Are Economics Zero-sum?
jheuristic
Good blog post from Shannon Clark, founder of MeshForum.
Tonight I had a great conversation with a bunch of people in San
Francisco, starting from "what books are you reading?" and
including the war in Iraq, economics, how to make corporations ethical
and much more. But as a part of the conversation the topic of whether
or not economics is zero-sum came up. With the specific claim that
"economics is defined as being zero-sum".
Certainly if you start with the definition of Economics in Wikipedia
you see that economics has historically be defined as a study of
scarcity (with alternative definitions as to what is scarce and what
this mean).
I argue that economics is NOT inherently zero-sum - that is, you can
study economic activities from a perspective that allows for
non-zero-sum activities and indeed, if you do not do so, you are
missing crucial aspects of economic activities (both future cases,
current cases and even I would argue historical cases).
My view of economics, which I do not think falls into ANY of the
classical (or even neoclassical schools) is that economics can be
defined as the study of the flows of value. And value, in turn, can be
defined as being created by agreements between entities - a series of
links and relationships over time. (entities for this purpose being
perhaps recursively defined as "any person or legal body that enters
into agreements and can hold value" - so people, trusts,
corporations, churches, co-ops, communes, governments, central banks,
families, villages etc are all entities for this type of analysis.
I usually describe this as the study of economics AS networks. I
represent all economic relationships as links between entities over
time. Then to study economic activity is to look at the patterns,
structures and flows of value across a web of entities.
I claim that through this structural analysis a great deal can be
explained about issues that economists have studied for centuries - how
prices are set, how wealth is created (and what "wealth is"), how
corporations and other organizational structures work and interact (and
why/if they add value).
But underlying this analysis are also a number of other perhaps more
controversial claims. The first of which is that there is NO intrinsic
value - a bar of gold is not inherently worth anything. It is only when
that bar of gold gets enmeshed within a network of relationships that
value is ascribed to the gold. And likewise, it is only when a person
places there time (and mental and physical effort) into a web of
relationships that it is ascribed a value. Currency/specie also does
not inherently have value, though it can be thought of as being a
physical embodiment of a link - between whomever holds (owns) the bill
and the central bank that created that bill - and since in most cases
there is a large number of people also holding similar bills and thus
creating together a fairly common for a given period of time value for
that currency. But this is not always the case - consider a gift
card/certificate - which is a link between the holder of the gift card
and the issuer - but unlike say a $50 bill (US) a gift card often has
many more restrictions (a small universe that accepts it - perhaps just
one store) and may have a time limit (expires in 30 days) etc. Some
gift cards (American Express perhaps, Visa/MasterCard as well) might
have a more widely held acceptance and thus might have value outside of
a direct transaction (i.e. I have accepted a VISA gift card from a
company in lieu of a check from them and was not too unhappy with the
swap).
But to get back to the question - is Economics Zero-sum?
>From my network centric perspective I would say NO. Value, net across
the world (or the boundaries of the economy being studied) is not fixed
- instead it fluxates over time and many forms of human activity change
the sum of value available to the economy at any given point in time.
Thus transactions around that time - and transactions across time - do
not have to be zero-sum. Further, there are many cases - historical as
well as present or future - where all parties in a given transaction
gained value - indeed were this not the case I would argue that society
would be vastly different and many fewer agreements between people
would take place.
In part I agree with the definition of value as being in part captured
time, though I also agree with the idea that value is also encapsulated
energy (and might argue that time and energy can be converted in some
creative ways). But I also think that a better definition of
"value" is to relate it to the network around a given unit of
measurement and transaction.
So if economics is not zero-sum why has it historically been defined as
being about scarcity? (and not abundance, indeed many make the claim
that economics can't deal with and indeed explicitly ignores anything
that is abundant - such as energy from the sun, air, etc)
I argue that this is due to the focus on the exchange of physical units
(specie) historically - now shifted to the movement of digital bits but
still driven by accounting and balancesheets - a focus on either/or, on
who owns what (and an assumption that if I own it, you do not).
A network perspective, however, thinks of interactions as collections
of links over time. Links in my model are single directional, so the
entity linked to may not link back (for example the central bank does
not know that I have a given bill, while I when I hold that bill in my
pocket could be thought of as having a link to the central bank). This
also means that links while they can and are transferred from one
entity to another do not preclude the creation of other links. This is
a critical point - the number of links between entities is NOT finite.
New links can be created WITHOUT the transfer or destruction of old
links. A link may have a denomination associated with it (often
implying a related link to a given central bank) but the summation of
all of these links is not finite, nor is it fixed at a given point in
time. Some links imply relationships that are very short term
(immediate purchases for example) but many others represent very long
duration relationships (30 year mortgages for example). As you
introduce time into the equation it becomes inherently (I argue)
non-zero-sum.
Verna Allee
messages to make my responses more digestible.
First of all I find it amusing that the tone and style of the message
is in direct contrast to the opinions expressed. The academic "I argue"
and the expression of opinons with no reference at all to some of the
prominent thinkers on this topic is a classic "zero sum" style of
discourse that has dominated business and academic for the last two
hundred years. Shannon also seems to make the assumption that his
proclamations have no precedent in neo economics which rather
cavalierly ignores the very serious research and reflections that have
been underway for at least a decade in the US and for several years
longer than that in Europe. In fact most of the points that he makes
have been made previously by a number of other respected observers.
Tom Stewart's cover article in Fortune Magazine "Intellectual Capital"
in 1994 at the time drew the biggest response rate ever to an article
in Fortune. It brought to the US some of the ideas that had been
galvanizing economic leadership in Northern Europe and Scandinavia
since the late 19890s and in the US raised a more general public
awareness of just how differently we need to think about business
models and economics. Don Tapscott pulled a number of us together in
1997 to look at e-business as value networks in 1997, which led to the
book Digital Capital published in 2000. In 1999 The Brookings Task
Force on Intangibles published a fresh approach to economic thinking,
along with Baruch Lev's landmark book on intangibles. I felt incredibly
lucky to be part of these groups and to be ably to test out my own long
festering questions about value networks with some of the early
pioneers such as Karl-Erik Sveiby. All of these people mentioned have
books that are worth reading on this topic.
More recently the European Commission has been putting literally
billions of dollars into research to support its vision of a
"sustainable economy in a knowledge society." Many of these projects
have resulted in substantial contributions to economic theories that
are most certainly not zero sum. The official site that lists all the
research programmes is http://cordis.europa.eu/. the Prism project in
particular in 2003 has resulted in a very rich collection of insights
and the project I worked on there about the same time on New
Partnerships for Sustainable Economics in a Knowledge Society mapped
the development of all the
In the less known world of academia reflections on what Mark
Granovetter and Richard Swedberg refer to as Socio Economis can be
traced back to Polanyi in the 1950s and the social network analysis
community has been literally all over this topic of networks and
economics since the late 1990s. The two threads of socio economics and
intangibles as the basis of economics is now coming together with an
explosion of interest in value networks.
I believe that we make much more progress when we move away from an
argumentative discourse style. There are many people engaged with these
questions, which are so complex that only a network of truly inquiring
minds is going to be able to intelligently address them anyway. I find
it far more productive (and inviting) to hold my opinions basically as
questions (an admittedly more traditionally feminine approach but one
that I think is rather desperately needed in the world of business,
economics and government).
That said. I will respond to some of the assertions made in this
posting in my next entry.
andrew jack
I am finding the discussion across the Value Networks google group very
interesting. Last year I was over in San Jose presenting Value Mapping to
the Californian Centre for Excellence (Baldridge Award focused) and only
wish I had found some of you guys based in the US sooner as I would liked to
have tried to meet.
