Recomendados
Recomendados
Más contenido relacionado
La actualidad más candente
La actualidad más candente (20)
Similar a Martin stewart weeks[1]
Similar a Martin stewart weeks[1] (20)
Martin stewart weeks[1]
- 1. Policy 2.0?Leaders in the Public Sector , May 2010Putting Strategic Policy Development into Action Martin Stewart-Weeks Director, Public Sector (Asia-Pacific), Internet Business Solutions Group msweeks@cisco.com
- 2. A starting point? Paul Baran’s Theory of Distributed Networks…the World of “Connectedness”
- 3. NATO’s Policy Jam “An unusual online effort by NATO, the European Union, governments and research groups to ask a broader public for ideas on the future of Western security policy has produced a series of recommendations that call for NATO to develop a civilian arm and the European Union to create its own intelligence agency. The discussion, called the 2010 Online Security Jam, brought together some 3,800 people with expertise or interest in trans-Atlantic security issues from 124 countries, who logged in over five days in February for thematic conversations led by many senior officials and scholars in Europe, Russia, China and the United States. “ 4,000 participamts 10,000 logins 124 countries 5 days 10 streams 26 online hosts 75 facilitators
- 4. The context is getting tougher and more complicated The demand for collaboration, transparency and participation is rising There are new tools and capabilities that could make a difference We have to try something different
- 5. 1 The context is getting tougher and more complicated
- 6. Line = a relationship between two people more embedded = central less embedded = periphery Node = a person “embedded”: the degree to which a person is connected within a network
- 7. I NEED – basic needs and requirements; basic services in health, education etc I WANT – a consumerist approach – make it easy, convenient, suits my circumstances I CAN – want to be engaged; co-creation; can do some of these things four ourselves <Charlie Leadbeater> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VIfEUAYdrJQ&feature=related
- 8. Taken from a presentation by Dr Rufus Black, University of Melbourne, 2009
- 9. The Next Government of the United StatesWhy our institutions fail us and how to fix themDonald F Kettl WW Norton 2009 This is an exceptionally dangerous combination: more problems require longer-term, crosscutting action; government has limited capacity for solving them; and failure to solve these problems exact higher costs. With the rise of networked governance, this dilemma is sure to grow. p95
- 10. Public goals have become far more entangled with the behaviour of private individuals and organisations outside of government. <Kettlp115>
- 11. 2 There are other things happening to the context of policy making
- 12. Public purpose
- 13. 4: A new theory of the business
- 14. Government at the edge… “We have grown used to the centre taking more and more of the decisions, despite the fact that in almost all cases the knowledge, expertise and experience required to inform those decisions are at the edge.” Beth Noveck, author of Wiki Government and Deputy CTO, Open and Transparent Government, The White House
- 15. Mass participation for new institutions “The 21st century will be about divergent thinking, creating new choices, developing new solutions through integrative thinking, and balancing opposites…we need new ways of pooling diverse knowledge and tools that are simple to use and draw people in. …participatory systems will, by the middle of this century, seem as "normal" as global bureaucracies or corporations seem today. ” Hillary Cottam, Participle http://www.thefreelibrary.com/Participatory+systems:+moving+beyond+20th+century...-a0219900487
- 16. Fine, but… …. It wasn’t anything like a coherent debate. It was just lots of people airing their particular grievances and a few short-lived one-on-one debates which petered out and then reoccurred with different participants who hadn’t noticed the same debate 50 comments earlier. It’s what happens on all popular Internet forums: overwhelming mess and endless repetition. The Internet has allowed huge numbers of people to come together at the same time, but we haven’t learnt how to actually talk to one another on that scale. We can’t have any kind of mass-participation in government unless we solve that problem. http://www.governingpeople.com/Home/23159
- 17. 3 We have to try something different
- 18. Web 2.0 Collaborate don’t control Improvise, share, play, collaborate Users build value, the technology can let them in Be modular: use others’ stuff, let them use yours Build for user value
- 19. US Patent Office - Peer to Patent
- 29. The Green Economy Toolkit …will be a web-based, community-powered aggregator of well-researched, practical ideas an intelligent and purposeful exchange of ideas can take place that can inform the debate that will affect policy decisions that affect the environment, our society and the economy.
