Technology – The Thrivable Society

Strange Attractor Design

We had a series of aha moments. Herman was explaining a recent design choice. We connected it with a prior design choice, and this took us to a transcending moment of seeing how these patterns are at work. This unleashed a raw flurry of cascading aha moments, which are roughly captured here.

Designing Networks

Consider a group of businesses and organizations that are all connecting to each other. Very quickly, the amount of information being tracked about all the others in the network overwhelms the nodes. (Herman drew the actual network math, I drew a dense network cluster.) The orgs have information that they need to exchange in order to unlock value that they benefit from. So, how do they reorganize the network to enable the optimal information flow patterns in a network that has limited trust between selfish nodes? So often when asked to design these things, people think in terms of idealistic utopian design conditions. It is about how much functionality can be given so that any information can flow in any direction. However, all the nodes find this scary. Instead of designing for optimal participant conditions, design for “willing to cooperate, yet anxious” instead.

As a network solution, you create an intermediary to reduce the network connection count. If I know the right network members, I have 2 degree access to everyone while not having to know most of them. So, see my “count of nodes” divided by “count of hubs” which is a rough way of saying, in back of the napkin kind of math, that each intermediary is reducing the number of nodes you need to directly connect with.

Trust

The next problem is why would we trust this intermediary? Again, lots of design decisions are made for central control of these hubs. What Valdis calls the “queen in between” kind of model. Most of us are skeptical about the power that aggregates in these hubs. So we need ways to ensure they are reliable. Solution: a) limit what information does flow through – only a certain type or amount. b) make all the nodes equal in some way and c) make the flow of that information extremely transparent.

When we don’t have much trust in the health of the network, the other nodes in the network, or in intermediaries, we have to manage high amounts of information about all of them. We act paranoid. When we have significant trust in the health of the network and the nodes within it and the intermediaries, we act generously. We can handle more “hops” between members, since the trust is in the network as much as it is in the nodes of that network.

One of the aha’s here for me was actually a reminder more than an aha. It is not the FORM of the network that determines the way it needs to be governed. It is the evolution of that network that determines the governance. How did it mature? If trusting in the past has led to positive outcomes, more trust will continue, and less governance is needed. However, if trust has been broken, more rules might be created to qualify when and how to trust, and thus bureaucracy begins to flourish. But I will get back to that later.

Where you see the figure 8 on the side, I am explaining to Herman about polarity management. We are not just greedy and selfish nor are we just open generous cooperators. We exist in the tension between these extremes. And even the skeptics are willing to navigate the risks of cooperation when the benefits might be higher.

Incentives

Herman mentioned how the use of financial incentives can often be misleading. The amount of the financial incentive is not what allows the node to participate in the network. Instead it is the ability of that node to maintain identity with their peer group. Can they save face and have pride while taking the risk of cooperation? Yes if there is some token amount of money involved. Or it can be another kind of token.

We have another case where credits were used between players to negotiate their placement in a queue. I might let you pass me in line, if you give me your credit. I can still save face to my peers for letting you cut, because I got some benefit for it. This design may require an arbiter to view the transaction, but the arbiter isn’t needing to make judgements about whether it can happen or not. Tokens can make visible an exchange that allows both sides to save face to others and enable actions in cooperator networks.

Identity

We find the issue of identity to be a huge factor in the behavior of nodes in a network.

We talked about how a transaction between two people always seems to have at least a third party. I am not only negotiating with you for what the transaction is, I am also thinking about what my group or tribe will think of me for engaging in that transaction. In fact, I may have more anxiety about what they think than about whether you are making a good transaction with me or not. Most of us dedicate most of our time to identity formation, with everything we say and do designed, intentionally or not, to reinforce what we want to think of ourselves. We may not do a good job of it all the time, but that is a driving force.

Choices

I told Herman about a conversation I had with Benjamin Ellis about making choices. Benjamin was talking about a graphic designer that provided 3 choices. And we quickly riffed on why this works so well. We think that the selecting out of the bad option of the three builds the sense of confidence in decision making that enables the next choice between the remaining two to be faster and seem easier.

