Friday, September 28, 2007

Good model for Long Island and New York...

Open Standards Commitment

The Liberty Alliance is committed to creating technical standards that solve global identity management needs and can be easily implemented by the widest possible audience. We believe that technical standards must be interoperable and open in order to be most useful and to promote further innovation. Interoperable and open standards are particularly important to digital identity technology and processes as they influence business conduct and social interactions online. This is important to our members as well as the larger deploying marketplace which we support.

Our statement describes critical elements to an open standard and the development process we feel it should follow.

Many of our members have issued similar open standards calls. The Danish government has detailed the importance of open standards in a published paper which stresses the importance of defining “an open standard by its properties in its purest form to remove uncertainty, while recognising that in practice owners will choose the degree of openness they expect to provide the greatest return.”

An article in eGovernment News explains that the position of the Danish government is consistent with other European approaches:

The Danish National IT and Telecom Agency’s “pragmatic approach” to the definition of open standards is similar to the approach adopted by the European Commission’s IDA Programme. Indeed, according to the European Interoperability Framework for pan-European eGovernment services released by IDA in January 2004, open standards and open source software are two of the general principles that should be considered for any e-government services to be set-up at a pan-European level. The framework says that, in this context, "open" should mean the standard fulfils the following requirements:

· The costs for the use of the standard are low.
· The standard has been published.
· The standard is adopted on the basis of an open decision-making procedure.
· The intellectual property rights to the standard are vested in a not-for-profit organisation, which operates a completely free access policy.
· There are no constraints on the re-use of the standard.

The use of open standards is widely regarded as a cornerstone for the development of interoperable e-government services at local, regional, national and pan-European level. Speaking at the World Standards Day on 14 October 2003, EU Enterprise and Information Society Commissioner Erkki Liikanen stressed that "open standards are important to help create interoperable and affordable solutions for everybody. They also promote competition by setting up a technical playing field that is level to all market players. This means lower costs for enterprises and, ultimately, the consumer".

This approach and position has been endorsed by the New Zealand Government as well, after extensive research and reference of work by other organizations, resulting in similar statements on the definition of an open standard.

We welcome the industry in joining us in delivering open standards for the benefit of the marketplace, enterprises and end users.

On point editorial from the Long Island Business News ...

"That’s a hard sell here, in the shadow of the Capital of Capitalism, but it’s exactly how we need to start thinking. Long Island leaders and residents must be willing to compromise, to see the bigger picture, to endure bottom lines that are not as fat as they might be.
It’s not as easy as buying the local pub, not here. But if we can craft a regional plan that makes optimal use of our population and potential, there may be a future here after all."

(Click to read entire article)

Accelerate Long Island, a Long Island Meta Accelerator: Part II

Wednesday, September 26, 2007

Food for thought ...

"... none other than Plato himself dictated that the circle was the perfect form for celestial movement, and for the next two thousand years, astronomers said that planetary orbits were circular — even though their observational data suggested otherwise. Even Copernicus used circles in his heliocentric model of the universe. Only after much soul-searching did Kepler use the ellipse to describe the heavenly paths. Everyone has externally-imposed "shoulds" and values that influence their thinking. "

"DoI Theory is concerned with the manner in which a new technological idea, artefact or technique, or a new use of an old one, migrates from creation to use. According to DoI theory, technological innovation is communicated through particular channels, over time, among the members of a social system.

The stages through which a technological innovation passes are:
knowledge (exposure to its existence, and understanding of its functions);
persuasion (the forming of a favourable attitude to it);
decision (commitment to its adoption);
implementation (putting it to use); and
confirmation (reinforcement based on positive outcomes from it). "

"the need for collaborative design because design problems are
- complex " requiring social creativity in which stakeholders from different
disciplines have to collaborate
- ill-defined " requiring the integration of problem framing and problem
- have no (single) answer " argumentation support, consideration of tradeoffs
- unique (“a universe of one”) " requiring learning when no one knows the

Tuesday, September 25, 2007

One Long Island Project: Dynamic, Collaborative and Sustainable Regionalism

First a word about the posts and ideas on the Long Island Idea Factory site.

While we are primarily concerned with our home region of Long Island, we believe that many of the ideas we are proposing would work in other regions of New York State and elsewhere as well.

