A strategic Analysis of Knowledge Sharing and Social Change Platforms

A
Strategic
Analysis
of

Knowledge
Exchange
and
Social
Change
Pla9orms

Posi;oning
the
PLAST
Project

Helene Finidori CC BY - SA

The
present
analysis
of
the
sustainability
of
pla2orms
for
social
engagement
and

social
empowerment
incorporates
insights
derived
from
the
exponen:al
growth
of

web
based
businesses.

The
@pentagrowth
model
on
which
it
is
based
was
elaborated
from
a
study
of
50

web
businesses
that
achieved
annual
growth
of
greater
than
50
percent
per
annum

(in
revenue,
number
of
users
and
impact)
for
five
consecu:ve
years
from
2008.

The
study
iden:fied
five
laws
for
exponen:al
growth
and,
on
this
basis,
five
levers,

each
with
a
scale
onto
which
various
business
models
can
be
posi:oned.

Creus,
Javier,
2015,
@PENTAGROWTH
REPORT:
The
five
levers
of
accelerated
growth.
A
new
point
of
view
on
the
keys
for

growth
for
organizaDons
in
the
digital
environment
of
the
XXI
century.

Ideas
for
Change
.
hIp://pentagrowth.com/report/

Adap;ng
the
@pentagrowth
Model

The
five
laws
that
characterize
the
poten:al
for
a
pla2orm
to
grow
exponen:ally
as

iden:fied
in
the
@pentagrowth
study
are
the
following:

●  Collect:
the
smaller
the
effort
an
organisa:on
requires
to
build
its
available

inventory,
the
greater
its
poten:al
to
leverage
those
assets.

●  Connect:
the
larger
the
number
of
nodes
that
an
organisa:on
connects,
the

greater
the
poten:al
of
the
organisa:on.

●  Empower:
the
larger
the
number
of
capaci:es
of
its
users
that
an
organiza:on

integrates
into
its
business,
the
greater
its
poten:al
growth.

●  Enable:
the
larger
the
number
of
value
creators
that
use
the
tools
provided
by

the
organisa:on
to
generate
their
own
business,
the
greater
its
growth

poten:al.

●  Share:
the
larger
the
community
that
shares
a
sense
of
resource
ownership

with
the
organiza:on,
the
greater
the
organisa:on’s
growth
poten:al.

The
@pentagrowth
laws
were
adapted
into
levers
and
scales
allowing
to
describe

the
business
models
observed.

We
adapted
the
@pentagrowth
model
and
its
scales
to
evaluate,
from
the

perspec:ve
of
user
experience
and
its
effect
on
the
scalability
and
sustainability
of

a
pla2orm,
a
variety
of
the
state-‐of-‐the-‐art
knowledge
co-‐crea:on
and
exchange

pla2orms
and
prac:ces:
maps,
online
encyclopedia
of
the
first
genera:on,
wikis,

sustainability
social
networks,
knowledge
commons
of
open
source
soTware,

systems
thinking
prac:ce,
paIern
language
prac:ce.

The
five
levers
(derived
from
the
original
model)
and
the
scales
we
adapted
for

the
present
study
follow.

Collect

In
the
@pentagrowth
model,
the
smaller
the
eﬀort
an
organisa:on

requires
to
build
its
available
inventory
(centralized,
decentralized,

commons),
the
greater
its
poten:al
to
leverage
those
assets.

In
our
adapted
model,
the
inventory
is
both
what
the
pla2orm
aIracts
and

what
it
builds.
It
emphasises
the
‘connectability’
of
the
elements,
their

ease
of
discovery
and
sharability,
their
‘aIrac:on’
and
‘ac:va:on’
power,

and
ul:mately
how
they
can
mobilise
higher
levels
of
usage
by
leveraging

network
eﬀects.

Our
scale
ranges
from
collec:ng
single
instances/objects
(such
as
people,

organiza:ons,
events
in
a
map
or
directory),
through
networks
of
objects

(such
as
processes,
inter-‐related
knowledge
bases,
groups
of
users
in
a
wiki

or
social
network),
to
systems
with
their
inten:ons,

‘objects’,
processes,

and
outcomes
(such as an organisation).

!
The
more
‘genera8ve’
the
elements
collected,
the
greater
the
poten8al

for
a=rac8on
and
connec8on.

Collect

Inventory

Instances

Systems

Networks

Connect

In
the
@pentragrowth
model,
the
larger
the
number
of
nodes
(people,

situa:ons,
things)
that
an
organisa:on
connects,
the
greater
the
poten:al

of
the
organisa:on.

In
our
adapted
model,
we
not
only
consider
the
number
of
nodes

connected
but
also
the
genera:ve
quality
and
enabling
poten:al
of
the

connec:ons
to
produce
an
op:mal
ﬂow
between
the
parts.
This
is
best

achieved
through
shared
social-‐objects.

Our
scale
ranges
from
connec:ng
people
(such
as
in
a
social
network),
to

connec:ng
knowledge/ideas
(such
as
in
a
wiki)
to
connec:ng
praxis
and

thus
ac:on
(such
as
in
a
repository
recording
s:gmerge:c
memory).

!
The
closer
to
praxis
and
ac8on
the
connec8ons
are
made,
the

greater
the
poten8al
for
produc8ve
interac8ons.

Engeström,
Jyri.
Why
some
social
network
services
work
and
others
don’t
—
Or:
the
case
for

object-‐centered
sociality
<hIp://bit.ly/1oL6JfM>
[Accessed
10th
April
2015]

Connect

Poten;al

People

Praxis

Knowledge

Empower

In
the
@pentagrowth
model,
the
larger
the
number
of
capaci:es
of
users
(as

users,
producers
or
other
role)
that
an
organiza:on
integrates
into
its
business,

the
greater
its
poten:al
growth.

