What is the difference in the interaction and relationship rules for Value Networks and for Value Chain business models?

[Michael _P]

Value Networks claims it can accommodate any type of enterprise model.
OK, but what the difference in the organisation of the business or in
the rules of interaction between Value Networks and Value Chain?

If we take CRM (relationship with clients) and Knowledge Management
out of the picture for a moment, can we recognise which model the
enterprise operates within?

[Verna Allee]

The simplest way to understand the difference is that Value Chain is a
mechanistic "production line" model of value creation while VNA is an
organic, non-linear model of value creation. It is very easy to
determine which view of value people hold simply by listening to the
way they describe their business. Chain language puts heavy emphasis
on processes and business transactions, while network language talks
more about relationships and ecosystems. Both models or "lenses" have
value but it is important to select the value model that is most
appropriate for your unique business configuration and environment.

In classic Value Chain thinking value is created incrementally and
only delivered at the "end point" of delivering a product or service
to the customer. A Value Network mindset believes if value is created
anywhere, then it is created and delivered everywhere. Thus value is
generated by every role in an activity and delivered or received in
multiple direct interactions throughout the entire business activity.

For example, one of the key indicators of value network health and
vitality is "reciprocity" - the number and quality of reciprocal
relationships in the value network. (You can find more on these kinds
of indicators in here
http://openvaluenetworks.com/howToGuides/ExchangeAnalysis.pdf).Reciprocity
is not a consideration in value chain as the only transaction of
"real" value is when product or services are provided in exchange for
revenue.

I would like to point you to a couple of other resources:

Value Networks and Value Conversion of Tangible and Intangible Assets
(describes the theory base for VNA)
http://openvaluenetworks.com/Articles/Value_Conversion_JIC_online_version.pdf

When Variation is a Given: How Value Network Analysis Complements
Business Process Management (BPM) (Blog)
http://valuenetworks.com/public/item/218226

Measuring Capacity for Value Creation in a Value Network (blog)
http://valuenetworks.com/public/item/236677

Hope this is helpful,
Verna

[Charles Ehin]

Well said, Verna. Most managers still have a great deal of difficulty grasping the difference (and significance) between the formal (artificial/mechanistic) and informal (organic/emergent) components of an organization or a network of organizations. The paradox is that the formal side can be managed while the informal side can’t be managed or controlled. Thus, if you want to get the most out of a venture you need to develop an organizational/network context/ecology that facilitates and expands the “reciprocal” relationships as best as possible.

 

Best,

Charlie

[Michael _P]

Verna, thank you very much for finding time to respond.

My question is very tangible; let me elaborate on it.

As you said, "Chain language puts heavy emphasis on processes and
business transactions", i.e. promotes/facilitates process-centric
model of an enterprise. Therefore, associated rules have to minimize
external interactions and relationships and concentrate on the
internal ones for each business entity. Plus, rules of internal
interactions and relationships should protect these interactions and
relationships by all means because resulting value depends the great
deal on stability of internal interactions and relationships with
particular providers of internal value-components.

The "network language talks more about relationships and ecosystems",
i.e. it talks about collaborative value based on relationships in the
ecosystems. In other words, related rules have to promote
collaboration on all levels of the business entities - in the
enterprise and in its products. This also means that each individual
business entity is expected to provide for relatively limited value
but this value grows via relationships and collaboration with other
entities. If this is a correct understanding (is it?), the same
business-process entity should be very flexible in its internal
interactions and relationships (in the contrast with the Cain Value
behavior) because now the value-components can come from many
potential business entities (based on the relationship stability); if
one engaged 'partner' does not provide for needed value, it is not a
problem to engage another partner in the same business-process entity.

I hope, it is clearer now what kind of the 'interaction and
relationship rules' I am looking for. Are the companies that realize
Value Networks model conceptually different in their internal
organisation from the companies working based on the Value Chain
model?

- Michael

[Michael _P]

Charlie,

you have perfectly explained why managers have 'difficulty grasping'
'informal (organic/emergent) components of an organization or a
network of organizations' - it can't be managed. Actually, I disagree
with you in this point. Intangible knowledge requires meticulous
management, especially if managers have to deal with the knowledge
transfer (which is so painful point in many organisations that
outsource its operations to the countries with another cultural
foundations).

Also, if Value Networks is a business model (is it?) that provides
business values, there must be some economics expressed in the formal
organisation or in the 'form of execution' that provides values based
on the relationships and interactions.Plus, these values must be
measurable in formal and tangible metrics. It is not pragmatism, it is
practicality.

- Michael

>  http://openvaluenetworks.com/howToGuides/ExchangeAnalysis.pdf).Recipr...<http://openvaluenetworks.com/howToGuides/ExchangeAnalysis.pdf).Recipr...>

>   is not a consideration in value chain as the only transaction of
>   "real" value is when product or services are provided in exchange for
>   revenue.
>
>   I would like to point you to a couple of other resources:
>
>   Value Networks and Value Conversion of Tangible and Intangible Assets
>   (describes the theory base for VNA)

>  http://openvaluenetworks.com/Articles/Value_Conversion_JIC_online_ver...<http://openvaluenetworks.com/Articles/Value_Conversion_JIC_online_ver...>

>
>   When Variation is a Given: How Value Network Analysis Complements
>   Business Process Management (BPM) (Blog)

>  http://valuenetworks.com/public/item/218226<http://valuenetworks.com/public/item/218226>

>
>   Measuring Capacity for Value Creation in a Value Network (blog)

>  http://valuenetworks.com/public/item/236677<http://valuenetworks.com/public/item/236677>

>
>   Hope this is helpful,
>   Verna
>

[Michael _P]

I have looked into 'When Variation is a Given' post and found a direct
link to what I am trying to achieve. The context is this:

"With VNA variation is not a “problem,” – it is viewed as a given, as
being completely natural whenever work moves beyond the strictly
routine. Variation is the lifeblood of innovation, agility and
responsiveness. The value network view helps people work smoothly
between the predictable (engineered) world of process and BPM and the
variable environments that represent the way most people experience
their work. VNA focuses on working with probabilities instead of
attempting complete predictability."

I agree 101% with the first two sentences. However, my conclusion
related to the third sentence is a bit simpler than helping people to
work - I conclude that process-orientation, in instructions and in
mind, is inappropriate instrument for frequently changing/varying
environment. Instead of helping people to work with wrong tool, it
would be better to give them better, more adequate tool, IMHO.

If there is a business task, no process can guarantee the result in
100%. Predictability of the results of the process that involves human
activities is a total myth. It is always a probability. If my mind
works in the process-oriented mode, I will do anything to control all
suppliers or process action providers for only one reason - increase
probability of the delivery. However, if my mind is service-oriented,
I will engage as more as possible relationships and collaborative
interactions to find a net of potential service providers that my
process-service would engage in any possible situation.

- Michael

On Sep 19, 6:26 pm, Verna Allee <verna.al...@valuenetworks.com> wrote:
> The simplest way to understand the difference is that Value Chain is a
> mechanistic "production line" model of value creation while VNA is an
> organic, non-linear model of value creation. It is very easy to
> determine which view of value people hold simply by listening to the
> way they describe their business. Chain language puts heavy emphasis
> on processes and business transactions, while network language talks
> more about relationships and ecosystems. Both models or "lenses" have
> value but it is important to select the value model that is most
> appropriate for your unique business configuration and environment.
>
> In classic Value Chain thinking value is created incrementally and
> only delivered at the "end point" of delivering a product or service
> to the customer. A Value Network mindset believes if value is created
> anywhere, then it is created and delivered everywhere. Thus value is
> generated by every role in an activity and delivered or received in
> multiple direct interactions throughout the entire business activity.
>
> For example, one of the key indicators of value network health and
> vitality is "reciprocity" - the number and quality of reciprocal
> relationships in the value network. (You can find more on these kinds

> of indicators in herehttp://openvaluenetworks.com/howToGuides/ExchangeAnalysis.pdf).Recipr...

