Other Value Network Analysis techniques
t-net32
I'm very interested in the area of value chain / value networks and
searched a lot in the internet, but I found only the approach of Verna
Allee. Sure, the approach makes a lot of sense, but to get an overview
I would be great to have a look at other approaches.
Are there no other approaches or should I read a manual how to use
google? :-)
Furthermore it would be great to know a litte bit more about the
evolution of the value network concept. As I read, it comes from
social networks and the process view in organisations ... but I didn't
found to much. If you have interesting sources about the evolution,
plese drop me a line.
Many thanks in advance
Cheers
Chris
Verna Allee
first discuss other work in the field and the second with a one minute
history of my own work.
As of this morning Google notes about 400K hits for value network and
value networks. Clearly it is a popular term and one is that is
growing quickly in usage. while this is not a comprehensive history of
the term I believe it will give you a quick perspective.
I have no idea where the term originally was used, but it began to
come into general usage in the late 1990s in the supply chain world, e-
commerce, customer relationship management, and industry analysis.
There was some interest in the KM community but most of the network
thinking there is still focused on communities of practice and
knowledge networks, which are best understood with social network
analysis. The term seems to resonate with a growing interest in
understanding organizations as complex adapative systems.
There are a couple of other books on value nets (Bovet and Martha,
Cinzia Parolini) and many that include the topic either directly
(Christensen's Innovator's Dilemma) or indirectly (Iansiti and Levie,
Keystone Advantage). Stabel and Fjelstad also are known for comparing
value networks and value shops and there is an academic group in
Finland that also does work in value networks. A complementary method
was developed by Jeff Shuman and Jan Twombly that is described in
Collaborative Communities and Everyone is a Customer, but their method
is proprietary other than what lis in their books. Their includes a
similar value network mapping method and an analysis table configured
for understanding the value exchanges with customers and stakeholders.
Jeff teaches at Bentley College in the Boston area.
Most other methods seem to fall into two categories. The first is the
process view of the world where value network is a term used to refer
to complex supply chains. Such methods build on process tools, the
most common of these being value stream mapping, which is used a lot
in Lean. The Parolini value net method, which is quite solid work,
also comes from the same perspective.
The second category is a type of cluster analysis which looks at
various attributes and relationships of stakeholders in industry
clusters. Cluster analysis has been around for quite some time and is
of course complementary to value network analysis, as are all of these
other methods. Christensen's work would fall into this category I
believe and we recently saw a draft of a good critique of his work
that we hope to include on the www.value-networks.com site when it is
finalized.
Very few value network analysis methods actually use any kind of
network analysis - in the sense that they are trying to understand
dynamic relationships. That brings us to classis social network
analysis and how people in that field think about value. Mark
Granovetter and colleague have identified a number of foundational
articles in the book SocioEconomics that address the question of value
creation. I found a couple of good articles in that publication but
for the most part social network analysis has not addressed the
question of value in what I would consider a satisfactory way. There
are of course a lot of people working on that such as Rob Cross and
Validis's work on economic regions is alos noteworthy, but most of the
SNA/ONA people define value in economic or financial terms, which
misses the foundation of network relationships in non-financial or
intangible value.
We are always on the lookout for good work in this area and good
articles to include on the open resource site so if anyone has come
across something else that needs to be included please send it along.
It is not necessary to "speak the party line." That Value Network
Consortium want to feature and high quality articles, practitioners
and methods that are coming from the perspective of complex
adaptative sytems and are dynamic modeling methods.
More on my own work in another post....
Verna
http://www.vernaallee.com/value_networks/Reconfiguring_the_Value_Network.pdf
Verna Allee
Part 2 - a bullet point history of my own work.
Mid 1970's I created a networked sign manufacturing company with my
former husband that in terms of revenue was practically one of the
largest in its industry. We had no employees, no plant, virtually no
overhead and yet we handled large chain store accounts and installed
signs from Anchorage to Florida. I learned that any organization could
be thought of and even operated as a network.
1980's collected various university degrees trying to understand
business and organizations as complex adaptive systems, worked in
corporate middle management for a large retail organization.
