Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Re: [cp] Re: Revolutionary vs Non-revolutionary

Expand Messages
  • Joe Firestone
    Fred and Chris, I agree with Fred s analysis of CoPs and also voted for the non-revolutionary alternative. On your general proposition that networking is a
    Message 1 of 8 , Dec 7, 2003
    • 0 Attachment
      Fred and Chris,

      I agree with Fred's analysis of CoPs and also voted for the non-revolutionary alternative. On your general proposition that networking is a revolutionary change, I agree to a greater extent, but I thnk what happens will depend on the adoption of norms, policies, and programs in the enterprise that leverage the CAS tendencies in organizations and provide for what Mark and I call "The Open Enterprise". On this topic see Excerpt # 1 From The Open Enterprise: Busilding Business Architectures for OPenness and Sustainable Innovation". We believe that Communities of Inquiry are one element of the OE, but the revolution would b the OE itself and not any single element of it.

      Best,


      Joe

      Joseph M. Firestone, Ph.D.
      Co-CEO, Executive VP, Education, Research and Membership
      KMCI
      www.kmci.org
      CKO
      Executive Information Systems, Inc.
      www.dkms.com
      703-461-8823

      Fred Nickols wrote:
      Chris Macrae posts this in the fallout thread and I've changed the subject 
      line to the one above:
      
      <snip> At the end of the day  does a person believe that all stuff net (or
        
      community or knowledge) is about a revolutionary change of business not
      as usual, or at most steady state change?
      
      That question may sound uncomfortable. On the other hand at least in
      Europe, we have had policymakers with the EU 2010 vision describing
      network economies and societies as involving exactly a 'business not as
      usual' scale of change; and of course for those including myself as a
      system's mathematician who has forecast since 1984 with the help of
      editorial writers at The Economist
      http://www.normanmacrae.com/netfuture.html  that networking technology
      is as big a global change as the invention of the steam engine, to have
      people talk change but not to walk it is something I will out to my last
      breath. Actually as a mathematician 1984 was quite late to raise this
      query as anyone attending one of last month's centenary celebrations of
      Johnny von Neumann may know.
          
      If I understand you correctly, you are saying that "networking technology" 
      constitutes a revolutionary change in business and that, further, CoPs are 
      an instance of this "networking technology" and therefore they, too, 
      constitute a revolutionary change.  If I don't have that correct, please 
      clarify.  For now I'll assume I have it right.
      
      
        
      Anyways, this is also why I added the poll (if I'm the only extremist
      here then obviously I should deregister rather than pollute your flows):
      
      How revolutionary a situational
      challenge do you see CoPs being to
      traditional organisational hierarchies?
      
        o revolutionary
        o not revolutionary
          
      I responded to the poll as "not revolutionary" because, even if CoPs were 
      revolutionary in nature, that would soon be tempered.  Why?  Because the 
      current play that CoPs are receiving is in the context of attempting to 
      exploit them to the sponsoring/exploiting organization's benefit.  So, if 
      it turns out that CoPs pose a threat to traditional organizational 
      hierarchies, the CoPs will soon be tamed and legitimized.  In other words, 
      it will be "co-opted."  There is a really good paper about this sort of 
      thing titled "The Absorption of Protest" by Ruth Leeds.  It appears in The 
      Planning of Change, 2nd Edition, edited by Warren Bennis, Kenneth Benne and 
      Robert Chin.  It deals with what Leeds terms "a nonconformist 
      enclave.  Further, CoPs existed in hierarchical systems and functioned long 
      before the cultural anthropologists christened them as such and they posed 
      no revolutionary threat then.  Why now?  So, I don't believe CoPs pose a 
      revolutionary threat to organizational hierarchies and, even if they did, 
      the hierarchy would soon neutralize any such threat.  For what it's worth, 
      I'm not convinced that "networking technology" poses a revolutionary 
      threat, either, at least not to "the hierarchy."  A case in point is the 
      Internet.  Right now it's free and still more or less wide open.  That 
      could change in a flash and any revolutionary threat it might pose would be 
      negated or at least made manageable.
      
