The Problem of Power

Since humanity began its odyssey out of Central Africa millennia ago, hierarchy is the only consistently adopted structure for distributing power within a social system. This structure holds intact the social system in which it exists. To do so, it exercises three roles:

Define “boundaries” – territorial, birthright, and behavioral – that determine who’s in and who’s out
Provide security that protects the boundaries, preserves the lineage, and maintains the behavioral guidelines
Respond to changing circumstances so that the primary social system persists

Hierarchy is easy to install since it begins when one person assumes a dominate position relative to another. It is efficient. The dominant one sets the boundary conditions and subordinates operate within them. When coupled with fear of consequence if one does not stay within the boundaries and the promise of reward if one meets or exceeds expectations the vast majority of members comply with the dictates of the hierarchical social system.

Members of hierarchical social systems participate in governance, free enterprise, and non-governmental affiliations. The rulers set the parameters in which members operate so that government has the resources to assure security, enact rules of conduct, ownership, and commerce, and provide a system of jurisprudence in the event that members do not follow the rules or violate the rights of members. Property owners, business owners, and those who contribute their skills, time, and energy are compensated, pay some percentage of their profit and income to government so that it can function, and voluntarily give to community-based organizations that benefit the commonweal and care for those who cannot contribute. It is a system of cooperation, choice, and commitment that is simple and elegant.

Hierarchy is a structural “tool” for managing social systems. It is the integral framework upon which all institutions – governmental, business, or non-governmental / not-for-profit – are built. As such, it becomes a common denominator that cuts across society in all its endeavors. Like any tool, it is neither good nor evil. How people use hierarchical structure within their institutions and throughout their social system is what imbues it with certain characteristics of morality, ethics, and fairness and places it on a continuum of social justice ranging from barely evident on one end to being a matter of course on the other.

The driving force that shifts a social system along the scale of social justice is the use, or abuse, of power. Hierarchical social systems concentrate power in the hands of a minority number among the overall population. As Lord Acton stated, “Power tends to corrupt, and absolute power corrupts absolutely.” In other words, when holding a dominant position, some are seduced by the power they have over others. This prompts them to do the following:

Stay in their positions of power
Keep the hierarchical social system intact so that the positions of power they hold are preserved
Curtail affiliation among those who are disenfranchised by the system so that the threat of insurrection is quelled.

Basically, people who are so affected are drawn by the possibility of extracting even more profit or garnering more control. They limit choices for subordinates and force compliance to rules and conditions that are not beneficial to members. In addition, they attempt to keep the system as it is so that their gain is consolidated and ideally, continues to grow.

As an example, approximately 50% of the world’s population earns less than $2 / day per capita through subsistence agriculture. The hope of a higher quality of life is dashed each day eking out an existence under the harshest of circumstances. Leadership in these countries is averse to mechanize and modernize agriculture because those displaced would venture to cities in an effort to find work. This would overburden the already congested and over-stressed infrastructures in these urban areas elevating discontent and unrest. Better to keep people where they are so they are contained having to care for themselves. Meanwhile, the economies grow and the top echelons gain wealth.

Another example: according to an article in The Open AIDS Journal entitled, “HIV Infection and AIDS in Sub-Saharan AfricaUNAIDS report,” Sub-Saharan Africa is home to 70% of all people afflicted with HIV in the world. This area holds some of the world’s richest natural resources, yet the population is in grave peril, health-wise, including leaders. In fact, that is the point. The world has known about AIDS / HIV in Africa for nearly 30 years and has only in the last five mobilized efforts to do something. All indications suggest it is too little, too late. Millions have died from AIDS already and millions more will do so over the next two generations as the endemic unfolds. Sub-Saharan governments are rendered ineffective due to a lack of competent, experienced leadership, citizens are not able to care or fend for themselves, economies slow their growth, and property ownership and control shifts to foreigners. Colonies once lost due to revolution are reclaimed – without firing a shot.

As yet another example, consider genocide. In his 1994 book, Death by Government: Genocide and Mass Murder since 1900, author R.J. Rummel defined and documented “democide,” e.g., atrocities committed by governments on their citizens. Of the nearly 170 million who died at the hand of their governments during the 20th Century, 130 million, over 75%, were victims of four regimes: Soviet, Communist Chinese, German, and Nationalist Chinese. This does not include Rwanda in 1994. And genocide continues as the people from Darfur have borne witness every day this year. A weakened population becomes weaker. Those who hold the most power in the world act as though they are powerless as these horrific injustices go unchecked. The reality is there is nothing to be gained by intervening and much that could be lost if circumstances go awry. The people of Darfur, like the millions before them, are collateral damage in an economic power struggle of global proportions.

In his unsettling essay, “Waiting for the Lights to Go Out ,” published in the October 16, 2005 edition of The London Times, Bryan Appleyard posits a rather grim future wherein civilization is doomed to return once again to the Dark Ages. The central theme of his essay is the meltdown of society as we know it due to our insatiable addiction to oil, the inevitable depletion of oil reserves, and our woefully inadequate and untimely response to that eventuality. At the heart of his thesis is that human nature has not progressed very far since we began our migrations throughout the world from our African origins. Appleyard states, “Our aggressive, tribal nature is hard-wired, unreformed and unreformable. Individually we are animals and, as animals, incapable of progress. The trick is to cage these animal natures in effective institutions: education, the law, government. But these can go wrong.” Not particularly encouraging!

