Event Theory Paper Dec09pdf

Page 1;

Copyright 2004 by Richard Tabor Greene, All Rights Reserved, US Government Registered

Event Theory for Managing by Events Delivering Work Functions via Mass Workshop Events Wherein Dozens to Thousands Do in Days What Otherwise Would Take Small Staffs Months or Years to Do Research Question 1 COMMON ELEMENT UNDER DIRECTIONS OF EVOLUTION: what common cause or element underlies three directiions of evolution in event use: 1) from department to process to event, 2) from social to cognitive work functions in events, 3) from macro-structuring to microstructuring Just as various forces converged to transform the basis of doing certain work functions from department (in bureaucracies) to process, other forces are converging to transform that basis from process to event. This paper explores the evolution of work function delivery from department to process to event form, the systematic expansion of what work and leadership functions events are handling, and the evolution of the nature of events (from macro structuring to micro structuring) as they have had to handle more and more complex functions of work and leadership. Method 1 SURVEY RESEARCH LITERATURES FOR FORCES FORCING EVENTS TO EVOLVE IN FORM OR FUNCTION: There is no unified event theory in any one field, but scattered theories in diverse fields pertaining to events (Malone’s coordination theory, Social neuroscience of fast mind emotion transmission, etc.) 42 theories as viewpoints elucidating these phenomena are presented in this paper. This paper explores exactly how and why the nature of events is evolving: evolution from macro to micro design of event participation, software and socialware processes converging then evolving into semi-structured format as within-event processes (workshop protocols), evolution of functions delivered by events from celebration to info exchange to decision making to doing any general work and management function (events as virtual firms). Result 1 TABLE OF ISSUES IN MOVING ORDINARY WORK FUNCTIONS TO EVENT DELIVERY FORM: 30 issues/hypotheses for later testing Some practical issues in using events to deliver general work and leadership functions bear examination in this paper: how to blend event delivery with process and department delivery of functions (which functions to deliver by which means), how to blend (weave) role within events and media (face to face versus network interaction). There are stark implications for re-engineering work processes, outsourcing, and the basic fabric of larger scale and smaller scale structuring of work and economies explored in this paper. This paper closes with preliminary hypotheses to be explored in future research of this phenomena. Result 2 BENEFITS OF EVENT DELIVERY OF WORK FUNCTIONS: visibility, organizational learning, speeded up execution, emergence of new leadership, face-to-face-ness dosed precisely over e-mediated internet process work software systems. The theoretical interest in managing by events lies in a vision of a kind of whole earth compression of work squeezed into less time till events do it, intensely scripted ones. The practical interest is the visibility that event doing of work has compared to drawn out process or bureaucratic department. Typically, one well done event produces one large promotion-in-rank for its sponsoring and designing and leading managers.

Brief Origin and History of Managing by Events GE Workouts are currently the most famous icon of Managing by Events but they are a tiny offshoot of a much bigger, older, and more sophisticated tree. The founder of the Ecumenical Institute, in the late 1950s took his partners on a global tour looking for vibrant communities that could serve as models of dynamics to restore to attenuated community dynamics in industrial societies. They found in Japan the most complete set of community dynamics consonant with industrial development but not yet overwhelmed by or subservient to development. Among those dynamics were “work days” such as professors proctoring college entrance exams, “corporate vacation events” scripted to the last 5 minutes of detail, with all employees assigned to choreographed sequences of interactions and activities, and “corporate initiation training weeks” where new recruits to a company were put through Buddhist spiritual exercises, military maneuver and teamwork exercises, new technology training exercises, and customer service and contact exercises to prepare them for employ. These Japanese events were thoroughly scripted, often led by not-yet leaders backed up by top leader visits, weaving rational, emotive, and interactional goals and activities, and involving many groups working in parallel applying different viewpoints, methods, or techniques to a problem. These Japanese models were distilled into a number of Managing by Event types within the work of the Ecumenical Institute, including 3 day, usually weekend, Problem Solving Units, 30 day Research Assemblies, and one day Work Days and Participatory Town Meetings. Participants in these Ecumenical Institute events, from General Electric, modified them into the famous GE Workouts two decades later. At the same time as Japan was developing its scripted event formats, Nordic Europe (Thorsrud, ;Emery, ; Trist, ; Weisbord, ) was developing events as ways for autonomous workteams to coordinate their initiatives without bosses and Search Conferences wherein all employees or customers or citizens of an organization/community did strategy-setting and strategy-implementing work normally reserved for bosses, elites, and expert consultants. The author of this paper, fifteen years before the development of GE workouts and Search Conferences, extended the variety of event types beyond past practice (Invent Events, Venture Founding Workweeks, Community Quality Cabarets, Customer Contact Conventions among others) and extended the structural cognition tools and models used in workshop procedures (structural reading, fractal concept models, causal star models, competing causal path models among others), setting up events in Japanese towns, corporations, major US corporations (General Motors--AI Workshop Fairs, EDS--AI Workshop Fairs, Global CAD/CAM Benchmark Contest Fair, N. V. Philips--High Technology Circles Program, Coopers & Lybrand--High Technology Circles Program, and Xerox--Knowledge Based Systems Circles, High Performance Workouts, see Greene, 1990) and in University of Chicago, Graduate School of Business classes (Community Quality Cabarets, Customer Contact Events, Invent Events, Problem Finding Town Meetings, TQ Venture Founding Workouts, Transplanting Business Practices Across Cultures Work Days, and others). The present article is the first published summary to take these extensions into account. An earlier chapter (Greene, 1993) covered the basic concept and elementary design principles of the first events at EI, GE, and the University of Chicago. There is a broader perspective, however, that sees constitutional conventions, throughout history, as the first Managing by Events style events. That is because constitutional conventions alone had the careful selection and preparation of representative participants, stakeholders, combined with procedures designed to mesh those diverse interests and the overt goal, during the convention, of inventing what was utterly new in history. Constitutional conventions were places where liberated people got to the point of freedom (using Hannah Arendt’s meaning of the term “freedom”), where better-than-planned results emerge during intense interaction of liberated people committed to go beyond all past practice and speak to all times via inventing something utterly new. As a result to the extent any event does innovation work, the dynamics of social revolution are basic to event success, and we find such social revolution dynamics appearing in more and more events, as events have to handle execution of more and more work and leadership functions. A model of such social change dynamics, commonly used in such events (as a basic transformation theme whose steps get embedded in procedures on all size scales of the event, see Greene, 2004, Fractals for Managing by Events) is available. The basic transformation theme, whether it be this social revolution process or some other process, of any event, gets embedded fractally in procedures on all size scales of the event (each day, 4 hour segment of a day, individual hour of 4-hour sets, 15 minute segments of each hour repeating the transformation theme steps)--events have evolved this fractal embedding feature as they have had to handle execution of new work and leadership functions. As events have taken on the doing of more functions, the nature and contents of event themselves have changed in this and other ways explored below in this paper.

