igniter

THIS BLOG HAS MOVED!!!

2008-09-17T15:09:00.001-07:00

Hello... I have just relaunched this blog at http://igniter.com/blog. Please reset your feeds as I will not be maintaining this blog here... there are plenty more things to maintain at http://igniter.com :-).

Cheers!

Michael

Exploring Open - Investing and Organizations

2008-07-31T21:15:00.000-07:00

The OpenEverything retreat is coming up and in prep I've setup a wiki to begin exploring attributes and examples of Open Organizations and practices for/what's different with Investing in Open.

Have some thoughts? Jump in here.

The influence of open in venturing.

2008-07-22T09:28:00.000-07:00

So what does 'open' mean for 'venturing' and venturing on 'the frontiers'.

From some prior definitions, venturing is process of creating and evolving a venture, where a venture is an agreement among people to do things in service of a purpose and according to a set of values. More simply it's about the process of organizing resources (social, financial, and human capital) toward realizing a certain intent.

If 'open' really is about a new mode of organization, then it is central to the process of venturing. It will inevitably impact every venture, the leadership and culture required, and the way in which we go about it.

Where strategy has been a dominant management driver in the past 3 decades, design will require greater attention. Conventionally, the control of financial and intellectual capital allowed organizations to directly control action and influence outcomes. In open, social and human capital are more dominant factors. They are also inherently less controllable which means we have to pay more attention to the design of systems versus control of action to influence outcomes and fulfil the organization's purpose.

If this shift to 'open' is truly a product of the evolution of our society, as I believe it is, then this is inescapably important.

Furthermore, ventures that are themselves focused on the evolution of our society toward a just and sustainable state have to pay particular attention to open. These frontiers are necessarily about dealing at the edges of our current systems and structures - the turbulent space where 'open' is most effective.

Pulling this together - venturing on the frontiers requires a focus on:

social and human capital
a shift in culture, values, mindset, and leadership
systems design

That said, this doesn't mean it's time to throw the baby out with the bathwater. Strategy is still a useful tool, and we are still in the midst of a culture dominated by the conventional mode of organization. What it does mean though is that the compatibility of our underlying organizational culture, values, mindset, and leadership will determine the ability to make the most of convention in context of where we are going.

The point of 'open' - a new mode of organization.

2008-07-22T07:44:00.000-07:00

In working on Open Everything I've been struggling to come up with why it matters and what it means to the common person. For people in the open source community or other fields where 'open' is a already at play they don't tend to ask this question but if we are to 'open' the open meme, we certainly need to be able to answer it.

So here's how I answer it now. (Ad-lib seesmic video answer below)

Open is about a new mode of organization.

Enabled by pervasive adoption of communication technologies and an emergent culture of people comfortably communicating with greater numbers of people, independent of geography or in-person relationship. (it's a product of the evolution of our civilization - not just some fad formula for success)
Rooted in and requires values and mindset rooted in interdependence, contribution, collaboration as opposed to the currently dominant culture of independence, competition, and zero-sum competition. (it's not about tools and techniques)
Relies more on social and human capital than financial and intellectual capital. (requires a different type of leadership)
Much more flexible and responsive to immediate context (great for situations where there is systemic turbulence like we are increasingly facing).

The implications of this are:

It will inevitably become a factor in your organization or industry whether as a result of: strategic intent ("let's do some of this web 2.0 stuff" - "we need to listen to our customers/community"); the shift in our society and culture; or an increase in turblence/instability the systems that impact your organization
Working with it requires some deep shifts in culture and leadership
May (likely will) result in significant unintended changes to the organization, what it does, and how it does it.

While this is a quick first take - it certainly expresses what's attracted me to this 'open' meme. I'm looking forward to mixing this into the conversations we'll be having at the Open Everything Retreat in September (the agenda is starting to look good) and seeing what we come up with.

Of course, if you have any thoughts, ideas, opinions we need them all in working this through. Comment here, at any of the Open Everything events, your own blog posts (tagged with openeverything), or even in the Mapping Open wiki are all welcome.

What's the point of open for you?

A crack in the dam - opening a new domain.

2008-06-24T15:02:00.000-07:00

Rhizoming the plane of emergence 2.0 . .
Originally uploaded by jεƒ saƒı

It's been in the works for awhile and I now think we're really starting to make a connection between web tech (2.0+), venture investing, social innovation. That connection is going to unleash some tremendous innovations and a surge in the activity directly working on the challenges facing our civilization. It feels like the emergence of a new domain that will take some very different approaches to change and influencing the course of civilization. It seems inspired by open source, technology innovation, financial risk taking, a venturing culture, and now a deepening and deeply felt realization that there are more important tasks to tend to.

I've been digging deeply into this for a while (Venturing on the Frontiers , Open Everything <site>, and The Great Remix) and these two posts (Umair Haque and Fred Wilson) have me feeling that something just shifted. What I love is that this isn't just the same old folks getting into this AND that they are coming at it from an understanding of how systems emerge. Umair uses the language of DNA and Fred is living it through his investment approach in web tech companies.

Maybe what it is, is that all the different groups I've been working/having the conversations with (MaRS, SiG, CSI, Renewal Partners, Communicopia, Causeway, Tides Canada, and Good Capital) are using different language to talk about the same things.

I'm not sure. What do you think? Is this just a personal moment are others sensing that some thing has shifted too?

An open quote from Michael Edwards

2008-06-20T10:46:00.000-07:00

Cross posted from my tumblog.

Open: "more radical innovations in ownership and production that change the basis on which markets currently work"

In the conclusion of “Just Another Emperor” by Michael Edwards, he poses the above quote which I think is a great description of what ‘open’ is actually playing at. Full context here: “Philanthrocapitalism offers one way of increasing the social value of the market, but there are other routes that could offer equal or better results in changing the way the economic surplus is produced, distributed and used: the traditional route that uses external pressure, taxation and regulation; the philanthrocapitalist route that changes internal incentives and gives a little more back through foundations and corporate social repsonsibility; and the more radical innovations in ownership and production that change the basis in which markets work. We don’t know which of these routes carries the greatest long term potential, though all of them rely on civil society as a vehicle for innovation, accountability, influence and modified consumption, and especially for getting us from reformist to transformational solutions.”

Benevolent dictators in the open movement

2008-06-18T06:54:00.001-07:00

One of the interesting things coming out of OPEN everything (Toronto) was the idea that open projects are driven by what we were calling 'benevolent dictators'. That phrase, while abrasive to some, seems to be resonating in a number of different conversations that I and others are having.

What it seems to do is counter the notion that open is a touchy-feely, everyone has to agree, happy place where everyone gets along. At the same time it reinforces the important and evolving role of leadership. What I'm starting to try and tease out is what are the qualities of open leadership that we're really getting at? And which of those are core values - and which are situational reactions?

So far I've been seeing some aspects such as:

willingness and authority to make quick decisions based on intuition and sense of purpose and values (the DNA of the project)
a relentless focus on near-term goals vs. controlling tasks
ability to command/wield social capital vs. financial capital

So what do you think? What are you experiencing? What's different?

Photo credit: invisible consequential

OPEN everything (Toronto) Reflection

2008-06-06T12:39:00.000-07:00

The first half-day OPEN everything event happened in Toronto at the Centre for Social Innovation on Wednesday and was a great start to what's going to be a very interesting series. Mark Surman - the mastermind of the series - opened the agenda and launched the group into an exploration of what 'open' is and what are the underlying principles.

I twittered some of my observations on the day and have a running tag which is going to capture the ongoing conversation (#openeverything). Some of the highlights for me were:

social capital is the key currency - more important than financial capital
leadership is essential and often looks like a benevolent dictator
control is of priorities rather than tasks
purpose and values are more powerful than strategy and logic
it's better to graft on to an existing community than try and create a new one
open projects need to be big to be able to absorb the capacity of the community
open isn't new (1 example was from the 17th and 18th centuries)

That last point helps also to remind me that this is part of our ongoing nature and evolution - and part of the Great Remix. What we are seeing as expressions of open now are necessarily coloured by the context of our society today. Clearly. So what will be interesting as we go forward with this is what are the essential enduring principles? What's the heart of open? How do we kick-it up to kick-up the pace of our evolution to a just and sustaianble state? Fun.

Thanks to Mark, Tonya and everyone who participated. We're on to something here.

OpenEverything opens today!

2008-06-04T08:20:00.001-07:00

Well, it was only a few months ago when Jason Mogus, Mark Surman and I chatted on this concept of the event series that is now underway. It started as an exploration as to a new Web Of Change event at Hollyhock this year and Mark has taken it to what is going to be an amazing series that is going to push our thinking and the thinking of the 'open' community even further.

For more information, check out Mark's opening post here, and the openeverything wiki.

Today, Toronto kicks off Open Everything: a global series of six (or more?) events about the art, science and spirit of open. We've got 60 amazing people registered who come from computer programming, community development and everywhere in between. It's gonna rock.

There are going to be a few bloggers and hopefully a few twitters going live today and putting their follow-up thoughts out shortly thereafter... and I'll do my best to link to them as they come available.

Some related links - adding on to another conversation.

2008-05-16T02:56:00.000-07:00

I commented on Fred Wilson's Looking Forward post yesterday and he reblogged a part of my comment in his tumblog here. Tt's been generating a few emails to me so for those that are interested, here are a few other links that follow that theme...

- A few of us are convening an event that is digging deeper into that mindset that riffs off open source openeverything.net.
- Ervin Laszlo's Macroshift - a book about the evolution of civilization and the interplay of technology and mindsets (my highlights and links to the book - additional post here)
- A post of mine on this phase we are in that I'm calling "the Great Remix". Additional posts here and here.
- Stafford Beer's work on information design of systems in an organizational context (my highlights and links to his book and work)

Forces at play in the The Great Remix

2008-05-09T14:10:00.000-07:00

The final piece from this work on The Great Remix are a couple of presentations that explore the forces at play. I've yet to add annotated detail but here they are nonetheless.

Summary

| View | Upload your own

Detail

| View | Upload your own

Doing differently in the Great Remix

2008-05-09T11:39:00.000-07:00

The one other piece that I'll share from my exploration into the Great Remix, is a part about how I see doing happening differently as we move forward.

The following four areas now describe how doing is different in the context of the Great Remix.

Employ Systems Dynamics
(From conductor to mix master)
As the systems of our civilization demonstrate instability and failure more frequently, openings are created for previously unexpected initiatives to emerge. We can’t know when or how but rather must work to condition the emergence of those initiatives.

Turntable
Originally uploaded by mrhayata
Insights from the domains of systems science point to how systems work, providing essential knowledge into how to transform and operate within the systems we have. Leaders now require competencies more like those of a a mix master DJ as opposed to those of a conductor. While composers work with their orchestra to perform predetermined music, a mix master DJ comes to a room with an assortment of songs and sounds which they mix together according to the energy of the audience and the experience they hope to happen.

There are already many bodies of work in this area and the increasing rate of new works being published indicates the growing interest in this topic. Some particularly notable works include:
Stafford Beer, The Heart of Enterprise, 1995
Donella H. Meadows, Places to Intervene in a System, 1997
R. Brian Stanfield, Courage to Lead, 2000
Margaret Wheatley & Deborah Frieze, Lifecycle of Emergence, 2006
Frances Westley, Brenda Zimmerman, Michael Patton, Getting to Maybe, 2007

Distill to Essential Elements
(From buildings to bricks.)
Big things have tremendous momentum and aren't easily remixed with other things. This manifests as resistance to change and slows the pace of evolution. It also sets the stage for more spectacular failures. Enabling the capacity to essentially remix our society into a system compatible with the common goal requires that things be re-mixable. This means breaking things back down into their essential elements - deconstructing their existing configurations - to reuse the valuable pieces in ways that fit the new context. Houses can’t be remixed very well, but bricks can.

In this context organizations are bundles of people and assets that organize around a purpose, work towards a set of goals, deliver an offering (product or service), and develop a set of core competencies. Similarly, people are grounded in purpose, driven by passion, accumulate experiences, knowledge and connections, and develop competencies and insights. The capacity to remix elemental components of organizations and individuals directly relates to our potential in the Great Remix.

Dynamic Organization in Individual Context
(From phonebook to crystal ball)
Context is essential for people to make meaningful connections to each other and to other knowledge. Humans are extraordinary at dealing with context and substantially limited without it. Take language for example: phrases or statements out of context can be taken to mean very different things - a reality made abundantly clear by sensationalist media.

Through the context lens, information is best when:
presented with the context it came from
received in the configuration most relevant to the context of the recipient
exchanged through the point where both contexts converge.

In venturing for example, imagine if rather than relying on an individual mentor, limited by their own individual context, the venturer was able to access the essential insights, experiences, and connections of a 1,000 entrepreneurs filtered according to the context of their individual and immediate situation. That would be like moving from phonebook to crystal ball.

Allying the Frontiers
(From discrete domains to friends on the frontiers.)
Given the purpose of quickening the evolution of our civilization toward the common goal, it is imperative that we foster the convergence and interaction of those that are taking initiative on the frontiers across all related domains. In this context we see the commonality between many discrete domains such as technology, science, mathematics and philosophy.

