Navigation
Goodreads
Ann's bookshelf: currently-reading

Twenty Fragments of a Ravenous YouthThe Carbon Diaries 2015Bitter Fruit: A NovelMaterial Markets: How Economic Agents are ConstructedWhere East Eats West: The Street-Smarts Guide to Business in ChinaSnow

More of Ann's books »
Ann's currently-reading book recommendations, reviews, favorite quotes, book clubs, book trivia, book lists
what you should be reading:
Wednesday
Sep012010

The British Library Needs a Social Network

I've been spending a lot of time at the British Library lately, researching for the '21 Hours Experiment.' It occurs to me that at any given moment researching along side me are people with equally cool and related projects.  Wouldn't it be great if when you entered a reading room at the British library and chose a desk, there would be a card reader at the desk (or likewise a terminal that would read an identificatier from your smart phone) that would check you in to the network.  A research profile you've created online stating your research objectives and interests, including a picture and your seat number would then be visible on several flat screens placed around the room (you know, descretely so as not to ruin the historical environment of the rooms) as well as on an app on your smartphone.  You only check in if you don't mind being bothered that day for a chat about what you're working on, or would like to work on.  Then researchers (academicians, PhD students), who tend to be incredibly self-obsessed reclusive types could actually talk to each other, learn from each other's ideas, and who knows, that may spark new ideas of their own and lead to more insightful research. 

Sound like you've heard something like this before? You have if you've been anywhere near Warwick University's postgrad working centres.  They don't have a card reader system but their postgrads can opt to appear on a screen that cycles through research profiles, located in their postgrad reading room.  That way, other postgrad students can see what their peers are researching and combine forces.  Absolutely brilliant innovation from Anne Bell, the head librarian.

The British Library definitely needs one of those. So all you opensource software people out there, all you app developers, get on that, will you? I could really use that. Cheers and thank you for your time ;D Ann

Saturday
Aug142010

What lost generation?

OUTRAGE! Is anybody else between the ages of 20 and 30 tired of being written off by the media as a 'lost generation'? It's utter nonesense!

It's true employment is down, and we have more debt than previous generations (also, thanks to previous generations)-- education, ecological, credit card, etc.  But we're being judged on recently failed economic paradigms: measuring growth, creditworthiness, even what is and is not valuable within or to a society are all paradigms that are now in transition.  The media is quick to trumpet how the financial system and most of the things we know about economics are now defunct, so why is it still making value judgements on those paradigms?

Fundamentally, the world we are moving forward in, is in transition: therefore what's true before will not be true in the future. In the older world, the world we're emerging from, our possibilities as a generation would be limited; now they are limitless. 

Juliet Schor writes in her book Plenitude that 2/3's of new jobs come from firms with less than 500 employees, while large corporations are downsizing (157).  Microloans, crowd-sourcing, and the internet (for sale and raising of funds, even transfering technology and knowledge) make it more possible than ever before for entrepreneurs to hang out a shingle.  And this trend isn't exclusive to the knowledge sector either: technology is now so agile and flexible, knowledge so transferable, that manufacturing in your back room has become possible.

Remember this graphic from a few months ago? Check out the high number of firms with 1-9 employees. The US mag "Inc." recently declared "bring on the entrepreneurs."

According to Schor, "this history provides a prima facie case that the emerging green sector will be powered by small and medium-size firms, with their agility, dynamism, and entrepreneurial determination." (156) This is the green-evolution-- not that green tech will create enough jobs to buoy the economy, but the community based, take problem solving into your own hands, low/no profit sustainable economy will.

In many countries around the world, from sub-Saharan Africa to Europe, it seems that people have come to the realization that political promises and policy implementation will never come: many governments are now bust.  Local communities have taken it on themselves to solve the problems in their communities. Thus the rise of micro-finance and social entrepreneurism-- socially lead firms are now providing public sector services.  Schor writes of parallel, highly localized economies, producing highly specialized goods and services for their communities are beginning to push the sustainable transition forward. 

Tomorrow's consumer, according to Schor will face higher prices but a higher quality of goods as well: a firm's responsibility for the 'stuff' it manufactures will extend to the life-time of the product.  As firms sell higher quality, more specialized products, those they employ will be more specialized in their skills.  Wages will rise along with prices. People will also work less as they place more value on that parallel economy that makes up for what people previously believed the government should provide as common goods and services that aren't covered under traditional economic valuations (i.e. growth or GDP, profits).

This is where the world is going and my generation isn't lost.  We have the tools in front of us for our future to be our own.  So you can take your 'lost generation' label and shove it.

We are the bespoke generation, the bootstrap generation, the limitless generation, the hand-made generation.

Got it?

Friday
Jun182010

Work: the next iteration

21st Century Working, ‘Work’ in Progress

Heading: North East-- London to Leeds, 18.35 arrival 21.00
Friday, 18 June, 2010
Music: Psapp

The future of work is fluid; it’s bespoke; it will require fewer working hours, produce less, and pay more.