Forces Replacing Department and Process Delivery of Work and Leadership Functions with Event Delivery I can take many functions and assign each of them to a small group which will take an entire year to complete its assigned function or I can take the same functions, subdivide them into a large number of component “sub-”functions, each assigned to a different one, of a large number of workshop groups, to cooperatively do them working intensely over a few days. Why have we chosen the former over the latter, nearly everywhere and always? This question is not as easy to answer as one would think. Assigning a single function to a small group and watching them work all year to complete that function seems natural to us because most of the world as we grew up in it was organized that way. We did not encounter assigning such functions to dozens of workshop groups working in parallel intensely over a period of days to do a year’s work in a few days. This latter approach is unnatural to us, we did not grow up with it. Event-based delivery of work functions is not natural to us whereas process- and department-based delivery of such functions is natural to us. One can suppose that events had less appeal than processes in bureaus of departments because events got functions done too fast. You had to immediately give the people in an event another function as they finished off their first assigned function in a matter of days. Managers would have to constantly think and assign functions to the people doing event-based work, whereas managers could rest, cognitively, if they assigned a function to a small group knowing it would take that small group a year to complete the function assigned to them. Bureaucratic work systems have the virtue of reducing cognitive workload for managers who design them, at a cost of boring utterly small groups repeating day in and day out execution of the same function, often for years (Zubof, ). It is likely that bureaucracy appealed, in spite of the boredom it condemned its workforces to, because it minimized thinking by managers (who in elitist class systems did not concern themselves much with workforce morale). As change of technology became continual and fast, in response to automating invention in research and development labs, invented by Edison’s generation, more and more new work functions appeared requiring giant expansions of bureaucracies, or, if that was too expensive, requiring pulling people from libraries of bureaus onto teams to quickly execute some new functions in event form as temporary task teams. Here the bias in favor of departments to simplify mental work for managers gave way to events for handling rapidly appearing new work functions, driven by automated invention of new technology (Pava, ). Just-in-Time theory attacks inventories of all sorts as places that hide the true state and determinants of work processes. We, not trusting the next function, buffer ourselves from the vagaries of its performance by having an inventory of what it produces that we need. We never have to reach exact agreement with adjacent work functions if we have inventories that protect us from vagaries in their performance. This attitude against inventories, along with specific tools for reducing and eliminating them, was applied to physical inventories, and data inventories and interface ones till finally it got applied to managers as a social inventory with a monopoly on delivering management functions. The total quality movement installed just-in-time theory all over the industrial world till people noticed that a fixed inventory of managers was perhaps guilty of hiding the true state of managing. Dr. Deming, the quality guru, used to proclaim that fixed inventories of managers indeed did hide under-managing going on (managers not knowing statistics missed special causes of variation in work processes

Page 2;

Copyright 2004 by Richard Tabor Greene, All Rights Reserved, US Government Registered

that called for managerial attention) and over-managing going on (managers intervening harmfully in work processes to look more managerial to justify perks). Eventually this evolved into alternative ways to deliver managing functions--rescue squad deliver and event delivery being the two main alternatives to a fixed social class called “managers” (Greene, 1993). Thus far we have, in our argument here, rapid change forcing event handling of new work functions and the total quality movement revealing costs of inventories like fixed inventories of managers over-managing and under-managing at the same time. We can add to this a third force toward event management--social computation and computational sociality. Invention of machine computers revealed to us other older computers that had always been there but that we could not see or understand till machine computers came along--biologic computers and social ones. Ant colonies have a way of making decisions, like when and where to move their nests, without boss ants giving orders. They have complex social interactions among individual ants that cause such decisions to emerge without a boss commanding them. This is a social computation of a decision by insects--it is both biologic and social at the same time. Similarly, machine computers revealed that humans in groups can be viewed as arrays of central processing units passing algorithms among themselves in set patterns. A bureaucracy, for example, can be viewed as arrays of processors, each specializing in a different function, coordinated by boss processors with higher in rank bosses coordinating larger scopes of combined functions. The first computer programs and computer program languages, indeed, reflected European elitist top down command ways of treating people and “coordinating” by fiat. Only later and gradually did less autocratic computation types evolve till conversations among equal processors were used to coordinate global nets of computers lacking entirely boss computers giving commands centrally. Resnick and other have made entire careers out of teaching people less monarchical habits and values of control using decentralized conversational computer languages like Star Logo (Resnick, ). All structures among processors become event-like in form in these decentralized computing regimes. Structure is computed as needed from myriad local processor interactings. This is a source of event management coming from technology back to human social structures, where greater decentralization achieved in software form inspires experiments in greater coordination of humans via command-less cooperative and conversation regimes, with events being the times and places where cooperation and conversation among agents becomes locally intense. To summarize we have rapid change in technical base, total quality hostility to inventory, importation of decentralized controls from software to socialware--all fostering managing by events not process not bureau. Globalization and the internet constitute a fourth force towards event based management--globalization because face-to-face time and the social relationships it leads to are vital for coordinating geographically distributed organizations, via events (to keep travel expense to a minimum)--and internetization because face-to-face time and the relations it leads to are vital for turning Email messages, thin in social cues, into needed social commitments. Both globalization and internetization of systems call for events to bolster human relationships made thin by geographic distance and media lacking rich social cues (like the internet). That the internet is accelerating globalization and that globalization is accelerating the internet’s use emphasizes their need for events. Work is becoming more cognitive as products become services, and as outsourcing to cheaper educated masses around the globe forces industrial workforces to upgrade skills drastically and fast. The result is a drive towards making all work content creative. If creation, continual invention of the utterly new, becomes ordinary work content for hundreds of millions of industrial country people, then generation, combination, selection, and reproduction of diversity (Darwin’s natural selection process, the most creative process in the known universe, the one that created human beings) becomes central to work itself. Creation requires (Sternberg, ) a rhythm alternating engagement with detachment (accumulating partial failures in the insight development process till they inversely specify what traits a solution must have), and alternating isolation with intense selling to others (new ideas must be new enough when presented to others that they surprise and attract attention--and resources--hence leaking ideas early ruins chances of investment). This pattern of alternation is deeply embedded in creation work and deeply essential to it. It naturally calls for dispersed isolated work alternating with intense togetherness in events. Therefore the rise of the knowledge economy is pushing us towards event forms (Weisbord, ; Emery, ) of doing work (alternating with robustly isolated non-event forms). To summarize again we have rapid change in technical base, total quality hostility to inventory, importing decentralization from software to socialware, human relatedness thinned from globalization caused dispersal and internetization caused missing social cues, and the knowledge economy alternating isolation with togetherness--all calling for event forms of work. One offshoot of advanced software and the rise of the knowledge economy is organizational learning processes as the basis of competitive advantage. When expert system builders traipsed around organizations finding concentrated knowledge that software expert systems could distribute and finding distributed knowledge that software expert systems could concentrate usefully, they also noticed over-concentration and over-distribution of knowledge that software could not cost-effectively fix. Network, knowledge market, knowledgebases, and other tools were devised for these cases of over-concentration and over-distribution of knowledge. One of the fixes, beyond expert systems applications, used commonly was events-where distributed knowledge got combined and concentrated and where concentrated knowledge got distributed. Organizational learning is a force driving event forms of doing work, too (Cohen, ). Complexity theory showing non-linearity is reality poorly seen and handled by human systems and prospect theory showing flaws in how all human minds handle certain forms of judgement and probabilistic reasoning have both stimulated rich investigation of small networks, lumpy networks, meeting connectors in networks, tipping point finding, trend-riding sales methods, and the like. A huge new technical base for fostering an using networks among people and systems has arisen, not doubt some of this being implementation in socialware form of networking relationships already found useful in software form. This new networking technical base is a force for event management. Events are where social indexes among people are built, where we learn the interests, capabilities, and needs of those around us. This new networking technical base sees the low levels of social indexing in existing ways of organizing people and work and yearns for more robust social indexing levels achieved among such people--a force for fostering events that enhance social indexing among participants (Gladwell, ). The remarkable 1990s results of Silicon Valley, California and world wide efforts to emulate it via venture cluster development have given rise gradually to principles of Silicon Valley cluster development success. Entire organizations have begun to see themselves as anti-clusters or as potential clusters. Sets of organizations have begun to see themselves these two antithetical ways too. Every organization and group of related organizations (thematically, technically, networkly, geographically, marketly) is examining itself against the principles of successful clusters and seeing whether it embodies them or frustrates them. Venture businesses, from this framework, get seen as “events” emerging from flows of ideas, careers, and technical capabilities that intersect into idea sex, career sex, and technology sex, where baby new ideas, careers, technologies, and ventures are born. This fascination with clusters and revisioning of existing organization forms against the standard of successful clusters is fostering revisioning of ventures as events, extending ordinary events with venture traits and extending ordinary ventures with event traits (Brown and Duguid, ). To summarize again we have rapid change in technical base, total quality hostility to inventory, importing decentralization from software to socialware, human relatedness thinned from globalization caused dispersal and internetization caused missing social cues, and the knowledge economy alternating isolation with togetherness; organizational learning needs for distributing and concentrating knowledge, a new networking technical base fostering social index improvement, and cluster styling of ordinary organizations--all calling for event forms of work. Rapid change in technical base

