Field Building? What is that?

by

Social network analysis reveals the nodes and their connections. Yes. “The nodes in the network are the people and groups while the links show relationships or flows between the nodes.” Great. What about the things that support the nodes and their ability to make connections. This is the field of the network, and it functions as an energetic even magnetic space that impacts the network in profound ways. We are defined not only by the positive space of our presence and the relationships we bear to each other, but also the space between us, the “negative space” referred to in art class.

If you want to change the configuration of the social network map, changing behavior is one avenue, but it is often difficult to encourage and enforce. Another option is to change the environment. It can be easier, perhaps, to find levers for change in this layer.

So when I talk about field-building, I am talking about that space–the environment of the network. Created by convening events, participating in dialogs, creating avenues to disperse messages, refining the language and frames of the network and its purpose.

Ornet.com network image

World We Want revisited

by

Over at the World We Want blog last year, I responded to a post with an essay on the World I Want. It received feedback.

I want to revisit that. Draft 2.

What is your vision of a better world?

Many revolutions converging to create a world with more honor, respect, and ecological/systems awareness.

What converges?

Convergence of improvements for global health. The eradication of major diseases. Small Pox down, Polio close, Measles next, then each one or even many simultaneously. And more and more of this being achieved by organizations working together as a global health community using more and more complex and responsive information tools. More safe drinking water made available through coordinated efforts using community-labor and resources along with global data tracking and local/global teams which share and transfer expertise. We begin to take care of the bottom of the Maslow pyramid for all people. Put a bottom under it so all people do really and truly have a chance to have dignity and health.

Increased transparency of our resources above and beyond money to “grow ours” rather than “grow mine” including:

    • WEB 2.5—mass communication facilitated by servant leaders and centered on user-collaboration, tapping into collective intelligence. The many edges all empowered by mediums of information conveyance to speak across traditional boundaries and be honored in a customized user-driven fashion. Power to the edges, baby!
      Social Network Analysis—beginning to map and value the actual relationships that exist between us rather than the relationships placed on us by org charts. Moving forward to show relationships between people, organizations, affiliations, interests and passions. Deep and rich visualizations that empower connection and uplift action.
      Community Asset Mapping—tapping into the greater wealth of our communities—our connections, the resources we can bring to bear. Going beyond money to do more and see clearly, visually, what is available so making intentional choices is easier. Tapping into multiple forms of resources, inciting flows, and creating and empowering “currents” for systemic flows.
      Open Source—community working together producing property for the commons and changing the model for developing intellectual material. Let me repeat, producing property for the commons, particularly infrastructure that empowers honorable markets.
      Volunteerism on the rise as more and more boomers get back to their ideals. Retirement shifts from retiring/resting from work and community to become a meaning-making phase. It becomes about giving/contributing while supported by financial independence. It allows the vast intellectual and social wealth of the Boomers to be reused and shared through extensive volunteer and community efforts.
      The Organic Movement and other ecologically sensitive movements growing in popularity. People more and more realize the cause and effect relationships of their consumption and for their own health and the health of the world make different more thrivable choices.
      The rise and flourishing of our neglected gift economy via increased information sharing, matchmaking of needs with resources, and spiritual sense of oneness promoted by globalization in the best sense. Think Blessed Unrest and Wiser Earth.

    • What are the conditions needed to realize it?

    That the converging efforts find support and common cause and so unite and reinforce each other bringing together multiple upward spirals to change the overall flow of our culture.

    What are the obstacles?

    • Old thinking which focuses too much on immediate needs, “get me mine” thinking.
      Fear and scarcity thinking.
      Old established systems slow to change.
      Over-focus on band-aid efforts like micro-lending or over-glorification of system-reinforcing work that plays itself like change such as the Grameen Bank (which perpetuates debt-based systems).
      Delays in seeing the power of unity as each groups scrambles for funding, investors, audience, or attention. Competition instead of collaboration. Delay in seeing or valuing persistently our common cause.

    • Based on your experience, what parts of the vision are realistic and what ideas, strategies and plans can make it so?

    My vision is not only realistic; it is already in motion. The main question is about timing. How soon will we change? How many of us need to have an awakening in order to tip the change?

    I partner, as I can, with those who are doing everything they can to enable the dawning of a new age of thrivability, respect, honor, and ecological/systemic awareness. I spread the word to you, and you pass it on. If it is a message people are ready for, it will spread virally far and wide. If not, we re-work the message, lay more groundwork, develop more tools, share more information, and reach out to more hearts.

    I believe…
    I have a dream…
    I hope….
    that we believe
    and we have a shared dream…

    Friend Wheel

    by

    This friend wheel thing is pretty fun on Facebook. How connected are your friends? To each other. Keep in mind this is only as good as the data and the condition that your friends be on the social network.

    friend wheel

    Being Web 2.0

    by

    It is not about the tools! It is about being organic, distributed, and discerning. It is about emergence and collaboration.

