gwi online marketing concept - a draft

Manchester, December 6, 2010

Unit 5G4140 – Strategic Planning for Digital Marketing Communication

»Digital Marketing « Plan for GlobalWasteIdeas.org

Building up a waste ideas community.

Jan Schmiedgen Student ID 10980834 (3rd Semester)

Saved at: DATEN:Dropbox:S_Shared Projects:G_GlobalWasteIdeas:F_Final Concept Documents:GWI-OnlineMarketing-Concept.doc


- 2 -

LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS

SEM Search Engine Marketing

SEO Search Engine Optimisation

SROI Social Return on Investment

PPC Pay per Click

ROI Return on Investment

TG Target Group

UAS, UAN Unique Activity System, Unique Activity Network

WOM Word of Mouth

Declaration of Authorship

I certify that the work presented here is, to the best of my knowledge and belief, original

and the result of my own investigations, except as acknowledged, and has not been submit-

ted, either in part or whole, at this or any other University.

Jan Schmiedgen, December 6, 2010


- 3 -

Table of Contents

1! Challenges and Objectives................................................... 5!1.1! Challenges ................................................................................................. 5!1.2! Limitations and Technical Requirements .................................................... 8!1.3! Communication Objectives ........................................................................ 9!

2! Techniques and Requirements............................................10!2.1! Critique ................................................................................................... 10!2.2! Critiqual Success Factors and Key Performance Indicators........................ 12!2.3! The ROI-Question ................................................................................... 13!3! Communications Planning.................................................14!3.1! Channel Strategy (Proposal) ..................................................................... 14!3.2! Offline Integration.................................................................................... 18!3.3! Media Planning ....................................................................................... 19!

4! References .........................................................................20!5! Appendix ..........................................................................25!5.1! Some Screenflow Sketches........................................................................ 25!5.2! GWI – Goals and Objectives .................................................................... 26!5.3! Platform Classification and Competition – An Attempt ............................. 27!5.4! Market Definition – A Try........................................................................ 29!5.5! Key Stakeholders ..................................................................................... 31!5.6! Community Lifecycle............................................................................... 33!5.7! The Steps of an SROI-Analysis................................................................. 33!5.8! The Waste Life Cycle ............................................................................... 34!5.9! Some Case Studies ................................................................................... 35!5.9.1! Skeleton Sea ......................................................................................................35!5.9.2! Biomer Plastics Reprocessing (BPR) ...................................................................37!5.9.3! Fertiloo & Peepoople .........................................................................................39!5.9.4! Ciudad Saludable – Healthy City ........................................................................41!


- 4 -

Introduction

GlobalWasteIdeas.org, in short GWI, will be a worldwide, multi-sided1 idea-sharing plat-

form for innovative ways to deal with waste. Its main purpose is to pragmatically bridge the

time period until the old industrial »cradle-to-grave« paradigm has been disestablished and

»cradle-to-cradle« (Braungart & McDonough 2009) has become reality. Until then the plat-

form serves the following goals: Collect and document today’s creative and original »waste

ideas«2 (see p. 35 ff. for examples) over the whole waste life cycle and over all levels of the

waste hierarchy3 that help people to live a more sustainable (and especially in developing

countries better) life; Establish a network of »unusual« participants that catalyses social en-

trepreneurship and new business idea generation in general; Broaden peoples perception of

waste as a valuable commodity; Enforce cross-cultural collaboration from bottom up; At-

tract also low involved people via sophisticated visual sense-making/representation of the

data (see p. 25 for some wireframes); and last but not least – in the sense of a typical design

thinking project4 – let people adopt and repurpose the platform to find out which possibili-

ties it actually inheres.

For this digital marketing plan such an experimental approach has several implications:

With the launch of the platform the business will be in an indefinitely exploration phase.

Neither will a profitable business model exist nor does GWI already know what next goals

and purposes it will have to serve in the future. At the present time no market research is

available, as the project itself is »market research« and searches for possible business oppor-

tunities (for the uploaded ideas on the platform as well as for GWI itself). Consequential

the following pages are mainly based on »thoroughly thought trough assumptions«. The

author therefore wants to apologize already in advance that some of the following out-

comes in this document are rather an academic exercise to meet the requirements of the

given course template/outline/structure.

1 In the sense of a consumer-vendor community that co-creates value (c. f. Prahalad & Ramaswamy (2004); Osterwalder & Pigneur (2009)). 2 This includes in particular the rather »unknown and unheard« grass-roots ideas that local bricoleurs (c.f. Bourdieu 1995; Lévi-Strauss 1966), organisations and social entrepreneurs develop within their cultures, communities, special life circumstances and contexts, worldwide. 3GWI will use the official categories of the EU recycling coalition from 2005 ! Reduce: Lowering the amount of waste produced through optimized production or adapted consumption, Reuse: Using materials repeatedly, Recycle: Using materials to make new products, Recove-ry: Recovering energy from waste, Disposal: Putting waste to landfills or burning waste, Repair: Reassembling of malfunctioning or used things, Repurpose: Using materials for alternative meaning, purpose and sensemaking

4 The idea for this project emerged in a course on the topic »design thinking« at Zeppelin University, Friedrichshafen (Germany). The class was run by a former director of IDEO, Milano and pursued the goal of discovering cross-cultural and environmental action fields were new business opportunities could be discovered. An approach that is in accordance with the concept of inversion stating that the new logic of value creation is starting with the individual end user: „Instead of “What do we have and how can we sell it to you?” good business practices start by asking “Who are you?” “What do you need?” and “How can we help?” This inverted thinking [as deeeply embedded in design thinking] makes it possible to identify the assets that represent real value for each individual. Cash flow and profitability are derived from those assets.“ (Zuboff 2010)


- 5 -

1 Challenges and Objectives There is an overwhelming bundle of trends that influence and provide the (marketing)

ground for a platform like GWI. Given the limited space of this report I will just list a few,

excluding their classification in a trend typology and not claiming completeness. In the

following labelled trends are marked italic. Some are described in more detail in the appen-

dix at page 46.

1.1 Challenges

GENERAL BUSINESS ENVIRONMENT CHALLENGES

The world is amidst a great rebalancing and despite the fact that there is a rising awareness

for environmental issues within people, according to the United Nations (2010) the exploit-

ation of natural resources and unsustainable consumption will dramatically increase. Des-

pite environmental problems and along with it rising inequality, shifting values and social

norms, growing risk sensitivity and resulting protest/consumerism movements this develop-

ment will have tough economic consequences for western economies: Constrained supply

due to pressure on commodity markets, increased regulatory and social scrutiny, growing prize-

sensitive demand from emerging markets (as we have no cheap labour, productivity needs to

be even more improved), to name just a few.

Supranational and national government organisations are to the greatest possible extent

paralysed (cp. Kyoto, UNEP, … etc.) as they can’t bring the many yet unsolved trade-offs

between economic development and ecological risk provisioning to a international consen-

sus. However, paralelly a heavily subsidised »race« in search for the most promising (green)

future technologies has started amongst the leading countries in the world as they will pro-

vide their main competitive hallmark in the future. These efforts are mostly accompanied

by huge campaigns, raising public awareness and understanding for this, as well as by sup-

porting regulatory schemes (trends: the market state, pricing the planet, producing public good in

the grid, etc.). For companies1 and governments2 in general this means pressure from all

sides and the need to radically rethink the way they’re configurating their (business) activi-

ties.

INDUSTRY CHALLENGES

While some organisations already make heavy use of collective intelligence, crowdsourcing

and open innovation, our research has shown that many institutions in and around the

waste industry and regulations still stick to closed innovation approaches and top-down

regulation. And although there are all those undeniable massive business opportunities (cf.

1 Firms for example can no longer externalise their internalities (Coase 1990) and will have to account for »social costs« in the future. 2 Governments however need practical search patterns that help them discovering the most promising action fields (competitive future techno-logies and national talent) to support in the future – independently from what lobby groups think. At the same time they have to balance environmental regulations and economic growth opportunties.


- 6 -

Defra 2010) the search behaviour for the latter often is still biased (wrong basic assump-

tions, old »innovation approaches and research methods«, paralysing path dependencies,

etc.) – on industry as well as government side (cf. Chesbrough et al. 2006; Lester & Piore

2004; Hippel 2006). This can be dangerous, as industry boundaries are blurring, consump-

tion patterns change and »growth« will mainly be generated in emerging markets. Who

knows if it is not a young indian low-tech company that will disintermediate established

value chains of multi-national corporations as its solutions are more effective and viable

also for saturated and pressurised western markets? Be it for the sake of monitoring new

market entrants or for discovering new business opportunities, the »environmental in-

dustry« (sensu latu) is well advised to find new ways to monitor, catalyse and implement

innovation. In fact, providers like Veolia already use upstream innovation sources (Veolia

Environnement 2010) but most of them are not really open to a broader range of partici-

pants1 (cf. appendix »5.3 Platform Classification and Competition – An Attempt«, p. 27).

Exactly here the need for action is located. According to the McKinsey Global Institute

(2010) these top mega tech trends will influence the future business landscape and therefore

affect aforementioned participants: distributed co-creation moving into the mainstream, networks

becoming the organisation, innovating from the bottom of the pyramid, and many more relevant

(cf. Figure 13: Trends, drivers and forces affecting/favouring GlobalWasteIdeas.o, p. 46).

This combined with the realisation that knowledge distribution and cross-linkage bears

»grass-roots« solutions to problems2 – often also embedded to a respective (cultural, geo-

graphical, community, etc.) context3 and therefore catalysing success even more – puts

companies under immense pressure to act. Not to speak of, last but not least, disruptive

substitute solutions from other industries and players that are less »grass-roots« but know

how to take advantage of above mentioned developments. I think I don’t need to deduce

here why GWI therefore could be a helpful tool for people in facing all mentioned challen-

ges. Instead I would like to draw the attention to GWI’s internal issues.

