Framing the “Sharing Economy”: Opportunity, or Sharecropping for Oligarchs?

The early years of the 20-teens have been dominated by talk of “disruption”, as new technologies surge into previously conservative corners of the economy and shake things up. But there is a narrative that I believe will change as we move into 2016 – indeed, I believe it needs to change; what have been conversations about technology are actually about economics, politics and power.

Using the battle cry of technology and progress, some very old ideas have reemerged, let loose by depressingly shallow public debate which has been distracted by outdated ideas of the state of technology and the internet.

There are many examples, but I will begin with just one; the “sharing economy”. The state of affairs around what began, perhaps, as an optimistic reimagining of sharing, ownership and consumption has become a venture-fuelled orgy of exploitation, masquerading as a crusade against municipal corruption and cronyism.

But what underlies the “sharing economy” is a cynical trade of the control of the means of production for the means of connection; what, in the “old economy”, we would refer to as “middle-men”.


Leave a Comment

Beyond Analysis – Designing Communities and Networks


Canada’s former Parliamentary Budget Officer Kevin Page made the distinction between his office and that of the Auditor General as a matter of perspective and direction; Auditors go back an analyze what is done, whereas his office was meant to look forward, seeing if the government’s projections for the future added up. This requires a different set of tools, but the ability to project forward is critical in informing strategy and decision-making.

As more organizations wake up to the importance of “the social graph” in understanding the patterns of connection and collaboration within and across their own networks, many are caught in an “audit” world, with no model for setting strategy around social networks. Simply put – most tools and research around Social Network Analysis and even network science is inherently backwards looking, with no entry point for strategy and design.

Pentland’s writing on “The New Science of Building Great Teams” is instructive of the difference; passive monitoring of different team configurations reveals that different densities and patterns of interaction correlate to different measures of team output, therefore, we should encourage those densities and types of interaction.


But how was the team formed? Why was it formed? What were they working on, and did it matter if they cared about what they were working on?

More importantly; if I were to assemble a new team from across my organization to achieve a specific goal, what should guide my decisions about how to assemble that team?

Any forward looking, strategic questions of that nature tend to find very few sources of input.

I take the findings of SNA as a given; great input, and generative of an awareness of network dynamics that represents critical table stakes for operating large or diverse teams. But to confidently assemble teams, networks, movements or communities, a framework for answering forward looking questions which link network interventions with desired strategic outcomes is critical.

First – a set of “design principles” are needed, gleaned from a broad set of disciplines which can provide guard rails for design, while also a framework for hypothesis testing. Scott Page’s research on diversity is an example of fertile ground for input here.

Second – a broader model for connection or network archetypes is needed in order to connect intended outputs of a group with decisions about its purpose and structure; I outline this separately here.

Third – a model for the role of the individual in the process of community formation, as I’ve outlined here, connects the whole with the individual, which is important for the last piece;

Fourth – a solid analytical framework and matching engine are needed to gather information at scale as the basis for team formation.

Absent these pieces, much work in analyzing networks is difficult to mobilize strategically, and thus its value to decision makers is diminished. I’ll be fleshing out the components of this approach in greater detail in further writing in this space.

Leave a Comment

7 Ways to Set Up a Collaborative Space that Doesn’t Suck

I see it in every company or organization that I work with; lots of money spent kitting out meeting space or collaborative space so that people can work together. Ninety-nine times out of one hundred, the space is terrible, and largely unsuitable for collaboration.

If you’ve ever wondered why it feels so good to sit in an Italian piazza, why some restaurants feel more romantic than others, or why university lectures feel so boring, it’s because we are, as humans, profoundly affected by the spaces we are in – they shape our attention, our emotions and the nature of all interactions that take place within them. Ignore this at your peril.

So for those of you in mid-renovation of your offices in the hopes of making the workplace more collaborative, take heed of the following 7 patterns:

Give me natural light

Like plants, humans need natural light. Plenty of research shows that daylight affects attentiveness, productivity and absenteeism – allowing the light to shine in helps boost the emotional state of those in the room; where creativity and collaboration is the goal, natural light should be on your spec list.

Where possible, that natural light should be on two walls; having a “light tunnel” means that half of the people are backlit, creating a subtle psychological tax on everyone else.