Rules, Rules, and more Rules

We also talked about how the centralized control design model has these negative side effects of generating bureaucracy because they tend to create rules to follow, and when those rules conflict, they create rules about the conflict, in an infinite cascade of rule making that ends up grinding cooperation to a halt. Thus we said they are limited in size by the ability to moderate the rules. This did help us transcend the 150 limit of community cooperation (limit to the ability to track the trustability of members of a network with each other). However, when you design for robustness (bookmark conversation on resilience, robustness, and anti-fragility)… when you design for robustness, you put the value and power at the edges of the network operating on principles instead of rules, and allow it to learn and grow from a simple structure, you get agility and adaptability in the network…and it can become scale-free? I think.

Optimize for what?

We moved to a meta-level discussion about how any group tends to design to optimize for one factor. When we succeed at that optimization, we also learn that there are negative side effects that may inhibit our achievement of another (possibly more important) goal. So we have to switch to design to optimize for something else. This can be long term human social evolution at work – when we exhaust the potential of something, we have to evolve to work around that. This often involves making distinctions between things that were previously hooked together in order to unlock value… but I digress. Will save that for another conversation…. back to the design at hand.

Rituals

In talking about Identity, we had taken a side track to talk about the power of ritual. I had shared a story about being uncomfortable – with a growing sense of dis-ease when I was in a group that had a series of actions that were meant to create bonding in the group culminating in a big ritual together. Rituals can help ease the anxiety of cooperation by bonding everyone into a peer group – we are all smart or stupid together, so I can work within that group easier. Everyone has crossed a threshold together. And you feel it in an embodied form. However, we need to take into account that humans have a spectrum of tolerance to peer influence. Some of us just don’t care what our peers think. And others can’t make a decision without being aligned with the group. It isn’t a stable known to design for.

There is that formula that Herman wrote. 🙂

Design to Evolve Cooperation

In pink at the bottom it says “It isn’t the form==> governance. It is TRUST==>governance.”

On the left in blue it says, “Design big” from the start and you get “bureaucracy, low trust, not agile, ultra specific and rule based.”

If you start small, simple, and mature through the growth of trust, you get evolving cooperation. What is the least that is needed? What is the smallest channel that enables a flow of information that benefits the network? Design for learning and self-evolution. Design to grow using minimal rituals for a foundation of trust to help mediate the anxiety of cooperation. When evolving cooperation against the will or inclination of players, manage their fear and sense of security. Sometimes tokens or credits can be used to mediate that trust.

I am very interested in how tokens are used to engender trust and enable flows. How does a token act as an object of trust transfer? Trust tends not to be transferable, whereas tokens can be. How do you route the trust into the token and the process, so that it can be transferred?

This is where we start really transcending that 150 limit.

Sorry this isn’t an essay yet. It is just notes from an extended conversation.

Give it away now!

by Thriver

I get asked a lot to do many things for free. All the time. And I find I sit in a tension between advocacy for the content of the work – give that away to promote the work – AND that my work is a service process that I earn a living from.

So people ask for me to help put together events, curate things, or advise on their projects. But I also make a living facilitating events, curating and managing projects, and consulting. So when do I say yes to the free services they ask me for and when do I say, “yes, and that costs money.”

I can sense by gut when the opportunity doesn’t seem to be reciprocal. But describing that sense of reciprocal benefit in terms that can become principles for consistent action…that seems more tricky. How do you manage it?

photo credit: askingdave

Is it worth it to do for free?

Events:

A major conference in one of my fields has historically given me a free pass to be an energizing presence in the space. They aren’t asking me to run the event. I get to do my thing. And they get the benefit of my more subtle forms of facilitating – network weaving, curiosity infusions, etc.
That exchange seemed worth it to me. This year the benefits are not clear or pressing enough to them.
A conference in one of my fields – but directed more toward specialists – asks me to be on an organizing committee for 9 months. To even attend the event I will spend a thousand dollars on airfare – not to mention numerous hours of pre-event meetings. I might increase visibility of my work, but not to a broad audience. That didn’t seem worth it. They aren’t offering money and the visibility gained isn’t ideal. I might learn some, and I already have enough social contacts in that arena for my needs.
An innovation event raising money to do the event via crowdfunding asks me about curating some of the event. Hmmm, the right kind of audience. And, if this was not my content audience, I would be charging at least $3000 for design, coordination, and production. I will have to think about this. It would have to make my organization visible to the tune of a $4000 sponsorship in lieu of fees, I think. At least for my effort at this time and not living in the location of the event.

