Feeds:
Posts
Comments

Archive for the ‘World Chat’ Category

When WWW was built, it was nothing else than a private, closed and scientific network to share and exchange files, articles, in a steady rythm. Fair enough. From Tim Bernes-Lee’s Arpanet to Vinton Cerf and Robert Kahn who created TCP/IP protocol, everything was done in a “scientific, military, professional” approach, for few users in fact. And from a couple of hundred scientifics to 2,4 billions users, let’s say there’s probably a huge gap…And the emergency to rebuild something different, from scratch or in incremental way, but reboot the system. Some say that the only IPv6 solution (eg that solutes the problem of the exponential needs for IP address) is already a titans’ work…And don’t believe it will be possible to start from zero, and recreate something more efficient.

The experts say there’s challenges that this new “web” must overcome, as:

  • security: inside and bornbuilt security systems to avoid firewalls and sustain authentification, without identity hacking
  • mobility: only the network counts, as you’re mobile, you never have to be unplugged by ruptures in the different networks/rates. content everywhere, anytime, anydevice and without any interruption
  • resources: always find the best way with less consumption to deliver content
  • multilanguages: to improve the writing, characters and different signs in any language
  • repetition: push messages on several networks at-a-time

wwwNo need to say that facing these big issues, the former structure of Internet is not sufficient anymore. And different theories with for example, IP concepts that identified localised adress more than identity, or identify contents or services more than machines. Internet may be tomorrow a single highway more than a network of networks, which was the spirit of the begining. And has to be more “fluent” and flexible, dealing with the huge amount of datas and contents that goes every day all around the world. The future is in creating emergency roads, to double and increase the different ways to deliver datas rate, called “redondance”, and give up with old IP notion: enhance security and hold the real identity online, through a personal adress, linked to people/place (eg mobile) more than device. A very interesting journey and project, and we know it worths all over the efforts to get there.

Moreover:

http://www.strategyland.com/2011/rebuild-the-internet

http://bits.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/08/04/a-call-to-rethink-internet-search

http://thepeninsulaqatar.com/techfile/240835-smartphones-make-internet-giants-rethink-strategy.html

http://www.rethinkeverythingblog.com/the-internet-of-things

Bookmark and Share

Read Full Post »

We can stare at the world or try to guess what’s going on, and sometimes see nothing new or particular. Because we’re immerged in so much techs, we’re sometimes blind or unable to see further or larger. Let me introduce you to these part of “silent milestones” that break our daily lives and will lead you to incredible future.

1) mobile internet: linking people and supplying real solutions for isolated zones of the world. Healthcare, senior caring, education, learning and preventing, sales power targeting, CRM…so much applications to grow

2) ongoing knowledge management: reducing hardworking and enhancing productivity at work

3) connected “things” (objects): chips, NFC, medical chips and personal folder…

4) cloud: erasing frontiers of datas and grow storage capacity. Allowing new ways of collaborative work and boosting sharing and storing

5) bots: everywhere, cars without driver, automated train/tube, robotics in surgery and micro surgery, disability/handicap powering…

google-rd_1

6) genome: playing with the essence of creation in birth processing, enabling programmed diseases or creating new kinds vegetals with vitamins or bio organism

7) energy saving and renewal energies: getting the good pace for earth, for a sustain balanced growth, allowing new sources of new powered but green energy

8) 3D printing: a new way to modelize, shape and create prothesis or materials in one piece, before large scale industrialization

9) nanometrics: micro targeting diseases or putting small “chips” on organism to rise efficiency of in several fields (medical, industry….)

10) digging for new energies exploitations: light tight oil, chiste gas and many new sources of energy

Yes, you probably heard of some of them, but don’t measure the exact potential of any. That’s what makes innovation a very pleasant game, in creating uses ongoing, while you just discover the progress. In all of these new “killer apps”, there’s so much usability to invent, because we’re at the beginning of what humanity can do with it. But beyond all, fear is the worst attitude with the risk of losing an incredible opportunity. Ignorance is the dark side of ourselves and we may be suspicious not to get into. That’s not because we don’t “know” yet, that we must not “try”. If we don’t know the future, let’s invent it.