In
our
adapted
model,
in
addi:on
to
the
number
of
capaci:es
or
roles,
we
also

focus
on
the
diversity
and
scale
of
capabili:es
of
users
the
pla2orm
can
unleash

to
maximize
individual
and
collec:ve
agency
and
help
drive
change
across

domains.

Our
scale
ranges
from
empowering
individuals
(to
generate
autonomy),
to

empowering
collabora:ons
and
communi:es
(to
generate
convergence,

cohesiveness),
to
empowering
en:re
diverse
ecosystems
(to
generate

polycentric
coherence
and
coalescence/mutual
reinforcement
of
eﬀects)

!
The
greater
the
diversity
and
scale
of
agencies
empowered,
the
greater

the
poten8al
for
systemic
transforma8on.

Empower

Agency

Individuals

Ecosystems

Collabora:ons

Enable

In
the
@pentagrowth
model,
the
larger
the
number
of
value
creators
that
use
the

tools
provided
by
the
organisa:on
to
generate
their
own
business
(provide,
co-‐
market,
co-‐create),
the
greater
its
growth
poten:al.

Our
adapted
model
focuses
on
the
responsibility
for
the
provision
of
content
and

tools
to
users
to
create
their
own
value
and
the
incen:ve,
empowerment
and

agency
of
users
to
maintain
these
generators
of
value.

Our
scale
ranges
from
provide
(content),
to
co-‐produce
(ac:onable
knowledge),
to

co-‐nurture
(a
whole
genera:ve
system,
the
pla2orm
itself).

!
The
greater
the
incen8ve
for
users
to
co-‐nurture
the
whole
plaCorm
system,

the
greater
the
poten8al
for
keeping
the
content
and
tools
updated
and
alive.

Enable

Value

Provide

Co-‐nurture

Co-‐produce

Share

In
the
@pentagrowth
model,
the
larger
the
community
that
has
a
shared
sense
of

resource
ownership
with
the
organiza:on
(proprietary,
non
commercial,
open),
the

greater
the
organisa:on’s
growth
poten:al.

Our
adapted
model
takes
open
as
a
given,
and
focuses
on
the
degrees
of
joint
sense
of

ownership
of
the
pla2orm
itself.
Whether
a
user
has
access
to
plain
informa:on,
or
a

system
of
ac:onable
items,
will
aﬀect
their
iden:ﬁca:on
with,
adop:on
and
shaping

(via
content,
processes
of
co-‐produc:on
and
governance)
of,
a
pla2orm.

Our
scale
ranges
from
a
joint
sense
of
ownership
of
output,
process,
or
system.

!
The
greater
the
appropria8on
of
the
whole
system
by
its
users,
the
greater
the

incen8ve
for
the
on-‐going
shaping
and
adapta8on
of
the
plaCorm
to
needs.

Share

Ownership

Output

System

Process

The
correla:on
between
levers
display
the
essen:al
quali:es
pla2orms
must
have
to
grow,

scale
and
thrive.
Here
again,
our
correla:ons
are
diﬀerent
from
the
@pentagrowth.

Between
Collect
and
Connect,
the
quan:ty
and

quality
of
what
is
collected
and
therefore
the

poten:al
for
connec:on
and
for
produc:ve

interac:on
inﬂuences
the
extent
of
possibili:es

that
can
be
unleashed,
and
thus
the
Scope
of
the

pla2orm,
and
ul:mately
its
ability
to
scale.

Collect

Inventory

Connect

Poten;al

Instances

Systems

Networks

web

Between
Connect
and
Empower,
the

poten:al
to
connect
a
variety
of
kinds
of

agencies
and
capabili:es
and
ini:ate
a

ﬂow
of
produc:ve
interac:ons,

determines
the
Reach,
or
capacity
for

transforma:on
and
impact
brought
by

the
pla2orm’s
ac:vity.

Connect

Poten;al

Empower

Agency

web

Our
examples
will
be
posi:oned

on
this
web
graph

At
the
intersec:on
of
Empower
and

Enable,
polycentric
agency
combined

with
the
ability
to
generate
value,

maximizes
the
poten:al
for

Actualiza;on
across
the
board.

Empower

Agency

Enable

Value

Co-‐nurture

Provide

Co-‐produce

web

With
Share
and
Enable,
the
sense
of

ownership
and
on-‐going
regenera:on
of

pla2orm
output
as
well
as
processes
and

infrastructure
by
its
community
are
the

drivers
for
the
Sustainability
both
of
the

prac:ce,
the
system
enabled
by
the

pla2orm,
and
the
pla2orm
itself.

Enable

Value

Share

Sense
of
Ownership

Co-‐nurture

Provide

Co-‐produce

web

Between
Share
and
Collect,
how

shared
inventory
is
renewed
and

kept
alive
by
a
community,

determines
the
Resilience
of
the

pla2orm
as
genera:ve
system,
and

its
capacity
to
adapt
to
change.

