As this thread is about the future shock of revolutions - a topic grown men and economists have been known to stamp their feet on like spoilt children - let us begin the 1980s. 26 years ago Harrison Owen evolved the first of what became 50000 open spaces to date, facilitated in nearly 100 countries by up to 1000 alumni. There is no simpler method of innovation if your system map of human communications dialogues revolves around getting all involved people simultaneously through a conflict barrier. (Some of these disciplinary tribes will be sabotaging if not openly at war with each other the more critical the innovation challenge has become to the top or survival of the firm - so bring humanity out into the open so they can all get back to connecting to find the higher order resolution than their separate views will ever lead to alone, how ever preciously timesheeted some professions have made themselves. Innovation is as weak as your most humanly detiled missing link; this is almost always interdisciplinary!)

Early on -perhaps space trial 200- Harrison had lunch with the top person of an USA association dedicated to management education. After listening to how open space invites all workers concerned with a revolutionary innovation to participate in meeting, debating, co-organising experiments, being the open future network which will resolve the context's value multiplying future exponential; the top man stood up and said: Harrison if you are correct then 95% of what academic specialities of management teach will be wrong. His PA stood up and said 99%; they stomped out; and to this day their asociation is a sworn enemy of letting higher education open space in MBA curricula. They have done things such as write learned papers over the last 20 years so that open space and living the brand is excluded from brand valuation or innovation or knowledge networking. They have teamed up with every major profession that finds it more lucrative to separate its own business case than connect with other professions. More lucrative to peddle a standard rather than admit organisational leadership needs be deeply organic, contextual, beyond what the profession's standard knows deeply about sustaining.

Today, well over 90% of what you might read in Porter's Competitive advantage of nations - or any economic treatise that puts competitive boundarising alone (aka economic externalising) as more vital than collaborations - is wrong, and compounding exponentially greater wrong. Wrong mathematically; wrong ethically; wrong in terms of financial sustainabiliy -ie not multiplying volatility's risks of bubbling up and down; wrong in terms of any relationship dynamic humans value beyond the last quarter's monetary take; wrong for the future of your kids, the sustainability of nature. How wrong does the boundarised scientific mind need to become before we people celebrate deep voices who question it, who provide spaces for communities to declare their grassroots needs however blind the top is to the fact that eg 10% of folk in New Orleans can't drive cars, so a washington DC evacuation plan is as useless as a gaggle of Arabian horses as a new Orleans evacuation plan unless you permit local voices to openly question it ahead of its real-time need. Why are some top funders of scientists so vain that they don't want to include local-up views- perhaps because by including diversity, there would be less money in patenting one fit all standard approaches. Perhaps because instead of soundbiting, the true academic leader would want to promote open questions for a community to resolve as much as handing answers on a plate. perhaps because this would also show that teaching our kids to always prepare for the next standards exam is an abortion of context deep learning , and a sacrilege to using email to co-mentor each other, and to love crossing cultures . Perhaps because (I leave you - dear peoples communicator - to complete the next sentence now you are into the cluetrain of the peoples communications revolution)


This leads us on to the following script on The Collaboartive Advantage of Nations in a Networking age. My intent at wcbn007@easynet.co.uk is to connect with the one percent of people who may read this and want to openly explore this new whole system maths of mapmaking, not get into quarrels with the 99% of professionals who love separating competition. Your past and even your now can do very well from spearation, but as forecast since 1984 our species won't exist in 100 years (give or take a generation) unless at least some places go beyond competition between nations and towards colaboration between all 6 billion beings. Mathemticians might first go back to reading how John von Neumann wanted to see collaborative uses of computing. He would have applauded the 5 year get us to the moon project as the most collaborative use of brain, emotion and machine power ever teamed. Every year since he must have rolled in his grave about how few other meta-projects have ben realised within nations. The tragedy of "humanity turning" today is by not having practised within nation collaborations around greatest innovation projects over the last 2 decades, jumping BEYOND to inter-nation collaboration projects of such 5-year urgency as photosynthetic energy will require far more courage and transparent revolutionary zeal than most national leaders (Queen Elizabeth and India's leadership accepting) have been conditioned by the last generation of left versus right politics to even consider as possible to mediate.

