[LINK] From consensus to implementation in one step?

[Tom Worthington]

At 05:49 PM 8/06/2007, Ivan Trundle wrote (was: "Re: [LINK] What's a 
website (was Welcome to our new website)"):

>>>... On 05/06/2007, at 4:47 PM, Tom Worthington wrote:
>>>>I use a definition from the High Court of Australia ... 
>>>>www.tomw.net.au/technology/it/ecommerce/index.shtml#law ...
>
>If you're trying to avoid waffle, why not just confine your comment 
>to email alone?

The idea was to keep the posting brief. Those readers who want more 
detail could click on the link.

>Don't  assume that people are incapable of making sense from what 
>you or others write. ...

I like to do my readers the courtesy of writing something brief and 
easy to read. I have difficulty understanding many postings. I see a 
cryptic reference to something or a copy of a whole article from 
somewhere. I think "Why has this person referred to this? What is all 
this stuff about? What are they trying to tell me?".

>How is one able to judge how much time or thought you put into any 
>words that you craft? And how is that meant to impress the reader?   ...

If I reference a body of work built up over several years, then 
clearly it is not something I just thought of. If I take the trouble 
to interpret mot just copy, then that should show the reader I put 
some effort into it.

>>4. PROMOTE: By pointing to my web site I promote myself and those 
>>organisations I am associated with.  ...
>
>You've nailed it - and I don't know why this isn't number one, 
>if  you're being honest.  ...

If promotion was my first priority, Link would not be the place I 
would do it. Linkers are too discerning and will not just swallow 
marketing stuff.

>>What amazes me is that many contributors to online forums seem 
>>to  put so little effort into what they write in postings.  ...
>
>The art of conversation is the ability to listen as much as talk  ...

Yes. I normally  limit myself to one posting to Link per day. I write 
about four or five postings and select the one best one. The others 
may be held over for the next day, some are used elsewhere, but most 
are deleted. This way I am forced to listen to others and not just say stuff.

>... there are some on Link who put little effort into their 
>writings, but communicate very well - for some,  writing and 
>communicating require no effort at all. ...

Writing is something I find very difficult. I struggle with every 
word and have to use a spelling checker for everything I write. It is 
a delight that anyone reads it and that some respond.

>I have also written about how to write postings, but I'm not here to 
>promote when I did, or where it was published. ...

So why are you here?

>Is there any value in this thread? ...

Yes. There is value in this conversation. I have been considering 
what is needed to make people more comfortable with online 
communication. The book chapter I wrote about how to write mail 
messages was inspired by a Link conversation. Perhaps it is time to 
do something similar on how to run an organisation using Web 2.0 type 
tools. I have become increasingly frustrated by people wanting to 
have meetings and set up complex administrative processes, rather 
than get on with useful work.

With the online tools available we should be able to collapse most of 
the decision making process into the implementation phase. Rather 
than write a memo about how to do something, then have endless 
meetings about it, it should be possible to prototype the 
implementation online in a collaborative environment. When the design 
is sufficiently mature and there is sufficient consensus, the system 
can be put into production. Given the spread of web based systems 
this could be applied much of what an organisation does.

Recently I was invited to Parliament House for coffee with staff of a 
cabinet minister. This was an informal chat where I could pass on 
thoughts on where computers and telecommunications were going and 
what my research colleagues were cooking up. Even a casual cup of 
coffee took a lot of organizing. Most of the experts in government 
agencies are barred from doing something similar because of their 
bureaucratic structures. When I worked for the government I could 
normally only talk to senior ministerial staff in my ACS industry 
role and talk to ministers when I bumped into them at trade shows.

Forums such as Link provide an efficient informal channel for such 
communications. But this is very difficult for the average bureaucrat 
(public or commercial) to cope with. They need training in this way 
of working and perhaps some better tools.

At a more human scale I mentioned a home version of this in an 
interview with Joshua Gliddon("Start a new internet, the address 
books' full", the Financial Review, 16-17 June 2007). In this I 
suggested families could coordinate the school run online, rather 
than by phone and SMS.



Tom Worthington FACS HLM tom.worthington at tomw.net.au Ph: 0419 496150
Director, Tomw Communications Pty Ltd            ABN: 17 088 714 309
PO Box 13, Belconnen ACT 2617                http://www.tomw.net.au/
Visiting Fellow, ANU      Blog: http://www.tomw.net.au/blog/atom.xml