World Usability Day - 14 Nov 2006
John Maloney (Skype: jheuristic)
Hi -
GenIsis just
doing its part for World Usability Day - 14 Nov
2006!
"We
developed the GenIsis suite, not as an application that would compete with SNA
applications but as one that is compatible with them (and with a whole range
of other visualization tools.) Our goal is to make the tools and the method
workplace friendly. By introducing tools that work with familiar applications
such as Excel, Access and Visio (VenSim in the case of Boeing) to move such
analysis from the hands of "experts" to everyday workers, managers and
business leaders. You can find a full description as access the open resource
versions here: http://www.value-networks.com/applications.htm."
(Verna Allee)
Cheers,
-j
"We developed the GenIsis suite, not as an application that would compete with SNA applications but as one that is compatible with them (and with a whole range of other visualization tools.) Our goal is to make the tools and the method workplace friendly. By introducing tools that work with familiar applications such as Excel, Access and Visio (VenSim in the case of Boeing) to move such analysis from the hands of "experts" to everyday workers, managers and business leaders. You can find a full description as access the open resource versions here: http://www.value-networks.com/applications.htm." (Verna Allee)
World Usability Day 2006 - "Making Life Easy!"
"Why doesn't this work right? What am I
supposed to do with this now?"
World Usability Day, November 14, 2006, is for everyone who's ever asked these questions. This Earth Day style event, focused on raising awareness and visibility of usability engineering and user centered design, is currently being organized by volunteers and local event coordinators from around the world. Whether a usability professional or just an enthusiastic (or frustrated) user, each participant is making a contribution to "making life easy".
World Usability Day 2006 promotes the value of usability engineering and user-centered design and the belief that every user has the responsibility to ask for things that work better. The Usability Professionals' Association is doing that by encouraging, organizing, and sponsoring 36 hours of activities at the local level around the globe, all occurring on November 14, 2006.
The UPA, UPA chapters, and allied organizations will all hold events, revolving around a common theme - "Making life easy!" - with a focus this year on accessibility and inclusion.
The importance of usability is not
trivial; it is connected to important everyday things such as education,
healthcare and safety. Tools and systems that are usable are more effective in
teaching students. Healthcare professionals can be more confident with safer and
understandable tools providing better quality healthcare to their patients.
Government institutions can rely on easy to use and understandable voting
machines to insure accurate and democratic elections. Usable technology makes a
difference to everyone, everywhere around the world.
Thank You,
Daniel Szuc
Principal Usability
Consultant
Apogee Usability Asia Ltd
www.apogeehk.com
'Usability
in Asia'
To subscribe a friend, please click here.
Does this format look wrong? If so, change your email to the text version by clicking here or pasting the following link into your browser: http://newsletter.apogeehk.com/newsletter/index.php?cmdcGFnZT1jaGFuZ2VfdmVyJnVpZD0yZDg0MDhkOWFlYmFjNjVmYThkNDBkMzQxNzQ4OGU1MA==
John Maloney
Studies by Mr. Nielsen's company, the Nielsen Norman Group, an
Internet design firm in Fremont, Calif., show that only 50 percent of
Web visitors scroll down the screen to see what lies below the visible
part on their PC monitor. "Users spend 30 seconds reviewing a home
page," Mr. Nielsen said. "A business must encapsulate what they do
in very few words." Source: NYT.
-j
Dan Montgomery
Thursday until Monday - and now I am only getting messages from John
Maloney. Is everyone else on vacation?
Thanks,
Daniel J Montgomery, CMC
Blue Opal Strategies LLC
www.blue-opal.com
Phone (303) 942-1696
Cell (720) 641-3048
Boulder, Colorado, USA
Coaching and Tools for Organizational Performance & Leadership
More on usability.
-j
__________ NOD32 1867 (20061115) Information __________
This message was checked by NOD32 antivirus system.
http://www.eset.com
Webster, Andrew
We're all scrambling to stay abreast of the avalanche of information
that John has been fueling the group with.
If you're starving for some conversation, then I have a question for
you. I have read a bit about your philosophy from your website, and
about the value of "understanding how to rebuild trust when promises are
broken". My question: have you read Stephen M.R. Covey's (that's
Covey's son - poor guy, that will always be his biggest claim to fame)
"Speed of Trust"?
I haven't, but I had the opportunity to speak with him last week. His
philosophy seems pretty aligned with aspects of yours, and he's a big
believer in the elements of trust being measurable (a visible portion of
a value network). Are you (is anyone) actually measuring trust among
the intangibles of a VN?
Andrew
Thanks,
More on usability.
-j
Your Holiday Party ... Let us Wrap Up all the Details. Please click on the link for additional information, http://www.kingbridgecentre.com/pages.chapters/events.html
Dan Montgomery
Good to know someone besides John is out there (no offense John!). I
haven't heard of a method to actually measure trust - outside of a survey
methodology. The issue with intangibles, as many have pointed out is that
they are, well, intangible, not subject to quantitative measures. The best
proxy is statistically validated poolings of collective, subjective
impressions, eg surveys.
But I certainly go beyond the notion that trust is something vague and
atmospheric - it's a very concrete karmic result of an accumulation of
experiences of whether promises have been kept or not, which creates a
predisposition for us to co-operate and/or be truthful with others (or not!)
It's the kind of thing I would assess by means of collecting stories in the
organization and looking at common themes.
Webster, Andrew
Common themes among personal accounts sounds sensible, but it also
sounds time-consuming! But of course there are no easy answers.
Among Covey Jr's methods would be to measure employee retention. This
is supported by surveys (subjective) that show that employees with a
lack of trust in the organization or its collective integrity are far
more likely to be dissatisfied. My beef with this approach: EVERY
intangible seems to fall under that retention heading for measurement.
The same data showing lack of trust in one organization is showing lack
of engagement in another, or inadequate pay-scale in another.
Application of hard data for measurement of intangibles also seems
subjective.
-Andrew
Hi Andrew,
Dan Montgomery
called Keeping Score which is a very useful discussion of metrics within the
Baldrige framework.
Retention is certainly an important bottom line measure, but it's a lagging
indicator. It's also useful to measure leading indicators, like employee
satisfaction, before they manifest in people quitting. You want to balance
leading and lagging indicators, as well as hard, quantitative numbers with
soft, qualitative impressions. Brown suggests a combination of:
- Formal morale or climate surveys with a large sample of employees at least
once per year
- Focus groups and other techniques used several times a year to gather
qualitative data
- Hard measures related to satisfaction, such as absenteeism and turnover
collected and reported monthly
- Measures relating to employee morale that focus on delighting employees
rather than just satisfying them
- Benchmarking employee satisfaction data with similar organizations
- Continuous evaluation and improvement of methods and instruments used to
measure employee satisfaction
Daniel J Montgomery, CMC
Blue Opal Strategies LLC
www.blue-opal.com
Phone (303) 942-1696
Cell (720) 641-3048
Boulder, Colorado, USA
Coaching and Tools for Organizational Performance & Leadership
-----Original Message-----
From: Value-N...@googlegroups.com
[mailto:Value-N...@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of Webster, Andrew
Sent: Wednesday, November 15, 2006 1:26 PM
To: Value-N...@googlegroups.com
Subject: RE: Measuring Trust
Daniel,
-Andrew
Hi Andrew,
Bill French
Dan/Andrew:
I'm intrigued with the this discussion about "measuring trust" because one of the dimensions we track for our business blogging customers is how search engines trust domains. We have a number of metrics that help us advise customers in this regard, and one of them traverses the index penetration as a measure of how well search engines trust your domain.
If someone asked me to compare the relative search penetrations achieved by two different web domains (such as blue-opal.com and kmblogs.com – purely an arbitrary choice), I could say that kmblogs.com has achieved a high(er) degree of recommendation trust (compared with blue-opal.com) with all major search engines. Additional evidence from Google's BlogSearch and Technorati seem to corroborate that conclusion.
But there's much more to trust than simply index penetration, but it's a good place to start because many of the heuristics based in search engines are designed to ferret out trustworthy recommendations not unlike recommendations that humans make every day – many based on data, some based on Blink-like intuition.
We also have trust measures based on inbound links – the more you have, the more likely someone takes your message seriously (each link is considered a vote of confidence even though the linker may disagree with your position). Zero inbound links from the web of conversations (i.e., the blogosphere) is an indicator that suggests you are either invisible, or no one finds your content particularly interesting. In either case, it seems to carry an element of trust.
Another aspect of using search penetration data is the penetration of primary versus supplemental Google indices. Of the total KMBlogs pages in the Google index, Google believes strongly in recommending about 92% of them (or about 985). Conversely, of Blue Opal’s 17 pages in the Google index, only 53% (9 pages) are in the primary index. Is it safe to say that given any subject for which KMBlogs and Blue Opal have each published content, Google finds KMBlogs twice as trustworthy to recommend as Blue Opal’s?
