Recent Updates Toggle Comment Threads | Keyboard Shortcuts

  • Eugene Chan 12:13 am on October 2, 2014 Permalink |  

    BTW, Hello Everyone. I miss you.

     
  • Eugene Chan 11:59 pm on October 1, 2014 Permalink |  

    Technical Assistance Software? 

    Hi Everyone:

    Policylink is the technical assistance provider for US Federal Program called Promise Neighborhoods/Promise Zones.

    We’re exploring how we can better collaborate internally around requests for technical assistance from the cohort of local sites, each are planning or implementing a Promise Neighborhood in the United States

    Here’s a rough list of requirements:
    • We want to be able to track technical assistance/help requests by site
    • Each request would be a case
    • There are multiple sites. Each site has a lead agency and its own partners
    • We want to track solutions or responses
    • The lead agency is responsible for a set of outcomes that are based on a set of overall competencies (fundraising, early learning, health, et.). We’d like to tag requests by the competency areas.
    • At this point, it is just PolicyLink staff that has access so no permissions and security is not an issue. We may decide that we want to have sites have access to their own TA Hub section in the future so that is a consideration.

    Does this match any existing software or web application that you are aware of?

    We are familiar with Salesforce, Zendesk, Wiki’s and Basecamp and like aspects of all three. But maybe there’s another software that you might have come across that might be something for us to consider.

     
  • Avatar photo

    Brooking 10:07 pm on April 16, 2014 Permalink |  

    Hi all – very interesting talk tonight w/ JOhn Thackara @HUB Oakland at 7 for those interested:
    “We badly need change. Change labs are springing up around the world. Mission accomplished? Not so fast. Although building prototypes is exciting, and launching a start-up is a buzz, transforming a system is something else again. Are we confusing frantic activity with the achievement of meaningful change? Does churning out start-ups address the symptoms, but not the lasting root causes, of the challenges we face?…. Can we afford a philosophy of change that undervalues time, context, and trust? ”

    Conversation to follow, moderated by David McConville, Chairman of the Buckminster Fuller Institute, about the relationship between change labs, individual agency, and system transformation.

    John Thackara is director of Doors of Perception. A writer, philosopher, and event producer, he leads workshops, and organizes festivals, at the intersection between ecological, social and societal change. He is the author of a widely read column at designobserver.com, and of the best-selling book In the Bubble: Designing In A Complex World. Check out John’s excellent talks about the informal economy, “oil-powered health”, and xschools.

    https://oakland.impacthub.net/event/change-labs-the-dance-of-the-big-and-the-small/

     
    • Eugene Eric Kim 5:59 am on April 21, 2014 Permalink | Log in to Reply

      Thanks for sharing, and sorry to miss David while he was in town. How was the talk?

    • Avatar photo

      Brooking 10:37 pm on April 22, 2014 Permalink | Log in to Reply

      It was, I’d say, mediocre. It’s such an interesting and difficult issue, & it felt they only skimmed the surface really, but not surprising for a 90 minute discussion. John’s big thing was that innovation itself is not enough – that we need to somehow engage innovators with those who can hold the longer term social & institutional change piece- ie we need to create innovation ecologies of sorts & then create a new sort of institution/long term implementation support scheme for these 10+ year efforts that many of these good ideas really take to implement. I was curious about that point – curious how we can create those sorts of redwoods (as opposed to saplings) that are still flexible & adaptive, and not just a new rigid institution…

  • Eugene Eric Kim 6:11 pm on March 29, 2014 Permalink |  

    Hi everyone,

    Two quick announcements: First, I’m still on slate for self-organized bootcamp next Monday, April 7 from 4-6pm. The plan is to be in Oakland, but I still need to find a space. More details coming soon.

    Second, I’m doing an informal Google Hangout with my friend, Dave Gray, this coming Wednesday, April 2 at 12:30pm. We’re going to be discussing Learning via Artifacts, and we’ll be using Dave’s tool, Boardthing, to take live notes. Everyone is invited to join in on the note-taking! More details at:

    http://eekim.com/blog/2014/03/learning-via-artifacts-a-conversation-with-dave-gray/

     
    • Avatar photo

      Natalie 3:05 am on April 5, 2014 Permalink | Log in to Reply

      I’ve got an all-day training that day, so if I make the bootcamp, I’ll be late. The degree of lateness will influence whether I stop by.

  • Eugene Eric Kim 5:29 pm on March 17, 2014 Permalink |  

    For those of you who don’t follow tech, there’s a huge debacle that blew up this past week around a company called Github and some very poor gender practices. Summary is here:

    GitHub Puts Co-Founder On Leave, Begins Investigation Into Discrimination Against Julie Ann Horvath

    The reason I mention it is that some of you have expressed interest in holocracy, and the Github founders had a strong interest in the topic. I roll my eyes whenever I hear this, not because I think holocracy is a bad concept (it’s not, and it’s also a very old one), but because the current groundswell of interest around it feels so naive.

