The Lives And Times Of Our Ideas

Dear Michele:
 

About your September 09 blog post where you make the case that we should classify cerebral palsy as one of a handful of conditions that may result from an Early Developmental Brain Injury (EDBI)...

I say bravo. Thank you for:

1. bringing the issue to light*;
2. challenging your readers in longer-than-140-characters form to use their noodles;
3. questioning the status quo and continuing to push to make things better.

I think you've hit on an important issue. And I'll be on the lookout for what happens next. Will AACPDM pick up on it? Will your proposal make its way to a decision? If so, will we be able to look back years from now on said decision and judge it to have been effective? That last would be no small accomplishment.

Effective decisions necessarily take into account the effort involved [Is the time, trouble, expense, etc. involved in making it greater than what the decision merits?], the timing [Can it be made in an acceptable time frame?], the yield [Will the decision be faithfully and adequately executed?] -- not to mention quality considerations. [A high-quality decision is based on relevant facts, assesses risks as accurately as possible, and rigorously debates alternatives.]

I'm not sure our community is equipped to tackle all that. At minimum I believe we'd have to develop new capabilities and means, including ways to involve parents (think "patient engagement," "patient-centeredness") like the ones who've been commenting on your post. Before we dive in and decide -- haphazardly -- things should be thought through.

Or maybe not. 

You stressed the importance of information pipelines. I understand where you're coming from, but I also don't believe that knowledge really flows in pipelines like we've always supposed. Knowledge is more a property of (messy) networks.

A nice upshot of that is that you don't necessarily have to wait for somebody else's seal of approval on this matter. If your framework helps you organize and guide your thoughts and actions as they relate to caring for your daughter -- go ahead and use it. Write more about it. Tell others how it works. Be selective in your use of the term "cerebral palsy." Trust that others in your network will follow suit, i.e., that your framework will catch on organically. I'll try to be more careful myself.

EDBI Daily Living is a heck of a lot clunkier than your current title, but maybe you should consider it or something like it?

Keeler

*I'd be hard-pressed to say how or when the term "cerebral palsy" has helped my daughter in her lifetime -- which began, coincidentally, on September 09. [2001]

ROUND SEVEN: It's About The Work

What do I read into UCP's innocent-enough-looking "Digital Communications & Marketing" internship listing? To me, it's one way the organization has chosen to communicate to the world that it could use a little help. 

What kinds of help? The kinds humans in marketing departments typically give. They: write; read; organize; search the Net; stay on top o' things; post stuff on Facebook. UCP assigns those fancier names. But I'd venture to guess that thousands of parents of disabled kids -- if not tens or hundreds of thousands -- would find the work rudimentary, if not elementary. I'd also guess that UCP has more of it than it could rightly imagine. 

Hypothetically: 

What if you're a parent with aptitudes in these areas who'd like to help, but who couldn't fill the position as circumscribed? What if you were to learn today that the position's already been filled? Case closed in your mind? 

I say if you believe in UCP's mission (it's trying to open doors for people with disabilities) -- don't let those things stop you: 

• UCP's looking for help in D.C. but you live in North Dakota? This is research and communications work. I'm sure a percentage of it, maybe even a large percentage, could be done from a distance. 

• The internship is "not for pay" but you need to be compensated? UCP has previously offered small stipends for transportation. Maybe it would pay you small sums for services rendered? 

• You're not a polished or published writer? You don't have an English degree? So what. Maybe rough but well organized drafts would be acceptable.

We're all learning how to unlock the benefits of the Net and what It could conceivably do for knowledge. Nobody has a corner on good approaches to orchestrating work. I believe we parents and the organizations working on our behalf owe it to our kids to explore all avenues. Like the ones above.

A Tale of Two Hope Machines, 9.3.4

Here's where things get interesting, where we start to try to apply The Power of Pull's "new approach to value creation" to the actual, real-world workings of UCP. 

"When we serve people with disabilities and their families, the economics of it are very difficult. We know that here in the United States we've been experiencing an economic downturn. It creates very difficult challenges for us and our service wing, and for the programs that we provide." 

