Critical Thinking: What Is It?
This question has come up before -- in interviews of people from different backgrounds, fields, and classes, teachers tended to use this term when asked (in round-about ways) to explain the signs of an effective thinker. CEOs and financiers used the term "problem-solving" or "innovative thinking." Others used phrases like the ability to "close the loop," "think independently," or "think on one's feet."
What's the Difference?
If given more context, it would be clear that they all represent pretty much the same process:
Representatives of each group I interviewed -- teachers, managers, CEOs, financial analysts, policemen -- are keeping a keen and dedicated eye out for anyone who is a quick study at figuring out the important information in any given situation and to analyse it effectively -- again, in terms of a particular task.
In other words, success across contexts lies in the ability to (first) observe and absorb concrete details and both analyse what's their and imagine what's possible. From that group of data, the winner finds the most effective solution to the problem at hand.
Breaking this down is a complicated enough proposition that many interviewees have told me it's impossible to teach -- you either have a gift for it, or you don't.
In fact, although some people are better at it than others, the skill requires practice at what to do in one context, in-depth repetition, and transfer the understanding to another context.
Then you start all over again.
For more on the way I've broken down this process, peruse past posts. It's everywhere in one form or another. Or send a note with a specific question, and I'll be happy to direct you.
An Interesting Prospect, If Baffling
People do teach what is called "critical thinking" in school. Others also teach "problem solving" and "innovation" in business. As far as I can tell, it's all the same stuff.
One of the things I have arranged in my time off from blogging is a trip to England to explore their notion of critical thinking. At the moment the educational system offers an A.S. (or junior A-Level, a sort of Pre-SAT). Next year, they will offer an A-level that can qualify a student for university.
How do you institutionalize the process of independent thinking, of creative analysis, of problem-solving in a school setting?
Why Now?
This is a particularly interesting prospect when one considers the new standards for admission. How is critical thinking taught given that the English government has declared all post-secondary educational institutions "universities" (including what Americans would call junior colleges, trade schools, and so on)?
Is it task-oriented? How could it be if the educational contexts of higher education are so diverse? Is it taught to be transferable across contexts? The English are notoriously class-specific -- is it likely?
My Experience: Critical Thinking Requires Context for Students
My data is anecdotal rather than scientific -- I've interviewed fewer than a hundred people and taught for fewer than ten years in a formal setting. However, that doesn't mean I haven't learned a thing or two.
The first is that students learn critical thinking best when they are given a context in which to practice (and practice and practice) until they've got as deep into a subject area as is possible. Only then do they really understand the process.
It didn't work when, as a new teacher, I tried to explain the process in the abstract. I gave examples, offered reading by philosophers and educators, and the result was no understanding of how to apply what they read.
Then everything changed. Only after we used concrete material (in this case, drama) as content to explore the differences and similarities in problems -- again, in this case among genres, periods, playwrights, characters -- did we apply the abstract philosophy to explore the concrete matter at hand.
And then there was light.
More on this in future posts.
Sunday, December 31, 2006
Thursday, December 07, 2006
Better Marketing Through Storytelling
Storytelling has become a hip term in businesses, both for internal communications and brand development. The good consultants articulate what you already know -- stories are effective means by which to create memorable and convincing messages.
It's just another example of the ways businesses could have learned this earlier by asking any third-grade teacher.
Storytelling through New Media
Check out experts Howard Greenstein and Dean Landsman speaking about this on YouTube. The video was made for the Uplift Academy's Better World Network. However, it's articulate and helpful for any organization that wants to understand how better to speak to markets, understand licensing, and breaking down barriers to new media broadcasts.
It's just another example of the ways businesses could have learned this earlier by asking any third-grade teacher.
Storytelling through New Media
Check out experts Howard Greenstein and Dean Landsman speaking about this on YouTube. The video was made for the Uplift Academy's Better World Network. However, it's articulate and helpful for any organization that wants to understand how better to speak to markets, understand licensing, and breaking down barriers to new media broadcasts.
Saturday, December 02, 2006
One Common Language I'm Afraid We'll Never Get
The Black Hole: Generalizing About Problems in Education
I have a bone to pick with Dr. Richard Gilder, friend and colleague, but right only in part in his generalizations about English teachers. He laments:
. . . students today, at least in the United States, have no idea how their own language works. English and its grammar are a mystery to them. How did this happen? And what can and should we do about it? The notion that grammar is boring, and is therefore an impediment to the learning of English, made its insidious way into the minds of those who teach English and subjects of a similar ilk.
Having been both an English teacher and a teacher of "subjects of a similar ilk" (writing and many other topics apart from language within the humanities), I protest quite with great ardor.
There certainly is a feeling among certain groups of teachers that correcting or teaching language structure impedes or prevents the kind of engagement that comes with expressing ideas without reference to grammar. Sometimes, grammar needs to be blended in and enforced after confidence is built from the first forays into writing.
Why Don't Americans Teach Their Children How to Speak?
Norwegians learn Norwegian -- the Greeks are taught their Greek.
Here are a couple of reasons derived from primary research:
Many teachers of all age-groups believe English grammar and logic should have been taught by someone else. This is anecdotal evidence rather than scientific -- my pool of data is restricted to 50 subjects.
These teachers of classes from first grade through the last year of graduate school all agree that it's not his or her job. The system is not designed for instructors of different age levels to collaborate. I didn't interview kindergarten teachers -- but I'm guessing they would say that learning good English comes from the home.
And now a Latin teacher is passing the buck as well.
The Black Hole: Where Does Good English Come From?
Grammar and and writing are hard to teach even for the Shakespeares among us. Both subjects are labor intensive on the part of the teacher and the student. They both require repeated and consistent feedback over a long period of time.
This is a lot of work for teachers worried about state requirements (for public schools) or getting articulate students into good colleges by cultivating their ideas. What's more, it's hard to engage students in either as a discipline. Even when courses give time to the subjects, students often don't absorb them.
Here's a bigger problem: grammar and writing are particularly hard to teach if no one ever taught them to you. How can you emphasize the importance of a discipline you don't feel comfortable with yourself?
Grab the Opportunity Where it Lies -- And Forget the Blame Game
I taught at and Ivy League university for years, and my students often had very weak skills in grammar and writing. At first, like Richard, I cursed the darkness (after all, I wanted to teach new material -- material that interested me enough to grind through graduate school to get a PhD).
Then I got practical. Over the course of five years, I came up with a system to integrate the material I loved with strong writing practices. Richard's done the same with his book on Latin for English speakers.
What Next?
It would be helpful if he took the energy he uses cursing the darkness (and teachers of other subjects) and uses instead to transform the black hole (where English has been lost) into a new galaxy. Why not organize a forum where teachers of all subjects can talk to each other about common challenges and strategies to master them.
Invite some businesses along as well. Employees are just older students. Perhaps there's a way to get funding from a business that wants to improve its collective communications skills.
After all, markets are conversations. What could be more profitable than starting one?
I have a bone to pick with Dr. Richard Gilder, friend and colleague, but right only in part in his generalizations about English teachers. He laments:
. . . students today, at least in the United States, have no idea how their own language works. English and its grammar are a mystery to them. How did this happen? And what can and should we do about it? The notion that grammar is boring, and is therefore an impediment to the learning of English, made its insidious way into the minds of those who teach English and subjects of a similar ilk.
Having been both an English teacher and a teacher of "subjects of a similar ilk" (writing and many other topics apart from language within the humanities), I protest quite with great ardor.
There certainly is a feeling among certain groups of teachers that correcting or teaching language structure impedes or prevents the kind of engagement that comes with expressing ideas without reference to grammar. Sometimes, grammar needs to be blended in and enforced after confidence is built from the first forays into writing.
Why Don't Americans Teach Their Children How to Speak?
Norwegians learn Norwegian -- the Greeks are taught their Greek.
Here are a couple of reasons derived from primary research:
Many teachers of all age-groups believe English grammar and logic should have been taught by someone else. This is anecdotal evidence rather than scientific -- my pool of data is restricted to 50 subjects.
These teachers of classes from first grade through the last year of graduate school all agree that it's not his or her job. The system is not designed for instructors of different age levels to collaborate. I didn't interview kindergarten teachers -- but I'm guessing they would say that learning good English comes from the home.
And now a Latin teacher is passing the buck as well.
The Black Hole: Where Does Good English Come From?
Grammar and and writing are hard to teach even for the Shakespeares among us. Both subjects are labor intensive on the part of the teacher and the student. They both require repeated and consistent feedback over a long period of time.
This is a lot of work for teachers worried about state requirements (for public schools) or getting articulate students into good colleges by cultivating their ideas. What's more, it's hard to engage students in either as a discipline. Even when courses give time to the subjects, students often don't absorb them.
Here's a bigger problem: grammar and writing are particularly hard to teach if no one ever taught them to you. How can you emphasize the importance of a discipline you don't feel comfortable with yourself?
Grab the Opportunity Where it Lies -- And Forget the Blame Game
I taught at and Ivy League university for years, and my students often had very weak skills in grammar and writing. At first, like Richard, I cursed the darkness (after all, I wanted to teach new material -- material that interested me enough to grind through graduate school to get a PhD).
Then I got practical. Over the course of five years, I came up with a system to integrate the material I loved with strong writing practices. Richard's done the same with his book on Latin for English speakers.
What Next?
It would be helpful if he took the energy he uses cursing the darkness (and teachers of other subjects) and uses instead to transform the black hole (where English has been lost) into a new galaxy. Why not organize a forum where teachers of all subjects can talk to each other about common challenges and strategies to master them.