Rulers enact laws that are increasingly restrictive, militaristic, and draconian or become arbitrary in their decisions. Owners pull more profit, become more risk averse, and offer fewer benefits. Having less voice and impact, non-governmental organizations become more fanatical and close-minded; their ratios of administrative overhead to pay-out increase, and beneficiaries receive less real assistance.

In summary, the thirst for power and the specter of losing it becomes a corruptive force that undermines the fundamental tenets of a system that is given to efficiency and effectiveness if used honorably. People suffer for lack of true justice. Is there any way institutions, no matter how well-intended, can escape the slippery slope into corruption and injustice? Or is this simply the dark underbelly of hierarchy which must be accepted until people have more distance in time from their early violent struggle for survival as Homo sapiens? What is your opinion?

Originally posted to New Media Explorer by Steve Bosserman on Monday, December 12, 2005

Pareto and the Pyramid of Power

The year 2006 marks 100 years since Vilfredo Pareto noted that 20% of the population owned 80% of the property in Italy. This conclusion combined with the analysis methods that support it led to the formulation of the “Pareto Principle.”

The tools and techniques associated with this principle have widespread application in circumstances where a small subset of one category causes a significant effect within a large subset of another category. During his work with industry, Dr. Joseph Juran coined the phrase, “the vital few and trivial many,” to describe the effect of the Pareto Principle in the business setting. For example, a company has a staff of ten sales representatives. Of the ten, the three highest performers generate 60% of the sales made during a reporting period, the five middling performers bring in 35%, and the two lowest performers contribute only 5%. Armed with this information, responses can be developed that are tailored differently for each of the three groups in an effort to increase overall sales performance for the least investment or cost. Another example is in a set of 100 manufacturing operations where the overall defect rate is .1%. There are 10 operations that cause 90% of the defects. Addressing those 10 are going to have a much more positive effect on the performance of the whole than focusing attention on combinations of the remaining 90 operations. Like most rules of thumb, the Pareto Principle can be misused; but in general it helps prioritize activities, separate the important from the pesky, and focus limited energy on the items that are going to make the most difference.

The Pareto Principle had it birth in economics, a social science. Given this background, there is another application for the Pareto Principle that covers additional ground. When this basic postulation – a small percentage of the population owns a large percentage of the property – is bracketed by two corollaries – a small percentage of the population enacts and enforces a large percentage of the rules that govern the behavior of the overall system and a small percentage of the population receives a large percentage of the compensation awarded by the total system – the resulting triad describes a fundamental truth about social systems: a small percentage of the population controls a larger percentage of the power within the whole system.

The exercise of power in a social system establishes an individual or group in a dominate role and subordinates the larger population of individuals or groups within that system. The population size can range from two – one person in relationship with another as in a marriage – to one over millions as in a country ruled by dictatorship. Regardless of population size, structure is required to maintain a requisite level of control over myriad dominate-subordinate relationships in the system so that the system persists. This structure is hierarchy.

Hierarchical social systems impact the people within them in three key ways:

Each person belonging to a hierarchical social system has hierarchical relationships with all others in that system
Each person has concurrent membership in multiple hierarchical social systems and can hold positions at different levels from one hierarchical social system to the other
All hierarchical social systems concentrate power in the hands of a select few.

The universal symbol for a hierarchical structure is the triangle. Authority is held at the top, then distributed in varying degrees, level by level from the top to the bottom. However, a more appropriate geometric symbol for a social system is a three-sided pyramid (reference image below). One side of the pyramid is the hierarchical structure of governance. People participate in governance by making / changing the rules, enforcing the rules, and obeying the rules. Of course, there are always those who choose not to obey the rules. They are subject to some consequence levied by those who enforce the rules in the interest of what is called justice. The net result is that only a few operate at the top of the governance triangle to set and manage the rules while the clear majority obeys.

Another side of the pyramid is free enterprise. People participate by doing work that adds value for which they are compensated. They exchange that compensation for other goods and services they need and want. Wrapped up in free enterprise are concepts of property and ownership, money and capital, business and entrepreneurship, markets and customers. Wealth, in the form of assets, rests in the hands of a few.

The third side of the pyramid is affiliation. People participate by joining different groups and organizations which represent shared beliefs and ideals, customs and traditions, principles and values. These groups carry out activities that promote “causes” shaped by their worldviews. They provide forums for members to have voice and presence concerning their perspectives and interests. Those having the greatest access and influence are those who have the highest positions in the hierarchies of these organizations and represent the strength in numbers or vantage point of their memberships.

These three arenas: governance, free enterprise, and affiliation define the landscape in which organized human endeavor is conceived and carried out. The pyramid they form is a pyramid of power that develops and deploys human intelligence, energy, and skill to build, adapt, and sustain civilizations. While the three are vitally important as standalone systems, the interrelationships among them determine the effectiveness and efficiency of the whole. People vote for their leaders in governance. People make and buy based on supply and demand. People form non-governmental organizations to give body and shape to their views and interests. People derive power from the pyramid in unequal portions from the three triangles but regardless of the combination, the power they get is sufficient to stay in the system and work together so that the system persists.