      My best guess scenario regarding CoPs is that natural CoPs will continue to 
      form and operate just as they always have and that management will 
      continue, for a while, at least, its efforts to exploit what is known about 
      CoPs in their efforts to establish and exploit contrived CoPs.  After a 
      while, management will get bored and move on to the next big thing, leaving 
      behind the usual residue.  That, by the way, strikes me as a classic 
      instance of "business as usual."
      
      
      Regards,
      
      Fred Nickols, CPT
      "Assistance at A Distance"
      Distance Consulting
      nickols@...
      www.nickols.us
      
      
      ::: http://www.egroups.com/group/com-prac
      ::: Email com-prac-unsubscribe@egroups.com to unsubscribe
      
       
      
      Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/ 
      
      
      
        

    • Artur Ferreira da Silva
      ... I completelly agree with you (and others) on that. I also find interesting to see that so many people that were once very involved in the learning
      Message 2 of 8 , Dec 8, 2003
      • 0 Attachment
        Fred Nickols wrote:

        >So, I don't believe CoPs pose a
        >revolutionary threat to organizational hierarchies and, even if they did,
        >the hierarchy would soon neutralize any such threat.

        I completelly agree with you (and others) on that.

        I also find interesting to see that so many people that were once very
        involved in the learning organizations' fad, were latter involved in KM and
        now also in CoPs. CoPs will not fundamentally change organizations and much
        less they will change the world. After all, they have been there for ever,
        and I am sure that they can not be "implemented", and I am not sure if they
        can be "cultivated". But surelly they can be "nurtured".

        >For what it's worth,
        >I'm not convinced that "networking technology" poses a revolutionary
        >threat, either, at least not to "the hierarchy."

        I am not so sure about that. I think the Internet is a revolution in itself
        (like electricity, that btw is "private"and not free). I think that IN SOME
        50 YEARS, or so, it will change everything and probably also hierarchies.
        But it will not be in my life time for sure.

        As a revolutiony myself, I am sad to say that, but that's what I believe :-(

        And we can always try to concentrate in micro-revolutions.

        Artur
      • chris macrae
        Reflecting on what eg Fred & Artur wrote, I believe the networking is a revolution thread may not have been contextually introduced properly by myself. So here
        Message 3 of 8 , Dec 8, 2003
        • 0 Attachment
          Reflecting on what eg Fred & Artur wrote, I believe the networking is a
          revolution thread may not have been contextually introduced properly by
          myself. So here are 4 principles I have come to hold dear over the last
          20 years. Footnoted is an indication of whom inspired me and the sound
          barrier problem of networking.

          1) Connecting Degrees of 3dom

          If you have a question that everyone recognises as urgent enough then
          any online person is only 3 friends of friends away from the greatest
          expert who may be able to answer it

          2) Knowledge never again needs to be lost, and virtually no cost to keep
          accessible.

          Take an example of Johnny von Neumann; in my book the greatest
          collaborative mathematician. During most of his life, there wasn't even
          a photocopier. His main mode of dissemination was forced to be
          academically refereed printed papers. Today, he want put the whole
          lifetime sequence of his discoveries up online. And there was much more
          between the papers than in them as my father as his biographer just
          scratched the surface of finding

          3) Knowledge the great ecological hope for 10 times more prosperity in
          less than 1 generation

          Knowledge should be valued differently than physical product; it doesn't
          need to get consumed up, and it can multiply value in transfer.

          4) Personal confusion: What do you do when First Know 1000 people
          Two years after being online I found I 'knew' a lot more people
          virtually than for real. Of course the depth of 'know' isn't the same,
          and yet the diversity of possible learning is far greater. Nor have I
          ever been disappointed about going out of my way to meet a virtual
          learning peer. This contrasts with the two times in the last 15 years
          that I worked in big global organisations full time. Hierarchy stopped
          me from 'knowing' more than about 40 people in the 2 years I was at
          each.