I'm in Scotland UK and have been working on an approach called Value Mapping
since 2002 which aims to help organizations identify, assess, develop and
manage Value Networks. The organizations in the UK are still very focused on
catching up with the U.S on such things as the Balanced Scorecard and are
still very performance measurement focused without placing much emphasis on
the value creation aspect of investment. However in the public sector there
is an increasing realization that value to stakeholders needs to be much
more of a focus.
If any of you are ever over in the UK (I'm down in London a lot not just in
Scotland) I'd love to meet up for a chat.
I've felt very alone at times in the belief in non-linear value networks as
many consultants here are so focused on the process mapping....
I'll read with interest the google chat group and chip in where I can. I'm a
Psychologist by background and not so strong on the economics side so the
zero sum debate not my territory but find it very interesting.
Andrew
--
----------------------------------------
I am using the free version of SPAMfighter for private users.<br />It has
removed 322 spam emails to date.<br />Paying users do not have this message
in their emails.<br />Get the free SPAMfighter here:
http://www.spamfighter.com/len<br />
Paul Raggett
There are a few of us in the UK too, my business Partner Steve Hemmings and
myself, David Peregrine Jones, David Meggitt and Peter Scott, we are all
based in UK south. We have a wide range of tools having specialised in the
work of Verna Allee and Kerl-Erik Sveiby for several years. We also have
available another methodology and toolset based on Knowledge Mapping from Dr
John Gordon, we are helping him to get recognised for his real worth.
Feel free to call me sometime, I am away from the 4th to 14th August
inclusive, but would welcome an opportunity to meet by telephone initially.
Kind regards
Paul
Director - Centrepiece Connections Ltd
Facilitators of Change and Consultants in the Development of Intangible
Assets
People, Priorities & Projects
Founder Members of the European Knowledge Group
+44 (0) 7967 562196
jheuristic
Hagel.
http://edgeperspectives.typepad.com/edge_perspectives/2006/01/zerosum_thinkin.html
Also see: http://tinyurl.com/hjlm6
Cordially,
-j
Shannon Clark
Thanks - I wrote this late at night to get some thoughts down after a conversation - like any first draft it certain can use a lot of editing, references, and stylistic clean-ups. It was written after a discussion that was in mostly the form of an argument/debate, hence the general tone of "I think" etc.
I am familiar with some of the works you noted, but haven't read all of the article and books, will take a look.
In John's follow up pointing out John Hagel's blog post the comments in particular show the range of reactions and views to this basic point - and there are many people who hold a very strong belief that the world and economics specifically is always and only about studying a zero-sum situation (suggesting that in some sense all resources are finite and will eventually run out and we have to "fight" over those, that to be rich is by definition to have taken those riches from the poor etc).
Verna I'm especially interested in specific sources to look at the intersection of networks and economics - what I've seen so far is mostly economics books that study the specific case of the economics OF a network (studying telecommunication networks for example) or as you rightly point out studies such as your Value Networks work that studies the other types of flows - exchanges of knowledge etc.
Are you familiar with any works that represent all economic activity as a network? Defining value itself as a characteristic that is created by a network?
thanks!
Shannon
(and if you don't mind I'd like to summarize your points in a follow blog post w/citations)
research programmes is http://cordis.europa.eu/ . the Prism project in
George Por
You wrote:
> billions of dollars into research to support its vision of a
> particular in 2003 has resulted in a very rich collection of insights
> and the project I worked on there about the same time on New
> Partnerships for Sustainable Economics in a Knowledge Society mapped
> the development of all the
You didn't finish that sentence, and I am curious:
- Whether you have a URL to the Prism materials? (I couldn't find it in CORDIS)
- Do you or someone else in the network have anything published re the application of VNA to the value networks that communities of practice are a part of? I am just starting two “communities of practice” strategy consulting projects in a car company and a government agency, and would appreciate pointers VNA work done in relation to the institutional context in which CoP operate.
Kind regards,
george
Verna Allee
was describing the European commission project. What we were tracking
were all the systems of intangible indicators that have come forward
in the last few years. I ducked away rather quickly because I was
reminded that I had promised to take my Dad to the store since the
sister he lives with is traveling. Like most older people he frets if
you are not there on time.
So, I am back.
We are truly at the cutting edge of these questions. We will be linking
to good articles on the www.value-networks.com site and all
contributions are welcome. That is a public resource base for anyone
and everyone who is interested in this topic. What goes up is screened
by people who have solid credentials within the community so it is
really about what community members view as relevant to this topic not
just me. I have been told I have strong opinions (hard to believe) so
we have tried hard to make sure they don't get in the way.
With my initial response out of the way I would like to pick up on a
couple of points Shannon made in his original post that I especially
like. (By the way whenever people try to "argue" with me I love to
disarm them by telling them I am basically in violent agreement with
them). But I actually am in violent agreement with a number of points
you were making.
I like the way you defined economics as the study of the flows of value
and sets of agreements as well as your definition of entities as "any
person or legal body that enters into agreements and can hold value."
The only expansion I would make here would be to be very clear that
economic and social value are basically the same thing as you cannot
have one without the other being in play. So it is very important in
these discussion to define what you mean by value. Financial and
non-financial, tangible and intangible, economic and social are all
pairs of terms that can work to show that economic activity is
inseperable from social activity. That is the whole assumption
underlying a network theory of value.
Your reminder that nothing has intrinsic value is also good. Throughout
history even our units for exchagnes of value have ranged from pigs and
pearls to tulip bulbs. And you also had some good reminders of what
currency really is, which is simply a medium of exchange. Those who are
proposing alternative currencies as a solution to this intangible value
dilemma are falling into the same trap of trying to define a medium of
exchange for intangibles. In my view that misses the point. We need to
understand intangibles AS intangibles and not try to simply squeeze
them into our old ways of thinking about money and currency - or
assets. By that token asking how we can put a financial value on our
intangibles is also totally the wrong question. If you can put a
financial value on them then they are not an intangible are they?
You are absolutly right about classic economics being focused on
scarcity. Knowledge and intangibles though are the easiest thing in the
world to replicate and when we share our ideas there is this curious
multiplier effect where there is not less of the resource - there is
more! And as you rightly pointed out the number of value linkages is
infinite - and all those links can be made without destroying the old
linkages. This is what has thrown all the economists into a tizzy.
Actually I think I went into all this in some depth in my Mesh Forum
talk so Shannon if you could supply the link to that for us that would
be really nice. We need to get it linked from value-networks.com
anyway.
So where does that bring us to in the state of the art? There are lots
of people working on this theme now and a numbe of different value
mapping approaches have been brought forward (many strangely still
focused around the value chain). We are only beginning to try to
capture the main threads of this work at the value-networks.com site.
Granovetter and Swedberg put together a classic collection of articles
in 2002 about networks and economics and quite frankly I was shocked at
how little progress we have really made on this topic if those are
representative of where we are. Rob Cross and University of Virginia
Round Table are working very hard on trying to apply network analysis
to business results, but in my view are too focused on classic ROI like
time saved, which is like trying to pour new wine into old bottles. If
anyone knows of a website with a good bibliography on the social
network analysis approach to economics then I would love to know about
it. There may also be some work on this under the umbrella of industry
clusters. Most of that is mapping out webs of relationships of people
who have a formal economic relationships. Again, it is not going to
show you the socially oriented value such as that of "influencers" with
no direct economic connection.
