The way things are going:
Our information will be
- hi-res
- real time
- connected
- stored
- searchable
Sunday, December 28, 2008
Wednesday, December 03, 2008
Konference: Energiløsninger til klimarigtigt byggeri
Her er en invitation til en lille konference jeg er igang med at arrangere:
Danfoss Ventures afholder i samarbejde med DONG, TS build UP og Project Zero en mini-konference om
Energiforsyning til klimarigtigt byggeri
på Alsion, Syddansk Universitet i Sønderborg,
mandag den 12. januar, kl. 10.30 - 16.30.
Alt tyder på at kravene om energi-effektivitet i bygninger vil skærpes markant i de kommende år. Med 150 dollars pr. tønde olie, fik vi for nylig en forsmag på hvor voldsomt energipriserne kan stige. Den globale efterspørgsel efter energi vil næsten uvægerligt presse priserne i vejret fremover - dertil kommer udsigten til Co2 kvoter og Co2 afgifter, og en stramning af lovgivningen omkring energi-effektivitet. Der er brug for væsentligt forbedrede energiløsninger i byggeriet, både indenfor nybyg og renovering.
Samtidig betyder finanskrisen, at netop bæredygtige og energirigtige løsninger kan vise sig som et af de få vækstmarkeder indenfor en ellers temmelig truet byggeindustri.
Ved konferencen vil en perlerække af førende danske firmaer fortælle om arbejdet med at udvikle nye, gennemtænkte og banebrydende løsninger på energiforsyningen i bygninger.
Nok så vigtigt er dagen også en mulighed for at udveksle faglige erfaringer og vurderinger, og en lejlighed til at knytte nye kontakter på tværs af brancher.
Blandt dagens indlæg er:
• Peter Hesseldahl, Impact by Danfoss, ridser baggrunden for dagens tema op og styrer dagens debatter
• Anna Kathrine Bisgaard og Lars Kvist, Arkitema, taler om ”Energi til mennesker – holistisk arkitektur”
• Rie Oehlenschläger, arkitekt, taler om passiv huse og bæredygtig byplanlægning
• Tim Mondorf, IBM, fortæller om Smart grids
• Danfoss fortæller om udviklingen af mikrokraftvarme-anlæg baseret på brændselsceller
• Anders Dyrelund, Rambøll, fortæller om Varmeplan Danmark
• Velux fortæller om arbejdet med model home 2020
• Carl Bro/Grontmij præsenterer SIB Zero+ huset, og fortæller om Re-think city konceptet, der medtænker brint i energiforsyningen
• Teknologisk Institut præsenterer deres Energyflexhouse-koncept
• Henrik Sørensen, fra Esbensen Consulting, vil tale om Integreret energidesign – når byggeri ses i en helhed.
Deltagelse koster 890 kr. ex. moms, inkl. frokost og forfriskninger i pauserne.
Tilmelding senest 5. januar til Dorthe M. Lyngsø på dorthe@tsbu.dk
Nærmere oplysning og detaljeret program på: www.danfossuniverse.com/energiogklima
Danfoss Ventures afholder i samarbejde med DONG, TS build UP og Project Zero en mini-konference om
Energiforsyning til klimarigtigt byggeri
på Alsion, Syddansk Universitet i Sønderborg,
mandag den 12. januar, kl. 10.30 - 16.30.
Alt tyder på at kravene om energi-effektivitet i bygninger vil skærpes markant i de kommende år. Med 150 dollars pr. tønde olie, fik vi for nylig en forsmag på hvor voldsomt energipriserne kan stige. Den globale efterspørgsel efter energi vil næsten uvægerligt presse priserne i vejret fremover - dertil kommer udsigten til Co2 kvoter og Co2 afgifter, og en stramning af lovgivningen omkring energi-effektivitet. Der er brug for væsentligt forbedrede energiløsninger i byggeriet, både indenfor nybyg og renovering.
Samtidig betyder finanskrisen, at netop bæredygtige og energirigtige løsninger kan vise sig som et af de få vækstmarkeder indenfor en ellers temmelig truet byggeindustri.
Ved konferencen vil en perlerække af førende danske firmaer fortælle om arbejdet med at udvikle nye, gennemtænkte og banebrydende løsninger på energiforsyningen i bygninger.
Nok så vigtigt er dagen også en mulighed for at udveksle faglige erfaringer og vurderinger, og en lejlighed til at knytte nye kontakter på tværs af brancher.
Blandt dagens indlæg er:
• Peter Hesseldahl, Impact by Danfoss, ridser baggrunden for dagens tema op og styrer dagens debatter
• Anna Kathrine Bisgaard og Lars Kvist, Arkitema, taler om ”Energi til mennesker – holistisk arkitektur”
• Rie Oehlenschläger, arkitekt, taler om passiv huse og bæredygtig byplanlægning
• Tim Mondorf, IBM, fortæller om Smart grids
• Danfoss fortæller om udviklingen af mikrokraftvarme-anlæg baseret på brændselsceller
• Anders Dyrelund, Rambøll, fortæller om Varmeplan Danmark
• Velux fortæller om arbejdet med model home 2020
• Carl Bro/Grontmij præsenterer SIB Zero+ huset, og fortæller om Re-think city konceptet, der medtænker brint i energiforsyningen
• Teknologisk Institut præsenterer deres Energyflexhouse-koncept
• Henrik Sørensen, fra Esbensen Consulting, vil tale om Integreret energidesign – når byggeri ses i en helhed.
