Re: A specific education, training and development programme capable of creating a cadre of trans-disciplinary agents able to synthesis across difference fields of study and application.

The qualifiers specific, training and development trouble me. I wonder also if you here conflate "education" and "schooling."

"Specific" seems to imply that some group or groups will assume the privilege of organizing the bodies of information (content) "students" must acquire, setting standards and creating tests that will demonstrate what they've "learned." "Training and development programs" also carry (for me) the sense of professionally developed/imposed curricula and testing.

Hard for me to imagine a democratic ideation culture (not to mention a cadre of integrative, interdisciplinary agents) capable of emerging from such a teaching/learning model, especially in our hyperlinked era.

Hi Dave,

when we where starting a regional KM project in the metropolregion nuremberg (3.6 mio citizens) we were thinking about which intellectual capital we need to be successful in the long run. We assumed that "social capital" is the most important one. People have to feel the "We" and not just the "I".

We started to implement a regional knowledge portal (regiolog.com, in german) and spent a whole column to display weblogs of citizens which worked pretty well. The next step was to co-create a regional knowledge map to help people (economic, science, everyone) to focus on relevant knowledge domains an work on stuff that really matters.

So I vote for social capital and focus on really relevant topics.

Best regards (and looking forward to see you at the knowtech in octobre in frankfurt?)
Simon Dueckert

The pattern of words in Dave's answer generated for me a picture of a totalitarian and communistic regime: 'enforced' 'pressure' 'obligation' 'agents' 'forces'.......

And the final point immediately conjured in my mind, Cuba - at least the ideals of a communist state.

Thanks for the comments guys, will expand on the points later in the week.

David, you are evidently a child of Thatcher :-)

Dave,

As long as you're "conflating", could you balloon, a bit, the ideation culture bit?

Do we need more ideas?

Is there a word for "ideation" + "implementation"?

I like the trans-disciplinary cadets bit. Wondering though about a whole culture built on it. Isn't the greatest value of a generalist exhibited in a context well-endowed with specialists (I might be moving wildly above your meaning for trans-disciplinary)?

Interesting that health and education get attention when stewardship, sustainability, and international-roles get none. Most of your recommendations look in, do they not? Isn't it worthwhile to look out (and look long)?

Dave,

Regarding your items:

"...enforced by social pressure...": I'm assuming you're thinking of the light touch of discipline and the sweet charm of inclusion, but it sounds more like the tyranny of 'conformity'to me. How about 'tolerance' for marginal behavior, and support for 'flights of fancy.'

I endorse the second and third principles.

I don't find the 'election' of judges (4th item) to be in conflict with the idea of democracy as much as I find electoral politics to be in conflict with evolving standards of justice.

I very much like the 5th item (national service) and the "renewal" idea might produce greater social benefit overall. I wouldn't go so far as to insist we inflict these people on 'disruptive' cultures (why ruin a good thing?) but I would want to see that the 'service' be performed in a role in the social hierarchy drastically different from the one they normally occuppy. (Perhaps, standing in for someone in another occupation who has to be on medical leave. I'm not suggesting they become a coal miner, just take care of the coal miner's family for a week or so. Help out around the house, get the kids off to school, do the shopping.Have a beer with other coal miners.)

I'm in violent agreement with the first part of your 7th principle (general access to public goods such as healthcare and education) but I don't see how, exactly, private alternatives can be abolished. You're not suggesting we arrest and punish people who are paid to share information or provide service on a private basis, are you?

As to IP, completely do away with existing copyright and patent law. Stop it, and let all existing patents, rights, protections, expire after some period of time. In the meantime, rethink the whole process so that it really does promote the spread of knowledge and the value of innovation. Think some 'simple' "digital DNA" and a published schedule of 'fees for use'. Then let everyone use everyone elses knowledge. Those that succeed in commercial applications result in automatic (micropayments) to the owners of whatever "digital DNA" is found in the product or service. Lots of people will be inventing, innovating, (blooging), sharing -- and those that are really good will receive a nice regular income. Employers, serving specific markets, will compete fiercely to hitch there wagons to these people, compensating them over and above the royalty they recive from the "system." -david h.

-dlh

Lots of Cubans seem pretty happy and still enthusiastically support "the revolution".

"Free, open, funded access to health and education based on need or ability, abolition of private provision of either service, thus forcing the powerful to upgrade the universal."

I am all for the free, open, funded access part but don't get why the abolition of private provision is a necessary to get the powerful to upgrade the universal - surely ensuring quality of the public services will bring the powerful into it and thereby upgrade it. I am not totally against your argument, I just don't think an abolition of private provision is totally necessary.

I think the key is to ensure (a) sufficient resources into public to ensure the quality is good enough for all and (b) an exchange of knowlede and skills between private and public.

Take white schooling in apartheid south africa - white government schools were very good schools (accepted within a very unfair system) and they operated fine along side better private schools.

I think there needs to be something related to taxation and the use of taxes.
Taxation needs to be proportional to real income rather than "declared income" (I am not sure how to word it... But I guess you guys understand what I mean)
An understanding that taxation is a good way to reallocate capital where it is most needed by the population. Furthermore an awareness and a social support that not everything can be run as a profit organization
Fines need to be proportional to income (like in Norway for drink driving), I would think these needs to be for all fines.

I think this is an important point. indeed I work a lot with people from norway, who never seem to complain about taxes, they seem happy to pay higher taxes, as they seem to see it as a duty to do so, and they get good support in return... I think this is really the sign of a well balanced society (unlike Italy)....

Luca

Child of Thatcher? :-)

Close. Actually, I am a child of Teacher.

As regards the "free, open, funded, open access...." it has so many inherent contradictions. Talking to people at the sharp end of the welfare system and the NHS - it is disturbing how distorted the systems have become.

Everything has become 'needs' based. And the systems encourage people to exaggerate their needs and play the system in order to get most benefit.

Beveridge himself, the founder of the modern welfare state, was aware of this. In 1948, six years after his great attack on the five giants of want, disease, ignorance, squalor and idleness, he wrote another report that expressed his fear that his reforms might encourage people to focus too passively on their needs. He wondered if there was enough “room, opportunity and encouragement for voluntary action in seeking new ways of social advance... services of a kind which often money cannot buy”.

Check participle.net for an alternative approach - which you might appreciate (and which may lend itself to Cynefin on reflection)......

Strange...the word "trust" has yet to appear....

I’ve read the discussion with great interest but have a fundamental problem with it. Having for years (decades actually) worked in large industrial organisations in the training field the problem I have is in the definition of competence – actually the fact that no definition of competence is given.
What I’ve read here is philosophy. Competence requires an applied structure for it to make sense. However philosophy with an applied structure becomes dogma (at least for those who are not in control of it).
Competency within most industries is poorly defined, as well, so I’m not just picking on you here. Where it is well defined it can seem quite draconian for some employees however it serves a purpose in the simple/complicated domains.
However back to the important point – what are you trying to define? Do we look at a country as if it were a person and define the set of “skills” that it needs to have? We could possibly apply the ASHEN model to this. Or, are we looking at the deeply held values that a country would need in order to exhibit the set of behaviours we’re looking for?

Sorry, just looking for some context.