In a great blog post, Richard Martin (@IndaloGenesis) explained why you have to experience other people’s viewpoint in order to have a proper understanding of the world around… even if you must be conscious that, doing this, you are still elaborating a perspective that is plainly yours, and, as thus, plainly unique.
While exposure to a diversity of perspectives is essential to any attempt to understand how other people see and interpret the world around them, it is impossible to divest ourselves of all our own accumulated knowledge, experience, culture and filters. To assess someone else’s description or to sit in another’s chair, does not alter the fact that we are still using our own eyes, not theirs.
This text resonates with my own work since I have been working for more than twenty years on a "dual" issue: considering that multi-disciplinary teams (typically in health) are composed of people with very different viewpoints (a viewpoint being the sum of a view angle and a focus point, say a job and a specialty), what kind of "common perspective" (called an "artifact" in the knowledge management jargon) can we provide them so that they can contribute to a common project?
Richard would argue that, as a Neo-Generalist, he is more interested in turning around a vase of flowers Nevertheless, his text contains all the concepts (viewpoints, artifact) to understand why a "record of records" (piling up each others views) will never be a tool for those who have to contribute to the (health or whatever) project of one of their fellow human being.
Not long ago, if someone mentioned the work "network"; we thought: TV or radio.
Now we think: Facebook, LinkedIn, Twitter… these networks have become far more valuable to us. They exist because we contribute to them. They are where our best ideas can spread and have impact. Sometimes they even democratize power.
Of course they are more powerful than an individual… even a powerful individual- and they are more powerful than the ‘old’ networks, because they carry our voice.
It follows that what we can do as part of a network, as part of a collective, is far more impactful than what we can do all by ourselves.
Are you using all the networks available to you to amplify your voice?
Not so long ago – yesterday night to be accurate, I once again realized how hard it is to convince French Medical Doctors of this obvious reality. Being very busy working alone and only having trust in "authorities" keeps being the rules to them… the network being considered as a futile place where others are wasting time.
Weirdly enough, lots of people talk about a Web 3.0 or 4.0 or even 5.0 in health (yes, 5.0) when the very basics of the Web 2.0 remain largely to be understood (you know, no longer a hierarchy, but a network; a meshed society with the people inside… and maybe one day joined by their care givers as soon as they have left both their pedestal and the tyranny of "what is validated from above").
2. contextual problem definition and problem solving creates more value than mass solutions
3. transactions are replaced by interactions and network relations
4. relations now precede assets. People work more from their relations than their skills
It makes sense at large, but resonates specifically in health where, so far, the usual way remains to have "highly skilled professionals" do their best in isolation while applying Evidence Based Medicine guidelines that where validated for "the statistical patient".
This issue resonates with the current status in health information system where most of those who could address the genuine problems faced by suffering people feel that they have to "get a permission" (an order form) by the system (read the Minister, a major company, a well known professor…).
At a moment when it has never been so easy to engage with the people (the true customers, the ones in need of solutions) while big organizations are "lost in complexity" in current paradigm shift moments, I often ask the hard question : are you the kind of people that can address real people issues, or just a player by the rules that builds on outdated specifications?
This black drawing accurately sums up the reason why I decided several years ago to always vote blank. The first step toward a new paradigm has always been to stop playing by the rules of a system that no longer makes sense. It is now time to invent the Meshed Society that should come next.
In a recent post, Clark Quinn (@Quinnovator) enumerates some of the tensions in organizational learning engineering:
Organizational learning processes – across L&D, Executive Development, Leadership Development, and more of the roles in HR and talent management – are largely still rooted in both industrial era models and myths. We see practices that don’t make sense, and we’re not aligned with what we now know about how we think, work, and learn. And this is a problem for organizational success. So what are some of the old practices compared with what we now know? No surprise, I created a diagram (a table in this case) representing just some of the tensions:
Are we not wasting any more money than anyone else?
Are we impacting business metrics?