Collect

Inventory

Share

Sense
of
Ownership

Instances

Systems

Networks

web

Collect

Inventory

Connect

Poten;al

Empower

Agency

Enable

Value

Share

Sense
of
Ownership

Instances

Systems

Networks

Co-‐nurture

Provide

Co-‐produce

web

Our
examples
will
be
posi:oned

on
this
web
graph

Visualizing
Informa;on
-‐
Maps

Collect
instances
up
to
generaDve
systems
,
Connect
praxis

Ephemeral
Empowering,
Sharing
and
Enabling

Maps
are
excellent
tools
to
promote
visibility
of
something
-‐-‐
to
provide
an
inventory
of
instances
and

locate
it,
geographically
or
in
a
classifica:on.
The
open
mapping
soTware
Ushahidi
developed
in
Kenya

to
report
post
presiden:al
elec:on
violence
in
2007
has
successfully
been
used
for
emergency

repor:ng.
In
2010,
40,000
reports
were
sent
out
and
4000
districts
covered
in
the
aTermath
of
the
Hai:

earthquake.
Crowd-‐sourced
maps
have
been
popular
since
then
in
par:cular
for
ac:vism
mapping
or

alterna:ve
solu:ons
mapping.
Most
of
the
solu:ons
associated
to
social
change
are
related
to
mapping.

The
risk
however
is
‘one
shot
mapping’.
Maps
that
are
created
around
a
specific
event
and
an

immediate
need
for
ac:on
(by
ac:va:ng
the
‘empower’
lever),

quickly
become
obsolete
without

ongoing
ac:vity;
this
is
true
for
geographical
maps,
and
inventories,
but
also
more
spohis:cated
maps

such
as
mind
maps,
ontologies,
or
genera:ve
systems.
A
dedicated
blog
called
Dead
Ushahidi,
(which

used
to
map
dead
crowdmaps
and
is
now
dead
itself!),
lists
the
shortcomings
of
crowdsourced
maps:

“Mapping
doesn't
equal
change…
Just
because
you
built
it
doesn't
mean
they
will
come”.
Maps
that

predominantly
push
the
‘collect’
lever
need
sense
of
ownership
(‘share’
lever)
and
ac:vity
or
ac:on

(‘enable’
lever)
to
achieve
network
effect,
scale,
and
remain
alive.

hIps://deadushahidi.crowdmap.com/page/index/1
[Retrieved
10
April
2015]

Collect

Inventory

Connect

Poten;al

Empower

Agency

Enable

Value

Share

Sense
of
Ownership

Instances

Systems

Networks

Co-‐nurture

Provide

Co-‐produce

Maps

web
web

Digital
Encyclopedias

Collect
networks
and
Connect
knowledge

Weak
on
Empowering,
Sharing
and
Enabling

First
genera:on
digital
encyclopedias
started
as
online
versions
of
paper
encyclopedias.
The
currently
stalled,
but
soon
to

be
re-‐launched,
Encyclopedia
of
World
Problems
and
Human
PotenDal
is
a
good
example
of
a
database
of
sustainability-‐
related
knowledge
comprising
systemic
inquiry
using
paIern-‐like
templates,
with
a
pluralis:c
approach
such
as
we
are

developing
in
the
PLAST
project.
It
was
started
in
1972
as
a
paper
encyclopedia
(first
published
in
1976)
by
the
Union
of

Interna:onal
Associa:ons
(UIA)
and
Mankind
2000,
to
collect
and
present
informa:on
on
the
problems
humanity
is

confronted
with,
as
well
as
the
challenges
such
problems
pose
to
concept
forma:on,
values
and
development
strategies

from
a
broad
range
of
perspec:ves.
The
Encyclopedia
was
digi:zed
in
1996,
brought
to
the
web
in
1998,
and
opened
to
the

public
in
1999.

The
informa:on
content
was
collated
mainly
from
civil
society,
including
materials
produced
by
the
20,000+
interna:onal

organisa:ons
profiled
regularly
in
UIA’s
Yearbook
of
InternaDonal
OrganizaDons;
then
classified,
structured
(into
open

hierarchies
and
causal
chains),
recombined
and
made
accessible
through
AI-‐like
mechanisms.
The
team
struggled
with
the

challenge
of
connec:ng

the
knowledge
so
produced
with
poten:al
users.
“Who
is
that
for?”
or
“How
would
I
use

this?”were
ques:ons
that
oTen
asked
by
UIA
members.

The
Encyclopedia’s
co-‐founder,
Anthony
Judge,
recalls
debates

about
the
difficulty
to
pin
down
problems
and
the
diverging
priori:es
of
the
various
stakeholders
on
the
most
pressing

issues.
Judge
also
men:ons
the
lack
of
tools
available
at
the
:me
to
represent
and
navigate
complex
forms
of
informa:on

in
graphic
form.

The
Encyclopedia
was
created
to
collect
and
connect
knowledge
based
on
a
systemic
concept
similar
to
PLAST’s;
but
with

very
liIle
use
of
sharing,
empowering
and
enabling
levers
(ownership
taken
by
users
and
the
community
in
terms
of

maintenance
of
both
the
knowledge
and
the
tools).
The
Encyclopedia’s
ac:vity
started
to
slow
down
around
2005
for
want

of
funding,
stopping
completely
in
2008.

hIp://www.uia.org/encyclopedia
[retrieved
5
April
2015]

Commentaries
on
Encyclopedia
of
World
Problems
and
Human
Poten:al.

hIp://kairos.laetusinpraesens.org/encycom_ee
[retrieved
10
April
2015]

Judge,
Anthony,
1991,
Encyclopedia
Illusions:
Ra:onale
for
an
Encyclopedia
of
World
Problems
and
Human
Poten:al.

hIp://kairos.laetusinpraesens.org/91enill_9_h_1
[retrieved
10
April
2015]

