Most of my current time is served as the NSW Assistant Director for The Oaktree Foundation. Underlying a lot of my work with Oaktree is the belief that poverty is a by-product of poor systems and that mindset change and education is the solution to end poverty. Facilitating transformational change with two management consultant companies has been a key access point to systems thinking and systems change. My corporate background in the resource and manufacturing industries have provided insight into the need for balance between the spiritual and physical worlds. I am deeply passionate about continuous improvement and see evolution as a natural notion at both an individual and universal level.

1. Can we continue to support minor amendments to “business as usual” or must we now embark on radical transformation?
Minor amendments could have been possible if we had been working towards sustainable practices since the birth of the industrial era. Since we haven’t, we are now faced with the challenge to create radical change as we race against a stopwatch that is measuring the amount of irreversible damage we are doing.

2. What is the feasibility of implementing such transformative change?

Humans are extremely adaptive creatures, coupled with the fact that we live in exponential times, transformative change is a lot closer to reality than one may initially think.

3. What are the strategies that will generate system change?
To recognize that we are beyond the ‘what’ and now need to address the ‘how’- to generate system change. Strategy on the ‘how’ will need to be developed through a diverse group of people, including a gender and age balance. A top-down, bottom-up, multi-sector, multi-industry approach that will prioritise on identifying the power supplies that feed the system/s and empower the public to switch these off.

4. What is involved in shifting the national mindset?
Education and awareness to heighten public consciousness through a participatory-based, self- realized approach. The exchange of content needs to be values-based as it will help us access our blind-spots that can reveal a new way of thinking.

Values-based marketing through various mediums of media that reach the wider public on a regular basis.

5. What incentives will lead mainstream opinion leaders to change direction?
Rather than looking at it as incentives, I would rather see it as what will influence them. In which case, proof that non-mainstream opinion leaders, the true innovators and leaders (2.5% to 3.5% of the population) back a changed direction that is clearly painted, along with evidence of wide public support. This will hopefully lead to the birth of new policies and laws, which will accelerate the rate of change.

6. How do the values reflected in the present Transform Australia Manifesto support or conflict with the current values of mainstream Australia?
Mainstream Australia has a more individual and shorter-term serving values system.

Thanks Onur.

Recently I met Ryan Tracey who created a Green Wiki for his company, AMP.

AMP employees are now using wiki software to share tips on how to reduce their carbon footprint in the workplace, collaboratively making our company a better corporate citizen.

I wanted to did a little deeper so I asked Ryan a few questions about the wiki and if it was still being used.

1. What inspired you to create this wiki?

I’m an environmentalist at heart and, after many years of working in an office environment, I was acutely aware of our bad practices – such as wasting paper and leaving computers on overnight. I don’t think anyone does anything like that on purpose, so I wanted to do something new to raise awareness. After initially considering writing a blog, I instead chose to launch a wiki so that everyone across the company can share their ideas on how we can reduce our environmental footprint.

2. How are people using the wiki?

The Green Wiki is used by AMP employees to provide every day tips’n'tricks that we can adopt to help the environment. A couple of examples are the optimum printer settings you can select to minimise the amount of paper you use, and instructions for using virtual conferencing technology to avoid travelling between offices. We also use the wiki to promote broader initiatives in which AMP is involved (eg Earth Hour), to link to external websites (eg Rainforest Alliance), and to raise awareness of informal activities (eg car pooling).

3. Is the momentum still continuing?

Like a lot of social media activity, it goes through peaks and troughs. We have a core group of employees who participate avidly, but the stats show that vastly more people read the wiki than contribute to it. This is not unexpected given the culture shift that is required in a typical organisation for social media to gain traction. I see the Green Wiki as an early step on that journey.

4. Do you spend any time managing?

Not at all. I was very particular to position the Green Wiki as a completely voluntary, self-managed resource. I subscribe to updates to keep a handle on what’s going on, but everyone who contributes content clearly “gets” it. I’m very pleased with community spirit that it enjoys.

Ryan’s post on the wiki and how he sees it here

From: Social Innovation BarCamp

To: Social Innovation Sydney (have a sneak peak of the new look website)

And we’ve summed up what we do as “where change makers meet”.

Watch out for some more changes – a new logo and a new look website – over the next week or so.

He raises some interesting questions about why people participate in the creation of goods by means of social production and the implications of this for business and government. It is still worth thinking about this today, especially in the context of social innovation.

Why do social networks work?

by JOHN QUIGGIN on MAY 30, 2006

Yochai Benkler’s The Wealth of Networks: How Social Production transforms Markets and Freedom is full of interesting things to discuss, but the point that interests me most is the question of why people contribute to social production and what economic and political implications it has, for states as well as for markets and freedom. Benkler previously discussed the same question in Sharing Nicely, and I’ll talk a bit about this as well.

To the extent that there is a conventional wisdom about these things, it’s Eric Raymond’s idea of a gift economy, derived from his participation in the open source software movement. Raymond focuses exclusively on reputation as a motive for contributing to social production, seeking to assimilate all other motives (such as craft values) to reputation. It’s precisely this kind of totalising logic, I’ll argue, that is absent from social production.

