Conventional academic discourse lies with journals and conferences. For all the advantages of these modes, neither offers an ongoing, dynamic interchange. Listservs offer that, but, in my experience anyway, they don't really create a productive, collaborative space. Sometimes there are debates on listservs; sometimes there is sharing of information (e.g. does anyone know a good article about x"?). But there isn't a sustained building of knowledge there. I suppose there could be, but there isn't, probably b/c we all go off to write our individually authored articles and conference presentations.
In any case, the listserv is too large a community for collaborative work. Yes, tens of thousands contribute to Wikipedia, but they don't all work on the same article, right? So I don't know what the magic number is, but let's say I was looking for a dozen scholars in who were interested in the same things I'm interested in:
mobile networks
virtual worlds
audio/video production
public, collaborative learning
It's unlikely that we would all work on the same research project at once, but there would be a handful of project undertaken by individuals or small groups. There would be a public face to the group and a private project management site, like Basecamp. The public face would offer a steady stream of information as we shared what we were doing, what was going on in our teaching, what we were reading and writing. We'd be assembling streams of information from our blogs, twitters, flickr, YouTube, and so on--wherever we were post information. The result is a collection of information that is hopefully useful groundwork for more formal investigation and also a mechanism for fruitful collaboration between our classes.
rblacademy on 28 Jun 22Millennium Core issues related to the case: * To establish a formal set up in the organisation and a productive relationship with Millennium's management team while maintaining its entrepreneurial vision and culture. * To bring Millennium back to profitability by moving it from its R&D roots to a more commercially-focused platform. * To regain credibility with the investment community. * To reallocate the resources of Millennium between its commercial and R&D platforms. * To optimize current commercial opportunities without jeopardizing future product development. * Informal review process and compensation system. * Lack of employees in commercial wing of Millennium. * Ignorance of competition faced by the company with regard to its products. * Failure due to marketing philosophy of Millennium. * Losses due to failure of some alliances. * Lack of competent employees at executive level mainly in R&D. Analysis of data for the root cause/s of the problem Millennium's organizational structure and processes had always been more informal than those of larger companies. It was organized around its people. Employees relied on informal committees and ad-hoc systems throughout the firm to help guide the business and coordinate operations. A lot of people resisted or resented the change in culture when Levin began to professionalize executive meetings when Millennium prepared to launch Velcade commercially and to restructure its business. There was Frustration among employees due to informal review process and biasness in terms of deciding over compensation policy. Over time some disadvantages of the alliances began to manifest themselves. Failure occurred in acquisition of CORE by Millennium. Huge cost incurred in restructuring process in 2003. Millennium fails to consider the competition Integrilin faced in the market. Marketing philosophy of Millennium that markets were won through good science and clinical data so products based on good data woul
