ROUND TWO: Classified Info (Part C)

That UCP's "Life Without Limits" vision applies to people with a whole spectrum of disabilities has me wondering. Including multi-stakeholder networks, I've identified, for classification purposes, five (5) CP-fighting sectors. Wouldn't it be nice to be able to locate the orgs and indivs within them along various spectrums / spectra or continuums / continua -- so that they'd be closer to or farther from "focused on CP," closer to or farther from "operates in the health arena," closer to or farther from "provides direct care," and so on?

That's just one thing I'd like to be able to do. More generally, I'd like to be able to quickly and easily manipulate my data. (aka the folks I'm following on Twitter and what I know about them) How come? To see what the landscape would look like if it were rearranged in various ways. To look for patterns. To gain insights about relationships, etc. 

Enter mind mapping. 

A mind map is a graphical way of expressing what's in your head; a means of displaying the connections your mind makes. (From the play Who's Afraid of Virginia Woolf, I always remember George, one of the two main characters, jokingly referring to an abstract painting as "a pictorial representation of the order of [his wife] Martha's mind.") By definition, a mind map is a visual thinking tool that helps you structure information and better analyze, comprehend, synthesize, recall and generate new ideas. 

I'm in the process now of transferring my Twitter "Following"s into an online mind mapping program so I can structure them as I see fit. I'm using my five-sector framework as a basis for grouping. I've also started to add Web site links to some, thinking that this could be useful / powerful down the road.

MindMeister.com is the service provider. As it says on its site, "It's very hard for two people to write notes on the same piece of paper, but it's easy for them to share a digital mind map. Mind maps are open and friendly and invite input from everyone. If you're working on a complex project with a large team of co-workers, you can create a mind map, share it with them and encourage everyone to annotate it."

The real potential lies in this idea of using maps collaboratively. Like I said before, my map is crude at this point; only a hazy beginning. The new formula for getting better faster, however, is to put things like it out in public and to invite others to use, make comments, etc. Mine isn't public in the sense that others can add notes or make changes, but those capabilites are there. 

If you'd like to take a closer look at the actual map, here's a direct link:  http://www.mindmeister.com/311249601/who-can-help-us-ko-cp.

ROUND TWO: Classified Info (Part B)

With regard to grouping my Twitter "Following"s, I'm coming across organizations that I -- no matter how hard I try -- can't fit neatly into any one of my four main sector-categories. Furthermore, their names all seem to end in words like "alliance" ..."consortium" ..."federation" ...and "council".

Networks are what those organizations are. And when I examine their components I see that they're generally made up of civil society + private + individual + government sector stakeholders. 

So what?

Well, influential author, advisor and strategist Don Tapscott suggests that self-organizing networks will be key in helping us to solve our growing global problems: climate change, conflict, poverty, water scarcity, infectious disease,  economic stagnation -- maybe even CP. 

Mr. Tapscott is leading a study about how these new patterns of connection can fulfill their potential in fixing a broken world. In the course of learning what makes big networks tick, he's determined that they come in nine (9) flavors and that every network represents primarily one of the nine.

Participants in knowledge networks, for example, are in the business of creating knowledge. TED and Wikipedia are two widely known examples. And we have at least one good example of a knowledge network in the CP sphere: 

NeuroDevNet is dedicated to helping children overcome neurodevelopmental disorders. Its mission is to "ensure generated knowledge is translated into tangible diagnostic, preventative, therapeutic, social, economic, and health benefits for all." It does so by working with "partners in academia, the community, not-for-profit sector, industry, and government, and across traditional disciplinary boundaries and sectors."

Going back to my previous post, I guess you could say that visualizing networks -- existing or potential -- is another use for my classification scheme. This graphic below shows some of the NeuroDevNet's general* stakeholder /member types: 

More to come along these lines in Part C.

*Reaching For The Stars (RFTS) is the only specific member I know of to date.

ROUND TWO: Classified Info (Part A)

"In this corner --

institutions and organizations committed to fighting the Cerebral Palsy fight and improving outcomes as they relate to CP." 

Hmmm. Seems understandable enough, doesn't it? On further review, however, what /who are those institutions and organizations? How would one decide which ones to include or exclude? For clarity's sake -- my own and anybody else's who may be keeping score at home -- I want to try to spell out more generally who I see as being on our side. Who the good guys are, in other words, in the CP fight. 

