managers in different functions or different business units seem surprisingly reluctant to work together
Group items tagged
SAP® StreamWork™ - 1 views
Collaboration Is Misunderstood and Overused - Andrew Campbell - Harvard Business Review - 0 views
blogs.hbr.org/...boration_is_misunderstood.html
collaboration andrew campbell harvard business review article paper team work
shared by Tiberius Brastaviceanu on 01 Sep 11
- No Cached
-
-
Jealousies, misunderstandings and enmity seem more common than collaboration
-
Why does collaboration fail? There are lots of reasons. Collaboration can be time-consuming. It creates risks for the participants. Competing objectives can be hard to resolve
- ...27 more annotations...
-
people confuse collaboration with teamwork.
-
-
"Competing objectives can be hard to resolve", well, this is what happens when you try to create a culture of collaboration within an overarching competitive environment.
-
-
Teams are created when managers need to work closely together to achieve a joint outcome.
-
actions are interdependent
-
committed to a single result
-
joint decisions
-
cautious about taking unilateral action
-
someone with the authority to resolve disputes
-
Team members may dislike
-
each other
-
But with a good leader they can still perform.
-
Collaborators face a different challenge
-
they often also have competing goals
-
the shared goal is usually only a small part of their responsibilities
-
collaborators cannot rely on a leader to resolve differences
-
collaborators cannot walk away from each other, when they disagree.
-
a collaborative relationship
-
is a form of customer-supplier relationship in which the participants have all the difficulties of contracting with each other without the power to walk away if the other party is being unreasonable or insensitive.
-
my advice is to avoid relying on a collaborative relationship except in the rare cases when a company objective is important enough to warrant some collaborative action but not so important as to warrant a dedicated team.
-
collaboration requires emotional engagement
-
respect
-
first-among-equals
-
creatively bargain
-
other over costs and benefits.
-
don't think of it as a permanent solution
-
collaborative relationship
-
transition to an easier form of interaction
Food Security Information Network (FSIN) - 1 views
-
FSIN is a technical platform for exchanging expertise and best practices on food security and nutrition analysis. It promotes independent and consensus-based information and highlights critical data gaps. The result of a consultative process between government institutions and development partners interested in a new vision for country-led food security information systems, FSIN continues providing support at country and regional level. Demand-driven and flexible, it remains adaptable to changing contexts and evolving needs. Today, FSIN's work spans the effort of 16 global and regional partners committed to improving availability and quality of food security and nutrition analysis for better decision-making. It also facilitates the Global Network Against Food Crises's first pillar which is centered on better understanding global food crises.
The New Normal in Funding University Science | Issues in Science and Technology - 1 views
-
Government funding for academic research will remain limited, and competition for grants will remain high. Broad adjustments will be needed
-
he sequester simply makes acute a chronic condition that has been getting worse for years.
-
the federal budget sequester
- ...72 more annotations...
-
systemic problems that arise from the R&D funding system and incentive structure that the federal government put in place after World War II
-
Researchers across the country encounter increasingly fierce competition for money.
-
unding rates in many National Institutes of Health (NIH) and National Science Foundation (NSF) programs are now at historical lows, declining from more than 30% before 2001 to 20% or even less in 2011
-
even the most prominent scientists will find it difficult to maintain funding for their laboratories, and young scientists seeking their first grant may become so overwhelmed that individuals of great promise will be driven from the field
-
anxiety and frustration
-
The growth of the scientific enterprise on university campuses during the past 60 years is not sustainable and has now reached a tipping point at which old models no longer work
-
Origins of the crisis
-
ederal funding agencies must work with universities to ensure that new models of funding do not stymie the progress of science in the United States
-
The demand for research money greatly exceeds the supply
-
the demand for research funding has gone up
-
The deeper sources of the problem lie in the incentive structure of the modern research university, the aspirations of scientists trained by those universities, and the aspirations of less research-intensive universities and colleges across the nation
-
competitive grants system
-
if a university wants to attract a significant amount of sponsored research money, it needs doctoral programs in the relevant fields and faculty members who are dedicated to both winning grants and training students
-
The production of science and engineering doctorates has grown apace
-
Even though not all doctorate recipients become university faculty, the size of the science and engineering faculty at U.S. universities has grown substantially
-
proposal pressure goes up
-
These strategies make sense for any individual university, but will fail collectively unless federal funding for R&D grows robustly enough to keep up with demand.
-
At the very time that universities were enjoying rapidly growing budgets, and creating modes of operation that assumed such largess was the new normal, Price warned that it would all soon come to a halt
-
the human and financial resources invested in science had been increasing much faster than the populations and economies of those regions
-
growth in the scientific enterprise would have to slow down at some point, growing no more than the population or the economy.
-
Dead-end solutions
-
studies sounded an alarm about the potential decline in U.S. global leadership in science and technology and the grave implications of that decline for economic growth and national security
-
Although we are not opposed to increasing federal funding for research, we are not optimistic that it will happen at anywhere near the rate the Academies seek, nor do we think it will have a large impact on funding rates
-
universities should not expect any radical increases in domestic R&D budgets, and most likely not in defense R&D budgets either, unless the discretionary budgets themselves grow rapidly. Those budgets are under pressure from political groups that want to shrink government spending and from the growth of spending in mandatory programs
-
The basic point is that the growth of the economy will drive increases in federal R&D spending, and any attempt to provide rapid or sustained increases beyond that growth will require taking money from other programs.
-
The demand for research money cannot grow faster than the economy forever and the growth curve for research money flattened out long ago.
-
Path out of crisis
-
The goal cannot be to convince the government to invest a higher proportion of its discretionary spending in research
-
Getting more is not in the cards, and some observers think the scientific community will be lucky to keep what it has
-
The potential to take advantage of the infrastructure and talent on university campuses may be a win-win situation for businesses and institutions of higher education.
-
Why should universities and colleges continue to support scientific research, knowing that the financial benefits are diminishing?
-
esearch culture
-
attract good students and faculty as well as raise their prestige
-
mission to expand the boundaries of human knowledge
-
faculty members are committed to their scholarship and will press on with their research programs even when external dollars are scarce
-
training
-
take place in
-
research laboratories
-
it is critical to have active research laboratories, not only in elite public and private research institutions, but in non-flagship public universities, a diverse set of private universities, and four-year colleges
-
How then do increasingly beleaguered institutions of higher education support the research efforts of the faculty, given the reality that federal grants are going to be few and far between for the majority of faculty members? What are the practical steps institutions can take?