Consulting:

Someone designing a values-driven community asks to pick my brain for an hour. It actually takes about 3 hours between the email and follow up, the scanning of documents to offer useful feedback, and then the actual conversation. They are not likely to be paying for consulting later. Benefits: continue building reputation as someone who can think through the complexity of a social ecosystem and flow dynamics. Yes. Good. And costs: my time and energy aren’t being valued with anything but gratitude. I am not getting visibility, social contacts, nor learning. I have historically just done this sort of thing for the sector. Over and over. I am starting to feel like setting the limit at 1 hour is not enough. I should restrict these freebies to 30 minutes or just publish a guide of questions for a reasonable fee. Anything of my time over that needs to be an hourly rate through the Agency.
Someone calls needing to make a decision on a potential partnership or collaboration. We talk for 45 minutes. I ask questions. We clarify. A decision is made. We could call this social capital building. And you might say that if the person had to pay they would simply skip the counseling. However, I am failing to use the social capital I built with them before it starts depleting (passage of time – these things don’t hold value indefinitely). I need to start making it clear that I charge for this. That will show up over at the Agency in the next month too.
I am on the board for a project and the collaborators on that project have a massive meltdown. I mediate over the course of two weeks to get them to a clear outcome, agreed process, and personal development for all sides toward positive feelings and “ownership” aka responsibility all around. Of course this is free – I might not be on the board to serve that purpose expressly, but I am happy to give my time to them. However, I ought to also be more clear about providing this kind of mediation as a service. That is definitely invisible to the market. Again, that will be showing up in the Agency in the next month.

How do you decide what to give away? When is it worth it? How do you do your cross-capital forms accounting?

Sharing and Intellectual Property

by Jean Russell

A contested space in sharing is intellectual property. Can I share a song that I bought with all my friends? If I have a paperback book, I can share it one friend at a time. If I have a digital copy, can I share it with all of them at once? Does my sharing take away from the rewards the creator and producer get? The manufacturer doesn’t get any funds when I sell something at a garage sale or donate it to a cause. Should the maker of intellectual property continue to get revenue when the property is shared?

In a world of sharing, how can and will we reward the makers? If one person were to pay me to write a book (and they got one copy they could do anything with), it would costs them tens of thousands of dollars (what it cost me to write it). If hundreds or thousands of people all get copies, then my time and energy can be distributed across all of them, making the book affordable to each.
photo credit: tsakshaug

I haven’t seen any strong solutions to the intellectual property debate. The sharing economy seems fantastic in many regards, and it doesn’t solve an age old issue of how to reward significant effort toward often intangible non-rival goods. In the very potential of real abundance and infinite sharing in the space of intangible non-rival goods, our incentive system seems due for revision and no clear compelling and convincing answers emerge yet to reward the makers financially.

Looking again at how technologists address the issue – the business models tend to be: develop the software and offer it for free, add a premium version, and then do consulting and customization for a fee. For writers, this is also the model most often practiced – write the book and make little to nothing on it. Give away to lots of people. Make a living from the consulting and speaking that comes from that.

If Rich Dad and Poor Dad is right, and we should be seeking the passive revenue stream, then we are going in the wrong direction as producers. Trapping ourselves in hourly wage work after producing something with a lot of man-hours that we aren’t paid for and that could have generated passive income.

What ways will we create to support creative and innovative people for the often non-rival – easily shareable work they generate?

What models for future practice exist? For example, in the fashion industry, designers can get top prices, but they can’t copyright their designs or lines. Where else is this flourishing?

—

a note on non-rival goods. Rival goods are things that if I have it you can’t have it. My coffee maker is mine. If I give it to you, it becomes yours. But I can’t give it to you and also keep it for myself. We tend to assume everything works this way. Scarce commodities. Scarce time. However, there are a group of goods that either don’t diminish by being shared or even increase in value. My cheesecake recipe is mine, but if I share it with you, then we both can enjoy making cheesecake (and eating it! Yum!). The recipe is non-rival. If I share it with hundreds of people in a community, someone might even contribute some improvements or variations. Then it gets even better. Partially rival goods are things like roads – they can seem non-rival until they hit a threshold of use then they become rival.

