Re: Value Networks Definition

[Graham Douglas]

Here are a few more thoughts prompted by extracts from Verna's most recent comments:-

 

"but I am admittedly taking a wide view of social good with
that assumption."

 

 Yes, that was my feeling but I left it in the last paragraph for completeness. The last paragraph was:-

"Value network principles apply equally well to public agencies, civil society organizations and other purposeful networks focused on creating economic, physical, cultural or social good."

 

"But if  the value network Is the sustainable system then it would not also have an output of a sustainable system."

 

Would not the value network be A sustainable system that led to other sustainable systems? "Sustainable systems" have 9.75 million Google mentions so it seems to be time for one in Wikipedia. This raises the question of the audience for this work. As indicated in my comments I believe VN apply in all sectors not only in business. To my mind a "sustainable system" means "a lasting combination of parts forming a complex whole". Like Verna I really prefer brevity in definitions. However, in introducing new concepts such as integrative thinking I have found that starting with a one-sentence definition and then elaborating in up to one page seems to work.

 

Kind regards,
Graham

www.integrative-thinking.com

 

 

[Verna Allee]

It is pretty amazing that there is not a Wikipedia entry for
sustainable systems, isn't it? However, the sustainability entry is
pretty comprehensive.

In reflecting on what I wrote earlier I realize I indicated that value
networks are sustainable systems. That does not really reflect my
thinking and was not well said. The value network elements can help
illuminate the economic aspects of a purposeful network, but any given
value network may or may not be sustainable due to the vaguaries and
whims of the human nodes, resulting in unpredictable responses. I think
we can perhaps make some probability assumptions based on certain
patterns but at the moment we do not have any predictive measures that
are widely accepted that I know of.

Also I really prefer to think of the value network perspective as a
"lens" rather than a "thing." People generally tend to think of value
networks as being synonomous with business webs but organizations have
internal value networks as well as external facing value networks.

[Mark Nalick]

Are we saying the something similar in stressing resilience as part of sustainable. Value Networks speak directly to this issue.

 