On the contrary, there are a wide variety of motives which might lead people to contribute to networked social capital, for example by participating in various aspects of blogging (make posts and comments, linking and blogrolling, improving software, various kinds of metablogging). Possible motives include altruism, self-expression, advocacy of particular political or social views, display of technical expertise, and a desire for social interaction. Particularly in relation to a collective, and largely anonymous, product like Wikipedia, Raymond’s central focus on reputation does not fit the facts.

As against these various motives, there are the two standard methods that have been relied on to deliver most information production and innovation for the past 150 years: markets and bureaucracies.

Benkler discusses markets, and the associated profit motives, at some length, making the point that narrowly economic motives tend to crowd out alternative forms of motivation. He mentions the classic work of Titmuss on blood donations and some other examples to show that monetary and social-psychological motives are likely to conflict, rather than reinforcing each other. By contrast, different social-psychological motives are usually complementary or at least mutually consistent.

Why is this? At a superficial level, it’s obvious that people act differently, and are expected to act differently, in the context of relationships mediated by money than in other contexts. Behavior that would be regarded favorably in a non-monetary context is regarded as foolish or even reprehensible in a monetary context.

One of the most important general differences relates to rationality and reciprocity. In a non-market context, careful calculation of costs and benefits and an insistence on exact reciprocity is generally deprecated. By contrast, in market contexts, the first rule is never to give more than you get.

This rule applies in market contexts but not in social contexts, where such careful calculation is, as Benkler notes, generally deprecated, because markets create opportunities for systematic arbitrage that do not apply in other contexts. In an environment where exchanges are not carefully calculated, a trader who consistently gives slightly short weight can amass substantial profits. If trading partners assume honourable behavior, none will suffer enough to notice, but eventually arbitragers will drive out their less calculating trading partners.

Similar points can be made about other motives. There are a whole range of sales tricks designed to exploit altruism, friendship, desire for self-expression and so on. Hence, to prosper, or even survive, in a market context, it is necessary to adopt a view that ‘business is business’, and to (consciously or otherwise) play a role as a participant in the market economy that is quite distinct from what might be conceived as one’s ‘real self’. This is a prime example of what Goffman calls an obligatory role.

The crucial feature of economic motives in a money economy is not that they are less noble or desirable than alternatives such as desire for fame, but that a money economy provides a total system of rationality, from which most of the motives associated with social production are excluded.

Markets are not the only total system of rationality that operate in a modern society. bureaucracy and the state have a logic of their own. For most of the 20th century, the central issue of politics and economics was the question of where the boundary between markets and bureaucracies (public and private) should be drawn.

Benkler largely ignores the state. As he says (p. 16) ‘In much of [my discussion], the state plays no role or is perceived as playing a primarily negative role, in a way that is alien to the progressive branches of liberal political thought’. But this position overlooks the critical fact that both the Internet and the World Wide Web were developed primarily by state agencies or state-funded institutions (DARPA, NSF, the university sector, CERN, NCSA and so on). Yet this outcome was not the product of rational bureaucratic planning. Rather, like Topsy, the Net and the Web ‘just growed’.

Like market rationality, bureaucratic rationality implies a complete specification of behavior When dealing with a representative of a bureaucracy, we (mostly) expect consistent application of rules, rather than an adherence to standard social norms such as ‘look after your family/mates before others”. Similarly, and more crucially, bureaucracies are supposed to allocate their resources to the achievement of specified goals, not to do things because they would be fun, or even socially beneficial. All of this seems to leave little room for social production. So how did the state come to give us the Internet? More significantly for our present purposes, what kinds of public policy will facilitate the further growth of social production and the wider distribution of its benefits?

I don’t have a complete answer to either question. However, some obvious implications run counter to current developments in policy.

First, if monetary returns are weakly, or even negatively correlated with the value of social production, there’s no reason to expect capital markets to do a good job in allocating resources to supporting innovation. It follows that the policy orientation of the past thirty years, in which increasing reliance has been placed on capital markets, is going in the wrong direction. The examples considered by Benkler are illustrative. Both blogs and wikis have their roots in the late 1990s, a time when capital markets were splashing hundreds of billions of dollars around on Internet-related projects. Most of these projects came to nothing, while blogs and wikis developed with little or no venture capital money to help them along.

A second implication is that the policies of New Public Management, which attempt to tighten bureaucratic accountability and focus on competitive disciplines and measurable outcomes may be misguided. Rather than seeking to drive people harder in the search for increased productivity, government macro-economic policy should be oriented towards making room for creativity and facilitating its expression. Similarly, while competition has its place, public policy should be at least as much concerned with promoting co-operation. The assumptions we have had about the competitive nature of innovation are, therefore, undersupported in the new environment in which we find ourselves. If governments want to encourage the maximum amount of innovation in social production then they need to de-emphasize competition and emphasize creativity and cooperation.

