Restarting my pattern mapping project...

So at the end of last summer I postponed my pattern mapping project. However, now that the summer is back I'm trying to jump start this project again. One of the big problems I got from my PhD committee was the lack of theory contained with my original proposal.

Well, as I have moved along in my program I have identified some theory. The two primary theories I'm drawing from is Douglas Schuler's civic intelligence and Habermas's Theory of Communicative Action. The other theory (perhaps hypothesis) is that development and planning is a complex on-going adaptive process, there is no end to the process, but a continuous becoming, representing the shared understandings, value, and interests of the community.

With these ideas in mind, the software and methods project is aimed at increasing a group or community's civic intelligence through collaborative visualization of patterns for conceptualizing community problems and potential initiatives for addressing those problems. This system will follow in line with concept maps with the addition of semantic linkages that help to clarify the relationship between community issues, and/or patterns.

In addition to the visualization aspect of the software, there is an added dimension that emphasizes process-monitoring and the evolution of problem/solution conceptualization over the life-span of a community directed initiative. This requires an ongoing process of informational feedback for adaptive planning and action. This will require a versioning system for pattern maps, annotation of maps and patterns, as well as system for attaching case examples, problems with implementation, and scoring pattern relevance. Along with these pieces, there is probable need for integration with a mapping system that will allow for placing patterns (or any proposed solution) within a geographic or spatial context.

Unfortunately, there are very few tools out there that support community use of patterns for planning and collective problem-solving. Furthermore, the number of patterns for community development and planning are large enough to make use of patterns cumbersome... This is especially apparent when considering the shortcomings with pattern retrieval, and understanding how patterns are linked to support one another. Additionally, it is probable that not all relevant patterns have been articulated across the various pattern langauges that exist, this means that users may need to amend the pattern language and add their own pieces in order to fit with their specific context. In other situations, a community may need to articulate an alternate pattern language and this system should support this development. This will hopefully support the evolution and refinement of our current pattern languages, as well as spawn new ones.

As a recap of the project, here are some old posts.

• This is one I wrote for the patternlanguagenetwork.org


• Model for Evaluation/Analysis/Diagnostic for Community Problem Solving (Excerpt from Thesis)


• Visual Pattern Mapping


• Patterns and an Intelligent Web


• Personal Brainstorming Session (Notes on the software)

Now, these posts don't represent everything I have written on this subject, but these I think are some of the most important elements, and reiterate the focus on: visualization, semantic links, deliberation around pattern maps, annotation and case-reports, geographic information, versioning, and the ability to search patterns, update or add patterns, and rate patterns... Now, a lot of this has been carried out by the work of those on the patternlanguagenetwork.org, but not all. One of the things that I'm doing slightly different is the addition of geographic information, semantic cognitive mapping, versus mind-mapping, and the ability to describe a problem space as a network of reinforcing problems that generate a "wicked-problem" space, through the process of problematization we can then begin searching patterns that correspond to the various issues defined by the group, as well creating new ones. For a more detailed description of the problem space concept check out the Methodology/Analysis section of my thesis research.

Quick Write-Up for a Pet Project...

Using Community-Change Patterns to Develop a CSA focused Social Network

Project Proposal #1:

Justin Smith

6/16/2008

Introduction and Rationale:

No longer is the web solely comprised of basic web pages made up of text based HTML, nowadays we have streaming video, audio and desktop application you can use through your favorite web browser. Along with the proliferation of these uses and software, a second wave has come along labeled Web 2.0. This marks an era defined by an explosion of social interactions and user generated content. People no longer have to be tech wizards to navigate and harness the power of this technology. These days all it takes is a few mouse click and one can have a full featured web site and be connected to old high school friends or publish an academic journal. These days a certain level of articifical intelligence is embedded within this massive brain we call the Internet. This makes it easy to aggregate content from various places that match and link individuals together based upon shared preferences, interests and activities. As a result of all of this, we can see that new ways of thinking and acting within this virtual environment are changing thinking and acting in the "world-of-the-real."