          Footnote:
          20 years ago when my father at The Economist and I first wrote a global
          futures book on how inter-networking as both a transport and
          communications revolution would ultimately change the world far more
          than the invention of the steam engine- he interviewed his journalistic
          network which was just about any guru of the time but included eg
          futurists like Toffler, OD people like Drucker, entrepreneurs and
          intrepreneurs, heads of state from the fastest developing countries and
          so forth, and I interviewed what were then called computer assisted
          learning people, and systems mathematicians. We're in now doubt then as
          in our book The 2024 Report - the next 40 years - nor now that
          inter-networking is mankind's greatest revolution yet. Where we are in
          doubt is whether the system change will have a bad end like Orwell's
          1984 or a liberating one in which we all make the human most of each
          other. Standing in the way are all the old powers that profit from
          keeping people separated and indeed dumb. (One of my professions is
          marketing - there is one school I hate within this who see marketing as
          profiting from what people don't know - the consumer without access to
          info being the most profitable - expose that with us at
          www.beyond-branding.com . Of course other who have to change their
          transparency include the biggest organisations know to man whether
          governmental or global corporate; and the change begins with open
          sourcing a second sort of maths accounting for conflict so that leaders
          can walk deep purpose as well as talk it - see eg www.valuetrue.com -
          hint the difficulty isn't the maths that's already open sourced , its
          interfacing it worth all the new context rich methods of organisational
          facilitation of which I don't believe you can imagine the communal
          impact if you have never tried Open Space as a gateway example of how to
          maximise the value of 200 people's time when they congregate for real.)


          EU thread on KM and internetworking is not business as usual at
          http://www.knowledgeboard.com/cgi-bin/item.cgi?id=120512&d=1&h=417&f=56&
          dateformat=%o%20%B%20%Y

          CP survey on rev or not rev:
          http://groups.yahoo.com/group/com-prac/surveys?id=1160405

          chris macrae, wcbn007@...

          -----Original Message-----
          From: Artur Ferreira da Silva [mailto:artsilva@...]
          Sent: 08 December 2003 12:46
          To: com-prac@yahoogroups.com
          Subject: [cp] Re: Revolutionary vs Non-revolutionary


          Fred Nickols wrote:

          >So, I don't believe CoPs pose a
          >revolutionary threat to organizational hierarchies and, even if they
          did,
          >the hierarchy would soon neutralize any such threat.

          I completelly agree with you (and others) on that.

          I also find interesting to see that so many people that were once very
          involved in the learning organizations' fad, were latter involved in KM
          and
          now also in CoPs. CoPs will not fundamentally change organizations and
          much
          less they will change the world. After all, they have been there for
          ever,
          and I am sure that they can not be "implemented", and I am not sure if
          they
          can be "cultivated". But surelly they can be "nurtured".

          >For what it's worth,
          >I'm not convinced that "networking technology" poses a revolutionary
          >threat, either, at least not to "the hierarchy."

          I am not so sure about that. I think the Internet is a revolution in
          itself
          (like electricity, that btw is "private"and not free). I think that IN
          SOME
          50 YEARS, or so, it will change everything and probably also
          hierarchies.
          But it will not be in my life time for sure.

          As a revolutiony myself, I am sad to say that, but that's what I believe
          :-(

          And we can always try to concentrate in micro-revolutions.

          Artur


          ::: http://www.egroups.com/group/com-prac
          ::: Email com-prac-unsubscribe@egroups.com to unsubscribe



          Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to
          http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
        • arturfsilva
          Some marginal comments to Chris post ... then ... greatest ... Where have you discovered this number 3? The number I recall was 5 or 6 (pre Internet times)
          Message 4 of 8 , Dec 8, 2003
          • 0 Attachment
            Some marginal comments to Chris' post

            --- In com-prac@yahoogroups.com, "chris macrae" <wcbn007@e...> wrote:
            > 1) Connecting Degrees of 3dom
            >
            > If you have a question that everyone recognises as urgent enough
            then
            > any online person is only 3 friends of friends away from the
            greatest
            > expert who may be able to answer it

            Where have you discovered this number 3? The number I recall was 5
            or 6 (pre Internet times) and I don't think this has been changed by
            the Internet. Of course the time to communicate changed.
            >> hint the difficulty isn't the maths that's already open sourced ,
            its
            > interfacing it worth all the new context rich methods of
            organisational
            > facilitation of which I don't believe you can imagine the communal
            > impact if you have never tried Open Space as a gateway example of
            how to
            > maximise the value of 200 people's time when they congregate for
            real.)