Magazine enews Search and Browse Press Room Reprints Subscriber Services HOME

Page 1 2 3 4 5 All 10 Principles of Change Management By John Jones, DeAnne Aguirre, and Matthew Calderone   04/15/04 Tools and techniques to help companies transform quickly. Way back when (pick your date), senior executives in large companies had a simple goal for themselves and their organizations: stability. Shareholders wanted little more than predictable earnings growth. Because so many markets were either closed or undeveloped, leaders could deliver on those expectations through annual exercises that offered only modest modifications to the strategic plan. Prices stayed in check; people stayed in their jobs; life was good. Market transparency, labor mobility, global capital flows, and instantaneous communications have blown that comfortable scenario to smithereens. In most industries — and in almost all companies, from giants on down — heightened global competition has concentrated management’s collective mind on something that, in the past, it happily avoided: change. Successful companies, as Harvard Business School professor Rosabeth Moss Kanter told s+b in 1999, develop “a culture that just keeps moving all the time.” This presents most senior executives with an unfamiliar challenge. In major transformations of large enterprises, they and their advisors conventionally focus their attention on devising the best strategic and tactical plans. But to succeed, they also must have an intimate understanding of the human side of change management — the alignment of the company’s culture, values, people, and behaviors — to encourage the desired results. Plans themselves do not capture value; value is realized only through the sustained, collective actions of the thousands — perhaps the tens of thousands — of employees who are responsible for designing, executing, and living with the changed environment. Long-term structural transformation has four characteristics: scale (the change affects all or most of the organization), magnitude (it involves significant alterations of the status quo), duration (it lasts for months, if not years), and strategic importance. Yet companies will reap the rewards only when change occurs at the level of the individual employee. Many senior executives know this and worry about it. When asked what keeps them up at night, CEOs involved in transformation often say they are concerned about how the work force will react, how they can get their team to work together, and how they will be able to lead their people. They also worry about retaining their company’s unique values and sense of identity and about creating a culture of commitment and performance. Leadership teams that fail to plan for the human side of change often find themselves wondering why their best-laid plans have gone awry. No single methodology fits every company, but there is a set of practices, tools, and techniques that can be adapted to a variety of situations. What follows is a “Top 10” list of guiding principles for change management. Using these as a systematic, comprehensive framework, executives can understand what to expect, how to manage their own personal change, and how to engage the entire organization in the process. 1. Address the “human side” systematically. Any significant transformation creates “people issues.” New leaders will be asked to step up, jobs will be changed, new skills and capabilities must be developed, and employees will be uncertain and resistant. Dealing with these issues on a reactive, case-by-case basis puts speed, morale, and results at risk. A formal approach for managing change — beginning with the leadership team and then engaging key stakeholders and leaders — should be developed early, and adapted often as change moves through the organization. This demands as much data collection and analysis, planning, and implementation discipline as does a redesign of strategy, systems, or processes. The change-management approach should be fully integrated into program design and decision making, both informing and enabling strategic direction. It should be based on a realistic assessment of the organization’s history, readiness, and capacity to change. 2. Start at the top. Because change is inherently unsettling for people at all levels of an organization, when it is on the horizon, all eyes will turn to the CEO and the leadership team for strength, support, and direction. The leaders themselves must embrace the new approaches first, both to challenge and to motivate the rest of the institution. They must speak with one voice and model the desired behaviors. The executive team also needs to understand that, although its public face may be one of unity, it, too, is composed of individuals who are going through stressful times and need to be supported. Executive teams that work well together are best positioned for success. They are aligned and committed to the direction of change, understand the culture and behaviors the changes intend to introduce, and can model those changes themselves. At one large transportation company, the senior team rolled out an initiative to improve the efficiency and performance of its corporate and field staff before addressing change issues at the officer level. The initiative realized initial cost savings but stalled as employees began to question the leadership team’s vision and commitment. Only after the leadership team went through the process of aligning and committing to the change initiative was the work force able to deliver downstream results. 3. Involve every layer. As transformation programs progress from defining strategy and setting targets to design and implementation, they affect different levels of the organization. Change efforts must include plans for identifying leaders throughout the company and pushing responsibility for design and implementation down, so that change “cascades” through the organization. At each layer of the organization, the leaders who are identified and trained must be aligned to the company’s vision, equipped to execute their specific mission, and motivated to make change happen. A major multiline insurer with consistently flat earnings decided to change performance and behavior in preparation for going public. The company followed this “cascading leadership” methodology, training and supporting teams at each stage. First, 10 officers set the strategy, vision, and targets. Next, more than 60 senior executives and managers designed the core of the change initiative. Then 500 leaders from the field drove implementation. The structure remained in place throughout the change program, which doubled the company’s earnings far ahead of schedule. This approach is also a superb way for a company to identify its next generation of leadership. 4. Make the formal case. Individuals are inherently rational and will question to what extent change is needed, whether the company is headed in the right direction, and whether they want to commit personally to making change happen. They will look to the leadership for answers. The articulation of a formal case for change and the creation of a written vision statement are invaluable opportunities to create or compel leadership-team alignment. Three steps should be followed in developing the case: First, confront reality and articulate a convincing need for change. Second, demonstrate faith that the company has a viable future and the leadership to get there. Finally, provide a road map to guide behavior and decision making. Leaders must then customize this message for various internal audiences, describing the pending change in terms that matter to the individuals. A consumer packaged-goods company experiencing years of steadily declining earnings determined that it needed to significantly restructure its operations — instituting, among other things, a 30 percent work force reduction — to remain competitive. In a series of offsite meetings, the executive team built a brutally honest business case that downsizing was the only way to keep the business viable, and drew on the company’s proud heritage to craft a compelling vision to lead the company forward. By confronting reality and helping employees understand the necessity for change, leaders were able to motivate the organization to follow the new direction in the midst of the largest downsizing in the company’s history. Instead of being shell-shocked and demoralized, those who stayed felt a renewed resolve to help the enterprise advance. 