1991 Hung out my consulting shingle focued on organizational learnign
and systems thinking ( this was before Senge's book came out - so
nobody came)
1992 Began supporting benchmarking activities on complex process
reengineering projects for companies like AT&T, Chevron, Pacific Bell,
many others. (Sneaking in collaborative learning and systems thinking
under the radar). Developed a deep appreciation for the power of
metrics. But also learned the dirty little secret of process work,
which is - as soon as there are multiple variations - NOBODY follows
the process.
But, I asked the question - what if this were taken as a given and not
a problem - that people are always changing the process in a complex
adaptive system? Then how would we map, organize and negotiate the
work? That is when I began looking for a systems mapping method that
would show processes - as a way to quickly bring coherence to the
complex activities we were addressing and also to develop a codified
question set for qualitative interviews for benchmarking.
Virtually anything that looked like a value creation of systems
mapping method became part of my experimentation: interrelationship
diagrams, object oriented data analysis, social network analysis,
context diagramming from software engineering, value added, value
streams - you name it. Over several months of experimentation I put
together the basic HoloMapping(tm) methodology, introduced color
coding, developed the analysis tables and got to work in the real
laboratory of projects.
1993 First public workshop in the method in San Mateo, California
1995 First major conference presentation at the National organization
Development conference in Seattle.
1997 Worked with Don Tapscott and his group on the research that
eventually became the book Digital Capital (2000). Refined the method
to include the value conversion dynamics and linkages with
intellectual capital and sustainability. First public presentation of
new version in Israel. First articles published.
1998-1999 Authored cover article HR Monthly Australia on Human Capital
and Value Creation in the Knowledge Economy. Published articles in
Perspectives, 2000 Handbook of Business Strategy. Worked with
Brookings Institution task force on intangibles.
2000 Published in Journal of Intellectual Capital and Journal of
Business Strategy. Launched the first web-based toolkit and
application with Konvergeandknow, sponsored by Charles Armstrong, CEO
of one of the top 50 companies in Canada.
2001 went open source with the methodology on my website and in public
presentations and workshops.
2002 presented the full methodology at Transparent Enterprise in
Madrid for validation with the intangibles community. Began offering
qualifications led by Oliver Schwabe, and expanded work to companies
and practitioners in Europe, South Africa, Canada, New Zealand,
Australia and Asia
2003 published The Future of Knowledge: Increasing Transparency
through Value networks. Cover interviews with Inside Knowledge and
Knowledge Management.
2004 Began working on value network issues on special projects with
the European Commission and expanded global customer base. Launched
ValueNet Works™ practitioner community.
2005 Developed improved web-based fieldbook and open source
application with Oliver Schwabe. Became a sponsor of the Value
Networks Consortium to help lead standards development and value
network industry development. Expanded usage with US customers such as
Cisco and Boeing.
2006-2007 - Too much too tell!
That is a very short version of where the value network analysis
method came from. I have been incredibly fortunate along the way to
have had support, encouragement and excellent suggestions from key
thought leaders and practitioners in new business thinking from many
different disciplines and different parts of the world, some of who
have shown up in this converstion and many others who haven't. As
Oliver likes to say, we have been building on the shoulders of giants.
We try to truly honor and respect all the good work that goes on in
many different arenas and are always looking for how our methods can
complement and expand the capabilities of other robust methodologies -
and not compete with them. We try to really practice the collaborative
networked perspective ourselves, not just talk about it.
this was probably waaay too much information, but you are not the only
one who has asked for this so it was something I needed to do anyway.
So thank you for the nudge.
Verna
On Aug 9, 8:34 pm, t-net32 <daywalker...@web.de> wrote:
Richard Vines
Fascinating stuff given that this description of your journey is interwoven
with an ambience of personal exploration linked to references to the "out
there" world of happenings in the related space of value networks.
I have a question of the group which in a sense might relate (only in part)
to Chris's question. I have been doing a bit of work / thinking in both the
corporate and third sectors recently. The driver in the first relates to the
need for integrated strategic procurement practices and ensuring the
mechanisms are in place to manage cap ex spends in more strategic ways than
in the past. The latter relates to new legislation defined by Government
intent (a State Govt, not a Federal Govt).