I doubt it’s that simple, but I did want to share with you how are customers use measures of trust with respect to their business blogging initiatives.
bf
-----Original Message-----
From: Dan Montgomery [mailto:dan...@blue-opal.com]
Sent: Wednesday, November 15, 2006 1:08 PM
To: Value-N...@googlegroups.com
Subject: Measuring Trust
Hi Andrew,
Shannon Clark
One of the speakers at MeshForum 2006, Dr. Karen Stephenson has a book
that now appears to be coming out in March of 2007 (though since it
was supposed to be out this October I'll believe it when it hits the
presses) on this topic. Her book's title is "A Quantum Theory of
Trust". (see http://www.amazon.com/Quantum-Theory-Trust-Financial-Times/dp/0273681869/sr=8-1/qid=1163622981/ref=pd_bbs_sr_1/103-8704588-9400641?ie=UTF8&s=books
)
I believe she also has published an article on the topic in
Strategy+Business (Fall 2002 I think, not sure if it is available
online or not though most of the magazine is)
One already published book that may help is Rob Cross's book from
2004, The Hidden Power of Social Networks.
Dr. Stephenson's talk from MeshForum 2006 hasn't yet been published by
IT Conversations, I will be checking with them over the next few
weeks, if they do not plan on publishing it I will try to get the
audio edited myself and put it up online. In her talk she did cover
some aspects of what she has learned from her 30+ years of studying
Trust in social networks.
My personal view based on my own readings and observation that it
vital to look at a couple of related but different vectors of trust.
One is a broad, call it generic baseline measure of trust - clearly
this differs from people to people and more broadly from organizations
to organizations and societies to societies. Some having a high
baseline assumption of trust - and many having a much lower level of
trust.
Here I am defining "trust" as an assumption of good behavior (which
also implies a shared, common definition of what "good behavior" is).
A more nuanced and additional element of trust is a contextual one.
For example, I trust my sister's fianace's opinions about restaurants
and chefs (of course my trust is helped by the fact that he is a
restaurant critic for the New York Times, co-author of a Brunch
cookbook, editor/author of a book of interviews with celebrity chefs,
recipe editor for multiple other cookbooks, and associate producer for
a number of cooking shows). And given his also serious background in
music I'd value his opinions highly there as well (he was in a
semi-successful band for quite a while as well). On the other hand,
though he is a great guy and very smart, I'd probably not trust him to
perform eye surgery on me.
My point is that there is a context to trust - i.e. what you trust
someone else about. This is tempered and influenced by the more basic
trust - call it whether or not you fundamentally expect the person to
behave well and act in good ways.
Another dimension and one that I suspect is missed often is the way in
which our own view of ourselves both influences others around us - and
our perceptions and assumptions about them. i.e. if we believe ourself
to be untrustworthy - then we likely both assume that others are
likewise untrustworthy and I suspect may also send off subtle signals
and cues that inform others of our views (and in turn may often make
it easier for them to conform and thus confirm our views).
I'm always struck by the many examples that you (and businesses) often
get what you expect. i.e. if you set up systems and assume people will
be generally trustworthy and good, you more often than not get that.
In my neighborhood here in San Francisco (well technically in a nearby
one) there is a Big Lots store which I now refuse to shop at. Upon
walking into the store you are greeted by a security guard who refuses
to let you into the store if you are carrying a plastic shopping bag.
If you are, you are asked to leave it with him before you enter to
shop.
This immediate assumption that their customers are going to steal from
them sets me immediately off. I suspect for many it then makes it a
bit more of a challenge and thus all the more appealing to steal.
In contrast there are many other likewise large stores that create a
very different feeling upon entering. Borders books (and also Barnes
and Noble) while they do have security gates and alarms triggered by
their books, also have comfortable chairs and cafes where they
encourage people to pick up books and sit and read them. Trusting
their customers to not damage the books (even in the presence of hot
liquids). Not quite the local store or the corner bar that might even
give you a tab if you were short one day, but a much better
environment and signal from the company to me.
Online there are a number of independent labels and online music
stores that have started to offer music for sale without any DRM.
Trusting that their customers will not abuse this and allowing for
casual sharing or moving the music onto multiple devices or computers
without DRM etc. As a customer, I know I'm more likely to buy from
these bands than any who are suing their fans.
Shannon
Charles Ehin
Professor of Management, Emeritus
The Gore School of Business
Westminster College of Salt Lake City
801-292-7540
kal...@msn.com
www.UnManagement.com
Peggy Parskey
I don't usually respond to these emails (I must admit, I'm more of a
lurker), but I had to comment on your notion that trust requires face to
face interaction.
Personally, I've had many many experiences where I have developed deept
trusted relationships with people I've never met face to face. These were
mostly business relationships, but they required: a) Trusting the
individuals motives, b) trusting that they would meet their commitments c)
trusting their integrity, essentially all the things that Covey talks about
(I heard him speak last month).
In a virtual world, many of us have learned to gauge the "trust-worthinesss"
of our colleagues in ways that go way beyond physiological. In fact,
sometimes for me, the in-person interaction clouds the issue and causes me
to trust people who I would, in a virtual world, not trust for an instant
(and shouldn't have trusted).
You might want to rethink your hypothesis. My experiences aren't unique to
me.
Regards,
Peggy Parskey
Peggy Parskey
Parskey Consulting
ppar...@mjpnetwork.com
Telephone: 323-931-6589
Fax: 323-933-2961
-----Original Message-----
From: Value-N...@googlegroups.com
[mailto:Value-N...@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of Charles Ehin
Sent: Wednesday, November 15, 2006 4:07 PM
To: Value-N...@googlegroups.com
Subject: Re: Measuring Trust
I suggest that Brown's methodology doesn't do much for measuring trust.
Trust is affected by context and in-turn affects the context. It's all about
"circular causality" a term coined by J. A. Scott Kelso in Dynamic Patterns.
In addition, the development of high levels of trust requires face-to-face
encounters (at least occasionally) because the process is also
physiological. It includes the expression/activation of certain hormones and
neurotransmitters. This cannot be accomplished virtually.
Cheers,
Charlie
Charles Ehin, Ph.D.
Professor of Management, Emeritus
The Gore School of Business
Westminster College of Salt Lake City
801-292-7540
kal...@msn.com <mailto:kal...@msn.com>
www.UnManagement.com <http://www.UnManagement.com>
Cannon, Ian D PWR
Humans' reaction to the appearance, and the presence, of others can
cloud objectivity and influence trust. We may tend to favor those who
look like, act like, have values like- ourselves. We also can be blinded
to the negative about a person- if they are "attractive" to us. And
conversely, we may not trust someone who is attractive, or looks like a
former spouse.
Good discussion all around.
Ian
Ian D. Cannon
Principal Engineer
Pratt & Whitney Rocketdyne Technical Consulting & Services
www.PWRengineering.com
www.RocketdyneTech.com
818.586.9673 voice
818.586.1100 fax
email: ian.c...@pwr.utc.com
Webster, Andrew
My paradox: I have come to trust you Charlie, having only read your
words and seldom exchanged words only virtually. But to trust you means
that I also trust your take on the physiological component of trust...
So I guess I don't trust you at all! Can you provide a reference to
support your statement?
Further to Ian's entry, one perception of Peggy's I agree with is the
clouding of judgment inherent in physical encounters. For instance;
black defendants are far more likely to be convicted than white. A
person's likelihood for being promoted to CEO of a Fortune 500 company
is dramatically improved if they stand taller than 6'2", etc.
Andrew
Hello Charlie,
Regards,
Peggy Parskey
Your Holiday Party ... Let us Wrap Up all the Details. Please click on the link for additional information, http://www.kingbridgecentre.com/pages.chapters/events.html
John Maloney (Skype: jheuristic)
Hi --
Good discourse.
Trust is probably one of the most deeply nuanced and challenging human
concepts (next to truth). Ironically, these shades of gray are poorly suited
to low-bandwidth interaction media like discussion groups. There is truly a
plurality of opinion that is very welcoming. Trust, like truth, is a mosaic,
set in the grout of context. Trying to separate trust and context, fails
every time. It is why value networks are such a compelling lens.
Note: For the sake of discussion, trust is the measure of belief in the
benevolence and competence of another. A failure in trust will be forgiven
more easily if it is interpreted as a failure of competence rather than a
lack of benevolence.
Couple points.
Go to your local airport. Try and figure out what the airline business is.
Transportation? Nope. It is trust. Trust is a contact sport. Airlines make
most profit (>80%) from those quick biz trips to 'seal the deal' and
proximate, complex knowledge work (advice, planning, sales, etc). These
trips are to assure benevolence, context and competence. These are the
fattest margins for airlines. Believe me, if biz could find another way to
conduct critical, trust-oriented business, they would. People need to
see/dine/squeeze each other to build trust and its parent, context.
In theory, if trust could be built online, airlines would be a lot
different, built for low-margin tourism only, for example. There would be
fewer traffic jams, etc.
Now, to entirely contradict myself, in the spirit and letter of pluralism,
online trust exists, is growing fast and is essential to everyone. In some
cases, it develops quickly, others much longer. For example, the 'eLance'
economy has taken a long time to get started. Many, like me, depend on it
heavily.
