Part of the current problem, as I see it anyway, with the current fiscal "crisis" on both the national (international) scene and the local scene is that the "public" does not have the "tools" it needs to help prevent crisis situations and therefore feels powerless, confused, frustrated and angry when then presented with a take it or else solution.
It may even be said that those who we elect to govern us do not have the proper tools at their disposal either. Blaming others is easy. Fixing problems is hard work.
We will assume for the moment that "those in power" actually want the tools to see what reality looks like.
Now a cynic may say that this is all part of the grand design. After all what fun would there be legislating if the general public had access to the same information and analytical tools as those who were elected. What fun would there be in the media losing its place and power as the "fourth estate" if the public could inform itself.
To be even more cynical, there are those who would suggest that the public doesn't really want the ability to govern itself, because it is too much work and we like to have people to blame when things go wrong.
I don't subscribe to that way of thinking.
So the current "fiscal" crisis in just the latest manifestation of the "cycle of stagnation" we've spoken about earlier on this site.
Is there too much government or is the government we have just ineffective? Isn't having a lot of well run local government (home rule) accountable to the public and working in a collaborative manner better than less government, but larger more ineffectual government? Can you even have large effective government?
Here on Long Island, as elsewhere, we a experiencing the pain of "change" and here, like elsewhere, we have not, for the most part, prepared properly for what needs to be done.
The greatest tragedy of the current dilemma is not that we have to go through it and make, perhaps, bad decisions based on the lack of a clear understanding of the "meta-dimensional" aspects of our very existence.
No, the greatest tragedy would be repeat this "cycle of stagnation" and not take comprehensive steps to change the way we govern ourselves and thus condemn future generations to this "old and outdated thinking."
One Long Island is an attempt at this "re-ordering."
"The universe is transformation; our life is what our thoughts make it."
Showing posts sorted by relevance for query cycle of stagnation. Sort by date Show all posts
Showing posts sorted by relevance for query cycle of stagnation. Sort by date Show all posts
Monday, February 9, 2009
Thursday, August 9, 2007
Long Island Congress: Breaking the Cycle of Stagnation
What will it take to break the "cycle of stagnation" that affects so much of what we do here on Long Island?
It is probably no secret by now that communication and accurate information play a large role in any type of significant, positive change.
Those of us who have been observing communities, government and organizations here on Long Island (I'm into my 25th year of observation, a mere child compared to some!) are continually struck by the "themes" which continue to appear time and time again with different players playing the same tune. Whether its taxes or development or energy or any of a thousand issues, we never seem to make the progress we feel we should, or can. This feeling is obviously not unique to Long Island and Long Islanders (many of the themes in this blog are transferable to other regions), but it is what we are interested in and will continue to focus on.
It is not that our leaders (from whatever discipline), are "bad people," corrupt or are misleading us or that the general populous of Long Island is unwilling to change or that we don't have sufficient resources and brainpower to make the changes. It is just that we are not organized properly and have not empowered ourselves with the right tools to get the job done.
There are no short term, magical solutions to addressing Long Island's issues. For example, comparing Long Island to other regions to find solutions may be part of an answer, but it will never be the entire answer. Why? Because each region, including Long Island has a uniqueness, sometimes easily quantifiable, sometimes not that requires us to use a higher level of analysis (which is why we need diversity of opinion).
Additionally, making pronouncements that changing a part of the problem is in fact the answer to all our problems is equally destructive ("The greatest enemy of progress is not stagnation, but false progress." Sydney J. Harris). We all have a desire to have people say good things about us and obviously those in power have a need to maintain the staus quo to some level (even while appearing that they wish to change it!). Why? Ego, power, fear, money, ambition ... you name it. This hasn't changed since the beginning of human existence. This does not make them bad people. It makes them, and us, human.
"How to be innovative is a burning question for top management in the world today. Most organizations are looking for ways to improve their ability to create ideas and to develop the best environment for idea creation. More organizations are turning to the practice of knowledge management for sharing experiences and expertise, integrating knowledge, and generating new knowledge. What organizations need is a better understanding of how knowledge management is related to the innovation process and how it can be used to help foster innovation within organizations."
So how do we change?
First we have to accept that we can and must do things better. Here there is probably universal agreement.
Second we have to identify what the primary and secondary issues are. Here we can probably get a substantial majority to agree.
Third we have to design an approach to address the issues. Here we have a problem.