Invite some businesses along as well. Employees are just older students. Perhaps there's a way to get funding from a business that wants to improve its collective communications skills.
After all, markets are conversations. What could be more profitable than starting one?
Saturday, November 25, 2006
Finding New Ideas: Rattling Around Convention
Everything is Relative
My uncle designed with Marc Jacobs wearable art that rattles. The ring and bracelet fun to play with but are definitely not for children. They ring with the sound of gems hidden inside gold.
Each piece is hand-made and has eight "houses" (read: compartments). In each house sits one gem: if you've got money to burn, you can house eight perfect quarter-carat diamonds; if not, semi-precious stones do the trick quite well.
With every movement, there's a tinkling sound (or rattle), but no one but the wearer knows what's in there. It's fun to hear them jingle (particularly when someone does the most ordinary tasks throughout the day).
What's So Different Here?
Even my grandfather, who came from the diamond business in Belgium (and was not impressed by much), was rather chuffed by the rattle ring and bracelet.
"The only conceptual high-end jewelry ever," he'd say, "was the tennis bracelet. And that didn't have anything to do with tennis -- so really, it doesn't even count." At 95, my grandfather had more respect for the creator of mood rings because the concept part was real. He respected people with imagination.
Why This is Fun, Even Just to Think About
It might seem too obvious to say, but gems have always been symbols of importance and power. If you consider the reason most people buy high-end jewelry, it's to show off what they've got. You can see this in the oldest paintings -- no courtier, king, or even burgher would be painted without as much bling as possible.
Look at Medieval alter pieces -- artistans lent even Mary and the saints gold and fancy jewelry, just to show they were important. Forget the fact that the characters decked out in diamonds were supposed to inspire humility from the collected masses by example.
But that's another discussion.
So What About this Rattle Business?
The rattle collection turns all this on its head: you might like having a secret more than bragging about what you've got. Knowing something is better than showing it. And for me, a sublte and counter-intuitive idea offers pleasure that is greater and lasts longer than a habit whose value has always taken for granted.
What If Every Conventional Idea Were Rattled, Just a Little?
It's worth considering: what other conventional notions of power and importance could be turned upside down (or as in this case, inside out)? What could sustained curiosity inspire?
If you want to know more, send me a note. The pieces will soon be offered in exclusive catalogues for the tremendously wealthy.
My uncle designed with Marc Jacobs wearable art that rattles. The ring and bracelet fun to play with but are definitely not for children. They ring with the sound of gems hidden inside gold.
Each piece is hand-made and has eight "houses" (read: compartments). In each house sits one gem: if you've got money to burn, you can house eight perfect quarter-carat diamonds; if not, semi-precious stones do the trick quite well.
With every movement, there's a tinkling sound (or rattle), but no one but the wearer knows what's in there. It's fun to hear them jingle (particularly when someone does the most ordinary tasks throughout the day).
What's So Different Here?
Even my grandfather, who came from the diamond business in Belgium (and was not impressed by much), was rather chuffed by the rattle ring and bracelet.
"The only conceptual high-end jewelry ever," he'd say, "was the tennis bracelet. And that didn't have anything to do with tennis -- so really, it doesn't even count." At 95, my grandfather had more respect for the creator of mood rings because the concept part was real. He respected people with imagination.
Why This is Fun, Even Just to Think About
It might seem too obvious to say, but gems have always been symbols of importance and power. If you consider the reason most people buy high-end jewelry, it's to show off what they've got. You can see this in the oldest paintings -- no courtier, king, or even burgher would be painted without as much bling as possible.
Look at Medieval alter pieces -- artistans lent even Mary and the saints gold and fancy jewelry, just to show they were important. Forget the fact that the characters decked out in diamonds were supposed to inspire humility from the collected masses by example.
But that's another discussion.
So What About this Rattle Business?
The rattle collection turns all this on its head: you might like having a secret more than bragging about what you've got. Knowing something is better than showing it. And for me, a sublte and counter-intuitive idea offers pleasure that is greater and lasts longer than a habit whose value has always taken for granted.
What If Every Conventional Idea Were Rattled, Just a Little?
It's worth considering: what other conventional notions of power and importance could be turned upside down (or as in this case, inside out)? What could sustained curiosity inspire?
If you want to know more, send me a note. The pieces will soon be offered in exclusive catalogues for the tremendously wealthy.
Monday, November 20, 2006
Gold in the Rubble: Building an Effective Learning Environment for Business
I've been hearing complaints from many colleagues and clients about the lack of corporate training within their organizations. Sometimes they complain about the quality. Regardless, degree programs are being slashed, new hires are made project managers with no word on what to do, and even receptionists are not taught to answer the phone politely (forget helpfully).
Believe it or not, this could turn out to be very good news.
Stop Training and Start Teaching
I'm working with a colleague on a new ways of training that bypasses particular skill issues and get to the root of these challenges. If you need our services, by all means, get in touch.
However, lest this seem like shameless marketing, I'd like to encourage the competition just as strongly as potential clients. if you also are in the business of helping companies function properly, now is the time to move beyond a focus on particular skills to the roots of how people learn. And to change the experience of working everywhere.
One Solution
A colleague in Australia told me his company has already begun. At some point a few months ago, I suggested an induction program that rewards outside interests for new hires to ensure that they retain and develop resources from outside their jobs. Lasting and valued Networks as well as ideas tend to emerge rather than be organized conciously. Learning is associative, and so the more disparate interests one has, the more data points there are to combine for innovation. Also highly engaged people are more effective in the workplace (as well as happier in life, research shows).
My colleague's company rewards managers for supporting outside interests of those who work for them and make time for the latter to engage and develop their passions.
Make no mistake, this is not an groovy kind of community -- the people are all engineers, bent on proving things, focused on how things work.
Something in the Air?
With business leaders' despair about the range of inadequacy -- from ordinary skills to that of high-level innnovation, both, there is room now to experiment. Perhaps it's the spirit of the Web -- making the new capabilities of the Web work for you financially demandsd informed experimentation. We're in new territory and one that is seen as demanding personal engagement to run effectively.
Perhaps it's just that there is an empty space to fill, and new ideas are rising when before there were too many people crowding the room with the same old solutions.
Whatever it is, there is a lot of room for new ways of thinking. Now is the time to learn about what's possible.
Believe it or not, this could turn out to be very good news.
Stop Training and Start Teaching
I'm working with a colleague on a new ways of training that bypasses particular skill issues and get to the root of these challenges. If you need our services, by all means, get in touch.
However, lest this seem like shameless marketing, I'd like to encourage the competition just as strongly as potential clients. if you also are in the business of helping companies function properly, now is the time to move beyond a focus on particular skills to the roots of how people learn. And to change the experience of working everywhere.
One Solution
A colleague in Australia told me his company has already begun. At some point a few months ago, I suggested an induction program that rewards outside interests for new hires to ensure that they retain and develop resources from outside their jobs. Lasting and valued Networks as well as ideas tend to emerge rather than be organized conciously. Learning is associative, and so the more disparate interests one has, the more data points there are to combine for innovation. Also highly engaged people are more effective in the workplace (as well as happier in life, research shows).
My colleague's company rewards managers for supporting outside interests of those who work for them and make time for the latter to engage and develop their passions.
Make no mistake, this is not an groovy kind of community -- the people are all engineers, bent on proving things, focused on how things work.
Something in the Air?
With business leaders' despair about the range of inadequacy -- from ordinary skills to that of high-level innnovation, both, there is room now to experiment. Perhaps it's the spirit of the Web -- making the new capabilities of the Web work for you financially demandsd informed experimentation. We're in new territory and one that is seen as demanding personal engagement to run effectively.
Perhaps it's just that there is an empty space to fill, and new ideas are rising when before there were too many people crowding the room with the same old solutions.
Whatever it is, there is a lot of room for new ways of thinking. Now is the time to learn about what's possible.
Friday, November 17, 2006
It's All in the Teaching: Latin Like You've Never Seen It
Where Do Professors Come From?
There is an old chestnut in academics that speaks to the ridiculousness of standards that rewards faculty with tenure in the liberal arts: It's hard to agree on what constitutes good research, but everyone recognizes a great teacher. Usually, teaching isn't really taken into account.
Of course there are the exceptions -- both in the way faculty are rewarded and in the fact that some prodigious researchers devote themselves to their classes -- but by and large, the American system is run in a manner that does not benefit the students (whose parents are paying huge amounts of money for the privilage).
Why You Can Learn More in Secondary School: It Matters if You Can Teach
I have a good friend, Dr. Richard Gilder III, who is one of the best teachers in whose classroom I've had the privelage to sit. He teaches Latin, something with a language with which I have very little familiarity, but still I was inspired and learned a lot.
That's really saying something.
Great Teachers are Hard to Find
Richard enlisted me to raise awareness of a new approach to teaching Latin, and I thought I'd mention it here for those who might be interested.
The man's got a fancy name but a simple premise:
Most American students (and probably many elsewhere) are not familiar enough with the workings of their native language to do much other than memorize when they learn another. What if language structure and logic per se were taught as part of the Latin curriculum? In other words, wouldn't it be wonderfully efficient if students could learn Latin and English all at once? And leave prepared to learn other languages as well?
Not News but Worth Repeating: Great Books Can Help Make Great Thinkers
I'm not a fan of Allan Bloom, but with Gilder's strategy, I think teaching Latin could have as much or more of a direct application to better business practice than almost anything else.
No one speaks Latin, but what could be more useful in a global economy than learning to think in two language and laying the groundwork for others?
