Replies to This Discussion

Permalink Reply by Alain Berranger on February 26, 2012 at 9:57pm

Sounds good, how de we mobilize a wiki editor?

Franz Nahrada said:

@Alain - Well, Alain, the discussion here might be already a little bit too confusing for outsiders. Even the ordinary person will find it hard to get a grip of all the different strands of thought here. And someone like Doug Engelbart whose time is really scarce might have even a harder time. (I do wish to re-actualize the contact though, but I would not really like to press him).  

More generally. Group conversations in the internet are sometimes hard to follow if you are not " in it" from the beginning, That is why I became the wiki fan that I am and love condensation of information. If we had an editor and a wiki we could write a "shell page" to this thread condensing the logical strands and linking chuncs of information for easier access. This is exactly what Engelbart imho meant: we think technology does the trick, but it leads us to drown in a self - created sea of information....if we do not create the right social innovations. We must understand that what we win by all these things that save time and increase communication speed, we must give back, for example in terms of good access and documentation....

Permalink Reply by Franz Nahrada on February 27, 2012 at 1:35pm

Alain, first of all I must confess that this is a wish for myself to have such an editor. I could not afford this luxury for myself so far. I have a wiki, I have a good tool, but again the problem is not in technology. The problem is in the use we make of technology.

Seems in general today nobody is willing or able to pay to the work of keeping things in order. It is the general problem of society that billions are spent for shouting, but almost nothing is spent for listening. We have enormous budgets, skills, media and staff to flood the world with information, and the more we do, the more we increase the stress on simply understanding what is going on. The methods to cope with this dilemma individually - more PR - aggravate the problem from a social point of view. Its a real structural dilemma, its like pollution. Even if there are many clever and good things said, they are in themselves more and more unaware of contexts, this we reinvent the wheel a million time, but we create also a million of artifical differences to make our messages original and unique. And guess what: the wheel is not round. Hermann Hesse called this the "Age of Feuilletonism" in his "Glass Bead Game". He envisioned that it would take the modern age equivalent of medieval monasticism, selfless work for culture, to heal this serious disease of the social body. In fact one of my most serious projects is to promote "knowledge monasteries" that do exactly that....

But I know we are very different characters, and in fact I like that. I challenge you with my fundamental view and far - fledged visions, you challenge me with your pragmatism and practical imperatives. So we are a tiny model of a bootstrap community ;-). I would say, there are hundreds or thousands of students who might be happy if they are getting academic credits for a GKPF internship. Roughly 10% of them might be able to understand and condense this discussion, but their breed of original and independent thinkers is growing evolutionary. So yes, from these 10% I think.

Alain Berranger said:

Sounds good, how de we mobilize a wiki editor?

Still a final reflection on the theoretical side. There are many who dream of a semantic web to turn sequential information into well mapped structures of meaning. They want to cede the important task of understanding and overview - that I outlined above -  to machines. I am not so sure this will ever be possible, and also I think that humans will loose their quality and their position and even their right to exist if they really let that happen. Just for the records: this is a matter of decision. We are on the best way to a society that nobody is able to manage, we are almost there. There is a deep flaw in knowledge organisation. Active competence is everything, passive competence is nothing. We will face dire consequences if we dont understand that despite the difficulties and the unusual requests this insight brings about we should start to swim against the stream - which means totally reorganizing education. We can do so much more with so much less!

 

Permalink Reply by Ulrich Burkhard on February 27, 2012 at 3:36pm

Hi Franz,
you are so brilliant and I only can support what you are saying. You say what I could dream, but I never could find words for it!

"We have enormous budgets, skills, media and staff to flood the world with information, and the more we do, the more we increase the stress on simply understanding what is going on."

I would really like that you are going with the European "GIVE Foundation" and "GKPF" not only to represent the Village Innovation Talk but as well the needs of Village innovators like me.

I don't feel that we both should give separate presentations via skype to the GKPF meeting. Your are enough for both of us. I would even like if you could show up personally at the conference! 

You are much involved in ongoing innovation processes in Europe (and now even in Russia with their problems with monocities http://www.dorfwiki.org/wiki.cgi?VideoBridge/Pikalevo). You are already inofficial project partner in our Gertenbach model approach redevelopping vacant village buldings that have lost its traditional economic values.

I don't know any other person that has such a deep knowhow and connections of "business approved village innovations" in Europe and worldwide. So the inhabitants of Gertenbach strongly need your support for their village project – starting with the internet streamed bilingual "Village Innovation Show".

Only you can explain, why both the "Village Innovation Talk" and the "Village Innovation Show" coming up only once, are two sides of one coin.

And I think for GKPF it suits best, to have one strong partner instead of two. We stongly need the vertical orientation as well.

And what I always followed in my own business (your words):       "We can do so much more with so much less!"