We generally don't speak the same organizational language and probably can't even agree on a way to get started. Sure we convene a "task force" from time to time on related subject matter that issues a report that sits on a shelf somewhere and we make a stab at bring folks with a "common" issue together for a common purpose, but it's kind of like being invited to a dance with no music. Everyone looks at each other, says nice things (generally) and goes home without ever truly interacting. There's no rhythm, no dynamism and therefore ultimately no purpose, in a real sense, to the dance.
So how do we begin to change this "lack of rhythm" on Long Island?
By first agreeing on some way to communicate in a dynamic way. Long Island 3.0 can give us the tools. Long Island Congress can give us a non-confrontational organizational structure.
Real answers based on accurate information presented in a dynamic format.
It's up to us if we want to change. There is really nothing else preventing it.
"But in some ways it'€™s less the business model that they chose, but the commitment to being transformational that I found most intriguing. It takes guts to revisit every assumption, premise, brainstorm, strategy and relationship on a regular basis. It's uncomfortable not to have familiar benchmarks; reinventing the wheel is harder than it sounds on a whiteboard. Reversion to the mean happens for a very simple reason: Innovation is terrifying when done right."
Tuesday, December 2, 2008
Current events ...
"The significance of the report, however, is debatable right now.
Rather than start a "new" program or report, perhaps we should take stock of what we currently have and what has been issued before. Perhaps this information should be "converted" into a dynamic format we've been talking about and analyzed prior to starting a "new mission."
The problem with "new" programs which cover existing problems is that they very rarely take into account the work and information that is available. This is generally not the fault of the proposers of a new project since the information must be made available to them (and us) in the "meta" format we have also been promoting.
The danger with new programs which don't take into account the fine work that has come before it is that we then contribute to the "cycle of stagnation" by never moving beyond the "new, bright and shiny" phase where everyone is excited by the expectation of something new and better. This is the allure of "change." Everyone defines it in their own way because we have no "common language" to help us define what it is we are actually talking about so therefore we never truly make progress on solving our problems.
This is one of the issues the One Long Island series of ideas attempts to address.
The two most recent well intentioned acts only serve to point out the continuing difficulty we are having on Long Island coordinating our actions for the "greater good."
There are many fine ideas on Long Island, or in many cases programs and activities in various stages of completion. What is lacking is dynamic collaboration of the type we have been advocating.Rather than start a "new" program or report, perhaps we should take stock of what we currently have and what has been issued before. Perhaps this information should be "converted" into a dynamic format we've been talking about and analyzed prior to starting a "new mission."
The problem with "new" programs which cover existing problems is that they very rarely take into account the work and information that is available. This is generally not the fault of the proposers of a new project since the information must be made available to them (and us) in the "meta" format we have also been promoting.
The danger with new programs which don't take into account the fine work that has come before it is that we then contribute to the "cycle of stagnation" by never moving beyond the "new, bright and shiny" phase where everyone is excited by the expectation of something new and better. This is the allure of "change." Everyone defines it in their own way because we have no "common language" to help us define what it is we are actually talking about so therefore we never truly make progress on solving our problems.
This is one of the issues the One Long Island series of ideas attempts to address.
Wednesday, February 20, 2008
Avoiding the Suppression of Progress: Part II
Did you ever notice that the same voices are heard repeatedly?
When we say the same voices, we are primarily speaking about "institutional voices" with a built in large readership or large numbers of viewers or organizational members, not letters or comments to the editor. We are not even talking about the occasional op-ed or the blogosphere. Institutional voices control the flow of information and, as importantly, the frequency with which the information is printed or broadcast.
Whether in the regional newspapers, the local newspapers, major organizations, government, the local cable editorials, guest panelists, guest columnists what have you, we seem to hear the same or similar voices heard almost exclusively.
Why does this happen?
Well certainly, if you have a point of view and you are in control of how information and opinions are released, you are certainly within your rights to proceed in any legal manner you wish. Additionally, most media and large organizations have a financial interest (and maybe a philosophical interest) in "staying alive."
But does this really help achieve progress on Long Island (or elsewhere for that matter)?
To believe it helps achieve progress, you would have to believe in the almost absolute certainty of your opinion, the information you are dispensing and the method(s) you used to arrive at your conclusions.
I believe the suppression of information and access to "institutional media" and other major information outlets prevents long term sustainable progress because it is essentially a violation of the public trust. It contributes to the "cycle of stagnation" by insuring only certain opinions and information is given "legitimate status" based upon potentially limited methodologies.