Innovation Types

by Jean Russell

There is a lot of energy around innovation as we struggle between old economic structures and systems and new ones. Are we really talking about the same kinds of innovation or not? In working with a coaching client who catalyzes innovation, I developed the following chart and typing (borrowing from a dozen models I found in various domains and with the help of several practicing innovators including my collaborator Herman Wagter).

Let’s explore, across these types, where innovators focus their attention, what is required, the timelines usually involved in implementation and adoption, and some examples within business model, marketing, product/service, and process.

Disruptive Innovation

Here, we are looking at game-changing innovation. These innovations offer an unexpected new value proposition. This type of innovations requires: deep creativity, long term market building, and has trouble creating market (because people don’t even know they want it yet).

To be disruptive is deep creativity – coming up with something that no one else is doing or knows they need. They aren’t inward facing: “how do we do what we do better?” They aren’t outward facing: “how do we do something better than what others do?” They involve lots of random play in a nonlinear process. Attention focuses on where there is complacency or “accepted wisdom” that no one else is questioning in the market. Highly emergent, networking is everything. To be disruptive, you must see a striking new perspective on a existing problem. To win the market by being disruptive you need to execute on a bold plan. To be successful, you have to invite people to make a trade off in what they think is valuable. You create a different value proposition where that market validates the trade off as an improvement.

Combinatory Innovation

Welcome the the world of mashup innovation. These innovations take something that is working in some other domain and transport it into a new domain or they take existing offers and bundle them in better ways. This type of innovation requires: broad awareness outside market zone and short-term market building.

To be combinatory, innovators look outside their domain of known expertise for ideas that work. Partly emergent, you have to be able to see what is not there yet. This is a world of allegory. Find systems like your system and use what works there. Alternately, take several things that work and combine them in new and more effective ways. The value proposition is enhanced: more, wider attributes.

Efficiency Innovation

These innovations focus on refinement. They offer iterative improvement on existing technologies by reducing waste. These types of innovation require: engineering creativity and competitive market building.

To be efficiency innovators, look for ways to refine what is. This is about control and limitation. What about what is there now is not critical? What about what exists really matters and what can be left behind? Remove what is not highest value adding. What would a simpler way to do it be? The value proposition stays the same, it is offered with better speed/cost/options.

What form of innovation are you doing? What type do you want to be doing? How are you going about achieving that?

What examples would you add?

Facets and Heterogeneity

by Jean Russell

Do we wear many masks? Or just one? Are they really masks? Or can we perceive them as facets of a multi-dimensional self?

Masks has a connotation of being false. Thus it is hard to pair a mask with authenticity. I have been using the words – facet or aspect. And I tie it to a metaphor of a gem – we are one crystal with many facets. Each facet faces a different tribe. A few people close to the edges of these facets may see a more than one of our facets and connections to more than one of our tribes. Some of us are pretty translucent gems, while others prefer to be – or need to be – opaque.

This is deeply tied into a model of a human we use when designing social software. When we presume that a human is an integrated whole who shows all people the same depth and dimensions of our being, we create too superficial of a tool. And we end up with several dilemmas.*

Show the whole self and bombard people with TMI (and later get held accountable for your intimacy).
Show only one dimension of the self (and get accused of not being authentic or of not being a part of one of your tribes)
Create multiple identities (and then try to keep track of them and which facet you display in each… and later get pushed out by “real names” social software.)

We are too often seen as a single facet (race, religion, work, location, affiliation, purpose, etc.) when we are many. Social Network Analysis, of which I am an avid fan and advocate, still usually only maps for one dimension of the self. Imagine the real social network map – the layers and layers of connections and the participation in the many tribes we belong to and participate in. This map may be so full of links and nodes as to be unread-able at anything but perhaps the most local scale. (and of course overwhelming if we move the static map into active motion of real-time interactions) (Let’s not even begin to talk about degree of association/depth of connection which adds another layer/filter to what we share and who we share it with.)