However, despite the opportunities afforded by Web 2.0 and social networking technologies, many are still left out and have not yet harnessed the possibilities. Of particular interest are the range of groups spread out across the US focused on building community through a reorientation of the production and consumption practices associated with the modern agri-food system. Though these groups have been able to foment a movement based upon ideals of sustainability and community interconnectedness, there is little evidence to suggest that their efforts are anywhere close to replacing the current system. And though these communities have begun to recognize the utility of the web, it seems they have not yet grasped the underlying opportunities for building greater connectivity among food producers, consumers and retailers on not only a local scale, but national, and even international scales. All one has to do to recognize the opportunities is to see how far the "Fair Trade Movement" has come by using information technologies that links producers, sellers, retailers and consumers in a global market place. This suggests opportunities for similar actions among locally focused groups that can both link people together to meet food needs, but also link people through the free-flow exhange of ideas, practices, problems and successes.

According to Thomas Lyson in his book Civic Agriculture, "CSAs are an important part of civic agriculture. They strengthen the local food economy and preserve farm land. A web of connected and cooperatively organized CSAs could represent a real and viable alternative to the mass-produced, homogeneous, imported produce found in most supermarkets today." Unfortunately, when one does a simple search on CSAs or CSA networks one finds a relatively small number of connected and cooperatively operated ventures that not only provide alternatives but that work to promote a full fledged food movement. That is not to say that locally-focused global networks do not exist, but rather they appear to be few and far between. Thus it seems that there needs to be a concerted effort on building up the necessary connections between one another to help foment a "true movement."

The question then becomes: How do we build vibrant networks that connect to both local relations, while supporting a global movement towards integrated efforts that enhance the role of local food producers and access to these production systems among local community members? Following developments in the use of systems thinking and the codification of knowledge related to the design, development and strategic use of these social technologies it can be argued that we have potential answers to these questions through the adoption of patterns and pattern languages. Essentially a pattern represents a general solution to a persistent problem and these pattern langauges represent a network of patterns that interact and reinforce one another to construct an effective and sustainable system. Based upon this work it is argued that "Liberating Voices" serve as the model for supporting the advance of the local food movement online.

Overall, "Liberating Voices" represents a pattern language for democratic communication, which proposes a set of social, communicative and design principles specifically geared towards confronting these challenges from both local and global perspectives. Using these sets of patterns it is thought that we as a movement of concerned citizens can effectively define the problems we seek to solve and then map out the technological solutions to address these problems. That is not to say that we will eliminate all problems, but rather it is possible that these efforts can provide a greater support network so that communities can eventually come together to tackle the range of other issues confronting the complex relationships between people and their food.

Vision:

Using the principles behind Web 2.0 thinking and patterns for communicative engagement articulated by "Liberating Voices" this project will work to develop technologies and practices tools that can be easily used by people with varying degrees of technical competence. Along with creating usable systems these technologies will fill in a gap in capacity and action among locally distributed and previously unconnected groups across the country and beyond. Together with these tools and the orientation towards supporting greater levels of interaction, there will be a special emphasis on Community-Supported Agriculture and the presentation of one soltuion to a range of issues that need to be confronted from within and outside the movement for a "civic agriculture."

Methods for Design and Development:

a.) Outline Problem Definition (Interviews, Literature Review, Survey of Potential Stakeholders)

b.) Identify Specific Patterns linked to the Problem Definition

c.) Adapt identified pattern to address specific program goals

d.) Merge with Web 2.0 princinples to guide deciisions on final platform choice and subsequent implmentation

e.) Identify useful patterns for promoting and building user interactions on the final site, i.e viral marketing, mass mailers/e-mails, print media, word of mouth, blogging, etc...

f.) Support an iterative design process that embraces user feedback and continual revision for an up-to-date system

Despite the methods presented above, it is clear that certain peices will fundamentally need to be in place. Such as a system to generate interest or location based groups, individual user pages, whether consumers, producers or unaffilitated supporters of a general movement. There will also need to be a way for users to locate geographically CSAs, as well as tools to help current CSAs who already have website generate more traffic through integrating these systems without complex programming skills. Likewise, there is a need for tools that can interface with current social networking platforms such as Facebook or MySpace as this will support future marketing, visibility and make navigation to and from a user's most popular websites easy and seemless.