5. Create ownership. Leaders of large change programs must overperform during the transformation and be the zealots who create a critical mass among the work force in favor of change. This requires more than mere buy-in or passive agreement that the direction of change is acceptable. It demands ownership by leaders willing to accept responsibility for making change happen in all of the areas they influence or control. Ownership is often best created by involving people in identifying problems and crafting solutions. It is reinforced by incentives and rewards. These can be tangible (for example, financial compensation) or psychological (for example, camaraderie and a sense of shared destiny). At a large health-care organization that was moving to a shared-services model for administrative support, the first department to create detailed designs for the new organization was human resources. Its personnel worked with advisors in cross-functional teams for more than six months. But as the designs were being finalized, top departmental executives began to resist the move to implementation. While agreeing that the work was top-notch, the executives realized they hadn’t invested enough individual time in the design process to feel the ownership required to begin implementation. On the basis of their feedback, the process was modified to include a “deep dive.” The departmental executives worked with the design teams to learn more, and get further exposure to changes that would occur. This was the turning point; the transition then happened quickly. It also created a forum for top executives to work as a team, creating a sense of alignment and unity that the group hadn’t felt before. 6. Communicate the message. Too often, change leaders make the mistake of believing that others understand the issues, feel the need to change, and see the new direction as clearly as they do. The best change programs reinforce core messages through regular, timely advice that is both inspirational and practicable. Communications flow in from the bottom and out from the top, and are targeted to provide employees the right information at the right time and to solicit their input and feedback. Often this will require overcommunication through multiple, redundant channels. In the late 1990s, the commissioner of the Internal Revenue Service, Charles O. Rossotti, had a vision: The IRS could treat taxpayers as customers and turn a feared bureaucracy into a world-class service organization. Getting more than 100,000 employees to think and act differently required more than just systems redesign and process change. IRS leadership designed and executed an ambitious communications program including daily voice mails from the commissioner and his top staff, training sessions, videotapes, newsletters, and town hall meetings that continued through the transformation. Timely, constant, practical communication was at the heart of the program, which brought the IRS’s customer ratings from the lowest in various surveys to its current ranking above the likes of McDonald’s and most airlines. 7. Assess the cultural landscape. Successful change programs pick up speed and intensity as they cascade down, making it critically important that leaders understand and account for culture and behaviors at each level of the organization. Companies often make the mistake of assessing culture either too late or not at all. Thorough cultural diagnostics can assess organizational readiness to change, bring major problems to the surface, identify conflicts, and define factors that can recognize and influence sources of leadership and resistance. These diagnostics identify the core values, beliefs, behaviors, and perceptions that must be taken into account for successful change to occur. They serve as the common baseline for designing essential change elements, such as the new corporate vision, and building the infrastructure and programs needed to drive change. 8. Address culture explicitly. Once the culture is understood, it should be addressed as thoroughly as any other area in a change program. Leaders should be explicit about the culture and underlying behaviors that will best support the new way of doing business, and find opportunities to model and reward those behaviors. This requires developing a baseline, defining an explicit end-state or desired culture, and devising detailed plans to make the transition. Company culture is an amalgam of shared history, explicit values and beliefs, and common attitudes and behaviors. Change programs can involve creating a culture (in new companies or those built through multiple acquisitions), combining cultures (in mergers or acquisitions of large companies), or reinforcing cultures (in, say, long-established consumer goods or manufacturing companies). Understanding that all companies have a cultural center — the locus of thought, activity, influence, or personal identification — is often an effective way to jump-start culture change. A consumer goods company with a suite of premium brands determined that business realities demanded a greater focus on profitability and bottom-line accountability. In addition to redesigning metrics and incentives, it developed a plan to systematically change the company’s culture, beginning with marketing, the company’s historical center. It brought the marketing staff into the process early to create enthusiasts for the new philosophy who adapted marketing campaigns, spending plans, and incentive programs to be more accountable. Seeing these culture leaders grab onto the new program, the rest of the company quickly fell in line. 9. Prepare for the unexpected. No change program goes completely according to plan. People react in unexpected ways; areas of anticipated resistance fall away; and the external environment shifts. Effectively managing change requires continual reassessment of its impact and the organization’s willingness and ability to adopt the next wave of transformation. Fed by real data from the field and supported by information and solid decision-making processes, change leaders can then make the adjustments necessary to maintain momentum and drive results. A leading U.S. health-care company was facing competitive and financial pressures from its inability to react to changes in the marketplace. A diagnosis revealed shortcomings in its organizational structure and governance, and the company decided to implement a new operating model. In the midst of detailed design, a new CEO and leadership team took over. The new team was initially skeptical, but was ultimately convinced that a solid case for change, grounded in facts and supported by the organization at large, existed. Some adjustments were made to the speed and sequence of implementation, but the fundamentals of the new operating model remained unchanged. 10. Speak to the individual. Change is both an institutional journey and a very personal one. People spend many hours each week at work; many think of their colleagues as a second family. Individuals (or teams of individuals) need to know how their work will change, what is expected of them during and after the change program, how they will be measured, and what success or failure will mean for them and those around them. Team leaders should be as honest and explicit as possible. People will react to what they see and hear around them, and need to be involved in the change process. Highly visible rewards, such as promotion, recognition, and bonuses, should be provided as dramatic reinforcement for embracing change. Sanction or removal of people standing in the way of change will reinforce the institution’s commitment. Most leaders contemplating change know that people matter. It is all too tempting, however, to dwell on the plans and processes, which don’t talk back and don’t respond emotionally, rather than face up to the more difficult and more critical human issues. But mastering the “soft” side of change management needn’t be a mystery. Author Profiles: John Jones (jones...@bah.com) is a vice president with Booz Allen Hamilton in New York. Mr. Jones is a specialist in organization design, process reengineering, and change management. DeAnne Aguirre (aguirre...@bah.com) is a vice president in Booz Allen Hamilton’s San Francisco office. She has 18 years of organizational and technology strategy experience serving multinational clients. She is coleader of the firm’s strategic security initiative. Matthew Calderone (calderon...@bah.com) is a Senior Associate with Booz Allen Hamilton in the New York Office. He specializes in organization transformation, people issues, and change management.