I've come up with a crude classification scheme. 

Here's some background. 

The goods-producing component of our society has traditionally been thought to consist of three (3) sectors. There's the public /government sector, the private /for-profit business sector, and the civil society /nonprofit sector. Others who think about such things also add a fourth sector -- variously called individuals, households, or "non-organizational forms." 

For purposes here, I intend to think in terms of those four (4) sectors, and, as would-be CP fighters come into my sphere of consideration I'll slot them -- like this:

Public /government ("public initiatives for public good")  Example: AHRQ, the US Department of Health and Human Services Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality  

Private /business ("private initiatives for private good") Example: TheraTogs, in Telluride, CO, makes "customizable physical rehabilitation systems that are worn under clothing to address neuromotor, orthopedic, and postural conditions", i.e., orthoses 

Individuals ("all other non-organizational forms") Example: Jilda Vargus-Adams, a pediatric physiatrist at Cincinnati Children's Hospital 

Civil society /nonprofits ("private initiatives for public good") See next.

Nonprofits represent the majority of my target audience (and Twitter "Following"s)* so far. Probably because I've paid them more attention, I've gotten a little carried away with my analytical knife and carved out these five (5) subsets:

Health. Example: American Association of People with Disabilities (AAPD), America's largest disability rights organization 

Philanthropy. Example: The Annie E. Casey Foundation "develops solutions to build a brighter future for children, families, and communities" 

Research. Example: CanChild Centre for Childhood Disability Research, a research center in Ontario, Canada that focuses on improving the lives of children and youth w/ disabilities and their families 

Education. Example: The Center for Social Innovation at the Stanford Graduate School of Business "educates leaders who can solve the world's toughest problems" 

Human Services. Example: Hattie Larlham Center for Children with Disabilities, an Intermediate Care Facility (ICF/MR) in Ohio that provides residential care to children and young adults

Classifying's always tricky. The further you try to go and the more subdivisions you try to create (to achieve clarity, presumably) the murkier things become. In this case, deciding to which of the four sectors an entity belongs can be tough enough. When you try to make even thinner cuts...well, let me give you an example. I'm pretty sure it's "proper" to classify direct-service agencies as Human Service nonprofits, but -- do independent therapy clinics belong in the same class? How about -- help! -- inclusive recreation groups?

The good news is that nothing here is set in stone; the whole thing's refinable. Also a tool like this only has to be useful. At this point, the categories above make sense to me. Already they've helped me see new patterns. (They've made me realize, for example, that I'm only following on Twitter a few durable CP-related goods providers.) And I'm starting to see other potential uses.

I'm curious to know: Do you classify other organizations for any reason(s)? Do you, or would you, do things differently? Is this useful to you? Does it trigger any interesting thoughts?

*  *  *  *  *

*Trying to process Tweets from those I'm following is too much for my brain on its own to handle. They say making lists based on key words or tags (to compartmentalize) can help. So, I'm in the process of incorporating the scheme above at /on Twitter, too. What's your strategy for keeping up with what others are posting?

ROUND TWO: Could You Please Be More Specific? (Part D)

While hundreds of thousands of social service organizations work incredibly hard to help structurally disadvantaged and socially marginalized individuals, families, and groups build better lives and life prospects for themselves and their children, few do so effectively—and indeed lack the organizational competencies and capacity to do so. This is a bitter truth. And though it is a collective failure—not only of these organizations, but also of their funders and consultants—it is also a correctable one.

*  *  *  *  *

What a declaration, eh? To say in no uncertain terms that most social service organizations are inept?

That's David Hunter essentially calling out nonprofit leaders -- including, I take him to mean, the ones in charge of our leading CP orgs. Known for holding nothing back, Dr. Hunter is known as well, if not better, for helping organizations make "the kinds of fundamental decisions and clarifications that, if implemented, will allow them to perform reliably, effectively, sustainably, efficiently, and at a high level of quality." 

The now-retired consultant exhorts nonprofits to use a comprehensive approach  to "manage to outcomes." (Interestingly, his approach and The Bridgespan Group's both center around what's known as a theory of change -- an organization's blueprint for success, or statement of how it intends to get results.) His  Working Hard & Working Well lays out said approach in its entirety and serves as a guide to help leaders: 

• clarify what they’re trying to achieve; 
• develop the capacity to know whether they’re on track to get there and the drive to keep improving over time.