Project Deliverables:

One social networking website and an associated research paper of journal quality that presents rationale, methodology, evaluation and conclusions for continual refinement of the technologies and practices of interactions used both on site and in face-to-face interactions. Provide on-going support to the development and maintance of additional services as suggested by users or emegent tools created out the community of Web 2.0 developers.

For more information on the methods, technologies and thinking behind the project please look at these resources:

What is Web 2.0? Web 2.0 as described on wikipedia (This is actually a great and easy to understand conversation)

What is Liberating Voices? A Pattern Language for Social Change

More Questions, Less Answers!

Theoretical Questions:
Can the integration of systems-thinking, pattern languages and process monitoring as iterative approaches to sustainability lead to more effective development planning, implementation and outcomes?

Evidence has shown that each approach can contribute to effective policy construction and useful outcomes aimed at supporting sustainability.

However, each approach is inherently complex, often times requiring and generating masses of information needed to properly understand socio-environmental issues and corresponding solutions. This data is often presented in the form of GIS, System Dynamics Models, Influence Diagrams, Case Study Reports, Patterns as "Best Practices" and Transcripts of Actor Interactions, just to name few.

Considering the complexity of these models and the reliance on iterative processes of problem definitions, solution construction, feedback and adaptation, the research seeks to answer a parallel question; can ICTs structured to incorporate these models effectively enable better practice, information retention, community memory and overall facilitate in the application of collaborative use of these models?

Rationale:
No explicit integration of these models has been attempted despite their relevance to each other. Similarly, little effort has been pursued to enable these practices within collaborative spaces online (except for perhaps process monitoring).

DIAC - 2008 (Thinking and Research for Paper)

So I’m currently engaged in an extensive review of ICT for NRM projects (I will post references later). There are a number of programs that focus upon the utilization of ICTs for dynamic systems modeling or for predictive modeling needed for early warning systems in a number of natural resource based industries. However, many of these systems (at least as far as I can tell) ignore some of the more qualitative information that is directly connected to the human dimension of NRM. For example, there seems to be little that deals with community-centered knowledge, culture, local politics and local information. This prompted a question: What about systems that enable community participants to interact or to record their knowledge in relation to their community of place?

Continuing along, I have become increasingly concerned that current programs seem to be out of date, or do not seem to address some very important elements of NRM within a community based context. For the most part a lot of the things I see are connected more to big agro-business, and global commodity systems rather than with locally based development and NRM. To me this is a serious shortcoming considering the number of people who are living in poverty and the fact that many poor persons are the ones dependent up natural resources for livelihoods. As a result, I would think that this population would be the most central human dimension to the NRM ideal.

Now this probably isn’t indicative of the entire scope of NRM focused ICT projects as there are a number of geo-spatial based programs out there that seek to integrate indigenous knowledge, yet even these seem to be geared almost exclusively to the trained “expert” rather than providing content or access to the so-called non-expert. In this sense the systems of knowledge are directed towards the experts and not the actual people these systems are meant to support and benefit.

Perhaps I’m miss reading a number of these projects, but they nonetheless appear lacking. If anything, these programs present an opportunity for further investigation that emphasize community, collaboration and local knowledge. Based upon this standpoint one might consider the use of knowledge management systems and local knowledge mapping as a potential application for evaluation within a local/rural community context. In this way it might be possible to create a useful dialog between the so-called development expert and the actual community participants that these NRM based development programs are meant to address.