Stephen Bennett, UCP CEO & President*

*  *  *  *  *

This (below) -- on the whole and in a nutshell -- is John Seely Brown & Co.'s advice for organizations facing "difficult challenges". I'll explain how it's derived in a sec.

In order to thrive in a post-Big Shift world, individuals and institutions should consider how they move from innovating at a product and service level (i.e., flooding the market with new, marginally improved products) to innovating at an institutional level.

Okay:

In "A Tale...9.3.2B" I pointed out how UCP repeatedly touts its own history / longevity as a selling point. When it dawned on me that it does that, I went back to The Power of Pull and unearthed this sentence: “What we knew yesterday -- either as employees or in terms of what our institution as a whole knows about its business -- is proving to be less and less helpful with the challenges and opportunities we confront today." 

"Our history" is proving to be less and less helpful today.

How much less helpful? 

So much that the need to make significant changes has become imperative for most organizations. And the real bummer? Cutting costs and developing new, marginally differentiated products and services in attempts to raise revenues probably isn't going far enough. 

We can collectively kiss business as usual goodbye.

Q1: What is going far enough? What will work? More specifically, where are the rich new sources of growth to be found?

A1: On the periphery of the organization. Resist messing with your core operations, the authors say. Seek out "edge players" instead.

Q2: Why edge players?

A2: Because they're more likely to introduce you to new insights and help you more rapidly develop -- ready for this? -- new knowledge stocks.

Q3: Aren't knowledge stocks old hat? 

A3: No, it's hoarding and fixating on them that's to be guarded against. An organization actually makes hay from its knowledge stocks. (People value the One-Stop Resource Guide, for example, and that leads them, in turn, to donate to UCP.) It’s a balancing act. "As clockspeed increases, refreshing the stocks of what we know by participating in flows of new knowledge is fundamental to performance improvement. Stocks are both a means and an end to participation in knowledge flows."

So:

Participating in flows of new knowledge on the edge is the way to go. 

Is it the way UCP should go?

Hmmm...

One thing I don't know is to what extent UCP may need to enact major change, i.e., how badly it needs to transform its mindset in order to survive and prosper in tomorrow's world. (Here I'm trying to juggle thoughts about both UCP-National and its larger affiliate network simultaneously. No doubt a ridiculous thing to try to do.) It depends on its competitive situation**. If things are still "difficult," due either to Big Shift forces of globalization and rapid advancements in digital technology OR to a down economy, then major change may be needed and JSB's answers / approach may be advisable.

That's one way of looking at things. 

Say, on the other hand, though, that the situation has eased -- that things are returning more or less to normal and it's no longer as hard as it was 2-3 years ago for UCP to serve its customers. (i.e., that it's not imperative to make major changes) If that's the case, might the authors' notion of innovating at the institutional level still be worth exploring simply because it's a better way of doing things, a better way of creating value?

'S'far as I'm concerned --
Until and unless cerebral palsy and UCP are done away with, we need to continue to look for better ways of doing things. 
Alluding to the very beginnings of this series and rephrasing this post's biggest question: 

Could innovating at the institutional level make UCP a better, more effective hope machine?

I think there's a distinct possibility that it could. So, in subsequent posts I'll keep probing:

• Why might growth opportunities for UCP be brighter on the edge(s)? What about in those areas where, unlike for-profit firms, UCP faces very little or no competition: is it better off trying to innovate around its core operations and processes? 

• If choosing to participate in flows of new knowledge on the edge seems prudent, then -- what's the prescription for doing it right? What would innovating at the institutional level look like at UCP?

In addressing those, I'll want to scrutinize some of UCP's more recent innovations: how to categorize them, how to think of them in light of the authors' advice, etc. Here I'm thinking of the World CP Challenge. I'm thinking of Mission Driven Business. I'm thinking of Life Labs. (all on the national level) And -- while I don't think it qualifies as an innovation -- the Emerging Leaders Academy is related and comes to mind, as well. I also hope to be able to address it vis-a-vis JSB.