> is not a consideration in value chain as the only transaction of
> "real" value is when product or services are provided in exchange for
> revenue.
>
> I would like to point you to a couple of other resources:
>
> Value Networks and Value Conversion of Tangible and Intangible Assets

> (describes the theory base for VNA)http://openvaluenetworks.com/Articles/Value_Conversion_JIC_online_ver...

>
> When Variation is a Given: How Value Network Analysis Complements

> Business Process Management (BPM) (Blog)http://valuenetworks.com/public/item/218226
>
> Measuring Capacity for Value Creation in a Value Network (blog)http://valuenetworks.com/public/item/236677

[Charles Ehin]

Michael,

 

You have raised some very valid points but I don't think that you actually disagree with what I stated. Let me start by reiterating part of what I said that, “The paradox is that the formal side can be managed while the informal side can't be managed or controlled.”  To which you responded that, “Intangible knowledge requires meticulous management.”

 

What you suggest is very true. However, that “meticulous” management can only take place on the formal side of organizations and networked ventures. The reason for that again is very straight forward. Informal networks within formal systems are emergent/self-organizing and, therefore, can’t be controlled or manipulated by external entities/management.

 

Consequently, what management (actually it is best that all players are involved not just management) must do is to constantly adjust the organizational context to allow/encourage that “knowledge transfer” you suggest to take place. You are absolutely right in pointing out the importance of knowledge transfer in any venture. However, what should be kept in mind is that such transfer is not just about “explicit” knowledge. Actually, the key to success also involves the transfer “tacit” knowledge which needs an environment where it can freely emerge.

 

As I suggested in my May Real People Magazine article, “tacit knowledge encompasses ideas and abstractions at the individual level. More specifically, it is implicit knowledge that is:

• Grounded in personal experience and innate predispositions.
• Carried by people in their minds, which is difficult to access or share.
• Difficult to transfer to others without extensive personal contact and trust.
• Based on habits and culture that we do not recognize in ourselves.
• Stored in a different area of the brain than explicit knowledge.
• The wellspring of new codified or explicit knowledge. Tacit or unrelated knowledge comes to the fore serendipitously and becomes explicit as individuals or small groups confront new or unanticipated situations.

Tacit knowledge is a dynamic resource indispensable in the innovation process.

Further, tacit knowledge must be allowed to ‘emerge’ through voluntary collaboration or self-organization. People are seldom aware of exactly what unrelated knowledge they possess until confronted with a problem or an opportunity.

Therefore, in order for tacit knowledge to properly emerge, people must first be surrounded by a supportive environment.

In such an environment, we will understand and respond positively to formal organizational goals and initiatives.

Also, in the process ‘We’ should remember that the more people are given a voice and implicit control in managing a venture, the more the informal networks (present in every entity) will begin to function more in the open and start making appropriate connections with other emergent groups. [This leads to the expansion of the organizational sweet spot a team that comes from the title of my latest book].

The organizational sweet spot is like the sweet spot on the strings of a tennis racket. In a general sense, the sweet spot of the racquet is the area of the string bed that produces the best combination of feel and power. In an organization, the sweet spot is created by the overlap of a formal and an informal system.

Most importantly, under the right conditions the informal components will begin to overlap more and more with the formal elements of an organization.

This overlap is a very desirable state for any enterprise. That spot, in essence, represents the area where the formal and informal systems of an organization have reached “a meeting of the minds” over the fundamental goals, policies and processes of an organization.

What is particularly noteworthy about this agreement is that it’s not reached through any sort of formal negotiations. Rather, it is emergent.

It is a natural outgrowth of day-to-day interactions, or self-organization by the people representing both management and the informal networks of a given venture. That’s where you can deliver your message.

Clearly, the larger that overlapping area is, the more engaged and productive people are within an organization.”

I was a little lengthy but I hope this helps to further clarify my approach.

Best, Charlie

[Laurence Locklee]

Hi Charlie,

 

Would you like to offer examples of indicators or evidence that would suggest that an organisation has found their "Sweet spot"?

 

btw....I'm not denating your points, I agree with them.

 

LLL

[Charles Ehin]

Hi Laurence,

 

In general, at the sweet spot most activities are based on reciprocal relationships, valued differences, and respected individual identities. Emphasis is placed on constant examination and experimentation that may lead to more challenging and rewarding networked processes. Every opportunity is taken to strengthen the sense of community through mutually beneficial activities, interactions, and the sharing of sentiments. The pursuit of creativity and innovation is enhanced through the persistent encouragement of constructive dissent in an atmosphere of mutual trust. Further, interconnectedness of all proposed actions and continuing activities are diligently scrutinized to ensure effective common results.

 

That’s a mouth full but a good indicator that you’re near or in the sweet spot.

 

Best,

Charlie

[Michael _P]

Folks, thank you very much for your input but the discussion has
deviated from my question. So, let me only to answer to Charlie.

I have seen such sweet spots alive and enjoined them. I've also seen
how they vanished. The sweet spots, to exist and grow, require
stability of the team and entire organisation. In prosper time, sweet
spots are very productive. When staff starts to rotate faster and
faster or when teams and organisations balance at the edge of
collapse, the spots shrink or simply disappear. I mentioned management
of knowledge transfer before with respect to the cases where local
sweet spots either shrink due to the personnel rotation or get
recklessly broken, e.g., by outsourcing business or technical
functions to other organisations

However, on more constructive note, sweet spots, to exist, have also
to be supported by the enterprise model of operation and derived
culture, IMO. There are some models that do not facilitate or support
sweet spots out there, for example, consultancy. If management does
not invest into knowledge shearing, many people never construct or
participate in sweet spots. Actually, this leads me back to my
original question: what is the difference in the interaction and

relationship rules for Value Networks and for Value Chain business
models?

I am looking for tangible characteristics of business organisational
model that capable of promoting networks of values and related
intangible benefits/values.

Thank you,

- Michael

On Sep 21, 5:58 pm, "Charles Ehin" <kal...@msn.com> wrote:
> Hi Laurence,
>
> In general, at the sweet spot most activities are based on reciprocal relationships, valued differences, and respected individual identities. Emphasis is placed on constant examination and experimentation that may lead to more challenging and rewarding networked processes. Every opportunity is taken to strengthen the sense of community through mutually beneficial activities, interactions, and the sharing of sentiments. The pursuit of creativity and innovation is enhanced through the persistent encouragement of constructive dissent in an atmosphere of mutual trust. Further, interconnectedness of all proposed actions and continuing activities are diligently scrutinized to ensure effective common results.
>
> That’s a mouth full but a good indicator that you’re near or in the sweet spot.
>
> Best,
>
> Charlie
>
>
>
>   ----- Original Message -----
>   From: Laurence Locklee<mailto:llock...@optimice.com.au>
>   To: value-n...@googlegroups.com<mailto:value-n...@googlegroups.com>
>   Sent: Monday, September 21, 2009 12:33 AM
>   Subject: Re: What is the difference in the interaction and relationship rules for Value Networks and for Value Chain business models?
>
>   Hi Charlie,
>
>   Would you like to offer examples of indicators or evidence that would suggest that an organisation has found their "Sweet spot"?
>
>   btw....I'm not denating your points, I agree with them.
>
>   LLL
>