I am taken by the phrase in value networks - namely that you cannot direct
the network, but you can only serve it (or something like that). There is an
implied sense of "power dynamics" in this statement, which at base level, I
agree with. From my perspective, this is about the shift from hierarchical
control mechanisms to permeable diffuse mechanisms of influence - on the
recognition that individuals participate, knowingly or otherwise in complex
adaptive systems.
Throughout the past 12 months of reading posts on value networks, I to this
day feel there is not contained within the vernacular of value networks the
ability to reconcile the difficulties of what I call personal knowledge
embodied in the social relationships of value networks, with the objective
knowledge of large complex organizations - cutting across both corporate and
community based organizations.
In many areas of work I am currently sensing a way through, there is a need
to ensure explicit recognition is given to interacting with a formal
hierarchy. The informal and the formal need to co-exist in the vernacular of
the ontology of organisational knowledge.
In most of the semantics I read into this value network world, the focus on
narrative and intangibles leads us to a space that focuses attention
primarily at the boundaries of a different type of knowledge - the "formal"
organisational knowledge. And yet, in my own work, nothing will ever lead to
transforming impact of localized highly contextualized practice - if there
is not explicit attention given to the need to integrate the formal with the
informal, the personal with the collective, and the network with the
hierarchy.
Now to the question. Am I missing something about the vernacular of value
networks that can deal with my quandary? It just seems to me that in the
vernacular a large part of the notion of "context" is missing. And in part
this relates to the authorization process of using the value network
methodology in the first place. It seems to me that the role-link-exchange
ontology suggests we can arrive and start mapping the role-link-exchange
action context, without thinking about how it is that we become part of the
context involving the commencement of this process in the first place. It
just seems that the vernacular of value networks is not sufficiently framed
to take this into account.
Anyway, it is a question I have kept thinking about myself and through the
limited inputs I have made to this group over a period of time.
Richard
--~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
--
I am using the free version of SPAMfighter for private users.
It has removed 96 spam emails to date.
Paying users do not have this message in their emails.
Get the free SPAMfighter here: http://www.spamfighter.com/len
Snowden Dave
ValueNet Works(tm) practitioner community.
Graham Douglas
Is not the apparent dilemma being overcome in progressive organisations by
their "informalising" their formal structure in the light of what VNA shows
about the creation of value?
For example has not a move towards bottom-up, adaptive, demand-centred,
technology-enabled organisations started? In rather desperate attempts to
retain power some Governments seem to be becoming more dictatorial but some
businesses seem to be understanding that value lies in demand not supply.
Graham Douglas
> --
> No virus found in this incoming message.
> Checked by AVG Free Edition.
> Version: 7.5.476 / Virus Database: 269.11.13/947 - Release Date:
> 11/08/2007 2:29 PM
>
>
Richard Vines
formal structures can be attributed directly to the impact of VNA?
Here in Vic, in the community sector there is a whole social language that
has developed around partnership and network governance. To me it represents
a confused position. That is the need for networked ways of delivering value
is becoming more explicitly understood. At the same time the risk management
exposure still seems to be all one way.
It seems to me that the solution has to involve new approaches to governance
- and the same is true in the corporate sector. That is, the solution is not
just embedded in an analysis of the exchange mechanisms. Part of solution
involves reaching negotiated agreements about how a system should work and
be governed in the first place. I don't have to do an exchange mapping
process to work that out.
And yet, governance is a naughty word because you can only serve a network
and not direct it. Whilst I agree with this, I only agree with it to the
extent that the ontology of organisational (and extended networked)
knowledge embraces objective and other types of knowledge, hierarchies and
networks, formal and informal flows, formal organisational structures and
cross departmental network-governance arrangements, narrative capture and
formal data analysis. Whilst this is saying the obvious, I have not sensed
that the nomenclature is explicitly inclusive of these wider approaches to
contextual influences.
It might be a silly question, but would we run a nuclear economy using VNA?
Parts of it yes. But, objective hard nosed knowledge is required as well. If
this is not explicitly recognised, the impacts are too horrendous to think
about. As I say, this might be a silly example, but it is underpinned by
some deep philosophical issues in relation to how we understand knowledge in
the first place.
By the way, I don't want my question to detract from Verna's wonderful
explanation of the history of her involvement in VNA. It is a great story
and we are all grateful for the networked effect of this work!