So read me only if you are prepared to agree every one of us has made mistakes in permitting our mnations and subcultures to get so isolated, so afraid of each other, with so little space where citizens can meet to draw up the bigest 5 year projects, and ask their leaders to help facilitate their communications realities, through open spaces etc

Ranking the competitive disadvantage of nations in a Flat World
Links 6 hi-tech interviewees of 6 January and Friedman

This league table can be described in various equivalent ways including the collaborative advantage of nations in a networking age

The ranking we seek to value is whether a nation’s economy is exponentially up-tilting or down-tilting all its societies’ futures

Here is a first guide to some early estimates and qualification of assumptions. As the input data needed to make these rankings is concerned with the deep conflict-free contextual dynamics required for collaborative networking, anyone who has a deep truth testimony to include in our maps can help change the ranking. However broadly speaking national league tables are emerging like this. They are based on the forward value multipliers of whether an economy is on an upcurve or downcurve, and primarily two upcurve qualities: speed of spin and cooperative sustainability

Among big economies: China is on the fastest upcurve, India on the steadiest most diversely and sustainably cooperative

There are city-based economies like Singapore that are probably ahead of either China or India on both curves but at the smaller scale. Countries that may do unexpectedly well compared with backward valuation indicators include:
Nordica countries
Australia
Canada as long as it never gets invaded

EU countries are mostly on slow downcurves that are change-able as long as countries are able to make deeper contextual decisions on future exponentials than Brussels ideal of an united constitution permits.

What of USA? About 10 luminaries at the top of business and academia have go on record on public television in the last few months saying they have widespread feedback that American people feel they are on an inter-generational downturn. They are correct unless economics of exponentials maths is understood pretty fast for 5-year projects the world needs most.

Urgent 5-year collaboration meta-projects include
Green Energy
Intercommunity safety- ability to collaborate in response to natural flows that no national borders
Microfinance to the most disconnected especially women’s networks in places with poorest infrastructures or most corrupted governances
Etc

If USA does not evolve the collaborative network competences and transparencies with which other countries lead in collaboration in 5 year meta-projects , one of 2 things is statistically likely to happen by 2025. The united nation will be on one of the steeper downward exponentials of any once great 20th Century economy. Regions will have split up into a disunited states in terms of economics and governance.

It may be important for you to appreciate that all of us can integrate an open source maths of mapmaking future exponentials all of whose dynamically connecting pieces are known. This mathematics seeks to unite over applied 100 disciplines of management and performance measurement including different branches of economics that have been made academically separate and whose assumption were boundarised by scientific analysis that pre-existed networking realities of system*system interactivity. Moreover, it is only by configuring these at contextual levels and then auditing truth or conflict-free relationship patterns that the future exponentials become transparent.

It is also important to understand that wherever citizens wish to raise a debate that transforms systemic views of all measurement and constitutional professions until they connect as seamlessly as networks themselves do. In providing first sightings of national rankings, we are not suggesting individual leaders have been primary causes of company’s forwards exponentials. Rather the entirety of the mapping system. Transparent governance in an open networking age cannot be sustained by 20th Century top-down modes of governance isolated from deeper and faster changing interactions than can be statically planned or known.

The predictions implied above do not have access to all the future truth-testing inputs which could be gathered and configured. That is the next task for democracies or organisations whose leaders or citizen networks who are transparent and goodwilled enough to stare potential conflicts in the face and systemically resolve them in time.

Where did this come form. It integrates journalist and inquiry molecules that future historians have been using for over 40 years- in my Dad’s case at The Economist to forecast the future of Japan in 1962, and various entrepreneurial revolutions in a series of surveys whose origin celebrates its 30th birthday this year. Similar logics appear in all of Drucker’s work. Modern day analysts of networking’s future exponentials include Friedman and Tapcott, Allee and some of the inquisitors of the Unseen Wealth inquiry done in 2000 out of Brookings & Georgetown Law School.

Personal Resources:
Do you have a transparency region or other context that you want to map? If so mail me explaining why the context matters you and what transparency inputs you and your networks can access for making a first stage map

General resources include:
http://exponentials.blogspot.com/
http://therebeleconomist.blogspot.com/
http://simpol.blogspot.com/
http://clubofvillage.blogspot.com
http://osoflondon.blogspot.com http://futureoflondon.blogspot.com
http://clubofamerica.blogspot.com http://clubofdc.blogspot.com
http://clubofdelhi.blogspot.com
http://entrepreneurialrevolution.blogspot.com

Charlie Rose Debates on PBS TV - Green is Next Red, White & Blue; Competitive Disadvantage of Nation, China, Karen , Lazard, Moores 2nd Laws, Mirror Mirror Least Green Corporation of All posted by ..., 1:55 PM  permalink