    Organic not controlling. Web 2.0 is not about controlling. Organic and Emerging, yes. Directing possibly. Controlling, no. Anything that hopes to limit, contain, own, restrict, or control is not, at its essence, web 2.0 regardless of the technology it uses.

    Distributed not centralized.     Much like controlling, is centralizing. Power at the edges baby! Network theory. Distributed systems. Not only is this a more powerful way of structuring information, it builds trust in participants. I mean mashups and widgets rather than facebook apps, people.

    Discerning not divisive. Web 2.0 is not about creating us and them dichotomies. It is not divisive distinctions: men v women. White::black. The global north::The global south. It is about commonality. And that can require us to discern differences, but the focus is on finding what do we have in common rather than what we are different. How can we connect and share with others? What can we share with? How can we create trusting relationships for sharing in a global conversation space? Who am I and who are we?

    Being Web 2.0 is facilitated by tools. Definitely. But it isn’t merely using the tools. It is much more. It is part of our evolution toward collective consciousness.

    All over the place and focus

    by

    I suppose to some people my interests appear to be all over the place: philanthropy, currencies, technology, visualization, mapping, marketing, coaching, leadership, process arts, community development, art, creativity, and some other issues too like globalization, the bottom of the pyramid, social entrepreneurship, etc. And most of these areas I have enough understanding to listen and ask good questions…but not enough to debate academically on the finer points or the history. Coaching might be the exception. Maybe. I am not a specialist. And some say it is a world where we ought to be specialized. I don’t know about that. I think it is a world where we ought to connect and have engaging conversations.

    Sometimes, in our lives, we find the varied paths we lead all connecting down the road somewhere. All this leads together…

    How? Field building. I will post soon a longer explanation of field building, along with some tidbits of conversation and great links for those who are interested. For now, let me simply explain that field building is the conscious collective development of a network of purpose (both the nodes and the space between the nodes). And I see this as being critical for our evolution. We need to adapt to survive and for the planet to survive. We need to understand our world in more useful and appropriate ways. And all these interests of mine lead back to the many tools, processes, and systems that play a role in field building. An example–Social Network Analysis is an emerging field…It is defining itself, the practices, examining what distinctions are valuable and which are not. It changes how organizations work, and values human connection. It requires message management for maintaining a cohesive set of meaningful terms. It requires leadership to grow the edges and community to build the depths. It takes funding and marketing to keep thriving. It takes mapping and visualization to track and analyze itself. Other examples are Digital Media and Education, Currencies/Flows, and Thrivability (next evolution of sustainability). Sometimes fields are in transition too, like the work we are doing in Philanthropy to democratize giving, promote giving while living, encourage micro-philanthropy, etc.

    We need to change our world, to understand it in new ways, to work in new ways. I see my work as building fields that help with that process. And why? It comes back to my core purpose–to help people transform their lives and live with passionate purpose.

    Network to Communities: the evolution of omidyar.net

    by

    If you are not already familiar, omidyar.net/home/ has been an active online community sine July 04. It was created and opened up by Omidyar Network LLC, tracing back to Pierre Omidyar of Ebay fame. The purpose of the network space was to help more and more people discover their power to make good things happen. This attracted a particular crowd interested in making the world a better place, some through entrepreneurship, some through tools, and other opportunities. And this network, with some 100-200 active engaged users and nearly 20,000 sign ons is being bumped off the platform. The hope or strategy perhaps is to foster communities of purpose to move beyond the limitations of the network and the platform to scale up and out more good things.

    There is much I can say about this network, having been a highly active member for several years. I can speak to the philanthropy on and from and to the network. But that belongs in another topic space. What I want to address here is the movement from network to community. What distinguishes a network from a community? What are the advantages of a network? What are the advantages of a community? What are the disadvantages of each?

    I have some answers of my own. And I would love to brainstorm this with others (you) as well.

    My sense is that a network is a grouping of people through loose or weak affiliation. And that affiliation may not be the same across all relationships. As has been noted in network theory there is a great strength in weak ties. I consider a community to be a more densely woven connection of people who are joined by purpose or interest. You may not realize the scope of your network(s), but you likely know the scope of your community. There is a greater sense of self-awareness of the group within community. In fact that awareness is part of the distinguishing characteristics, in my mind. To know itself. To know what it holds in common.

    I very much look forward to seeing how the network on omidyar.net/home/ moves to new spaces and creates communities (or not) in the coming months. And I am eager to understand how others see both the evolution and the community/network distinction.

    Localizing Global Change! Chicago Conference July 20-22

    by

    You are invited to co-create the 4th Annual Chicago Conference for Good. PLEASE join us, bring friends and add spirit! Share this invitation with neighbors and colleagues, people you’d like to connect or reconnect with this July!

