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, 11.2

Next we want to try to get some sort of a handle on UCP’s operating context, first by asking and attempting to answer a set of questions about where the organization is and how it got there — then by doing the same regarding where it wants to go and how it’s going to get there. 'N case you’re keeping score at home, posts related to what’s happened will begin with “11.3.A.” Posts related to what’s coming will begin with “11.3.B.”

The aim of this inquiry? In David Hurst’s words, to develop “a coarse-grained, moving picture of the past, present and potential futures of the organization -- the questions it has to answer and the choices it has to make.” 

The interest here is not in finding and addressing clear-cut, technical sorts of issues that a consultancy like Gartner, Inc. is better suited to address (e.g., how to complete this or that technology-enabled initiative). Instead, it's in having a go at some of the more complex, systemic, and messier questions – questions which may have more than one answer from which to choose. 

The asking I have in mind to do should, ideally, be a communal process (involving UCP stakeholders of all kinds) and be viewed as an opportunity for learning and growth. 

The best I can hope to do on my own, from a distance, is get the ball rolling. 

A Tale of Two Hope Machines, 11.1

A hypothetical: 

You’re newly responsible for the overall well being of United Cerebral Palsy, UCP, one of the US’s largest health-related charities. I’d like to know: How do you intend to piece everything (the dozens--thousands--millions of moving parts) together? What’ll be your particular way of doing things? The landscape looks chaotic: How will you put it into context? 

You won't just wing it, will you?

If it were I in such a position, I think I’d be inclined to at least experiment with the comprehensive management approach David K. Hurst introduces in The New Ecology of Leadership. (Columbia Business School Publishing, 2012)

Mr. Hurst’s approach uses an understanding of natural systems to shed light on the ways in which organizations work, and how they may be managed. Central to it is an ecological mental model that:

• serves as “dynamic filing system and a management toolbox that allows you [managers] to store and retrieve organizational experiences and to employ them in taking effective action” 

• shows how to use Passion, Reason, and Power to keep an organization on course (destination: a sustainable future) and away from perilous traps 

-- which is as clear as mud, I'm sure.

Rather than try to elaborate, I think it’d be better to go straight to trying to apply said model. That’s the only way to learn, ultimately, whether or not it could help UCP become an even better organization than it already is.

Mr. Hurst doesn’t offer one-size-fits-all answers. He tries, instead, to get to the heart of the complex and unique issues that organizations face: "If you can name the pain," he says, "you’re well on the way to resolving them.” Improving the system itself is usually the solution. That all starts with asking questions...

Next. 

A Tale of Two Hope Machines, 1.2

One thing that LIVESTRONG has that Red Treehouse and UCP don’t is its own manifesto. A manifesto is a public declaration. It makes me think, “bold" -- to the point of “in your face.” I also think, “change.” Manifestos are connected with efforts to change the status quo. They're part and parcel of movements of all sorts. 

LIVESTRONG is a movement that was founded on passion, emotional energy, and trust (a blend of hope, faith, and confidence).* It exists to help cancer patients and their families live their days to the fullest, and to help them tackle intensely personal things -- HEADON.

Just an observation: 

In my very limited experience – I've had no exposure, for example, to any of UCP’s affiliates – I can’t say that I feel like UCP and Red Treehouse are trying to build those same sorts of personal and emotional ties between me-and-my-daughter and them. "Life Without Limits" doesn't feel like a movement to me. 

For better or worse, neither of the two organizations is conveying anything so rousing as...

LIVESTRONG Manifesto

We believe in life. 
Your life. 
We believe in living every minute of it with every ounce of your being. 
And that you must not let cancer take control of it. 
We believe in energy: channeled and fierce. 
We believe in focus: getting smart and living strong.
Unity is strength. Knowledge is power. Attitude is everything. 
This is LIVESTRONG. 

We kick in the moment you're diagnosed. 
We help you accept tears. Acknowledge the rage. 
We believe in your right to live without pain. 
We believe in information. Not pity. 
And in straight, open talk about cancer. 
With husbands, wives and partners. With kids, 
friends and neighbors. And the people you live with, work with, cry and laugh with. 
This is no time to pull punches. 
You're in the fight of your life. 

