มาลดอายุเฉลี่ยของกรรมการชาติกันเถอะ?

จริงๆควรจะมีกฏหมายที่กำหนดค่าเฉลี่ยเมื่อหารอายุรวมของกรรมการสำคัญๆ ของชาติไหมเนี้ย เพื่อไม่ให้การตัดสินใจ มุมมอง แนวคิดมันยึดโยงกับอดีต จนปิดทางสู่อนาคตไป เช่น กสทช. วันนี้ก็สรุปว่าอยากจะเป็น กบว. ซะเอง หรือกรรมการกฤษฏีกา..เวลาเข้าไปทีไรเนี้ยมันรู้สึกโลกมันย้อนเวลาไปมาก หรือกรรมการกองทุนอะไรต่อมิอะไร กรรมการธนาคารแห่งประเทศไทย …

บางทีประเทศชาติมันไม่ไปข้างหน้า เท่าที่ควร เพราะการตัดสินใจมันอยู่บน nostalgia บางอย่าง มันคือผลเสียของ generation gap ระหว่างกรรมการชาติ กับยุคสมัยของชาติในปัจจุบัน.. ส่วนอนาคตคงไม่ต้องพูดถึง ไล่กวดปัจจุบันให้ได้ก่อนก็เก่งแล้ว

ผมเคยมีส่วนร่วมในการร่างคำสั่งนายกรัฐมนตรีแต่งตั้งกรรมการชาติ หรือระเบียบสำนักนายกฯ หรือระเบียบคณะกรรมการใน พรก./พรบ. ต่างๆ ส่วนใหญ่ก็จะกำหนดสัดส่วนที่เป็นผู้เชี่ยวชาญเรื่องนั้นๆที่มาจากประชาชน/ภาคเอกชน กับหน่วยงานราชการที่เกี่ยวข้อง แต่ไม่เคยมีการกำหนดสัดส่วนอายุเฉลี่ย หรืออายุรวมไว้เลย ว่าไม่ให้เกินเท่าไหร่ ผลก็คือกรรมการชาติก็มักจะคิดจากโลกยุคสมัยของตัวเองที่มักจะผ่านไปแล้วโดยไม่รู้ตัว

ผมไม่ได้บอกว่าผู้สูงอายุซึ่งมีประสบการณ์มากมายไม่ดีนะครับ เราจำเป็นต้องมีแน่นอน แต่เราอาจจะต้องเปิดโอกาสให้คนรุ่นใหม่ๆเข้าไปทำหน้าที่ถ่วงดุลมาสู่โลกยุคปัจจุบันหรืออนาคตบ้าง

ถ้าไม่ทำแบบนี้ ก็เหมือนล็อคสเป็คกรรมการชาติต่างๆไว้ที่คนอายุมากเป็นหลัก

ไปเสนอกฏหมายใน change.org กันไหม ?

Pro-poor climate risk insurance products

One of Oxfam/RF most interesting initiative on Pro-poor insurance products that empower smaller holder farmers in developing countries to overcome climate risk, it’s also a private sector (insurance & reinsurance) + non-profit initiatives without much need of government.

Thailand don’t even have it yet, the last I heard was world bank & agricultural bank partnership that didn’t went anyway….

http://www.oxfamamerica.org/publications/r4-rural-resilience-initiative-1

Product launching room for artists/designers: Room to Roam (Seoul, Korea)

Every time I am in Seoul, I always visited “Room to Roam”. It’s a small shop on the way to my favourite tea house on the mountain behind the big palace. The shop gives very cozy, artistic and contemporary feelings once you get inside.

Room to Roam asks artists to bring their prototypes or submit them online. If selected, Room to Roam will develop the products collaboratively and sell it at their shop. It’s quite simple co-creation process. I could see that the artists are not only Koreans but also coming from many other countries! It is truly useful for new artists/creative persons launching new products.

I really like many stuff in there and had bought several items over the years. I hope that they expand their model around the world or at least there are some replications in my home country, Thailand. The shop is at 35-231 Samcheong-Dong, Jongro-Gu, Seoul, Korea

The websites of Room to Roam are..

http://blog.daum.net/roomtoroam

http://www.roomtoroam.kr/


What social investors want from a pitch?

From our little experience facilitating early stage social investment both in term of venture philanthropy and impact investment, the social investors normally look for few things on the pitches by social entrepreneurs. They are;

  • Is the problem they are trying to solve interesting ?
  • What’s the innovative solution ?
  • What’s the impact ?
  • How big would this be, what is the scalability ? (both in term of impact & revenue potential)
  • Do I believe in this social entrepreneur? (right person? right team? right attitude? will they able to pivot for major model rethink?)
In fact, it seems to be that there are almost no different between the traditional venture investors and social investors except that the later are trying to also optimise/maximise for social impact.

Structured logical process –> radical innovation ?

After few hours of intensive participation in an innovation development process. There are few questions coming up to my mind.

  • Can structured logical process produce radical innovation ?
  • When people get into things like “focus” , “minimum viable product” and breaking down team into functional roles within the first 5 minutes of brain storming, not even get into the insights or answering what’s the real problem, the result is hardly anything innovative or transformational.
  • Does radical innovation normally a result of directed logical thinking or unstructured intuition?
  • Can you really dive into problems definition before getting a shared interest/vision/expectation from team members in order to deliver radical innovation?
  • Does analytical exercises all there are to innovation design, or unlock the team relationships & dynamics are equally important?
  • Do you come up with group’s insights in order to form hypotheses to be tested with market research or do we do market research in order to come up with hypotheses ? Both way is good? which way is more appropriated for certain situations?
  • Can you {Scrum, Kanban, MVP, etc.. } your way to innovation?
  • Is there a real trade-off between efficiency-oriented product development methods and radical innovation? I had been thinking about this for sometime.
  • How to get really good inputs from introverted Asians in a kind of westernised innovation brain-storming methodology?