            I fully agree with that. And, in fact, my main hope for a collective
            metanoia or revolution is OST - much more thnt CoP's.

            And OST also worked with 2108, not only 200 ;-) (see the OSLIST
            Archive for 19/July/2003). And it can be related with online
            communications as in the OSonline (see Gabriela's post of today in
            the OSTLIST).

            Regards

            Artur
          • chris macrae
            Dear Artur, friends I hope you will not be offended, but I think we almost agree ( I know that some people feel that s the most offensive thing I could
            Message 5 of 8 , Dec 8, 2003
            • 0 Attachment
              Dear Artur, friends

              I hope you will not be offended, but I think we almost agree ( I know
              that some people feel that's the most offensive thing I could possibly
              say to them!)

              My great hope is that anyone who talks community or network or
              humanitarian causes will discover Open Space technology quickly because
              the two are real and virtual twins of each other if you are `passionate
              about making the human most of real and virtual relationships. I am
              aware that OST is part of a whole family of possible dialogue methods,
              but the mathematician in me admires the simplest first , and
              self-organising so that 200 people make the most of each other (in the 2
              days they meet and ever after if the situational challenge they came to
              meet each other has been excitingly propagated) can never be simpler
              than OST by definition of its minimum rule set. Moreover its practice
              community is the most open I've ever met due to Harrison Owen's love of
              communalising organisational transformation, his life's work -
              www.practiceofpeace.com and www.openspaceworld.com and the openness of
              all the alumni that congregate around him in what is now over 300000
              Open Space gatherings over the last 20 years

              Three degrees of online separation is my personal estimate from
              experience. 5 is what has been researched as a typical number if you are
              not a member of any powerful virtual communities. Funny thing is that
              the content of any virtual community isn't as yet the great multiplier;
              having 1000 people looking out for the person you need to ask a
              desperate human question to is what the hidden value of hi-trust virtual
              communities revolves around

              Chris Macrae wcbn007@..., www.valuetrue.com
              EU: why KM must be business not as usual -
              http://www.knowledgeboard.com/cgi-bin/item.cgi?id=120512&d=1&h=417&f=56&
              dateformat=%o%20%B%20%Y

              -----Original Message-----
              From: arturfsilva [mailto:artsilva@...]
              Sent: 08 December 2003 15:07
              To: com-prac@yahoogroups.com
              Subject: [cp] Re: Revolutionary vs Non-revolutionary

              Some marginal comments to Chris' post

              --- In com-prac@yahoogroups.com, "chris macrae" <wcbn007@e...> wrote:
              > 1) Connecting Degrees of 3dom
              >
              > If you have a question that everyone recognises as urgent enough
              then
              > any online person is only 3 friends of friends away from the
              greatest
              > expert who may be able to answer it

              Where have you discovered this number 3? The number I recall was 5
              or 6 (pre Internet times) and I don't think this has been changed by
              the Internet. Of course the time to communicate changed.
              >> hint the difficulty isn't the maths that's already open sourced ,
              its
              > interfacing it worth all the new context rich methods of
              organisational
              > facilitation of which I don't believe you can imagine the communal
              > impact if you have never tried Open Space as a gateway example of
              how to
              > maximise the value of 200 people's time when they congregate for
              real.)

              I fully agree with that. And, in fact, my main hope for a collective
              metanoia or revolution is OST - much more thnt CoP's.

              And OST also worked with 2108, not only 200 ;-) (see the OSLIST
              Archive for 19/July/2003). And it can be related with online
              communications as in the OSonline (see Gabriela's post of today in
              the OSTLIST).

              Regards

              Artur


              ::: http://www.egroups.com/group/com-prac
              ::: Email com-prac-unsubscribe@egroups.com to unsubscribe



              Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to
              http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
            • arturfsilva
              Hi Chris ... I think we agree in the power of netwoks and about OST. Not on the time to see results, nor in the role of CoP s. ... I fully agree with that ;-)
              Message 6 of 8 , Dec 8, 2003
              • 0 Attachment
                Hi Chris

                --- In com-prac@yahoogroups.com, "chris macrae" <wcbn007@e...> wrote:

                > I hope you will not be offended, but I think we almost agree

                I think we agree in the power of netwoks and about OST. Not on the
                time to see results, nor in the role of CoP's.