Without the public trust, long term progress (however defined) is virtually impossible.
This is why we have proposed the Meta-Portal and Citizen Media Network ideas among many others, as part of the One Long Island project. Open communication is vital in building the public trust and creating long term, sustainable progress.
Certainly events like this one are helpful as a part of the process. But, as we stated previously, isn't it really a perpetuation of the old "static" way of doing things?
New thinking needs a new "support system." One Long Island is potentially part of that solution.
More in Part III.
When we say the same voices, we are primarily speaking about "institutional voices" with a built in large readership or large numbers of viewers or organizational members, not letters or comments to the editor. We are not even talking about the occasional op-ed or the blogosphere. Institutional voices control the flow of information and, as importantly, the frequency with which the information is printed or broadcast.
Whether in the regional newspapers, the local newspapers, major organizations, government, the local cable editorials, guest panelists, guest columnists what have you, we seem to hear the same or similar voices heard almost exclusively.
Why does this happen?
Well certainly, if you have a point of view and you are in control of how information and opinions are released, you are certainly within your rights to proceed in any legal manner you wish. Additionally, most media and large organizations have a financial interest (and maybe a philosophical interest) in "staying alive."
But does this really help achieve progress on Long Island (or elsewhere for that matter)?
To believe it helps achieve progress, you would have to believe in the almost absolute certainty of your opinion, the information you are dispensing and the method(s) you used to arrive at your conclusions.
I believe the suppression of information and access to "institutional media" and other major information outlets prevents long term sustainable progress because it is essentially a violation of the public trust. It contributes to the "cycle of stagnation" by insuring only certain opinions and information is given "legitimate status" based upon potentially limited methodologies.
Without the public trust, long term progress (however defined) is virtually impossible.
This is why we have proposed the Meta-Portal and Citizen Media Network ideas among many others, as part of the One Long Island project. Open communication is vital in building the public trust and creating long term, sustainable progress.
Certainly events like this one are helpful as a part of the process. But, as we stated previously, isn't it really a perpetuation of the old "static" way of doing things?
New thinking needs a new "support system." One Long Island is potentially part of that solution.
More in Part III.
Wednesday, August 20, 2008
Meta-leadership: Part V
"Transactional leaders use conventional reward and punishment to gain compliance from their followers."
"Transforming leadership... occurs when one or more persons engage with others in such a way that leaders and followers raise one another to higher levels of motivation and morality. Their purposes, which might have started out as separate but related, as in the case of transactional leadership, become fused. Power bases are linked not as counterweights but as mutual support for common purpose. Various names are used for such leadership, some of them derisory: elevating, mobilizing, inspiring, exalting, uplifting, preaching, exhorting, evangelizing. The relationship can be moralistic, of course. But transforming leadership ultimately becomes moral in that it raises the level of human conduct and ethical aspiration of both leader and led, and thus it has a transforming effect on both."
The definition for "transforming leadership" can also be a definition, at least in part, for "meta-leadership."
Although I am not a huge fan of the whole "need for leadership issue" since it almost always leads to those designated as leaders accumulating and hence almost never willingly relinquishing power (thank god for George Washington), thus leading to the "cycle of stagnation" we've talked about earlier, there is a "tradition" that needs and expects some sort of leadership model.
The meta-leadership model (or transformational model) at least offers the hope of creating a "dynamic environment" that will allow us to engage in clear thinking based on real time data and analysis and collaborative organization building. Meta-leadership might also be further defined as the "absence of static leadership and organization."
This dynamism is necessary in a world with diminishing resources, a larger population, greater competition among and between geographic regions as well as a whole host of criteria that will define our immediate and long term future.
Meta-leadership can and should allow for the dynamic interaction of small, medium and larger groups and organizations. It does not demand (transactional leadership) a certain way of doing things.
Therefore, leadership is based upon need and ability in real time (or virtual real time) not just upon someone being designated as a leader.
More in Part Six.
"Transforming leadership... occurs when one or more persons engage with others in such a way that leaders and followers raise one another to higher levels of motivation and morality. Their purposes, which might have started out as separate but related, as in the case of transactional leadership, become fused. Power bases are linked not as counterweights but as mutual support for common purpose. Various names are used for such leadership, some of them derisory: elevating, mobilizing, inspiring, exalting, uplifting, preaching, exhorting, evangelizing. The relationship can be moralistic, of course. But transforming leadership ultimately becomes moral in that it raises the level of human conduct and ethical aspiration of both leader and led, and thus it has a transforming effect on both."
