Collaboration - it's Strengths and Weaknesses

I've had a very interesting day, listening to Don Tapscott, Geoff Cape and Mike Evans at Toronto's Evergreen Brickworks T.H.E. inaugural event. A fascinating presentation about the power of collaboration and the role of technology in the health and environmental movement. A hundred new ideas flooded my brain, and I've felt inspired in many of my existing projects.

There was one interesting discussion in the session based on a question raised on the validity of an article written by Malcolm Gladwell in the current New Yorker magazine. It's here and the thesis of it is that the social networks of today have 'weak ties' that don't support social activism as we've known it. Mr Gladwell, a reknown author who was not present at the THE event seemed to offer a divergent view from Mr. Tapscott and when asked about it, the view of the panel was that Mr. Gladwell was wrong in his assertion - indeed social collaboration tools and possibilities can change our world, and they offered a number of compelling examples.

In thinking about this since I left the Brickworks today, I don't think I agree and here's why.

The heart of the argument Mr. Gladwell makes is that while we can collaborate around an idea, the extension of that is to place oneself at risk (physically, financially,) and this is required for real activism, and he offers examples from the US civil rights movement and a few other moments in recent history. He then cites a series of examples where Facebook or Twitter are credited for having a role, and debunks those statements. While I can't speak to the credibility of his evidence, there does seem to be some merit to the claim, and I'd offer examples from the creation the Brickworks and the social communication vehicles Dr. Evans has created to validate this.

Evergreen Brickworks was created as a result of the vision and desire of Geoff Cape's Evergreen organization to reclaim some of Toronto's past, and give the city an urban green space where history, community and nature meet. It's an admirable dream, and one that's been achieved over 8 long years of work convincing many people and groups to take part. Full credit to the Evergreen organization for marshaling this monumental effort that has resulted in millions invested to revitalize an abondoned industrial site into an urban playground. Was it easy ? I think the answer is clearly no, and it didn't happen off the back of millions of individuals each offering $1 - rather a small number of committed individuals saw Geoff's vision and helped make it a reality, and that in turn helped get other Government, corporate and other benefactors onboard. These first visionaries are Gladwell's social activists in this sense - they placed themselves at risk (financially) in order to reap certain social rewards in a manner others weren't willing to. Altruism at it's best.

Dr. Mike Evans showed some of the great work he's doing, leveraging social media tools into healthcare to be health-proactive and creating collaborative networks around those with similar cares. He had a great quote - "Stories trump data and relationships trump stories". This is the foundational element in creating a video series for cancer victims as they take on the disease and offer insights for other victims - a community aligned around a shared issue. But these victims have clearly done this as they are at risk - and wanted to help other cancer victims - I can't think of a closer analogy to civil rights pioneer's motivation. While these newly created social healthcare groups leverage collaborative tools, they aren't dependent upon them as a means to 'friend' or 'follow' one another - they are doing more, and helping each other directly and tangibly.

The last insight I'll offer comes from Toronto's recent hosting of the G8 and G20 summits - 'the summer of protest' that largely was unsuccessful. (Canadian's tend to apologize after rioting ). Arguably, the authorities defeated the protesters as they'd tapped into the protesters social communications networks and literally planted police amongst these groups. The groups were out-smarted by the police that used (in some cases) very rough means to enforce a sense of calm and peace. This was real social activism in a recognized sense, and it was defeated by the very social collaboration tool set it tried to leverage.

So - is Don Tapscott incorrect in the value of collaboration - not at all - it's a huge advancement and one that may well rock our world as we know it with group think overcoming old, outdated structures. But that doesn't mean it's all powerful, or that it will do everything well. The magic I might point to will be finding the way to get people committed, to get them to place themselves at risk physically or financially using these networks. We're not there yet, but it's the pot of gold at the base of the collaboration rainbow.

