Appreciating Systems

Appreciating Systems for Genuine Efficiency
Home » Posts tagged 'social'

Création d’emploi fondée sur les forces #solutionfocus

Un article très intéressant sur des initiatives différentes en matière de création d’emploi !

On cherche les compétences et les envies des gens, et on les aide à construire un projet, presque auto-financé (en tout cas, en utilisant les aides normalement disponibles pour les chômeurs pour plutôt les aider à construire un avenir). Bravo !

À lire ici : http://www.bastamag.net/Territoires-zero-chomeurs-l-initiative-qui-veut-prendre-les-choses-a-l-envers

 

 

Le peer to peer #p2p : nouvelle formation sociale, nouveau modèle civilisationnel – @P2PFoundation

Un article d’introduction très complet sur le peer-2-peer (pair à pair) de la part de la P2P Foundation.

La plupart des lecteurs sont familiers avec le concept de ‘peer to peer’ dans le domaine technologique, et spécifiquement, en tant que technologie de base pour le partage de fichiers, et connaissent les nombreuses controverses suscitées par l’échange (en fait : le ‘partage’) de contenus musicaux et audiovisuels. Notre propre conception du peer to peer, ou ‘pair à pair’ est bien plus large. Il s’agit en fait d’une dynamique intersubjective caractéristique des réseaux distribués. Le but de cet essai est de montrer qu’il s’agit d’une véritable nouvelle forme d’organisation sociale, apte à produire et échanger des biens, à créer de la valeur. Celle-ci est la conséquence d’un nouvel imaginaire social, et possède le potentiel de devenir le pilier d’un nouveau mode d’économie politique, voire d’un nouveau type de civilisation. Pour cela, nous allons d’abord définir le P2P, décrire en bref ces manifestations, et le différencier d’autres modalités d’échange intersubjectif tel que le marché, la hiérarchie, l’économie du don. →

Source: Le peer to peer : nouvelle formation sociale, nouveau modèle civilisationnel – P2P Foundation

#Social maturity levels in connected #organizations

Cleaning up Notes, I found these I crafted some months ago. It’s about how social links are used in companies based on the maturity level of employees.

  • The Psychopath doesn’t have any social link.
  • The Bureaucrat will limit social interactions to the coffee machine
  • The Pragmatic will use them to exchange information
  • The Efficient will use them to accelerate and simplify the job by exchanging pieces of work with others in the organization, or provoke internal collaborative meetings
  • The Radical will provoke trans-organizational collaborative meetings to awake true collective intelligence
  • The Awaken will work between organizations and won’t even see the frontiers.

Where do you stand today and what can you start doing now to move on the scale? 😉

 

Christopher Alexander Fifteen Properties of #Wholeness applied to Mental Models #systemsthinking

It’s been a while since I’ve been pondering the fifteen properties of wholeness as expressed by Christopher Alexander. Although I have yet to read one of his book, his work has transpired up to me already through the well know pattern languages.

Being found of Systems Thinking and the transdiscplinarity this permits, I couldn’t help but wonder how these 15 properties could apply to mind and mental models as well, and how it could inform our feeling of wholeness or explain when we feel like being one and belonging to a bigger, encompassing one as well. Sounds like spirituality to me, although I consider myself an atheist!

Of course, feeling also attracted to radical constructivism and social constructionism, I can safely affirm that you both are influenced by what you distinguish in the world around you and that you construct what you’re looking for. So, I hope the interpretation I give below (which is purely empirical… or my own construct) may be useful both as a way to construct that feeling of wholeness than as a way to find where it may exist when you didn’t feel it in the first place. Now, back to constructivism: where’s the difference between building and finding-and-constructing at the same time?

Here is my inner travel through the fifteen properties of wholeness. Fancy a trip with me? Here we go… Read more »

Social constructionism is to #Lean what lecturing is to #Taylorism

I just invented this one…

Of course, that Lean promotes cooperation and co-improvement of the organization (through nemawashi) makes the sentence all the more interesting 😉

All those consultants that try to force Lean down the throat of the managers that, according to them, are too dumb to “get it” are just, IMHO, plain wrong. This is the surest path to “change resistance“. Of course, telling is quicker than letting people experiment and trying to understand things from the perspective of the people.