                > My great hope is that anyone who talks community or network or
                > humanitarian causes will discover Open Space technology

                I fully agree with that ;-)

                The OSLIST is indeed the only internatinal list from where I receive
                the mails "one by one", and not in Digest form, even if I haven't
                been very active in the list in these last 3 months.

                > but the mathematician in me admires the simplest first , and
                > self-organising

                (...)

                > Moreover its practice
                > community is the most open I've ever met due to Harrison Owen's
                > love of communalising organisational transformation

                I have known the OSLIST and subscribed in 1998, through an already
                dead virtual friend. And what impressed me most was the self-
                organizing phylosophy and the power of the OScommunity and the way
                all of them, but specially Harrison, welcomed the newcomers and
                always tried to help anyone that asked a question. Then in 2000 I
                have been at OSonOS in Berlin, and since then I am a pround member
                of the community - sometimes more active, someothers less.

                But I have some unortodox views - that all of them kow about. I am
                not sure if the so called "OST principles" are really needed or if
                they are "one less thing to do" and that the "foundations" of OST
                are in the law of two feet and in some other conditions that are not
                so much refered as the "principels".

                If you are interested, I can send you one or two posts to the OSLIST
                where I explained that - before you were a member of the OSLIST ;-)

                Best Regards

                Artur
              • Joe Firestone
                Chris, Thanks for the context. I think it indeed helps in understanding the view that internetworking is a revolution. I too share your concern about the
                Message 7 of 8 , Dec 8, 2003
                • 0 Attachment
                  Chris,

                  Thanks for the context. I think it indeed helps in understanding the view that internetworking is a revolution. I too share your concern about the outcome and hope that its OPen Society implications qucikly outstrip its potential uses as a mechanism of control.

                  Best,

                  Joe

                  Joseph M. Firestone, Ph.D.
                  Co-CEO, Executive VP, Education, Research and Membership
                  KMCI
                  www.kmci.org

                  CKO
                  Executive Information Systems, Inc.
                  www.dkms.com
                  703-461-8823

                  chris macrae wrote:
                  Reflecting on what eg Fred & Artur wrote, I believe the networking is a
                  revolution thread may not have been contextually introduced properly by
                  myself. So here are 4 principles I have come to hold dear over the last
                  20 years. Footnoted is an indication of whom inspired me and the sound
                  barrier problem of networking.
                  
                  1) Connecting Degrees of 3dom
                  
                  If you have a question that everyone recognises as urgent enough then
                  any online person is only 3 friends of friends away from the greatest
                  expert who may be able to answer it
                  
                  2) Knowledge never again needs to be lost, and virtually no cost to keep
                  accessible.
                  
                  Take an example of Johnny von Neumann; in my book the greatest
                  collaborative mathematician. During most of his life, there wasn't even
                  a photocopier. His main mode of dissemination was forced to be
                  academically refereed printed papers. Today, he want put the whole
                  lifetime sequence of his discoveries up online. And there was much more
                  between the papers than in them as my father as his biographer just
                  scratched the surface of finding
                  
                  3) Knowledge the great ecological hope for 10 times more prosperity in
                  less than 1 generation
                  
                  Knowledge should be valued differently than physical product; it doesn't
                  need to get consumed up, and it can multiply value in transfer.
                  
                  4) Personal confusion: What do you do when First Know 1000 people
                  Two years after being online I found I 'knew' a lot more people
                  virtually than for real. Of course the depth of 'know' isn't the same,
                  and yet the diversity of possible learning is far greater. Nor have I
                  ever been disappointed about going out of my way to meet a virtual
                  learning peer. This contrasts with the two times in the last 15 years
                  that I worked in big global organisations full time. Hierarchy stopped
                  me from 'knowing' more than about 40 people in the 2 years I was at
                  each.
                  