Overall, the online trust experience has been great. Only one or two
problems ever. These were most always issues of competence, in that the
project or work was not scoped properly, which of course, was my problem.
There have been the very rare episodes of benevolence problems, but they
were always the other party (of course!)...
Anyway, I'm approaching the lower bezel of my display, which means, gotta
go. In parting, two of my trust corollaries that has worked very well for me
are as follows:
(A) If the outcome is well known (deterministic and complicated, like
well-speced coding or graphics), then online, virtual trust works great.
(B) If the outcome is unknown (non-deterministic and complex, like sales or
creative design) then face time is rqr'd to achieve satisfactory awareness
of benevolence, context and competence, in order to achieve a favorable
shared outcome.
This is also a good test for offshoring and outsourcing.
These crucial trust heuristics and conversations can be rapidly advanced
with network maps and visualization too, leading to much more satisfying
outcomes overall.
Cheers,
John
Charles Ehin
Charles Ehin
----- Original Message -----From: Cannon, Ian D PWRSent: Thursday, November 16, 2006 8:49 AMSubject: RE: Measuring Trust
Valdis Krebs
LOL!
Valdis
Charles Ehin
----- Original Message -----From: Webster, AndrewSent: Thursday, November 16, 2006 9:40 AMSubject: RE: Measuring Trust
Graham Douglas
No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG Free Edition.
Version: 7.5.430 / Virus Database: 268.14.6/535 - Release Date: 15/11/2006 3:47 PM
Valdis Krebs
you recommend him to your best client without knowing him further?
Probably not.
Valdis
John Maloney (Skype: jheuristic)
AWGTHTGTTSA?
Is there truth in trust?
ILSHIBMS!
-j
P.S. IITYWTMWYLMA?
-----Original Message-----
From: Value-N...@googlegroups.com
[mailto:Value-N...@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of Valdis Krebs
Sent: Thursday, November 16, 2006 10:23 AM
To: Value-N...@googlegroups.com
Subject: Re: Measuring Trust
Valdis Krebs
Webster, Andrew
is relevant only to discussion. But would a physical encounter be
necessary to get myself and another to that paramount on the
trustometer: the recommendation?
With hi-def video conferencing, and other new and established methods
for collaborating, it seems less vital. I would wager that the next
generation makes no distinction between their virtual relationships and
those consummated by face to face interaction. The depth of sharing
will be the determinant.
Andrew
-----Original Message-----
From: Value-N...@googlegroups.com
[mailto:Value-N...@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of Valdis Krebs
Sent: Friday, November 17, 2006 8:00 AM
To: Value-N...@googlegroups.com
Subject: Re: Measuring Trust
Yes, you trust him as an intelligent discussant on the net, but would
you recommend him to your best client without knowing him further?
Probably not.
Valdis
On Nov 16, 2006, at 11:40 AM, Webster, Andrew wrote:
> My paradox: I have come to trust you Charlie, having only read your
> words and seldom exchanged words only virtually. But to trust you
> means
> that I also trust your take on the physiological component of trust...
> So I guess I don't trust you at all! Can you provide a reference to
> support your statement?
Your Holiday Party ... Let us Wrap Up all the Details. Please click on the link for additional information, http://www.kingbridgecentre.com/pages.chapters/events.html
John Maloney (Skype: jheuristic)
E-MAIL SURVIVAL KIT (Caution. A bit earthy.)
============================================
AFAIC As Far As I'm Concerned
AISI As I See It
ANFAWFOS And Now For A Word From Our Sponsor
ANFAWFOWS And Now For A Word From Our WEB Sponsor
AOL Assholes On Line
ASAP As Soon As Possible
ASAFP As Soon As Friggin Possible
AWGTHTGTTA Are We Going To Have To Go Through This Again
AWGTHTGTTSA Are We Going To Have To Go Through This Shit Again
B4 Before
BCNU Be Seeing You
BFD Big F*cking Deal
BK Bo Knows
BNF Big Name Fan
BOT Back On Topic
BTSOOM Beats The Sh*t Out Of Me
BT Byte This!
BTW By The Way
BTWBO Be There With Bells On
CIAO Goodbye (Italyin Itlin Itlen Italian) :-)
CIS CompuServe Information Service
CMF Count My Fingers!
CTC Choaking The Chicken
CUL Catch You Later/See You Later
CUL8R See You Later
CWYL Chat With You Later
DBEYR Don't Believe Everything You Read
DDD Direct Distance Dial
DHYB Don't Hold Your Breath
DILLIGAD Do I Look Like I Give A Damn
DQYDJ Don't Quit You're Day Job
DYSTSOTT Did You See The Size Of That Thing
FE Fatal Error
FTASB Faster Than A Speeding Bullet
FTL Faster Than Light
FUBAR Fucked Up Beyond All Repair
FUBB Fucked Up Beyond Belief
FWIW For What It's Worth
FYI For Your Information
FYM For Your Misinformation
GE GEnie Information Service
GEE No, GTE
GIGO Garbage In, Garbage Out
GIWIST Gee, I Wish I'd Said That
GR&D Grinning Running & Ducking
HAK Hugs And Kisses
HUYA Head Up Your A$$
HHOK Ha Ha, Only Kidding
HHO1/2K Ha Ha, Only Half Kidding
HIOOC Help! I'm Out Of Coffee!
HTH Hope This Helps
HUA Heads Up, Ace
IAC In Any Case
IAE In Any Event
IANAL I Am Not A Lawyer
IANAC I Am Not A Crook
IAO I Am Outtahere
IBCNU I'll Be Seeing You
IBTD I Beg To Differ
IFABCTE I Found A Bug, Call The Exterminator
IITYWTMWYKM If I Tell You What This Means Will You Kiss Me
IITYWTMWYBMAD If I Tell You What This Means Will You Buy Me A Drink?
IITYWTMWYLMA If I Tell You What This Means Will You Leave Me Alone?
IIWM If It Were Me
ILSHIBAMF I Laughed So Hard I Broke All My Furniture
ILSHIBMS I Laughed So Hard I Broke My Stitches
IMCO In My Considered Opinion
IMHO In My Humble Opinion
IMNSHO In My Not So Humble Opinion
IMO In My Opinion
INPO In No Particular Order
IOW In Other Words
ISP Internet Service Provider
KISS Keep It Simple Stupid
L8R Later
LD Long Distance
LDTTWA Let's Do The Time Warp Again
LLTA Lots And Lots Of Thunderous Applause
LOL Laughing Out Loud
LSHHTCMS Laughed So Hard, Had To Change My Shorts
LTIP Laughing Till I Puke
MTFBWY May The Force Be With You
NBFD No Big F*cking Deal
NFW No F*cking Way
NRN No Reply Necessary
NYCFS New York City Finger Salute
OAUS On An Unrelated Subject
OATUS On A Totally Unrelated Subject
OATIS On A Totally Irrelevant Subject
OBTW Oh By The Way
OI Operator Indisposed
OMIK Open Mouth, Insert Keyboard
ONNA Oh No, Not Again
ONNTA Oh No Not This Again
OOTC Obligatory On Topic Comment
OTOH On The Other Hand
OTOOH On The Other Other Hand
OTSH On The Same Hand
OWTTE Or Words To That Effect
OZ Australia
PITA Pain In The A$$
PMF Pull My Finger
RBTL Read Between The Lines
RML Read My Lips
RMM Read My Mail
ROTFL Rolling On The Floor Laughing
ROTM Right On The Money
RSN Real Soon Now
RTFM Read The F*cking Manual (or Message)
SH Shit Happens
SH2M Shit Happens To Me
SITD Still In The Dark
SOI Sit On It
SOL Shit Outta Luck
SysOp System Operator
SYP Send Your Password
TAFL Take A Flying Leap
TANSTAAFL There Ain't No Such Than A Free Lunch
TDTM Talk Dirty To Me
TFASB Time For A Sex Break
TFN Thanks For Nothin'
TIA Thanks In Advance
TIC Tongue In Cheek
TISEC Tongue In Someone Else's Cheek
TLA Three Letter Acronym (such as this)
TM Trust Me
TSR Terminate and Stay Resident
TSR Totally Stuck in RAM
TTT That's The Ticket
TWHAB This Won't Hurt A Bit
VI Village Idiot
WDIPME Where Did I Put My Excedrin
WEB World Wide Wait
WGAFS Who Gives A Flying Squat
WIT Wordsmith In Training
WMG Wheres My Glasses
WTHDTIM What The Hell Do These Initials Mean
WTSDS Where The Sun Don't Shine
WYSIWYG What You See Is What You Get
WYSIUWYW What You See Isn't Usually What You Want
YGBK You Gotta Be Kiddin'
<g> Grin
<G> Big Grin
<s> Little sh*t
<S> Big sh*t
<f> Little f*
<F> Big f*
<FU> obvious
-----Original Message-----
From: Value-N...@googlegroups.com
[mailto:Value-N...@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of Valdis Krebs
Sent: Friday, November 17, 2006 5:20 AM
To: Value-N...@googlegroups.com
Valdis Krebs
On Nov 17, 2006, at 8:34 AM, John Maloney ((Skype: jheuristic)) wrote:
>
> Friday Fun.
