Category: Humankind Revolutions

How to Overcome a ‘Big Gulp’ Decision in Transformations

Following from our previous post ‘How many Transformations Fail Due to the Lack of Decision‘, in her post ‘Big Gulp Decisions‘ Charlene Li suggests when it comes to the manner of taking the decision to transform, that the right strategy is to ‘burn the boats’.

“Realize also that in the end you’re not going to have all the answers. You will never be 100% certain. […] Once you decide to make this decision be prepared to what one disruptive company calls “burning the boats”. We have to be willing to say we’re making this decision and we’re moving forward and there is no going back. Because if people think that there is an option to go back to what you normally doing before, they will hedge.”

On that perspective, I am not too convinced that it is the right strategy in all cases, because contrary to the Spaniards landing in America with Cortes, organizations nowadays live in an open world – people can decide with their feet to go somewhere else. Therefore, while it is important to ensure commitment to the transformation, the risk of people fleeing is also real.

My recommendation is to instill the transformation at a reduced scale in a specific part of the organization – maybe a specific subsidiary, or even a newly created business, and then let it spread by example and exchange of personnel to the rest of the organization. This also avoids to ‘bet the house’ on the transformation and maintains revenue from the traditional business. This approach may seem less efficient, but it takes into account that something that works will attract people in an open world.

Share

How many Transformations Fail Due to the Lack of Decision

Charlene Li is a specialist of digital transformation. In her post ‘Big Gulp Decisions‘ she expands on the issue of taking the decision to move into actual transformation after the phases of analysis and planning. If it is a real disruption, the change will be dramatic and probably irreversible. What does it take to move forward?

“In many ways the reasons why most organizations do not go into the disruptive strategies and really move into that assertively and intentionally is that they come up to this big gulp moment and they haven’t prepared for it. For some reason they think some magic wand will show up and they can wave it and it’ll be an easy obvious decision. It’s never that way“

So, many failures in transformation programs could stem from the fact that when comes the time, the decision is not actually taken.

This decision can’t be a half-hearted decision. The governance body must be prepared to take it. It might be the main responsibility of the directors, in addition to planning for the transformation, and it might be the most difficult decision to make: what are you willing to stop doing? Are you willing to bet the house on the transformation? Will you stick to it whatever happens?

“Preparing for that big gulp moment is something that has to be built into a disruption strategy. What are the preparations, the data you need to make? Also, what are you going to do afterwards to be able to make sure that people are aligned and able to move forward from the big gulp moment?“

Share

How Arthur C Clarke’s Three Laws Continue to Apply

Arthur C Clarke, famous science-fiction writer, produced three statements about technology development. They are quite applicable and profound, in particular with the perspective on the Fourth Revolution. I find it useful to share them here.

  1. When a distinguished but elderly scientist states that something is possible, he is almost certainly right. When he states that something is impossible, he is very probably wrong.
  2. The only way of discovering the limits of the possible is to venture a little way past them into the impossible.
  3. Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic.

The first statement is about the role of the change of generation in our institutions: too often, such a change is needed for our paradigms to evolve officially – experts and professors remain stuck in their worldview.

The next statements are about going beyond what we believe is possible. There are not enough visionaries doing that nowadays: in spite of the start-up trend, too many start-ups remain within the established possible.

I love the mention of magic, because the last statement tells us that irrespective of the progress of technology, there will always be magic: beyond the currently possible, and we will always be amazed. Let’s look for the next magical stuff!

Share

How to Apprehend the Debate About Prosperity and Environment

There is a widespread underlying debate on the link between prosperity/wealth and environmental impact. This is quite summarised in this post by Alex Tabarrok and its comments: ‘dematerialization: humanity biggest surprise’.

In the Industrial Age there is no doubt that prosperity meant a greater impact to the environment, linked to much increased material and energy consumption, even if protection of habitats improves local ecosystems.

Environmentalists propose de-growth approaches to limit resource consumption.