Sources of Event Forms of Work and Management

Total quality hostility to inventory Socialware importing decentralization from software Thin relations from globalization and internetization of systems Alternation of isolation and togetherness for creation-as-work in the knowledge economy Network marketing yearning for improved social indexing

Gradual Evolution from Department to Process to Event

Forces Evolving Event Form from Macro-Collections of Folk Cognition to MicroDesigns of World Best Cognitive Protocols

If more and more work and leadership functions are getting done by events not processes and departments, then the nature of events must be changing somehow to accommodate this extension of kinds of work do-able in event form. Events started out, eons ago, as being celebratory in nature, anthropologists and archaeologists tell us. At that same ancient time they also handled large-scale physical work (the moving of entire villages, the doing of entire harvests, and the like). They quickly evolved into status display forums where elites displayed their god-like superiority to common people (much like staff meetings in modern businesses, little mission accomplished, much ritual rank reminding). They evolved into information exchange forums, the conference format, where distributed people exchange information. In eras without telegraph, telephone, and internet, they were the primary form of information exchange. In this era college classes, for example, were publishing mechanisms (not teaching ones because one person talked, many dozens took notes, in effect publishing the professor’s content). Events expanded to handle certain analysis and decision functions by assembling not all units but only certain particular types of units needed for a particular type of analysis. From this, events rapidly expanded to handle nearly any work and leadership functions--strategy-design events, product invention events, marketing launch events, error correction events, problem definition events, personnel evaluation and promotion events, customer contact and survey events. Cluster styling of ordinary organizations and work

As the work and leadership functions being delivered in event form evolved and expanded in the above way, the nature of events themselves was put under pressure to change. Getting drunk, dressing wildly, and exchanging sex with strangers (typical in ancient celebration events) was not conducive to fine tuning strategy or negotiating contentious budget battles among groups, for an over-drawn example. When you transfer a work function from process delivery to event delivery, you have to shorten the time scale of doing processes drastically (by getting plural simultaneous workshop groups to coordinatedly execute the process’ parts, doing in parallel all that you can and reducing sequential steps as much as possible). You find the sub-processes within any such process embedded in the event that results as the assigned task of particular workshop groups within the events. What this does is change fundamentally how people participate in events. Instead of dragging their bodies and minds to a location and sitting, hearing speeches, talking in small discussion groups, and brainstorming a few lists on whiteboards, you have groups of 8 or 10 people who are assigned to the same workshop group, split into pairs, each assigned a different function or analysis step to apply to the data of their workshop. Folk cognition, our usual comfortable ways of discussing and presenting together (the boring panel discussions of conferences, for example) is simply too slow, too boring, too unstructured, too bushy in directionality and discipline, to get much done. Replacing folk cognition is structural cognition tools for transforming readings into charts of main points showing point number, names, and principles of order, mind extensions like structured file systems and workshop article libraries, an d the like. In other words, over eons of time the structuring given overall event design--do this function first, then follow that with this other activity, then get everyone to together do this third thing, for example--has fractally repeated itself on lower and lower levels of detail within the event till now, what workshop groups do every five minutes is planned out as written protocols, often derived by interviewing people world best at doing some function and simplifying their procedures into ones anyone, not expert, can follow and implement. You can, today, clearly distinguish events into those attempting to extend themselves to handle new work and leadership functions, without changing the nature of the event (the level of detailed designed procedures embedded within the event) and those attempting the same extension while actively changing the nature of the event (embedding world best protocols for doing work functions into every-5-minute

Page 3;

