Text archives Help


Re: [projectvrm] Cynefin Framework, Customer Jobs, Value Co-Creation and Value Networks


Chronological Thread 
  • From: Graham Hill < >
  • To: Kaliya Identity Woman < >
  • Cc: ProjectVRM list < >
  • Subject: Re: [projectvrm] Cynefin Framework, Customer Jobs, Value Co-Creation and Value Networks
  • Date: Fri, 20 Sep 2013 07:19:08 +0100
Hi KIW

I can vouch for Dave Snowden's Cynefin framework and the sense making Cognitive Edge method that surrounds it. I was trained in the Cognitive Edge method a few years ago and have used it widely on consulting projects since. It provides a powerful set of complexity-science based tools to help make sense of organisations and to influence them to adopt new practices.

One of the problems I have with VRM is what I would characterise as its libertarian moralistic tone of voice. T.Rob's recent comment to StoreFrontBackTalk with his hyperbolical talk about the ethics and morality of data collection is a good example. It doesn't take a detailed reading of Kant, Mill or Singer to drive a cart and horses through his ethical argument. What I think is routinely missing from the discussion is a deeper understanding about what customers actually want. Three methods out there that may be of use to VRMers in crossing this evidential divide. 

The first of these is Clayton Christensen and Tony Ulwick's work on jobs-to-be-done. C&U suggest that we all have jobs that we hire tools to help get done to get the outcomes we desire. Some jobs are functional, e.g. getting great bargains when out shopping, some are emotional, e.g. feeling that we got a great bargain and some are social, e.g. showing others that we are great bargain hunters. Tony Ulwick az Strategyn has created a structured method to capture customer jobs and their desired outcomes, and to use them to drive outcome-driven innovation. The evidence suggests Uwick's ODI approach is significantly more successful at creating winning new products and services than the invention approach to innovation that fails 80% of the time. Most of the VRM tools I have seen mentioned on VRMProject are clearly using the invention approach. It is likely that most of them will fail in the process of creative destruction. But it doesn't have to be that way.

Christensen on Milkshake Marketing

Ulwick & Bettencourt on The Customer-centred Innovatin Map

Developing a good understanding of customer jobs-to-be-done, including their subordinate privacy-related jobs, is only half of the battle. The other half is understanding what jobs companies have and the tools they hire to get the outcomes they desire. Armed with a good understanding of both you can map the touch points in the customer journey where both meet and how each gets their the outcomes they desire in the process. Recent research in value co-creation by Irene Ng at U Warwick, building on earlier research on service-dominant logic by Steve Vargo & Bob Lusch, provides an approach to map how customers and companies co-create value, the resources they need to bring to get the best outcomes and a way to measure the value co-created. Ng has been working with a variety of companies in the retail, health and engineering sectors to refine her value co-creation approach. It underpins much of the recent practice in servitisation that is now a stable in transportation, health and military contracting around the world.

Irene Ng on Value-based Service Systems

Ire Ng on Transitioning from a Goods-Dominant to a Service-Dominant Logic: Visualising the Value Proposition of Rolls-Royce

Value co-creation provides a way to understand the trade-offs between what customers want and what companies want. But as Verna Alleee suggests in her work on value networks and collaboration, value flows around the network of different actors (customers, companies, delivery partners, regulators, etc) and changes over time. Eric Yu at U Toronto has created a powerful framework to model the flow of value around these networks over time. Originally developed for early requirements elicitation in software development, his I* f(I star) Framework provides an ITU standard approach to understanding and mapping value evolution in societal ecosystems. It goes much further than Verna Allee's work and is much more powerful.

Eric Yu on the I* Framework

i*wiki (i* framework wiki run by RWTH in Aachen)

I use these three approaches in my consulting work with large corporations. I use Chistensen & Ulwick's customer jobs-to-be-done to understand what customers (and companies) really want. I use Ng's value co-creation to understand which touchpoints, tools and technologies they hire to co-create value together. And I use Yu's I* Framework to model the evolution of value over time. They provide me with a great set of tools to develop innovative new services that give customers and companies enough of what each of them wants to keep them working together.