Richard
Verna Allee
also ask Oliver to blog it. I will post the link when I have it.
On Aug 11, 9:20 pm, Snowden Dave <dave.snow...@cognitive-edge.com>
wrote:
> >> Chris- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
Verna Allee
is a confused position. The new approach to governance is the
sensemaking that comes with using methods like narrative and value
network analysis. I find that the conversation about context tends to
ramble in circles until people get down to the specific roles and
interactions that surface in the mapping process. Consider VNA as a
way to get at context and surface the tough issues, not something you
do instead of that.
You are assuming that an analysis of value network exchanges is far
more "rational" than it is. Yes patterns can be surfaced through
visualizing network interactions in a variety of ways (both manual and
automated) but the interpretation and sense making is still a very
human activity that is deeply dependent on both the tacit knowledge of
individuals and the shared understanding that can only come about
through conversation.
By the way I am not sure I have ever met truly "objective' knowledge.
I assume you are referring to some kind of scientific knowledge but it
is a real stretch to assume that even scientific knowledge is by any
means objective.
Verna
> Get the free SPAMfighter here:http://www.spamfighter.com/len- Hide quoted text -
Richard Vines
fallible and is tested in the micro niche environments in which it is
constructed in language (this is the evolutionary idea). Yes, scientific
paradigms are where this heads, but each scientific claim is only a claim
and it is only in negotiated agreements about what works that it begins to
mirror the world. I do not use the word objective from the frame that I
think you have responded from. And, I think that is at the heart of my
question.
Anyway, I am raising issues which I think have been raised before. So, I
think my question remains, but it is in the end my question. I agree with
your point about sense-making and VNA and the importance of conversation. It
is more the idea of the time value of knowledge that I am questioning.
Organisations have different sensemaking patterns going on with that relate
to a range of different types of knowledge. Formal hierarchies can embody
some types of knowledge as well as those that lie at the boundaries. All
together forms part of context.
Thanks.
I think I have said this right.
Richard Vines
are dealing with different types of knowledge (because of the different
value that accrues to those different types of knowledge over time), then I
do not necessarily think that network-governance is an oxymoron. Some
knowledge is emergent and particular for one point in time. Other types of
knowledge have moved well beyond emergence and are embedded deeply in the
social, physical, linguistic and management systems. Both co-exist and both
interact. A seedling is different to a tree, but they might be called the
same thing, if they are the same species.
Richard
Snowden Dave
Snowden Dave
Verna Allee
hours of slogging through a complex analysis and report writing it
would appear risky to this non-philosopher to dive into the murky
waters of defending it as a statement of philosophy. But if you
promise not to pulverize me too badly in the process then, yes, I
think I would like to try to defend the statement.
It was not really a casual throwaway, although it may be quite
possible that I will rather botch the task of defending it, since I am
not as well versed in philosophy or as practiced at that kind of
discourse as you are. But there is actually a fairly strong position
behind it that comes from a frustration with the way people use terms
such as "objective" and "subjective" - or "hard" and "soft" which are
the terms used more often in business. My statement was sparked by
Richard's response, where he was weighing what appeared to him to be
two polarities of "hard" and "soft" methodologies.
One of the reasons I enjoy working with performance indicators,
identified value and perceived value is because they so quickly reveal
the true mental models and assumptions that are at play in an
organization. The "hard" numbers are used to reinforce a point of view
or set of beliefs about how the organization should work. Not
surprisingly they can tend to become self fulfiling prophecies, as
almost any measure used in human systems tends to change the human
system it is trying to measure. Or they are based on a set of poor
assumptions and lead to unintended consequences up to and including
complete ruin of the company. People who love "hard" numbers can fall
into Enron type errors or fail to invest in the intangible assets that
build sustainable competitive advantage. We have all seen this.
Let's take the example of "value," since that is relevant to this
discussion board. People tend to think of financial value as "real" or
"tangible" value, while non-financial value is "soft" or "intangible."
This distinction is made because non-financial value appears to be
more open to interpretation and people have to perceive that something
has value. (Which is why we work with perceived value in VNA).
However, financial instruments also only have perceived value and have
no value in an of themselves. These are social constructs that allow
us to all get along and get things done more expeditiously without
tediously bartering for every loaf of bread we put in our shopping
carts. Financial systems can collapse virtually overnight and the
instruments become worthless - if the perception of value changes.