- 30. The Tanta Effect “Blogging ‘turbocharged’ the ecology of intellectual discussion – enabling us to tap into the insights of people who would never have received the attention they were due back in the old days where reputations took a decade or more to build and were corralled into specialisms with little cross fertilisation and ‘contestability’ between them.” Nicholas Gruen
- 31. Growing interest in competitions, prizes and ‘challenges’…this one is from the UK as part of the Power of Information Task Force on Implementation
- 33. 4 Prospects, possibilities and principles
- 34. Common principles Harnessing distributed intelligence and empowerment Creating social capital to fuel innovation and invention, and Creating new platforms to more effectively connect people, knowledge and services. Transparency Participation Collaboration
- 35. Policy Rethink? Framing Expertise Systematic serendipity Communities and networks, as well as organisations and institutions Capability (internal and external) Policy as ‘permanent beta’? Feedback, performance and change…
- 36. Reliable, Relevant, Replicable, Responsive, Respected
- 37. Institutions exist to sustain the problems they were set up to solve. (Clay Shirky)
- 38. Organising without organisations The network knows more than we do Contribution, not status…a form of “reputational democracy” How do we de-massify government without losing the capacity for scale? (Pebbles, not boulders…”mass localism” (Charlie Leadbeater, NESTA…) More expert, more democratic
Notas del editor
- NATO and Europeans Plot Path AheadBy STEVEN ERLANGERPublished: May 6, 2010 New York TimesPARIS — An unusual online effort by NATO, the European Union, governments and research groups to ask a broader public for ideas on the future of Western security policy has produced a series of recommendations that call for NATO to develop a civilian arm and the European Union to create its own intelligence agency. The discussion, called the 2010 Online Security Jam, brought together some 3,800 people with expertise or interest in trans-Atlantic security issues from 124 countries, who logged in over five days in February for thematic conversations led by many senior officials and scholars in Europe, Russia, China and the United States. The recommendations, which will be released on Friday, will be presented in detail then to NATO’s secretary general, Anders Fogh Rasmussen, and to Catherine Ashton, the European Union’s high representative for foreign affairs and security. Both NATO and the European Union are preparing new guidelines for their future: NATO, a new strategic concept, and the union, a blueprint for 2020. NATO is working on a new strategic concept to be finished by the NATO summit meeting set for November in Lisbon. It will be the first reworking of NATO’s guiding strategy since 1999, and is meant to reinforce its core mission and goals, particularly the idea of collective defense. The strategy must also take into account new challenges from terrorism, online attacks, nuclear proliferation and enhanced missile threats and NATO’s experience in fighting wars, in Serbia and Kosovo and Afghanistan. The recommendations have already been provided to separate working groups on both NATO and the European Union. Former Secretary of State Madeleine K. Albright is chairwoman of an expert group that has been working to draft a new strategic concept for Mr. Rasmussen, who will make proposals to member governments for consultation. The jam, which is a concept of Internet exchanges pioneered in 2001, is a separate effort to aid those deliberations. At the same time, a former Spanish prime minister, Felipe González, is working on a report examining the European Union in 2020. The Europeans are developing their own diplomatic and military capacity alongside NATO’s, and how they work together is a delicate and crucial topic. The so-called jam focused on the ways that NATO and the European Union might work together more efficiently for collective security in a more complicated, post-cold-war world. Among the senior officials who led the online conversations were Adm. James Stavridis, the supreme allied commander in Europe; Jaap de Hoop Scheffer, former NATO secretary general; Gen. Hakan Syren, chairman of the European Union Military Committee; Anne-Marie Slaughter, director of policy planning in the United States State Department; Marc Perrin de Brichambaut, secretary general of the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe; and Dmitri Trenin, director of the Carnegie Endowment’s Moscow Center. The recommendations, which were picked out of the discussions by the organizers, included a more serious effort by NATO to reach beyond its military constituencies to the larger voting public, like through the creation of a civilian branch to cooperate with civilian actors like nongovernmental organizations. Another recommendation was to coordinate better on how to promote “human security,” from better governance to combating corruption and the protection of civilian populations and refugees in a battle or continuing conflict. Another, indirectly aimed at Russia, proposes that NATO and the European Union develop mutual assistance agreements with nonmembers in the case of environmental disasters or large-scale terrorist attacks. There is also a proposal for a European Intelligence Agency to better coordinate individual national intelligence on looming or hybrid issues like environmental threats, energy security and cybersecurity. It could also support specifically European Union military operations. Other ideas include the creation of a European Security Academy for European Union military and civilian staff members, improved public diplomacy to reduce the distance many Europeans feel from the union’s institutions, a European inventory of scarce natural resources with a mandate to protect them and an international crisis preparatory fund, which might collect 5 percent of donations made to any particular crisis for longer-term preparations. Robert