Originally posted to New Media Explorer by Steve Bosserman on Saturday, December 10, 2005

Keeping the Beat with Jump Rhythm Jazz Project

My association with Jump Rhythm Jazz Project (JRJP) extends to early 1998 when Billy Siegenfeld and a cadre of JRJP dancers performed in Lakeway, TX at a Leadership for INstitutional Change (LINC) workshop sponsored by the W.K. Kellogg Foundation¹. The purpose of their performance was three-fold. First, make rhythm and dance integral in the design of the leadership workshop as an appeal to the auditory-musical and bodily-kinesthetic intelligences of attendees, à la Howard Gardner and his theory of multiple intelligences. Second, act as a disruptive force among attendees and prompt them to consider a different line of thinking about leadership – followership and changing roles and responsibilities within a dynamic community. Third, provide a divertissement that would be engaging and entertaining.

The JRJP performance and subsequent question and answer period exceeded all expectations. Those who were intellectually (and physically!) asleep came to life. Those who had difficulties crossing the boundary separating their realities and the views of reality imposed by the dominant culture found a bridge. Those who believed that the most effective leadership was one that exercised control and focused choices were introduced to an open, participatory alternative that obviously worked. To this day, attendees at this workshop comment on the powerful effect JRJP had on them – it was transformational.

At the heart of JRJP is rhythm – the beat. Organized human endeavor is a pattern of communication or sustained conversation through which people give voice to what is important to them, achieve understanding, reach agreement, and garner commitment. Patterns, even conversational ones, have rhythm and voice – who is in what conversation about which topic. Changing an individual or an organization means changing conversations. Effective leaders change rhythm patterns to change conversations; over time, the people within the organization, and eventually the organization itself, change.

Because dance plays heavily on certain dimensions of human intelligence, it is a medium through which societal problems are addressed and different responses considered. A great dance presents a problem or situation for the audience to consider that is within their realm of experience and influence – a type of Theater for the Oppressed as conceived by Augusto Boal only in the form of dance and music. Through these the audience is invited to join the dancers in deliberating on social issues and exploring alternative approaches (recent examples in the JRJP repertoire include “Sorrows of Unison Dancing” and “The New from Poems”).

Building on rhythm and voice, JRJP displays a choreographic technique and musical score that is approachable and familiar. The dancers and the dance are engaging and invite participation by the audience. It is democratic in its purest sense. Democracy, though, carries certain responsibilities. As an organization, JRJP was forced to learn about these democratic principles in the context of its own behavior so that what was demonstrated in the performances was a true reflection of its own experience. The more that JRJP has found this touch point in itself the more engaging it has become with audiences worldwide. But getting there was not simple!

In July 2003, JRJP board members, staff, dancers, and close friends participated in a series of moderated conversations at a planning retreat. The intention was to drill down into what it meant to be members of JRJP and what JRJP needed to do to sustain itself into the future. The outcome of the retreat was the realization of three key points: first, JRJP was a great experience for most, but not all – surprisingly, Billy being the one experiencing the least joy; second, participating in the good things that JRJP had to offer was not associated with a commensurate level of shared responsibility – some, like Billy, had far more to do than others causing him to feel overwhelmed and living a life out of balance; and third, JRJP was heavily dependent on Billy; if he stopped doing what he did JRJP was at grave risk – sustainability was in question. This realization led to several actions including seating an Executive Director so that Billy could focus on being the Artistic Director, expanding the board membership to get more outreach to funders and supporters, defining and strengthening staff positions for distribution of operations among qualified personnel who were adequately paid for their work, and locating a home for JRJP somewhere other than Billy’s condo. These are done. And the level of performance for JRJP reflects this success!

But JRJP is not done. On June 4, 2006 there will be a second retreat. The purpose of this retreat is to make explicit what the company has accomplished, why it was able to do that, how it does what it does, and what that learning means for future activities. While many have experienced the recent changes in JRJP, several are not aware of why those changes happened and their significance for the future. The exercise of participatory democracy as a governing principle rather than hierarchical dictatorship speaks to an effective leadership – followership model. Showing others how to do this through the medium of rhythm, dance, and music is a significant deliverable JRJP can add to its repertoire.

To do this will require touching these past experiences, giving them voice, and building a confidence in moving them forward for others to learn. A different language will need to be developed that recasts what seems to be the same in the eyes of the uninitiated so that they have a very different understanding of what is going on. It is storytelling of the highest order. Between now and the retreat time and energy will be devoted to telling the JRJP story – both what has happened and the dreams for the future. By the time the retreat draws nigh, there will be a lexicon of terms and phrases incorporated into stories of vision and mission and proposals to funders that broaden the sense of what JRJP is up to for the next 5 years. It is a process of bringing the future into the present and giving it voice. JRJP will persist but will not be the same!

Originally posted to New Media Explorer by Steve Bosserman on Monday, December 5, 2005

Susan Fugate, “Kellogg Foundation Initiative Seeks to Catalyze Change at Land-Grant Institutions,” Journal of Extension 34, no. 5 (1996):https://joe.org/joe/1996october/a1.php ↩

Confessions of a Chocoholic — It’s All in the Bean

A couple of weeks ago I was visiting friends and noticed a Christmas catalogue from a German chocolatier on the table. Thumbing through it my mouth watered with the turn of every page. This visual distraction was converted into a topic of conversation. Soon, the only recourse was to raid the pantry of its Belgian chocolates and indulge our chocolate fetish. Wow!

Beyond the selection of finely-crafted chocolates featured in the catalogue, there was a section on the history of the company, some tidbits about chocolate-making and general comments about the source of chocolate – the cacao bean. I decided to research chocolate a bit further. This turned out to be quite a learning experience.