The book is downloadable for free in multiple electronic formats via: http://www.vppartners.org/leapofreason/get-working-hard-and-working-well.

ROUND TWO: What CP Parents Are For (Part A)

In the course of trying to get to know some our CP advocacy/ education/ fundraising orgs over the past several months, I've been making mental notes about their conceptions of the role of parents. What do they think CP parents are for, I've wondered? Their answers, I believe, could hold keys to how swiftly or slowly we all move in the direction of blasting CP.

My curiosity was piqued last fall when I revisited United Cerebral Palsy (UCP) for the first time in years. I had come back -- I should disclose from the get-go -- with low expectations. My preconceived notion was that there wasn't much for us there. To my surprise, though, I came across all kinds of good stuff, some of which set me off in interesting new directions. It struck me as an improved UCP. For the most part.

A few things still bugged me: 

• I found the site hard to navigate. I remember wondering: Is there a section tailored to parents and what they'd want to know? What kind of maze must one walk through to get there? To this day, I don't get why there's not a straightforward connection from UCP's home page to My Child Without Limits.

• I saw signs of both a "push" mentality and an outmoded view of expertise. UCP came off as if it authoritatively knew what was important and had -- once and for all -- rounded up the answers and passed them on to us (uninitiated and passive) consumers. 

• Please refer to your local affiliate. Headquarters seemed to go out of its way to avoid having to interact with parents. I personally found customer service `a la UCP to be anything but warm and fuzzy. 

An overarching impression was that UCP-National didn't need anything from me or my daughter. Which I found offensive. Why wouldn't our experience matter? Why didn't they see my daughter in her particularity, or care particularly about her? It made no sense to me on any level. ('specially after having come from the business world, where a P&G, for example, goes to great lengths to understand its customers and prospects in context, or where Japanese companies have always have done the same) I concluded at the time that UCP viewed me -- to the extent that it saw me at all -- as nothing more than a donor or voter to be. 

That was close to a year ago. Now I see things differently. My views are more nuanced. I appreciate more of what UCP's doing and where it's coming from. 

But I have started seeing other organizations. Namely: Children's Neurobiological Solutions Foundation. Let's Cure CP. Reaching for the Stars. CP Daily Living. I hesitate to lump the four together. Also, I'm reluctant to generalize about the nature of their work, what they believe, and -- to the main point of this post -- how they view CP parents. I will venture to say, though, that the narrative they're each in the midst of creating and telling seems to be one and the same. 

It goes more or less like this: 

Signs are pointing to the possibilities that CP may someday be preventable, treatable, and even curable. It'll all ride on the quantity and quality of work we can collectively pull out of certain smart folks working in certain scientific and medical fields. Those folks, however, aren't being adequately funded. In response -- in the words of Michele at CP Daily Living -- "the US cerebral palsy community is working hard to organize and improve financial support..." 

Where do we CP parents fit into that equation? What are the options for helping implied? 

It follows that we can: get educated about what's happening...spread the word...donate and/ or raise monies...become politically involved.

Unlike UCP, these other four organizations are headed up by parents of kids with CP.  And surely they differ from UCP in other ways  -- in their respective means and ends, their degrees of focus on CP, their relative emphases on research, etc. If push came to shove, I'd guess that they'd claim to be more specifically in touch with CP parents' needs and wants than UCP, and that they're the truer champions of parents' interests. Reaching for the Stars (RFTS) goes so far as to describe itself as "the only global, parent-led, pediatric nonprofit Cerebral Palsy foundation."

Nevertheless, I'd say the majority of their "asks" of parents still revolve around raising funds for research. The conceptions they have of the role of parents in our fight aren't substantively very different than UCP's.

Where am I going with this?

I'm not saying it'd hurt to have a lot more loot ($) coming into the CP sphere. No doubt that could help a great deal. Lest ours become a "we're handcuffed without it" ($) movement, however, I'd like to suggest that there are other things our advocacy/ education/ fundraising orgs could be doing in parallel. Those other things have to do with taking an even more expansive view of what we smart parents have to offer and then smartly putting us to work. Our large numbers + our gumption + today's social technologies give us unprecedented opportunities to get things done -- at relatively low costs -- and we all should be taking fuller advantage.

More along these lines to follow.