Bookmark and Share

Read Full Post »

I’ve been guested at the 2012 edition of the “Weimar Triangle network”, famous conference organized by the Friedrich Ebert Stiftung, stated in Germany in Genshagen near Berlin on 20 to 22nd of June. This new edition (the 5th since 2008) was thematically built around “Ethics, interests and democracy promotion: Europe’s difficult dealing with ‘non-democracies’”. FES is one of the six main foundations in Germany, focused on social thoughts, policies and issues, to make a better world (or at least building the real social Europe).

The spirit of the foundation was born with SPD movement in Germany, and one of its events, meeting the Weimar Triangle participants with citizen from Germany, France and Poland, out from business, education, students origins and profiles. Supposed goals were to build new social Europe, thinking of new models of development, dealing with welfare, healthcare and education supports, reducing debts to finance pensions. Yes, Europe needs a new model, a social progress protocol, and it’d better be soon. Time is running out for refinding the best social contract to link European people together, toward more cooperation, relevance and welfare. This new initiative (Weimar Triangle) allows Germany, France and Poland to build a long-term circle of thoughts, throughout different sensibilities and histories, enjoying real cooperation between actors.

The 5th edition of the conference started on 20th, in a very smart place (Genshagen Castle), with the first subject that was to define “what is a non-democracy?”, structured with :

  • how to define “democracy”?
  • what characterises “undemocratic countries”?
  • and which countries are the most problematic addresses of European foreign policies, when time is to be linked in former Europe, and temptation could be rejection so far, as crisis blowed some economies?

With Hauke Hartmann from Bertelsmann (BTI project at http://bti-project.org), moderated by Uta Dirksen from the Friedrich Ebert Stiftung fundation.

Is Democracy a unique point of view that can be definable and scalable, among many different cultures, countries and sensibilities, with the same methods? Then, how can we build a measurable booklet of rules that could be offered as a cornerstone of the whole European project? And what about sanctions for supposed “bad boys” non-democracy actors that don’t rule for respecting the guidelines and dig the deficit, so?

We’re facing a big crisis and a paradigm shift, with no solution than define and align all so called “European countries”, with rules, kind of  “codex” and values: share the same values is the base of any long term relation. Pushing faster and stronger for more regulation and rules means that WE, historic European countries can’t close eyes and ears, about our deficit and the causes that drove there. “sweep our house first”.

Which criterias might qualify “non-democracy” et how can we address the phenomena inside Europe? Seems to be a “grey zone”, an in-between space we must deal with. And we may not understand the whole truth. What references system do we want to live? How be sure the customization fits with all different cultures and imagine a linked Europe?

Hauke Hartmann sees some keys to define a democracy:

  • stateness, with force potential to defend territory, vote possibility, citizen notion definition clearly defined, laws and rights ability to function
  • participation, a collective opinion and political decision-making process
  • rule of law with civil rights, judiciary independence: the main anchor for liberal democracies

But beyond definition we must talk about “operate” all these criterias and make them alive. Real. Functioning. How governments make people participate to problem solving, how policy quality is relevant in operating their own internal affairs? …BTI project  built a strong database, comparison model, between 128 countries in the world…totally free and open source. Wild example of big data and smart work for the World agenda.

Then what about “non-democracy”? Fragile zones with lack of stateness, and/or politic control on internal operation. Provoking and spreading exclusion, terrorism, no rules referential, no ability to control/make applying a whole peace environment, no effective power to govern, no freedom or freedom expression, insecurity…And there’s unfortunately several countries we may think they are…(no name here, it’s not the exercise…). More important, how to deal when they knock at the European door? Consensus, agenda, strong position…? But moreover, which advantages to be a democracy, where is the “democracy payback” for a country to transform itself to a democracy model, for the population then?

Between identify, promote, sustain and defend, there is no other ideal than make a better welfare environment for people. Such movements like “Arab spring” for example, must see the difference in the end? “It’s not a zero sum game in raising a better life environment, when imagination has no limit where hope and motivation are the leverages every country has”.

