Ed Morrison’s Garage

A couple of weeks ago, I spent some time on the telephone with my good colleague, Kim Mitchell. Kim is an architect based in Shreveport, Louisiana. For a number years I lived in Shreveport, and  Kim and I became close friends. We would work on Saturday mornings in his office to explore how open networks could change the field of physical planning. We incorporated a number of our ideas into some existing of our projects, including the revitalization of Northwest Louisiana's music industry.

 We are also working together with Mack McCarter. Mack is a visionary who has launched Community Renewal International, a network based approach to community revitalization. Mack understands that the core of community revitalization -- rebuilding neighborhoods at the bottom of the economic heap -- starts with  developing  what he calls "intentional relationships". His approach to community redevelopment is exciting and shows clear signs of dramatic results. 

Kim and I are exploring how to explain the networks that are evolving around the Community Renewal International. Traditional organization charts -- with boxes and committees -- won't do. Kim has developed a new way of thinking about the networks and how they have evolved around the critical strategic focus areas that drive Community Renewal International forward.

The graphic starts with the idea of a core team. Any network-based strategy is guided by the leadership represented within this core team. The team oversees the strategy which is organized into focus areas. Within each focus area we define strategic outcomes that are clear and measurable. Then, the core team engages partners to align with these focus areas. In this way, the core team uses "link and leverage" strategies to accomplish its outcomes.

This is the first version that Kim sent me. We'll see how it evolves through our conversation.

You must have flash to see this embedded document.

In my experience, we often start out with focus areas that are defined functionally. (That's exactly how this first version works.)  That's not surprising. Our initial frame of reference focuses on hierarchies, functions, and boundaries. The linear, command and control mindsets shape our initial thinking.

 Our thinking begins to shift as we have focused discussions on the key strategic issues that define an emerging network. The strategic issues involve answering to two core questions of strategy: Where are we going? And how will we get there?

As we define our outcomes more clearly, the focus areas become more oriented toward action, outcomes and metrics. So, for example, I could see the focus areas of "planning and design" and "Green building" merging into  a focus area like  "developing sustainable, connected hot spots". This idea  weaves together several important threads: the ideas of sustainability, connectivity, and open innovation.

 Similarly, I could see the strategic focus area of "higher education" developing into a focus area of "developing brainpower". The three areas of "finance", "foundation support", and "government" might evolve into a strategic focus area of "innovative development finance".

The point is simply this: strategic focus areas are not set in stone. They evolve as people see connections and opportunities to connect, link and leverage.  The language to describe these focus areas emerges from the conversation among the partners.

With new language, the members of the network to creating emotional value in an outcome.   This emotional value enables us to link and leverage assets within the network.

The focus areas become clearer as the partners describe more precisely the outcomes on which they are working. As agreement on outcomes emerges, the language to describe those outcomes becomes more precise and understood. The key test of whether or not we have achieved clear consensus on outcomes comes when we focus on metrics.

Metrics are easy when people agree on outcomes. Specifically, the metrics emerge as we discuss the characteristics of the outcome on which we can agree.

 All this might sound a little abstract but it's not.

 Think about a family vacation. A family can define the characteristics of a good vacation. So, for example, a good vacation might include time for relaxation, time for learning, and easy transportation. As the family explores what "time for relaxation" means, they might decide that they need time on the beach, or a nap each day,  or ample time for casual reading. 

All three of these activities are characteristics of what we mean by "time for relaxation". These characteristics give us good opportunity, if we choose, to define metrics. So,  for example, we might decide that we are successful with a "nap each day" if were able to set aside two hours every afternoon for quiet time.

In short, as we discuss more deeply and understand more clearly the characteristics of our shared outcomes, our metrics quickly fall into place.