>
> E-MAIL SURVIVAL KIT (Caution. A bit earthy.)
> ============================================
>
[SNIP]
Charles Ehin
those consummated by face to face interaction." I'll take that bet because current science is on my side when it comes to human nature. All the hi-def video conferences in the world are not going to close the gap between who we are and the virtual environment. If you are correct then we'll actually have to evolve into different human beings. That will not happen overnight.
----- Original Message -----From: Webster, AndrewSent: Friday, November 17, 2006 6:33 AMSubject: RE: Measuring Trust
Charles Ehin
Webster, Andrew
Damn that current science! I have nothing to support me but arrogance. I should have said “the next generation makes LESS distinction between virtual relationships and … face to face”.
I will remove myself from this thread until I’ve done some of my own research. I’m curious to know how e-banking and other hi-stake relationships fit into this.
If we do evolve overnight, I’d rather develop something cool like gills than the ability to trust a virtual colleague.
Andrew
From: Value-N...@googlegroups.com [mailto:Value-N...@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of Charles Ehin
Sent: Friday, November 17, 2006
1:26 PM
To: Value-N...@googlegroups.com
Subject: Re: Measuring Trust
Andrew,
You said, "I
would wager that the next generation makes no distinction between their virtual
relationships and
those consummated by face to face interaction." I'll
take that bet because current science is on my side when it comes to human
nature. All the hi-def video conferences in the world are not going to close
the gap between who we are and the virtual environment. If you are correct then
we'll actually have to evolve
into different human beings. That will not happen overnight.
Charlie
----- Original Message -----
From: Webster, Andrew
Sent: Friday, November 17, 2006 6:33 AM
Subject: RE: Measuring Trust
Fair enough. There are obviously degrees of trust. Trust in this case
is relevant only to discussion. But would a physical encounter be
necessary to get myself and another to that paramount on the
trustometer: the recommendation?
With hi-def video conferencing, and other new and established methods
for collaborating, it seems less vital. I would wager that the next
generation makes no distinction between their virtual relationships and
those consummated by face to face interaction. The depth of sharing
will be the determinant.
Andrew
Charles Ehin
----- Original Message -----From: Webster, Andrew
Sent: Friday, November 17, 2006 12:07 PMSubject: RE: Measuring Trust
Damn that current science! I have nothing to support me but arrogance. I should have said "the next generation makes LESS distinction between virtual relationships and . face to face".
David Hawthorne
Probably like many of you, I only get to dip into this pool from time to time. But I enjoy it every time. Even when there’s a horrendous ego slugfest going on (it’s not pretty, but I admit to screwing my neck around to catch a glimpse of the hit and run victim.) And this is too good to pass up (though I must apologize if I’m only going over old territory that other dippers have long since contributed.)
Here’s my contribution: “Trust” is a verb. Nounify if you can, but it’s a damn verb, and I will trust you, or the ground under my feet, for as long as it does not disappoint me.
What is the expiration date on my “trust?” It’s the moment you (or it) doesn’t do what I expect you or it will do.
Will any disappointment totally “destroy trust?” Well, it will certainly take a chink out of it.
If broken, can it be restored? Sure. First, apologize for fooling me. Then, offer me compensation for the injury to my “trusting.” Then ask me to, “try again.” (Oh god, this is starting to read like stage direction in a play about carnival con-men: “Sir, if you feel I’ve cheated you, here’s your dollar back… no, here’s two dollars back. Now, for those two dollars, I will give you the opportunity to...”
“Trust,” if it can be a noun at all, is one that describes a “condition” at a moment in time, “I trusted her,” or “I trust him.” But it is nothing substantial. It exists totally on condition. Trust must be earned and validated, in every way, at all times.
I feel like “Borat,” but “I am trusting you now.” Can we have “trust systems” that function like “currency systems?” Sure. We have “currency” and it’s a trust system that doesn’t seem like a trust system anymore because we’ve become so accustomed to trusting it that we hardly give it a second thought. But would you have that same feeling with a pocket full of Malawi Kwacha (Current $US1= 147MWK)?
Trust is an expectation of conditions to be met. Can we achieve it in “value networks”? Sure. All we have to do is deliver what we promise (while observing the conditions of the promise itself). It is not an investment (I know they have risks). It is not a contract (which has terms, considerations, and value). No, trust is the belief that if you are home and not busy, you will take my call. (Turn out to be a pollster, or marketer, or scam artist, and I will diligently look at the caller ID the next time and refuse to answer anything that doesn’t have a “trusted” number or ID associated with it.)
The only one who really knows if I can trust you, is you. If you want my trust, you best never disappoint me or fool me. (This does not apply to people in love.)
-David Hawthorne
David Hawthorne
Oops. On re-reading this I realize I screwed up the last sentence. I should have said, “These conditions apply only to the people I know and to the people I don’t know. They do not apply to the people I love.”
-d.hawthorne
From: Value-N...@googlegroups.com [mailto:Value-N...@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of David Hawthorne
Sent: Friday, November 17, 2006
7:25 PM
To: Value-N...@googlegroups.com
Subject: RE: Measuring Trust
Probably like many of you, I only get to dip into this pool from time to time. But I enjoy it every time. Even when there’s a horrendous ego slugfest going on (it’s not pretty, but I admit to screwing my neck around to catch a glimpse of the hit and run victim.) And this is too good to pass up (though I must apologize if I’m only going over old territory that other dippers have long since contributed.)
Verna Allee
because we are human. It is what we do next that is important."
Trust may be a verb although I basically consider it a state of being.
What it isn't is a deliverable. David got it right when he said,
"Trust is an expectation of conditions to be met. Can we achieve it in
"value
networks"? Sure. All we have to do is deliver what we promise (while
observing the conditions of the promise itself). "
We do not deliver trust. We deliver the promised action or meet the
expectation, which helps to build trust. I can demonstrate behaviors
that help build trust and provide an an expression of trust (repeat
orders, business contacts). But we do not deliver trust itself . Nor is
there anything I can provide anything that will "make" anyone trust me.
Trust is a personal choice that weighs many factors taken in context(as
stated by several others here). It is not auto response. Like any
complex adapative behavior it operates in the realm of probability, not
predictability.
Verna
Keeper of Light
Can you help me please to work out how we create conditions for trust
in a community? If I have got the meaning of exchanges right, trust
(both as verb and as a noun is a matter of personal choice in relation
to an other. Within a community, the relationship is one to many.
How does this develop under current conditions in the society at large?
Lilly Evans
Graham Douglas
My suggestions for creating "conditions for trust in a community" are:-
a) Establish and maintain a common basis for communication by training all
involved in the community on the basis of our currently most accurate
scientific understanding of the human mind and our world.
b) Establish and maintain an adaptive organisational structure in which to
communicate.
c) Establish and maintain comprehensive but adaptable governance policies
for the community.
d) Embed electronic and other trust-enabling tools in those policies to
provide internal checks and balances.
This may seem a formidable list but just think of the resources now being
wasted in trying to build trusting relationships without meeting all of
these desiderata.
Graham
> --
> No virus found in this incoming message.
> Checked by AVG Free Edition.
> Version: 7.5.430 / Virus Database: 268.14.7/537 - Release Date: 17/11/2006
> 5:56 PM
>
>
John Maloney (Skype: jheuristic)
Hi --
You may wish to borrow, add from the, er, trusty Wikipedia, for this thread,
like we all need to. See:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trust_%28sociology%29
It is suggested, expected and encouraged to make adjustments on Wikipedia if
necessary. It helps to keep a record of this discourse... That is, of
course, if you trust Wikipedia and crowd wisdom!
"Like any complex adaptive behavior it operates in the realm of probability,
not predictability."
Wow! Great remark. Are you active in prediction markets? Trading?
Some prediction markets newbies, media hypesters and others can't seem to
'get' your incisive observation. For example, some markets had priced GOP
control of the Senate around 70. After the election, people cried, the
prediction markets failed!!! Ah, er, 'fraid not. The 'crowd' worked
beautifully, since 30% chance of an outcome are good odds (> one in four).
(Note contract price is the probability of an outcome.) People that bought
the 'cheap' Senate DEM contracts cleaned up $$$. See:
http://www.pmcluster.com/
The sponsors also had a top social networks scientist (Harald Katzmair,
FAS-Research) at the European Prediction Markets Summit in Vienna and he was
very well received.
It is interesting/rewarding to see people discover (finally) how complex
adaptive systems span important sociological and essential economic systems
like value networks, prediction markets and their essential elements like
trust. It is even more exciting when they put complexity to work in such
practical, everyday ways as value networks.
-j
P.S. Wikipedia is an information market and has all the characteristics of a
complex adaptive system!