INTERNAL CHALLENGES

The probably biggest challenge is: GWI doesn’t exist yet! ! Therefore everything needs to

be build up from scratch. For the purpose of this assessment document I’ll assume in the

following, the platform already exists and we face the key challenge of attracting users to the

website. As GWI all depends on the size and quality of its community we will already have

to start gathering potential contributors before the official launch. Not only for co-

development and alpha testing purposes, but also for collecting a critical mass of dissemina-

1 According to Pisano & Verganti (2008) firms can use four basic modes of collaborating with outsiders. Veolia already uses three: Close co-operations with an elite circle network of researchers and other handpicked contributers, joint ventures with participants from other indu-stries solving special (more or less defined) problems in the form of an consortium and finally (for exactly defined problems) surely also inno-vation malls like innocentive.com. Probably also the use crowdsourcing – like articleonepartners.com for the efficient execution of patent research – will already take place in the industry. However our research indicates, that no open participative, flat governed model in the form of an innovation community is used, respectively exits so far. 2 Relevant trends: citizen R&D, networked artisans, personal design and fabrication due to easier access to manufacturing equipment, etc. 3 The self-assertion of technical solutions increases if it comes along with a compelling story and is rooted in (behavioral) routines, values, living contexts etc. of the respective peer groups/communites. Therefore »social innovation« is another critical key for the acceptance of any proposal to the market (cf. Verganti 2009).


- 7 -

tors. Furthermore in such an interaction knowledge can be gained about the various needs

of our future users. Although GWI can serve a variety of purposes and may be highly rel-

evant for many interest groups, we need these insights, as they will help us in custom tailor-

ing the »right brand messages« to attract (connect to) respective stakeholders.

Figure 1: Preliminary stakeholdermap for GWI

As GWI will be a »two-sided grassroots platform« it is very hard to exactly specify its

stakeholders, respectively »target groups1«. Nondegradable waste is probably one of the

biggest problems mankind faces. So to speak in terms of the »butterfly effect«, basically

every human on the whole world is affected by our acts of consumption – even by those

taking place in other parts of the world (e.g. leading to the irretrievable indulgence of natu-

ral resources like oil, rare gases, etc.). Nevertheless the interests of our prospective stake-

holders couldn’t be more contrasting and every group also differs regarding their levels of

involvement with the topic. If we want to efficiently build a community we therefore we

need to start with those highly involved people (e.g. activists, industry, regulators) who

already have some knowledge as well as an overview over the development in the »waste

(industry) world«. On that account the community building needs to split up into two steps:

Phase 1 woos highly involved people and collects their knowledge to build up a critical mass of

»entertaining« content that in turn attracts low involved people in phase 2. They consume that

1 In a first step one could roughly cluster our »worldwide TGs« into three classes: On the micro-level we have all individuals producing waste (mankind). On a meso-level we adress the industry in general and special waste managing companies in particular. On a macro-level society, government and politics are adressed. More detailed clusters will emerge, once the platform runs.


- 8 -

knowledge in the first place and hopefully get converted to contributors later on. But as if

that wasn't already enough we also have to take into consideration that many, if not most,

of our low involved people are even hard to reach.

1.2 Limitations and Technical Requirements

Namely GWI faces the challenge of trying to cover the most promising cases, from espe-

cially those emerging and »digital divide« countries, where (broadband) internet connection

is either not available or slow. How this can be achieved in the long run will not be part of

this concept1, we only need to be aware, that the low internet penetration in the most inter-

esting countries forces us to start our introduction and launch campaigns in the »devel-

oped« internet world. However, as Figure 2 shows, growth figures in less developed regions

give profound reason for hope that the once the platform is established more people in

those can access it – be it via desktop computers or mobile devices. Nevertheless I assume

in the following that our launch takes place (resp. is going to be remarked) worldwide.

WORLD INTERNET USAGE AND POPULATION STATISTICS

Figure 2: World internet usage and population statistics (Sources: Miniwatts Marketing Group 2010; International Telecommunication Union 2010; Nielsen 2010)

Furthermore GWI needs to take into account that even in OECD countries still 29% of all

subscribers access the internet with cable modems (OECD 2009). That means that the basic

functionality of the site also needs to work without fast connections and bandwidth con-

suming technologies like AJAX or Flash. Regarding that, especially (mobile) browser2 op-

timisation will be a central issue. With this background information in mind now our

communication objectives can be formulated.

1 Some ideas are for example to include NGOs via special incentives as our case collectors in the forefront of grassroots fieldwork. Also teachers (often the most highly educated persons, especially in rural areas) in local communities are good information sources and may be they are good idea disseminators too. Both groups have either regular internet access or from time to time. 2 In »developing« countries not only the hardware very often is quite antiquated but also software (here browsers) are rather old. Therefore GWI also has to be optimised for – often IE-based – kiosk systems (as people/NGOs often use internet cafes as only access to internet) with slow connections.


- 9 -

1.3 Communication Objectives

If the key challenge is to build a community that produces content for the platform, we have to

turn – especially high involved – visitors as fast and convincing as possible to higher levels

of the conversion funnel shown in Figure 3.

Figure 3: Possible GWI User Hierarchy/Funnel (compiled by author)

That in turn already requires a critical mass of cases on the platform because „to attract the

»consumers« of the content, you have to have »publishers« first, but it's hard to get »pub-

lishers« to the service without »consumers« (unkown 2010).“ Deduced from this, the »com-

munication« objectives for GWI are as follows:

MAIN OBJECTIVES

Objectives are very challenging to raise the bars of our efforts. They have to be achieved with no/low budget, but the manpower of the founders and to be acquired volunteers as well as a few sponsors and crowdfunding.

Produce a critical mass of at least 100 initial case studies until the launch of the beta version! Attract around 1,000,000 unique visitors and 70,000 members (7% conversion rate) in two years after launch. Thereof at least a) 40,000 members as fully-registered users (4% full-registering conversion rate), b) 30,000 as semi-registered users and c) 100 as very active contributors (lead users with a 0.01% contribution efficiency conversion rate).

SIDE OBJECTIVES

Attract at least 50 highly qualified disseminators in different countries, spreading our idea and convincing people to become editors for the platform in the first half year after launch. Research and get to know new case providers/sources to fill up our database. Establish relations with media people.


- 10 -

2 Techniques and Requirements

2.1 Critique

As GWI doesn’t exist yet, itself cannot be criticised. Instead general pitfalls in similar in-

dustries could be examined. But GWI is a multisided platform, performing a multitude of

functions for a heterogeneous group of customers/stakeholders overlapping with a variety of

alternative solutions that would also solve those functions. According to Abell (1980) the

intersections of these three dimensions constitute the solution space, one calls »market«. If

for example we take a closer look at the »customer group/alternative solution matrix« (cf.

appendix Table 2, p. 30) we see that some of our prospective users are also »competitors« in

terms of the services they provide (e.g. governmental institutions vs. governmental service agencies

or waste industry/waste consultants vs. waste industry/waste consultants). In terms of customer

functions governmental service agencies would also be our biggest »competitor« (cf. appen-

dix Table 3, p. 30). But are they? Rather are waste consultants. But even they could be gra-

teful users of our platform within certain win-win scenarios. So what to analyse? The

innovation behaviour of the waste industry (as already mentioned in 1.1 Challenges) or the

integrated marketing approaches of other idea-collecting platforms (in general, from gov-

ernmental organisations, etc.)? I decided to not analyse any particular actions (SEO, SEM,

SMA, etc.) of our customers/competitors, as at this point it makes no sense at all. More-

over I will examine very shortly the general pitfalls in online community building itself.

STARTING AS SIMPLE AS POSSIBLE BUT NOT SIMPLER

One of the most important and difficult tasks is to find the right balance between an already

»finished« (platform) solution with many functionalities and the integration of the com-

munity in the platform development process. The basic bug-tracked functionalities as well

as participation1 mechanisms already need to exist in the beta version of the site, otherwise

attracted users would perceive the website as a construction site. However the initial site

shouldn’t be over-featured, as users a) show more cohesion when they have a feeling of co-

production and b) can bring up their own ideas for further development (hook up not to

explore options). To fulfil our objectives a »GWI intro campaign« therefore has to align

two aims: 1) Attracting people to the platform (seeding phase) and 2) keeping them engaged

on the latter (engaging phase), while considering the different information and moderating

needs over a community lifecycle (cf. p. 33). Especially in our initial »on boarding« stage

we will need to provide most of the content ourselves as new entrants will judge the quality

of the platform according to that.

1 According to the MIT – Center for Collective Intelligence (Malone et al. 2009), a good collective intelligence platform (CI) must address the following themes: goals (referring to the desired outcome ! What is to be accomplished?), incentives (referring to the motivational factors ! Why should anyone help out?), structure/process (referring to the business model and organizational structure to complete the task ! How are they meant to contribute?) and staffing (referring to the people required to support the business model and sustainability of CI within the organization ! Who will per-form the necessary work?).


- 11 -

Mashable (Betancourt 2009; Betancourt 2010; Catone 2009) suggests several tips and rules

for promoting/seeding social businesses1 and increasing community engagement2. Com-

plementary they show how to avoid the most common »traps«3 within those steps. How-

ever, most of them are pretty obvious or have already been mentioned. GWIs biggest chal-

lenge here will be the high diversity of targeted user groups. Especially during the seeding phase

custom-tailored key messages, media environments, and seeding methods need to be de-

veloped. Therefore the setup and handling of different conversation streams that are made

to stick (C. Heath & D. Heath 2007) is crucial. In the following these thoughts flow into in

the short overview of CSFs, KPIs and ROIs that apply to our main objectives.

1 Attraction tips: 1. Remember: Social Media is a Conversation, 2. Be Active and Responsive, 3. Be Personal and Authentic, 4. Encourage Sharing, 5. Make Social Media an Organization-wide Activity 2 1. Make it easy to participate, 2. be a leader (good example), 3. interact with the community, welcome newbies, identify and nurture power users, showcase and cross promote UGC, reward contributors, be timely about posting UGC, allow profile creation and engage with popular existing communities (Betancourt 2009). 3 Traps are: 1. the gaping hole perception, 2. no community cohesion, 3. don’t downplay the audience, 4. don’t betray the community, 5. don’t try to be everywhere, 6. no internal support for the community manager, 7. don’t be a dictator and 8. avoid social media staffing bottlenecks (Betancourt 2010).


- 12 -

2.2 Critiqual Success Factors and Key Performance Indicators

Objectives Critical Success Factors KPIs ROIs

Produce a critical mass of at least 100 initial case studies until the launch of the beta version!

Gathering case studies from not yet known sources, while checking if the respective sites are possible (link) partners for GWI.

Finding editors who support us in our search (activist groups, NGOs, etc.).

Make sure to permanently develop and maintain a map of our prospec-tive and particular GWI social media ecosystem

n.a.

Attract around 1,000,000 unique visitors and 70,000 members in two years after launch.

Secure funding for IT (hosting/server(s), loadbalancer, etc.) and GWI roadshow travelling expenses.

Having compiled a volunteer team of programmers, designers and first editors.

Create some pre-launch buzz for already creating some link authority and awareness for the official launch.