Connecting those with purpose primacy related to the common goal across all domains would be a high-leverage opportunity. Doing so could better orient and leverage all activity working toward the common goal regardless of domain.

The Great Remix

2008-05-09T09:56:00.000-07:00

Part of my silence over the last few months has been from some deep-digging I was doing in an engagement with the Social Innovation group at MaRS and with the Centre for Social Innovation. One of the great things about the engagement was an opportunity to push deeper into what's underneath social innovation, social entrepreneurship and social enterprise. What's come from that is seeping into most everything I'm doing right now - and so it's about time I get back to posting what I've been discovering.

Perhaps the most profound observation during the course of this exploration is that social innovation and social entrepreneurship are not so much intentional movements as they are phenomena of the evolution of civilization.

As civilization reaches an increasing degree of complexity we are being confronted by the limits of the system that created it. This is being experienced as systemic instability and failure in everything from credit markets to climate change to the remix of the music industry. While we don’t know how things will evolve, we can be sure that whether through intentional actions or systemic collapses, we are entering a period of increasing reconfiguration - “the Great Remix”

At the same time numerous fields of study are converging on the realization that “everything is connected” and that connectedness, connectivity, and emergence are fundamentally important areas of understanding. This realization is key to learning how we might successfully steer our civilization toward a just and sustainable state.

The movements of social finance/innovation/entrepreneurship/tech all bring different perspectives and at the same time share a common ground. From this common ground will come the new initiatives and systems that change the trajectory of our evolution.

Common Ground
The frontiers of the evolution of civilization share the common ground of:

Interdependent in a “common goal”
Acknowledging a greater common goal of a just and sustainable balance among people and the planet.

Driven forward by “purpose primacy”
People and initiatives that hold a primary purpose directly related to the common goal are the catalysts of civilization's evolution toward a just and sustainable state.

Action taken through a “practical approach”
The strategies and actions of these people and initiatives tend towards:
Sustainable financial viability;
Practical and productive application of techniques and approaches from non-traditional domains; and
Distributing increasing control, earnings, and assets into the communities they serve.
The people and initiatives in this domain tend to be increasingly expressive of the following values:
Exhibiting the qualities of open, fluid, and dynamic
Providing spaces for people as they are and as they want to become
Embracing the richness and wisdom in differences
Acting with a light spirit, sense of fun, creativity and a perspective of opportunity

I'll post some more excerpts from this and my other recent work over the coming weeks as I get back into the groove.

Social Tech Training - June 22-24, 2008

2008-05-02T09:17:00.000-07:00

That's right, Social Tech Training is happening this June in Toronto. Here's the link and a quick blurb. Check-it out and sign-up if it catches your eye. Coming from Web of Change and MaRS it's bound to be an excellent event!

No one working in social change these days can afford to ignore the opportunities offered by the web. Most organizations get stuck, though, on "How do we do it?" "Where do we start?" and "Who can help us?" Interest in high, but the talent pool of people equipped to understand, prioritize, and implement these tools and ideas remains limited.

We've gathered the best and the brightest leaders in this sector, and we've put together an agenda that will help take your organization to the next level. Each participant will emerge with new technical, creative, and leadership skills, a powerful network, and a customized, comprehensive “Web 2.0 Plan” for their organization.

This training is an excellent opportunity to connect to the big picture, develop practical skills required to execute, and network with both leaders and learners in this emerging space. We are excited to be part of this transformation of the social change sector. Please join us!

"Bets n' chips" - Implications for investors on the frontiers.

2008-02-12T13:58:00.001-08:00

Venturing on the Frontiers - A simple guide.
Originally uploaded by Michael Lewkowitz

There seem to be two types of bets that investors make when doing a deal. A bet on the team. A bet on the plan. The closer to the frontiers (early stages and deep change) the greater the emphasis is on the team. And rightly so. We all know that plans don't last on the frontiers.

So how can we get better at investing on the frontiers? Surely betting on the team alone isn't a sound investment strategy.

From my conversations the current practices seem to be either focused on 'rolling up the sleeves' and getting involved directly (few, high-cost investments) or being a hands-off patron (many small investments). Either that or back off from the frontiers and use conditional investment to achieve specific results (e.g. disadvantaged employment or other enviro-social activities). The limitations in each of those should be fairly self-evident.

So what else could we make bets on? Well if venturing is a process, we could bet on the process they are following. If we know plans are not static, what is the venture doing to continue the process of framing, planning, and connecting?

And what other practices could we employ? Well if one of the biggest chips an investor brings to the game is their social capital, well then how can that capital be better employed in the task of connecting? Going back to the image above, we can see that at minimum it requires a venture to have articulated simple and accessible spaces. I wonder - how many entrepreneurs and their investors would truly describe the primary spaces of their venture in the same way? How about in your venture or your portfolio? My bet is that's strongly correlated to the difference between friction and luck.

Summing up, that leaves us with making bets on:

a team;
their venturing process; and
their spaces (accessible and simply articulated).

And it means bringing our social chips into the game to make the connections the venture truly needs (more in a future post).

Now that's an investment space I'd bet on.

"Gettin' lucky" - implications for ventures on the frontiers.

2008-02-12T12:55:00.001-08:00

Venturing on the Frontiers - A simple guide.
Originally uploaded by Michael Lewkowitz

I wrote about the gist of this image here. Now I'm turning to the implications for venturers.

Quite simply the essence of venturing is a process. A process of creating spaces for things to happen (some call it 'luck'). The simpler and more accessible the space, the easier it is to get people engaged and get things done (some would say 'the luckier you get').

Sound simple? It should be, but can you simply articulate the 3 primary spaces for your venture? Do you have a time and place to think about and evolve those spaces? Why are people connecting to you? Do they know what they need to meaningfully contribute in ways you may not have asked or may not be expecting? How often have you been 'lucky'?

So how can ventures get better at "gettin' lucky" on the frontiers?

Step 1: Define your spaces (framing)
Get out you favourite notebook or stash of napkins and start framing each of your primary spaces separately: founding agreement, magic box; and realms of relevance. Keep them separate. Keep them simple. (more on this in a later post)

Step 2: Get your team together and get to it (planning)
Revisit planning as a team - those who control the resources and those who do the work. In the context of your spaces, figure out what your going to do for the next meaningful chunk of time, making the most of what you have, and getting what you need to move you most towards fullfilling your purpose.

Step 3: Connect with purpose (connecting)
Make connections throughout your spaces to better understand and define your spaces, and to get done what you need to get done. Do it with purpose and give it space to let something happen.

Step 4: Repeat (venturing)
Take a look at what you did for steps 1-3 and do it again - but better. This becomes the process of venturing. Find what works for you and your venture. There is no right way. There is no right answer. In fact, there really are no answers... just keep asking questions, keep moving forward, and keep at the process.

You can't know where exactly you'll end up but you've got a much better chance of "gettin' lucky"!

Venturing on the Frontiers - A simple guide.

2008-02-11T10:50:00.001-08:00

Venturing on the Frontiers - A simple guide.
Originally uploaded by Michael Lewkowitz

Venturing on the frontiers is about the early stages of taking on big challenges. It's a space where conventional models to planning and management prove ineffective. It's the place where entrepeneurs trust their 'gut' and face the challenges with an unrelenting push forward. And it's the place from which the greatest change can come about.

I've been tapping my own experience, researching into systems science and talking with some of North America's leading venture investors who are themselves pushing the frontiers. Through all of that I've emerged with an understanding that I've tried to capture to the right. Essentially it describes a venture as a set of spaces ('founding agreement' which gives rise to a 'magic box' which operates within certain 'realms of relevance'). Venturing then is the process of 'framing' those spaces, 'planning' immediate action, and 'connecting' to get things done and evolve the spaces. Collectively that led me to the following set of principles for venturing on the frontiers:

Create spaces for things to happen
Make it simple and accessible
Tend to connections and connecting
Keep venturing

I've published the image under a creative commons license so please feel free to use and build from it accordingly. And as always, this is but a snapshot of understanding and bound to evolve... so please do get in touch with your reflections, experiences, and suggestions.

I'll publish future posts on the implications for ventures and venture investors who are pushing the frontiers. Don't expect magic bullets, but rather a prompting of some productive questions. If anything this has reminded me is that there are no answers, only questions... and asking the right ones can make all the difference.

Venturing and venture investing on the frontiers - in simple terms.

2008-02-04T04:53:00.000-08:00

I've been asked a few times about what I'm working on in simple terms. Not always easy for me - but here goes top-of-mind while riding the train...

My focus is on venturing and venture investing 'on the frontiers'.

venturing is about organizing and directing resources toward a purpose
venture investing is about improving the capacity of ventures to achieve their purpose (or certain milestones along the way)
'on the frontiers' means the places where conventional ways of doing things are least effective

My work is focused on being able to systematically improve ventures and venture investors operating on the frontiers. My belief is that by focusing here, practices can be developed and demonstrated that will themselves become conventional in time and thereby move 'the frontiers' greatly increasing our society's ability and capacity to take on our civilization's greatest challenges.

So how will ventures be different after employing these practices?

more efficient and effective at getting things done
better responsiveness to the environments it's operating within
better anticipation and avoidance of 'crises'
more flexibility in responding to immediate opportunities and challenges
more focus on and faster progress toward fulfilling the purpose

And how will venture investors be different?

better investee governance with less effort
increased capacity of all portfolio companies (whether they've applied the approaches or not)
better results from existing portfolio (fewer failures, greater success according to purpose)
better able to go earlier with less risk
better able to go deeper into realizing non-financial aims (particularly relevant for 'social' venture funds.
lower transaction costs

And what's at the root of what's different?

concerned with systems vs. plans

(Said in different ways - couldn't resist...)

creating spaces for uncertainty to resolve itself vs. trying to solve uncertainty
organizing under a purpose vs. organizing around an idea/product/service
unfolding vs. turning inward
enabling vs. constraining
fluid vs. rigid
framed vs. forced
...

'Social'-lingo

2008-02-04T03:40:00.000-08:00

Many things have been picking up the 'social' modifier lately. Here are some of the ones I'm encountering and what I think they mean.

First, the modifier 'social'

modifies the following word to the focus of serving a social (and/or environmental) benefit

Social-tech

technology employed for social benefit (most commonly digital

Social-change

concerned generally with societal change and how it happens

Social-innovation

innovations and the process of innovating solutions that deliver or enable social change

Social-venture

a venture with purpose primarily concerned with delivering social benefit

Social-entrepreneurship

concerned with developing and supporting entrepreneurs focused on social change (and primarily social ventures)

Clearly, each of these words describe fields with much activity and research into how they work. Adding the modifier, at best prompts the question of how, when modified, is it different. In my perspective it's the realization that things aren't linear - and in fact are 'chaotic' - which then calls on the research of systems science and it's theories on complexity and systems. And it also seems to be best done in an 'open' way - or maybe better put - those that are in the depths of doing this stuff tend to do 'open'... which of course... is another story.

The 'evil' in exchanges.

2008-01-28T18:08:00.000-08:00

Exchanges are a hot topic in the social capital markets. They are appealing in the sense of the efficiency they promise. Efficiency is good - and it also has a dark side. This dark-side, which I'm considering the 'inherent evil' in exchanges, is their tendency to disconnect/dissociate the 'buyer' from the 'seller'. It comes out in things like the sub-prime mess and rogue traders.

So how do we get the benefits of this 'masterpiece' of capitalism?

By using exchanges to:

create and deepen connections;
increase the richness of information and communication in those relationships; and
craft and uphold agreements.

To me that means looking as much or more to social networks as it does financial exchanges. I know there are some folks working on local exchanges who have acknowledged this 'evil'. I'll be particularly interested to see how they address it - from all the angles I've looked so far it seems to be a tough balance.

This biggering is buggering... a call for a new vision of 'prosperity'.

2008-01-28T13:29:00.000-08:00

I attended a session for Sustainable Prosperity last week and was left with a pretty big realization that evolved for me into what blurted out in a strategy session for Windfall Ecology Centre on Friday as..

"This BIGGERING is buggering..."

Obviously, this is inspired by Dr. Seuss' "The Lorax", (see the specific quotes here), but it also refers to a growing realization that the thing that economy is based on - continuously increasing consumption - is reaching a breaking point. To be clear, this isn't a recession inspired 'people aren't going to consume as much anymore' statement, it's a 'if people consume anywhere near what we're consuming we're all screwed' statement. "Story of Stuff" by Free Range Media for the Tides Foundation makes a simple and decent case for that.

So getting back to Sustainable Prosperity, I can't help but think that if any new definition of prosperity is going to have any impact, it has to address this, and the other underpinning of our society, if the individual doesn't prefer it for their own selfish motivations, no level of altruistic appeal will change their behaviours. The 60 minutes "House of Cards" segment on the sub-prime mess shows some of that with a shocking display of people's self-interest at play.