The definition for "transforming leadership" can also be a definition, at least in part, for "meta-leadership."
Although I am not a huge fan of the whole "need for leadership issue" since it almost always leads to those designated as leaders accumulating and hence almost never willingly relinquishing power (thank god for George Washington), thus leading to the "cycle of stagnation" we've talked about earlier, there is a "tradition" that needs and expects some sort of leadership model.
The meta-leadership model (or transformational model) at least offers the hope of creating a "dynamic environment" that will allow us to engage in clear thinking based on real time data and analysis and collaborative organization building. Meta-leadership might also be further defined as the "absence of static leadership and organization."
This dynamism is necessary in a world with diminishing resources, a larger population, greater competition among and between geographic regions as well as a whole host of criteria that will define our immediate and long term future.
Meta-leadership can and should allow for the dynamic interaction of small, medium and larger groups and organizations. It does not demand (transactional leadership) a certain way of doing things.
Therefore, leadership is based upon need and ability in real time (or virtual real time) not just upon someone being designated as a leader.
More in Part Six.
Thursday, January 31, 2008
LIA Breakfast ...
I attended the LIA breakfast this morning featuring the Nassau and Suffolk County Executives as I do most years. It is always a well run, well attended event and this morning was no different.
Both individuals are bright fellows, it seems, and their hearts are in the right place. But I came away more convinced than ever of the need for better communication and collaboration along the lines of the efforts we're engaged in with our One Long Island series of projects.
Without going into too much detail, there is a disconnect between all of the various projects, commissions, ideas, between organizations, between the various levels of government, between existing projects and proposed projects ...
Healthy competition is great, so long as we can shake hands after the competition and get things done. To the victor belongs the responsibility to reach out and collaborate, even with his or her oppponents. Long Island requires this type of magnanimity to move forward.
Whether its the new "tax cap" commission" leaving out school administrators (there may be good reasons for this) or Suffolk and Nassau talking about creating alternative energy centers when Stony Brook is already in the lead on that issue (again there may be valid reasons for this) or a whole host of issues which require the type of "dynamic collaboration" we've been promoting, again, there is just a "disconnect" which prevents us from acting as a region while the reasonable amount of autonomy and local control that residents seem to like and demand.
For all the talk about consolidation and streamlining and all the benefits it may bring, we don't seem to be able quite yet to consolidate or streamline our ability to organizate projects and ideas for the greater good.
The good news is that more folks are recognizing that we're in this together, regardless of affiliation of whatever type, and that we must find a way to "get things done." And as I stated many times previously, I'm always impressed by the sheer number of bright folks we have at our disposal her on Long Island.
We just need to break this "cycle of stagnation" which impacts on all Long Islanders.
I'll keep trying to do my small part.
Both individuals are bright fellows, it seems, and their hearts are in the right place. But I came away more convinced than ever of the need for better communication and collaboration along the lines of the efforts we're engaged in with our One Long Island series of projects.
Without going into too much detail, there is a disconnect between all of the various projects, commissions, ideas, between organizations, between the various levels of government, between existing projects and proposed projects ...
Healthy competition is great, so long as we can shake hands after the competition and get things done. To the victor belongs the responsibility to reach out and collaborate, even with his or her oppponents. Long Island requires this type of magnanimity to move forward.
Whether its the new "tax cap" commission" leaving out school administrators (there may be good reasons for this) or Suffolk and Nassau talking about creating alternative energy centers when Stony Brook is already in the lead on that issue (again there may be valid reasons for this) or a whole host of issues which require the type of "dynamic collaboration" we've been promoting, again, there is just a "disconnect" which prevents us from acting as a region while the reasonable amount of autonomy and local control that residents seem to like and demand.
For all the talk about consolidation and streamlining and all the benefits it may bring, we don't seem to be able quite yet to consolidate or streamline our ability to organizate projects and ideas for the greater good.
The good news is that more folks are recognizing that we're in this together, regardless of affiliation of whatever type, and that we must find a way to "get things done." And as I stated many times previously, I'm always impressed by the sheer number of bright folks we have at our disposal her on Long Island.
We just need to break this "cycle of stagnation" which impacts on all Long Islanders.
