Sign in or 
Share this
Celebrating the 20th Anniversary of CWA Ltd
In Celebration of the 20th Anniversary of CWA Ltd (1989-2009)
CWA Ltd is celebrating its 20th anniversary this year. It was established in 1989, when Dr. Christakis left the faculty of George Mason University, where he was the Director of the Center for Interactive Management, and decided to test the application of the structured dialogue process, which was up to this point developed in think tanks and academic institutions, in the field of practice. In the ensuing twenty years the process evolved through applications with a variety of commercial clients such as pharmaceutical companies in the Philadelphia corridor, nuclear power plants like the Niagara Mohawk corporation in New York state, and many information technology (IT) companies, as well as government agencies and non-profits, both nationally and internationally. In celebration of the 20th Anniversary of the CWA we present below passages describing the origins and evolution of the Structured Dialogic Design Process (SDD) for the last 40 years.
Structured Dialogic Design Process
The Structured Dialogic Design (SDD) is a rigorously-validated methodology for dialogic design, which integrates knowledge from mixed participants in strategic design settings. SDD is especially effective in resolving multiple conflicts of purpose and values, and in generating consensus on organizational and inter-organizational strategy, encouraging innovation and preventing groupthink. SDD efficiently enables democratic redesign of socio-organizational systems and practices based upon a dialogic process that consolidates power relationships into consensus agreement for effective cross-functional collaborative action.
Methodology for Dialogic Design
The SDD methodology engages diverse groups of stakeholders in a series of structured dialogues for collaboratively developing: 1) a shared understanding of a problem space, 2) a prescriptive designed solution based on patterns emerging from dialogue, and 3) an action plan for effective fulfillment of consensus goals. SDD can be considered a methodology for dialogic design, the scientific application of dialogue and linguistic principles applied following rigorous techniques toward the purpose of consensus design of a social systems solution. While most SDD dialogues have application in complex problem solving and strategic decision making, the orientation of dialogue toward a prescriptive, designed total systems solution is unique to dialogic design. The SDD method for structured dialogic design facilitates the integration of collective intelligence while avoiding the groupthink that emerges in closed strategy and organizational design projects. Dialogic design, or strategic dialogue (de Haas and Kleingeld, 1999) has been adapted in decision making, internal and market strategy, and organizational performance settings. Other dialogic design methodologies include Interactive Management, and to some extent, approaches that combine generative and strategic dialogue (Banathy, 1997).
Origins
SDD is a deeply-reasoned, scientific, psychosocial methodology that has evolved from over 40 years of development to its current implementation as a software-supported process for large-scale, collaborative design. The need for such an approach was first envisioned by systems thinkers in the Club of Rome (Ozbekhan, 1969, 1970), and systematically refined through years of deployment in Interactive Management (IM), to emerge as methodically grounded dialogue practice that now is supported by software specifically designed for the purpose (e.g., Cognisystem). Interactive Management, originally developed by John Warfield and Alexander Christakis in the early 1970’s (Christakis, 1973; Warfield & Cardenas, 1994), has evolved into its third generation as SDD. IM developed from the needs identified in dialogues such as the Delos conversations and the organizing discussions of the Club of Rome. In these unstructured dialogues, leading thinkers with good intentions, diverse points of view, and differing expertise came together to address shared complex situations or problematique (Christakis 1988, 2005; Christakis & Bausch 2007). Almost inevitably, these high-minded meetings resulted in a Babel rather than agreement, because participants generated discourse from divergent vocabularies, expressed their problems and thinking from different ontological bases, and failed to coordinate perspectives to reach agreement on action and outcome. IM promised to resolve these issues by providing a language and common ontological structure for generating a common set of distinctions and agreements. By establishing joint reference points in a structured inquiry, and proceeding with a democratic dialogue that conserved authenticity, SDD (as well as IM) produces a unique means of mapping shared group intentions from the content of facilitated dialogue.
