Open Future©

Returning to Normal the Divine Rights Restored

noreply@blogger.com (John S Veitch) — Fri, 16 Oct 2009 02:33:00 +0000

I have to keep reminding myself what this blog is about. Sir Karl Popper understood it, and so does Alvin Toffler.

Sir Karl Popper: "We must relentlessly search for errors in our own thinking. The readiness to discover errors in our thinking is essential if we are to learn from experience. ... Free criticism and discussion is essential not only in science but also in the life of the nation. ... Any policy, blueprint or political theory will always have unintended consequences. ... There is always much room for improvement."

Earl Mardle, one of the premier bloggers in New Zealand, prompted me to think about the word "normal" in his "A Networked World" blog he wrote "Towards a New Normal", arguing that global managerial attitudes, revert to "manager knows best" and that necessary change is avoided, hence the mistakes of the past will be repeated.

The "Divine Right of Kings" has often been challenged. Here in New Zealand we were taught that the Magna Carta; The Great Charter of English liberty, granted (under considerable duress) by King John at Runnymede on June 15, 1215, began an inevitable march towards democracy, that led to the British Commonwealth of Nations and to the creation of free and democratic societies across the globe. Importantly, the Magna Carta established in law, that the King himself was subject to the law, and was not above it, nor immune from prosecution.

As a measure of democracy the Magna Carta was insignificant, it gave Bishops and Barons legal status and protection against the precipitous action of the King. One source suggests that was protection for only 24 people, the tenants-in-chief. In future; English Kings who lie and steal and cheat or levy unjust taxes against the tenants-in-chief, would be held to account.

Today we are told that economic recovery is on the way, that because of quick and united global political action to support the banking system. The world economy is returning to normal. So what does that mean?

It seems to me that something very close to the divine right of kings still exists. The medieval Church has lost it's power, but Bishops have been replaced by bankers, and the barons by corporate interests and government is purchased to serve the interests of a modern group who know they are "tenants-in-chief". This capture of the system by insiders is "normal". The financial sector of the economy is parasitic on the real economy, and that process mis-allocates capital funds and political power and makes our economies dysfunctional.

The key problems facing the world that refuse solution are global. Issues beyond the ability of any one nation to resolve no matter how powerful. Protecting the fish in the sea from over-fishing for instance. Or control of nuclear weapons and weapons grade materials. Or what to do about the millions of economic refugees travelling around the world looking for a home, where there is some chance of a desirable life.

Four Broken Promises - Despite the fine words, nothing changes

Species Extinction: At the Earth Summit in 1992 commitments were made to reverse the accelerating extinction of species. In 2003 ministers from 123 countries pledged to reduce the rate of bio diversity loss by 2010. Nothing happens. Empty words on paper. It's now predicted that freshwater ecosystems in many countries will collapse in the next few years. It's already happening, some rivers no longer reach the sea except in flood. The loss of habitat is of course closely related to changes of climate.

Millennium Development Goals: In September 2000, at the United Nations 147 political leaders, 3 crown princes and 8 deputy leaders, committed their countries to some solemn development goals.

For instance Clause 19 resolves that by 2015 they would:

Reduce the number of people living on $1 a day, and those who are hungry by 50%.
Provide primary education for every child in the world, and equal access the education for boys and girls at all levels.
To reduce maternal mortality by 75% and death of children under 5 by 66%.
To halt the spread of HIV-aids malaria and other major diseases.
To provide special assistance to children orphaned by HIV-aids.
By 2020 to have significantly improved the lives of at least 100 million slum dwellers as proposed in the "Cities Without Slums" initiative.

These are important goals, much more important than providing people with computers. Where’s the progress? Who’s making the investment? There has been progress in a few countries. But the political commitment to get this work done doesn't exist.

The United Nations :The divine right of Kings lives on in the United Nations. The idea that every country should have one vote isn't democratic at all. Nor is the idea that the five countries which were the "winners" of WWII should have a super vote, the power to veto any decision of the Security Council. The recently retired President of the General Assembly, Father Miguel d'Escoto, worked very hard in the past year to make the United Nations more democratic. He blames the world's most powerful nations for a complete lack of progress on that front. According to d'Escoto the United Nations finds it impossible to do the two things most central to it's charter, the prevention of war and the elimination of poverty, because real progress of that sort would impede the freedom of action of the big powers. Like King John, the big powers don't want to agree that they too should also be subject to the law. The USA and Great Britain don't want to know that the war on Iraq was illegal. G.W. Bush and Tony Blair don't expect to spend 20 years in prison for war crimes. Israel will not accept, with the support of the USA, that Operation Glass Lead involved war crimes for which both political and military personal should expect to be charged. Why? Because the rules that applied to Germany in 1945 don't apply to "us". "We" are apparently above the law.

Climate Change: And so to the issue of the moment, climate change. The economic recession was good news for the climate change statistics. Global business in the old way, especially in the richest countries is exactly the driving force behind environmental destruction and climate change. A return to business as normal doesn't fix the problem, it makes it worse. The economic crisis was a perfect opportunity to change attitudes in business, and to give carbon pricing and energy conservation some strong backing. But now it won't happen. Everything is returning to "normal" and it's normal that killing the planet, and it's also killing us.

The Lesson?

This is the "Open Future Blog", I believe we can have a future that's worthy of humanity. We can reach for goals that are the best we can imagine. But we won't, unless the principle of the "divine right" of some people to make rules for other people, which they themselves do not need to obey, is challenged and reversed.

There can be no justice, there can be no rule of law, there can be no peace, there can be no effective international agreements about trade, civil rights, self defense, fishing rights, nuclear weapons or anything else, if any one of five countries, or if any one country, is above and apart from the agreement. So we need a new Magna Carta, one that places Britain, France, Russia, China and the USA is the situation King John faced. A revolt of the tenants-in-chief against the broken promises, the lies and falsehoods, the unfair taxes and the discrimination used by the big five to maintain their power. If that was possible, perhaps there is hope for mankind. But since few people even understand the problem, and since the big five don't want to know about it, it will take a major disaster to cause the sort of change we need. A disaster? Yes, lots of unnecessary deaths. Six million here and six million there does nothing. The system rolls on unchecked.

WWI was the war to end all wars. After WWII there was "never" going to be another war. I grew up in the 1950's and our hope for the United Nations and for peace was very strong and confident. What happened? The divine right of Kings returned. That's what we need to change.

John Stephen Veitch
The Network Ambassador
Open Future Limited - You may comment privately to John S Veitch using this form. Or publicly using the Blogger comment tag below.

Technorati Tags Alvin Toffler Sir Karl Popper Earl Mardle world economy Magna Carta normal Earth Summit extinction Development Goals United Nations climate change war crimes Operation Glass Lead John Stephen Veitch

The Tragedy of Our Indoctrination

noreply@blogger.com (John S Veitch) — Sat, 26 Sep 2009 12:45:00 +0000

This topic arises from "The Tragedy of the Commons" an essay by Garrett Hardin written in 1968. In the USA, the "The Tragedy of the Commons" has been misrepresented as proof that private ownership and free markets are the only way to protect a nations assets. This was not at all the view that Hardin took. What concerns me here is the deliberate mis-construction of Hardin's essay to make an invalid argument. The incident I refer to is simply propaganda speak.

This is the perfect example of what a commons is, and why every commons needs protection. If you begin to look for them, examples of commons exist everywhere. On the street, in a bus, in a classroom, in any shop. Usually social, cultural or religious rules, standards of expected public behaviour maintain a high degree of control over the public space. It's very rare for anyone to break the code. When people do break the code, and social sanctions don't stop them, legal sanctions may be necessary. If that doesn't work, the commons may be under serious threat.

All our learning is social. We learn first from people like ourselves, our family. Throughout our lives it's always easier to learn from people who share our culture and origins. We can and do learn from other people, but that's always harder to do. As a result, we tend in our lives to reinforce the knowledge of our childhood training, the original indoctrination of family, school, church and neighbourhood is a very powerful force in our lives. It prepares us to live in that local world, and not in the modern global world. Hence my title, "The Tragedy of our Indoctrination". Our indoctrination limits what we choose to pay attention to. Our indoctrination limits the questions we can ask and the people we talk to, who we see as an expert, and who we see as trustworthy.

While Garrett Hardin was talking about the misuse of common land, of fisheries of water resources and the like, the common I want to address is the public information common. In our adult lives the content of the public information common flows over us every day. If that information is relatively free of misinformation and distortion, it's a benefit to us. If on the other hand this public information is contaminated by faulty data offered as facts, and by deliberate falsehoods, the information common becomes destructive in our lives.

The USA prides itself on free speech. Justly so. But free speech creates public information, which is a COMMONS. According to Hardin, there MUST be effective rules that support the existence of the commons, and people everywhere (In that common space) need to understand and respect the rules. Otherwise the public information becomes corrupted and polluted with misinformation and people can no longer make sensible decisions based on their "common knowledge". The information common can be destroyed if misinformation becomes the main topic of conversation and is promoted and supported by important social personalities. A clear example is the effort of G.W. Bush's administration to shut down the debate on global warming.

Just as in a theatre you can't shout "FIRE" when there is none, and claim a "free speech" defense. In the public information space, politicians, the press and commentators and even people on social networks and blogs, need to accept responsibility for the "truth" of their words. When we neglect that fundamental rule, and find we can't get voluntary compliance, and we can't enforce it either, the commons is destroyed.

If our loyalty to our local community, our church or our political party, driven by our childhood indoctrination, is too strong, we are unable to see who we really are in this new global world. We see ourselves as being good and loyal and true, while we support actions that betray our values. There's no use pretending that we don't know that. But we play the three monkeys game, we choose not to see, not to hear and not to speak up. We tell ourselves that we have the best intention, and pure motives. But our action or the lack of action betrays the values we hold most precious. That's the tragedy or our indoctrination.

John Stephen Veitch
The Network Ambassador
Open Future Limited - You may comment privately to John S Veitch using this form.

Technorati Tags conversation information common learning is social public behaviour propaganda The Tragedy of the Commons Garrett Hardin the commons common knowledge free speech global world indoctrination public information John Stephen Veitch

Where Does Motivation Come From?

noreply@blogger.com (John S Veitch) — Tue, 08 Sep 2009 07:09:00 +0000

Motivation is a very personal thing. Let me talk about my motivation.

I'm a business owner, and I'm motivated by the pain of the last 15 years. Ever since the Internet became available I've seen the potential for great reward and change for the better. But my own experience has been to climb a huge learning curve, for little reward. An experience I share with many people.

There is huge value in all this negative experience. I was hyped up with the inevitable success of online money making by creating web sites, and that lasted for five years before I realised, "there's something wrong here." There is no greater blindness than the one we create, when we choose, not to see. I carry the responsibility to be the change that's needed. That is my motivation.