>   On Mon, Sep 21, 2009 at 5:28 AM, Charles Ehin <kal...@msn.com<mailto:kal...@msn.com>> wrote:
>
>     Michael,
>
>     You have raised some very valid points but I don't think that you actually disagree with what I stated. Let me start by reiterating part of what I said that, “The paradox is that the formal side can be managed while the informal side can't be managed or controlled.”  To which you responded that, “Intangible knowledge requires meticulous management.”
>
>     What you suggest is very true. However, that “meticulous” management can only take place on the formal side of organizations and networked ventures. The reason for that again is very straight forward. Informal networks within formal systems are emergent/self-organizing and, therefore, can’t be controlled or manipulated by external entities/management.
>
>     Consequently, what management (actually it is best that all players are involved not just management) must do is to constantly adjust the organizational context to allow/encourage that “knowledge transfer” you suggest to take place. You are absolutely right in pointing out the importance of knowledge transfer in any venture. However, what should be kept in mind is that such transfer is not just about “explicit” knowledge. Actually, the key to success also involves the transfer “tacit” knowledge which needs an environment where it can freely emerge.
>
>     As I suggested in my May Real People Magazine article, “tacit knowledge encompasses ideas and abstractions at the individual level. More specifically, it is implicit knowledge that is:
>

>       a.. Grounded in personal experience and innate predispositions.
>       b.. Carried by people in their minds, which is difficult to access or share.
>       c.. Difficult to transfer to others without extensive personal contact and trust.
>       d.. Based on habits and culture that we do not recognize in ourselves.
>       e.. Stored in a different area of the brain than explicit knowledge.
>       f.. The wellspring of new codified or explicit knowledge. Tacit or unrelated knowledge comes to the fore serendipitously and becomes explicit as individuals or small groups confront new or unanticipated situations.

> ...
>
> read more »

[Charles Ehin]

Well said, Michael. I agree with you completely. .

 

Here are my 2 cents in response to your follow-up statement: "I am looking for tangible characteristics of business organizational model that capable of promoting networks of values and related intangible benefits/values."

 

Excerpt from my article in the May issue of Smart People Magazine:

 

Organizational context/ecologies
So, how do we expand the organizational sweet spot? It’s not easy, especially when people are accustomed to the Industrial Age management processes.

Fortunately, it’s definitely worth the effort especially since we are already in the Knowledge Age. What we must keep in mind is that the sweet spot can’t be managed. What can be managed or adjusted is the organizational context or ecology that surrounds the sweet spot.

As I’ve suggested in Unleashing Intellectual Capital and in Hidden Assets, organizational ecologies, from my perspective, fall into the following two general categories:

• Controlled-Access System: Where access to the resources of a group and its activities are controlled by one or a few select individuals.
• Shared-Access System: Where resources of a group and its activities are impartially dealt with by all members of an organization.

In this classification scheme, a controlled-access system, whether tall or flat, is an organizational framework wherein one individual or a very limited number of people exclusively control access to all major resources.

All other members of the organization must first get approval from these executives before any of the assets can be used.

In a controlled-access system position power is the predominant force behind all key decisions; hence, “open” self-organizing arrangements are not encouraged or valued, limiting the development of voluntary co-dependent relationships and the sharing of tacit and explicit knowledge.

Compliance instead of commitment is prized in such organizations. As one might infer, such an organizational ecology doesn’t do much for the expansion of the organizational sweet spot.

Conversely, in a shared-access system, all organizational members have considerable autonomy in decision-making and in resource allocations. In a shared-access system, expert power instead of position power dominates.

Major emphasis is placed on situational leadership, open book management, and self-organization in solving problems or in pursuing opportunities. Such an arrangement clearly benefits from the continuous sharing of tacit and explicit knowledge.

Here, personal commitment rather than compliance is the dominant success factor. That, of course, enhances the expansion of the sweet spot.

Basically, a shared-access system minimizes or avoids many of the knowledge sharing “killers” that are prevalent in a traditional organization.

For example, knowledge workers in a controlled-access setting are continuously faced with some of the following or similar problems:

• I would like to download a free Web resource which will help me perform my job better, but the IT Department will not allow me to do that.
• I would like to work cross-domain, in an interdisciplinary way, with colleagues in another department, but my manager refuses to give me permission to do so.
• I would like to have access to cost information that pertains to the resources that I am currently using so that I can make more judicious use of them. The Accounting Department, however, has informed me that such information is available on a need-to-know basis only to managers and I am not a manager.

In a controlled-access system the upshot, from a human nature perspective is that people are more concerned with their own welfare instead of their co-workers or the organization as a whole.

Best,

Charlie

[Laurence Lock Lee]

Tks Charles ... I guess it was a leading question. I was pleased to see references to reciprocity and mutual trust. I have been playing around with some SNA projects that we have conducted, looking at the percentage of reciprocal vs Non reciprocated 
links. Perhaps I could use this as a "sweet spot" metric?

LLL

Sent from my iPhone

[Graham Douglas]

Michael,

In short, my answer to your question about "...tangible characteristics of

business organisational model that capable of promoting networks of values
and related

intangible benefits/values" is a common basis for communication among all in
the organisation plus good governance in organisations. This is summarised
in the acronym START™:-


S takeholder engagement at all times;




T rust based on the individual integrity of each person involved;




A ccountability;




R esponsible behaviour by persons in organisations;




T ransparency.

This short answer and a business model and the tools for achieving these
characteristics are elaborated upon in
http://www.integrative-thinking.com/ACEPaperGDouglas10Jan.pdf .

Hope this helps.

Graham

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
Version: 8.5.409 / Virus Database: 270.13.110/2385 - Release Date: 09/20/09
17:51:00

[Judith]

Hi Laurence,

I was playing around with different types of networks and indicators
such as centrality, density and reciprocity. Density is of very little
use for network comparisons, unless you always have a similar number
of nodes. Reciprocity depended on the setting. For tightly run
settings reciprocity was obviously lower than in open, knowledge
sharing settings due to the level of prescribed process paths.
Centrality indicators incl. their variance seemed to be a good
indicator to show how balanced a system is. That is, if all actors
should play a similarly strong role in the network. I also think that
Distance is a good indicator for knowledge sharing networks, though.
Any degree of separation that is higher than 2 shows a potential break
in the knowledge sharing flow paths.

Still looking for the right combination in the right setting :-)
Kind regards,
Judith


On Sep 22, 12:13 am, Laurence Lock Lee <llock...@optimice.com.au>
wrote:

> ...
>
> read more »- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

[Laurence Lock Lee]

I don't really understand what you mean by tight settings and open
knowledge setting ... but in my analyses the reciprocity/trust network
is usually more dense for tight knit communities and more fragmented
for the more open exploratory networks. I accept that the trust
network evidenced by reciprocal ties is contextual but we would have
to factor that in when doing comparisons. For example I recently
compared the trust networks for a private sector and public sector
railway operators which I believe was both valid and insightful. And
possibly could provide a commentary on Charles' sweet spot idea. As to
the distance measure, Steve Borgatti's key player 2 software aims to
tell you how much of the network a given set of nodes can reach in a
given number of hops (which I usually choose 2). Sort of works but
sometimes gives strange results. I have used it though to show the
diffusion limitations of over centralised networks. I have a paper on
this that we will publish shortly on our web site...which has been
substantially reworked. Will advise shortly when it is ready.

rgds

LLL

Sent from my iPhone

[Judith McCrory]

Hi Laurence,
What I meant with tight settings is the pre-defined workflows scenarios within a business. You wouldn't get much reciprocity, unless the workflow determines it.
Looking forward to you paper!
Judith

[Michael _P]

Thank you very much, Folks, this is the most informative discusstion
on the topic I have had.