Carbon Irony

We are all carbon based life forms - you, me, birds, lobsters, zebra and bees. It's ironic then that carbon has come to represent one of our most pressing planetary issues. You see in it's dioxide form it's a by product of life. Our planet must be able to metabolize it or we overload the system and bad things start to happen. The system self corrects to eliminate all the deposits ( we are these deposits in this sense) in various ways including dropping it into the oceans and ground. Nothing new here, except that it appears we had a pretty profound misunderstanding of how that takes place it seems in the sea.

I read an interesting article in a recent Economist about the work of Dr. Jiao Nianzhi and his work to find out more about AAPB's (aerobic anoxygenic photoheterotrophic bacteria). Check out the Economist here if you want to read it yourself. Anyway, my one sentence summary for those not inclined to get a science brain cramp is this: there appears to be another planetary level layer at work in how carbon is removed from earth and this guy has found it and is investigating it.

Hmmm. Kind of makes you think doesn't it ? Global warming and the arguments it creates on all sides develop quite a lot of heat (that one is free for you). And yet there appear to be entire aspects of the system that we don't yet understand. How about we funnel our energies into figuring this thing out, then decide - with all the right information - what needs to be done.

Thank you Dr. Nianzhi as sometimes we need to be reminded that we should always ask what it is that we don't know before jumping to conclusions.

Stretching

Sit back and relax and before we get started, we’re going to stretch a little. Your brain that is, not your body.

Think of the most incredible thing in your life that should be very unbelievable, but that you know to be true. Now, think about why you have been willing to overcome it’s “unbelievable-ness” – even if that is very personal – again I’m speaking about something just in your life, that perhaps you have only in your heart. (there’s no need to share it with anyone)

Got it ?

Now, with that reason that you overcame incredulity in your own head, imagine trying to explain it to another person – one not connected with the details, so that to them, it would also seem unbelievable. Construct a sentence in your own head as to how you might convince them to open their minds and embrace the possibility of this thing, this idea you’ve shared. What would you say to have someone open their mind to your idea ?

Are you done..? Take a moment if you're not.

Great. Now repeat that sentence to yourself, for yourself – the one you’ve just constructed, and ask yourself to try to apply it to what you see around you, what you hear and how you’ve elected to experience the people, places and time you are in.

What I’m hoping you’ve just done is grant yourself a moment where your own perspective changes about what’s around you, and how you exist. Problems that seem immovable now seem solvable with your magic wand of new perspective. Opportunities that you may have felt were outside your grasp may now seem like they may be within reach after-all. And other’s opinions that you have felt strongly about may merit a second look.

We didn’t do anything magic here, we simply elected to move away from our comfort zone a little and engage a muscle you already had – the ability to see things from another angle.

I don’t know about you, but I find that I often forget to use this muscle frequently enough, and as a result it can get weaker. Whenever I do re-engage it, it’s like listening to a favorite song from long ago – it just feels good.

In hindsight, that was easy wasn’t it - I bet you didn’t even break a sweat.

Fun with Numbers

28 03 7117 1.5 01 30

Go on then – what do these numbers bring to mind ?

28 - This is the smallest seat pitch on a commercial airplane operating today. It’s a measurement in inches of Spirit Airlines' economy seat. Great for kids. Not so much for other humans.

03 - This is the global ranking of Beijing’s Capital Airport in passenger numbers. Perhaps not surprising for China that they have world’s 3^rd busiest airport, it’s now processing more people than Tokyo’s Narita which placed in 5^th.

7117 – This is the astounding number of rooms in the Venetian/Palazzo Complex in Las Vegas. You’d think some of them must be on sale at the world’s largest hotel.

1.5 - This number comes to us from the great state of Kansas and speaks to Kansas City airport’s proximity to downtown. You can almost walk from plane to meeting.

01 - This is Los Angeles rating for most expensive taxi fares in the US. It’s a good thing LA is nicely compact and you can walk it all without need for a car.

30 - This is the amount of time in hours I’ve been travelling so far today (thanks Int’l date line) and accounts for punchy postings like this one.

Internet Access and the Correlation to Economics & Creativity

I've just spent a week in Australia & New Zealand. Wonderful places full of incredible sights, boisterous, life-loving people and some of the smartest folks I know. They've successfully blended a life -work balance in a way few others on earth have.

