Dmitry Sokolov
M Ichael, sorry for the late replies: working these days.
Your last comment is extremely important: "if you were focused on a fast easy way for people to be able to tell what other people are doing now, I would be pushing with you"
That is exactly one of the goals of the projects in London. Can we please make a team and start working on it? I am promised funding if we show something reasonable!! 14h
Michael:
I could use a prediction of exactly what it means.. is like storing the stories of how it develops in each village... or is something more like describing the method... hold on I will paste here the method I use..
here you go... I also have the next steps which is my strategy going forward. After you see this, let me know if you would like me to paste in the next steps..
Our approach
1. Use the Facebook to identify and mentor the most likely people to be successful.
2. After evaluation of a couple of weeks of conversations on Facebook award a grant to cover the costs of wifi, two computers, a desktop printer.
3. Real time mentoring via Facebook. Closed groups, secret groups and FB messenger.
4. With the real time persistent mentoring help the people on the ground make all their decisions after a careful evaluation of the Benefit, Cost and Risk of a decision. In all cases the person on the ground makes the decision. The guiding principle is We advise. They decide. This nurtures agency through their experience of making good and bad decisions.
5. Because of the real time mentoring, we are aware when a challenge or opportunity arises. Once we have that knowledge we make a micro grant if it solves a particular problem. Typically the micro grants are less than a $100.
6. To get the necessary accurate feedback, one of the terms of our grants is reporting in the form of at least two or three dispatches of what is happening. Our approach is to create the job of a reporter from the ground. Our grantees are on Facebook. We create a closed group on Facebook. The reporters post their regular dispatches at the group. Because there is a series of dispatches read by many people, it naturally creates reports that are accurate.
Dmitry:
I have questions
what you have is great
however, I can see a mix of a few roles in one
Ideally, we have to show those roles to people on the ground
Canon has concerns that he will be able to managing his time good
not only that
1. is good!
2. we offer a grant. Meaning that they don't have to think where the money are coming from. Meaning that "money" or "marketing" role is not appreciated and developed on the ground. Also meaning that it will not be transferred successfully to the next business from the network on the ground.
it means to me the point 1 "most likely people to be successful" is not fulfilled
3. is good, but not limited to FB as we found with other groups. GDocs/GDrive is of growing interest
4. is good. One more thing: expert doesn't even prepare a decision for a role on the ground. He keeps asking questions, keeps dialogue and helps with answers only to avoid confusion and frustration from the role, to keep the role on the ground motivated for learning and progressing with his tasks.
all the phases of decision making, from data collection to preparing a list of options for decision making. On some grounds decisions are individual, on other are collective. Different stories to my understanding.
our work should result in building a branch of Holistic Ontology where each of participants of the TN could be referred to, and not just relied on expert all the time. Ideally, the roles should start finding each other and helping with their problems, emergence of collective intelligence.
I love "We advise. They decide."
5. is good. However, we are missing an important step: either of the roles on the ground must learn how to convince other funding opportunities they are trustworthy to deal with. If not done, they will keep depending on this programme. That is a failure of the programme as I see it: TN is seeding knowledge and experience by preparing businesses for independent work on the ground. Including but not limited to independent fundraising when needed. Ideally, the business would operate without fundraising in future, develop it's own resources and be self-sufficient. It will also invest his funds into the neighboring regions as a part of business scaling strategy.
6. is good. One of the forms of how communication can be realised.
M Ichael Josefowicz Dmitry Sokolov Yes. Each team does regular reports. Plus I have conversations over FB and FB messenger every day.Sometimes many times a day. Giving money without always know what is going on does not work. Advice and at least two or three people considering a decision does not really need that much money once you have gotten over the critical threshold.
Are they able to plan their development and scaling? Yes.
Can they operate without help from the cloud and donations? Yes.
Every team on the ground understands how to make every decision based on what the world is, not what they want the world to be. Every team leader understands how to make decisions on the basis of benefit, cost and risk.
Every team on the ground is working on spreadsheets so they can make rational decisions about deployment of resources. 5d
M Ichael Josefowicz Dmitry Sokolov It all makes sense except for this one..
"To realise the purpose, participants have to follow the Policy:
no money is being provided but knowledge"
My experience is just the opposite. In each village I used my credit card to provide money to get past a critical threshold. In addition to the infrastructure the money allowed,the more important thing was the quick establishment of Trust on both sides.