Since financial value can be expressed in commonly accepted currencies
it creates an illusion that financial value is somehow more "stable"
or "objective" than non-financial value. Just the fact that financial
instruments have broad acceptance and support does not mean they
represent objective value.
I hope this example helps put some ground under the stand I am taking.
We have of course also many examples through history of how even
scientific reasoning and 'evidence" can be subverted to support the
prevailing world view of a society or culture. When our worldview
begins to change our sciences and the "hard" evidence they produce
begin to change as well. Which comes first the belief that something
might be true or the "evidence" that something is true? We look for
the evidence to support our beliefs, which I believe even die hard
pragmatists would have to agree are fundamentally subjective.
A couple of other things popped into my mind as I was writing this.
Once is a Zen koan I really love: "whatever you say a thing is, it is"
and it's corollary "whatever you say a thing isn't, it isn't."
The other is how Glenda at Boeing introduces VNA by telling a story of
how Picasso was in conversation with a man who insisted that Picasso
should do paintings that show how things really are. When Picasso said
he didn't understand what he was talking about the man pulled out a
photo of his wife and handed it to him. He said, "Like this - this is
how my wife really is." Picasso looked at the photograph carefully,
turning it different ways and said, "She's rather small isn't she?
And...rather flat."
So I may have thoroughly talked myself in circles (won't be the first
time) but it is the best I can do before breakfast with five hours of
sleep. Nonetheless, Dave, as one who appreciates that the power of
narrative often reveals hidden influencers of meaning and
interpretation even in the most "obvious" of situations, I would think
that, if that statement is indeed post modernism, that there might be
a sympathetic resonance with some of your own thinking?
Cheers,
Verna
On Aug 12, 6:47 am, Snowden Dave <dave.snow...@cognitive-edge.com>
wrote:
> >> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
John Bordeaux
(likely apocryphal) quote ascribed to Abe Lincoln: paraphrasing here,
how many legs does a goat have, if I count the tail as a leg? Answer
is 4. Calling a tail a leg does not make it so...
Richard Vines
The last thing a conversation is about should be pulverizing and I sincerely hope by raising a question that this is not where this goes or is experienced. I really like and respect the VNA stuff. It is just the question I have about how much it is a circumscribed view of context. In reality, I have the same question about narrative capture as well.
Just so that my question is not mis understood or misconstrued, here is a short extract of a piece I am writing with Bill Hall and Luke Naismith (in press). I am not trying to make a point with this, just to highlight where the origins of my quandaries about the underlying ontology of role-link-exchange fits in dealing with the network-hierarchy interface etc. Bill Hall et al has done much to raise the issue of the “time value of knowledge” which is what this question is based on (and what our joint paper points towards). The notion of value here is about adaptation to the environment and not about $.
Richard
The notion of living organizations
McKelvey (1997, 2002, etc.) argues that organisation science has a very low status because of the multitude of paradigms it accepts:
...[O]rganisation science is destined to proliferate even more paradigms and sink to even lower status—surely an unattractive outcome. Campbellian realism [closely related to Popperian critical scientific realism (Niiniluoto 1999)] provides a way out of this downward spiral. A dynamic objectivist organisation science that does not deny social constructionist sociology of knowledge is possible.
Donald T. Campbell (1960, 1974, 1990, 1990a), coined the term evolutionary epistemology (EE) in 1974. As it happened quite independently, Karl Popper's epistemology of evolution covered the same ground with more philosophical depth and Campbell credits Popper with originating EE and with expressing this fundamental perspective as early as Logik der Forschung (1934). Both Campbell and Popper argued that knowledge is an emergent property of life as it adapts to the world.
It has removed 96 spam emails to date.
Paying users do not have this message in their emails.
Snowden Dave
Snowden Dave
John Bordeaux
Snowden Dave
Verna Allee
> ...
>
> read more »- Hide quoted text -
Verna Allee
pulverising, so I
will make some statements, ask some questions and add some comments
for you to react to. To swap excuses, I am writing this in a lodge in
the Yosemite National Park on holiday at the end of a long day in the
heat ....
Verna: Oh.....I am sooo envious. That is an incredible place
although a bit crowded in August.