From this perspective I think my current research project makes perfect sense as it intends to address the types of information and knowledge archived within a system as well as the ability of local groups to make sense of this knowledge. For the purposes of this project I hypothesize that pattern based thinking could perhaps make an important contribution in the area of qualitative and heuristic based knowledge, especially for community centered adaptive planning and development.

Now, this paper is just a “think-piece” of sorts that will highlight the shortcomings of current systems, yet it will present a model that could be empirically tested and evaluated. The trick then is to develop a model that can be tested.

So the current focus of my work is to develop a system and model that utilize patterns as central content components which reference other pieces of knowledge to develop a holistic model that utilizes a broad scope of tools to support community planning and NRM focuses eco-design.

Proposal for DIAC-2008

Patterns, Knowledge Management and Collaborative Decision-Making in Community-Based Natural Resource Management

ABSTRACT:
Knowledge management (KM) tools have become an important feature in the organizational and decision-making apparatus within governments, industries of finance, banking and software. Recently, natural resource managers and international development practitioners have sought to apply these tools in the service of sustainable development and community-based natural resource management (CBNRM). However, current implementations have been arguably weak in relation to target audience, access to 'knowledge' and the types of content served by these systems. As an alternative approach to the configuration, development of content and semantic relation building of knowledge within such systems, this paper proposes the adoption of patterns and pattern languages as principle components of content, as well as a model for the overall structure of knowledge within these systems. With patterns serving as the primary model for content structure, it is possible further develop the knowledge base through the linkage to other forms of content such as spatial data, case-study reports and other information as needed.

Extending, Clarifying and Redirecting the Previous Post

After reading over my long, yet free thought exercise on expanding my research questions, I have had some time to think and reflect.

What do I think about this?
While I generated a lot of interesting ideas, but I think I really lost sight of the original research questions that drove me to investigate patterns.

Actually, much of my emphasis on patterns is based upon specific questions. Although these questions are not specifically centered upon particular environmental or sustainability issues, rather these questions are centered upon the use and application of patterns in relation to the work they are intended to support.

While patterns have become a central piece to a number of approaches to ecological design, the ways in which patterns are used seems ambiguous, similarly, how do outsiders who want to integrate pattern thinking into their work utilize past knowledge, or append their own insights into existing languages.

While environmental managers and eco-consultants make greater use of communication technologies to support their work, many of the systems that these people use seem inadequate. For instance, knowledge management systems that are geared towards the development of an evolving knowledge bank resemble nothing more than document repositories listing cases of past work (Take a look at CBNRM.net or FRAME). Now this isn’t necessarily the case among major business entities, but for the most part content even here retrieving knowledge seems difficult.

When reviewing these cases it seems difficult for outsiders to glean the central principles that make these projects successful. It would also seem difficult for even a long-time user to know where to look when attempting to integrate patterns that may have not been used by the designer, or when ongoing projects require a designer or community collaborates to identify alternative solutions to emergent forces.

For pattern users, the way they have sought to solve this problem has been to produce a number of pattern repositories that serve as a collection of acquired knowledge, either from other pattern repositories, research or personal design experience. Yet, even these systems feel lacking. For instance, take a look at the Liberating Voices project or Hillside.net, with hundreds of patterns it seems difficult to know where to start.

Furthermore, once patterns are identified and applied, how do we monitor their usage? If forces dictate that a pattern be adapted, then how do we capture that knowledge? Perhaps, these adaptations imply the need for other patterns to be added to a design language, yet how do we capture this process? This would seem important to any future work, as these are elements of a language that must be acknowledged.

Based upon this emphasis it would seem that my research questions might ought to reflect shortcomings in the usage of patterns, the systems we use to preserve, adapt and share patterns; as well as how communities and eco-managers collect and record patterns in order to generate their own pattern languages.

In a very generic way the list below represents a set of useful question to help orient this work, with patterns and pattern languages representing just one part of a series of possible solutions.