-
change the current model of providing large startup packages when a faculty member is hired and then leaving it up to the faculty member to obtain funding for the remainder of his or her career
-
universities invest less in new faculty members and spread their internal research dollars across faculty members at all stages of their careers, from early to late.
-
-
-
national conversation about changes in startup packages and by careful consultations with prospective faculty hires about long-term support of their research efforts
-
Many prospective hires may find smaller startup packages palatable, if they can be convinced that the smaller packages are coupled with an institutional commitment to ongoing research support and more reasonable expectations about winning grants.
-
Smaller startup packages mean that in many situations, new faculty members will not be able to establish a functioning stand-alone laboratory. Thus, space and equipment will need to be shared to a greater extent than has been true in the past.
-
construction of open laboratory spaces and the strategic development of well-equipped research centers capable of efficiently servicing the needs of an array of researchers
-
phaseout of the individual laboratory
-
enhanced opportunities for communication and networking among faculty members and their students
-
Collaborative proposals and the assembly of research teams that focus on more complex problems can arise relatively naturally as interactions among researchers are facilitated by proximity and the absence of walls between laboratories.
-
An increased emphasis on team research
-
investments in the research enterprise
-
can be directed at projects that have good buy-in from the faculty
-
learn how to work both as part of a team and independently
-
Involvement in multiple projects should be encouraged
-
The more likely trajectory of a junior faculty member will evolve from contributing team member to increasing leadership responsibilities to team leader
-
nternal evaluations of contributions and potential will become more important in tenure and promotion decisions.
-
-
-
-
-
relationships with foundations, donors, state agencies, and private business will become increasingly important in the funding game
-
The opportunities to form partnerships with business are especially intriguing
-
-
The problem is to change the model and go open source, because IP stifles other processes that might benefit Universities!!!
-
-
Further complicating university collaborations with business is that past examples of such partnerships have not always been easy or free of controversy.
-
some faculty members worried about firms dictating the research priorities of the university, pulling graduate students into proprietary research (which could limit what they could publish), and generally tugging the relevant faculty in multiple directions.
-
developed rules and guidelines to control them
-
University faculty and businesspeople often do not understand each other’s cultures, needs, and constraints, and such gaps can lead to more mundane problems in university/industry relations, not least of which are organizational demands and institutional cultures
-
-
Needs for mechanisms to govern, coordinate, structure an ecosystem -See SENSORICA's Open Alliance model
-
-
n addition to funding for research, universities can receive indirect benefits from such relationships. High-profile partnerships with businesses will underline the important role that universities can play in the economic development of a region.
-
Universities have to see firms as more than just deep pockets, and firms need to see universities as more than sources of cheap skilled labor.
-
foundations or other philanthropy
-
We do not believe that research proposed and supervised by individual principal investigators will disappear anytime soon. It is a research model that has proven to be remarkably successful and enduring
-
However, we believe that the most vibrant scientific communities on university and college campuses, and the ones most likely to thrive in the new reality of funding for the sciences, will be those that encourage the formation of research teams and are nimble with regard to funding sources, even as they leave room for traditional avenues of funding and research.
Evolving Towards a Partner State in an Ethical Economy - 0 views
www.realitysandwich.com/_partner_state_ethical_economy
ethical economy new economy paper theory value networks Bauwens Michel
shared by Tiberius Brastaviceanu on 02 Apr 12
- No Cached
-
In the emerging institutional model of peer production
-
we can distinguish an interplay between three partners
-
a community of contributors that create a commons of knowledge, software or design;
- ...46 more annotations...
-
There is a clear institutional division of labour between these three players
-
a set of "for-benefit institutions' which manage the 'infrastructure of cooperation'
-
an enterpreneurial coalition that creates market value on top of that commons;
-
because democracy, and the market, and hierarchy, are modes of allocation of scarce resources
-
Is there perhaps a new model of power and democracy co-evolving out of these new social practices, that may be an answer to the contemporary crisis of democracy
-
we are witnessing a new model for the state. A 'P2P' state, if you will.
-
The post-democratic logic of community
-
these communities are not democracies
-
Can we also learn something about the politics of this new mode of value creation
-
has achieved capacities both for global coordination, and for the small group dynamics that are characteristic of human tribal forms and that it does this without 'command and control'! In fact, we can say that peer production has enabled the global scaling of small-group dynamics.
-
Everyone can contribute without permission, but such a priori permissionlessness is matched with mechanisms for 'a posteriori' communal validation, where those with recognized expertise and that are accepted by the community, the so-called 'maintainers' and the 'editors', decide
-
These decisions require expertise, not communal consensus
-
tension between inclusiveness of participation and selection for excellence
-
allowing for maximum human freedom compatible with the object of cooperation. Indeed, peer production is always a 'object-oriented' cooperation, and it is the particular object that will drive the particular form chosen for its 'peer governance' mechanisms
-
The main allocation mechanism in such project, which replaces the market, the hierarchy and democracy, is a 'distribution of tasks'
-
no longer a division of labor between 'jobs', and the mutual coordination works through what scientist call 'stigmergic signalling'
-
work environment is designed to be totally open and transparent
-
every participating individual can see what is needed, or not and decide accordingly whether to undertake his/her particular contribution
-
this new model
-
Such communities are truly poly-archies and the type of power that is held in them is meritocratic, distributed, and ad hoc.
-
And they have to be, because an undemocratic institution would also discourage contributions by the community of participants.
-
disagree, there are many ways to ethically distribute governance, not just democracy
-
-
Hence, an increased exodus of productive capacities, in the form of direct use value production, outside the existing system of monetization, which only operates at its margins.
-
Where there is no tension between supply and demand, their can be no market, and no capital accumulation
-
Facebook and Google users create commercial value for their platforms, but only very indirectly and they are not at all rewarded for their own value creation.
-
Since what they are creating is not what is commodified on the market for scarce goods, there is no return of income for these value creators
-
This means that social media platforms are exposing an important fault line in our system
-
If you did not contribute, you had no say, so engagement was and is necessary.
-
-
⁃ At the core of value creation are various commons, where the innovations are deposited for all humanity to share and to build on ⁃ These commons are enabled and protected through nonprofit civic associations, with as national equivalent the Partner State, which empowers and enables that social production ⁃ Around the commons emerges a vibrant commons-oriented economy undertaken by different kinds of ethical companies, whose legal structures ties them to the values and goals of the commons communities, and not absentee and private shareholders intent of maximising profit at any cost
-
the citizens deciding on the optimal shape of their provisioning systems.