Gather marketing and PR (student) supporters worldwide that help with the respective local media roll-outs (friends, acquaintances, volunteers).

Collecting famous intercessors (actors, scientists, politicians, etc.) that promote our idea or provide us with quotes we can use in our campaign.

Researching the contacts of appropriate mass media that shall flank our social web campaign and establish a relationship with them.

Having programmed the basic platform (tested by friends in early proto-type stadium) for beta testing, including the setup of clever participation and incentive mechanisms (cf. the building blocks of collective intelli-gence, Malone et al. 2009; MIT - Center for Collective Intelligence 2010).

Having gathered more insights (motivations, needs, pain points, contexts of usage, etc.) on our prospective stakeholders and user groups in order to setup our brand message variations for the seeding phase (also knowing their cognitive frames for search behaviour/memes etc.).

Having constructed personas that reflect possible usage scenarios, user roles in general and standard use cases.

Rapidly building up a qualified link base by registering the site to all kinds of thematic catalogues, link lists and partner sites after having thought through the SE strategy according to our users cognitive frames.

Creating a big buzz via a fully integrated campaign with special prepared landing pages for every user group.

Donations received

Number of Backlinks

Number of volunteers we collect to bring platform and initial content to life.

Intensity of buzz (number of positive mentions) in all kind of publications (blog entries, press clippings, Facebook wall posts, etc.)

Number intercessors, influencers, dissemina-tors and opinion leaders that (in)officially support us.

An overall 7% user registering conversion rate ( = leads (people attracted by the campaign)

CPA: Cost per Acquisition

Feedback: Number of comments from site, mail, etc.

User/Community satisfaction index

Site performance and availability

Average visiting time on site

Visits to register

Referrer mix

Share of search (dominant occupation of strategic memes and phrases)

Number of referrals to the community by members

WOM generated by community, etc.

a) 40,000 fully-registered users

Setup of a well-designed and clever on-site info-/entertainment conversion funnel towards registering.

Supporting people in the fast establishment of peer-connections, once they have registered (increase cohesion).

b) 30,000 semi-registered users

Steady flow of new content (updates, new cases, news, etc.) via RSS, Newsletter or FB wall posts, etc. to keep peoples attention.

Special (upgrade) campaigns for semi-registered users, stimulating them to fully register/complete their profiles.

4% full registering conversion rate (transition of lurkers into active community members)

nCase inspiration connections

Site register conversion rate (from user to member)

Activity/participation level: Average contribu-tion frequency (e. g. ratio of comments per post), nActivated, Dormant, nLapsed, etc.

c) 100 active contributors

Preparation of special incentives/rewarding mechanisms for lead users

Arranging meetings (annual events?) to meet physically with lead users.

0.01% contribution efficiency rate (number of people contributing)

nCases per contributor, etc.

hardly fore-seeable: see next page for a com-ment

Table 1: Critical Success Factors and Key Performance Indicators


- 13 -

2.3 The ROI-Question

The question for any ROI of GWI is hard to answer, especially in the early stages its com-

munity lifecycle (Abelson 2010): Firstly GWI is a (business) experiment whose prospective

revenue model is everything but clear. Conceivable revenue options for us may be subscrip-

tion models (i.e. our disliked option of »premium content«), the ubiquitous but obvious

advertising financing, the coupling to a governmental or commercial organisation that

funds it, or more venturesome – a micropay per case option by VCs that are interested in a

diverse and maintained high quality platform. But what’s the use of any promising scen-

arios if we don’t know yet whether they are even viable? At the moment we don’t care

about any returns. In terms of time we put in without getting something out, the project

already is a financial »disaster«. But we don’t care. Our »ROI« is experience, good karma

and in the long-term personal reputation – obviously all not real financial measures, what

in turn leads us to the general discussion of the dilution of the ROI econometric. Many

marketers adapted the concept with (among others) the idea of an attention economy1

(Franck 1998) in mind and invented measures like Return on Engagement, Return on Par-

ticipation, Return on Involvement, Return on Attention or Return on Trust2. As important

as they may be, these measures also don’t helps us along, as they are not referencing to

»real« financial returns/measures but results (Solis 2010).

Furthermore another question looms large: For whom do we create value? About whose

ROI do we actually talk3? Obviously not (just) about ours. Rather about the different and

particular ROIs for all of our stakeholders within the business eco-system we operate in

(some examples can be found in the appendix: Table 5, p. 33). But how can the socio-

economic value4 creation in such a public innovation eco-system (Emerson et al. 2001,

p.137) be described, measured and quantified (not to speak of getting prognosticated)? To

determine GWIs ROIs it needs a measure that describes the value of its impacts, by using

1 Here in the controversial sense of »attention transactions« replacing financial transactions as the main focus of our economic systems. 2 „Return on Engagement: The duration of time spent either in conversation or interacting with social objects, and in turn, what transpired that’s worthy of measurement; Return on Participation: The metric tied to measuring and valuing the time spent participating in social media through conversations or the creation of social objects; Return on Involvement: Similar to participation, marketers explored touch-points for documenting states of interaction and tied metrics and potential return of each; Return on Attention: In the attention economy, we assess the means to seize attention, hold it, and measure the response; Return on Trust: A variant on measuring customer loyalty and the likelihood for referrals, a trust barometer establishes the state of trust earned in social media engagement and the prospect of generating advocacy and how it impacts future business. (Solis 2010)“ 3 Not to mention the attempt to define and operationalise »investment«. Who invests what if we build the platform with our working time together with an open source community of volunteers? Can the contributions of our (beta) users and disseminators also be seen as »invest-ments«? 4 The transformative value of social purpose enterprises occurs along a continuum from economic, over socio-economic to social value. Eco-nomic value creation happens in most for-profit organisations and „[...] is created by taking a resource or set of inputs, providing additional inputs or processes that increase the value of those inputs, and thereby generate a product or service that has greater market value at the next level of the value chain.“ Respective measures have developed over centuries, resulting in a host of [standard] econometrics (ROI, debt/equity ratios, price/earnings, etc.). „Social value [however] is created when resources, inputs, processes or policies are combined to generate impro-vements in the lives of individuals or society as a whole. It is in this arena that most non-profits justify their existence, and unfortunately it is at this level that one has the most difficulty measuring the true value created. [...] Socio-economic value [finally] builds on the foundation of economic value creation by attempting to quantify and incorporate certain elements of social value. An entity creates socio-economic value by making use of resources, inputs, or processes; increasing the value of these inputs, and by then generating cost savings for the public system or environment of which the entity is a part. These cost savings are potentially realized in decreased public dollar expenditures and partially in increased revenues to the public sector, in the form of additional taxes.“ (Emerson et al. 2001, p.137)


- 14 -

financial proxies representing our benefits that are not usually captured in a »market econ-

omy«.

Various approaches1 try to operationalise these complex coherences. The most expedient –

although not perfect – method for GWI seems to be a Social Return on Investment2 (SROI)

calculation. Only such an analysis could really give a holistic and sufficiently complex an-

swer to understand the full returns that GWI could leverage for its stakeholders and »man-

kind« at large. The bad news for this strategy conception template is: We do not have en-

ough data yet to even start such an analysis (cf. appendix, p. 33, »The Steps of an SROI-

Analysis«) and the author dares to further play with assumptions made up out of thin air. !

3 Communications Planning

3.1 Channel Strategy (Proposal)

As our CSFs on p. 12 have shown, the main challenge is to create sufficient content and

buzz in the beginning – whereas both is dependent on each other (cf. »buzz cycle« (Bacon

2009)). For the sake of simplification, our diverse target groups have been split up into two

groups in the following: low involved (e.g. »ordinary people«, general manufacturing com-

panies) and high involved persons (e.g. activist groups, waste industry, governmental insti-

tutions). Figure 4 shows an ideal-typical (and very simplified) seeding setup GWI could use.

Within this setup different customer journeys are conceivable (also depending on the cre-

ative main idea our campaign will be aligned to). Although the standard journeys in those

routes may be different, a lot of »overlapping« content could be used for both involvement

groups. In detail I suggest the use of the following digital communication channels and

approaches:

SOCIAL WEB

Especially our low-involved TGs with their restricted attention spans need to be engaged in

conversations that use simple but convincing edutainment approaches3. That means we

have to curate content in a variety of ways – always differentiated between our low and

high involved recipients. One will be setting up Vimeo/Youtube video channels, that high-

light and present the best cases and other topic-related content (presentations, TED talks,

documentaries, etc.). Out of that we could (let) produce podcasts that are offered for down-

load or subscription via all the channels we serve. One of this channels obviously is Face-

1 e.g. Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) or Social Accounting 2 According to Social Economy Scotland, „SROI measures an organisation’s added value by calculating the social, environmental and economic benefits it creates and by attributing a financial value to them. It is based on standard accounting principles and investment apprai-sal techniques.“ (Unite For Sight 2009) 3 Recent entertaining examples are the Volkswagen »Fun Principle«, »The Girl Effect« (Nike Foundation and Care.org) or the »Entrepre-neursday Virals« (http://entrepreneursday.org).


- 15 -

book1, were we could aggregate other content i.e. within a GWI group page (partly auto-

matically via SocialRSS, partly manual and self-produced) facilitating engagement2. By

identifying and using »social web power users« we will leverage our seeding campaign.

That’s why we already »collect« authority persons contacts of every conceivable service.

Figure 4: First draft of a channel strategy for GWI

BLOGOSPHERE AND SPECIAL INTEREST NEWS SERVICES

The above mentioned channel-diversicated setup is however merely the basic structure for

our Online-PR. To spread our messages we also need to encourage our friends, dissemina-

1 Of course Facebook is just representative for the different national and international social networks that enjoy popularity in the world. Despite Facebook e.g. global networks like friendster.com (still used in south-east asia), hi5.com, bebo.com or orkut.com are also potential (low-involvement) environments to spread our messages. Locally platforms like renren.com, xiaonei.com, kaixin001.com and 51.com (for China) or mixi.jp (Japan) and vkontakte.ru (Russia) are interesting (just to mention a few). The creation of respective buzz in these local environments is a task we cannot accomplish ourselves. It will be a task for disseminators of our community that engage locally in those communities. 2 According to Chopra (2010) the following top-categories cause engagement on Facebook: „1. Contests and giveaways; 2. Quizzes, surveys, polls, requests for feedback so every relevant question attracts an answer (i. e. engagement) ; 3. Humor, jokes and trivia; 4. Controversy or debate; 5. Patriotism (especially in countries like India and Japan) ; 6. Real-life stories or examples; 7. Breaking news; 8. Unexpected infor-mation; 9. Interesting pictures and videos; in the U. S. and other developed nations, where Internet bandwidth is not an issue videos are viewed even more than pictures“


- 16 -

tors and sympathizers to engage in microblogging for GWI (Twitter, identi.ca, Facebook,

etc.). We will also have to compile a list with »bloggers of authority«, liaise with them and

let them mention our story in order to reach our intended recipients in their particular

sphere of influence. This is especially important for our special interest sites within our

»high-involved route«. One clever way for example could be making PR for our cases (i.e.

writing articles or press releases for them). By valorising the »innovating heroes« of our

platform we also make PR for ourselves, e.g. by interspersing quotes and cross connections

to GWI via the »back door«. Another conceivable win-win situation could be, being the

official supplier of cases for the many »waste idea books« that many designers and writers

(are going to) publish at the moment (i.e. www.retrash.com). Regardless of ideas and ap-

proaches – the important thing always is to forge more or less strategic alliances with kin-

dred spirits over all channels. Because exactly this will ensure the attention and attraction

of high-involved prospects we can then convert into case contributors and editors. Once

(and while) we set this ball rolling we should also fortify the use of social bookmarking

services (especially Digg, Reddit, StumbleUpon and Delicious). If our campaign/content

goes popular on these »connector« sites it may well spread faster.