1. How do we support the development and retention of environmental literacy among communities?


2. How do we retain community knowledge that spans across multiple domains to include the environment, politics, culture, communications and economy?


3. How do we communicate this community knowledge to resource managers and development practitioners in coherent ways?


4. How do we adapt this knowledge over time, based upon feedback?


5. How do we connect this knowledge in ways that make it useful for complex, holistic decision-making?

Now, as one could see these questions are very broad, yet by contextualizing the questions in relation to current efforts to employ KM and other ICT based tools in the work of ecological design and natural resource management, these questions do seem to take on a more specific character.

If we are taking a KM approach then new question emerge as additional considerations must be taken into account:

1. How do patterns help in structuring KM solutions?


2. How do we support the viewing and searching of knowledge that exists across multiple dimensions?


3. Which approaches to pattern co-construction serve to build the greatest level of community centered environmental literacy?


4. With an emphasis on patterns and KM, what role might community ontologies play in usability?


5. What might be the best way to visually represent patterns as interconnected pieces of knowledge? Mind-maps? Concept Maps? Casual-loop diagrams (perhaps with explicit semantic relationships)?

These questions can go on and on. Yet, they all seem relevant to the work. However, along with the questions what are the assumptions underlying the orientation of these questions? Though a discerning reader might get this I need to make at least five of these clearly explicit for my own reference

1. Why KM systems? To support the growth and development of civic and networked intelligence for collaborative problem solving.


2. The task of supporting sustainability is a global issue requiring not only global action, but networks of individuals and community actors collaborating and working together.


3. The internet provides an effective medium to supplement face-to-face interactions for planning, monitoring and knowledge transfer.


4. Patterns coupled with the use of community ontologies within KM systems represents a possible approach to knowledge creation, knowledge transfer and knowledge retention.


5. Patterns represent an effective design paradigm for community based ecological design and resource management.

Of course these are just some of the assumptions, but these correspond to the larger more general assumptions driving the research in the direction of KM, patterns and community collaboration for ecological design and natural resource management. Out of this understanding it is possible to assess these assumptions and ask the questions listed above within a more specific context as connected to a specific problem area among resource mangers and community actors.

For this I will refer back to one of the primary questions put forth in the previous post:

How do (can) we sustain and support communities dependent upon non-timber forest products in the wake of degraded forests caused by commercial logging, invasive plant diseases, loss of biodiversity, alternating weather patterns and the intensified harvesting of non-timber products due to growing demand for such resources?

While the question addresses an environmental issue the implications touch upon both human and environmental systems. It spans a number of problem domains, such as economic livelihoods, potential political forces, cultural connections to land, the communication, planning and maintenance of natural resource based economies under threat from a multitude of human and environmental forces.

Expanding horizons and forumulating new questions

While I have been heavily involved in the usage of patterns and pattern languages I have attempted a different approach to the formulation of my research goals by emphasizing specific questions, rather than specific theories. While I'm interested to see how patterns and pattern principles could be applied in more unique and useful ways, I think it is first appropriate to ask some specific question before making the theoretical leap, as it is possible that other alternatives might be better suited to answer my basic questions.

The questions address topics from issues of how to support more effective sustainable development practices, to how knowledge management systems could be structured for more effective use among forest managers and community development practitioners.

One question that emerged out of my masters thesis, and has driven much of my subsequent interest derives from the usage from process documentation as an approach to support adaptive planning in development projects. The idea of process documentation emphasizes the need for adaptive planning that utilizes these process-oriented products as tools to provide feedback on development decision-making. Among the central problems identified was the ability to capture knowledge and provide timely feedback on this knowledge and thereby apply adaptations to this knowledge in the field. From this basic idea came the thought of using knowledge management systems to support community decision making as these systems could provide a way for groups to capture and retain past design decision and ultimately enable them to refer back to these decisions on a reoccurring basis to assess and evaluate actual outcomes.