In 2005 I was working on yet another European Commission project that
was trying to apply network analysis to understanding the impact of the
multi-billion europ research projects on the research networks across
Europe. That project was called ERAnets and quite frankly it was only
partially successful and indeed the final report for some reason was
never posted to the official website. I fear what we were mapping was
really the research projects and not the real network itself. We wanted
to apply the value network analysis but were not permitted to conduct a
survey to gather the data on intangibles that we needed to so had to
abandon the effort. Very frustrating. We also did not have the
GenIsis(tm) application at that time so we did not have the capability
to handle and crunch data that we do now.
So we have a very long way to go. My hope is that the value networks
community and clusters will be an integrative and inclusionary group
that looks for linkages and complentarities with other good work that
is going on. Too frequently in business management things turn into
"cults" or a battle of methodologies. I would hate to see that happen
here. The real hope of this perspective of value networks is to forge
linkages among the different perspectives and methods. That is one
thing I really like about this google group so far as well as it seems
to be embodying those values.
Verna Allee
Bay Area. Do hook up with Paul and the UK folks. They are a lively
bunch and very passionate about this topic. We have learned that
different perspectives and approaches only enrich our understanding and
we love to learn how others are coming at these questions as well.
Shannon Clark
thanks - here's the link to the IT Conversations page for your talk: http://www.itconversations.com/shows/detail1077.html (the audio is served up via LimeLight networks so this url is the best launching point to get to the audio)
All of the sessions from MeshForum 2006 (and some from MeshForum 2005) that have been posted to IT Conversations can be found at:
http://www.itconversations.com/series/meshforum.html - in particular when Dr. Karen Stephenson's talk is posted I would highly recommend that to this list. Christopher Allen's short talk on the Dunbar Number should also be of interest - if either talk is not selected by IT Conversations I'll find a place to host them and post them seperately.
Verna, one thought that occurs to me - do you know anyone who is looking at even tangible measures of value as being representable as part of a network? (i.e. as arising from a characteristic of a network - noting that this is a network over time, not merely one slice of a network map at a point in time)
I'm curious as well as to how many people are looking at these networks over time. In too many cases, I think, there is a tendency to anlyze/reduce a network to a fixed map and focus on that as if the map and the reality that underlies it were fixed and stable. My supposition - but I want to see how to test this - is that many assumptions and conclusions that hold true when you look at a fixed map (or possibly even a series of fixed maps) change when you look at networks as continous and changing structures (perhaps somewhat akin to the difference between a series of points and a continous line - they are similar and related but mathamatically distinct and give rise to possibly very different results).
There may also be a fertile area of research into the setting of boundried and frames of reference - i.e. if you analyze the economics of say a farm - should you somehow include the sun into your analysis? What about neighboring farms from who seeds may be exchanged (an issue that arises with Genetically modified crops quite frequently or more traditionally with hybrids and various types of a given crop)? What about the surrounding systems (political and commercial) that ensure water supply, roads, energy sources, a labor supply and market etc?
I suspect that in many (perhaps all) cases it is possible to keep expanding the scope of what needs to be included in a given analysis - thus even when analyzing a specific business we will need to figure out where to draw the line (I usually think of it as a dotted line) around what is/is not that business - and a similar line defining what is/is not in the scope of the question we're analyzing.
- in analyzing a firm how do you define what is "inside" the firm and what (or who) is outside? Direct employees - inside, fairly simple. But what about contract labor? Consultants? Outsourcing firms on long term contracts? Outside directors on the board? Outside legal and accounting firms? Those are not too complicated to resolve in a consistent manner - but what about a joint venture? Or a share in an industry wide research (or lobbying) organization? Is there a "magical" percentage of ownership that makes a difference here? ( i.e. 51%+ = inside, 49% or less = outside 50% open to debate?) What about suppliers who only supply your firm? (not uncommon with fast food chains or some manufacturing) What about resellers/distributors who likewise only sell your company's products - but have serperate ownership (car dealerships come immediately to mind) What about companies/people who only generate income via your company - but who do not show up on your payroll (EBay's millions of small businesses and individuals comes to mind here)
- is the answer to this question different if you are looking at the direct, tangible exchanges vs. all of the flows of value?
- does the distinction between "inside" and "outside" (of the firm, of the organization etc) really matter? (I think the answer here may be - "it increasingly should not, but since it matters to many people and has legal ramifications it should be studied, acknowledged and explored")
Shannon
Phil Hood
It's worth pointing out that ecoomics was far more zero sum in pre-
industrial societies. Hence, slavery. It's safe to say that in places
like the American south, the wealth of one group was directly related
to the subjugation of other groups.
When land is the measure of wealth, then scarcity rules. In a
knowledge society we require
an economics of abundance, and there is no science for that yet.
PH
Verna Allee
network perspective inside and outside becomes irrelevant to a large
degree. I suggest you pop on to www.value-networks.com and take a look
at some of the "how to" guides that are there. In particular you will
find the Value Network Mapping Basic and Value Network Mapping Tips to
be helpful as they address Scope and Boundaries. You have already had
an overview at Mesh Forum. Then move on to the Exchange Analysis,
Impact Analysis and Value Creation Analysis. All of the questions you
are addressing are covered in a value network analysis because we
assess both internal and external impact of every value transaction.
I think you are more than ready to dive a little deeper I am sure you
will come back with lots more questions but you can think of that site
as an FAQ for value network analysis. Would love to have your feedback
on usefulness too. Our goal is to serve the community and help people
learn what this is really all about.
John Maloney
" If anyone knows of a website with a good bibliography on the social
network analysis approach to economics then I would love to know about it."
http://www.isnae.org/resources.html
The focus seems to be on SNA not necessarily on SN economics. It is a
noteworthy node anyway.
andrew jack
Thanks I have sent Paul an email and hope to chat. My work in the early 90's
on the neuro-psychology of the brain (in previous guise) has generated some
useful parallels to the distributed networking of value drivers and has
influenced how we have approached value.
-----Original Message-----
From: Value-N...@googlegroups.com
[mailto:Value-N...@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of Verna Allee
Sent: 30 July 2006 20:27
To: Value Networks
Subject: Re: Are Economics Zero-sum?
Shannon Clark
Does anyone know if ISNAE is active? Their website does not appear to have been updated since 2003. Obviously I'm quite interested in their work, both personally and for future MeshForums.
Shannon
Verna Allee
Great to hear from you. I explained in my next post that I had to run
out to take my Dad to the store - thus the dropped sentence. The NESKEY
project was looking at all the systems of intangible indicators that
have come forward the last few years and describes the policy
implications of moving to a world of 360 degree transparency.
The NESKEY executive summary is here:
http://www.vernaallee.com/intangibles/Neskey_Exec_Summary.pdf
The full NESKEY report is here"
http://www.vernaallee.com/intangibles/Neskey_Report.pdf
PRISM was a similar project that resulted in a numbe of very fine
research reports and their website is: http://www.euintangibles.net/
Doing a value network with a CoP as a node is a great idea and very
powerful for the organizers. I have done this myself for different
customers but have not published one. With your deep experience with
CoPs it would be a snap for you to map out a generic value network with
Community Organizers as the key node and show their value creating
interactions with Individual Contributors, Executive Oversight,
Division Leaders, Department Managers, etc as the other nodes. You
would map both the tangible and intangible benefits that are provided
(both ways) as well as the tangible deliverables and resources that are
needed to support the community. My article on CoPs awhile back
included a list of benefits and support that should give you lots of
ideas to get started
(http://www.odnetwork.org/odponline/vol32n4/knowledgenets.html). I am
sure some of our other community members (including myself) would be
happy to provide feedback and the generic map would be a great
contribution to the value-networks.com site. You could then show it to
your customers as an example and would include providing the map
specific to their community and organization as part of your support
services.
