Disqus - Friends of ryancoleman

Re: My Beloved Monster

Michael Lewkowitz — Tue, 23 Oct 2007 12:30:35 -0000

The whole album is excellent - fall music for me for some reason. Often listen along side Emmylou Harris' Wrecking Ball disc - has a similar beautiful haunting quality. (Produced by Daniel Lanois which I think where the haunt came from)
http://www.last.fm/music/Em...

Re: My Beloved Monster

Michael Lewkowitz — Tue, 23 Oct 2007 12:34:04 -0000

and cool... smartlinks even work in the comments!

Re: Why Early Stage Venture Investments Fail

Michael Lewkowitz — Fri, 30 Nov 2007 09:28:46 -0000

Fred, thanks for sharing those experiences. I've been digging into exactly those issues with a few other folks, mostly from the social venture community. Where I'm looking now is into that area of exploring 'the dark alleys' quickly and effectively and how can investors get better at supporting entreprenuers/investees in doing that - e.g. what does that mean for board roles, practices, deal structures, tools etc.? Would love any ideas you have and will share what I come out with in my other conversations. Thanks again for sharing...

Re: Why Early Stage Venture Investments Fail

Michael Lewkowitz — Fri, 30 Nov 2007 09:28:46 -0000

Re: Why Early Stage Venture Investments Fail

Michael Lewkowitz — Fri, 30 Nov 2007 09:28:46 -0000

Re: Fred Wilson Dot VC

Michael Lewkowitz — Sun, 02 Dec 2007 09:43:59 -0000

Here's a supporting quote:

"What needs to be reiterated is that planning happens only when there is an act of decision. This act commits resources now, so that the future may be different from what would otherwise have simply happened to us. It follows that the only planners are managers, namely those people who are entitled to commit resources." - Stafford Beer in Heart of Enterprise

Re: Data vs. Facts

Michael Lewkowitz — Tue, 04 Dec 2007 21:01:14 -0000

Great post Brad!

I think what I often hear and probably put out is actually noise :-). Here's a good reference from a now passed mathematician that research org design and communication. I posted some of my highlights in reading on of his main books here: http://tinyurl.com/23v7yt

- "Fact: that which is the case."

- "Noise: A meaningless jumble of signals."

- "Data: statements of fact."

- "Information: that which CHANGES us."

- "Data become information - when the fact in them is susceptible to action. How can I possibly know that I am informed? -- Only because I have changed my state."

Cheers!

Michael

Re: Data vs. Facts

Michael Lewkowitz — Tue, 04 Dec 2007 21:01:14 -0000

Great post Brad!

I think what I often hear and probably put out is actually noise :-). Here's a good reference from a now passed mathematician that research org design and communication. I posted some of my highlights in reading on of his main books here: http://tinyurl.com/23v7yt

- "Fact: that which is the case."
- "Noise: A meaningless jumble of signals."
- "Data: statements of fact."
- "Information: that which CHANGES us."
- "Data become information - when the fact in them is susceptible to action. How can I possibly know that I am informed? -- Only because I have changed my state."

Cheers!

Michael

Re: Data vs. Facts

Michael Lewkowitz — Wed, 05 Dec 2007 04:18:08 -0000

Great post Brad!

Cheers!

Michael

Re: Data vs. Facts

Michael Lewkowitz — Wed, 05 Dec 2007 04:20:47 -0000

Re: Twitter's Business Model

Michael Lewkowitz — Wed, 02 Jan 2008 17:38:37 -0000

I think listening to users and observing how it's being used and sharing that with the development community is a big opportunity. That patience and 'unknowing' of how it will unfold I think is what will lead to the biggest success with system/platform level plays. If they can keep that focus I'm sure the overwhelmingly clear strategies will emerge based on what the users and developers ask for en-masse. Wesabe's going to be another interesting one to follow.

Re: Want, need, and enough.

Michael Lewkowitz — Sat, 05 Jan 2008 15:35:02 -0000

Good question Tom. I'm not sure what then... but think whatever it is, it has to keep prompting people to question deeper. I think there could be all sorts of interesting offshoots whereby avoided consumtpion turns into positive investment which is where the bus opportunity could take hold. Has some parallels to the energy savings game but with much greater potential. Let me know if you want to play further with this.
... while mobile.

Re: Want, need, and enough.

Michael Lewkowitz — Mon, 07 Jan 2008 14:17:02 -0000

I think having to do an entry is too high a threshold and the point
of stickers to prompt the thought at the point of purchase the most
important time when change can happen. Even having an affiinity card
(credit or 'points') would decrease the impact at point of purchase.
Going back to your suggestion though piggy-backing the wesabe.com api
could make what you are suggesting really interesting. That then
gives the person all their purchase history and let's them run
scenarios etc. You could also do a twitter/wesabe/sms app that
allowed people to simply submit amount avoided so they could track
how much they've saved by simply changing their decision... although
again a much bigger leap in terms of having to do something.

