-infrastructure-provision-of-online-communities/2010/10/12>
[image: photo of Michel Bauwens]
Michel Bauwens
12th October 2010

 *The mission enterprise model represents that profitability is not against
community autonomous empowerment … while for mission enterprises the commons
is the mission and the profit is the means, in corporations, the profit is
the goal and the commons merely a byproduct.*

** Paper: Commercial providers of infrastructure for collective action
online<http://wikis.fu-berlin.de/download/attachments/59080767/FusterMorell-Paper.pdf>.
Case studies comparison: Flickr Corporation model and Wikihow Enterprise
model. By Mayo Fuster Morell. For the 3rd Free culture research conference
Berlin, October 2010*

*Mayo Fuster Morell has written a brilliant paper* in which she compares the
classic corporate model of providing collaborative infrastructures, who
completely exclude participants from any governance, such as Flickr and
Facebook, with a new model of mission oriented enterprises which adhere to
what she calls the “netenabler” doctrine, and allow for the self-governance
of communities, with Wikihow as case study.

Here’s her introduction on the different types of arrangements for
collaborative platforms:

*“The Online Creation Communities can be classified in terms of how their
provision spaces function.*

*Two main axes concerning the infrastructure provision strategies can be
distinguished: open versus closed to community involvement in infrastructure
provision, and freedom and autonomy versus dependency on the infrastructure
(netenabler versus blackbox).*

*…*

*Five main models of online infrastructure provision can be distinguished:*

** Corporation services,
* mission enterprises,
* university networks,
* representational foundations and
* assemblearian collective self-provision *

*Each option of these models has advantages and disadvantages, and
importantly, these models differently shape the communities generated in
terms of participation growth and type of collaboration established.”*

*…*

*“The two models of infrastructure governance based on for-profit
strategies: corporate service model and mission enterprise model:*

*The corporate model of infrastructure governance is characterized by a
provider body closed to participant involvement and based on blackbox
conditions.*

*Participants are “trapped” in the platform, as the copyright and
proprietary software framework restricts the freedom and autonomy of the
participants in the platform. The corporation model applies to cases of
communities owned by communications companies with large pools of
technological skills such as Google, the provider of YouTube.*

*The Mission Enterprise Model of Infrastructure Governance is characterized
by being closed to participant involvement. Importantly, the enterprise
model is based on netenabler conditions, which favor the autonomy of
collaboration. The enterprise model is the case of startups, which maintain
independence from big communications companies. It is a strategy for
developing new business models which are compatible with netenabler
conditions. One example is Wikihow, a how-to collaborative manual, or
Wikitravel, a collaborative travel guide, both provided by small startups.”
*

She then focuses on the new mission enterprise model:

*Mayo Fuster Morell:*

*“Although most of the literature focuses on corporations, these are not the
only commercial providers.*

*There is another set of commercial providers, enterprises, which are based
on a missionoriented and netenabler doctrine. Mission enterprises are
distinct from corporations in aiming to preserve the free net philosophy. In
this regard, they are based on the netenabler policy instead of the blackbox
policy of corporations. As Stallman had already noted in the 1980s, this
different policy has a profound political meaning, as blackbox conditions
limit the freedom of speech and of association (Stallman, 1996; R. Stallman,
Interview, Juny 12, 2007). This new willingness to show that it is possible
to create profit and sustainability under netenabler conditions can be
observed in the discourse of the mission enterprises: frequently, successful
start ups are bought by large media corporations. However, mission
enterprises tend to remain independent from corporations and do not “sell”
the platforms to them. Examples of this trend are cooperatives such as FLOSS
and also Wikihow and Wikitravel.*

*Some of the channels of the commercial providers for making profits are
personalized publicity, payment for sophisticated aspects of the service,
publication of contents generated on the platforms or the selling of
participants’ profiles as social profile data. The distinction between these
two models importantly lies in their different approaches to the net and
participant’s freedom and autonomy towards the infrastructure mission
enterprises is a convinced enable net and flow continuity (portability) and
blackbox corporations are closed points of flow.*

*Each platform does not act in isolation: the collaboration and flow of data
between them creates a network effect. Both in the case of the corporate
model as well as in the case of mission enterprises, networks are created
between these two types of commercial form. In this regard, both in the
corporation service and in the mission enterprises there are “clusters” or
“net districts” (similar to an Industrial district) of platforms which
cooperate to different degrees and share connections. While corporations
create “close” agreements between corporate services, netenablers create
open networks for data flow between them and beyond. For example, in
relation to the corporate model, there is an integration of services among
participants’ accounts, such as amongst Google, Facebook, Skype and Twitter.
With regard to the mission enterprises, the provider’s part of a “net
district” is inspiring and advising each other and building upon others’
learning experiences: they try not to damage each others’ interests with
their decisions and find places in the market for each of them; they share
licenses in order to facilitate the flow of content between the platforms
and the sharing of information; they use shared protocol to simplify
participant registration in the different sites; they collaborate in terms
of sharing “human resources” to fill available positions with active
contributions from other platforms; and they participate in the same
networking events. This is the case for example with Wikihow, Wikitravel and
Wikia. Furthermore, these “wiki net districts” work within the parameters of
Wikipedia. For example, these cases are among the main donors to Wikipedia.”
*