I'll keep trying to do my small part.
Monday, December 31, 2007
Some thoughts on a new year ....
First of all, let me thank all of you who have made the Long Island Idea Factory site a success beyond anything I'd imagined it could be. We're off to a good start but we have a lot more work to do if any of these ideas are to become a reality.
Secondly, we're entering into an important year as we pick a new President. We'll hear a lot of talk about leadership, legacy and change.
To me, leadership is about ideas and how to work collaboratively to implement those ideas. Leadership is not about "idol worship." Idol worship only makes the population lazy in that we expect our "leaders" to do most of the work for us and, surprise, surprise, we are almost always disappointed in the results.
One of the overriding hopes for our One Long Island series of projects is that we create an environment wherein our leaders play a part in the progress of Long Island, but are not expected to shoulder the whole load. That is an unfair and impracticable burden to place upon anyone in a "representative democracy" and leads to a cycle of disappointment and stagnation.
We all have an important part to play. The key is to play the part at the right time and "in tune." If we can achieve a different and more creative dynamic here on Long Island with all its organizational diversity, there is no reason why our ideas can not be exported to other regions. As we've stated previously, Long Island has some of the best talent on the planet. We just need the tools and mindset to achieve great things.
Legacy is an overused and sometimes embarrassing word. I mean, other than family and close friends, who really cares about an individual legacy? Even then, they look at who you are and how you conduct your life rather than what you've "accomplished."
You live in the moment, plan for the future, continually seek knowledge and do the best job you know how. Metaphorically speaking, to have a pigeon use your statue as a lavatory 100 years from now is sort of irrelevant to the process of making a better life for your fellow Long Islanders. Do good work and move on.
If what you've done has helped in some way, great. That's really all you should expect out of it. Concern about individual legacy often times leads to poor decision-making based upon personal expediency rather than the long term common good.
The dust bin of history is littered with those who thought they would be immortal.
Change comes from good ideas, good organization and collaboration. It is easy to work with someone when you agree with them. It is obviously more difficult to work together when you disagree.
I always make it a point to try to find a way to build bridges with whomever I meet. Believe me, sometimes it would be much easier not to try!
But in the interest of being honest with myself and putting my words into practice, it is essential to make the effort.
So, I hope everyone out there has a happy and healthy New Year. I look forward to continuing the progress we've started and more importantly I look forward to meeting new people with new ideas who want to work collaboratively for a better Long Island and a better America.
Secondly, we're entering into an important year as we pick a new President. We'll hear a lot of talk about leadership, legacy and change.
To me, leadership is about ideas and how to work collaboratively to implement those ideas. Leadership is not about "idol worship." Idol worship only makes the population lazy in that we expect our "leaders" to do most of the work for us and, surprise, surprise, we are almost always disappointed in the results.
One of the overriding hopes for our One Long Island series of projects is that we create an environment wherein our leaders play a part in the progress of Long Island, but are not expected to shoulder the whole load. That is an unfair and impracticable burden to place upon anyone in a "representative democracy" and leads to a cycle of disappointment and stagnation.
We all have an important part to play. The key is to play the part at the right time and "in tune." If we can achieve a different and more creative dynamic here on Long Island with all its organizational diversity, there is no reason why our ideas can not be exported to other regions. As we've stated previously, Long Island has some of the best talent on the planet. We just need the tools and mindset to achieve great things.
Legacy is an overused and sometimes embarrassing word. I mean, other than family and close friends, who really cares about an individual legacy? Even then, they look at who you are and how you conduct your life rather than what you've "accomplished."
You live in the moment, plan for the future, continually seek knowledge and do the best job you know how. Metaphorically speaking, to have a pigeon use your statue as a lavatory 100 years from now is sort of irrelevant to the process of making a better life for your fellow Long Islanders. Do good work and move on.
If what you've done has helped in some way, great. That's really all you should expect out of it. Concern about individual legacy often times leads to poor decision-making based upon personal expediency rather than the long term common good.
The dust bin of history is littered with those who thought they would be immortal.
Change comes from good ideas, good organization and collaboration. It is easy to work with someone when you agree with them. It is obviously more difficult to work together when you disagree.
I always make it a point to try to find a way to build bridges with whomever I meet. Believe me, sometimes it would be much easier not to try!
But in the interest of being honest with myself and putting my words into practice, it is essential to make the effort.