To Charlie:
I think that the real solution is in the balance between totally
closed and totally opened organisation. This is more historically-
philosophical matter that, probably, has references back to ancient
Greece democracies, ancient Rome citizenship, ancient Russian Novgorod
Vetche and British House of Commons.
Here are a few contra-arguments to your a-b-c points. The problem
with open source tools is in that they address only the task they are
dedicated leaving all other technical and business concerns ‘open’.
The most typical example is security that usually omitted in the open
source tools and leads to the security gaps in the enterprise
environment if not been controlled. This is why IT must verify first
is everything is OK. From another hand, IT has adopted the idea of
sweet spot so well that it has built a Chinese Wall between Business
and IT (while many in Business appreciated this construction).
As of two other examples, my concern relates to the focusing of the
sweet spot on delivery. To my knowledge, one of the major human
society achievements is a separation of roles, responsibilities and
concerns. One of the not-that-good results of it is layered
information associated with roles and responsibilities. Depending on
personal character, different people manipulate information access for
individual benefits, as we know. I will certainly look into START™, so
kindly advised by Graham, but, at a glance, the T-R-T attributes
remind me French Social Utopia. BTW, it is the historical fact that
Russian’s NEP – New Economical Policy (re-opening of all small and
middle size businesses on the capitalistic principles and temporary
preservation of personal rights) – allowed by the Bolsheviks in
1920-1923, was the result of disability of collective efforts (sweet
spots?) to focus, govern and resolve the basic economic tasks ( Sorry
for this historic excursion).

To LLL:
When I opened this discussion, my intention was (and still is) to
define such business model (with actual quantifiable monetary values)
what would be based on reciprocal economic relationships. I have hoped
that it is already recognised model under Value Networks umbrella
( because Value Chain is an anti-reciprocal model).


- Michael






On Sep 22, 10:29 am, Laurence Lock Lee <llock...@optimice.com.au>
wrote:

> I don't really understand what you mean by tight settings and open  
> knowledge setting ... but in my analyses the reciprocity/trust network  
> is usually more dense for tight knit communities and more fragmented  
> for the more open exploratory networks. I accept that the trust  
> network evidenced by reciprocal ties is contextual but we would have  
> to factor that in when doing comparisons. For example I recently  
> compared the trust networks for a private sector and public sector  
> railway operators which I believe was both valid and insightful. And  
> possibly could provide a commentary on Charles' sweet spot idea. As to  
> the distance measure, Steve Borgatti's key player 2 software aims to  
> tell you how much of the network a given set of nodes can reach in a  
> given number of hops (which I usually choose 2). Sort of works but  
> sometimes gives strange results. I have used it though to show the  
> diffusion limitations of over centralised networks. I have a paper on  
> this that we will publish shortly on our web site...which has been  
> substantially reworked.  Will advise shortly when it is ready.
>
> rgds
>
> LLL
>
> Sent from my iPhone
>

[Verna Allee]

Just a quick caution as to the dangers of defining "value" only in
monetary terms. Financial measures are lagging indicators that tell
you only about the present or the past. Non financial indicators,
including many network indicators are actually leading indicators that
determine the health and vitality of the network and its capacity to
generate future value. Attempts to describe living systems such as
networks only in financial terms is a kind of reductionism that can
easily lead to very wrong decisions about how to work with a network.

Verna

[Charles Ehin]

Michael,

 

What I espouse has nothing to do with "social utopia." In fact, running an organization based on "unmanagement" principles is much more difficult than the traditional way especially if you don't have the right people.

 

Maybe the excerpt from another article I published this month will help to clarify this matter a little more.

 

“ For the past two decades, I have been investigating the fundamental interplay of a number of individual and group associated behavioral factors and how they relate to the expansion or contraction of the innovative capacity of an organization or a social network.

 

I began by first taking a more thorough look at anthropology and paleontology. What I discovered was that our hunter-gatherer ancestors had gotten along quite well for 99 percent of the roughly 200,000 year existence of our species without the use of any rigid hierarchical social structures.

 

Subsequently I delved into sociobiology and evolutionary psychology, and then examined many of the latest findings in molecular biology, social neuroscience, and complex adaptive systems. In general, what has become quite clear is that biological entities, including humans, cannot and should not be overly controlled. They are emergent and constantly evolving complex adaptive systems.

 

For innovation to thrive, people need to be immersed in flexible social environments. Consequently, it shouldn’t come as a great surprise that traditional management concepts seldom work any longer, especially when it comes to knowledge workers. This is mainly due to the continued use of cause-and-affect theoretical constructs. But people are not machines. They are organic self-organizing entities.

 

If we want to expand the innovative capacities of our organizations, we need to pay closer attention to human nature. Reinventing traditional methodologies will not help us advance any further. The new science of the brain and DNA is helping to rewrite not only the origins but also the innate behavior of humans. That’s where management attention should also be.”

 

Best,

Charlie

[David Meggitt]

Hi,

Question: Value Networks claims it can accommodate any type of
enterprise model.
(This, incidentally, is a conclusion reached after conversation
elsewhere - Open Value Networks LinkedIn Group for practitioners: all
invited - http://www.linkedin.com/groupRegistration?gid=153536

OK, but what the difference in the organisation of the business or in
the rules of interaction between Value Networks and Value Chain?

Can we recognise which model the enterprise operates within?

Consider some statements made in contributions below :--

This is why IT must verify first is everything is OK. - Michael (!!!)

That is, if all actors should "play a (similarly strong) role" in the
network Judith :-))

Can we also reflect on other statements made last year:- George
Colony, founder and CEO of Forrester Research (one of the leaders in
research in IT) has stated “If we don’t get from IT to BT (Business
Technology) we’re going to have more disasters like our present
mortgage meltdown. Why? Because IT creates impenetrable systems that
human beings can’t manage. BT is about human beings being back in
control.”

Tentative answer to question is: Yes. But first ask the people
involved. That's what VNA is about, engaging, revealing, then
analysing.

David

[Khaled Islaih]

Hi Verna,   Your caution is important. Many managers and leaders in in today's organizations are still using irrelevant scales and measures to imagine the unlimited value zones generated by relationships, transactions and interactions within social networks. Many of them are still using financial terms and scales only. They see value as numbers and quantities only.   As network advocates, we should promote the de / re-financialization of organizations and economies to expand the human potential of network logic (reconstruct the collapsing sociologies, economies and geographies). Furthermore, many managers  don't believe in language as a value creator. Therefore, I think we need to expand the boundaries of our linguistic landscape to reflect this radical shift in value scales and definitions.   Khaled           Khaled A. Islaih Community Developer, Freelance Writer and Intercultural Speaker Innovation - Collaboration - Transformation Email: in...@khaledislaih.com Web: www.khaledislaih.com Blog:  Community Conversations Social Web:  Facebook  and LinkedIn  Follow me on Twitter   --- On Tue, 9/22/09, Verna Allee <verna...@valuenetworks.com> wrote:

[Laurence Lock Lee]

Michael,

In my view unless the value chain is simply a production line i.e. the
rules of engagement are easily codified and compliance to those rules
can be easily achieved, then the value chain is actually a value
network and therfore the rules are the same. Once we there is room for
discretion and negotiation based on specific context then I believe
the rules for value networks apply.

LLL

Sent from my iPhone

[Judith McCrory]

Hi Laurence,

You mentioned that reciprocity differs, depending on the type of network we are dealing with. I have developed a landscape for networks based on the dimensions of supportability and maturity. This allows to define the type of networks - from production line to open networks - along the two dimensions. Networks with similar structures show similar indicators and might have similar sweet spots.

(You can find a blog entry on supportability at http://valuenetworks.com/public/item/236356 and a paper on the basics of the idea at http://www.openvaluenetworks.com/events/MaturityAndSupportabilityOfRegionalInnovationValueNetworks.pdf )

Kind regards,

Judith

-----Original Message-----
From: value-n...@googlegroups.com [mailto:value-n...@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of Laurence Lock Lee

[Laurence Lock Lee]

Hi Judith ... are you suggesting that production line and open networks would occupy different positions on your maturity/supportability matrix? In other words because you are mapping network types a production line could never be highly mature and supportable, by definition?