And there's nothing like introducing unlikely connections and crossing disciplines for >sustainable innovation.
What could be more unlikely?
There is an old chestnut in academics that speaks to the ridiculousness of standards that rewards faculty with tenure in the liberal arts: It's hard to agree on what constitutes good research, but everyone recognizes a great teacher. Usually, teaching isn't really taken into account.
Of course there are the exceptions -- both in the way faculty are rewarded and in the fact that some prodigious researchers devote themselves to their classes -- but by and large, the American system is run in a manner that does not benefit the students (whose parents are paying huge amounts of money for the privilage).
Why You Can Learn More in Secondary School: It Matters if You Can Teach
I have a good friend, Dr. Richard Gilder III, who is one of the best teachers in whose classroom I've had the privelage to sit. He teaches Latin, something with a language with which I have very little familiarity, but still I was inspired and learned a lot.
That's really saying something.
Great Teachers are Hard to Find
Richard enlisted me to raise awareness of a new approach to teaching Latin, and I thought I'd mention it here for those who might be interested.
The man's got a fancy name but a simple premise:
Most American students (and probably many elsewhere) are not familiar enough with the workings of their native language to do much other than memorize when they learn another. What if language structure and logic per se were taught as part of the Latin curriculum? In other words, wouldn't it be wonderfully efficient if students could learn Latin and English all at once? And leave prepared to learn other languages as well?
Not News but Worth Repeating: Great Books Can Help Make Great Thinkers
I'm not a fan of Allan Bloom, but with Gilder's strategy, I think teaching Latin could have as much or more of a direct application to better business practice than almost anything else.
No one speaks Latin, but what could be more useful in a global economy than learning to think in two language and laying the groundwork for others?
And there's nothing like introducing unlikely connections and crossing disciplines for >sustainable innovation.
What could be more unlikely?
Monday, November 13, 2006
Response to Yesterday's Post Got Me Thinking . . .
Someone sent me a note about yesterday's post suggesting that although he thinks Rob's work is teriffic, often what's missing in ONA/SNA is value network analysis. Information can also be found here.
Thanks for writing, and if you're interested in me posting your name and site, please give a shout.
I'm not sure if this is entirely true, however. Rob spent quite a bit of time on the evaluating (and putting a value on) outcomes in business terms. My concern is that if networks are put entirely in existing business terms -- as new a concept as it is to improve the way organizations and individuals function -- SNA (now ONA) will end up being a passing fad.
Regardless of business outcome, the individual and how individuals operate is the center of this process. Individuals impulses are as important as their behaviors -- in fact, they drive them.
I find this already in the way Valdis Krebs explains his work, although he's been in the business for over twenty years. Let's hope this style of storytelling becomes a trend.
My sense is that a more human vocabulary could benefit the current language of corporate archetypes. Otherwise, all you've got is more business process and training from mgt. rather than connections over which employees have ownership and personal bonds that last.
Here's hoping that the language of feeling will blend with that of corporate function once the process has more widespread credibility.
Thanks for writing, and if you're interested in me posting your name and site, please give a shout.
I'm not sure if this is entirely true, however. Rob spent quite a bit of time on the evaluating (and putting a value on) outcomes in business terms. My concern is that if networks are put entirely in existing business terms -- as new a concept as it is to improve the way organizations and individuals function -- SNA (now ONA) will end up being a passing fad.
Regardless of business outcome, the individual and how individuals operate is the center of this process. Individuals impulses are as important as their behaviors -- in fact, they drive them.
I find this already in the way Valdis Krebs explains his work, although he's been in the business for over twenty years. Let's hope this style of storytelling becomes a trend.
My sense is that a more human vocabulary could benefit the current language of corporate archetypes. Otherwise, all you've got is more business process and training from mgt. rather than connections over which employees have ownership and personal bonds that last.
Here's hoping that the language of feeling will blend with that of corporate function once the process has more widespread credibility.
Sunday, November 12, 2006
Say What You Mean: Demystify Engagement for the Sake of Innovation
For Those New To This Excercise . . .
. . . jargon drives me to rail. I began this weekly blog to explore ways of breaking down silos in terms of learning and training, creativity and innovation, and any other aspect related to the results of curiosity and insight.
There are exceptions when trying to give credibility to what are called the softer skills that no one can really measure but everyone knows are important anyway.
Why?
Most of the time, the more economically successful of these silos (eg programs for professionals) claim their exclusivity and advantage through mystifying concepts that fourth grade teachers take for granted. Some of these include reconnecting the intellectual body to the emotional body, emphasizing broad learning rather than narrow training, and putting teachers and trainers of all levels together to garner insight and maximize personal resources
It all might sound a little un-credible to businesses. However, by getting everyone together, we'll be more efficient by sharing what businesses call "learnings," eliminates redundancies, and create efficiencies. How more business-like can an argument be?
The Setting
I attended a Round Table focused on Social Network Analysis (SNA) run by Rob Cross and the McIntyre School at the University of Virginia.
The attendees members of the Round Table were, for the most part, large organizations in financial services, professional services, manufacturing, consumer products, and so on. There was also a scattering of independent consultants and non-profits that genuinely added great perspective to the discussion.
The Hidden Power of Networks: An Excellent Book
I very much appreciated Rob's book -- one of the few business books that IS a book rather than an article stretched by publishers to fit between hard covers and look like other of its kind on bookstore shelves. It's a generous book -- full of detailed, accessible discussions of a process, its purpose, and uses.
In other words, it entirely a process that produces the most mystifying of maps and diagrams and for which people charge a lot of money. How generous is that?
Some Lovely Surprises
Organizations presented their results of using Rob's software and Network Analysis, and they seemed quite honest about what worked and what didn't. No marketing case studies, these. There was a genuine desire both to learn and share knowledge here, sometimes with competitors.
Also, very near the conference's end, Steve Denning gave a wonderful presentation on Storytelling. The slides were surprising and had everyone laughing, and Steve's straightforward personal engagement with the audience was unique for the weekend. By gum, he even stood directly in front of the audience, miles away from the screen, and acted as though the podium didn't exist.
The Only Caveat (And a Big One)
Despite the possible benefits of SNA for acknowledging individuals as such, it's clear that business are still reluctant to admit that their employees feel as much as they think. Social Network Analysis (SNA) becomes Organizational (ONA) to sell into business. Presenters described their processes in terms almost exclusively in terms of behaviors driven by the impulse to succeed and Conflict should always be resolved">agree, whether it derives from the employee or as an edict from management.
Rob talks about "energizers" and those who drain energy from a team or individual and the symptoms that can ferret these out. Yet he didn't say anything about the passion and engagement that causes the transference this kind of energy from person to another.
Likewise, Steve Denning, as directly as he connected to the audience, described the structural aspects of an effective story. Yet he neglected to point out that in order for a story to be effective, the teller needs to feel it's important.
When I approached Steve to ask why he didn't point out perhaps this most important issue in effective transfer of information, he told me he was saying it implicitly through his talk.
This seems to miss the point of this exercise. As any teacher who educates her peers will tell you, modeling has little effect without explicit discussion of what she is teaching.
I've been told that it's unrealistic to try to change the system because it's the way things are. However, with that attitude, SNA would never have been adopted by anyone. Who discussed social networks two years ago?
The Danger: SNA Going from Lasting Learning to the Usual Business Training
If business leaders continue to define credibility as lacking in emotional content -- if networks can't be identified as "social" (eg belonging to the participants) but instead as "organizational" (eg belonging to the business) -- you'll never get the kind of creativity and collaboration in business that you do outside it (say, on the Web).
As for Learning . . .
If credibility for business processes exist in describing behavior rather than in articulating and generating the impulse that best creates it, despite the beginnings of communities of individuals within organizations, we're eliminating the internal combustion (eg emotional responses) that cause both the positive and negative behaviors in companies.
By dissociating the emotional system from professional behavior, you effectively minimize innovation. Even heated conflict can be tremendously productive if the goal is something new.
After all, what is inspiration but the meeting point between intellectual and emotional insight?
. . . jargon drives me to rail. I began this weekly blog to explore ways of breaking down silos in terms of learning and training, creativity and innovation, and any other aspect related to the results of curiosity and insight.
There are exceptions when trying to give credibility to what are called the softer skills that no one can really measure but everyone knows are important anyway.
Why?
Most of the time, the more economically successful of these silos (eg programs for professionals) claim their exclusivity and advantage through mystifying concepts that fourth grade teachers take for granted. Some of these include reconnecting the intellectual body to the emotional body, emphasizing broad learning rather than narrow training, and putting teachers and trainers of all levels together to garner insight and maximize personal resources
It all might sound a little un-credible to businesses. However, by getting everyone together, we'll be more efficient by sharing what businesses call "learnings," eliminates redundancies, and create efficiencies. How more business-like can an argument be?
The Setting
I attended a Round Table focused on Social Network Analysis (SNA) run by Rob Cross and the McIntyre School at the University of Virginia.
The attendees members of the Round Table were, for the most part, large organizations in financial services, professional services, manufacturing, consumer products, and so on. There was also a scattering of independent consultants and non-profits that genuinely added great perspective to the discussion.
The Hidden Power of Networks: An Excellent Book
I very much appreciated Rob's book -- one of the few business books that IS a book rather than an article stretched by publishers to fit between hard covers and look like other of its kind on bookstore shelves. It's a generous book -- full of detailed, accessible discussions of a process, its purpose, and uses.
In other words, it entirely a process that produces the most mystifying of maps and diagrams and for which people charge a lot of money. How generous is that?
