Miles Fidelman wrote in the “Working Together to Build an
Infrastructure and Platform for Emergence” conversation http://bit.ly/n3TSGN
, I think the action is now at the level of "frameworks for
collaboration.” That seems to me very true, I just wouldn’t limit the
concept of “framework” to software-based platforms such as SourceForge
or eBay. I understand that we are in a tech-oriented social innovation
conversation, but hope that the context that I offer to bring to it,
as a social scientist and evolutionary thinker, won’t be completely
The questions that fascinate me when I think of frameworks for
collaboration are like: How will a framework come into being, which
can serve as attractor for the zillions initiatives and multitude of
movements for a sustainable world? What will help the emergence of a
framework to enable them to connect and self-organize into a higher
order complexity and harmony, thus outperform the status quo?
My hypothesis is that a key enabling factor is the movements becoming
more aware of the leverage they can get from the best combination of
social and electronic technologies for increasing their collective
intelligence and capabilities.
Another enabler of such a framework is the tech innovators turning
their attention to what the social innovators need for really powering
up collaboration in and across the movements.
What if we tested that hypothesis in the following 3-step process?
1. Attracting more thought leaders and activists from movements like
the Transition Network, peer-to-peer, the commons, social and
environmental entrepreneurs, makers, open everything, collaborative
consumption, organizational transformation, complementary currencies,
crowdfunding, workplace democracy, just to name a few.
2. Inviting them to the Bazaar and finding out who would have high
interest in a semantically structured system that “showed all
organizations, and then listed specific projects they are working on
or in support of or things they are associated with,” as Venessa
in April. (Her idea included http://bit.ly/rfotLF
“making it very easy for projects and people to become aware of one
another and share data instead of duplicating it over and over… to see
what other similar projects/related projects were out there, and what
issues the project was seeking to solve."
3. Discovering together the patterns that connect Contact with its
“greater potential to address the social, political, economic and
evolutionary goals” and to “forge an ongoing community for innovating
social media and beyond” (Doug Rushkoff).
Does that 3-phase hypothesis make any sense to anybody at all? I
imagine that if we validated it in action, the result could be a jump
in our capacity to take world back from big business and government.
Yes, there is a wide gap between what is proposed here and that
capacity. I don’t think that at the current stage of the movement
anybody could or should draw a roadmap. If we can agree on how
desirable is to boost collective intelligence in the ecosystem of
transformational movements and projects, and take the first few steps,
that’s more than enough. The rest can emerge at Contact, in October,
So what could be those first steps? I have some ideas to share but
before going further, I’d love to hear *your* thoughts on all this.