Articles

Suguru Goto performs at Mobile HCI Conference in Singapore in September.

 Suguru Goto and Fuminori Yamasaki

Integration of percussion robots "RobotMusic" with the Data-Suit
"BodySuit": Technological Aspects and Concepts

2:00pm
http://www.samd.nus.edu.sg/index_files/program.htm

Venue:
Singapore Polytechnic Auditorium

The nearest MRT (Mass-Rapid-Transit) Station beside Singapore
Polytechnic is Dover MRT Station.

The only polytechnic with a MRT Station (Dover) at its doorstep,
getting to Singapore Polytechnic is a breeze.

Designed with your convenience in mind, the Dover MRT Station is
right at our new Plaza Entrance.

This means that it is linked to all parts of the campus via covered
walkways that will take you through the new exhibition and convention
centre, cool lifestyle shops and food outlets, sports stadium,
tennis, basketball and squash courts, swimming pools and of course,
the bowling alleys, spas and restaurants at Singapore's only
polytechnic alumni clubhouse.

Simply alight at Dover MRT Station

http://www.sp.edu.sg/

For more information, visit http://www.smrt.com.sg/trains.html

Could not generate link to image with ID:  

Transitio MX02

o.m.2 - g.i. - p.p.
Suguru Goto
October 13 - 19, 2007

Venue:

http://en.transitiomx.net/venues

Information:

http://en.transitiomx.net/

jesusjaime@gmail.com

Suguru Goto is an innovative  global leader exploring the innovation opportunities between creative digital media and mechanical technology. If your travel plans coincide with the performance calendar below stop by!  We were fortunate to have Suguru present a workshop and performance at the April 2007 Defrag conference hosted by Lorain County Community College. Here is the latest on Suguru's performances in October 2007:

Cannot find image: postcardGoto%20%282%29.jpg

AREAS OF CONFLU(X)ENCE
Luxembourg 2007 / Sibiu 2007 - European Capitals of Culture
Sibiu, October 5th – Novembre 4th 2007

Performance
SUGURU GOTO & IPPEI HOSSAKA  - Augmented Body - Body Suit &
Interactive Video
October 6 2007, 19:30.
Teatrul Gong, str. Al. Odobescu, nr. 4, Sibiu, Roumanie

Information:
http://www.aires-de-confluxence.info/spip.php?article55
Tincuta Parv

Asociatia 2580

str. Olteniei, nr. 15
RO-400236 Cluj-Napoca
Roumanie

Tel : +40 (0)730 27 48 42

From the Northeast Ohio weblog, Brewed Fresh Daily:

July 13, 2007: George Nemeth: Nothing new under the sun

http://www.brewedfreshdaily.com/2007/07/13/nothing-new-under-the-sun/ 

13 Comments »

1. Now I’m depressed, thanks! I don’t see new names there either; what do they hope to accomplish that is different by using a new name? Are we being too cynical?

   Comment by Carole Cohen — July 13, 2007 @ 11:33 am

2. Carole, I don’t mean to depress anyone, or piss anyone off. My motivation is two-fold. I really want to know if I’m missing something I shouldn’t be. Maybe I’m wrong. Two, I really want to inspire people to do more. We’re capable of doing so much more.

   Comment by George Nemeth — July 13, 2007 @ 12:18 pm

3. George:

   As many BFD commentators have noted, the most difficult challenge is translating ideas into action.

   Thus far, the “action
   plan” of the FFEF lacks specificity and focus. We have a political document. We are missing a strategy the evidences the hard choices we must make to move forward.

   (How will we improve 3d grade reading scores? Reduce high school drop outs? Accelerate STEM education when so few teachers are qualified? Raise college continuation rates through dual enrollments? Improve the skills of adult workers who, on average, have 8th grade reading skills? Manage the loss of skills and income with Baby Boom retirements? Reverse the erosion of Case Western Reserve University? Harness the power of immigrant entrepreneurs? Leverage our regional strengths in digital media? Develop a regional clean energy policy? Overcome our chronic underinvestment in academic R&D?)

   In contrast, who can disagree with statements like “Encourage entrepreneurship to accelerate business formation and growth” or “Match talent with available and emerging jobs”?

   In regional economic development, an action plan is a management tool. It is a short document that guides the implementation of a strategy.

   Although details vary, good action plans include clear strategic outcomes, task assignments, milestones, and timelines. They may also include budget allocations.

   At a minimum, they outline who is going to do what by when.

   The FFEF has some logically organized general statements of strategic intent. I would hesitate to call what they have produced an “action plan”.

