Gillian Bush, 24-Jul-05 @ 10:20AM

wow

So it seems that the marketing inquiries into place branding and the knowledge citizen grounded theories provided huge clues. But how many kboard members came out of lurking? And will Collaboration Knowledge Citizens receive the same EU put-downs as Knowledge Angels

Chris Macrae, 05-Oct-04 @ 07:47AM

E-envoy office report on collaborative KM

I was asked to present this today in London so I thought I should share here

I am delighted to report that Collaboration KM is the big new thing- I hope it is soon be seen to be what all true KM spins round

First, for those who like the numbers. The only company to compound 30 billion of wealth in the last 4 years as the networking age has gone from pubescent commercialism to what KM&EI people would score as humanly dedicated knowledge search and connect and systemic action learning is google. Read all about its case at this blog (further cases) or in a forthcoming book edited by a leading business journalist

Second, there is a new kind of collaborative NGO and active peace movement. The way I discover who's up for collaborative KM is to ask NGOS etc about their network's vision and to ask whether it sees itself as open collaborator of KM or closed proprietor. If the vision sounds as if it will do no eveil and the collaboration flows in every conversation, then I link that NGO with another and another and all their goodwill multiplies. Where I say I, of course a peer network does this too -ask more details at wcbn007@easynet.co.uk (I am not sure what I deem good is what you will though in the NGO world its easier to agree 'by and large' on how to avoid evil until it dies on its own rotting vine. For example, if two NGOs have similar missions but in once case 10% of monies actually get spent at the grassroots-need and the other case 90% does, I'd find it evil to waste my time or that of others on Mr 10%

We also have two particular practice areas of KM which I have so far discovered to be born in Collaborative KM. The whole movement of knowledge cities- suggest you search work of Debra Amidon or Piero Formica as two exemplars though I do blog a version of this with a 100 city collaborators , namely what sorts of styles of meeting can citizens use to discuss big issues and form networks around them. The other is storytelling of the sort Steve Denning asked the World Bank to learn and practice.

There is a third area, but I am always a bit unclear whether KM sees itself as in social networking maps. If so, London has a case to play wiyth over the next 2 weeks; how to give as many of 20000 people as possible the social maps the need to make the most of the networks they spend their time in.

Finally, for now, on collaborative innovations there is the playful idea of the timeless blog family.

Chris Macrae, 28-Mar-04 @ 15:07PM

Benchmarking extreme collaboration

A circle of us in London decided it was time we formed this group, and when people want to join we're ready

Our first idea is a 5th type of organisational typology. (Typology 1= mass media, 2 other global corportes, 3 =national governments, 4 =NGOs or single issue activist networks)

Knowledge Management for Typology 5
This system's value exchanges will trade hardly any cash and almost all goodwill. It will act like a media of transparency and will promote only the world's greatest responsibility news. It will be a non profit or more strictly speaking owned by a one-world society with a patron board of Laureates of the most hi-trust and deep practice kinds. It will provide a transition space so that global corporates and others whose communications budgets burn too much money on image-making and too little on reality-making can rethink their whole system of marketing leadership and brand architecture. It will only engage with those who wish to learn open collaboration, and selectively remove their excess costs of competitition.

We already have a whole family of typology 5 concepts. My only reason for mentioning just one is that its the nature of such a typology that you have to sign up the first 10 partners in a hi-trust community; if you get one that is less trustworthy than the others it ruins the collaboration & innovation space for everyone

universtityofstars.com
step 1 recruit some emerging superstarts and offer to mentor them in one reality hero subject of their choice

step 2 ensure high quality mentoring circles, real and virtual, know how to relate with time-pressured stars.

step 3 having satisfied a star's competence to be a hero for some responsibility issue, ask for the occasional free star performance where a humanitarian cause needs the news

step 4 get public service media joining in

step 5 and so forth

I would love to hear from people interested in typolgy 5 concepts for collaborating around goodwill exchanges faster than any other organsiationa typology.