*source: UCP Annual Report '10-'11

**I hope to be able to give more thought to UCP's competition in section 11. Notes to self: Red Treehouse competes in some ways with UCP. And, three categories of affiliate-competitors that come to mind are (1.) independent therapy clinics (2.) intermediate care facilities, and (3.) hospital comprehensive CP programs.

A Tale of Two Hope Machines, 9.3.3

KNOWLEDGE FLOWS: Interactions that (1.) create knowledge or transfer it across individuals; (2.) occur in social, fluid environments that allow firms and individuals to get better faster by working with others

So, if I read a white paper and its author's "brainstuffs" are thus mingled with mine -- am I participating in a flow of new knowledge? Does the fact that I can get back to him or her via e-mail make that a social and fluid environment?

I'm not in love with JSB & Co.'s definition because it doesn't really help me understand why knowledge flows are becoming so all-important. ( Organizations must "accelerate a shift to a very different mindset and to practices that treat knowledge flows as the central opportunity.") And, don't most of us already participate in knowledge flows? Isn't that what people do? I'm sure everyone at UCP-National, for example, is learning on the job...

What's the big deal?

Before I try and answer, I want to take a stab at identifying how and where UCP may presently be participating in flows of new knowledge.

First, two particular "social, fluid environments" o' theirs beg my attention: 

• In its role as a news provider, PE&O is right where the action is -- processing information; moving it from the newsmakers to the rest of us -- on a daily basis. (Think SmartBrief.)

• Online communities like the one found at www.mychildwithoutlimits.org are HELPING MEMBERS HELP OTHER MEMBERS by enabling knowledge transfers that support, inspire, etc.

Surely UCP is participating in knowledge flows in these cases, no?

Well, on closer inspection...

No. I'd say that knowledge is flowing but that UCP isn't really participating -- at least in the sense of trying to better itself in the process. It's acting in both cases as a middleman, facilitating the transfer of knowledge. The actual contents (of the news and online-community-exchanges) may just as well be widgets. 

Where else could we look for evidence of UCP's participation in knowledge flows? Maybe this is a cop-out, but, the fact of the matter is that it's hard to get a glimpse of them from the outside. Knowledge flows are by definition dynamic and fluid. They're happening at the edge; they've yet to be made explicit. That said --

How about Twitter, Facebook, or the like as places to look?

COME TO THINK OF IT THERE WAS A LIFE LABS BLOG POST having to do with its practice of browsing for events to attend outside of the assistive technology arena. (in search of "different perspectives on solutions for people with disabilities") This may have been a clue that Life Labs is routinely participating in knowledge flows. 

And for actual evidence that it is?

Life Labs recently announced that it's formed a partnership with the AbleGamers Foundation to co-create mobile accessible gaming stations. (link to announcement) This may someday prove to be an example of how it pays to participate in knowledge flows. From its site: "Life Labs already has a major UCP affiliate interested in several of these mobile gaming stations and is excited to be able to offer the station to the general public once a prototype is completed."

*  *  *  *  *

There's still lots of fuzziness surrounding these notions of stocks and flows. I think it might be helpful, next, to reopen JSB's PLAYBOOK for PERFORMANCE IMPROVEMENT IN A POST BIG-SHIFT WORLD  (a.k.a. THE POWER OF PULL) and see exactly how they figure in.

A Tale of Two Hope Machines, 9.3.2.B

Some valuable things UCP as a whole seems to know. Notice the references from www.ucp.org to longevity and history.

Advocacy and Public Policy

UCP has a rich history of building and participating in coalitions and collaborating with other organizations in pursuit of national public policy goals.

At the national level, UCP has expertise in, among other things, monitoring and keeping abreast of what’s going on at all levels of government (laws and policies), crafting  legislative agendas for the Federal Government, and producing The Case for Inclusion (an annual ranking of how well state Medicaid programs serve Americans with intellectual and developmental disabilities).