After all, why couldn't there be a One New York Project, a New York 3.0, a New York Meta Think Tank, a New York Virtual Congress, a Virtual New York Constitution, a New York School of Meta Interdisciplinary Studies and so on? We're only limited by our imagination and willingness to work collaboratively for what we wish to see accomplished.

So rather than ask the question why should we collaborate, we should be asking the question why wouldn't we collaborate? We should understand by now that Long Island and New York are competing nationally and internationally. Innovation and collaboration are key to our success.

We can't really afford to engage in the old "upstate - downstate" rivalries any longer and be expected to taken seriously as an economic and innovation powerhouse in the future. This "old thinking" will eventually diminish or destroy any advantages we currently enjoy.

Change is undeniably difficult. And large scale change even more so. Long Island's (and New York's) current method of a "non-integrated" approach to issue resolution has clearly not been a success on many levels. Future demands will be exponentially larger and more complex than they are today. We must have an approach and a methodology for successfully navigating these future storms. "One Long Island" is a potential solution.

Even after we "resolve" an issue, the resolution must be "recycled" to ensure its continued viability under changing circumstances and fact patterns. When we speak about a "perpetual" and "dynamic" Long Island this is one of the main concepts we are advancing.

Sunday, September 23, 2007

The NY Times bolsters the case for our "One Long Island Project" ...

... now if we could only get them to read the Long Island Idea Factory!

The City

Why New York Stagnates

Imagine, for a moment, that you are a business executive thinking about moving your company — an upscale, high-tech company — to New York or maybe Connecticut or perhaps California. After a little research, you find out that most of New York’s system for encouraging new businesses is based on one thing: political pork.

There is no workable economic development plan for the whole state. Instead, businesses are forced to beg for a hodgepodge of handouts, each of which depends less on what the companies have to offer in terms of jobs or revenue than on which bigwigs they know in Albany. Suddenly, Massachusetts and North Carolina and Texas begin to look better and better and better.

For all the bellowing in Albany about the need for more jobs, the noisemakers themselves are a big part of the problem, handing out inducements like favors at a political gala. The net result is to reinforce the political status quo.

That New York does not have a statewide economic strategy is a disgrace. A few haphazard attempts to “help business” don’t really help the economy, and taxpayers should be in full revolt about the tons of money that has been parceled out — for Empire Zones and other economic boondoggles — with not enough new jobs to show for it.

Some business groups have argued that New York loses these jobs because of its taxes, but a report from A. T. Kearney earlier this year concluded that the real problem is the state’s herky-jerky system for bringing in new businesses.

One bright spot in this grim statewide picture is nanotechnology. With tons of state money, and a push from former Gov. George Pataki, the Albany area is fast becoming one of the more important nanotechnology locations in the world. But attempts to clone the Albany project have not gone well elsewhere.

The idea is to use a top-flight educational institution — the Rennselaer Polytechnic Institute, for instance — and find a business partner like I.B.M. to help pay the cost of creating such a complex. New York’s universities are spread across the state, offering the possibility that other research centers could be created to provide jobs and economic health. State financing and tax breaks are important, but they will not really work if there is no strong business partner.

The Kearney report notes that between 1990 and 2005, New York State lost higher-paying jobs in manufacturing, financial services and other areas. Over the same period, the state gained lower-paying jobs in education, health services and professional services. New York needs to keep those jobs, even the lower-paying ones, and add more higher-paying jobs.

Gov. Eliot Spitzer and Joseph Bruno, the State Senate leader, have been hissing mad at each other for months, even as the jobs wander off elsewhere. Time to get a grip, fellows. For the sake of all New Yorkers, Albany’s leaders need to grit their teeth and sit down together and start forming a genuine long-range economic plan that focuses more on bringing in new jobs than preserving their own.

Some light reading for a Sunday ...

Thursday, September 20, 2007

Long Island Congress: A Virtual Meta Think Tank

We've posted previously about how the Long Island Congress Idea may be used as a "virtual think tank" (perhaps even a virtual meta-think tank) that will have the ability to "break down the silos" and the provincialism which invariably cause progress to be slow, if at all, on Long Island.

Why is it important to create a "virtual think tank" in the first place? Don't we meet enough? Aren't there enough plans and proposals out there?

Again, yes and no.