Putting those two things together then, any new definition must then:

Not be dependent from continually increasing financial prosperity (growth)
To the individual, be considered as comparatively superior to the conventional notion of financial prosperity

It's easy to argue that's not likely to happen - when the furthest our 'greatest' capitalists go is 'creative capitalism' (Bill Gates) - but I can't see how anything but will have a chance of getting at the root of what we're dealing with. Imagine though what Gates or Buffet could do if they backed that kind of a definition.

Things are broken. We need a new basis to start from. Personally, I can't deny it anymore... this biggering is buggering and so I'm beginning again.

But before I begin my beginning, I'll just share something from another great kids book, this one by Jamie Lee Curtis (whoda thunk?) and Laura Cornell called "Is There Really a Human RACE?". I've posted the full text here, but will wrap with this provocative page:

"Do some of us win? Do some of us lose?
Is winning or losing something I choose?
Why am I racing? What am I winning?
Does all of my running keep the world spinning?"

The definitive definitions of venturing!

2008-01-21T07:49:00.001-08:00

One of the surprising things that I came out of my latest exploration into the frontiers of venturing and venture investing is a set of definitions. I'm actually not one that likes to debate definitions ad infinitum but I found I needed to clarify things to be able to have meaningful conversations going forward. So here, is what I've come up with... for now (I'll keep updating this definitions as the evolve so feel free to check-back or link here for reference).

Venture: An agreement among people to do things in service of a purpose and according to a set of values.
Venturing: The process of creating and evolving a venture.
Venturer: A person primarily involved in or responsible for venturing.
Operator: A person primarily involved in or responsible for operating a venture.
Entrepreneur: A venturer that also carries primary responsibility for operating a venture.
Frontiers of venturing: The effective limit of conventional approaches to venturing.
Frontiers of venture investing: Investing in ventures that are on the frontiers.

Crowd sourcing in venturing

2008-01-09T05:41:00.000-08:00

Just saw this post tipping me to VenCorps which seems to be a venture fund using 'crowd sourcing'. I'm going to be interested to see how it goes and expect they will do well by essentially 'amping up the network'. My guess is that they will be better at dealing with ambiguity (related to progressing along stage of development) in ventures but I'm curious to see if it will help them deal with complexity (related to depth of systemic change). The thing that gives me a sense that they won't be as effective here is the military style they are coming out with. That to me indicates a very linear, command and control approach which is not effective in dealing with complexity.

Looking forward to learning more and seeing how it does. Regardless of how it performs its great to see the innovation in venturing.

Giddy-up: getting better on the frontier.

2008-01-07T08:18:00.001-08:00

Coming out of this first inquiry I'm left with new definitions for venture, venturing, and venturer and also a simplistic grouping that the process of venturing essentially requires agreement, action, and governance. It is important to note that these are a set of observations and interpretations that will continue to be evolved in practice. As such they represent a starting point for a concerted effort to 'get better at venturing and investing on the frontiers'.

DEFINITIONS

Venture: An agreement among people to do things in service of a purpose and according to a set of values.
Venturing: The process of creating and evolving a venture.
Venturer: A person primarily involved in venturing.

AGREEMENT: The venture profile
In getting better at venturing on the frontiers, it becomes apparent that the first things required in a venture are an articulation of:

purpose;
values; and
agreement, followed by action.

This is particularly so in an effort to address complex ambiguity and so also must include the foundational foci that are effective amidst complex ambiguity, namely distinct, discreet attention on:

core viability (CV); and
the process of productive, iterative exploration (PIE).

These items become the core components of a 'venture profile' which is an articulation of the collective agreement on what the venture is.

Another interesting realization through these conversations and above definitions is that a venture, at it's core, is an agreement. It starts with the first agreement between 2 or more people and grows with the deepening and addition of new relationships. Essentially a venture is 'simply' a bundle of relationships. Accordingly the individual relationships should also receive special attention through consideration and articulation of the essential process for evolution or termination of the agreement, and of each party's:

acknowledgment of the other party's venture profile;
their contribution;
the manner of contribution;
their compensation for their contribution; and
any other explicit responsibilities and expectations.

Collectively, the bundle of individual relationships along with each associated agreement form the essence of the collective agreement articulated in the venture profile and could be visualized through multidimensional maps which naturally will evolve as does the collection of individual relationships. Here there is a significant opportunity for new and improved practices in venturing. The collection of individual agreements also forms the basis for financial model. This is not the same as financial projections which are often an exercise in justifying an anticipated outcome but rather they are the basis for being meaningfully able to anticipate the results of the existing and anticipated agreements under certain conditions.

ACTION: A planning process
With the core profile in place we move into the activity of the venture itself which is best determined by those that have the authority to complete the action being determined. This follows from observations in systems science that planning only happens when action is the result and so can only be carried out by those with the authority to act. The most effective planning approaches will be recognized as intentional, co-creative, and iterative action planning. Established approaches from community and software development could be well applied here. For example, the methodology from the Institute for Cultural Affairs Technology of Participation are particularly effective when conducted with short time horizons (e.g. monthly and/or quarterly) within the context of the venture profile which itself is reviewed periodically (e.g. annually with the inclusion of strategic direction planning). Similarly the agile development process is particularly relevant for venturing on the frontiers.

GOVERNANCE: Cohesion and instability preemption
Governance of a venture (collective agreement and the action that unfolds from it) is best fulfilled through attention on the cohesion of the venture and on signals of incipient instability. Going back to the definition of a venture, this is about monitoring the changing trends in relationship status and agreements. This is perhaps the most unique discovery in these conversations. Changes in the tone of relationships is often one of the biggest and most consistent indicators of incipient instability. This by no means implies that relationships should remain static or that relationships should not be allowed to decline, that's simply a part of evolution. What it does imply is that changes in the trends of relationships status are particularly powerful indicators of change including growth and incipient instability. For example what's often described as 'momentum' is an upward trend in the strengthening and addition of relationships. Or a founder of an organization challenging the direction the venture is taking may be an indicator of a change in the collective agreement, particularly if it was well articulated at the outset (which is rarely the case). Of course, monitoring financial metrics and changes in budget/plans can also signal incipient instability and by no means should be excluded. Rather disciplined attention should be focused on the metrics that indicate potential instability. If the management system is attentive to incipient instability it will be able to minimize its effects or avoid it all together. The other dynamic of effective governance is attention to the cohesion of the venture itself. This means that ensuring that both PIE and CV are being attended to and that the dynamic between them is constructive.

There are of course more detailed design aspects to organizing and operating a venture, several key ones of which are described in Heart of Enterprise, but from my experience, research, and through the recent conversations I believe venturing effectively on the frontiers requires the essence of:

agreement and articulation of the venture (venture profile, relationship map, financial model);
action through intentional co-creative, iterative action planning (process, budgets, time lines); and
governance attentive to cohesion and able to anticipate and preempt incipient instability (future indicating metrics, report card, ability to respond constructively).

Practically, there is significant opportunity in improving upon each of these areas and particularly in the area of relationships with the emergence of new ways and styles of connecting brought forth by virtual communications developments such as social networking technologies. And with that now begins the process of putting this into practice and an open invitation to those who want to embark on this with me.

Blogged with Flock

Want, need, and enough.

2008-01-04T17:03:00.000-08:00

A brief twitter conversation with Tom at www.givemeaning.com on this subject had me feeling limited by the 140 character twitter limit... so here goes a quick mobile post.

I've been conscious of the impact and role of consumption in our society for a while but www.storyofstuff.com and the movie Manufactured Landscapes from Mongrel Media have had me thinking a bit deeper lately.

I think 'giving' has largely becoming another form of buying. Certainly giving has very little to do with need - unless ofcourse you turn to things like www.givemeaning.com :-). And the concept of enough is an abstract thing that is a personal, individual assessment of their own fulfillment of wants. And wants are fueled by cosumption. The more people shop and buy, the more they are exposed to things they could have and so are encouraged to have new wants. Green consumerism fits right into that. I'm all for efficiency and recycling but those shouldn't encourage further consumption beyond replacement of what is no longer working.

I've started asking myself the following everytime I spend money.
- need?
- want?
- enough yet?

It's interesting, and, if you want some help giving it a try, send me an email at michael <at> igniter <dot> com and for $25 I'll send you a set of stickers to put on everything you use to make a purchase. Might be the best thing you could do to save the world :-)

Seriously. If I get 100 requests, I'll put up a website about for those who are conquering consumption one question at a time. Fun.
... while mobile.

Gettin' it goin' without goin' under: cohesion and incipient instability.

2008-01-03T05:36:00.001-08:00

With requisite attention being held a natural propulsion will emerge. The act of managing and nurturing that propulsion is attended to with a focus on cohesion and being proactively aware of the emergence of incipient instability.

These concepts are addressed in depth in Stafford Beer's viable system model (my reflections here on reading Heart of Enterprise) and are really about holding the tension between future (vision), and here and now (operations) [see last post for more on requisite attention]. Cohesion has a lot to do with articulating purpose as so well described by Collins and Porras in Building Your Company's Vision. And incipient instability is about monitoring trends in financials, plan performance, and relationship status (after all, ventures are systems, concentrated bundles of relationships), and then spotting changes that indicate that something is becoming instable in a way that could harm the cohesion of the system as a whole.

Again, both of these concepts seem relatively straight forward, and in fact are things that play out automatically in any natural system including ourselves. But as ventures are intentional human constructs we need to be intentional about them for the system to remain viable. On the frontiers, the pressure to focus on 'getting things done' leaves little space for this to happen, and unfortunately the models of doing this tend to come from linear management theory that takes more of an audit and control function which is of little interest to the venturer and begins the dance of storytelling through massaged metrics. Accordingly bringing this into practice needs approaches that are lightweight and constructive - some concepts for which will come in the next post.

(special note: this has been a difficult post to keep short, there are many offshoots and explanations possible in every sentence --- something best explored in conversation and specific context)

Blogged with Flock

Venturing on the frontier: requisite attention

2007-12-30T20:10:00.001-08:00

Venturing on the frontiers requires distinctly holding attention on two discrete aspects of any venture:
- Productive, iterative, exploration of the complexity dynamic
- Core venture viability

Simple to say but in practice, venturers who aren't stuck in perpetual analysis and thought, are pulled toward focusing on linear, or hopefully exponential, growth of the most promising aspect at hand particularly after attracting professional investment capital. Stop thinking and just do it right?

Well, avoiding the trap of perpetual analysis does not have to mean stop thinking and exploring, it simply means actively cycling through observation, reflection, interpretation, and decision that moves the venture forward. It means not getting stuck. There are many models for doing this with the key aspect being that the focus of the exploration tends toward the deeper purpose, that the cycles are measured in weeks and months as opposed to quarters and years, and that the results change the venture in some way. Explicit attention on this process will ensure that the venture continues to innovate and work toward it's purpose including continually improving upon it's ability to achieve that purpose. Another important consideration in this exploration is that the greater the chasm between the purpose and the daily activity of the organization (as is the case with ventures on the frontiers), the greater the flexibility the venture needs to be able accept and meaningfully enact the outputs of the process. This flexbilty is informative in understanding what is meant by 'core' venture viability.

Core venture viability at its essence is the ability for the venture to maintain its existence in service of its purpose. Commonly, and importantly, a key aspect is financial viability. Early-stage ventures tend to be perpetually resource constrained making the flexibility required of the outputs of the exploration process described above, very difficult. This is where 'core' viability comes in. The core viability does not have to do with maintaining the venture as it is but rather maintaining the ventures ability to continue to serve its purpose which often does not require doing everything that is currently being done. It could be a subset of what is being done, it could be something entirely new. Usually it boils down to concentrated set of people and relationships and the synergistic activity/supports among operations. Taking this perspective can often illuminate the amount of activity that could be done with out. It also will enter into decisions about growing operations and help to clarify what actual purposes of growth related activities are. Another way to look at it might be refined bootstrapping.

The tension created by these two attentions inherently have the potential to compel the venture toward being more efficient and focused with less risk of failure and higher probability of meaningful achievement of its purpose. And like everything else, easier said than done right? Yup.

Blogged with Flock

Venture investing shake-up? Really?

2007-12-30T14:22:00.000-08:00

An interesting article about a new way of doing deals http://mobile2.wsj.com/beta2/htmlsite/html_article.php?id=1&CALL_URL=http://online.wsj.com/article/SB119889558568757053.html (thanks to Fred @ USV http://avc.blogs.com for the pointer).

What this article really seems to be dancing around is value of relationships in finding and doing deals and in venture success. What also comes is the conventional approach of being hands-off if you are going in early and also the power of being lean/lightweight in early-stage venturing. I'm in the midst of doing a series of posts from my lastest conversations on the frontiers of venturing and this fits... and it's also a good reminder of how little really is changing on the frontiers.