Deltagelse koster 890 kr. ex. moms, inkl. frokost og forfriskninger i pauserne.
Tilmelding senest 5. januar til Dorthe M. Lyngsø på dorthe@tsbu.dk
Nærmere oplysning og detaljeret program på: www.danfossuniverse.com/energiogklima
Sunday, November 16, 2008
A synopsis of my book - Skills for a complex economy
This book talks about why we need to think in a different way in order to thrive in the future. It will go through the new skills that are called for, and describe the background conditions, which determine the competences that are going to be crucial to posses.
My starting point is the long-term trend of humans, machines, cultures and economies to connect - tighter, more often, in greater detail and over larger distances. Occurrences in wildly different realms and areas increasingly interact and impact each other - and on top of it change is accelerating in the global system, as each new technological development enables us to make the next step forward even faster.
We are going through a paradigm shift. The culture of the industrial age is receding and new ways of cooperating and organizing are becoming the new normal. All of this demands a different mindset, which is more relevant to the conditions of the years ahead.
It's not an absolute shift. Large parts of the old culture and the old rules still apply and the norms of the past remain useful in many contexts. It's not like we are ripping out the whole cultural foundation and starting anew, but we need to rebuild, add new features and understandings, and prune away some assumptions that are no longer in line with the new reality. We are in a transition phase where mindsets are clashing. The most interesting places to examine are not the extremes of completely new models. Rather, I'm fascinated with the areas where the old and the new overlap and converge. The grey zones, where you can see all kinds of hybrids emerge.
In an organizational context, for instance, we can observe the softening of the borders between the traditional roles of a ”manager” and ” employee”, between ”producers” and ”consumers”, and between ”partners” and ”competitors”.
Likewise, we see a blending of the hitherto sharp distinction between the individual, personal interest and the interest of the greater good. In technology we experience a blurring of what's ”here” and what's ”there” as everyone and everything comes online.
I call these converging areas the power zones, because that's where the action is. They are dynamic. This is where you find fast growth and development, this is where the business model of the new economy are created, and this is where you can observe the demand for new skills and mindsets - and see the need for new kinds of organization and cooperation.
The enormous increase in material wealth that we experienced during industrialization was made possible by standardization and mass production. Moving forward, we need to think in terms of customization and a much greater focus on the demands and needs of the individual.
In the era of assembly lines, it took large amounts of capital to create new products. Only a shrinking handful of big companies could compete on the market for cars, refrigerators, sewing machines or Broadcast media.
Today, the most important means of production is a computer connected to the Internet. Incidentally, that is also one of the most important platforms for consumption. Knowledge that was exclusive to specialists can be accessed by anyone in 0.14 second using Google, and most teenagers take it for granted that they can upload photos and videos to youTube in an instant.
Both the means of production and the access to knowledge has become radically broader, and this democratization is changing our roles in society. Rather than being passive consumers, the majority of us will become participants and co-creators. In an increasing number of contexts we will no longer accept things as they are. We will demand influence; we will interact and engage in the continued developed of the objects and processes which we use.
Creativity is a key word in this context - but the word has acquired a new layer of meaning. Creativity is no longer a somewhat elitist, artistic activity. It has become a basic, necessary skill. Creativity is an imperative. It has become a demand on us in our everyday life that we are able to develop and add something new to the processes we participate in - whether it is on the job or as a consumer.
Being creative, however, does not necessarily imply creating something new from scratch. It is as much about remixing; combining existing elements in new ways. In short: Creativity has become more of a continued, collective process.
It's not like consumers are completely taking over the production of goods and services, but consumers are increasingly involved in determining what the final product looks like. Consumers become participants in creation; they configure, they contribute data and content, they provide feedback and they help spreading knowledge of the product to others.
Consumers are thus in a tight interaction with the producers - and vice versa. That interaction is a precondition in order to create exactly what an individual needs or demands in his or her particular context, here and now. The focus moves from producing finished products for passive consumers, to designing tools that empower the end users to contribute to solving their individual needs.
Producers that aren't capable of involving and listening to their costumers run the risk of commoditization; that is, ending unable to differentiate your product by meeting the individuals needs of the costumers. Then you can only compete on price.
The trend towards participation affects our notion of responsibility and power. If you are a co-creator it follows that you must see yourself as co-responsible. And this is a major cultural shift. Rather than just doing
what you are told by those higher up in hierarchy, we must learn to take an initiative and be proactive in using the opportunities we have been given to shape our circumstances.
The divide between the upper and the lower tiers of our future society will be marked by those that assume responsibility and are pro-active, and those that remain passive. Arguably that was also the case in the industrial society, but the difference is that in the past century only the privileged few had an opportunity to be creative and to assume responsibility. Today it is a fundamental demand in most jobs.