Information about chocolate is easy to find. Google has 66,500,000 hits on “chocolate” and 3,410,000 on “cacao.”

Wikipedia

The theobroma cacao, which means “food of the gods,” is an evergreen tree, native to the tropical regions of South America. Each tree has 6,000 flowers that produce maybe 20 pods. Each pod contains 20 – 60 beans. It takes 300 – 600 seeds to produce 1 kg of cocoa paste.

Field Museum

There are 592,000 Google hits on cacao production. Like most agricultural products, there is a general production process for cacao that is millennia in the making yet heavily influenced by scientific and technological developments over the past two hundred years. The pods are harvested, cut open, fermented (sweating), dried (cured), and packed in the first phase of processing. Then, the seeds are sorted, cleaned, roasted, cracked, fanned, and winnowed to separate nibs from shells in the second phase. In the third phase, nibs are ground into chocolate liquor (cocoa paste). Then, some of the liquor is pressed to render fat (cocoa butter) and the coarse leftovers are dried and ground into cocoa powder. The remainder of the un-pressed liquor is mixed with condensed milk, sugar, and extra cocoa butter form a crumb which is refined, conched, tempered, and molded into chocolates.

Much of the first phase of processing – harvesting, opening the pods, fermenting, drying, and packing – is done the same way it has been for centuries. It remains labor intensive since mechanization is not possible and several steps can only be done by hand. In addition to the physical work there is considerable human judgment involved in deciding which pods are ready to be harvested, monitoring fermentation, and controlling drying so that the result – the bean – captures the full richness of flavor and quality possible. This requires considerable skill and experience on the parts of those who are involved in this phase.

Designer Traveler

Because the cacao bean, the key raw ingredient required for making chocolate, can only be grown in certain tropical regions around the world, it’s price per pound is exceptionally high. That price is driven up by overseas buyers from Europe and North America who process the cacao but cannot grow it themselves. This is the reason cacao-growing countries like Ecuador don’t have a strong chocolate-making culture despite having the perfect cacao-growing conditions. The cost of the raw ingredients is just simply too high for the local consumption.

The cacao “Nacional” is sold in Europe as an elitist gourmet-product and gets prices up to 50 Euros per kilogram, whereas at the beginning of the production one kilogram costs only 0,58 Eurocents.”¹

The post-harvest phases are highly mechanized thereby substantially reducing operating costs and improving consistency of quality and output. Considering a nearly 100:1 ratio of finished chocolate to packed cacao beans, this concentrates revenue AND profits in the later phases. It leaves very little for skilled labor conducting first phase work.

Because of high labor content, keeping the cost for labor low is an imperative. It can lead to abuse of the workforce without respect for the value and criticality of their knowledge. The most severe form of this abuse is slavery.

Food Empowerment Project²

There are 940,000 Google hits on slave labor chocolate industry. Slavery is not a new problem. Still, it challenges one’s sense of assumed social, economic, and political progress to think that the institution persists.

Dissident Voice

There are 6 hits on Google News about slave labor in the chocolate industry. There is nothing available that shows the current situation in real-time – a ground truth benchmark – but indications suggest the practice continues. It is, as it turns out, an engrained part of a colonial system setup centuries ago to facilitate exploitation. That system will not change easily because it pays-off.

TransFair USA

There are 1,330,000 hits on Google for fair trade certified chocolate. It suggests that if a sufficient number of people buy from stores or sources that sport the Fair Trade Certified label the system will change because the pay-off changes. That means changing the buying patterns of people. This means informing them about critical factors they need to take into consideration when they buy certain products, making the process of buying the products they need and want through alternative channels as easy, or easier, than conventional channels, and assuring availability with competitive prices. A tough call.

Ithaca Fine Chocolates

Equal Exchange

There are 7,900,000 hits for chocolate bars on Google. Two weeks ago I would have taken any of them. Now, I’m keeping time to a different drummer. A system changes one conversation at a time. In this case, it is one chocolate bar at a time!

Originally posted to New Media Explorer by Steve Bosserman on Friday, November 25, 2005

http://www.ecuadorline.com/ecuador/newsletter/Newsletter200501.htm Original article quoted no longer available ↩
http://www.showmenews.com/2005/Feb/20050214Busi010.asp Original article no longer available ↩

Tackling Population Density, Diversity, and Disparity

Dateline: 4 November 2005, a NY Times editorial by Thomas Friedman entitled, “From Gunpowder to the Next Big Bang” outlines how China is grooming entrepreneurs to increase the rate with which business opportunities are identified and acted upon.

Dateline: 28 October 2005, an article by Howard W. French entitled, “China Luring Scholars to Make Universities Great,” describes how China is making a concerted effort to beef up their academic institutions with rigorous, cutting edge research capabilities and open the door to more discoveries, inventions, and innovation.

Dateline: 26 October 2005, an editorial by Thomas Friedman entitled, “Living Hand to Mouth” explains how China is rapidly pushing the limits of sustainability by incurring heavy societal penalties in air and water pollution, deforestation, and loss of arable land to support the growth rate it has enjoyed over the past 10 years.

Other than being about China, what do these articles have in common? They highlight three essential tasks society is required to address as we come closer together as a global community.