ROUND ONE: Could You Please Be More Specific? (Part C)

SO: 

Our side (think organizations combatting CP in one way or another) has these compelling missions and visions -- "Life Without Limits" to name but one. We're off to a great start.

Do our nonprofits in particular, however, have practical and workable ways of bringing those about, i.e., of realizing them? At finer-grained and closer-to-the-ground levels of detail, are they able to focus on the activities that are likely to have the greatest impact? Do they have the know-how and know-what to wisely allocate their time, talent, and dollars to them?

They say in business school it's just a matter of getting the right people doing the right things the right way. Sounds simple. Where the rubber meets the road, however -- where real people have to grapple with real problems -- it's anything but.

I've been looking for the past few years into COMPREHENSIVE APPROACHES to doing the above. ("getting the right people doing the right things...") There are several. One of the more interesting to me is Kaplan-Norton's Execution Premium Process (XPP). Proferred by The Palladium Group as system for achieving breakthrough results, it uses, notably, Balanced Scorecards for linking an organization's bigger goals with its day to day actions. And per Palladium's site it's "as effective for government and not‐for‐profit organizations as it is for corporations." 

(The Balanced Scorecard Hall of Fame Award honors organizations that have achieved dramatic performance outcomes through through the use of the Balanced Scorecard. 2012 honorees include two US nonprofits -- Blue Ridge Electric Membership Corporation and Catholic Charities Archdiocese of Boston, Inc. See below for more.*) 

XPP is powerful, complete, and highly engineered. A criticism of it may be that it's not the simplest thing to implement, that it may require "dozens of measures, a data system, and a complex set of processes to get going."

SO:

As an alternative...

The Bridgespan Group specializes in driving nonprofit performance and offers a comprehensive approach of its own for linking an organization's mission with its programmatic activities. Its (approach) may be more accessible/ less intimidating/ easier to implement. "What are one or two things you could look at in a more methodical way to know whether your programs are working and how they could get better?" is the kind of low-key question they'd ask for starters.

While I haven't studied it in depth, I know Bridgespan's approach is similar to Kaplan-Norton's in that it's fundamentally the SCIENTIFIC METHOD applied to performance management and improvement. It's classic, closed-loop, quality control thinking applied to the whole organization, a structured way to continually learn and zero in on an organization's key goals.

As they put it:

As an organization’s leaders get increasingly clear about the results they aspire to achieve, and about what they need to do to achieve those results [DEFINE], they are better able to figure out what information will tell them how they’re doing [MEASURE], understand what works and what doesn’t [LEARN], and explicitly apply what they’ve learned to better their results [IMPROVE]. 

I like their overriding emphasis on learning, and on thinking of performance management & measurement as a tool for improving an organization's ability to meet its mission. To read about their five lessons for hopping on the performance management "lifecycle," go here: Measurement as Learning. 

CLOSING

Bridgespan, Kaplan-Norton, and other consultancies make strong cases for embracing performance management. (Several case studies are available at their respective sites.) Without it, how do you really know if you're making a difference? How can you improve your offerings and be accountable if you don't measure?

*From Palladium's site: 

The social services arm of the Archdiocese of Boston works to improve the lives of the poor. In 2008 CCAB implemented a Balanced Scorecard program in response to declining donations. Employees now focus on activities that are most impactful on the lives of their customers. By 2012 they moved from a budget deficit to a surplus, the number of people receiving food grew by 34%, and they are perceived by parents as one of the best daycare providers in the area.

ROUND ONE: Could You Please Be More Specific? (Part B)

The confluence of financially-driven managerial criteria, combined with the progressive era’s lasting focus on measurable impact, has led to a growing instrumental orientation for the nonprofit sector.

I've been drawn to recent work done by Stanford PACS (Center on Philanthropy and Civil Society) focusing on language use in the nonprofit sector. Researchers there have determined, among other things, that managerial and scientific discourse has heavily influenced nonprofits and that an "interlanguage" (made up of 24 familiar words) has emerged that "spans the boundaries between the domains of civil society, scientific-research, and management." Said interlanguage is being used by all contributors and appears to be playing a role in connecting the three communities. It's also an indication, they say, that nonprofits are thinking more about managing for results.