Laurence Lock Lee PhD
Partner, Optimice Pty Ltd
Ph: +61 (0)407001628
www.optimice.com.au
Blog: http://governanceandnetworks.blogspot.com/

Learn to network, then network to learn

>> read more �
>
> >









E-mail message checked by Spyware Doctor (6.1.0.447)
Database version: 6.13330
http://www.pctools.com/en/spyware-doctor-antivirus/

[Judith McCrory]

Hi Laurence,

They would occupy different positions on the matrix, but it doesn't say anything about the quality of the network. It just tells us, that the indicators need to be analysed differently. As mentioned before, low reciprocity in a well defined business workflow which doesn't allow for much negotiation is read differently to low reciprocity e.g. in a research community with a problem to solve.

The matrix is just used as a guidance and a starting point for discussion with the customer to think about the different improvement measures possible. So once we placed the network on the matrix, we discuss the different improvement measures either based on neighbouring examples, the matrix statements and the indicators.

The rating is done as follows: The network experts look at the networks after thorough analysis and we rate it based on Supportability and Maturity questions (in the blog and paper mentioned). Supportability is higher in a business unit than in an industrial network, but it doesn't make the industrial network automatically a 'badly' supported network. It just means that the way it organises is different from a business unit. The same counts for maturity. Low maturity doesn't mean that the network is doing well, it just means that it is at a different stage. With a little support and guidance, it might even mature quicker that it would do left to its own self-organisation. Another point is here that - when networks reach full maturity, they usually innovate or partly innovate, so they potentially jump to a low maturity stage again and the cycle begins again (but that's another topic).

[David Meggitt]

Michael,

Can I change my reply to your question? Lauri's (LLL) has highlighted
in his succinct reply a pitfall I have overlooked!

I would now like to suggest you rephrase your question, as, from a
perspective I hold, the question becomes meaningless, in the sense
that all enterprises can be recognised as a value network if we wear
glasses with the appropriate pair of lenses fitted. There is no
either/ or or even partially a value network as opposed to a value
chain.

Thinking about Laurie's reply, have the rules of value networks ever
been articulated, apart from the Object model? Currently, we have
questions which ultimately probe the behaviours as outcomes /
deliverables and the mutuality / reciprocity of flows exhibited by
real people playing the roles identified. We ask, where is the real
heart beat? To do this we get on to the balcony and view the dance on
the playing field below where, in the latter, it is generally
impossible to see over the obstructions posed by other's heads! (Think
Exchange Analysis etc) and observe the outcomes of ego strife,
identity crises, emotions and all things human.

Take the most lean managed contact / call centre operating under a
bureaucratic hierarchy, and ask the people what is really going on and
they will reveal how they really "work" with existing work flow
systems.

Judith has done some great work on linking the occurrence of tangible
and intangible transactions to enterprise characteristics including
their maturity.

VNA is useful as an "open" approach in the sense that it is capable of
connecting with other disciplines and illuminating in a flexible way
mankind's groping through the messy fog of co-existence. As an aside,
I would be cautious of an embracing architecture that purports, in a
"closed" way, to deal with all challenges effectively, as Forrester
reminds us for IT.


At an elevated level, I feel VNA points us to being more humble as we
probe the real complexity of human interaction. As has been said many
times, I hope, chains tie us to something that holds us back.

[Scott McFarland]

Verna,

 

Hi.  I suppose it's just me, brain-dead, but I read through the 25 posts here and with the exception of a few clear sentences and thoughts, I came away lost.   Grasping the original question was possible.  If time permitted, I'd be tempted to diagram out this 25-post thread to gain some visual clarity of the complexities of thought here.

 

Should I try inhaling a mix of ether and nitrous oxide and then rereading the text?   do you have a "one pill makes you larger...and one pill makes you small" solution?  or will a simple dose of VNA training raise my IQ and enable comprehension of all this?

 

Your VNA neophyte....

 

* * *

[Michael _P]

@ Verna
Certainly, monetary criterion is not the single one, I used it
deliberately to concrete my point , but thank you for the caution. LLL
got it right and his response is the the key to me.

In all my writing, I usually say that the right architecture and
management is that the one, which cares about today (money tells you
about it) and tomorrow (where no money exists yet)

@ Charlie
I totally agree with “If we want to expand the innovative capacities

of our organizations, we need to pay closer attention to human

nature.” And everything you say is pleasant to me. However, it is hard
to believe that this may be ‘an organization based on "unmanagement"
principles’.

At one point, IT work became quite close to what you call ‘knowledge
work’, especially in start-ups. As history shows, the IT industry has
switched onto more manufacturing mode with less knowledgeable workers
because a) they are cheaper, and b) easier manageable. There is a lot
of people who like ‘simple’ things and who oversimplifies things to
grasp them…

@ Khaled
I would be very cautious asking for “de / re-financialization of
organizations and economies” even to “to expand the human potential of
network logic”. A hungry person will expand potentials not in ‘network
logic’ but in foooood, IMH O

@Laurence Lock Lee and David Meggitt
Actually, I agree with “In my view unless the value chain is simply a

production line i.e. the
rules of engagement are easily codified and compliance to those rules
can be easily achieved, then the value chain is actually a value

network and therfore the rules are the same” only partially.

The key in the statement is ‘unless’. Unless your assumption is
correct, I agree with you. However, I believe that this assumption is
incorrect. Value Chain is not only a production line but the core
philosophy, concept and culture of the entire organisation. All these
together result in strict process-oriented mentality and behavioural
pattern that places HOW before WHAT and WHY.

In my observation, a lot of enterprises have failed and disappeared
during current crisis because they worshipped disconnected Value
Chains and immutable processes. They continued to follow the same
processes as before the crisis while the economical situation started
to change at a pace no business process can keep up with. The ‘spirit’
of process resists any changes.

I think that the concept of Value Networks has appeared because
relationships and human factor had not had enough (if at all) room in
the process-oriented organisations before. This is why I have asked at
the beginning – what is the specific in the organisation constructer
that might be adequate to the existence and evolution of Value
Networks in the enterprise.

I may be totally wrong because Value Networks might be absolutely
about different things than the core philosophy, concept and culture
of the business organisation.

Cheers,
- Michael

> > enterprise operates within?- Hide quoted text -

[Verna Allee]

LOL. Scott you are far from being synaptically challenged! You also
are in good company as I get a little lost myself sometimes.

We have been thrashing about from high level business models to
getting into the weeds of value network indicators here. Yes, a
simple dose of VNA training would be helpful especially with
understanding some of the indicators like reciprocity and Judith's
posts (we have self paced learning modules in our Help Library now).
This is definitely one of the more technical discussions we have had
here for awhile. We did a series of blogs on value network indicators
a few weeks back. A quick scroll through will give you a better sense
of how value network indicators are different: http://valuenetworks.com/public/blog/207585.

But there is no question that we are offering people the red pill of
an alternate universe! And just to mix metaphors even more thoroughly
we are still falling down the rabbit hole economically speaking. I am
convinced that we will all find ourselves in a new world of network
centric economics very soon.

More confusion? Sorrry about that!!
Verna

On Sep 23, 6:42 am, Scott McFarland <scottjmcfarl...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Verna,
>
> Hi.  I suppose it's just me, brain-dead, but I read through the 25 posts
> here and with the exception of a few clear sentences and thoughts, I came
> away lost.   Grasping the original question was possible.  If time
> permitted, I'd be tempted to diagram out this 25-post thread to gain some
> visual clarity of the complexities of thought here.
>
> Should I try inhaling a mix of ether and nitrous oxide and then rereading
> the text?   do you have a "one pill makes you larger...and one pill makes
> you small" solution?  or will a simple dose of VNA training raise my IQ and
> enable comprehension of all this?
>
> Your VNA neophyte....
>
> * * *
>

[David Meggitt]

Ha! Someone wants to do some training! Go for it.

Incidentally, for "Balconies and playing fields" refer to "The
Practice of Adaptive Leadership" - Tools and tactics for changing your
organisation and the world."
Heifetz, Grashow, Linsky - intensely practical, for which you will
need all your VNA skills - although the authors will not realise that
yet.

