Do you know the economic term “Ceteris paribus“? It’s a term being used to get hold on complexity. As an educated economist I’ve been told over and over again, that a necessary way to look upon the world, understanding the world, is by trying to reduce the number of variables in the equation.
But how can we react as reductionists and believe that everything can and should be measured?
There has been a lot of discussion lately about “Social Media” aka “Social Software” aka “Web2.0″ aka “E2.0″ aka “Enterprise2.0″ and how to measure ROI. It seems that every thing needs to be measured, still, but do we look on the right metrics?
What are the metrics by the way when looking on the deployment of new companies, new technologies and new mindsets? The same that was defined in the industrial age?
As part of our work at Wemind on how to build Social Capital as a catalyst for business innovation, improved bottom line and business survival I’m very much interested in your perspectives and maybe ideas on what the future metrics should look like. Please take a look on our take on Social Capital so far - registration is needed.
Recently GK VanPatter was asked about how to define Design Thinking which I and other has been written about here a few times before - but a lot has happened in the field since then. Design Thinking is one of these topics which is difficult to handle, put into boxes, define in a discrete way. As GK say’s - the definition of design is in motion. He claim the following “revolution”:
Design is moving from:
1. Tactical to Strategic
2. Defined Briefs to Fuzzy Situations
3. Aesthetic-Centered to Human-Centered
4. Trends Tracking to Complexity Navigation
5. Strange-Making to Sense-Making & Strange-Making
6. Vertical Content Expertise to Adaptable Process Expertise
7. Intertribal Communication to Cross-Disciplinary Communication
8. Creating Ideas & Products to Co-Creating Strategies & Organizations
9. Thinking & Doing to Thinking, Doing & Enabling
10. Deliberate Exclusion to Deliberate Inclusion
11. Object Creating to Culture Building
12. Design as Subservience to Design as Leadership
I agree, a paradigm-shift is on its way - do you?
I’m struggling…, struggling with the term “architecture of participation”. What lies beneath and how can I put it into play in the organizations that I work with as part of my daily work? I’m getting more and more certain about that Web2.0 is more about people than it’s about a technical implementation.
Few days ago I got familiar with Mike Gotta’s approach on participation, which I find very useful as part of an explanation and a part wise implementation model. Mike divide’s participation into actions and contributions that are “directed” versus those that are “volunteered”. For purposes of his overview, the illustration below categorizes “work” into four basic participation models and shows a conceptual relationship between the two types of participation:
- Process: A process is a structured collection of tasks that are often sequences in a particular way with workers interacting based on their respective roles and duties within that collection of tasks.
- Activities: An activity is a collection of semi-structured tasks that are not rigidly sequenced but are often co-dependent and completed within a certain time period.
- Communities: A community is a relationship-based group structure (as opposed to a task-based structure) that forms around a shared interest area (e.g., anyone who is interested in improving customer service) or a shared practice (e.g., all nurses who want to improve patient care).
- Networks: A network is a social structure comprised of people that have some inter-connecting bond based on a variety of factors (e.g., personal friendship, similar values, shared relationships, common educational or work experience). Social networks are rarely driven by tasks or activities per se. However, people reach out to their network contacts frequently in response to a process, activity or community event.
I also came across Michael Idinopulos, who also posted about AoP. Here he decribes the concept of “In-the-Flow and Above-the-Flow”. He explains the concept by the case of a wiki.
Wikis can be used for many different activities, which fall into two broad categories:
- In-the-Flow wikis enable people do their day-to-day work in the wiki itself. These wikis are typically replacing email, virtual team rooms, and project management systems.
- Above-the-Flow wikis invite users to step out of the daily flow of work and reflect, codify, and share something about what they do. These wikis are typically replacing knowledge management systems (or creating knowledge management systems for the first time).
So, how do you work with Architecture of Participation - how do you make sure that the organization in fact will be adaptive enough, not only to understand technology, but in fact adaptive enough to understand the radical shift in mindset and thereby changing workprocess and entire companies?
Are you aware of any other source on the subject, please let me know.
