Edition électronique

Quel sujet vaste, une vraie souris-à-clics (bouteille-à-l’encre) ! Au bénéfice d’un Que Sais-je éponyme rédigé par de Marin Dacos et Pierre Mounier :

La recension de LaVieDesIdées.
– L’exemple à suivre dans le monde francophone : Revues.org, dont l’un des responsables est précisément l’un des auteurs de l’ouvrage en question. L’on y trouve notamment LEO, le blog « L’édition Electronique Ouverte » de l’équipe CLEO.
Homo-Numericus publiant entre autres Blogo-Numericus, des auteurs en question.

Le sujet, se développant, est désormais à suivre via EditOL (catégorie Editio).

& :
IT | Du journalisme, sujet connexe (WebOL).

Edit 2013-07 : Première version datant de 2010-09.

Roberto Busa, s.j.

Qu’il soit ici proposé un multiple sujet : l’oeuvre du jésuite thomiste Roberto Busa pour les digital humanities, tel que le rapporte Philarête, l’auteur passionnant de l’Esprit de l’Escalier.

Il n’est qu’à lire in extenso, et ces quelques extraits :

Le Père Roberto Busa, s.j. Tout le monde s’accorde à reconnaître en lui le pionnier de ce qu’on appelle désormais les Digital Humanities– en français l’« informatique appliquée aux sciences humaines ». Roberto Busa s’est éteint le 9 août dernier, à l’âge de 97 ans, dans une indifférence quasi générale. Il est notre homme de l’année. Il n’y a plus qu’à le faire connaître.

« Il était né seulement pour faire des comptes, le computer, de l’anglais to compute, calculer, compter. Mais le père Busa insuffla dans ses narines le don de la parole ». La formule, lue dans L’Osservatore Romano après sa mort, est frappée d’un lyrisme réservé à ce type de publication, mais elle fait assez bien saisir ce que représente Roberto Busa. Il fut le premier, ou l’un des tous premiers, à comprendre que les nouveaux outils utilisés pour manier des chiffres, pour faire des statistiques à des fins scientifiques, guerrières ou commerciales pouvaient également servir la culture et les humanités. Il fut incontestablement le premier, en tous cas, à mettre cette idée en pratique. Busa fut l’artisan d’une première et monumentale réalisation : la confection de l’Index thomisticus, c’est-à-dire de la première concordance intégrale réalisée grâce à l’informatique sur l’œuvre complète d’un auteur. L’auteur était saint Thomas d’Aquin, et l’on se fera une idée du caractère gigantesque de l’entreprise en considérant que le corpus thomasien compte environ 10,5 millions de mots. Les œuvres connues d’Aristote en comptent un million, celles de Platon un demi million. Dans l’Index thomisticus, chacun des mots écrits par Thomas est répertorié, avec son contexte et la référence précise. Il est, le cas échéant, relié à son lemme (la forme principale du mot, qui peut être décliné s’il s’agit d’un nom, conjugué s’il s’agit d’un verbe, etc.). L’Index propose évidemment les statistiques de fréquence, qui sont d’une grande utilité pour les lexicographes. Le travail mené par le P. Busa, avec la collaboration d’IBM, commença en 1948. Le premier volume imprimé sortit en 1974, et l’ensemble des 56 volumes achevé en 1980. Il s’agit probablement du plus grand ouvrage publié à ce jour. Et comme Roberto Busa ne cessa jamais d’accompagner, sinon de précéder, les innovations constantes dans le domaine informatique, il veilla également à ce que l’Index fut, dès que possible, édité sous forme de CD-Rom, avant de donner son accord à sa mise en ligne, effective en 2005. Au long d’une vie de travail incessante, il posa les fondements de l’hypertexte, de l’analyse linguistique et de la lexicographie informatisée, et réalisa des avancées décisives dans le domaine de l’« intelligence artificielle » et de la traduction automatique.

et :

Roberto Busa joua un rôle décisif dans l’invention de ce qu’on appelle désormais l’hypertexte. C’est un des aspects où l’informatique représente un saut qualitatif, et non seulement quantitatif, dans l’édition de textes : elle permet d’enrichir le texte par diverses « balises » qui signalent, par exemple, que certains mots sont une citation d’un auteur et non les propres mots du rédacteur du texte, que tel nom propre est un nom de lieu ou de personne, ou qu’il existe pour tel passage telle ou telle variante dans un autre manuscrit. Dans le domaine des études médiévales, un grand travail issu de cette technique fut l’étude d’un cadastre florentin du XVe siècle (Les Toscans et leurs familles. Une étude du Catasto florentin de 1427, par D. Herlihy et Ch. Klapisch-Zuber, 1978). À la même époque paraissaient les 56 volumes de l’Index thomisticus. Busa n’était plus seul : de par le monde, des chercheurs de toutes disciplines recourraient désormais à l’informatique pour mener à bien des travaux dont la possibilité même n’aurait pu être envisagée sans cet outil.