Copyright 2004 by Richard Tabor Greene, All Rights Reserved, US Government Registered

procedures that workshop groups follow during the event). Trying the extend events to handle new work functions without changing the nature of events, fails. Usually organizations fail in this way by maintaining all the habits of information exchange conferencing in events trying to do types of work and/or leadership requiring functions beyond mere information exchange. It should be noted that two powerful forces in society have combined to push events towards this fractal embedding of precise protocols at smaller and smaller levels of event detail. First, the total quality movement changed meetings from general discussions or fawning status difference rehearsals into structured analysis processes, standardized across entire economies, and with particular methods of analysis required for particular steps and inspected for quality of conformance to method and execution of method by consultants and bosses. This was the Management by Fact theme within total quality practice. It worked to replace management by opinion, hunch, authority, intimidation, and whim with valid data validly analyzed. People trained to execute particular processes of analysis in meetings are well prepared to execute world best protocols in the mass workshop events of Managing by Events. Second, as Information Technology executives in the 1980s failed, again and again, to get CEOs to understand that building software applications to support work functions in departments and bureaus underperformed getting them to build applications that supported cross-department cross-organization processes, the total quality movement’s emphasis on process based managing and managing by fact saved the day, suddenly getting CEOs to understand messages that Information Technology executives had been delivering for years to no avail. At the same time the internet arose, suddenly allowing software to support any global process, however many boundaries it spanned. This convergence of total quality process emphasis, software process support, and internet extension of process support boundaries made processes far more central to designing and managing businesses than departments. Every function that software could be made to do was embedded in work coordination systems applications on intranets, leaving a remainder as what face-to-face meetings and phonings were left to do. This powerfully made clear what functions only events could perform and what functions systems alone were going hereafter to perform. You had this tandem of nearly all work done in system form with remaining functions done in event form, the events punctuating the process at key steps. This tandem of software work system punctuated by socialware events is the new dominant material for doing work functions in our time. We have not, however, to this point, scientifically explored the boundary between what software does and what socialware events do. The current frontier in practice is seeing a moving frontier of functions not having adequate data supporting the doing of them and events, in socialware form, being where people work to define, invent, and entool such data, so new functions can be handed over to software system execution. The events are the boundary where socialware systems pass work and leadership functions over to software system execution. Total quality semi-structured meetings are now the format such events take on, preparing us to do functions in mass workshop form, with people not freely discussing but following exact world best protocols from interviewed experts. As an interesting aside, I note here the buddhist roots of Japanese bias for perceptually based meetings, given entirely to perceiving emotive and rational inputs rather than doing conceptual work so dominant in Western meetings. This has interestingly led to Japan doing computations in social form that Americans, later, did in computer network form. Japanese Quality Function Deployment and Policy Deployment programs, for example, cascaded sequences of highly scripted events (even databases to be filled in and analyzed were pre-specified for these events) layer by layer down and up organizational hierarchies (for PD) and horizontally across departments along process steps (for QFD). Thusly in the early 21st century we find the Japanese mirroring their social event-cascade tactics with computer network supports and Americans mirroring their computer network event tactics with social events of new types. In both cases, the new items change the gender setting dominant at work--moving Japanese work systems from femininity to masculinity (clarity of purpose) and moving American work systems from masculinity to femininity (emotive community undergirding task communities). People uncomfortable at doing precise emotional work and people uncomfortable at doing precise intellective work find the fractal spread of designed pre-specified procedures into meetings and events as exact protocols challenging and they resist “impingements on my freedom to talk and be myself in every social setting”. This is the social, event mirror of flaming and spam troubles on the internet where thin social cues invite uncivilized behavior.

The Event Design Question: Getting the Weave Right of Within Event Roles and Media Consider the three following alternative ways to deliver work and leadership functions: each way takes 40 groups of ten people each and organizes them to get one particular overall output (work or leadership function) done.

• assign one different sub-function to each group of ten which they work at all day five days a week for a year at a time till reassigned • assign each week or so, one sub-function to all 40 groups of ten, assigning at the same time one different sub-sub-function to each group of ten, which they all do in parallel over the course of a few days or a week (leaving time for some sub-sub-functions to be done in sequences of five to ten) till that sub-function is done, then they move on to tackle another sub-function in the next week or so • mix the first one above with the second in this way: each morning for four hours, the 40 groups of ten are organized as in the first item above, and each afternoon for four hours, the 40 groups of ten are organized as in the second item above. The first organization format is boring for employees but easy for management to design--assign a function to each group and let them do their assigned function till reassigned, resigned, or revolt. The second organization format is exciting for employees but hard in cognitive workload for management to design--assign all employees in 30 to 70 different complex mass workshop event arrangements to do each function in turn over the course of a year. The third organization format is part boring and part exciting as it blends the first two, daily. The half and half arrangement suggested represents many actual possible proportions: 60/40, 70/30, and so on. Which of these three works best for delivering any particular work or leadership function? We do not at all know. The research has not even begun to answer that question. Consider now the problem of which leadership function to first deliver in event format and which second, and so forth. In order to even think at all clearly about this we need a consensed on model of just what the most vital and fundamental functions of leading and managing are. Fortunately that is rather easy to build (just ask 315 high performers who the best leaders and managers they know are, get 150 such nominee names, and interview each of those 150 for their opinion of the most vital and fundamental functions of leading and managing--such research has been done, see Greene, 2004, The 64 Basic Functions of Leading and Managing). Having a comprehensive model of what many relevant people believe the basic functions are, we can now ask, more usefully, which of those function are being delivered by events now, which will soon be thusly delivered, and which will be last to be thusly delivered (and why). We can also now combine the first point in this section--which of the three ways of organizing work is best-with the second point above--which managing/leading function should first, second, last be delivered by event. The answer to the first issue, which way of organizing is best, depends clearly on the second, which function you are looking at delivering in event format. For some functions the first bureaucratic way will be best now and for others the second and for still others the third. There will be, perhaps, a different such profile of organization approaches assigned to functions evolving over time, for each organization or part of the real world. We have not even begun research to learn what profiles work best for what parts of the world. These macro ambiguities, as yet unclarified by research, give rise to micro ambiguities in event design. Most important among these are two--what weave of event types, what weave of workshop types, what weave of protocol step types, what weave of individual person task and workshop roles--works best for a particular event delivering a particular function. The second is--what weave of face-to-face events with message-to-message internet/intranet media contacts--best enables particular events, processes, and bureaus in all real ways of organizing work (but especially, here, in particular event types). Research has not been done to identify the types of alternatives woven, and the alternative weavings possible and optimal, both for weaving event types, workshop types, protocol step types, individual person workshop roles, and weaving media like face-to-face with message-to-message. We all suspect that there are minimal events, of unknown quality and type, needed to make a global internet-supported process/organization/effort sustainable and growable. We all suspect that there are maximal events, of unknown quality and type, beyond which events harm rather than support global internet-supported processes/organizations/efforts. We all suspect that for certain organizations, certain particular combinations of events work best, but we lack all scientifically grounded knowledge of how many of what types of events, how conducted, suffice to achieve best possible performance or to satisfice demanding requirements for further organization existence in harshly competitive environments.