My web site "Adapt to Experience" is about taking off the personal blinkers and learning from reality. Along the way, I discovered networking. The Internet allows us to find our peers, people who share our interests and who face similar problems. We are each of us capable of blindness. We are as a group capable of group-think. However, in a sufficiently diverse group there is some protection against the herd's instinct to blindly follow the leader.

This web site "Adapt to Experience" is about a five year journey in discovering what's really happening online.

I'm incredibly optimistic about the future, but only if we approach it with the right attitude. We need to be humble. We need to be driven by real data and by the best "truth" we can find. We need to be driven by values more important than the "bottom line". If we make good decisions NOW, as individuals, as companies and as a nation, over the next 20 to 50 years our future will progressively open.

Sadly, overpowered by our old minds, by outdated concepts and by the inability to learn, most people, most companies, and every nation I know of, is still running in the wrong direction. All our institutions are founded on the principles of having unchangiing ideals. In a world where "change" is at the heart of what we need to do, that's a problem.

As a business owner I'd like to say, "I've got the answer", but I haven't.

What I can offer is this. Listen more, collect more quality data, find out what's real. Improve YOUR OWN ability to learn, and make your company into a learning organisation. Get closer to your customers. Stop shouting at them, listen to them. Somewhere inside what I've just described is a pearl of wisdom or insight or information on which your future depends. That's what I'm looking for, too.

The Internet is extracting value out of many businesses. Prices are falling. The "lowest price" is potentially on every desk-top. There's no future in the race to the bottom. There's no future in selling off the environment or your children for a quick dollar now. We have to learn to be smarter, that's our challenge. Innovation and the ability to change to allow innovation, has to be a critical part of what we do in the near future. Rebuilding the old style economy, for instance is reordering a closed future. That's the easy thing to do, but it's the wrong answer.

Better answers are a 1000 things we need to talk about and decide as we seek to have a future that is more open and less closed. Creating good questions, open questions that challenge us and demand action should be a priority. To have the right question is big step towards a practical solution. There is no simple way forward. There is much to do, all of it involves work. The "Open Future" website points to some directions.

John Stephen Veitch
The Network Ambassador
Open Future Limited - You may comment privately to John S Veitch using this form.

Technorati Tags motivation business owner we choose blindness Adapt to Experience networking right attitude old minds learning organisation environment good questions innovation Open Future John Stephen Veitch

Free Markets and Success?

noreply@blogger.com (John S Veitch) — Wed, 18 Mar 2009 19:45:00 +0000

For the past 60 years, in New Zealand at least, the unquestioned economic philosophy of choice, has been that capitalism with free markets, is how a successful economic system works.

I did study the Soviet and the Chinese economic models many years ago. It's impossible for the central planners to predict what's likely to be needed. The Soviet economy suffered from unpredicted shortages that frustrated the best will of the planners. But it's also impossible to do that in a free market economy too. In a market economy, overproduction is the rule. Go into the local mall and see for yourself the abundance that is there, but there are needs the market doesn't meet, and that's a problem when market forces are too dominant. After 30 years of strong market leadership, and especially now as we enter a depression, it's so much easier for me to see that BOTH systems are deeply flawed.

For instance I've been laughing for about 5 years over the great hallabsloo on Ryze, because Kofi Annan was supposed to be directly involved in a Food for Oil scandal at the United Nations. Millions of dollars were supposed to be involved, and the controversy went on for months. Why? Because it suited the USA to cripple the United Nations, and make it completely ineffective. Eventually there were some irregularities found involving Annan's son, the amount of money involved was comparatively small.

In contrast the USA in Iraq has been involved in scams and rip-offs involving millions of real dollars that are for the most part not even investigated. Much of this is directly related to the Republican Party decision to give contracts to friends of the party on a cost plus basis. In at least one case I know about on a "no competition" basis.

One of the big jokes in International Economics was the Soviet incentive system. For instance on the railway bonuses were paid for the tonnage that passed down the line. Annual traffic data showed that the scheme was massively successful. Yet Russian businesses could never find rolling stock on which to transport their goods. Complaints were widespread. In fact much of the rolling stock was filled with rocks that were shipped across the Soviet Union and back repeatedly. It was a great way to increase the tonnage and their productivity bonuses. .

In Iraq under cost plus contracts there are reports of trucks that are never unloaded, simply driven across Iraq and back to clock up the cost, which is then billed at 100% mark-up. And the stories about the building paid for and never started, and the meals never delivered and the training that was done by people who were never employed, and the financial auditing that was done by two men with no accounting skills and no staff.

This is not a few bad apples, it's a whole rotten system. The mortgage crisis proves it. For Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac to be so deeply underwater, thousands of real estate agents, valuers, lawyers, accountants, bankers, buyers and sellers all had to WANT these fraudulent transactions to be made. Every one of them is crooked, but they all claim to be innocent. If you choose not to see, it's amazing how blind you can become.

So the "free market" system has failed very badly.

The "centralised market" system has failed very badly.

Perhaps the failure in both cases tells us some truth about people that we prefer to not know.

So now it's time to discover the "truth" if we have the courage. Which brings me back tho this central message from film-maker Waldo Salt, who wrote in his journal “To search for truth you must first have lost it”.

For Americans in the near future, there is going to be a lot of discovery about "missing truth". That lesson applies to the truth about "free markets", and to "democracy" and to "American exceptionalism" and "racism" and "the success formula" and to what the terms “Republican” and “Democrat” really mean. Much else about American life, and the lives of people all over the world is currently being challenged.. The Depression will be a great bullshit detector.

John Stephen Veitch
Open Future Limited - You may comment privately to John S Veitch using this form.

Technorati Tags New Zealand capitalism free markets depression cost plus fraudulent transactions Waldo Salt missing truth bullshit detector Republican Party Oil for Food productivity bonuses market leadership John Stephen Veitch

Depression 2009

noreply@blogger.com (John S Veitch) — Thu, 26 Feb 2009 00:42:00 +0000

In the New Zealand version of the Open Future web site, I've written 12 short essays about the Depression of 2009. There's a month of hard work in those essays. My wife, Carolyn, kept asking why I did it at all. I can't answer her question, except that I needed to understand what was happening myself, and the work was my method of getting satisfactory answers. In addition to 40 years of thinking about economics, these essays were backed with 600 pages of other people's essays on the economy, collected from the Useful Common over the last three or four years.

I do have a training in Economics, but it's largely useless, because much of what we were taught is a tidy theory that isn't related to how the real world works. You've heard politicians and economists say over and over, "We need to increase our efficiency, to improve the economic growth rate, so we can, protect the environment, improve education, alleviate poverty, or improve the health system. I used to believe that. It's rubbish. Such thinking is based on the idea that everything you want can be PURCHASED, if you just had enough money. It's not true, it never was true. To create an Open Future, we have to get the basic social structures of our community right, we have to live in a way that respects the natural environment around us. When we do that, most of the things we really need are available from the Useful Common. Then our money can be focused on the things we do need to buy, like hip replacements.

The economic fallacy in the urgency of the "growth" imperative is well illustrated by the USA. Since the 1970's the USA has been trying to grow the economy so people could be richer. But in fact over a period of more than 30 years, real wages in the USA have actually been falling. So what's wrong here?

New Zealand provides another example. In the 1970's New Zealand's protectionist economic principles came under attack. In the 1980's we were one of the most advanced nations in the process of deregulation and the removal of subsidies and embracing free trade. There was more than 10 years of economic hardship, but we did adapt, and we did find new ways to earn an income without subsidies, and without tariff protection. But the economic growth we were promised, has NOT, been our reward. So again I ask, what's wrong here?

My conclusion is that all developed countries come up against natural resource limits, that make economic growth very marginal. You can get inflationary "growth" easily, but real growth is strongly constrained. Economic theory tells us that this need not be so. But look at the real world and restraint on growth is what you see everywhere. Why is that?

You can grow debt, or any non-physical asset easily. But the growth of REAL assets has limits. Real assets have bulk, they take up space, they need to be housed, they need to be maintained, they come from somewhere and after you've finished using them they need to be disposed of. Real assets are not like ideas.

20 years ago I was very impressed by the concept of tapping an unlimited resource as we became a knowledge society. The human brain was a mine that would produce unlimited richness, we were told. I believed that message. But I misunderstood it. I was thinking in terms of money and the things money can buy. I was thinking about physical assets.

The human brain is a source of unlimited richness, but it's a richness of ideas, of imagination, and there are limits to our ability to make any of that available as a real object.

When I try to find the cause of the 2009 Depression, I list as the first cause the unsuccessful attempt to get rich by deregulation and by excessive focus on financial transactions. The main result was concentrate "wealth" more and more, while 90% of the population quietly got poorer and poorer. The expectation of "high returns" led people to over-promise and to take exceptional risks in order to make the promise seem to be achievable. Many people became involved in magical thinking, believing that by belief and willpower, any chosen objective was achievable. Those same people are now saying, "there is no depression". When too much money is in too few hands, there is not enough spending power in the economy to keep it running. Pouring in more money into the market doesn't work, because very quickly it accumulates again in those same few pockets.

The 2009 Depression is being driven by two or three other forces besides an unequal distribution of wealth. One of those is an over built housing sector that now can't be paid for. There is the problem of over dependence on oil as a transport fuel, and the exponential growth of that demand if Brazil, China and India were to experience economic development using the American model of "development". Economic development for really large populations based on petrol powered cars, isn't possible. Added to that, there is the very serious background problem of global warming. People are not stupid, they do understand that the climate is changing, and that we MUST, change the way we live in two ways. First we have to reduce the amount of greenhouse gasses we ourselves produce. Secondly, since climate change damage affecting the next 50 years has already been done, we have to live with the changes that brings.

I'm picking that the 2009 Depression will continue for at least 10 years. It will take two years to fix the financial problems. Banks will be nationalized, but the most important thing will be a International Financial Agreement, coming out of the G20 Summit meetings and the United Nations. World finance can't be under the control of any one nation, as it has been for the last 70 years.

It will take at least five years for the problem of excess demand for oil to decline in importance. And at least 10 years before we can be sure that progress on global warming is really being made. Then perhaps people will be able to imagine a better future or their children and grandchildren. That will give them a reason for living and a propper purpose in investing.

John Stephen Veitch

Reader Comments:

John. who left a faulty email writes:

Your blog says that; "economics is largely useless because much of what we were taught is a tidy theory that isn't related to how the real world works".

I thought I'd just pass on something I read recently (I think it was in the NZ Future Times newsletter), that physicsts are becoming used to their world view being uprooted regularly as new discoveries are constantly rewriting their assumption. In contrast economists aren't getting that real world feedback. Economists need to learn to act more like physicsts.