Warfield and Christakis believed that democratic decision-making in such complex situations could be made effective, given appropriate discipline. They constructed a methodology that invited participation from all relevant stakeholders, honored their autonomy, and generated consensus results in a reasonable amount of time (Warfield & Cardenas, 1994). This methodology (IM) encouraged participants to express themselves freely and led them to respect and understand each other. It avoided spreadthink and groupthink (Warfield, 1993). It enabled stakeholders to avoid the erroneous priorities effect (Schreibman & Christakis, 2006) in which people jump to action on the basis of what they agree are the most important issues before they discover what the most influential issues are (Dye & Conaway, 1999). IM has been successfully applied hundreds of times in scores of countries involving businesses, governments, NGOs, and international organizations. From 1989 till the present, Christakis has deployed IM commercially with the CogniScope method and software application in his consultancy, CWA Ltd. In February 2006, Christakis and Bausch published How People Harness their Collective Wisdom and Power (See harnessingcollectivewisdom.com). The revised Interactive Management/CogniScope process is now referred to as the Structured Design Process (SDD).
Descriptive and Prescriptive Dialogue
A Cartesian, positivist epistemology originally influenced the IM methodology, investing its structured model with a rationalist (e.g., Whitehead and Russell) and somewhat deterministic approach. Accordingly, it was early employed as a descriptive methodology for technological problems. In contrast to this epistemology, the practice of SDD is social, participatory, and consensual. It was learned from practice that SDD needs to be open to intentions, intuition, and individual expression. Addressing this contradiction between theory and practice, Christakis and Shearer (1997) advanced the integration of Habermas’ theory of communicative action within IM, as a turn toward reconciling the complexities inherent in participatory group planning. Communicative action instilled a fundamental shift in emphasis, toward the “emancipatory intent” (Habermas, 1987), an orientation toward bringing about change in social power distribution through linguistic process. With the accommodations of the IM methodology in the SDD process to address both intention and objective fact, SDD is both powerful and liberating because it provides a prescriptive reflection of intentions that are informed largely, but not dogmatically, by fact. The well-validated descriptive methodology inherent in SDD finds higher value as a powerful prescriptive tool. The key metric for assessing the power of a prescriptive tool is the extent to which its recommendations are implemented, and the extent to which those implemented recommendations do lead to the desired end result. Guiding Principles Christakis streamlined IM, identified its guiding principles, and developed a flexible architecture. The architecture is composed of 31 component constructs, some adapted from prior applications and some originally developed for use in dialogue:
7 language patterns (1970-1989) · 3 application time phases (1989-2001) · 3 key role responsibilities (1982-2002) · 4 stages of interactive inquiry (1989-1995) · Collaborative software and facility (1981-1995) · 7 Dialogue Laws (2001-2006).
The six laws of SDD are comprised of the following principles, recognized by name of their originators: ·
Ashby’s Law of Requisite Variety (Ashby, 1958) asserts that a design must possess an amount of variety that is at least equal to the variety in the problem situation. One demand of this law in a social decision-making situation is that all the relevant interests, points of view, and stakeholders be represented. ·
Miller’s Law of Requisite Parsimony (Miller, 1956; Warfield, 1988) asserts that human beings can deal simultaneously with only five to nine observations at one time. As a consequence, in any social system design situation, however complex, the design should not require the designers to deal with more than nine items simultaneously and usually should involve fewer. ·
Boulding’s Law of Requisite Saliency (Boulding, 1966) refers to the range of importance that people assign to observations relative to other observations. It requires that good designs (1) highlight the different ways that group members judge the saliency of design options, and (2) provide specific ways to reach consensual accommodation about relative importance. ·
Peirce’s Law of Requisite Meaning (Turrisi, 1997) expresses in explicit terms the objective of inquiry and design: to discover the essence of problem situations and to plan desirable futures for communities of stakeholders. ·
Tsivacou’s Law of Requisite Autonomy in Decision-Making asserts that power in the design situation derives to the person who makes the distinctions adopted by the group. It says, “Independent of their social status and role, those who control the information distnctions in a given situation acquire power and restrict the autonomy of others (Tsivacou, 1997). A corollary of this law demands that all participants must have an equal opportunity to explain their ideas and experience. ·
Dye’s Law of Requisite Evolution of Observations (Dye, 1999) was recently discovered and substantiated. It states that people fall guilty of the erroneous priorities effect when they focus their activity on the action needs in a situation that they agree to be most important. Voting on the basis of importance does not get to the roots of a problem where leverage can be properly applied. To get to those roots a group has to determine the relative influence.
Laouris' Law of Requisite Action (Laouris, 2006) asserts that any social system design plans constructed without the authentic engagement of the stakeholders are enethical and are bound to fail.
SDD determines the influence and finds the leverage points using the Interpretive Structural Modeling (ISM) method invented by John Warfield. Basically, this method involves questions of paired factors on the basis of questions like:
If we were able to do Factor A,
would that significantly help us do Factor B?