 

[David Hawthorne]

I think I know what is generally meant in the vernacular by “sustainable system,” but it strikes me as flying in the face of what we have been able to observe in systems generally; that is that they all break down eventually. Maybe it’s old hat, but I much prefer “adaptive systems” to “sustainable” since it leaves open the possibility of transformation without closing the door on entropy. It just seems closer to affording a scientific approach to validation.

 

A healthy eco-system, for instance, is one in which organisms continue to die as well as live. Imagine a system that created more then it consumed –a sort of cornucopia run amok. Sooner or later we suffocate in a heap of fruit.

 

Instead, the ideal cornucopia is able to adapt its profusion of plenty to perfectly match the changes in demand that, in turn, adapt perfectly to prevailing health and wellness needs of the time.

 

I keep thinking that business and humanity clash right where capitalism adapts to scarcity by raising prices. No amount of profit will end a drought (or produce more oil, for that matter). The reasonable hope is that “profits” transformed to capital, can be invested to produce alternatives resources that will alleviate scarcity. We may not always like the outcome, but it is sustainable –sort of.

 

Value network thinking, however, suggests that “profit and capital” are not the only appropriate mechanisms for regulating scarcity. Instead, so the reasoning goes, “networked knowledge workers trafficking in “valuable information” can move that around the network in such a way as to create “opportunity” value (which sounds a lot like financial markets to me). It reminds me of the old 60s gag that “dope will get you through times of no money better than money will get you through times of no dope.”

 

Correct me if I’m wrong, Verna, but it seems to me you are suggesting that our economic systems would work better (i.e. satisfy more needs) if we attached monetary value to intangibles and were able to pass that value around (sort of like a joint J). I’m no accounting expert, but this still sounds like the value of good will, which I understand is monetized in some legal systems. So, it all seems circular to me. It we all keep coming up with an end game in which the best players are the ones who end up with the most money, I don’t see how this changes anything.

 

-David Hawthorne.

 

 

 

 

 

---

From: Value-N...@googlegroups.com [mailto:Value-N...@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of Graham Douglas
Sent: Wednesday, August 30, 2006 6:32 PM
To: Value-N...@googlegroups.com
Subject: Re: Value Networks Definition

 

Here are a few more thoughts prompted by extracts from Verna's most recent comments:-

[Graham Douglas]

David,

 

Am still pondering this but here are some first thoughts:-

 

a) A system is a set of interrelated parts combined into a complex whole.

 

b) A sustainable system is one that is adaptive. The system lasts (is sustainable) because it is adaptive. If it did not adapt it would die.

 

c) Being sustainable does not imply staying the same. A system cannot stay the same because its parts are interacting within the system and with the physical, social and cultural environment.

 

Graham

www.integrative-thinking.com

---

No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG Free Edition.
Version: 7.1.405 / Virus Database: 268.11.7/436 - Release Date: 1/09/2006

[Verna Allee]

Hello David,

Yes, you have misunderstood my position. I absolutely do NOT think we
should attempt to put a monetary value on intangibles. In my view it is
completely the wrong question because if you can put a monetary value
on it - it is not an intangible is it? We MUST move beyond thinking of
success only in financial terms or we will never break out of the old
economic thinking. Value network principles are not based on scarcity
but on abundance - the abundance of non material or intangible assets
that have truly been the foundation for the success of human society
since long before monetary systems were invented.