This is the story of how I got there:

One morning in March, sitting cross-legged on my orange comforter, bemoaning the number of pitches I’d written that month that had gone unanswered (and thus income that wasn’t to be made) I answered a [hub-members] spam email from fellow Hubbit Richard Leyland, exec of WorkSnug.  He wanted to pay someone to do interviews for a research report.  Right up my alley. I was planning to move to Beijing shortly, needed the money but didn’t have the staying power to start anything.  Perfect. 

The task was simple as most surreptitiously appear: interview thought leaders for an easy-dissertation-length report on the topology of modern working, partly a PR exercise for Richard’s company, partly, well--  Richard was (is still?) a journalist prior to starting WorkSnug, and as good journalists can’t just do anything without a serious bit of research he seeks not only to establish a company but to ‘say something’ simple and profound at the same time whilst providing a context.

He set me on my task with very very little background either about the thought leaders themselves or the topic (again the journalist persona? wishing me to proceed with as little bias as possible).  After the fifth interview I felt like the interviewees, several of whom know Richard were challenging him (via me, or possibly us) to push beyond the surface. 

One in particular challenge (from Indy Johar, 00:/) was more explicit than others:

“I think it’s really interesting, what you’re writing about, Richard and yourself. I think one thing I would say is to look at the whole spectrum…  not to be too focused on the kind of office work story.

I think it’s interesting but I don’t think that’s going to be the heart of the issue. I think we’re going to have to be more open about the story of work, the story of work for somebody who works at a Marks & Spencers, the story of work works in, I don’t know, a replica graphics office, printing books, let’s be more honest and straight forward about the whole ecology of work. Cause I think there’s something more important to be done, and probably something equally as important as when the trade unions were born. Equally as important as cropters [(?)]. So I think there’s a moment where we can be  honest and look at the whole spectrum, there’s some real radical stuff that can happen.

That’s just advice, not a question.“



Those of you who know me will know that when I hear something like that it comes across as an existential challenge.  I refuse to write fluff.  So I put it to Richard-- we should write a book to follow his report, scratching at the topic and then leaving it is almost an exercise in inefficiency. He was slightly reluctant initially, he doesn’t want a book primarily penned by him to say something wishy-washy, nor be absolutely declarative especially as ‘modern working’ or ‘21st century work’ as an idea hasn’t yet reached puberty. 

No problem.  That’s my specialty-- think pieces, provoking a conversation that after having spent a few months scratching at ‘modern working’ , reading and beginning to reach beyond the modern dioces of Mssrs. Pink, Florida, et al, hasn’t really been had yet.

Richard directed me to a blog post he’d written a few months back saying, ‘At the end I kind of left a question, if you think we’ve got answer then there’s a book there.’

Here’s the question:

“I’m in no doubt; technological developments are in the process of improving how we live and work. I for one am glad to be working in these changing, exciting times. It’s a fantastic Brave New World out there, but it’s moving on quicker than our ability to write the rules. We need a Technicolour Taylor; a Principals of Scientific Management fit for the 21st Century. It’s a gaping void and a huge opportunity. If you’ve got anything already written down, do let me know.”


Certainly:

Taylor to Vaguard, lean to agile to guerilla-- manufacturing, design, management.

In the not-too-distant future,
‘Work’ requires more than 50% intellectual capital and thus ‘workers’ tend to:

Shorter, intense bursts of working; good work is only accomplished with plenty of time to regenerate the passion, the energy:
Work hard and play hard.

Do what you love and love what you do (yields intense energy and passion) and ‘Work’ ceases to exist?

‘Work’ will produce highly bespoke goods and services that cost more and thus, have higher prices.
We consume less ‘stuff.’
We can live adequate lives working fewer hours because the cost of working (due to the increased cost of capital inputs) yields higher wages.

‘Workers’ and thus ‘Company’ identity is (becoming) more fluid.

Management is more akin to the corporate values that attract workers to a ‘company’ to begin with, ‘companies’ come to resemble more ‘communities’ like loose affiliations that only continue to exist so long as their value system has something more profound to offer than others and the members continue to make an effort to keep ties with each other.  
Benefits count for less or have been redefined.
The value of social capital and social networking-- thus niche social media sky rockets.

Communities, companies, affiliates, whatevs et al create their own work to a certain extent because it’s largely based on their value as people, collectives, unique synergies.


How did I get to this vision of the future? You’ll have to wait I’m afraid, for our book.

Sunday
Jun062010

Self-Enfranchisement by ICT: Illegal Settlements & the 'Informal' Economy

Last month's WiredUK had an article that sent my mind a-racing in several directions.  The article entitled "Organizing Armaggeddon" tracked how smart-phones with apps and geotagging will be used in the future for aid relief.  Not that the Ushahidi platform wasn't enough of a digi-revelation, the first relief workers on the ground in Haiti tagged refugee sites with a GPS, what resources were available and what kind of aid was needed. 