    “…cuz people who do stuff need to know more people who do stuff.” – ted ernst

    Localizing Global Change: Issues and Opportunities

    July 19-22 in the Little Village neighborhood of Chicago, IL USA

    The momentum of community is rising. Please join us! …for More and More.

    More and more people. More and more resources. More and more easy. More and more connected. More and more green. More and more power to do good things, in more and more local neighborhoods and organizations.

    Three years ago, some of us convened a small but national conference on the future of philanthropy, technology and community action. Two years ago, more of us joined in to create a second and international conference which was also the first-ever omidyar.net members conference. Last year we did it again, and along the way these conversations have sparked half a dozen more conferences and action on at least four continents.

    All the while, you’ve been busy doing all the things you do to try make the world a better place, and you’ve been noticing that more and more people are getting together for global community good. This year’s global gathering in Chicago is going to focus on “doing”. All good work. All kinds of local action. We welcome good people from everywhere to join with people we are actively inviting who are “doing” in Chicago neighborhoods. Bring your own local doing to share. We want to do more and more in all localities, and to do it more together.

    This year’s conference will follow the same simple and active format as all the previous conferences. We’ll gather for one big opening, create a working agenda that includes all of our most important issues and questions, meet with friends and colleagues to actively address everything on the agenda, document and publish our notes online, and head back out into all the things we are doing with more energy, more clarity and more connections.

    The momentum of community is rising. Please join us!
    …for more and more global good on the ground where you live.

    WHEN? July 19-22, 2007 …music and barbecue on Thursday night, conference all day Friday and Saturday, finishing by noon on Sunday, with airport drop-offs or excursions for out-of-towners on Sunday afternoon.

    WHERE? General Robert E. Wood Boys & Girls Club, 2950 W. 25th Street, Chicago IL 60623

    WHO SHOULD COME? Anyone who wants to get more and more into community, technology, environment, and other social justice kinds of work and practice. Anyone who wants to make more and more connections between all these sorts of things. And anyone who wants to have more and more fun and friends in the process of community leadership.

    WHAT TO BRING? Food to eat/share, materials to show/share, ideas and questions, issues and projects that you care about and want to inform and be informed by others AND a total of $40 (scholarships may be available) to pay for basic costs of site and materials for all three days of meetings.

    NOW WHAT? Send an email to nurturegirl@gmail.com, make a payment at paypal, forward this invitation to friends and colleagues, people you work with — and people you want to work with. we’ll send you details about places and times and be glad to answer any other questions. Stay tuned to www.GlobalChicago.net for more information.

    CO-CONVENERS? Ted Ernst, Hermilo Hinojosa, Kachina Katrina Zavalney, Michael Herman, Michael Maranda, Jean Russell, Dave Chakrabarti, Pierre Clark, and You…

    Discussion

    What kind of stuff
    have we been doing?

    * hosting and attending green dinners,
    * community gardening,
    * blogging,
    * digital excellence & inclusion,
    * chicago conservation corps training,
    * growing food,
    * organizing block clubs and parties,
    * depaving your yard and inviting neighbors,
    * restoring a riverbank,
    * planting native prairie in your local park
    * organizing your neighbors to work with the alderman or CAPS to get a camera,
    * or get one taken out,
    * recruiting volunteers,
    * organizing safe routes to school,
    * buying organic foods,
    * experimenting with new tech ways to connect people,
    * and living with less tech
    * driving less,
    * recycling more,
    * ensuring all differently brained people are seen as human beings,
    * seeing to it that the ADA laws are followed,
    * making social activists are supported and nurtured,
    * urban chicken egg farming
    * block clubs
    * traffic calming
    * peace parks
    * “doing.”… ,

    Possibilities for N2Y3

    by

    N2Y2 certainly brought together some amazing people from various domains to work for social change. Nonprofit entrepreneurs, technologists, foundation representatives, venture capitalists, and those that support and critique them converged in one space. This in itself is indisputably important and valuable. What to do within that space to best foster the emergence of good things might be a little more complicated and debatable.

    21 projects voted in through popularity polls online.

    What worked for me:

    • Fun, friendly, interesting attendees
    • fame factor of some of the attendees (though not of the speakers)
    • divergence of interests of attendees, panelists, and projects
    • splitting up of the awards among all
    • silly wooden nickel voting, playfulness, general energy of the event
    • location
    • warmth and friendliness of the staff, organizers, and others
    • speed-geeking the projects (I heard others suggest how this might uplift projects strong in communications while showing unfavorably groups that don’t communicate well or have ineffective speakers—to my thinking these things are important to the success of a project. It might not be ideal, but it is true.)
    • backpacks. t-shirts. I used to handle promotional stuff, so I am pretty clear how cheesy it all is. I still love coming home with good stuff. Call me a sucker.
    • The logo. I love the character wrapping her arms around the 2. It really worked for me. In fact, the graphics on everything looked swell!
    • Back-channel chatting is terrific. I love it. I want to see more of it.