So, I hope everyone out there has a happy and healthy New Year. I look forward to continuing the progress we've started and more importantly I look forward to meeting new people with new ideas who want to work collaboratively for a better Long Island and a better America.
Friday, March 28, 2008
Long Island School of Meta-Interdisciplinary Study: Lesson One
We've posted previously about the need to create an environment where we can all learn to think in a "cross disciplinary" manner.
Meta-interdisciplinary simply means you are exhausting all possible means of determining the correct public policy by leaving no one or no possible solution or idea out of the equation.
Here is a simple exercise.
Take 100 randomly selected "things" (concepts, ideas, existing programs, physical structures what have you) and put them on index cards. Next, select five cards. Create three possible connections (collaborative activities) between all of the five cards selected.
As you get more adept at the process increase 100 to 200, five to ten, three to five and so on until your brain starts to hurt. Now we're thinking "out of the box."
If you are a software savvy, there are "randomizer" programs out there that connect to databases to achieve the same results.
It doesn't matter that some or most of the ideas won't work. That isn't the purpose of the exercise.
The purpose of the exercise is to get us to think differently.
The purpose of the exercise is to break the "cycle of stagnation" we've talked about on a number of occasions.
More in Lesson Two.
Meta-interdisciplinary simply means you are exhausting all possible means of determining the correct public policy by leaving no one or no possible solution or idea out of the equation.
Here is a simple exercise.
Take 100 randomly selected "things" (concepts, ideas, existing programs, physical structures what have you) and put them on index cards. Next, select five cards. Create three possible connections (collaborative activities) between all of the five cards selected.
As you get more adept at the process increase 100 to 200, five to ten, three to five and so on until your brain starts to hurt. Now we're thinking "out of the box."
If you are a software savvy, there are "randomizer" programs out there that connect to databases to achieve the same results.
It doesn't matter that some or most of the ideas won't work. That isn't the purpose of the exercise.
The purpose of the exercise is to get us to think differently.
The purpose of the exercise is to break the "cycle of stagnation" we've talked about on a number of occasions.
More in Lesson Two.
Thursday, February 12, 2009
When do we become embarrassed?
"Reid, Pelosi: Bad jobs on transparency
There's still no comprehensive list of components of the $789 billion stimulus that actually adds up to $789 billion. Which is not a great job by Pelosi and Reid. Here is something that was leaked, but even on this one we can't make it add up to $789 billion."
This just happened to be the story of the day, but it really is emblematic of the greater problem. It certainly is not the exclusive domain of Ms. Pelosi and Mr. Reid.
At what point do we the public and our elected representatives, become embarrassed at not knowing relevant information? At not understanding the consequences of our actions?
When do we become embarrassed enough to do something about breaking the cycle of stagnation we are in?
Do we enjoy being ignorant?
Of course not.
Can we make better more informed decisions?
Of course.
This is one of the main premises of the One Long Island Program (which could be the One (you-fill-in- the blank) Program).
We want to be better. We want to be more informed. We want to work collaboratively and directly, not through surrogates.
We just need the tools to do so.
There's still no comprehensive list of components of the $789 billion stimulus that actually adds up to $789 billion. Which is not a great job by Pelosi and Reid. Here is something that was leaked, but even on this one we can't make it add up to $789 billion."
This just happened to be the story of the day, but it really is emblematic of the greater problem. It certainly is not the exclusive domain of Ms. Pelosi and Mr. Reid.
At what point do we the public and our elected representatives, become embarrassed at not knowing relevant information? At not understanding the consequences of our actions?
When do we become embarrassed enough to do something about breaking the cycle of stagnation we are in?
Do we enjoy being ignorant?
Of course not.
Can we make better more informed decisions?
Of course.
This is one of the main premises of the One Long Island Program (which could be the One (you-fill-in- the blank) Program).
We want to be better. We want to be more informed. We want to work collaboratively and directly, not through surrogates.
We just need the tools to do so.
Saturday, April 26, 2008
Long Island Meta News Service: Part Two
OK so we're calling it a Long Island Meta News Service to take advantage of the current debate of the sale of Newsday, shameless self-promoters that we are.
But in fact, this "structure" may be applied to almost any form of mass (meta) communication and information distribution on Long Island or elsewhere. It is one of the central collaborative models we're promoting in our "One Long Island" series.
From a technical point of view, creating a "community based" news service really isn't all that difficult any longer. We define community as all individuals and organizations (of all types) on Long Island. Even organizing it isn't a monumental issue.