-
-
Today, it is proto-mode of production which is entirely inter-dependent with the system of capital
-
Is there any possibility to create a really autonmous model of peer production, that could create its own cycle of reproduction?
-
contribute
-
-
"ad hoc": perhaps based on context, needs and everyone's understanding of the situation
-
-
and whose mission is the support of the commons and its contributors
-
In this way, the social reproduction of commoners would no longer depend on the accumulation cycle of capital, but on its own cycle of value creation and realization
-
Phyles are mission-oriented, purpose-driven, community-supportive entities that operate in the market, on a global scale, but work for the commons.
-
peer production license, which has been proposed by Dmytri Kleiner.
-
Thijs Markus writes so eloquently about Nike in the Rick Falkvinge blog, if you want to sell $5 shoes for $150 in the West, you better have one heck of a repressive IP regime in place.
-
Hence the need for SOPA/PIPA , ACTA'S and other attempts to criminalize the right to share.
-
An economy of scope exists between the production of two goods when two goods which share a CommonCost are produced together such that the CommonCost is reduced.
-
shared infrastructure costs
-
2) The current system beliefs that innovations should be privatized and only available by permission or for a hefty price (the IP regime), making sharing of knowledge and culture a crime; let's call this feature, enforced 'artificial scarcity'.
-
1) Our current system is based on the belief of infinite growth and the endless availability of resources, despite the fact that we live on a finite planet; let's call this feature, runaway 'pseudo-abundance'.
-
So what are the economies of scope of the new p2p age? They come in two flavours: 1) the mutualizing of knowledge and immaterial resources 2) the mutualizing of material productive resources
-
how does global governance look like in P2P civilization?
-
conflicts between contributors
-
are not decided by authoritarian fiat, but by 'negotiated coordination'.
Design Like No One Is Patenting - How SparkFun Stays Ahead of the Pack - 0 views
-
Electronics supplier SparkFun designs dozens of products a year and they haven’t patented a single one. It’s worked out pretty well so far.
-
makes its living by shipping kits and components like bread boards, servo motors and Arduino parts to a mixture of students, hobbyists, and professionals making prototypes
-
the company has made its name is in a stable of its own custom parts and kits, the designs for which it gives away for free.
- ...40 more annotations...
-
“We find that people will copy your design no matter what you do,” she says. “You might as well just play the game and go ahead and innovate. It’s fun, it keeps us on our toes.”
-
“The open source model just forces us to innovate,” says Boudreaux.
-
the open hardware model means that SparkFun’s existence depends not on any particular product, but on an ongoing relationship with customers that’s not too dissimilar to the loyalty commanded by a fashion house.
-
wolf of obsolescence is always at electronics’ door
-
don’t spend much time worrying about the copyists, they just keep releasing new looks
-
it’s about staying relevant and filling the needs of the community
-
SparkFun’s rapid turnover model is one that echoes the fashion industry.
-
keep their service exemplary
-
listening to their customers
-
developed a community of loyal users and fans
-
weekly new product posts
-
You can learn a lot about what a company cares about by looking at what they give away and what they protect.
-
SparkFun’s actual value is in the community of fans and loyal customers that keep coming back, and the expertise under its roof in servicing their needs.
-
Their catalog has about 2,500 items at any given time
-
SparkFun orders parts from 500 suppliers
-
15 new products every week
-
hey retire products at a similar rate, due to either low sales, or obsolescence
-
Of the 2,500 items, about 400 are things designed internally.
-
To handle the pace of change, SparkFun needs to keep its inventory lean.
-
“We try to do small runs and order in small quantities. Especially something that’s going to be obsolete quickly.”
-
To help manage the demand, they use an in-house software system
-
along with inventory and CMS management, tries to predict demand for different components and ensure they get ordered with sufficient lead time to account for how long it takes to get there.
-
the innovation (revisions and new releases) here at SparkFun is organic and not planned,” says Boudreaux, “But we do a few things to make sure we are keeping up.”
-
monitors all costumer feedback from emails to the comment section that is present on every page of the company’s site. They also ensure that team members have time to tinker in the office, write tutorials, and visit hackerspaces and maker events. “For us, designing (and revising) widgets is the job.”
-
anyone in the company can suggest ideas and contribute designs.
-
ideas run through an internal process of design, review, prototyping, testing and release.
-
“They eat these products up, even if the products are not ready for the mainstream & educator community due to minimal documentation or stability.”
-
symbiotic relationship with these early adopters, where feedback helps SparkFun revised and improve products for use by the rest of the community
-
I don’t think they help much
-
The risk of this rate of change is that SparkFun can end up outpacing some of their customers.
-
“There’s balance in everything,” says Boudreaux, “Innovation does not necessarily need speed in order to create valuable change. Sometimes innovation works at a slower pace, but that does not mean it is any less valuable to those that benefit from it, and we are constantly balancing the needs of two very different customers.”
-
unprotected and unencumbered by patents
-
racing to get the latest, coolest things in the hands of its customers.
-
patents
-
“We have to be willing to kill ideas that don’t work, take a lot of tough criticism, and move fast. If we stay agile, we stay relevant.”
-
cost $30,000 to $50,000
-
USPTO is so backed up you’ll have to wait three to five years to even hear back on their decision.
-
how much does technology change in five years?
-
company’s blog where they’ve been documenting production and business practices for years.
-
they even want to open source Sparkle. “It’s a wild ride,” she says, “but a fun one for sure.”
Stigmergy | GeorgieBC's Blog - 0 views
-
As no one owns the system, there is no need for a competing group to be started to change ownership to a different group
-
-
there is no need for communication outside of task completion
-
-
endless discussion
- ...12 more annotations...
-
personality conflicts
-
begin to steer direction
-
more interested and dedicated personalities emerge
-
-
work most valued by the rest of the user group
-
-
As more members are added, more will experience frustration at limited usefulness or autonomy
-
-
stigmergy encourages splintering
-
I would need to see a convincing argument for this, ant colonies are pretty large
-
-
as communication is easier and there is more autonomy in smaller groups, splintering is the more likely outcome of growth.
