You have introduced a major misunderstanding in this article - exactly the opposite of what the midata programme is trying to do.
You say that BIS's idea that "consumers should be able to access, retrieve and store their data securely and that consumers should have the ability to analyse, manipulate, integrate and share their data as they see fit" means that it is "surely advocating a common portal, functioning in the cloud with the capability to manipulate and integrate data so that individuals can access their own and others information, comparing themselves with their peer group and accessing information on trends".
Quite the opposite. BIS is advocating releasing data back to individuals. This is absolutely NOT 'a common portal' - though it may point to the rise of new services such as personal data stores, which help individuals securely store, manage and share their data under their own control.
Also, I think you may be over-egging the "mammoth" data standards challenge. A CSV file is not the cutting edge of data integration. Also, the midata consultation focuses on the release of transaction/usage data which most companies already have in their billing/CRM systems. This does not require a mammoth new data integration project.
In other words, we are doing exactly what you advocate: "a shorter term phased approach that delivers key benefits".
Alan Mitchell
Strategy director, Ctrl-Shift and midata Project Board
The concept of volunteered information is spot on. So is sense and respond. Together the two point to a different 'paradigm' in marketing. But what this article ignores is the cost of customer investment in 'relationships' - especially the cost of investing in many different relationships - and the need for customer ROI on this investment. As long as the company's objective is simply to cross-sell/up-sell there's little incentive for the customer to bother.
Roderick and Dominic both display a natural consumer reaction to this idea: an idea generated by decades of seller-centric marketing where information is used by companies for their own interests - and not in the interests of the person the information is about.
The WHOLE point of Personal Knowledge Banks is that that they enable individuals to gather and use personal information in a way which benefits them, and which is under their control.
If it's just another seller-centric marketing wheeze it won't work.
Yes. Security is a huge issue. But presumably, Roderick and Dominic, you both have bank accounts? Why are not bothered about this, when you are about PKBs?
My answers
Andy ,
You have introduced a major misunderstanding in this article - exactly the opposite of what the midata programme is trying to do.
You say that BIS's idea that "consumers should be able to access, retrieve and store their data securely and that consumers should have the ability to analyse, manipulate, integrate and share their data as they see fit" means that it is "surely advocating a common portal, functioning in the cloud with the capability to manipulate and integrate data so that individuals can access their own and others information, comparing themselves with their peer group and accessing information on trends".
Quite the opposite. BIS is advocating releasing data back to individuals. This is absolutely NOT 'a common portal' - though it may point to the rise of new services such as personal data stores, which help individuals securely store, manage and share their data under their own control.
Also, I think you may be over-egging the "mammoth" data standards challenge. A CSV file is not the cutting edge of data integration. Also, the midata consultation focuses on the release of transaction/usage data which most companies already have in their billing/CRM systems. This does not require a mammoth new data integration project.
In other words, we are doing exactly what you advocate: "a shorter term phased approach that delivers key benefits".
Alan Mitchell
Strategy director, Ctrl-Shift and midata Project Board
The concept of volunteered information is spot on. So is sense and respond. Together the two point to a different 'paradigm' in marketing. But what this article ignores is the cost of customer investment in 'relationships' - especially the cost of investing in many different relationships - and the need for customer ROI on this investment. As long as the company's objective is simply to cross-sell/up-sell there's little incentive for the customer to bother.
Roderick and Dominic both display a natural consumer reaction to this idea: an idea generated by decades of seller-centric marketing where information is used by companies for their own interests - and not in the interests of the person the information is about.
The WHOLE point of Personal Knowledge Banks is that that they enable individuals to gather and use personal information in a way which benefits them, and which is under their control.
If it's just another seller-centric marketing wheeze it won't work.
Yes. Security is a huge issue. But presumably, Roderick and Dominic, you both have bank accounts? Why are not bothered about this, when you are about PKBs?