https://www.facebook.com/groups/125513674232534/permalink/901628989954328/
Dmitry Sokolov Jessie and Helmut, just a comment on the random reading through PLAST:
"For example, you post a critique of the global financial system, more or less of the capitalist system, as if you had just discovered something new and unheard of. There are millions of people, over the last 100+ years, who sang the same song in thousands of variations. There is a pluralistic "alternative movement" where this is "mainstream thinking"."
Should we think of that example as a signature of lack of systematic and systemic analysis and publishing of already developed knowledge and understanding, in the format easily findable and accessible for review and reuse?
Like · Reply · 7 hrs
Helmut Leitner No, I think that the way you pick information pieces and throw them undigested into you personal wiki would create just another example of adding to information flood or hotchpotch.
The general pattern is psychological, a subspecies of the antipattern REINVENT THE WHEEL (alternatively put into rule form: DONT REINVENT THE WHEEL): An insight becomes only relevant at the point where I personally have reexperienced it. We don’t see us in a historic context. That I have not listened for twenty years is not worth mentioning, but that people now do not follow my call is a scandal.
Another variation is put into the MANY CHIEFTAINS FEW INDIANS anti-pattern. People rather create something unimportant but new, where they are in the center, instead of supporting an existing movement where they are not in a central role.
https://www.facebook.com/groups/125513674232534/permalink/882486161868611/?comment_id=882941471823080
M Ichael Josefowicz Dmitry Sokolov I do have a counterexample to "FB is a "chatting room" and will probably never be a project development platform." Nemetics has developed exclusively from Twitter and G+ conversations. It's taken about 5 years to pull together a self organizing team. Persistence and patience. smile emoticon We have people in NY, Kolkata, Paris, Barcelona, Argentina, Quebec. Millennials and baby boomers, men and women. Caucasians and people of color.
All of it happened on social mostly Twitter then real drill downs on G+
The challenge and opportunities of common intent. It can take a long time to pull the right folks together. But once it happens it's pretty cool what you can accomplish.
https://www.facebook.com/groups/125513674232534/permalink/882486161868611/?comment_id=882930358490858
M Ichael Josefowicz Dmitry Sokolov I hear you. Consider do people in the communities you mentioned really have the Intent to finding patterns collaboratively? Maybe, maybe not. Some more than others. One of my data points is the number of people who have made their Intent clear enough to be put into your wiki. There are lots of other data points in the conversation threads themselves.
From my POV you are creating a wonderful resource. But a platform can not create Intent. It can only pull in and augment find Intent. From my experience on social media and in real life, finding clear explicit Intent is not trivial.
It will be interesting to see what happens with the PLAST project door you put on the front page. Who will walk through it?
I can't think of anything right this minute that would increase the pull of your site for Intent. But I bet there are things to consider... hmmmm
https://www.facebook.com/groups/125513674232534/permalink/882486161868611/?comment_id=882917245158836
M Ichael Josefowicz Dmitry Sokolov good observation. Different platforms are optimized for different things. From my experience your wiki is optimized for discovering and finding serious pieces about a subject of interest. I've already found many interesting things as I wander through your /library bookstore smile emoticon It really has helped me and it was way fun to discover things I didn't know about. I especially like the way you put in links to facebook conversations. I've never seen that anywhere. If I want to explore even more I can get to the live conversation, where I can find more things I never thought of.
I see that David Braden site has a different purpose. I think it is about starting conversations ( interchanges, Exchanges ) connected with his work. For me, that means a site optimized for quick pleasurable reading and a way to comment to ask questions or make observations. If that gets to a critical mass, it will show who is interested. As you learn who is interested it helps understand what kind of changes will continue and augment conversation production.
https://www.facebook.com/groups/774241602654986/permalink/943680899044388/?comment_id=949162405162904&reply_comment_id=950456551700156
Dasaratha Rama
January 11 at 6:18am
Peter Following up on your point, effective atomization is highly dynamic, "splumping" as Derek calls it. So Dmitry this is what I am trying to get at: how are your findability and atomization ideas related to this dynamic atomization? As an example, see my post on Continuous Journey Mapping today: that way of atomization has been years in the making. Now that I have this simpler and cleaner way of atomzation, I would actually not want my older, less clearer drafts to be findable :) because it is my journey to spend so much time getting here, everyone does not have to spend years to come to this point! From an ADDIT perspective, I made many discoveries, and then I integrated them in a certain way. A process of just dumping all kinds of ideas and quick retrieval does not address issues to value or the process of what is worth finding, and to what level we must atomize, and how to put it together. So if you are building your approach around "findability", "atomization" practical guidance on these kinds of issues will be important.
https://www.facebook.com/groups/774241602654986/permalink/943680899044388/?comment_id=948708248541653
how do you entice people to come into an experience when they "don't know what they don't know?"