E. Hunter, a former American ambassador to NATO and a senior adviser at RAND, praised the security jam for doing “something that NATO’s group of experts has not: to reach beyond the ‘usual suspects,’ to people who have truly original ideas and a range of analysis.” The online jam was organized by an independent research institute in Brussels, Security & Defense Agenda, in coalition with other similar institutions like Chatham House, the Atlantic Council of the United States , the Open Society Institute, the Fondation pour la Recherche Stratégique, Carnegie Europe and the Bertelsmann Stiftung . The project was done in collaboration with IBM and was also supported by the governments of the United States, France and Sweden, as well as by Thales, a major aerospace and defense company, and the American giant UTC (United Technologies), which owns Pratt & Whitney, the aviation powerhouse. http://www.nytimes.com/2010/05/06/world/europe/06nato.html
- This is another way to frame an important dimension of the larger context within which a new narrative of governing has to emerge. It is taken from the work of Charlie Leadbeater, the UK thinker, writer and consultant .Governments face three different demands from their citizens. The “I need” demands tend to focus, as you would expect, on the basics. I need access to basic services of health and education, I need to be safe and secure and to make sure the electricity works (or even to make sure I can get electricity in the first place). Nothing fancy, but important core services and functions that governments are simply expected to do and do well.Over the past 30 years or so we’ve witnessed the rise of essentially ‘consumerist government’, reflecting a similar rise of consumerism in other aspects of our life. Here the demand is “I want”, reflecting a growing expectation that services and programs will increasingly be available when I need them, in a style and bundle of attributes that suits me, in places where it is more convenient for me to access them.The third, and most recent phase is the new-found ambition to become engaged, at least to some extent, in the way government and public services happen in the first place. In this configuration, citizens are pressing for a role in the process. I can do for myself and with others at least some of the things I used to expect someone in government to do. It’s become easier for me to express my opinion, share my knowledge, collaborate with other people to create focused action on specific issues that interest me and so on.The three phases are not necessarily sequential and linear. It’s not that government necessarily simply moved from ‘I want’ to ‘I can’ and that the last set of values is somehow more important or useful. The truth is that our engagement with government incorporates aspects of all three attitudes and sets of values, at different times and for different needs. But each requires, and calls on, distinct bundles of skills, culture, processes and capabilities.Also, this is not a developed/developing world phenomenon, with developing countries interested only in “I need” and developed countries reaching a more evolved stage of “I can”. Quite then opposite. While the mix and bundle of approaches will vary from country to country, all governments are grappling with at least some dimension of this new complexity.
- Transformative innovation tends to happen when new voices enter the design or policy-making process. We do not have all the answers. Government will need to become more porous: we are convinced that there is power in letting people into the previously closed systems of policy making. The people who can often offer the most – and often have been least welcomed – are the users of public services themselves, and indeed those who choose not to use them.A significant shift in the journey of public sector reform seems to be close at hand. The model of public service transformation supported by significant investment which characterised the last decade is coming to the end of its life; improvements in standards and outcomes in many areas seem to be reaching a plateau or will not deliver the scale and nature of change we now need. Tougher national focus on priority activities and monitoring of performance do not seem likely to take us to the next level.Child: Family: Place:Radical efficiency to improve outcomes for young children, (NHS Croydon/Croydon County Council)
- Communicate and collaborate with an increasingly complex network of expertise and influence in government, business and civil societyManages webs of distributed intelligence that create new public valueHarnesses the new tools of knowledge-based collaborative decision-making that will speed up the way governments think and actHere’s a small, but instructive illustration of the “public purpose” sector at work. A group of enthusiasts and experts in the field of space exploration decide to get together and think about US space policy – what it should be, how to refocus it, what its priorities should be. They decide they will hold an “unconference”, drawing on the model pioneered in the open source and related geek worlds of code writing and technology brainstorming, with a broad set of ideas to explore but an agenda that takes shape over the course of the weekend in San Diego.Meanwhile, NASA gets to hear about the meeting via its own social networks and is intrigued. Representatives from NASA turn up and take part in the weekend discussions, not as leaders or directors but as participants. The weekend, by all accounts, was a great success and ideas were captured and actions discussed. The extract below is from the blog of one of the participants, who concluded “while this may seem unorthodox, the eclectic group of attendees ensured that the discourse was both intelligent and fluid, and the weekend truly grew organically. Indeed, this format seems to be the only way a conversation could be had simultaneously between over 100 people from such diverse backgrounds and perspectives.”This