 |
|
||||||||||||||||||
V=(EI)2, Part Two
Topics:
Identity Management
The Function of V=(EI)2 V = all Value of identity from all sources E = the Essence of an identity. This includes an assessment of energy, intelligence, financial strength, and overall capacity to engage, whether physically or virtually represented. Importantly it also incorporates a multiplier reflecting the strength of the joint between an identity and an individual or "real person". The more "identifiable", the more valuable. It also assumes "identity richness" delivered through higher level assertions -- the battle-ground of the standards debate. I = Information, valued according to availability, quality, appropriateness for context, visual impact or presentation, and ease of use. V=(EI)2 In the context of the 'semantic map' of all identity influencing dynamics, the function represents the ability and capacity for the identity to seamlessly use, consume, enhance, negotiate and collaborate, as contexts blur. Thanks to the definitions for E and I, it implies a smooth conversion to value. The Implications of V=(EI)2It also implies that there is an exponential relationship in the combination of identity with information, and that increasing the value of either E or I will have exponential consequences for overall value. Having large silos of one value without the other has almost no value; it is in combination that Value explodes. It implies that owning selected pieces of information will not sustain long term economic or political power: that in order to sustain growth and profitability, organisations (commercial or governmental) will have to aggregate more information, as well as more identity. This important equation explains the land grab for relevant information, for single identity (or aggregation of "good" identity), and for technologies which - together - enable the powerful combination of identity and information. It also partly explains why the attributes and higher level assertions that are at the heart of Liberty, WS and SAML standards approaches have been invested with such meaning, resulting in the ebb and flow of "standards religion" from the variety of vested interests sponsoring each. In these higher level assertions sit the rocket fuel of good combinations of identities with information. Finally, knowing the true identity, and the ability to know the function for E well enough in order to combine the right volume and value for I implies a degree of "control" and "ownership" in the relationship with E. As an unfortunate consequence of this there will be a minority of identities upon which there will be an aggressive focus, and a vast majority that will not have a sufficiently high value to justify the scale of investment required to properly bind to E (and sustain a relationship through shared value and asymmetric marketing). ConclusionConsidering the function V=(EI)2 in any identity projects along with motives of profit or self-interest, puts an interesting perspective on some of the healthy (but often naïve) debate around who owns the identity. The most successful business models will be the ones that create an illusion of symmetry in the identity, but cleverly mask the asymmetry which for some time to come will determine architectures and approaches in identity models. CommentsIdenterati and Separate Identities Dan Blum responds in his blog here: Identerati The question of Islands of Identity may be resolving itself into a single view, but I do ackowledge that the question seems to be whether this will occur over perceivable or Geological Time! Many of today's Identity projects are already collapsing the distinction between Employee, Customer, Partner, and so on into projects described in some variation on the theme of "single user". As they get to grips with the role of identity as a central organising principle--solving problems associated with mobility, de-perimeterisation, network complexity, service orientation, device proliferation and so on--this becomes a natural conclusion. In this way one can see the early signs of Employer and Service provider approaches to Identity coallescing, with obvious impact on the user. Extending the employer/service provider distinction to Government we see interesting and recent devlopments in the UK Identity card scheme. The latest House of Lords Committee debate on the subject made the connection with joined up Government, as well as cross-pollinating Citizen Identity with commercial service opportunities. This connection seems to extend to parcelling out the cost of Citizen Identity to the departments, partly thanks to the blurring of the boundary between the various perspectives on a User. This is an approach already underway in one or two active Government projects elsewhere in Europe. Many of the retailers and online service providers already have aggressive--single view of Identity--projects moving out of pilot stage, recognising that many separate approaches and perspectives on Identity will lack relevance in the 5 to 10 year planning horizon of large scale architectural change. In today's world the distinction between the Government, your employer, your bank, and a small variety of transactional web-based relationships still holds, but meanwhile the foundations of tomorrow's world (admittedly 5 or more years out) are establishing themselves around the principle of combining a single identity with context specific information. - John Madelin
Applying V=EI2 to the mass market John, These ideas certainly eclipse some thinking I did in this area. I'd be interested to see what happens if you combine the athematical approach with the simpler (but less expressive) grid that I proposed a few months ago, so that we can illustrate your thoughts in a way that even I can understand :) Keep up the good work, Toby - Toby Stevens
|
Post A Comment