We must learn to work with intangibles AS intangibles and stop trying
to squeeze them into our old economic frames which were based on a
scarcity model around resources that get used up. Intangibles are
relatively easy to generate without capital or physical assets and
especially with intangibles such as knowledge there is a multiplier
effect in that the resource itself multiplies when it is shared or
used. This is completely at odds with the scarcity assumptions that
underlie current economic thinking.

I totally agree with you that our current economic system focused on
profits and money as the only "real" measures of success are leading us
down a path of social and environmental distruction as that system
never factors in the true "costs" of business in terms of social or
environmental impact. That truly has led to a set of economic and
business practices that are unsustainable. Economic success does not
automatically lead to improved quality of life as we can readily tell
in the US which is economically "rich" yet 63% of our population is
malnourished as expressed in obesity. China is enjoying an economic
boom of gigantic proportions, yet the quality of life in terms of air
quality has declined dramatically.

The whole idea of putting attention on intangible assets, intellectual
capital,and value creating networks is to be systematic about working
with intangibles WITHOUT having to justify every activity in financial
terms. Intangible asset thinking and value network modeling offers at
least a glimmer of hope that we might reconcile business and economic
models with the fabric of society and the web of life

Besides, financial measures are lagging indicators - if you want to
build capability and adaptability for the future then you must make
improvements to your intangible assets (non-monetary) and learn to put
those assets into motion in ways that assure continuing success. That
is the world of non-financial indicators.

Goodwill is an elusive idea at best and in my view has not been
successfully monetized in the current system at all. If anything it has
been undervalued and despite the huge gaps between book value and
market value companies have no systematic way of defining what that
even is, much less managing it strategically. I am sure Enron and
Arthur Andersen would have sworn by the high value of their capital
assets and intellectual property (IP), yet even those went up like
smoke over the loss of an intangible asset of reputation.

I have stated this position in my books and white papers, and built one
value network approach based on these assumptions that is gainin some
traction in mainstream buisness. I will continue to elaborate on these
themes in future writing.

Verna Allee

[Rosanna Tarsiero]

Verna,

You wrote:
"I absolutely do NOT think we should attempt to put a monetary value on
intangibles. In my view it is completely the wrong question because if you
can put a monetary value on it - it is not an intangible is it? We MUST move
beyond thinking of success only in financial terms or we will never break
out of the old economic thinking."

DITTO! In a forum on (supposedly) KM, I got harassed by a man trying to talk
me into thinking that the success of an initiative toward "making children
happy" could be "making children happy with the lowest amount of money" YUK

Besides, it still doesn't define happiness ;)

You wrote:
"Value network principles are not based on scarcity but on abundance"

In the same forum I was introduced by Bruce LaDuke to the Second
Enlightenment concept, you can find it featured in this site:
http://www.2enlightenment.com

One of its 14 organizing principles is, in fact, switching from an economy
of poverty to one of abundance.

If you take a look at its principles:
http://www.2enlightenment.com/principles.htm
you'll see how many of them are, in fact, characteristics of properly-led
(or formed or "nucleated" as I prefer to use) communities of practice.

I'm thinking about joining the initiative :)

Also Verna I want you to know that I admire you SO much. For how intuitive
AND rigorous you are... you speak of intangibles and "mean business" rather
than some fluffy concept. I really like your work a lot.

Rosanna Tarsiero
|\ _,,,---,,_
/,`.-'`' -. ;-;;,_
|,4- ) )-,_..;\ ( `'-'
'---''(_/--' `-'\_)

[Valdis Krebs]

Rosanna, Verna,

I agree with both of you... but the word "value" has been programmed
into us to think "money".
Ask anyone in a capitalist society about "value" and I bet somewhere in
their answer will be an association with money.

Maybe *value* networks is not the right term???

Valdis

[Rosanna Tarsiero]

Valdis,

I come from a country (Italy) where the term "value" (ie "valori") refers,
and always had referred to BOTH terms. So "value networks" in my country is
just perfect... the metaphor behind "value", here, encompasses tangibles AND
intangibles.

However, I do agree with you. In your country (I guess the US) it might not
be appropriate! It would be interesting to know more from non-English and
non-Italian members...

How do you verbalize "values" in, say, French, German, Chinese, Maori? Does
it encompass tangibles and intangibles or only one of them? In case, which
one?

