> * Notwithstanding the IP issues, coordination styles don't mesh. > Corporations live or die by cash flow. This gives everyone in the > corporation a common yardstick for decision making and prioritizing > actions. The community commons lacks any clear measure of the common > good. To the corporate eye, these communities look chaotic and > unpredictable and thus an unappealing avenue for investing > resources. > > This last point brings us right back to the original thread and > motivation for the feedback form experiment. Namely, how do we make > visible the value created within the community in a way that supports > and strengthens coordination and cooperation?
There are three major motivations in the human condition, they are in this order of importance to an individual. 1: Identity 2: Stimulation 3: Security These apply equally to individuals in corporations as well as cooperatives. Traditionally individuals in corporations have always listed monetary reward well down in the list of reasons they stay or enjoy their jobs. This is the reason corporations tend to use promotions as a means to keep an employee over a large pay increase. ( It is also the reason people get promoted to positions beyond their capacity and accounts for the Peter Principle http://www.answers.com/topic/peter-principle) So for all practical purposes we can eliminate 3: for individuals (as opposed to corporations) for this discussion. Consequently the dichotomy between corporations and cooperatives are irrelevant. Identity applies equally to animals that live in groups, including the naked ape of which we are members. It is the well known so-called pecking order that determines an individual's status within the group. It the wild as well as in civilization this identity determines the social order and gives the group stability that provides a stable platform for achievement and reasonable tranquility. In the human situation stimulation is nearly as important as identity. The inquisitive nature of humans keeps them constantly on the lookout for stimulation, the new, the unusual and the progressive innovation. While the corporation does bond the group to some degree because of the desperate need for profit; the motivations that causes it to succeed are the identity and the stimulation of the individuals within it. The recent innovation of open-source projects and free software proves great things can be done without any monetary reward at all. So for the answer to your question ...."how do we make visible the value created within the community in a way that supports and strengthens coordination and cooperation?" Look to enhancing the identity and stimulation of the individuals within the group as the first place to start. Your form does this to some degree but it is lacking in finesse and subtlety. It is more of a popularity contest than a bonding mechanism. If you want more details on how to achieve your goal you'll have to pay me. Just kidding;-) Morris On Feb 22, 11:32 pm, "Greg Wolff - UnaMesa.org" <[email protected]> wrote: > You raise a good point about innovation within the culture of a > community organized around a common good versus a community organized > around a corporate good. Is it possible to align those two? After > several years of trying, I still don't know the answer. Successful > alignments seem to have two factors in common: > > * individual participants identify first with the community (Jeremy > probably thinks of himself more as a TiddlyWiki person than a BT > person) > * the company sees or imagines ways they can "add value" on top of the > common good (and charge for that value). Hypothetical example: BT > using TiddlyWiki to package and deliver text messaging services to > their business customers. > > More often than not two big factors get in the way of aligning common > and corporate interests: > > * IP laws and standard practices. For example, many companies are now > willing to license copyrights into a common pool but they want to > retain their patent rights and positions. > * Notwithstanding the IP issues, coordination styles don't mesh. > Corporations live or die by cash flow. This gives everyone in the > corporation a common yardstick for decision making and prioritizing > actions. The community commons lacks any clear measure of the common > good. To the corporate eye, these communities look chaotic and > unpredictable and thus an unappealing avenue for investing > resources. > > This last point brings us right back to the original thread and > motivation for the feedback form experiment. Namely, how do we make > visible the value created within the community in a way that supports > and strengthens coordination and cooperation? > > -Greg > > On Feb 22, 1:54 am, Alex Hough <[email protected]> wrote: > > > Paul, > > > To me it seems that Unamesa is different than the foundations quoted > > above. It has an espoused purpose beyond the not-for-profit > > safekeeping of the IP. I think that it is this that makes it different > > than the open source projects you list, but not sure. > > > About open innovation; the question of "what is after open > > innovation?' in the context of R&D management is one that i have heard > > recently. I floated the idea that the > > IP-in-a-charity-with-specific-projects-model might be an innovation. > > > There seems to be a shift in values amongst the business students and > > tech people I meet. They appear to be more interested in sharing and > > charity rather than forging white hot careers or developing a mega > > cool application - (which is what they were into last year) . > > > Some companies might have difficulties in attracting interesting and > > talented people. Some drug companies, for example, might be having > > difficulties developing their innovation strategies because their > > values might not concur with those of the current generation of > > students and potential recruits. If they had an "Osmosoft BT > > Unamesa" informed identity – the > > 'IP-in-a-charity-with-specific-projects-model?' – they would develop a > > culture more attractive to employees and might even and culture get a > > 'community' themselves. > > > (It would be wonderful to have a Gregs, Jeremys, Erics, FNDs, > > GiffMexes, Wolfgangs, Morrises, Skyes, Udos, BidiXes( and PSDs) in all > > the communities and markets in which one belongs?) > > > Alex --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "TiddlyWiki" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected] To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/TiddlyWiki?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
