The FASTForward Blog » Enterprise 2.0: Infrastructure for Synchronicity: Enterprise 2.0 Blog: News, Coverage, and Commentary

Enterprise 2.0: Infrastructure for Synchronicity

by Paula Thornton

July 3, 2010 at 8:40 pm · Filed under Business 2.0, Enterprise 2.0, Work 2.0

“It has been asserted that Jung’s analytical psychological theory of synchronicity is equal to intellectual intuition.” Wikipedia

Let’s follow this logic: if synchronicity is equal to intellectual intuition, and intuition “is the apparent ability to acquire knowledge without inference or the use of reason” [not suggesting I totally agree with this definition] then isn’t this something that would be relevant in a new business era where reason seems to fail? Moreso, “Some scientists have contended that intuition is associated with innovation in scientific discovery.” Isn’t everyone suggesting that business now needs to focus on more innovation — thus requiring a higher reliance on intuition? Could it be that Knowledge Management has failed because it lacked support of synchronicity?

Synchronicity is a natural byproduct of Enterprise 2.0 done well.

Do we not want to bring together disconnected, yet common efforts and leverage their commonalities? If we are about to embark on a major endeavor, do we not want to know before we invest a lot of time on a proposal that someone else in the organization is doing the same thing and is further along than we are?

Coined by Carl Jung, he believed synchronicity was the means to glimpse of the underlying order of the universe. It was a term that could help…

…describe what he called the “acausal connecting principle” that links mind and matter. He said this underlying connectedness manifests itself through meaningful coincidences that cannot be explained by cause and effect. [source]

One of the challenges with modern enterprises of any scale is the ability to connect resources and their corresponding activities. We try to approximate activity through defined processes and status of said processes. The problem is that these approximations (algorithms) for what’s really going on and why are often grossly insufficient (depending on how repeatable and non-varying the activity might be). For activities related to manufacturing, where inanimate objects are the primary resources involved, process-as-algorithm is reasonable. For activities related to services where people and knowledge work are the primary resources involved, more variability is introduced and algorithms in the form of constrained processes often fail to meet the need.

Cause and effect are meaningful for linear process. They are nearly meaningless in living systems. While there may be perceived causes and effects, the reality is far more complex, and involves things unseen (esp. thought). We must give place for thought to be made manifest. Work products are often prescribed in ways that do not allow for the sharing of thought.

PatriceLivingston Indeed, as Patrice Livingston so passionately describes [at min 11:20] the need for sharing often transcends time and place when past problems are often lying dormant still waiting for a solution:

Along comes me, I’m here. I would not ever know about Person A or B or that they had a conversation, but I can exhume a dialog that took place two years ago between these two individuals that lays out the problem and the solution. I can say…the following technology is now available. Problem solved.

This, she was only able to accomplish in a true Enterprise 2.0 infrastructure that supported what she knew was needed:

I knew at an instinctive level that what we were doing — all the unstructured communication, all the relationship building and stuff that our team was doing — was much more valuable than the work we were doing in written reports and meetings and minutes, which is what consumed the body of our time.

And yet, in most storage mechanism the work products themselves are stripped of the reality in which they were created. All the context as to why certain decisions were made at that time are all missing from the painfully-scrubbed collections of results and conclusions. The painful truth is, knowledge work products are not accurate representations of the work. The real work is on the cutting room floor and/or still in the minds of (or faded from) those that did the work and who may be gone. While there will always be ‘waste’ in any process, might the cuts from one project be relevant for another? Work products by themselves are often meaningless as they reflect what made it through the cuts. They lack the context of the work itself. When time and resources have past, how does one reconstruct the context for which the work product was created and you can no longer ask the workers questions about their work?

While I’m not going to delve into it here, a related topic that has been coalescing common energies recently is observable work. Whereas process-as-algorithm typically specifies certain work products, observable work is a term that casts a net wide enough to include the stuff on the cutting room floor.