John Maloney
From: Value-N...@googlegroups.com [mailto:Value-N...@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of Shannon Clark
Sent: Sunday, July 30, 2006 1:38 PM
To: Value-N...@googlegroups.com
Subject: Re: Are Economics Zero-sum?
Kevin Jones
David Meggitt
Andrew, there is also a small learning group set up in London for 2006.
If you are in town, let me know and drop by.
http://www.mayeticvillage.com/QuickPlace/geavescommunities/PageLibraryC1257192007B60AC.nsf/h_7D992B2FCE20613BC1257192007B7AFC/0FCB9F6C1656E139C1257192007B9610/?OpenDocument
David
Peter Merle
Shannon,
This thought of analyzing our networks as continuous and changing structures appeals to me very much. The continuous line comparison (as opposed to a series of points) will treat a network as an actual living network and analysis must be based on continuous ECG-like results, instead of monitoring static moments in time (listening to your heartbeat from time to time). In the latter scenario we can miss a lot of the crucial dynamics (sudden heart palpatations after a cup of coffee) that explain changes in the evolving network.
However a living thing is also a very complex thing, all our network parameters, new and changing entities, transactions, suppositions and hypotheses have to be fed into such a system in order to constantly monitor the health (or ailments) of our networks. Practically, it seems a hard nut crack, but it seems to be worth further exploration. At the moment we may be missing some essential reasons for change/evolution in networks that are deeply hidden within and we may be missing them....
Peter Merle
____________________
e-office bv
Dolderseweg 2
3712 BP Huis ter Heide
The Netherlands
Phone (direct) +31 (0) 6 456 96 186
Phone (office) +31 (0) 30 693 05 50
http://www.e-office.com
| "Shannon Clark"
<sha...@jigzaw.com>
Sent by: Value-N...@googlegroups.com 07/30/2006 09:55 PM
|
|
|
The information contained in this e-mail (attachments included) may be confidential and is intended solely for the person(s) indicated in the message. Should you have received this e-mail unintentionally, please return it to the sender and do not use the content of the message in any way.
David Meggitt
Given greater familiarity with the VNA *lens* and associated analyses,
it would appear good practice to use them where organizations are under
threat and where, for example, a change in the underlying business
model is needed. The insertion of half a dozen solid (tangible
deliverable) and dotted (intangible deliverable) lines can at the right
time unshackle "creative constraints" and possibly lay to waste those
zero sum / resource scarcity constructs appearing in economics.
Further, exposing an unviable business model may well be an otherwise
concealed reason for change/evolution in networks to which Peter
refers. Changing the design of an organisation is quite possible within
a day or so, with rapid buy-in occurring after the big picture is
shared.
Peter's comment, also, on the "health" of a network is intriguing and
the "heartbeat" reference appealing. We may have the optimal pattern of
organisation to work with for any given situation/business, but if the
participants are a) dysfuntional and unable to communicate ! b) asleep
/ lacking in energy, the network is unhealthy. People at the nodes /
bubbles in our diagrams may need attention too.
The "living systems" approach can really come alive!
David
Chi...@aol.com
andrew jack
I would like to do that. I'll review the different dates and come back on
which one.
Andrew
-----Original Message-----
From: Value-N...@googlegroups.com
[mailto:Value-N...@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of David Meggitt
Sent: 31 July 2006 09:53
To: Value Networks
Subject: Re: Are Economics Zero-sum?
David
John Hagel
the challenges and opportunities for the economics profession in moving from
zero sum views of the world to positive sum views
http://edgeperspectives.typepad.com/edge_perspectives/2006/07/the_challenge_
o.html
John Hagel
-----Original Message-----
From: Value-N...@googlegroups.com
[mailto:Value-N...@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of jheuristic
Sent: Sunday, July 30, 2006 10:47 AM
To: Value Networks
Subject: Re: Are Economics Zero-sum?
Edward Vielmetti
a function of a three step process, or so says the review (tracking
down a copy now):
1. Differentiate.
2. Select.
3. Amplify.
that's actually a simple enough set of rules to follow ...
Ed
John Maloney
Hi --
If you URL got squished, please use this link:
The Challenge of Growth:
-and-
Zero-Sum Thinking
Even better, just syndicate:
http://edgeperspectives.typepad.com/edge_perspectives/atom.xml
Cheers,
-----Original Message-----
From: Value-N...@googlegroups.com
[mailto:Value-N...@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of John Hagel
Sent: Monday, July 31, 2006 11:33 AM
To: Value-N...@googlegroups.com
Subject: RE: Are Economics Zero-sum?
John Maloney
Verna Allee
You didn't tell me it weighs three pounds! Not your average beach read,
but thank you. We just linked to two of your postings on the articles
page at www.value-networks.com. I hope we will have more of your
contributions there soon.
John Maloney
(SOA, NetWeaver) to better map to networks, value and the social complexity of business, e.g.,
"Software must be designed to allow, and where possible support, rapid modification of sophisticated inter-company processes. It must be capable of mapping not only value chains but entire value networks in order to keep pace with changing conditions." - Dr. Henning Kagermann, Chairman and CEO, SAP AG. SAP is the central nervous system of 47,000 companies worldwide.
From: Value-N...@googlegroups.com [mailto:Value-N...@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of Chi...@aol.com
Sent: Monday, July 31, 2006 8:22 AM
To: Value-N...@googlegroups.com
Subject: Re: Are Economics Zero-sum?
Nathaniel Welch
Regarding Shannon’s question about looking at networks over time, there are people (and tools) out that I’ve seen looing at this.
Peter Gloor at MIT is one person looking at how Collaborative Innovation Networks change over time (http://ccs.mit.edu/pgloor%20papers/CKN4NAACSOS.pdf) .
I know that Accenture has worked with Rob Cross on this issue (with help from Bruce Hoppe (http://connectedness.blogspot.com/) and others).
If I run across the other tools, I’ll post it here.
Regards,
Nat
Regards,
Nat
-----Original Message-----
From:
Value-N...@googlegroups.com [mailto:Value-N...@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of Shannon Clark
Sent: Sunday, July
30, 2006 2:21 PM
To:
Value-N...@googlegroups.com
Subject: Re: Are Economics
Zero-sum?
Verna,
Snowden Dave
Valdis Krebs
"...but that involves me using a browser other than Safari..."
ANOTHER Mac convert! I have used a Mac since 1984 -- wrote my first
version of InFlow on an enhanced "original Mac" in 1987. I am just
amazed at how many people are tipping to Mac in the last 2 years --
many are those I would not suspect.
I now rate conferences by how many Powerbooks/Mac Books are present...
if > 50% I know I came to a good one.... and the sessions are probably
worth attending... if it is mostly Dells, then I know it will be
Powerpoints and SOS... and I will be looking for a WiFi connection so I
can get some work done.
Any other other new adopters out there?
Valdis
Snowden Dave
Valdis Krebs
Howard Greenstein
Eileen Clegg
The MIT paper is excellent, thanks so much Nathaniel. (http://ccs.mit.edu/pgloor%20papers/CKN4NAACSOS.pdf) . It offers some new insights or at least better questions about how online networks evolve over time. Do we really know yet what makes a network sustainable? I am sure everyone who works with corporate clients hears over and over again: How do we get/keep people involved with online communities? I remember the work early on by Jim Spohrer’s Education Object Economy when we were trying to get people to identify and share their type of “currency.” The Zero-sum question may pivot on this: What do we mean by ‘economics’?