Some Lovely Surprises
Organizations presented their results of using Rob's software and Network Analysis, and they seemed quite honest about what worked and what didn't. No marketing case studies, these. There was a genuine desire both to learn and share knowledge here, sometimes with competitors.
Also, very near the conference's end, Steve Denning gave a wonderful presentation on Storytelling. The slides were surprising and had everyone laughing, and Steve's straightforward personal engagement with the audience was unique for the weekend. By gum, he even stood directly in front of the audience, miles away from the screen, and acted as though the podium didn't exist.
The Only Caveat (And a Big One)
Despite the possible benefits of SNA for acknowledging individuals as such, it's clear that business are still reluctant to admit that their employees feel as much as they think. Social Network Analysis (SNA) becomes Organizational (ONA) to sell into business. Presenters described their processes in terms almost exclusively in terms of behaviors driven by the impulse to succeed and Conflict should always be resolved">agree, whether it derives from the employee or as an edict from management.
Rob talks about "energizers" and those who drain energy from a team or individual and the symptoms that can ferret these out. Yet he didn't say anything about the passion and engagement that causes the transference this kind of energy from person to another.
Likewise, Steve Denning, as directly as he connected to the audience, described the structural aspects of an effective story. Yet he neglected to point out that in order for a story to be effective, the teller needs to feel it's important.
When I approached Steve to ask why he didn't point out perhaps this most important issue in effective transfer of information, he told me he was saying it implicitly through his talk.
This seems to miss the point of this exercise. As any teacher who educates her peers will tell you, modeling has little effect without explicit discussion of what she is teaching.
I've been told that it's unrealistic to try to change the system because it's the way things are. However, with that attitude, SNA would never have been adopted by anyone. Who discussed social networks two years ago?
The Danger: SNA Going from Lasting Learning to the Usual Business Training
If business leaders continue to define credibility as lacking in emotional content -- if networks can't be identified as "social" (eg belonging to the participants) but instead as "organizational" (eg belonging to the business) -- you'll never get the kind of creativity and collaboration in business that you do outside it (say, on the Web).
As for Learning . . .
If credibility for business processes exist in describing behavior rather than in articulating and generating the impulse that best creates it, despite the beginnings of communities of individuals within organizations, we're eliminating the internal combustion (eg emotional responses) that cause both the positive and negative behaviors in companies.
By dissociating the emotional system from professional behavior, you effectively minimize innovation. Even heated conflict can be tremendously productive if the goal is something new.
After all, what is inspiration but the meeting point between intellectual and emotional insight?
Tuesday, November 07, 2006
How to Implement Web 2.0 In Practice? Write Some Wrongs (and Not Just in Theory)
Continuing from a few posts ago . . .
It's pretty much agreed that businesses will find it a competitive necessity to be fleet of foot strategically to survive the changes in the way the world (and in it, their customers) connect and are connected.
I have been researching case studies on how businesses actually use what people call Web 2.0 (in all the ways they define it). Andrew McAfee says there are so few that he and his crowd "are waiting to hear" from anyone who will offer up an example.
As long as a good idea only exists in theory, it probably won't go anywhere. And that would be a shame.
Not My Idea, But a Good One
After rereading Ross Mayfield, Nancy White, Valdis Krebs, Rob Cross and Ken Thompson, I realized that Andrew McAfee's Enterprise 2.0 will really only be the second step in at least a two-part process for companies that want to be more adaptable, creative, and innovative.
Companies need to establish a 2.0 culture before introducing wikis, tagging, and so on. McAfee's famous case study's follow-up is that the evangelist left who made the wikis work so well. Word has it that the excercise has not been doing so well ever since.
Hating Jargon, 2.0 Must Go
I use the term 2.0 here only as a nod to McAfee. McAfee is a very smart guy and knows his stuff. However, with all due respect to Mr. O'Reilly, jargon is only necessary to lend credibility to this project, and it's gone a bit out of control. It's important to acknowledge that we're really talking about behavior that works offline to build strong culture and community.
On the other hand, if throwing around numbers works to help you sell good ideas into your company, do what must be done by all means necessary.
To Date, Shifts in Culture Often Start with IT
The few case studies that exist on social networks begin in the tech department and spread outward because either 1. Techies are open to new toys and are comfortable with improvements through technological means; and 2. Techies can be a tight community that works together. The rest of the culture needs evangelizing.
But what if you start by changing the culture and then introduce the tools? Wouldn't that have more widespread application, both within and across companies?
Identify Those Who are Interested Anyway . . . In Everything
In one circumstance, I suggested to a friend that perhaps writers would be a place to build a test case. Big businesses often use writers across countries and industries to articulate the insights, discoveries, and brand of the sales force. This is often done in the form of marketing, too much under the Orwellian rubric, Thought Leadership.
Because of what they do, these writers often already have built far-flung networks. They know who is doing what, where, and when, and they often are used to write the script. Often, too, these people are naturally very interested in many topics and in meeting new people (or, in 2.0 language, building out their networks).
Here you've got a possibility of creating community among disparate departments through individuals who all have one thing in common (their job) and perhaps share common tendencies and interests. They also have a lot to gain by learning about each other's work.
Writers and Marketing: Undervalued, but Not News . . . Yet
The reason this hasn't happened yet, I'd wager, is that marketing is considered more a necessary evil than a value in most money-making ventures. I know this from experience but also because a techie friend told me this last week -- both she and her partner in a start-up are stuck in the habit of valuing only that which can be measured in terms of direct revenue.
Here's a way for the creative types to find a stronghold in their businesses -- become a case study. Show your multi-national corporations way to a 2.0 culture of community. The techies can then introduce some helpful tools, but there's a good chance they won't get buy-in without your lead.
It's pretty much agreed that businesses will find it a competitive necessity to be fleet of foot strategically to survive the changes in the way the world (and in it, their customers) connect and are connected.
I have been researching case studies on how businesses actually use what people call Web 2.0 (in all the ways they define it). Andrew McAfee says there are so few that he and his crowd "are waiting to hear" from anyone who will offer up an example.
As long as a good idea only exists in theory, it probably won't go anywhere. And that would be a shame.
Not My Idea, But a Good One
After rereading Ross Mayfield, Nancy White, Valdis Krebs, Rob Cross and Ken Thompson, I realized that Andrew McAfee's Enterprise 2.0 will really only be the second step in at least a two-part process for companies that want to be more adaptable, creative, and innovative.
Companies need to establish a 2.0 culture before introducing wikis, tagging, and so on. McAfee's famous case study's follow-up is that the evangelist left who made the wikis work so well. Word has it that the excercise has not been doing so well ever since.
Hating Jargon, 2.0 Must Go
I use the term 2.0 here only as a nod to McAfee. McAfee is a very smart guy and knows his stuff. However, with all due respect to Mr. O'Reilly, jargon is only necessary to lend credibility to this project, and it's gone a bit out of control. It's important to acknowledge that we're really talking about behavior that works offline to build strong culture and community.
On the other hand, if throwing around numbers works to help you sell good ideas into your company, do what must be done by all means necessary.
To Date, Shifts in Culture Often Start with IT
The few case studies that exist on social networks begin in the tech department and spread outward because either 1. Techies are open to new toys and are comfortable with improvements through technological means; and 2. Techies can be a tight community that works together. The rest of the culture needs evangelizing.
But what if you start by changing the culture and then introduce the tools? Wouldn't that have more widespread application, both within and across companies?
Identify Those Who are Interested Anyway . . . In Everything
In one circumstance, I suggested to a friend that perhaps writers would be a place to build a test case. Big businesses often use writers across countries and industries to articulate the insights, discoveries, and brand of the sales force. This is often done in the form of marketing, too much under the Orwellian rubric, Thought Leadership.
Because of what they do, these writers often already have built far-flung networks. They know who is doing what, where, and when, and they often are used to write the script. Often, too, these people are naturally very interested in many topics and in meeting new people (or, in 2.0 language, building out their networks).
Here you've got a possibility of creating community among disparate departments through individuals who all have one thing in common (their job) and perhaps share common tendencies and interests. They also have a lot to gain by learning about each other's work.
Writers and Marketing: Undervalued, but Not News . . . Yet
The reason this hasn't happened yet, I'd wager, is that marketing is considered more a necessary evil than a value in most money-making ventures. I know this from experience but also because a techie friend told me this last week -- both she and her partner in a start-up are stuck in the habit of valuing only that which can be measured in terms of direct revenue.
Here's a way for the creative types to find a stronghold in their businesses -- become a case study. Show your multi-national corporations way to a 2.0 culture of community. The techies can then introduce some helpful tools, but there's a good chance they won't get buy-in without your lead.
Sunday, October 29, 2006
Thoughts on a Thinker. . . This Time With Feeling
Continuing from the last post, I've been considering some of the ideas from Howard Greenstein's podcast in which I participated with Nicole Lazzaro. We produced it at a think tank retreat a few weeks ago to flesh out some of the ideas that were presented briefly and with lightening speed. This happened all weekend, as these things tend to do when a group of smart people get together, hardly ever see each other, and have their say or test out their work.
About the Podcast
The podcast itself is not optimal -- we worked outside where the background activity sounds much more fun than the conversation. However, Nicole raised a few points that are worth pulling out and discussing further. One is the question, value, and nature of jargon raised by some of her naming conventions (covered before -- start here and scroll up).
The other is the meaning created in gaming when players are together in the same space. Jane McGonigal works brilliantly on this, but there's more to say, particularly in the context of games restricted to the computer screen.
Whatchamacallit?