is not the place to make detailed observations about US space policy or about the quality and impact of the ideas that came out of the weekend “unconference” (although issues of quality and impact ARE very important questions to tackle in the exploration of new models of crowdsourced, networked thinking and deliberation; we have to resist the temptation to assume that doing things differently and using these new collective intelligence tools is good in and of itself). The point simply is to at least speculate that creating and using these kinds of “policy commons’ is likely to become a more common feature of the new policy process which, in a next generation governance model, will be a critical part of making sure policy is informed, smart and responsive. Well, the weather may not have lived up to the title, but spirits were not dampened one bit at the first SpaceUp "unconference" held at the San Diego Air and Space Museum March 27th and 28th. Entrepreneurs, engineers, educators and enthusiasts gathered amidst the historic aircraft and spacecraft to participate in panel discussions and demonstrations, as well as an IGNITE presentation round on Saturday evening. Representatives from NASA, "New Space" and space advocates of all stripes intermingled in the lively forum. I was a little unsure of what to expect when I signed up for the weekend. This was the first space advocacy "unconference" open to the public. The unconference is a concept born out of the software industry, where conference participants themselves decide the topics, schedule, and structure of the event. These events self-assemble quickly and morph constantly: talks are merged and presentations shuffled on the fly, often based upon what had just happened in another session. At the beginning, the scheduling board is opened, and all attendees can choose to add a topic to the schedule. Negotiations ensue, presenters fight for coveted time slots and the sessions that gain the most traction rise to the top. After the first session, everyone runs back to the board and the process repeats. New ideas emerge based upon what conversations get started and new topics get proposed. This flexibility, coupled with the short sessions and scheduled "hallway time," keep the discussion moving at a brisk pace. While this may seem unorthodox, the eclectic group of attendees ensured that the discourse was both intelligent and fluid, and the weekend truly grew organically. Indeed, this format seems to be the only way a conversation could be had simultaneously between over 100 people from such diverse backgrounds and perspectives. The Planetary Society Blog http://www.planetary.org/blog/article/00002370/
- This is drawn from the work of the New Synthesis for Public Administration project (NS6 http://www.ns6newsynthesis.com/ ) being coordinated by former senior Canadian bureaucrat and leading public administration thinker and writer, Jocelyne Bourgon. The NS6 project takes as its starting point that the underlying “theory of the business’ for public administration is broken and in need both of urgent repair and fresh thinking. (The theory of the business framework was used widely by Peter Drucker in his work on organisational and system change – see short explanation below). The new frame that is emerging from the NS6 project, based on empirical work in 6 countries (Australia, Singapore, Netherlands, UK, Canada and Brazil), recognises that the traditional focus of public administration on compliance and performance remains vital. If anything, the new turbulence and complexity through which public administration leaders and practitioners must navigate will make more demands on these traditional skills and capabilities. But those same conditions are generating a raft of new demands on public administration systems driven by a rising tide of complex, ‘wicked’ problems (and opportunities) to which governments are expected to respond. Here, the need is for values, beliefs, systems, behaviours and structures in the public realm capable of creating resilience in national economic and social systems and pre-empting problems by becoming more effective at sensing, and gearing up for, emergent challenges. Dr Bourgon’s thesis, grounded in deep practical experience and wide engagement with public leaders around the world, is that we have failed over 30 years or more of compounding public sector reform to offer public sector workers and leaders a set of tools, and a set of values and mandates that allows them to behave appropriately especially in these new domains of resilience and emergence. Further, her thesis suggests that public leaders do not have the luxury of choosing which quadrant in which to play or on which to concentrate. This is not a “pick a box” choice. Where it gets really interesting is the emerging demand for public administrators to be able to cycle through all four quadrants at different times and for different purposes and in different combinations. The observation we would add is that the task of holding those four quadrants together in an increasingly demanding and complex institutional and cultural mix is dependent, in large measure, on the embrace by public administrators and government leaders of the other three elements in the emerging narrative – learning how to make and use a public purpose sector to engage the new public work, redrawing the balance between centre and edge and, ultimately, engaging people in a new assault on the challenge of effective self-government in a networked age. In his thirty-first article for HBR, Peter F. Drucker argues that what underlies the current malaise of so many large and successful organizations worldwide is that their theory of the business no longer works. The story is a familiar one: a company that was a superstar only yesterday finds itself stagnating and frustrated, in trouble and, often, in a seemingly unmanageable crisis. The root cause of nearly every one of these crises is not that things are being done poorly. It is not even that the wrong things are being done. Indeed, in most cases, the right things are being done--but fruitlessly. What accounts for this apparent paradox? The assumptions on which the organization has been built and is being run no longer fit reality. These are the assumptions that shape any organization's behavior, dictate its decisions about what to do and what not to do, and define what an organization considers meaningful results. These assumptions are what Drucker calls a company's theory of the business. http://hbr.org/product/the-theory-of-the-business-hbr-org/an/94506-PDF-ENG?Ntt=Peter+Drucker&Nao=20