And vice-versa, if we do B, will that help us do A?
The Interpretive Structural Modeling (ISM) algorithm (credited to Warfield and developed collaboratively at George Mason University in the 1970’s) was the core routine used in the original IM process. Using a paired-factor matrix relationship, each contributed factor in dialogue is related to each other factor, using the ISM inference engine to minimize the number of actual comparisons in voting and to keep track of the long and deep logic that links the multiple decisions made concerning those factors. Influence relations selected by the ISM algorithm build a directional mapping of alternatives, which is represented graphically as an influence tree (see, e.g., http://www.globalagoras.org/old_news.html).
Co-Laboratory and WebScope
SDD has two principal modalities: face-to-face Co-Laboratories and at-a-distance WebScopes. Co-Laboratories are facilitated, synchronous, and face-to-face (F2F), using an onsite facilitation team and the SDD methodology. They are ideal for situations involving diverse stakeholders, power differentials and comlwz issues requiring relationship and trust building. WebScopes are moderated, facilitated by SDD software, and use the Internet. The generative rounds are asynchronous and use a wiki site. The convergent ISM round is synchronous using Web conferencing. WebScope is especially effective for groups with share context (such as project teams).
Further Readings and References
Ashby, R. (1958). Requisite Variety and Its Implications for the Control of Complex Systems, Cybernetica, 1(2), pp.1-17 Banathy, B.H. (1996). Designing social systems in a changing world. New York: Plenum Press. Boulding, K. (1966). The Impact of Social Sciences, New Brunswick: Rutgers University Press.
Christakis, A. N. (1973). A New Policy Science Paradigm, Futures, 5(6), pp. 543-558.
Christakis, A. N. (1988). The Club of Rome revisited in: General Systems. W. J. Reckmeyer (ed.), International Society for the Systems Sciences, Vol. XXXI, pp. 35-38, New York.
Christakis, A.N. and Bausch, K.C. (2006). How people harness their collective wisdom and power to construct the future in Co-Laboratories of Democracy. Greenwich, CN: Information Age Publishers.
Christakis, A.N. & Shearer, W. L. (1997). Collaboration through communicative action: Resolving the systems dilemma through the Cogniscope system approach. Philadelphia: CWA, Ltd.
de Haas, M & Kleingeld, A. (1999). Multilevel design of performance measurement systems: Enhancing strategic dialogue throughout the organization. Management Accounting Research, 10, 233-261.
Dye, K. M. and Conaway D. S. (1999). Lessons Learned from Five Years of Application of the CogniScopeÔ Approach to the Food and Drug Administration, CWA Report, Interactive Management Consultants, Paoli, Pennsylvania.
Habermas, J. (1987). The philosophical discourse of modernity. (F. G. Laurence, Trans.), Cambridge: The MIT Press. (Original Work published 1985).
Miller, G. A. (1956). The Magical Number Seven, Plus or Minus Two: Some Limitations on Our Capacity for Processing Information, Psychology Review 63, pp. 81-97.
Ozbekhan, H. (1969). Towards a general theory of planning. In E. Jantsch (ed.), Perspectives of planning. Paris: OECD Publications.
Ozbekhan, H. (1970). On some of the fundamental problems in planning. Technological Forecasting, 1 (3), 235-240.
Schreibman, V. and Christakis, A.N. (2006). New technology of democracy: The structured design dialogue process. http://www.harnessingcollectivewisdom.com/pdf/newagora.pdf
Tsivacou, I. (1997). The Rationality of Distinctions and the Emergence of Power: A Critical Systems Perspective of Power in Organizations, Systems Research and Behavioral Science, 14, pp. 21-34.
Turrisi, P.A., (Ed.) (1997). Pragmatism as a Principle and Method of Right Thinking, State University of New York Press.
Warfield, J.N. (1988). The Magical Number Three, Plus or Minus Zero, Cybernetics and Systems, 19, pp. 339-358.
Warfield, J. N., and Cardenas, A. R. (1994). A Handbook of Interactive Management, Iowa State University Press, Ames, 1994.
Warfield, J.N. and Teigen, C. (1993). Groupthink, Clanthink, Spreadthink, and Linkthink: Decision-Making on Complex Issues in Organizations 4-5, 31 (Institute for Advanced Study of the Integrative Sciences, George Mason University).