Encyclopedia
of
World
Problems
and
Human
Poten:al,
Assessment:
Strengths
and
weaknesses.

hIp://kairos.laetusinpraesens.org/43assess_ee
[retrieved
10
April
2015]

Encyclopedia
UIA

web
web

Collect

Inventory

Connect

Poten;al

Empower

Agency

Enable

Value

Share

Sense
of
Ownership

Instances

Systems

Networks

Co-‐nurture

Provide

Co-‐produce

web

Sharing
Informa;on
-‐
Social
Networks

Collect
networks,
moderate
Connec;on
of
knowledge

Weak
on
Empowering,
Enabling,
Sharing
of
the
resource

Probably
the
most
striking
example
is
Wiser
Earth
(Wiser
standing
for
World
Index
for
Social
and
Environmental

Responsibility).
Started
in
2007
as
a
directory
of
non-‐profit
organiza:ons,
it
became
a
social
network
in
2009.
Wiser
was

organized
around
a
master
list
of
issues
which
were
"networked"
in
such
a
way
that
registered
users
could
edit
the
"connec:ons"

of
each
issue
to
organiza:ons,
resources,
jobs,
events
and
groups.
The
website
featured
groupware
and
social
networking

components,
including
graphical
"network
maps".

Despite
having
115,000
organiza:on
members
and
80,000
individual
members,
3000
working
groups,
and
eight
million
pages
of

published
content,
Wiser
closed
down
in
2014,
ostensibly
because
the
organiza:on
could
not
keep
up
with
the
technology.
The

official
leIer
stated:
“...maintaining
social
media
pla2orms
and
tools
comes
at
a
cost.
The
soTware
technologies
that
we
are
using

need
con:nual
maintenance
and
upgrades.”
(source
Wikipedia).
Off
the
record,
addi:onal
reasons
for
the
shut-‐down
included
an

accumula:on
of
informa:on
that
was
hardly
ever
updated
and
insufficient
ac:vity
and
cross-‐pollina:on
among
groups,
rendering

the
project
sub-‐viable
and
unable
to
jus:fy
the
costs
of
maintenance
of
the
site.

Wiser
collected
communi:es
around
issues
and
sustainability
domains;
the
social
mechanism
adopted
allowed
(and
required)

users
to
connect
to
each
other
and
to
issues.
Users
who
were
empowered
to
co-‐create
did
not
maintain
and
curate
the

connec:ons
and
knowledge
they
had
produced.
This
knowledge
was
not
vital
to
them.
It
did
not
provide
a
return
in
livelihood
or

achievement
that
would
jus:fy
the
:me
they
invested
in
contribu:ng
to
the
content
and
ac:vi:es.
The
membership
scaled,
but

the
quality
of
the
data
and
the
interac:ons
did
not
follow.
There
were
few
bridges
across
silos.
Without
a
sense
of
ownership
that

users
acquire
when
they
are
not
only
empowered
but
also
enabled,
a
community
does
not
take
care
of
a
pla2orm.
The
burden

falls
on
the
shoulders
of
the
centralized
ini:a:ng
organiza:on,
which
cannot
follow.

Wiser.org
Wikipedia
entry
<hIp://bit.ly/1Fwwmnv>[Retrived
10
April
2015]

Wiser
Earth’s
Execu:ve
director’s
leIer
<hIp://bit.ly/1ckwvDF>[Retrived
10
April
2015]

Wiser
Earth

web
web

Collect

Inventory

Connect

Poten;al

Empower

Agency

Enable

Value

Share

Sense
of
Ownership

Instances

Systems

Networks

Co-‐nurture

Provide

Co-‐produce

web

Co-‐Producing
Knowledge
-‐
Wikis

Collect
networks
and
Connect
knowledge,

Share
process,
Empower
autonomy,
Enable
co-‐produc:on.

Wikipedia
is
the
example
of
successful
applica:on
of
wiki
to
the
aggrega:on
and
interconnec:on
of
knowledge.

With
the
help
of
its
editors,
the
wiki
has
evolved
into
a
structure
able
to
produce
a
working
reliability
of
informa:on,
with

processes
that,
“[F]oster
the
‘federa:on’
of
knowledge,
a
network
of
voices
that
don’t
exactly
say
the
same
thing,
but
that

contribute,
through
their
very
diversity,
to
a
larger
whole.
From
that
larger
whole,
a
working
consensus
can
emerge.”
The
working

consensus
allows
a
meta-‐stabiliza:on
of
the
knowledge
for
a
key
por:on
of
what
is
produced,
and
flagging
of
content
with
liIle

certainty
and
a
lot
of
controversy
as
uncertain
or
un-‐resolved,
and
documented
as
such.

The
editor
survey
undertaken
in
2011,
however,
notes
a
decline
in
editor
par:cipa:on
across
languages,
a
possible
consequence

of
“edit
wars”
and
harassment
reported
by
editors.
This
has
caused
Wikipedia
to
adopt
more
rigid
editorial
rules
and
precau:ons.

There
is
a
dilemma,
however:
on
the
one
hand
that
heavier
top-‐down
cura:on
of
knowledge
disempowers
poten:al
contributors

and
works
against
par:cipa:ve
content-‐sharing;
on
the
other
hand,
completely
free
and
open
edi:ng
endangers
the
quality
of

the
content,
which
then
may
discourage
par:cipa:on
from
well-‐meaning
editors
and
drive
away
readers.