Mais tout est à lire dans ce billet de Philarète (bis), auquel ces quelques liens sont ajoutés sous l’invitation de Wikipedia/Roberto_Busa :

Corpus Thomisticum
Web-based Index Thomisticus search engine
Index Thomisticus Treebank

& :
ADHO | ADHO/Resources (Alliance of Digital humanities).
Digital Humanities International, veille sur les « Humanités Numériques et champs associés » (CNAM, FR).
OpenEdition.org (Revues.org, Calenda, Hypotheses.org) | Revues.org ? (webOL).
– Twitter/@marindacos/digitalhumanities

Business Models Matters (#6)

Is this Business-Models-for-Innovation ? Or innovative Business-Models ? Even innovation of (in) Business-Models ?

Rethinking Business Model for Innovation : Lessons from entrepreneurial cases is an e-book, edited by Valérie Chanal in late 2010. For teasing, copyrighting and coherent editing issues, the proposition is to release few focused excerpts. Here is the introductive part of the chapter written by Marie-Laurence Caron-Fasan, Jean-Marc Francony and Nathalie Quinette.

& :
– To download the full book for free (shortcut : from HAL-SHS, France’s academic publication platform).
–  The introduction of this chapter about e-marketing, Predictys and information web-agency  | To unfold the chapter about Sportganizer and the use of sponsoring in a Web 2.0. platform (Chanal, Giannelloni, Parent)  | To unfold the chapter about SENSEI and collaborative projects (Lavoisy, Eurich, Akselsen, Ytterstad).
–  
Business model ? (webOL).

Creating more value through
the integration of Business Models in e-marketing :
Predictys – a transformation from infomediary to integrated web-agency
| Conclusion

Online advertising, despite its recent arrival in the advertising world, is creating a revolution in the sector. The main actors in the sector didn’t get it wrong. They’ve launched takeovers, each more spectacular than the previous: taking control of the RightMedia network by Yahoo for 680 million dollars, of Aquantive by Microsoft for 6 billion dollars or the DoubleClick network (70% of online advertising in the United State) by Google for 3.1 billion dollars. The tendency of e-advertising has moved towards the regrouping of online advertising networks which implies that these networks to be able to broaden their capacity to follow and collect information on Internet users (Peyrat, 2009).

Online advertising has traditionally been divided into seven categories: the “search” (purchase of key words), the display (publicity banners), the address data bases (selling of e-mail addresses), the affiliation (presence of a marketing site on one or several screens of affiliated sites), the price comparators, e-mailing and the mobile phones.

It’s the e-mailing activity that Predictys chose to enter the market in 2007. Initially the company decided to limit its activity to the French market, positioning itself as an editor.

This chapter explains how Predictys has developed since 2007 up until today and how the company found an original position on this market, already saturated and dominated by a number of large actors. We’ll explain the two main development phases of the company: the first over which the company adopted the position of a traditional actor in the online advertising market, and the second where Predictys attempted to differentiate its services from those of its competitors through producing more detailed knowledge of Internet users and their behaviour.

(…)

Business Models Matters (#5)

Is this Business-Models-for-Innovation ? Or innovative Business-Models ? Even innovation of (in) Business-Models ?

Rethinking Business Model for Innovation : Lessons from entrepreneurial cases is an e-book, edited by Valérie Chanal in late 2010. For teasing, copyrighting and coherent editing issues, the proposition is to release few focused excerpts. Here is the introductive part of the chapter written by Marie-Laurence Caron-Fasan, Jean-Marc Francony and Nathalie Quinette.

& :
– To download the full book for free (shortcut : from HAL-SHS, France’s academic publication platform).
–  To unfold the chapter about Sportganizer and the use of sponsoring in a Web 2.0. platform (Chanal, Giannelloni, Parent)  | To unfold the chapter about SENSEI and collaborative projects (Lavoisy, Eurich, Akselsen, Ytterstad).
–  
Business model ? (webOL).