Open Future Limited - You may comment privately to John S Veitch using this form.

Technorati Tags Open Future 2009 Depression useful common economic growth wealth depression recession G20 BRIC development New Zealand economics hardship John Stephen Veitch

Knowledge Denied

noreply@blogger.com (John S Veitch) — Wed, 18 Feb 2009 22:57:00 +0000

We, as individuals, as nations, and as a global community have huge problems to solve. Satisfactory solutions will require a high degree of understanding, cooperation and trust. We've read a lot recently about how private firms have "cooked the books" to mislead either investors or the authorities. Governments are doing the same thing. The measurement of GDP, inflation rates, and unemployment rates for instance are often deliberately "measured" in ways that obscure what's really happening. This allows politicians to use delusional numbers to back up their claims that the "economy is strong" or that the outlook for jobs is "positive'.

When a government and it's supporters strongly support a "story" about "who we are" and what our policy should be, that tends to become the background for all public discussions. The debate becomes especially difficult if as with the war in Iraq, the official policy is based on "political truth" rather than facts. Once the quality of the debate is destroyed by dysinformation the flow of all ideas is impeded. The USA deserves better debate than was possible in the GW Bush years.

I'm also disappointed to see how willing people are to take sides - to form tribal groups - based on some perception of the need to be loyal to "my group" rather than to seek understanding and knowledge of the truth. We do live in a global world. Of necessity we carry with us the ideals of family, district, religion, politics and other cultural baggage of our upbringing into our global debates. At first we may find it difficult to engage, because "they" seem to be talking about something else, not the topic that we understand. Often the ideas we've grown up with, that have proven reliable and useful in the local context prove to be narrow and self serving and inappropriate in the larger international context.

John Stephen Veitch
Open Future Limited - You may comment privately to John S Veitch using this form.

Technorati Tags Depression inflation rates unemployment political truth John Stephen Veitch

Allowing Sunlight and Taking Responsibility

noreply@blogger.com (John S Veitch) — Fri, 10 Oct 2008 03:46:00 +0000

The previous post was about the "men of honour" the Cosa Nostra, and how loyalty constructed in a narrow sense can be destructive to the community in which that "loyalty group" operates. What was once a virtue, becomes misdirected and threatens the community.

Now I want to enlarge the argument. To talk about political parties, government agencies, religous groups and business units.

The most powerful force operating in your life is the social connection that offers you membership. Membership of your family determines what your first lessons are and who becomes your first teacher. Long before you learn to speak you know how to play your role. How to get attention, how to say no and how to say yes. You learn how to say "da da da da" and understand that this is something that your father responds to very well. although you cannot know why. Throughout your life, you apply the rules you are learning here, to school groups, sports teams, community clubs and work groups.

Each group you join only exists because it has distinct boundaries. Members of your family meet strict criteria for recognition. Churches, clubs and businesses might be quite open to enlarging their membership, but they also have strong rules about who can qualify as a member and strong expectations about how members behave. Sometimes, these expectations are written down in a document (Constitution?) that's never read. But you only need to be with most groups for a short period of time to "know" which people are respected and what social rules apply to one's behaviour here. There is a code: much of it unwritten, that is passed from member to member that both enables the function of the group and forbids certain other actions.

Loyalty to the group is always highly admired. Working for and cheering on the success of colleagues is an exemplar of behaviour. Recognizing and endorsing the good qualities in fellow members, is an ideal way to have them appreciate the value that you too bring to the group.

So what happens when someone in the group finds a new innovative way to be "very successful". Of course everyone cheers. And they try to emulate that success. Mind you the "secret" of the success is retained by the group. We don't want "everyone" to get into the act. Making sure that other people can't get in on the business, or can't do it as well as "we can" is a way to increase our success.

Now if the new activity is of questionable legality, or if the profits depend on taking unfair advantage of unknowing customers, who's going to object? Self regulation should be effective, but in professional organizations, lawyers, doctors, police and accountants, time after time we know from experience that self regulation doesn't work. Some people say that "regulation by third parties" is a solution, but you don't have to look very far to see that the "regulator" very soon ends up "in bed" with the people they should be regulating and again the system becomes corrupted. It's a problem.

It's especially a problem in politics. Political parties are necessary instruments of effective democracies. Political parties need funding, and in an ideal world that funding would come from a strong support base of ordinary "members". But that's hard work. There are lots of people with money who are keen to fund political parties. Of course they make donations out of "good will" and "without influence". Yet strangely it's these people who are invited in for a private "chat" and get invited to make submissions and who's opinions are listened to with enthusiasm. They protest that they are not "buying influence" but of course they lie. In the USA, corporate money has "bought the government" for many years. For more than the last 30 years government in the USA has bent over backwards to be friendly to the corporate interests that "feed it". As a result the economic system has got badly out of balance, as demonstrated by who's become wealthy and where the poverty exists. Today when the NYSE index is below 9000, we can see where the process of corporate friendly co-operation between government and business has led the USA.

What's the real difference between merchant bankers who take advantage of client ignorance, and governments that work to do "favours" for their friends, and lawyers who obstruct the justice system so that the victims of fraud never get their case heard, and the Cosa Nostra? Don't they all play the same game?

As I see it the only solution is "sunlight". There are "commercial reasons" for making sure that sunlight doesn't exist. Profitability often depends on that lack of transparency. So we allow this "excuse" to permit all sort of shady deals that would never occur if people knew that the facts would be openly exposed. I think that the issue is too important to be dismissed so easily. Cleaning up the world banking system might be one place to start. Let's outlaw, tax haven banking, and off the record accounts. Let's work to get all the donations made to political parties openly declared, and make it illegal to hide the source of the donation behind a blind trust or some other device to obscure the "sunlight". The principle is simple. If you are engaged in business, politics or public activities, the light of full disclosure should be able to shine into your activity. If that's not the case, why should your potentially dodgy dealing be tolerated?

John Stephen Veitch
Open Future Limited - You may comment privately to John S Veitch using this form.

Technorati Tags Cosa Nostra ladder of success political parties client ignorance self regulation family loyalty profits without influence legitimate businesses tax haven merchant banker membership sunlight John Stephen Veitch

Cosa Nostra and Other Groups

noreply@blogger.com (John S Veitch) — Tue, 23 Sep 2008 08:51:00 +0000

I'm reading from Journal 27 about the Italian mafia, the Cosa Nostra. A characteristic of the mafia is strongly controlled membership of the group. Membership guarantees your source of income, gives you physical and legal protection and a place on the ladder of success. Mafiosi consider themselves to be Men of Honour. This could be the story of an Afghan warlord, or a political dictator like President Robert Mugabe, or perhaps even of some modern corporate structures.

Regions where the Cosa Nostra became strong had a tribal sense of brotherhood and were suspicious of outsiders. The way to become successful is to seek the favour of the clan leader To be recognised as a member of the community you are expected to behave in certain ways and to be absolutely loyal to the clan.

In modern societies to a large extent, those same rules apply. Even though we know that in a hierarchical society that opportunity for individuals is limited and that the development of that group is stunted. We do "know" in an intellectual way that free and open communities are more efficient and make better use of the potential of members. Most of the groups we actually have don't operate like that. A modern person, understands the value of groups that are open, democratic and legal. In modern groups leadership is based on skills and talent. Even so, we all belong to groups that fall short of those ideas.

The Italian Mafia, is based on family loyalty. Control of family members is maintained by interpersonal relationships, family, other kin and members, supported by income opportunities, security of position and protection from violence. Members who are disloyal (turncoats) can be dealt with very harshly, by kidnapping and murder. The activities of the mafia include the running of legitimate businesses, the employment of a lot of people and engagement in "businesses" that may be highly profitable, if not quite honest. This is the cover. "We are just ordinary people living our own lives, in our own way, and earning an honest living". In addition, there is the illegal activity and other corruption of the system that would be stopped if the civil authorities knew about it. Members of the mafia know they are protected by the clan. They have in the past controlled politicians (even a prime minister), judges, police and newspapers. They earn an income from Cosa Nostra membership, often a very substantial income for relatively little work. You learn to do as you are told. You keep quiet about what you know. You know who you can trust. You know who's orders must be obeyed. You know "who own's you".

Until recent times many of these groups were so tightly controlled the police were completely ineffective in investigating their activities. In a village society, this sort of feudal arrangement where the local mafia boss was "king" and everyone paid tribute to him for the right to do business might have worked fairly well, especially if the victims of the criminal activity were "outsiders", foreigners, travelers, banks, or the government.

However, in the modern world it doesn't work. If the mafia is strong, people from outside don't want to visit as tourists, companies which might invest in the town choose not to do so, schools can't find teachers, and hospitals can't find doctors and nurses. The social fabric of the community is polluted by the secret activity, and the economic fabric of the society is damaged by bribs and extortion payments. Those who have skills and who are honest and who work hard are likely to be victims of the mafia. Those who are loyal to the Cosa Nostra and who are happy to engage in illegal activities become rich and powerful. The incentive structure of the community is perverse.

In Italy the control of the mafia has been broken almost everywhere. Strong political support for the courts and the police makes that possible. If the politicians fail in their commitment, the police are not able to be independent, the resources to combat mafia power are not provided, the courts find it impossible to employ quality judges, and the whole anti-mafia operation fails. In some provincial areas, that's still apparently the case. But in recent years young people have rebelled against the mafia lifestyle. This is what they say.

We don't believe in mafia values.
We want to have a future in a modern world.
We don't want to be forced away from our home town in order to be educated and to earn an honest living.
We want this town to become part of the modern world.

People in the local news media cannot tell the truth about how the Cosa Nostra operates. To do so would be to threaten the existence of their business and the safety of their families. They can't report what they "know" if they expose the mafia in the process. The media report the stories they are supposed to tell according to local custom and values. But young people are not constrained by those rules. So using the internet, blogs, chat rooms and text messages, slowly they have been able to expose local mafia secrets. That makes is so much easier for the police and the magistrates to operate effectively. In an open society, criminal activity isn't so easy to hide.

Why have I written about this topic? Because it gives us a lens to look at our own society. Because it enables us to see what's happened to the business press, and to the financial markets and to the political process, in the USA and around the world. Mafia values have not entirely disappeared even in modern communities.

John Stephen Veitch
Open Future Limited - You may comment privately to John S Veitch using this form.

Technorati Tags Cosa Nostra ladder of success Robert Mugabe hierarchical society criminal activity family loyalty incentive structure Internet legitimate businesses modern societies source of income membership opportunity John Stephen Veitch

Journal 47

noreply@blogger.com (John S Veitch) — Mon, 08 Sep 2008 23:16:00 +0000

I've not been active in this blog for several weeks. I was away in Australia for two weeks, and I took some time out to read, and then to buy two new books and read some more. I've taken some time out to re-energise my own ideas.