And once the community establishes we should also encourage, enable and support our

members to use every opportunity to be interviewed on websites, podcasts, videocasts, or in

magazines. Again the goal is to valorise them in order to valorise ourselves (Goffman

1982).

PROFESSIONAL MEDIA RELATIONS

The materials we have produced anyways can be easily transformed to any other format.

Therefore we’ll also use the opportunity to supply the established media with interesting

quality content (notwithstanding that we maintain our mandatory standard PR-relations

like announcing our website launch and other GWI-related events). This could be maga-

zine articles, features or Q&As we contribute1 tailored to the mediums respective audience.

The goal then is to get published in authority media on- and offline and have GWI either

mentioned (increases level of awareness) or even better linked (quality link building). For

the sake of the latter every piece of PR with a GWI link inside will also be distributed via e-

release services.

SEARCH

I don’t want to look into standard SEO2 in detail, as I regard it as a basic prerequisite that

will be taken into account very thoroughly when building the site. Besides that the best

SEO for GWI will be the buzz our introduction campaign/content produces (even our

1 We could send over a list of topics we could write about or just write articles and submit it. 2 Standard SEO includes e.g. taking into account the search anatomy for our to be occupied search terms/phrases (amount of words, stop words, anti log, spellings, synonyms, word order), doing a respective search strategy/keyword analysis, on-page optimisation (keyword density, word frequency, friendly URLs and speaking file names, XHTML tag optimisations, internal cross-linkage, link depth, etc.) as well as off-page optimisation (increase link popularity and qualified backlinks with predefined anchor texts, link baiting, avoid duplicate content, control the appropriate speed of link growth if possible, domain rings, etc.).


- 17 -

press releases will then be optimised to the key phrases we need to occupy). However I

have three remarks and one idea that I regard worth mentioning: We will make no use of

paid search as it would counteract our grassroots impression in the beginning. We will also

have the difficulty that we don’t know the mental (search) models of our diverse user

groups yet. Therefore the long-term preparation of to be occupied subject areas/topics with

its respective search phrases or even memes isn’t possible at the outset. Its creation will be

an iterative (learning) process during the collection of knowledge about our users (tracking

data, user interviews, market research etc.). The same applies to the optimization of our

different landing pages that have to be tested and refined1 until conversions are optimised.

The mentioned idea is the establishment of an authority list tagged to GWI (i.e. »GWI Top

List of Sustainability Sites«2) that could help us in producing a lot of qualified »good neigh-

bourhood« backlinks with GWI-related content.

COOPERATIONS

As already mentioned we need to seed our idea and the site with opinion leaders, prospec-

tive publishers and voluntary co-workers. We therefore have to get access to existing com-

munities, ask for help and invite people to republish our content. In order to gain the

needed attention we could inquire celebrities (movie stars or the like) to spread our message

by being one of our »brand ambassadors«. We could also ask movie makers for help, re-

garding the professional preparation of our campaign contents. Handselected corporations

could be the first official sponsors of the platform and serve also as disseminators in the

corporate world.

GENERAL »OFFLINE INTEGRATION«

The »real« web influencers however are easiest to reach in real life not via impersonal elec-

tronic communication. Therefore the most crucial part of our seeding campaign is to take

part in conference presentations, talks, barcamps and important sustainability/waste-

related events. Furthermore we’ll submit papers and presentation suggestions ourselves to

respective conferences (topics will always be related to GWI, e.g. design thinking, social-

and open innovation, anthropological research approaches, etc.). Additionally we’ll en-

courage our members as well to submit papers and follow us suit.

Another way of spreading the idea with an already growing member base is to organise

local events and meetings (e.g. presenting our cases or new projects that emerged our of our

members connections, etc.). First they could for example be attached to big formats like

local TED talks. Later our members should be encouraged to organise their own formats

(meetings, events, open days, etc.) to tell their version of our/their story.

1 One approach to achieve this is for example Googles Siteoptimisation Tool that lets you test randomly different versions of the same page with your users. The best converting can then be used later. ! https://www.google.com/analytics/siteopt/new_expt?account=XXXXXX. 2 If we’d carry that to the extremes, we could even establish an own »GlobalWasteIdea Award« recognising the best ideas (of the year or another period of time). This wouldn’t just generate media attention but also traffic and organic SEO.


- 18 -

THE LANDING PAGES

The landing pages are the first culmination point of our campaign as they are the start of

our on-site conversion funnel. At least three related cases are showcased with short videos,

pictures, the link to the case itself and additional rich media (interviews, reports about the

idea). All the cases have in common, that we emphasize the community’s contribution to

its »birth« or implementation. Once the users realized that they could play a crucial role (in

the distribution of information about those ideas, in the further development of them, with

their own ideas/projects – be them as small as they be) and make a difference to the current

status quo of the world (respectively discover business opportunities), we hopefully convert

them to users or disseminators.

In order to alleviate their decision and overcome their last parts of scepticism we list ben-

efits of a »membership«, provide incentives like prizes or the like (e.g. trash art from Skel-

etonSea, p. 35) and we prepare a short FAQ that clarifies the last objections. If the user

shouldn’t be convinced through this page we can nevertheless encourage him to spread our

messages through his social web accounts with prepared messages. This is just one click,

but increases the likelihood of getting in contact with people we could convert to users.

The low-involved landing pages will contain more sensational, entertaining and surprising

content that emphasises »fun-, wow- and cool-effects« (e.g. SkeletonSea, p. 35 or Pee-

poople, p. 39 in appendix). The high-involved route is characterised by more complex cases

showcasing technological or intermeshed social innovations (e.g. Healthy City, p. 41 or

BPR, p. 37 in appendix).

FURTHER GENERAL THINGS TO CONSIDER

We’re already slowly building up a structured (mail) address base of supporters and future

users within our private and professional contacts. E-mail marketing therefore plays a ra-

ther tangential role at the moment. However if we have to opportunity to access the user

base of »partner platforms« within our cooperations we’d use them immediately – also via

traditional mail.

Part of building the crucial user base in the beginning will be the creation of active »fake

users« consisting of friends, family and our broader private network.

3.2 Offline Integration

Although this is a »digital marketing plan« the author believes that it makes no sense to

artificially separate the offline integration. Therefore respective proposals have already been

woven into the thoughts above.


- 19 -

3.3 Media Planning

Before a »real« media planning can be done the platform already needs to be in pla-

ce/programmed and initial market research on our TG patterns of reception as well as

media environments1 also has to be finished. Only if this data is available we can choose

the adequate media to cluster and configure a custom-tailored media plan for every of our

TGs. The time table in »Figure 5« is therefore very simplified but it shows general timing

dependencies and the time horizons we’re talking about.

Figure 5: Time table for GWI introduction campaign

Again this is just a rough proposal that can change if opportunities arise. If for example we

have the chance to surf on major news waves that are related to our topics, we’ll do that

immediately by rearranging our schedule. Therefore permanent agenda monitoring (i.e. via

Google Trends) is a self-evident part of both PR and SEO activities we perform. Besides

that timing and media planning are also dependent on the creative main idea (cf. Percy &

Elliott 2005) that will guide our seeding campaign.

1 For our high-involved users, lets say »environmental activists« or partly also »governmental service agencies« sites like http://environment.change.org, http://www.care2.com/greenliving/ or http://www.care2.com/causes/environment/could be an adequa-te media environment. People from our »VC and Private Equity« group however will rather be targeted at sites like http://www.economist.com/science-technology/ or http://www.ft.com and the like.


- 20 -

4 References Abell, D.F., 1980. Defining the Business - The Starting Point of Strategic Planning, NJ: Engle-

wood Cliffs.

Abelson, R., 2010. HOW TO: Manage a Sustainable Online Community. Mashable/Social

Media. Available at: http://mashable.com/2010/07/30/sustainable-online-

community/ [Accessed November 20, 2010].

Bacon, J., 2009. The Art of Community: Building the New Age of Participation 1st ed., Sebasto-

pol: O’Reilly Media.

Betancourt, L., 2009. 10 Rules for Increasing Community Engagement. Mashable/Business.

Available at: http://mashable.com/2009/12/16/community-engagement/ [Acces-

sed November 20, 2010].

Betancourt, L., 2010. 8 Things to Avoid When Building a Community. Mashable/Business.

Available at: http://mashable.com/2010/01/05/community-engagement-pitfalls/

[Accessed November 20, 2010].

Bisson, P., Stephenson, E. & Viguerie, S.P., 2010. Pricing the Planet. McKinsey Quarterly -

Public Sector - Government Regulation. Available at:

https://www.mckinseyquarterly.com/Strategy/Growth/Pricing_the_planet_2629


Bourdieu, P., 1995. Outline of a Theory of Practice, New York: Cambridge University Press.

Braungart, M. & McDonough, W., 2009. Cradle to Cradle, London: Vintage.

Catone, J., 2009. 5 Essential Tips for Promoting Your Charity Using Social Media. Masha-

ble/Social Good. Available at: http://mashable.com/2009/08/21/charity-social-

media/ [Accessed November 20, 2010].

Chaffey, D. et al., 2009. Internet Marketing: Strategy, Implementation and Practice 4th ed., Es-

sex: Prentice Hall.

Chesbrough, H., Vanhaverbeke, W. & West, J., 2006. Open Innovation: Researching a New

Paradigm, Oxford University Press.

