• Home
  • About
    • Speaker
    • Sarah Lutman
    • Contact
  • AJBlogs
  • ArtsJournal

Speaker

Sarah Lutman amplified

What’s fear got to do with it?

In 2014 the Wyncote Foundation commissioned Lutman & Associates to research digital adoption by legacy cultural institutions. The resulting study, Like, Link, Share: How cultural institutions are embracing digital technology, showcases the awesome creative work of 40 cultural organizations and shares common themes and lessons learned among these leading practitioners.

When I spoke about the report at conferences and meetings, arts leaders’ responses were frequently that they knew they “should be” engaging digitally, but they feel overwhelmed about beginning. Surprisingly, the most frequent response from arts leaders was not excitement, but instead fear. Fear of missing out. Fear of getting started. Fear of not knowing what to do after beginning. Fear of making mistakes. Fear of not having enough time or money. Fear of incompetence. Fear of adding more stuff to do on top of already busy jobs.

We were intrigued by the intensity and consistency of this reaction and wanted to provide support. As a result, discussions with Wyncote led them to commission Wayfinding and Wandering: Navigating the Digital Engagement Landscape, or Wanderway, for short.

Launching this week, Wanderway is a free online course in seven parts, designed to walk users through the necessary steps toward creative and sustainable digital engagement. The goals of the course are to provide encouragement, build confidence, and offer useful tools and know-how so that arts organizations, artists, and creative small businesses can connect with, engage, and serve more people in the ever-evolving online environment. It is designed with the resource-strapped in mind.

Wanderway is a different kind of course.

Wanderway focuses on engagement and relationship-building. It aims to help you expand your reach and develop substantive interactions with fans, allies, and collaborators using the wide range of digital tools available today. These transformative possibilities are available to those who overcome their fear of digital technology and commit to the process of learning new tools and ways to connect.

There are plenty of courses available that provide technical knowledge and skill-building exercises, such as the Google Analytics Academy, or courses available through Coursera or Khan Academy. Many are written with the assumption of a higher level of basic knowledge and experience on the part of the user.

Also, most existing online courses target sales and marketing objectives – using digital tools to get more money, more transactions. Wanderway was created with the belief that while more contributions or ticket sales can be a by-product of digital engagement, they are not the goal. Engagement can be significantly more meaningful and have greater impact if audiences are treated as conversation partners and collaborators rather than customers and consumers.

Digital engagement as creative practice

Wanderway addresses the emotional life of digital practitioners by approaching engagement as a creative practice. In creative practice we begin, try things, learn, and start again. A beginner’s mind is a necessity and a strength, not a liability. Creative practice expects “mistakes”—they’re part of the process. Iteration is constant. It’s how we learn. And fear is something most artists and creative workers know a great deal about because it is their constant companion.

Fear doesn’t stop the creative artist. Or as poet Carolyn Forche puts it, “Courage does not mean you are not afraid; courage means a door opens and you walk through.”

So, open the door and walk through

Wanderway invites your participation. We also invite your feedback. Please check out the course, try the exercises and reflections, read the interviews, and, if you like it, share these resources with others.

Thanks to the amazing collaborators who built the course with me: Beck Tench, independent educator, writer, speaker, and practitioner, whose work explores creativity and experimentation in digital engagement; and Jessica Fiala, company member of Ragamala Dance Company, independent scholar, and colleague.

We’ve had a lot of fun packing the course with tools that are free and accessible to anyone, and getting to know the dozens of artists and organizations whose work we feel privileged to highlight.