We'll see if what I'm working on will change that any. I sure hope so... we're leaving a lot on the table when it comes to venturing and venturing for good. We really must be able to get better at this as venturing is simply the process of organizing people and actions to get something done. Is that really so mysterious? :-)

The dynamics of the frontier: complex ambiguity

2007-12-29T19:34:00.001-08:00

The frontiers of venturing are the places where conventional venturing and planning approaches become least effective. It is the effective limit of conventional approaches to venturing that define the edge of the frontier with the deepest depths of the frontier being the pre-concept stage of a systemically focused venture.

Conventional approaches loose effectiveness the earlier a venture is in the development phase because of increasing ambiguity. The less that is known the harder it is to do linear modeling and planning. Choices made continually reduce ambiguity as the venture moves along the development and into the realm where conventional planning approaches can be effectively used.

On the depth axis, the more systemic the purpose, the greater the complexity. As the system changes, so will the problems and opportunities being addressed as will the community addressing those challenges and opportunities. The interrelatedness of planning decisions and planning context can be an all consuming black-hole. The more you are trying to shake things up, the less you know how things are going to shake out.

While all ventures face a degree of ambiguity, the depth of your foray into the frontiers depends on the depth of complex ambiguity being taken on - a function of complexity and abmiguity. Conventionally, managing this is accomplished either through blind faith in the entrepreneur and management team or by reducing the complex ambiguity by advancing the planning horizon and responding to situational opportunities and problems. Taking the latter approach often serves to reduce near-term operational risk but also severely limits or eliminates the potential for achieving systemic level impacts, while the former approach is limited by the abilities of the entrepreneur/management team in the unique situation of this specific venture. Neither option suggest even modest probabilities of success particularly at the depths of the frontier... which describes the venturing and venture investing community as it currently operates.

Blogged with Flock

Venturing on the frontiers - Inquiry #1wrap-up

2007-12-29T12:59:00.001-08:00

A little over a year-ago I began considering what's next in my journey and exactly 3 months ago I initiated my first inquiry into what's needed on the frontiers of venturing and venture investing. It hasn't been a linear journey of course, with a good deal of my attention going towards getting Causeway going over the last year.

While that was ongoing, I had about a dozen conversations over November and December with some extraordinary social venture investors and funds in North America (including Renewal Partners, Social Capital Partners, Kellogg Foundation, RSF Social Finance, Good Capital and others). To all of you I am tremendously grateful for the generosity of your time, the candor with which you shared your experiences and the enthusiasm with which you've approached this exploration. Each conversation integrated into my own experiences and readings, and into every other conversation. What has emerged for me is a point of summary from which I feel ready to attempt some active experiments into how do we get better on the frontiers as venturers and venture investors.

What follows now is a series of posts on:

Onward...

Blogged with Flock

Social blogging

2007-12-07T07:40:00.000-08:00

Fred Wilson at USV had a post exploring the differences in twitter and tumblr from other things like blogs and social networks.

I am sure there are a lot of people reading this who think "how is this different than blogging?" I'd like to suggest that everyone try this

I blogged earlier about a simple way to give twitter a try (here and here) and think that both of these need to be experienced to get a sense of what they are like. There's something about the ambient nature of twitter (think the value of fb status updates amped up). It's of course much more than that and I'm finding tumblr encourages me to explore and share creatively. So much of it has to do with the sharing of pictures, videos, music, and quotes that I'm finding it interesting to watch what it is that interests me in what I'm posting or reblogging. I think it keeps me on the frontier - exploring things that I can't quite articulate yet and certainly finding things that have prompted a breakthrough in my thinking in ways never intended.

Give it a try - both twitter and tumblr and add me if you do (igniter on twitter and igniter.tumblr.com on tumblr).

Measuring incipient instability

2007-12-05T16:37:00.000-08:00

I've been thinking about what it is that really needs to be tracked in early-stage and transformative ventures. There certainly is the simple dynamic of financial viability and then there is the concept of productive, iterative exploration in the area of complex ambiguity I raised in an earlier post. I've been digging into what the measures are that actually help indicate the emergence of potential instability - before it's actually happened. That's the trick because learning that ap has exceeded cash + ar at the next board meeting isn't very helpful. And that's not such a rare scenario - e.g. customer holding 80% or your ar is suddenly unable to pay.

So what is it then that could be tracked. In my experience these things are often foreshadowed by either a lapse/misplaced/confusion of responsibility and/or changing dynamic in relationships. Seems to me that consciously tracking the trend in the key relationships (e.g. Strengthening, stable, destabilizing) and mapping the responsibilities for the key drivers/activities of the org may be the most enlightening things to monitor in terms of indicating potential instability. It shouldn't really be a surprise because relationships are the essence of cohesion in any venture particularly in those early stages of development.

Complex ambiguity

2007-11-27T18:08:00.000-08:00

In my last post I intoduced 'complex ambiguity' as the stuff in venturing that entrepreneurs are really trying to figure out --- where no-one 'knows' the answer. The deeper the change and the earlier the stage the greater the complexity and the ambiguity. My earlier tumbls about pentagram and that one designer have tweaked me that it's akin to the creative process. Like designing a logo. Except that venturing can be a pereptual series of logos for something that itself is somewhat ambiguous and continuinally evolving. That's complex ambiguity.

The penatagram video made me think about what it takes to build a successful early-stage venture shop, in particular one that looks at tackling big change or new frontiers. Having started a creative shop with some great talent, penntagram definitely seems to have operationalized something important.

One thing I'm sure of is that it's going to play in my thinking on early-stage transformative venturing.

Venturing and investing on the frontiers: Intial observations...

2007-11-21T10:59:00.001-08:00

Having been doing nothing but early-stage venturing from all sides of the table for more than a decade I decided to start a series of conversations to explore what works and what doesn't.

From this initial set of conversations, primarily with investors working on 'the frontier' (social change and social tech) here are some of my initial observations.

1. Being on the frontier increases "complex ambiguity" (we don't really know what we are doing, and if we think we do it's probably a false sense of security)

At the frontier, complex ambiguity emerges in each of these areas:

The ultimate goal/objective is difficult to clarify in conventional quantitative terms
The approach needed to accomplish that goal is unsure/unconventional/untested

This leads to challenges in measurement and therefore tracking progress. It also has something to do with why stories are being found to be more effective in describing impact, progress, and learnings.
Complex ambiguity is a source of opportunity and risk, can and should be focused, but reduction/minimization results in a corresponding reduction in potential

There is a strong connection to the notion of 'requisite variety' in general systems theory and it's application to organizations that is worth pursuing

The root questions then seem to lie in what we need to understand in terms of goals, approaches, and measures in order to be able to determine our interest, track performance, and orchestrate support.

2. Effective handling of complex ambiguity requires particular attention on requisite competencies and internalized responsibility.

Competencies required to handle complex ambiguity are not of the conventional functional variety

What they are is an important question going forward

Complex ambiguity should in no way confuse or obscure the need for the conventional competencies required by the venture

E.g. Just because you're trying to change the world doesn't mean you don't need to get the accounting done.

Responsibility for handling the 'complex ambiguity' can be carried only by those that are committed to sorting it out AND are sufficiently connected to the fields related to it

E.g. a conventional business partner is not likely to strive to achieve anything beyond what is specified and required - which implicitly means they are not actually dealing with the 'complex ambiguity'

Commitment to 'sorting it out' is strongest in the person(s) that is (are) deeply connected to the purpose/values of the organization

'Sorting it out' is accelerated through explicit attention, should be oriented around taking action, and cannot be at the expense of the viability of the venture

This critical balancing point is the key determinant of the ultimate success of the organization. Too much of a focus on the ambiguity and nothing happens, too much focus on viability and the potential impact is diminished.

3. Successful investing on the frontier is subject to the same challenge of handling complex ambiguity.

Considering the points in 1 and 2 above in the context of managing a fund on the frontier is another stream of inquiry

4. Successful investment practices on the frontier address complex ambiguity among investees.

Some examples include:

Actively building networks of connections around and among investees. A network of venturers on the frontier are more likely to share and have access to appropriate competencies for venturing on the frontier and are inherently all engaged in exploring complex variety. Optimization of this is a significant opportunity.
Focusing the ambiguity down on core goals such as employing the unemployed (e.g. partner with those that have/run complementary businesses that could benefit from that employment). What does this do the potential and how where/how is the responsibility internalized?
Minimizing/simplifying legal agreements helps to internalize responsibility for the relationship between investee/investor (encourages greater dialogue)
Supporting entrepreneurs to make time for exploring their purpose/goals/approach.
Creating events to bring together venturers on the frontier.
Mixing conventional and mission-based investment team members.

Going forward I want to probe further into:

where risk is most often perceived going into a deal?
where does risk actually end up coming from?
what activities have led ventures on the frontier to success?
how did those activities come about?

From there I'm eager to dig into exploring potential areas for practices and shared services that could improve the success in investing on the frontier. Possibly framed by this matrix, the goal would be to find one thing to start experimenting with:

Investor Axis

Exploring complex ambiguity
Requisite competencies
Responsibility allocation
Deal process
Venture support

Solution Axis

Internal practices affected
Internal practices envisioned
Outsourced/shared services affected
Outsourced/shared services envisioned

This sure has been fun so far and I'm curious to see where it goes... particularly as it turns to action.

Blogged with Flock

The rest of the macroshift.

2007-11-05T07:26:00.001-08:00

Continuing on my previous macroshift post, here are my reflections from the remainder of Ervin Laszlo's book Macroshift.

For me the rest of the book was a lighter read with some simple observations relating to the mindset shift that is called for and clearly already underway. Here are a couple of framing quotes to set the stage:

"In the past, a more adapted civilization evolved over several generations; the rythym of change was relatively slow. This is no longer the case. The critical period for change today is compressed within the lifetime of a single generation."

" A Chineses porverb warns, 'If we do not change direction, we are likely to end up exactly where we are headed.'"

That last one could be classified as 'duh' but it truly is amazing to look to our civilization and how little we get that, particularly in the face of clear indicators that our trajectory is unsustainable and has brought our civilization into a critical state of instability. In the face of the examples presented in the book of the unsustainable relationship among people and generally with the planet, it moves to exploring the new mindset to be created drawing from Ghandi's quote "Live more simply, so others can simply live."

From there comes the call to forget the following obsolete myths/beliefs:

"Nature is inexhaustible"
"Nature is a giant mechanism"
"Life is a struggle for survival"
"The market distributes benefits"
"The more you consume the better you are"

along with the following lesser beliefs:

Order through hierarchy
The ideology of Westfalia
Everyone is unique and separate
Everything is reversible
My country, right or wrong
The cult of efficiency
The technological imperative
Newer is better
Economic rationality
The future is none of our business

"Values and beliefs determine the way we perceive the world and suggest the ways we prioritize the responses to our perceptions. They affect almost all areas of our judgement and behaviour."

From here comes the call for a 'planetary ethic' that is described simply as: "Live in a way that allows others to live as well." where 'others' refers not only to humans but to all the plants and animals and all the living beings that make up the planet's web of life. This ethic asks also that we meet our responsibilities in the personal, business, and civic or political spheres.

"Logos-inspired evolution was materialistic and conquest and consumption-oriented. The alternative to it is evolution centered on human development and development of human communities." This quote frames the remainder of the book which suggests we are moving from:

a focus on ends of conquest, colonization, and consumption
which were served by technologies that use and transform matter, that generate the power to operate matter-transforming technologies, and that whet people's appetite, create artificial demand, and shift patterns of consumption.

Replacing those ends are the means and ends of connection, communication, and consciousness.

Some of the specific mindset shifts uncovered include:

The shift from competition to reconciliation and partnership
The shift from greed and scarcity to sufficiency and caring
The shift from outer to inner authority
The shift from separation to wholeness
The shift from mechanistic to living systems
The shift from organizational fragmentation to coherent integration

So to summarize, what I took is that we are seeking to emerge a planetary ethic of:

"Live in a way that allows others to live as well"

and the means and ends of:

connection;
communication; and
consciousness

And to cap off this post, I'll end with one of the final quotes that described the spirit of this for me:

"To live with and not against each other, to live in a way that does not rob the chances of others to live as well, to care what is happening to the poor and the powerless as well as to nature calls for feeling and intuition; for sensing the situation in which we find ourselves, apprehending its manifold aspects and creatively responding to it." There's a lot in that one as I reread it.

Blogged with Flock

Macroshift (Ervin Laszlo) --- Doomsday or Breakthrough?

2007-10-29T12:06:00.001-07:00

I'm only through the first two chapters of Ervin Laszlo's book Macroshift, but thought I'd better post these snippets before I get caught-up in the flow of the week. I came across this through a client who pointed to this as the best description of what their work is responding to. I couldn't agree more... and know a few others that will feel the same way... and am hoping more people will join those ranks.

The Four Phases of a Macroshift are the core theory and pretty easy to follow and digest. They are also applied directly to our current position here.

Interestingly the book has helped me articulate the relevance of social media to my focus on transformative venturing and restoring balance among people and the planet... and it's that social media represents the first time that technology is encouraging a deepening of connections between people - a key reversal in the trend that technology has been playing since the industrialization wave that has shaped our society into the position it is in.