Chris Macrae, 15-Mar-04 @ 11:52AM

synthesising 2 trust threads

Does anyone have time to do an independent synthesis of what this thread's links' knowledge contains and what that on the mechanics of human trust contains
http://www.knowledgeboard.com/cgi-bin/item.cgi?id=121434

I sort of feel we who strive to improve human KM owe such a synthesis to people impacted by 9/11 or 11/3

I am not expecting huge solutions but I do wonder where the focal point of our conversations is taken to across these boards, and there is something vital about colaboraive knowledge that I feel hasnt been given as much communal gravity as I would vote for.

I am in particular dishearted that the NGO Km sig got such little conversational attention at this web that it disappeared. I spend a lot of my time SNA mapping who is openly forming networks of networks around reconcilation of the world's greatest conflicts. Am I really one of so few of the 5000 of us to feel that is a knowledge map job to connect. I would love to hear from you if you are one of the few interested in this sort of exercise?
http://www.knowledgeboard.com/cgi-bin/item.cgi?id=122836&d=pnd
If you dont know if you are I would suggest having a read of youth's knowledge of poverty as it gives some perspectives from over 30 deeply conflicted countries. Half of my career has been spent listent - doing research of what people reporesnting local societies say about the world's most powerful organsiations. There is rage in what the people say in local communities that did not exist when I first started my career. What have we let big organisations do to cause such plumetting of trust?

And do you know on the meotional scale of things there is one worse emotion than rage- I call it utter loss of hope that thinks will get better for my kids. When we place people or communities in that position, they become the tools of madmen as far as i know it is always madmen action global rage not mad women but I'll happily be corrected if needs be).

Chris Macrae, 11-Sep-03 @ 12:19PM

triple collaboration

Sample of current discussion of Human KM at
http://www.knowledgeboard.com/cgi-bin/item.cgi?id=117257&d=1&h=417&f=56&dateformat=%o%20%B%20%Y
------------------------
Collaborative innovation is in its infancy in spite of the fathers of the internet (Vint Cerf) and the worldwide web (Berners-Lee) insisting that they were openly designing technology so that worldwide innovation opportunities would bring whole new value multipliers to organsiations and people's productivity.

Tell me your favourite bookmarks on collaborative innovation to register here:
1 2 3

Transparent branding's 4-multiplying ways to value collaboration imply that organisational systems must be changed inside-out to collaborate with:
A) Governments
B) Businesses
C) People as individual (knowledge) workers
D) Coworker groups such as teams, personal netorks and practice communities

Inside-out collaboration with government means no more furtive lobbying for protectionsism or rights to ruin local environments. Instead only get together with government where you can openly do something so wonderful locally that its a win-win-win for the company, government and humans in the local democracy.

Similarly, each of A-D has an inside out change leadership issue to systemise; for example companies will never learn to collaborate with their best knowledge workers whilst booking them as costs (unlike machines which tangible accounting compounds -as its meanest cuts of all - by arbitrarily framing as an investment)

PS I also have a personal colaboration project- outlining a future affairs 12 year olds curriculum to prepare for a transparent networked world - please tell me your bookmarks 1 2

Chris Macrae, 18-May-03 @ 08:54AM

Do you have an open collaboration greatest ever read?

If so, or just your favourite of the last year, why not tell us of it.

Without doubt my nomination goes to Martin Leith's Guide to Large Scale Interventions. If you're lucky when you click http://www.martinleith.com, the site will be on one of its good days when downloading the Guide is easy.

If you download it, why not join me in forming a reader's circle

Chris Macrae, 17-May-03 @ 10:56AM

5 way change shocks to my navigational system

Recenjtly, started to discover 2 dimensions of change, that at best I only new tacitly namely:

1) what the change agent enacts – Professor Judi Marshall’s 5 spans mentioned yesterday shine a light for me:
-inquiry, systemic thinking, contextual appropriateness of change action, understanding of power dynamics & dimensions, and the agents own identity, values, self-reflectiveness, inner work

2) moving organisation’s system on their pathway from scientific performance command & control to self-organising living system (cf eg Meg Wheatley)
I propose that we move these above 2 to their own specialist thread
http://www.knowledgeboard.com/cgi-bin/item.cgi?id=109786&d=1&h=417&f=56&dateformat=%o%20%B%20%Y

----------------------------------------
continue the other 3 in this thread:

3) near future’s force of revolution – technology of internet, knowledge work as the value differentiator, global and local as one whole market system,-collaboration advantages now being as great an innovating path as competitive advantages, openness being a smarter strategy than closed