Chopra, P., 2010. Why Will People Come to Your Company Facebook Page? - India Chief

Mentor - WSJ. Wallstreet Journal / India Chief M entor. Available at:

http://blogs.wsj.com/india-chief-mentor/2010/06/21/why-will-people-come-to-

your-company-facebook-page/ [Accessed November 23, 2010].

Coase, R.H., 1990. The Firm, the Market, and the Law, Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Daren C. Brabham, 2011. Crowdsourcing: A model for leveraging online communities -


- 21 -

Unpublished Draft. In Jennifer Henderson & Aaron Delwiche, eds. The Routledge

Handbook of Participatory Culture. Oxford: Routledge. Available at:

http://dbrabham.files.wordpress.com/2010/10/brabham_handbook_crowdsourci

ng.pdf.

Defra, C.A.I.W., 2010. "Less is more": business opportunities in waste & resource mana-

gement. Available at:

http://www.wmro.org/displayResource.aspx/9473/_Less_is_more_business_opp

ortunities_in_waste_resource_management_.html [Accessed October 15, 2010].

Dustin Haisler & Margarita Quihuis, 2010. Gov 2.0: How to pick a citizen idea platform.

GovFresh - Open Air Government. Available at: http://govfresh.com/2010/01/how-

to-pick-a-citizen-idea-platform/ [Accessed November 12, 2010].

Emerson, J., Wachowicz, J. & Chun, S., 2001. Social Return on Investment (SROI): Exploring

Aspects of Value Creation, San Francisco: The Roberts Enterprise Development Fund.

Available at: http://www.redf.org/download/boxset/REDF_Vol2_8.pdf.

Franck, G., 1998. Ökonomie der Aufmerksamkeit : Ein Entwurf, München: Hanser.

Goffman, E., 1982. Interaction Ritual - Essays on Face-to-Face Behavior 1st ed., New York:

Pantheon.

Heath, C. & Heath, D., 2007. Made to Stick: Why Some Ideas Survive and Others Die 1st ed.,

New York: Random House.

Hippel, E.V., 2006. Democratizing Innovation New ed., The Mit Press.

International Telecommunication Union, 2010. Monitoring the WSIS targets, Geneva: Inter-

national Telecommunication Union. Available at:

http://www.itu.int/dms_pub/itu-d/opb/ind/D-IND-WTDR-2010-PDF-E.pdf


Lester, R.K. & Piore, M.J., 2004. Innovation-The Missing Dimension 1st ed., Harvard Univer-

sity Press.

Lévi-Strauss, C., 1966. The Savage Mind, Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Malone, T.W., Laubacher, R. & Dellarocas, C., 2009. Harnessing Crowds: Mapping the

Genome of Collective Intelligence. In Cambridge, MA: MIT Center for Collective

Intelligence.

McKinsey Global Institute, 2010. Ten tech-enabled Business Trends to watch. - McKinsey

Quarterly - High Tech - Strategy & Analysis. Available at:

https://www.mckinseyquarterly.com/High_Tech/Strategy_Analysis/Clouds_big_

data_and_smart_assets_Ten_tech-enabled_business_trends_to_watch_2647 [Acces-

sed November 8, 2010].


- 22 -

Miniwatts Marketing Group, 2010. World Internet Usage Statistics News and World Popu-

lation Stats. Available at: http://www.internetworldstats.com/stats.htm [Accessed

November 19, 2010].

MIT - Center for Collective Intelligence, 2010. MIT - Handbook of Collective Intelligence.

MIT - Handbook of Collective Intelligence. Available at:

http://scripts.mit.edu/~cci/HCI/index.php?title=Main_Page [Accessed Novem-

ber 9, 2010].

Nielsen, 2010. Nielsen NetRatings 2010. Available at: http://en-

us.nielsen.com/content/nielsen/en_us/product_families/nielsen_netratings.html


OECD, 2009. OECD Broadband Portal. OECD Broadband Portal. Available at:

http://www.oecd.org/sti/ict/broadband [Accessed November 6, 2010].

Osterwalder, A. & Pigneur, Y., 2009. Business Model Generation - A Handbook for Visionaries,

Game Changers & Challengers, Zürich: Self Published.

Percy, L. & Elliott, R., 2005. Strategic Advertising Management 2nd ed., Oxford: Oxford Uni-

versity Press.

Pisano, G.P. & Verganti, R., 2008. Which Kind of Collaboration Is Right for You? Harvard

Business Review, 86(12), pp.78-86.

Prahalad, C.K. & Ramaswamy, V., 2004. The future of competition, Harvard Business Press.

Solis, B., 2010. The Maturation of Social Media ROI. Mashable/Business. Available at:

http://mashable.com/2010/01/26/maturation-social-media-roi/ [Accessed No-

vember 25, 2010].

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 2009. Visualised stages of a waste life cycle. U.S.

Environmental Protection Agency. Available at:

http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/wycd/waste/lifecycle.html [Accessed No-

vember 6, 2010].

Unite For Sight, 2009. Social Investing and Social Return on Investment. Unite For Sight.

Available at: http://www.uniteforsight.org/social-entrepreneurship-

course/module7 [Accessed November 28, 2010].

United Nations, 2010. Trends In Sustainable Development - Towards Sustainable Consumption

And Production, New York: United Nations - Department of Economic and Social

Affairs, Division for Sustainable Development.

unkown, 2010. Solution to "critical mass" problem with services needing "network effect"

to work - any case studies? OnStartups - Stack Exchange. Available at:

http://answers.onstartups.com/questions/7063/solution-to-critical-mass-problem-


- 23 -

with-services-needing-network-effect-to-wor [Accessed November 20, 2010].

Veolia Environnement, 2010. Research and Innovation 2010, Paris: Veolia Environnement.

Verganti, R., 2009. Design Driven Innovation: Changing the Rules of Competition by Radically

Innovating What Things Mean, Harvard Business Press.

World Economic Forum, 2010. WEF Risks 2010. Available at:

http://www.weforum.org/documents/riskbrowser2010/risks/# [Accessed No-

vember 19, 2010].

Zuboff, S., 2010. Creating Value in the Age of distributed Capitalism. McKinsey Quarterly -

Strategy - Growth. Available at:

https://www.mckinseyquarterly.com/Strategy/Growth/Creating_value_in_the_ag

e_of_distributed_capitalism_2666 [Accessed November 7, 2010].


- 24 -

TABLES

Table 1: Critical Success Factors and Key Performance Indicators ................................................ 12!Table 2: Customer Group/Alternative Solution............................................................................ 29!Table 3: GWI - Customer Function/Alternative Solution Matrix.................................................. 29!Table 4: GWI - Customer Function/Group Matrix ...................................................................... 30!Table 5: Key stakeholders motivations / unmet needs / benefits / prospective ROIs ..................... 32!FIGURES

Figure 1: Preliminary stakeholdermap for GWI..............................................................................7!Figure 2: World internet usage and population statistics (Sources: Miniwatts Marketing Group

2010; International Telecommunication Union 2010; Nielsen 2010) .................................8!Figure 3: Possible GWI User Hierarchy/Funnel (compiled by author) ............................................9!Figure 4: First draft of a channel strategy for GWI........................................................................ 15!Figure 5: Time table for GWI introduction campaign ................................................................... 19!Figure 6: Some rough screenflow sketches.................................................................................... 25!Figure 7: GWI Goals and Objectives............................................................................................ 26!Figure 8: Which kind of collaboration is right for you? (Source: Pisano & Verganti 2008) Example

collaboration the waste industry is using today (Source: compiled by author). ................. 27!Figure 9: GWI-Competition: Platform type vs. functions performed (Source: compiled by author).28!Figure 10: Community Lifecycle (Abelson 2010) .......................................................................... 33!Figure 11: The Steps of an SROI-Analysis (Emerson et al. 2001, p.139 ff.) .................................... 33!Figure 12: Visualised stages of a waste life cycle (Source: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

2009) ............................................................................................................................ 34!Figure 13: Trends, drivers and forces affecting/favouring GlobalWasteIdeas.org........................... 46!


- 25 -

5 Appendix

5.1 Some Screenflow Sketches

"

"

Figure 6: Some rough screenflow sketches

MOCK-UPS

The latest wireframes can always be found on the Pidoco website. Just copy and paste this link: https://pidoco.com/rabbit/api/prototypes/12913/pages/page0001.xhtml?mode=sketched&api_key=2QrNb66xPVCGGOPHCdY5zojr8xdIQq4oxK5S92eP


- 26 -

5.2 GWI – Goals and Objectives Vi

sion

GWI shall become a supranational collective (business) intelligence hub, catalyzing bottom-up movements for sustainable behaviour in a world where the use of the word waste has become obsolete. XXxxxx xxxxxxx xxxxxxxxxxx xxxxxx xxxx xxxxxxx xxxxxxx xxxxxx xxxxxxxxx, xxxxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xx xxxxxxxxx xxxxxx.

Mis

sion

To broaden peoples perception of waste as a commodity. We offer a platform that accompanies us to a life with sustain-able technologies and holistic ways of consumption. By making waste dealing ideas visible worldwide, we question the current industrial paradigm of cradle-to-grave and enforce cross-cultural collaboration. At the same time we pragmatically bridge the time until cradle-to-cradle takes over as the leading industrial paradigm.

Prin

cipl

es P1: We are open. Our Framework can be used by others and we share knowledge.

P2: We are positivists/possibilists. We see opportunities, no problems. P3: To innovate we have to stay independent. The only stakeholder group influencing our interests are our users.

User KPIs To become the worlds major, and most used exchange platform for waste issues with over one million users within 5–10 years.

quan

titat

ive

Financial KPIs To earn at least a revenue that finances our living expenses plus a compensating interest for aban-doning our actual professions: XXXXXXXx EUR per person.

General Become the central business intelligence hub for waste related content.

Xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

Social Goals To become a central collective intelligence hub putting the dream of a sustainable world into prac-tice (implementing digital club of Rome).

Becoming an international, for the greater part open, research database that takes up on cultural practices, geographical conditions, and other frequently overlooked variables, often preventing the successful implementation of mostly technical innovations regarding waste. ! Showing people that those innovations usually become more assertive.

To pragmatically bridge the time until the cradle2cradle-vision becomes true and therefore reduce further harm to our environment.

To put social peer pressure on people (but not a moral one with wagging fingers and moral ser-mons) and create an change of awareness, as well as actions in people by building on positivism and the surprising remaining opportunities to solve our problems.

Image The international and cross-cultural grassroots catalyser that brings change in sustainable behav-iour from bottom up by transferring ideas.