TL;DR – if a plant wouldn’t survive in the room, don’t stick humans in there.

Have enough space

Just like the height of your ceilings can impact your creativity, being crammed into a room like Tic Tacs makes people feel constrained, not to mention the fact that it creates physical barriers to moving from one mode of working to another. Collaborative work should allow people to work as a large group, and split into smaller groups in the flow of their tasks, ideally all within the same contiguous space.

Have a suitable setup for interaction

A circle is great for a focused conversation where you can see everyone’s face. Sitting around a table is great for working on individual tasks, together – though King Arthur had a round table for a reason. Sitting in an arc facing a whiteboard is great for capturing common ideas in a common space. Sitting in opposing rows works well for debate. Agora-style seating works for passive reception of presented content or speeches. What type of interactions do you want people to have as they are collaborating?

Being conscious of what types of collaborations are meant within your space (sharing, transactional co-creation, integrated/extended co-creation, co-working, cross-pollination, parallel work) and matching the physical setup to support it increases your odds of achieving your intended outcome, or at least keeps you from sabotaging your own work.

Have flexible space

Hopefully you read the last point, and thought – “But over time, we’ll need to do all of those things! How do I know which setup to choose?”

Exactly. Plonking the default boardroom table in your meeting room means you will only ever be setup for one type of interaction, and your space will suck for everything else. Collapsible tables, stacking chairs, rolling whiteboards and plugs all over the place means that whatever the needs of your group, you can setup to accommodate their work. Think: airwalls that let you open up to bigger groups and furniture that can flow throughout.

Have technology that knows its place

Technology is meant to support your work, not dictate how and where it’s done. Think about the interaction scenarios first, and all the ways that you might want to set the space, and let the technology follow. Don’t let the placement of plugs, or the only VGA cable dictate how every meeting or collaborative session should take place from now on. Screens should either roll, or be easy to “beam” to from where ever you’re set up. Audio and video conferencing should supplement the physical setup, not distort it towards the phone in the corner.

Have support for analog

Just as taking notes by hand supports better recall than notes taken on a computer, allowing people to work in analog allows them to process complex information more simply. Whiteboards, physical models, sticky notes and Legos allow people to construct common concepts without the tunnelling effect of watching someone take notes into PowerPoint. Let people work together on the boards, and if you need to share it quickly, surely someone has an iPhone in their pocket? Try Turboscan.

Try making it look nice

Knowledge work should be in a knowledge-rich environment, and one that feels active and creative. Throw in some plants (your room has natural light anyways, right?) and a library of interesting, inspiring and challenging books. Not only will the plants make you smarter, the books will too, just by being present…and heck, you might pick one up, and get an idea or two. And they look nice, too.


Leave a Comment

Thresholds in community formation


I’m recently taken with the idea of “liminality” in the concept of community formation. Taken from readings in Victor Turner’s The Ritual Process, liminality is a central component of an individual’s passage from one state to another, referring to the middle condition where the person is no longer who they were, but have not yet transitioned into what they will become.

Turner pulls from the earlier work of Arnold van Gennep on rites de passage to explore three phases to a transition; separation, margin and aggregation.

This exploration of liminality by Turner is within the context of his larger theorization on communitas – or the sense of community or belonging that is unstructured and distinct from groups with an “area of common living”. This, for me, is where these theories become interesting in the context of designing for community; elements of communitas seem to be what we are designing for, yet the “rituals”, routines and formats of modern gatherings bear few of the attributes that would support this state of liminality.

There would seem to be a need for a strong cultural component to act as a framing for this type of transition – a larger framing in which could act as a container for the individual and community; a context within which the individual goes through a process of submission, surrendering in order to transition to a new social state.

I believe that there could be a larger psychological threshold, or liminal state, that is part of a longer process of transition, but that there could easily micro-transitions that could be designed into community interaction. Japanese architecture and landscape design paid a great deal of attention to transitional spaces and thresholds, with gates and low-hung doors meant to pattern a psychological response to transitioning from one state to another on passage.

In designing both educational and community processes, I am curious in how deeply the sense of self needs to be challenged in order to induce a liminal state of “becoming” in order to forge a more connected self, and how that depth affects the durability of the community or sense of identity for the learner what they come out the other side. Part of this question is exploring the role of ritual, and of course, it all relates back to the role of identity formation I began to explore here.