Creatin g more value th rough
the integration of Business Models in e-marketing :
Predictys – a transformation from infomediary to integrated web-agency
| Introduction

Online advertising, despite its recent arrival in the advertising world, is creating a revolution in the sector. The main actors in the sector didn’t get it wrong. They’ve launched takeovers, each more spectacular than the previous: taking control of the RightMedia network by Yahoo for 680 million dollars, of Aquantive by Microsoft for 6 billion dollars or the DoubleClick network (70% of online advertising in the United State) by Google for 3.1 billion dollars. The tendency of e-advertising has moved towards the regrouping of online advertising networks which implies that these networks to be able to broaden their capacity to follow and collect information on Internet users (Peyrat, 2009).

Online advertising has traditionally been divided into seven categories: the “search” (purchase of key words), the display (publicity banners), the address data bases (selling of e-mail addresses), the affiliation (presence of a marketing site on one or several screens of affiliated sites), the price comparators, e-mailing and the mobile phones.

It’s the e-mailing activity that Predictys chose to enter the market in 2007. Initially the company decided to limit its activity to the French market, positioning itself as an editor.

This chapter explains how Predictys has developed since 2007 up until today and how the company found an original position on this market, already saturated and dominated by a number of large actors. We’ll explain the two main development phases of the company: the first over which the company adopted the position of a traditional actor in the online advertising market, and the second where Predictys attempted to differentiate its services from those of its competitors through producing more detailed knowledge of Internet users and their behaviour.

(…)

Business Models Matters (#4)

Is this Business-Models-for-Innovation ? Or innovative Business-Models ? Even innovation of (in) Business-Models ?

Rethinking Business Model for Innovation : Lessons from entrepreneurial cases is an e-book, edited by Valérie Chanal in late 2010. For teasing, copyrighting and coherent editing issues, the proposition is to release few focused excerpts. Here is the conclusive part of the chapter written by Valérie Chanal, Jean-Luc Giannelloni & Romain Parent.

& :
– To download the full book for free (shortcut : from HAL-SHS, France’s academic publication platform).
The introduction of this chapter | To unfold the chapter about SENSEI and collaborative projects (Lavoisy, Eurich, Akselsen, Ytterstad).
–  
Business model ? (webOL).

Building a profitable Business
Model where clients don’t want to pay :
Sportganizer and the use of sponsoring in a Web 2.0. platform
| Conclusion

The Sportganizer.com case highlights all the difficulties involved in building a profitable economic model for Web 2.0 platforms in a two-sided market. These platforms, whose vocation is to facilitate the “virtual meeting” of diverse economic or social actors, often face a lack of financial resources of these actors, particularly when they work in associations where volunteer work is a rule rather than an exception. The managers of these platforms therefore have to formulate innovative value propositions in order to attract the actors of the paying side of the market.

On this point, the Sportganizer case provides a number of useful lessons. Firstly it’has been shown that sponsoring can be better adapted to financing Web 2.0 platforms than the more generally used advertising approach. There is a difference in the nature of advertising, perceived as being intrusive and sponsoring, anchored into the reality and the sociocultural dynamics of the subsidised entity. From this point of view, the credibility of the sponsor is much higher than that of the advertiser.

Then there’s the effect of scale which allows sponsoring to be effective at different levels of investment. Sponsoring on a world scale (ex. Adidas, Emirates or Sony in the 2010 football world cup) produces returns on another scale to those that can be expected at a local level (e.g. CKT and the support provided to local amateur cycling clubs4) though they are of the same nature. Sportganizer can therefore attract local sponsors as well as national ones and provide them with substantially the same benefits. Sponsorship is, at last, a vector of positive cross-network effects.

It has been demonstrated that the increasing number of users on the subsidized side (sports, clubs …) benefits the sponsors whose visibility is enhanced. The latter improve their image and benefit from transfer mechanisms mentioned above (provided they are congruent with the sport supported). More generally, their interactions with users who play sports are more numerous and, potentially, more intense and richer, which should enable them to develop new more useful forms of interaction.

