James Drogan

In "The Organization of the Future" Dave Pollard again stimulates the "little grey cells."

First, the stimulus is in the context of a class I am currently teaching, "Management Information Systems in Transportation."   The question provoked by Pollard is whether the concepts underlying The Organization of the Future can help us design, develop, implement, and operate management information systems that are more in tune with current and future organizational needs.

Second, what would a management information system for The Organization of the Future look like?  This would be an interesting exercise for a graduate class in management information systems.

Thanks again, Dave. 

From Dave Pollard's blog.

'We who understand (at least a little) the shape our world is in, have a lot of work to do. To do that, we need to stay flexible, agile, resilient. We need to keep our perspective and our objectivity. We need to be brutally honest with ourselves and with others. If we get too fixed in our thinking, rigid, uncompromising, doctrinaire, or if we get sidetracked by the minutiae of the modern world, trivial matters that may evoke some visceral response in us, but which in the long run are of no consequence and simply waste time and energy, we will be opening ourselves up to illness and injury we cannot afford.

How then, I would like to know, do you maintain your resilience? How do you stay open-minded yet centered, focused yet able to let go of things that no longer merit holding onto? There are some obvious ways: meditation and other relaxation/awareness techniques, and physical exercise, both aerobic, to keep energy levels and stamina high, and anaerobic, to keep your posture good and your muscles flexible and relaxed. Spending time in nature, or, perhaps for some of you, in spiritual contemplation is another way.

What else? What do you do to keep it together, to keep yourself open to ideas and ideologies of others, without, as ee cummings put it, "becoming everyone else"? How do you manage to roll with the punches, without becoming so unfocused that you just blow in the wind, directionless?'

 Pollard is on of my favorite bloggers and regularly poses provocative items such as this.  To participate in this discussion go to his original posting.

A major research institution has recently announced the discovery of what is believed to be the heaviest (and densest) chemical element yet known to science.

The new element has been named Governmentium. Governmentium has 1 neutron, 12 assistant neutrons, 75 deputy neutrons, and 11 assistant deputy neutrons, giving it an atomic mass of 312.

These 312 particles are held together by forces called morons, which are surrounded by vast quantities of lepton-like particles called peons. Since governmentium has no electrons, it is inert. However, it can be
detected as it impedes every reaction with which it comes into contact. A minute amount of governmentium caused one reaction to take more than 4 days to complete when it would normally take one second.

Governmentium has a normal half-life of 2 to 4 years; however, it does not decay, but instead undergoes multiple reorganizations in which a portion of the assistant neutrons, assistant deputy neutrons, and deputy
neutrons exchange places. In fact, governmentium mass will actually increase over time, since each reorganization causes some morons to become neutrons, forming iso-dopes. This characteristic of =
moron-promotion leads some scientist s to speculate that governmentium is formed whenever morons reach a certain quantity in concentration.

This hypothetical quantity is referred to as Critical Morass.

You will know it when you see it.

In this morning's scan of the blogroll comes Dave  Pollard's post, The World's Ten Most Intractable Problems.

It attracts my attention because 1.) it identifies a problem (opportunity?) list that is somewhat congruent with issues I have addressed in droganbloggin. and 2.) begins to suggest how to approach resolution of these issues.

However, Pollard may have left out the most critical issue of all -- change of the human heart.  Machiavelli, in The Prince (1513), reminds us:

“There is nothing more difficult to take in hand, more perilous to conduct, or more uncertain in its success, than to take the lead in the introduction of a new order of things. Because the innovator has for enemies all those who have done well under the old conditions, and lukewarm defenders in those who may do well under the new.”

Re Conversations with Dave

You're arguing a Catch 22, aren't you?  How will you get interested readership if you don't put something out there to interest the readers?  For example, aren't your core correspondents an interested readership with whom you have established some level of credibility?  It strains belief to think that there are only a few of us (I am brazenly suggesting I am on this list.) with this mental makeup.  Doesn't this argue for moving these conversations to a more public space?  It strikes me that you are either overly modest or overly concerned about "bolts from the blue."  Why hide your light under a basket?  Post yourself, figuratively, at Speaker's Corner in London's Hyde Park and see what happens.
 
As to hits on my site.


 
This site only started in April.
 
I've no statistics for my previous site, but occasionally I would run across a reference someone had made to my site. I would discover this by either googling "James Drogan" or finding a reference to my site on other sites I happened to be browsing.  I'm sure there is a more elegant way to check for references, but I've neither the time nor the inclination to look into the matter further.
 
As to the model, I would differ with you on the interpretation of interpret and learn as "off-line" activities.  I think they must be embedded in the data stream. I do agree with you that filters (e.g., biases; existing knowledge, skills, and experiences; physical, mental, and spiritual vitality) shape the fundamental components.  The traditional process model (i.e., the filter) works for me in the decomposition of these fundamental components.