For a person on the ground, especially in a isolated village, if they are on Facebook they hear people say they want to help. I do not question their sincerity. And many people are helping in specific situations. Trust can be described that a person says what they mean and will do what they say. There are few things that demonstrate that reality than supplying money.
From the other side, money is given for a particular purpose. When pictures are posted to show that it has been done, then I trust the people on the ground to say what they mean a do what they say.
It is a particular problem with people in Africa. Sadly the number of scams is high on FB. I also believe the mistrust of the Other also enters into it.
Aside from that proviso, do you have ideas about what a collaboration would look like? 13h
M Ichael Josefowicz Dmitry Sokolov I want to expand how I have been doing that
"our coordination will happen on the stage of business development, for both their initial project, as well as building their training as business services too."
That is the path of every village. In each village the business services includes training given by people in the village to other people in the village. In every village training has begun in computer skills. In one village that focuses on learning excell. In another they are learning social media skills. In another they are learning english. With no one outside the village being involved.
The key is constant communication to help people identify the risk of wasting time and energy. There are daily decisions about what to do next. The advice/mentoring/consulting has to be just in time. After a decision has been made is too late.
Often people on the ground over estimate the benefit, underestimate the cost and disregards risk.
I continue to experiment with doing just what you describe. Do you have any idea of what kind of nano project we can focus on? A nano project needs a short time horizon and crystal clear observables that define success. The best approach is the one that Dasaratha Rama has developed- the 30-60- 90 day planner. 12h
M Ichael Josefowicz Thor Mann Dmitry Sokolov I think we can see a way to do this. I think it's fair to say we all share an interest in public discourse informed by knowledge as opposed to merely opinion. That is my primary purpose in figuring out what a pMOOC needs to scale. I'm hoping to see a citizen dialog among every day people to clarify thinking on public issues. There are already a number of DIY think tanks. I see no reason in principle we can not have a crowdsourced open think tank right here on FB.
So my suggestion is that we put aside for a while the particular technology that needs to be developed. I know tech is not something I can do. Instead of tech how about we work on the process with humans. If it works out the easiest way to design the right tech is by automating what humans do. Anything that can by copied and pasted can be automated. Writing words is the input so we are already doing that.
Thor, I am still eager to put your approach into practice on facebook. You can depend on me to be active in asynchronous time. Dmitry I can point you to passionate project owners in know in the EoST community. I'm sure there are many others out there and in different groups.
I will look out for people who are thinking and making things out loud. As of today I would include myself working on a synthesis of complexity thinking using a couple of easy to understand concepts
We, myself, Glenn Gaasland and Alex Lavigne-Gagnon have been thinking out loud at Meta Theory group.
I know you and Steven Wallis have been working on ASkMATT while we think aloud at ASKMATT group.
Peter Jones is working on a couple of things. I want to wait for him to weigh in to better understand his focus. I consider Dasaratha Rama the exemplar of the passionate project owner with the persistence and skill to develop her work around GSS.
I'm confident that we can do something helpful. It is doable. Let me know if you think it is worth doing for you. To be clear, this is NOT about to do lists or taking on any more responsibility. Mostly it's just doing what we are already doing but with a clearer focus. 13 mins
M Ichael Josefowicz Dmitry Sokolov What happens if LIM is modeled as an expert system. Automate what expert project managers or curators do intuitively.
What I do is
1. Consider and clarify Intent. Clarify the desired outcome within the constraints of time and money. If the project needs more time and money then available, pare down the project to keep the kernel of the desired outcome. Job one is always to get to something that is doable and worth doing.
2. Notice everything that will effect the desired outcome. A continuous process of clarifying intent creates the experience of automatic cognition. My work, these days, is at the intersection of sociology of knowledge and cognitive science. That seems to trigger my automatic cognition to find the bits that are worth engaging. With my long experience in print centric production the automatic cognition has been practiced for 30 years.
3. Engage with what is interesting. That is pretty haphazard these days. For the most part, I remember some key words, do a google search and find what I'm looking for. When the google search returns it gives me a new field of info bits and the process is augmented. Sometimes I take the time to put a link at the wiki. Not as much these days as it is moving pretty quickly.
4. These days I find that the act of exchange in an ongoing thread is when I go back to a piece of information. The form of the info is usually an article or a video.
I have no idea if this is useful to think about an expert system as something that helps in thinking about LIM. September 2 at 12:11am ยท Edited
Links
Subcategories
Pages
Pages in Other Languages
Categories
Comments (0)
You don't have permission to comment on this page.