For as much as people want to make Enterprise 2.0 about technologies, then I’m willing to concede this: Enterprise 2.0 is the means by which to achieve Work 2.0 to deliver Business 2.0.

There are many technologies to help support an Enterprise 2.0 reality, but often only for a piece of the total infrastructure needed. A blog provides a mechanism for broadcast and some conversation but doesn’t provide the continuity of a project and related work products. If multiple technologies are used, is there a common layer by which synchronicity can operate, or is blog content separate from wiki content, separate from discussions, separate from the work products themselves?

Synchronicity is the perfect test for certifying a true Enterprise 2.0 infrastructure. And the reverse is true, as well — a true Enterprise 2.0 infrastructure will support the natural emergence of synchronicity.

Share and Enjoy:

Permalink

72 Tweets

86 Comments »

Gordon RaeJuly 4th, 2010 at 7:50 am

The idea that we can discern meaningful connections between things that are apparently unrelated hs some potential, but in an enterprise setting, I think we need to establish whether meanings are personal. or shared by coworkers, a discovery about the real environment of the firm, or a point of view that is only meaningful to one department or division.

The question of whether Jungian synchronicity really is the same thing as ‘intellectual intuition’ depends whether you accept Bishop’s arguments that Jung was restating Kant.’s ideas about how we apprehend reality, or whether he was heading off in an entirely new and more psychological direction Since Bishop’s book costs $129, I’m linking to a long review by Stephen Palmquist which explores the issues in some depth.

MatiJuly 4th, 2010 at 10:26 am

“Enterprise 2.0 is the means by which to achieve Work 2.0 to deliver Business 2.0.” – back to basics – 80% of the value of any project will come from 20% of its activities

Larry IronsJuly 4th, 2010 at 11:22 am

Jung’s concept of syncrhonicity is an apt one to use. In his “Man and His Symbols” Jung noted that the term “means a ‘meaningful coincidence’ of outer and inner events that are not themselves causally connected. The emphasis lies on the word ‘meaningful.’” (p.226)

In other words, synchonicity didn’t apply to chance occurrences for Jung. The example Jung gives of a chance occurrence is when you blow your nose and an airplane crashes. On the other hand, if you order a blue shirt and a black one is delivered a day after a close relative dies, “this would be a meaningful coincidence. The two events are not causally related, but they are connected by the symbolic meaning that our society gives to the color black.”

I guess the point I’m tring to make is that supporting the emergence of synchonicity is necessarily done in the context of cultural symbols and meanings. In my thinking, that makes your focus on the importance of context a key insight.

Rick LaddJuly 4th, 2010 at 1:05 pm

Ah, Paula. I could not read this without being mindful of Jung’s forward to the I Ching, the Chinese Book of Changes, which once played a pivotal role in my life over four decades ago, yet has not truly re-entered since. I had to find the forward again online and re-read it, because it is where he introduces the concept of synchronicity (which he juxtaposes to causality) and discusses the predilections of the Western and Eastern minds . . . to some extent. I recommend his thoughts to anyone who reads your post, as an adjunct; a further delving into what (I believe) you’re getting at. It can be found here.

Although you’ve stated it far more eloquently than I could have, I think I was trying to make the same points in a preso I gave to members of my Masters in KM cohort, along with a few of our professors, last fall. I have uploaded it to Slideshare. I would love to hear your comments on the points I tried to make, as I really do think we’re saying similar things.

Thanks to Bill Ives and Sameer Patel for pointing this post out Really good stuff, Paula. I hope it generates a lot of heat, thereby producing light and illuminating the issues you are pointing out. (Here’s hoping I got the html correct.)

Paula ThorntonJuly 4th, 2010 at 7:17 pm

Rick: Thanks for thinking along with me for a ’spell’ and for providing such great references to further the thought and the conversation.

Challenge me back if you will. The one thing that I’m starting to question is the KM focus on the whole implicit/explicit story. I believe that synchronicity doesn’t really care about either. Because in the end, how do you really make knowledge explicit? The piece clearly questions the real value and relevance of the primary elements that most KM initiatives focus on: work products.