Continuous Innovation
An interesting dialogue.
Trust is a subject that is of great interest to me. I'm in the final
stages of preparing a presentation entitled "Nurturing Trust -
Leveraging Knowledge." Preparation time and other commitments have
prevented me from getting involved in the discussion. If it is not too
late, I will get post some thoughts on Wednesday.
Best regards,
Peter
Joe Wharton
person's political persuasion?
----- Original Message -----
From: "Continuous Innovation" <continuous...@gmail.com>
To: <Value-N...@googlegroups.com>
Sent: Saturday, November 18, 2006 2:14 PM
Subject: Re: Measuring Trust
>
Eileen Clegg
We identified several conditions for creating trust and the one that most clearly endured in my mind was this :
Conflict is not only allowed but encouraged, and the network has an agreed-upon system for conducting and resolving conflict.
Having the system becomes a liberating factor. People do not have to hold back their opinions and as a result the are more likely to take risks and push up against the edges. Back then I’d seen very little about how to operationalize this concept but over the years more and more techniques have surfaced. One that I like very much is a term used at the biosciences company Edwards Lifesciences: “Creative Debate.” Their system includes rules of engagement for diving deep into problems including having a “designated divergent” whose role is to challenge the status quo. They also have a special crystal paperweight with a spiral inside that is a symbol for creative debate
Other factors, as I recall, included: A shared vocabulary, shared values, and competing against another group. (We wondered, could a network compete against, say, global warming?)
When I get back into the office I hope to find my notes from this workshop and to write more.
-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.
Martin
organizations. It basically establishes correlations between the dynamics of
social networks and the build-up of trust (social capital), and derives a
few lessons for network-centric managers who want their company to be more
innovative and reactive to customer needs. It is also illustrated by
examples in large companies in Europe and in the US.
As John wrote, the foundation of trust between two persons is the mutual
recognition that the other is both benevolent and competent, but then more
ingredients are needed for trust to develop into a fruitful relationship: a
common language, shared values etc. These ingredients are acquired step by
step though various forms of collaboration in the context of a community,
because trusted relations cannot develop within a completely open group of
people, where shared knowledge can degenerate easily in rumors. My friends'
friends are not necessarily my friends (as all organizers of big parties and
meetings know by experience). Then, as collaboration deepens through
appropriate methods and tools, the bandwidth of communication widens, the
group becomes more reactive, more innovative and more able to engage into
advanced synergetic collaboration.
Unfortunately, I wrote my book in French. On eof the reasons is because it
is easier for me. But if any of you French speakers want to give a look at
it, I would be honored. You can download it from my blog
(http://www.mopsos.com/livre/ ). It's called "Le Prix de la Confiance",
which could be translated by "The Price of Trust" or "The Prize of Trust". I
works both ways ;-)
Cheers,
Martin
-----Message d'origine-----
De : Value-N...@googlegroups.com
[mailto:Value-N...@googlegroups.com] De la part de Continuous Innovation
Envoyé : samedi 18 novembre 2006 23:15
À : Value-N...@googlegroups.com
Objet : Re: Measuring Trust
Joe Wharton
person's political persuasion?
----- Original Message -----
From: "Continuous Innovation" <continuous...@gmail.com>
To: <Value-N...@googlegroups.com>
Sent: Saturday, November 18, 2006 2:14 PM
Subject: Re: Measuring Trust
>
David Meggitt
politicians some two years ago in the UK found Rt Hon William Hague
(RETIRED leader of the Conservative Opposition) to have, I think, the
most trusted rating - and this was after he had retired and noted as
such at the time.
He is now back (in harness) as Shadow Foreign Secretary so it would be
interesting to try and determine the impact of that on his
trustworthiness.
You could do an analysis on the survey by political persuasion but I
guess that would be inconclusive as potentially causative factors
woiuld not be included in said poll.
D
Continuous Innovation
If you are interested, a copy of my PowerPoint presentation -
"Nurturing Trust - Leveraging Knowledge" may be downloaded from:
http://www.continuousinnovation.ca/NurturingTrust.html
I would be happy to respond to any comments or questions.
Best regards,
Peter West
Continuous Innovation
In response to your question, a quick scan of my repository of journal
articles located the following ...
* Political Communication Faces the 21st Century
Doris A. Graber, with the assistance of James M. Smith
Journal of Communication, September 2005, p. 479-507
Excerpt (p.490):
"Some studies have focused on the circumstances that make audiences
receptive
to media messages. For instance, John Zaller (2001) developed and tested a
model of political persuasion known as RAS for how people “receive, accept,
sample” information. He found that people do resist arguments that clash
with
their political predispositions but only at the rare times when they
recognize that
a discrepancy exists. Arthur Lupia and Mathew McCubbins identified trust
as an
essential element in political persuasion. “Without trust there is no
persuasion;
without persuasion, people cannot learn from others; and without
learning from
others, it is very difficult for citizens to learn what they need to
know” (Lupia,
2001; Lupia & McCubbins, 2000; Popkin & Dimock, 2000). What seems to matter
most when it comes to internalizing political messages is their content
and framing
and their manner of presentation and message interaction with the existing
beliefs, attitudes, and opinions of various audience members (Entman,
1993; Reese,
Gandy, & Grant, 2001)."
Best regards,
Peter
John Maloney (Skype: jheuristic)
A colleague, Peter Katz, is putting trust in silicon (it is what we do here
in NorCal.) See:
"Trust but verify." - RWR, 40th President of the USA
Cheers,
John
-----Original Message-----
From: Value-N...@googlegroups.com
[mailto:Value-N...@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of Continuous Innovation
Sent: Wednesday, November 22, 2006 8:08 AM
To: Value-N...@googlegroups.com
Subject: Re: Measuring Trust
Valdis Krebs
It's got to b r e a t h John.
Valdis
Coogan, Jim
Hi everyone,
I have been working with communities of practice in The Boeing Company for some time and was teaching a class when a student approached me with this patent. I thought it was interesting enough to share with you to see what others might think of patenting something like communities of practice.
Jim
Jim
Coogan
Associate Technical Fellow
KM/Knowledge Based Environments
Boeing IDS KM Core Team Leader
Chairman, Boeing KM CoP
http://www.linkedin.com/pub/0/391/5a7
Matthew Moore
Coogan, Jim
When I first saw it I was surprised that something like this, which seems on the surface to be so obvious, was patented. Like you, I did not see anything innovative. In 2001, when this was originally filed, there was a lot of material out there from the Army, Navy, BP, Halliburton, Wenger, and others. In fact, it sounds very similar to something I saw from Halliburton a few years ago. And it’s even similar to a lot of what I have done for the last 10 years or more in communities.
Jim
From: Matthew Moore
[mailto:matthe...@oracle.com]
Sent: Monday, November 27, 2006 9:19 PM
To: Value-N...@googlegroups.com
Subject: RE: Communities of Practice Patent
Hmmm, it's assigned to Caterpillar. Two questions come to my mind:
1. Is the approach in the document any good?
2. Why have they decided to patent it?
1. I suspect you could not get very far replicating their approach as written in this patent - although I am sure it worked quite well for them. What is most noticeable about the approach however is how uninnovative it seems - which begs the question as to the validity of the patent in terms of "prior art".
2. This patent may simply be a stake in the ground. In which case, has any attempt been made to either license it or enforce a breach through legal action? Or is it just sitting there, a vacant piece of intellectual property waiting to be squatted in?
An observation: Most of the CoP "methods" I have seen have been useful as far they go in touching on important things but all are, in the final analysis, inadequate. So much of CoP development is unpredictable and opportunistic.
What do you think of it Jim?
-----Original Message-----
From: Value-N...@googlegroups.com
[mailto:Value-N...@googlegroups.com]On Behalf Of Coogan, Jim
Sent: Tuesday, 28 November 2006 3:46 PM
To: Value-N...@googlegroups.com
Subject: Communities of Practice Patent
Hi everyone,
I have been working with communities of practice in The Boeing Company for some time and was teaching a class when a student approached me with this patent. I thought it was interesting enough to share with you to see what others might think of patenting something like communities of practice.
Jim
Jim Coogan
Associate Technical Fellow
KM/Knowledge Based Environments
Boeing IDS KM Core Team Leader
Chairman, Boeing KM CoP
http://www.linkedin.com/pub/0/391/5a7
<BR
Weare, Rob
Hi Jim and Mattew from the ‘dark’ continent J (Namibia, Africa)
My 2 cents worth on CoP patent potential…….I think this rather flies in the face of the idea behind CoP’s and should we ever get to a point of actually patenting this sort of practice, we will lose an incredible amount of flexibility and innovation for true knowledge sharing. We also practice something similar in the mining industry in which I work. I think what’s important is we keep CoP’s people centric and dynamic, and I would add not too prescriptive.