The change this is really targetting is the consumption mindset
through having people observe, real-time what is compelling them to
make a purchase (consume). The closer whatever is developed gets to
that the greater chance it will have at shifting the mindset.

I hear you on programmers... for me it's venturers :-).

Re: Giddy-up: getting better on the frontier.

Michael Lewkowitz — Wed, 09 Jan 2008 08:29:23 -0000

Kevin, thanks good questions. The need I've experienced as a venturer from both investee and investor positions is that conventional approaches to planning and governance are decreasingly effective the further into the frontiers we go. It's because of that, that we are so entirely dependent on the most competent of entreprenurs for change to happen through venturing. At the same time, if entrepreneurs can do it, and do it repeatedly, then there has to be certain ways of doing it that results in successful ventures. If those ways are uncovered/developed it would allow venturers who aren't entrepreneurs to get better at operating in and pushing the frontiers which will result in ventures more successfully creating the depth of change required for our civilization to adapt to the enviro-social reality it is facing. By no means does that replace entrepreneurs, rather it builds a community of venturers that are better able to support entrepreneurs in being more successful and pushing further.

The other thing that I know from experience is that being an entrepreneur or venturer there is precious little time or support to attend to that question of how do we get better on the frontier. In that position the pressure is on getting it done, period.

As for why am I the guy to do it? Well, first, I'm just doing it. Second, I'm doing it because I'm drawn to it through 12 years of early-stage venturing from all sides (founder, executive, advisor, investor) and across multiple sectors (digital media and design, health informatics, sustainable coffee, renewable energy and efficiency, etc.). I've not encountered anyone else who has repeatedly returned themselves to the early stages so rapidly and readily which offers me some unique experience into this question of how do we get better on the frontiers.

As far as the unpacking I'm hesitating getting into writing as I think I could set me writing for months. I'm leaning more toward sharing specific examples as I work at putting them in practice. That said, I'm happy to 'unpack' any of these things in conversation particularly if it's working with a real situation.

Re: Giddy-up: getting better on the frontier.

Michael Lewkowitz — Thu, 10 Jan 2008 08:14:47 -0000

Kevin, that would have been a good idea. Will remember that for the next series. Maybe even recording and transcription if we did a group call.

Re: Scrutinizing shoddy journalism.

Michael Lewkowitz — Tue, 22 Jan 2008 08:47:01 -0000

I did read the article and it seems to me that whatever conversation they had was aimed entirely at finding things to spin as 'claims' or use to try and spin more doubt. That's not a real/honest conversation. If there was any real investigation the story would have easily been able to contribute to the healthy debate going on about the evolving world of philanthropy vs. trying to discredit tom and casting superficially informed doubt to boost sensationalism.

The matter of administrative vs. flowed through charitable expenditures is a red-herring in this case. The claim of 100% flow-through made to project donors (who I have been one) seems to remain true. The claim he makes to donors who are interested in building give meaning as a platform for grassroots philanthropy is clearly different and also seems to remain true. How do I know? Well, I've found that while seeking funding for a different project that I'm supporting I've had givemeaning come up unsolicited twice with some big prospective donors. Both times they've mentioned it as an extraodinary new opportunity for them - the opportunity to support the development of a low-cost grass-roots giving infrastructure that has the potential to result in order of magnitudes greater amounts of capital to flow from individuals to project that are meaningful. And in that no expectation that any of those funds will make their way into a project directly. They are building infrastructure for a new way for philanthropy to happen. And that couldn't have been any more clear to them. Anyone who's built anything knows that you need to invest in infrastructure and people to get things going.

Finally, from personal experience as a donor who made a small project contribution and a separate (also small) voluntary contribution to support the administration/infrastructure it was extraordinarily clear where the money was going and for what. That's the first time I've ever known that with any donation I've made - by far the most transparent experience ever. And as for those donors that I had pitched after tom, I have to go back to the drawing board and think harder about how I can make their money do more good. And that's a good thing too.
... while mobile.

Re: This biggering is buggering... a call for a new vision of prosperity.

Michael Lewkowitz — Tue, 29 Jan 2008 09:03:22 -0000

Hilary, I love that phrase: "Kings of the Biggering Kingdoms". And I hear your points and think we need both - the iconic Kings and the 'common people' for this mindset to take hold. I've heard of numbers such as 20% of the population being the threshold for a mindset shift to take hold. There are a number of great movements underway that I think could sign-on to such a reframing - social finance, social innovation, social entrepreneurship - and that's my hope for Sustainable Prosperity, that it takes up the chance to set a bold reframing of prosperity and gets the other movements to come on board. That could go a long way in creating the space for the 20% threshold to be reached.

Re: This biggering is buggering... a call for a new vision of prosperity.

Michael Lewkowitz — Tue, 29 Jan 2008 12:30:04 -0000

Cheers to that!