Nicole and I spoke briefly on the phone about a challenge she's facing naming a group of emotional responses to gaming when more than one person is present. This class of responses fascinates me because it links performance online with that off-line.
In other words, how can content producers take advantage of performance online in a way that is unique to the Web and still incorporate the benefits from other media in that offer a rich relationship between audience and performance?
Most of all, theater comes to mind.
More Jargon: Words from Other Languages to Enrich Our Own
Back to the podcast: Nicole mentioned that there is a completely different quality to responses when gamers are playing in the same room. She said that the room becomes the game space, and the computer screen shrinks into the corner.
So this is what I came up with as a first shot -- to help describe this phenomenon:
Convocare -- The class of feelings that occur when one person or more joins another in the same space. These emotional responses require more than one personto be present body, not just in the abstract.
They include, among others, a sense of independence from, connection to, superiority over, competitiveness with, inferiority to, isolated from another. The key is that all feelings occur in relationship.
The convocare class of feelings can be broken down into other emotional responses (some listed above), each with its own precise description.
A Funny Thing Happens to Naming (But Not Necessarily Ha Ha)
Very few people would dispute that inspiration is the meeting point of emotional and intellectual insight. I know this because in over 20 years of educating professionals and young students, no one ever has.
However, at a certain point in our development as Westerners (the point depends on the culture), our cognitive intelligence is considered to be entirely independent of our intellectual capacity. This can happen in school or at home -- adults stop asking students how they feel about something and instead ask what they think. No one would ever do this to a four-year-old because it's impossible to conceive that the two pieces are separate.
The implications of using only half your brain effect people of every age, in every profession.
What's In a Name?
Only when we get down to a level of verbal precision equal with that of other cognitive research will emotional responses be integrated into the mix of cognition, even when the brain isn't mentioned.
Empathy
Paula Vogel, my mentor in a past life of live theater and academic discourse (not necessarily together), has described empathy as a chemical reaction between bodies. There certainly is a different kind of experience in the live theater than in any other performance medium, and probably physical chemistry contributes.
However, there's more to it, and the Web will only benefit as we explore the relationship between audience and performance online.
Nicole is definitely on the right track.
About the Podcast
The podcast itself is not optimal -- we worked outside where the background activity sounds much more fun than the conversation. However, Nicole raised a few points that are worth pulling out and discussing further. One is the question, value, and nature of jargon raised by some of her naming conventions (covered before -- start here and scroll up).
The other is the meaning created in gaming when players are together in the same space. Jane McGonigal works brilliantly on this, but there's more to say, particularly in the context of games restricted to the computer screen.
Whatchamacallit?
Nicole and I spoke briefly on the phone about a challenge she's facing naming a group of emotional responses to gaming when more than one person is present. This class of responses fascinates me because it links performance online with that off-line.
In other words, how can content producers take advantage of performance online in a way that is unique to the Web and still incorporate the benefits from other media in that offer a rich relationship between audience and performance?
Most of all, theater comes to mind.
More Jargon: Words from Other Languages to Enrich Our Own
Back to the podcast: Nicole mentioned that there is a completely different quality to responses when gamers are playing in the same room. She said that the room becomes the game space, and the computer screen shrinks into the corner.
So this is what I came up with as a first shot -- to help describe this phenomenon:
Convocare -- The class of feelings that occur when one person or more joins another in the same space. These emotional responses require more than one personto be present body, not just in the abstract.
They include, among others, a sense of independence from, connection to, superiority over, competitiveness with, inferiority to, isolated from another. The key is that all feelings occur in relationship.
The convocare class of feelings can be broken down into other emotional responses (some listed above), each with its own precise description.
A Funny Thing Happens to Naming (But Not Necessarily Ha Ha)
Very few people would dispute that inspiration is the meeting point of emotional and intellectual insight. I know this because in over 20 years of educating professionals and young students, no one ever has.
However, at a certain point in our development as Westerners (the point depends on the culture), our cognitive intelligence is considered to be entirely independent of our intellectual capacity. This can happen in school or at home -- adults stop asking students how they feel about something and instead ask what they think. No one would ever do this to a four-year-old because it's impossible to conceive that the two pieces are separate.
The implications of using only half your brain effect people of every age, in every profession.
What's In a Name?
Only when we get down to a level of verbal precision equal with that of other cognitive research will emotional responses be integrated into the mix of cognition, even when the brain isn't mentioned.
Empathy
Paula Vogel, my mentor in a past life of live theater and academic discourse (not necessarily together), has described empathy as a chemical reaction between bodies. There certainly is a different kind of experience in the live theater than in any other performance medium, and probably physical chemistry contributes.
However, there's more to it, and the Web will only benefit as we explore the relationship between audience and performance online.
Nicole is definitely on the right track.
Monday, October 23, 2006
Jargon as a Solution: Could it Work?
Continuing from the last post, Nicole Lazzaro and I met in Virginia with a diverse group of very bright people to discuss a range of topics that interested us all.
I decided, quite against type, that there is a place for jargon.
Why This Surprised Me
As anyone who reads this blog regularly knows, I believe that jargon is unnecessary for understanding and, in fact, divisive. Jargon both creates and reinforces silos among disciplines and thinking people. The use of jargon keeps those on the inside in a position of authority, even if those on the outside know just as much, or more. It's a weapon in a larger power game that includes in intellectual, economic, and social politics and power struggles -- either all together, or one at a time.
The "Aha" Moment
Nicole uses English terms except for the word "Fiero" for the feeling of winning after a long struggle in a computer game. The word, she said, "Sounds like what it is -- F-I-E-R-O," she said stressing the "r's." A great breath of pride and relief. A thrilling sense of accomplishment. It's a perfect word for what Nicole was looking to describe.
Why Jargon Can Be Useful
I suggested to Nicole that the words she uses as technical landmarks in a game's progression -- "emotions," "amusement," "anger," and so on -- don't have the credibility to a business audience or the specificity of a word like "fierro."
"Fierro" is specific to her project, and it's unfamiliar to an audience that tends to dismiss emotional response as either weakness or a lack of credibility in intellectual ability. It's not just business people who dismiss emotional reactions as such. Teachers, particularly of older children -- certainly in university -- will have none of it expressed in what are valued as intellectual arguments defending a position.
Jargon solves this problem. Generally, it serves to distance the raw immediacy of feeling from a discussion by disassociating an emotion from a response. This works for two reasons:
First, credibility today lies with the Johnsonian’s and Cartesians rather than the Romantics, Swift, Sterne, and the "men" of sensibility. In other words, we behave as thought the head operates entirely without the emotional system.
Second, jargon obfuscates the feeling state for professional reasons. In a time when assumptions about thinking have become habit, it keeps everyone comfortable and makes the response credible.
Nicole has said (quite rightly) when dealing with the familiar, "It is much more powerful to use a new word. It grabs attention and . . . cuts one free of associations from a previous word. Such mental baggage gets in the way of the new conversation."
Without the Nasty Side-Effects: Optimizing the Benefits of Jargon
I like "fierro" because the word means what it says onomatopoetically. It also genuinely means what Nicole wants to express, albeit in another language. The combination to me makes jargon acceptable. First, words like this are accessible to everyone through sound and feeling. Second, if that isn't effective, you can find the meaning by looking to cultures outside the business world and find overtones not available in your own language.
This is jargon that enhances, rather than reduces, meaning. It also derives from everyday language without abusing it. Why transform "construction" into "construct" when they mean the same thing? Why invent a word when there are plenty of wonderful options already in existence? The only effect is to alienate those who are not familiar with the jargon.
In a larger sense, if language of a particular field has lost its power to persuade -- such as those associated with emotional reactions -- why throw the baby out with the bathwater? Why not instead, like Nicole, create connections -- among cultures and languages -- to rehabilitate importance concepts?
Next Steps
Nicole and I are going to work together to consider the emotional language of gaming research. If we can energize it, the effort can only offer support to other fields suffering from a lack of credibility in an environment hostile to arguments that include feeling.
Any suggestions are most welcome.
I decided, quite against type, that there is a place for jargon.
Why This Surprised Me
As anyone who reads this blog regularly knows, I believe that jargon is unnecessary for understanding and, in fact, divisive. Jargon both creates and reinforces silos among disciplines and thinking people. The use of jargon keeps those on the inside in a position of authority, even if those on the outside know just as much, or more. It's a weapon in a larger power game that includes in intellectual, economic, and social politics and power struggles -- either all together, or one at a time.
The "Aha" Moment
Nicole uses English terms except for the word "Fiero" for the feeling of winning after a long struggle in a computer game. The word, she said, "Sounds like what it is -- F-I-E-R-O," she said stressing the "r's." A great breath of pride and relief. A thrilling sense of accomplishment. It's a perfect word for what Nicole was looking to describe.
Why Jargon Can Be Useful
I suggested to Nicole that the words she uses as technical landmarks in a game's progression -- "emotions," "amusement," "anger," and so on -- don't have the credibility to a business audience or the specificity of a word like "fierro."
"Fierro" is specific to her project, and it's unfamiliar to an audience that tends to dismiss emotional response as either weakness or a lack of credibility in intellectual ability. It's not just business people who dismiss emotional reactions as such. Teachers, particularly of older children -- certainly in university -- will have none of it expressed in what are valued as intellectual arguments defending a position.
Jargon solves this problem. Generally, it serves to distance the raw immediacy of feeling from a discussion by disassociating an emotion from a response. This works for two reasons:
First, credibility today lies with the Johnsonian’s and Cartesians rather than the Romantics, Swift, Sterne, and the "men" of sensibility. In other words, we behave as thought the head operates entirely without the emotional system.
