dan j harris

Insatiably curious, aficionado of style. Compulsive dancer with systems, be they code, game, garden, or organisation.

[danjharris]

In this respect the teachers of new religions have always had a considerable advantage in attacking those ancient and established systems of which the clergy, reposing themselves upon their benefices, had neglected to keep up the fervour of faith and devotion in the great body of the people, and having given themselves up to indolence, were become altogether incapable of making any vigorous exertion in defence even of their own establishment. The clergy of an established and well-endowed religion frequently become men of learning and elegance, who possess all the virtues of gentlemen, or which can recommend them to the esteem of gentlemen: but they are apt gradually to lose the qualities, both good and bad, which gave them authority and influence with the inferior ranks of people, and which had perhaps been the original causes of the success and establishment of their religion.

Adam Smith, Wealth of Nations

[danjharris]

Anthony Gill on Religion | EconTalk | Library of Economics and Liberty

Anthony Gill of the University of Washington and host of the podcast Research on Religion talks with EconTalk host Russ Roberts about the economics of religion. The conversation focuses on the relationship between religion and the State--how does religion...

Why isn't there more research into religion and churches, as organisations and economic actors? This is something I hope to rectify this year by extending my MBA with research, but more immediately this podcast crystalised two ideas I have had floating about for a while:

Firstly, the end of Christendom should be a boon for the vitality of our churches. Research (see here and references) shows that, just as when an industry has an incumbent monopoly innovation and vitality stagnate, so as with churches. However, things that insulate churches from the effects of competition, such as large endowments or property income, are likely to prevent them from experiencing the benefits. This means that in the church, capital will increasingly be held by a stagnant minority of congregations, in contrast to a growing vibrant majority reliant on congregational giving.

Secondly, the motivation for Senator Bernadi to make controversial statements is economically rational. He is making the decision to co-opt religion for political purposes, almost certainly guaranteeing an increase in his political capital, and thus influence within his party. Indeed, the more outrage he can cause to those outside his supporter base, the tighter grip he is likely to gain over them. Though I am opposed to his policy objectives, at least I understand his motivation more clearly.

[danjharris]

The blatant sexism in Venture Capitalism, and startup culture

Apart from some useful technical information, my emerging learning from this course on Venture Capital at Aalto University is that the venture capital world, and startup culture in general, is intensely sexist and it doesn't seem to care.

I've been embedded in geeky tech culture my whole life, so I'm very aware that this has been a long problem. I remember big LAN parties with 100+ people, and it was notable that <10% were female. As an optimist I always thought the trend was in the right direction. These days, female geeks hold their own space in the culture to a far greater degree than previously. Use of language which threatens and enforces patriarchy seems to be the current battlefront. It is now more acceptable than not to call people out on their use of language.

Learning about the world of venture capital has revealed a vast untapped land of rampant sexism to me. It first twigged when the lecturers talked about venture capital being all about who you know. This revealed a certain introspection, to the US market in particular. Then I noticed that all the language was gender exclusive - all hypotheticals referred to founders, VC partners, VC investors, all being 'he'. When I checked the text book, I discovered that it too is a domain for men only.

It was coincidental then to read a critique of Paul Graham, a VC I have long admired for the innovative Y-Combinator startup incubator model. It seems that not only is the brogrammer culture alive and well, it is reacting against change.

Y-Combinator, claims to be data-driven. The lecturer claims that he and his colleagues work hard to put aside selection-bias when hearing pitches from founders. But I refuse to believe that the only people having good ideas, worthy of investment, trial, and hopefully growth, are white males under 35. Also, more likely than not, American.

There is a certain irony to this being my key learning from this course, as a white male under thirty (not American).  

The pattern of investment strikes me more as a failure of the dominant VC model and startup culture, than a failure of society to produce innovation from a diverse set of people.

[danjharris]

Just yesterday I noted in my VC class how male dominated and blokey the culture was, and then I read this

[danjharris]

Venture Capital

Here we are in Helsinki, Finland where I am doing one of my MBA subjects by exchange at Aalto University. The course takes just two weeks, and is quite fast moving and I'd like to capture some 'point in time' thoughts before they drift.

At this point I am more interested in learning about venture capital, rather than commenting on the cross cultural experience. That will come no doubt, especially when it comes to group assignments!

There are two lecturers: one a practical, rugged American who has been a VC, been an entrepreneur, and an angel investor; the other is Finnish and from an academic background researching VC. They are very different yet complimentary. The delivery format is a very traditional, with theory forming the backbone of the lecture as delivered by the Finn, but punctured by narratives from the American. It works well.

As a broad overview however, venture capital in the traditional American sense seems more pragmatic and brusque than I imagined. Essentially the aim is to raise capital from investors, invest in companies, have input into how they are run, and then sell them quick. The quick turnover is what I find interesting. Although the average length on an investment may be 5 years or more, the aim is to get in, scale up, and sell out quickly. That means that VC is only going to work when there is a large potential market. Thus VC targets a much narrower segment than I expected, although angel investors and seed incubators fill in the gaps.