Defining R & D in the cultural sector: why we need innovation in grantmaking strategy

As part of the research project I’m working on with the Philadelphia-based Wyncote Foundation (see previous posts), I recently had the opportunity to attend the Annual Forum for Nesta‘s Digital R & D Fund for the Arts in London. To give you the lay of the land in case you don’t already know anything about it, Nesta calls itself “an innovation charity with a mission to help people and organizations bring great ideas to life.” R D Annual ForumNesta works in partnership with other businesses, nonprofits, government agencies, and funders to increase social impact and to innovate around ways to test new ideas, new financing methods, and new ways to gather and analyze results. Through research, piloting, convening, and publishing, Nesta spreads knowledge and improves practice around innovation, approaching its work across sectors and disciplines. If you’re interested in these topics you really should scour the website and follow Nesta and its principals on social media. They’re a font of useful information about emerging practice in many different fields.

The Digital R & D Fund for the Arts is a multi-year collaboration among Nesta, the Arts Council England, and the Arts and Humanities Research Council. The Fund was established to help “accelerate effective innovation and experiment, bringing together researchers, technology businesses and arts organizations.” The Fund’s £7 million budget (about $11.7 million in US dollars) has been distributed via 3 two-year grant cycles with maximum awards of £125,000 ($210,000). It was created in response to the one-two punch of challenging economic conditions and the onslaught of digital technologies that together have required arts organizations “to sharpen up their thinking about how to relate to audiences, and how to develop business models that can bring more revenue.” (Check out the first year report here.)

It would be great to have something like this in the U.S. The Fund is supporting really interesting projects. (Examples: the Imperial War Museum partnering with HistoryPin to invite the public to help curate the content in its First World War paintings collection, Dance Digital‘s development of an animated learning tool to help children create dances, and Cambridge Junction‘s effort to interest youth in digital music production through the development of a customizable and codable musical instrument.) But what interests me even more is the methodology. The underlying questions being asked at the grantmaking table are not about which projects are “the best” but rather which projects ask the best questions and are best designed to deliver answers that will result in field-wide learning. Nesta is taking a crack at defining the nature of R & D as it applies to the cultural sector, using the Fund’s architecture to innovate in processes that result in learning andfailbetter632 progress. The Fund’s goals are to generate knowledge, to share knowledge efficiently, and to speed up the rate of learning not just in the individual organizations that receive support but among the broader field of practice.

Field-wide sharing and learning was the topic of the Annual Forum, held in Vinopolis, a sprawling wine emporium and conference center at Borough Market in Southwark, conveniently adjacent to one of my favorite coffee shops. About 250 people from across the U.K. gathered for the day, many with job titles like Digital Producer, Digital Communications Officer, Developer, Creative Director, Senior Innovation Consultant, or my favorite, Imagination Catalyst (@KnowNOW_KnowHow). We heard a strong panel on “What is R & D in the Arts?” along with panel presentations from funded projects, keynotes delivered from a business’ (Patrick Bradley) and then a cultural organization’s (Nick Starr) perspective, and an interesting panel on the role of data as it applies to creativity and learning. Program highlights are viewable online and Nesta promises more coverage in future editions of its on-line publication, Native.

Nesta gave me a copy of the application form for the Fund (it’s not available online because applications are closed). The Fund’s specific interests are in expanding audience reach and engagement, and in the exploration of new business models (or a combination of these two). Each applicant must collaborate with a researcher and a technology provider, and is asked to propose “investigations from which the wider arts sector might learn.” Applicants incorporate a plan for the action research methods — created with the third-party research collaborator — that can capture lessons from their proposed experiments. This supports the Fund’s overarching goal to “extract lessons and transferable insights to contribute to a growing body of evidence and data on digital innovation in the arts.” The quality of the team — organization, researchers, technologists — and the clarity and importance of the question being asked, are determining factors in funding.

Nesta’s R & D orientation is different from the logic model-driven funding approach so pervasive among U.S. funders. The differences are more than semantic. Logic models detail intended inputs, outputs, and impacts, and are oriented toward planning, delivery, and evaluation. Logic models ask us to demonstrate the causal relationships between what we do (inputs) and what will happen (outputs and impacts). Logic models say, “If we do x, then y will happen.”