Org

anis

atio

nal G

oals

qual

itativ

e

Misc xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

qual

itativ

e Build a developer and PR team until mid of 2011.

Xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

Actio

n Fi

eld

Goa

ls

quan

titat

ive Attract at least 100 disseminators in different countries, spreading our idea and convincing people

to become editors for the platform.

Attract 70.000 members in two years after launch.

Being financed in 2011: XXX.XXX EUR p.a.

Figure 7: GWI Goals and Objectives


- 27 -

5.3 Platform Classification and Competition – An Attempt

According to Pisano & Verganti (2008) organisations can make use of four major modes of

collaboration as shown in Figure 8. Within this typology GWI can be characterised as an

innovation community, that it is open to everyone and especially searches for grass-

roots/communities ideas.

Figure 8: Which kind of collaboration is right for you? (Source: Pisano & Verganti 2008) Example collaboration the waste industry is using today (Source: compiled by author).

Our desk research unveiled that the waste industry is not using this collaboration oppor-

tunity yet. Governmental organisations may already experiment with OpenGov-

approaches but they are usually very open and cover such an variety of topics that the idea

collection often looses its focusing. A dedicated innovation community for »waste and con-

sumption« therefore doesn’t exist yet. However, this excludes all general »sustainability

sites« or open challenges on sites like www.openideo.com that cover idea generation on the

topic. So the question is, what idea collection platforms already exist and how do they gen-

erate knowledge? While Dustin Haisler & Margarita Quihuis (2010) roughly distinguish

two distinctly different platforms for idea collection: specific-task motivated-1 and structured-

idea collection platforms2, Daren C. Brabham (2011) structures crowdsourcing approaches

1 These platforms (like Ideascale, Uservoice, etc.) are great a gathering ideas for a specific purpose. For instance, many online voting challen-ges have adopted these platforms to gather votes for a set period of time. After a user expends their vote or votes they are no longer motivated to return to the platform aside from seeing what ideas are on top. 2 This type of platform (like Spigit) collects and manages ideas on a board scale within multiple departments of an agency. Unlike the Speci-fic-Task Motivated Platforms, users are free to submit ideas at any time within multiple departments. Since users are not motivated by specific-tasks, they must be motivated by a game-mechanics (ranking & rewarding of actions). In this type of platform, ideas are driven by the participants through an idea funnel.

!


- 28 -

into four different modes: the knowledge discovery and management approach1, the broadcast

search approach2, the peer-vetted creative production approach3, and distributed human intelligence

tasking4.

GWI therefore is an open innovation community with a flat hierarchy, organised in the form

of a structured-idea collection platform, performing the functions of broadcast search and peer-

vetted creative production. Figure 9 shows those few platforms that are not exclusively dedi-

cated to our topic but which display the greatest overlap in terms of the (customer) func-

tions they perform (cf. Abell 1980). The red area is the competition field that covers func-

tions GWI provides.

GWI-COMPETITION: PLATFORM TYPE VS. FUNCTIONS PERFORMED

Figure 9: GWI-Competition: Platform type vs. functions performed (Source: compiled by author)

1 This approach is useful when knowledge exists in the network (e.g., in written records, prior art, and other published sources) and there is a need to find and assemble that knowledge in a coherent way in a single location (Peer to Patent Community Patent Review). 2 Broadcast search is useful when an empirically right answer exists and the knowledge of a single expert (or handful of experts) somewhere in the network is needed to know the answer. Opening up the problem solving process through crowdsourcing is like casting a wide net, hoping to find the one needle in the haystack (InnoCentive, Goldcorp Challenge). 3 Peer-vetted creative production is useful when there is no empirically right answer, but rather the “right” answer is the one the market will support. In other words, when the “right” answer is a matter of consumer tastes or user preferences, this approach can help generate and vet original ideas to find a best choice (Threadless, Next Stop Design). 4 This final approach is useful when online communities are needed to perform tasks that require human intelligence in order to process large batches of data. Crowdsourcing organizations using this approach need massive amounts of microlabor to crunch large piles of information in systematic ways, yet computers are not capable of performing these processes (SETI@Home, Amazon Mechanical Turk).


- 29 -

5.4 Market Definition – A Try

GWI – CUSTOMER GROUP/ALTERNATIVE SOLUTION

Table 2: Customer Group/Alternative Solution

GWI – CUSTOMER FUNCTION/ALTERNATIVE SOLUTION

Table 3: GWI - Customer Function/Alternative Solution Matrix


- 30 -

GWI – CUSTOMER FUNCTION (DETAILED)/CUSTOMER GROUP

Table 4: GWI - Customer Function/Group Matrix


- 31 -

5.5 Key Stakeholders

Segmented Group/Sector

General

Motivation37

Unmet Needs and Insights

Benefits ROI38

Comment

»General« Industry / Manufacturer

Escape political and societal pressure by showing and proving the organisations »CSR«.

We don’t fully know yet. Research is needed.

Benefit from outside-in / open innovation and inspiration (cross industry innovation).

Discover/monitor possibilities/solutions for waste-related cost reduction or the like. ! Increasing raw material prices: reduce resource dependency/scarcity

Find people with whom you can synthesise ideas, solve problems or simply get advised.

Showcase and present own successes and solutions and gain positive publicity.

Copy best practices from other market participants

Examples (assumptions):

n% cost reduction

n% reduced CPH (cost per hire) for finding experts

free Green-PR

etc.

All the ben-efits listed here also apply to the other »in-dustry seg-ments«.

Environmental Service Industry

Keep pace with (cross-) industry innovation speed for staying profit-able and in-creasing com-pany / share-holder value (some also: market share).


Discover new business opportunities / markets.

Monitor also the (grassroots) market for nearly free.

Monitor competition.

Community-led »business intelligence service« with more inspiring and surprising trends than any trend-scouts could discover.

Search and identify potential partnerships and/or joint-ventures ! GWI as contact platform.

n% cost reduction for market re-search

etc.

n.a.

Private Equity and Venture Capital Industries

Be the first in the race of discovering new business op-portunities.

To have an easy and affordable way to dis-cover early business opportunities – especially in emerging markets and in future industries.

Easy and inexpensive access to potential founders and innovators.

Discover »unusual« business/investment opportuni-ties in early stages – worldwide.

Easy, fast and »inexpensive« (personnel cost, net-work, …) access to innovators and inventors.

Have a specialised grassroots trendscouting plat-form. ! Identify emerging industry patterns.

n% cost reduction for CPA of new ventures

etc.

n.a.

NGOs Make own contributions visible.


Showcase own achievements and get publicity.

Get inspired and reuse / alter existing ideas to own challenges on-site.

See what »competition« is doing.

Problem identification and solution finding. ! GWI as best practice information database.

…

n.a.

Governmental Organisations

Nurture future industries; strategically set long-term economic directions and impulses; create general conditions for


Benchmark environmental innovation activities of other countries.

Observe future trends and directions, worth to support and strengthen also in own country’s busi-ness development.

Present »green« image of own country and use data

…

n.a.

37 To engage oneself with waste and related environmental topics. 38 ...e.g. of sponsorship, investments, allowences in kind or subscription to premium membership.


- 32 -

sustainable behaviour in all levels of soci-ety.

for place branding activities.

Present and showcase governmental regulations, rules and approaches that contribute to a country’s sustainable total balance.

Raising the general level of awareness in society, helping government to achieve its environmental goals.

University and Corporate Research Insti-tutes

Stay up-to-date with any tech-nological or social ad-vancement.

Exchange and research inter-esting data / phenomena. ! “What is hap-pening there?”


Research platform for new trends and technologies.

Place with many kindred-spirited people.

Identification of interesting research questions ! GWI as problem identification catalyst.

n% time reduction for recruiting a sample

etc.

n.a.

Special Interest Communities and Movements (Green, Eco, Sustainability, ...)

Be up to date and »fight« for own ideas.


New presentation / discussion / network platform / stage for publicity.

A pragmatic way to act, not just talk... (GWI cases as blueprints to implement ideas in own action field).

…

n.a.

»Ordinary People«

(some higher others lower involved)

Our assump-tions: Fun, Curiosity and Interest, Enter-tainment, »Group Pres-sure«, Incen-tives, guilty consciousness, …?


Being relieved from a »permanent guilty conscious-ness« by getting to know ways how to make an own – be it even just a small – contribution.

Becoming more aware of environmental issues in general and regarding the waste problems.

Seeing how to make a difference.

Proudly showcase countries/areas/or own contribu-tions (promote hometown, own community etc.).

Find like-minded people (e.g. the waste artists).

…

This group is the hardest to categorise. We doubt if it makes sense at all, trying to describe them in advance.

Table 5: Key stakeholders motivations / unmet needs / benefits / prospective ROIs


- 33 -

5.6 Community Lifecycle

Figure 10: Community Lifecycle (Abelson 2010)

5.7 The Steps of an SROI-Analysis

THE STEPS OF AN SROI-ANALYSIS

According to Emerson et al. (2001, p.139 ff.) we’d have to perform the following steps to really develop reason-able measures that enable us to calculate GWIs SROI:

1) Examining our »social service activity« (what ever this will be) over a given time frame (usually 5-10 years);

2) Calculating the amount of »investment« required to support that activity and analysing the capital structure of GWI supporting that activity

3) Identifying the various cost savings, reductions in spending and related benefits (i.e. innovation and growth opportunities) that accrue as a result of our social service activity;

4) Monetizing those cost savings and related benefits (calculating the economic value of those costs in real dollar terms);

5) Discounting those savings back to the beginning of the investment timeframe using a net present value and/or discounted cash flow analysis; and then

6) presenting the socio-economic value created during the investment time frame, expressing that value in terms of net present value and SROI rates and ratios.

Figure 11: The Steps of an SROI-Analysis (Emerson et al. 2001, p.139 ff.)


- 34 -

5.8 The Waste Life Cycle

Figure 12: Visualised stages of a waste life cycle (Source: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 2009)


- 35 -

5.9 Some Case Studies

5.9.1 SKELETON SEA

BACKGROUND

A group of three surfers realized that their favourite surfing spot in the Azores became

more and more littered, thus they started collecting trash from the ocean. After separating

the waste, a pile of flip-flops reminded them of the skin of a fish. In a 24 hours session they

built a fish right on the beach. When asked what to do with it by the local people, they an-

swered that they would release it into the sea.

CHALLENGE

Next to toxic materials, plastic waste is the biggest threat to the oceans. Because plastic

does not decompose, every single plastic particle will stay in the water for good and will

inevitable find its way back to its maker. "We want to raise awareness for a cleaner ocean.