I've kept a journal of interest for over 35 years. Journal 47 is almost full, now at 162 pages ( of 188). It begins by recording the prediction of Catherine Austin Fitts in 2006 that the housing market would collapse. She describes a form of mortgage fraud she calls "Pump and Dump", that has been unchecked for 40 years. This reinforces the saying, "The crime that pays is the crime that stays."

Here's how it works. Mortgages are created for assets that are overpriced. A blind eye is turned to that fact because there is profit today if the deal is done. Government guarantees the loans, which means that the banks are protected, and that the banks don't really care what happens. This is "Pumping". There is no special interest in protecting the social structure of community or in ensuring that people have jobs, or in maintaining the prices of those houses.

So in response to market forces, interest rates rise, or jobs become more scarce, or prices rise those holding mortgages find they have negative equity in their houses. The social and economic decline of the community is in process. The quality of the housing declines, ownership housing becomes rental housing, landlords don't maintain the properties. Crime becomes more obvious in the district, but no effective effort is made to stop it. This is the "Dump" process. On the surface it seems to make no sense, but it does make sense to the banks, they don't care because the government protects them against losses. It also has value to the property developers in a perverse way. The government by default becomes the owner of the houses. They are bundled into batches and "sold" on the "open market" but the price the government gets is a fraction of what the price should be. Catherine Austin Fitts describes a situation where Housing and Urban Development was spending $100,000 plus to get homes ready for sale, homes that were then sold for $50,000.

That's how Journal 47 opens. It goes on to cover about 60 miscellaneous topics, that as I re-read the journal have a common theme, the need for new thinking, and the role of leaders, and how we might build a better future for ourselves. The photograph below shows how some highlighting that I've done as I re-read the Journal. It also shows 81 post-it tags that identify ideas that are relevant to the current work I'm trying to do. That makes me aware that there is some hidden hand driving the work that I'm doing here. As I chose the topics in writing the journal I had no idea that many of the topics were related to a theme that we might call "necessary change".

John Stephen Veitch
Open Future Limited - You may comment privately to John S Veitch using this form.

Technorati Tags journal of interest Journal 47 Catherine Austin Fitts housing market role of leaders negative equity interest rates Pump and Dump Government guarantees market forces hidden hand better future necessary change John Stephen Veitch

The Energy of Volunteers

noreply@blogger.com (John S Veitch) — Fri, 18 Jul 2008 23:05:00 +0000

On 26 June, as a guest of Lyall Lukey, I attended the lunch time seminar of Frank Olsson, a banker, company director and philosopher of business success.

The seminar and an intensive workshop to follow were organized by SmartNet, a company that's been active in the business education market for many years. If you live in NZ and don't get their newsletter you can register here.

Frank Olsson, is a charming man who makes his message personal and therefore meaningful. He develops his points strongly, but in a gentle way.

Frank Olsson stresses that two thirds of the value of any organization isn't on the balance sheet, which only contains the details that are easy to measure. The real power of a firm is the sense of purpose of the employees and their ability to work together. The real value of a CEO, is the power to be a catalyst who helps other people invest themselves in the work so that the job is made better.

The strongest message was what I call "the power of volunteers". Frank Olsson calls it the ability to capture some of the "discretionary energy" inside the organization. This power can be released if people know that they have the ability to be effective. That capacity flows from the quality of the personal relationships in the firm. "We can't live without others" and we can't do our work unless we communicate with and collaborate with others.

Frank Olsson, reminds me of Arthur Lydiard. Arthur Lydiard used to talk to young runners, and even old guys like me, and tell them, "You can be a champion". Of course that is always true, but you can only make it true in your life, if you believe it, and if you do the work required to BE that champion. So we begin with an attitude that's open to making a commitment to something in the future. That's what I mean by the "power of the volunteer" because what each of us volunteers to do is the measure of our real qualities.

When I talk about your ability to create an Open Future, I'm calling on you to make choices in your life, to decide what sort of CHAMPION you will be. The Lydiard method works perfectly. When I started running it was run to the next telegraph pole (slowly). and walk to the next one. I wasn't very fit. I became fit, at least able to run a marathon in under three hours. When I began to work on the Internet, I was focused on technical things, on developing expertise. That's a necessary and useful ability, but it not life changing. What can be life changing is the ability to connect to other people.

When I was first introduced to Ryze by Bala Pillai, I could see no value in it. Later, I saw the some purpose of joining lots of networks and connection to lots of people, but there was little value in that. Collecting a lot of stamps, or a pile of stones, or a lot of names is an activity that's easy to measure, but for what purpose? Are you collecting names or building a capability? The connection gives you the possiblity of knowing that person more intensely. The connection is a doorway, but you have to open the door so you can pass through. On the other side of that door are people you get to KNOW, to share time with, to understand. You have to VOLUNTEER to go there. Most people fail to see the point. That's a failure of imagination, not a lack of time or skill.

Last week I started two new Ryze networks. Building an Open Future, which is of course related to this blog and to my business. And, Team Downunder, which is a Ryze network for people from Australia and New Zealand. Of course you can join, but you need to volunteer.

John Stephen Veitch
Open Future Limited - You may comment privately to John S Veitch using this form.

Politicians Don't Get Cluetrain Either

noreply@blogger.com (John S Veitch) — Thu, 12 Jun 2008 14:57:00 +0000

It's said that radio broadcasts from the west undermined the Iron Curtain, but television broadcasts brought the walls down. Currently the Internet is having that sort of effect, not just in China and Myanmar or Libya, but also in the United States and here in New Zealand.

One of the wonderful benefits of open discussion with many diverse viewpoints, is that eventually the truth reveals itself. You discover who you are, you find out what your, company is really like, and you discover if you care to look what's really happening in your own country. The truth I've discovered in the last 10 years, makes me hesitate to say that there is democracy, or freedom of speech, or the rule of law, anywhere in the world. I'd like to claim some credit for the political system in New Zealand, but even here, where the level of corruption is low, the two main parties have devised system that's deliberately broken. Our system was designed to be so badly flawed that the public would reject it at the polls. The public voted for it, and surprisingly, despite all the obvious problems, the MMP political process in NZ has delivered better, and more democratic government.

In the past 15 years I've learned more about the American political system than I really need to know. I've moved from being an admirer, to being a skeptic, to becoming a critic. America is supposed to represent personal freedom, the rule of law, to be the world's greatest democracy, to be as many Americans have told me, “the greatest country in the world”.

I saw Richard Nixon break the law and get a pardon. I saw Ronald Reagan break the law and escape censure. Bill Clinton maintained an illegal boycott against Iraq, and got away with it. Come to think of it, John F Kennedy was involved with the Bay of Pigs, and that was illegal too. So maybe the message is simple. That every American President is expected to break the law, and the system is designed to protect him from any repercussions. If that's so, the Presidency of GW Bush, isn't abnormal, it's just business as usual.

But if that's so, all the myths about America are exposed. The rule of law doesn't apply, America doesn't represent freedom, is NOT a democracy, and I'll leave you to decide if the term “great” is appropriate of not. On the Internet the real state of the nation is openly exposed. The War of Terror was exposed as a sham before it began, the corruption of intelligence that was the excuse for the invasion of Iraq was openly exposed as a lie, months before the invasion. If anyone cared to look, this knowledge was freely available. But the Television channels and the newspapers don't tell that story. The “free press” even here in New Zealand engage in a propaganda exercise to encourage us to “think good thoughts” about our friends in the USA.

If the preceding paragraph seems unlikely to you, read my article, "Choosing to Follow, Choosing to Know, Choosing to Lead" written on 13 March, 2002.

A few days ago a courageous US Senator, Dennis Kucinich, made as second attempt to bring the elephant which is the illegal activities of GW Bush into the House and shine a light on it. The Senators of both parties either vacated the House or chose not to pay attention. Kucinich presented 35 counts against GW Bush, calling for his Impeachment. This act wasn't widely reported in the press in the USA. Wasn't reported by BBC Television at all. But it was a C-Span and it's now on YouTube.

Rep. Dennis Kucinich is on the floor of the House reading 35 Articles of Impeachment against President George W. Bush. You can read the 35 Articles here. (65 pages)

Just as I finish, I've done a quick search on Google for references to Dennis Kucinich regarding this action. I find a huge level of support and agreement with his actions among ordinary Americans, there are dozens of blogs that speak about it, there's a petition running to support Kucinich. Other people have organised a write in campaign to demand that other Democrats support kucinich's call for Impeachment. In contrast there is opposition, well organised and clearly funded, that calls Kucinich, “Crazy Denny” and tries to laugh off what he's doing.

In the Cluetrain Manifesto, they talk about the power of the human voice. Politicians and political parties find it difficult of perhaps even impossible to speak in a human voice. The clear sound of the human voice on the Internet today strongly supports Dennis Kucinich. There are a few other voices, official sounding voices, gongs, or insincere voices that try to be funny but are merely rude and pathetic. BOTH the Republican Party and the Democtatic Party share the blame for recent history. GW Bush does not stand guilty alone. Perhaps the guilt and shame or their own part in encouraging the illegal war against Iraq, is a key reason why Senators from both sides are doing their best to ignore the issue. But they can't hide that easily. Too many people can see clearly what's going on.

John Stephen Veitch
Open Future Limited - You may comment privately to John S Veitch using this form.

Technorati Tags politicians Cluetrain China United States political system level of corruption rule of law personal freedom free press Dennis Kucinich propaganda John Stephen Veitch

Cluetrain Manifesto at 10 Years

noreply@blogger.com (John S Veitch) — Mon, 02 Jun 2008 23:37:00 +0000

The purpose of this blog is to help people to discover ways create for themselves an Open Future. Much of the Cluetrain Manifesto addresses that same issue. They say that networked users of the Internet have an Open Future, and that businesses that are unable to adapt to the influence of the Internet have a closed future. They say clearly, "this scares companies witless". In 10 years that hasn't changed.

Rick Levine, Christopher Locke, Doc Searls and David Weinberger published the Cluetrain Manifesto ten years ago. When I first found that text some six months later, I was amazed and deeply inspired. The text seemed to speak to some of the problems I had recognised and was struggling with. At the time I was running NZDances, and I couldn't attract any commercial interest at all to what I was doing.

Since that time I've always had a page in my site that promotes the Cluetrain Manifesto, a page like this one, An Introduction to the Cluetrain Manifesto. I've invited hundreds of people to consider the value of the text, but it frightens people, and they back away. That's sad, because the writers of the Cluetrain Manifesto had the message mostly right, and the last 10 years have vindicated their optimism about the power of all of us together. Three of the "ringleaders" who created the Cluetrain Manifesto are currently using Twitter. They are all active online today.