*Mayo Fuster Morell explains that the discourse of this type of profit
provider is characterized by two main distinctive elements: mission oriented
and netenabler settings.*

** Mission Before Profit*

*“Putting the “mission first” or the “mission before profit” refers to a
profit entity whose primary mission is to accomplish a social good, while
the business goal remains secondary. According to Jack Herrick, founder of
Wikihow, this results in a “hybrid organization”, which is something in
between a forprofit organization, a nonprofit organization and the state”.*

*The tension between the social basis of the mission and the need for the
provider to be profitable is also present in these types of profit provider
as was presented with the corporate model of Flickr. However, in the case of
mission enterprises, these tensions seem to be more obvious in the
relationship of the enterprise with other enterprises, and the competition
of the platform’s content with other “competitive” platforms, than between
the participants and the enterprises. According to Evans Podromou, founder
of Wikitravel and Identica: “As wiki service providers, we straddle two very
different worlds: the competitive world of Web business, and the cooperative
world of Free Culture.” (E. Podromou, Open letter to Wikia).”*

** The Netenabler Doctrine*

*“Secondly, this model is characterized by the principle of netenabling in
regards to the level of freedom and autonomy of the participants. Autonomy
refers to use of open standards (which facilitate the connection between
platforms), open data (which facilitates the flow of information and the
freedom to leave) and open source (which facilitates knowledge of how the
program works and opens up the possibility of collaborative improvement or
to adaptation it to other uses). In these settings, the individuals and the
communities as a whole are also more empowered in terms of control over
their production. This is illustrated by legally and technically being
allowed to leave the platform individually and collectively, through open
data and forkable content.*

*One of the strengths of this approach is that participants can have control
over the platforms they use and the data they generate. Furthermore, as not
only individuals, but more companies start to use more and more web based
services, there is more pressure to ensure that data control is more
favorable to participants (M. B. Hill, Interview, October 25, 2009).” *

After two very detailed case studies comparing Flickr with Wikihow (the
latter we are presenting tomorrow), she then offers a number of *conclusions
*:

*“Several debates and controversies are linked to the commercial providers
of platforms of participation online, and concern issues such as producing
unemployment; the exploitation of free labor; and wikiwashing (the practice
of creating “fake” images of commercial providers in order to improve their
reputation). This paper addressed commercial strategies of platform
provision and how they shape the relationship between the commercial
provider and the community.*

*There are some common aspects in the governance of commercial providers.
There is a structural “closedness” between the provider and the community as
a whole. Two main typologies of closed and forprofit providers can be
distinguished: corporations and enterprises. Although both are close to
community involvement concerning infrastructure provision, these two models
differently frame the relationship between the provider and the community.
Furthermore, they are contrasting cases in terms of the level of freedom and
the autonomy of the participants with regard to the infrastructure and the
provider. Finally, these two cases differently shape the communities
emerging from the platforms provided by them.*

*In corporations, the relationship with the participant is based on offering
a service. The platforms hosted by corporations may begin with participant
involvement. However, when the functionality is stabilized the participants
involvement is replaced with the reassertion of a commercial relationship in
the use of a service. At this stage, participants’ involvement in the
platform is limited to using it. Although there are several ways to retain
the innovation of the service through participant co-involvement,
participants individually and as a whole have no position in platform
governance.*

*In sum, there is closedness to contribution from the community on
infrastructure governance matters. Additionally, there is a remoteness or
distance between them, there is not overlapping or collaboration between
provider or community.*

*In mission enterprises, there is also a structural closedness to community
involvement in the infrastructure governance. However, the enterprise are
near the community and overlap in the development of a common mission. The
enterprise collaborates with the community in the development of the
content.*

*While in the case of corporations, there is interaction between the
provider and the community of participants in terms of doing something
together; there is no “we”. Instead there is a corporation that offers a
service which participants accept or not according to the terms of use
defined by the corporation. The corporation depends on participants because
they “buy” a service and because in their use of the platform they generate
content which is profitable for the corporation. In this regard, the
corporation depends on the participants and this translates into their
trying to keep them happy over the terms of use and providing a good service
in order that participants do not “leave”. Instead, in enterprises, a “we”
identity is created around content creation formed by the participants and
the staff of the enterprise working together to accomplish the mission. This
“we” is defined as those working to fulfill the common mission. There is
collective interaction for the achievement of a common mission which results
in common property.*

*Additionally, community self-governs the process of its interaction, and
although the enterprise also intervenes in community matters, there is a
less clear division between the provider and the community in terms of
content creation and community governance.*