Yet, if management is supposed to learn how to have their people conduct experiments, and then learn from them, then share them with their colleagues throughout the organization, why on earth are they lecturing and teaching them Lean?! If managers learn anything, that will be to continue in command-and-control mode and impose Lean tools and processes onto employees that won’t necessarily understand the purpose of them. And since the managers don’t know exactly how things happens on the Gemba (of many managers do “standing in the circle” for hours ?), they commands will be just resented as unsuited at best by employees, further decreasing their engagement levels, and the few trust left they might have had in their managers.

Is that really what’s wanted?

Of course, putting on my “Systems Dynamics” hat, I can see that the more consultants do it that way, the less organizations really improve on the long-term, and the more need will be felt for more Lean consulting.

I am not saying that consultants want the situation to be that way. I’m just saying that doing more of the same Lean teaching method will just produce more of the same long-term failed results.

Doing more of the same and expecting different results is the definition of insanity according to Einstein

Articles @LesEchos : Génération Y, les 5 révolutions de l’entreprise

My Twitter Social Ego Networks

David R. via Compfight

Je viens de lire cet article très intéressants sur Les Echos : Génération Y, les 5 révolutions de l’entreprise.

Je suis globalement d’accord avec le contenu. Mais j’ai l’impression que les entreprises actuelles encore 1.0 ont déjà perdu. L’avènement des smartphones et les applications sociales a déjà cassé les frontières de l’entreprise. Avant, l’espace interne d’une organisation était plus ou moins protégé de l’extérieur, une sorte de sanctuaire où pouvait se passer plein de choses sans qu’elles soient dérangées.

C’est maintenant fini. Nos smartphones nous rappellent sans cesse à ce qu’il se fait dehors, aux opportunités existantes ailleurs, à nos amis, à notre famille, etc. Seule une petite partie de notre esprit est concentrée sur l’interne d’une entreprise.

Si les entreprises n’embrassent pas maintenant cette ouverture en utilisant les mêmes fonctionnements sociaux (intelligence collective, travail collaboratif massif, encouragement à la co-création entre ce qu’elle est et les potentialités de ses collaborateurs, …) elle risque de péricliter.

Au lieu de laisser l’énergie de ses collaborateurs se disperser dans les réseaux sociaux (technologiques ou non !) l’entreprise se doit d’être le lieu où ces énergies pourront au contraire se connecter et aboutir à quelque chose qui lui soit utile (et évidemment utile aux collaborateurs, l’exploitation sauvage, c’est aussi fini, ça).

On n’embauche plus une personne, on embauche son réseau social. Que fait-on pour valoriser cela? S’il y a des “fuites sociales” vers l’extérieur, c’est que l’attrait de l’intérieur est insuffisant. Et si les gens sont attirés par le social, alors il faut faire du réseau social de manière encore plus intensive à l’intérieur, pour inverser le flux !

Quelle démarche active avez-vous dans votre entreprise pour connecter les cerveaux sociaux de vos collaborateurs?

10 arguments pour convaincre votre direction …[d]es media sociaux | missphilomene @happy_laurence

December 3rd, 2013 Posted in Uncategorized Tags: , , , , ,

Laurence Vanhee a commis cet excellent article que je vous enjoins de lire immédiatement maintenant tout de suite :

10 arguments pour convaincre votre direction de vous laisser utiliser les media sociaux pendant les heures de bureaux | missphilomene.

C’est direct, fun, 100% pertinent et à appliquer de suite ! Et tellement vrai…

 

 

Using Emergence to Scale Social Innovation

I just discovered this astounding article from Wheatley and Frieze on Using Emergence to Scale Social Innovation.

I do think the way social networking is done today is broken – or immature to say the least. How are we supposed to create working networks and provoke emergence the way Wheatley explains it, if we stick to groups of people?

What’s important in a network: the people that make it of the contributions they make?

