I know that the title reminds McLuhan and others- older even than me (at least, considering my biological age).
Anyway, often I see a misalignment between the channels available- and their use.
Everybody keeps talking and writing about 2.0 this and 2.0 that: and, often, it is just a way to find new customers for old products.
But, when it comes to consumers, I think that we are on 3.0.
The first version was the passive consumer who is on the receiving end of structured communication to “push” products and services, while 2.0 was the consumer interacting with the market through organizations, consumer associations, and the like.
As it befits a rainy Sunday, a short online article about being online.
But, as this month the main line of articles (”Change2010″) is built around the “patterns” theme, I will shift the focus from just being online, to… being online, i.e. from the status of being on the online systems, to the choice of how to be there.
So, where should I start? Identity only is a “fluid” concept- almost anybody I know has multiple identity.
I had the chance to observe organizations and communities since quite an early age, and something was really fascinating.
When organizations expand, often it is assumed that the “culture” of the original entity will spread to all its parts- as if the center were the heart, and the parts (branches, subsidiaries, etc) were limbs of the same body.
An anthropocentric view of organizational development.
In this article, a small framework to observe, analyze, and ensure that your organization complies with the same professional and ethical standards throughout.
Over the last two weeks I was able to observe cross-cultural communication without moving more than few km from my place.
And I will never cease to be surprised at one of the few absolutes that still linger inside the mind of even the most open-minded people.
Language.
When we communicate, we do not just listen- our brain tries to anticipate, by using the patterns that we know.
With a foreign interlocutor, the risk is that our brain “puts the coach in front of the horses”- and infers a conclusion where none if forthcoming.
Our natural instinct to predict becomes a damage to our effective communication.
Whenever I was working on a project, I was always puzzled by the look I got when I asked about communication policy.
In most cases, communication is considered “embedded” in the activities- hence, no need whatsoever to plan or set guidelines.
This is a short article (1000 words is the limit), summarizing some suggestions that I keep sharing since late 1980s, when I was working everyday in a different project/site.
This part of the AGB2009 series (see the presentation)
AGB2009: science and the nation state
BACKGROUND
The relationship between power and scientific inquiry has never been easy.
ABSTRACT
Science is not built in a vacuum. Despite what some scientists say, usually after mingling with the losing side in a war, the “political neutrality” of science has never been proved.
Can science be national? What is the real difference between basic and applied research? How do you communicate and control science in a democratic world?
BIBLIOGRAPHY
The bibliography spans across few decades
If you read this blog once in a while, you probably remember the announce that I posted on 2009-04-22: “Social Networking: First Book
At the time, I added only the link to the printed version.
This article is really what I could call a “meta-article”: an article about articles.
With links and references not just to material published in this blog, but also material that I published elsewhere, and bibliographical references.
There are few things as contentious as planning estimates.
And controlling and managing change.
And checking its progress.
But is it not simply a matter of number crunching.