As we've stated previously there are a lot of static reports out there and there are a lot of meetings going on. But how do you ever know if the correct information is being disseminated to the right organization? How do you know that there is the right mix of people and disciplines in the room. Most importantly, where is the follow-up?

Starting and stopping projects then starting again is the real killer. No momentum is created, no dynamism exists. Therefore, progress is stalled.

Add this to the fact that there are competing egos and agendas and that the general public has a pronounced distrust for most "traditional" sources of information and you have a prescription for stagnation. For the elected official being creative and taking chances is sometimes the "kiss of death" in Darwinian field of politics. Fear of failure is a big momentum killer.

A "virtual think tank" allows individuals and organizations to collaborate without conflict. Creativity is encouraged and rewarded. The end result is the key, not who accomplishes it or takes credit for it. ( "Success has many fathers, but failure is an orphan." ). Fear of failure is eliminated to a great extent with our proposal. It also helps everyone to be less myopic and provincial in their views.

I refuse to believe that with the brainpower and resources we have on Long Island, that we can not find, promote and implement viable solutions to most of our present and future issues.

So yes it is important we have a "virtual think tank" here on Long Island (as it is important in other regions) no matter what we ultimately call it or the process we use to create it.

Wednesday, September 19, 2007

Long Island Decision Model: Part Four

The Long Island School of Dynamic or Meta-Interdisciplinarianism: Part One

Isn't "metainterdisciplinarianism" a redundant word? After all if we are practicing interdisciplinarianism aren't we already using all the tools available to us?

Yes and no.

From what I can gather "interdisciplinarianism" generally does not, despite its apparent meaning, refer to the attempt to bring all disciplines together for a common regional ongoing and dynamic purpose. It seems to be limits to brings "certain" disciplines (but not all) together for a particular project. (Interdisciplinarity is the act of drawing from two or more academic disciplines and integrating their insights to work together in pursuit of a common goal. "Interdisciplinary Studies", as they are called, use interdisciplinarity to develop a greater understanding of a problem that is too complex or wide-ranging (i.e. AIDS pandemic, global warming) to be dealt with using the knowledge and methodology of just one discipline.) Close but no cigar for our purposes.

With the One Long Island Project we are talking about a dynamic, perpetual process which encompasses all elements working together for a common purpose (hence metainterdisciplinarianism).

I believe it would be helpful to the process if we assist or teach folks how to cooperate and how to build bridges for mutual benefit, not only in a "philosophical sense" but in a technical way as well.

I don't know that anyone would call this new course of study "The Long Island School of Metainterdisciplinarianism" (The Long Island School of Metainterdisciplinarian Studies) but whatever it is called, I believe it is an important part of changing the dynamics on Long Island for the better. Maybe we should call it The Long Island School of Dynamic Interdisciplinarianism instead. Could be Transdisciplinarity as well I suppose.

Hey. That's why it's called an idea factory. We're trying to explore all options. Some will work. Some won't. But let's get all of Long Island thinking and collaborating for the common good. The idea is to get everyone (or at least willing participants) to leave their comfort zone and to think differently. See things from a new vantage point and perspective. THINK. COLLABERATE. ACT. REPEAT. "Everything is theoretically impossible, until it is done. Robert A. Heinlein"

Tuesday, September 18, 2007

Long Island Change Management:Part One

Changing the way we "do business on" and "think" about Long Island is a long term project.

Some good preliminary ideas are here, here, here (where the above image is from) and here.

As we've indicated previously, the concept behind Long Island 3.0 (The One Long Island Project) is to create something that transcends current limitations and personal or organizational ambitions and instead, creates a long term and sustainable environment for the flexibility and dynamism Long Island will require to navigate the future.

"Change. Ours is an era of massive change, sometimes liberating, other times traumatic. Organisations find themselves buffeted by external forces: technological, market, political and cultural. They are challenged to become ever more efficient, effective, productive and competitive. How can they be active masters of change rather than reactive servants? How can change in organisations be driven by their people rather than the organisation in the abstract, or its leaders having to drag them along? Organisations will fail if they are not capable of learning, in a collective sense, as well as the individuals who spend their days at work there. They will fail if they do not regard themselves as places of continuous personal and corporate reinvention, of individual and institutional transformation. The organisation and every person within it needs to envision themselves, not as a change object, but as an agent of change."