This is part of a bigger project undertaken by Woody Powell and his team on metrics and evaluation in the nonprofit sector. (something I came across while thinking about orienting our CP orgs more in the managing-for-outcomes direction) Their goals are "to understand who is responsible for producing or creating different evaluation frameworks and metrics, who is responsible for proselytizing or carrying them to different places, and who is adopting or consuming them." I'll try to keep an eye out for and report on any potentially useful info that comes of it. 

The language an organization uses on its public web site -- subject matter of the above study -- reflects its intentional portrayal of itself. Such portrayals have been my only real windows into the thinking going on inside (what I think of as) the "CP industry." My "A Tale of Two Hope Machines" series of posts is based entirely on UCP's self-representations at www.ucp.org.* 

I haven't gone so far as to do a rigorous, PACS-style search for "evaluative" language at our other CP nonprofits' sites to get a sense of how important performance -- and measuring it -- are. I'm sure, though, I'd find some interlanguage in use. As for references more specifically to numbers, targets, performance goals, etc., here's what I see at a glance: 

• Some statistics, some facts and figures. As a result of visiting Let's Cure CP for the first time, for example, I just learned that: 1 in 3 children with CP cannot walk; 1 in 4 cannot feed themselves; 1 in 4 cannot dress themselves. And "The average medical lifetime cost for a person with CP is over one million dollars."

• Other signs of outcome-focused thinking. Reaching for the Stars lists some its specific achievements on its overview page. Example: "Through federal advocacy efforts, secured Congressional appropriations language committing to line item federal funding of Cerebral Palsy research in the 2013 budget."

We do seem to be becoming more results driven. But it's still not generally a strong point of emphasis; it's not a dominant trait. I'm of the impression that there's room for growth. Or, at least, that there may be opportunities for us to improve -- faster -- by experimenting with what in the business world are often called strategy execution or "performance management" approaches.

More "meat" with regard to using those to achieve breakthrough results in Part C.

*I've written specifically about UCP's language use on multiple occasions. In this post, for example, I zero in on its use of the word "hope": A Tale of Two Hope Machines, 3.0.

ROUND ONE: Could You Please Be More Specific? (Part A)

Round one of "the fight to end all fights vs. CP" as I've framed it began on June 1st. If it goes the distance, i.e., if neither side gets its block knocked off, it'll end on May 31st, 2014. We're now twenty-one (21) days in. That's over three-fifths (3/5) of the first round. And five (5) percent of a whole year.

Time is whizzing by.

Coming from the business side of things, as I do -- where performance and numbers and measurable results are everything -- naturally I'm going to be keeping an eye on the calendar. It's my job...

Isn't it? 

*  *  *  *  *

Last fall I spent some time looking into the big ideas upon which UCP (United Cerebral Palsy) is founded. When it came to dissecting the org's vision statement, I was mildly surprised that I was unable to find references to specific stretch goals or time horizons. Don't get me wrong -- "Life Without Limits" is a wonderful aspiration. Please sign us up. We'll take two. But it's not by itself very conducive to being carried out, i.e., executed.

My "KO CP" is of the same ilk. 

Going forward with it, however, my inclination will be to: 

• label it (is that my mission or my vision?) 

• think of it in project or change management terms 

• translate strategic choices into operational programs, and 

• shoot for specific targets along the way. 

I'm hip to several tools, methodologies, and best practice frameworks that are available to help me do those things; I'm just now starting to think about which ones to use.

In the meantime, a still very general way of expressing what I hope to accomplish is: I want to make the CP landscape look brighter than it otherwise would if I'd choose to sit on my hands and do nothing the next eleven-plus months. 

This begs all sorts of questions -- not only of me, but also of the leaders of our "CP industry" organizations. For example, if it's my intention to help them take their games up a notch and do more, I need to have a sense of what they're already on track to accomplish. (How else could I gauge my impact?) I wonder: Are they focused enough on outcomes themselves to have realistic views of how things might look come next June?*

I'm not sure. I'd like to suggest, though, that a more methodical, results-driven approach might help in that regard -- and in others. (Here I'm thinking of all orgs involved in fighting CP, but especially of our nonprofit advocacy, support, and research organizations.) There's compelling evidence to back me up. I'd like to inch closer to some of it...

Next.

*Sure would be interesting to know their forecasts and how they intend to judge whether or not it's been a successful year.

ROUND ONE: It's About Time. And Space.

