There's a limit to Web 2.0 that shows up in all of its uses, including the M Prize process: it doesnt really produce effective new management systems that will work, just islands of good practice and hope. Suggested is a hack that will lead to assembling and integrating ideas from many sources, making a better one.
Of course, the M-Prize is just one handy case and its well done, but maybe next year ....
You go to one of your LinkedIn Groups and take a look at the recent Discussions and decide to read one or two, then read through a few of the comments and make a comment yourself. What have you learned from this collaboration? What has anyone else learned from it? Whether there are 10 comments or 100, or even more to a discussion (most have none), there is no easy and effective mechanism to get a simple summary, much less an integration of the result.
The starting rules (as goals) for Management 2.0 Models
1. Basic and easy to understand and use
2. Common Words
3. Supports rich understanding
4. Able to be built upon
5. Makes the world better by untangling and managing complexity (2)
6. Implements serious science (2)
For example, a LinkedIn Group for Marketing Operations has a Discussion asking about the purpose of Marketing Operations: to make Marketing more effective or more efficient and after the Comments slow, a model is posted saying: is this what we have said? Continued discussion then is either centered on or updates the model until concensus is reached. That is posted to a Web 2.0 collection of models for marketing.
Applied to a M-Prize idea collection as an example - a model of Web 2.0 and Management 2.0 would exist when it was started, upon which to place and grow each idea. Submitters are asked to submit specific questions on the 'So What' and where fit ideas and what is the function and role of the idea so that it is made relevant to the situation.
A meeting online would have someone assigned to bring the appropriate model into the discussion at the start, and then each person would be responsibile for saying what part of the model they were going to talk about and whether it should be changed or added to. Unlike Wikipedia, it is best done at the meeting or during the active online discussion to become an interactive part of the discussion and contribute to its productivity.
The first possibly helpful diagram (PhD) will be the starting basic Management 2.0 Model and will consist of:
The basic cycle of Gap=> Goal => Do => Effects => Results => Gap
Output from Do vs Input to Do is efficiency.
Results vs. Goal is effectiveness
Quite simple, and this meets all of the rules!
The second model will build on the first, and be the Two Party Management 2.0 model where a second party, a buyer will have the same model as above, intersecting at the Effects. Goal of one party: sell, goal of second party: find solution. It's now a rich model of communication and interaction between two parties and can be simulated on Systems Dynamics software to better understand the dynamics for Communication, Marketing, Sales and Customer understanding. We have this model ready to go.
An example of how it would be applied to the MIX Management 2.0 prize submissions could be done with the help from the advisors, judges and submitters. We would coordinate it.
This would be an excellent chance to show the value, or not, of the hack.
We have set up a Meetup group of WeConnectors to start training by early September. It's open but we need to accept no more than 25 in initial class and they must be unusually qualified in the area, probably marketing, and with openness to understanding of systems concepts. Our work for the past five years with Engineering Interns from Dartmouth College indicate these people can be found. In the case of the engineers, they were systems engineers and thus predisposed to connecting and systems. They did stunningly well and we can emulate this going forward with non-engineers.
- As Gary Hamil notes: 'Of course, the web has its limits. Online collaboration, in its current state, is not a very good substitute for the sort of unscripted, face-to-face interactions that are critical to producing genuine breakthroughs.' But beyond that, there are problems even with face-to-face collaboration. The problem is that This is a problem of collaboration, of communication. And it exists with every organization, every group of humans because of the ways we think and act, emerging from the way the brain works. Solving this common problem would increase the effectiveness of every organization. Big problem and big value to a solution. MIX Website.
- 'Thinking in Systems', Donella Meadows (2008) White River Junction, VT: Chelsea Green Publishing
- 'Systems Thinking for Curious Managers', Russell Ackoff, (2010) United Kingdom: Triarchy Press
- 'T Rex and the Crater of Doom', Walter Alvarez (2008) Princeton NJ: Princeton University Press
- 'Seeking Wisdom: From Darwin to Munger' Peter Bevelin (2007) Sweden: PCA Publications
- 'Better', Atul Gawande (2007) NY, NY: Picador USA
- 'The Structure of Scientific Revolutions', Thomas Kuhn (1996) Chicago, IL: The University of Chicago
- 'Business Dynamics: Systems Thinking and Modeling for a Complex World', John Sterman, Boston MA: Irwin/McGraw-Hill
- 'The Power of Professionalism', William Wiersma (2011)
- 'Sociobiology: The New Synthesis', E. O. Wilson (2000), Cambridge, MA: Belknap Press of Harvard University Press'.
- 'The Fifth Discipline: The Art and Practice of the Learning Organization' Peter Senge (1990) Doubleday
- Discussions with Professor Walter Alvarez of UC CA Berkeley, who, with his father, Luis Alvarex - Nobel Prize in Physics, first hypothesized that an impact from outer space killed off the dinosaurs. The father and son team had to leave the comfort of Geology and Physics and trespass, as he later wrote, into many other disciplines to determine how this hypothesis could work.. They are true Connectors and Walter's current teaching of Big History at UCB is a model of how to move out of one's expertise area and with great humility and intelligence, teach in other areas. It is a model for breaking thru silos.
- Many HBR articles
- Many other sources - list being worked on.