4) the spinning systems of systems of govs and global corporates and NGOs and SMEs and virtual and real organisational forms is morphing and interacting

5) value governance dynamics of trust-flow given we wholly measure the wrong thing at the moment if any of the above are to humanly grow rather than implode under the anorexia of monetisation, the apartheid of separating human units rather than flowing them and the other false laws of global power that mainly global accountants and mainly Delaware lawyers have imposed on us (what value is there in an organisation that spends more time on avoiding tax than continuous innovation from a deep purpose of difference and trust?)

http://www.euintangibles.net/library/links

THE MAP of Missing Governance- Leadership Transparency & Dynamic Valuation of Intangibles & Networks

Macrae (Chris), Mitchell(Alan), Gordon(William) 2003 Wiley URL http://www.valuetrue.com

Transparency Mathematics is developed around the 5 opposite dynamics to current accounting . These start every audit with the living system principle of detecting emerging relationship conflicts - the direct opposite of transactional accounting's inadvertent compounding of future risk caused by its notions of separability and past performance. By mapping the intangible productivities and demand, dynamic valuation indices can be derived. Today transparency maps explain all the risks and social-economic growth opportunities that are made opaque by the systemic diseases that short-term tampering of making numbers at the expense of trust-flow causes. This work also connects with the future history shifts of networking economies and societies first published as Norman Macrae's 2024 Report in 1984 whilst Deputy Editor of The Economist

Sincerely, chris macrae, wcbn007@easynet.co.uk

Chris Macrae, 16-May-03 @ 18:53PM

part 2 of replies to Nikolai's exciting dialogue

Further references to open collaboration opportunities for best case examples include:
to help brand a developin country, consider joining Simon Anholt's network and invitation at
http://www.valuetrue.com/home/glossary.cfm?letter=J

to debate whether a consortium of world leading organisations led by Coca-Cola could collectively resystmise knowledge use of the world's water so that the 2 billion without had access and so that Coca-Cola gained economically from leading this social responsible movement see EU Water Angels at http://www.knowledgeboard.com/cgi-bin/item.cgi?id=87795&d=1&h=417&f=56&dateformat=%o%20%B%20%Y

part 3 specific replies to Nikolai's questions:
we could establish such a meta-brand but I would prefer global society to start with the 10 existing biggest global brands in the world; work out what responsibility each could lead others to co-promote and thus require that our biggest organisational identities systemised reality-making and trust not image-making and in many cases distrust

I believe the arguments which the two documents made in terms of brand could be translated into very similar views for KM's role in co-systemising the trust-flow and open collaboration potentials of the world's most knowledgable oraganisations and networks. If someone else would like to elad the editing of that, I would be delighted to try to contribute

Because I was saying this for all big global brands I hadnt thought about how to start this with a new meta-brand, although that could be a meta-NGO role. I dont think the UN has the right system dynamics to be do that. When you look at the founding fathers' purpose of the EU and the open space of knowledge board and knowledge angels, yes we could make this the human mission that united all 25 countries of Europe and our open boundary gift to the worldwide if we each converted others to understanding the role of KM, Total Brand Responsibility (ref 1,,,2 ) and measurements in identifying what living system of systems multiply as human trust-flows

Chris Macrae, 16-May-03 @ 18:40PM

3 answers to Nikolai's exciting dialogue

Dear Nikolai

Thanks for your dialogue referring to

http://www.knowledgeboard.com/download/2363/Macrael-et-al-editorial-JBM-10.4-5.pdf
http://www.knowledgeboard.com/download/2344/Chapter-11.pdf

I will try to answer in 3 parts.