Permalink Reply by Klaus Stoll on February 27, 2012 at 4:36pm

Very rewarding discussion! I want to pick up on the idea of an student internship. I think this is entirely possible and should be organized. I put it on the agenda for San Jose

Klaus

Franz Nahrada said:

Alain, first of all I must confess that this is a wish for myself to have such an editor. I could not afford this luxury for myself so far. I have a wiki, I have a good tool, but again the problem is not in technology. The problem is in the use we make of technology.

Seems in general today nobody is willing or able to pay to the work of keeping things in order. It is the general problem of society that billions are spent for shouting, but almost nothing is spent for listening. We have enormous budgets, skills, media and staff to flood the world with information, and the more we do, the more we increase the stress on simply understanding what is going on. The methods to cope with this dilemma individually - more PR - aggravate the problem from a social point of view. Its a real structural dilemma, its like pollution. Even if there are many clever and good things said, they are in themselves more and more unaware of contexts, this we reinvent the wheel a million time, but we create also a million of artifical differences to make our messages original and unique. And guess what: the wheel is not round. Hermann Hesse called this the "Age of Feuilletonism" in his "Glass Bead Game". He envisioned that it would take the modern age equivalent of medieval monasticism, selfless work for culture, to heal this serious disease of the social body. In fact one of my most serious projects is to promote "knowledge monasteries" that do exactly that....

But I know we are very different characters, and in fact I like that. I challenge you with my fundamental view and far - fledged visions, you challenge me with your pragmatism and practical imperatives. So we are a tiny model of a bootstrap community ;-). I would say, there are hundreds or thousands of students who might be happy if they are getting academic credits for a GKPF internship. Roughly 10% of them might be able to understand and condense this discussion, but their breed of original and independent thinkers is growing evolutionary. So yes, from these 10% I think.

Alain Berranger said:

Sounds good, how de we mobilize a wiki editor?

Still a final reflection on the theoretical side. There are many who dream of a semantic web to turn sequential information into well mapped structures of meaning. They want to cede the important task of understanding and overview - that I outlined above -  to machines. I am not so sure this will ever be possible, and also I think that humans will loose their quality and their position and even their right to exist if they really let that happen. Just for the records: this is a matter of decision. We are on the best way to a society that nobody is able to manage, we are almost there. There is a deep flaw in knowledge organisation. Active competence is everything, passive competence is nothing. We will face dire consequences if we dont understand that despite the difficulties and the unusual requests this insight brings about we should start to swim against the stream - which means totally reorganizing education. We can do so much more with so much less!

 

Permalink Reply by Helmut Leitner on February 27, 2012 at 5:45pm

Dear Klaus,

I'm grateful when you or Alain point me to thingss I maybe misunderstand. In defense of google, in this case my google searching would not be responsible, but simply my reading of documents like this GKPF homepage or Annual Reports - no google involved with this. While a lot can have changed in the past years, I read from the same Annual Report 2010 that about 6.5% of the expenditures are covered following the model of GKPF as a business, while the rest seems to be coming from membership fees and cash transfers, that means from past fees and donations. Is there a misunderstanding on my side?

But maybe there is a misunderstanding. I commented Ulis use of "social business" as a terminus technicus, totally value-free. I'm sure that GKPF also makes no value judgement with regard to its member organisations on behalf of their organisational form, be it a business, a non-profit, a social business, a government organisation or whatever. So my statement, that in my eyes the GKPF is not a social business can not or should not be understood as criticism, and it sure was no comment on your business model, and no intention to lock you into the old system.

That said, I think that this business model, which appears actually as a mix of systems, puts a great burden on your shoulders. It's very honorable that you and your team tackle the task of earning the money to pay for the expenditures, in a way of self-financing. In addition there seem to be contradictions in this model, and a high chance of inevitable conflict of interests. To me, it would look much simpler to make the transition to a 10000 member x $300 = $3 mil budget without loosing energy and time by self-financing.

Helmut

Klaus Stoll said:

Dear Helmut

How dangerous it is to define an object through google searches, it takes the human element out of the equation! Yes, GKP was "a membership-organisation, fully depending on funding and/or membership fees", but the heroic decision was made by GKPF 3 years ago was to acknowledge that the old model was obsolete and in order to be relevant GKPF had to reinvent itself. This is what makes GKPF different from a lot of other organizations, the ability to recognize the need for change and to implement it. We are just in that process and I can tell you it is very frustrating being identified with the old model, because this is what stops us to change for the better. I have enough of looking back, our business is to construct he new. What we need is people to help to construct the new house, but we can not do it if we are staring at the plans of the old one. Who is with me constructing the new house?

Klaus

Alain Berranger said:

Helmut,

If you go to "Who we are" and scroll down to "Annual Reports", you will access the 2010 Annual Report of GKP. On page 13, you will see a graphical representation of the GKPF financial sustainability model. I hope it throws some light on how the GKPF network can be a stable place for all its members to exchange and whatever else they want to get out of it.