First, population density. As the world’s population continues to grow, more and more people will choose to live in metropolitan areas. China has over 40 cities exceeding 1M population with the most populous being Shanghai at almost 10M. India boasts 35 cities with populations over 1M, the most populous being Mumbai at just over 16M. Cairo, the most populous city in Africa, has a population of almost 7M. Sao Paulo, Brazil, with over 10M, is the most populous city in South America; whereas Mexico City, at almost 9M, is the most populous city in North America. More especially, counting the greater metropolitan area for Mexico City, the total population stands at over 17M making it one of the densest population concentrations in the world! How do people have a quality of life in such densities? Certainly, the migration of people to these population centers will only continue. The question begs answers.

Second, population diversity. As people migrate from one area to another in an effort to improve their lot in life, they encounter those from other races, ethnicities, languages, cultures, religions, etc. The United States is a nation forged by those who came to the country in hundreds of immigrant waves across a 500+ year history. The U.S. is not alone. All countries experience migration patterns through emigration and immigration coupled by varying degrees of mobility within their borders that sees people move from one rural or urban location to another. These migratory changes are unstoppable, but not always welcomed. The consequences range from an inappreciation and nonacceptance of difference to outright conflict and bloodshed as incompatible groups find themselves in one another’s space. How do people learn to live together when they come from different places and have differing beliefs? This diversity will only continue. The question begs answers.

Third, population disparity. As people find themselves in the presence of others outside their native groups, they are confronted with a reallocation of power and resources – the pecking order is reordered. Depending on relationships with people new to the mix, this reordering takes away or grants influence. There will be winners and losers no matter what. If the losers are reduced to a point where they can no longer fend for themselves and meet their basic needs for subsistence, they will take extreme measures to assure their survival; namely, destroy the environment for water, food, clothing, and shelter, and increase the birthrate as a hedge. Both of these consequences are disastrous not only for those who are scrounging at the bottom of the power ladder, but ultimately everyone as the environment is compromised by over-population and other ways that adversely affect the whole system. How do people realize that to take so much from others and put lives at stake costs far more to correct than to leave enough so that even the least can enjoy a minimum quality of life? This disparity will only continue unless another course is taken. The question begs answers.

China is a nation dealing with density, diversity, and disparity. And the consequences of not adequately addressing these three are dire. However, as Friedman notes, China’s leaders know the future is not going to be bright for long if these conditions persist or worsen. China is stewing in the questions that beg answering.

Friedman also states that what is needed is an integrated solution. This involves countries and organizations outside China working with institutions and groups inside China. That is where the articles at the outset of this posting have particular poignancy: China is reaching across internal and external boundaries to bolster research capabilities, strengthen academic rigor, awaken and advance entrepreneurial spirit, and direct attention to improving environmental quality and along with it quality of life for Chinese citizens. That degree of focus and commitment, coupled with an abundance of resources to put into the effort, give China the opportunity to learn and gain much. While China will not find THE answers to these questions, the lessons mastered in addressing them will benefit the world. May we all get an “A” in the course!

Originally posted to New Media Explorer by Steve Bosserman on Sunday, November 6, 2005

Ménière’s Disease: Requiem for My Left Ear

This past Friday, my doctor told me I have Ménière’s disease. These two words explained a week of incessant, high-pitched ringing and pulse-throbbing pressure in my left ear, an unsteady gait when walking, and a counter-clockwise swirling of the room following any rapid movement of my head. The only action that seemed to curb it was sleeping, which is what I did. While there was much to be done, I felt like doing NOTHING!

Of course, I indulged in self-diagnosis in between waves of vertigo. Was it the result of too much coffee? Too little down-time? A simple case of the flu? I settled on three possibilities: an inoperable brain tumor (in deference to my mother – may God rest her soul – who believed in establishing an extremely severe alternative no matter how unlikely so that almost any diagnosis made by the doctor would be good news in comparison); an ear infection (where my bets were placed); and wax build-up in the ear canal (I knew this one was a long-shot, but it at least served as a balance to the first choice). Ménière’s disease?! Never heard of it!

“What is it?” I asked. The doctor offered an explanation: no one knows what causes it…could be genetic…could be a virus…there is no cure…it comes and goes unpredictably…you have atypical vestibular Ménière’s disease because you are not experiencing hearing loss in the left ear…long term prognosis is that you probably will have total, permanent hearing loss…severe vertigo can be incapacitating due to nausea and vomiting…can only treat the symptoms…surgery works in some cases to lessen vertigo. In the meantime, here is a prescription for 25mg of Meclizine to reduce dizziness…the side-effects include feeling lightheaded, sleepy, having blurred vision, change in thinking clearly…avoid driving, doing other tasks or activities that require alertness or clear vision. Anything else I can do for you?

I entered into the privacy of the doctor’s office aware of my very real, but unspecified condition. It was real because I physically and mentally experienced its consequences. And in that moment it was mine alone. No one else knew what I had or how I was affected by it, not even my wife who accompanied me. However, the doctor gave it a name. He now knew, my wife knew, and I knew and I was no longer alone with the unknowable.

The mere fact that it was symbolized with letters gave it a virtual existence extending far beyond me and touching the millions of others who have the same condition. This virtualization gives me access to the experiences, knowledge, empathy, and understanding of others; and they to mine. Because of a name, Ménière’s disease, such widespread connectedness becomes a powerful way for me to learn about myself and the result may carry far beyond the bounds of the condition. So, to start…

A Google search on the term, “Ménière’s disease” yields 667,000 results. A search of Amazon generates two pages of books, journals, magazines, even herbal medicines. There are 28 Yahoo! Groups and 3 Google Groups and almost 2700 groups across the Internet dedicated to the Ménière’s-related topics such as tinnitus, vertigo / dizziness, vestibular virus, etc. There are countless variations on how Ménière’s manifests itself and what people who have it do in response. The choices are many, ranging from pharmacological prescriptions to alternative medicines, and from low-salt diets to surgery.