Leave a Comment

A Theory of Community Formation

A Model of Community Formation

Seeded by interest, germinated by experience, grown through identity and sustained through intent

As part of our work at The Value Web, we’ve been involved over the years working with various communities – such as The World Economic Forum’s Young Global Leaders community – to organize numerous community gatherings and create processes that achieve particular outcomes or explore areas of interest.

More and more, however, the creation of community has become an end in itself, as the people we work with come to recognize the value of strong and engaged communities of people and their ability to achieve what disconnected groups cannot. While we have intuitively designed using our core models in a way that has nurtured communities through shared experience and work, I have found myself wanting a meta-model that would aid in explicitly designing for community formation.

The theory and model presented here is an early version towards having a design toolkit for community formation; it is based on a number of underlying theories and assumptions. The first assumption is that any community or potential community is a complex system, based on the fact that it is made up of a series of independent actors with their own influences and interactions. Secondly, it is based on the idea that community itself is an emergent quality – community, per se, does not exist; it is a perceived connection between a group of people, based on overlaps of intent, identity, interest and experience.

Which brings us to the model; as the model is in its first iteration, it is still in two parts; there is the individual, and there is the community. The idea is quite simple; individuals are the component parts of the community, and the community is based on the creation of connections or overlaps between the individuals.

identity formation in communities

A model of identity formation

The aspects of the individual that have been pulled out for the purposes of this model are the ones that are relevant to our sense of self in relation to others and groups, as well as those aspects which form a basis for connection. These aspects are interest, experience, identity and intent. These elements have, between them, a series of complex interplays, and I believe there are a number of archetypal interactions between them both for the self, and in the connect between people, that will be part of the next iteration of the model. For now, in this version, each particle within this “molecular” model of the self has multiple sub-components which dictate the behaviour of the particle.


Interest is meant in two senses of the word; first, in the sense of attraction or affinity to something as engaging, and second, as something perceived to be of benefit to the individual. Interest is a motive force which guides action.


Experience is the retained memory of past actions and senses. As it accumulates it begins to work in a feedback loop with interest and intent, but also begins to form a basis for identity, in that we become a collection of what we have done.


Intent runs deeper than interest – it is more complex and nuanced, in that it combines the drives of interest with the insights of experience to create a broader, vision-based set of motivations. Belief plays a role in intent, and intent, where forms, becomes embedded in identity.


Identity, in this model, is a purely emergent quality. It is presented as the interplay between our own self-perception which is “projected” into the world, and the received “reflection” from others as our projected self is validated, challenged and shaped. Identity, which we craft from our experience (“who have I been?”) is a balance between who we say we are, and who we believe others think we are.

The social aspect of identity is critical here, when we think of this model in the context of community formation. The most robust communities become so because the community has become a constituent element within its members’ self perception.

Forming Community

The concept of community formation within this model, then, is that communities can form based on the overlaps between these elements among a number of people. There are different archetypes of formation here – communities of interest, alumni (based on past experience), movements and causes (based on intent). Part of my contention here is that a community that is designed could be designed for resilience by sequencing and overlaying the different types of formation – once the development of a community has gone from loosely based on interest, then grown through shared experience, then catalyzed through intent (or multiple intents, mapped back to interest) would become a major identity vector among members. This delicate weave is what begins to create not a gathering, but a community, whether it be online or off, geographically based or transnational.

There is much more to the model, in particular the archetypes, but I’ll save them for a subsequent post. I am curious, first and foremost, to get the insights of others on how they have seen communities form; does the model hold? What’s missing?

Leave a Comment

A Value Web

As part of my work with The Value Web, both as a knowledge worker, and as a board member, I’ve been giving a lot of thought to the model which underpins it – the “Value Web” or “Business of Enterprise” model developed by MGTaylor.

At the core of the model is the concept of working differently together to change “the game”; as Matt Taylor puts it:

In a zero sum game, there’s a finite amount of resource and the game is to decide how it gets distributed. In an infinite game, the purpose of the game is to continue the game–to grow and expand the resource base and the distribution model.