Regarding
the
levers,
Wikipedia
collects
and
connects
knowledge,
empowers
its
users
for
co-‐crea:on,
and
shares
through

common
ownership
of
the
process,
co-‐crea:on
of
content
and
co-‐development
of
the
Wikimedia
tool.
Wikipedia
does
not
enable

the
building
of
market,
i.e.
a
livelihood-‐sustaining
system
based
on
the
commons.
Producers
of
Wikipedia,
the
editors,
are
not
the

ones
who
benefit
from
its
usage,
or
not
in
a
direct
way.
To
some
observers,
the
model
that
relies
on
editors’
pride
and
personal

fulfillment
is
a
fragile
one.

Wikimedia
Founda:on
(2011).
Wikipedia
Editors
Study:
Results
from
the
Editor
Survey,
April
2011.
<hIp://bit.ly/1Fl9Qhi>[Retrieved
5
April
2015]

Cunningham
op.
cit.

Postrel,
V.
(2014).
Who
killed
Wikipedia?
Pacific
Standard
Nov.
2014
<hIp://bit.ly/1DjOPXn>[Retrieved
5
April
2015]

hIp://paIern-‐library.sec-‐bridge.eu/paIern-‐library/
[retrieved
5.
April
2015]

hIp://polemictweet.com/about.php
[retrieved
5.
April
2015]

Reiners,,
R.
(2014).
An
Evolving
PaIern
Library
for
Collabora:ve
Project
Documenta:on.
Shaker
Aachen,
Germany

Jemielniak
D.
(2014),
Common
Knowledge?
An
Ethnography
of
Wikipedia,
Stanford
University
Press

Wikipedia

web
web

Collect

Inventory

Connect

Poten;al

Empower

Agency

Enable

Value

Share

Sense
of
Ownership

Instances

Systems

Networks

Co-‐nurture

Provide

Co-‐produce

web

Prac;cal
knowledge/Specialized
wikis

Collect
networks
and
Connect
praxis,

Share
output,
moderately
Empower
collabora:on
and
weak
Enablement

Wikipedia
has
reached
the
cri:cal
mass
that
enables
it
to
collect
and
evolve
a
huge
corpus
of
interconnected
diversified

knowledge
and
to
aIract
a
large
community
of
knowledge
producers
to
keep
it
alive.
Smaller
specialized
communi:es,
such
as

Apropedia
and
the
P2P
Founda:on,
seek
to
provide
their
members
with
working
knowledge.
There
are,
however,
few
resources

to
document
the
prac:cal
applica:on
and
results
of
implementa:on
of
such
working
knowledge
to
feed
back
into
the
knowledge

base.
The
format
and
interoperability
of
the
knowledge,
the
degree
of
upda:ng
and
cura:on
of
the
knowledge,
and
the
size
of

the
ac:ve
contribu:ng
communi:es,
are
variable.
However,
many
ac:ve
members
of
these
communi:es
share
how
difficult
it
is

to
keep
par:cipa:on
going
and
to
keep
the
data
alive.
Many
users
also
complain
about
the
difficulty
of
querying
and
naviga:ng

basic
wikis
where
naviga:on
relies
on
the
categoriza:on
of
the
data,
something
communi:es
don’t
always
do
well.
Because
of

the
split
between
administrators
and
users,
par:cipants
may
not
feel
a
sense
of
shared
ownership
or
responsibility.

Small
communi:es
would
benefit
from
the
structure
and
interoperability
of
the
paIern
language
format,
from
the
possibility
to

develop
and
maintain
their
own
repositories
of
paIerns
and
from
the
perspec:ve
gained
by
exploring
greater
bodies
of

knowledge
to
find
challenges,
analyses,
prac:ces
and
models
relevant
to
their
ac:vity
which
can
help
deepen
and
expand
the

reach
and
possibili:es
of
the
community.

Specialized
Wikis
Collect

Inventory

Connect

Poten;al

Empower

Agency

Enable

Value

Share

Sense
of
Ownership

Instances

Systems

Networks

Co-‐nurture

Provide

Co-‐produce

web

Co-‐Producing
Value
-‐
Linux
+
Git

Knowledge
commons
of
open
source
soTware

Collect
genera:ve
processes
and
Connect
ac:on,

Share
system,
Empower
cohesiveness
and
Enable
co-‐nurturing

Linux
is
not
strictly
speaking
a
pla2orm
for
collec:ve
awareness.
Nonetheless,
it
is
based
on
superla:ve
communal
principles
and

mechanisms
and
cons:tutes
one
of
the
most
sustainable
genera:ve
systems
using
the
internet.

Different
from
Wikipedia
and
most
other
knowledge
repositories,
the
users
of
Linux
are
also
the
producers
of
their
knowledge

commons
and
build
their
livelihoods
from
it.
By
observing
the
Linux
community
of
prac:ce,
we
learn
that
a
mature
knowledge

commons
has
the
following
elements:
knowledge,
media,
user
community,
rules
of
engagement,
use
and
evalua:on
processes,

and
livelihood
genera:ng
capacity;
it
operates
as
a
dynamic
en:ty,
maintained
and
evolving
through
the
constant
prac:cal

engagement
of
its
user
community.
Linux
community
praxis
scores
highly
on
all
the
levers
of
growth.
However,
being
a

homogenous
community
with
conscribed
purpose,
it
does
not
bridge
diversity
between
domains.

