OpenKollab

Group: http://groups.google.com/group/openkollab/topics

• Visibility of people? [3 Updates]
• A personal version of Structured Visual Thinking [1 Update]
• "if we are so smart, why can't we get anything done?" [6 Updates]
• The Problem Of Early Stage Funding for Social Innovators [1 Update]

Jay Standish <jay.standish@gmail.com> Mar 16 01:37AM -0700 ^


 
Oh, sorry if I wasn't clear.
 
I agree that we should survey the literature and experiences of people who
have been in this inquiry for a while. I haven't read much and would
appreciate any leads, books or people to look into on the subject.
 
I'm not suggesting a new approach using only alternative currencies. In
fact, despite my deep interest and both logical and intuitive attraction to
new currency designs, I am not a freak evangelist. Today's money is backed
by debt and scarcity, which don't exactly sound like key ingredients for
building social capital, so I think there is validity to the argument that
the very design of currencies will always trump the good intentions of the
people using them.
 
At very least, thinking about alternative currencies is a great mental
exercise to better understand the current financial system (just like
learning Latin improves one's English grammar). If we can imagine an ideal
scenario with complimentary currencies, perhaps we can reverse engineer that
ideal into a workable solution in the current financial reality.
 
A currency that solves the prisoner's dilemma would be pretty game-changing,
right?
 
So my suggestion is simply to use the lens of alternative currencies as a
tool to think about the challenge of measuring social capital. Complimentary
currencies theoretically hold the potential of rendering the social ROI
metrics problem irrelevant if they can include the cultural value set of
their issuer baked into the very design of the currency. This way, the
currency could only be used for behaviors that build the unique form of
wealth (or sense of "good") defined by the issuer.
 
I guess my suggestion is for some kind of user-generated metrics system. An
open tagging regime as opposed to a pre-designed and imposed ontology. Or
perhaps some mixture. The key seems to slip the data-gathering process into
the everyday functioning of the system such that it does not drain
time/cost/energy from anyone in the process, and actually provides valuable
insight to everyone involved. Maybe this has already been hashed out in the
literature, so I'll shut up until I read further.
 
Perhaps this is the edge of where mathematical models are relevant. Perhaps
measuring social capital is in the territory of the heart, and we should
turn to the Brazilians and the musicians and the philosophers on this one.
Maybe this is a deeper question about humanity, and not just a pesky problem
for social investors and philanthropists.
 
Jay
 
 
 
 
 

 

ms@ms.lt Mar 16 10:37PM +0200 ^


 
Jay, Phil, Ken, Suresh,
Thank you for your replies at Open Kollab!
 
Jay, yes it would be great to talk by skype (I'm minciusodas) and also
anybody else. I would interview you with some or all of the 12 questions
and then think how to share your answers and build further on them. I'm
in Lithuania (GMT+2)
 
Phil, I like your Project – Result – Use – Benefit model and will try it out.
 
My own inclination is to focus on people who are making an effort to work
together and seek a shared culture, as here, and organize around them.
That's the whole point of http://www.12questions.org
 
Jay, more and more, I agree on the relevance of fun and creativity. I'd
like to see education in terms of games and so in the future I hope to
invent (fun) games that might communicate various ideas (like advantages
of various kinds of norms, principles, behaviors).
 
Andrius
 
Andrius Kulikauskas, Minciu Sodas, http://www.ms.lt, ms@ms.lt
 

 

"Phil Driver" <driver@ihug.co.nz> Mar 17 11:42AM +1300 ^


 
Hi Suresh

I agree with your helpful distinction between "defined open collaboration"
and 'emergent open collaboration".

However, I still argue for the identification of that smallest sub-set of
information that has the highest value to the most people, albeit backed up
by more detailed information. In our OpenStrategy system, it's possible to
click on any Project, Result, Use or Benefit (PRUB) to find more information
about it, so we're not sacrificing detail – we're just presenting the most
valuable information first in the most easily searchable COMMON format that
everyone understands.

Why do we believe that PRUB is the right minimalist data set? Whenever we
ask people if they'd like less information than PRUB, they categorically say
"no". They want to know what is proposed (Projects), what they will produce
(Results), how they will be Used and by whom (Uses) and what Benefits the
Users will get.