The Destiny of Event-Based Management: Events as Virtual Firms, Firms as Virtual Events If you think about 40 groups of ten people each organized in one mass workshop event in January and in another such mass workshop event type in February, and in another in March, and so forth for twelve event types for a year, you have twelve new missions, twelve new products of work, twelve new roles people play, twelve new skills people develop by doing twelve different protocols, and no new people. In other words, such an arrangement would be tantamount to having one set of people being twelve entirely different organizations in one year. We can now, obviously, extend this observation to this: one workforce as twelve entirely different organizations per month, per week; one workforce as 12 entirely different venture businesses per year; or, to move to the mixed organization type mentioned above, one workforce as one company part of each month and as twelve different venture businesses the rest of each month. Managing by Event gives rise to virtual firms--firms that exist part-time each day, week, month, or year. It gives rise to one workforce multi-tasking among venture businesses and one person multi-tasking among different jobs at different organizations each day, week, month, or year. As soon as managing is done in event form the combinatorial possibilities of the economy and of individual lives and careers explode in this way. There is an echo effect off of this--the seeing of usual firms and products and ventures and careers as events of a certain drawn out nature. Scholars researching venture businesses have long noted that they appear in blank niches in ecosystems of technologies and customer needs (Burt, ). Careers and products also thusly appear to fill blank niches in ecosystems of technologies and customer needs. Firms, products, careers, ventures are events drawn out over time, slowed down, with combinations reduced and attenuated. The bureaucratic organization forms and economy we now know is a kind of chromatograph stratification of event-based organization and economy formats.

42 Viewpoints Revealing What Events are Replacing and What Events are Becoming That more and more existing work and leadership functions are getting done in event form, leads to invention of entirely new work and leadership functions, grounded in what events do that processes and departments do not do as well. It also leads to evolution in what events are like, how they work, what they are composed of. One way to understand this is to quickly assimilate it to theories and frameworks invented in prior bureaucratic eras by researchers working in and publishing in bureaucracies all their lives. Assimilating emerging new phenomena, in this way, to past, not to say ancient, theories and frameworks rarely adds value though it does enhance academic resumes for numbers publishing. Instead here I offer 42 the-

Page 4;

Copyright 2004 by Richard Tabor Greene, All Rights Reserved, US Government Registered

ories and frameworks, few of which are grounded in our bureaucratic past, that allow new functions for event to tackle, new functions that event invent, and new things that events are becoming to be seen and explored rather than merely assimilated to familiar well trodden parts of our past (see the table below).

Viewpoints Showing Forces Moving Us Toward Event Delivery and Evolving Event Content Managing by Events

Needs for & Benefits of Events

Tools for Effective Events

Cultures of Change

Psychology of Being Together

Diverse Diversities to Leverage

Orthogonal Disciplines

Re-Engineering

Economic

Just-in-Time Managing

Structural Cognition

Solution Culture

Performance

Impact Research

New Materials for Doing Work Functions

Educatedness

Politic

Social Computation

Mind Extension

Anthropology of Technologies, Products, & Markets

Influence

Theory Power

Cognitive Technologies

Effectiveness

Cultic

Organizational Learning

Social Simulation

Quality Globalizations

Leadership

Tasks of Successful Global Assignments

New Assumptions

Diversity

Social Change

Social Indexing

Social Virtuality

Viral Change

Polis

Art Purposes

Total Quality and Global Quality

Complexity

Social Expansion

Venture Cluster

Social Neural Nets

Self Development

Social Taguchi

Dimensions of Culture

Core Processes of Fundamental Processes Architecture

Systems Effects

Social Depth

Organizational Neurosis

Social Automata

Social Process Models

Presentation by Environment

The Insight & Other Creativity Processes & Models

Cognitive Processes as Workshop Protocols

Career Dynamics

Needs for and Benefits of Events Just-in-Time Managing This is extension of Just-in-Time inventory principles to fixed social classes of managers who monopolize delivery of managing functions.

It finds over-managing and under-managing as analogues of over-shoot and under-shoot production when physical inventories are around. Structured mass workshop events are a primary alternative to fixed inventories of managers/leaders as a way to deliver leadership functions to an organization on time, with low cost, and high quality.

Social Computation This is people imagining new ways to organize and treat people as if they were arrays of processors over which particular algorithms get passed, inspired by new forms of machine computing that reveal long-standing biologic and social computers in the world around us (each of which can inspire new ways to organize and treat people). Events that in the past were just collections of people discussing and meeting as usual, under the influence of social computation, evolve into parallel workshop groups, each following detailed protocols developed by interviewing people world best at doing some function that the workshop group also wants to do. Organizational Learning. This is a new basis of competitiveness among organizations requiring that overly concentrated knowledge be distributed and that overly distributed knowledge be concentrated (first done with expert systems now done with internet knowledge markets and the like). Work and leadership functions delivered by events rather than processes or departments by allowing participants to be assigned to event workshops they fit and that stretch them, accelerate organizational learning as a natural by-product of how they work.

Social Indexing This is the number of interests, needs, capabilities of people we know and contact regularly that we know and use.

Typical people have social indexing rates of 4% or less (they know and use less than 4% of the interests, needs, and capabilities of people they know or contact regularly). Simply putting people into contact or together does not increase social indexing levels. Events, if designed so that emotive, rational, and interaction goals for each session are fulfilled, are intense enough that they expand social indexing levels faster and deeper than anything else we know.

Venture Cluster This is a generalization of Silicon Valley, California, copied around the world and inside large organizations.

It sees ventures businesses as events that arise in a churning ecosystem of intersecting ideas, careers, and technologies. In this way it is a model of processes punctuated by emergent events, and events as the frontier where new goals are transformed into processes and systems that enable their accomplishment.

Organizational Neurosis Every talent is a focus, hence, is the slighting of many goals and capabilities for the sake of developing a few.

There are immense costs, therefore, to every talent, forgotten in our human efforts to be positive and have confidence. Forgotten such costs get revenge on us as surprises and negative feedbacks disrupting our plans. Events by gathering slight, nascent, small things into large visible articulated intense concentrations, make forgotten costs, organizational and personal and professional neuroses, visible so we can arrange not to be harmed by them.

Tools for Effective Events Structural Cognition This is ordinary cognitive operators applied not to single or a few ideas but to large numbers of highly structured ideas, multiplying mental work done by 50 or more compared to usual folk cognition in society at large. As events evolve to take on more and more functions of work and leading, they become more highly structured on lower levels of detail, eventually applying structural cognition methods to replace folk cognition’s general discussion and PowerPoint presentation.

Mind Extension This is various tools outside our brains that make us smart.

It is not the questions you can answer immediately now that determine your intelligence to an organization but the questions you can answer tomorrow--that depends on the personal library, file system, network of friends who perform cognitive functions like editing for you, cognitive architecture, cognitive furniture, and cognitive apparel that you wear. These mind extensions mean that taking you away from home and office, by removing you from your customary mind extensions, actually makes you stupid. Events, if they are to use the actual intelligence of people participating in them, have to get participants to quickly develop new extensions of their own in the event and have to tap into extensions people had before the event, developed at home and office, perhaps by pre-work distilled into models or databases of certain sorts.