With the benefit of hindsight, I've classified the 95 Theses into logical groups, and I've discovered for myself six general themes. They are:

Networking and Network Groups. The Internet allows people to speak to each other in ways that were never before possible. We ask questions and we get answers that make sense to us that are not contaminated by propaganda. Together we know a great deal about almost everything. In this new world of open communication there can be few secrets.

The Power of a Human Voice. In real conversations people speak with a human voice and in language we can all understand. Such conversations encourage trust and honesty and an open sharing of our time and our knowledge. By the sound of the human voice we recognise other "members" of our community. Only people can speak with a human voice.

The Value of Conversation. Conversations cannot be forced to continue. The glue that holds a conversation together is a genuine sharing of points of view about a topic of mutual interest. Conversations occur between peers, so hierarchy tends to prevent conversations from getting started.

Informed Markets. We are not normally interested in advertising or trade shows and we dislike those communications called public relations. We'd rather talk to each other than watch television. Our friends can give us real information about the quality of products and the right price, and where to get reliable help. The target market companies often talk about isn't any of us.

Authority v Networked People. Command and control styles of leadership only work when the leadership is genuinely good. Because business leadership is normally less informed than the network, it's usually quite clear to us that the leadership is incompetent. So what do we do? Well, we talk about it to everyone else of course, mostly inside the company, but on occasion outside the company. There is no place to hide. We are all visible, and people will normally say what they like.

Transparency in Communication. Faceless managements that "report" in official jargon and who hide behind PR staff are not able to talk to us. We won't accept a 4-color brochure, we want to see who you are and to ask you questions. We have a community here. Business management can join the community, you are welcome, but you come as an equal, and you need to engage in the conversation in an open and transparent way.

You can see that this message is quite strong. Businesses didn't take it seriously 10 years ago, and from what I can see, that's still the case. Cluetrain said, "Companies that do not belong to a community of discourse will die." We have seen that happen. But what we've seen is only the leading edge of the change to come. There is a revolution going on. A quiet insistent progressive shift in the quality of what we all know. Too often this knowledge starkly contradicts what leading government officials and professional advisers tell us. So who do we believe? Our experience tells us that our friends may not have PhD's or high office, but they do tell us the truth as best they know it. Our track record in getting the message right isn't perfect, but it is the most reliable guide.

John Stephen Veitch
Open Future Limited - You may comment privately to John S Veitch using this form.

Technorati Tags cluetrain Open Future Rick Levine Christopher Locke Doc Searls David Weinberger Cluetrain Manifesto 95 Theses Networking propaganda human voice informed markets business management John Stephen Veitch

I wish I had Known

noreply@blogger.com (John S Veitch) — Wed, 20 Feb 2008 05:06:00 +0000

My good friend Scott Allen and David Teten wrote an excellent book about using the Internet, "The Virtual Handshake; Opening Doors and Closing Deals Online." Chapter 15 discusses 'The Virtual You" and they say: "If you do not control your virtual presence, it will be controlled by what others have to say about you. Of course that is not necessarily a bad thing, providing they have nice things to say."

In the case of the Tohoe people (my previous topic) there are lots of colourful and interesting photographs of marches, flying flags and protest actions. Most of those photographs were not posted by Tohoe, and the intention was not friendly. The Tohoe video, makes excellent points about what the tribe needs to do, but that remains work for the future, it's not an achieved objective.

So what about yourself? If you do a search for yourself, or your company online, what do you find? You can't control what other people say. If you don't understand the Cluetrain Manifesto, please take the time to do that now.

There is a very useful small business network on Ryze, Minding Your Own Business which is moderated by Denise O'Berry. A topic pinned on the top of the posts, reads "What I wish I'd known...???". There are several interesting responses about how we get wrong ideas in our heads and we spend a lot of time doing things, that we now know were never going to work. Yes, my hand is up, I've done that too.

I was impressed by this response from Cornell Green who wrote:

I wish I'd known when to buy tech stocks in the late '90s... and when to sell them!!!...
I wish I'd known then that I should have established a domain name and maintained a web presence, even if I wasn't trying to sell anything.
I wish I'd known that the Internet can do more than provide a revenue stream: it can help establish your brand....

One of my Internet buddies, John Evans, who says, "It's all right for you, (meaning JSV) but do you realise how hard it is if any John Evans to stand out on the Internet?"

So he brands himself "John L Evans, LION, Interim Director" and he works very hard at his online communication. Searching Google in that way I get 14 references 100% of which identify the right John L Evans. If I search for "John L Evans" alone I get offered 700+ pages, but even on the first page, 50% of the entries identify some other John L Evans.

Two years ago an Internet search for "John Veitch" produced 4 different people, two deceased, one who's usually in trouble with the law in the USA, and me. I decided to start using my middle name, and I'm pleased with the results of that. "John Stephen Veitch" on Google produces 600+ references and the first 30 all correctly identify me.

Cornell Green said: "I wish I'd known then that I should have established a domain name and maintained a web presence, even if I wasn't trying to sell anything." That has been exactly my position, until quite recently I didn't have a business product that I was marketing. All my work for the last 4 years has been at the learning end, discovering about social networks, and networking and relating that back to my previous business experience. In the process I've built a strong personal brand.

John Stephen Veitch
Open Future Limited - You may comment privately to John S Veitch using this form.

Technorati Tags Scott Allen David Teten The Virtual Handshake Virtual You Tohoe the future Cluetrain Manifesto Ryze Minding Your Own Business Denise O'Berry Cornell Green John L Evans John Stephen Veitch

Tuhoe Digital Space

noreply@blogger.com (John S Veitch) — Tue, 05 Feb 2008 02:08:00 +0000

Paul Reynolds has been a source of information and inspiration about the Internet for the general public in New Zealand for many years. He is responsible for compiling this video about the efforts of the Tuhoe people to make effective use of digital technology. I'm thrilled to represent it here, and to quote from it below.

When I listen to the video comments I'm reminded of the optimism that drove me onto the Internet 13 years ago. The purpose and focus of the comments is well directed.

Tuhoe Voices

Part of the challenge is to become comfortable and normal as Tuhoe people. Tuhoe culture is a sign of prosperity, it is something that protects you from everything that can go wrong in life. To be a Tuhoe is to belong to something honorable that brings you prosperity, happiness and meaning.

We want to eliminate the problems of communication (in our area) and we need to build the best possible network that meets our needs. We wanted to eliminate the problems of location, communication and poor information. We saw the possibility that ICT strategy could be important to establish Tuhoe identity. (We asked) could we connect all our schools (to the network) can we use the computers in homes programme to make computers more easily available? Imagine the possibilities; why restrict it: let's take a wider view. We want to be communicating in an immediate way with Tuhoe people everywhere. We want to share experiences and expertise. That for me is the big opportunity out there.

A lot of people had bad experiences at school. If we can get our people into learning, in 20 years time they will have all these new skills. If our children become interested in learning something for themselves they will become more involved in their own education.

We are uncomfortable with just being passive citizens. We are uncomfortable with being dependent.

The next stage of the journey is to define what this digital Tuhoe space is. We want to be masters of this technology. You have to be the master of your own destiny.

Finding the Tuhoe Digital Space

Yes, I'm inspired, this is how to build an "Open Future" so I begin to search for Tuhoe digital space.

I'm very disappointed at what I find. An old lesson is reinforced. You need to build networking connections and skills before you need them. In October and November 2007, Tuhoe people needed online skills. The NZ Police began searching Tuhoe houses and arresting people making the unusual claim that they were looking to terrorists. Sadly too few Tuhoe people had the online experience and confidence to be able to rise to meet that challenge.

My Findings - Another failure of the NZ Digital Strategy

I searched online in all the places I expected to find Tuhoe voices.

Yahoo: Two groups, both with low membership no relevant posts.

Google Groups: Two NZ groups discuss Tuhoe tribal activism in an uninformed way. A defeat for Tuhoe.

Myspace: Success. At least eight people here are actively maintaining pages and claiming Tuhoe connections.

Facebook: There are 14 people who's profiles mention Tuhoe, but at least one of those is a very confused Pakeha, and most of the others mention a film or a book about Tuhoe. There is a Group called "Tuhoe Nation" with 4 members.
However there is also a group called "State terrorists kidnapped my friends" with 155 members. (I've just joined)

Orkit: One person living in Perth.

LinkedIn: Not a single member.

Google Web Search: There are many references to Tuhoe, but there is a lot of focus on news media reports of protest action and the reporting is seldom by Tuhoe.

Google Blog Search: Whenua, Fenua, Enua, Vanua, a blog maintained by Ana who describes herself as a "revolutionary Polynesian".

Wikipedia: There is a well researched Ngai Tuhoe page which is part of the WikiProject New Zealand.

Youtube: There is a rich stream of video about Tuhoe on Youtube, but far too much of it about protest, police action, and confrontation.

Del.icio.us: 7 links tagged Tuhoe.

Technorati: A search for "Tuhoe" produces many entries, but about half of them are by one Pakeha man who has a very unhappy view of the situation.

Flickr: Many photographs, dominated by flags, protest marches and confrontation.

tuhoe.net: This important site is driven by Tamati Kruger, and provides a valuable resource. There's a documents section that I would find particularly valuable, and a serviceable message board.

tuhoe.com: This is an ISP taking the Tuhoe name.

tuhoe.iwi: Tuhoe Fisheries Charitable Trust (Site down for maintenance)

tekotahiatuhoe.iwi.nz: This is a well oganised and useful web site representing Tuhoe values.

Aotearoa Independent Media Centre: This is an active site which features Tuhoe protest action prominently. It's a fairly rugged place.

Tamati Kruger: When I search for "Tamati Kruger" on Goggle I find much more material than I can find on the Tuhoe Iwi. That's testimony to Tamati Kruger's skill and hard work.

So what to do?

Given the high aspiration expressed in the beginning this is not a happy story so far.

My advice about how to connect online is the best in the world, but you need not take my advice. "Kabissa - Space for change in Africa" is a world leading project. In the section Time to Get Online, they give excellent advice about how each of us should be engaged in the activity of building our online skills. We NEED to find our own VOICES. That's the task, to be the masters of the digital space, not it's victims.

Using web 2.0 tools and social networks, people can very easily begin to learn online, but to do so you MUST join some groups. We learn from other people. Learning is easier if in the beginning most of those other people are much more experienced than you.

I believe that most of the popular social networks are getting far too complex for beginners to navigate. Maybe that's why Youtube and Flickr are in such demand. They are simple interfaces with a specialised function. I would recommend Ryze to the Tuhoe people, not sexy, but simple, functional and effective.