One key quote in this is:

"The insight emerging from this four-phase dynamic is simple and straightforward. Macroshifts are triggered by technological innovations that destabilize the established structures and institutions of society. More adapted structures and institutions await the surfacing of a more adapted mindset in the bulk of the population. Consequently, a macroshift is a transformation of civilization in which technology is the driver and the values and consciousness of a critical mas of people the decider."

Anyone get a feeling that social media is going to play an important role?

I highly recommend buying the book - it's a much easier read that the last book I posted on. In the meantime... enjoy... here are some of the other highlight quotes from the first two chapters.

+++

"... a vital point: the future is not to be forecast, but created."

"... where desire, transformed into the masterful administration of the unforeseen, makes for a selection between a scenario of breakdown and scenario of breakthrough."

"Today's transformation is not just economic, it is a civilizational process."

"The message of this book is that ours is an era of total-range evolutionary transformation that could, and ultimately will, go beyond economic globalization to pave the way toward a shift in civilization."

"Just as the present has emerged out of the past, the future is likely to follow from conditions in the present. After all, where we are going has much to do with where we have been."

"Given the unsustainability of many trends and processes in today's world, the dynamic of development that will apply to our future is not the linear dynamic of classical extrapolation but the nonlinear chaos dynamic of complex-system evolution."

"A macroshift is a bifurcation in the evolutionary dynamic of a society - in our interacting and interdependent world it is a bifurcation of human civilization in its quasi totality."

"...'catastrophic bifurcation'. Here the system's relatively stable 'point' and 'periodic' attractors are joined by 'chaotic' or 'strange' attractors. These appear suddenly , as chaos theorists say, 'out of the blue.' They drive the system into a supersensitive state, the state of chaos."

"The slightest distrubance would shift the evolutionary trajectory of the world's weather from one of the wings to the other. The weather, it appears, is a system in a permanently chaotic state - a system permanently governed by chaotic attractors."

"Living systems maintain themselves in the physically improbable state far from thermal and chemical equilibrium. ... Living systems do not move toward equilibrium, as classical physical systems do, but maintain themselves in their improbable state by constantly replenishing the energies and matter they consume with fresh energies and matter obtained from their environment."

"When a human society reaches the limits of its stability, it becomes supersensitive and is highly responsive to the smallest fluctuation. Then the system responds even to subtle changes in values, beliefs, worldviews, and aspirations."

"The evolution of the dominant culture and consciousness - the way people's values, views and ethics respond and change - determine the outcome of the system's chaos leap (the way its developmental trajectory forks off)."

"The macroshift moves toward a successful conclusion if, and only if, a critical mass of people in society evolve their mindset: if they generate and embrace values, worldviews, and ethics that mesh with the conditions that were inadvertently spawned by the technological innovations of their predecessors."

"The present time was associated with local space, and the future was seen as a continuous recurrence of the rythms experienced in the present. The seasons were known to follow each other, but there were no new seasons; all times had already been experienced."

"These communities had a high level of integration. The individual was an essential part of the clan or tribe, which in turn was embedded in nature and governed by cosmic forces. Nature and humans did not exist in separation, much less in opposition. Humans had empathy with all they encountered. ... In the seventeenth century Europe's mechanically colored Logos culminated in the concept of the world as a giant machine, which was elaborated by Giordano Bruno and Galileo Galilei. Newton's mathematical demonstration of the universality of the laws of motion confirmed galileo's pioneering insights and provided a basis for embracing a world concept that became the hallmark of the modern age. ...The universe was a divinely designed clockwork that was set in motion by a prime mover and then ran harmoniously through all eternity. It was believed to operate according to strict laws of nature. A knowledge of these lawss was said to enable the rational mind to know all things past, present and future. ... and as Laplace was reputed to have commented to Napoleon, God was a hypothesis for which there was no longer any need."

"... countless civilizations failed to survive, victims of changing conditions to which they could not adapt. This failure is not one we can contemplate today."

"If our Logos-dominated civilizations fails to adapt to the conditions it has itself created, the entire economic and political structure of our world will come crashing down."

"... the macroshift from national industrial societies toward a globally interdependent yet locally diverse world."

"It is the flexibility and creativity of the people that creates the subtle but all-important "fluctuation" that decides which of the available evolutionary paths the macroshift will then follow."

Blogged with Flock

The early days of the Internet - an original CBC news story.

2007-10-26T09:04:00.001-07:00

I just caught this in Beth's Blog

Wow... how far we've come, in such short time, and yet how relevant the social observations remain today.

Blogged with Flock

Higlights from "Heart of Enterprise" --- the Viable System Model

2007-10-25T13:12:00.001-07:00

I've been working my way through this tome for a few weeks and have had a number of conversations around it. It's by far the most valuable piece of work I've ever encountered on organizational design --- and for me a critical model in ventures that are on the venturing frontier (early concept stage and/or systemic co-creation -- see graph below).

Written by Stafford Beer, this book is a thorough walk-through of the Viable System Model.

The key principles can be found here, but will not likely be that helpful without gaining an understanding of the language being used - which is a big part of why this book is so dense. It's also, I think, necessary though to get at this topic in a way that is freed from the conventions that most of us have learned and understand about management and venturing --- those same conventions that seem to fail us the earlier or more systemically focused the ventures are.

A potentially helpful excerpt in terms of practical application in day-to-day decision making can be found here but again the value will likely mostly be lost without an immersion in the language, theory, and examples contained in the book.

Rather than trying to summarize those - I have a lot more digesting and experimenting to do with this before I can begin to try - I will simply list a series of quotes that most interested me while reading the book. Perhaps that will help serve as some intriguing context.

(oh and by the way... I found the ones at the end to be the most fun).

+++++++++++

"... the viability of any enterprise. This is not meant in purely economic sense; it refers to the ability of the enterprise to maintain a separate existence."

"Every viable system contains, and is contained in, a viable system. This conept of an organizational nest is crucial to this account of how enterprises really work, and is contrasted with the orthodox concept of hierarchy."

"A System consists of a group of elements dynamically related in time according to some coherent pattern. ... this System has a PURPOSE ... (which) is you the observer of the System who recognizes its purpose. ... it means that we have to agree on the CONVENTION about the nature, the boundaries, and the purpose of any System before we can agree on what is to count as a fact."

"We cannot successfully handle any system that we are disposed to manage unless we obtain an insight into its nature. That nature, as we have seen, has to do with purposes, with boundaries, and with other matters which are not customarily investigated within our institutions..."

"Every Good Regulator of a System must be a Model of that System"

"Viable: able to maintain a separate existence."

"The metasystem exists to undertake whatever functions are required to procure coherence."

"At any point on the diagram, then, these orthogonal forces (operation, coherence) interact. It is that interaction with DEFINES FREEDOM within the viable system."

"The metasystem must make some intervention, and should make only that degree of intervention that is required to maintain cohesiveness in a viable system. Cohesiveness is however a function of the purpose of the system. ... Freedom is in principle a computable function of systemic purpose as perceived."

"For, if the systemic purpose is subjective, only agreement of the heart will justify a given level of cohesion in any institution."

"... the synergistic formula must lie in the intersect of all the elemental operations."

"... the cybernetic policy of freedom: minimal intervention, in aid of cohesiveness plus synergy."

"Of STRUCTURE there is almost nothing to say, beyond the 'machine for apportioning blame' that the organization chart comprises."

"When two models of each other converge, learning has occurred."

"Money can be made available, one way or another, sooner or later, so long as the system remains (and is observed to remain) viable. That is why I have previously described the availability of money as a constraint rather than as a condition. ... the really scarce resources need for this investment are those of time, talent, care, attention..."

"Closure is the talisman of identity."

"The very notion of recursiveness embraces the notion of local closure at any given level of recursion."

"... plans should be continuously adaptive to fresh information."

"Often some aspect of a matter is measured because that is the easiest aspect to slap a number on, and by now it is the traditional and the accepted thing to do."

"Figures are useful only to the extent that we use them."

"The measures we use do not have requisite variety to absorb the variety of that which they claim to measure."

"Fact: that which is the case."

"Noise: A meaningless jumble of signals."

"Data: statements of fact."

"Information: that which CHANGES us."

"Data become information - when the fact in them is susceptible to action. How can I possibly know that I am informed? -- Only because I have changed my state."

"a manager is a human being who has refined the brain's ability to recognize patterns, and to compare the key characteristics of such patters, in the context of extremely complicated systems comprising men, materials, machinery, and money;

he has become skilled in recognizing a change in his own state, by recognizing information in the data flowing around him and in the ambient noise;

he has the motive, and has cultivated the style, necessary to transduce his own change of state into a change of stat in the extremely complicated system of which he is the manager."

"The manager's job is three-fold: to set the CRITERIA of stability... ; to detect instability... ; to change the criteria."

"The manager's requirement of measurement is that it should measure stability and instability in the system that he (this being his role) has subjectively defined."

"The manager's information, however, is his own recognition of his own change of state."

"... the criteria to which the system answers, in terms of its degree of stability, derive from the criteria of systemic viability in the context of teh total viable system - and in particular they derive from the understanding of cohesion, in which... freedom and constraint are balanced to provide a workable level of autonomy."

"Improvement in the management of complicated systems will not occur until managers give up the dysfunctional concept of causality, and the search for the unique case."

Summarizing a few paragraphs here on what it means in terms of some measure for the system to say 'I am all right':
- we normally <e.g. produce>... speaks to status quo and is measured as ACTUALITY (actuality)
- our plan... speaks to intention and is measured as CAPABILITY
- we wish we could... expresses a will to advance and is measured as POTENTIALITY.
- Ratios of those then indicate degrees of stability: actuality to capability is PRODUCTIVITY; capability to potentiality is LATENCY; and actuality to potentiality is PERFORMANCE.

"... the (senior) manager... must listen to himself doing the job. Here is closure for the viable system. It also is a form of measurement. But it is self-referential, and there is no objective measure for a measurement so defined. In the viable system called 'the human being', this function is usually called conscience."

"Cohesiveness is the primary characteristic of organization."

"... the process of organizing itself creates a problem of fragmentation which only its capacity to provide cohesion can offset."

"... planning... is actually the 'glue' of organizational cohesion."

"... planning is a continuous process."

"What needs to be reiterated is that planning happens only when there is an act of deicision. This act commits resources now, so that the future may be different from what would otherwise have simply happened to us. It follows that the only planners are managers, namely those people who are entitled to commit resources."

"The argument is to say that planning is a continuous act of adaptive decision that continually aborts."

"...it is an act of decision carried out by managers empowered to commit resources to a different future. Planning is not an activity resulting in products called plans: it is a continuous process, whereby the process itself - namely that of aborting the plans - is the pay-off."

"Plans are the embodiment of intentions subscribed to at each level of recursion: since these intentions are constantly changing, and not in a homogeneous way with respect either to time or to probability..., they must continually abort. The only characteristic worth detecting, measuring, reporting, or doing anything about, is incipient instability in the system."

"The great physicist (Heisenberg) showed that to examine, to measure, to interrogate, something changes its state."

"The model we now have, contemplated at any one level of recursion, comprises two hierarchical stages - and only two. ... stage of operations inside and now, and there is the... stage that constitutes the metasystem."

"And it (senior management) should be characterized by calm."

"... infinity is a process; thus to understand the process is to understand infinity without going there."

"First: there is a very real barrier to modeling the recursivity of viable systems more than one system beyond that over which we have authority. Second: no finite model is possible, because we do not have requisite variety to make it; and all we can do is to contemplate the process whereby such models are endlessly capable of generation. And that is to define the infinite recursion; and that is to explode into self-consciousness."

"There are two features about instability that need a lot of careful consideration. The first is that instability may set in anywhere in the behaviour of the organization, and at any time. the second is that there are always pre-symptoms of the fact. Unfortunately, the typical management information system... is repetitiously reporting on stability - it is in fact challenging the manager to find evidence of this crucial instability in the welter of routine data. If, nonetheless, he finds it, he does so because instability has already set in - it is in fact too late to avert it."

"But suppose that we can acquire data about stability that can be transformed into infomration (which changes us) about the possibility, the likelihood, of incipient instability: then, and only then, do we have a chance to avert it."

"The causal model in a complex probabilistic system does not have requisite variety to predict the future. This can be said with confidence from many theoretical standpoints: epistemological, logical, even theological, as well as cybernetic - wherein the causal model cannot possibly exhibit requisite variety."

"It seems, may we not then say, that calm is a function of alertness. It comes from being poised to read the signs of incipient instability, in the quiet confidence that instability can be averted."

"The senior manager stands as he humanly is: a very finite person. But he holds many privileges, that can extend his human faculties: in expertise, through his staff and advisors; in space through telecommunications; in time through a monitored alertness to incipient instability - whenever it may come. He operates within a metasystem which, though its currency is conflict, generates a special and indeed unique comradeship."

"It is only in the infinite recursion that self-consciousness occurs. It occurs for the man himself, of course... .The senior manager has to embody the self-consciousness of the institution; even if, unhappily, he does not yet know himself... "

"But one feature of the management centre that is quite general has to e provision for the intercommunication of the senior managers that reflects the comradeship."