As most recently purported in “The Power of Pull” (although I continue to claim that the correct term is “Draw”), I would align KM to ’stocks’ of knowledge, and E2.0 to a balance between stocks and flows. Page 11 “To succeed now, we have to continually refresh our stocks of knowledge by participating in relevant ‘flows’ of knowledge–interactions that create knowledge or transfer it across individuals. These flows occur in any social, fluid environment that allows firms and individuals to get better faster by working with others.” KM was more focused on the capture of knowledge than the dynamics of its use or even its adaptive lifecycle of change through applied use and discovery.” Even the example given is insightful. Reading manuals is not enough. Workers need the insights of other workers, not necessarily to learn what they’ve learned, but to apply their knowledge to new problems collectively.

Applied knowledge is not static. Work products cannot solve new problems. No one can anticipate every variable possible, nor should they. Knowledge is most effective and efficient when it evolves in context. It can’t be managed; it can only be facilitated.

Paula ThorntonJuly 4th, 2010 at 10:28 pm

[I'm snickering at how timestamps can change the sequence of events as Larry and Gordon's posts sneak in before the posts that were already in place.]

Larry: Not being a apt student of Jung’s work, I appreciate all added tidbits and perspectives. Thanks for your thoughts on the relevance of context.

Gordon: Ditto my message to Larry and thanks for reminding us of the brilliance of social media. That reference is phenomenal and I likely would have never crossed it without you placing it directly in my path. If I glean anything of related significance, I’ll post it here and challenge others to share the fruits of their respective gleans as well : )

RohaanJuly 5th, 2010 at 1:18 pm

What a terribly weak supposition for synchronicity you give to justify/give credence to rebranded business jargon. Synchronicity quite possible pertains to an underlying order of reality and you take some wikipedia line equating synchronicity with some sort of intuition to fluff up an enterprise 2.0 article.

Then after 3 paragraphs of saying nothing you state that “synchronicity is a natural byproduct of enterprise 2.0 well done”.

First I want to say that synchronicity is not a random curiosity and that I not only agree with Jung that synchronicity is likely supported by a some deeper ordering principle, but I am also establishing an empirical basis on how synchronicity structures our world. Synchronicity is best understood as an ordering/structuring property of the universe that operates independent of human conceptual and actual follies. Think of gravity. Gravity does not increase or decrease based on what you think or do. You simply design and comport yourself according to its demands.

The same goes for synchronicity, but first you must discover the order hidden in reality to consciously work with it. And then it’s not something you can manipulate. It something you adapt to and set your sails to accordingly.

For those interested in the actual nuts and bolts of synchronicity please review my “work in progress” on the subject of the Art and Science of Synchronicity on my site. http://bit.ly/2fEfNz

MIchael RicardJuly 6th, 2010 at 2:10 am

It was nice to see the titles alluded to in Larry’s & Rick’s comments. In my youth, I too had read about synchronicity, both in Man & His Symbols and in the I Ching forward by Jung. (A bit synchronous how we have all come together about this.)

While the idea had a profound effect on me, I never dreamed that Jung’s concept of synchronicity would ever be discussed within a business context, but here we are applying it to Enterprise 2.0. And why not? Isn’t E2.0 about disruptive technologies which allow people to interact and share knowledge, which would rarely have occurred before within the rigid heirarchies prevailing within E1.0 businesses?

Paula, this blog topic is a memorable one for many reasons, as when you say, “We must give place for thought to be made manifest. Work products are often prescribed in ways that do not allow for the sharing of thought.” E2.0 is not about the technology, it’s about the people.

Darn, I have to run because I have to interview a colleague for our E2.0 blog. I will be following this subject and more of your topics in future.

Paula ThorntonJuly 6th, 2010 at 10:04 am

Rohaan: Thanks for joining the conversation. Was there ’selective term piety’ to be noted in your comments?