- These new models of participation to harness collective intelligence and insight will bring considerable challenges for the public sector, including how to design them in the first place, how to manage and resource them properly, how to integrate into them already active and often influential communities of influence and practice that are springing up independently of government and, critically, how to process the knowledge they produce into purposeful action. We have to invent new ways to think, determine, trade-off, invest, act and evaluate using, as a central part of the process, new digital tools that help ‘ordinary’ people contribute their genuine and often deep expertise and insight.
- http://www.hopestreetgroup.org/index.jspaWe represent Policy 2.0, a different way of thinking and acting in the policy arena, bringing new talent and tools to traditionally partisan debates. We convene leaders from business, government, and civil society to develop actionable proposals that expand economic opportunity. We also provide young professionals and practitioners an online platform where they can collaborate on policy ideas that are then shared with decision makers. We then leverage our wide-ranging networks to drive implementation of these recommendations.The concept is simple. The three steps are:Recruit engaged citizens from outside of government -- most importantly the people directly impacted by the policyProvide them with the tools to learn about, collaborate and refine real world policy recommendationsGive them a microphone and access to government leaders to advocate for and implement these recommendations
- Opinion Space is an example of the kind of tools that will be needed to put the “collective intelligence” instincts of a “small pieces, loosely joined” model of government into practice. The intent is clear – simple ways for lots of people to contribute an opinion about policy options and to then see what the larger engagement with more people actually looks like as a way of discerning and sharing meaning and patterns.Mix of collective input and visualisation so people get some kind of “instant replay” that gives a sense of what all this input adds up to.Issues/questions – difference between mass collaboration and ‘expert’ collaboration (ie where you go out to find people with specific knowledge and proven expertise, not just ‘the community’ who want to express views and opinions). Nothing wrong with that, but there is adistinction.Biggest danger? That the ‘cool tool’ becomes the focus of attention instead of worrying whether it is leading to noticeable better outcomes, however they are being defined in each circumstance. The question is not how cool is the State Dept for putting up a bight shiny web-enabled platform for mass participation. The question is why and what for and did it make any difference at all? (Which also begs the question, difference for whom? For Hillary Clinton? For the State Dept bureaucrats and advisors? For the citizens and experts who got engaged and offered their opinion…?)The site’s immediate aim, says Ken Goldberg, a new media professor at Berkeley and the Center for New Media’s director, is to “find some good ideas that the State Department can act on” — diplomacy meets the wisdom of crowds. But it’s the approaches underscoring the project that may prove more meaningful. One of those is to find new ways to leverage the Web’s connective power to overcome the dilatory effects of Web-enabled scourges like cyber-polarization — and to re-imagine opinion itself as something that can be shared and even quantified. There’s information overload; but there’s also opinion overload. Too often, Goldberg told me, we “simplify things down to extremes where your position gets reduced down to ‘for’ or ‘against’” — to the extent that nuances, the atomic units of opinion, get lost. “It’s not that people are stupid,” Goldberg says, “it’s just that they’re overwhelmed.”How much do you agree with this comment?” is the first question the site asks in its feedback request; “How insightful is this comment?” is the second. That disaggregation — sympathy on the one hand, validity on the other — is a core premise of Opinion Space. As Katie Dowd, the State Department’s director of new media, put it to me: “Talking over the coffee table, we can agree to disagree but ultimately learn from one another.” Opinion Space, she says, is a test of whether that same tolerance can be leveraged online.Which brings us to Opinion Space. (Remember, these are quick notes.) The way the State Department experiment works is by asking respondents to judge, on a sliding scale, how strongly they agree or disagree with five statements about the world. The topics at hand range from the necessity of empowering women to the threat of nuclear-equipped terrorists. "People feel more comfortable," says Goldberg, "answering questions that allow them to convey a sense of gradation." Opinions are plotted on a graph, with more like-minded opinions clustered together. But it isn't the opinions nearest to your own that are meant to be of interest. It's those that are farthest away. Step two of Opinion Space is rating other people's opinions on not only whether you agree with them or not, but whether or not you find them insightful. It's that ability -- to connect with those folks who you differ from but whose opinions you might still value -- that Opinion Space aims to convey.