-Eileen
On 7/31/06 2:25 PM, "Nathaniel Welch" <natw...@verizon.net> wrote:
Regarding Shannon’s question about looking at networks over time, there are people (and tools) out that I’ve seen looing at this.
Peter Gloor at MIT is one person looking at how Collaborative Innovation Networks change over time
Shannon also seems to make the assumption that his
research programmes is http://cordis.europa.eu/ <http://cordis.europa.eu/> . the Prism project in
Graham Douglas
Graham Douglas
Chi...@aol.com
Chim -There is huge gap between what passes for information systems today and how work is done and value created. Fortunately, the rigid, deterministic, rear-view-mirror and siloed transactional application portfolios of the past (R/3, Oracle) are giving way to fluid, adaptive, non-deterministic, application ecosystems and capabilities infrastructures
(SOA, NetWeaver) to better map to networks, value and the social complexity of business, e.g.,"Software must be designed to allow, and where possible support, rapid modification of sophisticated inter-company processes. It must be capable of mapping not only value chains but entire value networks in order to keep pace with changing conditions." - Dr. Henning Kagermann, Chairman and CEO, SAP AG. SAP is the central nervous system of 47,000 companies worldwide.There is a nifty collection of projects underway to accomplish this fundamental advancement. To stay abreast, visit --and-j
From: Value-N...@googlegroups.com [mailto:Value-N...@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of Chi...@aol.com
Sent: Monday, July 31, 2006 8:22 AM
Sergej van Middendorp
Hi Verna,
Thanks for your clear observations and questions. Some recent findings from the fields of behavioral economics may be worthwile to add to this dialogue. Even though these economists still take scarcity as a starting point they do add new dimensions to their questions mainly regarding collaboration. Where scarcity is normally associated with competition. These findings suggest that collaboration and even altruism is equally if not more succesful than competition even for scarce resources.
Recent research in Game Theory, an economic discipline that examines human economic behavior found that the selfish and the cooperative are equally succesful in getting what they want.
Paul Seabright wrote a book (hard to get) called 'the company of strangers' that posed the question why the homo sapiens was the first species to collaborate with members of the same species over family borders. To another researcher this enabled specialisation and trade. Smith's division of labour avant la lettre. His theory: the balance between a talent for rational calculations and a natural sense of reciprocity enables this. Interestingly this view on balance between ratio and intuition relates to the balance of tangible and intangible in my mind.
Best, Sergej
| "Verna Allee"
<ve...@vernaallee.com>
Sent by: Value-N...@googlegroups.com 30-07-2006 21:24
|
|
|
Snowden Dave
Sergej van Middendorp
Hello Dave,
There is an Economist article attached to my previous post that provides the basics of the research and some pointers. For speed I copy the last line of the article here: "The research by Dr Houser and Dr Kurzban is published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences."
I tried ordering Seabrights book through amazon.co.uk, but they couldnt get it to me. Maybe a used version is now available. I'll check it out.
Met vriendelijke groet,
Sergej van Middendorp
-----------------------------------------------------------------
e-office
Dolderseweg 2
3712 BP Huis ter Heide
The Netherlands
web: http://www.e-office.com
-----------------------------------------------------------------
| Snowden Dave <dave.s...@cognitive-edge.com>
Sent by: Value-N...@googlegroups.com 02-08-2006 06:40
|
|
Snowden Dave
David Meggitt
http://www.value-networks.com/case_studies.htm
3CsCommunity, (for encouraging entrepreneurs and their ideas) could
have been an ideal test bed for validating the 13% co-operators, 20%
free-riders, 63% reciprocators findings reported in the paper Sergej
referred to. Indeed a series of focus groups had been planned for
addressing the community. The community is based on the "Pay It
Forward" principle and that ethos is very powerfully felt by
participants. The figures also feel about right. The active founders
and directors are in the co-operator camp. A small number of flagrant
free riders have been ejected, and a large number are active in trying
to make it work (reciprocators). Incidentally, the VNA and associated
SNA analyses provided the insights and intervention framework to
transform the thinking of the leadership. From a complexity
perspective, :-) we seemed to oscillate from one extreme to another and
invited members who were comfortable with "complexity" and "emergence"
thinking to the project team.
You may wish to have a look.
Also, to remind you of Chapter 18 (Pavlov's Victory, Is reciprocity
good for us?) in Critical Mass by Philip Ball as a racey read. (It
includes a reference to Conway's Game, a simulation which is included
in the GenIsis suite of VNA tools).
David
> --Apple-Mail-6-106815623
> Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1
> Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
> X-Google-AttachSize: 17964
>
> <HTML><BODY style=3D"word-wrap: break-word; -khtml-nbsp-mode: space; -khtml=
> -line-break: after-white-space; ">thanks - I should have read the email ful=
> ly!<DIV><BR class=3D"khtml-block-placeholder"></DIV><DIV>When I went onto A=
> mazon it was=A0available with a delivery date of 1st September - that was n=
> ew in hardback but there were other options<BR><DIV> <SPAN class=3D"Apple-s=
> tyle-span" style=3D"border-collapse: separate; border-spacing: 0px 0px; col=
> or: rgb(0, 0, 0); font-family: Comic Sans MS; font-size: 12px; font-style: =
> normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; letter-spacing: normal; =
> line-height: normal; text-align: auto; -khtml-text-decorations-in-effect: n=
> one; text-indent: 0px; -apple-text-size-adjust: auto; text-transform: none;=
> orphans: 2; white-space: normal; widows: 2; word-spacing: 0px; "><BR class=
> =3D"Apple-interchange-newline"><SPAN class=3D"Apple-style-span" style=3D"bo=
> rder-collapse: separate; border-spacing: 0px 0px; color: rgb(0, 0, 0); font=
> -family: Comic Sans MS; font-size: 12px; font-style: normal; font-variant: =
> normal; font-weight: normal; letter-spacing: normal; line-height: normal; t=
> ext-align: auto; -khtml-text-decorations-in-effect: none; text-indent: 0px;=
> -apple-text-size-adjust: auto; text-transform: none; orphans: 2; white-spa=
> ce: normal; widows: 2; word-spacing: 0px; "><SPAN class=3D"Apple-style-span=
> " style=3D"border-collapse: separate; border-spacing: 0px 0px; color: rgb(0=
> , 0, 0); font-family: Comic Sans MS; font-size: 12px; font-style: normal; f=
> ont-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; letter-spacing: normal; line-heig=
> ht: normal; text-align: auto; -khtml-text-decorations-in-effect: none; text=
> -indent: 0px; -apple-text-size-adjust: auto; text-transform: none; orphans:=
> 2; white-space: normal; widows: 2; word-spacing: 0px; "><SPAN class=3D"App=
> le-style-span" style=3D"border-collapse: separate; border-spacing: 0px 0px;=
> color: rgb(0, 0, 0); font-family: Comic Sans MS; font-size: 12px; font-sty=
> le: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; letter-spacing: norm=
> al; line-height: normal; text-align: auto; -khtml-text-decorations-in-effec=