Network maps have yet to really reveal this inter-lacing because they draw links, usually, on one facet or connection type. But, in practice, most tribes are deeply interlaced. (Cults try to diminish this interlacing – by reducing other tribal affiliation and thus increasing dependency on the cult.) For example, I may live in a blue state, but I have relatives that are red voters, which keeps me informed of other positions besides the blue I seem embedded in. This is the counter argument to homophily and the risk of sameness that some are recently arguing the internet encourages (you filter for that which you are already a part of and thus only reinforce your beliefs).

Our resilience rests in our heterogeneity which brings us the diversity of viewpoints we need for a better, more complete view of our world. We build relationships by focusing on a sameness, however that need not obscure how we may be different. For example, Alexis and Xavier connect because they both believe in building better local economies. Alexis has a background in marketing. Xavier has experience developing collaborative conversations. Together Alexis and Xavier create an event for local businesses and potential entrepreneurs to meet and discuss with local government figures how to support developing local economies. As Valdis Krebs says: “connect on your sameness and benefit from your differences.”

* To keep things light, I only mention the design of social software, however, we also limit people in our in person social interactions by presuming an integrated human as if they only have one persona in their minds. Voice dialogue offers a powerful process for letting us open to the multiplicity of voices we have within us and act with greater awareness of the dynamics between those inner facets of the self.

Integration

by Jean Russell

This is a time of convergence and integration. Re-integration actually.

It is like that tip of a fractal pattern where it no longer pushes out and starts to turn a corner and draw back in. We have been specializing and specializing and valorizing the specializing for a long time. Some of this knowledge and new understanding pushes us further away from what is known and what is known in related fields. I saw this image a few months ago and had to laugh. I don’t remember where I saw it, so please forgive the replication from memory. Let’s say for example, that the core body is biology, the specific domain is Cellular Biology, and the graduate paper is on the some process of mitochondria.

And while this is expanding our knowledge ever outward, it doesn’t pull us back into core knowledge to shift our basic understanding of the world. It is knowledge that resides in ever smaller numbers of people, applicable and valuable only to them. It is the 18th Century Literature scholar who becomes so deeply specialized in a particular poet or time period that their sphere of language centers further and further out from our common tongue until they become nearly unintelligible to someone in a different field of study. It is the Theoretical Physicist whose language of quarks and gluons seems like an alien or imaginary world to the Sociologist they sit with at the campus-wide faculty meeting.

And yet there is another way that knowledge expands when two related fields develop something near their intersection. And example here might be Biology –> Cellular Biology –> Process of RNA transcription which uses a lot of Chemistry. (These are elementary examples, because you and I do not share enough deep expertise for us to point to some recent edge being expanded here in enough detail!)

Here we begin to find the overlaps between fields, weaving them together into a larger cohesive picture of the world. And as the gates to the intersection open, it continues to expand out, often until the intersection of the knowledge space becomes a field itself. Neurobiology, computer science, sustainability are a few more recent developments that arose as intersections of one or more domains. However, this doesn’t draw us back toward fields that aren’t peripherally connected. It doesn’t take the revelations from statistical math and begin to apply them to organizational design. It doesn’t take a strand of physics and link it to spiritual traditions. These radical connections between fields of seemingly quite different areas is where some really interesting work emerges that can reshape what many of us see about the world and do within that world. These radical connections shift the intersections at the center of our knowledge and open up new axis of information.

And this…. this is where radical innovation happens. It is where most people think you are crazy until all the sudden it pops and knowledge feeds back into the core of our shared understanding shifting many of us.

And just for some background on the drivers behind this, some of my view here is coming from conversations about Adam Smith and divisions of Labor and Specialization… That we have reached points in the expansion of knowledge by which they hold value to so few people that they can’t attract more to specialize further into that space. And instead, when we pull back to reintegration of knowledge we expand the value of the development of that information so that it serves a broader audience… And thus knowledge expands and reintegrates like the breathing of a giant collective organism.

Help Others Thrive

by Jean Russell

Helping others to thrive sounds lovely and idealistic, right? Turns out to be hugely practical.

If you are developing social software and looking for investors, you can be sure they are going to ask how you are building community. Who has done this well? Those who created a space for others to thrive.

