Comments on: Organizing for Tough Times – Getting More for Less

By: Paula Thornton

Paula Thornton — Fri, 07 Nov 2008 16:29:52 +0000

Now that I’ve had moment to pause, reflect and compare this to current work, I’m seeing my focus clearly call out these distinctions in products. Clearly there are MANY perceived 2.0 products (blogs, wikis) that have not been designed in their ‘use’ from a 2.0 perspective — that is, they’re not “Architecture 2.0″ (I guess that should be my next post). They’re only paying lip service to the ‘whole’ of 2.0 because they’re still ‘fixed’ in their process and UI.

Complexity is always the litmus test for 2.0.

By: Rob Paterson

Rob Paterson — Fri, 07 Nov 2008 13:56:42 +0000

Of course Paula – why I think it is needed now is that after the advent of the web in 1985 or so – our world has become so interconnected that we have phase shifted into a new realm of complexity.

Only systems that can cope with complexity have any chance of working

Why determinism has to fail and worse make situations worse

By: Paula Thornton

Paula Thornton — Wed, 05 Nov 2008 23:17:47 +0000

One major problem with the Chaord theory — it already had a title. It’s called “complexity”. It’s always been the middle between the two — well at least after the complexity boys brought it all about via Sante Fe.

By: Paula Thornton

Paula Thornton — Wed, 05 Nov 2008 23:14:42 +0000

Too bad the FED isn’t organized around this model.

By: Rob Paterson

Rob Paterson — Wed, 05 Nov 2008 15:03:59 +0000

Paul
I think he did see ahead – he could see that it is the way that we organize that is the flaw – we traditionally organize for self interest. So the investment adviser purports to advise you – BUT he really needs to sell you a defined product. The University purports to educate you but really is selling bums on seats.

In the traditional model the institution mediates and captures the value by getting between you and what you need.

In the Hock model all sit at the same table. The organization owns the table it is not a toll bridge.

Is this not like Martin Luther? The church had placed itself between people and God. Luther made the mad idea that each of us could talk to God ourselves. The social media of his time – the press – enabled him to make available a bible in German that all could read – so all could make up their own mind. The Press also allowed the message to get out around the church.

The early Protestant church was a Hock “table” – a congregation came together to offer support to each other not to receive direction from a priest – all could work as a community.

Was this not the founding idea of America itself?

By: Paul L'Acosta

Paul L'Acosta — Mon, 03 Nov 2008 18:11:27 +0000

Rob,
After reading this post my mind has become numbed to a point of no return! Thank you so much for this great link to “the forgotten gospel” as it has instantly become the magnifying glass through which I’ll be looking at everything that surrounds me from now on.

Two things: It was kind of surprising to see the year it was wrote and I wonder if Hock foresaw what we’re going through, economy-wise, now in 2008? Was the lack of a system the catalyst that created this chaos?

Also, and I’m looking at it from a marketing perspective, do you think there’s a system being brewed as we speak to deal with this labyrinth we very humbly call “social media”?

Thanks!