There is a single pill that I use, personally, that triggers the value
network mindset.

The original question arose out of a conversation initiated by Michael
on SOA (Service Oriented Architecture) elsewhere, so was in at the
deep end when transferred here.
That background my well have helped set the scene better for this
dialogue.
Best. David

[Khaled Islaih]

Verna:   I fully agree with your conclusion," we will all find ourselves in a new world of network centric economics very soon".The article on the link below, titled "Globalization, or Glocalization? Networks, Territories and Rescaling" has some insights on how the network mindset is de/re scaling our lives individually, locally, nationally and globally. In cultural anthropology, this called deterritorialization of conventional world systems.   http://socgeo.ruhosting.nl/colloquium/cria.pdf Best,

Khaled Khaled A. Islaih Community Developer, Freelance Writer and Intercultural Speaker Innovation - Collaboration - Transformation Email: in...@khaledislaih.com Web: www.khaledislaih.com Blog:  Community Conversations Social Web:  Facebook  and LinkedIn  Follow me on Twitter   --- On Wed, 9/23/09, Verna Allee <verna...@valuenetworks.com> wrote:

From: Verna Allee <verna...@valuenetworks.com> Subject: Re: What is the difference in the interaction and relationship rules for Value Networks and for Value Chain business models?

[Scott McFarland]

Verna,

 

How bizzarre. 

 

I just read your post and understood virtually every word and thought !

 

Even the metaphorical stuff. :-)

 

* * *

 

When everyone is done with the free-fall rabbit hole adventures, let me know.

 

I'd like to see a 1000ml injection of VNA put into the U.S. Government bloodstream, asap.

 

(uh... "ml" would be mega liters, not milliliters)

 

And if anyone just happens to VNA map out the USG, please do post it here.

 

Regards,

 

* * *

[David Meggitt]

Scott:- >> And if anyone just happens to VNA map out the USG, please
do post it here.
Here's a start for you guys in the US:-
http://tinyurl.com/m2r2c8
Good luck.

On Sep 24, 5:50 am, Scott McFarland <scottjmcfarl...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Verna,
>

> How bizzarre.
>
> I just read your post and understood virtually every word and thought !
>
> Even the metaphorical stuff. :-)
>
> * * *
>
> When everyone is done with the free-fall rabbit hole adventures, let me
> know.
>
> I'd like to see a 1000ml injection of VNA put into the U.S. Government
> bloodstream, asap.
>
> (uh... "ml" would be mega liters, not milliliters)
>
> And if anyone just happens to VNA map out the USG, please do post it here.
>
> Regards,
>
> * * *
>

> On Wed, Sep 23, 2009 at 12:11 PM, Verna Allee <verna.al...@valuenetworks.com

[Michael _P]

It seems that life in Wonderland becomes more and more popular.

I've just finished an article titled 'Wonderland of SOA Governance'
where I refer to one man who said: "Alice does not fall down the hole.
She sees the white rabbit, is intrigued, and willingly follows him
down the deep rabbit hole". This is, probably, the most significant
difference between Alice and us - we were not that interested in
falling the Rabbit Hole initially, did we?

I am ready to join the company of Verna and Scott... While my initial
question was indeed rooted in my SOA research, I did not expect it
would be that challenging for this Forum. To my untrained on VNA mind,
only Laurence gave the direct answer. Am I asking about the “vanished”
Cheshire-Cat and there are no (or not identified yet) such things as
business organisational specifics that are based on and promote the
Value Networks mentality or I simply cannot articulate my question in
plain English (too bad for me)?

Cheers,
- Michael

On Sep 24, 8:36 am, David Meggitt <m...@davidmeggitt.com> wrote:
> Scott:- >> And if anyone just happens to VNA map out the USG, please
> do post it here.

> Here's a start for you guys in the US:-http://tinyurl.com/m2r2c8

> > > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -

[Scott McFarland]

David,

 

Thanks for your post and the link to the House Democrats Health Plan diagram.

 

I saw this diagram before, presented on TV - the same or something very close to it.

It's nice someone took the time and effort to actually Map-Out what the Bill text contains.

 

Imagine if VNA Diagramming is was done with all Bills and Legislation.

Then we could (visually) see the realities (and nonsense, if any) within a piece of legislation right away. Scary thought, eh?

 

A few obvious things come from looking at the diagram:

 

1.  It is a single page diagram of a very large system.  Top level.

 

2.  It is a "static" representation.  Icons/boxes are not 'clickable' to drill down into lower detail.

 

3.  Granted it is top-level, but in examining the flows, they lack sufficient clarity, e.g.:

 

     - Try to track the cash flow from taxpayer to IRS out into programs.  Can't do it w/this diagram.

 

     - Lots of good "blocks" within diagram, but there are of course dozens / 100's more beneath.

 

     - It would be powerful to use this diagram (plus enhancements) as basis for more sophisticated....

       Modeling and Simulation model - where one could run scenarios of how services & cash flow.

 

     - And with full simulation - you could run scenario thread from say 2009 to 2020 and see

       what happens, e.g. - health outcomes, death rates, anger / happiness levels, and either

       economic prosperity, stagnation, or cumulative health costs morphing into a black hole and

       sucking all economies down into oblivion. (hey? hows that for a neat simulation visual?) :-)

 

4.   The VNA, Mod and Sim tools exist to do much of the above.  Sure would be nice to use them.

 

5.   For the most part, what I've seen in Gov't legislation is the use of (billions of pages) of text to

      define, delineate, and metric policies, programs, and regulations.  Text is the dominant tool.

      We can add in some piles of tables, pie-charts, spreadsheets, and lists - better but still

      insufficient.  Powerpoint slides enable some graphics and diagramming to come into play,

      but it is beyond silly to think that powerpoint (or visio or other similar tools) have the graphical

      capability to properly blueprint, architect, design, model and simulate entire government

      systems, let alone a single agency (such as your Health Plan example).

 

6.   Why we so readily accept the architecting and operation of such large system infrastructures

      using these primitive tools, is beyond me.  Trillions ...tens of trillions of dollars of human,

      physical and financial assets in large systems... managed largely by Text.

 

      Contrasts are many. 

 

      There are a billion homes on the planet.  Who in their right mind would consider building or

      buying a home that was constructed only using written building instructions?  No blueprints,

      no drawings, just "Nail Board A to Board B, Mount Beam 1 onto Column 2 and fasten with

      Plate 3.   It would be a joke.    Would they build a satellite or a Space Shuttle with only

      written instructions?  "This is A Kit, Assembly Required, No Drawings Included."   Would

      anyone be inclined to buy a car that was built with 20,000 sentences of "how you build it"

      absent any drawings or blueprints or exploded assembly diagrams?  

 

      I have searched for high-level, professional (VNA, blueprint level, etc.) diagrams of Gov't for

      years.  Sure, there are piles of powerpoints, saturated with blocks, haywired together, but

      I have yet to find any Real Master architectural materials. The best I found (in a way) were

      the simple diagrams of Gov't that show there are the Executive, Legislative, and Judicial

      branches of (U.S.) government.  Cute.  That's about it.  Sure, there are a myriad of

      gigantic block charts of all of the agencies, committees, branches, and institutions of Gov't,

      but as we know, those are not VNA diagrams or network diagrams.  They are simply

      immense blocks of entities, thrown onto pages, with a box drawn around them and a

      title or captions at the top.  True network architectures?  Nope.  No cigar.

 

      A friend of mine at the National Academies of Science said, a few years ago, that she

      never found any such blueprints.  But if I ever found them, she concluded it would be like

      finding the Holy Grail. 

 

      We (meaning: citizens, communities, commerce, society, the nation, and even gov't itself) 

      suffer the consequences (and inefficiencies and waste) that result from the use of outdated

      tools.  Large-infrastructure master plans, architectures, and systems frameworks would

      be far more potent if VNA, diagramming, and mod sim tools were used to manage the

      very large and complex systems we have in our society today.