What Nesta has designed is a process based on “trying and learning.” It is iterative, modeling a creative process. Their model requires the development and clarification of an important question, one worth asking, and one for which the answer or answers are not known. In their model, the planning rigor is around the quality of the question and in how it will be investigated.  Their inquiry asks, “If we do x, what will happen?” The outcome is not planned, it is sought.

Perhaps I’m out of touch and if that’s the case, please, pile on the examples! But I don’t remember ever being asked by a funder, “What idea are you testing?” and “What data, evidence, and research findings can your project deliver?” and “How is this learning beneficial to the wider arts sector?” Einstein quote

Shouldn’t this methodology be added to the ideas and instruments grantmakers deploy in their program architecture? Certainly, we need operating support grants, capitalization grants, and support for major projects and initiatives, all funding mechanisms represented in contemporary grantmaking. But what would it look like if we also had specific support for R & D in separate programs whose purpose lies in the testing, documenting, learning, sharing, and iterating of new ideas?In thinking about anything at all comparable in U.S. private sector arts grantmaking, what comes to mind are the reports and publications about what the grantmakers are learning, not so much about what the grantees are learning.

In an environment in which the purpose of a grant is to learn, organizations have full permission to innovate, to fail, and to iterate. When the knowledge gained is shared, other organizations have access to data and results, and they’re encouraged to adopt and use tools and practices that work. Some of the Digital R & D Fund projects have been major flops, with audiences, or technically, or otherwise. And some are delivering very promising results. All learning is welcomed.

At a time when it seems especially important for cultural organizations to be able to try new things and iterate, Nesta’s approach is both sophisticated and refreshing. I’d love to see R & D approaches modeled locally, regionally, or nationally. What is stopping U.S. grantmakers from building similar efforts in our country?

Announcing Hothouse: Exploring new ideas in co-working with the Minneapolis Institute of Arts

Something new is launching in Minneapolis next week! I’m excited to announce Hothouse, a 12-week pilot co-working project I’ve created as MIA Entrepreneur in Residence. In collaboration with Hunter Palmer Wright, Venture Innovation Director of the Minneapolis Institute of Arts, Hothouse will explore whether and how the museum can foster a creative co-working space that is inspired by the museum’s collections, capabilities, and setting but operates independently as a lively incubator and convener. The pilot will demonstrate newHOUTHOUSE-02 ways the museum can use its assets, including its facilities, collection, and staff, for imaginative new civic purposes, and will encourage civic connectors and animators to draw on the museum’s resources to power their individual and collective work and impact.

The project will allow exploration of a co-working strategy that is new to the Minneapolis-St Paul region. The vision for Hothouse is to create a space not only for co-working, but also for fostering public discourse and civic engagement, reflecting and amplifying ideas and projects from the co-working community, and inviting the public in as participants and co-developers. Participants interested in this public programming orientation have been intentionally recruited for the Hothouse pilot. The group includes artists, journalists, non-profit organizations, small businesses, and independent producers and consultants.

(Who will be there? Here’s a list, some with links  — the list is still growing. Lutman & Associates, Ben Hertz, Coffee House Press, Collective Eye Productions, Copilot Web Services, Danger Boat Productions LLC, The Drawing Project, e-democracy/Open Twin Cities, Northern Lights, Pollen, Kate Nordstrum Projects, Chris Farrell (MPR))

The co-working group will share the MIA’s Villa Rosa Room, a large sunny meeting and event room on the top floor of the MIA, as well as using other museum spaces for programming. Co-workers will be encouraged to draw on the museum’s collection for inspiration and metaphor, collaborate with museum staff, and help identify opportunities and obstacles that can inform the feasibility of an ongoing co-working and alternative programming space. We’ll share our learning in a final report.HOUTHOUSE-02

During the 12-week pilot we plan to:

  • Explore the benefits of a co-working space connected to a museum
  • Identify new civic purposes for MIA’s less-used and rental spaces
  • Introduce new people to MIA
  • Discover ways the co-working community can draw on the MIA’s assets across their varied occupations and disciplines
  • Identify obstacles to public participation as co-workers create programs independently and “beyond the museum”
  • ​Foster new connections between co-workers and MIA
  • Encourage collaborations among the co-working participants that are new and actionable
  • Inform MIA future choices and directions