Rosanna Tarsiero

|\ _,,,---,,_
/,`.-'`' -. ;-;;,_
|,4- ) )-,_..;\ ( `'-'
'---''(_/--' `-'\_)

-----Original Message-----
From: Value-N...@googlegroups.com
[mailto:Value-N...@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of Valdis Krebs
Sent: lunedì 4 settembre 2006 15.40
To: Value-N...@googlegroups.com
Subject: Re: Value Networks Definition

[David-Peregrine Jones]

This may be appropriate....

Oscar Wilde in Lady Windermere's Fan Act III circa 1891:

CECIL GRAHAM: What is a cynic?
LORD DARLINGTON: A man who knows the price of everything and the value of
nothing.

David P-J

-----Original Message-----
From: Value-N...@googlegroups.com
[mailto:Value-N...@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of Valdis Krebs
Sent: 04 September 2006 14:40
To: Value-N...@googlegroups.com
Subject: Re: Value Networks Definition

[Eileen Clegg]

Viva redefining value!

Thanks for these posts, David, Rosanna, Verna et al. and thank you for the
links, Rosanna.

I am reminded again of Allan Watts' admonishment that most people are
"eating the menu instead of the dinner"

In this group I see hopeful signs that we can shift the focus from the
"representation of value" (menu)(money) to real value (dinner)(real
nourishment)

During the experience on a remote island in Maine there were few
conversations from my work world that carried over into that context but one
was...value networks. And in fact several times I was asked to define value
networks and was very glad to return and find that conversation had occurred
and is going to Wikipedia.

Best to all,
-Eileen

--
Eileen Clegg, President
Visual Insight
www.visualinsight.net
P.O. Box 762
Bodega Bay, CA 94923
707.486.2441

Visuals = the language of intuition.

[Valdis Krebs]

Appropriate quote David!

I think most people on this list "get" the value part as intended. It
is when we talk outside the group, that [in the USA] "value" is usually
money-linked. So we should not be surprised if we are not understood,
or misunderstood. I would interested in how, some of the other
business groups who discuss "value", define it. We have to live with
their definitions also, since others may hear from them before they
hear from us!

Believe me, working with "networks" for almost 20 years I KNOW what it
is like to constantly be misunderstood -- well, at least initially. I
say something about mapping/building networks and people say, "Oh
computers!" or "Oh the Internet!" I say, well we do that too, but we
mostly look at people networks... a look of puzzlement comes over their
faces. "How does that work?" their forehead communicates. And then
I start a short, hopefully succinct, explanation.

BTW, our networkweaving.com site STILL gets Google ads for "Looms"!!!
... if Sergey and Larry can't get it right, then imagine the common
MBA... ;-)

Valdis

[Jeremy Cox]

I see value networks as networks of capabilities that come together to
create and deliver value (as defined by the customer - monetary, status,
aspirational, fun etc).
Unless its philanthropy or charity of some sort, there is likely to be a
price attached, but the focus is on the customer side - the overall value
proposition and experience. Sometimes tangible, other times intangible,
usually a bit of both.

But then again I have a rather warped view of the World!

One thing is clear to me though, the pendulum in the commercial world is
swinging in this direction ...............slowly.

Regards

Jeremy

Jeremy Cox MD The Wisdom Network Ltd
www.thewisdomnetwork.com

-----Original Message-----
From: Value-N...@googlegroups.com
[mailto:Value-N...@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of David-Peregrine Jones
Sent: 04 September 2006 20:55
To: Value-N...@googlegroups.com
Subject: RE: Value Networks Definition

[Rosanna Tarsiero]

Jeremy,

You wrote:
"Unless its philanthropy or charity of some sort, there is likely to be a
price attached"

There is a price for philanthropy too, or charity! I gather you aren't
familiar with the nonprofit world, and it is said with the utmost respect.

I am, and I can testify that often their idea of "accountability" is: a)
based on money and their management; b) geared on accountability toward
DONORS (again based on money), not to clients or communities; c) the
companion of a holier-than-thou attitude (cuz they "do good" you know).

The nonprofit world in 2006 is a pale imitation of the rampant capitalism
(with lack of other values) of the 80s.

In other words, nothing to strive for.

[Jeremy Cox]

I told you I had a warped view of the world!

By the way is that a dead cat?