    Two friends from Code for America wrote some excellent blog posts on this matter this past weekend:

    https://www.tumblr.com/cbracy/79876957198/the-github-debacle-and-why-holacracy-is-bullshit


    http://mike.teczno.com/notes/on-managers.html

    I wrote my own commentary on this several months ago:

    The Real Importance of Networks: Understanding Power

    I didn’t mention holocracy by name, but you might notice my subtle references to it in the piece.

     
  • Rebecca Petzel 4:30 pm on March 17, 2014 Permalink |
    Tags:   

    Hi Bootcampers!

    It was good to see many of you last week. Thanks for letting me join in the fun!

    I have a quick question: @brooking and I are working with a network with some pretty deep trust issues. We know that transparency in decision-making and sharing information are going to be essential in building this trust back up. In the mean-time, we were thinking of introducing the concept of “radical transparency” to help this group take a leap of faith and share more honestly and openly than they might otherwise.

    So here’s the question: Do you all have any resources on “radical transparency” that you like? I know it’s a framework that’s been percolating, but it’s not one I’ve had a need to access up until now. In this case, I think an established framework, almost a pedagogy, will help them take a leap.

    Thanks!!

     
    • Eugene Eric Kim 5:25 pm on March 17, 2014 Permalink | Log in to Reply

      What do you mean by “framework”?

      I have a blog post I started outlining several weeks ago on this topic. It’s more a series of anecdotes than a framework, but if it might be useful, I’d be happy to accelerate its publication or share the early thinking from it. I was going to get quotes from three past projects on the impact of the radical transparency: Delta Dialogues, CIA, and the international reproductive health work I did in 2008.

      How else are you addressing the trust issues in your design?

    • Rebecca 7:05 pm on March 17, 2014 Permalink | Log in to Reply

      That would be super useful Eugene! Look forward to seeing it.

      By “framework” I mean a tried approach, a structure to help move people through certain work. I don’t really need a “framework” (we have lots of those), but more of a succinct description of the theory, what a radical transparency approach looks like, and why it’s important.

      One of the simple things we’re working on is a decision-making dashboard where we track all the decisions that need to be made, and how they’re being made.

      We’re also investing a lot of time up-front in uncovering motivations so people aren’t making assumptions around what’s in it for others. But this is part of where having some accessible, brief writing on the importance of radical transparency would be useful: time spent on this work is time not spent on other things. It’s different than what they’ve done in other coalitions. They’re bought in mostly, but pointing to the value of slowing down and working transparently in order to go fast later would be helpful.

      Thanks Eugene!

      • Eugene Eric Kim 8:59 pm on March 17, 2014 Permalink | Log in to Reply

        Okay, I’ll flesh out my thinking and share it with you tomorrow. If I get responses back from folks early enough, it’ll be a Thursday blog post.

        I’ll also share some stuff with you on DRIs (Directly Responsible Individuals), a model used at Apple, Square, and Asana (which I may have shared with you before at some point), and a very rudimentary dashboard that I’ve been using with PostCode (as part of my Code for America experiment).

        The network mindset stuff I’m doing with Garfield may also help you guys with these trust challenges. We put in a tremendous amount of up-front time pre-screening for the right mindsets with our Design Team, and we’ve still run into challenges. Happy to share more if you’d like.

        • Rebecca 9:02 pm on March 17, 2014 Permalink | Log in to Reply

          Thanks Eugene! And I’d love to hear more about screening for the right mindsets on the design-team! I think screening and criteria are valuable; and we’re trying to figure out how to do those without perpetuating old decision-making / power patterns. I think clarity and transparency around what you’re screening for is a key piece, but it would be great to hear more about your approach to this.

  • Eugene Eric Kim 5:46 am on March 12, 2014 Permalink |  

    I loved yesterday’s bootcamp. I was so happy to see so many of you there, although I missed @anna341bc and @lauren. @marie and @eugenechan, you guys did a great job designing and facilitating, and I liked how you co-facilitated. Would love to see more of that! And @brooking, enjoyed our pair conversations!

    I’ve been sitting on, “I matter,” and the more I think about it, the more I like it as a proxy for thinking about aliveness (with @rapetzel’s objection noted).

    Finally, to whomever took pictures of the action, thank you! Was glad to have them, and I even snuck in on a few. I’m assuming it was @eugenechan, but don’t want to make any assumptions! There aren’t any whiteboard pictures there, as I didn’t get them all. Eugene, feel free to upload them to the Google Drive folder, and I can supplement if I have better versions.

    Thanks again! I’ll email everyone about April and beyond.

     
    • Eugene Chan 6:27 am on March 12, 2014 Permalink | Log in to Reply

      Thanks @eekim. It was a treat to get to work with @marie.

      It’s also quite amazing to watch people with high meeting IQs interact in a personal environment. Lots of interplay, some collaborative, some supportive, some dissentive, but all in the spirit of learning. I was fascinated and impressed.

      I thought that checkins would go way longer than it did. I wonder if was because the group wasn’t as familiar with each other that checkins were shorter.

      I did take the pictures as you guessed.