The Hothouse co-working pilot project has resonances for any cultural nonprofit that owns and operates its own buildings. What are the highest and best purposes for these structures and how can new creative uses be explored? How can we share infrastructure and ideas in new ways? And how can our increasingly independent workforce find ways to connect with each other and to cultural institutions in ways that amplify and extend the work? We will be working to discover the answers to these questions over the next twelve weeks. To track our progress, follow #Hothouse on Twitter.

Hothouse houseIf you think about it, there are all kinds of civic buildings — wherever you may live — that can be adapted to new uses and can become part of the sharing economy. If you know of other tests or projects going on that resonate with our ideas, please be in touch. And we’ll let you know how things go.

 

 

 

 

 

Reflections on a week at Harvard Business School (and thank you NAS)

For the past two weeks I have been digesting theHarvard Business School classroom terrific week of learning at Harvard Business School that National Arts Strategies offered as part of its Chief Executive Program.

The week’s theme was The New Nature of Relevance, and our case studies, HBR articles, and group exercises were designed to foster conversation about leadership and how to steer our organizations through the opportunities and obstacles presented by the post-recession, digitally-enabled, generationally-shifting, globally-connected world.

For me, the location of our conversations was a vivid reminder of the challenges we face. That’s because the business of higher education is undergoing the same sea change we are navigating in the nonprofit cultural sector. I was gob-smacked when on the second morning of program, the weekly email from Strategy + Business landed in my In Box, this one titled “The University’s Dilemma” with the subtitle, “In the face of disruptive change, higher education needs a new, more innovative business model.” After I read the piece, by Tim Laseter, the entire week became a play within a play. On the one hand we were having deep conversations about boldly creating new organizational forms, new outcome norms, and new ways to engage people in the arts. On the other hand, we were doing it within a delivery system that is itself grappling with the need to change. (More than one professor told us that in 20 years, more than half the colleges in the U.S. will no longer exist.)

Don’t get me wrong. Harvard executive education is an extraordinary experience. We worked in state-of-the-art classrooms in a beautiful setting; read outstanding preparatory materials; engaged with well-prepared, articulate and challenging professors; ate really good food (at least by institutional standards!); and were attended to by a courteous, helpful staff. The gym was palatial, the reception areas spacious, and everything was spotless.

But as Laseter points out in his essay on why education needs to change, universities are failing on multiple fronts. Costs are skyrocketing (Harvard’s website estimates the cost of a year at the Business School for a single person is about $87,000); fewer than two-thirds of students enrolled in a four-year institution attain the targeted degree (national data from Laseter); and even as college enrollment has grown, employment forecasts predict a shortage of employees appropriately prepared for the kinds of jobs being created. The employer/university relationship is frayed because higher ed is not keeping pace with employers’ needs; its relevance is being directly confronted. The value proposition — that a college education will result in a better, higher paying job, justifying the time and expense of college – has eroded. Sound familiar?

Laseter says, “In the business world, such poor performance typically leads to industry re-structuring fueled by new entrants, as well as innovation by a subset of incumbents. Those moving too slowly or in the wrong direction don’t survive … Although [those] few elite institutions may be buffered from disruptive forces, the vast majority of institutions of higher education face disintermediation in their existing relationships among employers and students. Pressure from new entrants as well as the leaders among existing players could squeeze out weaker institutions, repeating the pattern of so many other industries. To navigate through these forces, universities need to follow the example of their business counterparts and fundamentally rethink what they do. They need to foster new capabilities, reconsider their means of attracting revenues, and allocate costs more closely to their value proposition. In short, using the language of strategy, it’s time for a new business model.”