Re: The dynamics of the frontier: complex ambiguity

Michael Lewkowitz — Sun, 03 Feb 2008 20:40:20 -0000

The key is knowing that we can't know where it will go or how it will happen. Then what's left? In that is I think where the opportunity to uncover approaches that will make us collectively better on these frontiers. That means investors will be able to come in 'earlier', entrepreneurs will be able to go 'deeper', and ideally a few of us will be able to get really good at systematically creating the best possible advances at our deepest of challenges (the place that will always be 'on the frontier').

Re: What's Your Company's DNA?

Michael Lewkowitz — Thu, 07 Feb 2008 16:31:13 -0000

Hi Umair,

Interesting - DNA is certainly a core aspect of any organization. It's what guides action in the spaces between plans and is core of what defines the organization. It's the ultimate agreement that brings forth the organization --- more of an unfolding. I see decay happening when organizations start to fold in on themselves and strangle the spaces for things to emerge. That happening is related to DNA but not entirely determined by DNA. It's more like the DNA is being strangled.

The latest articulation of my thinking in relation to this is here: http://www.flickr.com/photos/michaellewkowitz/2247912561/

Looking forward to your further posts!

Re: Bets and chips - Implications for investors on the frontiers.

Michael Lewkowitz — Tue, 12 Feb 2008 21:40:02 -0000

If you click through on the picture you'll see it in flickr. There
you can click on the magnifying glass to view it in full size and
download it as well. And of course I can also send pdf to anyone who
wants it.

Re: "Gettin' lucky" - implications for ventures on the frontiers.

Michael Lewkowitz — Thu, 14 Feb 2008 06:16:01 -0000

Great suggestion Kevin, thanks. My posts aren't the most polished pieces and I may not get to updating them - but your ideas will stick with me for the next round of work on that topic. I've also been wanting to do a narrated slideshow on vcasmo talking through the buildup of the images. Onward...
... while mobile.

Re: How to Fix Venture Capital

Michael Lewkowitz — Fri, 11 Apr 2008 16:56:50 -0000

Interesting thread in many ways. A similar transformation is being called for in the foundation world.

A key contributor to the DNA of investment funds is the DNA of their investors. Given that, it's hardly surprising to find the old DNA staunchly embodied in funds and foundations as their investors have often become financially successful from models based on the 'old' strategy and DNA. Old dogs.

The Web 2.0/social media field which requires the new edge competencies to be most successful is, I think, proving an interesting frontier in the evolution of how to effectively invest in this new context. The recognized advantage on focusing on the core elements of the concept while allowing time for the ultimate opportunities to emerge. Twitter is one of the most interesting 'experiments' in this.

In one sense the 'social' mission/venture sector should be a space ventures and venturers were more comfortable focusing on purpose and DNA given that their stated aims are often non-financial goals with very long horizons. And while there are actually some interesting social venture funds that have unintentionally been working through some of these things there is actually a disturbing trend to pick up the old venture fund strategies to apply in the social sector - and that's clearly a shift in the wrong direction.

The more attention we place on exploring, understanding, and describing what 'open' venture investing looks like, the more we will do to catalyze game-changing solutions to the impending macropalypse. Wouldn't that be cool? :-) Giddy-up!

Re: Looking Forward

Michael Lewkowitz — Thu, 15 May 2008 13:38:12 -0000

On solving the problems of the world, I think social media/web2.0/3.0 investing is really going to demonstrate some approaches to investing and supporting social innovation. The social innovation field looks a lot a systems science and emergence and deals like twitter.com are showing how to make investments in things that are changing systems (inherently more complex). It's also connected closely to Umair Haque's work on DNA and edge competencies and I think we're on the verge of breaking through the artificially separate domains of social and tech, investing and philanthropy, etc.

Great post... interesting times.

Re: Looking Forward

Michael Lewkowitz — Thu, 15 May 2008 17:03:04 -0000

Fred, thanks for the reminder - hadn't gotten to reading the full
transcript until now. A very interesting conversation particularly
the part about the underlying mindset and the structural changes
increasingly possible.

One of the things that I've found particularly interesting in this is
actually seeing these multiple fronts as part of the greater
evolution of our civilization. It's not about open source, social
networks, energy markets, financial systems, biology, philosophy
individually. It's about the evolution of our civilization which
those things are all expressions of. To me, we're entering a phase
where things are increasingly reconfiguring themselves and things can
be more easily reconfigured. Some of the interesting things under
that is what is the helpful/productive mindset that will more likely
lead our civilization into a just and sustainable state, and what are
the most effective ways to accelerate practical, leveraging
initiatives that move us in that direction. Finally, I think the
information data question gets most interesting when we step past
metrics and look the information design of the systems that are
changing or we want to change - or simply think about information in
terms of being the essence of systems - recognizing it can also
easily become a black-hole of navel gazing

Thanks again for the pointer. Great conversation.