-
not convinced that splintering should be the outcome, fractal growth would be preferable, also communication is not limited to small groups, nor is it necessarily 'better' in them
-
-
Transparency allows information to travel freely between the various nodes
-
Information sharing is driven by the information, not personal relationships
-
it is inefficient to have the same task performed twice
-
that depends on the type of task, and the way it is being done, if it is repetative with a well understood solution, then yes, otherwise less so
-
-
It is neither reasonable nor desirable for individual thought and action to be subjugated to group consensus in matters which do not affect the group
-
it is frankly impossible to accomplish complex tasks if every decision must be presented for approval
Why Wikipedia Must Jettison Its Anti-Elitism - 0 views
-
Case for some degree of elitism for wikipedia. NOTE: In SENSORICA the reputation system regulates trolls, which can do damage, but will lose on their ability to extract value from the community.
James Grier Miller, Living Systems (1978) - 0 views
-
reality as an integrated hierarchy of organizations of matter and energy
-
General living systems theory is concerned with a special subset of all systems, the living ones
-
a space is a set of elements which conform to certain postulate
- ...266 more annotations...
-
s. Euclidean space
-
metric space
-
topological space
-
Physical space is the extension surrounding a point
-
My presentation of a general theory of living systems will employ two sorts of spaces in which they may exist, physical or geographical space and conceptual or abstracted spaces
-
Physical or geographical space
-
Euclidean space
-
distance
-
moving
-
maximum speed
-
objects moving in such space cannot pass through one another
-
friction
-
The characteristics and constraints of physical space affect the action of all concrete systems, living and nonliving.
-
information can flow worldwide almost instantly
-
Physical space is a common space
-
Most people learn that physical space exists, which is not true of many spaces
-
They can give the location of objects in it
-
Conceptual or abstracted spaces
-
Peck order
-
Social class space
-
Social distance
-
Political distance
-
life space
-
semantic space
-
Sociometric space
-
A space of time costs of various modes of transportation
-
space of frequency of trade relations among nations.
-
A space of frequency of intermarriage among ethnic groups.
-
These conceptual and abstracted spaces do not have the same characteristics and are not subject to the same constraints as physical space
-
Social and some biological scientists find conceptual or abstracted spaces useful because they recognize that physical space is not a major determinant of certain processes in the living systems they study
-
interpersonal relations
-
one cannot measure comparable processes at different levels of systems, to confirm or disconfirm cross-level hypotheses, unless one can measure different levels of systems or dimensions in the same spaces or in different spaces with known transformations among them
-
It must be possible, moreover, to make such measurements precisely enough to demonstrate whether or not there is a formal identity across levels
-
fundamental "fourth dimension" of the physical space-time continuum
-
is the particular instant at which a structure exists or a process occurs
-
or the measured or measurable period over which a structure endures or a process continues.
-
durations
-
speeds
-
rates
-
accelerations
-
irreversible unidirectionality of time
-
thermodynamics
-
negentropy
-
"time's arrow."
-
Matter and energy
-
Matter is anything which has mass (m) and occupies physical space.
-
Energy (E) is defined in physics as the ability to do work.
-
kinetic energy
-
potential energy
-
rest mass energy
-
Mass and energy are equivalent
-
Living systems need specific types of matter-energy in adequate amounts
-
Energy for the processes of living systems is derived from the breakdown of molecules
-
Any change of state of matter-energy or its movement over space, from one point to another, I shall call action.
-
It is one form of process.
-
information (H)
-
Transmission of Information
-
Meaning is the significance of information to a system which processes it: it constitutes a change in that system's processes elicited by the information, often resulting from associations made to it on previous experience with it
-
Information is a simpler concept: the degrees of freedom that exist in a given situation to choose among signals, symbols, messages, or patterns to be transmitted.
-
The set of all these possible categories (the alphabet) is called the ensemble or repertoire
-
.) The unit is the binary digit, or bit of information
-
. The amount of information is measured as the logarithm to the base 2 of the number of alternate patterns
-
Signals convey information to the receiving system only if they do not duplicate information already in the receiver. As Gabor says:
-
[The information of a message can] be defined as the 'minimum number of binary decisions which enable the receiver to construct the message, on the basis of the data already available to him.'
-
meaning cannot be precisely measured
-
Information is the negative of uncertainty.
-
information is the amount of formal patterning or complexity in any system.
-
The term marker was used by von Neumann to refer to those observable bundles, units, or changes of matter-energy whose patterning bears or conveys the informational symbols from the ensemble or repertoire.
-
If a marker can assume n different states of which only one is present at any given time, it can represent at most log2n bits of information. The marker may be static, as in a book or in a computer's memory
-
Communication of almost every sort requires that the marker move in space, from the transmitting system to the receiving system, and this movement follows the same physical laws as the movement of any other sort of matter-energy. The advance of communication technology over the years has been in the direction of decreasing the matter-energy costs of storing and transmitting the markers which bear information.
-
There are, therefore, important practical matter-energy constraints upon the information processing of all living systems exerted by the nature of the matter-energy which composes their markers.
-
organization is based upon the interrelations among parts.
-
If two parts are interrelated either quantitatively or qualitatively, knowledge of the state of one must yield some information about the state of the other. Information measures can demonstrate when such relationships exist
-
The disorder, disorganization, lack of patterning, or randomness of organization of a system is known as its entropy (S)
-
the statistical measure for the negative of entropy is the same as that for information
-
entropy becomes a measure of the probability
-
Increase of entropy was thus interpreted as the passage of a system from less probable to more probable states.
-
according to the second law, a system tends to increase in entropy over time, it must tend to decrease in negentropy or information.
-
therefore no principle of the conservation of information
-
The total information can be decreased in any system without increasing it elsewhere
-
but it cannot be increased without decreasing it elsewhere
-
. Making one or more copies of a given informational pattern does not increase information overall, though it may increase the information in the system which receives the copied information.
-
transforms information into negative entropy
-
smallest possible amount of energy used in observing one bit of information
-
calculations of the amount of information accumulated by living systems throughout growth.
-
the concept of Prigogine that in an open system (that is one in which both matter and energy can be exchanged with the environment) the rate of entropy production within the system, which is always positive, is minimized when the system is in a steady state.