As far as goals go, "Knock Out CP" is a whopper. It's also about as vague as can be. But you have to start somewhere, and, recalling (as I hardly ever do) the Austrian economist and philosopher Ludwig Von Mises, at least it's ACTIONABLE in that it meets these conditions for human action. There's:

1. a sense of dissatisfaction with the way things are; 
2. an image of a better, more suitable set of conditions; 
3. the expectation that purposeful action will make a difference.

Human Action: A Treatise on Economics was published in 1949. Coincidentally, that's the same year United Cerebral Palsy (UCP) was born as a national organization -- from humble beginnings; thanks to the efforts of families dissatisfied with their lack of options and wanting to dramatically improve the quality of life for children with CP. Today there are many more and many different types of organizations, worldwide, driven by similar missions. 

They'd all like to see CP go down for the count.

Generally speaking, each is in one way or another pursuing CHANGE for the better. Implicit are the notions that (a) work has to be done to produce change, and (b) work takes time. Time is a dimension of all change.

My own particular time-sense tells that progress is being made on the CP front, but at a SNAIL'S PACE. I feel impatient. So much so that I can't wait for the Big Summer CP Conference or the next Global Get-Together. (both nonspecified) It'll take light years for the President's BRAIN initiative to get funded and bear fruit. 

I want change to happen faster, i.e., in a much shorter amount of time.

Of course, my perceptions are colored by what I want for my daughter. I want her to thrive. I want her to exult. I want her to feel better. I want her to laugh more. I want her to be able to more fully participate...

PRONTO.

*  *  *  *  *

Expressing the changes we want to see on a personal, human scale makes them more understandable; it's where the focus properly belongs. Along those lines, I believe it's our responsibility as parents to keep our perspectives, needs, and senses of urgency front and center. The goal should be to "pull" helpful goods and services to our kids, and that's the way to start. 

We need to get the various provider organizations out there moving in tune with us.

*  *  *  *  *

I'm inspired: by the enterprise and energy, by the research findings, by the roadmaps and visions. But I've also been around the block some. 

Take the inspiring visions: 

One problem with them is that they're COARSE-GRAINED. In other words, they "identify some factors of interest but ignore many details in the process." (David K. Hurst) Even relatively simpler, standalone projects typically take longer than plans anticipate (doesn't this ring true in your experience?) due to unforeseen issues on the ground, and --

Our CP-related projects-to-come aren't likely to be simple. They won't even be complicated, in the ways, say, construction or IT projects often are. They'll continue to be complex. They'll entail lots of uncertainty. Stem cell research looks promising, for example, but it may be many years before we know whether or not transplantation is even safe.*

SO WHAT? 

We're probably way underestimating the amount of ground we need to cover, i.e., the distance or space we still need to traverse. (Space is another dimension of all change.) That means we should be doing a heck of a lot more work now. There's a Planetary Powwow scheduled for 2014? We need to move it up. Can we acclerate the planning phase? Can we get crackin' in advance on the work that's likely to follow? Can we make the need to meet...moot?

These are management matters. 

I personally want to see CP knocked for a loop within one (1) calendar year. Attaching that timeframe to it is my attempt to influence, i.e., manage, things in that direction. (Whether or not it's a smart attempt remains to be seen.) It's also SPECIFIC. 

Conjecturing, on the other hand, that there's "lots and lots of work to be done" is UN-SPECIFIC. What work? How much? What are the resource requirements? Our answers to questions like these will determine the kinds of results we get.

Can leading management thinkers help in all of this? 

I hope so.

*To say nothing of what Wendell Berry wrote -- something I always keep in mind: “We live in a world famous for its ability both to surprise us and to deceive us.” 

PRE-FIGHT: Let's Glove Up

Here's how my pea brain's mind's eye sees things:

ON ONE HAND

We have various organizations and institutions, for and not for profit, that are committed to fighting the Cerebral Palsy fight and improving outcomes as they relate to CP. 

To me, they look to be doing bang-up jobs: pounding away at key challenges and opportunities; landing their share of punches. Becoming...thanks largely to advances in fields like genetics and robotics and brain science...encouraged and emboldened -- even to the point of believing that theirs-and-ours is a winnable battle. Even in the previously inconceivable sense that CP will someday be both preventable and curable. 

I'm excited along with them. 

I'd be a lot more excited if I knew that their various visions were about to be realized, say, this week. Even a year from now would be a more than acceptable time frame. 

Unrealistic? Could never happen? 

Maybe. 