David: So rather than attack post modernism per se I thought it
would be
better to ask some questions within the Socratic tradition ....
Some questions
1 - Do you think that evolution is just a theory? It can not be
objectively proved, so other theories (creationism) are equally
valid?
Verna: When does something stop being a theory a become fact? What
exactly does objectively proven mean? Do you mean proven with the
proofs of science (experimentation, research and evidence based),
proven with the proofs of logic or philosophy (coherence), proven by
shared experience or authority? There is probably a continuum of proof
that ranges from the indisputable fact that a dog does indeed have
four legs under normal circumstances, through proving the robustness
of an argument through exploration of its logical coherence, to
validation of belief systems through respected authorities, such as
spiritual teachers.
So no, not all theories are equally valid. Some are supported by
evidence, others are refuted by evidence and others for various
reasons cannot be proven one way or another. If evolution is the
theory that species adapt to their environment, then it is pretty hard
to argue with the scientific evidence and numerous experiments that
this does indeed happen. Creationism can only be proven by spiritual
authority, which in my view makes it a less persuasive theory. I also
believe the claim falls into the trap of mistaking parable and story
as historical fact. Just because historical facts may be woven into a
story does not make it history (to paraphrase Abe Lincoln)
David: >>2 - The famous case here is a North American Tribe whose
creation
myths state that the human race were born from shells in North
America (I may have the details wrong here but the essence is
there). We can through genetic and other records reasonably well
establish that said tribe migrated to North America from Siberia.
Are both world views equally valid?
Verna: See above. Also, the validity or "truth" of a mythology or
story such a creation myth is not so much about whether it is true in
fact, but rather if it rings true in the sense of the metaphor or
principle that is the heart of the story. So the question is not
whether both are equally true, but whether both convey verifiable
truths? So a creation myth can be historically untrue, yet be
spiritually or metaphorically true. When stories that are intended as
teaching parables are taken as being historically true religion can
turn ugly.
David: >>3 - Can we objectively establish that something is right or
wrong?
Verna: Define objective proof please.
Some statements
David: 1 - As a general statement I think its very important for those
of us
the involved in narrative & networks to avoid post-modernism and
the
inevitable relativism that goes with that position. David Boje
probably represents the exemplar of what can go wrong in this case
with concepts of truth and validation going out of the window. On
tactical grounds (before we get on to its validity or otherwise)
taking such a position will weaken adoption.
Verna: If that is what it is about then I would not put myself in that
bucket.
David: 2 - Post-modernism is a reaction to modernism, a rejection of
the
objectivity of a certain type of science and a recognition of the
ideological nature in which science (and others) have used power.
The science rejected is (for want of a better label) empirical or
Newtonian Science and the concepts of prove and validity contained
within that science is itself limited. Several of us working in
this
field see complex adaptive systems theory as providing a mechanism
for a synthesis of modernism and post-modernism.
Verna: I do not reject empirical science at all and I would also agree
that the concepts of proof and validity contained within that science
are limited. My argument is that we need to understand the different
approachs to proof and validity and not apply them to questions they
were never designed to address.
David: 3 - Your various statements about hard and soft measures does
not
require you to take a post-modernism position, neither does
aesthetics (your Picasso point). We can establish a fair amount
about the way the brain handles aesthetics, the critically of
metaphor etc. in our evolutionary development of language and
evolution of humans in general.
Verna: Oh, good.
David: 4 - As you know, my own view is that quantitative methods
have
greater intrinsic validity that qualitative ones, but that we can
obtain quantitative material from narrative and other sources. I
think as this work grows some of the hard/soft issues will go away.
However (to return to a frequent theme) any method which relies on
the qualitative input of material, where those producing the
material
are aware of the consequences, have little or no validity other
than
for disclosure
Verna: We are in agreement on both points. I would note though that
the value of such disclosure is frequently dismissed when it should
not be. It is a valuable first step toward collective sense making
that allows us to more fully understand another's view as well as our
own, to explore those views and together reach a shared understanding
that allows us to take collective action ina coherent and effective
way. It does not have to plunge us into the messy world of relativism
and all that nonsense about "my truth" and 'your truth" but can
through thoughtful discourse allow us to explore different facets of a
situation and hopefully make better decisions. Better in the sense of
helping us make decisions that support the health and vitality of the
whole. However sense making is not the same as doing empirical science
although empirical science can great enhance the quality of sense
making.