Followed with a panel for “challenges in dealing with non-democracies: ethics, interests and supporting opposition and the difficulty search for the right way” with:

  • what would foreign policy toward non-democracies ideally look like?
  • under what circumstances is democracy promotion a legitimate objective?
  • what interests and dependencies prevent “showcase” foreign policies toward non-democracies?

Debated with Francis Perrin from Amnesty International France, Wolfram von Heynitz, MFA German and Kamil Klysinski, OSW Poland, moderated by Martin Koopmann, Stiftung Genshagen.

How Europe reacts to temptations leading to fight for rights and oblige countries to respect a democracy environment? Are we ease and ready to organize promotion, control and sanctions? Do we have so far, global operating ways to drive such a repression movement?

Yes, we have a strong responsibility, at least to ask the good questions and to show the direction, tools and process to facilitate it.

The clear notion of democracy means that we are now driven to go further and talk about human rights. If obviously, human rights is included into democracy, the reverse is not so. Human rights are some of the basic rights that facilitate the exercise and setup of concrete democracy. And if there was inside some progress about human rights, talk about it is not enough. We want facts, actions, decisions and definitive accuracy. The battle to achieve it, pass through sometimes fighting against its own economic and historic allies. And the debate is not only with politic population, but must be spread to all stakeholders: civil society, NGOs, personalities, population…It’s then a common sense subject that overcomes a narrowed political topic.

“Democracy promotion is more efficient when democracy is requested”. That seems obvious and some elements tend to prove it.  A kind of global movement drives to a more interesting result than a simple request. Democracy used to be really efficient, if really used and processed in a global shift of an economy. Tensions about energies (oil, gas…) play a major role in the relations we have with countries, and the way we address the future with them. Economic goals are so important, who cares about human rights and setup of democracy so far? We must now fight for peace between “interest” and “values”, balancing them without any consensus: no interest must compromise values that ignite and frame the democracy. Never hide behind so called “state level interests”, but dare, do and go for a class action for democracy.

Balanced situation is fragile and search for stability is very different among many countries. Statu-quo is a classical and human reaction, but we have to make “enabled” the potential for democracy mindset and the whole system that goes with. And the behaviour behind may be different when it’s urgency to act, build and make it real. And is the EU still and a relevant model for “non-democracies”?

The first day ended on this provoking concept, figuring out how questions are still there, to go further in EU, as local advisor for non members or non-democracies. We had a delicious evening for networking, digesting and enjoying the beautiful landscape of Genshagen Castle, to prepare the poursuit of the meeting.

The second day was dedicated to “case-studies” from Belarus, Iran and Arab spring, confronting and measuring the Europe’s approach with these countries, trying to enhance the democracy with delegations, missions or models.

Belarus is supposed to be the last autocracy in Europe. And it’s supposed to be weird, disturbing and a kind of urgency to shift from. Remember they received as a gift, their national existence, after collapse and breakover of old USSR. While other probably did some fight to get their. EU has limited actions right now to convince Belarus to get into change, while it’s an open door to Russia. But interests that could be identified, seem not valuable enough to push forward. Belarus has no strategic position on energy (gas, oil) comparing to Ukraine for example. EU never stopped to use “isolating politic”, to ensure and struggle Belarus from the rest of EU. But results are late from our view…and never showed any concrete improvements in international relations and in internal bulk welfare. So we may accept that recent measures failed and try other methods. With Russia, next frontier that sustains Belarus, EU is taken between “set back peace and democracy” in its own pressure and, convince Russia to organize itself the change. Influence on a non-EU country, to matter with internal EU affairs?

How long patience must be the EU’s guide? How long EU democracy environment and policies can hold the exception, and threat for human rights? We may face a really long-term “dance” but must put milestones in a blank page, to draw at least the agenda. And it may take time to put democracy on rails, including history, culture, sensibilities. “Ambition is the guide, but not too fast and too high”. That would kill any opportunity to go further.