We're about the hard stuff.
Like finding the nerve to ask for a second opinion. 
And a third, or a fourth, if that's what it takes. 
We're about preventing cancer. Finding it early. Getting smart about clinical trials.
And if it comes to it, being in control of how your life ends. 
It's your life. You will have it your way. 

We're about the practical stuff. 
Planning for surviving.  Banking your sperm. Preserving your fertility. Organizing your finances. Dealing with hospitals, specialists, insurance companies and employers. 
It's knowing your rights. 
It's your life. 
Take no prisoners. 

We're about the fight. 
We're your champion on Capitol Hill. Your advocate with the healthcare system. Your sponsor in research labs. 
And we know the fight never ends. 
Cancer may leave your body, but it never leaves your life. 
This is LIVESTRONG. 
Founded and inspired by Lance Armstrong, one of the toughest cancer survivors on the planet. 

*with a nod to David K. Hurst

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, 11.0

If Red Treehouse and UCP are puzzles, then my main interest really is in how all the pieces – new information technologies and their uses included – come together. 

For the past few years I’ve been learning about various comprehensive management approaches. The holy grail, as far as these things go? A foolproof set of steps even a fool like me could follow to steer an organization to success. A reliable road map. A “framework for frameworks” capable of subsuming any of the myriad of mental-models modern-managers use to address challenges and opportunities.* 

There’s a relatively new approach that has my attention now. I think it has a lot going for it, i.e., it makes sense to me. Even though it’s not prescriptive in a “do these specific things and you’ll win” way, its recommendations are right in line with those expressed in The Power or Pull (section 9) and Too Big To Know (section 10). So it also makes at least some sense to transition to it at this point. 

What I want to do is take it for a spin. Apply it as best I can to UCP and Red Treehouse. Not just for kicks, though. I want to help make both organizations better. Maybe this approach could be beneficial. Becoming a hope machine implies having a formula, after all. Maybe this is the one? 

Let’s explore.

*Gartner’s formula for becoming a social organization, for example, would fit within.

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.

A Tale of Two Hope Machines, 8.5

Practically speaking, will it matter much if UCP and Red Treehouse don’t get a handle on social media? If they never master community collaboration? If they decide not to take all the steps Gartner would have ‘em take to reach the FUSING – or even the FORGING – stage? That takes a lot of work…

Why not just take a pass? 

To Ronald McDonald House of Cleveland: Red Treehouse is just one of your several initiatives and you only have a small staff to support it. Even still, I'd venture to guess you’ve had success growing your network of families, professionals, and organizations this calendar year. Social media's played no role. Why bother even dipping a toe in at this point ? 

UCP: You’re one of the larger health nonprofits, but you’re not some Fortune 500 giant in some crazy-competitive industry. Your reputation's secure. I’m sure donations are steady. Besides, your top priority is your network of affiliates: their work is mostly hands-on, face-to-face, and local. 

   

Either or both of you could opt out gracefully. You could “blame the tools, conclude that social media lacks business value, or assume your organizations simply aren’t ready.” In UCP's case it’d be simple as pie to say that it’s given Twitter (and the like) the old college try but decided to pull back the reins.

Maybe the wizzes at Gartner don’t know what they’re talking about. 
Maybe social media isn’t what it’s cracked up to be. 

In fact... 

*  *  *  *  *

JOHN KOTTER -- Professor of Leadership, Emeritus at Harvard Business School, author of 18 books, co-founder of Kotter International – THE GREAT JOHN KOTTER DOESN'T SAY A SINGLE WORD ABOUT SOCIAL MEDIA in his piece about staying competitive “amid constant turbulence and disruption” in last month's Harvard Business Review. 

What he does say, instead, is that the organizational structures we’ve used in the past “are no longer up to the task of identifying hazards and opportunities soon enough, formulating creative strategic initiatives nimbly enough, and implementing them fast enough.” And, organizations need to come up with better ways of continually assessing their operating environments and reacting “with greater agility, speed, and creativity.”