> t: none; text-indent: 0px; -apple-text-size-adjust: auto; text-transform: n=
> one; orphans: 2; white-space: normal; widows: 2; word-spacing: 0px; "><DIV>=
> <BR class=3D"khtml-block-placeholder"></DIV><DIV>Dave Snowden</DIV><DIV sty=
> le=3D"">Founder & Chief Scientific Officer</DIV><DIV style=3D"">Cogniti=
> ve Edge Pte Ltd</DIV><DIV style=3D""><BR class=3D"khtml-block-placeholder">=
> </DIV><DIV>www.cognitive-edge.com</DIV><DIV><BR class=3D"khtml-block-placeh=
> older"></DIV>NB I am now in Singapore to Mid October please use email to co=
> ntact me not the mobile phone<BR class=3D"Apple-interchange-newline"></SPAN=
> ></SPAN></SPAN></SPAN> </DIV><BR><DIV><DIV>On 2 Aug 2006, at 09:20, Sergej =
> van Middendorp wrote:</DIV><BR class=3D"Apple-interchange-newline"><BLOCKQU=
> OTE type=3D"cite"><BR><FONT size=3D"2" face=3D"sans-serif">Hello Dave,</FON=
> T> <BR> <BR><FONT size=3D"2" face=3D"sans-serif">There is an Economist arti=
> cle attached to my previous post that provides the basics of the research a=
> nd some pointers. For speed I copy the last line of the article here: "The =
> research by Dr Houser and Dr Kurzban is published in the Proceedings of the=
> National Academy of Sciences."</FONT> <BR> <BR><FONT size=3D"2" face=3D"sa=
> ns-serif">I tried ordering Seabrights book through amazon.co.uk, but they c=
> ouldnt get it to me. Maybe a used version is now available. I'll check it o=
> ut.</FONT> <BR> <BR><FONT size=3D"2" face=3D"sans-serif">Met vriendelijke g=
> roet,<BR> <BR> Sergej van Middendorp<BR> ----------------------------------=
> -------------------------------<BR> e-office<BR> Dolderseweg 2<BR> 3712 BP =
> =A0Huis ter Heide<BR> The Netherlands<BR> mob: =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 +31645696035=
> <BR> web: =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 <A href=3D"http://www.e-office.com">http://www.e-=
> office.com</A><BR> --------------------------------------------------------=
> ---------</FONT> <BR> <BR> <BR> <TABLE width=3D"100%"> <TBODY><TR valign=3D=
> "top"><TD width=3D"40%"><FONT size=3D"1" face=3D"sans-serif"><B>Snowden Dav=
> e <<A href=3D"mailto:dave.s...@cognitive-edge.com">dave.snowden@cogni=
> tive-edge.com</A>></B> </FONT> <BR><FONT size=3D"1" face=3D"sans-serif">=
> Sent by: <A href=3D"mailto:Value-N...@googlegroups.com">Value-Networks@=
> googlegroups.com</A></FONT><P><FONT size=3D"1" face=3D"sans-serif">02-08-20=
> 06 06:40</FONT> <TABLE border=3D""> <TBODY><TR valign=3D"top"><TD bgcolor=3D"white"> <DIV align=3D"center"><FONT size=3D"1" face=3D"sans-serif">Plea=
> se respond to<BR> <A href=3D"mailto:Value-N...@googlegroups.com">Value-=
> Netw...@googlegroups.com</A></FONT></DIV></TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE> <BR> <=
> /P></TD><TD width=3D"59%"> <TABLE width=3D"100%"> <TBODY><TR valign=3D"top"=
> ><TD> <DIV align=3D"right"><FONT size=3D"1" face=3D"sans-serif">To</FONT></=
> DIV> </TD><TD><FONT size=3D"1" face=3D"sans-serif"><A href=3D"mailto:Value-=
> Netw...@googlegroups.com">Value-N...@googlegroups.com</A></FONT> </TD>=
> </TR><TR valign=3D"top"><TD> <DIV align=3D"right"><FONT size=3D"1" face=3D"=
> sans-serif">cc</FONT></DIV> </TD><TD> </TD></TR><TR valign=3D"top"><TD> <DI=
> V align=3D"right"><FONT size=3D"1" face=3D"sans-serif">Subject</FONT></DIV>=
> </TD><TD><FONT size=3D"1" face=3D"sans-serif">Re: Are Economics Zero-sum?<=
> /FONT></TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE> <BR> <TABLE> <TBODY><TR valign=3D"top"><TD=
> > </TD><TD></TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE> <BR></TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE> <BR> <=
> BR> <BR><FONT size=3D"3">Seabright's book is freely available on Amazon UK<=
> /FONT> <BR><FONT size=3D"3">I'd be very interested in a pointer to the rese=
> arch on game theory that you reference</FONT> <BR> <BR> <BR><FONT size=3D"1=
> ">Dave Snowden</FONT> <BR><FONT size=3D"1">Founder & Chief Scientific O=
> fficer</FONT> <BR><FONT size=3D"1">Cognitive Edge Pte Ltd</FONT> <BR> <BR><=
> FONT size=3D"1">www.cognitive-edge.com</FONT> <BR> <BR><FONT size=3D"1">NB =
> I am now in Singapore to Mid October please use email to contact me not the=
> mobile phone</FONT> <BR> <BR><FONT size=3D"3">On 2 Aug 2006, at 01:34, Ser=
> gej van Middendorp wrote:</FONT> <BR> <BR><FONT size=3D"2" face=3D"sans-ser=
> if"><BR> Hi Verna,</FONT><FONT size=3D"3"> <BR> </FONT><FONT size=3D"2" fac=
> e=3D"sans-serif"><BR> Thanks for your clear observations and questions. Som=
> e recent findings from the fields of behavioral economics may be worthwile =
> to add to this dialogue. Even though these economists still take scarcity a=
> s a starting point they do add new dimensions to their questions mainly reg=
> arding collaboration. Where scarcity is normally associated with competitio=
> n. These findings suggest that collaboration and even altruism is equally i=
> f not more succesful than competition even for scarce resources.</FONT><FON=
> T size=3D"3"> <BR> </FONT><FONT size=3D"2" face=3D"sans-serif"><BR> Recent =
> research in Game Theory, an economic discipline that examines human economi=
> c behavior found that the selfish and the cooperative are equally succesful=
> in getting what they want. </FONT><FONT size=3D"3"><BR> </FONT><FONT size=
> =3D"2" face=3D"sans-serif"><BR> Paul Seabright wrote a book (hard to get) c=
> alled 'the company of strangers' that posed the question why the homo sapie=
> ns was the first species to collaborate with members of the same species ov=
> er family borders. To another researcher this enabled specialisation and tr=
> ade. Smith's division of labour avant la lettre. His theory: the balance be=
> tween a talent for rational calculations and a natural sense of reciprocity=
> enables this. Interestingly this view on balance between ratio and intuiti=
> on relates to the balance of tangible and intangible in my mind.</FONT><FON=
> T size=3D"3"> <BR> <BR> <BR> </FONT><FONT size=3D"2" face=3D"sans-serif"><B=
> R> Best, Sergej</FONT><FONT size=3D"3"> <BR> <BR> <BR> <BR> <BR> </FONT> <T=
> ABLE width=3D"100%"> <TBODY><TR valign=3D"top"><TD width=3D"41%"><FONT size=
> =3D"1" face=3D"sans-serif"><B>"Verna Allee" <</B></FONT><A href=3D"mailt=
> o:ve...@vernaallee.com"><FONT size=3D"1" color=3D"blue" face=3D"sans-serif"=
> ><B><U>ve...@vernaallee.com</U></B></FONT></A><FONT size=3D"1" face=3D"sans=
> -serif"><B>></B> <BR> Sent by: </FONT><A href=3D"mailto:Value-Networks@g=
> ooglegroups.com"><FONT size=3D"1" color=3D"blue" face=3D"sans-serif"><U>Val=
> ue-Ne...@googlegroups.com</U></FONT></A><P><FONT size=3D"1" face=3D"sans=
> -serif">30-07-2006 21:24</FONT><FONT size=3D"3"> </FONT> <BR> <TABLE border=
> =3D"4" width=3D"100%"> <TBODY><TR valign=3D"top"><TD width=3D"100%" bgcolor=
> =3D"white"> <DIV align=3D"center"><FONT size=3D"1" face=3D"sans-serif">Plea=
> se respond to</FONT><FONT size=3D"1" color=3D"blue" face=3D"sans-serif"><U>=
> <BR> </U></FONT><A href=3D"mailto:Value-N...@googlegroups.com"><FONT si=
> ze=3D"1" color=3D"blue" face=3D"sans-serif"><U>Value-Networks@googlegroups.=
> com</U></FONT></A></DIV></TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE> </P><DIV> <BR class=3D"k=
> html-block-placeholder"></DIV></TD><TD width=3D"58%"> <BR> <TABLE width=3D"=
> 100%"> <TBODY><TR valign=3D"top"><TD width=3D"12%"> <DIV align=3D"right"><F=
> ONT size=3D"1" face=3D"sans-serif">To</FONT></DIV> </TD><TD width=3D"87%"><=
> FONT size=3D"1" face=3D"sans-serif">"Value Networks" <</FONT><A href=3D"=