 

Regards,

[David Meggitt]

Michael,
If I may just pop up again to follow the trail.

There is one conceptual issue that may be causing confusion and, in
addition, a really deep rabbit hole exists as well.

The conceptual one is that *I* believe that all enterprises can be
viewed as value networks, whilst Laurence appears to take a different
view in his succinct reply.
The deep hole for many, is the explicit recognition of and
incorporation of informal networks alongside formal workflows and
processes. I suspect that IT related architectures find that
challenging.

Maybe the Cheshire Cat is a great new label for informal networks.
They grin at you when you struggle to get the systems to work the way
you want them to, and disappear when you try and control them. (refer
Charles on unmanagement).

So, in essence, enterprises could have two sets of "rules". The formal
stuff in procedures et al and then the "guidance" that encourages
participation in informal networks and (wait for it) ethical
principles that foster appropriate behaviour that energises rather
than de-energises a workforce.

In summary, value networks approach is enabling the participants to
gain an appreciation of what is "really" going on, as opposed to some
business analysts simplifications. This has huge impacts on corporate
performance as a whole.

Michael, your English is fine, and probing fun to engage with.

David

[Verna Allee]

David, Scott,
You have illuminated a tremendous opportunity to bring clarity into a
hugely important conversation. Can you imagine how powerful just a
simple "role" discussion could be? Unfortunately by the time such an
effort could reach the right audience all decisions would have already
been made, enormous amounts of money would have already be squandered
and the whole morass would carry so much political baggage that it
would of necessity be declared a success!

Scott your analogy to building a house or a space station without a
blueprint is brilliant.

Verna

> ...
>
> read more »

[Verna Allee]

Wow, trying to keep up with this thread is something else. Michael,
there are many ways to promote VNA principles, some can be very
rigorous and others more informal. Take HR practices for example - how
are roles in the value network resourced? If the value networkmodel
shows the way the work really gets done then the "job structure"
hierarchy embodied in the org chart is going to be problematic.
However, it does not have to mean throwing out the formal structure.
In companies widely adopting value network modeling they are creating
"role taxonomies" that allow different resources to be more easily
deployed to specific roles as needed. Some roles aren't needed for
days at a time, but then you might need three people playing that role
on a given day. Everyone has a "home base" in a department or business
unit, but expects to be deployed in other roles as needed. In fact we
are working with at least three large organizations around these very
issues at the moment.

Other indicators of promoting a value networks mentality in addition
to the language of roles is a collaborative mindset where people
negotiate those roles and role behaviors directly with each other. If
people address the supporting "intangibles" such as knowledge sharing,
recognition etc, then so much the better.

It is always important to remember that when a new world view emerges
there is rarely a clean break with old models. Rather there is a
gradual evolutionary process where language, mindsets, skillsets and
toolsets evolve or "morph" into the way. Those who would facilitate
change look for and amplify evidence of the shift as much as model.

[David Meggitt]

A lot of condensed wisdom here, Verna, thank you.
Could I also add that we do need a WOW factor.
People need to feel really good about what they can achieve together
when they morph to the new way of working.
It helps overcome a fear of loss when departing from the old ways.

[David Meggitt]

It is, indeed, an opportunity :-)

Diagrams are used as we can see from the visual you commented upon,
Scott.
And in the UK, Ministers still struggle to make sense of
overcomplicated system dynamics charts, for example. Who cannot fail
to sympathise with them?

Possibly, we tend to forget the years of additional training that the
creators of drawings for complicated structures need, compared with
the effort put into reading and writing text.
As a civil engineer by training, I found it took time...possibly you
also.

But, we can draw upon the wisdom of the Aboriginal nations, for
starters.
They used rich drawings and narrative with no text to run affairs for
40,000 years.

So, maybe try sometime in the future lessons from the UK. Informally
known by elements in our Cabinet Office, VNA is being blended with
other means as appropriate, to create more effective communication and
stakeholder involvement and buy-in in non military Govt.activity.

Usefully, this will be a modern Aboriginal equivalent to help our 100%
text oriented law makers and elected representatives achieve new
successes over the next decade at least in a new age of emerging mass
collaboration and social networking .

More anon.

David Meggitt

[snip]

[Khaled Islaih]

Hi:   The revolution of new mobilities within today's networked world systems is creating new geographies with new psychologies, sociologies, cultures and economies.   http://www.sociologyofmobility.net/

[Scott McFarland]

David,

 

I like your analogy to ... the rich drawings done by Aboriginal nations in the distant past.

 

I've never seen comprehensive Aboriginal multi-layer DFDs and network, diagrams, but they surely had the right idea and modality, and I suspect they would have used dynamic mod sim tools if they had existed then.

 

* * *

 

Your comment regarding the amount of time and energy required to create and develop diagrammed architectures (in contrast to simply jotting 1,000's of descriptive words) is important and valid.  This tool selection choice (diagram vs. words) resonated with the industrial engineering skills and scars in me. 

 

If you analyze 'writing processes' vs. 'diagram construction processes' - -  the difference in abilities required, default thinking modes used and typical ouputs that result are many (e.g. - in a network diagram, the inter-relationships and connectivities are visual and tangible - whereas with words, the observer must mentally construct, process, visualize, and then retain the construct.  When faced with very large, complex systems, the use of "words-only" to construct comprehensive, detailed architectures, becomes nearly impossible (for humans anyway). 

 

Some years ago, I worked with a group to assess the ability of people to create, comprehend, retain, and use word-based (vs. diagrammed-based) architectures.  Using large complex systems as "candidate structures" and coupling them with individuals whose IQ was > 150  (and then > 167) (from handy access to Hi-IQ societies), we still found human cognitive abilities hit upper limits very quickly when word-architectures were the structuring and communication tool.  ~~~  Heaven help those in the 100 range, in comprehending the structures examined.  And I mention that since it is important that individuals with "normal" capacities be able to ingest and truly comprehend an architecture and/or system construct.

 

Again, the time required to create diagrammatic representations is usually significantly longer than to create the same using words.     

 

Regards,

 

 

 

* * *

[Michael _P]

Verna,

I am with David, thank you for WOW!

Since you have not explicitly disagreed with my separation of the
business organisation types based on Value Chain and Value Networks
but only pointed to "

gradual evolutionary process where language, mindsets, skillsets and

toolsets evolve or "morph" into the way", I suggest I move to the
right direction.

I am not proposing a revolutionary change in the the business
organisation but only outline benefits of one over the downsides of
another. If anybody would be interested in details, I will be happy to
talk about them separately.

I am very grateful to all who participated in this discussion and
shared your wonderful ideas and experience.

- Michael

[John Caswell]

Well I will drink to that!...thanks David! The world of drawing better conclusions!...(great thread)

[stevewaddell]

I like Judith's typology (read her paper) ...in OD world, this would
be called "stages of development".

On the value chain question...I always think of the "value chain"
analysis as being the "manifest" or most obvious nodes in a production
network which is "latent/hidden" to people who think in terms of the
value chain concept.