David: It's worth reading "fear of knowledge: against relativism
and
constructivism" by Paul Boghossian Prof. of Philosophy at New York
University by the way
Verna: Intriguing title. Sounds like fun. Are there Cliff Notes? (Just
kidding.)
Happy hiking...
Verna
On Aug 12, 5:27 pm, Snowden Dave <dave.snow...@cognitive-edge.com>
wrote:
> ...
>
> read more »- Hide quoted text -
Snowden Dave
Jay Deragon
YouTube and throughout numerous forums and networks as a popular topic of
discussion. One of the most recent "Shift" videos released is called "The
Shift Movie at http://www.shiftable.info/ which depicts a global movement
to ignite and promote the premise that we all live in our world which is
truly one very large community in which we should learn to care and connect
to with enlightened ways.
When you view the world as one big network driven by the dynamics of "cause
and effect" interactions you begin to see the human side of networks in a
different light and how technology is accelerating "cause and effect"
dynamics.
Think about how technology accelerates communications and subsequently the
effects can best be categorized as swarms reacting to different types of
communications. These reactions can be large and influence entire nations,
our economy, ignite wars and tensions and all literally at rates of change
never before experienced. The reactions can also start our as small swarms
of individuals yet to be noticed but when leveraged through technological
networks the swarm becomes significant and influential creating effects
across and throughout the world, a movement is born.
There are millions if not billions of cause and effect interactions
happening daily in our global community. Each of these iterations causes
different levels of reactions and subsequent results. Some sustain momentum
while other fizzle out leaving little effect.
For the rest of the story go to http://jayderagon.com/blog/?p=169
What say you?
Jay Deragon
Social Networking Strategist
"Get S.E.T. for Change" What say you?
Relationship Economy.. With Whom and What:
http://www.relationship-economy.com
My Linkedin Profile: http://www.linkedin.com/in/jayderagon
My Facebook Profile: http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=572261413
tiacarrwilliams
The convergent communities of interest gathering round agitprop topics
will inevitably create 'butterfly effect' virality. Whilst we have
hopeful expectations of group communications to demonstrate interest
by written response, that clearly does not occur, but eyeballs and
impact of the authored post can nevertheless be assumed.
Mass social entrepreneurship such as Omidyar and Care2, who have
several million registrants and post petitions daily do much to create
voxpop groundswell. Look at Kiva.org, a modern phenomenon all built
through community and communication. Each day brings more technical
convergence and with it, connected mindsets.
The light is at the end of the tunnel.
Tia Carr Williams
http://www/KostialCompany.com
On Aug 13, 8:29 am, "Jay Deragon" <jay.dera...@gmail.com> wrote:
> The term "shift" has become very popular these days with blogs, video's on
> YouTube and throughout numerous forums and networks as a popular topic of
> discussion. One of the most recent "Shift" videos released is called "The
> Shift Movie at http://www.shiftable.info/which depicts a global movement
> to ignite and promote the premise that we all live in our world which is
> truly one very large community in which we should learn to care and connect
> to with enlightened ways.
>
> When you view the world as one big network driven by the dynamics of "cause
> and effect" interactions you begin to see the human side of networks in a
> different light and how technology is accelerating "cause and effect"
> dynamics.
>
> Think about how technology accelerates communications and subsequently the
> effects can best be categorized as swarms reacting to different types of
> communications. These reactions can be large and influence entire nations,
> our economy, ignite wars and tensions and all literally at rates of change
> never before experienced. The reactions can also start our as small swarms
> of individuals yet to be noticed but when leveraged through technological
> networks the swarm becomes significant and influential creating effects
> across and throughout the world, a movement is born.
>
> There are millions if not billions of cause and effect interactions
> happening daily in our global community. Each of these iterations causes
> different levels of reactions and subsequent results. Some sustain momentum
> while other fizzle out leaving little effect.
>
> For the rest of the story go tohttp://jayderagon.com/blog/?p=169
t-net32
I just want to thank you very much for all your replies and the very
intersting upcoming decision.
Chris