The difficult part is trust. Do we trust one another enough to engage in the type of broad based collaborative dialogue necessary to move Long Island forward? Or will we remain in our "cycle of stagnation" depending on old forms and methodologies to solve new and ever more complex problems?
Will those in power and with influence share the same stage with those who are not?
Make no mistake, we are not advocating some community based free for all. It must be professionally managed and open to all those who have productive information and ideas for Long Island.
No exclusive agendas, no partisanship. Just accurate information, ideas, opinions and analysis presented fairly.
Imagine. A news and information service with unlimited access to content about and for Long Island with the ability to do complex analysis easily and collaboratively.
I think it might be worth our time to explore the viability of this project.
More in part three.
But in fact, this "structure" may be applied to almost any form of mass (meta) communication and information distribution on Long Island or elsewhere. It is one of the central collaborative models we're promoting in our "One Long Island" series.
From a technical point of view, creating a "community based" news service really isn't all that difficult any longer. We define community as all individuals and organizations (of all types) on Long Island. Even organizing it isn't a monumental issue.
The difficult part is trust. Do we trust one another enough to engage in the type of broad based collaborative dialogue necessary to move Long Island forward? Or will we remain in our "cycle of stagnation" depending on old forms and methodologies to solve new and ever more complex problems?
Will those in power and with influence share the same stage with those who are not?
Make no mistake, we are not advocating some community based free for all. It must be professionally managed and open to all those who have productive information and ideas for Long Island.
No exclusive agendas, no partisanship. Just accurate information, ideas, opinions and analysis presented fairly.
Imagine. A news and information service with unlimited access to content about and for Long Island with the ability to do complex analysis easily and collaboratively.
I think it might be worth our time to explore the viability of this project.
More in part three.
Monday, December 21, 2009
For true reform, we need merely look in the mirror.
"It is, of course, an unrealistic dream. Politics, image-making and sloganeering are easy. Governing - especially the nitty-gritty of state and local government - is hard. It has a way of tarnishing the veneer of idealism. And political idealism raises expectations that are almost impossible to fulfill, leading to disillusionment. Once the original idealism fades, as it did for Lindsay and Schundler and appears to have done for Suozzi, it is difficult to recapture.
Of course a "single" reformer will ultimately fail if his or her reform is based upon personal charisma.
Where there is no structural reform, failure is almost always certain.
Where there is no participation by the governed, reform will almost always fail.
This is a story as old as recorded history, yet somehow we cling to the concept of being "saved" by an individual.
If someone wishes to show true reform, create a system where collaboration and the free exchange of ideas and methods is made dynamic and simple. "One Long Island" is an attempt at "creating" this type of system.
True reform will break the "cycle of stagnation" we currently find ourselves mired in, on Long Island and in the country in general. True reform will assist the public in creating a fair, just and efficient society in a way that no top down dictate can.
We are the "reformers."
For true reform, we need merely look in the mirror.
Friday, September 12, 2008
Building a New Long Island Economy: Part One
Some more inter-related topics:
One on cutting "red tape."
One on regional planning.
One on the Long Island economy.
As we've posted previously it seems a fairly obvious observation that the above issues among many others, are inter-related. Often times we can not change one thing without causing change in one or more other areas.
We've also spoken about the "diversity" of organizations (some might say duplication or redundancy of organizations) on Long Island, not only in government but across many different disciplines. Never-the-less, this is the current state of affairs and changing it by reduction may take more time and effort than its worth. Many organizations exist because of something, not in spite of it and have the constituencies to prove it.
As previously stated, organizations, of all types, that are no longer necessary will become extinct naturally if there is a dynamic philosophy on Long Island, which concentrates on innovation and self-renewal.
So, what to do?
There seems to be a general consensus on the big issues. The problem is that the consensus has been reached using the only data available to organizations and that data has not been standardized or normalized (the term my friend Mark Fasciano uses and which the correct one, he's the PhD not me), also an issue we've spoke about previously with among other posts the Long Island Dublin Core Initiative idea among other concepts. Additionally the methodology utilized to reach these various conclusions is similarly not uniform, has not been vetted and is generally in a static format rather than a dynamic format making it only semi-useful.
Therefore, conclusions reached using these various data will never be "bullet proof" and as such are subject to attack, justified or unjustified.