His general solution, or antidote? Involve “more people than ever before in the strategic change game.” Do it in a way that’s economically realistic, i.e., that gives you the biggest bang for your buck. 

Specifically, Mr. Kotter introduces in the article his concept of the DUAL OPERATING SYSTEM: two separate operating systems running in concert, with the second one – a.k.a. the network – employing an agile structure "and a very different set of processes to design and implement strategy.” The job of the network...is to use volunteers (employees and others) to “liberate information from its silos and hierarchical layers and enable it to flow with far greater freedom and accelerated speed.”

Although he doesn't explicitly say it, I take it as a given that he’d be OK with using social media as a means to those ends. Social-media-enabled collaboration is inferred.

*  *  *  *  *

I find the similarities between Kotter’s dual operating system and Gartner’s COLLABORATIVE COMMUNITIES (“a communal structure within the enterprise”) to be remarkable. Both start with the proposition that organizations are being forced to “evolve toward a fundamentally new form.” Both stress the importance of getting smarter faster…

Even their pitches and promises are alike. Namely: Those organizations that get their acts together now (i.e., the ones that take the consultants' advice) will see immediate and long-term success. They’ll be more profitable. They’ll produce better goods and services. They’ll be more competitive. 

They'll win. 

Hmm. 

I wonder how those sorts of messages /promises would be received by the respective management teams at UCP and Red Treehouse. Would they resonate? Inspire? Excite? Would they compel either or both org. to keep exploring social media? To keep learning through trial and error?

I could see where they might miss the mark. Where they might be too removed, too abstract, and too much in the P&L language of business as we've known it --

It's partly because of that that I now want to move away from Gartner (and Kotter) and head in the direction of a trio of thought leaders who make similar and complementary recommendations, who offer their own unique twists, and who in many ways, IMHO, do a better job of getting to the simple essence of things.
 

The guys I have in mind -- John Seely Brown, John Hagel III, and Lang Davison -- are big-time business consultants in their own rights. Surprisingly, though, they talk less in terms of "beating back threats" and "outracing the competition" and more in terms of using social media to: DO more. HELP more. ACCOMPLISH more. Success, to them, boils down to the choices and passions of each and every individual with a stake in a given organization.

*  *  *  *  *

It's a personal thing.

Our "new digital infrastructure," as they say, gives us unprecedented opportunities to live up to our potential. Individually and institutionally. If we passionately want to improve and get better faster at what we’re doing, i.e., if we care, we’ll explore and master the new tools and techniques. We’ll move outside our comfort zones. We’ll connect and join forces with talented others who have similar interests.

What advice would they give UCP and Red Treehouse? Being all you can be does depend on your getting a handle on social media. It does matter. Lip service isn’t enough. Dipping one toe in isn’t the answer. Real human commitment is. 

To me it's even more personal. MY DAUGHTER AND OTHER KIDS LIKE HER ARE COUNTING ON YOU to make the smartest possible uses of the resources (you're privileged to have) at your disposal. That's what this social media thrust is about. 

I'd like for you both -- I think it'd behoove management at UCP and Red Treehouse -- to hang in there and learn what the authors of The Power of Pull have to teach: how small moves, smartly made, can set really big things in motion.

*  *  *  *  *

Go fail. And then fail again. Non-profit failure is too rare, which means that non-profit innovation is too rare as well. Innovators understand that their job is to fail, repeatedly, until they don't.*

*from seth godin's BLOG, dateline November 30, 2012: "Non-profits have a charter to be innovators"

A Tale of Two Hope Machines, 8.4.B

My understanding is that the My Child Without Limits forum is actually managed by Inspire, an outfit that builds online health and wellness communities and offers them free to advocacy organizations like UCP. It’s responsible for moderation, technical support, back-end communications, and other day-to-day obligations.

‘Z’at mean that UCP doesn’t know its collaborative stuff?

Nope. It means that UCP chose to outsource in this case. The only thing that counts, anyhow, is the value people do or don't derive. The forum at My Child seems active. Participants seem to like it...