Let’s shift to Iran with 15 years of frustration and hope between EU and Iran. Two mains issues are problematic with Iran, according to worries of EU: Human rights and nuclear tactic. Iran is in a corner, pushed away from EU between China and Russia, who cover their own interests. How, in this case, EU can play a role to make significant advances in the two main subjects? Swift bank transfers are forbidden from any country right now, to Iran and set a very frustrating system to people. But how long, China, India, Russia…will accept to do so, based on a system ordered by EU, in a zone they don’t control? Diplomatic options seem to be a long term game, where short term choices lead to fail: frustration, angriness, EU rejections, misunderstandings. Everything that is based on short term draw bad relations instead of building, from the inside, the basic elements favoured in change dealing. And the next issues on energetic choices for tomorrow, the new energies‘ Yalta could change the deal and the main pressures in the world then drive to new opportunities for democracy…?

The Arab spring could concern tomorrow, countries like Iran. A good transition to explore how Tunisia revolution started and the point of view of EU before, while and which lessons to learn. What keys can we identify of this revolution?

  • unpredictable
  • issued from “fed up”, without any former specific goal at the beginning
  • no identified form to shape, stop the movement: like things with anonymous movements (no chief, no shape…only cause)
  • techs invade and efficiency of social collaboration
  • quick: 1 month to push out after more than 25 years of dictature!

EU has been really shy facing this fast revolution, regarding the potential reactions…Why? Tunisia used to be the “good example” for the Mediterranean zone, for business, women work enhance and exchanges. Many national interests (immigration, terrorism control, business partnership with distribution…) explain the silence and the slow decision-process, for a real change in the politic power. But what is incredibly true is, whatever the landing result, the fact that a new kind of protestation, stronger, more efficient is, more than ever enabled: the social implements with Internet, collaboration and opposition platforms will never stop. They push for more transparency, gear up in decision and real-time information. And that changes everything in the ability to protest against any extreme flow to come, whatever it would be. Yes we could ask what’s best: if they had te choice now, which choice between autocracy or religious power? But the fact is that the ability in reaction or search of consensus is no way comparable to before the digital wave. And, some would better bear it in mind

The afternoon involved lots of participants into a simulation game about “Fontania”, a fictious state, lost after a supposed collapse of communist regime. Teams were organized in the context of a civil crisis after elections that turned red, with suspicious of fraud. While several riots in the streets, and a major threat about economic and social stability, the supposed “Inotian Union” (eg fictive organization that represents the different countries of the area around Fontania) is supposed to schedule a meeting with Union members in order to find a consensus disclosure of actions to get back to peace and democracy. Some played Union, others played member countries, each with their sensibility. The exercise was dealt around:

  • non formal meeting with each country to feel their own opinion of the crisis
  • see which common and separate opinions about: migration, vote regulars, human rights and economic flows
  • try for Union to set up a frame for discussion with the common points, in aim to reduce the reasons to fight
  • try for countries to defend their own interests, including the secret ones with Fontania, unmasked along the discussion
  • in the end prepare a press release with a strong consensus on what to do with Fontania, built by members, spread by Union to schedule an agenda for concrete actions

A very interesting game where entered pressure, lies, fake moves and bargaining power, all along the discussion. Personalities, and a real live role playing game to show how diplomacy is concretely difficult when it’s a matter of delicate approach to sustain peace and avoid some kind of escalade. And sometimes issuing to a very disappointing result, on the way to success, few steps later to a “weak” engagement…But common. Union was saved and peace was back in the zone…!

The third day on the morning was driven around two panels: policy instruments in dealing with non-democracies and facing introspection, with the European model.