Saturday, September 15, 2007

One Long Island Project: Part One

Another way to conceptualize the Long Island 3.0 series of proposals.

The hardest thing to do, I think, is to explain complex ideas in simple terms. It may be a skill I don't possess. I will continue to try however.

Some of you have asked me what the "agenda" is for all of this. Why are you writing this blog?

Well the reason I'm writing about Long Island is because I actually enjoy this sort of thing and also, being an individual whose relatives have only known Long Island as a home since they "arrived" here in the late 1880s through the early part of the last century, I have an affinity for and a desire to see Long Island stay the great place its been for my family and friends.

However, for Long Island to remain a great place it must change in a sustainable and dynamic manner. I think most Long Islanders see that. My hope is that I can contribute some piece of the puzzle that helps this come about.

Ah, but you are, or have been, political aren't you? You must be setting yourself up for another run!

Sorry. Been there, done that and did the best I knew how at the time (Oyster Bay 2000 [circa 1993]). I have great respect for everyone who puts themselves in the public eye and subjects themselves (and their family) to the "democratic process." Whether its a school board or President of the United States, it takes the "fire in the belly." I'm happy to help good people get elected ... it just isn't for me anymore.

I don't believe that what I wish to help accomplish on Long Island is best served through elective office. Elective officials are sometimes constrained and limited in what they can accomplish by the "parameters" of their office. If possible, I want to spend my time forging productive "links" and coalitions between disparate (and sometimes seemingly incompatible) organizations for the common good. I think Long Island 3.0 (or the"One Long Island Project") will be helpful in this regard. Sometimes those who seem to have all the power are themselves limited by authority and must be assisted as well in doing the public good ("Uneasy lies the head that wears a crown"). It has been my experience that most elected officials want to do the right thing and are elected officials primarily to do the public good and not for personal aggrandizement.

I am a firm believer in the process and believe everyone should be involved in getting good people elected. If you don't participate currently, you should in some manner. Going door to door is one of the best educational experiences a person can have. I know it was for me.

Among other things, it teaches you humility, teaches you what you don't know, forces you to see other points of view, shows you the value of compromise and cooperation, makes you work for your votes (we always appreciate something more when you work for it) and requires you to engage in a real and direct way, all the different types of folks you wish to represent. Most importantly it teaches you that elected office is a privilege, not a right.

I don't care what level of office you are seeking, if you are not going directly to the people (obviously as your physical abilities allow) and asking them for their vote, you are not being honest with yourself or the people you seek to represent. Citizens coming to see you is not the same as you going to see them. Obviously the larger the office the more difficult this becomes, but no matter what the office is it should be done at some point if for no other reason than to keep the flame of humility alive in all elected officials.

Even as I advocate for "virtual this" and "meta that" I remember the value of looking folks in the eye and asking for their vote. Hopefully what I propose is not taken as a replacement for this direct interaction but rather as a way to assist all Long Islanders in among other things, the process of dynamic self governance through informed decision-making.

OK. Time to get off the soapbox.

I hope I've answered some of your questions. As always keep 'em coming.

Friday, September 14, 2007

Random thoughts on a Friday ...

(Overcome All Difficulties)

Long Island 3.0 is a methodology that allows all Long Islanders to collaborate in a dynamic manner, presuming they wish to do so. How do we maintain a collective focus with Long Island 3.0 so as to deflect the actions of those who wish to have little or no change? Can we encourage our great Long Island colleges and universities to expand the concept of "Long Island Studies" to incorporate some or all of the Long Island 3.0 concepts and create a whole army of professional Long Island "synthesizers," folks who see the big picture and know how to bring disparate elements together for a common purpose?

How can we show that by cooperating, we enlarge the opportunities for those already established? To enact change those in power, who obviously believe they have the most to lose (maybe they're correct, depending on the circumstances) must cooperate. Leadership, on some level, is the absence of fear. Established organizations must show that they are willing to "sacrifice" at some level for the greater good. Give a little now, reap the benefits of a more prosperous Long Island later. Perhaps we should call it the "One Long Island Project."

Opinion is important. Ideas are important. But employing some type of "Long Island Scientific Method" is critical to sustainable positive change. It is always tougher to argue with a demonstrated reality than with an opinion, no matter how well formed. Long Island 3.0 provides some of the framework needed to establish a "Long Island Scientific Method."