1) much of this work isn’t mine, so I will ask others involved to reply too

2) resume of my own beliefs

-2.1brand is a very powerful human system construct; like all powerful constructs usable to good or bad ends; it essentially identifies communal and interpersonal relationships and interfaces; it applies to any organisation or offer – from one product, to everything a global corporation stands for, to how a nation is perceived, to what the km profession is understood as , to what EU knowledgeboard is

-because of 2.1 every human being needs to be educated about two questions so as not to be enslaved by brands:
--is this one being promoted to good or evil ends
--is the way its promoted as low cost or as big a purpose or as openly good behaviour conducive as it could be for the sake of the living system it identifies and all the people depending on that system’s exchange

-unfortunately the brand often isn’t openly quizzed this way; this leads to many global brands being costly or evil in the leadership they compound in ways that Naomi Klein has described in NoLogo; it also leads to advertising having hijacked the brand in similar ways that IT hijacked the KM of living systems and global accountants hijacked the measurements of system performance; and in fact these and other big professional vested interests mutually support each others’ cases at the cost of people

-as a particular worst case example of systemising the dynamic powers of brand, corporate responsibility, measurement and knowledge flows,ENRON used big communications budgets to be perceived near the top of corporate social responsibility league tables to just before its end and amongst other accounting opacities to value its brand for achieving this and appearing to be about a responsible leadership system when in fact for many periods it was compounding the extreme opposite

-continued in part 2

Nikolai Krjachkov, 16-May-03 @ 09:32AM

Global reconstruction?

Good day Chris!

I have read your postings about branding for improving the current business and social situation globally.

Let me to make more precise my understanding of your total brand corporate responsibility (TBCR) idea.

My understanding of it is that you want to create/establish some global brand name with billion dollars budget to support proper sales of others open quality wares/services (not only western but including originated in the developing countries) for equalization global wealth of nations or making the difference between rich and poor lesser. In other words by providing/selling a new global true meta branded service for others brands you want to reduce risks of current and future local and global conflicts by:
- giving people true knowledge of what they really spend money for buying traditionally not transparent branded wares/services .
- promoting true brands of true wares/services originated also in the developing countries to direct cash flow to those who really add true value to end customers.

If I understood you correctly (if not correct me!), your project is an attempt to reconsrtuct the global economy with KM, because often current industrial way of thinking and business practice based on abuse of trust. People use trust instead of understanding because they can not transform tacit knowledge into explicit one. Tacit knowledge or lack of transparency is a domain of lie knowledge or lack of competence/quality. Industrialism (or postindustrialism as a producer of rubbish information) exploits people as a resource for labour or consumerism (the belief that a high level of consumer spending is desirable and beneficial to the economy) without thinking as a human ability. In these conditions knowledge society and economy are impossible I think. Some current attempts to adapt knowledge issue for industrialism are the reason why they are remaining only as declarations or instruments to pump knowledge to the West from other World or as instruments to make a fool. Networking may stop such attempts (people will be found each other), because where are the differences between West and other World or where are governmental barriers in the WWW?

If so, can you explain:

1. What kind of service do you want to provide as a meta branding?
2. Who will be owner of the meta brand name and how it will be managed?
3. Generally, do you have any plan for this project?

Chris Macrae, 14-May-03 @ 12:00PM

k'board scoop

Here are some notes I shared with my co-authors an hour ago. The transparency mathematics slides we are reviewing are attached above ie at http://www.knowledgeboard.com/download/2367/killerstoryline.ppt

I hope it is clear (if not post!) that this provides many new ways to make the business case for open collaboration as well as the social case for putting humanity back into organisations in a way that anorexic global accountants have cut down to skeleton levels (with their trust-breaking double-blinder on the knowledge age- charge people as costs, whilst putting ever grater value on the intangible of knowledge as if the corporation is sole earner of people's learning)
To journalist Alan & KM Partner William
T1 to T5
Can you see these killer storylines when you look around THE MAP?

If so is it clear:

1) why the maths must be different to make the opposite business cases

2) why we must require any leader to have seen both choices and to commit knowingly

That way we can move the social policy of incorporation forward until countries move the dividing line

between ignorance and evil leadership , year by year until our world is populated by organisations that make people proud

and at the same time the opportunities of a true

knowledge worker and networking age will provide

the most glorious win-win productivities and responsibilities

humans have ever experienced…

Helen Baxter, 13-May-03 @ 08:28AM

KM Kids

I was at a meeting today about 'IT kids' - a scheme to encourage Kiwi kids to see IT skills as a foundation for many careers rather than a standalone subject. Afterwards I started thinking about a 'KM Kids' concept where we taught kids collaboration and communication as necessary lifeskills to equip them to deal with the Knowledge Age. Does anyone know of any scheme like this in place at a school or college level?