Of
par:cular
interest
in
rela:on
to
knowledge
exchange
is
the
Git
fork/merge
system,
which
renders
the
capacity
to
copy
all
or

part
of
the
soTware,
modify
it
and
bring
the
modified
instance
back
into
the
repository.
The
benefit
here
is
that
1)
what
is

distributed
among
a
mul:tude
of
users
can
be
consolidated
in
a
common
repository
(actually
an
ecosystem
of
interrelated

repositories)
that
captures
the
collec:ve
intelligence
of
the
community;
2)
it
encourages
broad
par:cipa:on
by
welcoming
any

user
and
form
of
involvement
at
the
‘local’
repository
level
while
ensuring
an
overall
quality
control
with
mul:ple
possibili:es
of

'filtering'
on
the
‘validated’
product;
and
3)
it
fosters
a
sense
of
ownership
of
the
users/producers
over
the
whole
system.

In
this
text
we
use
Linux
as
short
for
“GNU/Linux”,
i.e.
the
well
known
open
source
opera:ng
system.
Strictly
speaking
“Linux”

refers
just
to
the
kernel
or
heart
of
the
system.

Hess,
C.
&
E.
Ostrom,
2007.
Understanding
Knowledge
as
a
Commons:
from
theory
to
prac:ce.
Cambridge
MA:
MIT
Press.

Bauwens,
M.
(2012).
A
Synthe:c
Overview
of
the
Collabora:ve
Economy.
P2P
FoundaDon
-‐
Orange
Labs
<hIp://oran.ge/1FrbbZB>[Retrieved
10
April
2015]

Linux

on
Git

web
web

Collect

Inventory

Connect

Poten;al

Empower

Agency

Enable

Value

Share

Sense
of
Ownership

Instances

Systems

Networks

Co-‐nurture

Provide

Co-‐produce

web

Systems
Thinking
as
prac;ce

Connect
praxis
at
the
local
level,
unsystema:c
Collect

Empower
individuals,
weak
Enable
and
Share

other
than
local

There
are
many
similari:es
between
systems
thinking
and
paIern
thinking
(of
which
paIern
language
is
a
tool).
Both
approach

problem
solving
viewing
"problems"
as
parts
of
an
overall
system.
Like
paIern
thinking,
systems
thinking
is
based
on
the
idea
that

the
components
of
a
system
cannot
be
seen
in
isola:on,
but
rather
in
the
context
of
the
rela:onships
they
have
with
each
other,

with
the
whole,
and
with
other
systems.

Most
systems
thinking
prac:ce
focuses
on
simula:on
of
a
situa:on’s
structure:
describing
the
underlying
paIerns
of
behavior,

the
underlying
structures
responsible
for
the
paIern
of
behavior
that
unfolds,
and
the
mental
models
responsible
for
the

underlying
structures.
PaIerns
of
behavior
are
usually
expressed
as
circles
of
causality;

those
with
similar
structure
are

recognised
as
system
archetypes.

Also
iden:fied
are
leverage
points
that
enable
efficient
changes
in
the
system.

System
archetypes
are
similar
to
paIerns.
A
major
difference
is
that
they
are
composed
of
closed
loops
that
are
‘performa:ve’
on

their
own,
whereas
systems
of
paIerns
are
chainings
or
combina:ons
of
elements
that
can
be
probed
at
each
link.

System
thinking
is
best
applied
to
situa:ons
where
stakeholders
can
agree
on
a
methodology
(there
are
many
available)
and
on

the
boundaries
of
an
issue.
However,
the
:me
it
takes
to
reach
agreement
on
the
boundaries
of
the
system
being
studied
(as
this

system
is
inextricably
part
of
a
larger
system
so
boundaries
are
always
arbitrary),
and
the
difficulty
of
choosing
a
place
to
start

understanding
and
probing
a
systemic
model
that
is
expressed
in
circles
of
causal
loops
are
probably
reasons
why
systems

thinking
hasn’t
been
adopted
more
widely.

A
pressing
ques:on
currently
among
systems
thinking
prac::oners
is:
how
to
conduct
a
systemic
inquiry
in
an
orderly,
repeatable

and
understandable
fashion.

The
systems
thinking
and
paIern
language
communi:es
can
gain
a
lot
by
working
together,
systems
thinking
bringing
more
depth

to
the
systemic
inquiry
of
paIern
languages.
Systems
thinking
would
gain
by
having
its
approaches,
archetypes
and
models

formaIed
more
systema:cally,
and
in
iterable
ways,
with
a
documenta:on
framework
that
allow
hypothesis
and
incremental

probing
in
a
design
driven
process.

Systems
Thinking
Methodologies,
Systemswiki.org.<hIp://bit.ly/1CKKg3N>
[Retrieved
10
April
2015]

Systems
Thinking,
a
Disciplined
Approach,
Systems-‐Thinking.org.
<hIp://bit.ly/1NuFHWL>[Retrieved
10
April
2015]

Senge,
Peter
M.
(1990),
The
FiTh
Discipline,
Doubleday/Currency

Meadows,
D.H.
(1997).
“Leverage
Points:
Places
to
Intervene
in
a
System”
<hIp://bit.ly/1rsFIdv>
[retrieved
5
April
2015]

Ing,
D.,
2014.
Systems
genera:ng
systems
-‐
architecture
design
theory
by
Christopher
Alexander
(1968).
<hIp://bit.ly/1Eq8N3A>
[Accessed
April
5th
2015].

