VRM: Vendor Needs - Definitions

From IIW

VRM: Five participant groups

Tuesday 3F

Convener: Nitin B.

Notes-taker(s): Lionel W.

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:

URL: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1o6EJ19u4zWPCyeF6g5KCpObYrTTD5XdJAE2Mww7hUB4

VRM: Five participant groups




Market makers

Policy makers



Control of Data

Ability to Scale

Assert Terms

Access to Support


Rules of Engagement


Ease of Use

Utility (Usefulness)

Ability to cast intent

Data Control



Real valid gestures (know a customer is real)



Severability (when a customer leaves, rejects the product)

NS: The data they have is worth money

Companies are making money from it

It is only fair that the customers get compensated:

DS: I don’t like the compensation model.

My data is not worth money.

It is beyond that.

If someone gets my data I am going to sue them.

NS: Today companies are chasing shadows, or data exhaust.

At least people should get financial recognition that they are participating.

This plays to people’s sense of fairness.

People are not being treated fairly today: this is a good marketing message.

DS: This feels like socially unacceptable behavior.

“It’s not fair that you are reaching into my pants unexpectedly; compensate me”.

KD: Generational issue here. <25 year olds do not feel violated like that. The people >40 yrs old feel privacy as a loss of rights. The emerging generation only knows this life of ultra-connectedness, where they cannot do business without giving data away. They never knew a world where data could be kept private. These younger people are looking for reciprocal rewards for participating in the data ecosystems.

AG: Two things to add to the list.

Ease of Use


These are critical to customer experience.

NB: Ability to cast intent.

DS: Add data control

MH: it’s not either/or: either we give data or we get something, or we don’t have privacy if we share information. Compare with physical space, and that “markets are conversations”. In a physical market, we hand over money and get a physical object. Think about a “Farmer’s Market” transaction. The experience is visceral and real, with transparency about every aspect of the transaction. online, the 3rd parties are invisible and not apparent.

Add: Transaction Visibility (Transparency)

JL: I prefer transparency. It’s not just about the transaction.

KD: Currency. Selling data for money? But data itself is a kind of currency. We are willing to exchange services for data. The digital citizen has assets accrued from birth that are liquid and exchangeable. The insight capability information itself is a form of value or currency. Data is a kind of currency that is linked to value. A personal health record accessed in an emergency room to speed triage and treatment is value.

NSp: Currency is a tricky metaphor, since currency markets have daily fluctuating values in a currency exchange valuation marketplace.

MH: I decide the value of my own data, I decide if I am getting a good deal in this trade. It is the autonomy that enables this.

D: I might say, in facebook I am happy revealing A, B, C but not D, E. On the other hand other people might decide different things.

NS: The seller, being the data owner, has to be motivated to offer their data. If it facilitates the sale, it has value.

JS: Dave Birch, identity guru, “Identity is the New Money”; rather than individual bits of data, think of the data, as a whole, constituting an identity. Avoid an atomic view.

KD: Let’s say, I am offered a glass of red wine, that might be 10 Euro, but I actually wanted water for 2 Euro. I want a 2 Euro value but am forced to take the 10 Euro object. This often happens--where I am forced to accept a higher value object, since the lower cost item is not available.

NB: The customer needs to participate in the choice making. Choice is highly driven by context.

LW: for example, Transaction visibility: let’s ask, Is there a UX making visible the value exchange and information-in-use. We can ask this question of, for example, ATIMI software

NSp: The answer is “yes.” ATIMI makes visible the use of data.

LW: Look to the use of the framework that we are writing. Investors and tool purchasers are looking to use the information. Inform those readers, define the critical categories, and then show how each line fits.

JC: A tangent: where we are going together, as people, is trying to express our needs, inner and outer directions, and combined. The SRI values and lifestyles program expresses that. What we are trying to do as customers, having customer needs, is expressing these needs. On the ecosystem side of things, we are just trying to get work done, that works for us. In this scheme of things, the work we do around the VRM framework, puts us down ‘in the weeds’ and we lose the visibility into this larger teleological issue.