I was recently reading Power of Pull. They tell a wonderful story, and John Hagel tells this story when he speaks too, about the industry shift to container shipping. A guy running a trucking company built from the ground up realized there had to be a better way to ship things. He designed shipping containers, and he patented it. Only he opened the patent to everyone. Then he convinced all the players in the system of the benefits of using these containers to make shipping easier and more efficient. The net result is that he evolved the market, did well financially, and probably made the cheap transportation of goods that led to globalization possible. Industry shifting.

When we look at the well scaled social websites such as facebook and twitter, we see a similar creating of shared space with a small corner of that space being profit for the creator of the space. Facebook’s apps allowed other people to make a profit on top of their application. Twitter enables a whole market of vendors, applications, advisors, “experts” to make a living on top of their platform. Viola… other people come to play. Apple and Android with their apps markets do this as well.

Create a space for a collective. Select a small tangible and profitable corner of it that respects the free flow of the community while allowing you to collect a “tax” for high-end service in the collective.

A lot of open-source software also follows this model. Allow others to play and add and evolve the collective space while charging for a subset of activity in that community. Getting this right is of course harder than it may sound. It doesn’t work at small scales. Communities are highly sensitive about what is owned, controlled and profited from. Revenue may come in the form of voluntary contributions or pay for service forms. And it can be much more difficult to control the flow – you may have to support the community until it reaches significant scale to support you back. Whereas usual fee for service models allow you to restrict service if fees are not sufficient for support, these community spaces don’t have easy on-off switches. You have to trust.

And thus, for success, you see two things. One, that they start with small or focused collectives and then open up to larger and larger communities as investment allows for expansion. And two, with significant promise, they take in large amounts of funding with years of delay expected between investment and payout. They can be slow capital.

How can you create a play space that helps others to thrive? And how, by doing so, can it feed back to help you thrive over time?

*** This post is part of the series for the Breakthroughs book. Please see Contribute to Book for more. ***

Incubating Entrepreneurs

by Jean Russell

I am picturing some very driven inspired individuals under a warming light. But we know it takes a lot more than that.

Co-creating the world we want and doing so in new ways takes a network of people and some great mentorship, resource sharing, and support. This weekend we will be incubating some social innovation through COSI10Chicago. We will tell you all about our intense weekend with the warming light of collaborators soon.

If you are in or can make it to California, you can help entrepreneurs succeed (and pay forward how you have been helped) by attending Incubate 2.0, November 17-18, 2010 at the HP Executive Briefing Center in Cupertino. And Thrivable offers you a discount for Incubate 2.0!

What is the purpose? Answering the critical question: “How do I help my entrepreneurs succeed?”

Who should go?

a local incubator
an angel network
an economic development agency

How Incubate 2.0 tells the story:

Over the last decade, entrepreneurs have not only created successful businesses but applied their understanding of technology, their vision of the future, and their passion for growth to help fellow entrepreneurs. The innovations that entrepreneurs have created for each other include global mentoring programs, angel funds, massive networking events and virtual incubators, etc…

Incubate 2.0 will showcase the most cutting-edge programs that help business founders start and grow startups. Join us on November 17-18, 2010 at the HP Executive Briefing Center in Cupertino to gain insight into what works and what does not, meet the founders of these programs, and meet business leaders that have turned them into a global successes.

More at www.incubate2.com

Why the optimism?

by Thriver

In the face of all the catastrophe thinking and story-telling, why the optimism of thrivability?

photo credit: h.koppdelaney

This optimism is not blind idealism or the search for some dreamy utopia. A thrivable world will exist (and has existed) in a strange balance and tension where there is more health and generativity than illness and destruction. That does not mean there is not destruction. Old orders must fall, become the compost of new life, and cycle through. Ideas get refined and transcended. A thrivable world is not static. It is not the end of suffering or the birth of a hedonistic paradise. Instead, think of a garden or better yet a meadow.