-
in systems with internal feedbacks, internal entropy production is not always minimized when the system is in a stationary state. In other words, feedback couplings between the system parameters may cause marked changes in the rate of development of entropy. Thus it may be concluded that the "information flow" which is essential for this feedback markedly alters energy utilization and the rate of development of entropy, at least in some such special cases which involve feedback control. While the explanation of this is not clear, it suggests an important relationship between information and entropy
-
amount of energy actually required to transmit the information in the channel is a minute part of the total energy in the system, the "housekeeping energy" being by far the largest part of it
-
In recent years systems theorists have been fascinated by the new ways to study and measure information flows, but matter-energy flows are equally important. Systems theory is more than information theory, since it must also deal with energetics - such matters as
-
the flow of raw materials through societies
-
Only a minute fraction of the energy used by most living systems is employed for information processing
-
I have noted above that the movement of matter-energy over space, action, is one form of process. Another form of process is information processing or communication, which is the change of information from one state to another or its movement from one point to another over space
-
Communications, while being processed, are often shifted from one matter-energy state to another, from one sort of marker to another
-
transformations go on in living systems
-
One basic reason why communication is of fundamental importance is that informational patterns can be processed over space and the local matter-energy at the receiving point can be organized to conform to, or comply with, this information
-
the delivery of "flowers by telegraph."
-
Matter-energy and information always flow together
-
Information is always borne on a marker
-
. Conversely there is no regular movement in a system unless there is a difference in potential between two points, which is negative entropy or information
-
If the receiver responds primarily to the material or energic aspect, I shall call it, for brevity, a matter-energy transmission; if the response is primarily to the information, I shall call it an information transmission
-
Moreover, just as living systems must have specific forms of matter-energy, so they must have specific patterns of information
-
example
-
example
-
develop normally
-
have appropriate information inputs in infancy
-
pairs of antonyms
-
one member of which is associated with the concept of information (H)
-
the other member of which is associated with its negative, entropy (S)
-
System
-
A system is a set of interacting units with relationships among them
-
.The word "set" implies that the units have some common properties. These common properties are essential if the units are to interact or have relationships. The state of each unit is constrained by, conditioned by, or dependent on the state of other units. The units are coupled. Moreover, there is at least one measure of the sum of its units which is larger than the sum of that measure of its units.
-
Conceptual system
-
Units
-
terms
-
Relationships
-
a set of pairs of units, each pair being ordered in a similar way
-
expressed by words
-
or by logical or mathematical symbols
-
operations
-
The conceptual systems of science
-
observer
-
selects
-
particular sets to study
-
Variable
-
Each member of such a set becomes a variable of the observer's conceptual system
-
conceptual system may be loose or precise, simple or elaborate
-
Indicator
-
an instrument or technique used to measure fluctuations of variables in concrete systems
-
Function
-
a correspondence between two variables, x and y, such that for each value of x there is a definite value of y, and no two y's have the same x, and this correspondence is: determined by some rule
-
Any function is a simple conceptual system
-
Parameter
-
An independent variable through functions of which other functions may be expressed
-
The state of a conceptual system
-
the set of values on some scale, numerical or otherwise, which its variables have at a given instant
-
Formal identity
-
variables
-
varies comparably to a variable in another system
-
If these comparable variations are so similar that they can be expressed by the same function, a formal identity exists between the two systems
-
Relationships between conceptual and other sorts of systems
-
Science advances as the formal identity or isomorphism increases between a theoretical conceptual system and objective findings about concrete or abstracted systems
-
A conceptual system may be purely logical or mathematical, or its terms and relationships may be intended to have some sort of formal identity or isomorphism with units and relationships empirically determinable by some operation carried out by an observer
-
Concrete system
-
a nonrandom accumulation of matter-energy, in a region in physical space-time, which is organized into interacting interrelated subsystems or components.
-
Units
-
are also concrete systems
-
Relationships
-
spatial
-
temporal
-
spatiotemporal
-
causal
-
Both units and relationships in concrete systems are empirically determinable by some operation carried out by an observer
-
patterns of relationships or processes
-
The observer of a concrete system
-
distinguishes a concrete system from unorganized entities in its environment by the following criteria
-
physical proximity of its units
-
similarity of its units
-
common fate of its units
-
distinct or recognizable patterning of its units.
-
Their boundaries are discovered by empirical operations available to the general scientific community rather than set conceptually by a single observer
-
Variable of a concrete system
-
Any property of a unit or relationship within a system which can be recognized by an observer
-
which can potentially change over time, and whose change can potentially be measured by specific operations, is a variable of a concrete system
-
Examples
-
number of its subsystems or components, its size, its rate of movement in space, its rate of growth, the number of bits of information it can process per second, or the intensity of a sound to which it responds
-
A variable is intrasystemic
-
not to be confused with intersystemic variations which may be observed among individual systems, types, or levels.
-
The state of a concrete system
-
its structure
-
represented by the set of values on some scale which its variables have at that instant
-
Open system
-
Most concrete systems have boundaries which are at least partially permeable, permitting sizable magnitudes of at least certain sorts of matter-energy or information transmissions to pass them. Such a system is an open system. In open systems entropy may increase, remain in steady state, or decrease.
-
Closed system
-
impermeable boundaries through which no matter-energy or information transmissions of any sort can occur is a closed system
-
special case
-
No actual concrete system is completely closed
-
In closed systems, entropy generally increases, exceptions being when certain reversible processes are carried on which do not increase it. It can never decrease.
-
Nonliving system
-
the general case of concrete systems, of which living systems are a very special case. Nonliving systems need not have the same critical subsystems as living systems, though they often have some of them
-
Living system
-
a special subset of the set of all possible concrete systems
-
They all have the following characteristics:
-
open systems
-
inputs
-
throughputs
-
outputs
-
of various sorts of matter-energy and information.
-
maintain a steady state of negentropy even though entropic changes occur in them as they do everywhere else
-
by taking in inputs
-
higher in complexity or organization or negentropy
-
than their outputs
-
The difference permits them to restore their own energy and repair breakdowns in their own organized structure.
-
In living systems many substances are produced as well as broken down
-
To do this such systems must be open and have continual inputs of matter-energy and information
-
entropy will always increase in walled-off living systems
-
They have more than a certain minimum degree of complexity
-
They either contain genetic material composed of deoxyribonucleic acid (DNA)
-
or have a charter
-
blueprint
-
program
-
of their structure and process from the moment of their origin
-
may also include nonliving components.
-
They have a decider, the essential critical sub-system which controls the entire system, causing its subsystems and components to interact. Without such interaction under decider control there is no system.