NB: Is it scalable for the individual, as it is already scalable for the enterprise?

JC: We have a conversation with the world that lifts us up.

JS: Usefulness is a great word; utility is even better.

MH: Usability is helpful; it embraces design as well, and whether the meaning matches the intention.

Utility means whether it matches overall means.

AG: I see usability as cross-site, portability, and the cadence of usefulness. If I use it once a year, that is not as useful as something that I need three times a day. Let’s push VRM from once-a-month to once-a-day.

NS: We need to make the list shorter. Some items are blindingly obvious--what is not needed to be useful, easy to use? Why state things that are universal?

NB: We do need to itemize the specifics, even for obvious things.

C: Centricity is important. Patient-centered, customer-centered; who is in the center?

NB: The customer is in the center of the visual.

D: The list feels like, “how to explain to the enterprise how they should be thinking about this in terms of their customers.” It should be, “what an individual wants.”

AG: I want to get rid of the wallet. To repalce it with my other digital gadgets. To the extent that VRM is the payment. In the case of healthcare, it is only the insurance company that has visibility to your payments across doctors, hospital, pharmacy, etc. In the same way, my wallet is the only thing that knows when I opened it to pay people.

DS: The wallet represents a portfolio of capacities for operating in the world.

AG: It might take 5 years to get rid of my wallet and use, instead, my phone or an implant. Apple pay is a big step in that direction. Today, when I go jogging, I do not have to carry my wallet. Apple pay increases my privacy by introducing paywise pseudonymity into the transaction. It’s a big step up without a step down. This is why UM is so important. It allows policy-based decisions. Another example, my password file is replaced by an UMA authorization server.

JS: Dan Miller calls this strong passive authentication. Passive, meaning “I don’t have to think about it.”

DS: You need your keys, wallet, phone

KD: and lipstick

LW: This is a small set of necessary tokens: key, wallet, phone, lipstick… Customers want this set to be reduced or made smaller.

KD: The smartphone is part of this ‘token reduction’ journey. It is the revolution of ubiquitous screens.

AG: Add to this list, FIDO token. (Fast ID online). It is useless. It it can authenticate me, I have physical control over it. This could be implanted in my skin and would not reduce my privacy, and could replace some tokens. If you accept the FIDO spec, I can implant.


DS: Scale. I want to be able to change my address once, and have every silo and enterprise pick up that address change. I want to save my time on issues like that. That is what scale means. Customers want scale across all their vendors, e.g. auto body shops.

NB: Customers want scale with all these four other parties: the Policy maker, market maker, vendor and developer.

SB: Advertisers talk about one to one, but they don’t really want one to one

NB: They are scared of that, there is liability behind it

SB: Exactly. They mean, by one-to-one, that they want demographics and ‘buckets’ of like minded and like-acting people.

CB: Choice.

NB: Choice in the interactions that you have with the four other parties: the Policy maker, market maker, vendor and developer.

DS: Substitutability

KD: Opt out from organization

MH: Autonomy

KD: Identity

DSan: Intrinsic motivation: autonomy, mastery and purpose by Daniel Pink.

NS: Sounds like Maslow.

DD: I want the other parties to work on my own terms

XX: I want economy. Save me money.

MH: Cost effective. Accessibility. (⅓ of the population has disabilities.)

XX: The conundrum that I keep coming back to is that, customers want to be educated but they don’t even know that they want to be educated.

XX: They don’t want to be educated. Whenever you are selling something, you show people that others are buying that exact thing.

NSp: Our generation does not want to be sold, we want to feel that it was our own idea.

NS: My generation also was like that.

XX: We all have insurance.

D: What about we buyers pulling our buying power together?

NB: That goes back to scale, joining together is a kind of scale.