Admittedly, they are a bit of an eclectic methodological mix. But it occurs to me that they might provide a better toolkit to think about how to create winning VRM services that go beyond the hype, hope and hectoring that I so often see on the VRMProject. They certainly work for my clients. And I think they work for their customers too. Maybe they will work for you.

Best regards from Cologne, Graham

On Sep 20, 2013, at 12:56 AM, Kaliya Identity Woman < "> > wrote:

I met David Snowden several years ago now at a Knowledge Management event Verna Allee - the Value Network Mapping and Analysis inventor put on in San Francisco for(http://www.valuenetworksandcollaboration.com/)

I think his model for understanding systems is incredibly valuable. 

I wrote about it relative to our emerging ecosystem last year in our journal - articles are now coming out on the web…I pushed this one live just now to feed into this thread. 

I would invite watching this video first….on how to Organized a children's birthday party "using the jargon of complexity theory" 

and then the one about the cynefin framework (said Ken-e-vin) 

Then Appollo 13

Then longitude

Then SenseMaker..the tool to figure out complex systems



On Sep 20, 2013, at 12:19 AM, John Light < "> > wrote:

Dan, thanks a lot for sharing, I found the presentation and your blog post about it very thought-provoking. I think you're right that there's certainly room for a more positive outcome, one which I think personal clouds, peer reputation systems, p2p technology in general can help manifest. In keeping with the Wicked Simple Email format, I'll be writing a blog post this weekend elaborating on my thoughts about this because it's a topic I'm very much interested in exploring in depth.


On Wed, Sep 18, 2013 at 7:18 AM, Dan Blum < " target="_blank"> > wrote:
(I had to send this twice because I message up the links the first time - sorry :-)

In the Gartner Goes Scifi: Four Future Security Scenarios  blog post this morning I review a cool webinar from Gartner wherein they use scenario-based analysis to project what will happen in the next five years given the targeting of cyberattacks on individuals and well as enterprises and the conflicting forces for authority. 

Cliff notes: 
Two "government run amok" scenarios are: Regulated Risk, Controlling Parent
Two "chaos rules" scenarios are: Coalition Rules, Neighborhood Watch

I think folks on this list would really like Richard Hunter (who was the speaker, although I know that creating these scenarios was a group effort). He's one of the most ethical analysts I know. However, while In the post above, I pretty much just admired the webinar, I do have some reservations about what might have been missed.

Richard said that one of the cardinal errors in scenario-based planning is not pushing far enough into the corners of the scenarios. In pushing towards the corners, Gartner's work comes up with what he admits are some pretty morally or economically repugnant projections. The "neighborhood watch" scenario, for example, projects that government authority will decline, cybercrime will run amok, and individuals will form e-militias so that we kind of end up like the "Gangs of New York." In this gloomy corner case, it seems like empowering individuals, the democratization of IT, has been a bad thing. And indeed, since governments and large institutions experience individual empowerment as chaos (and Gartner's audience is those large enterprises) that's understandable.

But I thought I'd bounce this off the VRM and pcloud lists because what I love about the participants is the generally optimistic view that empowering individuals can be a good thing. What if we could re-imagine Gartner's "neighborhood watch" or any of the other quadrants in another way?

Perhaps in scenario planning it can be just as much an error to not push into the center as it is to not push into the corners. Because one needs to at least think about all the possibilities before concluding. What if empowered individuals, enterprises and authorities pushed toward the center and came up with non-repugnant fusion of the good elements of the four corners?

Please, friends, check out my Gartner Goes Scifi post and the webinar as well and let me know what you think. 

Let's imagine together!

____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
      ">
To be removed from the list, send any message to:
      ">

For all list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.pde.cc/lists/info/personal-clouds




--
This conversation is not private unless it's encrypted. By default, an email is more like a postcard than a letter in an envelope. Use my public key to encrypt private messages to me using public key cryptography software such as PGP or GPG and include your public key with your message so I can encrypt my response.
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     ">
To be removed from the list, send any message to:
     ">

For all list information and functions, see:
    http://lists.pde.cc/lists/info/personal-clouds




Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.19.