Systems
Thinking

(analog)

web
web

Collect

Inventory

Connect

Poten;al

Empower

Agency

Enable

Value

Share

Sense
of
Ownership

Instances

Systems

Networks

Co-‐nurture

Provide

Co-‐produce

web

PaUern
Languages
for
Sustainability
and
Social
Change
as
prac;ce

Collect
genera:ve
systems
and
Connect
praxis

Empower
collabora:ons,
weak
Enable
and
Share
other
than
local

The
most
widespread
and
best-‐established
use
of
paIern
languages
is
in
computer
soTware
design,
which
can
serve
as
an
example
of
what

may
be
achieved
in
other
areas,
such
as
community
design.
PaIern
languages
are
common
in
fields
such
as
design
of
human-‐computer

interfaces,
and
technology-‐enhanced
learning,
a
highly
interdisciplinary
field
in
which
they
facilitate
communica:on
of
expert
knowledge

across
specialised
disciplines.
SoTware
paIern
language
collec:ons
have
become
mainstream
in
soTware
development
in
response
to
the

domain's
complexity
and
communica:on
issues.
Since
1995,
more
than
100
books
and
60
conferences
on
all
con:nents
have
yielded
3000+

soTware
paIerns.
However,
opera:ng
within
a
specialist
field
limits
the
use
of
paIern
languages
to
communica:on
among
experts,
and
does

not
take
advantage
of
their
poten:al
to
connect
diverse
user
communi:es
working
in
different
domains.
Some
applica:ons
stress
their

poten:al
as
tools
to
advance
democracy,
inclusion,
and
social
jus:ce,
notably
the
Public
Sphere
Project’s
work
on
paIern
languages
for
use

of
ICTs
as
emancipatory
tools.

In
terms
of
empowering
and
enabling,
most
social
change
paIern
languages
have
been
published
in
sta:c
print
media
that
do
not
allow
them

to
live
as
dynamic
en::es
undergoing
constant
revision
on
the
basis
of
experience.
Some
were
based
on
several
itera:ons
of
input
from

developer
and
user
communi:es
–
the
Public
Sphere
project's
paIern
language
for
emancipatory
use
of
ICTs,
for
example,
was
based
on

extensive
collabora:ve
processes
with
input
from
hundreds
of
individuals
worldwide
over
several
years.
Other
projects
using
online
formats

solicit
or
facilitate
con:nued
user
input.
The
Community
Pathways
website
invites
contribu:ons
of
new
paIerns.
The
Groupworks
PaIern

Language
group
seeks
to
cul:vate
ongoing
user
and
design
communi:es,
physical
and
virtual,
through
mee:ngs,
workshops
and
use
of
social

media,
all
feeding
back
into
design.

Pauwels,
S.
L.,
Hübscher,
C.,
Bargas-‐Avila,
J.
A.,
&
Opwis,
K.
(2010).
Building
an
interac:on
design
paIern
language:
A
case
study.
Computers
in
Human
Behavior,
26(3),
452-‐463.

Winters,
N.
&
Y.
Mor,
2008.
IDR:
A
par:cipatory
methodology
for
interdisciplinary
design
in
technology
enhanced
learning.
Computers
and
Educa:on
50:
579-‐600.

Lea,
D.
(1994).
Christopher
Alexander:
An
introduc:on
for
object-‐oriented
designers.
ACM
SIGSOFT
SoXware
Engineering
Notes
19(1):
39-‐46.

Schuler,
D.,
2008.
Libera:ng
voices:
A
paIern
language
for
communica:on
revolu:on.
MIT
Press.

Seamon,
D.
(2007,
May).
Christopher
Alexander
and
a
Phenomenology
of
Wholeness.
In
Annual
MeeDng
of
the
Environmental
Design
Research
AssociaDon
(EDRA),
Sacramento,
CA.

Alexander,
C.,
2001-‐2005.
The
Nature
of
Order.
Berkeley:
Center
for
Environmental
Structure.

Leitner,
H.,
2015.
PaIern
Theory.
Introduc:ons
and
Perspec:ves
on
the
Tracks
of
Christopher
Alexander.
HLS
SoTware.

Schuler,
D.,
2008.
LiberaDng
Voices:
a
pa]ern
language
for
communicaDon
revoluDon.
London:
MIT
Press
(and
hIp://publicsphereproject.org/).

hIp://groupworksdeck.org/.
[Accessed
April
5th
2015].

PaIern
Language

(analog)

web

Collect

Inventory

Connect

Poten;al

Empower

Agency

Enable

Value

Share

Sense
of
Ownership

Instances

Systems

Networks

Co-‐nurture

Provide

Co-‐produce

web

PLAST’s
innova;on
poten;al

Collect
genera:ve
systems,
Connect
praxis

Empower
ecosystems,
Enable
co-‐nurturing,
Share
a
system

PLAST
innovates
by
providing
tools
and
methodologies
to
seek,
inves:gate
and
discuss
systemic
coherence

from
a
basis
of
diversity
in
perspec:ve
and
ac:on,
without
trying
to
achieve
uniﬁca:on
(i.e.,
unity
in
values,

vision
and
approach).
It
seeks
to
empower
diversity
and
leverage
agency
wherever
it
may
be
found,
fostering

the
emergence
of
an
ecology
for
transforma:ve
ac:on
comprising
living
communi:es
of
place,
communi:es
of

prac:ce,
and
communi:es
of
knowledge
within
a
global
ac:on
space
who
maintain
a
shared
knowledge

commons
because
this
commons
resource
contributes
to
their
crea:on
of
value.
PLAST
is
conceived
as
an

‘ac:on’
system
with
two
key
elements.
A
seman:c
structure
which
provides
a
bridge
across
languages
and

subcultures,
channeling
drives
for
change
and
leveraging
capaci:es
and
poten:als
for
ac:on
through
exchange

of
tacit
knowledge.
A
hermeneu:c
engine
which
provides
orienta:on
across
this
idea
and
ac:on
space,

fostering
learning
and
mutual
discovery
and
enabling
eﬀec:ve
polycentric
solu:ons
that
collec:vely
apprehend

the
system
as
a
whole.