I did notice a disturbing trend however while there however and it speaks to how easily we communicate with each each and collaborate towards a better end result. [I should say in an effort to create full-disclosure here that I am very pro-collaboration].

Getting internet access anywhere in these countries is hard. While there are many access points they're all fenced off. Whereas publicly available internet access is a commitment many progressive urban centers are moving towards, that's not down under. Sunnyvale, California and the City of London in the UK are tow places that today offer complimentary public WiFi, but finding even cheap access to the net is very hard to come by in the primary cities of Australia and New Zealand.

What does it mean ?

It means the economics of access are placed before the benefits of widespread net adoption. This is short-sighted and in these two cases quite concerning you see, as both countries are knowledge economies. They don't have endless natural resources that can be dug from the ground. They are net importers of many basic goods, and their wealth to date has allowed that to happen. With the onset of cheaper offshore manufacturing on their Asian doorstep however, they've transitioned to services-based wealth generation. And they're strangling collaboration and the very life-blood of connectivity. While there are a few places where you can buy & surf (not that surf, matey), these also are the exception rather than the rule.

So my advice to all the world leaders that read this is that you should understand what your countries' future depends upon to be economically healthy, and then put the appropriate tools in place to enable to happen. Anything less is shortsighted.

What does unoriginal mean ?

At what point does our conversation, our discussions or our efforts to be interesting become unoriginal ?

Talking about the same things repeatedly over time can be dull. That's understandable. Those around us grow fatigued when hearing the same repeated things. But where is the point of departure on this ? At what quantitative definitive point do we enter plagiarism?

I was having dinner with an old and dear friend I hadn't seen in while, and I decided to talk a little about some theories of time I am exploring. I know, old news to regular readers. {Btw- enjoy that small time joke on me}. As I broached the subject my internal voice that I am sure we all enjoy questioned the idea of speaking of something already laid out for all to see. I was intellectually aware I had crossed some threshold - invisible as it may be. Nonetheless I carried on and was later caught out on the matter. On one hand its absolutely recycling and on the other experts talk endlessly about the same topic not because they are monotonous, but rather because they continue to explore the boundaries of the subject. (I am not claiming to be an expert here).

So is full disclosure necessary ? Perhaps, but that also makes one come off as a poncy twit. "On my blog the other day I wrote about...". You don't want to be that person.

So the answer is "I don't know" but as usual dear audience (consisting of my
Mother only, probably) I offer up some brain-meat for you to chew on. What do you think - can we reference ourselves without citing it?

Oh- and be sure to mention that you read it here first Mom.

I Flew 12,000 km Backwards

... and boy are my arms tired as the very old joke goes.

The miracle of how small our world has become is considered so everyday that it passes without comment most of the time. Think back to 40 years ago and even this trip I've just completed was pretty extraordinary. 80 years ago it would have had to be done by ship and before that it was often a simple one way life transformation as the distances were on the same parallel as we view going to Mars these days. (6months)

Now let's look forward and imagine the same circumstances. By 2050 will we consider an orbital excursion regular and bemoan the 2-3 days it might take to get to a Martian vacation. .? We have dismissed jetlag - it's not serious just something you work through. Will stasis-lag be the same..? Einstein's physics teaches us that we will age at different rates as we approach the speed of light but what if my spouse also went into stasis or traveled as fast and far at the same time. Would it matter 'when' we lived as long as we were together ? Is this a short-cut to time travel of a sort?

I will predict that only our core values will survive intact in the coming years. Almost everything around us will be modified from how we see things now. I'm not talking flying cars here, I'm trying to imagine how the need and desire to travel and explore will evolve with technology knowing that the 'baseline of the want' will remain in place. Might it be possible for very realistic virtualization of a place to satisfy that need..? I bet it would, cutting deeply into leisure travel as we know it. That's a simple example of how satisfying the core need will allow us to radically change how we do things.

What can you imagine and the tricky part- how do we start to bring it to life. See what 12,000 km backwards does to you ?