Social Simulation Knowing of a different framework is a lot different than actually imaginging it and using it.

Social simulations wherein people play the roles of other people, institutions, documents, events, transactions, particular views or values, or the like are a primary way to get people out of customary viewpoints and into actual use of rather different viewpoints. Events, because they are time limited, have to use the diversity in their participants quickly and effectively, therefore, social simulations as parts of workshop procedures are commonly used.

Social Virtuality Events that at first appear as just large collections of people and resources for particular purposes, as they evolve into tackling more challenging and complex functions, become more and more like entirely new businesses or organizations doing entirely different products or functions than usual ones. This raises the possibility of one workforce, by participating in various such events, being three or more entirely different companies at the same time. Social Neural Nets These are a particular way of organizing people in events where a perceptual layer hands results to an intermediate pattern recognition and pattern organizing layer which hands results off to an action-taking layer. They are one of seven general computation types from software than can take on socialware form in events.

Social Automata Automata are the most elemental thinkable computation system.

Recently other computation types have been expressed in automata form as a kind of most elemental perspective. Similarly, various complex forms of organizing humans have been seen as more elemental social automata with particular parameter settings for each. Events that need individual workshop groups organized in complex ways to implement sophisticated world best protocols taken from experts, can use social automata formats, as ways to organize workshop groups to do any of myriad more complex organization forms for executing particular protocols.

Cultures of Change Solution Culture All groups are willing to call “a solution” only things guaranteed to perpetuate their most fundamental limitations and problems (US “innovative” solutions to unequal schools, for example--any solution but something dealing with the basic financial inequality that sustains the problem). Workshop events that ignore this generate all sorts of creative solutions that never work. Workshop events that use this before solving anything characterize failure cultures that sustain problems and reverse their traits to come up with solution cultures whose traits must be conformed to by any solution that will really work.

Anthropology of Technologies, Products, and Markets All people and groups are blind to their own biases, limitations, neuroses, and alternatives

they were never exposed to while growing up. We all operate among stunted sets of alternatives, mistaking them for all the alternatives actually possible. Workshops of mass workshop events if they are to get people beyond past failings have to surface biases, limitations, and neuroses now hidden. Tools for characterizing fully the cultures of technologies, products, markets, persons, nations and the like help people see exactly what alternatives they have never seriously known or examined or lived or used.

Quality Globalizations ISO9000 and ISO14000 represent quality of production and quality of the earth intruding on what businesses can sell to customers.

There are eight other global quality-related movements each of which has a primary value that contends, competes with, those of the other movements. If workshop groups are not to break into competing factions and no-win negotiations with other workshop groups, a way to invent value-meshing practices that fulfill the primary values of all such competing quality-related movements has to be found and applied in event management.

Viral Change When workshop groups in events generate outputs, many such outputs propose ways of changing the world outside the event. The trouble is, most such change proposals require on-going large investments and flows of support from myriad institutions to get one sustained change established in the world. This discourages people who intuitively feel that any solution presupposing massive long term resource flows is an illusion unlikely to happen. Morale in events greatly lifts when workshop groups produce not such hackneyed solution proposals for change but clever viral change approaches wherein first units of a solution locally produce an excess of resources investable locally in extending the change there, such that new programs grow like viruses, living off the land locally, without massive long term flows of support from outside.

Page 5;

Copyright 2004 by Richard Tabor Greene, All Rights Reserved, US Government Registered

Self Development Businesses, workshops, and events tend to propose lots of changes in the world and lots of changes by others while proposing nearly no changes in we ourselves. This paradox--trying to change the world without changing yourself even a little--kills the effectiveness of most change proposals. People know this and morale in events is lowered whenever other-changes are proposed without commensurate self-changes. But exactly how and when do selves change? Event workshops, in order to plan realistic means of achieving change, have to have valid models of how we change our selves. Social Process Model If every group and society looks entirely different and if every workshop in an event has a different model of the functions and subdivisions of other societies and groups in the world, then there is not enough commonality among workshops for people to support and learn from each other’s work. It is vital that workshop in large events have some models all workshops share so they can understand each other’s work and learn from each other and fuse results into common strategies at event end. One such model is a model of functions shared by all social units--from boy scout troops to entire national economies--a model of social processes in any society, some of which may be formally recognized and supported and some of which may be slighted in any one society.

Psychology of Being Together Performance Performance has been stripped from ordinary lives by centralized elite media industries where rich talents and stars perform while billions of the rest of us just sit. Events are a primary way of restoring performance to ordinary lifes by providing regular audiences and unique contributions that hundreds of workshop participants can provide in performance form.

Influence Nothing is as deadly to creative work as imposition of a status hierarchy on a large group of people filling most of their events and times with ritual rank rehearsals instead of mission elaboration, invention, and execution. Anyone who has watched a business meeting of men, the first half of which gets inevitably filled with self importance displays and indirect fights over rank has imagined the productivity that would ensue if such time were somehow invested in doing actual work instead of status display work. Events congregate strangers in workshop groups, hence, tempt males into wasting huge amounts of time re-establishing how important they are. To head this off, events have to have whole repertoires of other ways to influence each other, available with people trained in them, if necessary, as a prelude to event participation. Leadership The most rigorous definition of leaders is they are people who make those around them into leaders. This can be witnessed concretely in Democratic Rules of Order, a way of conducting meetings, where the first agenda item of any meeting is group design of the agenda, with each participant assigned one meeting topic, after the agenda is designed, a way to treat that topic, an output to get from treating that topic that way, a time and duration limit. As the repertoire of ways to treat certain types of topics increases in the group meetings become better and better with all members, over time, mastering all treatments for all topic types--making everyone equally powerful as a leader of groups. Events that apply this metric of leadership quality substantially outperform events based on talent and elitist models of leading. Commonly this is achieved by assigning all existing leaders into consultant roles, with no speeches given, in events and the direct reports of such leaders arise as a new layer who actually leads events and event workshop and activities. Each event gives birth to a new layer of leadership in this way and seeing new faces up front becomes a major morale booster. Polis Each workshop is a story of struggle and conquest, victory and defeat. Each event is a larger scale such story. Each person’s attendance at a workshop or event is such a story. Events remember these stories from prior events, workshop, and persons attending. This means events become a vehicle for people becoming immortal via the story of their great words and deeds being spontaneously repeated from event to event for generations. Events that recognize this and support it with functions, event-lets in the event, and publishing build morale and invite all to compete in word and deed to impress history via event contribution quality. Social Taguchi Optimization of product designs is normal practice but similar optimization of social system, sales force, or organization designs is almost entirely unheard of. Taguchi optimization is a particularly efficient type of optimization of a system by systematic experimenting. It minimizes number of experiments by optimizing for more realistic performance (against variations actually encountered in use environments of a system) by optimizing to find flexibilities in designs (not “optimal” point values but ranges are sought) by optimizing away free energy in a design (rather than optimizing away things that customers see and are irritated by). Event designs as well as outputs of workshops in events both benefit from Taguchi optimization. Especially where many things interact, free energy can abound, leading to distraction, noise, and loss of morale--tight interfitting among workshops and workshop products greatly benefits events. Presentation by Environment Events communicate with individual workshops a lot of ways but one of the most important is by environments set up that workshops work in, walk through, hear, or participate in as sub-events within the event. Learning to communicate by erecting environments others adapt themselves to is not a natural process and has to be taught. Individual workshops too in designing interventions to change the world have to keep in mind that merely sending messages on the “right” channels does nearly nothing to handle mis-interpretation of message contents due to framework differences and the like.