Perhaps we can take some comfort in the notion that it’s not only the arts sector that faces these pressures. It means we all are in this together, that there’s no clear path out, no models to copy. It is a creative time to discover how to move forward. Fostering new capabilities, reconsidering means of attracting revenues, and allocating costs more closely to our value proposition are ideas the cultural sector has been grappling with for years.

So what to do? Laseter’s suggested actions correspond almost directly to our NAS/Harvard readings and case studies.

First, consider your potential rivals. “Benchmark your rival and potential rival innovators, not only in your own industry but across industries.” For the nonprofit cultural sector, this requires a close look at for-profit entertainment providers, user-generated projects and collaborations, peer-to-peer learning exchanges, amateur cultural activities, all variety of media consumption, and ways audiences have become participants, curating their own experiences, rather than passive, consuming programs of our design.

Laseter focuses on technological disruption in learning systems, and identifies on-line gaming, third-party credentialing organizations, and on-line courses as examples of disruptive entrants into higher ed’s space. Paralleling his ideas, as part of our Harvard course we read a case study of the Metropolitan Opera’s Live in HD program, and discussed whether this disruption strengthened or undermined the ecology of the cultural sector (with good arguments on both sides).

Second, know yourself. Organizations need to identify and understand their unique value propositions. This will differ across arts disciplines and might include an organization’s ability to curate (separating signal from noise, bringing unexpected or new work to light), to amplify (helping artists and projects achieve scale), to engage (creating clear pathways for cultural participation), to touch directly (offering face-to-face instead of mediated experiences), to expand knowledge (offering interpretative, participatory or scholarly programs), or to animate (bringing creativity and energy to cities or neighborhoods). Above all, Laseter warns, don’t try to be all things to all people. Determine how you can excel and then go for it.

Our readings included V. Kasturi Rangan’s 2004 Harvard Business Review article, Lofty Missions, Down-to-Earth Plans. The piece exhorts non-profit organizations to go beyond their “broad, inspiring mission statements” to create systematic methods of establishing a “strategy platform,” which determines how the mission will be achieved, including what programs will be run and how they will be run. Rangan says, “Instead of trying to be all things to all people, non-profits should pick a niche, craft an operational mission, and flowing from it, formulate a coherent strategy platform. Then it should vigorously pursue those programs that support the logic of the entire strategy.”

Now. Forward to the basics. Laseter says institutions — more than ever — must have a clear, explicit rationale for what they deliver, particularly in light of declining results and growing costs. And, he says, “Institutions of higher education have the ability to solve the crisis they currently face, but resolve presents the greatest impediment.” 

Consider this last observation as it applies to the arts. Cultural institutions have the ability to move forward energetically, if only they have the resolve. Often, colleagues in the NAS program report they “can see it,” they know what to do. But that does not make the “how to do it” any easier. It helps to discuss examples of successful change, to consider cross-sector examples, to think about rival innovators, to agree on the key value proposition, and to know we’re in it together.

(Our readings included Leading Change: Why Transformation Efforts Fail, by John Kotter.  A classic of the literature, this is a piece to read and re-visit regularly.)

I imagine that after we left, Harvard administrators were in meetings across their spectacular campus, engaged in a parallel conversation. Undoubtedly they are examining their fixed costs, thinking about technological innovation, creating new ways to engage students, and working to preserve their primary value proposition, that higher education is the gateway to a better life. How they will continue to deliver high quality educational experiences in a changing world? I hope that some of our creativity rubs off on them. They’ll need it to define the new nature of relevance. It will be interesting to see what comes next at Harvard.

Inventive capitalization program reaping benefits for theater festival

The Great River Shakespeare Festival (GRSF) in Winona, Minnesota has created an inventive capitalization instrument that will interest the broader field. The Festival’s “Legacy Bond Investment Program,” launched in September, 2011 is a state-approved investment offer for Festival patrons that provides GRSF with significant working capital.  Essentially, GRSF is offering donors the opportunity to support the organization through interest-bearing loans, with the idea being relatively small loans ($5,000) from a relatively large number of investors (100).