Second, jargon obfuscates the feeling state for professional reasons. In a time when assumptions about thinking have become habit, it keeps everyone comfortable and makes the response credible.
Nicole has said (quite rightly) when dealing with the familiar, "It is much more powerful to use a new word. It grabs attention and . . . cuts one free of associations from a previous word. Such mental baggage gets in the way of the new conversation."
Without the Nasty Side-Effects: Optimizing the Benefits of Jargon
I like "fierro" because the word means what it says onomatopoetically. It also genuinely means what Nicole wants to express, albeit in another language. The combination to me makes jargon acceptable. First, words like this are accessible to everyone through sound and feeling. Second, if that isn't effective, you can find the meaning by looking to cultures outside the business world and find overtones not available in your own language.
This is jargon that enhances, rather than reduces, meaning. It also derives from everyday language without abusing it. Why transform "construction" into "construct" when they mean the same thing? Why invent a word when there are plenty of wonderful options already in existence? The only effect is to alienate those who are not familiar with the jargon.
In a larger sense, if language of a particular field has lost its power to persuade -- such as those associated with emotional reactions -- why throw the baby out with the bathwater? Why not instead, like Nicole, create connections -- among cultures and languages -- to rehabilitate importance concepts?
Next Steps
Nicole and I are going to work together to consider the emotional language of gaming research. If we can energize it, the effort can only offer support to other fields suffering from a lack of credibility in an environment hostile to arguments that include feeling.
Any suggestions are most welcome.
Sunday, October 22, 2006
Jargon and Emotional Response in Learning
The situation
I was at a meeting last weekend with tremendously bright people who were all in different fields. We all had in common, it seemed, both a desire to improve communication through technology and a proclivity for considering various social network tools as the means to do this.
The Issue
As discussed previously, all good teachers succeeed by provoking with a combination of emotional and intellectual bait. However, as Sir Ken Robinson remarked at TED, you'd probably not see a teacher in a gathering that includes the kind of professionals gathered last weekend.
Then I met Nicole Lazzaro. She focuses on games and the specific ways that they engage (or don't) through emotional response. I was intrigued by her repeated reference to the importance of feeling states to learning, not least because she is the first person to do so in a business-oriented meeting.
Surprised at My Own Reaction
Despite the fact that a consideration of emotion is perhaps the most neglected aspect of learning outside a classroom (and even inside some classrooms of older children), I found that I flinched each time Nicole connected to business the words "emotions," "amusement," or other generic terms for what we feel. On the other hand, everything she said was fascinating.
So I asked her to meet me outside. We did a podcast on the subject of games and emotions with Howard Greenstein.
Language and Feeling
During the podcast, Howard and I asked Nicole to define the myriad emotions, the desired proportions, and the optimal timing of each to create successful games. Nicole continued to use words like "amusing" (here, "funny"), and I questioned the specific meaning of each because they are all everyday words that have a variety of connotations. For example, all games have been referred to as "amusing" if one considers games to be "amusements."
Nicole has done a lot of hard core research on the brain and emotional reactions. She is an impressive thinker, and the success of her work attests to her long experience and real knowledge of both human behavior and the most current science that explains it.
However, the language she uses still doesn't have the same credibility to me. THAT, I realized, was the reason I flinched in the meeting when she spoke. There is already enough dismissing of feeling-based reactions in learning. Here was a scholar and fascinating thinker who could change all that through the game business. Yet the language still wasn't as strong in a business context as the business itself.
More in the next post.
I was at a meeting last weekend with tremendously bright people who were all in different fields. We all had in common, it seemed, both a desire to improve communication through technology and a proclivity for considering various social network tools as the means to do this.
The Issue
As discussed previously, all good teachers succeeed by provoking with a combination of emotional and intellectual bait. However, as Sir Ken Robinson remarked at TED, you'd probably not see a teacher in a gathering that includes the kind of professionals gathered last weekend.
Then I met Nicole Lazzaro. She focuses on games and the specific ways that they engage (or don't) through emotional response. I was intrigued by her repeated reference to the importance of feeling states to learning, not least because she is the first person to do so in a business-oriented meeting.
Surprised at My Own Reaction
Despite the fact that a consideration of emotion is perhaps the most neglected aspect of learning outside a classroom (and even inside some classrooms of older children), I found that I flinched each time Nicole connected to business the words "emotions," "amusement," or other generic terms for what we feel. On the other hand, everything she said was fascinating.
So I asked her to meet me outside. We did a podcast on the subject of games and emotions with Howard Greenstein.
Language and Feeling
During the podcast, Howard and I asked Nicole to define the myriad emotions, the desired proportions, and the optimal timing of each to create successful games. Nicole continued to use words like "amusing" (here, "funny"), and I questioned the specific meaning of each because they are all everyday words that have a variety of connotations. For example, all games have been referred to as "amusing" if one considers games to be "amusements."
Nicole has done a lot of hard core research on the brain and emotional reactions. She is an impressive thinker, and the success of her work attests to her long experience and real knowledge of both human behavior and the most current science that explains it.
However, the language she uses still doesn't have the same credibility to me. THAT, I realized, was the reason I flinched in the meeting when she spoke. There is already enough dismissing of feeling-based reactions in learning. Here was a scholar and fascinating thinker who could change all that through the game business. Yet the language still wasn't as strong in a business context as the business itself.
More in the next post.
Friday, October 13, 2006
Conversations with Valdis: Part 4
Continuing from the last post, Valdis Krebs talks more about his process for social network analysis. Here he explains more about some of the metrics.
Centrality
Valdis explains that centrality metrics include scores for "degrees" and "betweeness." "Degrees" tells you the number of steps that one person would have to take to connect to someone else. "This measure tells you the least about what's going on in a network," says Valdis, "but it is a simple way of measuring activity. If I have 10 connections, and you have two, it means that I am more active in the network. Unfortunately, this is not particularly valuable information on its own."
Betweeness
Betweenness is a measure that can be the most revealing about the largest number of issues. Valdis says, "It uncovers the role of connector that Gladwell talked about. If you have a high "betweeness" score, you're connecting parts of the network that wouldn't be connected otherwise.
Someone with such a score can be a broker and very valuable to the network. On the other hand, if brokering is too much work, he or she can be a bottleneck and detrimental to the network.
Brokers have a lot of power and control over what flows within the network because everyone has to go through them. It can be a good thing -- helpful -- or a bad thing -- misuse power or if you quit, the company's screwed for information flow."
Closeness
Closeness measures "how close is one node to all other nodes -- how quickly can this node reach other nodes in the minimum number of steps. People talk about six degrees of separation. There really are only two that are valuable -- three at the most." Valdis gave an excellent example of this in our first conversation.
Power
Valdis created a new metric to help the others make more sense as a group. "The last metric is Power -- a combination of Betweenness and Closeness. do you have quick have quick access to everyone else, and does you need anyone else -=- location, location, location -- in real estate, the value is geographical -- want to be at a good intersection, near good schools, good neighborthood, etc.
Valdis concluded, "In the network, it's about who you're connected to and who they're connected to that measures your power. Access plus control."
Centrality
Valdis explains that centrality metrics include scores for "degrees" and "betweeness." "Degrees" tells you the number of steps that one person would have to take to connect to someone else. "This measure tells you the least about what's going on in a network," says Valdis, "but it is a simple way of measuring activity. If I have 10 connections, and you have two, it means that I am more active in the network. Unfortunately, this is not particularly valuable information on its own."
Betweeness
Betweenness is a measure that can be the most revealing about the largest number of issues. Valdis says, "It uncovers the role of connector that Gladwell talked about. If you have a high "betweeness" score, you're connecting parts of the network that wouldn't be connected otherwise.
Someone with such a score can be a broker and very valuable to the network. On the other hand, if brokering is too much work, he or she can be a bottleneck and detrimental to the network.
Brokers have a lot of power and control over what flows within the network because everyone has to go through them. It can be a good thing -- helpful -- or a bad thing -- misuse power or if you quit, the company's screwed for information flow."
Closeness
Closeness measures "how close is one node to all other nodes -- how quickly can this node reach other nodes in the minimum number of steps. People talk about six degrees of separation. There really are only two that are valuable -- three at the most." Valdis gave an excellent example of this in our first conversation.
Power
Valdis created a new metric to help the others make more sense as a group. "The last metric is Power -- a combination of Betweenness and Closeness. do you have quick have quick access to everyone else, and does you need anyone else -=- location, location, location -- in real estate, the value is geographical -- want to be at a good intersection, near good schools, good neighborthood, etc.
Valdis concluded, "In the network, it's about who you're connected to and who they're connected to that measures your power. Access plus control."
Thursday, October 12, 2006
Conversations with Valdis: Part 3
Continuing from the last post, Valdis Krebs talks more about his process for social network analysis. Here he explains more about the group on which he focuses.
Centrality
Valdis explains that centrality metrics include scores for "degrees" and "betweeness." "Degrees" tells you the number of steps that one person would have to take to connect to someone else. "This measure tells you the least about what's going on in a network," says Valdis, "but it is a simple way of measuring activity. If I have 10 connections, and you have two, it means that I am more active in the network. Unfortunately, this is not particularly valuable information on its own."
Betweeness
Betweenness is a measure that can be the most revealing about the largest number of issues. Valdis says, "It uncovers the role of connector that Gladwell talked about. If you have a high "betweeness" score, you're connecting parts of the network that wouldn't be connected otherwise.