   Right now, the FFEF is, I think, at the stage of figuring out its strategy…it’s business model for the region. How will the region produce higher incomes?

   Some time ago, Chris Thompson outlined the FFEF theory of change in a BFD comment. Perhaps he could state it once again. It had to do, as I recall, with reducing fragmentation.

   Clearly, the foundations are trying hard to reduce fragmentation. But it’s a tricky business.

   With the FFEF, the foundations are using their funding leverage to drive some coherence. Here is the risk: You could end up with a foundation-led industrial policy. I’m not sure we are there yet. But we are closer than we need to be, in my view.

   (Industrial policies are slow, political, and unproductive. Because they are driven more by politics than markets, industrial policies serve the interests of administrators over entrepreneurs and innovators. They work to preserve alignments rather than disrupt them.)

   As I have said before, I think the foundations are locked into a flawed model, and approach that is unnecessarily unproductive and slow.

   It’s not that something good won’t come of all their investment. There will be some benefits. But I agree with you: We are capable of doing so much more (and faster).

   Comment by Ed Morrison — July 13, 2007 @ 5:50 pm

4. Thanks, Ed. Doesn’t that assume that reducing fragmentation will actually lead to getting something done? Other then a hard drive, what needs to be defragmented for it to work better and faster? But isn’t that a function of how information is stored/accessed?

   Comment by George Nemeth — July 13, 2007 @ 6:04 pm

5. George:

   We are working off two different paradigms. The FFEF paradigm is, in my view, based on an older industrial mindset. Fragmentation is inherently bad. It implies inefficiency. The best way to reduce fragmentation is to consolidate. Scale is a function of size. To “get to scale” you need to get bigger, i.e., reduce fragmentation.

   The other paradigm is based on networks. In a networked world, fragmentation is a function of a lack of links. You address fragmentation differently: you build linkages and focus on alignments. You also achieve scale differently — through trusted connections.

   The implied model of the FFEF has been the first approach. I think the real opportunity rests in the second.

   This is not surprising. Civic organizations follow the underlying economic structure of a community. In Cleveland, the older industrial model led to a highly rigid, hierarchical civic structure. At the top, the head of Republic Steel. Lawyers, bankers joined the Union Club. Manufacturers stuck to the University Club.

   This structure began to break down in the 1970’s, as steel declined.

   Cleveland is now struggling to make the transition to new civic forms and patterns, but the industrial mindset still overwhelmingly prevails. (Ironically, real estate developers — people who were largely shunned by Cleveland’s industrialists — now exercise overwhelming influence in the GCP. They are trying to act like the industrialists of old.)

   Newer regions, not saddled with this industrial legacy, have an easier time forming a civic culture based on the network model. Research Triangle is a good example.

   There are a lot of other differences in these approaches.

   The industrial approach is known and easy to replicate, but increasingly ineffective. The network approach is remarkably productive (Silicon Valley, RTP), but difficult (now) to replicate. (Replicability is the challenge Open Source Economic Development seeks to solve.)

   In the industrial model, you focus your efforts at defining boundaries — what’s inside and what’s outside. In the networked world, you worry less about boundaries — you want them porous — and you focus more on strengthening cores.

   In the industrial model, information is a scarce resource that is tightly controlled. You keep all information confidential, unless you decide to release it. In the network model, information is abundant and largely free. You share information, unless you affirmatively decide to keep it confidential.

   In the industrial model, you are careful to control public engagement. It comes in tightly scripted events (public comment periods, in administrative law, for example). Otherwise there is the fear of “losing control”.

   In the network model, you recognize that smart ideas can come from anywhere and that the “wisdom of the crowd” is, indeed, real. The challenge is to maintain sufficient direction to get stuff done. Organizations focus on developing “loose hierarchies” — teams — that evolve and adapt. (The practice of “strategic doing” is designed to address this issue.)

   In the industrial model, as David Cooperrider has noted, managers focus almost exclusively on fixing problems, a deficiency mindset. In the network model, managers look for opportunities, an abundance mindset.

   In an industrial model, civic engagement is an event designed for momentary political advantage. In a network model, civic engagement is a process that translates ideas into action.

   In the industrial model, the presumption is that conversation is a distraction, “just talk”. In the network model, conversation is strategic. It generates insight and knowledge.

   In the industrial model, leadership focuses on analytic management, slicing and dicing complex problems. Stories are for children at bed time. In the network world, leaders must balance analytics skills with interpretive skills. Stories are a strategic tool for creating alignment through shared meaning.