CWA Ltd is celebrating its 20th anniversary this year. It was established in 1989, when Dr. Christakis left the faculty of George Mason University, where he was the Director of the Center for Interactive Management, and decided to test the application of the structured dialogue process, which was up to this point developed in think tanks and academic institutions, in the field of practice. In the ensuing twenty years the process evolved through applications with a variety of commercial clients such as pharmaceutical companies in the Philadelphia corridor, nuclear power plants like the Niagara Mohawk corporation in New York state, and many information technology (IT) companies, as well as government agencies and non-profits, both nationally and internationally. In celebration of the 20th Anniversary of the CWA we present below passages describing the origins and evolution of the Structured Dialogic Design Process (SDD) for the last 40 years.
Structured Dialogic Design Process
The Structured Dialogic Design (SDD) is a rigorously-validated methodology for dialogic design, which integrates knowledge from mixed participants in strategic design settings. SDD is especially effective in resolving multiple conflicts of purpose and values, and in generating consensus on organizational and inter-organizational strategy, encouraging innovation and preventing groupthink. SDD efficiently enables democratic redesign of socio-organizational systems and practices based upon a dialogic process that consolidates power relationships into consensus agreement for effective cross-functional collaborative action.
Methodology for Dialogic Design
The SDD methodology engages diverse groups of stakeholders in a series of structured dialogues for collaboratively developing: 1) a shared understanding of a problem space, 2) a prescriptive designed solution based on patterns emerging from dialogue, and 3) an action plan for effective fulfillment of consensus goals. SDD can be considered a methodology for dialogic design, the scientific application of dialogue and linguistic principles applied following rigorous techniques toward the purpose of consensus design of a social systems solution. While most SDD dialogues have application in complex problem solving and strategic decision making, the orientation of dialogue toward a prescriptive, designed total systems solution is unique to dialogic design. The SDD method for structured dialogic design facilitates the integration of collective intelligence while avoiding the groupthink that emerges in closed strategy and organizational design projects. Dialogic design, or strategic dialogue (de Haas and Kleingeld, 1999) has been adapted in decision making, internal and market strategy, and organizational performance settings. Other dialogic design methodologies include Interactive Management, and to some extent, approaches that combine generative and strategic dialogue (Banathy, 1997).
Origins
SDD is a deeply-reasoned, scientific, psychosocial methodology that has evolved from over 40 years of development to its current implementation as a software-supported process for large-scale, collaborative design. The need for such an approach was first envisioned by systems thinkers in the Club of Rome (Ozbekhan, 1969, 1970), and systematically refined through years of deployment in Interactive Management (IM), to emerge as methodically grounded dialogue practice that now is supported by software specifically designed for the purpose (e.g., Cognisystem). Interactive Management, originally developed by John Warfield and Alexander Christakis in the early 1970’s (Christakis, 1973; Warfield & Cardenas, 1994), has evolved into its third generation as SDD. IM developed from the needs identified in dialogues such as the Delos conversations and the organizing discussions of the Club of Rome. In these unstructured dialogues, leading thinkers with good intentions, diverse points of view, and differing expertise came together to address shared complex situations or problematique (Christakis 1988, 2005; Christakis & Bausch 2007). Almost inevitably, these high-minded meetings resulted in a Babel rather than agreement, because participants generated discourse from divergent vocabularies, expressed their problems and thinking from different ontological bases, and failed to coordinate perspectives to reach agreement on action and outcome. IM promised to resolve these issues by providing a language and common ontological structure for generating a common set of distinctions and agreements. By establishing joint reference points in a structured inquiry, and proceeding with a democratic dialogue that conserved authenticity, SDD (as well as IM) produces a unique means of mapping shared group intentions from the content of facilitated dialogue.
Warfield and Christakis believed that democratic decision-making in such complex situations could be made effective, given appropriate discipline. They constructed a methodology that invited participation from all relevant stakeholders, honored their autonomy, and generated consensus results in a reasonable amount of time (Warfield & Cardenas, 1994). This methodology (IM) encouraged participants to express themselves freely and led them to respect and understand each other. It avoided spreadthink and groupthink (Warfield, 1993). It enabled stakeholders to avoid the erroneous priorities effect (Schreibman & Christakis, 2006) in which people jump to action on the basis of what they agree are the most important issues before they discover what the most influential issues are (Dye & Conaway, 1999). IM has been successfully applied hundreds of times in scores of countries involving businesses, governments, NGOs, and international organizations. From 1989 till the present, Christakis has deployed IM commercially with the CogniScope method and software application in his consultancy, CWA Ltd. In February 2006, Christakis and Bausch published How People Harness their Collective Wisdom and Power (See harnessingcollectivewisdom.com). The revised Interactive Management/CogniScope process is now referred to as the Structured Design Process (SDD).