*In terms of the level of freedom and autonomy of participants from the
commercial provider, a major distinction can be made between netenabler and
corporate models. The netenabler conditions of Wikihow, on the one hand,
favors freedom and autonomy from the infrastructure allowing for information
flow and reuse. Importantly, due to the netenabler, the Wikihow community
has the “right to fork”. This netenabler condition is a source of power for
the community guaranteeing that the Wikihow content will remain free and
community controlled. In contrast, to the Yahoo! corporate model based on
blackbox conditions. Participants in those communities are locked into those
corporations and only have the “right to leave”. Major distinctions emerged
from these two cases in terms of how the infrastructure governance shapes
the communities. Although both are based on closed and for-profit providers,
blackbox conditions favor a growing community (as in the Flickr case) while
netenabler conditions favor collaboration (as in the Wikihow case).
Importantly, while Wikihow resulted in a digital commons collectively owned
and freely accessible for third parts. The Flickr corporation model cannot
be defined as a community which built a digital commons. In Flickr, the
process is individually oriented and does not generate a digital commons, as
the resulting outcome is not collectively owned.*

*The commercial goal of corporations is translated into an emphasis on
growth and new activity which impacts on participants, whose commodity is
their own action in that direction. In this regard, the participant
experience is designed to be centered on the individual. Each participant
decides the conditions of the collaboration and each participant constructs
their own pathway through the platform. There is no overall integrated
community involvement. The resulting overall outcome, the digital archive,
emerges from the synergy of individual contributions and tagging, and is not
an explicit mission goal nor is it of common ownership.*


On Wed, Oct 13, 2010 at 1:08 AM, Fuster, Mayo <Mayo.Fuster at eui.eu> wrote:

>  Hello Michel! Thanks. Yes, I would like to do it. However I have this
> month completely full with my moving to Barcelona and the organization of
> the Fcforum.net 2010. Would be possible in November? Another possibility is
> to do a short audio-recording during Barcelona (or though skype) and making
> it available at the p2p web, what do you think? Mayo
>
> «·´`·.(*·.¸(`·.¸ ¸.·´)¸.·*).·´`·»
> «·´¨*·¸¸« Mayo Fuster Morell ».¸.·*¨`·»
> «·´`·.(¸.·´(¸.·* *·.¸)`·.¸).·´`·»
>
> Research Digital Commons Governance: http://www.onlinecreation.info
> European University Institute - Phd Candidate
> School of information Berkeley Visiting researcher
> Phone Italy: (New!) 0039-3312805010 or 0039-0558409982
> Phone Spanish State: 0034-648877748
> E-mail: mayo.fuster at eui.eu
> Skype: mayoneti
> Identi.ca: Mayo
> Postal address: Badia Fiesolana - Via dei Roccettini 9, I-50014 San
> Domenico di Fiesole (FI) - Italy
> Fax [+39] 055 4685 201
>
>
>
> -----Missatge original-----
> De: Michel Bauwens [mailto:michelsub2004 at gmail.com<michelsub2004 at gmail.com>
> ]
> Enviat el: ds. 09/10/2010 17:05
> Per a: Peer-To-Peer Research List
> A/c: Fuster, Mayo; Karthik Iyer; Sepp Hasslberger
> Tema: corporate vs. mission enterprise models for online platforms
>
>
> http://wikis.fu-berlin.de/download/attachments/59080767/FusterMorell-Paper.pdf
> ?
>
> Dear Mayo,
>
> I wonder if you would have the time to present your research and paper, in
> non-academic language, to our p2p community blog? would you have the time?
>
> Sepp, if Mayo can't do this, I hope you can also look into this paper, with
> insights on various corporate platform logics,
>
> Michel
>
> --
> P2P Foundation: http://p2pfoundation.net  - http://blog.p2pfoundation.net
>
> Connect: http://p2pfoundation.ning.com; Discuss:
> http://listcultures.org/mailman/listinfo/p2presearch_listcultures.org
>
> Updates: http://del.icio.us/mbauwens; http://friendfeed.com/mbauwens;
> http://twitter.com/mbauwens; http://www.facebook.com/mbauwens
>
> Think tank: http://www.asianforesightinstitute.org/index.php/eng/The-AFI
>
>


-- 
P2P Foundation: http://p2pfoundation.net  - http://blog.p2pfoundation.net

Connect: http://p2pfoundation.ning.com; Discuss:
http://listcultures.org/mailman/listinfo/p2presearch_listcultures.org

Updates: http://del.icio.us/mbauwens; http://friendfeed.com/mbauwens;
http://twitter.com/mbauwens; http://www.facebook.com/mbauwens

Think tank: http://www.asianforesightinstitute.org/index.php/eng/The-AFI
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://listcultures.org/pipermail/p2presearch_listcultures.org/attachments/20101013/e6be76d1/attachment.html>