   In the industrial model, managers focus on costs, inefficiency and re-engineering. In the network model, you accept a certain level of redundancy and view these overlaps as opportunities for future collaboration. While concerned about costs, managers focus increasing top line growth through harnessing creativity and innovation.

   (Managers in networked organizations are not stupid. They will not condone buying two copy machines when one will do. But they are willing to accept higher levels of ambiguity.)

   In the industrial model stability is your friend. In the network model, velocity is your friend.

   In the industrial model, you try to do everything yourself — vertically integrate. In the network model, you focus on your core competency — what you are really good at and care about. You look for partners to handle the rest.

   In the industrial model, positional authority matters. In the network world, there are only nodes and links. Everyone has resources to share. Leadership authority emerges from trust and an ability to share meaning through simple stories.

   In the industrial model, the focal point of competitive strategy is cost reduction. The experience curve rules. In the network world, speed of learning is the competitive advantage. Speed of learning is defined by networks. Cost positions are fleeting. The Metcalf curve rules.

   In the industrial model, economic development organizations mimic large industrial organizations. Big boards and an organization largely run by highly compensated staff. In the network model, boards are small, staffs are lean. Volunteer leaders are actively engaged in guiding initiatives through “link and leverage” strategies. (Contrast business organizations in Cleveland and Denver.)

   In the industrial model, trust is cosmetic, a marketing ploy mostly. In the network model, trust is strategic, a core value that must be aligned closely with behavior.

   I’m painting here with a broad brush, but I want to underscore that the two world views are, indeed, fundamentally different. And they lead to very different approaches in regional economic development.

   Here in NEO, we see these two models operating side by side. Cleveland is attempting to move forward with the industrial model. Youngstown is developing its strategy based on the network model.

   In my view, sadly, the leaders of the FFEF and GCP have never fully understood these differences.

   Comment by Ed Morrison — July 13, 2007 @ 8:42 pm

6. I’m sure it’s just me and my effort to simplify what you’ve explained so eloquently but what you’ve described sounds like the way I’d describe the differences in how men (industrial) and women (networked) approach solving problems or making decisions.

   Comment by Jill — July 13, 2007 @ 10:36 pm

7. I’m personally offended by that generalization, Jill.

   Comment by George Nemeth — July 14, 2007 @ 8:13 am

8. Ok. So as I said, maybe it IS just me. But let’s put it in context. Ed has described these two approaches side by side, occuring/developing/coming into being over time. You and I have only existed for the last few decades.

   So apply it historically, as opposed to personally.

   Any truth that you can see in it?

   Comment by Jill — July 14, 2007 @ 8:17 am

9. Jill:

   You are right. As I have conducted workshops across the country on this economic transformation, women figure this out faster than men. And younger people — deeper exposure to the Internet — figure it out faster than older people.

   The hardest case: White men over 50 (like me). But look at the board of the GCP. That explains a lot as to why they are so slow to figure this out.

   Comment by Ed Morrison — July 14, 2007 @ 8:20 am

10. Thanks Ed - that is precisely what I was thinking about (the GCP and other leadership groups around town in many sectors, though of course not all).

    G - you know it wasn’t personal.

    Comment by Jill — July 14, 2007 @ 8:24 am

11. To be fair, G, I’m a bit of a ringer on this issue around the development/roots of industrialization. My undergrad thesis was on the sociological underpinnings of the Sherman Anti-Trust Act.

    Comment by Jill — July 14, 2007 @ 8:45 am

12. Ed, your summary is truly brilliant. Lays things out that I have felt intuitively for years. Change agents need to wrap their heads around this concept. It’s so deeply enshrined, and inbred (part of the local, insular ethnic cultures) that it’s hard to know where to begin. I so viscerally oppose the convention center/sales tax increase because it utterly represents everything, in a nutshell, that’s wrong with this town. What’s more, to my way of thinking, before we move forward the old guard must be vanquished. It’s not enough to work around them.

    And, ahem, I’m not describing a socialist revolution, simply smart, far-reaching, and scalable economic development.

    Frankly, this is going to take more guts than collaborators/progressives typically muster because one of the more invidious byproducts of the local phenomena you’ve identified is a timidity that leads to paralysis. Everyone–and I mean everyone(OK, except Roldo)–rolls over to power in this town.

    This is why it’s so important to have a successful petition drive, defeat the tax increase, and bring these Neanderthals to their knees.

    This means you: Tim, Jimmy, Al, Sam, Dennis, Joe, and Joe.

    You are one sorry, misguided lot.