Dmitry Sokolov Dasaratha Rama, finally about "don't know what they don't know?"!!
I agree with you and Peter, it's a lot of work. I hope to do it right with your help.
Normal people (SMB and laymen, the localities where ST methods are expected to succeed?), have no idea about ST, metacognition and even on management theory. Promotion of new products and services are done by following common best practices, usually based on investments. Like in this example, to my understanding:
http://www.forbes.com/.../5-inexpensive-ways-to.../2/
The other methods of promotion is described by Christopher at one of his posts. It is low expenses "pushing" via FB and other social networks, crowdfunding, activities on local scale, all are time consuming. Peter agreed that would not happen at once. It's a lot of work on repeating same "right" idea to "right" audiences several times for each locality.
I follow Peter's comment that ST mentality (wholeness, interconnectivity and interdependence) is the most prepared for accepting "the new service" offering information platform where ideas, knowledge, known solutions and experts are elements of a single network, i.e. interconnected and found in seconds. If not here, then where?
https://www.facebook.com/groups/774241602654986/permalink/943680899044388/?comment_id=948076625271482&reply_comment_id=948680901877721
https://www.facebook.com/groups/774241602654986/948672691878542/?notif_t=group_activity
who is your audience?
Knowledge workers, project developers - DVS
Why would they want this information?
To get understanding and insights they would not have otherwise. - DVS
And how would they understand a single quote without the context in which it was said?
A back link is always provided. - DVS
https://www.facebook.com/groups/774241602654986/permalink/943680899044388/?comment_id=943694509043027&reply_comment_id=948650021880809¬if_t=group_comment_mention
Usability
If I don't understand what the product is, then I certainly won't even try it.
If I understand the product, but find the means of access, or the navigation, or any of these other usability aspects rather alien, I am again going to struggle.
Nearly all of us want to achieve results, and will put the effort in where we have confidence that the road ahead is clear, navigable, and ideally no booby taps for us to fall into.
This, for me, is where I find IVAN difficult, because the terms of the road map are in a language I am struggling with.
And I don't mean English, I'm talking about unexplained jargon that I can't get a handle on without further research, before I do the thing I actually want to do.
It's a big extra hurdle in the way of using the tool.
I repeat, for me, the usability factor is the one stopping your audiences getting into your tool, and there are many facets and aspects you need to take on board.
And you MUST take on board the fact that audiences won't find something easy simply because you find it so, say so, but don't understand, listen to and then act on their difficulty.
Once you stop listening and responding to your audience they will respond by stopping listening to you ...
Does this help?
Seriously, unless you tackle and conquer the usability barrier, you will continue to struggle, maybe for months, and some continue to struggle for years, and I'm sure you don't want to do that ..
Three suggestions right now:
1. Look at usability courses on Udemy / Udacity
2. Think about auto populating the model
3. What ST design structure / categories would be needed
4. Consider atomisation as the back end function
5. Have a more user friendly front end to support access
And you would need to do 3 so as to be successful with 2 ...
https://www.facebook.com/groups/774241602654986/permalink/947545888657889/?comment_id=947737071972104&reply_comment_id=947993101946501
https://www.facebook.com/groups/774241602654986/permalink/943680899044388/?comment_id=943694509043027&reply_comment_id=948272941918517¬if_t=group_comment_mention
Dmitry, you need to solve a problem as framed by a member here, meaning listening to conversation and using IVAN to produce an answer.
For example: what is the Distinction between Learning 1 and Learning 2? And second what was the link Chad referred to when analysing Peter Senge's work that generated discussion. Brian someone, I seem to remember ...
https://www.facebook.com/groups/774241602654986/permalink/943680899044388/?comment_id=943694509043027&reply_comment_id=947526995326445
Dmitry in particular, things often only begin to make sense in context, ie trenching things that we know to begin to understand things we don't.
If IVAN is left in complete isolation, it is disconnected from the world that is seeking to reference it. {Unfortunately, in current practice, the world is not seeking LikeInMind to reverence. The world is searching for a solution and implements the first, or a seconds that looks like applicable and promising. Those who looking to reference LikeInMind include "LikeInMind" as one of the keywords in their search, or search through the LikeInMind website: LikeInMind Full Text Search (adding "site:" to their queries). Google doesn't have and will probably never have the Topic Search option. Internet of Sense, Internet of Topics, of Ideas, etc., is being developed at LikeInMind only. - DVS}
Some bridges need to be built, which mean understanding relationships between IVAN and other platforms.
What are the strengths, what are the weaknesses? {Please refer to PBWorks vs LikeInMind, LikeInMind vs Wikipedia and LikeInMind vs Kumu for comparative analysis of the platforms. The complete list is available via "vs LikeInMind" Topic Search - DVS}
My criticism at the moment is a usability one, that I quite often have with wikis, since the layout and structure depends on a human designer.