-
other specific critical sub-systems or they have symbiotic or parasitic relationships with other living or nonliving systems
-
Their subsystems are integrated together to form actively self-regulating, developing, unitary systems with purposes and goals
-
They can exist only in a certain environment
-
change in their environment
-
produces stresses
-
Totipotential system
-
capable of carrying out all critical subsystem processes necessary for life is totipotential
-
Partipotential system
-
does not itself carry out all critical subsystem processes is partipotential
-
A partipotential system must interact with other systems that can carry out the processes which it does not, or it will not survive
-
parasitic
-
symbiotic
-
-
-
Fully functioning system
-
when it
-
Partially functioning system
-
it must do its own deciding, or it is not a system
-
Abstracted system
-
Units
-
relationships abstracted or selected by an observer in the light of his interests, theoretical viewpoint, or philosophical bias.
-
Some relationships may be empirically determinable by some operation carried out by the observer, but others are not, being only his concepts
-
Relationships
-
The relationships mentioned above are observed to inhere and interact in concrete, usually living, systems
-
these concrete systems are the relationships of abstracted systems.
-
The verbal usages of theoretical statements concerning abstracted systems are often the reverse of those concerning concrete systems
-
An abstracted system differs from an abstraction, which is a concept
-
representing a class of phenomena all of which are considered to have some similar "class characteristic." The members of such a class are not thought to interact or be interrelated, as are the relationships in an abstracted system
-
Abstracted systems are much more common in social science theory than in natural science.
-
are oriented toward relationships rather than toward the concrete systems
-
spatial arrangements are not usually emphasized
-
their physical limits often do not coincide spatially with the boundaries of any concrete system, although they may.
-
important difference between the physical and biological hierarchies, on the one hand, and social hierarchies, on the other
-
Most physical and biological hierarchies are described in spatial terms
-
we propose to identify social hierarchies not by observing who lives close to whom but by observing who interacts with whom
-
intensity of interaction
-
in most biological and physical systems relatively intense interaction implies relative spatial propinquity
-
To the extent that interactions are channeled through specialized communications and transportation systems, spatial propinquity becomes less determinative of structure.
-
-
This is the case of SENSORICA, built on web-based communication and coordination tools.
-
-
PARSONS
-
the unit of a partial social system is a role and not the individual.
-
culture
-
cumulative body of knowledge of the past, contained in memories and assumptions of people who express this knowledge in definite ways
-
The social system is the actual habitual network of communication between people.
-
RUESCH
-
A social system is a behavioral system
-
It is an organized set of behaviors of persons interacting with each other: a pattern of roles.
-
The roles are the units of a social system
-
-
-
On the other hand, the society is an aggregate of social subsystems, and as a limiting case it is that social system which comprises all the roles of all the individuals who participate.
-
What Ruesch calls the social system is something concrete in space-time, observable and presumably measurable by techniques like those of natural science
-
To Parsons the system is abstracted from this, being the set of relationships which are the form of organization. To him the important units are classes of input-output relationships of subsystems rather than the subsystems themselves
-
system is a system of relationship in action, it is neither a physical organism nor an object of physical perception
-
evolution
-
differentiation
-
growth
-
from earlier and simpler forms and functions
-
capacities for specializations and gradients
-
[action] is not concerned with the internal structure of processes of the organism, but is concerned with the organism as a unit in a set of relationships and the other terms of that relationship, which he calls situation
-
Abstracted versus concrete systems
-
One fundamental distinction between abstracted and concrete systems is that the boundaries of abstracted systems may at times be conceptually established at regions which cut through the units and relationships in the physical space occupied by concrete systems, but the boundaries of these latter systems are always set at regions which include within them all the units and internal relationships of each system
-
A science of abstracted systems certainly is possible and under some conditions may be useful.
-
If the diverse fields of science are to be unified, it would be helpful if all disciplines were oriented either to concrete or to abstracted systems.
-
It is of paramount importance for scientists to distinguish clearly between them
Towards a Material Commons | Guerrilla Translation! - 0 views
-
the modes of communication we use are very tightly coupled with the modes of production that finance them
-
I’m focused on the policy formation around this transition to a new, open knowledge and commons-based economy, and that’s the research work I’m doing here
-
The problem is I can only make a living by still working for capital.
- ...88 more annotations...
-
We now have a technology which allows us to globally scale small group dynamics, and to create huge productive communities, self-organized around the collaborative production of knowledge, code, and design. But the key issue is that we are not able to live from that, right
-
A lot of co-ops have been neo-liberalizing, as it were, have become competitive enterprises competing against other companies but also against other co-ops, and they don’t share their knowledge
-
We cannot create our own livelihood within that sphere
-
instead of having a totally open commons, which allows multinationals to use our commons and reinforce the system of capital, the idea is to keep the accumulation within the sphere of the commons.
-
The result would be a type of open cooperative-ism, a kind of synthesis or convergence between peer production and cooperative modes of production
-
then the material work, the work of working for clients and making a livelihood, would be done through co-ops
-
But it hasn’t had much of a direct connection to this emerging commons movement, which shares so many of the values and principles of the traditional cooperative movement.
-
There’s also a lot of peer-to-peer work going on, but it’s not very well versed around issues like cooperative organization, formal or legal forms of ownership, which are based on reciprocity and cooperation, and how to interpret the commons vision with a structure, an organizational structure and a legal structure that actually gives it economic power, market influence, and a means of connecting it to organizational forms that have durability over the long-term.
-
The young people, the developers in open source or free software, the people who are in co-working centers, hacker spaces, maker spaces. When they are thinking of making a living, they think startups
-
They have a kind of generic reaction, “oh, let’s do a startup”, and then they look for venture funds. But this is a very dangerous path to take
-
Typically, the venture capital will ask for a controlling stake, they have the right to close down your start up whenever they feel like it, when they feel that they’re not going to make enough money
-
Don’t forget that with venture capital, only 1 out of 10 companies will actually make it, and they may be very rich, but it’s a winner-take-all system
-
we don’t have what Marx used to call social reproduction
-
I would like John to talk about the solidarity co-ops, and how that integrates the notion of the commons or the common good in the very structure of the co-op
-
They don’t have a commons of design or code, they privatize and patent, just like private competitive enterprise, their knowledge
-
Cooperatives, which are basically a democratic and collective form of enterprise where members have control rights and democratically direct the operations of the co-op, have been the primary stakeholders in any given co-op – whether it’s a consumer co-op, or a credit union, or a worker co-op.
