A Tale of Two Hope Machines, 9.3.5.A

Back to this JSB-JH3 approach, the one that hinges on the pursuit of edge opportunities: Should UCP have a closer look?

"Yes," if it:

• is interested in getting better faster 

• is turned on by the prospect of capturing "market opportunities that are appearing more rapidly than ever and that present large upside potential." (Note: Disruptive technologies -- social media, cloud computing, mobility, big data analytics, etc. -- figure prominently in the authors' formula but said opportunities aren't for technocentric industries alone; they're open to organizations of all kinds.) 

• has challenges to overcome. 

To the last point, this new approach is 's-much-as-anything an antidote to poor performance. It's for counteracting the effects of "The Big Shift," which is tied to globalization and rapid advancements in technology, and which has "dramatically intensified competitive pressures on firms over decades." More specifically, it's for organizations whose tried and true solutions ain't cuttin' it. It's for organizations whose core processes are in need of transformation.

Is UCP feeling performance pressures?

I don't have a lot to go by. My impression, however, is that UCP *is* being exposed to performance pressures. From UCP-National we have the President and CEO telling us the economics of providing services for disabled children are "difficult." At the affiliate level, I know (this is my lone example) that UCP of Central Ohio merged a few years ago with Goodwill Columbus  in order to lower operating costs -- which it had to do because it was unable "to raise the money it needed to thrive." 

These may be signs that performance improvement is imperative and not just something that'd be nice to achieve. I keep hearing about steady declines in government support. Are these actual, or threatened? At which levels of government? As for the effects of globalization and technology advances, I wonder: is UCP is seeing second order effects like service life-cycle compression and /or donors becoming more fickle in their giving patterns?

Obviously, I need to continue to learn about the nature of UCP's challenges. In the meantime, though, I'll proceed from the glass-half-full perspective that says new opportunities are springing up faster than ever. In my opinion, UCP should be open to any evidence that may exist to the effect that it could do better by making changes. It should be open to new opportunities and to looking, if need be, in new places for them.

Like edges. 

More about those, next.

A Tale of Two Hope Machines, 11.3.A.1.A

Who are we? What are we?

David Hurst's questions above are questions I've been asking indirectly since the beginning of this series. That should make trying to answer 'em here-and-now easier (I'll be able to reference my earlier posts) but -- they're more complicated than they look. They're abstruse. And there's no real easy way around it.

Note: It'd be hard to separate "who" UCP is from "what" it is, so I'll be lumping and addressing the two together.

United Cerebral Palsy (UCP) is an international nonprofit charitable organization...

And a whole lot more.

Of my twenty-eight posts to date, "A Tale...4.0" (dealing with UCP's mission, values,  and vision statements) is the only one that directly explores who and what UCP is. Otherwise, my focus has been mostly on the organization's digital forays -- to the exclusion of all kinds of things, including "biggies" like these below that have to be a part of any serious who-and-what discussion:

BASIC STUFF

UCP is a large, complex, organization that has operating expenses, pays rent, hosts events, owns properties, invests, hires and fires, and answers to a Board of Trustees. It's hungry for resources. Its reach exceeds its grasp. It depends to an unknown-by-me extent on government funding...

THE AFFILIATE NETWORK DESERVES MORE OF MY ATTENTION

From the '10-'11 Annual Report: "The mission of United Cerebral Palsy is to advance the independence, productivity and full citizenship of people with disabilities through an affiliate network." From somewhere else: "The UCP national office in Washington, DC supports the affiliate network."

Does this mean that supporting its affiliate network is National's job number one? Maybe. But I'm not sure. In fact, I don't know how to even try to make sense of the relationship. I just have questions:

• There are individual orgs in the affiliate network with relatively small budgets (as little as $125,000) and others with much larger (up to $100 million) budgets. Do they receive equal attention from National? To what extent do the affiliates depend on it? 

• Are the affiliates getting their monies' worth in for their dues? 

• How's the communication and idea-sharing quality between the affiliates and National? What about between affiliates? 

• In what ways is National driving the bus and leading the charge? Who's pushing hardest to realize the Life Without Limits vision?

TOP MANAGEMENT

Usually the relationships among top managers provide a "line of sight" into the mood or climate of an organization. I don't know much about those things, on either the national or the affiliate level. My only observation? It looks like there's been some slight senior-staff turnover at National in the past three-or-so years, whereas, it's my impression is that there are a lot of affiliate Executive Directors who've been at their jobs for quite a while, dating back even to the '60s.

And as for how UCP's top managers actually go about their work, I haven't many clues. Are they able to make and keep commitments? What are their biases? How do they arrive at decisions? Do they have the right skills for their particular times and places? Are they coasting in their jobs? Inquiring minds want to know.

You'd have to be more "in their midst" than I am to be able to answer those last questions thoughtfully. Otherwise, all you're left to work with is what's been PR-filtered, i.e., what the organization's decided to say about itself after it's had a chance to deliberate* -- which is only part of the story. The inside scoop is needed, too. The one that hasn't been smoothed over for prime time.

Why is it important to get to the bottom of all o' this in the first place?

The philosopher Daniel Dennett wrote that "Our fundamental tactic of self-protection, self-control and self-definition is telling stories, and, more particularly, concocting and controlling the story we tell others -- and ourselves -- about who we are." This applies to organizations, too, for the same purposes.

Thus, an organization's narrative center of gravity is super-significant. It provides clues to all who come in contact with it: how they should make sense of who they are; what their role is; and how they should behave. Making meaning / writing that narrative, in Mr. Hurst's opinion, is "the primary role of leadership." 

*  *  *  *  *

I started out knowing next to nothing about UCP and I know next to nothing about it today. I'm surprised every time I snoop around online. I didn't know 'til recently, for example, that between '08-'10 there was a lot of intraorganizational blogging going on. That tells me a little about who UCP is (an organization that tried that experiment, i.e., that has that experience under its belt) -- and a lot about what UCP knows and what it can do.

That's the topic of the next section.

*David Hurst calls them "thin, text-based communications," communications that have been de-contextualized.

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, 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.