> mailto:Value-N...@googlegroups.com"><FONT size=3D"1" color=3D"blue" fac=
> e=3D"sans-serif"><U>Value-N...@googlegroups.com</U></FONT></A><FONT siz=
> e=3D"1" face=3D"sans-serif">></FONT><FONT size=3D"3"> </FONT> </TD></TR>=
> <TR valign=3D"top"><TD> <DIV align=3D"right"><FONT size=3D"1" face=3D"sans-=
> serif">cc</FONT></DIV> </TD><TD> </TD></TR><TR valign=3D"top"><TD> <DIV ali=
> gn=3D"right"><FONT size=3D"1" face=3D"sans-serif">Subject</FONT></DIV> </TD=
> ><TD><FONT size=3D"1" face=3D"sans-serif">Re: Are Economics Zero-sum?</FONT=
> ></TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE> <BR> <BR> <TABLE width=3D"100%"> <TBODY><TR val=
> ign=3D"top"><TD width=3D"50%"> </TD><TD width=3D"50%"></TD></TR></TBODY></T=
> ABLE> <BR></TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE> <BR><FONT size=3D"3"><BR> <BR> </FONT>=
> <TT><FONT size=3D"2"><BR> <BR> I noticed in my previous that I left off the=
> end of a sentence where I<BR> was describing the European commission proje=
> ct. What we were tracking<BR> were all the systems of intangible indicators=
> that have come =A0forward<BR> in the last few years. I ducked away rather =
> quickly because I was<BR> reminded that I had promised to take my Dad to th=
> e store since the<BR> sister he lives with is traveling. Like most older pe=
> ople he frets if<BR> you are not there on time.<BR> So, I am back.<BR> <BR>=
> We are truly at the cutting edge of these questions. We will be linking<BR=
> > to good articles on the </FONT></TT><A href=3D"http://www.value-networks.=
> com/"><TT><FONT size=3D"2" color=3D"blue"><U>www.value-networks.com</U></FO=
> NT></TT></A><TT><FONT size=3D"2"> site and all<BR> contributions are welcom=
> e. That is a public resource base for anyone<BR> and everyone who is intere=
> sted in this topic. What goes up is screened<BR> by people who have solid c=
> redentials within the community so it is<BR> really about what community me=
> mbers view as relevant to this topic not<BR> just me. I have been told I ha=
> ve strong opinions (hard to believe) so<BR> we have tried hard to make sure=
> they don't get in the way.<BR> <BR> With my initial response out of the wa=
> y I would like to pick up on a<BR> couple of points Shannon made in his ori=
> ginal post that I especially<BR> like. (By the way whenever people try to "=
> argue" with me I love to<BR> disarm them by telling them I am basically in =
> violent agreement with<BR> them). But I actually am in violent agreement wi=
> th a number of points<BR> you were making.<BR> <BR> I like the way you defi=
> ned economics as the study of the flows of value<BR> and sets of agreements=
> as well as your definition of entities as "any<BR> person or legal body th=
> at enters into agreements and can hold value."<BR> The only expansion I wou=
> ld make here would be to be very clear that<BR> economic and social value a=
> re basically the same thing as you cannot<BR> have one without the other be=
> ing in play. So it is very important in<BR> these discussion to define what=
> you mean by value. Financial and<BR> non-financial, tangible and intangibl=
> e, economic and social are all<BR> pairs of terms that can work to show tha=
> t economic activity is<BR> inseperable from social activity. That is the wh=
> ole assumption<BR> underlying a network theory of value.<BR> <BR> Your remi=
> nder that nothing has intrinsic value is also good. Throughout<BR> history =
> even our units for exchagnes of value have ranged from pigs and<BR> pearls =
> to tulip bulbs. And you also had some good reminders of what<BR> currency r=
> eally is, which is simply a medium of exchange. Those who are<BR> proposing=
> alternative currencies as a solution to this intangible value<BR> dilemma =
> are falling into the same trap of trying to define a medium of<BR> exchange=
> for intangibles. In my view that misses the point. We need to<BR> understa=
> nd intangibles AS intangibles and not try to simply squeeze<BR> them into o=
> ur old ways of thinking about money and currency - or<BR> assets. By that t=
> oken asking how we can put a financial value on our<BR> intangibles is also=
> totally the wrong question. If you can put a<BR> financial value on them t=
> hen they are not an intangible are they?<BR> <BR> You are absolutly right a=
> bout classic economics being focused on<BR> scarcity. Knowledge and intangi=
> bles though are the easiest thing in the<BR> world to replicate and when we=
> share our ideas there is this curious<BR> multiplier effect where there is=
> not less of the resource - there is<BR> more! And as you rightly pointed o=
> ut the number of value linkages is<BR> infinite - and all those links can b=
> e made without destroying the old<BR> linkages. This is what has thrown all=
> the economists into a tizzy.<BR> Actually I think I went into all this in =
> some depth in my Mesh Forum<BR> talk so Shannon if you could supply the lin=
> k to that for us that would<BR> be really nice. We need to get it linked fr=
> om value-networks.com<BR> anyway.<BR> <BR> So where does that bring us to i=
> n the state of the art? There are lots<BR> of people working on this theme =
> now and a numbe of different value<BR> mapping approaches have been brought=
> forward (many strangely still<BR> focused around the value chain). We are =
> only beginning to try to<BR> capture the main threads of this work at the v=
> alue-networks.com site.<BR> <BR> Granovetter and Swedberg put together a cl=
> assic collection of articles<BR> in 2002 about networks and economics and q=
> uite frankly I was shocked at<BR> how little progress we have really made o=
> n this topic if those are<BR> representative of where we are. Rob Cross and=
> University of Virginia<BR> Round Table are working very hard on trying to =
> apply network analysis<BR> to business results, but in my view are too focu=
> sed on classic ROI like<BR> time saved, which is like trying to pour new wi=
> ne into old bottles. If<BR> anyone knows of a website with a good bibliogra=
> phy on the social<BR> network analysis approach to economics then I would l=
> ove to know about<BR> it. There may also be some work on this under the umb=
> rella of industry<BR> clusters. Most of that is mapping out webs of relatio=
> nships of people<BR> who have a formal economic relationships. Again, it is=
> not going to<BR> show you the socially oriented value such as that of "inf=
> luencers" with<BR> no direct economic connection.<BR> <BR> In 2005 I was wo=
> rking on yet another European Commission project that<BR> was trying to app=
> ly network analysis to understanding the impact of the<BR> multi-billion eu=
> rop research projects on the research networks across<BR> Europe. That proj=
> ect was called ERAnets and quite frankly it was only<BR> partially successf=
> ul and indeed the final report for some reason was<BR> never posted to the =
> official website. I fear what we were mapping was<BR> really the research p=
> rojects and not the real network itself. We wanted<BR> to apply the value n=
> etwork analysis but were not permitted to conduct a<BR> survey to gather th=
> e data on intangibles that we needed to so had to<BR> abandon the effort. V=
> ery frustrating. We also did not have the<BR> GenIsis(tm) application at th=
> at time so we did not have the capability<BR> to handle and crunch data tha=
> t we do now.<BR> <BR> So we have a very long way to go. My hope is that the=