Affiliate Network

UCP's strength as a national network grows out of a long history of service to Affiliates as an advisor, supporter, and partner. 

UCP has an impressive track record of helping its affiliates succeed. "UCP Affiliates receive products, solutions, and opportunities to network and share information and expertise with other service providers and advocates." Since 2009 in particular, affiliate growth and development has become even more of a priority. UCP’s new MISSION DRIVEN CONSULTING piece offers: business model, strategic planning, executive recruiting, development department redesign, change management, and other services. (Said services take advantage of knowledge stocks that exist within the affiliate network, and amongst UCP staff and volunteer board /committee members.) MISSION DRIVEN FINANCE works with affiliates to solve financing challenges. Activities include lending money and providing financing for a variety of purposes, including construction and facilities acquisition.

Of course the affiliates themselves -- 100 strong -- rely upon their own knowledge stocks to provide: housing, physical therapy, assistive technology training, early intervention services, individual and family support, social and recreational programs, community living, state and local referrals, employment, employment assistance and advocacy...

Public Education and Outreach (PE&O)

UCP’s knowledge of disability issues has been accruing for more than sixty years. 

UCP's Public Education & Outreach (PEO) efforts include two primary components: Public Education Resources and Public Education Campaigns. Here are a few PE&O offerings within those groupings that rely on “knowledge stocks”:

One-Stop Resources Guide. I’m sure lots of know-how and know-what have gone into the ways in which the resources (Education, Employment, etc.) are structured; the way content is acquired /edited /filtered /etc.; the relationship-building that those activities entail...

UCP as news provider, news aggregator. UCP is set up to produce a set of electronic publications -- from scratch -- that people like me rely upon for steady flows of different types of information about: assistive technology, health care, and more. Publication titles include: Limitless, UCP SmartBrief, and Full Spectrum.

Online communities. UCP has the wherewithal to be able to offer the online resources and communities, e.g., My Child Without Limits, we began to scrutinize in section eight.

Other

UCP National no doubt depends on many other knowledge stocks to sustain itself, stocks pertaining to: how to manage a health (vs. say, some other type of) non-profit; how to successfully organize and integrate its key departments; how to capture corporate sponsorships; how to host events; how to raise funds from donors... 

*  *  *  *  *

LET'S SHIFT GEARS and move from this (crude) attempt to account for UCP's knowledge stocks to a similar search for knowledge flows.

A Tale of Two Hope Machines, 9.3.2.A

Looking for disability-related services and organizations near you? No need to fret or look any further. UCP has compiled a “comprehensive, one-stop shop of resources for every U.S. state and territory.” IT'S DONE ALL THE FILTERING FOR YOU. No need to worry about quality or quantity, either. UCP’s “knowledge of disability issues has been accruing for more than sixty years.” It's a source you can trust.

Accruing means adding. Accumulating. Stockpiling. Stockpiling knowledge in this case. Which leads us to KNOWLEDGE STOCKS.

John Seely Brown defines 'em as “what we know at any particular time.” Knowledge stocks are embedded in – maybe I should say they reveal themselves in the forms of – things like product or service offerings, proprietary technologies, and unique insights into how to organize production or marketing activities.*

The State Resource Guides I alluded to above are products of UCP’s Public Education and Outreach (PE&O) wing. As such, I think it’s fair to deduce that PE&O is organized – at least in  part – to “protect and capitalize on existing stocks of knowledge.” My questions, then: 

In what other ways is UCP organized to do this? (i.e., protect and capitalize...) What else does UCP know now that it's banking on being able to use to generate value going forward? 

I’m going to throw some things out in the next post that I think could reasonably be called UCP knowledge stocks. An exercise in classification it'll be.

To what end? 

Making what UCP knows more explicit may help to signal where to look for new opportunities, where to look to innovate, where new approaches may be in order...

A ways down the road.