On the other hand the presence of publicity banners can result in negative crossed effects: the more advertisers there are (hence the more adverts) the lower the service value becomes for the audience. Sponsorship limits, or even cancels out, this effect as it doesn’t produce the same phenomena of rejection by the users. Also, it may even lead to a positive cross effect, on the condition that a high level of visibility is maintained (which implies limiting the number of sponsors). Indeed, the presence of sponsors, as opposed to pure advertisers, can provide some value to the audience, which is both symbolic (through the sponsor’s positive image transfer) and economic (providing a free access to a value added service and other advantages such as free trials of products).

In addition, sponsorship can be a springboard for new value propositions, which involve Internet users more. Co-innovation is a particularly attractive idea, and could be a source of value to potential sponsors. The innovation potential of the virtual community made up of the users could indeed be exploited by companies who don’t have their own community of consumers, where their innovation project is close to the centres of interest of the users. In the Sportganizer case, once the two-sides of the market are “on board”, it will be possible to improve the positive
effects of the network by considering the sportsmen and women as sources of potential innovation for designers and manufacturers of sports equipment, for example through the use of virtual tool kits (Von Hippel, 2001). This role has already been demonstrated by a number of sports communities (Franke and Shah, 2003).

Thirdly, and finally, the characteristics of sponsorship make it a financing model (therefore a source of value), which appears promising for all Web 2.0 platforms, over and above the Sportganizer case. As has been stated, sponsoring does not convey the negative image of advertising, whose perceived intrusiveness has been measured in many sectors other than sport (Cho and Cheon, 2004). Whatever the area of activity, it allows the platform to develop and provide a service to its users, which the latter value. More generally, as sponsoring is appreciated by users, as opposed to advertising, the platform manager can bring on board actors from both sides simultaneously. The risk of generating positive crossed-network effects in one direction and negative ones the other are therefore low. For this, the congruence between the sponsor and the object of the platform considered appears essential and allows the sponsor to set up a strategy to create value through related services (diagnosis, free trials, buying online …)  much more easily and effectively. These new Web 2.0 platforms, through their capacity to improve the quality of relationships between advertisers and customers, can therefore invent new types of Business Models whose value emerges through the interactions generated between the two sides of the market.

(…)

Business Models Matters (#3)

Is this Business-Models-for-Innovation ? Or innovative Business-Models ? Even innovation of (in) Business-Models ?

Rethinking Business Model for Innovation : Lessons from entrepreneurial cases is an e-book, edited by Valérie Chanal in late 2010. For teasing, copyrighting and coherent editing issues, the proposition is to release few focused excerpts. Here is the introductive part of the chapter written by Valérie Chanal, Jean-Luc Giannelloni & Romain Parent.

& :
– To download the full book for free (shortcut : from HAL-SHS, France’s academic publication platform).
– To unfold the chapter about SENSEI and collaborative projects (Lavoisy, Eurich, Akselsen, Ytterstad).
–  
Business model ? (webOL).

Building a profitable Business
Model where clients don’t want to pay :
Sportganizer and the use of sponsoring in a Web 2.0. platform
| Introduction

Websites for the general public of the so called “Web 2.0” or “social network” type such as YouTube, Facebook and Flickr are characterized by the fact that users can deposit and edit content and, in doing so, contribute to the value of the service they use (Tapscott and Williams, 2007). Insofar as it’s the users who create and develop much of the content, these services have mostly been developed on a free basis. This raises the question of financing and the Business Model of these platforms providing free services.

Web 2.0 sites tend to use the same economic logic as the free press i.e. they are financed essentially through advertising. The fact that they are provided for free and have large audiences of people with common interests brings a large qualified audience for advertisers. In addition IT tools allow Internet users’ activities to be traced along with their clicking behaviour and centres of interest. This is one of the main explanations for the considerably higher growth rate of Internet advertising in comparison with advertising through traditional media.

Despite this, use of the Internet advertising as the sole means of financing faces criticism, both from advertisers who question the cost-effectiveness of banners and sponsored links, and users who develop resistance to these messages which are often perceived as being intrusive. Given these limitations, are there any alternative methods other than advertising to finance free, or almost free, web services?

The objective of this chapter is to reply to this question by showing how sponsoring can be an effective alternative to advertising. Sponsoring is a form of association by which an organization makes funds available to an entity involved in a socio-cultural activity in order to reach communication goals (Walliser, 2006). Sponsoring is based on the existence of the entity being financed. For example the combination of the BNP bank and the Roland Garros tennis tournament is possible because the latter exists. Also, representations generated by the event (values, beliefs …) are what the sponsor aims to capitalize on. On the other hand, the sponsored entity (and its message) especially when it concerns an event, often couldn’t exist without the sponsor’s support. On this level, there is therefore a real symbiosis, almost in the biological sense, between the sponsor and the entity being financed.