-
Primarily, the co-op is in the service of its immediate members
-
What was really fascinating about the social co-ops was that, although they had members, their mission was not only to serve the members but also to provide service to the broader community
-
In the city of Bologna, for example, over 87% of the social services provided in that city are provided through contract with social co-ops
-
democratically run
-
much more participatory, and a much more engaged model
-
The difference, however, is that the structure of social co-ops is still very much around control rights, in other words, members have rights of control and decision-making within how that organization operates
-
And it is an incorporated legal structure that has formal recognition by the legislation of government of the state, and it has the power, through this incorporated power, to negotiate with and contract with government for the provision of these public services
-
In Québec they’re called Solidarity co-ops
-
So, the social economy, meaning organizations that have a mutual aim in their purpose, based on the principles of reciprocity, collective benefit, social benefit, is emerging as an important player for the design and delivery of public services
-
This, too, is in reaction to the failure of the public market for provision of services like affordable housing or health care or education services
-
This is a crisis in the role of the state as a provider of public services. So the question has emerged: what happens when the state fails to provide or fulfill its mandate as a provider or steward of public goods and services, and what’s the role of civil society and the social economy in response?
-
we have commonses of knowledge, code and design. They’re more easily created, because as a knowledge worker, if you have access to the network and some means, however meager, of subsistence, through effort and connection you can actually create knowledge. However, this is not the case if you move to direct physical production, like the open hardware movement
-
I originally encountered Michel after seeing some talks by Benkler and Lessig at the Wizard of OS 4, in 2006, and I wrote an essay criticizing that from a materialist perspective, it was called “The creative anti-commons and the poverty of networks”, playing on the terms that both those people used.
-
In hardware, we don’t see that, because you need to buy material, machines, plastic, metal.
-
Some people have called the open hardware community a “candy” economy, because if you’re not part of these open hardware startups, you’re basically not getting anything for your efforts
-
democratic foundations like the Apache foundation
-
They conceive of peer production, especially Benkler, as being something inherently immaterial, a form of production that can only exist in the production of immaterial wealth
-
From my materialist point of view, that’s not a mode of production, because a mode of production must, in the first place, reproduce its productive inputs, its capital, its labor, and whatever natural wealth it consumes
-
From a materialist point of view, it becomes obvious that the entire exchange value produced in these immaterial forms would be captured by the same old owners of materialist wealth
-
different definition of peer production
-
independent producers collectively sharing a commons of productive assets
-
I wanted to create something like a protocol for the formation and allocation of physical goods, the same way we have TCP/IP and so forth, as a way to allocate immaterial goods
-
share and distribute and collectively create immaterial wealth, and become independent producers based on this collective commons.
-
One was the Georgist idea of using rent, economic rent, as a fundamental mutualizing source of wealth
-
Mutualizing unearned income
-
So, the unearned income, the portion of income derived from ownership of productive assets is evenly distributed
-
This protocol would seek to normalize that, but in a way that doesn’t require administration
-
typical statist communist reaction to the cooperative movement is saying that cooperatives can exclude and exploit one another
-
But then, as we’ve seen in history, there’s something that develops called an administrative class, which governs over the collective of cooperatives or the socialist state, and can become just as counterproductive and often exploitive as capitalist class
-
So, how do we create cooperation among cooperatives, and distribution of wealth among cooperatives, without creating this administrative class?
-
This is why I borrowed from the work of Henry George and Silvio Gesell in created this idea of rent sharing.
-
This is not done administratively, this is simply done as a protocol
-
The idea is that if a cooperative wants an asset, like, an example is if one of the communes would like to have a tractor, then essentially the central commune is like a bond market. They float a bond, they say I want a tractor, I am willing to pay $200 a month for this tractor in rent, and other members of the cooperative can say, hey, yeah, that’s a good idea,we think that’s a really good allocation of these productive assets, so we are going to buy these bonds. The bond sale clears, the person gets the tractor, the money from the rent of the tractor goes back to clear the bonds, and after that, whatever further money is collected through the rent on this tractor – and I don’t only mean tractors, same would be applied to buildings, to land, to any other productive assets – all this rent that’s collected is then distributed equally among all of the workers.
-
The idea is that people earn income not only by producing things, but by owning the means of production, owning productive assets, and our society is unequal because the distribution of productive assets is unequal
-
This means that if you use your exact per capita share of property, no more no less than what you pay in rent and what you received in social dividend, will be equal
-
But if you’re not working at that time, because you’re old, or otherwise unemployed, then obviously the the productive assets that you will be using will be much less than the mean and the median, so what you’ll receive as dividend will be much more than what you pay in rent, essentially providing a basic income
-
venture communism doesn’t seek to control the product of the cooperatives
-
It doesn’t seek to limit, control, or even tell them how they should distribute it, or under what means; what they produce is entirely theirs, it’s only the collective management of the commons of productive assets
-
On paper this would seem to work, but the problem is that this assumes that we have capital to allocate in this way, and that is not the case for most of the world workers
-
how do we get to that stage?
-
other two being counter politics and insurrectionary finance
-
do we express our activism through the state, or do we try to achieve our goals by creating the alternative society outside
-
pre-figurative politics, versus statist politics
-
My materialist background tells me that when you sell your labor on the market, you have nothing more than your subsistence costs at the end of it, so where is this wealth meant to come from
-
I believe that the only reason that we have any extra wealth beyond subsistence is because of organized social political struggle; because we have organized in labor movements, in the co-op movement, and in other social forms
-
To create the space for prefiguring presupposes engagement with the state, and struggle within parliaments, and struggle within the public social forum
-
Instead, we should think that no, we must engage in the state in order to protect our ability to have alternative societies
-
We can only get rid of the state in these areas once we have alternative, distributed, cooperative means to provide those same functions
-
We can only eliminate the state from these areas once they actually exist, which means we actually have to build them
-
What I mean by insurrectionary finance is that we have to acknowledge that it’s not only forming capital and distributing capital, it’s also important how intensively we use capital
-
I’m not proposing that the cooperative movement needs to engage in the kind of derivative speculative madness that led to the financial crisis, but at the same time we can’t… it can’t be earn a dollar, spend a dollar
-
We have to find ways to create liquidity
-
to deal with economic cycles
-
they did things the organized left hasn’t been able to do, which is takeover industrial means of production
-
if they can take over these industrial facilities, just in order to shut them down and asset strip them, why can’t we take them over and mutualize them?