I stopped by the GRSF storefront office last week while in Winona to talk to Managing Director Eric Bunge and learn more about the program, which is described fully on the GRSF website.  He explained the program’s development and told me there’s a waiting list for purchasers.

Here’s how it works:

– The Board of Directors of GRSF authorized the sale of 100 Legacy Bonds.

– Investors pay $5,000 to purchase a bond. Multiple bonds can be purchased by a single person.

– GRSF returns $200 in interest annually to the bondholder for an annual return of 4 percent. (The current passbook savings rate is less than 1 percent.)

– Investors sign a legal agreement that was submitted to and approved by Securities Division of Minnesota’s Commerce Department. The agreement explains the program’s risks and returns and details each party’s obligations.

– Bonds may be called after September 30, 2021 (ten years) and GRSF will then have 180 days to repay the bond (plus any accrued interest). GRSF may also repay the bond to the investor after the same date.

– Bonds may be transferred and gifted provided the proper notifications and paperwork are completed.

– GRSF has built a multi-year financial plan that calls for surpluses to pay interest and pay back the bonds over time. Bunge projects the organization to operate with its first surplus this year.

– The expectation is that after 10 years, many investors will choose to roll the bonds over to a new term.

Bunge, who has been in his role for about a year, developed the program as a way raise funds quickly to address the organization’s acute capitalization needs. When he started work, GRSF had debt of nearly $200,000 that was being financed with short-term bank loans at very high rates of interest. Dealing with the debt was expensive, and, as importantly, it was a distraction that occupied the organization as it worked to build creatively on its growth potential.

So far GRSF has sold 39 of the bonds. (GRSF is timing the sale of additional bonds so as not to require an interest payout if the capital is not needed immediately, although you could buy one tomorrow if you want one!) Short term, high-interest bank debt has been paid off, and GRSF has used its new working capital to invest in infrastructure. Most recently GRSF purchased new computer systems and software to support box office and development functions. GRSF had sufficient capital to risk extending its season by a week in 2012, in response to audience demand, and is working to expand its street presence in the beautiful river town of Winona. So far, ticket sales this year have been brisk.

I can imagine a number of instances where a bond program could be extremely useful to an organization paying high interest on debt of any kind, or for an organization that needs working capital to launch new programs or enterprises and can’t wait for the typical 9-12 month grant cycle to seize the opportunity. It seems ideal for artistic investments — for major projects, season expansion or brand new programs and services. With legal and filing fees “under $2,000,” Bunge encourages other people to be in touch to learn more. But maybe wait until the Festival’s summer season is over on August 5th!

New ways to think about solving intractable problems

New book from Peter Coleman

Recently I had the good fortune to spend an afternoon with Peter Coleman, author of the forthcoming book, The Five Percent, Finding Solutions to Seemingly Impossible Conflicts (the link is to Amazon because you are going to want to buy this book).  Coleman is the director of the International Center for International Cooperation and Conflict Resolution and Associate Professor of Psychology and Education at Columbia University. 

Coleman leads a team whose project, “Modeling the Fundamental Dynamics of Intractable Conflict” is funded by the McDonnell Foundation.  They are working together to apply ideas and methods from complexity science to what Coleman describes as “the 5 % problem“  — those 5% of intractable, destructive and enduring conflicts that persist despite application of otherwise proven conflict resolution methodology.  Team members include Andrzej Nowak and Robin Vallacher, social psychologists with expertise in the application of dynamical systems to cognitive, interpersonal, group and social phenomena; Larry Liebovitch, a physicist with expertise in formal descriptions and modeling of system dynamics; and Andrea Bartoli, a social anthropologist and practitioner who specializes in international conflict and genocide prevention (descriptions are from the team’s website). 

In the workshop I attended Coleman used his group’s findings and applied them to difficult business problems to show how we might apply the group’s emerging theory to conflict resolution in our own workplaces.  Anyone who has held a leadership position knows that some problems resist solutions.  And, enacting proven conflict resolution strategy seems to make some resistant problems even worse.  Coleman’s work helps me understand why.