    • Avatar photo

      Natalie 6:45 pm on March 12, 2014 Permalink | Log in to Reply

      Thanks, Eugene & Eugene & Marie. Even when I’m being crotchety, I’m still learning. 🙂

  • Eugene Chan 3:15 am on March 11, 2014 Permalink |  

    In the spirit of today’s discussion–being alive can mean doing something that’s very scary and then succeeding!

     
    • Eugene Eric Kim 5:41 am on March 12, 2014 Permalink | Log in to Reply

      This was kind of an extraordinary video. Go Pro making the world a better place! Do you know this person?

  • Jessica 7:15 pm on March 9, 2014 Permalink |  

    Hi bootcampers,

    I just came across this new report on e-learning: http://leapofreason.org/e-learning-report/ — it’s all about how learning has changed and should continue to change moving forward, with recommendations on what e-learning providers might need to do differently.

    As some of you may know, I’m considering going back to graduate school (vs. learning by doing or taking supplementary online courses), and thought this report was both well-informed and timely.

    Enjoy,

    Jess

     
    • Eugene Chan 9:20 pm on March 10, 2014 Permalink | Log in to Reply

      Interesting and thanks for posting! Would love to do a whole session on how networks have changed learning (not just e-learning). I didn’t have time to read the full report. What are your takeaways and how might it relate to you future work? (Is e-learning the method by which you are thinking of graduate school or a potential area of study for graduate work)?

    • Eugene Chan 9:25 pm on March 10, 2014 Permalink | Log in to Reply

      As a parent of a 6th grader, it’s also been fascinating to see how online learning is impacting traditional K-8. I think EEK and I have both referenced Carol Dweck and her research on “growth” vs. “fixed” mindsets for learning. http://mindsetonline.com/

      Also the impact of Khan Academy and the flipped funnel approach to subjects like math and science. Some schools are assigning Khan Academy and other online learning systems as the introduction to a subject and then have the teacher work with students to review their understanding. The idea is that it provides more individualized analysis rather than rote lecturing.

  • marie 6:39 pm on February 26, 2014 Permalink |  

    SSIR Article 

    Read this article yesterday and thought I’d share it in case some of you may not have seen it.  It really validates a lot of what Changemaker Bootcamp is all about.  Looking forward to seeing you all soon!

     

    http://www.ssireview.org/articles/entry/moments_of_impact_how_to_design_strategic_conversations_that_accelerate_cha

     
    • Jessica 11:07 pm on February 26, 2014 Permalink | Log in to Reply

      Marie, too funny. I was just drafting up an email to changemakers about the same book, which was written by a colleague of mine. I will bring it to our next bootcamp. The best part of the book? The helpful toolkit at the end of it!

      Also, @eekim –>Ertel and Solomon landed on a venn diagram of STRATEGY + DESIGN + CONVERSATION… Just reminded me of the some of the concepts you’ve been thinking about related to collaborative learning. They also speak our language re: the importance of PRACTICE for creating successful strategic conversations.

      Jess

    • Eugene Eric Kim 6:40 am on February 28, 2014 Permalink | Log in to Reply

      +1 for sharing, @marie! Love seeing you active here! 🙂

      @jessausinheiler, were you at the book launch last night? I RSVPed, but ended up having to work, so couldn’t make it.

      I haven’t read the book yet, but it’s obviously very relevant to the notion of generative questions. If it’s good, it’s something we should add to our resources page. Jess, what do you think of the book? Chris and Lisa interviewed my former business partner as a source for their work.

    • Jessica 7:10 pm on March 9, 2014 Permalink | Log in to Reply

      Eugene, I think the book is phenomenal. It highlights convenings as something that exists at the intersection of design, strategy, and conversations. It offers a fluid 5-step process for convening design (define your purpose, engage multiple perspectives, frame the issues, set the scene, make it an experience). It offers tips for each step, AND really useful practical advise for each. And it includes a toolkit at the end of the book. I will definitely use it in my work moving forward.

      As an FYI, I’m organizing a book club discussion on Moments of Impact at work in which several volunteers read a portion of the book and then present the framework, what they found to be useful, and questions they had (and of course in which the whole group discusses how the concepts and messages present in the book compare to current practice, and might be relevant to their work.)

      Given the purpose of our bootcamp, I think it would be a great idea to discuss this book as a group at our next bootcamp. I can volunteer to organize… But let’s discuss tomorrow!

    • marie 5:46 am on March 12, 2014 Permalink | Log in to Reply

      I love the idea of discussing this at one of our Bootcamps, @jessausinheiler! Maybe for May?

      • Eugene Eric Kim 12:45 am on March 13, 2014 Permalink | Log in to Reply

        You just need to claim it! 🙂

        And let me echo previous sentiments: So fun to see you engage more here, @marie!

c
Compose new post
j
Next post/Next comment
k
Previous post/Previous comment
r
Reply
e
Edit
o
Show/Hide comments
t
Go to top
l
Go to login
h
Show/Hide help
shift + esc
Cancel