Best, Alain

Helmut Leitner said:

Uli, conceptually a social business is very much like a normal business, especially in offering goods or services on the market to everyone. As a business it is sustainable by not needing any funding. Acting non profit-maximizing, its offers can be designed and optimized to fill the needs of people, e.g. cheaper than the market, or in places or in qualities or to target groups that the commercial business don't have in focus. Compare this with the structure of GKPF, as a membership-organisation, fully depending on funding and/or membership fees, and you'll see that the identification as social business doesn't fit at all. Helmut 

Ulrich Burkhard said:

..... So why not saying GKPF is sort of "social business organisation" and its commodity is the "best practice knowhow/innovation exchange".

Permalink Reply by Alain Berranger on February 27, 2012 at 8:40pm

Dear Colleagues,

Yes, I too prefer 10,000 members at $300 each.... not sure at all that we can achieve that without the self-funding model of AR 2010 - page 13 kicking in first for a few years... I have a 3 to 4 years timing in mind... If we do not have a fair number of MSPs like COMAGA, SDR, CSR, now VITs, etc... we will not attract new members... with self-interest of members being satisfied, we can then expect them to pay their members' fees and volunteering and pro-bono becomes a bonus for the network...It does not work the other way around... The key financial part is the US Endowment Foundation because of its fiscal advantages for philanthropists... giving and feeling self-worth by self-interest work... even and perhaps even more so for the Gates et al of this world... I still bless them for their $ into AIDS, agriculture, etc...

I think an intern to manage GKPF website and wiki is a good solution... The wiki would have to be supervised by Franz!

Why monasteries? I could write quite well in 5* resorts...

By the way, just had a brain wave (perhaps!!).... we could ask Rockfeller Foundation to contribute the use their Bellagio facility for a GKPF/VIT conference!!!!!

Alain

Alain

Helmut Leitner said:

Dear Klaus,

I'm grateful when you or Alain point me to thingss I maybe misunderstand. In defense of google, in this case my google searching would not be responsible, but simply my reading of documents like this GKPF homepage or Annual Reports - no google involved with this. While a lot can have changed in the past years, I read from the same Annual Report 2010 that about 6.5% of the expenditures are covered following the model of GKPF as a business, while the rest seems to be coming from membership fees and cash transfers, that means from past fees and donations. Is there a misunderstanding on my side?

But maybe there is a misunderstanding. I commented Ulis use of "social business" as a terminus technicus, totally value-free. I'm sure that GKPF also makes no value judgement with regard to its member organisations on behalf of their organisational form, be it a business, a non-profit, a social business, a government organisation or whatever. So my statement, that in my eyes the GKPF is not a social business can not or should not be understood as criticism, and it sure was no comment on your business model, and no intention to lock you into the old system.

That said, I think that this business model, which appears actually as a mix of systems, puts a great burden on your shoulders. It's very honorable that you and your team tackle the task of earning the money to pay for the expenditures, in a way of self-financing. In addition there seem to be contradictions in this model, and a high chance of inevitable conflict of interests. To me, it would look much simpler to make the transition to a 10000 member x $300 = $3 mil budget without loosing energy and time by self-financing.

Helmut

Klaus Stoll said:

Dear Helmut

How dangerous it is to define an object through google searches, it takes the human element out of the equation! Yes, GKP was "a membership-organisation, fully depending on funding and/or membership fees", but the heroic decision was made by GKPF 3 years ago was to acknowledge that the old model was obsolete and in order to be relevant GKPF had to reinvent itself. This is what makes GKPF different from a lot of other organizations, the ability to recognize the need for change and to implement it. We are just in that process and I can tell you it is very frustrating being identified with the old model, because this is what stops us to change for the better. I have enough of looking back, our business is to construct he new. What we need is people to help to construct the new house, but we can not do it if we are staring at the plans of the old one. Who is with me constructing the new house?

Klaus

Alain Berranger said:

Helmut,

If you go to "Who we are" and scroll down to "Annual Reports", you will access the 2010 Annual Report of GKP. On page 13, you will see a graphical representation of the GKPF financial sustainability model. I hope it throws some light on how the GKPF network can be a stable place for all its members to exchange and whatever else they want to get out of it.

Best, Alain

Helmut Leitner said:

Uli, conceptually a social business is very much like a normal business, especially in offering goods or services on the market to everyone. As a business it is sustainable by not needing any funding. Acting non profit-maximizing, its offers can be designed and optimized to fill the needs of people, e.g. cheaper than the market, or in places or in qualities or to target groups that the commercial business don't have in focus. Compare this with the structure of GKPF, as a membership-organisation, fully depending on funding and/or membership fees, and you'll see that the identification as social business doesn't fit at all. Helmut 

Ulrich Burkhard said:

..... So why not saying GKPF is sort of "social business organisation" and its commodity is the "best practice knowhow/innovation exchange".