What I can't tell by browsing is if and how UCP benefits. Or if its managers have the know-how and know-what to pull off something like it on their own. And, can they use social media to collaborate communally for other purposes? The foundation for becoming a social organization is in place. But what about the other stuff that sits on top?

To attempt an answer, we still have two wholly home-grown community collaboration efforts we can look at: Life Labs and (one I left out of the discussion in part A) Brave Kids.

*  *  *  *  *

Like My Child, Brave Kids is an issue-specific campaign with its own site: www.bravekids.org. Brave Kids' mission is to serve “children and youth with disabilities and chronic /life-threatening illnesses by providing a support community, information and resources on numerous medical conditions like genetic diseases, autism, cancer, cerebral palsy, ADD, etc.” 

One of the primary goals at Brave Kids is to help kids build connections with other kids based on their similar experiences. Looking to its online community for signs, however -- that hoped-for connection building isn't happening. Participation is anemic. (the flip-side o' what you see at My Child) To date there have been “3 Posts in 2 Topics by 2 Members,” the most recent coming over six months ago.

I could make more or less the same observation with regard to the participation levels at Life Labs. (re: its Google Group and wiki, for examples)

SOCIAL MEDIA, PURPOSE, and COMMUNITY are the three indispensables of community collaboration. I don't see participants in these cases being mobilized to contribute. I don't see collaboration being generated on a meaningful scale, i.e., there's no tapping into the full knowledge, talent, innovation, and energy of large groups of people. The COMMUNITY component is MIA.

One might argue that both sites, both communities, are still relatively young -- to which Gartner would counter: “Social media environments do not grow slowly over time.” 

The harsh reality is that most social media initiatives either fail to attract interest or deliver real value to the organization. Participation doesn’t usually just happen. Keep in mind a key Gartner insight: Community collaboration isn’t primarily a technology implementation. It’s a management challenge. “Let us be clear: if IT alone leads the effort," the authors of The Social Organization say, "you have already stepped off the path to success. Business leadership is crucial." 

Life Labs’ Director is UCP’s IT Director…

*  *  *  *  *

If it is the case that both would-be communities are struggling, what would Gartner do? How would it go about trying to help? Methodically -- it'd start with a complete medical history, so to speak. Performed on macroscopic and microscopic levels:

MACROSCOPIC 

At the level of the WHOLE ORGANIZATION, Gartner would want to look at all the visioning and strategizing activities that lead to okaying the two projects in the first place. It would help UCP assess whether or not community collaboration was an appropriate choice, and help establish (on closer inspection) that both projects were worth pursuing. This'd entail: 

• Making sure the purposes were well formed, and that they clearly articulated the benefits to community members and the value to the organization;

• Doing "grow" assessments to systematically determine if and how the community collaboration efforts should have moved forward;

• Looking at the projects as parts of a coherent portfolio of purposeful communities -- and making decisions about them accordingly.

MICROSCOPIC

At the INDIVIDUAL COMMUNITY level, Gartner would want to focus on all the following steps required to cultivate -- prepare and launch -- a successful community: 

Prepare. A green light (indicating "Yes, we think we're going to want to invest in Life Labs and /or Brave Kids") at the macroscopic level still requires more focused and vigorous efforts to decide if and how to proceed. For each proposed purpose and community, those efforts should have resulted in:

• a purpose roadmap; a malleable plan for its evolution (how the community can evolve to deliver sustained value over time);

• a more formal business justification, one that describes the concrete sources of expected value.

"This combination provides solid footing to progress to the launch phase, where a desired community becomes a reality.”

Launch. A successful launch entails: 

• Exploring and defining the participant experience;

• Creating the right environment (addressing structure, ease of use, choosing the right social media technologies, and more);

• Engaging the community, i.e., grabbing and holding participants’ attention (setting critical mass targets and rapidly driving participation).

*  *  *  *  *

Gartner's overriding objective would be to help UCP build the capabilities to achieve meaningful, repeatable, and significant organizational value with social media technologies -- 

To help UCP hoist itself, in other words, securely onto the FORGING rung.