What is needed to make it work is a willingness to work differently and reconsider the nature of working relationships, client relationships and peer relationships; especially as it pertains to hierarchy. The model suggests a dynamic interplay between consumers, producers and investors, where each actor might fit within multiple roles and the interactions are seen as complimentary and coordinated.

In practice, how this has played out with us – from my perspective – as an organization formed around a set of methods for facilitating collaboration and effective decision-making, is a remake of how we engage on a number of fronts:

With Clients: For me it has helped shape my mental model of engagement, essentially drawing from our tools of collaboration to extend into relationships and contracting. By rethinking the boundaries and purpose of the relationship, “selling services” within this model of engagement doesn’t make a lot of sense; finding a way of working together to create shared value does. It encourages an ethic of co-creation right from the get-go, thinking of how mutual benefit and value can come out of a working relationship that extends beyond simple transactional remuneration.

With Colleagues: In our case, by formalizing a brand identity around the value web itself (by creating The Value Web), we – in effect – created a brand DMZ; a common space for mutual working and collaboration that was neither mine nor yours, but which belonged to the larger working community. But by making it operational (ie a functioning entity which would pursue and complete work), it made the idea of collaborating together concrete and not theoretical. By approaching work as peers and equals, many of the unhealthy dynamics between peers disappeared, and again, the focus tends to stay on creating value, rather than who was getting a cut of what.

What I find fascinating about putting the model into play is the degree of trust, true peering and mutual respect that is required to make it work. This model is something I will be delving into further over the next while. How does trust get manifested and maintained within the network? How do teams work within this construct? What are the principle threats to this type of model? How does it adapt, and what is the balance of robustness or fragility?

Leave a Comment

Auto-tuning, harvesting, and the design of knowledge

The Garden of Your Mind

Reading this article at fast co-create about an auto-tune artist’s design process, I was stricken by its similarity to our Harvesting Process, which is, in essence, a process of designing knowledge.

Boswell watched eight episodes of Mr. Rogers’ Neighborhood.As he watches, Boswell identifies clips he likes and writes down their timecode, before organizing them digitally. Through this process, the video’s theme and message start to emerge. Next Boswell establishes the chorus, which must have a direct correlation to the message of the video. Boswell says that for this video, the themes he identified: creativity and imagination, were woven in easily since Rogers deals with them so much on his show. With the chorus and theme in place, he begins to eliminate clips that won’t work within the context of the video, winnowing down his selection the way a sculptor crafts his art from a block of stone.

This process of absorbing, listening for emergent themes and then remixing to create something new, compelling and coherent is precisely the process we’ve been working with at The Value Web to make sense of a stream of interrelated conversations; something we’ve been referring to as Harvesting. In an age of infographics and snippets, I believe that there is immense value in being able to not just summarize, but to synthesize and find the compelling narratives that flow through and between conversations to create something that is memorable and moving. What I love about this video is that it clearly draws on a vast sampling of Mr. Rogers work, but manages to pull out a meta-thread that reinspires you, makes you see built in wisdom that is easy to miss if you focus on the particulars.

The same goes for conversations and conferences; I may remember individual conversations I had, but what would a holistic view of the conference or summit be if one were to pull out the emergent narrative?

In some of our work last year, we summarized this visually in this sketch:

Process design: a manifesto

Here in Bologna with my fellow members of The Value Web board, I have taken this first cut at crafting a manifesto of sorts for our group…more to come, but for now:

Complexity; it is a product of a riot of influences coming together, each representing  – on their own – a web of interconnections in themselves. As we see a steadily rising global population, accumulating environmental impacts and pervasive political and economic misalignment across the world, the many forces that drive, and are driven by, complexity collide across borders, across industries and across political, economic and ideological boundaries.

Parallel to this explosion in complexity is an intensification of impact for both action and inaction by decision-makers who attempt to plot a course for themselves, for their organizations and their countries. Decisions made by one group has an unexpected impact on others, or combine with the decisions of connected but independent actors to create counterproductive or unpredictable results; or no results at all, where, perhaps, urgent action is needed.

In this context – where climate change requires global coordination across nations and industries, where demand for food, energy and water collides, where one country’s policy can trigger another’s economic disaster – we see the staggering deficiency of the decision processes used by today’s leaders. They are linear, where issues are organic and non-linear. They are isolated and discrete, where impacts are connected and reinforcing. In short, they represent a social technology which is a result of an age of simplification, repetition and industrialization.