When we ask people what additional information has equal value to PRUB, they
repeatedly confirm that PRUB is the most valuable data set to trigger
collaborative discussions.

Sure, there are many other useful concepts out there (visions, missions,
values, goals, objectives, drivers for change, legislative requirements,
technological opportunities etc etc etc….) but all of these ultimately
lead to (or influence) organisations to actual DO something and generate
something of value for communities – which is succinctly encapsulated in
PRUB.

Social networking sites such as Facebook etc all have core data sets which
they have determined are the most valuable initial data-subset for users and
which are displayed first to viewers – who can subsequently link through to
more detailed information.

Having tried "networking people", we're convinced that "networking ideas" is
more effective. By this I mean that provided ideas are presented well
(smallest amount of information which has the highest value to the most
people = PRUB) then people can readily find what they are looking for and
then connect to whoever is driving the Projects.

This contrasts with the mathematical impossibility of effectively networking
large numbers of people. Consider this (which is a real-world situation
we've worked with):

100 collaborating organisations developing a Children and Young Person's
strategy covering more than 100 sub-topics (drugs and alcohol, teenage
pregnancy, swimming, cycling, music….). If they want to network with each
other just 6 times/year on each sub-theme then that's…. about 2 million
conversations…. It ain't gonna happen! (and if it did happen, it would
create an enormous amount of data-noise)

Far better to network or map out a minimalist set of ideas (our PRUB
"SubStrategies") so that stakeholders can rapidly find the SubStrategies of
interest to them and then network JUST with those other stakeholders who
have common interests. In many ways this parallels the way (I understand)
that the open source community works. As I understand it, programmers come
up with ideas for new software, they let others know and then other
programmers identify the initiative as interesting and start to collaborate.
 

So succinctly mapping ideas precedes networking people.

ie in our experience, it's far better to network/map ideas first and then
let people's networking be guided by these mapped ideas, rather than to
start with networking people followed by ideas-emergence.

I look forward to being constructively challenged on this assertion.

I appreciate the opportunity to take part in these discussions as we
continue to learn what does and doesn't work. We're fortunately in that by
actually using our OpenStrategy system and it's underpinning
PRUB-strategic-thinking we are in effect continually conducting real-world
experiments to determine what does and doesn't work with real people.

Phil

 
_____
 
From: openkollab@googlegroups.com [mailto:openkollab@googlegroups.com] On
Behalf Of Suresh Fernando
Sent: Tuesday, March 16, 2010 2:42 PM
To: openkollab@googlegroups.com
Subject: Re: [OK] Re: Visibility of people?
 
 
Phil,
 
Further to our conversation moments ago and to clarify issues for the group,
here are a few thoughts…
 
In determining the specifics of the information model we need to make a
distinction between two forms of open collaboration:
 
 
1. Defined open collaboration
 
2. Emergent open collaboration
 
 
 
As you mentioned, your system is designed to figure out how to get a number
of organizations that have agreed to collaborate, to actually effectively
collaborate. Let's call this, for want of a better term, Defined Open
Collaboration.
 
I agree with you that once it is agreed upon that collaboration between
groups is necessary, then reducing complexity by reducing the information
around which the collaboration is structured makes absolute sense. Your PURB
taxonomy makes good sense.
 
 
 
* What's proposed to be done (Project)
 
* What it will produce (Result)
 
* Who is going to Use it and how (Use)
 
* What will they gain from using it (Benefit) (which is a means of
 
* determining if it is "good")
 
In slight contrast, I am suggesting the information models for a whole
ecosystem
<https://docs.google.com/Doc?docid=0ASJ9wl9qbZEzZGM0Z2Jnc2pfMTQ4MG5zNjNmY2Rw
&hl=en> , I am describing a state of affairs where projects have not
necessarily agreed to collaborate. In fact they might not have even heard of
each other. The goal in this system is to make information visible to a
large number of interested parties. In making this information visible, I am
suggesting that collaboration will emerge. The driver for emergent
collaboration is transparency and visibility. Hence, in this context more
information is not necessarily bad.
 
By way of analogy, we note that Facebook creates visibility into a social
network from which certain relationships emerge. I see what I am suggesting
as similar conceptually. The difference is that the infrastructure contains
information on projects…
 
That said, I understand that requiring more information poses challenges on
organizations inputting data, maintaining data etc. For now I will bracket
those concerns, No doubt we will have to find the right balance.
 
