<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
	xmlns:georss="http://www.georss.org/georss" xmlns:geo="http://www.w3.org/2003/01/geo/wgs84_pos#" xmlns:media="http://search.yahoo.com/mrss/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Necessity is the mother of invention</title>
	<atom:link href="http://blog.techiebytes.com/2009/02/04/necessity-is-the-mother-of-invention/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://blog.techiebytes.com/2009/02/04/necessity-is-the-mother-of-invention/</link>
	<description>Technology information in byte sized chunks.</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Fri, 03 Feb 2012 16:21:26 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.com/</generator>
	<item>
		<title>By: Chris Jenkins</title>
		<link>http://blog.techiebytes.com/2009/02/04/necessity-is-the-mother-of-invention/#comment-50</link>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Chris Jenkins]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 06 Feb 2009 14:51:58 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://cj52973.wordpress.com/?p=295#comment-50</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Thanks Misty, well said. You have some great ideas and insight.  Even the small steps go a long way to driving value. I like allowing attendees to begin networking as soon as they register for an event. It seems this would allow people to plan on who to network with, or in my case who to avoid.]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Thanks Misty, well said. You have some great ideas and insight.  Even the small steps go a long way to driving value. I like allowing attendees to begin networking as soon as they register for an event. It seems this would allow people to plan on who to network with, or in my case who to avoid.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Misty Garrick Miller</title>
		<link>http://blog.techiebytes.com/2009/02/04/necessity-is-the-mother-of-invention/#comment-49</link>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Misty Garrick Miller]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 05 Feb 2009 03:09:40 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://cj52973.wordpress.com/?p=295#comment-49</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[I think one of the greatest strengths associations provide is bringing people together face-to-face. According to this month&#039;s Harvard Business Review:

&quot;A recent MIT study found that in one organization the employees with the most extensive personal digital networks were 7% more productive than their colleagues...In the same, organization, however, the employees with the most cohesive face-to-face networks were 30% more productive.&quot;

Obviously, people can self-organize via meet-ups, but there&#039;s a definite advantage to bringing tens to hundreds to thousands of members together on a regular basis. To this end, we&#039;ve tried taking small steps, such as making attendee lists available to education course registrants as soon as they register, and linking these lists to our member directory. I think we can do a much better job of promoting that this information is available, and encouraging members to use this information to build business relationships.

We&#039;ve entertained the idea of building community around conferences -- getting a blog started to inform members about the conference, holding World-Cafe style sessions a few months after the conference to let members share ideas on real-world results they&#039;ve been able to achieve or problems they&#039;ve encountered, and creating a listserv to allow attendees to remain connected. Thus far, we haven&#039;t really done anything on this front, but there are possibilities there.

I guess I would disagree with the previous poster that the Web 2.0 boat has been missed. Even if we&#039;re not an early adopter of a technology does not mean that a later implementation won&#039;t be useful, as long as it serves an otherwise unfulfilled need.]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I think one of the greatest strengths associations provide is bringing people together face-to-face. According to this month&#8217;s Harvard Business Review:</p>
<p>&#8220;A recent MIT study found that in one organization the employees with the most extensive personal digital networks were 7% more productive than their colleagues&#8230;In the same, organization, however, the employees with the most cohesive face-to-face networks were 30% more productive.&#8221;</p>
<p>Obviously, people can self-organize via meet-ups, but there&#8217;s a definite advantage to bringing tens to hundreds to thousands of members together on a regular basis. To this end, we&#8217;ve tried taking small steps, such as making attendee lists available to education course registrants as soon as they register, and linking these lists to our member directory. I think we can do a much better job of promoting that this information is available, and encouraging members to use this information to build business relationships.</p>
<p>We&#8217;ve entertained the idea of building community around conferences &#8212; getting a blog started to inform members about the conference, holding World-Cafe style sessions a few months after the conference to let members share ideas on real-world results they&#8217;ve been able to achieve or problems they&#8217;ve encountered, and creating a listserv to allow attendees to remain connected. Thus far, we haven&#8217;t really done anything on this front, but there are possibilities there.</p>
<p>I guess I would disagree with the previous poster that the Web 2.0 boat has been missed. Even if we&#8217;re not an early adopter of a technology does not mean that a later implementation won&#8217;t be useful, as long as it serves an otherwise unfulfilled need.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Chris Jenkins</title>
		<link>http://blog.techiebytes.com/2009/02/04/necessity-is-the-mother-of-invention/#comment-48</link>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Chris Jenkins]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 04 Feb 2009 22:52:43 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://cj52973.wordpress.com/?p=295#comment-48</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Thanks for the comment. With Web 3.0 definitions being thrown about it’s difficult to jump directly into it at this point. Semantic web, Virtualization, Mobile as a platform as well as several other technologies are all coined Web 3.0.  In reality they are all just extensions of current technology, platform and collective. While many of these could be disruptive they still don&#039;t warrent a verion change. I’d be interested to know your opinion of what Web 3.0 is.  

For the rest of the readers a definition from Wikipedia so we are all on the same page: 

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Web 3.0 is one of the terms used to describe the evolutionary stage of the Web that follows Web 2.0. Given that technical and social possibilities identified in this latter term are yet to be fully realized the nature of defining Web 3.0 is highly speculative. In general it refers to aspects of the Internet which, though potentially possible, are not technically or practically feasible at this time.

Oh, if others hate the title I&#039;m open to suggestions! I&#039;m all about change. :)]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Thanks for the comment. With Web 3.0 definitions being thrown about it’s difficult to jump directly into it at this point. Semantic web, Virtualization, Mobile as a platform as well as several other technologies are all coined Web 3.0.  In reality they are all just extensions of current technology, platform and collective. While many of these could be disruptive they still don&#8217;t warrent a verion change. I’d be interested to know your opinion of what Web 3.0 is.  </p>
<p>For the rest of the readers a definition from Wikipedia so we are all on the same page: </p>
<p>From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia</p>
<p>Web 3.0 is one of the terms used to describe the evolutionary stage of the Web that follows Web 2.0. Given that technical and social possibilities identified in this latter term are yet to be fully realized the nature of defining Web 3.0 is highly speculative. In general it refers to aspects of the Internet which, though potentially possible, are not technically or practically feasible at this time.</p>
<p>Oh, if others hate the title I&#8217;m open to suggestions! I&#8217;m all about change. <img src='http://s0.wp.com/wp-includes/images/smilies/icon_smile.gif' alt=':)' class='wp-smiley' /> </p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Johnathan Doeson</title>
		<link>http://blog.techiebytes.com/2009/02/04/necessity-is-the-mother-of-invention/#comment-47</link>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Johnathan Doeson]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 04 Feb 2009 21:03:35 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://cj52973.wordpress.com/?p=295#comment-47</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[I believe even you have missed the boat. Web 2.0 is done, time to go to Web 3.0 or be left in the dust.

Horrible title too.]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I believe even you have missed the boat. Web 2.0 is done, time to go to Web 3.0 or be left in the dust.</p>
<p>Horrible title too.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>