We are not in a crisis of technology, of environment or of conflict. We are increasingly the victims of crises triggered by failures of decision-making; failures to create dialogue and understanding, failures of holistic consideration of interconnections and influences, and failures of decisiveness – taking action where and when it is needed on emergent truths and evident threats.

We believe, therefore, that what the world needs is an urgent redesign of its decision-making processes. Our vision is to inject new tools and social technologies, which reflect the need for understanding and cooperation, into the world’s decision-making gatherings in order to transform decision-making processes through collaboration.

We believe that the tools and methods we have used to facilitate productive dialogue across stakeholders who share an urgent need for change can and must be used in fora where decisions about our shared future are made, casting aside the stultified, ossified and increasingly anachronistic customs and processes that prevent effective, coordinated action on the issues of our age.

Leave a Comment

Defining Social Strategies for Gatherings

version 0 of the model in my head...

More dissection of the SXSW conference and its social/cultural reverberations has helped me crystallize some thinking on sharing in the context of large gatherings.

Conferences, as a confluence of intellectual inputs and people, represent huge potential for learning and knowledge creation, but also represent an equal amount of lost opportunity and knowledge dissipation. The perennial question is; how do we capture both the ideas and the energy that people feel at these gatherings and sustain them?

I’ve been looking into this question for some time, both with regards to ongoing projects that I’ve been doing, but also in relation to upcoming projects which will require a scaling of attention and engagement on a much larger scale.

I have a model emerging in my head about this, which I think contextualizes some of the thoughts I had on the scattershot sharing from SXSW last week, but also much of the work that we’ve done at Davos.

The first axis I imagine is between inclusiveness and exclusivity. Inclusive gatherings are open to all, but also have no secrets, and thus can open the knowledge created to the world. Exclusive events can either be exclusive on the basis of attendance (only certain individuals may attend) or content (the knowledge being shared is private), or both.

All gatherings are, to some degree, implicitly exclusive; there are those who have attended, and those who haven’t. Others are explicitly exclusive; you’re not there because you weren’t invited.

Taking Davos as an example, it is explicitly exclusive, as attendees are by invitation only, and must fall within certain criteria to be invited. SXSW, on the other hand, is largely inclusive, with only implicit exclusivity; those who could make it, and those who could not.

Sharing takes a different tone in the two cases. For Davos, there is both a public and a private program, with predictable limitations on what information can be shared attached to each. But from a broader perspective, sharing at Davos is more a question of transparency than of knowledge creation; the outside world is concerned that issues of importance are being discussed there by the many public figures who attend, and thus there is a need to have some sense of what goes on within the conference.

In the case of SXSW, sharing can be as open as the registration process; there are no secrets and anyone is free to share any of the information or insights gleaned from the conference.

An interesting hybrid of the two is TED; the conferences are explicitly exclusive, as only a curated set of members may attend. The knowledge shared at the conference, however, is shared widely, and, indeed, the conference acts as a platform for sharing great ideas.

This brings me to the sharing itself. To me, the strategy for sharing and engagement must be driven by 1.) the type of information being shared, 2.) the value of sharing, and 3.) the intent of sharing.

1.) Information Type: Is it an idea? A concept? A business model? A story? Or is it the experience itself? While Davos might have press conferences, TED releases “TED Talks”, videos of profession-leading speakers expressing their ideas in succinct, well produced talks. Much of this is a matter of defining what format would help give meaning to the experience for those who were not there. At SXSW last week, keynote speeches were visually captured and the notes were assembled on a microsite for sharing by graphic facilitation group ImageThink, giving a chance for the outside world to get a flavor for what was happening at the conference.

2.) Value: Why even share? What value does the shared element hold for people receiving it? I personally love the TED tagline “Ideas Worth Spreading”; it’s an acknowledgment of the inherent value of good ideas to humanity. But also shrewdly built into their strategy is that the openness of their content sharing (coupled with its legendary quality) helps to fuel the sense of exclusivity; the cachet of their brand and therefore, of attendance, is only increased by their openness with their information.