Patterns seem a useful model for these systems as they represent structured knowledge that could be linked to specific case studies or documents describing the usage of patterns for particular decisions. Likewise the adaptive approach could support pattern refinement as feedback generated in the field could further inform our application of patterns and thereby uncover forces at work thereby requiring the utilization of new or alternative patterns.

While this wasn’t a question per se but a hypothetical solution to a stated problem in the literature on process-oriented development, the idea of finding a specific problem to solve is the theme that should be directing the work, rather than theory itself (at least for now).

Other questions have centered upon whether systems modeling could be an effective learning and assessment tool for permaculture designs or for pattern based ecological designs. This is based on te question whether certain patterns utilized in permaculture design are actually the most effective in promoting sustainability. System Dynamics modeling provides yet another mechanism for uncovering possible unforeseen forces at work within environmental systems and could therefore be useful in supporting more effective permaculture projects or projects utilizing principles derived from permaculture practices.

The point of all these questions is to move away from solving problems with pattern methodology per se and to begin addressing specific problems faced by communities and natural resource managers working in the field.

For instance, How do (can) we sustain and support communities dependent upon non-timber forest products in the wake of degraded forests caused by commercial logging, invasive plant diseases, loss of biodiversity, alternating weather patterns and the intensified harvesting of non-timber products due to growing demand for such resources?

Some answers to this question have been pursued using a variety of mechanisms and ecological design practices such as principles from permaculture design, practices of collaborative community forestry, intensive environmental literacy programs and so on

Yet, do these approaches recognize the political and cultural dimensions often at odds with one another? And do these approaches need to be mutually exclusive paradigms?

From my interpretation patterns and pattern languages represents an approach to incorporating these elements by capturing the knowledge successes possessed by all of these paradigms. In a sense, patterns can help inform us as to the types approaches most suitable for particular contexts.

Other elements come into play here as well, such as the notion of soft-systems modeling and the application of pattern knowledge for social and ecological problem solving. Overall, the point of this post is to capture some of the very intense thinking that has been going on throughout the past few weeks.

Interestingly, this is only a fraction and I will be posting various musings, assumptions and hypothetical solutions that could perhaps serve as useful research projects, academic articles and so forth.

Constructing a Pattern Language for Community Centered Information Systems

Returning back to the original focus of this blog I have begun to start thinking of the patterns that might be useful in constructing effective communication systems for natural resource management. The key here is not only providing the environmental information necessary for successful planning, but these systems are centered upon the human element, a central piece of systems design that can be overlooked or in many cases still under-appreciated.

Now, I can think of some pieces that might be useful for environmental monitoring of sustainability focused development such as, web-based GIS, systems modeling applications, weather and climate charts/graphs and maps. However, beyond the modeling and mapping applications that could be integrated, what other elements might we consider in constructing effective information systems?

The L.V. project presents a number of useful pointers that could be utilized for constructing these systems. Some of these patterns have already been mentioned, but I think it might be more useful to define the domains of interaction that could be taking place within the context of designing such systems. As a start this might be more effective than merely listing relevant patterns. Instead if we understand the meta-patterns at play then perhaps we can be more effective in understanding how our list of patterns integrates with one another.


(Source: Schuler, D. (1996). “New Community Networks: Wired for Change.”)

While this interconnected diagram presents some useful things to think about when considering how systems might need to enable community development, I think that environment must be added. With the Environment added to this diagram, I think it is possible to get a clearer picture of what we would hope for in a thriving, sustainable community.

The next step is to identify the patterns that fit under these larger headings. Once we have defined the patterns in relation to the larger elements at play then perhaps we can begin thinking about the systems and technologies that might be supportive of people’s movement in actualizing these fundamental elements.


Now, these patterns seems to address a number of technical as well as human-ceneterd patterns. However, the pattern langauge we see emerging remains at a fairly high-level and there needs to be an extension of these patterns or pattern lanaguage to include the lower-level or more specific patterns related to systems design.