    Comment by Marc — July 14, 2007 @ 9:49 am

13. Jill:

    I started working on the issue of U.S. competitiveness while an attorney at the Office of Policy Planning at the Federal Trade Commission. Bob Reich (later Clinton’s Labor Secretary) headed the Office of Policy Planning.

    I worked with Bob and Ira Magaziner on early competitiveness issues. I also spent time evaluating antitrust cases under the Sherman Act. I then went on to work as a corporate strategy consultant with Ira for companies like Ford, Volvo and GE.

    These issues are closely tied to the evolving industrial structure of the economy. The nature of business models has changed, gradually, starting in the early 1980’s, but now at an accelerating pace.

    Most economic development policies — federal, state, local — are geared toward these earlier industrial models.

    New economic development strategies are evolving, and, as I indicated, these are geared to supporting networked business models. At Purdue, we are working to define these strategies more carefully.

    Comment by Ed Morrison — July 14, 2007 @ 10:18 am

 
What is New North?
The New North is the 18 county region in Northeast Wisconsin. The New North brand unites the region both internally and externally, signifying the collective economic power behind our 18 counties. The counties include Outagamie, Winnebago, Calumet, Waupaca, Brown, Shawano, Oconto, Marinette, Door, Kewaunee, Sheboygan, Manitowoc, Fond du Lac, Green Lake, Marquette, Florence, Menominee, and Waushara.

Who is New North, Inc.?
New North, Inc. is a consortium of business, economic development, chambers of commerce, workforce development, civic, non-profit, and education leaders in 18 counties of Northeast Wisconsin who are working to be recognized as competitive for job growth while maintaining our superior quality of life.

New North, Inc. represents a strong collaboration between the 18 counties that have come together behind the common goals of job growth and economic viability for the region. The power of the New North region working together is far greater than one county or one business alone. Players gain more through regional cooperation rather than competing for resources and growth.

In addition to working together to promote and help expand existing economic development efforts, New North, Inc. will concentrate on:

• Fostering regional collaboration
• Focusing on targeted growth opportunities
• Supporting an entrepreneurial climate
• Encouraging educational attainment
• Encouraging and embracing diverse talents
• Promoting the regional brand

This is an excellent model.  Read the full article Here

I-Open Selects Near-Time Web Platform to Accelerate Economic Development Communities Across the U.S.

May 14, 2007; 04:28 AM
Near-Time, Inc. today announced that its Web collaboration service has been selected by the Institute for Open Economic Networks (I-Open). I-Open is adopting the Near-Time platform to bring together economic development professionals online and to accelerate economic development efforts in several regions across the United States. This initiative integrates several different Web properties into a single collaborative platform for economic development community projects currently underway in Ohio, Kentucky and Indiana and revamps the I-Open EDPro Weblog, the nation’s leading Weblog for economic developers.

Global leader in mixed media performance, robotics and visualization, Suguru Goto, performed at Defrag Lorain gathering. He sends this update about his upcoming performance work:

In Poland:

12th International Media Art Biennale WRO 07, 16 - 20 May 2007

Suguru Goto

20:00, 19 May 2007

WRO Center for Media Art, Wroclaw
ul. Kuznicza 29a
54-137 Wroclaw
Poland
fon + 48 71 344 83 69
info@wrocenter.pl

The Serious Games Initiative was founded at the Woodrow Wilson Center for International Scholars in Washington, D.C. and focuses on uses for games in exploring management and leadership challenges facing the public sector.

Read more.

Our California partner, Ted Kahn, CEO, DesignWorlds for Learning, Inc. & Design Worlds for College, builds online collaboratories for learning.

Recently Ted sent a link to an excellent Times Online article about the dramatic shifts taking place in the way we work together. The article discusses the success of global collaborative communities emerging and adapting to a changing world, and in the process changing organization as we know it.

Thanks to society's cognitive maturation partnered with technological advances, platforms like  Wikipedia,   You Tube,    Second Life and Linux are connecting millions across the globe in lightning speed and forever changing how we learn.

No experts here. Just passionate people moving forward with their ideas and innovations, and not waiting for permission.

You can read the article here.

You can read about Ted's work building Internet based collaboratory educational programs for high school and college students here.

Medicine meets Virtual Reality (MMVR) Medical Education conference is the premier conference on emerging data-centered technologies for medical care and education.

You can learn more about collaborative working groups and the application of design in MMVR's multidisciplinary forum for computer scientists and engineers, physicians and surgeons, medical educators and students, military medicine specialists, and biomedical futurists.

At MMVR, developers and end-users collaborate and innovate. Info here.