3.) Intent: A nuance, perhaps, but an important one; what do you want to get out of sharing? Is it to build community? To have others build on the ideas? To contribute to collective knowledge? To drive more conference attendance?

All of this, to my mind, is the foundation of thinking about what and how to share through social channels in a conference setting. Awareness of the balance between the elements, and most of all, the intent and purpose. Many were miffed at the social sharing coming out of SXSW last week because it appealed only to the implicit exclusivity of being there, as opposed to some broader purpose (as evidenced by the tweet “and…i’m eating a taco next to danny devito”). The ImageThink strategy was a refreshing reprieve from that; content focused summaries on their site actually fueled inclusiveness, instead of exclusivity.

At Davos, the tension is often between wanting to share emergent ideas that are of interest, balanced with the need for privacy that makes many of the conversations that happen there possible. As a platform for facilitating dialogue between stakeholders that can’t happen elsewhere, the need to create a “safe space” can often be undermined by a sense of exposure.

A challenge that I’m currently working on is to use a series of conferences as a platform for collective knowledge creation to be built on and shared over time by a much broader community. While visualization and social media will be central to the effort, the challenge of driving inclusiveness will, I think be the most interesting part. I’d welcome examples of conferences that have truly driven broader participation beyond the immediate attendees.

Leave a Comment

SXSW, Social Media and the Death of Authenticity

from miss_rogue on flickr

Every once and a while you read an article that fully articulates a thought that was half-formed in your head; last week, the NYTimes had just such an article. Waxing about the “Enough Already!” response of many Twitter users subjected to the torrent of updates gushing out of the SXSW gathering, the article put a finger on the frustration of many who were subjected to a week of online posturing and bragging by those who attended.

I found myself, through the week, getting increasingly frustrated with the disproportionate number of irrelevant updates flooding my various social feeds, many of the “guess where I am?” variety. In the midst of a busy week doing other things, and a wrenching anxiety about the unfolding nuclear disaster in Japan which punctuated my attention, I found these constant broadcasts a sudden deluge that did little to share what was so interesting about the experience people were having; they focused only on the fact that an interesting experience was being had. Scrolling through the posts had more commentary on the parties and the food than it did on the content…so why the urgent need to share?

The trouble is, we all do this. I’ve many times sent off an update saying “Look at me, I’m on a plane to…” But this is a trend towards something beyond sharing, I think.

For those who use Twitter and other social media channels to share information and extend engagement beyond immediate, physical gatherings, this was a moment that should be noted down; the “social media” revolution has turned on itself, and we have become what we meant to replace.

The great promise of social media, by those who choose to evangelize it, is that it forces organizations to truly engage, to communicate and to be authentic. Gone will be the old TV spots telling us what to buy. Gone will be the passive consumer. Those companies that refuse to listen will wither and die in the face of others that listen to their customers, engage them and create brand experiences that are authentic and compelling.

What I saw last week was not that people and social media had remade companies, but that companies and social media had remade people. All of the hallmarks of what made this generation cynical and tired of the canned messaging of the corporate world have now manifest themselves on an personal level, as individuals relentlessly curate their own “personal brands”. Worst of all, it doesn’t feel very authentic.

I have, for some time, been somewhat cynical about the rhetoric around social media. I think it is neither as complex, nor as astounding as many make it out to be; it is a technological augmentation of patterns which are intrinsically human. True, it is in the application that interesting possibilities arise. But last week, to me, has shown that social media is neither new, nor revolutionary, but is instead another means for old patterns to repeat themselves.

Remember what made Google Adwords so revolutionary? It was contextual. It was relevant. It wasn’t somebody trying to tell you how good their car is when you’re looking for a toothbrush.

Listening, from the outside, last week made me think about how I use social channels. Does the information I share add value somehow to others? Is it relevant? Or is it simple, blatant, self promotion? Am I Coke, Pepsi, or a person who has an idea to share? I have a new lens for thinking about this, but for those who don’t heed; if I have to hear about your ‘new formula’, ‘new look’ or why you’re ‘new and improved’, I’m going to unfollow you.

For me, I’ll watch what I tweet. I’ve been as guilty as anyone, but seeing it in the context of a trend towards the commercialization of the self, I’d rather find something new to talk about.

Leave a Comment
UA-3519374-1 eXTReMe Tracker