Descriptive and Prescriptive Dialogue
A Cartesian, positivist epistemology originally influenced the IM methodology, investing its structured model with a rationalist (e.g., Whitehead and Russell) and somewhat deterministic approach. Accordingly, it was early employed as a descriptive methodology for technological problems. In contrast to this epistemology, the practice of SDD is social, participatory, and consensual. It was learned from practice that SDD needs to be open to intentions, intuition, and individual expression. Addressing this contradiction between theory and practice, Christakis and Shearer (1997) advanced the integration of Habermas’ theory of communicative action within IM, as a turn toward reconciling the complexities inherent in participatory group planning. Communicative action instilled a fundamental shift in emphasis, toward the “emancipatory intent” (Habermas, 1987), an orientation toward bringing about change in social power distribution through linguistic process. With the accommodations of the IM methodology in the SDD process to address both intention and objective fact, SDD is both powerful and liberating because it provides a prescriptive reflection of intentions that are informed largely, but not dogmatically, by fact. The well-validated descriptive methodology inherent in SDD finds higher value as a powerful prescriptive tool. The key metric for assessing the power of a prescriptive tool is the extent to which its recommendations are implemented, and the extent to which those implemented recommendations do lead to the desired end result. Guiding Principles Christakis streamlined IM, identified its guiding principles, and developed a flexible architecture. The architecture is composed of 31 component constructs, some adapted from prior applications and some originally developed for use in dialogue:
The six laws of SDD are comprised of the following principles, recognized by name of their originators: ·
Ashby’s Law of Requisite Variety (Ashby, 1958) asserts that a design must possess an amount of variety that is at least equal to the variety in the problem situation. One demand of this law in a social decision-making situation is that all the relevant interests, points of view, and stakeholders be represented. ·
Miller’s Law of Requisite Parsimony (Miller, 1956; Warfield, 1988) asserts that human beings can deal simultaneously with only five to nine observations at one time. As a consequence, in any social system design situation, however complex, the design should not require the designers to deal with more than nine items simultaneously and usually should involve fewer. ·
Boulding’s Law of Requisite Saliency (Boulding, 1966) refers to the range of importance that people assign to observations relative to other observations. It requires that good designs (1) highlight the different ways that group members judge the saliency of design options, and (2) provide specific ways to reach consensual accommodation about relative importance. ·
Peirce’s Law of Requisite Meaning (Turrisi, 1997) expresses in explicit terms the objective of inquiry and design: to discover the essence of problem situations and to plan desirable futures for communities of stakeholders. ·
Tsivacou’s Law of Requisite Autonomy in Decision-Making asserts that power in the design situation derives to the person who makes the distinctions adopted by the group. It says, “Independent of their social status and role, those who control the information distnctions in a given situation acquire power and restrict the autonomy of others (Tsivacou, 1997). A corollary of this law demands that all participants must have an equal opportunity to explain their ideas and experience. ·
Dye’s Law of Requisite Evolution of Observations (Dye, 1999) was recently discovered and substantiated. It states that people fall guilty of the erroneous priorities effect when they focus their activity on the action needs in a situation that they agree to be most important. Voting on the basis of importance does not get to the roots of a problem where leverage can be properly applied. To get to those roots a group has to determine the relative influence.
Laouris' Law of Requisite Action (Laouris, 2006) asserts that any social system design plans constructed without the authentic engagement of the stakeholders are enethical and are bound to fail.
SDD determines the influence and finds the leverage points using the Interpretive Structural Modeling (ISM) method invented by John Warfield. Basically, this method involves questions of paired factors on the basis of questions like:
If we were able to do Factor A,
would that significantly help us do Factor B?
And vice-versa, if we do B, will that help us do A?
