Corey Morrow Corey Morrow

Think feel do tank

It All Begins Here

What if the future were designed and co-created by and for the people? Not governments or corporations.

This idea has been around forever, I’m sure. I don’t know the lineage of it, but I have some idea of the failures, which probably come in a few modes:

  1. Too much thinking (academic think tanks)

  2. Too much feeling (new-age collectives)

  3. Too much doing (silicon valley)

  4. Not enough resources (being fragile in resource dependency or overly resource dependent in solutions by design, also, importantly, underleveraging non-financial capital)

What are the questions we might start asking soon — including “what are the most beautiful, most challenging questions worth answering?”

Is that a good enough place to start? Would I start with invites to people I love and know?

WHO IS ALREADY DOING THIS?

WHAT IF THE ABILITY TO ASK QUESTIONS WAS INVITE ONLY, WITH A FEW POSSIBLE GATES AS OPTIONS TO HAVE PASSED THROUGH FIRST BEFORE BEING ABLE TO ASK QUESTIONS TOGETHER?

Interdependent value (related databases — blockchain friendly?):

  • Question Layer:

    • Surfaces human experience data, story data,

    • Social media reactions to questions (upvotes, comments, etc.)

  • Answer Layer:

    • Problem landscapes

      • (causal maps) — co-created, probably in Miro

      • Problem statements “we want X but y” — problem statements surface desire and

    • Underlying forces

      • D (include human experience)

        • Could be coded according to the change triangle?

      • V (include milestones?)

        • 1+ years out vision

        • Objectives

      • F

        • Key results

        • FELT Momentum (appreciative inquiry — any subjectively meaningful existing capital or wins) — traditionally left out of F in DVF>R=C

      • R

        • Missing capital

        • Social & emotional resistance

        • Systemic & cultural resistance

        • Antagonists

        • Satisfying Paths (Innovation Landscapes pt. 3)

      • C

        • Intended Impact

        • Externalities (how does the change impact the system

    • Human experience data

    • Milestones/Goals (a milestone is a realized goal)

      • made up of objectives (V) & key results (F)

      • generate momentum when reached

      • strengthen the F and V value when clarified as unrealized goals

    • Capital - can be held by individuals or groups, but connections (human beings) are always the gateway to capital

      • Capacities — is a capacity necessarily (always) applied in order to reach milestones (OKRs)?

        • Skills

        • Knowledge

        • Experience

      • Connections — a human being, see stakeholder layer

        • Champions

        • Catalysts

        • Followers

      • Assets

        • Money

        • Property - specific or general utility goods that can be single owner or multi-owner

          • Physical property

          • Digital property

            • Designs, documents, code, plans

        • Tools — provide help without synchronous exchange with another human (see help layer)

          • (largely) independent creation of valuable property (digital or physical)

        • Something might be missing here, especially if what craftspersons produce are this thing, and this thing is distinct from property

      • Feedback — I like defining this as a type of capital. I think feedback is like a universal law that drives increasingly towards positive impact.

  • Help/er Layer

    • Craftsperson - The giver delivered a finished thing — a design, a document, code, a plan. The value lives in the output. A named capability usually does not apply.

    • Guide / Co-Creator - The work was collaborative and participative — coaching, therapy, facilitation, co-design. Value was created together, and the receiver often walks away more capable. Pursue the named capability.

    • Advisor - The giver diagnosed a situation and recommended a path — consulting, strategy, professional advice. A named capability is sometimes present (the receiver learned to do something themselves) and sometimes not (they simply followed the advice). The tool judges from the inputs.

    • Instructor - The giver explicitly taught a skill or framework — training, mentoring, tutoring. Building the receiver’s ability is the whole point. Always pursue the named capability.

  • Stakeholder Layer — a human is one of these for every project / change

    • Champion (possibly includes partner?)

    • Catalyst

    • Follower

    • Disengaged

  • Story (underdefined):

    • Stories ready to be shared:

    • Stories in development:

    • Story telling:

      • Hero’s journey (Jung)

      • Story of me, we, now (Ganzz)

    • Potentially technically present elements even if not narratively represented:

      • Stakeholders

      • Help

      • Impact

      • Goals/milestones

      • Capacity

    • Story impact

    • Ways to participate in story:

      • champion - those who are called to offer significant long-term support to this project by way of __________ (capital) and possibly ______ (help)

      • catalyst - those who are interested in providing transformative short term __________ (introductions, feedback, etc)

      • followers - those that want to witness and occasionally amplify a story as it develops

  • Impact Layer — not sure if this would belong exclusively to projects or be synonymous with C (change), but I currently like the latter

    • Intended Impact

    • Externalities

  • P2P Capacity building layer (capacities connected to questions):

    • Helpr3

    • ENKI

      • Robust insight

      • New action potential

      • New prospective collaborators & capacities

  • Project layer (who + what + why + when + where + how) - the DO layer — preferably with a theory of change which would also specify D V F R C. Maybe a hypothesis I have is that projects would benefit from a DVF>R=C articulation/a theory of change.

    • Collaboration Landscapes helps surface & connect stakeholders around projects)

Read More