It is almost impossible NOT to get connected. Clearly, I don’t know what’s next for me with Ménière’s — I could have another episode tomorrow or I could never have another one. At the moment I have no vertigo, no hearing loss, no spinning computer screen, no pressure in the ear, only a slight ringing. The prescription for Meclizine is filled, but unused. So in the moment, I go on reading more, asking more, learning more. And even if I don’t have call to use this knowledge for myself, I have it at hand in case others I meet or know are afflicted with similar symptoms and diagnoses. This potential for learning together in the future marks a distinct value of virtualization. If and when Ménière’s strikes again and the realization of the condition hits me hard, I thank all of you in the vast global network in advance for imparting your knowledge and wisdom and making me a better person for it!

Originally posted to New Media Explorer by Steve Bosserman on Saturday, October 22, 2005 and updated on Monday, October 24, 2005

A Wedding Framework

Last week, I had the distinct pleasure of participating in my daughter’s wedding. As typical for fathers of brides, I just showed up and did as I was told so as to contribute as best I could to her having the complete experience she wanted. Obviously, my participation fulfilled an essential role within a “wedding framework” my daughter spent years envisioning. However, it became obvious as the day unfolded that my role was only one of many within a complex blend of activities and sub-routines among people, businesses, and processes over the previous six months that led to the wedding framework “realization” we shared at that time.

This speaks volumes for the necessity of an envisioned framework upon which to define and queue critical activities. It is also a classic example of what happens along a virtualization — realization continuum as a total solution is put into play. As they began their wedding plans, my daughter and her then fiancé chose to get married in a small town along the coast of Maine even though they lived in the Kansas City area. I found out later this is called a “destination wedding,” or as a friend of mine termed it an “announced elopement.” In their case, neither of them lived in Maine, had been to Maine, nor knew anyone in Maine; but that was no deterrent. Enter virtualization!

Successful virtualization relies on three key elements: presence – visibility on websites, blogsites, profiles, and listings wherein a person, business, or organization can be found through routine searches; networking – chatter, buzz, references made by others that corroborate what a person, business, organization claims about themselves; and interactivity – responses in timing and content to emails, voice mails, site comments, etc.

My daughter and son-in-law brought these three elements into play right from the start of their planning. First, they tapped into their personal networks and searched the Internet for information about Maine. Their particular interest was the coast of Maine then small towns on the coast that have white churches in stereotypical settings of rural New England, followed by requisite splashes of fall colors dotting the countryside in early October. A combination of affirmative statements from family, friends, co-workers, and others within their trusted networks who had realized experiences in Maine, what they gleaned from online sources, and what was learned in exchanges of email and phone conversations with people in Maine, the destination was targeted – Camden.

Finding the location was only half the challenge. The second step entailed populating the envisioned overall “wedding framework” with virtualized pieces that nested together to create a whole virtual experience of the total solution. The same networking — web-surfing — loop-closing communication patterns used to find the location were repeated several times over the course of the six-month planning horizon with one critical difference – secondary trusted networks were available.

One of the outcomes of the initial round of site selection was the discovery, “testing,” and subsequent addition of those who passed the test into their trusted networks. These new members were local to Camden. Of course, those Camden locals knew others in their trusted networks who had the necessary qualifications and availability to fill-in the missing blanks on the wedding framework. As a result, church, pastor, bed and breakfast rooms for guests, photographer, baker, florist, marriage license office, etc. were found, their roles clarified, and their commitments sealed – the virtualized total solution was completed slightly ahead of the realized form. As a backup, the local trusted networks had sufficient redundancy that in the event of failure with one of the contracted parties another was quickly available to step in at the moment of realization to assure success.

My daughter and son-in-law had a wedding framework in mind from the start. They went through the steps necessary to find and integrate the people, businesses, and organizations required to first virtualize, then realize their “total wedding solution.” Such an integration role is central in putting together and carrying out any complex project or initiative. Successful “integrators” build new, penetrate existing, and connect interrelated networks. This skill enables them to take a framework of their or another’s making, organize it into a latticework of interconnected cells, and then pull from dense webs of resource networks to “fill” each cell with multiple layers of possible responses. It is a skill that is becoming THE key differentiator among those who are seemingly equals. It is one that my daughter and son-in-law executed flawlessly.

Just as “beauty is in the eyes of the beholder,” my description of a virtualization — realization process that was wonderfully done means nothing unless the one it is about agrees with the result! When describing the experience as her wedding day was winding down, my daughter said, “It was PERFECT!” There is nothing sweeter to the ear for a dad than to hear his daughter say this. So, indeed, it WAS perfect!

Originally posted to New Media Explorer by Steve Bosserman on Friday, October 14, 2005

A Solutions Triptych, Panel III: Value Proposition Redefined

The virtualization-to-realization continuum introduced in Solutions Triptych, Panel II portrays two different sets of activities on either side of a portal through which identified opportunities for solutions are met by packaged and delivered solutions. The graphic below expands on this concept by highlighting adjoined, three-dimensional “conversational spaces” representing virtualization and realization separated by a porous “communications grid.” The portal acts as a conduit between them directing the flow of conversations taking place on either side and through the grid.