The Interpretive Structural Modeling (ISM) algorithm (credited to Warfield and developed collaboratively at George Mason University in the 1970’s) was the core routine used in the original IM process. Using a paired-factor matrix relationship, each contributed factor in dialogue is related to each other factor, using the ISM inference engine to minimize the number of actual comparisons in voting and to keep track of the long and deep logic that links the multiple decisions made concerning those factors. Influence relations selected by the ISM algorithm build a directional mapping of alternatives, which is represented graphically as an influence tree (see, e.g., http://www.globalagoras.org/old_news.html).
Co-Laboratory and WebScope
SDD has two principal modalities: face-to-face Co-Laboratories and at-a-distance WebScopes. Co-Laboratories are facilitated, synchronous, and face-to-face (F2F), using an onsite facilitation team and the SDD methodology. They are ideal for situations involving diverse stakeholders, power differentials and comlwz issues requiring relationship and trust building. WebScopes are moderated, facilitated by SDD software, and use the Internet. The generative rounds are asynchronous and use a wiki site. The convergent ISM round is synchronous using Web conferencing. WebScope is especially effective for groups with share context (such as project teams).
Further Readings and References
Ashby, R. (1958). Requisite Variety and Its Implications for the Control of Complex Systems, Cybernetica, 1(2), pp.1-17 Banathy, B.H. (1996). Designing social systems in a changing world. New York: Plenum Press. Boulding, K. (1966). The Impact of Social Sciences, New Brunswick: Rutgers University Press.
Christakis, A. N. (1973). A New Policy Science Paradigm, Futures, 5(6), pp. 543-558.
Christakis, A. N. (1988). The Club of Rome revisited in: General Systems. W. J. Reckmeyer (ed.), International Society for the Systems Sciences, Vol. XXXI, pp. 35-38, New York.
Christakis, A.N. and Bausch, K.C. (2006). How people harness their collective wisdom and power to construct the future in Co-Laboratories of Democracy. Greenwich, CN: Information Age Publishers.
Christakis, A.N. & Shearer, W. L. (1997). Collaboration through communicative action: Resolving the systems dilemma through the Cogniscope system approach. Philadelphia: CWA, Ltd.
de Haas, M & Kleingeld, A. (1999). Multilevel design of performance measurement systems: Enhancing strategic dialogue throughout the organization. Management Accounting Research, 10, 233-261.
Dye, K. M. and Conaway D. S. (1999). Lessons Learned from Five Years of Application of the CogniScopeÔ Approach to the Food and Drug Administration, CWA Report, Interactive Management Consultants, Paoli, Pennsylvania.
Habermas, J. (1987). The philosophical discourse of modernity. (F. G. Laurence, Trans.), Cambridge: The MIT Press. (Original Work published 1985).
Miller, G. A. (1956). The Magical Number Seven, Plus or Minus Two: Some Limitations on Our Capacity for Processing Information, Psychology Review 63, pp. 81-97.
Ozbekhan, H. (1969). Towards a general theory of planning. In E. Jantsch (ed.), Perspectives of planning. Paris: OECD Publications.
Ozbekhan, H. (1970). On some of the fundamental problems in planning. Technological Forecasting, 1 (3), 235-240.
Schreibman, V. and Christakis, A.N. (2006). New technology of democracy: The structured design dialogue process. http://www.harnessingcollectivewisdom.com/pdf/newagora.pdf
Tsivacou, I. (1997). The Rationality of Distinctions and the Emergence of Power: A Critical Systems Perspective of Power in Organizations, Systems Research and Behavioral Science, 14, pp. 21-34.
Turrisi, P.A., (Ed.) (1997). Pragmatism as a Principle and Method of Right Thinking, State University of New York Press.
Warfield, J.N. (1988). The Magical Number Three, Plus or Minus Zero, Cybernetics and Systems, 19, pp. 339-358.
Warfield, J. N., and Cardenas, A. R. (1994). A Handbook of Interactive Management, Iowa State University Press, Ames, 1994.
Warfield, J.N. and Teigen, C. (1993). Groupthink, Clanthink, Spreadthink, and Linkthink: Decision-Making on Complex Issues in Organizations 4-5, 31 (Institute for Advanced Study of the Integrative Sciences, George Mason University).
gunderwood |
Latest page update: made by gunderwood
, Mar 2 2009, 6:58 PM EST
(about this update
About This Update
Moved from: Challenges to Bottom-up Democracy
- gunderwood
No content added or deleted. - complete history) |
|
Keyword tags:
None
More Info: links to this page
|
There are no threads for this page.
Be the first to start a new thread.