Plastic does not disappear in the water. It takes a flip-flop 1000 years to disappear. By now,

the constant flow of human garbage reaches the deepest and most remote regions on this

planet. According to UNO statistics, every square kilometre of ocean contains 120,000

pieces of floating plastic. In certain parts of the ocean, there is six times more plastic than

plankton. And yet, macro-waste is still not classified as pollution by law. Mankind turns

the sea into a giant waste bin.

IDEA

Using waste that has been collected from the oceans as an artwork raw-material

IMPLEMENTATION

Three European surfers, who work as artists, create sea-life sculptures and exhibit them

publicly or release them to the oceans.

IMPACT

Raising awareness on ocean pollution. The artwork is presented on several art-exhibitions

worldwide. In 2010 "The Aquarium" in the Basque town of San Sebastian showed 20

pieces of the artists. More than 3,500 visitors and enormous media attention through Span-

ish TV and newspapers, helped spreading the message of "keeping the oceans clean!", to an

even wider audience.

www.skeletonsea.com


- 36 -


- 37 -

5.9.2 BIOMER PLASTICS REPROCESSING (BPR)

BACKGROUND

BPR claims our perception of waste as merely rubbish and not as a valuable commodity to

be the biggest obstacle solving our waste problem.

The UK is still one of the biggest contributor for the amount of waste entering landfills in

the EU. More than half of consumer goods are packaged in plastic. Currently the vast ma-

jority of plastics are shipped to Hong Kong, before reprocessed in China.

CHALLENGE

The challenge is twofold. On the one hand, due to the decline in mining industry in the

UK, people in the Rother Valley face unemployment, loss of livelihood and social prob-

lems. On the other hand, it is to find a substitute for shipping used consumer goods that

contain PET abroad, by taking part in the PET reprocessing market.

IDEA

BPR takes a common PET plastic bottle and upcycles it into biodegradable plastic pellets

which are used to manufacture medical equipment or perishable food packaging.

IMPLEMENTATION

BPR is currently seeking funding to build a test facility near Sheffield, United Kingdom.

The valley was the industrial heartland of mining, before rapid decline after the events of

the miners strikes in the 1980s.

IMPACT

A clean, cost effective plastic recycling that stimulates local economies.

no website available yet


- 38 -


- 39 -

5.9.3 FERTILOO & PEEPOOPLE

BACKGROUND

According to the WHO, more than three billion people in the world have no access to im-

proved sanitation. As a consequence open defecation is widely practiced, contaminating

water-sources and spreading preventable water-born diseases.

CHALLENGE

Industrial sanitation solutions are too expensive for developing countries and often disre-

gard local sanitation habits.

IDEA

Both ideas give access to improved sanitation by designing a low-tech solution.

Peepoople is a biodegradable slim bag which is used as a mobile toilet. An inside layer of

sterile material prevents all contact with the excrement and guarantees the bag to be odor-

free for at least 24 hours.

The Fertiloo is a light-weight compost latrine which is installed at Kenyan farms. Its design

considers traditional sanitation habits and human waste can later be used as fertilizer.

IMPLEMENTATION

Peepoople AB was founded 2006 and is based in Stockholm, Sweden. Research for the

Peepoo toilet has been conducted in cooperation with the Swedish University of Agricultu-

ral Science and the Royal Institute of Technology. It will be available in late-2010.

The Fertiloo was designed by the Kenyan social entrepreneur organization Nuru and costs

less than $100, which is the amount of money saved by not having to buy industrial fer-

tilizer.

IMPACT

Safely collecting and reusing human waste not only reduces family health expenses and

improves quality of life, but also helps saving 20% of their annual income currently spent

on industrial fertilizer and top soil.

www.peepoople.com | no website for Fertiloo available yet


- 40 -


- 41 -

5.9.4 CIUDAD SALUDABLE – HEALTHY CITY39

BACKGROUND

Solid waste management is a serious problem in Peru. Before Ciudad Saludable started its

work, some 1.000 tons of garbage were being generated daily in Cono Norte, one of Lima’s

largest slums. Only half of it got collected by official municipal workers. Remainders usu-

ally were left to accumulate in stinking waste heaps or strewn along public roads and in

vacant lots. Furthermore waste often gets dumped into rivers, contaminating the drinking

sources for many poor families. This situation exists in towns throughout the country.

CHALLENGE

People neither wanted to or couldn’t afford to pay for public waste collection nor had they

an awareness of its importance on health issues. Levels of education are low while unem-

ployment and poverty are usually very high.

IDEA

Ciudad Saludable turned these problems into an profitable opportunity. By working in

partnership with municipalities, it brought over 1.500 waste collectors in those slums into

employment. Their work in return steadily improved health and living conditions for the

over 6 million disadvantaged people living in these areas.

IMPLEMENTATION

Ciudad Saludable provides highly efficient »low-tech trash collection and processing« as

well as waste management services that are more dependable and less expensive than those

provided by municipal governments. It encourages people to pay a modest fee by using

creative and educating marketing incentives that emphasise the health benefits of waste

collection. Paying customers sometimes get rewarded by planting trees in front of their

houses and prompt payers even receive gifts such as kitchen baskets.

IMPACT

6 Million peoples living conditions have been improved, thousands of jobs were generated

and the general level of education and awareness regarding the reasonable handling of

waste raised remarkably. While in upscale suburbs where the city government collects the

trash, waste collection payment rates are below 40%, the rates in Ciudad Saludable’s mi-

croenterprises districts are over 80% now.

www.ciudadsaludable.org

39 Sources: Schwab Foundation (2010), Ciudad Saludable (2010)


- 42 -

Unit 5G4140 – Strategie Planning for Digital Marketing Communication

- 44 -

TREN

DS

AFFE

CTIN

G/F

AVO

RIN

G G

LOBA

LWAS

TEID

EAS.

OR

G

Iden

tifie

d fo

rces

/cru

cibl

es, w

here

the

stre

sses

and

tens

ions

will

be

grea

test

and

thus

offe

r the

rich

est o

ppor

tuni

ties

for c

ompa

nies

to in

nova

te a

nd c

hang

e.

Impl

icat

ion

/ Im

port

ance

Le

vel

Tren

d Ar

ea

(Driv

ers40

)

Tren

d La

bel

Sh

ort D

escr

iptio

n So

urce

Im

pact

on

GW

I /

GW

Is Im

pact

on

Tren

d Cr

iterio

n Cr

iterio

n

Met

a-Tr

ends

no

t rel

evan

t no

t rel

evan

t no

t rel

evan

t -

not r

elev

ant

The

grea

t reb

alan

cing

Th

e co

min

g de

cade

will

be

the

first

in 2

00 y

ears

whe

n em

ergi

ng-m

arke

t cou

ntrie

s co

ntrib

ute

mor

e gr

owth

than

the

deve

lope

d on

es. T

his

grow

th w

ill n

ot o

nly

crea

te a

w

ave

of n

ew m

iddl

e-cl

ass

cons

umer

s bu

t als

o dr

ive

prof

ound

inno

vatio

ns in

pro

duct

de

sign

, mar

ket i

nfra

stru

ctur

e, a

nd v

alue

cha

ins.

Biss

on e

t al.

2010

W

e ne

ed to

obs

erve

thes

e m

arke

ts a

nd le

arn

with

/fro

m th

em a

nd th

eir (

low

-tech

) inn

ova-

tions

.

***

+

The

prod

uctiv

ity im

pera

tive

Dev

elop

ed-w

orld

eco

nom

ies

will

nee

d to

gen

erat

e pr

onou

nced

gai

ns in

pro

duct

ivity

to

pow

er c

ontin

ued

econ

omic

gro

wth

. The

mos

t dra

mat

ic in

nova

tions

in th

e W

este

rn

wor

ld a

re li

kely

to b

e th

ose

that

acc

eler

ate

econ

omic

pro

duct

ivity

.

Biss

on e

t al.

2010

In

nova

te b

ette

r, co

llabo

rate

clo

ser,

etc.

**

-

The

glob

al g

rid

The

glob

al e

cono

my

is g

row

ing

ever

mor

e co

nnec

ted.

Com

plex

flow

s of

cap

ital,

good

s, in

form

atio

n, a

nd p

eopl

e ar

e cr

eatin

g an

inte

rlink

ed n

etw

ork

that

spa

ns

geog

raph

ies,

soc

ial g

roup

s, a

nd e

cono

mie

s in

way

s th

at p

erm

it la

rge-

scal

e in

tera

c-tio

ns a

t any

mom

ent.

This

exp

andi

ng g

rid is

see

ding

new

bus

ines

s m

odel

s an

d ac

cele

ratin

g th

e pa

ce o

f inn

ovat

ion.

It a

lso

mak

es d

esta

biliz

ing

cycl

es o

f vol

atili

ty

mor

e lik

ely.

Biss

on e

t al.

2010

G

WI i

s pa

rt of

the

grid

/ …

*

--

Pric

ing

the

plan

et

A co

llisi

on is

sha

ping

up

amon

g th

e ris

ing

dem

and

for r

esou

rces

, con

stra

ined

sup

-pl

ies,

and

cha

ngin

g so

cial

atti

tude

s to

war

d en

viro

nmen

tal p

rote

ctio

n. T

he n

ext

deca

de w

ill s

ee a

n in

crea

sed

focu

s on

reso

urce

pro

duct

ivity

, the

em

erge

nce

of

subs

tant

ial c

lean

-tech

indu

strie

s, a

nd re

gula

tory

initi

ativ

es.

Biss

on e

t al.

2010

**

* ++

McK

inse

y Ke

y gl

obal

Tr

ends

The

mar

ket s

tate

Th

e of

ten

cont

radi

ctor

y de

man

ds o

f driv

ing

econ

omic

gro

wth

and

pro

vidi

ng th

e ne

cess

ary

safe

ty n

ets

to m

aint

ain

soci

al s

tabi

lity

have

put

gov

ernm

ents

und

er

extra

ordi

nary

pre

ssur

e. G

loba

lizat

ion

appl

ies

addi

tiona

l hea

t: ho

w w

ill d

istin

ctly

na

tiona

l ent

ities

gov

ern

in a

n in

crea

sing

ly g

loba

lized

wor

ld?

Biss

on e

t al.

2010

Inve

ntio

n of

new

mod

els

of c

oope

ratio

n be

twee

n go

vern

men

t and

bus

ines

s?