                  Footnote:
                  20 years ago when my father at The Economist and I first wrote a global
                  futures book on how inter-networking as both a transport and
                  communications revolution would ultimately change the world far more
                  than the invention of the steam engine- he interviewed his journalistic
                  network which was just about any guru of the time but included eg
                  futurists like Toffler, OD people like Drucker, entrepreneurs and
                  intrepreneurs, heads of state from the fastest developing countries and
                  so forth, and I interviewed what were then called computer assisted
                  learning people, and systems mathematicians. We're in now doubt then as
                  in our book The 2024 Report - the next 40 years - nor now that
                  inter-networking is mankind's greatest revolution yet. Where we are in
                  doubt is whether the system change will have a bad end like Orwell's
                  1984 or a liberating one in which we all make the human most of each
                  other. Standing in the way are all the old powers that profit from
                  keeping people separated and indeed dumb. (One of my professions is
                  marketing - there is one school I hate within this who see marketing as
                  profiting from what people don't know - the consumer without access to
                  info being the most profitable - expose that with us at
                  www.beyond-branding.com . Of course other who have to change their
                  transparency include the biggest organisations know to man whether
                  governmental or global corporate; and the change begins with open
                  sourcing a second sort of maths accounting for conflict so that leaders
                  can walk deep purpose as well as talk it - see eg www.valuetrue.com -
                  hint the difficulty isn't the maths that's already open sourced , its
                  interfacing it worth all the new context rich methods of organisational
                  facilitation of which I don't believe you can imagine the communal
                  impact if you have never tried Open Space as a gateway example of how to
                  maximise the value of 200 people's time when they congregate for real.)
                  
                  
                  EU thread on KM and internetworking is not business as usual at
                  http://www.knowledgeboard.com/cgi-bin/item.cgi?id=120512&d=1&h=417&f=56&
                  dateformat=%o%20%B%20%Y
                  
                  CP survey on rev or not rev:
                  http://groups.yahoo.com/group/com-prac/surveys?id=1160405
                  
                  chris macrae, wcbn007@... 
                  
                  -----Original Message-----
                  From: Artur Ferreira da Silva [mailto:artsilva@...] 
                  Sent: 08 December 2003 12:46
                  To: com-prac@yahoogroups.com
                  Subject: [cp] Re: Revolutionary vs Non-revolutionary
                  
                  
                  Fred Nickols wrote:
                  
                    
                  So, I don't believe CoPs pose a
                  revolutionary threat to organizational hierarchies and, even if they
                      
                  did,
                    
                  the hierarchy would soon neutralize any such threat.
                      
                  I completelly agree with you (and others) on that.
                  
                  I also find interesting to see that so many people that were once very 
                  involved in the learning organizations' fad, were latter involved in KM
                  and 
                  now also in CoPs. CoPs will not fundamentally change organizations and
                  much 
                  less they will change the world. After all, they have been there for
                  ever, 
                  and I am sure that they can not be "implemented", and I am not sure if
                  they 
                  can be "cultivated". But surelly they can be "nurtured".
                  
                    
                  For what it's worth,
                  I'm not convinced that "networking technology" poses a revolutionary
                  threat, either, at least not to "the hierarchy."
                      
                  I am not so sure about that. I think the Internet is a revolution in
                  itself 
                  (like electricity, that btw is "private"and not free). I think that IN
                  SOME 
                  50 YEARS, or so, it will change everything and probably also
                  hierarchies. 
                  But it will not be in my life time for sure.
                  
                  As a revolutiony myself, I am sad to say that, but that's what I believe
                  :-(
                  
                  And we can always try to concentrate in micro-revolutions.
                  
                  Artur  
                  
                  
                  ::: http://www.egroups.com/group/com-prac
                  ::: Email com-prac-unsubscribe@egroups.com to unsubscribe
                  
                   
                  
                  Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to
                  http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/ 
                  
                  
                  
                  
                  ::: http://www.egroups.com/group/com-prac
                  ::: Email com-prac-unsubscribe@egroups.com to unsubscribe
                  
                   
                  
                  Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/ 
                  
                  
                  
                    

                Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.