A further observation is that the VC model funnels control through them - investors, and entrepreneurs often only connect through the VC. It also means that the investor is the customer, not the entrepreneur or the users of the service. I wonder whether this model will be disrupted by crowd sourcing, where funds are instead provided by actual customers through pre-purchases. Another interesting aspect is that the VC receives management fees on the invested capital, often around 2% pa, as well as a share of the future profit on a sale. The incentive structure is built strongly around reputation as well as scale.

It is certainly lifting the veil on a world Iv've long been interested in, but not known much about.

[christophur]

Video Games Are Beautiful | 01/∞

[hexington-deactivated20170225]

What a great post! Props to the OP. <3

[danjharris]

“The difference between the two is that Amazon.com is an insignificant speck in the book-selling universe,” says Bill Bass, an analyst with Forrester Research. “But they’re a rapidly growing speck. Still, book publishers are first going to take care of the people who sell billions of dollars of books, and that’s Barnes & Noble.” - Article from 1997 on the state of tiny Amazon.com. Makes me wonder which tiny, disruptive company around now will be the Amazon.com of tomorrow?

[danjharris]

An adventurous, crisp and wet walk at Mount Lofty Botanic Gardens for Rowan's birthday (at Mount Lofty Botanic Gardens)

[danjharris]

Open Government & The Church

This week I am at linux.conf.au in Canberra, the first two days of which are various thematic mini-conferences before the main program commences on Wednesday. Today I attended my favourite of the mini-conference streams: Open Government.

At previous conferences my interest, due to my job at the time, was focussed on community services groups and smoothing the process of integrating data transfer and access. Today however, my mind took a different tack due to my immersion in the world of the Anglican church in Adelaide.

I was struck by the similarity of the problem set faced by the public service, and the Diocesan Office where I work. There is a distributed and somewhat loosely coupled organisation surrounding it. There are silos, spheres of influence, pressure to extract more value from limited resources. More than that though, there is a commitment by the people there to do something more for society - to serve a public good. Thus the discussions were not only around efficiencies - the desire to create a better society was ever present.

Similarly there is a 'value commitment' (to use a tepid management term) in working for the Church, and a desire to strengthen and grow it not just through the prudent use of resources, but actually helping it achieve its purpose.

I want to do a quick list of takeaway insights and ideas of relevance before I forget them tomorrow and next week:

More than just opening data, Government can be considered an API. It is like a platform for building and growing society. Therefore the emphasis is on low cost, standardised, open transactions to encourage growth at the periphery.

The temptation is to tax and regulate, but those brute force methods have huge hidden costs. Where there is a problem, see if the existing system is causing the 'pinch' and try to resolve it there.

It is all very well to collect and store huge amounts of data and information, but its value is usually not increased at the center of the organisation. It is better to release, even if there is no obvious utility at the time.

If you are risk averse (as Governments often are) find a way to outsource the risk. Have a hack fest, or competition.

These are things I think have relevance to our approach at Diocesan Office. The Diocese as a platform is particularly interesting, as it harks back to the reason for forming one in the first place.

[danjharris]

More by Michael Jensen, this time on Christian leadership. This aligns well with some critiques of general management / leadership styles, yet in the secular context there is always someone cited as being successful through using the worst extremes of these styles.

Steve Jobs for example had a terrible tendency to humiliate people and lose his temper. I would say he was successful despite these flaws in his character, not because of them. Christian leadership is similar, although the stakes are so much higher.

[danjharris]

I found this after I wrote my previous lamentation on the state of things, however it seems to be in a similar vein. Here Michael Jensen lays out with clarity the status quo of the Anglican evangelical community, complete with fault lines.

[danjharris]

A turning point in the life of the Church

VALERIS: I do not understand this representation.

(referring to a painting on the wall)

SPOCK: It's a depiction from ancient Earth mythology. 'The Expulsion from Paradise.'

VALERIS: Why keep it in your quarters?

SPOCK: To be a reminder to me that all things end.

VALERIS: It is of endings that I wish to speak. Sir, I address you as a kindred intellect. Do you not recognise ...that a turning point has been reached in the affairs of the Federation?

SPOCK: History is replete with turning points, Lieutenant. You must have faith.

-- Star Trek VI

This evening I found my brother Jon flicking through this blast from the past, The Briefing from August 1992. What an issue it turned out to be, documenting key developments in the life of the Church, the ripples of which affect me still in my work with the Church twenty years later. The issues under discussion: the ordination of women; and the associated court case overseen by Justice Priestly which determined that apart from property matters, Church law cannot be legally enforced.

"... it has become clear that Australian Anglicanism is not the chummy eccentric club that many pew-warming Anglicans have fondly regarded it to be. It is a deeply divided and very diverse organisation, with a spectrum of theological convictions. An increasing number of evangelicals are asking: Is it worth saving? Is it worth being part of?" - Phillip Jensen

It is timely for me to read this, relating to both my work in the diverse Anglican Diocese of Adelaide, and previous post discussing the issue of fragmentation in the Christian charity sector. One of the factors which contribute to fragmentation, and prevents cooperation in other areas such as mission and teaching, is the doctrine of gender. I find this an area of increasing concern, as there is a diversity of belief even amongst evangelicals, yet it is a matter which causes sharp divisions.