Steve

On Sep 23, 8:27 am, "Judith McCrory" <judith.mccr...@euro-focus.com>
wrote:

> Hi Laurence,
>
> They would occupy different positions on the matrix, but it doesn't say anything about the quality of the network. It just tells us, that the indicators need to be analysed differently. As mentioned before, low reciprocity in a well defined business workflow which doesn't allow for much negotiation is read differently to low reciprocity e.g. in a research community with a problem to solve.
>
> The matrix is just used as a guidance and a starting point for discussion with the customer to think about the different improvement measures possible. So once we placed the network on the matrix, we discuss the different improvement measures either based on neighbouring examples, the matrix statements and the indicators.
>
> The rating is done as follows: The network experts look at the networks after thorough analysis and we rate it based on Supportability and Maturity questions (in the blog and paper mentioned). Supportability is higher in a business unit than in an industrial network, but it doesn't make the industrial network automatically a 'badly' supported network. It just means that the way it organises is different from a business unit. The same counts for maturity. Low maturity doesn't mean that the network is doing well, it just means that it is at a different stage. With a little support and guidance, it might even mature quicker that it would do left to its own self-organisation. Another point is here that - when networks reach full maturity, they usually innovate or partly innovate, so they potentially jump to a low maturity stage again and the cycle begins again (but that's another topic).
>
> Kind regards,
> Judith
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: value-n...@googlegroups.com [mailto:value-n...@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of Laurence Lock Lee
> Sent: 23 September 2009 13:44
> To: value-n...@googlegroups.com
> Subject: RE: What is the difference in the interaction and relationship rules for Value Networks and for Value Chain business models?
>
> Hi Judith ... are you suggesting that production line and open networks would occupy different positions on your maturity/supportability matrix? In other words because you are mapping network types a production line could never be highly mature and supportable, by definition?
>
> Laurence Lock Lee PhD
> Partner, Optimice Pty Ltd
> Ph: +61 (0)407001628www.optimice.com.au
> Blog:http://governanceandnetworks.blogspot.com/
>
> Learn to network, then network to learn
> -----Original Message-----
> From: value-n...@googlegroups.com [mailto:value-n...@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of Judith McCrory
> Sent: Wednesday, 23 September 2009 8:41 PM
> To: value-n...@googlegroups.com
> Subject: RE: What is the difference in the interaction and relationship rules for Value Networks and for Value Chain business models?
>
> Hi Laurence,
>
> You mentioned that reciprocity differs, depending on the type of network we are dealing with. I have developed a landscape for networks based on the dimensions of supportability and maturity. This allows to define the type of networks - from production line to open networks - along the two dimensions. Networks with similar structures show similar indicators and might have similar sweet spots.
>

> (You can find a blog entry on supportability athttp://valuenetworks.com/public/item/236356and a paper on the basics of the idea athttp://www.openvaluenetworks.com/events/MaturityAndSupportabilityOfRe...)

>
> Kind regards,
> Judith
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: value-n...@googlegroups.com [mailto:value-n...@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of Laurence Lock Lee
> Sent: 22 September 2009 22:27
> To: value-n...@googlegroups.com
> Subject: Re: What is the difference in the interaction and relationship rules for Value Networks and for Value Chain business models?
>
> Michael,
>
> In my view unless the value chain is simply a production line i.e. the  
> rules of engagement are easily codified and compliance to those rules  
> can be easily achieved, then the value chain is actually a value  
> network and therfore the rules are the same. Once we there is room for  
> discretion and negotiation based on specific context then I believe  
> the rules for value networks apply.
>
> LLL
>
> Sent from my iPhone
>

> ...
>
> read more »

[Judith McCrory]

Thanks a lot, Steve.

My thought is that these stages of development can even be categorised in
network types. The original reason to build the supportability/maturity grid
and categorise different network types was to find ways to interpret
indicators such as reciprocity, centrality, tangible/intangible ratio with a
little more confidence.

Value Chain type of processes within an organisation will always be more
supportable than research communities or industry networks, this is inherent
in their nature and should not be any different. Here I look at the
supportability in terms of common purpose, objectives, performance measures
or even performance appraisals, common values conveyed etc.
And 'new' scenarios will have a different behaviour (e.g. a different ratio
of tangibles to intangibles) to 'mature' scenarios. (However, we also have
to look at industry-specifics here. The mature knowledge-is-power insurance
market of Lloyd's is run by intangibles. New and mature might not be the
right wording here.)

I am working currently on a white paper. Once I have it finished I will post
it and this group can shred it into pieces (in a constructive kind of way).

[Michael _P]

To Judith on "Value Chain type of processes within an organisation

will always be more supportable than research communities or industry
networks, this is inherent
in their nature and should not be any different"

If we see only "research communities or industry networks" I agree
100% with you. However, if we take a closer look at the enterprise
business organisation at different layers, we can find that at some of
them people are more interested in WHAT the enterprise is doing, WHY
it does such and such things, for WHOM, WHO or WHAT relationships may
be or should be involved to reach the business goal, WHO can help me
with WHAT, etc.

As you can see, I never asked a question which asks HOW we can do
this.

If the business pays more attention on HOW, sooner or later the
process-centric approach "is inherent
in their nature " and starts to work for itself - doing a process for
the sake of the process, not final result. In the contrast, thinking
about in/out information/materials and business objectives/final
result always keeps attention on the business goal, which may be
reached by 'millions' of HOW but with only one optimal relationship
model answering WHAT/WHY/WHO/WHOM.

So, "Value Chain type of processes within an organisation will" not
necessary be "always be more supportable" when Business shifts its
attention from HOW to WHAT/WHY. This, I think is the boarder between
Value Chain and Value Networks business approach.

What do you think?

Cheers,
- Michael



On Sep 28, 9:21 am, "Judith McCrory" <judith.mccr...@euro-focus.com>

> athttp://valuenetworks.com/public/item/236356anda paper on the basics of

> ...
>
> read more »- Hide quoted text -

[Judith McCrory]

Hi Michael,

I believe that every network - even one taking part in a value chain - is a
value network. In a value chain, we have participants which fill in a
certain role, they share a common purpose or objective and they have
deliverables which are sent and received. The difference to some other value
networks is that there is a limit of choice of direction in your
transactions. This means that indicator analysis and recommendations for
improvement should take these limits into consideration.
If I understood Verna right, the process from process-centred to
network-focussed culture comes in little steps. The framework that I am
working on is intended to cut down these steps into simple, understandable
categories in a language which is supported by the practitioner as much as
understood by the manager.

As consultants, we have to deal with the scenarios at hand and the
capabilities of the participants to change. I have been a business analyst
for 15 years and value network analysis to me is more appropriate than so
many other tools and methodologies that I have used beforehand. However,
sometimes there are limits to the client's understanding of network concepts
and we have to accommodate for that.

[David Meggitt]

Hi,
I moved the conversation back to the LinkedIn group for practitioners
here
http://www.linkedin.com/groupAnswers?viewQuestionAndAnswers=&gid=1535...
which may have been a mistake!
However, Michael has made the following statement:
"So, I do not believe in productive self-management in the scale of
large enterprises."
Charles, eat you heart out!
I've also raised the issue within role plays that irrespective of how
we view operational collaboration, in reality it depends upon micro
level interpersonal interaction ... the way individuals behave
towards
each other...more the realm of behavioural psychology and economics.
Why not move across to LinkedIn from where the original thread grew
and throw in a few more observations?
A warm welcome awaits!
David
On Sep 27, 6:39 am, JenVNLLC <0smitt...@gmail.com> wrote:

[Michael _P]

David,

I do not think that jumping between two discussion threads is an easy
feature. You have repeated the your post partially here and if I
responded in another discusstion, now I need to repeat my response...

The argument that " in reality it depends upon micro level
interpersonal interaction" is an incomplete because you do not specify
how much it depends.

I am moving back to LinkedIn to answer your questions.

- Michael

On Oct 9, 11:35 am, David Meggitt <m...@davidmeggitt.com> wrote:
> Hi,
> I moved the conversation back to the LinkedIn group for practitioners

> herehttp://www.linkedin.com/groupAnswers?viewQuestionAndAnswers=&gid=1535...

[David Meggitt]

Michael,

Thank you for your infinite patience and excellent spirit in
contributions so far, and moderate comment that jumping between
threads in different forums is no easy feature!

Agree 100% that it is NOT easy, and I think it would be appropriate
for, say, Verna on everyone's behalf, to articulate in a separate
thread why we have two groups now encouraged - see here
http://www.openvaluenetworks.com/
under "Open Community Announcements." and to seek views on how best to
serve different practice areas.

Back to LinkedIn also.

Regards.. David