Someone with such a score can be a broker and very valuable to the network. On the other hand, if brokering is too much work, he or she can be a bottleneck and detrimental to the network.
Brokers have a lot of power and control over what flows within the network because everyone has to go through them. It can be a good thing -- helpful -- or a bad thing -- misuse power or if you quit, the company's screwed for information flow."
Closeness
Closeness measures "how close is one node to all other nodes -- how quickly can this node reach other nodes in the minimum number of steps. People talk about six degrees of separation. There really are only two that are valuable -- three at the most." Valdis gave an excellent example of this in our first conversation.
Power
Valdis created a new metric to help the others make more sense as a group. "The last metric is Power -- a combination of Betweenness and Closeness. do you have quick have quick access to everyone else, and does you need anyone else -=- location, location, location -- in real estate, the value is geographical -- want to be at a good intersection, near good schools, good neighborthood, etc.
Valdis concluded, "In the network, it's about who you're connected to and who they're connected to that measures your power. Access plus control."
Centrality
Valdis explains that centrality metrics include scores for "degrees" and "betweeness." "Degrees" tells you the number of steps that one person would have to take to connect to someone else. "This measure tells you the least about what's going on in a network," says Valdis, "but it is a simple way of measuring activity. If I have 10 connections, and you have two, it means that I am more active in the network. Unfortunately, this is not particularly valuable information on its own."
Betweeness
Betweenness is a measure that can be the most revealing about the largest number of issues. Valdis says, "It uncovers the role of connector that Gladwell talked about. If you have a high "betweeness" score, you're connecting parts of the network that wouldn't be connected otherwise.
Someone with such a score can be a broker and very valuable to the network. On the other hand, if brokering is too much work, he or she can be a bottleneck and detrimental to the network.
Brokers have a lot of power and control over what flows within the network because everyone has to go through them. It can be a good thing -- helpful -- or a bad thing -- misuse power or if you quit, the company's screwed for information flow."
Closeness
Closeness measures "how close is one node to all other nodes -- how quickly can this node reach other nodes in the minimum number of steps. People talk about six degrees of separation. There really are only two that are valuable -- three at the most." Valdis gave an excellent example of this in our first conversation.
Power
Valdis created a new metric to help the others make more sense as a group. "The last metric is Power -- a combination of Betweenness and Closeness. do you have quick have quick access to everyone else, and does you need anyone else -=- location, location, location -- in real estate, the value is geographical -- want to be at a good intersection, near good schools, good neighborthood, etc.
Valdis concluded, "In the network, it's about who you're connected to and who they're connected to that measures your power. Access plus control."
Conversations with Valdis Part 2: Measuring Social Networks
Talking to Valdis
To continue from a previous post, Valdis Krebs uses a software called Inflow to analyse networks -- within companies, among civic groups, among geographical locations -- you name it, and Valdis will often find a network component important to everyday functioning.
Valdis has been doing this for over twenty years -- much longer than the term social network has been in common usage. It's not a gimmick. It's a very smart approach to identify areas that until now have been considered intangibles.
What Inflow Measures (and Why)
Valdis designed Inflow to identify "the most popular social metrics." "We tend to focus on centrality -- how central is a node in the network and how centralized is the network as a whole."
There's reachability which Valdis explains as something that factors in awareness. "It's what the sociologists call prestige," Valdis said. "But Google uses similar metric for page ranks -- in other words, who's pointing to your web page and who's pointing to those who are pointing to your website. So you have to think broadly about it as well as narrowly."
Some metrics can be seen in cluster analysis. This process identifies which nodes are more closely connected to each other than they are to the rest of the network.
"There are small world networks, althought this is more popular with academics than with business people.
"You can also talk about structural equlivalence that show which nodes in the same network have the same connections. If you and I have the same connections, we are structurally equivalent. That could be good news -- we can act as substitutes for each other.
On the other hand, Valdis adds, "It can also be bad news because we're both fighting for the same resources, satisfy the same customers, or when it comes down to reduce the network, one of us can be let go.
People who are structurally equivalent and don't know each other often find themselves in conflict. So network analysis can often identify why people don't get along in ways that are not personal, and something can be done about it."
More on Valdis and measuring networks in the next post.
To continue from a previous post, Valdis Krebs uses a software called Inflow to analyse networks -- within companies, among civic groups, among geographical locations -- you name it, and Valdis will often find a network component important to everyday functioning.
Valdis has been doing this for over twenty years -- much longer than the term social network has been in common usage. It's not a gimmick. It's a very smart approach to identify areas that until now have been considered intangibles.
What Inflow Measures (and Why)
Valdis designed Inflow to identify "the most popular social metrics." "We tend to focus on centrality -- how central is a node in the network and how centralized is the network as a whole."
There's reachability which Valdis explains as something that factors in awareness. "It's what the sociologists call prestige," Valdis said. "But Google uses similar metric for page ranks -- in other words, who's pointing to your web page and who's pointing to those who are pointing to your website. So you have to think broadly about it as well as narrowly."
Some metrics can be seen in cluster analysis. This process identifies which nodes are more closely connected to each other than they are to the rest of the network.
"There are small world networks, althought this is more popular with academics than with business people.
"You can also talk about structural equlivalence that show which nodes in the same network have the same connections. If you and I have the same connections, we are structurally equivalent. That could be good news -- we can act as substitutes for each other.
On the other hand, Valdis adds, "It can also be bad news because we're both fighting for the same resources, satisfy the same customers, or when it comes down to reduce the network, one of us can be let go.
People who are structurally equivalent and don't know each other often find themselves in conflict. So network analysis can often identify why people don't get along in ways that are not personal, and something can be done about it."
More on Valdis and measuring networks in the next post.
Wednesday, October 04, 2006
The Power of Groups to Strengthen the Indvidual
Continuing fromt the last post on the power of groups, social networking in schools is usually discussed in terms of the stuff students pass to each other via cell phone or IM.
But there's (always) more.
Groups: Do They Squelch the Individual?
Nancy White posted recently arguments for and against the potenital of groups to galvanize individual opinion and expression. She cites Konrad Glogowski whose classroom work resulted in reducing a collection of unique voices to what he calls "the lowest common denominator."
Nancy argues that within organizations, she has seen that listening within a group can be an empowering experience. I agree, and I would add the same goes for the classroom when exercises are organized to support this kind of work.
The Classroom: Why It Works
Both at Brown University and in the South Bronx with middle school kids, I found that group work offered a kind of mirrioring experience for each member. Uncertainty about competence is often more obvious with teenagers than with adults, however, in new situations, everyone could use some support.
In fact, I found that when engaged in new activities -- or in old activities never before done with others -- many students have come out of their (individual) shells to such an extent that the transformation makes them almost unrecognizable.
The key, as Nancy points out, is listening. Students who feel heard and supported, regardless of weaknesses in writing or argument that are also discussed in these situations, find a new way of seeing themselves through others.
The right kind of mirroring makes good parenting. It's not surprising that it's also excellent way to learn.
If anyone wants some tips on how to make this work, please feel free to drop a line. Designing these situations correctly is essential for success.
But there's (always) more.
Groups: Do They Squelch the Individual?
Nancy White posted recently arguments for and against the potenital of groups to galvanize individual opinion and expression. She cites Konrad Glogowski whose classroom work resulted in reducing a collection of unique voices to what he calls "the lowest common denominator."
Nancy argues that within organizations, she has seen that listening within a group can be an empowering experience. I agree, and I would add the same goes for the classroom when exercises are organized to support this kind of work.
The Classroom: Why It Works
Both at Brown University and in the South Bronx with middle school kids, I found that group work offered a kind of mirrioring experience for each member. Uncertainty about competence is often more obvious with teenagers than with adults, however, in new situations, everyone could use some support.
In fact, I found that when engaged in new activities -- or in old activities never before done with others -- many students have come out of their (individual) shells to such an extent that the transformation makes them almost unrecognizable.
The key, as Nancy points out, is listening. Students who feel heard and supported, regardless of weaknesses in writing or argument that are also discussed in these situations, find a new way of seeing themselves through others.
The right kind of mirroring makes good parenting. It's not surprising that it's also excellent way to learn.
If anyone wants some tips on how to make this work, please feel free to drop a line. Designing these situations correctly is essential for success.
Sunday, October 01, 2006
A Master of SNA: Valdis Krebs
Continuing from the last few posts, it seems increasingly useful to unravel the full range of value and processes within social network analysis. The applications and contexts in which SNA can add insight seem to be multiplying every day. And still, there is so much more that will probably emerge through informed experimentation.
Inflow and Valdis Krebs
I was lucky enough to be trained for three days by Valdis Krebs who has been working in this field for twenty years.
In addition to years of experience across a variety of organizational models, Valdis has a remarkable talent for clarifying through anecdotes even the most complex concepts and abstract principles. He designed the Inflow software to untangle confusion with the same sort of power.
Exceptional Course Design
Without a doubt, Valdis is one of the best teachers I've encountered -- and that includes my time at Bryn Mawr and working toward my PhD at Brown. Beyond standard training, this course supports and demands learning and problem-solving that go beyond the parameters of any particular task.
What Does SNA Promise?
As firmly as Valdis believes network analysis can help organizations with everyday challenges, he is also quick to add that network issues comprise only one part of a bigger picture. Both the analyses and subsequent solutions only offer potential. The rest must be accomplished by those in the network with the right kind of support from the organization's leadership.
He indicated that this kind of analysis works best for organizations when looking at people at manager-level and above in the heirarchy. These are the networks and sections of the overall organizational flow that hold the greatest potential to improve flow of information.
