Shared publicly  - 
Value-creation starts with openness. Feel free to interpret and comment on this very draft model. +Harold Jarche +John Tropea +Luis Suarez +Esko Kilpi +Riitta Raesmaa +MJ Ricard +Cordelia Krooß +deb lavoy +Anne Marie McEwan +CheeChin Liew  + anyone out there who would like to participate.
Jaebadiah S. Gardner's profile photoTimo Kiviluoma's profile photoMichael Nall's profile photoJ. Albert Bowden's profile photo
Oscar, I so agree with you! I did start working on this @ Stockholm University (1997-2001). I did miss the foundation, openness, was only working on the other aspects of this. Would just add the enabling background stuff into the pic :) Tech & processes. But in an entirely new way...not the stiff way.
Network theory definitely supports this: In networks, Openness enables Transparency, which fosters Diversity and reinforces Openness. From this Trust emerges. I started working on this idea here, and have continued to update it over the past year:

One point: perhaps Innovation should be a separate ring, beyond value creation, as it is more of an emergent process from the combination of Engagement, Learning, Sharing & Collaboration. Just an idea.
+Harold Jarche Good point, 'Innovation' was the last thing I added. It should perhaps be in an outer ring with together with other effects such as customer satisfaction, productivity, efficiency, responsiveness, organizational agility.... I had 'serendipity' in the value-creation ring before and might consider adding it again, replacing 'innovation'. The value-creation ring is meant for things that drive or enable value-creation.
+Riitta Raesmaa I guess people, process (activities) and technology should be the foundation. They are the "raw materials" or basic enablers of an enterprise.
+Harold Jarche great models. I am sure I have seen them and read your post before, so I'm pretty sure some of my inspiration / ideas came from there.
Oscar - many thanks for inviting me to comment. I love the visual impact of your model. I think value-creation starts with customer focus, which of course requires openness etc.

Riitta - I love your model, which I think remains valid. Perhaps replace the core circle with 'relationship dynamics' or 'value networks'? Everything else follows as socially-constructed knowledge, action, co-ordination, integration etc.

I also like the fact that your thinking came out what I am calling the first wave of smart working - the shift from traditional to agile manufacturing.

Customer focus was central to those process control / innovation approaches. Customer focus and continuous improvement - innovation everyone's business (to borrow a phrase from Gary Hamel) - put people, their tacit knowledge and problem-solving capabilities at the core of value-creation.

As you probably know, quality envisaged linking parts of distributed processes as chains / networks of internal customers. For the life of me, I fail to see why this is old hat. I see value-creating social business as part of a trajectory of change, 

Of course things have moved on. Contexts change and become much more complex (manufacturing processes visible + tangible; distributed conceptual knowledge is hidden , socially complex and emergent). Connected flows of CI and problem-solving were largely internal. Now each person in that internal value-creating knowledge flow is linked to his / her own external knowledge networks. 

Thanks again for inviting me to comment.
+Oscar Berg Thanks for pointing me to this model. I love the clarity and dynamics! To show you that it probably works as designed, let me tell what thougts your model triggered with me: I see 3 steps/layers/stages which build on one another:
1. Prerequisites that are evolving: Openness evolves into transparency, and this creates trust. One could add other prerequisites like leadership (evolving to creating meaning and creating engagement/commitment)
2. Behaviour that is encouraged by this prerequisites: Participation is the first step, and this evolves to engagement, (social) learning, sharing, coordinatin (evolving to collaboration - or maybe this are two separate behaviors) and serendepity.
3. Value created or enhanced by this behavior: Innovation, customer satisfaction, employee satisfaction, winning great talent, etc.
The only item I can't place properly is awareness (that's where +Joachim Stroh perceives the chasm). To me, participation somehow does not fit in the picture, and it sounds a bit unspecific - but maybe I'm just unaware of what you mean by awareness ;-)
And one last thought: I'm not sure if I understand the funnel motive correctly. To me, it looks like something starting at value creation and then narrowing down to openness. Like you could drop a stone at value creation, and it would spin around the funnel, all the way down to openness. But I may just look at it from a weird perspective :-)
This is hard cause it gets fuzzy when trying to be linear....but I think you have done a good job

Trust/Relationships is a symptom of engagement so that would be in another circle again.

Where do you see "visibility" (observable work) in the currency of value creation...perhaps it's the same as openness and awareness
Thank you all for your comments and contributions. I will use your input and give this model some extra thought and refine it. Perhaps I'm trying to show too much. The original idea was to show the enablers of participation: openness, transparency, and awareness.

Without openness, the door is closed for anyone who wants to participate.
With openness but no or limited transparency, the number and quality of potential participants will be delimited.
With openness and (high) transparency, anyone anywhere can become aware of opportunities to participate and choose whether or not to actually participate.
The outer ring is more about the potential effects of participation. 
Oscar, my mind is along the same as +John Tropea in terms of the visual being layered. I suppose that as I try to exhibit the behaviours shown above, while finding it hard to be open (and expose my ideas to the network), I am a little open, I share a bit, then I become more open etc, and all of these behaviours are strengthened bit by bit. So, how can this be visualised as network behaviour and not linear or (heavens forbid!) hierarchical?
Add a comment...