:)

Regards

Jeremy

-----Original Message-----
From: Value-N...@googlegroups.com
[mailto:Value-N...@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of Rosanna Tarsiero
Sent: 05 September 2006 08:51
To: Value-N...@googlegroups.com
Subject: RE: Value Networks Definition

[Stuart Robbins]

Could it be Schroedinger's Cat?
- - Stuart Robbins

[Rosanna Tarsiero]

Stuart,

It's not THAT fat ;P

And Jeremy,

It's not dead.

A lazy cat napping around is a category of the spirit (connected to
intangible values that put being oneself, taking time for one's needs and
observation above everything else)!

I'm going to buy another Chartreux :)

Rosanna

|\ _,,,---,,_
/,`.-'`' -. ;-;;,_
|,4- ) )-,_..;\ ( `'-'
'---''(_/--' `-'\_)

-----Original Message-----
From: Value-N...@googlegroups.com
[mailto:Value-N...@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of Stuart Robbins
Sent: martedì 5 settembre 2006 19.12
To: Value-N...@googlegroups.com
Subject: Re: Value Networks Definition

[Verna Allee]

Now THAT is an appropriate question. Shroedinger's cat of course is the
question of if you put a cat in a box is it still there? Sort of like
the zen question of if a tree falls in the forest with no one to hear
does it still make a sound?

If no one believes something has value, does it still have value?

Verna

[Verna Allee]

Valdis, I also share your experiences with the narrow definition of
value. Whenever I talk about this I make the point that our definition
of value (and success) has steadily been expanding for the last couple
of decades. In business intangibles have been gaining ground even in
the US (which has been lagging Europe and other parts of the world in
that regard.) Even national "wealth" is getting redefined to include
quality of life indicators. It makes no sense to consider "nature" only
in terms of board feet of lumber or mineral reserves with no way at all
to count a healthy ecosystem as an asset.

Also "value" carries a different connotation I believe in organizations
where the focus is on creation of social good rather than economic
wealth. The value network approach is equally appealing in that world
(AgResearch NZ, Mayo Clinic, Plexus Institute (healthcare), Scottish
Enterpriese, Institute of Public Health Ireland, Environment Canada,
GRI South Africa, World Conservation Union, Global Action Network
Network, Indianna School of Nursing, EBay --- of of these are
organizations I have personally worked with and our practitioners I
believe could easily name another dozen.

Roseanna's point about social service organizations also having a
monetary focus is well taken. Any successful, purposeful network has
tangible exchanges or mandates that result in funding and also
intangible exchanges. I would dearly love to see the terms for profit
and not for profit become obsolete. From where I sit they are all just
value creating networks.

[Valdis Krebs]

:-)

Or, if one "sees" only the monetary aspects of "value", does it also
have "intangible" aspects?

How do we deal with the different realities of insiders and outsiders?

Valdis

[Verna Allee]

What we often miss is that "money" has no intrinsic value other than
what we believe it has. "Hard" currencies suddenly become very soft
when opinions change about its value. That is the whole basis for
currency markets. I was delighted to be getting paid in Euros during
the 2004-2005 period because I had several contracts that increased
considerably in value in US dollars by the time the projects were
delivered.

The only way to deal with the different realities is to make it
explicit where I am coming from and why. As with any new way of
thinking there is a huge educational effort that has to go on. We often
forget how radical those ideas about "process" and "teams" were in the
early 1980s and the bazillion books and training courses that sprouted
up to serve the educational role. If the value network perspective has
"legs" then the same thing undoubtedly will happen. If it doesn't hold
up we will all just move on to other topics and other experiments.

[Stuart Robbins]

Verna and friends,

The original interpretation of the Shroedinger paradox was the principle of
uncertainty (neither being known or measurable, therefore both are
possible). Neils Bohr re-interpreted this to be a principle of ambiguity
rather than uncertainty, and I like his distinction with regard to our
discussion. Value is not uncertain (even if we only have an intuitive sense
that it exists in a specific relationship), however it is ambiguous, which
is why we are inclined toward an explicit definition.

Therefore, and with due respect to all of the discussants to this point, I
believe that, while it may be intellectually stimulating to attempt a
definition of an essentially ambiguous element of life, it might be more
useful to discuss the external (mirrored) characteristics of value-based
exchanges (networks, webs, transformations, transactions) compared to the
characteristcs of exchanges with little or no value. The frame as
reference...