"It seems likely to me that people are very accommodating to a wide range of styles; what they reject in leaders is especially insensitivity and insincerity."

"The problem is that managers are themselves, and tend to use the response they see fit and the style they see fit as if these two things were unconnected. The variety analysis leads to the conclusion that this is not so."

"The two immediate consequences of these arguments are, first that it is better to teach a manager to know himself than to know what someone supposes (without knowing the circumstances) that he ought to be; and, second, that he should understand the systemic nature of the viable system in which he operates."

"The final diagram shows us how everything is modifying everything else. Its contemplation is rewarding, because it finally demonstrates the foolhardiness of reductionism in senior management."

"If we want to classify the situations in which the manager finds himself, they are dependent on two major parameters. ... The fist of course is variety, and the second is relaxation time."

"Thus in designing a regulatory system for any given situation, the first rule is to follow every significant loop through the systemic diagram, applying the variety rules that have been elucidated. The second rule is to attend to the relaxation time of the system. ... The key point to note is that if the system has not returned to stability before another shock drives it once more towards instability, then the regulation is impossible. So is learning impossible, so adaptation, so evolution."

"The real concern is with the proliferating variety that must needs be absorbed; and with the time that must needs elapse before the iterative loops of the managerial system can assimilate that variety and return the representative point of the system to stability and the psychological state of the manager to its point of calm."

"The parameters of effectiveness... judgment, style, and relaxation time..."

"... we observe him (the senior manager) as personifying the self-consciousness of the enterprise. The clue was that he operates in the awareness of the infinite recursion."

"If the senior manager success in understanding, and legislating for, his own ambiance of calm and alarm; and if he also succeeds in classifying managerial situations and his own decisions according to the tripartite model here set out (judgment, style, and relaxation time), then he may operate closure in the sense defined. And if he does that, in full awareness of what he is doing, then he may embody the infinite recursion as a living process."

"Perception fo the infinite recursion is always the goal. Perhaps the problem is that once a man or woman has reached that perception, nothing matters any longer."

"The contention seems to be that if the informational system is properly deisnged to recognize incipient instabilities, and if there is a management cnetre in which requisite metasystemic variety is shared between comradeship, then the senior management can become aware of what it is really doing."

"... viable organizations produce themselves."

"It is extremely important, when contemplating what it is to count as the management centre, to consider the inter-recursive algedonic signaling equipmnent. Otherwise: either the management centre will go to sleep in trance-like contemplation of the self-consciousness of the infinite recursion, or it will be overtaken by anarchists from the lower recursive levels intent on alleviating their personal pain."

"The suspicion dawns that the enterprise may not only be a system that produces itself, but that this is both its definition and its purpose."

"The heart of the enterprise is embodied in its own people. Consultants cannot catalyse interactions that do not exist, or are persistently and perversely held at bay."

"Life is a process, not a justification."

Blogged with Flock

Awaiting the accounting revolution.

2007-10-22T18:28:00.001-07:00

I've been twittering my frustrations today. I have a fairly simple financial situation and have 2 companies that I process both Shawna's and my work through. There's nothing complex with either of them so I've been filing the taxes and handling the bookkeeping myself since the beginning except for a short stint where I outsourced the annual filings.

My frustration is that doing it myself is harder than it should be. Bookkeeping/accounting software is far more cumbersome and antequated than it should be, and it costs too much for things that should be free (tax table updates and payroll functionality).

Really, all that I need is a basic ability to track expenses to certain accounts, track taxes collected and paid, and as a bonus handle my payroll tax calculations. The formulas, preferred account structures etc. are all available from the responsible jurisdictions. I wouldn't even use it anymore for invoicing or time-tracking (I'm already using FreshBooks and Toggl) and it wouldn't even have to worry about importing bank info (I'm using Wesabe for that). And as far as tax filings, governments are increasingly encouraging electronic filings so that shouldn't even be a big hurdle.

I'm sure I'm not alone. The small business community is growing as we move into a more creative and entrepreneurial economy and established online tools and protocols make interfacing to things like Freshbooks and Wesabe easy. And when it costs $200-$500 for basic software to cover the range of functions, plus at least $100 per year to keep tax tables updated it sounds like a very attractive online subscription opportunity and generally about $100 per annual return. I'd easily pay $10-20 per month for something that integrated FreshBooks, Wesabe, and allowed for online tax filings.

With all that I wonder if a big Intuit (Quickbooks) upset is in the works. With the speed that these services have been made available and they key building blocks in Wesabe and Freshbooks... I'm hoping it's only a matter of months. In fact, I'm hoping it's before the start of the next fiscal year - even in beta - I'd love to be testing!

Blogged with Flock

A good point - enough with the debate on climate change.

2007-10-22T09:56:00.001-07:00

This is a nice argument for stopping the debate on climate change and getting on with it. I don't believe in the only answer to be policy change but it is an important one. The basic argument is this:

- we can't know for certain whether or not we are impacting climate change or what will happen
- we can only choose whether or not we are going to do something about it
- that choice really comes down to an assessment of the risk in acting or not
- if we act, worst case is economic downturn
- if we don't act, worst case is economic downturn PLUS other global catashrophies

Pretty 'simple' choice in the end isn't it.

Blogged with Flock

Dress code? Ugghhh...

2007-10-21T13:26:00.001-07:00

As time goes on I increasingly consider clothing first and foremost about function and comfort. For me this means jeans as my primary leg wear and then anything that doesn't need ironing for my tops. And for footwear it's either my Crocs or Blundstones for sheer practicality. For some client work though, I still feel the need to at least put on a 'dress-shirt' and some other pants. On rare occasion - like the social finance forum - I'll break-out a suit.

Every time I do this though it really makes me wonder. What's the point? As long as clothing is clean and not carrying offensive statements, then what's the big deal. That said, I still feel the need to conform to what I think is expected of me by those that I am representing or dealing with.

Going forward I'm going to start asking clients about dress codes before I engage. It's a conversation worth having I think as it will either 1) gain me 'permission' to wear whatever I want, and/or 2) challenge the client into thinking what is important about what someone wears. I have a feeling that may open up other conversations as to what we think is the value we see people bringing to the task at hand. I wonder if the task really requires me to look a certain way, if it's really a task I want to take on?

I'm curious to hear what others think about this now-a-days... particularly in scenarios where the task is working on systems level change. Leave a comment or email me at michael at igniter dot com.

Blogged with Flock

Black Cotton

2007-10-19T05:40:00.000-07:00

I've long know a lot about the coffee industry and had heard snippets of what's going on in cotton too... but this sure is a wakeup call.

Venturing forward.

2007-10-02T20:22:00.000-07:00

So now with intellectual models for aligning a venture around a purposeful response to a deep calling, and for designing a viable organizational system it begs the question - now what?

Investment. Investment of capital... intellectual, social, and financial.

In ideal clean slate this might look something like this:

identify a calling
gather a group of diverse though leaders and community members to explore/deepen the calling
conduct an 'externalities analysis'
reconvene a modified group to:

uncover a responsive purpose
concieve of a theory of change
and anchor it with a Big Hairy Audacious Goal.

conduct an 'internalities analysis'
design the viable system
reconvene a modified group to:

craft strategic directions
establish near-term action plans

Of course this cannot be a rigidly linear/sequential process but rather is an iterative co-creative one. It is also a continual process of capital investment: intellectual, social, and financial... done in an integrated co-creative style. And that's what I'm working on now.

Viable System Model - the second fulcrum.

2007-10-02T18:22:00.000-07:00

The second fulcrum in transformative venturing is the way in which the venture is organized/organizes itself. I've recently been introduced into something that has come closest to describing what it means to build a successful organization. And it's not about outcomes or results - those are simply that, outcomes - it's about the way in which it's done.

(Stafford Beer's) Viable Systems Model, or VSM is a model of the organisational structure of any viable or autonomous system. A viable system is any system organised in such a way as to meet the demands of surviving in the changing environment. One of the prime features of systems that survive is that they are adaptable. The VSM expresses a model for a viable system, which is an abstracted cybernetic description that is applicable to any organisation that is a viable system and capable of autonomy.

I also have the good fortune of being able to apply this model on a deeply transformative initiative with someone who has intimately been involved with application of the viable systems model for a couple of decades. The deeper I get into it the more it rings true --- which shouldn't be surprising considering it is 'simply' based on looking at how all life organizes itself in viable systems. Next time you're faced with some organizational challenges or considering building a venture to tackle something deeply important, do everyone a favour and spend some time with this model and/or people who understand it.

Next post - venturing forward.

Venture Vortex

2007-10-01T20:24:00.000-07:00

Over the years I've been collecting management theories and practices that I found useful in venturing and found myself starting to organize them into a map. That map started painting a picture that has now become the Venture Vortex model.

It's primary strength is in providing a platform to organize thinking around the process of building a venture and I am using it both as a design and a diagnostic tool.

Broken into 4 primary regions: internalities; externalities, core ideology and the vortex itself, the arrows and chevrons show of sequencing of rational thought in the design process. Of course, no venture is static but rather an ever evolving mix of people and activity amidst a shifting environment. The model seeks to acknowledge the foundational element of any venture as the core ideology itself which is connected to the key people through values and the calling through purpose.

The core ideology in fact is the fulcrum around which everything pivots. It is the ulitmate basis against which any planning or activity can be checked for congruence. In fact, the organization can only do what it's true purpose and values will allow --- which also means we can't 'make-it-up'... as the actual purpose and values will always express themselves.

Uncovering the true core ideology then is a critically important task if we are to most effeciently build an organization to serve it. Doing so is about deep questioning of the personal intentions of the key stakeholders and the calling that is bringing them together. Finding the answers is often thought of as having statements that look a certain way. My experience though has been more about it being a felt experience. There is no right answer or right structure but the feeling is undeniable when it arises.

From that point moving up the venture vortex is a process of increasing rationalization within shortening time horizons up until the highest level which is the realm of near-term planning activities. The challenge in this, particularly for ventures working on systems-depth shifts or consciousness change is conducting the planning process in a manner consistent with the ideology itself. Conventional approaches often reflect the systems that the ventures seek to change. Now that's not to say conventional approaches are not at all applicable but rather must be managed and applied from a grounded values perspective.

The most effective model I've encountered in business system design is Stafford Beer's Viable System model which is essentially the application of systems science to organizations. For strategic and action planning I've found nothing that comes close the power of a truly co-creative approach with a broad mix of participants --- another thing that fits well with systems science --- but more on that in another post.

Twittering consiousness 2 (tracking)

2007-10-01T19:20:00.000-07:00

Twitter just announced the ability to track words in the entire 'twittersphere'. I for example am now tracking:
- systemic
- intervention
- co-create
- venture
- Canada
- Byron

So when anyone does a post with any of those words in it I'll see it. It's interesting to me because I can in a way tap into a broad consciousness flow (comprised of small top-of-mind comments) to see what's happening with these words. Will be interesting to see how this goes - I imagine at lease I'll find some interesting new people to follow - and that so far has proven to be a good thing.

The two (or 3) fulcrums of transformative venturing.

2007-10-01T14:37:00.001-07:00

A thought occured to me that there are in essence two fulcrums in the intentional creation of a transformative venture (a venture working on a systems-depth shift/consciousness change) - and those are the purpose and the business system. And perhaps these two fulcrums interplay through another fulcrum - the BHAG.

This is coming to me as I'm exploring the connection between the Venture Vortex model and Stafford Beer's Viable System Model. More posts on these later but this seems like it is starting to come together.

Twittering consciousness

2007-09-29T09:49:00.001-07:00

I've been on Twitter for a few months - as well as facebook - and Twitter is the one that is holding my interest in terms of what I perceive as an interesting connection to the movement of consciousness.

People use it in different ways but what I find consistent is that I find myself feeling a deeper connection to the people I'm following. And this goes for my brother in Phoenix, a VC I've never met but that has similar interests, and a librarian that I simply found through Twitter because they live near me.

It has something to do with the small snipets of thought/consciousness being expressed generally several times a day. What's interesting is how these snippets begin to weave into an expression of who that person is and I think it has a more authentic quality then more 'intentional' channels like blog posts simply because you are limited to 140 characters per post which seems to encourage more direct transmission of top-of mind thoughts and experiences that move the author at that moment.

There's also the element that it's always with me as sms updates on my phone - which also means I can share my thoughts when they happen.

I think there are some implications for the increasing fluidity of consciousness in the upcoming younger - connected generations. And fluidity in consciousness is what our society is calling for more than ever. If you haven't tried it yourself, give the flow a try and sign-up, find a couple of friends how are actively using it, find someone that's active from a field of interest, and find someone that you don't know at all. Get it on your mobile if you can and start using it --- don't worry about what you are saying, just say something and see where it goes --- and of course let me know and I'll follow your 'tweets' and see where that takes this conversation.

