4

4 Comments

1. Susan Miller:  

   I love it! “Look up to Cleveland” volunteers needed…

   Well yeah, I guess so. It’s tough to get paid in Cleveland for this stuff.

   That’s not pessimism. That’s a direct quote.

   So I looked up some of these tech savvy young leader entrepreneurs who’s names are in the linked document. It was an interesting journey for some from being on the fringe - out there with a new idea to working for the establishment while remaining on the forefront of environmental issues - on the board of our environmental advocates. Riding the razor blade’s edge.

   Rate this comment:     +0 | March 22, 2008 @ 10:42 am

2. George Nemeth:  

   I’m glad you think what I do would help them, Ed, but there’s still plenty of orgs out there that think engaging in conversations on the web isn’t for them. I thought I heard recently their new site would be launching soon, but I’m going to have to ask around. I would think though, that the demographic they’re trying to reach is matches pretty well with web users in Cleveland. Regarding Web 2.0 tools, perhaps that’s the problem? Could it be that there are so many new tools out there, that’s it’s difficult to choose how to get started? I’d be happy to help narrow down the choices if that’s the case. But to Susan’s point, don’t expect to get it done for free.

   Rate this comment:     +0 | March 23, 2008 @ 7:42 am

3. Ed Morrison:  

   G:

   No, it should not be for free. These folks, if anything, have money.

   What they lack is insight and understanding.

   Yesterday, I was reading Zoltan Acs, an economist who wrote an excellent book, Innovation and the Growth of Cities.

   He points to the critical role conversations play in regional innovation.

   …[T]he central challenge of the new economy has been to find ways to create an environment in which knowledge workers do as much learning as possible from their experience, but also from each other…This entails that, for learning to occur, there must be conversations [emphasis in the original] between and among partners.

   The Internet is our first interactive mass medium. It accelerates the opportunity for conversations, for open innovation.

   Open Source Economic Development, which we are continuing to develop at Purdue, represents models, tools and practices designed to accelerate open innovation within regional economies. We are aggressively using new tools to build collaborative spaces where this innovation takes place.

   In the past week, I’ve been connecting with Satish Nambisan, a professor at RPI, who has written an important new book, The Global Brain. One quote will suffice. Writing to his business audience, he advises:

   True innovation…is driven by the ecosystem: by listening to and learning from the various constituents with whom you exchange dialogue and who may add value from the discussion. By embracing your ecosystem, you tear down the boundaries of culture, geography and organization to rapidly generate ideas and act on changes.

   As Acs points out — and Nambisan’s work supports — “centralized thinking” (Acs’ term) slows the innovation process within regions.

   The fact that our regional economic development leadership does not yet understand the power of the Internet to accelerate open innovation speaks to their need to hire you to learn “What’s next”. As they wait to learn, their relative speed slows.

   Rate this comment:     +0 | March 23, 2008 @ 11:50 am

4. Susan Miller:  

   “By embracing your ecosystem, you tear down the boundaries of culture, geography and organization to rapidly generate ideas and act on changes.”

   This is such a helpful thing to hear. I have been wondering for sometime now why the forces for change remain as siloed as they sometimes seem to be in NEO. For example, the sustainability community - it could be recognized as a critical mass if the folks continued to network with the innovation, design, architecture and technology sector. No matter what node you choose as an entry, you might find yourself surrounded by people who have similar thoughts about change. Even if there are disagreements, there could still be a dialog and rigorous debate.

   This gets to the finite and infinite game discussion. We have played and continue to play the linear finite game here in NEO. We must shift our thinking to understand that the game needs to be infinite - change the rules, adjust the format. In a finite game there is a winner and a loser. In an infinite game the game continues. Our efforts must be redirected to understand that the game does not end - we want to keep playing. This is not the NBA after all.

   When republicans, democrats, green party leaders and libertarians came together last summer to circulate a referendum to ask for a vote on the medmart, it was a refreshingly nonpartisan group and we all had differing reasons for being at the table. But we agreed on one thing and we were off. Norm Roulet agreed to host the putitontheballot.com website in moments via cell phone. We helped each other to learn quickly how to use the technology, sometimes faltering and often with short term frustration. Ultimately we did not gather the required number of signatures, but the act itself was significant.

   It seems appropriate for us to link up with the change agents and bring our resources to their aid whenever possible (not necessarily for free). It is unfortunate to have all this leadership “under construction” if that need not be the case or indeed is not the case. If it is the case - that the orgs are “under construction”, then the website is simply reflecting the truth of the matter. It may well be that leadership in NEO is still “under construction”.

   Rate this comment:     +1 | March 23, 2008 @ 12:44 pm

RSS feed for comments on this post.

Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.