This is meant to be a sequel to http://metameso.org/~joe/docs/pm-swot.pdf in terms of Nonaka and Toyama's model, e.g. see
This is also inspired by
and compared/contrasted/augmented by
I've noted some similarities between Nonaka and Toyoma's model and Ken Wilbur's AQAL model, see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ken_Wilber -- I may draw on that as well. E.g. see
The main point to pull out and use is the I/It/We/Its thing, which seems like a nice alternative way of saying SECI. Don't want to get into the details of AQAL at present, nor do I need a philosophy of "everything" at the moment.
Another important dimension is what I think of as a dissenting view, namely Karl Popper's, which uses the term ''instrumentalism'' instead of empiricism, but which seems to come to the same point:
: ''One might even formulate it as the thesis that "pure" science is a misnomer, and that all science is "applied". Now my reply to instrumentalism consists in showing that there are profound differences between "pure" theories and technological computation rules, and that instrumentalism can give a perfect description of these rules but is quite unable to account for the difference between them and the theories.''
This is an important challenge to take up!
The basic agenda is to create a map of PlanetMath's organizational dynamics. I've already outlined the "organizational statics" -- see
My plan is to explore the elaboration of these basic themes within a 'shared context in motion'. I've begun to take this up in
(And see http://metameso.org/~joe/docs/work-summary.pdf for a related but more detailed/long-winded/generic discussion.)
This PDF begins to turn the above into a paper that responds to a call for proposals for book chapters (the book is edited by some people at KMi):
http://metameso.org/~joe/docs/crowdsourcing-paper.pdf
Alex reminded me to get back to the SWOT (linked to above) and show how that connects with the ideas here. If the SWOT analysis describes how things are, the SECI analysis should say a bit about how we might like things to be. On this note, its sequel would probably be my list of proposed implementation projects related to "sensemaking". I should check the SECI-sensemaking interface to see how those two pieces motivate one another.
The relationship between SECI and sensemaking is explained a bit more in my slides and dynamic poster for the CRC student conference. My thought is that sensemaking can be used to help fill gaps when an activity isn't well-supported.
I'll also want to deal with the following questions on my talk:
Since it's become a topic of thematic interest, a set of pages about Sensemaking is probably in order.
I should work on reducing the Crowdsourcing Education table to the PlanetMath? case, or reframing the table to apply in that case!
Note that "activity theory" has some things in common with what I had to say about SECI... See in particular http://www.slideshare.net/factoryjoe/activity-streams-socialism-the-future-of-open-source