What Parts of the Network Should Be Measured?
Valdis began by indicating that there is value for networks when an individual requires one or two steps to relay information to another individual. The research bears this out, but it's also common sense.
Valdis' Example
If I want to influence George Bush and I have a relationship with him, I have a good chance of getting information to him. If, instead, I know Barbara Bush well, I still have a good chance of getting the information to George. My relationship with Barbara and her relationship with George makes it probable, but there is already a chance that the information will not arrive in the form or with the focus that I intend.
Once one gets to three steps removed, say, I am the college roommate of Barbara Bush's high school roommate, there is much less of a chance that I can get information to George. I must rely on my contact to transmit the information to Barbara and then on Barbara (who doesn't know me) to get the information to George. If my information or message arrives with George at all, there's a good chance it will be distored.
More on Valdis and his ideas in the next post.
Inflow and Valdis Krebs
I was lucky enough to be trained for three days by Valdis Krebs who has been working in this field for twenty years.
In addition to years of experience across a variety of organizational models, Valdis has a remarkable talent for clarifying through anecdotes even the most complex concepts and abstract principles. He designed the Inflow software to untangle confusion with the same sort of power.
Exceptional Course Design
Without a doubt, Valdis is one of the best teachers I've encountered -- and that includes my time at Bryn Mawr and working toward my PhD at Brown. Beyond standard training, this course supports and demands learning and problem-solving that go beyond the parameters of any particular task.
What Does SNA Promise?
As firmly as Valdis believes network analysis can help organizations with everyday challenges, he is also quick to add that network issues comprise only one part of a bigger picture. Both the analyses and subsequent solutions only offer potential. The rest must be accomplished by those in the network with the right kind of support from the organization's leadership.
He indicated that this kind of analysis works best for organizations when looking at people at manager-level and above in the heirarchy. These are the networks and sections of the overall organizational flow that hold the greatest potential to improve flow of information.
What Parts of the Network Should Be Measured?
Valdis began by indicating that there is value for networks when an individual requires one or two steps to relay information to another individual. The research bears this out, but it's also common sense.
Valdis' Example
If I want to influence George Bush and I have a relationship with him, I have a good chance of getting information to him. If, instead, I know Barbara Bush well, I still have a good chance of getting the information to George. My relationship with Barbara and her relationship with George makes it probable, but there is already a chance that the information will not arrive in the form or with the focus that I intend.
Once one gets to three steps removed, say, I am the college roommate of Barbara Bush's high school roommate, there is much less of a chance that I can get information to George. I must rely on my contact to transmit the information to Barbara and then on Barbara (who doesn't know me) to get the information to George. If my information or message arrives with George at all, there's a good chance it will be distored.
More on Valdis and his ideas in the next post.
Wednesday, September 20, 2006
SNA: Solutions For Other Parts of Your Network
Children's Stories: In the Context Social Networks
Network Analysisis is not just for business. It can be tremendously useful across functions and contexts. Networks outside the office comprise a network that I haven't addressed in a while.
For Busy Parents
You busy parents who haven't had time to find an extra story for kids' bedtime, here's one for you. The illustration was done by Ron Hilley, who also happens to be a chorus member at New York City Opera.
Please feel free to pass it on (as long as there is no money involved). Please also do the same with King Barkthur and It's a Drag to Be a Dragon.
As always, the only rule is that this is read aloud.
Dedication
This story is particulary dedicated to Tobias, Daniel, Erin, and Oliver (who seem like they might like polar bears), Sarabeth (in her new responsibility as a big sister) and her new sibling (who could always use a good story with all that waiting to be born).
And Now To Our Story . . .
It's a little known fact that the most beautiful music in the world is made by polar bears.
You may be too young to remember the famous winter concerts on the North Pole. Everyone was invited.
As soon as it snowed, animals and human beings from every clime would gather on ice caps and glaciers to listen.
But when the ice melted in the spring, the bears found themselves surrounded by garbage from the people's picnics.
The orchestra would find themselves spending the whole spring and half the summer cleaning up.
Soon there was no time to practice for the winter concert. Alexander, the conductor, decided enough was enough.
"We’ll send a letter to a scientist I know saying that polar bears have decided to sleep all winter," said Alexander. People will believe anything.
And so they did. And the people stopped coming. And so did the garbage.
Everyone was very happy. As you probably know, music is as necessary for bears as getting up in the morning.
As you also have probably been told, all bears would play every instrument if they could, but the rule was that each must choose one when he or she turns three.
This was very important for Gus. He was two. And his birthday was coming up fast.
In all of Polar Bear history, all cubs have understood music as instantly as fish know how to swim. But as the son of the great conductor, Gus was something of a mystery. No matter how much he practiced, Gus couldn't play a note.
A week before his birthday, Gus decided to try one more time.
One day when Gus’s mom was cleaning her trumpet, Gus snuck out of the house to the place where the musicians practiced.
It was very dark and very quiet.
Gus's mother had shown him how to blow the trumpet. He liked to get dizzy, and fall down. It was fun, but he couldn't make it play.
Gus loved the cello and getting tangled up in the strings.
And the clarinet because it tickled his nose.
And the piano because you can play with no hands.
The tuba is very big and fun to climb into.
And the triangle makes a very nice hat.
But Gus still couldn't seem to make any music. The quiet was too quiet, and the dark too dark. So Gus began to sing.
And Gus sang louder and louder until everyone in the village came to the rehearsal room.
"Gus," said his grandmother, BearBear Ma, as she untangled her cello strings. "You have a beautiful voice."
And he did. And from that season on, Alexander made sure there was a song for Gus to sing every night.
Monday, September 11, 2006
Mainstream Journalism and Open Source: Can They Mix?
Did I Mention . . . ?
I don't think I mentioned in my Eurogel series that Jimmy Wales spoke about the the value of Wikis generally, Wikipedia, and his new project, Wikia. Most of his talk can be found elsewhere, and although there are strong opinions on both sides about whether or not an open source model could extend past his project to all other information sources (and, of course, to Linux), the jury is still out.
So when my colleague and good friend, David Spector,sent this article on journalism and wikis, I thought it a good idea to post a link here.
A Little About David
David is famous for his development work from the earliest days of the web, but he's perhaps less known for his writing for O'Reilly and others. Like me, he writes both for proprietary publications and for those those that are not online.
I don't think I mentioned in my Eurogel series that Jimmy Wales spoke about the the value of Wikis generally, Wikipedia, and his new project, Wikia. Most of his talk can be found elsewhere, and although there are strong opinions on both sides about whether or not an open source model could extend past his project to all other information sources (and, of course, to Linux), the jury is still out.
So when my colleague and good friend, David Spector,sent this article on journalism and wikis, I thought it a good idea to post a link here.
A Little About David
David is famous for his development work from the earliest days of the web, but he's perhaps less known for his writing for O'Reilly and others. Like me, he writes both for proprietary publications and for those those that are not online.
Sunday, September 10, 2006
A Word About Swarms and Social Networks
Here's a short word about an innovative social network strategy and software created by Ken Thompson of Swarm Teams.
Ken uses the kind of behavior theory derived from AI:
A. Teams exist in nature.
B. These teams have flourished AS teams since their species evolved.
C. What could the dysfunctional teams within human organizations learn from this?
Communication In Swarms
There's a review and demonstration online, and it's worth reviewing. Here's why:
Rather than offering a "star network" approach (everyone you add to your network has only you in common), Ken has organized a "peer network" approach. Once you do the inputting, your network becomes its own swarm -- everyone can communicate with each other.
But Wait, There's (Always) More
In addition to the ability to leverage networks of everyone in your own swarm, Ken has built in a reputation management tool for all messages sent.
If you respond to a message, you receive a point. However, when you send messages, those who receive them do the rating. If the message is deemed valuable, it gets a point. If it doesn't, the sender loses a point.
What better way to prevent spam in an organization than by making it transparent?
And So?
In other approaches, consultants do a social network analysis through questionnaires. In this case, you can track the swarms in action, and once you've got them communicating, you can track the data, map it, and learn a lot about how the organization really works. It eliminates the challenge of getting people to fill out lengthy forms (honestly) for an initial snapshot.
There's even more to think about with Ken's approach, and still some kinks to work out, so check the review and demo in Robin Good's "What Communications Experts Need to Know."
Ken uses the kind of behavior theory derived from AI:
A. Teams exist in nature.
B. These teams have flourished AS teams since their species evolved.
C. What could the dysfunctional teams within human organizations learn from this?
Communication In Swarms
There's a review and demonstration online, and it's worth reviewing. Here's why:
Rather than offering a "star network" approach (everyone you add to your network has only you in common), Ken has organized a "peer network" approach. Once you do the inputting, your network becomes its own swarm -- everyone can communicate with each other.
But Wait, There's (Always) More
In addition to the ability to leverage networks of everyone in your own swarm, Ken has built in a reputation management tool for all messages sent.
If you respond to a message, you receive a point. However, when you send messages, those who receive them do the rating. If the message is deemed valuable, it gets a point. If it doesn't, the sender loses a point.
What better way to prevent spam in an organization than by making it transparent?
And So?
In other approaches, consultants do a social network analysis through questionnaires. In this case, you can track the swarms in action, and once you've got them communicating, you can track the data, map it, and learn a lot about how the organization really works. It eliminates the challenge of getting people to fill out lengthy forms (honestly) for an initial snapshot.
There's even more to think about with Ken's approach, and still some kinks to work out, so check the review and demo in Robin Good's "What Communications Experts Need to Know."
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)