First panel started at 9 with the first one with HG. Wieck (Ambassador) M. Davydchyk from Europe, J. Mackow (Regensburg University) about “what policy instruments in dealing with “non-democracies”? Yesterday was the opportunity to learn about for example Belarus and Iran, and EU policy pressuring economic outcomes to lead these countries toward more democracy. But sanctions must be the last chance, if we assume the discussion behaviour first, and try to find stability. Sanctions are only a part of the whole range of tools, and may be planned after warnings, efforts and diplomacy game. And in the end, they may be not efficient, having short term effects, but not “effective” in a long term strategy. Foreign policy obliges to be credible for a country, and having a stable internal policy first. We are in a global transformation in the Europe zone and justice, social and economic stability must be searched at all prices. Which allies and which influences around, after collapse of cold war? Since then, diplomacy, discussion and democracy were the drivers for this global policy, and build Europe. No sanctions were even planned in this steady process. This long-term approach supports no opportunism, as it makes no sense of credibility. “Neighbourhood policy” seems to be the next 50 years policy, to start cooperation, mark steps in democracy elections, stateness, foreign exchange, education cooperation, in short all the tools leading to a real liberal market economy. Trust, beliefs and motivation: any partner must have to believe and want it, to success. And civil society plays a strong role in it: NGOs, people, associations, social communities and use it. Mindset changes switch faster right now, because information goes faster too. Hold the old EU model may be out of time, because EU has never been finished, even if the ambition was there, the complexity to govern and push further will probably out of reach, versus the bilateral relations between countries. “What we failed huge, some may succeed in a more local way”. EU seems a too much “big picture” to handle, finally. Is it a reason to give up? Probably not, but a reason to proceed another way…

Another example is given again with Belarus, but this time from the inside, showing the press expression from the internal side. And finally, after these sanctions, not really understood, Belarus resumes as: but what exactly EU wants? Clear goals? Common goals and legitimacy of EU? Monopoly on the definition of common values, while they may be discussed? Irrational EU policy from Minsk point of view? Non common idea about “cooperation”? respect of internal sovereignety of Belarus?

Speaking about operational set up, how to use instruments as: inspection by NGOs/external authorities, penalties, value consensus, information blackout, economic sanctions? To conclude, and while Belarus is not really interested in entering into EU, the main core action could be to increase the economic and trade exchanges, and a road to information, the spread up of “social networks” as real information, benchmark and sparkle of protestation.

The second panel with L. Greven (Die Zeite) and G. Schuch (CCE Europe) leads us to introspection and focus on the European model: “is Europe a model?”

Between Hungary, Russia and Belarus positions and extreme sensibilities (left/right sides), Europe is fast changing. Despite the € crisis, Europe must be saved at all prices. But it depends of which “Europe” we’re talking about? This awesome project was build on the rejection of war, economic stability and cooperation and security of goods, frontiers, people and interests. The underlying principles that were built with financial power, drove to bankruptcy in Greece and lead us to lessons. Time is for lessons. But which lessons for the youngest people…Do they have to pay for a system failure they didn’t decide about? How can we sustain motivation for education level, knowledge improvements and find a job? And which jobs, with a desperate rising rate of unemployment…sometimes leading to suicide, the last step after despair and no future?

Yes Europe is now unfortunately characterized by unemployment, growth breakup and a great interrogation: How long do we stand such a model and what about a new “wake-up”?

Let’s focus now on Hungary, and a very debated notion of “democracy”: what’s from inside? Modernity? Seems media laws don’t match with the real idea of democracy and freeness of information. How can we deal and judge this “non-democracy” as we value it, according to EU values? A very sensible problem that needs a strong willingness from the inside, accepting that “compromise” can be considered as a failure for the actual politic instances. But the actual rising youthness may be the solution. The opposition is building a concrete framework of comparison, organize protestation and follow up little steps that sustain hope. The media supremacy will explode as new media (social) rises up and allows people to spread opposition. But what worths more: EU intervention (but which model now, after the crisis to propose?) or few steps with regional allies to convince in a medium term to recover more democracy? Neighbours vs hegemony or a mixed approach may drive better results.

Concluding and wrap-up, with take away, and feedbacks are lead by Uta Dirksen and Barbara Kunz, from the foundation. Friedrich Ebert Foundation is aware of any remark, through these five editions, that have evolved along several propositions, different audiences and speakers, and according to actuality. We brought lots of ideas to make it real and in our times, aiming to stick closer to Europe’s deals for tomorrow. That’s exactly how I thought and feel about European cooperation ; what we just can imagine and share, between young actors must be possible and scalable in others dimensions. “The more we speak, share and listen, the more we build a common diary with values that grow the whole creation”. Let’s stay linked and spread our mindset, to hold the exercise, frequently.

