Re: Work on work (Futurework and @Work)
Eric asks the perennial and proverbial question, and the key one in the knowledge management era. First, if I were a newbie in a particular forum, how do I cull the key elements of relevance to me so that I can either answer my pressing question or so that I can bring myself up to speed with those who have been here from the start. Second, if I do have a pressing issue, how do I find the key information locked in this list and which is relevant to my specific issue. There are, of course, variances and expansions on these questions. But they are the same issues whether we are academics, policy wonks or concerned with a problem in the business world from manufacturing and marketing to management and finance. The issue is even more complex when one builds "engines" which are able to analyze great quantities of information and map them against each other in "n" dimensional space to find correlations and trends to identify patterns of information on subjects which were below the individual's event horizon. And the problem becomes most interesting when the information which was important yesterday, becomes irrelevant or different in light of the present. thoughts? tom abeles Eric Britton wrote, in a very small part: ...Here is what I would like to have your views about this morning if you will: 1. How might we provide anyone who comes to us in a search for new ideas and inspiration on our troubled world of work with handy "one-click" access to your exchanges, historical and present? 2. Ideally, all this would also be one-click searchable. E.g., call up for me all mentions of "Lester Brown", "population", "Sally Lerner", etc. And various combinations and permutations of whatever might be our key words. 3. We think that this is very important in a situation such as you have here where there is really quite a lot of useful material, thoughtfulness and references - which should not be lost or hidden away. FW has of course all those great archives, but do you think we might do something together to open them up a bit? Of at least encourage someone to do so? 4. And perhaps our communications frame and various utilities might be useful from time to time for some of you.
Re: Work on work (Futurework and @Work)
To the list, I agree about making the archives more usable. I have found the hyper-mail functions of the Learning Org. list to be very handy when researching or keeping a thought going. It also saves me space on my hard drive. However there is one drawback. Britton's comments about intelligence are correct but easy access to the archives would shoot his comments about our lack of contentiousness all to hell. Consider the following: As for the other two issues 1. the issue of sustainable work in today's society and 2. the issue of unions and their relevance. 1. I find very little willingness on the part of any of these lists to discuss anything more than the old industrial system's models cast in the guise of the Information Era. Not to be disagreeable but I think that the new IE has been discussed rather well by such people as William Greider, Hedrick Smith and Fortune Mag. columnist Thomas A. Stewart for the general public. What I don't understand on these lists, is how a continual repetition of Industrial Era models proves their value. If Greider, Smith and Stewart writing for the layman can articulate why the old models don't work then why can't we hear it? Britton refers to the continual high level of discussion at FW and I agree. He also says that we are civil with one another and on that I would say that we operate on a level of democratic rigor that is built on practical experience and less on political formula. We do have a very low BS tolerance with the deft hands of Arthur and Sally making a point without being obvious enough to stir resistance or counter-transference. Their rigor and our unwillingness to be exposed in our foolishness serves as a governor on our word processing. As for the other lists on the nature of work that I have visited: As I stated above too often their new models are not really new at all. Even their information models are the models of the Art's and Entertainment Industries cast in the mode of "re-something or other." e.g. In the arts we often barter, use other models to substitute for cash exchange, thrive on linkage (connections) and drive ourselves to finish a project no matter what the fiscal, emotional, familial or physical cost. As I have pointed out and documented for a couple of years now on this list, this new Information work world IS brave AND has many problems already demonstrated in the pioneer world of the Arts and Entertainment Industry. That does not mean that we can reference past Industrial models as an answer for a hyper- democratized world built around a plethora of information. The past is not the answer and the futurist models potential "success" can be seen in the ruined lives of the Arts and Entertainment industry pioneers. There is no COMMON on the planet that exists like the COMMON of the world of the musical ensemble. They make all of the mistakes that could bankrupt the planet if the rest of the work sector follows suit. (And it seems to be!) In addition their use of Unions creates work for a few but is largely impotent at the kind of creative work that builds the industry. What Hedrick Smith calls the need for "constant learning, constant technological change and constant self-improvement as the engines of long term success" is largely impossible in Union companies. The most creative work being done, the R D of the music world is being done in small high pressure companies that are self-funded by the artists themselves. This is what the composer Charles Ives observed 80 years ago when he said that true creativity was impossible in the "professional" musical world. He opted to earn his money in insurance and write and fund whatever he pleased. (We have basically done the same.) Musical ensembles are pure learning organizations built around the exploration of the values of abstract aural formal information. They even define the abstract thought of whole nations and cultures by translating the deepest psycho-physical intentions of the time into visual, theatrical and aural art forms. They give aid, comfort and even create a meaningful life when practiced by amateurs, but when the models are "professional" in the Union worker sense, they are often an unmitigated disaster for the creative life of most of their "workers." The music business is a microcosm of the world at large with the upper one to two percent making most of the money with the rest forced to subsist out of love and work at other jobs. Not unlike that NYTimes article on wealth that I posted yesterday. Lest one complain that this is too complicated for the average person, I would point to the great amateur Concert Bands of the coal miners in England which fostered the tradition of the greatest brass players in the Western world or the choruses of Wales which even in their dying has recently given us magnificent Bryn Terfel or the new orchestra at Hewlett Packard. The first two built the finest Instrumental and choral organizations on