Who's really to say? 

At a bare minimum, I don't think it's too overly whacky to suggest that big things could conceivably happen in the CP arena sooner rather than later and that, furthermore, we all ought to open our minds' eyes -- wider than they are now -- to what's possible. 

ON THE OTHER HAND

Over the past few years, I've immersed myself in enough management writing to have at least a feel for who the more influential thinkers are and what they're thinking about. What interests me most is their work on helping organizations get smarter and better, faster. (much of which is intimately tied to disruptive technologies like cloud computing, social media, mobile, and big data)

How're they doing? 

They're figuring things out. They're making discoveries. They're experiencing some wins. 

Many of them are fired up about what's possible, too. 

I'D LIKE TO RECOMMEND

We in the CP sphere should take greater advantage of what those management gurus -- those business brainiacs -- have to offer. 

Why's that?

Because CP has been kicking our butts. 

No offense to any one individual or CP organization, but -- we need help. All the help we can get. Why fight with one hand tied behind our back if we don't have to?

The good news is that the products of those folks' energies and efforts are more widely and readily available than ever before. They're there for the taking. So, too, are the opportunities for making personal connections. Accessing them, and attracting them to us and our "defeat CP" cause, should be straightforward.

We'll have to strive as a group, however, to become more:

1. OPEN

At the risk of exposing my own biases and nincompoopery, I am (via this post and this blog) putting myself out there in hopes that someone will come along and help me become a better / smarter CP fighter. Our orgs need to follow suit. To "get back," we need to give. We need to offer up our challenges and opportunities, our responses and results -- the whole of it -- to critical thought and commentary. 

May be worth taking under advisement:

• We should resist believing we're on the right track and therefore in no need of new and different ways of thinking or acting. The truth is, our mental models, e.g., our strategies and roadmaps and visions, are laughably small relative to the enormousness of our challenges. 

• Like CP itself, the problems we face are complex. In the words of David K. Hurst, "good questions are (often) better than good answers." Wisdom begins with an admission of ignorance. 

• A lack of funding doesn't have to slow us down. Money's just one of many resources we may acquire, mobilize, leverage, etc. 

• Keep this in mind: “There are always more smart people outside your company than within it.”* The staff at SUBWAY this month is wearing t-shirts that read "Make Us Better / Take Our Survey." If the biggest corporations are looking every which way for better ideas, we should probably be doing the same.

2. FINDABLE/ LOCATABLE 

I hope to be able to use this blogspace to make our leading CP organizations more visible to leading management thinkers -- and vice versa. My little mission is to facilitate connections. Very-best-case outcomes, to my way of thinking, would involve collaborative problem solving and co-creation activities between both sides. (both "hands") To that end, I invite participation. 

So, for example, to:

• Cynthia @ Reaching for the Stars: If you want to share your views here about what you believe it'll take to build "a foundation of hope for children with cerebral palsy"; if you want to name your pains; if you want to go public with your lengthy "things to do" list -- either directly or indirectly through me -- you're more than welcome to!! 

• John Seely Brown and John Hagel @ Deloitte Center for the Edge: You wrote in The Power of Pull (2008) about "Harnessing Pull to Change the World," and specifically about mastering pull "at the individual and institutional level to achieve much broader impact in economic and social arenas." I welcome either or both of you to use this forum to teach us how to beat CP. Feel free, in other words, to stop by and solve our problems for us!!

There's also a Twitter component to this. It'll be devoted to more of the same (as above) but revolve around a particular, pick-up-the-pace goal. 

I want things to move faster. Way, way faster than we're generally envisioning now. Using a (crude?) boxing analogy, I hope to be able to look at the next year as if it were a 12-round fight -- with an intention of knocking CP on its duff by the end. As Chief Inciter, I'll report on how the fight's progressing and do whatever I can to influence things in our favor. My tweets and interactions will be directed at the level of the organization, but anyone's more than welcome to follow along @KnockOutCP.

CLOSING

`A la Ralph Waldo Emerson, David Weinberger writes in Too Big To Know (2012): 

We thus do not yet have any good idea of what cannot be done by connected humans when working at the scale of the Net. 

We truly don't know what can or can't be accomplished. 

So...

Why not get ready to rumble?

Round one's set to start on June first.

*quote attributed to Silicon Valley icon Bill Joy (co-founder of Sun Microsystems)