The encounter between the “message” and the audience is also less passive than advertising and the sponsor benefits from the positive image associated with the entity being supported through a transfer phenomenon.

The value of sponsorship in this context will be analysed through the presentation of the Sportganizer platform. Sportganizer’s business is to provide tools to facilitate the organization of those participating in sports events i.e. typically helping a trainer prepare a team for a trip to a match or competition. Firstly we’ll present the platform and show what a two-sided platform consists of and in what way financing this type of Business Model is a problem. Secondly, the differences between advertising and sponsorship will be shown and we’ll explain how Sportganizer uses sponsorship. Finally we’ll conclude on how sponsorship appears to be better adapted for this type of platform than advertising and how it could be developed to provide new value proposals.

(…)

Business Models Matters (#2)

Is this Business-Models-for-Innovation ? Or innovative Business-Models ? Even innovation of (in) Business-Models ?

Rethinking Business Model for Innovation : Lessons from entrepreneurial cases is an e-book, edited by Valérie Chanal in late 2010. For teasing, copyrighting and coherent editing issues, the proposition is to release few focused excerpts. Here is the conclusive part of the chapter written by Olivier Lavoisy, Markus Eurich, Sigmund Akselsen and Pål Ytterstad.

& :
– To download the full book for free (shortcut : from HAL-SHS, France’s academic publication platform).
The introduction of the chapter | Business model ? (webOL).

Ecosystem modelling to imagine the future of business within R&D partnerships :
The SENSEI European consortium, building the “Future Internet”
| Conclusion

The Business Role Reference Model appears as a value chain (see box #2) with the “broker” in the pivotal role. From top to bottom where the users are to be found, each step adds new value from data to information to service. According to Gambardella (2010), this is the case for “general-purpose technologies ” for which innovative firms gain all the more by capturing value via the multiplication of applications. This is exactly what is aimed at using the concept of “horizontalisation” in the SENSEI project.

The full Business Model Framework is an up-to-date multi-staged process, which is relevant for other collective innovation projects, notably as no technological prerequisites are required:

    – The first step involves selection and enhancement of scenarios. The selection of scenario is based on a set of criteria that are key to the SENSEI innovations. This provides a first level of formalization: the scenario portfolio along with the detailed characterization of roles. Even at this early stage the business perspective is already taken into account.
    – The second step involves describing the different parts or scenes of each selected scenario. This is done to identify actors and roles, values and rewards. The various ecosystem descriptions are detailed for each particular scene to include the detail of the associated roles attributes and relationships.
    – The final step of developing the business framework is to perform an analysis and synthesis of the different value systems. This is done by identifying patterns and commonalities within the system.

The outcome is a merged reference model, called the BRRM (Business Role Reference Model). This framework is quite an abstract tool, but linked to very operational agendas from a large panel of stakeholders. A project like SENSEI gathers representatives of small and big companies along with several R&D institutions. The involvement of industrial stakeholders is at the core of this kind of project. They were present at all stages of the process.

Knowing about the roles in the environment of the Future Internet (sometimes called the “Real World Internet”), a stakeholder could find constellation mapping a powerful tool to provide the first insights on the business aspects of their project by concentrating on the core components of a Business Model, namely: the business partners to interact with, the overall business network, the revenue generation mechanisms, the revenue flows, and the value propositions. This is why constellation mapping is also a key element:

    – zooming-in on a business role, it provides clues for the Business Models of each organization,
    – zooming-out it gives the overall picture, which is necessary to understand the ecosystem and to prepare for changes and rivalries.

As explained, the method proceeds by a double movement going from particular (detail) to general (global) and from general to particular. Initially, scenarios are required to assist in understanding, in the definition of scenarios and in the identification of key issues. Next, a more abstract phase of work is carried out in order to create a generic (global) model of the ecosystem which can be applied to different contexts. This model is developed with the aim of assisting the various economic actors in the project in the development of value propositions from the technology being analysed. For us, this approach and the abstract-model of the ecosystem have the advantage of favouring the collaboration between different economic actors (in some cases competitors) engaged in collaborative R & D and working on strategic issues. They can work on the project, move forward together and define the structure of the ecosystem without having to reveal (or compromise) their individual strategic intentions