The forums and agendas within these two conversation spaces are highly interdependent. While the virtualization characteristics (intuitive – intelligent – integrated) and realization characteristics (cost – quality – schedule) are certainly different, they are of mutual interest to the customer and the solution provider. Both strive for improvements in cost, quality, and schedule and both see the direct benefit in terms of better realization performance from wider adoption of virtualization characteristics.

The forums and agendas for solutions-focused conversations and the subsequent flow of solutions through portals are also shaped by the type of solution considered. The diagram below illustrates the three solution types introduced in Panel II – product, system, and total – positioned in the conversational spaces. Also captured in each type are the order and distance between the “point of virtualization” (PV) and “point of realization” (PR). These relationships have a direct bearing on the way in which conversations are conducted and their results.

fe118d5a-67bb-4dee-b6f1-a47860a459ad

A customer’s negotiation with competitive businesses in the selection of a product solution is not the same negotiation when choosing a system solution or total solution. In other words, the value propositions are not the same requiring different formulas to reach a decision. The defining factor for a value proposition is who is doing the integration and why.

In product solutions, the customer is the integrator. The customer is the only one who knows the context in which the product solution being proposed fits. As a result, the customer is in control of the integration of multiple product solutions into more complete and comprehensive system and total solutions.

In the opposite case, a business playing the role of integrator delivers a total solution to the customer. The business is in control of the integration. This assumes three conditions are met: the business understands the context in which the customer operates; second, the business is capable of delivering a better, more cost effective total solution to the customer than the customer could have done alone; and third, the customer has viable options for spending time and energy other than doing integration. Missing any of these three conditions and the value proposition crumbles resulting in unmet expectations for all concerned.

As is often the case, the truth rests in the middle as with the center graphic where the customer and business share integration responsibilities and co-manage expectations. This middle ground produces opportunities for businesses to check contextual understanding and for customers to play with integrative alternatives. The resulting value proposition grants businesses the latitude to “virtualize” an array of system solutions before building inventories of realized product solutions that may or may not be sold and turned. Meanwhile, customers are able to experience system solution alternatives in virtual space before making a buying commitment to a set of product solutions that may or may not integrate effectively or truly be responsive to actual needs and wants given the context.

This suggests that customers and businesses give strong consideration to three sets of questions within the conversational spaces separating them as their negotiations begin:

Business: What is the customer’s context and how do I describe it so the customer knows I know?

Customer: What is the scorecard I follow that lets me know a business truly understands my realities?

Business: What can I do to make the customer’s virtual experience with solution alternatives more intuitive, intelligent, and integrated?

Customer: What can I do to make the real experience fit within the cost – quality – schedule parameters I have?

Business: What alternatives can I offer that capture the interest, curiosity, and commitment of the customer in lieu of doing integration?

Customer: What are the unrealized opportunities I can pursue if I had the time, energy, and capacity to do so?

These question sets constitute new agendas for businesses and customers to use in their conversations with one another as they BOTH learn to adapt to rapid changes in information and communication technologies. In fact, this learning about, with, and from one another – business and customer – is an essential feature of the shift gradual, but inexorable, shift to total solutions. Then again, isn’t learning the point behind whatever we are doing, or if it’s not, shouldn’t it be?

Originally posted to New Media Explorer by Steve Bosserman on Friday, October 7, 2005 and updated on Saturday, October 8, 2005

A Solutions Triptych, Panel II: Virtualization and Realization

Solutions, as they are defined and delivered in response to identified needs and wants, are manifested along a continuum of virtualization-to-realization. In the graphic below, the uncolored image of the portal diagram from Solutions Triptych, Panel I becomes the background over which the dynamics of virtualization and realization are shown. The portal acts as a lens to focus that which is conceived virtually in preparation for its eventual realization in physical form at a later time.

As information and communication technologies extend their capabilities, three key characteristics of virtualization will accelerate the pervasiveness and rate of adoption for these technologies:

Intuitive – human interaction with them will become easier and more transparent
Intelligent – they will become more human-like in their functioning so that people are able to engage in other activities rather than tending to the technologies or what the technologies are designed to do
Integrated – interfaces between one technology and another and one component in a system with other components will be designed so that the components in a system can be upgraded and the system’s overall functionality and effectiveness improved without having to replace the entire system

In fact, as people become more experienced with and confident in virtual solutions meeting or exceeding their needs, their expectations for more intuitive human factors, more intelligent functioning, and more integrated features will grow. The result will be a decided pull from customers for business investment to continue in developing even more powerful virtual solutions.

However, that which is virtualized must be realized at some point either with the means to experience the solution satisfactorily in virtual space or with tangible goods. The flipside to the three virtualization characteristics is another set for realization. These are extensions of what is commonly experienced within most manufacturing operations, namely:

Cost – related to the business providing the realized solution and to the customer who is “investing” in it
Quality – how well the realized solution performs according to specifications and for how long under diverse / changing conditions
Schedule – when the realized solution is available from the business and when it is needed by the customer

The perennial challenge within industry is how to balance these three realization characteristics. The rule of thumb in management is to emphasize any two of the three depending on the tolerance of customers then develop strategies based on those and letting the third “float.” This is not an ideal circumstance in which to manage, but a conundrum of significant familiarity with those in industry!

Through rapid and marked increases in virtualization techniques and capability, the formulae for managing the realization characteristics have changed. The diagram below illustrates some of these dimensions.