So, let’s be pragmatic. What is the basis for being optimistic about thriving given stories of catastrophe and crisis. I will merely mention these – you can find more easily by digging deeper on any of it. This is the big picture overview. Also, it is not comprehensive. I offer here only a half dozen examples of why optimism is warranted.

communication – never before has communication been so possible – over distances, between languages, across cultures, etc. Information can flow. There is talk of a global brain (although at times that brain may seem primitive and dumbly focused on sex, superficiality, or bad news). It still remains – never before have we had such access to each other. (nods to Deanna Zandt)
cognitive surplus – never before have so many had so much liesure time. Not saying we are effective with it, but the possibility of people contributing their time, wisdom, and resources has never been greater. (nods to Clay Shirky)

Yeah, you heard those before….but it is working? What about people who are dying!

hearts break as we read of children dying, but what is the trajectory? UNICEF says:

“Research and experience show that six million of the almost 11 million children who die each year could be saved by low-tech, evidence-based, cost-effective measures such as vaccines, antibiotics, micronutrient supplementation, insecticide-treated bed nets and improved family care and breastfeeding practices.”
“While global immunization rates have risen from less than 20 per cent in the 1970s to about 74 per cent in 2002, millions of children must still be reached.”
“In its sixty years of existence, UNICEF has seen a fifty per cent reduction in under-five mortality between 1960 and 2002.”

Peace on the rise. I know it seems like the opposite. But let’s look at some charts to see what the numbers tell.
via systemicpeace.org

We can see from figure 8 that the conflicts that do exist produce more refugees and exist in poorer states and thus require more humanitarian relief. However, note, “The end of the Cold War, marked by the collapse of the Soviet Union in 1991, had an equally dramatic effect on the general level of armed conflict in the global system.” A couple key points:

“Separate research indicates that the increasing level of societal war results from the protractedness of societal wars during this period and not from a substantial increase in the numbers of new wars.”
“At the peak in 1992, nearly thirty percent of the countries in the world were experiencing some form of major political violence. This percentage of the world’s independent states (with total population greater than 500,000 in 2008) has dropped by nearly one-half since the peak, registering at slightly more than 15% with major episodes of political violence in 2008.”
“There has been substantial improvement in general resilience in the global system since 1995.”
“Global gains are observed for seven of the eight fragility indicators; only “economic legitimacy” shows no improvement, indicating that there has been no substantive shift away from primary commodities production toward manufactured goods in the world’s more fragile states.”

There are a few counter-trends to be wary of (see end of page)

Okay, so kids are more likely to live (but we can keep improving that) and there is a downward trend in warfare/armed conflict. We can communicate better and have more time to make the world better (or be entertained or both). But what about the environment?

Let’s try wikipedia this time:

In 1999, the United States EPA replaced the Pollution Standards Index (PSI) with the Air Quality Index (AQI) to incorporate new PM2.5 and Ozone standards.

The effects of these laws have been very positive. In the United States between 1970 and 2006, citizens enjoyed the following reductions in annual pollution emissions:^[48]

carbon monoxide emissions fell from 197 million tons to 89 million tons

nitrogen oxide emissions fell from 27 million tons to 19 million tons

sulfur dioxide emissions fell from 31 million tons to 15 million tons

particulate emissions fell by 80%

lead emissions fell by more than 98%

Please don’t take this to mean that we are done. We are not. AND, when was the last time you heard that we had made progress?

So we have been making some progress, and actually there are some positive trends. Now let’s add in a few juicy additions:

Purposeful or meaningful life pursuits are on the rise, in fact there is a convergence. Millenials – in general – prefer purposeful work and play, GenX is interested too, and the Boomers who made money so they could have a meaningful life later – well, that later is arriving. What happens when you have multiple-generations with a growing interest in living on purpose, with intention, and therefore being conscious about doing more good in the world?
Social entrepreneurship (probably in part as a result of the previous) is on the rise – a very hot trend with many subsets and variations in making money by or for doing good. Let’s call corporate social responsibility one of those variations.
A paradigm shift in leadership and collaboration is underway. Beginning a few decades ago with the birth of servant leadership, and reinforced by books like “Outliers” (which shows the supporting factors that go into supposedly independent genius)… now we have open source, crowdsourcing, and so much more. How we think about working together is changing. And that change makes more successful collaboration possible.
Green technology. Some of us find it so incredibly sexy. And sometimes it really is. Sometimes it is wishful thinking or innovation many years from implementation. However, I can count 4 wind farms on my 120 mile journey to see my family. I sense some potential black swan like shifts if some clean green energy or technology comes to market… whether that algae that eats pollution or cars run on the biofuel made by your food waste… I have hope that something out of the bright green movement is going to come to fruition in a way that changes the world dramatically.
I’ll close my brief list with metrics… we have been improving our metrics (and our intelligence in how those metrics can be used to tell different stories). The better our metrics – and the better we are at realizing what to measure, the tighter and more useful our feedback loops become. From using social network analysis to map out which congresspeople are being lobbied by what organizations (and who is paying them)… to stats on child mortality, the environment, and energy consumption and creation – we know more about our world than ever before. And that empowers us to do more about it.