Giving up is not an option. Just complaining is not an option. Creating controversy for personal or organizational advantage is not an option. Having an idea or an opinion that you are unwilling to defend is not an option. Failure is not an option.

How do we make competitors into collaborators for the public good on Long Island? By freeing up the exchange of information through the various concepts contained in Long Island 3.0 (and elsewhere of course) we create opportunities we perhaps never knew existed. For example through ideas like the "Citizen Media Network" (an outgrowth of the Community Congress idea of the early 90's) and a companion of the Virtual Long Island Congress and all the other Long Island 3.0 ideas, we enable all not-for-profit groups (who do so much to help Long Islanders) obtain access to thousands (millions?) of additional contacts that they would not normally have access to otherwise.

We must begin the process of reshaping Long Island now, not just for short term and based upon immediate needs, but we must change the very manner in which we think about Long Island and how we communicate with one another ..... Interesting article ..... "So if we can't predict the future, why try? Because we have to." ..... Different, but interesting nevertheless.

Thursday, September 13, 2007

Long Island Meta-Accelerator Project: Part One

We've posted previously about how the Long Island 3.0 concepts have the potential to turn Long Island into one unified "accelerator" project.

Sort of like this only not just limited to business issues. Ours would be more all encompassing; a "meta-accelerator. "

Why can't we use our collective abilities to "make a profit" for Long Island. Use it to lower taxes. Attract business. Initiate and implement new ideas. More in part two.

As a side note, perhaps the reason there are so many different and diverse organizations (of all types) on Long Island is precisely because we have never had any method for "bringing it all together" before ... a self fulfilling prophesy of sorts. Different and diverse organizations are a good thing, so long as they are working towards a common, dynamic and organized mission. Hopefully Long Island 3.0 can, over time, help solve this riddle and promote diversity and innovation directed toward a common purpose.

Wednesday, September 12, 2007

Implementing Long Island 3.0

The above diagram illustrates one way to look at how to implement (or begin to implement) the Long Island 3.0 concept.

A key is to identify those in all relevant disciplines who have the "core competency" required in a particular field (it may be multiple individuals and/or organizations) then to determine who those individuals and organizations have the ability to influence. When we say influence, we are using it in the "collaborative" context, not the "command" context.

Obviously, some will have multiple core competencies and multiple spheres of influence. Together, the scope of their collective abilities should create the "Joint Sphere (s) of Influence" that covers not only all of Long Island, but reaches out nationally and internationally.

I short we may look at Long Island 3.0 as using a "social networking" theory of sorts to its fullest application.

Tuesday, September 11, 2007

Why is a "dynamic" Long Island important?

Why is a "dynamic" Long Island important?

As we've stated in previous posts a "dynamic" Long Island is, in effect, a Long Island in perpetual motion. There is no "down time" for stagnation and negativism to creep in and stop progress (whatever form this progress eventually becomes is a by-product of the collaboration Long Island 3.0 encourages).

We use the term Long Island 3.0 to encompass all the different ideas we promote on this site including the Long Island Congress, the Virtual Long Island Constitution , Citizen Media Network etc. Long Island 3.0 is not only a series of proposals, but hopefully a way to point to a "Long Island Philosophy" of sorts. A new and pragmatic way to think about Long Island and its future and to hopefully encourage the positive change we require.

Additionally, and as we've stated previously, there are many good people and good organizations striving to make Long Island a better place. The issue more often than not seems to boil down to the loss of momentum. Many good ideas and programs "die on the vine" for a lack of momentum.

Long Island 3.0 counteracts this loss of momentum by establishing flexible standards (technical and otherwise) which create the "dynamism" Long Island requires to forge a new identity for this century and beyond.

Monday, September 10, 2007

Some random thoughts on a Monday ...

How about a "Long Island Housing Corporation" (to promote need appropriate housing) as an outgrowth of the Virtual Long Island Constitution and the cooperation between all political subdivisions (and others). Similar to the "Long Island Municipal Investment Group (maybe even a subdivision thereof?)" we wrote about earlier, a continuation of the overarching theory that the more ties we have to one another the more likely it is we will cooperate.