Kind regards
Rob Weare
The information contained in this e-mail is confidential and may be subject to legal privilege. If you are not the intended recipient, you must not use, copy, distribute or disclose the e-mail or any part of its contents or take any action in reliance on it. If you have received this e-mail in error, please e-mail the sender by replying to this message. All reasonable precautions have been taken to ensure no viruses are present in this e-mail and the sender cannot accept responsibility for loss or damage arising from the use of this e-mail or attachments.
.*****************************************************************************
Snowden Dave
Han
There are legal firms specialising in pursuing patent infringement
using legal "blackmail type" tactics to make users pay a fee instead of
fighting invalid patents. These firms scrupulously pursue the users but
have no scruples.
Han
John Maloney (Skype: jheuristic)
CONVERSATION :: SUMMARY OF THE INVENTION
A method is provided for establishing a conversation including as participants a plurality of users, one or more experts, and one or more conversation managers. A need for a conversation is identified. The roles and responsibilities of participants in the conversation are identified. One or more goals are identified for the conversation based on the identified need. A plurality of the participants in the conversation collaborate to achieve the identified goals.
Further, a method for managing a knowledge management architecture for use in a conversation is provided. Speaking is proposed. Knowledge is captured from conversation participants. The knowledge is then approved. Approved knowledge is delivered to conversation participants. Knowledge is then maintained in a knowledge database. The conversation participants include a plurality of users, one or more conversation managers, and one or more experts associated with the conversation.
Additionally, a system for managing knowledge is provided. The system includes a conversation, speaking and note-taking. The conversation includes a knowledge management architecture, voice, using a brain, a plurality of users, one or more experts, and one or more conversation managers, all interconnected by conversation.
LUNCH :: SUMMARY OF THE INVENTION
A method is provided for establishing a lunch including as participants a plurality of users, one or more experts, and one or more lunch managers. A need for a lunch is identified. The roles and responsibilities of participants in the lunch are identified. One or more goals are identified for the lunch based on the identified need. A plurality of the participants in the lunch collaborate to achieve the identified goals.
Further, a method for managing a knowledge management architecture for use in a lunch is provided. Eating is proposed. Knowledge is captured from lunch participants. The knowledge is then approved. Approved knowledge is delivered to lunch participants with food. Knowledge is then maintained in a knowledge database. The lunch participants include a plurality of users, one or more lunch managers, and one or more experts associated with the lunch.
Additionally, a system for managing knowledge is provided. The system includes a lunch. Chairs and table are suggested. The lunch includes a knowledge management architecture, a plurality of users, one or more experts, and one or more lunch managers, all interconnected by a meal. The knowledge management architecture includes a web server module, mustard, a security module, an e-mail server, a knowledge database, a document management system, salt and pepper.
From: Value-N...@googlegroups.com [mailto:Value-N...@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of Snowden Dave
Sent: Monday, November 27, 2006 11:32 PM
To: Value-N...@googlegroups.com
Subject: Re: Communities of Practice Patent
William Ives
Verna Allee
exactly why VNA methodology is open source. When this kind of nonsense
began about 1999-2000 (note the CAT filing date) I had one question for
myself. Do I want to spend my time with attorneys (to patent/protect
the method) or do I want to spend my time with other people with a
passion for whole system perspectives? No brainer. VNA method went open
source in February 2001.
Coogan, Jim
in the papers a lot over the last few years.
Jim
-----Original Message-----
From: Han [mailto:in...@lc-stars.com]
Sent: Tuesday, November 28, 2006 2:11 AM
To: Value Networks
Subject: Re: Communities of Practice Patent
Coogan, Jim
I agree with Dave too. The best way to move forward is to make as much of this open source as possible.
Jim
From: William Ives
[mailto:ivesw...@comcast.net]
Sent: Tuesday, November 28, 2006 6:20 AM
To: Value-N...@googlegroups.com
Subject: Re: Communities of Practice Patent
I agree completely with Dave. I had the same experience in past jobs where the use of patent as a competitive weapon was advocated by some individuals. I think these patents are largely a misuse of the patent process and likely unenforceable except by brute force with an expensive legal team against an organization which does not have deep pockets. Usually the patent is simply used as a threat and/or a sales tool. As Dave said, it is patenting something that was created by many people just because no one else did a patent. It is hubris to think that one company invented the practice but I have seen this hubris in effect many times, even when patents were not involved. We might as well patent the concept of training or knowledge management because no has done it (or perhaps they have). The process and methods patents are especially bogus. I seen some similar! ones around online support.
Bill Ives
On Nov 28, 2006, at 2:31 AM, Snowden Dave wrote:
Its big company speak
When I was in IBM the pressure to patent methods was intense and if you didn't do it, others would take your material and patent it to advance up the charts.
I think the big flaw in methods is that nothing which you do is not drawn from multiple sources. Anyone attempting to use a patent to prevent practice would I think have many problems.
Open source is the way to go on knowledge. In practice patents are now a method by which large companies can control a market. They were designed to protect inventors, now they prevent invention.
Dave Snowden
Founder & Chief Scientific Officer
Cognitive Edge Pte Ltd
Now blogging at www.cognitive-edge.com
On 28 Nov 2006, at 05:47, Coogan, Jim wrote:
When I first saw it I was surprised that something like this, which seems on the surface to be so obvious, was patented. Like you, I did not see anything innovative. In 2001, when this was originally filed, there was a lot of material out there from the Army, Navy, BP, Halliburton, Wenger, and others. In fact, it sounds very similar to something I saw from Halliburton a few years ago. And it’s even similar to a lot of what I have done for the last 10 years or more in communities.
Jim
From:
Matthew Moore [mailto:matthe...@oracle.com]
Sent:
Monday, November 27, 2006 9:19 PM
To: Value-N...@googlegroups.com
Subject: RE: Communities of Practice Patent
Hmmm, it's assigned to Caterpillar. Two questions come to my mind:
1. Is the approach in the document any good?
2. Why have they decided to patent it?
1. I suspect you could not get very far replicating their approach as written in this patent - although I am sure it worked quite well for them. What is most noticeable about the approach however is how uninnovative it seems - which begs the question as to the validity of the patent in terms of "prior art".
2. This patent may simply be a stake in the ground. In which case, has any attempt been made to either license it or enforce a breach through legal action? Or is it just sitting there, a vacant piece of intellectual property waiting to be squatted in?
An observation: Most of the CoP "methods" I have seen have been useful as far they go in touching on important things but all are, in the final analysis, inadequate. So much of CoP development is unpredictable and opportunistic.
What do you think! of it Jim?
Webster, Andrew
will bury the jackals squabbling over patents of CoP's and the like.
The few people I know that have patents or are otherwise involved in
questionable patents defend themselves (and maybe even this outrage) by
calling it "gaming". There were mixed definitions of gaming among this
group, and mixed opinions.
John offered that:
"Manipulation is not gaming. Machiavellian machinations are not gaming.
Dishonesty is not gaming.
Gaming, by definition, has a commonly accepted and open set of rules, a
bounded rationality."
This CoP patent application constitutes a deviation from that
rationality and the rules. The trump card of "any and all actions in
pursuit of patents is acceptable gaming" is one that won't long be worth
playing on the patent table. Rock bands everywhere are figuring out
that younger markets aren't willing to pay for anything immaterial.
NexGen's will game their way around any patents and the patent-hungry
will game themselves out of a purpose.
Blessing in disguise in this circumstance maybe. CoP's have become a
burden and a nightmare to some Canadian hospitals with very good
intentions.
Andrew
-----Original Message-----
From: Value-N...@googlegroups.com
[mailto:Value-N...@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of Verna Allee
Sent: Tuesday, November 28, 2006 10:58 AM
To: Value Networks
Subject: Re: Communities of Practice Patent
Your Holiday Party ... Let us Wrap Up all the Details. Please click on the link for additional information, http://www.kingbridgecentre.com/pages.chapters/events.html
John Maloney (Skype: jheuristic)
Hi Jim et al --
Great to see all the sensible remarks on open source and and backlash to the CoP patent. I sent a copy to Larry Lessig of Creative Commons since he gets a kick out this sort of nonsense.
It is great to see the support for the open source value networks. It has been an uphill battle and a lot of people thought it was crazy when it was started.
Now that people are convinced open source/content make sense, the next key stage it to coalesce efforts and initiatives around open consortium. This is already in full swing. It is critical to support the value networks commons to sustain your open source value networks, e.g.,
The Value Networks Consortium ( VNC) is the open, global network leading value network standards, taxonomies, visualization, analytics, vocabulary, methods, open tool development, benchmark datasets and techniques.
Your Direct Benefits of Membership in the Value Networks Consortium
Membership offers organisations, institutions and individuals the way forward for early-adoption and continuous mastery of value networks. It is instrumental in applying advanced value networks to best advantage in products and services, a gain in comprehension and for significant competitive benefits. The Value Networks Consortium is the gateway to better value networks understanding, open tools, methods and techniques. Membership provides insight, relationships and success stories for the use and users of value networks around the world. This includes far greater organizational effectiveness, frictionless interoperability, entirely new new business opportunities and dramatic cost saving.