*I think of Michael Porter’s value chain definition: a chain of activities that a firm operating in a specific industry performs in order to deliver something valuable (product or service)

A Tale of Two Hope Machines, 9.3.1

UCP has developed a comprehensive, one-stop shop of resources for every U.S. state and territory. Never scour the Web again for bits and pieces of disability information and resources from disparate sources!

That second sentence jumps out at me – it prompts me – every time I see it. Invariably it causes me to think of knowledge stocks and knowledge flows, and the central roles the two play in the meditations of John Seely Brown, et. al. 

One of that bunch's biggest ideas goes like this: 

It used to be that organizations could win by: (1) knowing valuable stuff, and (2) extracting value from -- while simultaneously restricting access to -- what they knew. Nowadays, however, that approach isn’t cutting it. Why not? Mostly because “in a world changing at an increasingly rapid pace, the half-life of these stocks of knowledge is depleting at an equally rapid pace.”

The new way to make it as an organization is to shift the primary focus to flows of new knowledge. 

“It’s no longer about what you know,” they say, “but rather, what relationships you have and what you can learn from these relationships.” 

UCP was founded in 1949, when the older ways had just begun to hold sway. Obviously, the organization has evolved over the years. (Witness its ongoing efforts to keep up with changes in information technologies.) Are its mindsets and practices, however, all the way up to today’s speed? That’s the sort of thing I want to delve into in this sub-section. 

Additionally, I’d like to know: 

• In what ways is UCP organized around the notion that value comes from protecting and capitalizing on existing stocks of knowledge? 

• How and where is it participating in flows of new knowledge? 

• How might it stand to gain by implementing JSB’s ideas? 

• Is there a systematic way to go about doing that?

You may have noticed that I haven’t been mentioning Red Treehouse. Reason being? At some point herein I want to zero in specifically on UCP’s Public Education & Outreach (PE&O) offerings. In my opinion, those are similar enough to (all of) Red Treehouse’s offerings that, if anything useful comes of the zeroing in, both organizations will be served.

*what we know at any particular time

A Tale of Two Hope Machines, 9.0

The Power of Pull, initially published in 2010, just now out in paperback, is one of my favorite books of the last few years. In this section, I'd first like to overview it broadly-shallowly-quickly and then relate two of its big ideas narrowly-deeply-deliberately to Red Treehouse and UCP. 

Here’s how I see things unfolding:

9.1: OVERVIEW /KEY CONCEPTS

Thesis. “To get better faster at whatever it is you do, you’ve got to be supported by a broad array of complementary people and resources from which you can pull what you need to raise your rate of performance improvement.” 

Three levels of pull. Pulling is about accessing (searching), attracting (making serendipitous connections), and achieving (collaborating). The last set of practices entails participating in what the authors call creation spaces -- which are akin to Gartner’s collaborative communities. 

Success formula. Use pull techniques to: (1) define compelling trajectories for change, (2) provide leverage to the passionate individuals who are attracted to these trajectories, and (3) amplify the impact of these individuals. 

9.2: SHAPING STRATEGIES

"By grasping how pull works we can build institutions that can act as platforms to catapult change, and maybe even transform the world in necessary and far-reaching ways." 

Should UCP pursue a shaping strategy, i.e., should it attempt to reshape the CP arena on a global scale? Based on the BIG SKY PROJECT vision of the future for people with disabilitiles, is UCP already moving in this direction?  

Inquiring minds want to know. 

9.3: KNOWLEDGE STOCKS AND FLOWS

The authors contend that the sources of economic value are moving from "stocks" of knowledge to "flows" of new knowledge, and that we must "accelerate a shift to a very different mindset and to practices that treat knowledge flows as the central opportunity and knowledge stocks as a useful by-product and key enabler." 

What are the implications for UCP and Red Treehouse?

I can say already that the implications are huge. Our new ways of knowing impact everything these organizations do. In posts 9.3+, I'd like to look closely at UCP's Public Education & Outreach (PEO) efforts -- and then use that as a springboard for exploring David Weinberger's new book about "networked knowledge" (Too Big To Know) in section ten.