Jeffrey+Keefer

Welcome Jeffrey Keefer to a Connected Intelligence Dialogue
For those who don't know Jeffrey he writes a thoughtful, up to the moment and [|far reaching blog] that also includes reporting travels to interesting conferences and thinking about topics relevant to learning through connected intelligence. Recent posts include reports from the [|AHRD conference in Oxford], [|Steve Jobs communications secrets], and creating a [|Homer Simpson avatar].

Jeffrey "volunteered" to help so we asked him to read our article draft and comment. As Jeffrey's challenging questions and our responses started flowing in email it seemed sensible to extract and post here to widen the conversation.

Thank you Jeffrey for prodding our thinking about connected intelligence, what we have said and I'm gathering from our exchange so far, what we've left unexplained.

//~ Jenny Ambrozek,//

July 19, 2007 Jeffrey wrote: "//As the terminology you are using is a bit difficult for the lay reader (btw, who is your target audience? You may be writing for an audience that already knows all this, so my comments and questions may all be academic), consider having something that is visually memorable and then keep repeating it."//

and

"So, it seems there is the issue of hierarchies vs. networks, and how knowledge and information flowed down vs. around. How do you relate power within organizations with those who create and disseminate knowledge? Were these traditionally top-down and now that has changed? Sorry to pose these types of questions, but the more I am reading this and processing your responses, the more questions I begin to consider."

July 20, 2007 in Response

JA: i. Jeffrey first please, we're thrilled to have your challenging questions. First I'm interested in knowing "the terminology" we're using that is difficult. We've also heard this reaction from //Knowledge Tree// editor Jo Murray so your identifying would be most helpful. ii. Regarding the audience. It is readers of //Knowledge Tree//, the Australian Flexible Learning Network ejournal. **[I KNOW. ARE THEY ALL PROFESSIONALS? CONSULTANTS? GOVERNMENT WORKERS? TECH SAVVY?, ETC. JK]** iii. Nudge on thinking about a graphic appreciated. Excellent. We'd considered but I admit execution fell off the list midst deadline.

iv. Regarding "hierarchies vs networks". That's a really important point so let me start the conversation here.
A theme that emerged during our article writing was the fact that organisations today operate in an "and both" world, This is Victoria's meme so I'll leave her to elaborate. **[GREAT. I HAVE NOT SPOKEN WITH VICTORIA YET. JK]** But I'll make the case that 21st century organizations to be effective need to structure for leadership that ensures shared purpose and goals, and effective networks connecting the right talent and minds at the right times to address particular business objectives and or problems **[ARE YOU CONSIDERING THE KNOWLEDGE MANAGEMENT NEEDS? JK In what regard please? JA]**

Bryan & Joyce address this in Chapter 4 of [|Mobilizing Minds] with their proposal for "one company governance". I find the open source movement is always instructive **[THIS MAY BE A USEFUL SEGUE, AS I CANNOT UNDERSTAND HOW OPEN-SOURCE CAN BE RELIED UPON FOR BUSINESS NEEDS AS IT SEEMS TO REST ONLY ON THE GOODNESS AND SHARING'NESS' OF THOSE WHO ARE INTERESTED. TAKE THIS OPEN-SOURCE PROJECT IF YOU WILL. THE THREE OF YOU HAVE WRITTEN A LOT AND I AM NOW FREELY CONTRIBUTING TO YOUR WORK (SUCH AS OPEN SOURCE), BUT WITHOUT MORE CONVERSATION AND AGREEMENTS WOULD IT BE PRUDENT OR FAIR TO RELY ON MY CONTINUE PARTICIPATION AND THUS MAKE DEMANDS VS. REQUEST ADDITIONAL SUPPORT? JK ].**

JA: Interesting. I think the bottomline on open source is that people volunteer for softer rewards, recognition, satisfaction of contirbuting etc. They are free to not continue at any time, yes?

Consider how the network of volunteer open source developers creates valuable code but there is a [|very clear and understood review and decisionmaking structure] that ultimately determines what is added to the Linux kernel.

This [|slide] from a 2006 presentation was an attempt to capture the impact of grassroots collaborative tools in organizations. By supporting cross group and organizational interactions they disrupt and challenge traditional hierarchical structures. Note the anthill image was inspired by [|Andrew McAfee's blog post] explaining //The Mechanisms of Online Emergence// that like it or not have so impacted organizations. Our article opens with Bob Metcalfe at Xerox Parc, 1973 because it was his invention of the Ethernet computer networking protocol and cards that unleashed our connectedness.

Does that help?

JK- Jenny, to continue with this work, a few new questions this raises: 1. Is there a feature here in wikispaces that will automatically notate who says what? In other words, is there a way that it can automatically have my name listed here, rather than my own direct typing of it as netiquette? JA: Not that I've discovered. Adding a note to reveal changes at foot is the tool this wiki provides.

2. Is there a link to this page in the navigation area to the left? I would not have found it other than from the email you sent me directly. JA: There is now.

3. Shall I continue replying to your thoughts here, or back in their original context? 4. I know your paper has already been submitted for another formal review; to what extent will my continued edits continue to benefit your project? JA: Responding to both 3 & 4. We are waiting for the Editor Jo Murray's edits to know how much more work is needed. The intent though is that the wiki stays open and a living document on the topic. Entirely up to you if you want to continue. Thanks for prodding at the topic.
 * JK-** This is an interesting point, and may raise a number of questions. How active will this wiki be now that the article (permanent and static) is done? If the wiki was for the point of the article, then the wiki may no longer be needed outside of reviwing it as an artifcat. If the wiki is now something different, then perhaps its focus can or should change. Perhaps it may lead to something else, or perhaps it has served its role as an online repository of ideas for the article's direction.


 * JA: Indeed Jeffrey. What does the future hold? We don't know but based on my experience with wiki activity through the article writing I can bet it all depends on ENERGY in and VALUE out. Activity begets activity and whether people participate depends on their having a contribution to make and seeing something of value will emerge.

We always imagined a network analysis of the wiki users would make sense as part of the reporting but didn't have tme to focus on that piece. But as of yesterday we're in the VERY fortunate position of having [|Valdis Krebs] helping us figure this out. So I'll be invisible for the next little while as we gather data and be in touch with everyone who participated to ensure we can do a network analysis while respecting use of name. Look for an email next week.

Meanwhile, paying attention to Nancy White's "space between the tools", and building on what we learned here through the [|21st Century Organization Facebook group] and [|our blog] will be very interesting. Already writing the article for me has proven just the beginning of a journey. Insights from Patti Anklam and Robert Laubacher at the very end as we finalized Version 10 helped me understand that. Thanks again for the prod and an opportunity to reflect further on the article writing process and where to from here. ~ July 27, 2007**