We walk into an art gallery. There are many pictures framed and hanging on
the walls, however, in several rooms, there are also rows of paintings,
unframed, leaning against the wall. We could easily fall into an extended
conversation of the value of art (what is art, how do you measure it, how do
you objectively recognize the absence of value, etc) rather than efficiently
saying, for the purposes of this exercise, I will assume that the framed
works have more value than the unframed works, and I will therefore focus my
research on the framed works. It may not be an inclusive approach, but I
believe it would be 80% accurate, and move the dialogue (about art, about
value) forward substantially.

- -Stuart Robbins (www.systemisamirror.com)

----- Original Message -----
From: "Verna Allee" <ve...@vernaallee.com>
To: "Value Networks" <Value-N...@googlegroups.com>
Sent: Wednesday, September 06, 2006 7:46 AM
Subject: Re: Value Networks Definition

>

[Verna Allee]

Very well said, thank you for this. I am completely in accord with your
viewpoint that the systems we create mirror ourselves. Any way that we
frame the system leaves a lot of things out of the picture; nonetheless
the framing is important for us as a conversational or story telling
device whereby we can reach shared understanding of the system and
those elements that we can influence.

It is much more interesting to me to discuss the value of a particular
interaction or set of interactions that we can "frame" in some way and
act upon than delve into intangibles as an abstract. The idea of
intangibles as "deliverables" is that type of framing. Obviously there
is a lot more going on but the framing of certain intangibles as
deliverables helps us understand where can we have the power to act.

Despite the popularity of the term "collective action" we are still
acting as individuals regarding those things we can do directly. There
may well be a collective intent but action is still individual. No one
can manage a complex adaptive system - what we manage are our own
actions, our responses to inputs and our products or outputs. Shared
understanding of the system and factors of overall health and vitality
is essential if we want to express a collective intent or purpose. But
all we can really manage are our own roles.

Congratulations on your new book.

[Jeremy Cox]

It has brains, never mind legs.
The 80s were basic plumbing
The 90s added some form of uncoordinated robotic motion
2000s might even put in a nervous system - though it will still look like
Frankenstein
2010s might finally get a brain - that's where value networks really kicks
in!

Regards

Jeremy

------------------------------------
The Wisdom Network Ltd
Jeremy W G Cox MA DipM
Managing Director
jere...@thewisdomnetwork.com
Spring Bank House
Spring Bank
Holmfirth
West Yorkshire
HD9 2LL
Great Britain
tel: +44(0)1484-680845
mobile: +44(0)7748-181421
www.thewisdomnetwork.com
------------------------------------

-----Original Message-----
From: Value-N...@googlegroups.com
[mailto:Value-N...@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of Verna Allee
Sent: 06 September 2006 17:16
To: Value Networks
Subject: Re: Value Networks Definition

[Jeremy Cox]

We are more likely to do the right things as individuals if we have a common
understanding of the context and like it.

------------------------------------
The Wisdom Network Ltd
Jeremy W G Cox MA DipM
Managing Director
jere...@thewisdomnetwork.com
Spring Bank House
Spring Bank
Holmfirth
West Yorkshire
HD9 2LL
Great Britain
tel: +44(0)1484-680845
mobile: +44(0)7748-181421
www.thewisdomnetwork.com
------------------------------------

-----Original Message-----
From: Value-N...@googlegroups.com
[mailto:Value-N...@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of Verna Allee
Sent: 06 September 2006 19:22
To: Value Networks
Subject: Re: Value Networks Definition

[Snowden Dave]

Penrose challenges Schroedinger's cat in a recent article ......

I always liked Bishop B's "I'm always around in the quad" resolution of the tree in the forest (especially as he raised the question and resolved it before anyone had heard of Zen

However to get more serious

Can we say "sometimes"?  For example in respect of a work of art there might be little argument (subject to a qualification shortly), whereas in ethical issues one might want to say that there are limits,

In effect you are raising the issue of relativism and the linked theme of social constructivism.  This is something that has concerned me for some time, but in respect of which in the last month I have found some really good books:  see the following and its pass throughs for references :  http://www.cognitive-edge.com/2006/08/limitations_of_symbols_1.php

In a complex system, as a pattern coalesces, then the consequences of that become predictable and to a degree measurable (although we need to move away from measurement which is purely empirical and causal in nature).  At such points value could be taken as having some degree of objectivity

Dave Snowden

Founder & Chief Scientific Officer

Cognitive Edge Pte Ltd

www.cognitive-edge.com

NB I am now in Singapore to Mid October please use email to contact me not the mobile phone