    What didn’t work for me:

    • Panel discussion divided by social impact (I didn’t get much sense of what the social implications of any of the projects I listened to), economic sustainability (let’s push nonprofits to become social entrepreneurs?), and technology innovation (it was already clear who knew their technology).
    • Voting process done by one round rather than winnowing (repeated rounds of narrowing down).
    • Lack of transparency about voting outcomes. With the overall winner of the event being MapLight—an organization about money and political transparency, it was pointed out to me how incredibly ironic that the event coordinators themselves weren’t showing how many tokens each group collected.
    • I never figured out which of the panelists was going to moderate which panel. So I missed seeing people like Lucy Bernholz!
    • organizations there that did not get much opportunity to be visible, I was pleased to see the Bring Light presentation. It was much more interesting that the Cisco exec talk (though Cisco were fantastic and gracious hosts!).
    • Superficial efforts to be cool—stickers we could place on our name tags to show whether we had attended which of the three area panels. It didn’t seem to mean anything to anyone I talked with. The overabundance of printed materials. Wasted paper. The “tag” boxes in the upper corner of the 21 projects in the booklet—it would have been better to have a space for me to put my own tag cloud together.
    • The elephant in the room—there is, even here, a generational gap in understanding technology and cultural innovations. It isn’t the tools, stupid. Yes, know the tools, create good tools, indeed. And people use them. There was a clear divide of people who “get” what web 2.0 is about, and people who are buzzing about it and don’t understand the cultural shift. And there are some marginal people who understand there is a change, but they can’t move from intellectually grasping it to wholeheartedly being it. I didn’t see much movement to change that.

    Advice:

    • Take advantage of what is best about the projects. Clearly there is something valuable about each of these which others could learn from. For example, Genocide Intervention Network really gets the cross-portal identity management piece. YouthAssets really understood how to create a flow system. How can they share what they are already doing well or figured out as an advantage? Let the audience participate and generate a list of 1-3 core advantages and then have the org explain a little about each of them. Was a projects innovative edge about social impact (new way to impact more people better)? Was a projects innovative edge about technology (new technology or new use of technology)? Or was a project economically innovative (new model of creating monetary and resource flows)? Let the strong ones in each issue speak on that issue…and be paneled by experts that can push their edges even further.
    • Good Capital, YouthGive, Lucy, and others, in my mind, should have gotten 5 minutes too somehow…though that could be a time management issue.
    • Perhaps there could be a better equating of tokens to funds received.
    • Outlaw buzz words OR tally keeping on words like community and collaboration. (Yeah, I know, I would be in trouble pretty quickly, as I love these words too.)

    Foundation and Capital Voices

    by

    I have found foundation representatives here at netsquared. However, I have not heard from them publicly. I think foundation representatives have a lot to offer to emerging nonprofits and technologists as they are trying to gain clarity and grow. Similarly VC folks have wisdom and questions that can help prime projects for receiving funding and building viable business models.

    Also, I would like to see more nonprofits and technologists putting pressure on foundations to consider expanding program support beyond granting to blended offerings of loans and other investment tools that support emerging social purpose organizations and projects.

    We need to be surfacing the resources we each have, acknowledging our own needs, and sharing together to make more and more good things happen.

    Resources Lost

    by

    Still here at netsquared. Looking around at the audience in this economic sustainability session…and I think we are not capturing the resources that are in the room. When someone is sitting not far from me that is with pledgebank, and yet we aren’t talking about pledging…or Bring Light, who sponsored the event, doesn’t get to share how they work…these 21 projects need to hear about tools in the room that they don’t know about.

    Here is a project–what can each person in the room bring to it to move it forward? And what collectively do we as a group think would be most valuable from that.

    Interesting question from the moderator: he asserts that some nonprofits simply suck. One of the panelists retorted that the trick about that subjective judgment is WHO gets to make that call. I wonder how valuable even figuring that out is! When talking about services that cost a certain amount to be able to do–and that cost is fairly unrelated to number served. Grassroots.org for example has a certain cost that doesn’t. I imagine, increase significantly whether they serve 5000 or 7500. It isn’t worth the sorting process which becomes a trade-off–the value of being an open provider gets compromised by being some judgment making organization.

    This is one of the values I really appreciate about Catalytic Communities. They share projects from any community leaders who have innovative solutions. Those leaders get to decide what is innovative. I think that can really resonate for people who are skeptical of the power aspect of subjectively choosing who gets in and who gets out.