As we move towards the Collaborative Age this observation is changing. Dematerialisation changes the relationship between wealth production and energy, while renewable energy expand in richer countries. The strain on local ecosystems created by poverty and overpopulation is also increasingly recognised as a wealth destruction mechanism.

Poverty, not prosperity might now be the true enemy of environment.

Share

How the Antikythera Mechanism Shows How Societies Can Regress

The Antikythera mechanism is an absolutely high-technology astronomical system that was discovered onboard a greek shipwreck. Dated between 100 and 200BC it was a millenium in advance compared to the usual scale of technology development.

In this post ‘An Ancient Device Too Advanced to Be Real Gives Up Its Secrets at Last‘, detailed explanations are given on the device and the process of finding out about its usage.

The sophistication of the device has led some to claim it is a hoax. On the other hand it is reasonably possible that the secret of this science got lost when the Romans dominated Greece. At the end of the day only those who win write history.

Beyond the marvelous story of this device, its discovery and the discovery of its function, this gives to think about the fact that it is always possible to regress as a society and forget about great discoveries, plunging the world a millenium back.

Of course it might be less probable nowadays because of the multiple copies of our knowledge (compared to the unique scrolls of the Alexandrian Library), but this event demonstrates the possibility of such occurrence. We always need to be wary that it might occur again.

Share

How Each Civilization Bears the Seeds of Its Destruction Through Inequality Increase

Each civilization is characterized by a social organization and a specific elite. Following on our previous post ‘How Excessive Inequality Will Lead to Revolutions‘ and observation of the fall of previous civilizations and social organizations, a good question is if all societies do not spontaneously tend to increasing inequality – unless specific events or policies temporarily produce the opposite effect.

Societies generally probably tend to become more rigid over time as the elite tries to protect its advantages. If not compelled by external events to compensate (such as drought, catastrophic event, war) or without a visionary leader at the helm that increases redistribution, this may inevitably over time lead to a revolutionary event.

That revolutionary event is generally triggered by an economic downturn such as a bad harvest or more recently, an economic depression.

The Fourth Revolution is happening, transforming our economies and our lives. Elites will also change as a result. Will that be sufficient to manage the transition as we observe a rise in inequality in developed countries?

Share

How Excessive Inequality Will Lead to Revolutions

Cory Doctorow’s post ‘EXTREME WEALTH INEQUALITY WILL ALWAYS DEVOUR THE SOCIETIES THAT PRODUCE IT‘ and the associated longer piece ‘Shared Destinies: Why Wealth Inequality Matters‘ make an interesting point about a limit any society can accept in terms of inequality. They are worth reading.

inequalityHe argues that there has always been some threshold beyond which societies undergo a readjustment – either peacefully or through more violent revolutions. “The more unequal a society is, the more out-of-balance its policies will be.”

Of course inequality is on the rise now after a historic low in the mid-20th century. The question is whether we are getting close to that threshold (as populist successes would imply) and whether this threshold is changing with new technology. In any case this issue needs to be addressed in particular as the economy sputters and does not manage to bring along some part of the population.

Share

How to Overcome The Critical Issue of the Working Poor in the Collaborative Age

New technology and the rise of the independent worker is a factor for creating “working poors” – people that work hard a substantial amount of their time but do not earn enough to support their families. This excellent post addresses the issue in an interesting manner: ‘Work please but poverty, no thanks: how can we avoid the rise in the working poor?‘.

“The growth of new forms of self-employment provides an additional dimension to the in-work poverty challenge. In almost all countries, in-work poverty is higher among the self-employed. A recent study on self-employment showed that there is greater polarization in incomes for the self-employed than for employees.”

This is clearly a challenge that needs to be addressed and that our current employment system underestimates. On the other hand it was Henry Ford who spontaneously increase the wages in his factory to create the virtuous circle of the Industrial Revolution and the associated consumption and he did not need any regulatory incentives. How can we make the operators of the Collaborative Age that it is in their interest to guarantee minimum earnings for their contributors?