I would like to see Tuhoe people with a strong genuine voice online. That doesn't exist now. However, that comment applies ALSO to New Zealander's as a whole. Online people in New Zealand are unwilling to join groups and when we do join we are unwilling to actively engage.

The pattern that I've identified here for Tuhoe, and for New Zealand, also applies else where. It's suggested that in "small places" people have very satisfactory face to face relationships, and that they have less need for online connections. In mass societies, in cities of millions of people, the need for active networking is stronger, and it's much harder to brand yourself. So in mass societies the need to be effective online is more obvious. Even so those who successfully develop strong voices in social networks are less than 15% of the membership. The barriers to online success are real. Most people need training, and peer to peer help.

John Stephen Veitch
Open Future Limited - You may comment privately to John S Veitch using this form.

Technorati Tags Paul Reynolds Tuhoe digital technology Tuhoe culture ICT strategy the big opportunity digital space Myspace Facebook Kabissa Tamati Kruger Youtube John Stephen Veitch

Being a Modern Person

noreply@blogger.com (John S Veitch) — Tue, 15 Jan 2008 08:44:00 +0000

Television New Zealand is running a Festival profiling of eminent people who are well know in New Zealand.

The Rev. Professor Lloyd G Geering, is a hero of mine because of his great courage. He is a modern man, but it took his knowledge and understanding to teach me what a modern person is, how that's different today than it was even 50 years ago, and what that means for our lives.

Lloyd Geering was a top scholar, getting a degree with first class honours in pure mathematics, before reluctantly responding to a "call" to the ministry, in the Presbyterian Church of New Zealand.

Geering said that as a novice in the Christian church he never thought to question what he was taught or the authority of those who were his teachers. This style of thinking was not modern, it required him to have faith and put his trust in, The Bible, in God and in his teachers. Geering willingly applied this discipline and said that he found it helpful in giving him the tools to lead a useful life. This style of thinking is not far removed from that of crowds of angry Muslim believers who take to the streets in Pakistan, because someone has insulted the Prophet. They “believe” with unquestioning “faith” in the ideals of their religion. Some people in the west still do that too. (Below I explain a similar Christian response to new ideas.)

Geering explains that for 2000 years, there was no conflict between religion and science. Religion was science. Genesis was the science of it's day, and explained in a perfectly satisfactory way to minds of that time how the earth was created. Today few people in the west accept that account of creation, and even the few who do, wouldn't call it science, but they might call it “Truth”.

200 years ago in the west, biblical scholars recognized that the Bible was written by human beings, and was not divinely inspired. The tools of modern science began to reveal the world to us in a new way. In the west where the global culture we now seem to be creating first took root, people gave up looking to the Bible for the answer to scientific questions. But in the 1960's it was still the unquestioned authority on moral questions, at least in New Zealand.

As the Principal of Knox Theological College in Dunedin, Rev. Prof. Geering had the responsibility of leading the Christian Church he served into the modern world. Geering says, “Today Christendom is lost, but in the 1960's I was hopeful that the Church would move past it's problems and renew itself to become relevant again, in a modern world.” (Remember that hope.)

Geering made three statements that threatened to rip the Presbyterian Church of NZ apart. Those statements were:
“What does the resurrection mean?”
“Do people have immortal souls?”
“There is no Life after death.”

In 1967 sincere members of the Christian Church placed Prof. Geering on trial in the highest religious court in NZ, charged with heresy for “doctrinal error” and with “disturbing the peace of the church.” The Church found no fault with Prof. Geering, saying that the case was “not proven”. In response thousands of people signed petitions calling on the Church to reaffirm it's commitment to the original doctrines. (This is 1970. Remember my earlier reference to Pakistan.)

40 years later, Geering says that the Christian Church was unable to change and that Christendom is “lost” as a result. He failed in his mission.

“There is now a new way of understanding the world developing. We see that you and I are responsible for the protection of the earth and all it's creatures. Only human beings have the power to save the earth. The major question facing us is, “How can we perpetuate human life on the planet.”

“This is a matter for which we will face judgment. I feel sorrow that the world is not responding to the real issues that face us at all.” (As the Church failed to adapt previously.) Growing conflict, war, and the squandering of resources around the world fills me with pessimism.”

“In spite my fears about what will happen, I put my faith in the world. The world will survive.”

So what does it mean to be a modern person? Geering would say it's to maintain the ability to ask important questions and to think clearly and independently about what the answers might be. Modern people are required to make choices, and in those choices they become responsible for outcomes, be they good or bad. We no longer live in a world where we look to God to help us, and to protect us from the weather for instance. Like it or not, we must accept that we share responsibility for the future weather on earth, and that humanities survival might depend on the quality of the choices we make. Christendom is lost. For much the same reasons, "Is the Earth lost too?"

John Stephen Veitch
Open Future Limited - You may comment privately to John S Veitch using this form.

Technorati Tags Professor Lloyd Geering modern man Lloyd Geering understanding the world New Zealand Muslim believers Truth modern science unquestioning faith humanities survival faith in the world John Stephen Veitch

Join More Groups

noreply@blogger.com (John S Veitch) — Fri, 11 Jan 2008 00:37:00 +0000

Wow, it three months since I wrote in the blog. I've been busy building a web site to accompany this blog at Open Future Limited.

So the question is, how can we have a future that is more open, that gives us more real choices?

I've been tracking the term “open future” on the Internet for two years. People who write on the topic are almost always discussing religion. I'll leave you to decide if what I have to say is a religious view or not. My view is passionately held, but I hope it's not dogmatic.

None of us can imagine what the world is like. We are all trapped inside self-made “boxes”. Yes I'm talking about that box we're supposed to think outside. Another stupid idea that people commonly peddle like snake oil. So what is this “box”?

It's your own world view, your knowledge of yourself, and the people you know, and real world as you understand it. Everything you know and all the resources you can understand and use, or even know about are inside your “box”. Success, your life, your belief systems, your cultural knowledge are all INSIDE the “box”. We are ALL confined to our boxes, like it or not. That doesn't offer us much in the way of an “Open Future”.

Yesterday, and it happens almost everyday, someone passed a letter through my mailbox linking to material on “The Universal Law of Attraction”. The modern popularity of this old scam continues to amaze me. That idea is destructive because it negates understanding what your real powers are, and it gives you false information about what the world is like. Armed with false information you become the ghost of the person you might be if fully informed. If you don't understand cause and effect, you are not going to be successful in the world. Misunderstanding of cause and effect is common among business executives. All our knowledge is uncertain, but sometimes our “knowledge” is simply wrong, and if we can identify that, progress is made.

To some extent we are all “ghosts” of the people we might be, because for all of us, some of the trusted knowledge about ourselves and the world that we have collected stored so carefully in our “box” is faulty. It is not in your power to discover the error in your own knowing, you can't “see it” because it's part of you. However, you can become aware of a problem, and like Waldo Salt, once you recognize that “truth is missing” you can begin the search for it. Sadly, “The Secret” isn't the “truth” that you need.

Here's what I recommend. Join more groups. Talk to more people. But in particular meet some new people who are outside of your usual circle of contacts. With modern online tools, it's possible to build a network of people across the globe. That will have his surprising effect. As you talk to these people your own knowledge of the world, of other people, their cultures and languages and understanding will grow. You will grow, you'll have new tools to think in different ways. You'll have new people you can ask questions, and new people will challenge you to think hard about how you can help them. When you do that, you identify clearly for yourself, perhaps for the first time what you know. In the process of talking or writing you discover what you think.

I know that over time this process, of meeting and talking with new people expands your mind and changes who you are. In effect this is the process the makes the “box” we began talking about BIGGER, so that you have more options, so you can make more effective choices.

I'm running a seminar in Christchurch, New Zealand, on 22nd January. I hope to be in Auckland and Wellington before the end of February. You can contact me here.

John Stephen Veitch

Open Future Limited - You may comment privately to John S Veitch using this form.

Technorati Tags education knowledge of yourself belief systems Law of Attraction cultural knowledge truth is missing New Zealand Christchurch Waldo Salt knowledge understand the world false information not dogmatic cause and effect John Stephen Veitch

Company Formation in New Zealand

noreply@blogger.com (John S Veitch) — Fri, 26 Oct 2007 03:35:00 +0000

I've been working up a business idea for 5 years, and two years ago I almost launched into it.

During the last year I've had the privilege to work with Octavio Pitaluga of Top Executives Net, and Mike O'Neil who's the Founder and CEO of Integrated Alliances. I've also seen Scott Allen and several others begin to run classes in how to use LinkedIn. I'm convinced that proper use of Social Networking in general is critical to future personal and business success. In the current mix of available networks LinkedIn stands at the centre, standing out because of what it doesn't do on one hand, and because of what it does well on the other hand.

In the past several months I've been focusing on tuning this blog into a full business, training individuals and business executives on the art of continuous learning using social networks.

Yesterday I registered the domain names for openfuture.co.nz, and openfuture.biz and in a few days I hope to have those domains operating.

Today I had the happy experience of registering a company online, with the NZ Companies Office. Name approval took about 15 minutes. Then I began the process of incorporating the company, which took about 45 minutes more. All done online. None of it requiring a degree in business law. What's more the company is also at the same time registered with the Inland Revenue Department. I'm a happy fellow.

So now all I have to do is make the business work. That's not so easy, I need to be an evangelist, and evangelism isn't popular. In the next few posts I'll explain why it's ESSENTIAL if you are seeking to understand the world and to act effectively in it, that you take seriously the need to maintain your own education. More-over you can't do that by going back to school. You have to achieve that objective by leading a balanced life that includes a daily dose of something learned today, everyday.

John Stephen Veitch
Adapt to Experience - You may comment privately to John S Veitch using this form.

Technorati Tags Company Formation Octavio Pitaluga Mike O'Neil Integrated Alliances Top Executives Net Scott Allen openfuture.co.nz openfuture.biz LinkedIn Companies Office understand the world confidence to act struggle to understand balanced life John Stephen Veitch

A Journal - Keeping your own data

noreply@blogger.com (John S Veitch) — Thu, 06 Sep 2007 23:47:00 +0000

In a discussion about the film "The Secret" this line jumped out at me. "Most of your life will be spent collecting data." If your purpose is to create an open future, collecting data is a very important life-long activity, but so few people bother.

It's simply not true that everything you need is on Google. You need your OWN data, gathered in to process of living your own life. That data you will know and trust because it's grounded in your own experience. The most amazing thing to me is the discovery over and over in my journal, that notes written many years before, can now powerfully inform the present, like the example below.