All the information has to be in the head
As much as possible, information has to be in the world
We are formal logical thinkers
Our thinking is very much situated and emergent
One person must do the thinking for many
The room is smarter than the smartest person in the room*
Learning is recitation
Learning is doing
Learning is an event
Learning is a process
We must accommodate learning styles, generations, and more
Use the best learning design
We can get people to perform tasks flawlessly
Automate the rote and leave people to important decisions
Mistakes are a loss
Mistakes are part of innovation, just don’t lose the lesson
After over two years of shooting timelapse professionally, I decided it was time to create a video highlight my favourite work to-date. The variety from job to job still surprises me, everything from football matches to year long construction projects. This video showcases the results of many sleepless nights, hundreds of thousands of photos, and countless hours shooting. I couldn’t even begin to calculate how many hours of work there will be showcased in this piece, but I imagine it’s into the hundreds, if not thousands of hours.
Shooting timelapse requires a lot of patience and forward thinking. Some shots took multiple attempts to get the right light, others required whole days just to capture a few seconds of footage. There’s a careful balance of trying to predict the future, and just being determined enough to do everything it takes to get the shot.
For example, the milkyway shot at 1:23 was the result of a four day shoot chasing the milkway in Wales. I stayed up every night, driving around trying to find clear patches in the night sky.. But in four days all I managed to capture was a sequence of 50 images.
Footage was collected in various locations around the world, and was shot for a variety of clientele. As such some footage is signed into exclusivity agreements; however other footage is available for licensing.
Marc Jamoulle (@jamoulle) a fait une superbe réponse sur la liste de diffusion du CISP Club après que j’y avais attiré l’attention sur la vidéo "End of Guidelines – a parody of End of the Line". Je ne résiste pas à publier ici le travail de James McCormack (@medmyths) et le texte de Marc.
Je pense que vous n’avez pas pris la mesure de l’importance de la vidéo lancée par Mc Cormack et ses amis.
Ces gens la ne sont pas des rigolos; ce sont le plus souvent des grands auteurs, certains épidemiologistes cliniques, d’autres journalistes médicaux de talent auteurs de livres à succes, d’autres médecins de famille. Ce sont tous des champions de l’EBM. Il suffit de googler leur nom pour comprendre qu’ils savent de quoi ils parlent.
Ils sont aussi tous anglosaxons soit le monde US+UK+CAN+AUST dans les quels les assurances ne rigolent pas avec les applications EBM.
Ici en Belgique ou en France si vous ne respectez pas une guideline, personne ne va venir vous cherchez des pous.
Ce n’est pas forcément le cas pour les auteurs de la vidéo et par exemple Iona Heath ex présidente des MG UK sait que ne pas respecter une guideline, c’est s’attirer les foudres du NHS.
Nos collègues utilisent une video comique pour denoncer des situations absurdes et déclarer, ce à quoi nous devrions réfléchir intensément, que c’est le patient qui est au centre du jeu, que c’est pour lui qu’on fait la médecine et que c’est à lui, en connaissance et conscience, qu’il revient de décider. Vous voyez là l’influence du concept Shared Decision Making si bien défendu par Legare ou par Dee Mangin.
Ne vous y trompez pas, il ne s’agit pas ici de l’establiment médical mais de dissidents, qui lancent un cri d’alarme, cri très entendu dans toute l’Amérique latine si j’en crois les réactions sur les listes P4
Pour 6 personnes – préparation 10 mn – infusion 50 mn
3 cuillerées à café de graines d’anis vert
75 cl d’eau
10 cl de pastis
1 jus de citron
350 g de Confisuc
Dans une casserole, portez l’eau à ébullition avec l’anis et Confisuc. Coupez le feu. Couvrez la casserole et laissez infuser 50 mn. Filtrez au chinois. Ajoutez le jus de citron et le pastis. Remuez et tournez en sorbetière.
Un sorbet délicat qui peut se servir aussi bien en dessert qu’en apéritif.
Tiré du "Livre des sorbets, glaces et granités" distribué par la Générale sucrière à la fin des années 80… en espérant que le Confisuc existe encore