Value Networks Consortium members have access to consortium meetings, working groups and electronic discussion groups, providing the best available range of information on value networks development and planning. They will see draft versions of specifications and other technical documents as they are developed, well ahead of formal public release. They receive open tools and methods well in advance of non-members. Members can also play a full part in the creation of standards, tools and methods, helping to ensure they meet their own individual business priorities and requirements.
As they come to use value networks in practice, members will have access to advice from the leading technical experts on value networks. They can also make the most of the marketing opportunities available through the consortium. Participation helps a member identify itself as a leading and effective value network innovator. Specific advantages of membership include:
Technical tools, methods, plans development:
- Access to the very latest value networks visulization technology, mapping standards and interactive value network analysis;
- Continuous capabilities development to assure the success of members and their value networks;
- Access to the latest and best technical information on value networks through electronic discussion groups, phone conferences and meetings;
- Early view of draft technical documents and taxonomies during their development;
- Direct advice from to leading technical experts on value networks on implementation and other issues;
- Direct contact with vendors of value networks software tools, with opportunities for cheaper access to tools and training;
- Participation in setting requirements and priorities, ensuring these meet the needs of your organisation.
Charles Ehin
Professor of Management, Emeritus
The Gore School of Business
Westminster College of Salt Lake City
801-292-7540 (home)
kal...@msn.com
www.UnManagement.com
----- Original Message -----From: Snowden DaveSent: Tuesday, November 28, 2006 12:31 AMSubject: Re: Communities of Practice Patent
Tony Kortens
And I agree wholeheartedly with your notions of keeping... CoP’s people centric and dynamic, and I would add not too prescriptive.
Seeing the patently bizarre notion of a CoP patent strikes me as completing the full maturation of the emergence of the concept to its maximum distortion.
It also raises one aspect of the KM conversation that continues to make me a little crazy (or crazier some might say). It's rather hard to describe, although this recent CoP patent example is perhaps a useful example.
CoP's didn't come out of some technology plant or some grand plan that some great organizational superman produced. Etienne Wenger, housed in a like-minded group of researchers who had crafted an interdisciplinary way of looking at social systems observed what people were actually doing ..... nobody had told them what to do, nobody gave them a label or told them the formula, in fact, their patterns of responses were formed from the need to actually get around the grand machinations and SOP's of the organization.
In the above sense, Etienne used an ethnographic, inductive approach to form a construct to explain what people were already doing .....
So, ever since the emergence of this LABEL or model, others have been using a deductive approach to prescribe, organize, dictate and now patent CoP's.
It strikes me that it is our responsibility to know the difference between the observed "reality" of organizational life and our feeble attempts to label, reduce, and intervene using our glorious maps of same ...
In this way, it makes no sense, for one example, to speak of CoP's or communities being "dead." We may discard ideas, labels, theories that we find incomplete and less useful or relevant - such is intellectual progress. However, organizational life will continue to evolve regardless of our labels. Organizational actors will continue to form, re-form, fight, collaborate, etc. They may do so using patterns that may be most usefully described as a community, a CoP, a network, a value network, a hierarchy, a self-organizing complex system or otherwise.
I feel it is critical to the ethics of our field that we are responsible in knowing our own hubris, I'll re-state that as me knowing MY own hubris. That as a applied scientist of organization life I can know and make distinctions between the lens that I am choosing to use, where those lens came from and the limitations of same.
I'm glad for the dialogue,
Tony
- --
"Knowledge is wonderful but imagination is even
better."
- Albert Einstein
Tony Kortens, Ph.D.
Principal, Envision International
to...@tkortens.com
Ph: (001) (925) 939 4177
Fax:
(001) (925) 935 0717
******************* PLEASE READ *******************
This message, along with any attachments, may be confidential or
legally
privileged. It is intended only for the named person(s), who is/are
the
only authorized recipients. If this message has reached you in
error,
kindly destroy it without review and notify the sender immediately.
Thank
you for your help.
Coogan, Jim
Hi Rob,
When my student approached me he used the same words you did….this seems to fly in the face of the idea behind CoP’s and even KM itself. We have had the most success when we have been the least prescriptive. It’s the flexibility, and their potential to become innovation engines, that attracts our leadership to use CoP’s as a part of their knowledge strategies.
Jim
John Maloney
Thanks for your posting. It is great to have such talent engaged in
this group and on this thread.
BTW, I was using "CoPs" are dead in the rhetorical sense, not the
absolute sense. Like Victorian-era surgical practices are dead, but
doctors still perform surgery.
Yes, deductive, process-centric KM is infuriating. For example, even
top KM professionals use a Western mindset to interpret and 'compete'
(?) with Nonaka SECI as if it is a game of hopscotch inside the
unfortunate 4-up model used. They see each square as a state, and to
hop to the next state, they need a state change. Brother. Completely
misses the point...
These KM 'interventionist' want a 'corrective action' or else there
will be 'consequences!'
I'm wondering if holism and inductive reasoning can be taught. People
sure struggle... They are essential principles of value networks.
Cordially,
-j
Valdis Krebs
social/organizational network analysis -- I have a ton of 'prior art',
20 years worth, to make life real difficult for them.
Valdis
David Hawkins
WASHINGTON--U.S. Supreme Court justices on Tuesday appeared to take issue with the current legal standard for granting patents, which many high-tech firms claim is ineffective at weeding out inventions that should be obvious.
During hour-long oral arguments in a case that's closely watched by the business community, Chief Justice John Roberts suggested that an existing federal court test for determining patent obviousness relied too little on common sense. Justice Antonin Scalia went so far as to call the test "gobbledygook" and "meaningless."
"It's worse than meaningless because it complicates the question rather than focusing on the statute," Roberts went on to say of the test, which requires evidence of a past "teaching, suggestion or motivation" that would lead to a particular invention in order for it to be declared "obvious."
The case, rooted in an obscure patent spat about gas pedal designs between the Canadian firm KSR International and Pennsylvania-based Teleflex, has attracted the attention of high-tech, pharmaceutical, biotechnology and other patent-dependent firms because because it addresses one of the fundamental questions in patent law: What makes an invention, particularly a combination of existing parts, too "obvious" to warrant protection?
If the high court decides to rewrite the legal standard of patent "obviousness" to make it more restrictive, it could have wide-ranging effects by reshaping U.S. intellectual property law and reducing the number of marginal patents. Tuesday's arguments are the only ones that will be heard in the case. A decision is expected by July 2007.
The benefit of hindsight
According to federal patent law, an invention must be declared obvious--and thus non-patentable--when a person of "ordinary skill" in the same field could have come up with it. But it's easier to say an invention is obvious in hindsight, so courts have attempted to construct a more objective way to come to that determination.
That's what the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, the nation's dedicated patent appeals court, was trying to do when it set what is known as the "teaching, suggestion or motivation" standard in 1982, Chief Justice Roberts acknowledged.
"They say obviousness is deceptive in hindsight, that in hindsight, everybody says, I could've thought of that," he said.
But those siding with KSR--including the U.S. government, a number of large Silicon Valley firms, and the open-source and free software movement--contend that the test, however well-meaning it may have been, has made it easier to obtain patents on seemingly obvious combinations of preexisting inventions. They claim that making an obviousness defense is impossibly tough because firms of their nature don't routinely document incremental changes to their technology, which they say are effectively required by the test.
KSR had argued in its brief that the test for obviousness should rely more heavily on what a person of ordinary skill in the field is "capable" of devising. But Thomas Goldstein, the attorney arguing Teleflex's side, argued that if courts give too much weight to capability, they'll miss out on protecting "the most important part of invention," which, he said, is "deciding how to put (different parts) together."
Perhaps the most outspoken skeptic was Justice Stephen Breyer, who repeatedly questioned how courts are supposed to decide whether a "motivation" existed for a person to come up with a particular invention. He suggested that the federal court's test was trying too hard to "absolutely define" a way of settling patent obviousness when perhaps the issue isn't so clear cut. "I seem to think that maybe it isn't well settled, and maybe there's something we should do," he said.
Patent disputes are known for being dry and technical, but in this case, the dark-suited audience erupted into laughter multiple times during the justices' questioning. On one occasion, a deadpan Chief Justice Roberts asked Teleflex's attorney: "Who do you get to be an expert to tell us something's not obvious?"
To a roar of laughter, he added, without missing a beat: "The least insightful person you can find?"
Goldstein argued that if the Supreme Court revises the current standard, "it will create genuine, dramatic instability" because it underlies the hundreds of thousands of patents that have been granted each year for the past quarter century.
Such consequences were not lost on some of the justices. "If we see it your way," Justice David Souter asked U.S. Department of Justice attorney Thomas Hungar, who advocated changes to the system, "are there going to be 100,000 cases filed tomorrow morning?"
If sweeping changes are made to the test, asked Justice Scalia, "does it make sense to assume patents are valid under a test that has been erroneous for 20 years?"
Justice Anthony Kennedy questioned whether scrapping the entire Federal Circuit test was necessary, implying that perhaps a compromise could be reached. "Does it not serve to show us at least one way in which there can be obviousness?" he asked.
