Stephen Fanjoy

Resources, Reflections and Refractions  
Filed under

Innovation

 

Clusters of Entrepreneurship — HBS Working Knowledge

Clusters of Entrepreneurship

Executive Summary:

Economic growth is highly correlated with an abundance of small, entrepreneurial firms. This relationship is even stronger looking across industries within cities, and has been taken as evidence for competition spurring technological progress, product cycles where growth is faster at earlier stages, and the importance of entrepreneurship for area success. Any of these interpretations is possible, however, and the only thing that we can be sure of is that entrepreneurial clusters exist in some areas but not in others. This paper first documents systematically some basic facts about average establishment size and new employment growth through entrepreneurship, then analyzes entry and industrial structures at the region and the city levels using the Longitudinal Business Database. Key concepts include:

  • There is a remarkably strong correlation between smaller average firm size and subsequent employment growth due to start-ups.
  • Evidence does not support the view that regional differences in demand for entrepreneurship are responsible for these entrepreneurial clusters.
  • Instead, the evidence suggests that spatial differences in the fixed costs of entrepreneurship and/or in the supply of entrepreneurs best explain cluster formation.

Filed under  //   Entrepreneurship   Innovation   Politics  

Comments [0]

Collaborating Across Disciplines, by Joseph Wilson

 “…it is the interaction between data that causes change. The fundamental mechanism of innovation is the way things come together and connect.” James Burke, The Pinball Effect

Anecdotal evidence suggests that truly innovative ideas and successful adaptation to market conditions comes from collaboration with people across traditionally demarcated fields of study. In science, economics, and business, it is new ideas that are imported from other realms that are most successful in affecting change....

...“One thing we know about creativity,” says Marc Tucker, Head of the Washington-based National Center on Education and the Economy, “is that it typically occurs when people who have mastered two or more quite different fields use the framework in one to think afresh in the other.” Think of the now famous theory that the impact of an asteroid killed off the dinosaurs. It was not proposed by a palaeontologist, but by nuclear physicist Luis Alvarez who had an interest in astronomy. Charles Darwin, for all his momentous effect on the world of biology, was not a trained biologist. His background in geology allowed him to think deeply about how things change over time. His intellectual curiosity brought him out of his field of study and onto the deck of a ship that travelled the world in search of the new. Upon his return, it was his collaboration with zoologist John Gould that allowed him to propose his revolutionary theory of natural selection.

 

Read the full article at osbr.ca and learn more at the Treehouse Group

Filed under  //   Change   Innovation   Management   Productivity   Strategy  

Comments [0]

Ubuntu's Jono Bacon on Building Belonging in Online Communities

Excerpts of a post by Robert Kaye

Jono, who is the community manager for Ubuntu, started out his presentation by asking what communities can do to build and improve the sense of belonging that people have in their community. After talking a little about what belonging means, he threw out the first concrete concept that builds belonging: Stories. Jono suggests that "Stories are vessels of best practice." Whenever a community shares a story, it usually has a message attached to it--an anecdote that usually comes to some concrete point. 

He went on to talk about how open source communities are meritocracies. People in our communities rise to higher levels because of the work they do. Communities are also economies--gift economies that work on patches, rather than money.

Next Jono talked about the "Quality of Aliveness" as a factor in building belonging in a community. He gave the example of seeing a 5 year old kid use Ubuntu and how he felt the hairs on his neck stand up. These visceral experiences give us a feeling of accomplishment and that our efforts in communities are worth our time. These experiences provide a strong sense of belonging to a community.

Jono's next point illustrated that teams present vessels of belonging. For instance when you first build a team everyone is lost and no one feels at ease. But once you get to know your "local neighborhood" a little, you begin to feel comfortable. The key for building strong teams is to foster environments where people can feel like they belong and they know what to do. Provide advocacy, podcasts, translations, support, and put on local events--these all help contributors succeed and motivate them to stay involved.

Then Jono rhetorically asked how social capital in teams grows. The Ubuntu team utilizes karma in the launchpad web application, a hall of fame, highlighting people on blogs and in summits. Teams need to build some infrastructure since most people need others to celebrate their contributions. Most valuable contributors don't toot their own horns about their work--social capital grows most when teams have means to highlight the efforts of their contributors. Its best not to push people into management jobs, but to let the community organize itself. For instance, social captial builds naturally through conversations in the halls of conferences like OSCON and during project meetings/summits. Sharing stories and introducing yourself to others helps build your personal social capital.