I really liked the form, speakers and sharing with multi-cultural environment. The networking and collaborative spirit was there to make it a concrete brotherhood leverage for a better Europe, from European citizens, whatever their jobs, origin and perspectives. These kinds of “think tank” can really take off if they success to bring ideas to the table and turn them to operational implementations with diplomatic, NGOs, civil society and citizens. There no other idea that “ideas” that make sense and Europe more alive, concrete and modern. When we don’t remember anymore, why Europe and its roles, we may not forget that EU will work from impulse, from anywhere to achieve the goals EU tries to believe in. Fortunately, initiatives like this reconciles people, thinkers and citizens with politic mindset and recover a role in the economic landscape.

I was passionate to participate to, and will do it again, if any opportunity occurs for me. Sure, I’ll do…

Bookmark and Share

Read Full Post »

We live in a connected world, for sure. Even those who don’t want, won’t escape to changes, they feel, live or suffer. When, how, which ways? Where from, why? New generations can explain because they live in and are confronted to old school and traditional rules, they even sometimes, can’t understand. Codes, habits, rules…How imagine the world in such situations and understand the wealthy mix we can draw benefits from and hold the main direction to sustain the daily life?

I was thinking of writing in last centuries: from stones, to paper, wrting styles and ink, and printers…then digital writing and contents…Such situation meant slow shifts (as we stare technology revolutions go faster and faster), but we will be confronted in a future, where nobody will write anymore, one day…because of the huge invasion of digital supports, we won’t be using pens, stencils and so on, anymore…And at school, nobody will learn writing anymore, because “use” would have disappeared? It’s part of something that hurts me in fact…Living without knowing any letter or figure to write, because keypads or vocal systems would replace them…?

Weird, but not really far from reality…

I started a whole reflection with connectivity effects on “business”…with :

1) the ways it does…:

  • Competition insights, sourcing innovation, ideas or best practices?
  • The Impacts on collaboration and collaborative circles?
  • The way the world is connected and then, how to use marketplaces to reduce time, effort and delay on sourcing information?
  • Sourcing/buying 2.0?
  • Producing with benefits of connected technologies: reducing wastes, errors and returns, thriving simulations
  • Delivering: accuracy, reliance and relevance of supply chain
  • Launching and buzzing: hot to get the word before start…
  • Sales: virtual efficiency, mixed models of distribution (stores and e-business, m-business, social shopping and recommendation…

2) the effects on resources:

  • How to manage resources (people, time, schedules and machines) in a connected world?
  • HR implementation with social networks (pro and personal platforms, dealing with synergies)?
  • New opportunities on live work: always connected, live, home…

3) the outputs/outcomes driven:

  • Loyalty, but reactivity and sensibility: CRM, SRM, CEM…concepts that drive customers motivations and feedback
  • Communities, branding, e-reputation: how to solve the equation of truth and trust?
  • Marketing rules and new ways of improvement: who is the product manager, now?
  • Effects on life cycle of products, brands and relation: shortening delay without throwing the essential

I hope some bright ideas will surge and converge to identify a simple plan and path, to drive new business and companies, in this ocean of opportunities. As we accept opportunities more than threats and open our minds to change the cards and adapt enough our perception and abilities to do so…

First step to come, stay tuned for “the way it does”

 

Bookmark and Share

Read Full Post »

When was the last time you’ve been “ethical”, aware and  happy to be?

If you spend more than a minute to find an answer, you’d better probably go on reading this short essay. Seems old temptations and reflexes have a long run to do with it. We live in a world of more and more “relations”, that have explosed with our ability and skill to contact “more” than “better”, in the social web. We browse social, we live in communities, share circles, tastes and advises…pushed by fear of being alone, mainstream and without any personality or footstep. And this situation drives us toward “more”, but in some surface relations. We may miss something, you know…