The layout when we Google for "PB Works startup tools is clear, comprehensible, and well structured.
I'm not getting that from IVAN right now, and have been discussing with Gerald the merits of a categorisation exercise with ST. {The overlay feature will be added to the future P2P Collective Intelligence platform: AIMS. Peter, thank you for your suggestion! Currently we may either use what is already available at LikeInMind, or accelerated the development of the P2P platform. - DVS}
One way to categorise would be complexity. For example ADDIT is much simpler than DSRP. Another is to consider where things occur on the journeys we make, and I adopt this myself when setting up projects and assessing businesses for improvement areas. {Each Knowledge Node in new P2P platform will have multiple versions addressing the IVAN Dimensions including complexity. Same can be done at LikeInMInd too. However, not as convenient as we might like and expect from it. We are limited by PBWorks capabilities, unfortunately. - DVS}
Finally, has helped me understand that, for me, IVAN would be a backend repository, and that Kumu is my front end thinking tool.
I suspect this is just the beginning of this conversation, and again for me I would construct a Kumu model to help others understand ...
Idea Dissemination
Too many terms difficult for understanding and leading away from the core two:
https://www.facebook.com/groups/774241602654986/permalink/943680899044388/?comment_id=943694509043027&reply_comment_id=945753468837131¬if_t=group_comment_mention
One trap many of us fall into Dmitry is in seeing a solution, then trying to get problems to fit that solution.
While you make reference to UCS , there is a lot more ground to be covered before people can make the leap to understanding, and even more adoption.
I can hear your frustration, and agree with you that findability is important, but adding new terms like UCS to discussion, and worrying about big brother taking our choices away also tend to distract us rather than help us focus on the problem.
That focus you have needs to be on findability and reuse.
These terms are well understood, and need to be much more part of your language set. Talk less in terms of solutions, and UCS fits that category, but more in terms of the problem you are addressing eg "Find ST". I think this will help you considerably. Just as a further thought, your views on what the solution is now may change, but the problem remains the same one. Easier to continue talking about the problem over the long term, and not so difficult if you have to revisit what you think the solution is. Hope this helps!
Localisation
Focusing on Specific Problems / Fields of Knowledge / Findability of Information by Customers via Google
https://www.facebook.com/groups/774241602654986/permalink/943680899044388/?comment_id=943694509043027&reply_comment_id=945753468837131¬if_t=group_comment_mention
Or another term to use, and ... talks here of branding, would be a ST resource. I would certainly welcome that. Think about what your potential customers would Google for: would they more likely Google for UCS, or for a ST resource or library. Actually library is a much better term, has far wider resonance with the general public, and so would be my recommendation at this point. But here you now need to make it niche enough, hence you need each library to specialise, hence "The ST Library" and so on.
Happy hunting!
Answer:
The problem is there. However,
- specialisation, i.e. separation of specific knowledge within a separate address space contradicts to principles of organisation of IVAN where everything connects to everything, the basis for interdisciplinary research and cross-functional activities and operations, to the Findability and Reusability that are understandable and proposed to disseminate, above.
- Findability in Unified Conceptual Space, findability with Google and findability on each specific website and webpage, all are different practices and require different methods and tools. I agree that almost everyone thinks "Google" at reading or hearing "Findability". Looks like still a lot of work on delivery of the Findability concept has to be done. :(
Prototyping
Current prototype is too confusing, develop a new one
Just one other thing on language. The PB, Confocal, Manawatu elements are also distracting and confusing.
I suggest producing a prototype App, low cost, that will allow you to test the idea.
I have an App in design awaiting resource that would help you find audiences, but you have some great audiences here in these FB groups, at least for any ST library.
Doing this would give you a clean start, without the confusion that PB etc brings.
Now you need to make a decision about soldiering on with those element that will slow down your progress, or on taking a different, slightly riskier route to accelerate progress.
Your frustration levels are what will inform your decision, BTW.
Answer:
Strongly Agree! Will be seeking for funds, volunteered help with programming, etc.
Peter Following up on your point, effective atomization is highly dynamic, "splumping" as Derek calls it. So Dmitry this is what I am trying to get at: how are your findability and atomization ideas related to this dynamic atomization? As an example, see my post on Continuous Journey Mapping today: that way of atomization has been years in the making. Now that I have this simpler and cleaner way of atomzation, I would actually not want my older, less clearer drafts to be findable :) because it is my journey to spend so much time getting here, everyone does not have to spend years to come to this point! From an ADDIT perspective, I made many discoveries, and then I integrated them in a certain way. A process of just dumping all kinds of ideas and quick retrieval does not address issues to value or the process of what is worth finding, and to what level we must atomize, and how to put it together. So if you are building your approach around "findability", "atomization" practical guidance on these kinds of issues will be important.
Comments (0)
You don't have permission to comment on this page.