As Michael pointed out, he would never have expected to see such a term be used in a business context, and yet he sees the value of same.

Perhaps the issue is not in my use of the term, but in your understanding of how/why it is being used. You’ve stepped into a conversation that takes a lot for granted on the part of the reader (common understandings that are not continuously restated for new arrivals). Perhaps there is considerable context missing for you.

Are you just dropping by to ruffle feathers or would you truly like to understand where the synthesis lies?

Gordon RaeJuly 8th, 2010 at 2:55 pm

@Rohaan – I find your comparison of synchronicity with gravity way too mechanistic for my view of the universe. Gravity works on rocks; synchronicity works on consciousness. There can be no synchronicity without the conscious apprehension of the world by knowing sub jects.

Also, as Paula has already acknowledged, that “Wikipedia line” comes from a work of scholarship that positions Jung’s work in the context of German protestant Christianity and philosophical thinking about the transcendent and the immanent. I wouldn’t call that weak.

Jason WebbJuly 9th, 2010 at 5:34 am

Very informative post! Really thanks for sharing.It viewed me to a lot of opportunities.
Thanks and Regards/-
Jason Webb

CitizenPepeJuly 10th, 2010 at 4:44 am

Check this very interesting talk at TED. It explains pretty well the ability of our brain for “patternicity” and “connectivity”. Although the speaker gives a very strong clue about what’s going on in our brains when we are in this ’sensitive’ mood, this doesn’t mean at all that our intuitions, being homegrown or spontaneous, are all wrong or false.

I am now an strong skeptical, and previously I had an strong Catholic cultural background. All I can say by now is this: the only unearthly or unnatural experience that we know daily-full time is conscience. Since no one can conceive other conscience than the self’s one, this statement is true to me.

Science speaks and explains the nuts and bolts of conscience inside the brain-body system. But its mere enumeration and description is as far from the real thing as a plain stone is far from having intelligence. I’ll put it in other words: If you put the scores, a violin and an skilled violinist inside a mixer, and switch it on, the result IS NOT THE MUSIC AT ALL. The music is simply the music, so is conscience to life, to us.

There will be a time (not far I guess) in which synthetic consciences will be created. This will provoke profound commotions in philosophy and religions, only comparable to that other cosmic milestone of having contact with E.T. civilization. Even in that case, mankind will be as far from conceiving other conscience than the self as we actually are now.

The consciences are instances of the self running on mater. Conscience is a process in which the reality is perceived-created-projected on and by itself. Then, intuitions are links or anchors of conscience to the underlaying reality of things. In a way, they seem -for me- to be as echoes of our unconscious projected in objects and/or situations. Maybe the intuitions and synchronicities give bad information about reality, but no doubt that they do give us very meaningful information about what’s going on in our brain/soul.

CitizenPepeJuly 10th, 2010 at 4:47 am

Sorry, I forgot to paste the link to the TED talk.
http://www.ted.com/talks/michael_shermer_the_pattern_behind_self_deception.html

Paula ThorntonJuly 13th, 2010 at 8:17 pm

CitizenPepe: I was not impressed with Michael Schermer. Indeed, he makes a case against the likes of Synchronicity — he would label it as pseudo-science.

I’m also immediately suspect of anyone who aligns the fully-intelligent human race to some other form of life like “hominids”.

He specifically aligns patterns to the brain. He totally misses the point that patterns are aligned to all of our memory — which is throughout our bodies.

I continued to watch it all the way through to give you the benefit of doubt. I was not rewarded for doing so. Phrases like “falling for too much baloney” is a dangerous statement: What dictates the boundaries for ‘baloney’?

Some of the greatest thinkers were perceived by others to be mad. Truths are relative and rely on specific contexts — science only works for truths that can be generalized (e.g. they have few or rather stable variables).

And I stopped watching at the video, which violated the participant’s trust. It was neither funny nor informative. The whole presentation smacked of cheap parlor tricks.