Diverse Diversities to Leverage Impact Research Americans like research that is very intellectual captured by academic societies unconcerned with impacting the world.

Europeans like research that is very elite, driven by top professors who dictate what other professors do and pontificate in articles that may or may not follow any particular method of analysis. Asians like research that is personal learning, ignoring knowledge accumulated by the research of others in literatures. One can avoid the weaknesses of all three of these communities by employing unusually broad repertoires for specifying researchable questions, data collecting, and data analysis. Workshops in events typically need to quickly build comprehensive datasets on their topic areas so training in a repertoire of data gathering methods and data analysis approaches greatly improves the validity and credibility of their work.

Theory Power Though events that gather a lot of people from a lot of organizations and places have a lot of diversity within them, they lack huge amounts of diversity as well.

For both the diversity actually within them and the diversity without that they lack awareness of or access to, they suffer another problem--inability to spot and use the diversity actually there. It takes many diverse frameworks, applied to any one case, to reveal lots of phenomena in the case unseeable via other and more pedestrian frameworks. Truth is, events need well developed highly diverse repertoires of diverse theories made appliable by being in the same format of expression.

Successful Global Assignment Viewpoint People attending Managing by Events events are in another world, a different culture, indeed, a collection of different cultures. Handling yourself well in such intense, diverse, disciplined events is a challenge. The individual person participating in events benefits from knowing how successful people adapt to global assignments in any field.

Art Purposes People have powerful drives to hide their own weaknesses, doubts, errors, flaws, motives, and the like. This turns daily work and life into illusions, manipulations, mystifications, and other subterfuges. The gradual inevitable cumulation of such distortions of reality eventually kills people, careers, and organizations. Art is one of the few tools we have that allow us to talk honestly to others, revealing rather than concealing faults, admitting selfish manipulative goals and methods rather than pretending we are nice, assessing realistically our modest abilities and accomplishments instead of exaggerating them to self and others to impress. Events lack all honesty and emotional realilty unless arts are powerfully used as weapons against human self importance exaggeration and denial of fault. Dimensions of Culture We are poor at seeing differences accurately.

We assimilate otherness too readily and automatically, unthinkingly, to our favored, habitual viewpoints. Hence, diversity encountered, if it is not to become diversity assimilated away, has to be exactly represented in a format that forces us continually to see its otherness and use that otherness. Models of dimensions of culture allow us to characterize what is different about another personality, nationality, era, profession, organization, product, technology and the like. Such models are essential if events are to leverage the diversity they contain.

The Insight Process and Other Creativity Models Just about every workshop group in every event design is assigned to invent or create something beyond all past practice. Creativity is so central to event management that particular models of the insight process can be the basis of all workshop procedures in large diverse events. Additional models of the steps of becoming a creator, the steps of creating across many fields, and the different models of ways to create used by diverse sorts of creators also become a solid basis for workshop procedure design.

Re-engineering The New Materials Viewpoint Much that workshop groups in events do is updating the world to take advantage of new social and technical materials for doing work functions. This traditional part of re-engineering is normal work for most workshop groups in events. The issue is just what are the new social materials for doing work functions now available? Just what are the new technical such materials? Having a model of these materials greatly accelerates workshop procedures and greatly improves quality of workshop outcomes by allowing fast comprehensive consideration of hard to think of alternatives to present materials supporting work functions.

The Cognitive Technologies Viewpoint Among such new materials, cognitive technologies stand out.

More and more tools for enhancing particular human cognitive operations are being developed and deployed. There are so many such tools, at some many diverse price points and performance levels that a model organizing them all for consideration greatly improves workshop performance in events.

The New Assumptions Viewpoint One reason inventing, discovering, and creating are so rare and done well by so few is the difficulty ordinary humans have in seeing assumptions they were born into, instilled in them while growing up. What makes an assumption an “assumption” for us is this inability we have to know we are assuming it. Ways to make evident assumptions that up to now in life we have not realized were operating in us are vital to getting workshops to the point of being actually creative instead of creative feeling.

The Total and Global Quality Viewpoint Perhaps the most successful global movement in history was the total quality movement, now transforming itself into a global quality movement. It had sets of defined tools, structured analysis processes for meetings to apply, ways to change entire organizations to do quality, specific measures of quality to implement and measure success by. In other words, compared to other movements for change, it was comprehensive in its tooling and steadfast in maintaining the discipline of its methods of work. When workshops in events propose and specify ways to change the world or improve parts of it, their work cannot gain respect, adherence, and implementation support unless it at least attains the bar of excellence set by the total and global quality movements.

The Core Processes Viewpoint Re-engineering done in thousands of firm, and total quality management of processes done in millions of firms have gradually produced a model of core processes without which any organization is likely to fail. These core processes are a powerful check when designing events and when workshops in events design their own outputs.

Cognitive Protocols as Processes Expert system builders some decades ago went around the world finding experts, and interviewing them intensely, asking every 15 seconds what was on their mind as they solved some tough problem. Transcripts were re-written in terms of standard operators and operands that the expert repeatedly employed. Software to execute the least creative parts of those transcripts was built, tested, and employed. In this way cognitive processes deep enough in the mind that the experts themselves were unaware of them and unable to articulate them, became embedded in software that thousands of other people used. The internet, groupware, work coordination, cellular communications, supports for communities of practice, knowledge base markets, and a host of other recent technical innovations have intensified this trend of making work processes more cognitive and less phys-

Page 6;

Copyright 2004 by Richard Tabor Greene, All Rights Reserved, US Government Registered

ical. Events span the whole spectrum with some work events getting workshops to physically build or move things and other getting people to create a database by interviewing competitors or customers. Yet, more and more, events too, are having to handle more cognitive things in more cognitively intense ways. Best practices, taken from interviewed experts, often become workshop procedures in events. Skill at getting deeply inside the mind protocol steps in such interviews, and hence, in such workshop steps, is critical to event success in more and more cases.