A crude oversimplification of the work is that intractable conflicts are extremely complex in nature, so complex that it is difficult to sustain a mental map of factors that influence the conflict.  The brain acts to simplify the conflict, and, in fact, the tendency is to over-simplify, to reduce the conflict to a simple us/them, pro/con, I’m right/you’re wrong.  The complexity of the conflict is too much to handle cognitively.  Once the conflict is simplified, opposing forces can dig in, increasing intractability.

Additionally, applying traditional problem-solving models typically means deploying a rational, planned process that focuses on activities like negotiation and mediation, methods that work in what Coleman calls “thinking in straight lines.” In thinking about problems, we generally believe that one thing leads to another, one thing causes the next thing to happen in a straight line of linear causality. 

However, complex and intractable problems are neither reducible nor linear.  They behave more like “problem systems,” systems that cannot be understood through simplification and which will not respond to linear approaches (or will respond in unpredictable ways).  Coleman and his team study these conflicts as dynamical systems, with loops of interactions, hubs of agreement and disagreement, and varying positions within a landscape of attractors (patterns we fall into in our relationships that resist change).   

A problem solving approach begins with complicating rather than simplifying the conflict description.  This can be achieved visually by “conflict mapping” (creating a picture of the factors acting on all parts of a complex problem).   Then the problem solvers can use the picture to look for hubs and actionable areas of agreement, see where influencers aggregate to help or impede resolution, and work to expand on the “hidden possibilities” for agreement and resolution that the map reveals.  One of his most interesting recommendations is to “aim to alter patterns not outcomes.”  Since complex problems are built with complicated loops and circuits, altering these maps, re-wiring them if you will, is a better mental image than focusing on a specific outcome.  Think of the solution as changing the map, “changing the landscape” of the problem rather than “solving” the problem.   Finally, Coleman suggests “privileging emotions” when dealing with intractable conflict.  Ignoring the emotional content of the conflict is a form of simplification that is unhelpful to long-term solutions. 

I found Coleman’s thinking stimulating because traditionally we think of conflicts as having solutions, something like solving a math problem.  Thinking of an intractable conflict as system, whose stasis depends on persistent tending of a landscape of forces and factors, is proving a helpful new conceptual framework for me as I go about my work. 

The book will be published on Tuesday.  I have a copy on order.

Sarah Lutman

I am a Twin Cities-based independent consultant and writer working with cultural, philanthropic and public media organizations across the United States. You can read my entire bio on LinkedIn or read about current clients and projects on the Lutman & Associates web site.

Archives

@lutman_sarah

Tweets by @lutman_sarah

Recent Comments

  • Cathy Day on Farewell Bush Artist Fellowships Program: “I was a Bush Artist Fellow in 1999-2000. I was able to take an unpaid leave from my teaching position…” Apr 19, 17:30
  • Steven Clift on Announcing Hothouse: Exploring new ideas in co-working with the Minneapolis Institute of Arts: “The E-Democracy/Open Twin Cities crew is looking forward to mixing it up. We will be looking for unconference partners as…” Jul 23, 19:13
  • David Haas on Be the orchestra: thinking far beyond putting concerts online: “superlative! thanks (biased of course, but all the same..)” Jul 19, 07:23
  • Susan Chandler on Be the orchestra: thinking far beyond putting concerts online: “What a fantastic project! Thank you so much for sharing all the info about it.” Jul 15, 08:50
  • KCB on Practicing extreme transparency: Why does your “About Us” section have to be so boring?: “Why don’t more US cultural institutions pursue “radical transparency”? I’m not a “leader,” but I have an answer: “openness and…” Jul 9, 05:20

What’s up this week

Check out my most recent piece in
Twin Cities Business Monthly

Return to top of page

an ArtsJournal blog

This blog published under a Creative Commons license