Source: Crooked Timber 2006, reproduced here with kind permission from Prof. John Quiggin

The Social Innovation Network (SInet) brings together researchers from many discipline to investigate the development of new concepts, strategies and tools that empower individuals, communities, profit and non-profit organisations and the government to improve quality of life where quality of life means material standard of living as well as personal well-being in terms of health and environment and social harmony.

In this seminar James will be presenting along side Cheryl Kernot (UNSW’s Centre for Social Impact) and Helen Hasan (University of Wollongong). The Centre for Social Impact were sponsors of Australia’s first Social Innovation Camp earlier in the year and Helen Hasan was also the project leader of one of the finalists at that camp.

The theme for this seminar is social innovation driving social change, with an emphasis on health care.

For more information, please download the event details (PDF).

Instead there is a facilitator or session leader who frames and encourages a conversation about the topic that they have proposed. Participants come along ready to get involved and not just sit back as an audience.

Dave Winer outlines the process they use at the well-known BloggerCon and updates it here:

“…there is no audience, there are no speakers. There is a discussion leader, a person responsible for the flow of the discussion.”

We take a similar approach at Social Innovation BarCamp, and there is a reason for this. We think that the old conference model with experts out front and a passive audience is no longer sufficient to grapple with big ideas. The old conference model uses only a small fraction of the brainpower, passion and intelligence in the room. And Social Innovation BarCamp is about harnessing the passion, enthusiasm and energy of every participant.  Ultimately we want to change the world not just talk or think about action.

Four Principles

1. Whoever comes is [sic] the right people
2. Whatever happens is the only thing that could have
3. Whenever it starts is the right time
4. When it’s over it’s over

• The Law of Two Feet, which states simply, if at any time you find yourself in any situation where you are neither learning nor contributing, use your two feet and move to some place more to your liking. Such a place might be another group, or even outside into the sunshine. No matter what, don’t sit there feeling miserable.

Source: Harrison Owen

• The Law of No PowerPoint, which states simply, we know you’re used to the crutch of PowerPoint (or Keynote or Prezi, etc) but you need to leave it behind for the day. Instead use other forms of communication (perhaps draw a poster or write on a whiteboard?) to help get your message across.

Source: Kate Carruthers

On other thing to remember is that all conversations at Social Innovation BarCamp, whether to the entire room or one-to-one, unless otherwise stated, clearly and up front, are on the record and for attribution. You do not need to ask permission to quote something you hear at Social Innovation BarCamp. Of course you may ask for permission to quote, and you may choose not to quote things you hear.

You are welcome to bring your own recording equipment, cameras are allowed, basically the rules allow Grateful Dead/Phish style recording. Bring your microphone or camera and recording device, and record it and broadcast it any way you like. Be innovative. Have fun. Share. Be cool. (But please don’t interfere with the sessions.)

BIG ART 2010 is an art auction in Brisbane raising funds for The Big Issue to help Australia’s homeless.

Please let any of your Brisbane art loving/collectors contacts know about this event.

There’s some great artists and celebrities involved. Author Nick Earls and musician Kate Miller-Heidke have both donated pieces. See the list of artists here.

Ticket price includes drinks, hors d’oeuvres, entertainment from The View from Madeleine’s Couch and the chance to win a dinner package and cookbook from Phillip Johnson’s e’cco bistro. And it’s helping a really great cause.

When: Thursday 14th October, 6-9pm
Where: Bleeding Heart Gallery Ann St, Brisbane QLD
Entry: $50
Order online: e-tickets, no need to collect/post
Big Art website
Facebook
Twitter @big_art_bris

In Sydney, 2 groups are combining a day of bike riding with a picnic celebrating sustainable food choices.

The Keep it Wheel is organised by Digital Eskimo. It’s a party on wheels to show Sydney just how rocking cycling is  riders, the environment, the community and (especially) business owners along the new cycle ways.

Starting at Single Origin in Surry Hills, the bike teams will converge on Centennial Park for VegPledge/VegOut, a big picnic celebrating sustainable food choices.

Part of banding together as a community and getting to work on practical solutions to the climate crisis is celebrating our achievements. The VegOut picnic event on Sunday 10/10/10 at Centennial Park will be an opportunity for pledge participants and friends to relax in a beautiful environment, sharing VegPledge experiences and eating a yummy climate friendly picnic.

With an emphasis on sustainable food we welcome BYO organic, vegetarian, vegan, local and home made picnics.

Veg Pack lunch boxes are available for pre-purchase until the 8th of October. There are four savoury varieties and one sweet pack to choose from, prepared by four of Sydney’s wonderful sustainable food venues.

Please bring your own beverages in reusable or recyclable containers.

Both of these events have been gaining traction and notoriety on the usual social networking platforms, in the press and amongst the circles of those passionate about doing their bit.

See you Sunday.

Make sure you register for the Keep It Wheel here
You will find all the details for the VegPledge here

“businesses with primarily social objectives whose surpluses are principally reinvested for that purpose in the business or in the community, rather than being driven by the need to maximise profit for shareholders and owners.”
Source: UK Social Enterprise Coalition

Also some interesting discussion about social enterprise following:

Health secretary challenges ‘narrow’ definition of social enterprise

Numbers nightmare could jeopardise social enterprise