A break in the silence - Ignition Fund I

2007-09-29T09:42:00.000-07:00

It's been over two months since my last blog and it seems what was holding me up was getting a first draft of my Ignition Fund I thinking out. Well at last, here it is.

I'm interested to see where this goes - as someone said to me yesterday it seems to be capturing my life's experiences so far. Sure feels that way.

On with other posts...

The beauty of good online services --- unfolding.

2007-07-25T09:17:00.000-07:00

I've been actively trying different online services and tools lately, one of which is www.wesabe.com. It was a particularly interesting test for me as it deals with personal financial data (for most people one the most sensitive data streams) and I've been a long-time user of Microsoft Money.

At first I found it interesting but it was an effort to use it. Well... they just launched a firefox browser extension which makes my uploads even easier than they were with the version of Money I was using.

So... what does this have to do with unfolding? Well this is a great example of a company that has been very actively engaging and asking their community 'how can we make wesabe better'. Well this was one of the highest priorities and so here it is.

What's fascinating too is that they can handle any bank and if they can't they'll add it as soon as you ask. Tremendous responsiveness.

More... the basis of the site which was the wisdom of the collective of users means that there are suggested tags for pretty much every transaction popping up in my transaction histories... and those confusing transaction names on the bank records... well they are sorting themselves out more and more as people translate them for themselves.

All this means the tool gets easier and smarter all the time. And this only cracks the surface... they've published an API... and I haven't even begun to get the possibilities of leveraging the community wisdom through this tool.

By basing their business and service on this community participation/wisdom model is going to have incredible strengths going forward. I don't think any of the traditional financial software companies are going to be able to compete (at least not with the growing audience that is embracing online services).

Now I'm just waiting for their small business service to open up!

Systemic interventions --- the fun stuff!

2007-07-24T20:51:00.000-07:00

I've linked to this on the left, but can't seem to say it enough...

Donella Meadows' description of places to intervene in a system is the best guide I've come across for this stuff. I don't necessarily use it as a way to categorize the type or degree of systemic intervention an initiative is taking on but rather as a prompt to help me feel for the where an intervention may be most effective and what shifts may be prompted by the intervention being contemplated.

Watch out though... it gets addictive.

Catalysts of systemic intervention.

2007-07-24T20:30:00.000-07:00

I've been doing some work with some great folks that are doing/working on amazing regional transformations through a systems approach. It's occured to me that they're using two seperate catalysts in making that happen. One is using financial capital and the other community empowerment.

In our current society, financial capital is one of the most powerful constructs in society and for now and always the empowerment or uprising of community is the other.

What's also interesting is that the transformation comes simply from the interactions that those initiatives are having within the regions they are working with... which comes from interacting from a different mindset.

The catalysts serve to allow interactions to happen and set the condition that the interactions are heard with a different intensity.

It's amazing to see effect of the simplest interaction in prompting tremendous transformation. Kind of life butterfly wings.

The tension of the two stories.

2007-07-11T13:31:00.000-07:00

It's becoming more and more clear to me that our society is going through a major and accelerating transformation from the currently established 'linear' mindset toward a 'systems' mindset. There are countless ways to describe it but it is increasingly evident and felt particularly among those who are working on solutions to address the growing social and ecologcial threats our society is facing.

The tension of those two models colliding is palpable. The art of bringing them together is beautiful. The potential for it is limited and spontaneous. It's not always possible and it's sometimes unexpectedly possible.

I feel the tension incredibly strongly right now - at this moment and in our society... in the media... in the projects I'm drawn to. While my comfort wishes it away, it is what informs me and guides me deeper. If it's not there there's no progress and yet its presence isn't an indicator of progress.

With quickening heart I go back in again. A part for my own awakening and as part of the broader awakening.

Hmmm... onward...

Seed venturing toward systemic interventions - deal funnel: screening, conditions, and structuring.

2007-07-11T11:24:00.000-07:00

Seeding ventures focussed on systemic interventions needs to be come at with an approach that is grounded in systems thinking. Conventional wisdom in venture investment has come from theory and experiences often based in working with business systems that are working within and dependent on the current system itself. What I've found is that the earlier the stage of investment and the more oriented the venture is toward a systemic intervention the more 'gut instinct' is used a guide to making investment decisions and supporting the growth and success of those ventures.

My thoughts have been going toward what would something that focuses on seed venturing toward systemic intervention look like and how would it work. What I'll be posting on for a few posts is going to be my emerging ideas in this.

First off... what would be the filter for projects that it would take on? What would the 'deal funnel' be?

I would approach it as follows:

Is systemic intervention the goal of the venture?
Are the readiness indicators favorable?
Are the conditions for accelerated growth present or practically possible?

From that stage the deal funnel would move into deal structuring which focuses on what is necessary to create the conditions for growth:

Basic

Basic financial stability
Core competency coverage

Catalytic

Venture alignment
Active and appropriate network

A key intersection point is that a financial investment is a powerful catalytic moment in the emergence of a venture. That catalytic power can be most productively harnessed if it is focused on encouraging the conditions as opposed to ensuring rigorous controls are in place. It also hopefully leads to much simpler deal documentation that focuses on establishing and orienting the relationship that is being created and how this investment can be used to create the conditions that will most accelerate the growth of the venture... the intensification of the vortex.

That felt good. Let's see if makes any sense.

Onward...

A Venturing Model

2007-07-06T20:24:00.000-07:00

I've been wanting to post on this for a while now. It's a snapshot of my latest understanding of the venturing process. It's early draft and the writing below is pretty much stream of consciousness but I'm being drawn to just get it out:

We're in an interesting point in history where there is a transition from a mindset based on seeking to understand the smallest components of things (reductionist thinking, command and control models, 'the great clockwork', world/problems as 'complicated') toward a mindset that looks at systems in terms of the relationships/context in order to understand them (systems, ecological, 'complex').

I've been finding the early-stage venturing process as an interesting place to explore this transition and what it means for those who are using venturing as an approach to addressing issues that are becoming increasingly important to people and the planet.

Where I've come to is a visual model that helps me understand the forces at play in using a venturing as a tool to move things from one place to another, from one system to the envisioned system, from the no longer to the not yet.

I consider venturing as a vortex... a complex phenomenon that excels when it finds itself in a stable state far from equilibrium. In other words when it's functionally stable on the edge of big changes in a marketplace.

There are 3 major contributing forces/dynamics that shape the vortex: internalities, externalities, and ideology. The conditions that lead to the creation of the vortex can be described as the trio of clarity, trust, and momentum. The conditions that then sustain, strengthen and accelerate the vortex are the conditions of basic financial stability, core competency coverage, the alignment of the vortex itself internally and within the 3 dynamic forces, and finally the availability of an appropriate, active network.

Moving into the vortex moves is where the process of rationalization enters. It is the balancing act of moving from core ideology (which describes the plane that the venture is being asked to operate in) to the theory of change (a rationalization of what you believe needs to be changed for the system to change --- for your big, hairy audacious goal to be achieved), to the business system which translates the theory into a functional operational model that will perform the functions and deliver the services necessary to act on that theory of change. From there the more conventional strategic planning approaches enter in informing areas of activity that will most likely result in the organization moving toward the BHAG. Finally come the set of actions (action plan) that the organization is actually doing which are hoped to contribute to achieving the goal.

Conventional business school education has focussed on developing theories based on employing a command and control approach to moving organizations operating more closely toward equilibrium, which naturally is also where financial resources are most greatly employed. The farther from equilibrium something is... the harder it is for command and control approaches to work with predictable effectiveness. The proxy then in the capital markets has then naturally become the trust of the entrepreneur/management and the angel community which are not burdened by the same fiduciary duty that fund managers have (which is consider best served by the tried and true command and control model).

It's not surprising then to see the emergence of 'social entrepreneurs' as the magically/mystically powerful icons they are becoming. In trying to tackle systemic shifts there is little in terms of approaches that are acknowledged as 'tried and true' because these shifts inherently are working at a place of being far from equilibrium and so are seen as 'complicated', 'risky', and inherently slippery when put under the conventional investment or reductionist rigor. Social entrepreneurs inherently are adept at intuiting their way through a complex endeavor and take on that responsibility internally. The trust in them to manage this is the proxy for the command and control model when it is recognize that conventional analysis and theory is too cumbersome, inconsistent, and unpredictable.

The attempt here then becomes one of unpacking what happens intuitively within the social entrepreneur and those advisers and contributors that have developed a good 'gut' for navigating a venture vortex from the no longer to the not yet. My hope with this is that we can begin to broaden the understanding of this complex process and thereby broaden society's ability to employ the venturing process to evoke the systemic shifts that are and are asking to unfold as part of the history we are creating.

Onward...

Online > mobile/recovering > present

2007-06-04T12:52:00.001-07:00

I've been actively putting myself online... or rather updating my online presences and trying out the tools to manage my online connections lately and having been finding myself being hyper connected and active while I'm at my computer. While I'm working I'm usually listening to music, have a variety of online tools open (google reader, basecamp, slideshare, etc.) while at the same time doing email and working on docs/presentations. When I'm in that mode I can be hyper productive... but sometimes, like an hour ago, my nervous system screams 'stop'.

I listened this time and went for a run in Springbank Park (I love where I live - because 7 minutes the otherway and I'd be in a Provincial Park for some hilly trail running). It was a good idea as what I probably would have started to struggle with for the rest of the day came to me half way through my run.

Thinking about it I notice 3 different states that I now tend to operate in: Online (where I'm hyper connected), mobile/recovering (where my connectivity is limited or my system is still in recovery mode), or present (where I'm fully aware of just what is around me at that moment). Sometimes these states interweave with each other which is good - and as long as I don't resist what my nervous system is telling me - there should be a healthy balance of each.

Thanks also for the great pic post this morning Sarah of graffiti wisdom that took me down this path.

Heavy load? Or not heavy enough?

2007-06-03T18:08:00.000-07:00

I had my first chance to spend some time with Andres Dussan from Ashoka here in Canada. Just an introductory meeting from some mutual friends and it's been a conversation that's stuck with me a few days... deeper than I originally realized.

Andres talked passionately about the power of media in shifting the cultural mindset to place where balance between people and the planet can re-emerge. I've had this conversation a number of times over the past year but something in it reminded me of the responsibility I have as white guy with upper-middle class roots, living in an affluent city within Canada. This is something that I was really first awakened to when I met my wife Shawna years ago but somehow since getting married, having our two kids and moving into a comfortable house with a big yard and lots of family support around I've conveniently put that responsibility aside.

When I stop to think about the pervasiveness and persistence of messages that reinforce our society's image of success (pick whichever one you want) and how that subtly makes it into my own images of what I want/need/should be it gets alarming. I know how it has impacted me in the past as one of those with the greatest of privilege and can only imagine the impact on those who do not fit the images we are constantly fed. And now extend that to the impact of extending those messages globally.

I've heard, and used at one time, all sorts of justifications for the messages are delivered and how marketers really care for their customers and those they want to be their customers, but when I now watch the green-wash frenzy marketers are gorging on I don't really have much hope that the images will ever truly get past that which will sell more product. And that's not to say this is the marketers responsibility to bear alone, or that it is the product manufacturers, or that it is anyone's alone...

I've just really been reminded that it is everyone's... starting with mine.

Emergence.

2007-05-01T11:53:00.000-07:00

After much prodding a picked up the book 'Getting to Maybe' and started reading it on the weekend. I have been pushing deeper into 'the entrepreneurial approach' and working with the idea that it is more about the creating/holding the space for things to emerge. This morning I read the chapter called 'Let It Find You' which is all about emergence. I am more convinced that in this element of entrepreneurship/social innovation is the 'magic' that can be amplified and applied to restoring balance among people and the planet.

Traditional incubators have often focused on either a single accomplished entrepreneur or a support services which can be helpful but don't get at the core of entrepreneurship/innovation. The growing celebrity of social entrepreneurs has put a focus on the individuals again as a source of entrepreneurship but that's just the tip of the iceberg. The space that allows things to emerge can be held/created within an individual, a session/conversation, a group, or a network/community. 'Getting to Maybe' does a great job of presenting the importance of having things emerge. I'm hoping now to dig deeper in the ways that happens and how it can be intentionally created and held for maximum benefit. Certainly there is much to build from here, especially from people/places like the Institute of Cultural Affairs (here, here, and here) where they have spent lifetimes living, observing, and understanding how things emerge from the ground up. If you have some other great resources I should be looking at please let me know.

Great frameworks - reframing my focus.

2007-04-30T19:39:00.000-07:00

The two most helpful frameworks that I'm working with right now are a brilliant piece on places to intervene in a system by Donella Meadows and theory u by Otto Scharmer. The Meadows piece has helped me articulate where I'm most drawn to invest myself (mindset shifts - even more the process of doing so) and Scharmer's work is a comprehensive model of the stages involved in creating a mindset shift.

Back to the things I've been focusing on, the work on the collective potential of individual change is about finding a way to encourage individual shifts on a massive scale while the work on the entrepreneurial approach (which is about to undergo a major re-write - and an initial 'survey') is about creating entities and initiatives that can themselves take on system interventions at some level. Something else I'm sensing is a connection between the entrepreneurial approach and the process to shift a mindset. I'm interested to see where that goes.

