Blending Education, Consumer + Enterprise Identities / Identity in the Academy (and beyond)

Blending Consumer Education and Enterprise Identities

Tuesday 4H

Convener: Alec, Scott D.

Notes-taker(s): Scott D.

Tags for the session - technology discussed/ideas considered:

Discussion notes, key understandings, outstanding questions, observations, and, if appropriate to this discussion: action items, next steps:

Alec.shuldiner@autodesk.com led the discussion

Universities unique – non-commercial

This can solve problems including identity.

Bringing tobether of education and conumser. What are the points of intersection?

Many problems here are “wide”, but not deep in addressing many highly orthogonal identity challenges. How can the general solutions address the specific.

Need “mass customization” concept of identity and data usage.

Question of bringing together marketing and distribution function with the engineering of products. Engineering company comes to realization that needs to engage more closely with the consumer.

Data strategy and policy – When have big piles of data, but unstructured and unarchitected at present.

When academics and others are talking about solutions, sounds good from the individual level. But from a corporate perspective, recognize that have big challenges among businesses. Not an “academic” question.

Comment: Would like to understand and generalize role of industry and academics and other non-profits.

Interoperability and shared infrastrcutre – but agenda are not shared, so see challenges.

Identification of challenges is non-uniform.

Important to start with consideration of the person as having a multiplicity of personas

Start with the classic customer/vendor relationship of a software vendor for example. Added direct sales to the relationship with the customer, but still don’t know the customer directly (there was an intermediation in the supply chain).

Then create a consumer business (as distinguished from an enterprise business). (education is a third line of business). Each had different terms.

For example, if education, may have had “for free” model.

Consumer market was different. Higher volumes. But B2B markets not grow as quickly as B2C markets. Exponential growth in C2C is a challenge to the model.

So have multiple distribution channels to contend with

Can also have licensed professionals (such as medical), that adds to the complexity of the potential challenges.

Individuals have personas, but not being accommodated in the architecture of the distribution channels. Branding issues.

Like healthcare challenge of patient matching. People have expectations about being matched across healthcare situations, but not being met. The conferences on healthcare not meeting with adoption, because they require “total surveillance” approach.

If had a regulated environment with infinite money. Banks are not able to get this together.

It is a problem of “de-duplication” of data.

Suggest that they chat with VRM folks about the efficacy of putting the individual at the center.

Most entities do account matching and manual processes to remove duplication.

Individual wants a single interface and a single identity in the system. This is a problem.

It is possible to let the customer solve the problem through account reconciliation. Like when a mobile carrier and fixed telco carrier combine, they have multipl eacounts for a single person. Put the onus on the customer to help resolve the challenges.

From university perspective, maybe a solution is to not care about the duplication of identity. Do we care if have multiple identities.

Where is the line between desirable pseudanamity and undesirable multiple identities. Incommon is a way to federated identity.

UW has apps being built with different expectations of data supplied by users. When want to have “hands off” of the data, so not have responsibility for the data.

Two terms – “coercive” and “secret” In general when institutions try to solve the problem, there are “coercive.” In that want to manage it.

When institution gets into situation when there is opacity on the processes, there is a relationship problem with the customer.

It is a supply chain problem. The enterprise customer wants to maintain the relationship. So maintain opacity. When it is more automated, there is more opacity. It is a desire of “simplex” versus “duplex.”

Like same problem that adobe went through when they became a cloud company. Using a “named user” model – like Adobe. Have a “login” name, through a named user. This will change the shape of the problem.

Identity broker concept introduced. Identity broker can be “triple blind.” Identity providers, service providers and infrastructure in between that doesn’t know who you are. If you postulate that, does it solve the problem?

It is a question of persona control. Change inadvertent pseudanamity to intentional pseudanamity.

Another solution is to blend the accounts. How can that be blended using external service. They want context and business logic.

Outsourcing the challenge is possible, but challenge in regulated industries (HIPPA, etc.).

Could create incentives for the channel.

Not an atomized problem. Must consider in the larger context.

May not be about the individual, it is about the use of the information in the channel.

Don’t solve the problem too much, because may get “creepy”