Strive to keep a positive attitude at all times, even when dealing with problems and criticism.  People who have a glass-half-empty attitude (as opposed to half-full) can drag an entire community down. The team's attitude carries a lot of weight--a project with a "kick ass" attitude can win a ton of mind-share over projects that have negative attitudes.

via radar.oreilly.com

 

Filed under  //   Innovation   Management   Productivity   Technology  

Comments [0]

Gaurav Mishra's 4C Social Media Framework

Excerpt from Gaurav Mishra's article published by Beth Kanter:

 


The First C: Content

The first C, Content, refers to the idea that social media tools allow everyone to become a creator, by making the publishing and distribution of multimedia content both free and easy, even for amateurs. However, just because everyone can become a creator doesn’t mean that everyone does. Most users prefer to consume user generated content, by reading blog, watching videos, or browsing through photos. Some user curate user generated content, by tagging it on social bookmarking websites, voting for it on social voting websites, commenting on it, or linking to it. Researchers have found support for the 1:9:90 rule in many different contexts. The 1:9:90 rule says that 90% of all users are consumers, 9% of all users are curators and only 1% of the users are creators.

The Second C: Collaboration

The second C, Collaboration, refers to the idea that social media facilitates the aggregation of small individual actions into meaningful collective results. Collaboration can happen at three levels: conversation, co-creation and collective action. As consumers and curators engage with compelling content, the content becomes the center of conversations. Conversations create buzz, which is how ideas tip, become viral. Many social media practitioners who are from a marketing or public relations background are focused on creating conversations. In co-creation, the value lies as much in the curated aggregate as in the individual contributions. Wikis are a perfect example of co-creation. Open group blogs, photo pools, video collages and similar projects are also good examples of co-creation. Collective action goes one step further and uses online engagement to initiate meaningful action. Collective action can take the form of signing online petitions, fundraising, tele-calling, or organizing an offline protest or event.

Even though conversations, co-creation and collective action are different forms of collaboration, the difficulty in collaborating increases dramatically as we move from conversations to co-creation to collective action. The key is to start with a big task, break it down into individual actions (modularity) that are really small (granularity), and then put them together into a whole without losing value (aggregating mechanism). It is also important to bridge online conversations into mainstream media buzz and online engagement into offline action.

The Third C: Community

The third C, Community, refers to the idea that social media facilitates sustained collaboration around a shared idea, over time and often across space. The notion of a community is really tricky because every web page is a latent community, waiting to be activated. A vibrant community has size and strength, and is built around a meaningful social object.

Most people understand that a community that has a large number of members (size) who have strong relationships and frequent interactions with each other (strength) is better than a community which doesn’t. However, a community is more than the sum total of its members and their relationships. People don’t build relationships with each other in a vacuum. A vibrant community is built around a social object that is meaningful for its members. The social object can be a person, a place, a thing or an idea. 

The Fourth C: Collective Intelligence

The fourth C, Collective Intelligence, refers to the idea that the social web enables us to not only aggregate individual actions, but also run sophisticated algorithms on them and extract meaning from them. Collective intelligence can be based on both implicit and explicit actions and often takes the form of reputation and recommendation systems. The great thing about collective intelligence is that it becomes easier to extract meaning from a community as the size and strength of the community grow. If the collective intelligence is then shared back with the community, the members find more value in the community, and the community grows even more, leading to a virtuous cycle.

The4Cs Social Media Framework in Summary

So, the 4Cs form a hierarchy of what is possible with social media. As we move from Content to Collaboration to Community to Collective Intelligence, it becomes increasingly difficult to both observe these layers and activate them. Also each layer is often, but not always, a pre-requisite for the next layer. Compelling content is a pre-requisite for meaningful collaboration, which is a pre-requisite for a vibrant community, which, in turn, is a pre-requisite for collective intelligence.

Read more on the 4Cs Social Media Framework at: beth.typepad.com

 

Filed under  //   Complexity   Emergence   Innovation   Society   Technology  

Comments [0]

Harnessing Crowds: Mapping the Genome of Collective Intelligence

Filed under  //   Change   Complexity   Emergence   Innovation   Philosophy  

Comments [0]