“In any case, it is vital not to underestimate the risk of allowing in-work poverty to continue unabated – when people feel that they are losing out despite playing by the rules, the risks to society extend beyond precariousness to decreased social cohesion and increased populism.“

Share

How to Create Disruption With Small Steps

In a complex world disruption does happen, always with far reaching consequences. But creating disruption is hard. I am in the midst of an experiment with my venture CleanuC (trying to disrupt the way the nuclear industry tackles decommissioning) and it is tough to change things although it would seem the system should be ripe for change.

One way to look at creating disruption is to proceed with small steps. This might seem paradoxical, but I truly believe that it is the right way to go. Proceeding with small steps relies upon experimenting, gauging the reactions of various stakeholders and improving the model until reaching a condition that is ripe enough to create a real tipping point. It is a bit similar to the Lean Startup concept of product development, in that case it is about disruption.

Moreover the small steps approach is also deeply antifragile as underlined by Valeria Maltoni in this excellent post ‘How Small Things Make a Big Difference‘ that serves as an inspiration to this particular post.

Proceeding with systematic small steps, with perseverance, is not contradictory with huge disruptions. It is just a way to reach more effectively the tipping point. When do you start the first small step for a big change?

Share

How Daring Ideas May Be Beaten, And Start a Winning Game

Following on our previous post ‘How to Create Disruption With Small Steps‘ I like to share this quote from Goethe: “Daring ideas are like chessmen moved forward. They may be beaten, but they may start a winning game“.

I find this quote very inspiring because it shows how we sometimes need to sacrifice some of our ideas in our small steps strategy, and lose some battles in order to win the overall jackpot.

Actually it is quite necessary to live through small disappointments and setbacks. But if our disruption vision is good enough we will eventually find a way to express and implement it in a way that will win the day.

In our strategy it is essential to know how to sacrifice some stuff that is not so important for what we really believe in. The process might be tough at times, and necessary. Ready?

Share

How the World is Not Yet Flat

Keeping all due respect to Thomas Friedman and his great best-seller book ‘the World is Flat‘, I have to observe that it is not quite the case yet. This stems from my observations as a globe-trotter and my activities as a publisher.

world is flatHaving moved from Singapore to France a few months ago I re-discover the convenience of online buying of groceries, books and all sorts of equipment. That was not possible even in Singapore (a developed country but a too small market in the midst of developing countries for most e-shops, and that also has some protectionist traits).

At the same time as a publisher I get requests from people from various countries like South Africa or less developed countries who want to get a paper copy of our books. Because e-bookstores are not convenient there I need to organize specific logistics from the digital printing shops we are using – and they are all located in western countries.

Notwithstanding the recent hints at increased protectionism, new technologies have brought an unprecedented access to information and dematerialized content. As for material goods, there are still wide differences and gaps due the maturity of distribution channels between countries.

The world will be flat when there will be an equality in the distribution of material goods globally. It is going in that direction but there is still a lot of way to go.

Share

Why the Terminator Conundrum Requires Active Anti-proliferation Policies

In this excellent article, ‘the Pentagon’s Terminator Conundrum – robots that could kill on their own‘, the issue now faced by weapons developers is explained clearly.

terminatorWhile the development of drones and robots that could take themselves the decision to engage targets becomes closer, the issue of whether to develop such system becomes a conundrum. It is important to be able to face such a possible threat, at the same time usage of this type of weapon will need to remain very much controlled. Mechanisms similar to control of nuclear proliferation or chemical weapons might need to be put in place – with the particular challenge that no huge and noticeable industrial complex will be needed to produce such weapons.

The Open Letter by concerned scientists on autonomous weapons is interesting to read. It states “If any major military power pushes ahead with AI weapon development, a global arms race is virtually inevitable, and the endpoint of this technological trajectory is obvious: autonomous weapons will become the Kalashnikovs of tomorrow.”

At the same time, military might contend with enhancing human capabilities by teaming humans with robots, in particular to be able to take decisions in uncertain situations. But the issue needs to be tackled quickly because the consequences of robots engaging without control could become a proliferation issue.

Share