Interesting?

Updated: Apiwat Hanvongse , my friend was saying “Typically team dynamics gets overlooked coz not as visible or sexy as discussions of MVP and product development, but team dynamics will put a ceiling on level of innovation possible. Hey man, There’s a whole body of literature on team dynamics. So, to keep it relatively short, I think most product managers dive into the work by identifying what the problem is and the kind of innovation is required. But the good product managers might try to see what various team members are bringing to the table. Assuming that the kind of work you’re talking about is interdependent, team members need to individually know their strengths/weakness. But, they also need to have an appreciation for areas outside of their expertise that is in the domain of other members.

When I say ‘team dynamics gets overlooked’ I mean problem definition get generally defined by one person or a minority few in the team who: 1. most outspoken, 2. most extroverted, 3. most comfortable taking up their authority, 4. loudest……that’s often how most groups move towards problem definition.

Generally less time is spent on getting to ‘shared’ interest/vision/expectation – key word being ‘shared’. Why? Because it takes time to get to ‘shared’ anything. The team has to examine: 1. How will it make decisions? 2. How will it resolve conflict? 3. How will it get feedback from all members?

Moreover, individuals have to decide whether they ‘belong’ in the team in the first place. Conciously or unconsciously individuals will begin to ask ‘what’s my role in this team?’ ‘Is my voice heard?’ ‘How much will I invest in this group?’ ‘Do I like these people?’ ‘Will my ideas get valued in this team discussions?’

Unless time is explicitly spent to ‘unlock team relationships and dynamics’ as you have alluded to, there will be a ‘ceiling’ on the level of innovation.

My assumption is the highest level of innovation comes when ALL team members are involved and committed and invest.

The lowest level of innovation comes when it’s not clear whether ALL members are involved or not. That’s the ‘ceiling’ concept….it’s a constraint on on whether the team reaches its full potential or not.

This could go on forever, but hopefully this answer begins to shed light on the complexity and importance of team dynamics. Would love to discuss more this winter.

IMHO …In my humble opinion 🙂:)

Thanks Apiwat!

CSIP: Growing social enterprises in Vietnam

For those wanting to know the situation of social enterprise movement in Vietnam, CSIP (Centre for Social Initiatives Promotion) is at the forefront of that. CSIP is the first group that provides proper seed/startup support for SEs in Vietnam since 3 years ago. Now after visiting their new office, I can feel lots of energy going on at this almost all women team! (with Kieu Oanh Pham as the leader)

They had supported over 30 social enterprises across the whole country and few of them are now entering the growth phase. Because of this, they are thinking about engaging in impact investment in the near future (so far, their model is like Venture Philanthropy). Beyond local engagement, CSIP engages many international players such as the British Council, LGT Venture Philanthropy (from Switzerland) and Cross-fields (from Japan) in enlarging opportunities for their portfolio companies in both placing investment as well as high-capacity international volunteers into SEs. CSIP also works in advocacy with the government and private sector into to grow the social enterprise sector in Vietnam.

CSIP is also a founding partner of the Social Enterprise Network Asia (SENA)  that consists of mostly social enterprise support organizations in East & Southeast Asia. So anyone want to partner up with Vietnamese social enterprises or do something related to SEs in Vietnam, call them up!

p.s. I think they have the best social entrepreneurship related library in Vietnam, so try check them out if you are in Hanoi!

Korean concluding list.

Concluding note for the Korean trip (sequence based on meeting dates):

ACTION_ITEMS:
1. There are those interested in Mondragon & Team academy in Korea, let’s try to organize “Asian Invasion trip” to Team Academy in Finland & Spain in early 2013 with few innovators from each Asian country.
2. Helping Hope Institute for ANIS2013
3. Assisting special KOH TAO diving SE & northern Thailand trip for korean social innovator.

4. Finding ICT-empowered young social entrepreneurs for BC Korea.
5. Detailing partnership arrangement with Jihye on Asia clustering in Thailand and Nepal. Also looking for European market for an SE products!
6. Reconnecting SEEDS with SENA
7. Follow up on Andong content for PlayPlanet
8. Prepare NZ thingy in 2013
INTERESTING ITEMS:
– Seoul City Youth Social Innovation Program, really cool.
– SEEDS has clear interest to go ASIA!!
– Korea will enact the new version of “Cooperative Law’ in 2013 and make cooperative a simple, cool & scalable things again!

World in Asia (WIA) 1st Anniversary

WIA’s Board Members & Team

I was invited around a year ago to be WIA co-founder by my friend Tetsuo Kato, a consultant turns social entrepreneur. I accepted without any hesitation. Since then, I hear good news from time to time of the progress of their work in using social innovation and social enterprise models in the recovery effort of Tohoku region which was heavily affected by the lastest Japanese Tsunami.

Now almost a year later, I was invited again to join their one year anniversary. There were perhaps a hundred people gathering in the Nippon Foundation listening to the WIA stories, how they supported five social entrepreneurs in the area successfully ranging from mother care to education. Most of these social entrepreneurs are quite young, in their 30s. WIA is planning to launch Japan’s first venture philanthropy fund, they are pioneering something they called ‘network-based social venture capital funding’. Now they plan to scale radically with the help of the Japanese Americans as well as their global connections. Learn more about WIA at http://wia.stonesoup.jp/

I’ve met so many people, and I believe that these people will transform Japan as well as Asia.