It was clear that the current standard brought displeasure to some justices, said Steve Maebius, an intellectual property partner with the law firm Foley & Larder in Washington, D.C.
"One of the themes that came out in the questioning, in particular from Chief Justice Roberts, was the need for flexibility," Maebius, who attended the morning arguments, said during a conference call with reporters. "He felt that perhaps having a test that requires motivation is too rigid and doesn't always give the court or the decision maker the flexibility needed to reach a conclusion of obviousness."
Dave Hawkins
dhaw...@hotmail.com
From: Valdis Krebs <val...@orgnet.com>
Reply-To: Value-N...@googlegroups.com
To: Value-N...@googlegroups.com
Subject: Re: Communities of Practice Patent
Date: Tue, 28 Nov 2006 16:23:59 -0500
Martin
Actually, the intranet of Caterpillar was created as an « infrastructure for communities of practice », and quite a lot of efforts was put in developing and deploying the tool in the company, apparently with some success. Caterpillar claims 4000 « communities » using the system. Now they are trying to sell that tool as an enterprise platform, which is very bizarre. This would justify filing for patent, although nothing I’ve seen seen so far on their demo looked particularly revolutionary to me. I’ll give it a look anyway.
Thanks for the info. I do have a couple of screenshots of the Caterpillar system if anyone of you is interested.
Martin
De :
Value-N...@googlegroups.com [mailto:Value-N...@googlegroups.com] De
la part de Tony Kortens
Envoyé : mardi 28 novembre 2006 19:13
À : Value-N...@googlegroups.com
Objet : RE: Communities of Practice Patent
David Hawkins
I would be!
Dave Hawkins
dhaw...@hotmail.com
From: "Martin" <mar...@mopsos.com>
Reply-To: Value-N...@googlegroups.com
To: <Value-N...@googlegroups.com>
Subject: RE: Communities of Practice Patent
Date: Tue, 28 Nov 2006 23:40:58 +0100
Snowden Dave
John Maloney (Skype: jheuristic)
Hi --
This CAT subsystem is a discussion group and bulletin board that has attachments and user profiles. It is just about like any other ordinary enterprise subsystem for unstructured information management. The current count is 4300 communities. For example, the discussion of a particular bolt issue on a front loader is called a community. About 1000 communities are 'dormant' (?) and need to be removed. CAT has done an excellent job of marketing the hubris, both internally, and, as we have now seen, externally. BTW, this frivolous patent was awarded 4 weeks ago.
Knowledge management system and method
United States
Patent Number: US 7,127,440
Date of Patent: Oct.
24,2006
This is the height of abuse and arrogance. Doug Engelbart
invented these subsystems 40 years ago. Shame on the US Patent
Office.
After seeing the recent CoP patent, it was easy to find another important United States Patent that may even be more useful and important for KM. It is also user-operated, offers plurality and portability. It is a definitely among the Best Practices in KM for motivating workers to share, the process of innovation, self-management, autonomous leadership, etc. Certifications and conferences will be coming soon from the Institutes, the 'Pro' groups, the KM tabloids, consultants, etc... See:
United States Patent
Number: US 6,293,874
Date
of Patent :January 29, 2002
http://www.freepatentsonline.com/6293874.html
Apparatus for Kicking the User's Buttocks
From: Value-N...@googlegroups.com [mailto:Value-N...@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of Martin
Sent: Tuesday, November 28, 2006 2:41 PM
Charles Ehin
Eileen Clegg
Has anyone had much luck with videoconferencing? My favorite video conference story was when Doug Engelbart (inventor of the mouse who demonstrated videoconferencing back during his famous ‘68 demo) was meeting with the World Bank in 2005. The sound system didn’t work so he was facing the group of people on the video screen and talking on a cell phone. He must have wondered why we couldn’t get it right after 35 years. Lately in video conferences I see people sitting around tables and no matter how big the screen size, it doesn’t seem like they are anything near the same room. I’m waiting for holographs.
For virtual communication, I’m intrigued by Second Life and amazed to see Fortune 100 companies buying space and execs having meetings with their avatars. My first experience with immersive worlds was participation against my will (a favor for a friend) in an experimental meeting in “Active Worlds” a nonprofit immersive for scholars including international physicists. We had a meeting but then a sort of bonding experience with music and avatars floating around. It was actually very moving. My avatar was a bucky ball. Anyway a good colleague has just become “community builder” for Second Life and I can’t wait to talk to her about what she’s learning.
Cheers to all and, Andrew, I do not find you arrogant at all. I enjoy your energy and candor and most especially your humor. The gills comment had me LOL.
-Eileen
On 11/17/06 11:07 AM, "Webster, Andrew" <Andrew....@kingbridgecentre.com> wrote:
Damn that current science! I have nothing to support me but arrogance. I should have said “the next generation makes LESS distinction between virtual relationships and … face to face”.
I will remove myself from this thread until I’ve done some of my own research. I’m curious to know how e-banking and other hi-stake relationships fit into this.
If we do evolve overnight, I’d rather develop something cool like gills than the ability to trust a virtual colleague.
Andrew
From: Value-N...@googlegroups.com [mailto:Value-N...@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of Charles Ehin
Sent: Friday, November 17, 2006 1:26 PM
To: Value-N...@googlegroups.com
Subject: Re: Measuring Trust
Andrew,
You said, "I would wager that the next generation makes no distinction between their virtual relationships and
those consummated by face to face interaction." I'll take that bet because current science is on my side when it comes to human nature. All the hi-def video conferences in the world are not going to close the gap between who we are and the virtual environment. If you are correct then we'll actually have to evolve into different human beings. That will not happen overnight.
Charlie
----- Original Message -----
From: Webster, Andrew <mailto:Andrew....@kingbridgecentre.com>
To: Value-N...@googlegroups.com
Sent: Friday, November 17, 2006 6:33 AM
Subject: RE: Measuring Trust
Fair enough. There are obviously degrees of trust. Trust in this case
is relevant only to discussion. But would a physical encounter be
necessary to get myself and another to that paramount on the
trustometer: the recommendation?
With hi-def video conferencing, and other new and established methods
for collaborating, it seems less vital. I would wager that the next
generation makes no distinction between their virtual relationships and
those consummated by face to face interaction. The depth of sharing
will be the determinant.
Andrew
Your Holiday Party ... Let us Wrap Up all the Details. Please click on the link for additional information, http://www.kingbridgecentre.com/pages.chapters/events.html <http://www.kingbridgecentre.com/pages.chapters/events.html>
Stuart Robbins
Eileen Clegg
I’m really interested in hearing from anyone who regularly participates in video conferences and found a way to make them “come alive” and really feel everyone’s in the room, maybe using cameras to focus on speakers or the like? I’ve certainly enjoyed doing visuals on white boards or even old fashioned paper-and-markers and having that on screen. But it always feels that the “other group” is quite disconnected.
Thoughts anyone?
-Eileen
On 12/8/06 3:01 PM, "Stuart Robbins" <srob...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
The World Bank has had good success with videoconferencing among 48 different countries. Let me know if you would like a pointer to some of their online info, or see www.developmentgateway.org <http://www.developmentgateway.org> .
- -Stuart
Stuart Robbins
John Maloney (Skype: jheuristic)
Effective collaboration is about moving bits AND atoms.
From: Value-N...@googlegroups.com [mailto:Value-N...@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of Eileen Clegg
Sent: Friday, December 08, 2006 4:11 PM
Snowden Dave
John Maloney (Skype: jheuristic)
“Disruptive Innovation for Social Change”
Description:
Countries, organizations, and individuals around the globe spend aggressively to solve social problems, but these efforts often fail to deliver. Misdirected investment is the primary reason for that failure. Most of the money earmarked for social initiatives goes to organizations that are structured to support specific groups of recipients, often with sophisticated solutions. Such organizations rarely reach the broader populations that could be served by simpler alternatives. There is, however, an effective way to get to those underserved populations. The authors call it "catalytic innovation." Based on Clayton Christensen's disruptive-innovation model, catalytic innovations challenge organizational incumbents by offering simpler, good-enough solutions aimed at underserved groups. Unlike disruptive innovations, though, catalytic innovations are focused on creating social change. Catalytic innovators are defined by five distinct qualities. First, they create social change through scaling and replication. Second, they meet a need that is either overserved (that is, the existing solution is more complex than necessary for many people) or not served at all. Third, the products and services they offer are simpler and cheaper than alternatives, but recipients view them as good enough. Fourth, they bring in resources in ways that initially seem unattractive to incumbents. And fifth, they are often ignored, put down, or even discouraged by existing organizations, which don't see the catalytic innovators' solutions as viable. As the authors show through examples in health care, education, and economic development, both nonprofit and for-profit groups are finding ways to create catalytic innovation that drives social change.
From: Value-N...@googlegroups.com [mailto:Value-N...@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of Snowden Dave
Sent: Friday, December 08, 2006 10:58 PM