The essence and increasing need for ethics: business

Considering last crisis and their impact on populations (physics, mental and bankruptcy) and economics (banks, mainstream business, even countries), we should say “stop” to something, and be perfectly “in the know” for the threats and dangers of driving business without any barriers and control. And that’s “anyone’s job” to be careful about we lead business: I mean we are in this situation because moreoften, people say “it’s not my job” to be careful, and everybody gives the responsability to his neighbour, who does even the same…Time is now to step with attention, attention for our way of doing business, attention for whoelse does it as well. And obviously, it’ “anybody’s job” to take care of his whole circle of play. When nobody cares for nothing, the whole force of community doesn’t work anymore and behaves like individual decisions, without coherence. Professions like lawyers, doctors…have a kind of oath they can be proud of, and that gives them a strong frame of reference to drive their business, teaching what they’re supposed to do, and what they are not. As MBAs started their own process, I find it interesting as business leaders, before business, must have a clear circle of references in leading and managing teams, with ethics. Business you lead, business you’ll get. It’s exactly the same for teams, leaders must be the example on who they can mesure their achievement, pace and style. But moreover and beyond papers, books and process, our own mind should drive us to more humanity with the dance of doing business. Crisis know that, we know crisis but we forget really quickly in fact…Hurricanes make real disasters for people

Relations with new game : why Ethics always “pay” in the end?

Does it have to “pay”? I mean, relations don’t consist in a permanent exchange, comparing duties and rights. Relations mean a soft dance, where there’s a rolling conversation, with truth, trust, relevance and understanding. No need for reciprocity, introducing Seth G’s lichpin concept: “art is emotional labor, and emotional labor makes you an artist, spreading gifts, with no obvious returns”. I think way of praticing ethics (in any field) is like “spreading gifts and art” of believe in trust and strong basements for business (and yes sustainable social relations). Will it pay? none bucks, nor celebrity, just something more valuable: aknowledgements. You become “worthy”, trustable and someone with whom others want to meet, take insights from and have aside in negociations and relations.

The social and professional insights in Ethics

You could find this really boring, meanstream, past. Right. But none in fact, if you spend a few time wondering what can bring you value in life, right now…? Most insightful people are so artists in fact, none “workers”. Those who are gonna change something in way, behavior, thinking, ideas, those who dare something. Such creators do the difference and know how to bring value in ethical way, because it’s a whole and community movement that get everyone together in a group concept. Ethic becomes so a “way of creating” that it can’t be optional anymore: overtake personal ambitions, shareholders dreams and pressure, political games and spend our time on pure pleasure of bright, proud and useful brainwork with no underwords. For the sheer essence of creating something shifting the crowd, with high and clever insights, delighting the long way to participation and collaborative thoughts. Doctors engaged, lawyers have guides, business must drive its own excellence rules, to reborn trust and reliance in business relations and process. To see beyond “friends” of Facebook, friending and linking has a real sense, a relation asset that has to be done in the rules too: no tricks but tips, time is now to show us in real shape, even if the digital profiling helps us to hide, ethics is the better face we have to share…

Bookmark and Share

Read Full Post »

I’m always breathless in front of people initiatives, like when lots of men or women, decide only for others welfare, to go in the same direction, giving help, some money or knowledge, in the goal of a whole community construction. It seems like a silent force, that builds itself with the project and vanish away, as the project starts. What are motivations, how can they grow as fast as they do, and make something real, while other attempts stayed successless?

I think making sense is one of the first step, before even thinking of doing money or business…VC or banks could be feared of such ideas, but money comes, money goes, as often the idea and the company builds itself. If you’re making sense, if you follow kind of karma, belief or conviction, you will be probably more motivated and in the conditions of success, even if resources are still missing. Faith and force can move mountains, and are able to give vision and empowerment for teams.

I followed some ventures like kiva.org or zopa, that are bright examples of lots of silent forces which take form in whole projects, all over the world, with borrowers they don’t know who build their own small business of various kind. I like the idea trust can be a real engine of innovation, with no other frontier than being interested in “one another”. It seems like, after human created money, human returned to human, in being aware of the concrete life of creating “things” and not money.

Kiva, doing an awesome local work of intermediate between poor actors who want to create their own business, and “social” lenders who want to help, succeed since they started in 2005, to raise loans until nearly 130 $ millions…Incredible when you know that average amount is “only” of $ 187 per lender…that suppose “bulk” actively shapping the future of many small business!