Once the information leaves the area of verifiable fact and enters the world of opinion, then, constructive action is virtually impossible as the various competing interests jostle over who is correct.
We are not suggesting that informed opinion should not be solicited, but it can not be the sole basis for or a major component in building a new Long Island economic model or creating a Long Island Philosophy.
Without a flexible, dynamic structure in place we will continue to make only sporadic progress and remain stuck in the "cycle of stagnation" we've spoken about previously.
More in Part II.
One on cutting "red tape."
One on regional planning.
One on the Long Island economy.
As we've posted previously it seems a fairly obvious observation that the above issues among many others, are inter-related. Often times we can not change one thing without causing change in one or more other areas.
We've also spoken about the "diversity" of organizations (some might say duplication or redundancy of organizations) on Long Island, not only in government but across many different disciplines. Never-the-less, this is the current state of affairs and changing it by reduction may take more time and effort than its worth. Many organizations exist because of something, not in spite of it and have the constituencies to prove it.
As previously stated, organizations, of all types, that are no longer necessary will become extinct naturally if there is a dynamic philosophy on Long Island, which concentrates on innovation and self-renewal.
So, what to do?
There seems to be a general consensus on the big issues. The problem is that the consensus has been reached using the only data available to organizations and that data has not been standardized or normalized (the term my friend Mark Fasciano uses and which the correct one, he's the PhD not me), also an issue we've spoke about previously with among other posts the Long Island Dublin Core Initiative idea among other concepts. Additionally the methodology utilized to reach these various conclusions is similarly not uniform, has not been vetted and is generally in a static format rather than a dynamic format making it only semi-useful.
Therefore, conclusions reached using these various data will never be "bullet proof" and as such are subject to attack, justified or unjustified.
Once the information leaves the area of verifiable fact and enters the world of opinion, then, constructive action is virtually impossible as the various competing interests jostle over who is correct.
We are not suggesting that informed opinion should not be solicited, but it can not be the sole basis for or a major component in building a new Long Island economic model or creating a Long Island Philosophy.
Without a flexible, dynamic structure in place we will continue to make only sporadic progress and remain stuck in the "cycle of stagnation" we've spoken about previously.
More in Part II.
Saturday, June 27, 2009
A suggestion ...
"State law currently does not allow counties to abolish governments. The new law allows a county executive and county legislature to create a master plan, subject to a referendum, that could merge or dissolve local governments."
"The most dysfunctional city on the planet is going to tell us how to streamline government?" Southampton Village Mayor Mark Epley said of the bill signed into law Thursday by Gov. David A. Paterson. "What drives the tax bill on Long Island is the cost of education. That's what the state should be focusing on."
A suggestion.
Nassau and Suffolk are already in the process of doing a master plan for Long Island through the Long Island Regional Planning Council. My understanding, through discussions with those involved in the process, is that it will be collaborative, comprehensive, thorough and perhaps even dynamic.
Do we really need another master plan for one particular purpose?
Can't we yet see that most things we do on Long Island are interrelated?
Can't we yet base our decisions on a rational, deliberative approach such as (but not exclusively obviously) we suggest in the "One Long Island" series of concepts?
The truth is that no one has the information we need in a format that is usable for the intended purposes on Long Island or in New York State.
Until we make that a priority, we will continually be subject to "chasing our own tail" stuck in a cycle of stagnation.
One Long Island creates an "open system" for collaborative development.
"The most dysfunctional city on the planet is going to tell us how to streamline government?" Southampton Village Mayor Mark Epley said of the bill signed into law Thursday by Gov. David A. Paterson. "What drives the tax bill on Long Island is the cost of education. That's what the state should be focusing on."
A suggestion.
Nassau and Suffolk are already in the process of doing a master plan for Long Island through the Long Island Regional Planning Council. My understanding, through discussions with those involved in the process, is that it will be collaborative, comprehensive, thorough and perhaps even dynamic.
Do we really need another master plan for one particular purpose?
Can't we yet see that most things we do on Long Island are interrelated?
Can't we yet base our decisions on a rational, deliberative approach such as (but not exclusively obviously) we suggest in the "One Long Island" series of concepts?
The truth is that no one has the information we need in a format that is usable for the intended purposes on Long Island or in New York State.
Until we make that a priority, we will continually be subject to "chasing our own tail" stuck in a cycle of stagnation.
One Long Island creates an "open system" for collaborative development.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
ABS Share