The article describes an aid worker:

"Chaperon stopped at several to talk with the locals. Clipboard in hand, he jotted down key indicators such as access to water, numbers of children, availability of improvised shelter materials, and whether any other aid outfits had already been there. He snapped the occasional digital photo to augment the reports and logged the location of each camp with a GPS unit -- critical in places like Haiti where there never were many street addresses to begin with.

Back at base camp, his findings would be added to those of other assessment teams, along with information from media reports and other sources, in an ever-growing database."

And the article also explains why natural disasters hit less developed countries particularly hard:

"Earthquakes are an even more lethal threat, particularly in poor countries. Portau-au-Prince and its environs collapsed because of the shoddy construction that is the norm in developing-world megalopolises from Mexico City to Chengdu."

Put bluntly, cities in emerging markets and developing countries have a lot 'slums' or 'squatter camps.' In some places these 'camps' are no longer camps-- they have been so long that they have become essentially permanent structures (see Robert Neuwirth Shadow Cities). In South Africa some squatter camps have become townships, some now becoming sub-metropolitan economies in their own right.

And then it struck me: what if aid workers know who was where already? Why couldn't they know that?

Climate change will bring more natural disasters, and many major cities in emerging markets lie on river deltas, some below sea-level. In Haiti and Indonesia before it, aid workers had to combine data sources to get an idea of the human damage, how many refugees possible.

In South Africa communities have organized to build more solid homes.  In Brazil, as Neuwirth documents, communities construct their own infrastructure. Why couldn't a community decide to declare itself by geotagging their homes? The authorities know they are there but don't grant them property rights, without which, they argue, they cannot be provided utilities. But clearly, the authorities know they are physically there.  It's also likely in some cases they know whose family lives where.

This morning @tmsruge tweeted an article and a comment (as this is a screenshot of a conversation from a twitter timeline, please remember to read bottom up):

The bit.ly link leads to this article, an (rather presumptive) account why governments refuse to legitimate thriving 'informal' economies.  One of the sub-points is that people in 'illegal' settlements have no property rights.  The natural extension of that is that they cannot claim certain human rights (per the UN) because they technically don't exist. 

But we are now in an era of digital identity where mobile phone ecosystems command local economies.  Why couldn't those who dwell in slums self-enfranchise, declare "I have a digital data trail, therefore I am." 

I want to present you with the following thought exercise @tmsruge (later joined by @mathpunk) and I pursued this morning (again, as this is from a twitter stream, do remember to read each block from the bottom up:

then:

and then (read bottom up):

and then (read bottom up):

final thoughts:

While it's true that a community might not want to self-enfranchise by declaring their location because then the government might know where to come and get them, arrest them, or worse because they are technically illegal, think a minute about the implication and possibility of a neighborhood in an emerging market doing that en-masse.  These countries have international reputations to uphold and therefore human rights to uphold as states that are coming into their own. Power in numbers plus the threat of international condemnation... difficult, sensitive.

But worth a thought, no? Especially as Google as a company "Lured by the continent's growth potential, Google aims to convince entrepreneurs, students and aid workers to make use of its search, mapping and mobile-phone technologies."

Thoughts?

Friday
Jun042010

Creativity, Colocation, & Cities

I just want to pose a question:  if colocation is important for more efficient working, and feeds innovation in business practices, does the style of planning matter?

The reason I ask is this: An article came across twitter this morning (@planetizen) about Cisco's new "cities in a box." Cisco is building its first 'build-it-and-they-will-come-smart-city' in South Korea.  The concept smacks of China's empty cities, modeled on sprawling US suburbia. The Chinese and the Indians too, are expected to be big customers.

Again, read the entire article here.

For a project with @WorkSnug's @leylandrichard, I've been talking a lot with city planner types, and work specialists.  Several of them have mentioned to me that "the Chinese" are repeating our recently realized mistakes in city planning-- sprawl, spacial use separation, car orientated, campus high rises.  The consensus is that colocation is vital for working: within a sector, when workers are colocated, they are more efficient and innovative; but workers today have many identities, so they need to be able to easily colocate with all of the communities they participate in.  I've been pointed at the work of Jane Jacobs who thought cities should grow organically, because when they do, it leads to greater dynamism for the local economy.

Last weekend I was at a conference on climate adaptation planning for city mayors where several smart things were said about community-based participation in economic development and climate adaptation: the tautology that communities should be implementors of policy is not enough, communities must be initiators as well.  Climate adaptation in developing countries will have a strong city planning component. 

Sure, we will need 'smart-cities' and bravo to Cisco for their technological expertise. But will these uber-planned 'cities in a box' allow emerging markets to develop the  dynamic economies they need to provide for the economic well-being of their people?  Put another way, will these cities make space for creativity, innovation, and all those other dynamic economy buzz words? Will people really live in these cities-- sure people may come and try them out, but what's the staying power?  If there's one thing we've learned from web 2.0, it's that content is best when it's user-adaptable.

These cities leave me with a funny feeling.  How about you?