Chris Macrae, 13-May-03 @ 06:35AM

thanks audran and denham

By coincidnce Denham, you raise an issue that woke me up with an Eureka in the middle of the night. If we want collaborative and innovation living systems then we need collaborative measures and feedback processes.

Our knowledge of collaborative measures is near zero against the overwhelming thud of measures that are clearly framed competitively to the extent that they make most knowledge-sharing still born between employees and make the idea of customers trusting employees enough to permit them to learn about how to increase value , a sick joke. (Most CRM processes tries to find out what I the customer value so as to hike the price to me - merci beaucoups...)

The KMworld has done everyone a dis-service by tantalising us with the prospect of communal learning and practices, and collaborative network business models but not designing the measures that systemise such. In fact leaving us with old world transactional measures of Big 5 accountants that punish the collaborator.

Since I am writing a book on this extreme injustice, I look forward to being openly challenged (and boy I would welcome the learning) if anyone believes they have got some collaborative measurements they will fully share with us. Meanwhile, in a parallel thread I will provide the start of a case - knowledgeboard itself.

OK I make one exception to the last paragraph. I am deeply excited by some of the efforts of the Intellectual & other Capital communitiesand their intangibles crisis neighbours- all of which Europe leads the world on thanks to our Nordica region.

. But even here we are not as upfront as we could be in making it clear that if we want collaboration measures we must design them purely in their own systemic contexts and then work out how they interface with competitive measures. Things like balance scorecards fudge the issue. By not studying collaboration systems wholly, they start reducing stuff to numbers (add, subtract instead of multiply, average, linear etc) before the true collaborative dynamics can be mapped. Balanced scorecard has no possibility of supporting collaborative innovation strategies of the type that could make the knowledge net-worker age wholly more productive and social than anything man has ever organised before. (visioning spaces in 1984
and for 2004)

Denham Grey, 13-May-03 @ 03:43AM

Counting and counts

"..not everything that can be counted counts, and not everything that counts can be counted" Albert Einstein

Much wisdom to be discovered in this quote methinks

Audran SEVRAIN, 12-May-03 @ 12:57PM

Collaboration - Innovation Projects

Chris,
Yes you are right concerning ClueTrain as one of the basements of the KB... the sentence was "markets are conversations" and the question was : how to integrate it on KB ? At this time, no SIG and Zone was existing... after this sentence and lot of fantastic work : more than 20 qualitive ones are under dev. through the "conversation approach". Edna contributed with is reach vision of the K-café.

You can find project linked to Collaboration / Innovation through the EC Zone (Zone and SIGs part).

I would like to make k-boarders aware of a wonderfull initiative coming from a french speaker and k-boarder, working in Canada : http://www.collectiveintelligence.info facilitated, dynamised by Pierre LEVY (who also speaks english !) : a french living great philosopher passionate by the "k-web". Documents issued from Pierre are available on top of page in the "Coin des Francophones" Zone, some are in English (but you need to learn french to access on it ;-).

Best !

Chris Macrae, 11-May-03 @ 09:19AM

postcard of lunch with Doc Searls

I recall the privilege of sharing a lunch with Doc, whose co-authoring of www.cluetrain.com - the web's art of open dialogues - was one of the inspirations for starting knowledgeboard.com if I recall Paul Hearn correctly.

Doc knew many of the big dotcom players. All that lost were rotten collaborators; those that gained were the founders of amazon and ebay who never needed to flip-fund a business model because they played the net's collaboration essence from day 0.

Funnily enough, about 20 CEOs of Brick companies invited Doc to lunch or speak, and all confessed their biggest operating cost was to do with lost trust between groups of people - dare they over-rule short-term accounting's performance measures and rengineer trust-flow and collaboration processes? Some did and have grown stronger collaboratively, others are getting older or less powerful by the day.

If I err in my recollections, I look forward to being openly cross-edited.

chris macrae, wcbn007@easynet.co.uk, www.valuetrue.com, THE MAP part of the EU Intangibles Library & Links
----------------------------------
Can anyon help with a list of EU projects on collaboration and innovation

CIKM -any of these book authors around to explain their insights? any news of these industry innovation maturity profiles?