When you look today at the way social networks work, you see communities of people, connected through people. IMHO, that’s not the way it’s supposed to work (it may be flattening to one’s ego to have loads of followers, but I challenge you to find any real usefulness in this kind of network).

Indeed, we can see people intuitively knowing this fact since they tend to agregate around dedicated web sites on specific topics. Look at Google Groups, LinkedIn groups or even Facebook groups! What connect these people are the topics around which they network. Yet, one topic alone isn’t enough. How are the topics connected?

The power isn’t in the @ (how people are now mentionned, such as @nicolasstampf for instance, but in the # (hash tag: the way topics are mentioned). Yet, today, social networks are organized around people. When you want informations about some #topic, you need to find your @people to identify when some #topic has been mentioned. Or to search a whole social network for these mentions (eg. Twitter). How inefficient is that?

The Next Wave: how I see the future of #social #networking & blogging on Internet

February 20th, 2013 Posted in Lean, Uncategorized Tags: , , , , , ,

Somesh CirclesThis is something I’ve been pondering since quite some time.

  • Twitter is too short to make for long discourses, and you have to find people, then subscribe to them (not Lean!)
  • Blogs you have to search for and subscribe (not Lean!)
  • #hashtags are a cool way to mark content (so do categories and tags in blog posts)

So here’s what I have in mind for the next wave of social platforms (see picture on the right). It would basically work as this:

  1. people tell the system of what they are interested in using specific #tags
  2. you post whatever interesting content of some kind of a blogging platform and you categorize and #tag your post with as much as necessary #tags your piece of work mandates
  3. the article gets notified to some system: title, @author, all #tags
  4. people who subscribed to some of the #tags you used get notified of your publication
  5. because it provokes some insights in you, you comment back in the system, which notifies other people that the initial blog post is gaining traction. Other people comment as well, or write their own blog posts which get connected to yours in the system…

So, there’s a virtuous circle: you blog, it gets tweeted, people receive it through their #tags subscription, they react and post some more, which get tweeted as well, etc.

This is what (the now defunct) Google Wave ought to become IMO. Only that I removed the constraint of requiring bloggers to belong to Wave or some dedicated blog platform.

 

Could it be that the SEE system is self-sustaining the current global mess? (#systemsthinking)

Reading about a draft report created out of contributions by Systems Thinkers on the LinkedIn group “Systems Thinking World“, in a discussion aimed at replying to UN’s General Secretary Ban Ki Moon call for revolutionary thinking regarding the current economic crisis, the following considerations occurred to me:

“Could it be that the current Social, Economical and Ecological interplay (system) is indeed sustaining the current situation (a downward slope to future ecological, economic and hence social havoc?”

I tried to quickly summarized my view in the attached diagram (for those that don’t know how to read such a diagram: boxes are “stock” that accumulate (or decrease) over time. Arrows are “flows” between stocks. A + arrow means that both sides of it move in the same direction (if origin increases, so does the destination of it, and conversely when decreasing). A – arrow means the two ends of the arrow move in opposite directions (if origin increases, destination decreases and vice-versa)).

Systems Dynamics causal loop diagram of SEE sustaining an unsustainable future...

The corresponding explanation would go something as:

  • The Economy being in a downturn, it negatively impacts the Social capital of people (trust, willing to give to others [not in terms of money but more on the line of compassion and relationships]), which makes them less likely to contribute to improvements of the Economy (R1). 
  • A decreasing Economy is negatively impacting Ecology as well (R2 through Ecological capital and Survival Instinct back to Social Capital) which, along with all the fuss about Ecology in the medias (UN call including), stresses out our Survival instinct, thereby negatively impacting our Social capital as well. 
  • The less we have a Social capital, the less likely we are to contribute to Ecology (R4). 
  • The last loop is about our stressed out Survival instinct that negatively impacts our Social capital, reinforcing the downturn in Survival instinct (R3).

Please show me where I’m wrong?!

Of course, should that situation has an ounce of veracity, the question would be: out to get out of it. This is the whole purpose of the aforementioned thread to propose some systemic (revolutionary in itself, probably) answer.

Mail List

Join the mailing list

Check your email and confirm the subscription