Alex Osterwalder from Arvetica has been commenting here at CPH127 before - his work over at Arvetica is highly relevant, not only for Private Banking Professionals, but business in general.
He just published a podcast with John Hagel about how strategy is formulated by most companies, and more interesting, how it should be done when coping with uncertainty and complexity.
Personally I believe that most companies are organized to handle different problems, and thereby also strategy, as is the reality of today. We are shifting away from handling complicated matters to coping with complex problems, and that with a rapidly shift and increase in speed and uncertainty.
I also believe that a shift in mindset is heavily needed. A shift towards a more adaptable mindset, a mindset where each and every individual in the organization sees control as a nice thing, but not needed always, where competencies like intuition and improvisation is highly valued, and where diversity is embraced.
But then again - maybe I’m wrong? What do you think?
I recently bought Gary Hamel’s New Book - The Future of Management. VERY interesting and if I may say “spot on” when it comes to a description of what is necessary for companies to understand. Companies should organize them selfs as social systems, not as mashines.
When reading through the book I experience page by page that I’ve got my self a new friend. I knew that already when reading Gary Hamel’s comment on my post about “beta mindset“.
His book is interesting because it links Enterprise2.0 to Enterprise survival.
“Look around you; what things have demonstrated their adaptability across decades, centuries and eons? What sets the benchmark for adaptability? From my vantage point, life, markets, democracies, faith and cities all seem surprisingly adaptable. Each of these biological and human systems has proven itself to be far more resilient than any large corporation. They must become the role models for 21st century companies.”
and
“Many companies devote 5, 10 or even 20 percent of their revenue to R&D. Why not set aside a small share of discretionary funding for ideas that don’t pop up at the right time, or in the right place, to make it into the formal budgeting process? My guess is that a community of hundreds of mid-level managers spread out across a large company would, in the aggregate, make better investment decisions than a few folks in a corporate new ventures unit.”
I do of course agree, but many managers doesen’t understand the dynamics that web2.0 unfold internally in organisations…..I’ll come to that in another post 
Do you have any takes on how the organization of a company would look like in the future? Which leadership competencies are in play? And what role does design play in the development?
A few months ago I almost stumbled over an article when reading a comment on the Google Transforming Group. Kamille invited me back in September/October and I’ve been on and off in the discussion since then. I an highly recommend the group if you’re interested in the definition of the “new” field of design & innovation.
In October I came across this interesting article by Robert K. Logan and Greg Van Alstyne - Design Ecology: Designing for Emergence and Innovation II
What I find especially interesting is how they:
- define the role of the designer, which not necessary is a designer…
- see innovation and-what-ever-processes as adaptive complex systems - I definitely agree!
- combine theoretical areas like Biology, Technology, Sociology and Ecology into a new decipline…
I don’t know about you, but as I see it they are up to something VERY interesting and important to understand, if coping with the challenges of tomorrow. But maybe I look in the wrong direction?
We’ve been writing a lot about the impact of thinking the design methodology into business process. Now Businessweek has an article, which at it’s best could be called a recap on the importance of diversity in innovation.
The point is of course still valid - important. And of course it’s interesting to look ont how different knowledge domains get’s in play, but the hole discussion lack’s a discussion about the management/leadership implications.
Perspectives?
Richard Dennison has a great post on the BT-case, and how they used Social Software internally.
To quote:
“The power of social software is undeniable in the free, anarchic world of the global internet. But what happens when you bring these tools into the constrained, policy-driven, risk-averse world of the corporate intranet where the user population is small, where expressing oneself as an individual and on a personal level can feel threatening, and where management is watching your every move? Well, that’s just what one of the world’s leading providers of communications solutions, BT, has chosen to do. Richard Dennison, BT’s Internal Programme Manager, tells the story.”
Which organizational dynamics do you think is released by this interesting initiative?
JP Rangaswami has some thoughts on the individuals capacity creating and maintaining relationships. He has a rant on the new Dubar numer in the digital world where social networks setup new premisses for interactions and relationships.
Quite interesting stuff.
I agree with JP, but I also think that the number in the different circles of intimacy will differ a lot. Some relations expects a real-life-meeting, other don’t.
What is the new Dunbar number for you?