In the next few posts we will explore these patterns as possible contributions to the construction of a gerneal P.L. for community centered environmental informatics.

Today's Pattern...

Today's, pattern is an extension of what I have been thinking about quite extensively over the past few days. In fact, it represents the crux of what I'm envisioning with regards to this web-based pattern language design framework. It really comes down to the facilitation of this "Collective Decision Making: Harmony of Five Voices" pattern written by Valerie Brown. Based upon the varying locations of potential participants particularly among groups working to address regional, national or international issues the usage of a system that represents one more way to facilitate this process is a potential step in a direction towards fully allowing for this pattern and other patterns to be fully realized and applied within the real world.

In the sense of aiding in this collaborative process of sustainable design that includes many voices and opens up space for reflection, assessment and adaptation (as feedback emerges from the decisions we as communities and societies as a whole make), I see this pattern as being a fundamental component and driving aim of this project

So in thinking up requirements for this pattern mapping application and knowledge system I recognize not only the need to be able to visually map these patterns in ways that form coherent wholes as related to the identified design problems (at hand and that interface with the larger process of sustainable transformation taking place at larger and smaller scales), but there is a greater need to enable people to use this system as a way to track decisions. With this in mind this system will need to be able to document and retain the information used in defining the design problem, but also the maps that are generated from these mapping exercises.

Also in considering the number of voices involved in design and all the interests involved it is obvious to me that there must be a mechanism for asynchronous activity to take place that will allow multiple users to aide in the design process, rather than be dependent upon the expertise or dominant voice of one person. This is often the case in GIS based applications.

The use of multiple voices also means that the system will need to have a UI simple enough for people with varying degrees of technical knowledge to be able to effectively use the system.

Perhaps, this means heavy documentation and strict adherence to clarity in the preparation of materials relevant to the use of the system. Trainings, workshops and so forth may also be principle parts of the design and implementation of the system.

The other idea is the ability of this application to be standalone in the sense that communities and organizations should be able to easily download and install on their servers, or of course they can use the community space application that PSP would in theory provide to the public.

This brings up the idea of using the xml dump that Doug has been talking about. This way an application downloaded and served off of a PSP server could in theory query the pattern repository and hopefully generate a list of patterns relevant to the requirements defined by the design participants.

Extending these ideas further there is the perceived need of maintaining community memory among system users. It is potentially relevant that everyone have a chance to learn from mistakes and successes of those using the patterns. This means being able to see the various approaches communities have taken to contextualize individual patterns, what if any changes were made as well as suggestions these communities might make for revision based upon their experience.

With this capability in mind, it is my hope to enable an adaptive and organic system cognizant of the changing nature of community experience and needs and reflects the adaptation of the social, economic and environmental systems that groups are working in.

However, with all these ideas towards adaptive capacity and community memory the fundamental drive of this system is for people to effectively engage in a collaborative and collective process for good decision-making.

Thinking of a Community Knowledge System

Another note:

By using something like Green Maps or another similar community application it is possible to record past and on-going projects that could enable future groups to draw from and develop community memory. This could also provide information to future groups that might potentially interface with past projects in order to create a continually expanding web of sustainable design projects.

Similarly, if using patterns as a way to link solutions with community data to design community solutions, it is possible to record the decisions made by these communities for ongoing assessment and possible adaptation.

This is perhaps my primary justification for supporting an information or community knowledge system (CKS) approach to designing pattern-centric community development. This way communities can be better able to monitor and adapt.

I think this became most obvious when reading the book, "Development as Process: Concepts and Methods for Working with Complexity,"which describes an on-going adaptive approach, that seeks to use 'process documentation' as a way to produce feed-back whereby planners and community stakeholders can tweak and address short-comings in their original assumptions.

By integrating this practice with presence of community information systems it seems that people might be better equipped to produce the necessary feedback about their projects in a much more timely manner. It seems to me that one of the primary critiques of Development as Process is the difficulty of obtaining 'real-time' information.