PLAST’s
innova;on
poten;al

Collect
genera:ve
systems,
Connect
praxis

Empower
ecosystems,
Enable
co-‐nurturing,
Share
a
system

PLAST’s
genera:ve
model
acts
upon
all
five
levers
in
a
mutually
reinforcing
way
to
mul:ply
effects
at
mul:ple
levels.
The

effec:veness
of
PLAST
relies
on
the
combina:on
of
all
of
them
to
generate
systemic
transforma:on:

Collect

It
is
expected
on
the
basis
of
early
feedback
from
PaIern
Language
and
social
change
prac::oners
that
PLAST
will
provide
a

compelling
aIractor
to
par:cipants
to
load
their
exis:ng
paIern
languages
and
best
prac:ces
into
the
system
and
to
create
new

paIerns
and
paIern
languages
using
the
system,
suppor:ng
the
collec:on
of
whole
systems
of
sustainable
solu:ons
and

possibili:es
to
act
upon.

The
immediate
opening
of
pathways
to
further
knowledge
will
draw
par:cipant
into
the
system
to
explore
related
knowledge.

The
more
know-‐how
par:cipants
provide
to
the
system
the
more
know-‐how
they
will
find
opens
up
to
them
to
discover.
For
this

reason
we
expect
the
system
will
collect
a
great
deal
of
knowledge
from
par:cipants
in
diverse
domains.

Connect

PLAST
will
be
designed
for
op:mal
‘self
connec:on’
of
knowledge
and
prac:ce
using
mul:-‐dimensional
seman:c
interconnec:on

of
paIerns.
PLAST
will
connect
the
prac:ce
of
diverse
communi:es
and
areas
of
sustainability
driving
social
innova:on
by

opening
up
explora:on
pathways
between
them.

By
accelera:ng
connec:vity,
PLAST
creates
communica:on
bridges
between
par:cipants
in
adjacent
domains
which
are
likely
to

foster
produc:ve
cross-‐domain
encounters
of
kinds
known
to
spark
innova:on.
By
opening
up
channels
between
prac:ces,

PLAST’s
design
promotes
the
circula:on
of
knowledge
and
energy
towards
ac:on.

PLAST’s
innova;on
poten;al

Collect
genera:ve
systems,
Connect
praxis

Empower
ecosystems,
Enable
co-‐nurturing,
Share
a
system

Empower

PLAST
will
provide
change
agents
with
tools
to
ar:culate
and
share
knowledge,
explore
new
territories
of
prac:ces,
grow
capacity

to
connect
and
learn,
and
relevant
connec:ons,
and
deepen
their
understanding
of
the
challenges
they
confront.
Bringing
diverse

capabili:es
into
contact
generates
more
opportuni:es
to
act,
which
in
turn
increases
capability
in
a
feedback
loop.
Learning
and

ac:on
research
are
embedded
in
the
design
to
expand
awareness
and
capacity
for
ac:on
and
therefore
agency
deeply
within
and

across
domains.
By
mobilizing
and
empowering
the
diversity
of
its
users
PLAST
creates
opportuni:es
for
poly-‐centric
and
mul:-‐
level
social
impact
throughout
the
ecosystem.

Enable

PLAST
is
structured
as
a
co-‐created
knowledge
commons
that
enables
the
pursuit
of
a
change
driven
prac:ce
upon
which

par:cipants
can
ﬁnd
resources
to
beIer
achieve
their
own
vision/mission
and
generate
their
own
livelihood.
The
high
leverage,
in

terms
of
return
on
eﬀort,
ensures
that
par:cipants
will
keep
the
knowledge
they
depend
on
alive
and
circula:ng,
and
the
tools

they
rely
on
at
the
level,
co-‐nurturing
the
system
that
enables
them.

Share

As
a
peer
produced
commons,
used
and
co-‐nurtured
by
a
diversity
of
communi:es,
sense
of
ownership
is
not
just
about
a
co-‐
produced
output
or
a
shared
process,
it
is
over
a
whole
enabling
system.
The
ability
to
hold
and
maintain
a
local
repository
and

integrate
this
repository
into
a
commons
repository
ensures
con:nuity
of
ownership
even
through
local
distribu:on
of
the
data.

PLAST

web
web

Collect

Inventory

Connect

Poten;al

Empower
Agency

Enable

Value

Share

Sense
of
Ownership

Instances

Systems

Networks

Co-‐nurture

Provide

Co-‐produce

web

web

Maps

Encyclopedia
UIA

Wiser
Earth

Wikipedia

Specialized
Wikis

Linux

on
Git

PLAST

PaIern
Language

Systems
Thinking

web

Collect

Inventory

Connect

Poten;al

Empower

Agency

Enable

Value

Share

Sense
of
Ownership

Instances

Systems

Networks

Co-‐nurture

Provide

Co-‐produce

web

A strategic Analysis of Knowledge Sharing and Social Change Platforms

Recommandé

Recommandé

Contenu connexe

Tendances

Tendances (20)

En vedette

En vedette (20)

Similaire à A strategic Analysis of Knowledge Sharing and Social Change Platforms

Similaire à A strategic Analysis of Knowledge Sharing and Social Change Platforms (20)

Plus de Helene Finidori

Plus de Helene Finidori (7)

Dernier

Dernier (20)

A strategic Analysis of Knowledge Sharing and Social Change Platforms