How about all the Long Island software developed or utilized for the inter-connectivity of Long Island is done as "open source" and subject to an Long Island Open Source Licensing Agreement? Again this will help us all work from the same playbook and foster cooperation, local innovation and business development. Even software that is proprietary should be required to utilize some "open architecture" so that we can create all the bridges we need to foster the idea of "one Long Island."

How do we utilize both "right brain" Long Island talent and "left brain" Long Island talent?

Can we create a "modular Long Island talent pool" where individuals and organizations which are preeminent in their field take the lead on certain aspects of the Long Island 3.0 concept?

I'll try to develop these themes in later posts.

Thursday, September 6, 2007

Long Island "Super Cruncher"

This article helps to explain a part of what Long Island 3.0 is about.

We advocate using new technology to come to rational, fact based public policy (and as part of an overall Long Island "Common Language" Project we had discussed earlier which will also facilitate communication and positive outcomes.).

In the article the author envisions "the replacement of expertise and intuition by objective, data-based decision making, made possible by a virtually inexhaustible supply of inexpensive information."

I think this author is a bit severe. Rather than replacing "expertise and intuition" I would instead say we are replacing misinformation and intransigence which lead to stagnation.

The bottom line is that the technology is here today and it is readily available. Let's use it for the common good of Long Island.

Tuesday, September 4, 2007

Possible applications of a Virtual Long Island Constitution

So how do we solve our housing issues?

If we agree with the premise (subject to the dynamic meta-analyses we've been preaching for the past 100 or so posts) that there is a need for more housing to keep our young workers and families here on Long Island (and to attract more professionals of all types), then let us take a simple, common sense approach to the issue.

Let's also agree that we be able to, with reasonable certainty, analyze and come to a defensible position on the who, what, where, how much, time frame (solves issue for 10 years, 20 years, 50 or more years?) and all the various environmental and quality of life concerns of the issue (I know it sounds like a lot, but it is reasonably simple to do accurate projections with the right modeling software).

Let's also agree that this issue is a shared issue amongst all Long Islanders.

Then we can agree that a Long Island Constitution (virtual or otherwise) could, as one of its outcomes, design a plan where all political subdivisions agree to construct (or allow to be constructed) X number of housing units at Y cost (sort of Long Island Meta-Leadership concept). We should also include all New York State owned land, school district property, and all other possible locations for housing.

In short, let's take a comprehensive, inclusive, well analyzed approach to the matter and enter into a "contract" of sorts (LI Constitution) to get the job done for the future health of Long Island.

Why is this important? Shouldn't our leaders (political and otherwise) just know how to get this done?

Well, yes and no.

It is not only the responsibility of our "leaders" to get this (and all other issues important for Long Island's future) done, it is really our responsibility. We must give our leaders the courage and the backing to make positive change for Long Island. We must reward innovation if we wish to remain competitive as a region.

Our "leaders" don't want to be the first to go "too far out on a limb" and be perceived as causing their "constituents" to bear an unfair share of the burden for, in this case, new housing development. This is a perfectly reasonable and rational view.

I believe most Long Islanders will support any effort to improve Long Island if they believe the process is fair and equitable. Additionally, I don't think it is productive for media (and others) to slam elected officials and other leaders in isolation (or at all for that matter, critique yes, personal attacks, no). If there are issues to be solved on Long Island, they are issues for all of us to solve. The media should foster cooperation while obviously fulfilling it's traditional obligation as a "public watchdog." But a good watchdog should see things that are actually there, not bark at every sound that it hears.

In the end, again, the public is its own best watchdog (see the Citizen Media Network and Citizen Alert Network concepts on this site).

A Long Island Constitution (virtual or otherwise), based upon fair and accurate information, properly analyzed is a necessary step in solving any of the long term issues for Long Island.

Sunday, September 2, 2007

The role of Long Island colleges and universities

Here is a good overview and perhaps some part of a model for Long Island colleges, universities and high schools and the role they might play in a Long Island "renaissance."

Again, a central theme in Long Island 3.0 is to make the highest and best use of all Long Island resources for the common good.

Certainly all our educational institutions (including our library systems) will play a vital role in Long Island's future.

Perhaps it is time for a new type of "Long Island Studies" curriculum. One that focuses on Long Island 3.0 (or Long Island 3.0 type) concepts.

After all, if we are sincere about wanting our young people to stay on Long Island we should really give them seat at the table and integrate their ideas and concepts into the mix.