But to do so, it has to be scheduled in a perfect process, allowing security, transparence, real social needs and projects and kind of “return” assurance that projects and money are concretely built. Process pass through several steps, including examination of outreaching social/poors intents, customization of the project to the target, side benefits for environment, climate and families and the responsability of local agents – who identify projects and make them “buyable” -. More than 330.000 business have now received money from Kiva’s help…for a refund rate of more than 98%…serious, isn’t it?

Recently, reading at MIT sloan review, was an interesting link to kind of essay on “science of management”, as we start to think in matter of “science” for management. Maybe limits of classical and rational aspects of managements have been overflowed and we need to get into another dimension: roots, DNA and genome. The MIT Collective Intelligence Center acts on research on group, communities and crowd dynamics, going one step further: is there any doom-like, predictive facts or figures that could explain, collective mindset and results?

Staring at motivations, we can see there’s a silent crowd and power that makes all these collective masterpieces, probably born in a common envy for innovation. Because ideas and thoughts are the beginning of anything, they are nothing without envy, motivation and collective passion. Some might add “execution”, and they are right. I call it the “power of bulk”, you know, the bulk that is shaped with “one” and “another”, whom taken apart can’t succeed, but in a collective dynamic trend, can move mountains. I believe, I believe in dynamic of change, I hope it’s probably the only thing that is equally shared. This kind of behaviour and mindset, shaping the two faces of change is extremely powerful: a kind of positive human force some companies know of, innovation engine drifted by initiative, feeling and sense. “Sense always guides to a useful goal”, means it’s the first step to find: giving a whole collaborative sense to any project, idea or group work, to sustain envy, motivation and core soul.

I would end my demonstration with the idea of “do something” (borrowed to dosomething.org by Nancy Lublin). This idea of empowering sleeping forces, in our deepest places of body and soul, leading them to “offline” concrete entreprises, with dynamic groups is really interesting. Not really with much leans or money (she prays for “zilch” experience), but willingness to achieve something. Just action to “do something” to make a “thing done”, to build a community experience, using social links, web and apps to raise efficiency and leverage. If more is less, so less can be a single atom, the essential genoma of inno-ciency, merging whisper of an idea to accuracy and force of action…

And I’m always starving for this…

Bookmark and Share

Read Full Post »

I was scared about French claims about web, according to new idea of taxation of…Google (or whatever search it could be). I ‘m wondering why, each time a company, a man, an idea makes money, it’s unbelievable to see what kind of jealousy it draws, and in the same time, seeing lack of innovation running…but criticize, steale or law sues. It seems like everybody is jealous about his neighbour, ready to kill to spread on his wealth.

I can’t see any reason why old skills or traditional sectors, have to complain about web, that gives us so much freedom, reduced social fracture, gave access to information all over the world and so much more. Complains from creators, authors and editors, that always search to build walls to protect their business (with sometimes and local politics agreements…), while there is so much opportunities, when they only see threats…What a pity, a lack of imagination (remember lack of imagination was the FIRST reason why the 11th of september terrorism’s attack has been possible…imagination), when imagination can make all the walls disappear, send us back hope, ideas and innovation. Does business only consist to copy, be jealous or sue competitors? Is this the only level of motivation right now?

I can’t see why music, newspapers, books, all these traditional markets, complain about the web: they didn’t while they were referenced and googled so many times, rising their notoriety for free…They didn’t while that boosted some unknow artist like never, for free. They didn’t while their “pagerank” and fame indicator was green. But now they deny the one that put them at their level. Why? Because they lack imagination, the constant key able to think of future, tomorrow, and invent their future business. They want cash for free. But they don’t want freeness. They want service for free, but want to be payed for their notoriety…that costed nothing for them.

I like Chris Anderson’s point of view, not why he wrote a book, but because his vision lives with the market: he’s clever about what’s going on, and probably what could exist tomorrow. And many of companies don’t even try to understand how disruptive they can be in the future, because they are followers, and just hope to make a good M&A with their competitor.

My shout was really about, waking up, “let’s reinvent our ability to re-learn”, to think and give value to future, not in lazying so far, but doing the necessary efforts, to value customer service, and have an award from him. What can be more pure than, rise the level of purpose and satisfaction, creating a new field of business…

Read Full Post »

Older Posts »