Permalink Reply by Ulrich Burkhard on March 29, 2012 at 3:26pm

Almost one month has pased since the last entry here.

So I like to contribute some reflections of what had come up for me in terms of CSR and multisector partnership.

Fist of all I want to express my sincere gratitude and heartful thanks to the keen creators and organisers of the first village innovation talk, that has taken place in Germany and Austria on Dec. 16. 2011, connecting six villages.

The VIT gave me a deeper understanding of "CSR" and "multilevel partnership" in conection to my own position.

In spite of the fact that our Mayor took part in this VIT on December 2011 in Witzenhausen, – I must be honest: I never felt beeing an official representative of any "innovative village" neighter of Witzenhausen nor of any other village.

In fact since more than 15 years I am strongly connected to the PRIVAT SECTOR, in which my firm (EKOPAN Media) has a long tradition of combining economic and social values within a very local focus.

I had never been focussing on a single village. Traditionally my business work has been covering more than 180 villages and a couple of smaller towns where we are still working.

During all these past years I repeatedly recognized that local people could not easily believe in small companies pretending to have social values along with economic values. Social values had merely been connected within the social sector in the mind of people.

Further I knew from my experiences as to SME:  "corporate social responsibility" has not yet become a well known term, specially in Germany, however the fact behind has gained tremendous public interest. Peoples just do not like these "terms". If we deal with big companies of cause we can talk of CSR.

My experiences over many years clearly indicate as well: the connection of social values along with our local products stimulated their convincing power to a great extend and supported at the end the long lasting existance of our firm.

Permalink Reply by Alain Berranger on April 2, 2012 at 8:46pm

Thks Uli,

Of course SMEs as well as large MNCs can act in a socially responsible way without having a CSR program. It is just that larger corporations have to account more systematically, so a CSR framework makes sense to them. Smaller businesses must explain their business model in terms of social equity and optimal environmental footprint...

Permalink Reply by Helmut Leitner on April 4, 2012 at 11:05am

Uli, if your remember our discussions before X-mas, we agreed that there is an important role for individuals in the overall context of these local systems, and we gave it the temporary working title of a "regional coordinator". It is a problem of language that this term is already in use at GKPF for something different, region being defined on a global scale for something like "south-east asia". Actually, if I remember correctly from reading the Annual Reports, Klaus grew out of the role of such a regional coordinator. But the role you talk about, and we defined, is a role of someone overlooking a sub-country region of maybe a hundred villages and some small towns, perhaps about 50-250.000 inhabitants in size. Such a RC should know all the players and should have a perspective that is reasonably undisturbed by interests of his own or from organisations he is permanently bound to. So he can be a bridge in connecting "his" region, seen as a whole, to the global context. 

Permalink Reply by Alain Berranger on April 5, 2012 at 4:32pm

Helmut,

correct... Klaus and I were GKP regional coordinators under the previous structure (Klaus for Latin America and I for Canada/USA. Your proposal makes sense. We can think in terms of country coordinators ( or heads of country chapters)... In large countries, regional chapters could make sense... I like the notion of "chapter", in the sense that it implies decentralized authority and decentralized sustainability, financial and otherwise... simply think globally, act locally... which really works for me...

Alain

Permalink Reply by Niranjan Meegammana on June 2, 2012 at 10:39pm

Enabling member Blogs (Text, Photo, Video) is one good way to create great knowledge as well as connect members ...  

Permalink Reply by Klaus Stoll on June 3, 2012 at 4:15pm

Dear Niranjan Meegammana

Greetings and Thank You for your email. The good news is that GKPF has now a communication and outreach officer and that she will implement some exiting improvements to our www site. We are also planning to bring a virtual Market of Opportunities back to the GKPF site and also to improve considerably the effectiveness and presentation of the online resource mobilization tool.

The physical and virtual Market of Opportunities is one of the actual manifestations of the GKPF mission and vision. What the MoO does is simply to give individuals and organizations the possibility to express and document their Needs and Abilities. The physical MoO which is taking place from time to time at conferences, and the virtual MoO will be implemented on the GKPF site soon.  Online forms are posted; matches are made through automatic keyword matches or matchmaking through matchmakers. The participants of the virtual MoO also have access to additional facilities such as virtual meeting rooms, storehouses for documents and media, news feeds, promotion and features through “Market Criers”, an advocacy corner, resource mobilization tools and more.

So exiting changes are coming and I hope that these changes will make GKPF the Marketplace for Development and Innovation again.

Yours

Klaus

• ‹ Previous
• 1
• …
• 4
• 5
• 6
• 7
• Next ›
• Page