* --

Meg

a-Tr

ends

Envi

ron-

men

tal

Tren

ds

Gro

win

g de

man

d Ev

en th

e m

ost c

onse

rvat

ive

proj

ectio

ns fo

r glo

bal e

cono

mic

gro

wth

ove

r the

nex

t de

cade

sug

gest

that

dem

and

for o

il, c

oal,

iron

ore,

and

oth

er n

atur

al re

sour

ces

will

ris

e by

at l

east

a th

ird. A

bout

90

perc

ent o

f tha

t inc

reas

e w

ill c

ome

from

gro

wth

in

emer

ging

mar

kets

.

Biss

on e

t al.

2010

Pr

essu

re o

n co

mm

odity

mar

kets

forc

es

com

pani

es to

inno

vate

with

mat

eria

ls, m

anu-

fact

urin

g pr

oces

ses,

recy

clin

g pr

oces

ses,

etc

.

***

++

40 D

rive

rs c

an b

e »P

EST

LE

« and

usu

ally

bri

ng th

ese

tren

ds fo

rwar

ds.


- 45 -

Cons

trai

ned

supp

ly

As e

asy-

to-ta

p an

d hi

gh-q

ualit

y re

serv

es a

re d

eple

ted,

sup

ply

will

com

e fro

m h

arde

r-to

-acc

ess,

mor

e co

stly

, and

mor

e po

litic

ally

uns

tabl

e en

viro

nmen

ts.

Biss

on e

t al.

2010

N

eed

to re

use

/ re

spon

sibl

e us

e of

raw

ma-

teria

ls.

* --

Incr

ease

d re

gula

tory

an

d so

cial

scr

utin

y Ar

ound

the

wor

ld, p

oliti

cal l

eade

rs, r

egul

ator

s, s

cien

tific

exp

erts

, and

con

sum

ers

are

grav

itatin

g to

a n

ew c

onse

nsus

that

is b

ased

on

fost

erin

g en

viro

nmen

tal s

usta

ina-

bilit

y. C

limat

e ch

ange

may

be

the

mos

t hig

hly

char

ged

and

visi

ble

battl

egro

und,

but

ot

her i

ssue

s lo

om: w

ater

sca

rcity

, pol

lutio

n, fo

od s

afet

y, a

nd th

e de

plet

ion

of g

loba

l fis

hing

sto

cks,

am

ong

othe

r thi

ngs.

For

bus

ines

ses,

this

new

sen

sibi

lity

will

pre

sent

its

elf i

n tw

o w

ays:

str

icte

r env

ironm

enta

l reg

ulat

ions

and

incr

easi

ng d

eman

ds fr

om

cons

umer

s—an

d em

ploy

ees—

that

com

pani

es d

emon

stra

te g

reat

er e

nviro

nmen

tal

resp

onsi

bilit

y.

Biss

on e

t al.

2010

Co

mpa

nies

nee

d to

be

proa

ctiv

e /

gov-

ernm

ents

hav

e to

mon

itor d

evel

opm

ents

/

regu

lato

ry s

chem

es w

ill d

isru

pt e

ntire

val

ue

chai

ns

***

++

Blur

ring

boun

darie

s be

twee

n re

spon

sibi

litie

s an

d la

ws

*

--

Butt

erfly

eff

ect

**

* ++

Dis

cont

inui

ties

in d

emo-

grap

hics

and

reso

urce

s

* --

Gro

win

g sa

fety

, sec

urity

co

ncer

ns; s

ensi

tivity

to ri

sk

**

* ++

Ris

ing

ineq

ualit

y

* --

Shift

ing

valu

es, s

ocia

l no

rms

**

* ++

Soci

o-cu

ltura

l Tr

ends

Soci

o-po

litic

al

Tren

ds

Ubiq

uity

of t

echn

olog

y

* --

Dis

trib

uted

co-

crea

tion

mov

es in

to th

e m

ain-

stre

am

The

pow

er o

f the

soc

ial W

eb is

cha

ngin

g no

t onl

y ho

w c

ompa

nies

con

nect

with

cu

stom

ers,

but

als

o ho

w th

ey a

ctua

lly m

ake

mon

ey. M

cKin

sey

note

s th

at 7

0 pe

rcen

t of

sen

ior e

xecu

tives

repo

rt th

eir c

ompa

nies

regu

larly

“cr

eate

d va

lue

thro

ugh

Web

co

mm

uniti

es.”

One

goo

d ex

ampl

e: In

tuit

puts

its

best

use

rs to

wor

k in

cus

tom

er

supp

ort b

y cr

eatin

g a

war

m a

nd c

osy

plac

e fo

r peo

ple

to s

hare

pro

blem

s an

d so

lu-

tions

— a

nd c

uttin

g su

ppor

t cos

ts b

y 90

per

cent

.

McK

inse

y G

loba

l Ins

titut

e 20

10

**

* ++

Te

chno

logi

-ca

l Tre

nds

McK

inse

y Te

ch T

rend

s 20

10

Mak

ing

the

netw

ork,

the

orga

nisa

tion

Mak

ing

the

netw

ork,

the

orga

niza

tion.

McK

inse

y sa

ys D

ow C

hem

ical

, for

exa

mpl

e,

has

set u

p its

ow

n so

cial

net

wor

k “t

o he

lp m

anag

ers

iden

tify

the

tale

nt th

ey n

eed

to

exec

ute

proj

ects

acr

oss

diffe

rent

bus

ines

s un

its a

nd fu

nctio

ns.”

Dow

has

eve

n ex

tend

ed th

e ne

twor

k to

incl

ude

retir

ed e

mpl

oyee

s.”

Faili

ng to

take

adv

anta

ge o

f yo

ur e

xten

ded

netw

ork

of re

sour

ces,

McK

inse

y w

arns

, lim

its y

our a

bilit

y “t

o ta

ckle

in

crea

sing

ly c

ompl

ex c

halle

nges

.”

McK

inse

y G

loba

l Ins

titut

e 20

10

GW

I cou

ld b

e a

good

sou

rce

to re

crui

t and

co

llabo

rate

…

* --


- 46 -

Wiri

ng fo

r a s

usta

inab

le

wor

ld

“Cle

arly

,” M

cKin

sey

says

, “en

viro

nmen

tal s

tew

ards

hip

and

sust

aina

bilit

y ar

e C-

leve

l ag

enda

topi

cs.”

Pro

fess

iona

ls c

an e

xpec

t to

be in

volv

ed in

dev

elop

ing

new

man

age-

men

t sys

tem

s de

sign

ed to

con

tinuo

usly

trac

k an

d im

prov

e re

sour

ce u

se a

nd th

e im

pact

on

earn

ings

.

McK

inse

y G

loba

l Ins

titut

e 20

10

**

* ++

The

age

of th

e m

ulti-

side

d bu

sine

ss m

odel

M

aste

rCar

d, fo

r ins

tanc

e, h

as b

uilt

a co

nsul

ting

unit

base

d on

the

data

it g

athe

rs

from

its

card

use

rs. A

nd c

ompa

nies

like

Sky

pe a

re fr

ee fo

r man

y in

ord

er to

pro

vide

pa

id, p

rem

ium

ser

vice

s to

a fe

w. F

inan

ce a

nd a

ccou

ntin

g pr

ofes

sion

als

s sh

ould

be

aski

ng: W

ho m

ight

find

our

dat

a va

luab

le?

Wha

t wou

ld h

appe

n if

we

gave

aw

ay o

ur

prod

uct f

or fr

ee?

Wha

t if a

com

petit

or d

id s

o fir

st?

It ha

ppen

ed to

new

spap

ers

whe

n th

e In

tern

et c

ame

alon

g, c

ould

it h

appe

n to

you

?

McK

inse

y G

loba

l Ins

titut

e 20

10

*

--

Inno

vatin

g fr

om th

e bo

ttom

of t

he p

yram

id

Esta

blis

hed

mul

tinat

iona

l com

pani

es a

re fi

ndin

g ne

w c

halle

nges

from

the

smal

lest

en

trepr

eneu

rs in

the

furth

est p

lace

s. C

hina

, for

inst

ance

, hos

ts A

libab

a, a

30-

mill

ion

mem

ber b

usin

ess

exch

ange

to e

xped

ite c

onne

ctio

ns b

etw

een

man

ufac

ture

rs a

nd

cust

omer

s. G

E is

loca

ting

new

rese

arch

cen

ters

in A

sia

and

Afric

a to

find

ups

tarts

ea

rly.

McK

inse

y G

loba

l Ins

titut

e 20

10

**

* ++

Prod

ucin

g pu

blic

goo

d on

th

e gr

id

McK

inse

y st

ates

flat

ly: “

The

role

of g

over

nmen

ts in

sha

ping

glo

bal e

cono

mic

pol

icy

will

exp

and

in c

omin

g ye

ars.

” An

d it

will

be

enab

led

by n

ew te

chno

logi

es. P

rofe

ssio

n-al

s ca

n ex

pect

to s

ee “

nove

l, un

fam

iliar

col

labo

ratio

ns a

mon

g go

vern

men

ts, t

echn

ol-

ogy

prov

ider

s, o

ther

bus

ines

ses,

non

gove

rnm

enta

l org

aniz

atio

ns a

nd c

itize

ns.”

McK

inse

y G

loba

l Ins

titut

e 20

10

*

--

Citiz

en R

&D

Se

lf-ex

plan

ator

y !

no

desc

riptio

n

**

* ++

Net

wor

ked

artis

ans

Self-

expl

anat

ory !

no

desc

riptio

n

*

--

Pers

onal

des

ign

an

d fa

bric

atio

n Se

lf-ex

plan

ator

y !

no

desc

riptio

n

**

* ++

Gra

ssro

ots

econ

omic

s Fr

om p

rodu

cts

to s

torie

s

*

--

Chan

ge o

f M

anuf

actu

r-

ing41

If yo

u ca

n’t o

pen

it, y

ou

don’

t ow

n it

From

clo

sed

IP to

ope

n in

nova

tion

* --

Cons

umer

Tr

ends

-

- -

- -

- -

Fash

ion

Tren

ds

not r

elev

ant

not r

elev

ant

not r

elev

ant

- no

t rel

evan

t

Figu

re 1

3: T

rend

s, d

river

s an

d fo

rces

affe

ctin

g/fa

vour

ing

Glo

balW

aste

Idea

s.or

g

41 D

rive

rs: r

ise

of th

e pr

ofes

sion

al a

mat

eur,

eco

-mot

ivat

ion,

pla

tform

s for

soci

albi

lity,

acc

ess t

o to

ols,

ope

n so

urce

eve

ryth

ing,

que

st fo

r aut

hent

icity