Orthogonal Disciplines What determines who performs best in any traditional field? It is the educatedness, effectiveness, creativity, diversity handling, complexity handling, error handling, career design, leadership, artfulness and similar abilities that drive people in biology, law, engineering, venture business establishment, government policy making and all other traditional fields to excellence and accomplishment. These determinants of success in any traditional field are called “orthogonal disciplines” because they cut across all traditional fields and determine success in them. Since events inevitably are organized in order to get high performance in one or more traditional fields, attention in events to the orthogonal disciplines, is vital to event success.

The Educatedness Viewpoint Events combining diverse people normally dispersed have to establish norms of conduct sufficient to prevent the most bad-minded and uncouth from driving others away or demoralizing them. A model of behavior of highly educated people is one such norm that can usefully be employed as a required standard of conduct in all events. Gradually more and more sophisticated methods for rendering the dimensions of educated behavior in the model can be employed in successive events, raising the bar, improving the standard for all.

The Effectiveness Viewpoint What do effective people in every field do that less effective people do not do?

Every workshop groups wants to know this and apply it to make their own work effective. A model of particular methods employed by highly diverse groups of effective people for doing highly diverse functions in work and life helps events attain robust outputs and quality.

The Diversity Handling Viewpoint What do the people in the world who face the most diverse types of diversity do to get benefit from that encounter rather than suffering harms from it? Workshop groups in events combining diverse people, functions, and organizations want to know the answer to this question. They have particular types of diversity to handle and want to know how others get benefits from such handling instead of costs.

The Complexity Handling Viewpoint There are non-linearities in our world that cause the simple linear models we use to expose us to unpleasant even disastrous surprises. Updating our models so they are non-linear too can reduce such surprises and enable us to handle them better. Events are non-linear interactions of populations of autonomous workshop groups. The world workshop wish to build things to influence and handle is non-linear too. Therefore a model of non-linearity types and dynamics helps both event management and workshop output designs.

The Systems Effects Handling Viewpoint Among the non-linearities in the world that events and workshop must handle are system effects.

In fact, “system effects” is just a common term for all such non-linearities that people encounter. A model of how many types of such non-linearity that there are and how they appear in various aspects of life greatly helps event management and workshop output design.

The Career Dynamics Viewpoint People attending any event are more interested in the future prospects of their career than in any workshop topic or method.

It is important to remember this when designing events and workshops. Only when event and workshop themes harness power already invested by individuals in their own careers can they do good work. A model of career dynamics helps designers of events and of event workshops to link event and workshop procedural contents to particular career concerns and dynamics of participants, making emotive power and investment of interest more likely.

Towards a Theory of Events--Some Initial Exploratory Hypotheses The rise of events as a viable way to deliver functions hitherto fore delivered by process or department, is new, with a history of between 40 and 15 years depending on how you define this phenomenon. There has been, as of this writing, no formal research on this. Of course there has been all sorts of research on certain sorts of conferences and exhibitions, but none of this prior work looked at the issue of delivering arbitrary leadership and work functions in event form. A start is using the frameworks presented above in this paper to explore hypotheses like the following.

Initial Hypotheses for Exploring Expansion of Work Functions Done in Event Form and Corresponding Evolution in Event Contents Reasons to Move a Function to Event Form

Evolution of Event Content

Theory and Practice Issues to Be Resolved by Further Research

1) work functions experiencing more and/or larger changes in technology will use event forms more than other work functions

11) The forms of human interaction in events will become more designed, designated, partial, and computer-like over time

21) how does traditional management reform itself to validly or invalidly transfer itself to managing events instead of usual work forms?

2) organizations with more advanced and/or successful just-in-time inventory systems will use event forms more than other organizations do

12) More of the management functions of events will be done in event form over time

22) exactly how do events that turn existing leaders into mere consultants differ from events that allow existing leaders to lead speeches and workshops?

3) organizations with longer and/or deeper experience implementing just-intime inventory systems will use event forms more than others

13) More events will be used to deliver management functions to non-event forms of work over time

23) what is the optimal number, quality, and type of events needed to allow internet distributed workteams to coordinate well?

4) organizations whose own technical bases involve decentralized software regimes will use event forms more than organizations without such constituents in their technical base

14) One workforce will become more than one organization by multi-tasking among organization forms on a daily or weekly or monthly basis over time

24) what aspects of performance are first to degrade and which degrade fastest when minimal levels of event support of a geographically distributed workteam or internet mediated workteam are not met? why?

5) more global organizations will use event forms more than less global forms of the same business or function

15) More processes will be deployed in designed cascades across organizations and sets of organizations over time

25) events that fractally embed fundamental transformation processes compared to events that do not, differ how?

6) more internetted organizations will use event forms more than less internetted forms of the same business or function

16) Sources of diversity will become more explicitly used in event protocols over time

26) what is the exact type and amount and quality of social indexing delivered by one event of a certain type and design?

7) organization whose products of work are more cognitive will use more event forms than others

17) Intimate, emotive, personal, social, transcendent aspects of human relation will increase in event contents over time

27) what are the differences in results, quality, and cost of a work function delivered by event, by process, and by department?

8) organizations more deeply investing in network marketing systems and approaches will use more event forms than others

18) Events will intensity togetherness and isolation both more and more over time

28) what are the sources of human resisting performing designed partial functions in expert workshop designs and how best are such resistances overcome?

9) organizations having greater intrapreneur interest, investment, and experience will use more event forms than others.

19) People will be assigned roles in event beyond what their talents and wants call for over time

29) are workshops that put people into designed partial functional roles that irritate those people superior in results to ones that do not, how, and vice versa?

10) which traditional management functions are first delivered by event, which last, why? first functions eventized are large in time scale topics done by large in size scale audiences; next are small time scale topics done by large size scale audiences; next are large time scale topics done by small size scale audiences.

20) Ordinary ventures and projects and teams will take on more event characteristics over time.

30) can events be used to allow one workforce to simultaneously be two or more different organizations in entirely different industries? how?

References Books under the following categories in the bibliography (my 4000 favorite books listed as www.pdfcoke.com) Basics of Social Psych Event & Performance Design (you design and hold two new event types) Information Design (you invent two new information designs) Societies Creating and Creating Society Algorithms of Creation Mass Producing Creativity Creating Communities and Communities Creating Conditions and Situations of Creating Communication and Media Theory (plus Social Psych Influence books at left) Organization Theory Basics Group and Organization Dynamics Networks The Enlightenment as Stage of History and Stage in Individual Psychic Development Demystification Theories Demystification of Gender, Religion, Self Control Demystification of Selves, Professions, Nationality Demystification of Jobs, Careers, Lifestyles, Eras Education Theory for Higher Education Complexity Theory The Philosophy of Complex Systems