- An example of a ‘sense making’ software that is designed to help large numbers of people contribute ideas, views and perspectives on complex social and other policy issues, but with a capacity to nuance the discussion through various ‘filter’ screens (see next few slides). The point is to demonstrate here what people are experimenting with to create more complex and nuanced large-scale policy conversations…
- “Currently, many great ideas are buried in the recommendation sections of long reports, or can be found in papers in academic journals, on many other websites and submissions to government inquiries.The Toolkit will mainly be a platform for collecting ideas that have already been proposed or implemented elsewhere - although there's room for original ideas where clear gaps in existing proposals can be identified - making those ideas as compelling and easy to understand as possible.”From submission to the Australian Social Innovation Camp, March 2010 from the Centre for Policy Development http://cpd.org.au/
- Tanta, who wrote for Calculated Risk, a finance and economics blog, was a pseudonym for Doris Dungey, 47, who until recently had lived in Upper Marlboro, Md. The cause of death was ovarian cancer, her sister, Cathy Stickelmaier, said....Tanta used her extensive knowledge of the loan industry to comment, castigate and above all instruct. Her fans ranged from the Nobel laureate Paul Krugman, an Op-Ed columnist for The New York Times who cited her in his blog, to analysts at the Federal Reserve, who cited her in a paper on “Understanding the Securitization of Subprime Mortgage Credit.”She wrote under a pseudonym because she hoped some day to go back to work in the mortgage industry, and the increasing renown of Tanta in that world might have precluded that. Tanta was Ms. Dungey’s longtime family nickname, Ms. Stickelmaier said.http://www.calculatedriskblog.com/2008/11/sad-news-tanta-passes-away.htmlThanks to Nick Gruen for this story, which he often uses to demonstrate the power of a social networking platform into the policy space. Tanta is a perfect example of “reputational leadership” in the policy space, where impact is a function of compelling insights and experience easily and quickly shared in an open community ie via a blog. She had no status or position, but people listened and ‘followed’, which I guess makes her a ‘leader’. As Peter Drucker used to advocate, focus on contribution, not status…
- In association with the Australian Innovation festival, which officially begun last week, we have organised an open innovation on-line competition using the Enterprise 2.0 ideas management platform Spigit (www.spigit.com). This is no ordinary suggestion box scheme ... it simulates an idea market place with investors, promoters, inventors etc... and is very realistic, fun and dangerously engaging (I've been participating in the Cisco I-Prize competition that this one is based on). We are soliciting ideas in the categories of: A Better Future for Our Children; The Connected World; The Recovering Economy; and Sustainable Environments. There are already many great ideas in there to peruse.Even if you don't have a good idea you can comment and help build on other peoples' ideas. There are awards for both idea providers and idea investors and supporters. For overseas participants unfortunately most of the awards only make sense to Australian residents, but don't let that stop you from participating! The link is at:http://ausinnovation.spigit.com
- Question..given what we know about the context and complexity of the risks and opportunities we’re trying to deal with, are these policy attributes mutually consistent?Maybe the big lesson of policy 2.0 is that, to be effective, the people who have seen themselves at the centre and in control have to get used to a different distribution of expertise, and therefore of authority, which implies new roles, skills and capabilities.
- It’s a disturbing insight..If it’s true, then perhaps policy is always a concerted effort to counter the adverse consequences of that inherent tendency to protect the status quo. And the distributed, networked models of connecting people to share and amplify insights and expertise might be a particularly powerful way of doing that…