|
 |
Thursday, August 29, 2002 |
The blogging CxO. Blogs, I recently suggested, can turn the game of high-tech PR inside out. Ray Ozzie is the most dramatic example of how that can happen and why it should. Here are three others that I find inspiring: ... [Jon's Radio]
Jon concludes
We long ago passed the point, in this industry, where an "elevator pitch" could convey anything useful. Things are increasingly complex, interrelated, and subtle. On trade show floors, in meetings, and on phone calls, it can take an hour just to synchronize on the terminology and concepts needed to have a meaningful discussion. I hope there will soon be many more Phils, Marks, and Edwins [the three CxO's he has cited in the post]. I claim it's win/win for those who step up to the plate. The creators of technical strategy are best qualified to explain it to both internal and external audiences. When context can be shared in this way, understanding comes easier and runs deeper. [Ron Lusk's Radio Weblog]
4:46:20 PM 
|
|
Discussion on civil society and forms of capital
|
Doc concludes: And until we find ways to reconcile those frameworks, I'd rather not see any new laws based on either of them. Or on open source, for that matter. The independent software development community is too small already. More laws aren't going to help. |
| |
[Later...] I just got off the phone with Dave, who said something really interesting: The source that really matters isn't the code; it's the brains that create the code. I'll leave it up to the rest of ya'll to follow the implications. | Creating software is a deeply cooperative process rooted deeply in soical capital, human capital, financial capitsl. Nice place to explore when seeking better understanding of informal or information or knowledge economics.
11:39:34 AM
|
|
This may seem obvious to the average software developer, but I have some difficulties with Larry Lessig's proposal about escrowing software from the point of view of the mechanics. How do you cover . . .[Sandy Wilbourn's Weblog]
The full read makes it clear that this is a far more complicated issue that Lessig presents. Government in civil society should help foster social capital by efficiently providing necessary public goods, particularly property rights and public safety. Stable safe environments for public interaction and property rights, which is what we do in software development, will likely result in trust as a result of the iterations of the interactions over time. I think this is where I'm supposed to say Nash equilibrium.
11:17:07 AM
|
|
Progress towards a framework for the measurment of social capital in blogsphere From Michael Helfrich's essay on swarming.
What does this mean to the organization from the perspective of technology and doctrine? I believe that the successful organization recognizes swarming as:
- Highly Decentralized: Decision superiority requires frameworks that facilitate connecting the right-people, inside and outside the organization. It's realizing the dream of connecting the matrixed organization in a just-in-time fashion and achieving true situational dominance
- Dynamic: Innovation and decision-making is borne of unstructured, ad-hoc, and sometimes serendipitous interactions between people. Self-forming teams require self-forming technology that doesn't require IT intervention. Processes and technology must insure that the technology used to facilitate small unit swarming is as easy to use as the telephone or email.
- Nonlinear and Adaptive: Business practices are highly nonlinear, hence you'll never hear me use the phrase "best practices" because there are only "current best approaches." Swarming organizations are dynamic in nature and recognize better ways every day. Hence, the notion of providing swarming technology in a center-based (read: centralized) metaphor is useless. Forcing people to work within the confines of a fixed set of functions will not work. Only a non-linear, component-based approach that allows teams to self-form, but also self-select the tools they need, will insure success.
- Knowledge Creation at the Edge, with Consumption from the Center: People don't find knowledge, they create it (at the edge) when they consume data and information (from the center). When people collide around data and information, they create knowledge and intelligence.
People make decisions, not technology. You should challenge the next vendor that suggests otherwise. Recognizing and embracing these core tenets yields the secret sauce of decision superiority. Add to this a capability to institutionalize the outcomes of these swarming activities, and one has created a truly closed loop decision infrastructure. The creation of knowledge occurs at the edge, and the center is the killer app for knowledge consumption.
Was the inspiratoin for a paper I'm still stugling with currently titled Notes from Sara Busse's paper Stratigies for daily survial in russia. Partly I'm strugling on how to propperly credit her as the source while I'm in the progress of morphing [Jill] her observations from the great work she in NoviSyberisk (pdf) with Michaels observations about knowledge concumption and problem solving at the edge. I started by direct quotes then morphed them to fit a knowledge bazaar or information economy. Sara illustrates how people in russia where cash money is in short suply are able to combine other forms of capital like social capital to solve problems and meet their daily needs. She breaks it down to fundamel needs like water and food then works her way up the economic scale to hospital jobs and government contracts.
Then today I'm re reading Jon Udell's chapter on Understanding and Using scoped zones of discussion. That I hope to tie in circles of trust to get back a stronger tie to the social capital in groupware or blogsphere specifically.
9:23:42 AM
|
|
I made a contribution to Tara Sue.I feel like there should be a sticker or something like I gave blood.
9:06:44 AM
|
|
Nice article on builting a culture of collaboration.[Darwinmag]
3:14:35 AM
|
|
© Copyright 2002 Stephen Dulaney.
|
|
Top 10 hits for NORM FORMATION IN SOCIAL NETWORKS on..
 | 9/1/2002; 10:49:34 AM. |
|
|
|
