<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
	xmlns:media="http://search.yahoo.com/mrss/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: whirligigs</title>
	<atom:link href="http://shotfromthehip.wordpress.com/2008/02/18/whirligigs/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://shotfromthehip.wordpress.com/2008/02/18/whirligigs/</link>
	<description>michele perras - curled up with uncertainty</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Fri, 25 Sep 2009 14:03:28 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.com/</generator>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
		<item>
		<title>By: Mark Kuznicki</title>
		<link>http://shotfromthehip.wordpress.com/2008/02/18/whirligigs/#comment-1104</link>
		<dc:creator>Mark Kuznicki</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 18 Feb 2008 22:10:56 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://shotfromthehip.wordpress.com/?p=186#comment-1104</guid>
		<description>Michele, this is a fantastic extension of Cockayne&#039;s model.  Really great stuff.

What you are presenting is a shift from a closed to an open system.  Some talk about &quot;embracing the chaos&quot;, but chaos without a model is not terribly useful.  When all creation and innovation is digital, such a model becomes increasingly desirable.

The actors being flung about in the eddys reflect the subjective experience of parallel continuous innovation cycles in an environment of continuous partial attention.  I think about the recombinant nature of talent, ideas and IP in such an innovation model.  Where does the talent lie to fulfill these roles in place and over time?

Thanks a lot for this - so much food for thought!</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Michele, this is a fantastic extension of Cockayne&#8217;s model.  Really great stuff.</p>
<p>What you are presenting is a shift from a closed to an open system.  Some talk about &#8220;embracing the chaos&#8221;, but chaos without a model is not terribly useful.  When all creation and innovation is digital, such a model becomes increasingly desirable.</p>
<p>The actors being flung about in the eddys reflect the subjective experience of parallel continuous innovation cycles in an environment of continuous partial attention.  I think about the recombinant nature of talent, ideas and IP in such an innovation model.  Where does the talent lie to fulfill these roles in place and over time?</p>
<p>Thanks a lot for this &#8211; so much food for thought!</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Remarkk! &#187; LIFT: William Cockayne, &#8220;Foresight to Innovation&#8221;</title>
		<link>http://shotfromthehip.wordpress.com/2008/02/18/whirligigs/#comment-1103</link>
		<dc:creator>Remarkk! &#187; LIFT: William Cockayne, &#8220;Foresight to Innovation&#8221;</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 18 Feb 2008 21:42:48 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://shotfromthehip.wordpress.com/?p=186#comment-1103</guid>
		<description>[...] Michele builds upon Cockayne&#8217;s foresight to innovation role/actor model to offer an alternative view of an innovation process that more closely reflects the subjective impressions of being part of a open, creative and chaordic system, which I think is genius! She describes it as a model to deliver &#8220;timely awesomeness&#8221;. (Michele is herself timely awesomeness!) [...]</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>[...] Michele builds upon Cockayne&#8217;s foresight to innovation role/actor model to offer an alternative view of an innovation process that more closely reflects the subjective impressions of being part of a open, creative and chaordic system, which I think is genius! She describes it as a model to deliver &#8220;timely awesomeness&#8221;. (Michele is herself timely awesomeness!) [...]</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>