If you are interested in participating in the initial 'survey' on entrepreneurial approach, just let me know. It is being designed to take the participants through a reflection of their own experiences and so should itself provide a valuable experience.

Entrepreneurial Approach - exploratory presentation.

2007-04-19T13:07:00.000-07:00

I've done my quick first draft on exploring the entrepreneurial approach and its application. You can find it here. I wasn't going to post it yet, but just had a great conversation with a coffee friend (here, here, and here) that was prompted by this draft. Cheers to good conversations!

On the train

2007-04-13T06:43:00.000-07:00

Have been meaning to post this for a while now.

A couple of weeks ago I was on a train that 'had an altercation' with a person who apparently had decided to part with the world. When the announcement came across the PA that there was a fatality and that we would be delayed at least 2 hours, there was a large outcry from many of the passengers in my car that went something like this: "Oh man... now I'm going to be late. What an inconvenience. This sucks."

Wow. What an example of our society.

My love to the friends and family of the 'fatality', to the train engineers, to the little 4 year old girl 4 seats back from me that heard the server on our car declare that "it hit just past the engine... and at first I thought it was a big branch."

Peace to everyone.

P>E>P

2007-04-13T06:13:00.000-07:00

I've just come up with a simple image that I'm starting work with in my exploration of how to apply the entrepreneurial approach in service of restoring balance among people and the planet. Right now, I'm seeing the process as a balance of push and pull with the space in between those being where opportunity and innovation emerges, and what I see as the work of the entrepreneurial process. It's about creating that space and creating the conditions of push and pull that prompt what's most helpful to emerge.

Scaling up the social finance marketplace in Canada.

2007-04-05T17:55:00.000-07:00

Here's an interesting map from http://www.xigi.net/ giving an overview of the latest initiative I'm co-creating. If you haven't checked-out xigi.net... take a look. A very interesting tool that's growing quickly and has the potential to make a significant contribution to the global marketplace that invests in good. Anyone else get the feeling that this 'marketplace' is really starting to take off?

make your own map at
www.xigi.net

My latest presentations.

2007-03-13T11:25:00.000-07:00

Here are the latest presentations on the directions that are really interesting me right now. Take a look and send me any thoughts, comments, connections. It grows and gains momentum with the attention of others.

Accelerating the collective potential of individual change:

Systematically applying the entrepreneurial approach:
(UPDATED: April 19, 2007)

For benefit/community interest corporations.

2007-03-05T07:20:00.000-08:00

The U.K. and soon the U.S. are putting together some great new hybrid models that look to engage the power of the capital markets in ventures that are created strictly in community interest. Take a look here for a primer on the U.K. model and here for launch pad to some of the U.S. work. Seeing the evolution of markets is a wonderful thing.

How authentic are you?

2007-03-04T06:19:00.000-08:00

I just saw two interesting perspectives on connecting with what people care about. One of which is from client/collaborator Communicopia in this presentation and one is in this article in Canadian Business titled "Sell More by Creating Desire".

This theme is something I'm seeing more and more everyday particularly with the steady growth in popularity of social and environmental justice issues. Whether it's a company giving to a charity, creating a new product, or simply your own efforts to make a difference the durability and success are anchored in authenticity -- is it connected with the true nature of who you are as an organization or an individual?

In the presentation the basis of this is understanding the core of who you are (as an individual or an organization), what you are here to do, and what the value is in what you have to offer. In the case of the article, the idea is more about trying to perceive what people are really seeking in their lives and give them something that aims to satiat that seeking. The trouble with trying to figure out what it is that people are seeking is that it is incredibly transient and shifts with the times and with the trends. It's also not based on what you are uniquely good at so begins to take on the feeling of a cheap knock-off, pr 'spin', or other pile of bs.

We all know that feeling of something quality, integrity, and substance when we come across it. It something that only comes when it's anchored in what's true and when the experience and communication speaks directly to the truth. That's when people can start to form real connections with the organisation or individual behind the product or message. Doing things the otherway around is well... an effort in futility... except for the consultant you've hired to work really hard to create something that doesn't exist.

That said, knowing ourselves is a very difficult thing to do. In my experience with emerging entities this takes a healthy amount of time, courage, and integrity. Think about it for yourself or your organization. Do you really know why you are here? What's the core purpose that you are here to fulfill and what's your truly unique contribution in doing that?

For a good overview and some great examples of this stuff from the organizational perspective you can purchase a great article here. Of course, you can always go hire a consultant - either way, good luck, you'll get what you want. Just remember - the only thing that's authentic will be finding your truth - not adopting someone elses.

Accelerating the Collective Potential for Positive Change

2007-02-22T10:07:00.000-08:00

I've just come across www.slideshare.net and figured I'd try it using the latest version of the presentation (here) that I'm working with on the topic of accelerating the collection potential for positive change.

Let's see how this works... and of course... I'm always interested in feedback!

To the point... .

2007-02-15T06:51:00.000-08:00

So this is what it comes down to:

I'm exploring:
- ways to accelerate the individual capacity for positive change
- ways to systematically, repeatably, apply the entrepreneurial approach toward environmental and social justice

The principles I'm working from:
- The community holds the knowledge and experience.
- We facilitate their wisdom
- We orchestrate their solution

So... if anyone has anything that maybe relevant (connections, docs, initiatives, etc.) to either of those areas that I'm exploring, I'd love to hear about them!

What's got my attention.

2007-02-14T09:24:00.000-08:00

This process all started with me trying to get a feeling for two things:
- what am I uniquely able to do?
- where do I want to focus my attention?

Of course those questions both prompt deeper questions - which have been a big part of my journey lately - but what I came up with that best captured it for me was the statement I've been sharing: co-creating entities and initiatives in service of restoring balance among people and the planet.

The first part is where this venturing approach that I've been developing came out of - a way of trying to capture my experiences into a repeatable process that would be able to achieve greater results/impact.

The second part was a little trickier because it implied that I had a vision of what balance looked like. If not, then how would I know what would help achieve that. Well that posed a tricky problem because well... who can predict the future - really?

In asking those questions though, and going through the desire to start a company to do this to just getting a couple of sample projects going to finding myself in the middle of an example unexpectedly, what I find myself left with are two things that seem to be holding my attention. And those are:

- in what way could people individually be opened to more positive change?
- what is it in the entrepreneurial approach that brings people together for positive change?

For me these are deeper than my attachments to specific models or viewpoints and are opening up a new avenues of exploring them. In a way, I don't even have to worry about what I 'do' anymore, my collective experiences and ability naturally informs the choices I'm making and the opportunities that are arising.

Funny... I've gone from vowing not to start a company, to trying to get one going, and am back to not having anything to start. And in all of it, I am actually doing a project that's an example of the model I was so attached to, and am having more and more fun every day.

Let's see what tomorrow brings.

The future of organizations.

2007-02-13T13:30:00.000-08:00

I just read a very interesting paper called "The Future of Global Action Networks" (look for the document link a little ways down the page). What was interesting, was not necessarily the discussion of "Global Action Networks" but the underlying observations on how they operate and are setup. From my perspective, these approaches to organizations are going to be fundamentally important to the most relevant organizations of tomorrow.

If anyone has done or wants to do a summary of this document please let me know. I'd love to post it here.

This has been one of those rare reads for me... something I'm sure I'll be referencing for many years to come.

It's just money.

2007-02-12T20:13:00.000-08:00

Well, I'm back.

It's been an interesting start to the year and I'm starting to test some of the examples of this 'model' I've been developing and have actually, unbeknown to me, wound up in a project that actually represents the model I'm developing (funny how that happens). I guess that's partly because, as with most things, the model isn't really new. It's essentially just an intentional version of the common entrepreneurial approach. What seems to strike people most however is not the approach but the idea that the seed financing happens before there's even an idea... where there is only an intention for some sort of result or impact.

It's amazing to watch the resistance come around that one aspect in particular. So much seems to be bundled around money and the power the holder of it can have over those that want it. Mess with money and you mess with control... or so it's perceived. Really they are separate issues.

In my experience actually, only once money and control are dealt with separately does the ability to set the most helpful controls in place emerge. In a way it serves as a useful test in getting to know a partner. If the conversation gets into the ways of setting up the controls, I know we're on the same page. If it's stuck on returns and percentages we're in opposite ends of the bookstore.

Am curious to see what resistance emerges next. For now back into crafting the docs.

Thanks for the conversation! AGAIN!

2006-12-21T12:04:00.000-08:00

Following up on my conversation post earlier... I just got off the phone with another connection by the same person. The 'magic' happened again. This time I consciously took my learning from the previous post into the call and it took the conversation even further. I guess it's not really magic after all. My gratitude for the relationships I have just continues to grow. Thanks!

Free services!!!

2006-12-21T08:11:00.000-08:00

I was just helping a client do a last-minute media launch for something we expected to get a lot of traffic. Naturally I asked one of my long-time communications collaborators to help out. He agreed and we agreed on costs etc... quick/fair/reasonable.

Well... as sometimes happens it didn't come off as we expected and the results were disappointing. I just got a note about this from my colleague with the additional comment:

On another note, given the poor results of this campaign, unless things
change considerably I don’t plan on charging for any of my time; only the
hard costs...

Of course, this is magic to the client's ears but it's also a reflection of the trust and professionalism that comes with having a long-term relationship. It's actions like these that make it possible for companies that are getting going to be able to take some risks... sometimes they pay off... and sometimes they don't. But, not having to pay for it means they'll be able to try again.

Thanks for the conversation!

2006-12-21T07:32:00.000-08:00

Yesterday, I had a great conversation with someone that a friend/colleague/client thought might be a worthwhile introduction. And he was right. The conversation was enjoyable and very helpful. Similar to the conversation a couple of weeks ago that had me step back from the full-blown financial model and pitch deck to trying to apply the venturing process I am suggesting to the creation of what I'm building... this one prompted another launch path that fit with both my entrepreneurial drive to 'push' something forward, and also with the process I'm suggesting.

What's interesting is that it wasn't that it was a new approach that I hadn't considered but rather the conversation prompted me to revisit the idea and see it differently. And it didn't come from the direct suggestion or intent of the person I was talking with. So what in that conversation helped it emerge?

Personally we hit it off with common interests, experiences and perspectives.
The conversation was a sharing of ideas and experiences vs. an attempt to inform/critique/advise.
We both were more interested in helping and learning than selling and telling.

I guess the other question to ask is what prompted the conversation to happen?

My friend/colleague/client knew me, who I am, and what I'm working on.
Something in his conversation the person he connected me to gave him the impression that there would be a) a personal connection b) the potential for either one of us to be helpful to the other.
He took the initiative to make the introduction.

So what? I guess it comes down to:

Nurture meaningful relationships
Share what I'm working on and what I need to make it happen
Make and follow-up on connections for and by those I have meaningful relationships with
Be helpful
Interact by sharing and learning

Oh and now that I can harness that entrepreneurial drive again... back to work on the other launch path!

Thanks for the conversation!

Walking the talk.

2006-12-18T21:36:00.000-08:00

So here I start... in that period where an idea shifts, changes, grows, implodes... and hopefully emerges better.

I took some time this summer vowing not to make any commitments to any project until the fall... and to not launch anything new on my own. In September I emerged refreshed from some time with family and some time with myself... alone. The product of that time was my best attempt to describe what it is that I do and where I want to focus:

"co-creating entities and initiatives in service of restoring balance among people and the planet".

A little wordy but captured a lot of meaning for me. Of course, my first bit of work was to engage with those that are doing some work in the area of 'restoring balance'. It wasn't long into that that I realised that somehow, in the midst of those conversations, I began talking of that statement as a project I was working on. There went the commitment not to start something on my own.

The underlying beliefs that began to form were that:

venturing is one of the most powerful tools in creating systemic change
'social entrepreneurs' are leading the charge but they can only do so much (it's hard to create new entrepreneurs)
it IS possible to ‘manufacture’ companies for specific purposes (without requiring entrepreneurs)
some keys are in setting-aside seed investment for a specific topic, determining the root cause, engage the community in formulating and developing the solution, and having dedicated trios (initiator, facilitator, and analyst) shepherding the process from set-aside to launch.

Over the past two months I've explored this idea taking it as far as drafting up my financial model and pitch deck... and a week ago was kindly reminded of the opportunity to walk the talk.

My challenge, is the model I am proposing turns the traditional venturing process around with having the seed funding set-aside up front which then motivates a process of community engagement to uncover rout causes to issues and subsequently the solutions to them. I fundamentally believe in the approach, but my instinct has me chomping at the bit.

As the year winds down I've initiated a few more conversations with key people I see as thought/action-leaders in some of my key communities. I don't know what to expect from them as I've sent more of a thesis rather than my more conventional pitch. What I hope though is to have a better sense if I should walk the talk or get back to running.

I guess it's the entrepreneurial drive... but it's amazing how hard it is to sit still.