Innovation and Agility

Jim Highsmith on Innovation and Agility: I have always maintained that one characteristic of a good agile leader is the ability to balance: up-front planning with on-going planning, early architecture with evolutionary architecture, and innovation with efficiency. It is a difficult balancing act. If CEOs can’t seem to get the balancing right, how can a project manager or development manager?

(Via Cutter Consortium: Enterprise Suite.)

Continuous Partial Attention

My son Martijn recently started working for Q42. One of his new colleagues pointed him to Continuous Partial Attention on whether or not to unplug from the ever increasing flow of interruptions of the grid and focus on getting some work done.

Becoming ever more agile—do some yoga.

Thanks Martijn & colleague!

Update Emerce Update Co-Creatie

Update van de Emerce Update Co-Creatie:

  • Ongeveer 200 mensen
  • Hele goede lezingen van:
    • Roger Beekman en André Bouwman van ADK/60 layers of cake over open source.
    • Sander Dullaart van Favela Fabric over teruggeven van aandacht, vraaggestuurd aanbod.
    • Gert Hans Berghuis van Fabrique over drijfveren en zingeving voor co-creatie, samen met user generated value (i.t.t. user generated content). Ik creëer dus ik besta. Zo inline met Thoughts Become Things van Mike Dooley (van The Secret).
    • René Jansen van Winkwaves over afstemmen op persona’s t.b.v. co-creatie.
    • Pim Betist van Sell-a-Band; echt super! Ze hebben de eerst vijf artiesten die elk $50k hebben verzameld en nu professioneel aan de slag gaan. Totaal hebben ze $750k in kas, waarvan $500k dit jaar. 3k bands in 8 maanden tijd. You Are The Record Company.
  • ‘k Heb met de meeste sprekers kort gesproken over Aloha en afgesproken een afspraak te maken. Vinden het een interessant concept.
  • Aanloop bij de tafel was goed. Stonden lekker in het licht met een spotje erop. Met praatplaat van Dennis op A2 op een tafelezeltje.
  • Wouter Boog, Visueel Vertaler van JAM, maakte grafisch verslag van de middag; trok veel aandacht en foto’s voor zowel JAM als Aloha.
  • Wouter scant de platen nog in en dan zz we ze op de wiki.
  • Emerce zal er ook wel wat mee doen in hun verslag.
  • Kreeg nog iemand van WWF (WNF) aan tafel; is bijzonder geïnteresseerd; WWF mogelijk als Aloha Associate?
  • Voor verslag, zie:

Map: Welcome to the Blogosphere

blogo_sm.jpg
From Discover Magazine:

The blogosphere is the most explosive social network you’ll never see. Recent studies suggest that nearly 60 million blogs exist online, and about 175,000 more crop up daily (that’s about 2 every second). Even though the vast majority of blogs are either abandoned or isolated, many bloggers like to link to other Web sites. These links allow analysts to track trends in blogs and identify the most popular topics of data exchange. Social media expert Matthew Hurst recently collected link data for six weeks and produced this plot of the most active and interconnected parts of the blogosphere.

Holacracy and chaorganization on votes

As a member of the Identity Commons mailing list for several years now I find many of the organizational conversations very interesting. Especially the dialogs on principles, articles, bylaws, organization, etc.

I feel compelled to contribute in some way, but force myself not to for the simple reason that I know that I cannot sustain the level of contribution that the IC needs. And I must set and keep these expectations right in order not to disappoint either of us. Please forgive me for that.

Anyway, Eugene’s (again excellent) summary on last week’s (3/28/2007) call mentioned the subject of voting again. This triggered me to send them this article on Holacracy from Drian J. Robertson from the Cutter Consortium. You probably already know about it, but I just want to make sure you wouldn’t miss it.

Please allow me to quote from page 12:

On votes
Another common question is about the “possible votes” in integrative decision making. At first it can sound like there are two possible votes on a proposed decision—”consent” or “object”—though that’s missing a key point. Consent isn’t about “votes”at all; the idea of a vote doesn’t make sense in the context of consent. There are no votes, and people do not vote.
People do say whether they know of a reason why the proposed decision is outside the limits of tolerance of any aspect of the system, and then decision making continues to integrate that new information. This isn’t the same as most consensus-based processes—either in theory or in practice—although it does sound similar at first, especially before an actual meeting that seeks consent is witnessed.

Thoughts?