I hope this further clarifies things.
 
 
Suresh
 
 
On Mon, Mar 15, 2010 at 5:15 PM, PhilOSLDriver <driver@ihug.co.nz> wrote:
 
 
Re what information to share about Projects in order to foster
collaboration?
 
We've spent thousands of hours on this question, searching for the
SMALLEST amount of information that has the HIGHEST value to the MOST
people. Our perspective is that we need to start by sharing this
unique smallest set of information backed up by more detailed
information for those who want it.
 
 
 
 

 
 
We're convinced that, although "Mission, Goals, Business Models, State
of Project, Collaborative Relationships, Project Summary…." are all
interesting nice-to-haves, people almost always then ask "OK, so
exactly what is it you are doing and why?"
 
We encapsulate the answer in what we call a SubStrategy (a sub-set of
an OpenStrategy) made up of inter-linked Projects, Results, Uses and
Benefits (PRUB).
 
Organisations run Projects that produce Results that communities/
others Use to create Benefits for themselves.
 
A typical SubStrategy might have 3 or 4 Projects linked to 4-6 Results
linked to 2-3 Uses linked to 3-5 Benefits.
 
In our world, a SubStrategy is the "currency" of collaboration – it's
the most valuable, succinct set of information about a potentially
collaborative project that enables people to see:
 
What's proposed to be done (Project)
What it will produce (Result)
Who is going to Use it and how (Use)
What will they gain from using it (Benefit) (which is a means of
determining if it is "good")
 
More detailed information will generally be desired by individuals
interested in specific Projects, but we're absolutely convinced that
in a multi-stakeholder collaborative environment, a SubStrategy is …
 
"The smallest amount of information, that has the highest value, to
the most people"
 
Dr Phil Driver
Founder and CEO
OpenStrategies Ltd
 
 
 
 
> Thank you for your leadership at Open Kollab.
 
> My initiative "12 Questions"http://www.12questions.orgis taking shape.
 
> Here's a letter I wrote today to Jerry Michalski with my current
thoughts:http://groups.yahoo.com/group/livingbytruth/message/990
 
> > One obvious thing that social venture funders can do to reduce project
> > risk
> > is to increase the visibility of their projects to the rest of the
world;
> > introduction let me introduce the meta-data models that I am developing
> > and
> > working on prototyping in the Open Manufacturing
 
 
<https://spreadsheets.google.com/ccc?key=0AiJ9wl9qbZEzdGRYY2YzRlhHemVM…>an
d
> > Open
 
Government<https://spreadsheets.google.com/ccc?key=0AsCSL3k5hoJTdE55ZFg2R19l
TmRT…>ecosystems.
 
 
> > – *Missions:* The organizational mission statement. My suggestion is
> > that
> > if different organizations have aligned missions, they might be able
to
> > larger mission. Can also be the basis for collaboration.
> > – *Business Models*: Having visibility, as funders, into the various
> > sorts of models that entrepreneurs are developing will provide
valuable
> > – *State of Project:* Burn rate, is it sustainable etc. This will
> > provide
> > insight into the need to drive M&A activity, provide additional
funding
> > – *Collaborative Relationships:* provide a framework for projects to
> > self
> > identify others within their ecosystem that they might be able to
work
> > – *Project Summary*: an executive summary; includes differentiators,
> > marketing strategy etc.
 
> > Again, take a look at the specific tabs in the Open Manufacturing
 
 
<https://spreadsheets.google.com/ccc?key=0AiJ9wl9qbZEzdGRYY2YzRlhHemVM…>an
d
> > Open
 
Government<https://spreadsheets.google.com/ccc?key=0AsCSL3k5hoJTdE55ZFg2R19l
TmRT…>ecosystem
 
 
> > *It is my contention that in opening up information on the projects that
> > we
> > are all working on, we will be able to solicit support for those
projects
> > from others that provide complementary services, are working on similar
> > projects etc. In doing this, we will reduce investment risk and
therefore
> >>> This is a message from the OpenKollab Google Group located at
> >>>http://groups.google.com/group/openkollab?hl=en
> >>> To post to this group, send email to openkollab@googlegroups.com