Today a friend was recounting to me with enthusiasm about the 'In the Chute' church planting conference in Sydney, associated with the Geneva Push. It was an invigorating time for them, but in the sweep of talks they heard was one on complementarianism. I was surprised by this, because it didn't leap out as a topic directly related to church planting. This is an example to me of a doctrinal issue, related to the way we run our churches, which prevents cooperation and mergers. A church planting network which will not mentor or encourage women to plant and lead churches is a pretty big filter to who they can work with. As someone who believes woman can be ordained and participate fully in the leadership of churches, this is an exclusionary position.

I find this situation sad, and especially so that after twenty years the same division is present in the church. Surely with a common emphasis on mission, there is a strong imperative to find some way for movements such as this to work with a more broad evangelical field. In this regard I find organisations such as AFES, SU, and the Bible Society as inspirational leaders for truly working for mission in an inclusive way.

[danjharris]

Fragmentation in the Christian charity sector

I was delighted to read a short opinion piece by Dylan Malloch in Eternity about the proliferation of organisations in the Christian charity sector, and mulling about why there has not been a consolidation. Certainly in other sectors, the market conditions would suggest growth through mergers and acquisitions, so why don't we see it in the not-for-profit space? I've been meaning to write about this for some time so this served as a good catalyst.

I have had some experience with this, having worked for Christian organisations for about eight years. More recently I have been reflecting on the unusual nature of these organisations as part of my MBA study. There are three factors I can think of immediately which influence the lack of merger activity in this sector: branding; governance; and values.

Firstly, many Christian charities essentially serve a secondary purpose which is to carry a denominational brand. In many cases, the charity agency of a particular denomination is far larger than the parent organisation in terms of turnover, and personnel. Thus they are better equipped to communicate the message that, for example, Baptists exist and they help those in need. Consolidation would dilute the branding, and is a disincentive for those leading the organisations to support a merger.

This segues nicely into the second factor: governance. The boards of many of Christian charity organisations are composed of those with a strong stake in the parent denominational structure. Often they must be a member of the denomination, or a part of the governance system (such as a Synod or Assembly), or are appointed by a denominational leader. Thus the context in which the board operates is strongly linked, formally and informally, to the relational network of the denomination.

More importantly though, with most charity organisations being essentially government funded, boards perform a valuable role in maintaining values alignment. This is most directly expressed through the power to appoint a CEO, but also through the strategic decision making process. As most Christian denominations have essentially the same core belief, the key points of difference are doctrinal - as expressed in values. As charity work is inherently values based, these subtle differences are very important when considering mergers.

Despite these barriers to consolidation, I have actually been involved in a merger of two Christian charity organisations. However the circumstances actually underscore the above points - it was between two Baptist organisations in the same state, instigated by the denominational leaders, and aimed to increase the power of the brand.

All this is a great pity, as I agree with Dylan's proposition - that Christian organisations working together deliver better outcomes for those requiring their services than competing for market share. The sheer number of providers, often each with a particular service contract, results in a bewildering array of agencies for a client to navigate. Simplifying this workflow through integration of services, joint tenders, or even mergers would immediately provide a benefit to clients. Christian organisations, more so than others in the sector, have a point of common origin which should provide a strong foundation for unity.

[danjharris]

Toddler art #genius

[danjharris]

I am conflicted over this video. Technology is undoubtedly transforming education, and together with other changes in pedagogy are making it far more effective. However the approach described here appears to have a shallow interpretation of the formative value of education.

Learning is so much more than the transfer of knowledge, and for maximum efficacy should be delivered in far more than a recorded medium. Where is the place of the role model, the teacher of character that one aspires to be like?

It is possible that by creating the digital assistant, time is freed up for more formative relationships but that possibility wasn't expressed here.

[danjharris]

I'm now been my new workplace for a few months, and it feels like I'm in the groove. This is both good and bad: good in that I am getting the beat of the system (in the Donella Meadows kind of way); bad in that there's a lot going on and I need to keep the big picture in view.

I wanted to record the few insights I've had thus far so as to reflect on them later, maybe after Christmas. Yes this could be in a private text document, but public is far more fun:

Overarching narrative: Helping transform a rigid ancient institution for the modern age.

This transformation is an emergent, adaptive process. It will take time.

'Holding the space' to allow people to talk it through is vital, but difficult with a mix of both concrete and abstract thinkers.

The new expression is actually more true to the values than the existing system, which means we're working with human flow, not against it.

It's really hard to institute technical changes alongside adaptive, especially in a resource poor environment.

Relentless optimism is a good thing.

When there is the comfort of structure, even when poorly implemented and inefficient, it is difficult to move on. We cling to structure to survive.

Keep short time frames, and focus on achieving results. There will always be the routine, mundane tasks - they will never end. So don't try to finish them first!

[theartofanimation]

Effect Games

[danjharris]

Ahh, this takes me back to those halcyon days of Kings Quest, and Space Quest. Good times!