I recommend to people that they keep a journal, partly a diary, but mostly a place to gather the data that informs you as you live your life. You cannot remember accurately, although your own mind always give itself credit for "perfect recall". I can assure you that your journal will prove that your "memories" are recreated in the present and are not an accurate recall of the past. KEEP those journals, even if they are disjointed and for a year or so along the way they stopped altogether. You will be tempted to discard them at some stage.

English script writer Dennis Potter (Pennies from Heaven, The Singing Detective) spoke before his death about an understanding we can have later in life the is not possible when we are young.

He spoke of the ideals we all hold. "When I grow up everything will be all right." Life always delivers unexpected events that negate the foolish idea that "you can do anything".

"Betrayal - is a theme that's common in life. The failure of people to live up to their own expectations. At some time in our lives we all grasp "a truth" which seems to be the answer to everything. But it never is. "

"Each of us needs to assert how sovereign we are. That means contending with all the shapes and memories of your life. Life gives you a super-fluidity of clues about who we are - we all have that - there seems to be no solution. Crisis leads to breakdown, to re-establishing a system of values. "

"Out of this morass of evidence, clues, searchings and strivings we can start to build a structure called SELF. I now know better than before who I have become. You have to attend to self discovery. I've discovered that I've spent my life on a plough, tilling the same piece of land over and over. But you never plough it properly, it has to be done again. Now I know that and I welcome it. My role is to do what I can with my plough in this patch of land that I now understand."

The quotes above from my Journal No23, 1987, pages 22 - 27.

Sadly the book and film "The Secret" is a con. It's a old con, there is no "secret". There are some truths hidden in the mystical clap trap, but the "Law of Attraction" is a gross misrepresent ion of how the world works. I have a blog entry about "The Secret" that you can read here:

If you come to the world with your own data, with your own grounded knowledge, you can't be fooled by such superficial stuff as "The Secret" or "What the Bleep do we Know". But it takes time and effort to build your own data, at least 10 years. Too many of us don't begin that process until after our midlife crisis. Start early, give yourself an advantage.

My advice to young adults. Keep a journal (A hard-covered exercise book not a diary) and collect your own data. 20 years later you'll have a knowledge that few people can match. AND you have your own grounded data, to give you confidence to act on your own view, even when other people struggle to understand why you are making the choices you make. As Dennis Potter would say, "You have discovered your own sovereignty."

John Stephen Veitch
Adapt to Experience - You may comment privately to John S Veitch using this form.

Technorati Tags The Secret collecting data own data Dennis Potter self discovery memories of your life own experience Law of Attraction midlife crisis grounded data confidence to act struggle to understand your own sovereignty John Stephen Veitch

Knowledge from the Hive

noreply@blogger.com (John S Veitch) — Fri, 13 Jul 2007 03:36:00 +0000

Since the topic here is how can we change, I'm indebted to all the people who make new learning possible for me each day. I've been noticeably reluctant to add to this blog as you can tell by the dates. But I believe that one needs to listen to others and to read and to learn, and to devote time to that. Talking to others, replying to requests and writing a blog has a place in the learning chain, but it's not on the top of the "to do" list. Since this blog entry will be available for a few years, it should be considered and of value, not just an offhand comment.

Bala Pillai introduced me to the concept of mind colonies, or the idea of being in a hive, where information is shared, and where members are looked after. Social networks have the potential to provide hive-like connection with other people that can be very helpful in your life. But about 60% of all the people introduced to social networks don't immediately understand what they have joined so they back off and do nothing.

Susan RoAne in a recent letter to me emphasized the importance of small talk, just to break the ice, to make being present online a human activity. But on LinkedIn small talk is difficult and on Ryze or Xing you have to join some more networks or groups before you can see the conversation that's going on. This conversation is important, that's how the network (hive) communicates is knowledge. Most people who join never find out where this secret activity is going on.

Crispin Garden-Webster pointed out the social networks give you an opportunity to discover online people of your own kind, people you can feel an affinity with. People need to do that first, before they can be expected to develop a diverse network. In talking to people like yourself you begin to understand what you personal strengths and weaknesses might be. All social networks allow you to define who you are, in you own way, and over time your self description will change. Over time you grow in understanding and you become more competent in defining your own brand and the value you bring to the forum. Who are you and perhaps more importantly, who do you expect to become? We are not used to being quite so open about such declarations. We need to practice the ability to openly express ourselves, knowing that there is a risk of offending people, but there is also the opportunity of building trust based on open, honest and transparent actions.

Sadly most people find the task of writing that first self descriptive page so daunting that they give up. Even to write a sentence saying who you are and what brings you to this network is a task too hard. If you can't master the ability to explain who you are NOW, you won't be able to understand who all these other people are, and how together we might build collaborative opportunities in the future.

John Stephen Veitch
Adapt to Experience - You may comment privately to John S Veitch using this form.

Technorati Tags Knowledge the Hive how can we change Bala Pillai mind colonies social networks Susan RoAne self declarations small talk collaborative opportunities Crispin Garden-Webster internal collaboration John Stephen Veitch

The future is collaborative

noreply@blogger.com (John S Veitch) — Mon, 12 Mar 2007 03:39:00 +0000

In his recent post on the importance of the web, Jerry McGovern makes points that speak directly to what this blog is about. How we can develop an open future for ourselves, our businesses and our community? I usually describe this process as enlarging the box we live in, since I believe that "out of the box" thinking leads to impractical and non-nonsensical strategies.

Gerry McGovern makes the point that in this communication age, those who collaborate more are increasingly likely to be noticed and are more likely to be effective in getting their viewpoint accepted. McGovern notes that because bloggers link to each other, they help each other to be more important. The whole web used to work that way before search engines. Commercial web sites that also link to other web sites are simply applying the best rule for bloggers to the commercial web. Sadly very few do. That's a basic mistake made because people don't understand how web space works. Don't rely on search engines to bring you visitors, Link to other web sites and ask them top link back to you. Link DEEPLY into the sites to pages that will interest your own readers. Build pages with that purpose if you must.

I've been advocating that businesses encourage their employees to join social networks for more than two years now. Not a single company I know of has taken that message seriously. McGovern says this: "The first task must be to find people. ... If you can't find people how can you collaborate?" A business/social network is a great way to find the people in your own company if all of them are present as network members. The ability to find the right people to talk to in another department is critical to breaking down the silo's of communication that develop in every company.

Business/Social networks are a simple way to engage with others across the world too. This is another tactic to break the tendency to see things only from a narrow point of view. Eventually we all have to earn our living in the world. Social connection with people in other companies and other cultures allows you to discover in a pleasant way what the world is really like, and to find some people with whom you can collaborate to make what you do more successful.

McGovern quotes A.G. Laffey, President of Proctor and Gamble, as making a plea for "best of class" partners or suppliers to contact and collaborate with the company. Laffy also recognizes the vital role of internal collaboration, and intends to use the P&P intranet to make that possible.

John Stephen Veitch
Adapt to Experience - You may comment privately to John S Veitch using this form.

Technorati Tags Jerry McGovern New Thinking out of the box collaborate more commercial web join social networks find people engage with others McGovern A.G. Laffey Proctor and Gamble internal collaboration John Stephen Veitch

The Secret - Popular but Misguided Film

noreply@blogger.com (John S Veitch) — Wed, 17 Jan 2007 09:29:00 +0000

The film "The Secret" takes over an hour to make mysterious something that's not a secret at all. It's a professional production designed to deceive you. If you have a religious understanding of the world you may be more likely to be taken in by the message. They talk about both God and The Universe more or less interchangeably. Although the main message of the film is bunkum there is a lot in the film that is perfectly correct. Where does sense become non-sense. That is the problem. At it's best "The Secret" is a harmless motivational film, but at it's worst it's a con job.

The Secret is set up to sell the false idea that the "Law of Attraction" is some sort of hard-wired certainty in Gods World. In this hard edged form, it's pure bullshit, vastly damaging and destructive in the lives of ordinary gullible people. Worse in fact than the "Law of Positive Thinking", which I believe is the most destructive force commonly found indoctrinated into the fabric of peoples lives.

If you want to see how the "law of positive thinking" destroys peoples lives look at GW Bush. He says, "mistakes have been made", but he didn't make them. So he can go on and repeat the same mistake again. Positive thinking is destructive when it stops you seeing what's REAL.

I know also that positive thinking is very helpful and valuable when you lack the courage to take on a new venture, but to make any progress you need to take a LEAP into the unknown future. I've been there lots of times. Remember, that the fear you have is your energy generator. Use that to create action. Face the fear, and understand the need to LEAP. But don't do it blindly.

I do believe many of the things said in the film "The Secret".

"Begin where you are."
"The mind affects what it's possible to see."
"You become what you think about."
"You can only control yourself."
"You are the artist who creates your own life."
"Most of us live by default: we don't choose to choose."
"The moment you begin to think properly..." different things become possible.

I disagree with those who think that the key message of "The Secret" is to "follow your bliss" and that the key is to FOCUS on your chosen goals. There are messages from Napoleon Hill here, the value of keeping your eye on the objective and the necessity for persistence in pursuit of your objective. No complaints so far. But when this goes on to "The Universe will create in your life whatever you choose to have. ... There is one law: the Law of Attraction. ... The Universe will manifest your reality into existence." Taken as a whole I believe these statements are nonsense. But the misdirection is subtle, and deceptive.

You see it's quite true the "you create your life" and that "you bring your reality to the world, whatever that may be." You can only see the world with your own eyes and you can only understand it with your own mind. The world you see is truly "YOURS" and the only question is, how close to what the world is really like is the understanding of reality you have built for yourself. If you believe in the hard-wired form of the Law of Attraction, then I claim your reality is deeply flawed. On the other hand if you believe that people generally get back what they contribute, that what goes around comes around then I suggest that's quite a reasonable expectation.

The real message of The Secret is no secret at all. It's here in these words: Your real work is to explain to yourself how you are and how the world is and to choose what to do. That is a nutshell is your own responsibility.

That's the problem, people don't understand reality and don't think properly, so they choose badly, they choose inappropriate things, they choose to focus on things that if the "Law of Attraction" was really hard wired into the universe would be enormously destructive both for the individuals involved and for society as a whole. So my focus is on understanding more about what the real world is like. To do that I need to keep out of fairyland, and try to deal honestly with truth. Truth about myself, and truth about my community and the world beyond. To the extent that I understand and accept "truth" I can make better decisions for myself and be a more reliable guide to others. In this way I give myself an Open Future©

"My real work is to choose", but to choose with knowledge and with proper preparation and proper recognition of the risks involved. Making that sort of choice demands courage. Most people lack the courage to make hard choices like that. They choose "easy" targets like "I will be a millionaire", and of course most of them won't be.

John Stephen Veitch
Adapt to Experience - You may comment privately to John S Veitch using this form.