-
more ironic once you understand that the source of investment that Milken and his colleagues were working with were largely workers pension funds
-
idea of venture communism
-
pooling, based on the capture of unearned income
-
in Québec, there is a particular form of co-op that’s been developed that allows small or medium producers to pool their capital to purchase machinery and to use it jointly
-
The other idea I liked was trying to minimize a management class
-
much more lean and accountable because they are accountable to boards of directors that represent the interests of the members
-
I’ve run into this repeatedly among social change activists who immediately recoil at the notion of thinking about markets and capital, as part of their change agenda
-
I had thought previously, like so many, that economics is basically a bought discipline, and that it serves the interests of existing elites. I really had a kind of reaction against that
-
complete rethinking of economics
-
recapture the initiative around vocabulary, and vision, with respect to economics
-
reimagining and reinterpreting, for a popular and common good, the notion of market and capital
-
advocating for a vision of social change that isn’t just about politics, and isn’t just about protest, it has to be around how do we reimagine and reclaim economics
-
markets actually belong to communities and people
-
capital wasn’t just an accumulated wealth for the rich
-
I think what we’re potentially talking about here is to make the social economy hyper-productive, hyper-competitive, hyper-cooperative
-
The paradox is that capital already knows this. Capital is investing in these peer production projects
-
Part of the proposal of the FLOK society project in Ecuador will be to get that strategic reorganization to make the social economy strategic
Co-Creating as Disruption to the Dominant Cultural Framework » Wirearchy - 0 views
-
more open people processes
-
Participative processes like Open Space, World Cafes, Unconferences, Peer Circles
-
Barcamps, Wordcamps, Govcamps, Foo Camps, Unconferences, high-end celebrity-and-marketing-and venture-capital ‘experience’ markets, new cultural and artistic festivals with technology-and-culture-making themes
- ...45 more annotations...
-
maker faires
-
community-and-consensus building, organizing for activism and fundraising
-
The impetus behind this explosion is both technological and sociological
-
Technological
-
information technology and the creation and evolution of the Internet and the Web
-
appearance, development and evolution of social tools, web services, massive storage, and the ongoing development of computer-and-smart-devices development
-
Sociological
-
People are searching for ways to find others with similar interests and motivations so that they can engage in activities that help them learn, find work, grow capabilities and skills, and tackle vexing social and economic problems
-
get informed and take action
-
Developing familiarity and practice with open and collaborative processes
-
play and work together
-
rules about self-management, operate democratically, and produce results grounded in ownership and the responsibilities that have been agreed upon by the ‘community’
-
The relationships and flows of information can be transferred to online spaces and often benefit from wider connectivity.
-
Today, our culture-making activities are well engaged in the early stages of cultural mutation
-
What’s coming along next ? “Smart” devices and Internet everywhere in our lives ? Deep(er) changes to the way things are conceived, carried out, managed and used ? New mental models ? Or, will we discover real societal limits to what can be done given the current framework of laws, institutions and established practices with which people are familiar and comfortable ?
-
Shorter cycle-based development and release
-
Agile development
-
It is clear evidence that the developmental and learning dynamics generated by continuous or regular feedback loops are becoming the norm in areas of activity in which change and short cycles of product development are constants.
-
The Internet of Things (IoT)
-
clothes, homes, cars, buildings, roads, and a wide range of other objects that have a place in peoples’ daily life activities
-
experiencing major growth, equally in terms of hardware, software and with respect to the way the capabilities are configured and used
-
The IoT concept is being combined with the new-ish concepts of Open Data and Big Data
-
ethical, political and social impact policy decisions
-
that key opportunities associated with widespread uptake of the IoT are derived from the impact upon peoples’ activities and lives
-
‘we’ are on our way towards more integrated eco-systems of issues, people and technologies
-
participation and inclusion enabled by interconnectedness are quickly becoming the ‘new rules’
-
What the Future May Hold
-
the ‘scenario planning’ approach
-
world’s politics, economics, anthropology, technology, psychology, sociology and philosophy
-
A scenario planning exercise carried out by the Rockefeller Foundation
-
Clearly these early (and now not-so-weak) signals and patterns tell us that the core assumptions and principles that have underpinned organized human activities for most of the past century
-
are being changed by the combinations and permutations of new, powerful, inexpensive and widely accessible information-processing technologies
-
The short description of each scenario reinforces the perception that we are both individually and collectively in transition from a linear, specialized, efficiency-driven paradigm towards a paradigm based on continuous feedback loops and principles of participation, both large and small in scope.
-
cultural ‘mutation’
-
Wirearchy
-
a dynamic two-way flow of power and authority based on knowledge, trust, credibility and a focus on results, enabled by interconnected people and technology.
-
the role of social media and smart mobile devices in the uprisings in Egypt, Libya and elsewhere in the Middle East
-
The roots of organizational development (OD) are in humanistic psychology and sociology action and ethnographic and cybernetic/ socio-technical systems theory. It’s a domain that emerged essentially as a counter-balance to the mechanistic and machine-metaphor-based core assumptions about the organized activities in our society.
-
Organizational development principles are built upon some basic assumptions about human motivations, engagement and activities.
-
Participative Work Design – The Six Criteria
-
in recent years created models that help clarify how to evaluate and respond to the continuous turbulence and ambiguity generated by participating in interconnected flows of information.
-
contexts characterized by either Simple, Complicated or Chaotic dynamics (from complexity theory fundamentals). Increasingly, Complexity is emerging as a key definer of the issues, problems and opportunities faced by our societies.
-
peer-to-peer movement(s) unfolding around the world
-
Co-creating in a wide range of forms, processes and purpose may become an effective and important antidote to the spreading enclosure of human creative activity.
-
But .. the dominant models of governance, commercial ownership and the use and re-use of that which is co-created by people are going to have to undergo much more deep change in order to disrupt the existing paradigm of proprietary commercial creation and the model of socio-economic power that this paradigm enables and carries today.
Blog | Amazon Services 360 - 0 views
-
The best account managers today excel by combining their financial expertise with advanced technology. They leverage tools like AI and analytics to deliver tailored solutions that drive success for their clients. In today's digital age, these managers use technology strategically to ensure every decision is data-driven and every client interaction is impactful. It's this blend of human skill and technological innovation that defines the top account managers in the industry.
BOSAGORA | BOSAGORA aims to establish a decentralized, censorship-resistant blockchain ... - 0 views