These are just a few of the things that make me optimistic in the face of catastrophe stories. What are yours?

On twitter–

@jhagel: More cause for optimism – we are having fewer children and living much longer – great visualization of global trends http://bit.ly/c93ven

Collaboration Mixing Board

by Thriver

This morning I read a RT from @jhagel:

Open source trumps crowdsource – by @cdgrams http://bit.ly/bIn1at

And an idea that has been bubbling in the back of my head came to the surface begging to be set free. Collaboration and Cooperation are complex processes. Setting up them as rivals diminishes the value each provide us. One is not better than another as much as one may be more or less appropriate for a particular issue. And there are a bunch of knobs and dials to adjust based on what we have to put into the system and what we would like to have as output.

My initial “Mixing Board” points to several of these knobs and dials and some of the measures we might watch. I hope you will consider these and contribute to a revised version that holds greater rigor and collective wisdom. 🙂 Collaborate with me!

This is the basic mixer. We have 3 areas: the Dials – things that feel measurable and adjustable, the Knobs – things that feel like a spectrum, and the Lights – things that we can sense but probably not directly adjust.

The Dials:

# of contributors (5 people, 25, 100, 1000, 10000, etc)
# of beneficiaries (5 people, 25, 100, 1000, 10000, etc)
degree of facilitation/quality control (none, light-handed, moderated, tight, regulated)
1. none – for example – the ability to co-create the internet approaches NO facilitation and NO quality control.
2. light-handed – co-creating youtube is light-handed (as is most major social media space) with very simple rules.. and very little quality control
3. moderated – wikipedia has a process for including content, a system for elevating reputation, and a fairly advanced peer produced quality control system and standards
4. tight – most blogs (from harvard business blogs to Daily Kos) where several people have permission to add posts (the comment option might be handled lightly to not at all however) and the quality control is high (even if the quality is not high – the control of it is)
5. regulated – let’s talk wall street stats or sports numbers collecting on websites – there is regulation about the information to control the quality and the facilitation is more in the realm of bureaucracy
feedback loops – do stakeholders/creators have ways of getting feedback on the collaborations? For example, couchsurfing ratings. I presume that collaborations in which people know they are successful via tight feedback loops encourage more collaboration. This is simply my assumption. 🙂

Then we have The Knobs or Spectrums:

cooperation – from collective to collaborative (to what degree are people creating/generating through interaction with each other? Is it the number who show up or the output of their engagement with each other? CarrotMobs are about the number (collective) and team sports are about the combined output and interaction (collaborative).
granularity – from single output to many outputs that can be added together. A single output could be a logo design or a designed t-shirt… where an additive output is something like Linux – composed of hundreds or even thousands of pieces where individual authorship of the granule still allows for collective production of a larger work.
governance – from benevolent dictator to consensus, who manages the collaboration? An individual, a leadership circle, a revolving/evolving group, or full consensus of all involved, etc.
field – from commons to market – what does the output create in total? Does it create a market for individuals to succeed (or fail) within or a commons for all to share?

Finally we have The Lights – given the settings of the Knobs and Dials, what can we sense?

emergent – does the collaboration create the conditions for emergence? To what degree?
creative – does the collaboration enable creative effort or stifle it?
quality – does the collaboration produce high quality results/outputs? (by whose definition?)
resourceful – does it optimally engage the resources of those collaborating?
beneficial – does it create benefits? (one could ask for who?)
speed – how long does the collaboration take?
adaptable – how able is the collaboration to make adjustments in response to the environtment
scalable – can the collaboration expand? to what degree? (not that scaling is always ideal! it isn’t!)