 

This model is, and should be, in a state of constant flux.
 
Your comment regarding the relatively static processing capacity is interesting.  One can, I believe, through high quality communications and collaboration, both based on trust, improve the amount of processing capacity focused on an issue of personal interest.  SETI is an example of that.  Massive parallel processing, which is what SETI is all about, represents that.  Blue Gene and other efforts come to mind here.  Maybe a useful analogy is the packing of an increasing number of components on a chip to improve processing power.
 
So where does this all leave me as a teacher and learner?
 
First, is to evoke a realization on the part of the student that a loop such as I describe exists.  
 
Second, is that this model is, and should be, in a state of constant change.  
 
Third, there are ways to recognize when change is required and means whereby that change can be designed and implemented.  
 
Fourth, and perhaps most importantly, each traveler on Spaceship Earth has a personal responsibility to manage the loop.  This responsibility should not be delegated to others unless absolutely necessary.  Giving someone the power of attorney over one's mind is opting out of life.  
 
Fifth, interconnection of the loops can put more processing power on the problem.  However, one's initial role as the brain now becomes one of being the brain of the brains.  One may not, as suggested by my previous note, be comfortable in this central role.

Re Conversations with Dave

Can we, therefore, look forward to www.dave'sworld.com and www.stan'sstuff.com? www.jim'sjunque.com can be found at www.jmsdrgn.squarespace.com > droganbloggin.
 
Here's a concept I teach.



The Web, and blogs, and wikis, and podcasts, and picture sites, and on and on, will not, fundamentally, change this cycle, but the cycle is speeded up enormously.  Coping with the rise in data (and even, perhaps, information and knowledge) requires more collaboration and the use of more tools that network the minds (the brain of brains).  One must accept more ambiguity and hence become better at risk management.
 
And perhaps one must become more tolerant as well.

Re Conversations with Dave

"It's just literally not being covered at all in any normally accessible media and what little you do see is so narrow, ill-informed and predujicially biased in it's interpretations as to miss all the structural factors."

Why not?

A line from The American President comes to mind here.

" And whatever your particular problem is, I promise you Bob Rumson is not the least bit interested in solving it. He is interested in two things, and two things only: making you afraid of it, and telling you who's to blame for it. That, ladies and gentlemen, is how you win elections."  See http://www.larsonsworld.com/library/misc/american_president.html for the entire response from President Shepherd.

I suggest that one of the answers to my question is that the means, political power, has become the end.  The debate about Judge Roberts is an example.  The logic seems to go: "He was nominated by President Bush and therefore bad. If we dig deep enough and long enough we will find something to support our conclusion. And if we don't, that fact will confirm that he's too secretive and hence suspect."  Senatorial holds on nominations is another example of this sort of foolishness (see today's lead editorial in the WSJ).

Doing what's correct has given way to doing what will put one at the top of the heap.  This mantra has taken over politics, the mainstream media, some professional sports, some in academia (a nice article on this matter in column one of today's WSJ), some religious organizations, and. of course, some of industry.  In the game of Who Do You Trust, where do these organizations finish?

So, how does one square this with the item on "Heartening - Values and Social Renewal?"  Heartening argues the case that positive social change has risen from the bottom.  Perhaps it has.  I, like you, would prefer additional supporting evidence, especially since my day-to-day experience with those around me doesn't seem to indicate much "heartening."

Perhaps we have a clash of forces at hand.  Heartening versus meanness.  The light versus the dark.

Or perhaps I'm simply becoming more curmudgeonly.

From the Creative Generalist comes:

If breakthrough insights are at the intersection of ideas, concepts and cultures, it will be generalists—those so-called dabblers and experts of nothing—who find them, who connect them with the specialists that need them, and who shepherd into existence the ideas that will change our world. Nothing can substitute for depth of analysis, and there's proven value in specialization—it's what education, career paths, scientific research, and technological innovation are built on—but generalism is the hidden talent. With so much complex information that is fragmented in so many ways and developing faster and faster, it is increasingly important to have generalists around to make sense of it all. People who appreciate diversity, who are in the know about the wider world and who understand how things interact are invaluable observers, matchmakers, and pioneers of the intersectional ideas so vital for success in today’s global knowledge economy and conceptual age.

I am biased towards the generalist.  I inclined to think that many of the issues that confront us result from the lack of comprehensive systems thinking, the failure to see the larger patterns, the myopia of special interest groups, the focus on self and not selflessness.

A battery-powered candle.

And

Dog poo spray wins D&AD Student of the Year

What will be civilization's next big advance?

With Bush stands by his controversial man, balances have once agained checked by the Administration.  That we are no longer alarmed by this is alarming.