Technorati Tags The Secret Law of Attraction positive Thinking GW Bush Begin where you are follow your bliss Napoleon Hill new venture understanding hoax John Veitch

Personal Branding

noreply@blogger.com (John S Veitch) — Tue, 31 Oct 2006 08:46:00 +0000

In New Zealand people are reluctant to be too public about what they are thinking and doing. the idea of personal branding sounds quite foreign to me. I have been keen however to find people who share my interest in innovation. To do that I've needed to be quite active on the innovation front. First I built a web site, later I started an Innovation Network on Ryze, and more recently I've built an Innovation Wiki on Wiki Spaces. I recognise the value of being findable on the Internet. Several people who are themselves active in promoting innovation around the world have come into my regular circle of friends. For me that has been a key objective.

Mike Myatt, Chief Strategy Officer, of N2growth in this blog, The Power of Personal Networking, states an obvious truth. "Most entrepreneurs and senior executives completely miss out on one of the most powerful branding strategies available in today's market; the creation of their own personal brand."

I've been very interested in Knowledge Management for at least five years. Knowledge Management is a professional field that's in some trouble. To make Knowledge Management a discipline inside a company requires a change of culture. Experience demonstrates that cultural change happens but it's not easy to control and may produce a result quite adverse to the intention. The effort to build knowledge portals inside the company, a technical solution, firewall is expensive, difficult and doesn't produce satisfactory results.

I have an advantage. For 32 years I've kept a journal. I've spent all that time collecting ideas that I've thought were interesting, were worth the time and effort. My journals are useful ONLY to ME, because I put the time and effort into creating them. Each and every one of you, has some collection of text books, files, cuttings, writings, work, some resources from the past to call on to solve today's problem. Usually disorganised and chaotic. You bring to the table what you have today. What does work quite well is going to Google and searching the Internet. What you find there is then selected and filtered through the screen that is your past knowledge, your intuition for what's important, or true, and what is not. Once again, those who come to the table better prepared come with an advantage. Google can't bring you the ability to make good decisions.

Google is also used when searching for people. 25% of all Internet searches are looking for a person by name. If I need to meet with a manager I don't know, one of the things I always do, is run a Goggle search on him or her. That at least tells me if this person is Internet savvy or not. Ron Bates, the Managing Principal of Executive Advantage Group, tells us that recruitment companies look over the CV's of applicants, choose a few and then do a "Google" on each one. Then they decide which candidates should be on the short list.

Many firms are encouraging their staff to keep blogs or to participate in online forums. Of course there is potential for trouble if there is wide-open communication. There are two opposing ideas about that. One, that you can't control what people are thinking and saying anyway, so what people post may as well be public. This view is supported by the Clue Train Manifesto, which most of you will know. People inside the firm are not foolish, they will respect the fact that certain information needs to stay within the company. In contrast, there is a view that staff blogs are company property and belong firmly inside the firewall. This week I came across a Canadian company called iUpload, which is hosting corporate blogs and websites, and providing the facility to easily monitor blogs and to approve material that is posted into the public domain. They call it a customer conversation system. There can be no right answer here. Each company needs to find it's own solution to that one. Perhaps some sort of mixed and personalised response is possible in small firms.

Here in New Zealand most of our companies are very small. If there are 20 people in the company and they are all encouraged to blog I guess the reality is that two people will. That's not likely to need any elaborate control, although there should be clear guidelines about any activity disclosing confidential information or likely to bring the company into disrepute. Companies already have rules like this for email transmissions.

There is a case for private blogs, where the CEO is talking to staff, or where new innovations are the subject of conversation. Wiki are interesting as ways to gather and create information. Wiki are a group publication. Because you can never be sure what people might post on a Wiki and how each idea connects to each other idea, company wiki should usually be private.

I am the Chair of the Deep Wells Trust, and currently we are experimenting with using the Internet. Deep Wells Trust is a "people and feelings" sort of organisation, and technology comes low in the list of priorities. We've got a public blog, Exploring Deep Wells, and a private web site, and a private wiki. Quietly we've moved from disinterest to "maybe this is useful". I hope to make the issues more understandable and to speed up decision making. But even if that doesn't happen, if the quality of decision making was improved I'd be happy. So you invite people to participate. They choose. Some will some won't. People will involve themselves in their own time. There's no future in pushing the issue.

John Stephen Veitch
You may comment privately to John S Veitch using this form.

Technorati Tags innovation personal branding n2growth.com Knowledge Management Google search Clue Train Manifesto iUpload private blogs conversation Deepwells Trust decision making Mike Myatt Ron Bates John Veitch

Social Networking

noreply@blogger.com (John S Veitch) — Thu, 31 Aug 2006 22:19:00 +0000

There is confusion about how people learn and why people think, and even about what stops them from thinking. How do we create an open future for ourselves?

In education and philosophy we have tried to make learning and thinking logical processes. We have produced tidy theories of learning, and theories of knowledge that have little to do with how real people learn, and what sort of knowledge is of most value. The brain is a sense making tool, it strives to take whatever new data is available and to fit it into the story of one's personal knowledge. Even when given incomplete information, the brain tries to make sense of it, we use imagination to create the missing data, so we can “understand” even if in fact our new understanding is quite misplaced.

I believe that people learn best in groups. Other people inspire one to think and respond wherever there is a climate that encourages conversations. In a conversation there is no textbook answer, there is no way to determine the direction the discussion will take, or to say when the end has been reached. The process of conversation in a social context can be strongly engaging and highly educational. Conversations occur at the level of interest and with the current knowledge of the participants. Each of us will choose which conversations we wish to join. We will only remain in a conversation if it continues to hold interest for us, we are free to leave.

Here is the advantage of lists, forums and even more strongly online social networks. People self select by opting into the group. They self select again by choosing to stay or not. They self select once more when they choose to engage in the discussion.

Each of these self selecting decisions help to define for the individual the "who am I question" and in the process of engagement, in conversation with others both what one knows, and what one considers important will change. Over time the activity of conversing with others changes who you are, who your trusted friends are, and where you might seek advice and help in your work or in your life.

The importance and value of social networks is poorly understood. The process of self selection, is very brutal. More than 90% seem to self-select themselves out, before they achieve any benefit. My most detailed knowledge is about a group called Ryze. Only about 5% of all Ryze members get established as active members. There is a long tail of self discrimination against becoming active, a very long tail. Ryze has active forums, over 800 of them, but in most of those the amount of activity is low.

There is a network called LinkedIn which appeals to business-types who think they are too busy for forums, but who seek networking contacts. In the same way a tiny number of people have massive numbers of connections. Over 22,000 for the top people. LinkedIn refuses to publish the exact number of links for people with more than 500 connections. People are shown as having 500+ connections. In searching LinkedIn you can only find people who have some sort of connection (3 degrees of separation) with yourself. My analysis of 1000 connections linked to me, is that the median number of connections is less than FIVE. The real median must be even lower because many LinkedIn "members" have zero connections.

If we are to develop "learning communities" every opportunity should be taken to encourage people to engage with groups of other people, both in one's local community and online. Other people inform us about ourselves, point to things that are important, inspire us to be better informed, and teach us many of the things we need to know. Social networks are critical to building functioning knowledge societies.

There is a wiki called the Global Engagement Trust which looks at this topic.

There is a web site on the importance of networking at Adapt to Experience.

John Stephen Veitch
Adapt to Experience - You may comment privately to John S Veitch using this form.

Technorati Tags Social Networking learning changing your mind

Strong and Weak Networks

noreply@blogger.com (John S Veitch) — Wed, 14 Sep 2005 04:20:00 +0000

The book "The Virtual Handshake" begins with reference to the Luna Society meeting in Birmingham in 1765. Some of the most distinguished people in the history of the UK were members, inventors, manufacturers, scientist and engineers. They were a self selected group who came together to talk about the things that interested them. They developed a routine of inviting visiting businessmen, scientists and politicians to their meetings.

The Scottish enlightenment, is said to have developed from similar meetings in coffee shops. People needed to be invited to join these meetings. The members tried to invite only the best of their peers, looking for people who had something to contrubute to the discussion.

A group that is hard to join, is likely to have ties that bind the members very strongly. In the same way you have strong ties to members of your own family. You have quite strong ties to fellow members of the clubs you join, or to your peers at work. We would naturally expect that these strong ties are the key to successful networks. Most of our online connections will be weak ties in comparison.

Professor mark Granovetter emphasised the importance of weak ties in his book "Getting a Job: A Study of Contacts and Careers". His research showed that weak ties were "disproportionately more effective for finding jobs than strong ties". Why that should be is at first a bit confounding. The reasoning is thus: Strong ties are likely to be very similar to yourself, and your strong ties are likely to largely share your own knowledge base. Weak ties on the other hand are more diverse, both in interests and in location. The strong networks of your weak ties are likely to be completely different than your own. The knowledge base of your weak ties is likely to overlap with your own only in minor ways. If you are trying to do something new or different, your weak ties may have much more to offer than your strong ties.

That's something to think about if you want to create an Open Future© for yourself. You need to develop two entirely differents sorts of networks, one that is strong, focused and close, and one that is weak, diverse and more distant.

John Stephen Veitch
Private Letter to the Author

The Virtual Handshake: Opening Doors and Closing Deals Online.

noreply@blogger.com (John S Veitch) — Tue, 30 Aug 2005 12:37:00 +0000

By David Teten and Scott Allen

CEO's and business managers is general have been slow to get online. Those who have been early might have made all the mistakes, but a good number have also made significant money by trading with or doing services for somebody they first met online. Until now too many people have been unsure what to do "now that I'm online". The Virtual Handshake is a solution to that problem. It's plain and clear that what you do online is important, and the authors give you strong, specific and easily understood instructions about how to "do it" right.

For the business executive The Virtual Handshake has detailed instruction on the need to maintain both face to face and virtual communications. Managers tend to be siloed by their work. The Virtual Handshake tells you how to create an online presence that might attract to you the partners you need to succeed.

There is detailed help in the use of Blogs for that purpose by demonstrating your competence and knowledge in your posts. In the process you collect contacts with other people, most of those contacts being very weak connections. By controlling your use of email and lists and social networks like Ryze, you can develop from those weak connections a number of "strong virtual connections" with people who have skills and abilities that might be useful to you. One of the most impressive parts of the book for me was the section on building networks that were both large and diverse, and LinkedIn is the ideal tool for that.

There is very strong emphasis in the book on doing the right things, and in every chapter there is help and advice to make it possible for you too to succeed online. The last sections of the book focus on finding work, or finding the right staff, on marketing, making sales and building our businesses, essential tasks that are doable, with the right approach.

This book is worth every dollar of the price. I've ordered four.

View the Book at Amazon Here.

John Stephen Veitch
Private Letter to the Author