> value networks<BR> community and clusters will be an integrative and inclu=
> sionary group<BR> that looks for linkages and complentarities with other go=
> od work that<BR> is going on. Too frequently in business management things =
> turn into<BR> "cults" or a battle of methodologies. I would hate to see tha=
> t happen<BR> here. The real hope of this perspective of value networks is t=
> o forge<BR> linkages among the different perspectives and methods. That is =
> one<BR> thing I really like about this google group so far as well as it se=
> ems<BR> to be embodying those values.<BR> <BR> <BR> </FONT></TT><FONT size=
> =3D"3"><BR> <BR> <BR> </FONT><FONT size=3D"2" face=3D"sans-serif"><BR> De i=
> nformatie in dit e-mailbericht (inclusief aanhangsels) is vertrouwelijk en =
> is alleen bestemd voor de beoogde ontvanger(s). Indien u dit bericht ontere=
> cht heeft ontvangen, wordt u verzocht het bericht te retourneren en de ontv=
> angen informatie op geen enkele wijze te gebruiken. </FONT><FONT size=3D"3"=
> ><BR> </FONT><FONT size=3D"2" face=3D"sans-serif"><BR> The information cont=
> ained in this e-mail (attachments included) may be confidential and is inte=
> nded solely for the person(s) indicated in the message. Should you have rec=
> eived this e-mail unintentionally, please return it to the sender and do no=
> t use the content of the message in any way.</FONT><FONT size=3D"3"><BR> <B=
> R> <BR> </FONT> <BR><BR>=20
David Hawthorne
its predecessors for nearly 20 years before I was finally dragooned into the
Legions of the MSguided. Is it o.k. if I return to my Apple roots now?(I
still have my Powerbook G4 sitting nearby.
-David Hawthorne
-----Original Message-----
From: Value-N...@googlegroups.com
[mailto:Value-N...@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of Howard Greenstein
Sent: Monday, July 31, 2006 10:25 PM
To: Value-N...@googlegroups.com
Subject: Re: Are Economics Zero-sum?
Snowden Dave
Supras Consult
______________________________________________________
Lars T. Soeftestad
Supras Consult
PO Box 1600, NO-4688 Kristiansand, Norway
Tel (office): +47 381 49 045 | Tel (res): +47 380 44 655
Fax: +47 381 08 199 | Cell: +47 908 23 006
Email: mail at supras.biz | URL: www.supras.biz
From: Value-N...@googlegroups.com [mailto:Value-N...@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of Snowden Dave
Sent: Wednesday, August 02, 2006 6:06 PM
Peter Merle
Well, on the other hand it does add to the social (intangible) aspect of networks. There is of course the possibility to just follow this group through the group site instead of e-mail.
And yes, I do use a Mac ;-)
Peter
| "Supras Consult"
<po...@supras.biz>
Sent by: Value-N...@googlegroups.com 08/02/2006 06:32 PM
|
|
John Maloney
Michael Hammer and James Champy have admitted that in their book they did not take into account the human constituent of business process. In late 1996, Dr. Hammer made a confession on the Wall Street Journal where the article read: "Dr. Hammer points out a flaw: He and the other leaders of the $4.7 billion re-engineering industry forgot about people. ‘I wasn't smart enough about that,' he says. ‘I was reflecting my engineering background and was insufficiently appreciative of the human dimension. I've learned that's critical." [Wikipedia]
Valdis Krebs
This is just 'social-bonding' on line... if you don't like it, please
use the delete key.
You will be witness to this in any social community you join were
people are meeting each other and checking out their similarities and
differences as they get to know each other... since this is a *new*
group you will probably see more of this here...
Valdis
Eileen Clegg
I have participated in many online groups over the years and appreciate the attention to process and to metacommunication issues in this group. Several years ago at Institute for the Future we held an expert workshop on the question:
What sustains networks over the long term? Some of our findings:
Trust is one element but then...what enables trust? One factor: Conflict is allowed, and everyone understands how conflict will be resolved. Other factors include shared culture, shared interests, individual motivation based on different forms of social currency, common language (incl. jargon) and, sad to say, competition with another group (we wondered, could we have competition against something like...global warming?)
Question: Does our behavior in online communities reflect how we might be in a physical office space....e.g., do we like or resent intrusions? (someone knocking on our office door...the ping sound of an email arriving)....how comfortable are we with ambiguity? (not sure about the rules of behavior)...do we have a wall between “work” and “real life” (if so, the socializing online would be quite annoying)...or, are we curious about other people, who they are and how they think (if so, the socializing is essential).
Indeed, there is a barrier to entry...people comfortable with the written word are more likely to carry on (as I am doing now...). But the written word is so limiting! As most of you know I am in the business of visualizing information (or, as I’m fond of saying these days, “capturing the shape of thought”) and I believe that visuals (especially the hand-drawn variety that are so personal) may create a bridge between face to face events and online experiences for people who are wholistic rather than linear thinkers. How can we bring images into these forums!?
At the risk of sharing TMI (too much information): I wanted to let everyone know that I will be off the grid for the next several weeks due to business travel and an amazing opportunity to spend 10 days on Buckminster Fuller’s Bear Island in Maine with his friends and family. I was invited by Bonnie Devarco who was Fuller’s archivist at Stanford and is my coauthor on the “Open Secret” book (about how signs and symbols cross time and culture – stay tuned)....so I will say good-bye for a few weeks and leave you with gratitude for being part of what looks like an extremely successful community.
Kindest regards,
-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.
Chi...@aol.com
Sergej van Middendorp
Hi Eileen,
Your intriguiing question: "(we wondered, could we have competition against something like...global warming?)"
Brought me back to an article I read a little while ago on GE's new strategy called ecomagination. See: http://ge.ecomagination.com/@v=12092005_1800@/index.html
and: http://www.vanityfair.com/features/general/060710fege01
Where the rather dramatic paradigm shift from being a lobbyist against carbon emmission regulations, Jeffrey Immelt bets the future of the company on the motto: green is green. GE will exhaust 1% less CO2 in 2012 than it did in 2004. This may seem futile, but that is 40% less than it would if it didn't curb itself.
The competitive dynamic assumed here is that GE, by transforming first and at the same time lobbying for tougher regulation on the entire industry, it positions itself better than its competitors to benefit from its ecological strategy. Effectively leading the entire industry to collaboratively compete against global warming.
Managers at GE understand that six sigma wont get them there and are wondering how to meet this new dream. Research funding was doubled from 700m to 1.5 bln to start meeting the challenge.
Anyone involved in helping their people adjust to the new paradigm?
Cheers, Sergej
| Eileen Clegg <eil...@visualinsight.net>
Sent by: Value-N...@googlegroups.com 04-08-2006 06:35
|
|
|