At the heart of the virtualization-to-realization transition is the spatial and distance relationship between the point where the solution is virtualized and the point where it is realized. For instance, in the bottom relationship one product solution goes to many customers. The “point of realization” (PR) precedes the “point of virtualization” (PV) as inventory is produced then presented to the customer through virtual presentation in hope that sales are forthcoming, inventory is quickly turned, and the cycle repeats. The customer has little influence on the specification and utility of what is represented by a particular business. Instead, the customer exercises choice by cost – quality – schedule comparisons among competitors offering similar solutions.

In the middle relationship, a system solution is packaged using components from “some” providers then delivered to a well-defined market segment comprising a distinct “some” set of customers. PR and PV are in very close proximity to one another. The customer has more direct influence over the specification of the system solution rather than component parts. Businesses are able to facilitate the customer’s choice by offering a wide range of configurations and feature combinations along a relatively lengthy decision-making timeline. As a result, the customer has longer to consider the alternatives in virtual space before making a final selection. Also, businesses can defer adding inventory until the last moment when the customer’s decision triggers realization of a solution already sold virtually.

The top relationship shows how a much larger population of “many” businesses bring products / services into a total solution in response to well-identified needs and wants of “one” customer. In this instance, the PV precedes the PR and each customer has the latitude to experience a total solution tailored specifically for their situation and distinct requirements. Oftentimes, the virtual experience of the total solution is so effective that the customer can sharply reduce the investment in physical / tangible assets required to realize the application value of the solution. This is a win for both the businesses providing the solutions and the customers acquiring them as the costs of operating in virtual space are much less than with tangible assets. While the conversion of virtual experiences into physical applications will be the mainstay in many transactions, it is trending such that this will be less the case as time goes by. This is significant for businesses and customers everywhere!

These three relationships – one to many; some to some; and many to one – play across a larger continuum of commoditization-to-customization depicted with the arrow in the background. Depending on the capability of a business to influence the juxtaposition of its “point of virtualization” to its “point of realization” determines the guidelines for an appropriate strategy for that business. Those that can adopt more intuitive, intelligent, and integrated information and communication technologies are better prepared to differentiate themselves from competitors by presenting highly customized total solutions in virtual space. Those less willing or able to do so focus directly on going head-to-head with competition in the delivery of singular products and services with a more favorable cost – quality – schedule result in the eyes of customers. An “appropriate strategy” keeps the PV and PR aligned with placement on the commoditization-to-customization continuum. This assures care is taken for the transactions passing through its portal from virtualization to realization, which is the real significance of any thoughtfully considered and well-executed business strategy.

Originally posted to New Media Explorer by Steve Bosserman on Saturday, October 1, 2005 and updated on Monday, October 3, 2005

A Solutions Triptych, Panel I: The Portal

In business, the term “solutions” has a particular meaning. It refers to the results of conversational transactions wherein the needs and wants of a customer are identified and appropriate responses are made through a business (or multiple businesses) that satisfies those needs and wants for which the business is compensated. These appropriate responses are “solutions” in that in the moment they solve the problems of previously unmet needs and wants.

Conversational transactions between customers and business are conducted through a portal that connects “someone” having needs and wants with “something” that constitutes a solution. This concept of a portal is characterized in the diagram below as the overlap between what something and someone are not and what something and someone are. The relationships of solutions to customers are rarely anything to anyone. Instead, they are specific. While it is helpful to know what is not a viable solution and who is not a likely customer, at some point a match between someone and something must happen or the transactions will not be fruitful.

As a result, it is in the best interest of a business to know the needs and wants to which it will respond with solutions. To know them is to know the customer and to know the customer is to know the market. As we all know, businesses whose compensation is less than the cost of providing the solution are not in business for very long barring subsidization. Knowing what a solution costs is critical to business success. Along with this is the need to know what type of solution portfolio best fits a business given its culture.

Needs and wants are met by solutions of different types. For instance, if a person wants to improve the quality of their sound system they can upgrade their speakers with a new set and are satisfied with the difference they hear. In this case they are interested in a component solution. However, a person may want to make an even more substantial improvement in the sound quality by replacing all components with more advanced, integrated alternatives. In this instance, they are more interested in an equipment system solution. Some circumstances lead to an even more comprehensive approach. In building upon this example of a home entertainment system, a person may be designing and building a new home at which point it is no longer just a matter of the equipment system alone, but the layout of the space in which that system will be installed. In other words, their interests move toward a total solution.

Solutions are fractal in that depending upon the starting point, the continuum of component – system – total solution can be indexed along a scale of increasing complexity. Determining where on this complexity scale a company wants to be is critical for its strategy and organization design. As the diagram indicates, the connections through the portal vary in size depending on choice. A tendency toward component solutions places more focus on a portfolio of specific and relatively independent products and services that flow through a narrow, well-traveled pathway in the portal. The trade-off is a higher degree of similarity / commonality with the offerings of competitors; the portfolio is commoditized and competitive environment is head-to-head. A tendency toward total solutions opens the portfolio to include customized packages of integrated products and services. The pipeline between customer and business is enlarged with more opportunities. Attention must be given to the performance of the whole, which invites an entirely different type of challenge. But the pay-off comes in differentiation from competitors, which certainly carries an advantage in many circumstances.

Originally posted to New Media Explorer by Steve Bosserman on Monday, September 26, 2005