Leaders, too, will need to adapt to the fact that the nature of power has changed. As competency and initiative moves from the center and out into the network, the function of leadership shifts. To telling employees ”why” and ”where to”, rather than telling ”how” the organization should work.
The progressive coupling of everything and every one implies that we will need to consider ourselves as part of a larger context. No one can really see themselves as independent or self-sufficient any more - neither individual persons, nor companies, organizations or nation states. We are intensely interdependent.
Climate and environmental issues are perhaps the clearest illustrations of how the interests of the individual and the interests of the greater good are converging.
On the Internet we can see the so-called Web 2.0 services - like Wikipedia - as examples of how egoism and altruism are becoming harder to distinguish as motivation for the creators.
In business there is a strong trend towards more integrated and complex products and services, and this in turn means that a single company is unlikely to have all the skills in house that are needed in order to deliver a complex service. In order to be competitive, companies need to cooperate, create alliances and platforms that invite others - companies or consumers - to contribute. The utility of a product or service will depend on the extent to which it links and re-enforces the value of other products and services.
In networks where the stakeholders are interdependent and the interaction is continued, you can get a sense of how to behave in order to create mutual value by studying the field of game theory.
It's all about creating win-win situations, in which the result that emerges from cooperating is greater than the simple sum of the individual contributions.
The scientific research into game theory has indicated some of the factors that can enable so-called “plus-sum games”: You should be initiating cooperation; you should show and establish trust; you should connect, engage in networks, and send your creations into circulation and interaction.
It's very close to what's called “open innovation” in a business context.
And it sounds pretty - but it's not simple or easy. All kinds of noise and disturbances tend to erupt when we are integrated in new contexts. In Europe the debate on integrating immigrants is an obvious example, and it raises the questions of where the border to our community runs; who will we include, and under which conditions?
The European Union itself illustrates the issue: In principle a union is in the interest of the greater good, but from a local perspective the union implies an often controversial surrender of sovereignty.
When the circle, which delineates our sphere of interest, expands it is not always in sync with an expansion of our circle of empathy. And it is by no means certain that all stakeholders agree on the borders to the area of shared interests.
This also affects our concept of openness. When you are cooperating and working for a common good it makes sense for all stakeholders to make their resources freely available to each other, so they can be integrated in the co-creation process of new utility. But often, cooperation is only partial, not complete. There's a grey zone with some cooperation, and some sharing - and some consideration about where to draw the limits to openness.
An example: Excessive enforcement of patents and copyrights can lock up the raw material for new development. Individual inventors and creators want to be paid for the efforts and ideas, but it may come at a cost to the greater good if new products - technological or cultural - are not developed as fast as they could have beeen if all knowledge and tools where freely at the disposal for everyone to utilize and build upon.
Likewise with privacy. There's a very strong trend towards recording all details of our lives and making the information available to others. It's a Faustian bargain, because the data makes it possible create services that help us very effectively and in an individualized fashion. For the greater community the information about our actions also means that society can hold its citizens accountable in every detail - for better or worse.
For the individual, however, it feels intimidating and abusive when we experience that our sphere of privacy is intruded upon and we lose control of our personal information.
Nonetheless I believe we will go on connecting everyone and everything ever closer. It's the arrow of time; a trajectory of evolution which we have followed since the big bang, simply because cooperation and alliances provide an evolutionary advantage. We are becoming one global system, and, given time, perhaps one collective organism.
Historically, we have understood the world and the mechanisms behind it, by splitting it into pieces and analyzing the individual components. For good reasons. Until recently we didn't have the technology to examine systems holistically and while they were running.
Not only do we now have the computing power and tools to visualize enormous data sets, but the issues that are crucial to us and the systems with which we are interacting are now of a nature, which we basically can't gauge if we just reduce them to their components.
Whether it's physical phenomena like urban traffic, eco systems or climate change, or if it's social phenomena like civil war, fashion or online services, we need to approach them with a perspective that is holistic and which considers the interactions and the relationships between the many components of the system.
This is where complexity theory enters. If a multitude of components are coupled tightly and the interaction between them becomes sufficiently rich and fast, that's more or less the recipe for a complex, dynamic, adaptive system.
You may never have heard of the concept before, but once you learn about them, you start noticing them all around us. Despite the fact that physics, societal change, ecology, economy etc. are governed by the mechanisms of complex dynamic systems, we tend to only understand those issues in terms of the traditional, Newtonian, linear and mechanical paradigm which was the underpinning of the scientific and philosophical worldview of the industrial age. This is no longer sufficient.
In the 21st century having a deeply internalized understanding of mechanisms such as feedback, self-organization, non-linearity, probability and evolution will be crucial in order to understand and act intelligently in an increasingly complex reality.
By examining the mechanisms of positive and negative feedback we can explain why some systems are inert and resistant to change, while other systems can easily be drawn into rapidly accelerating and self re-enforcing processes.
Knowing about self-organization we can better grasp the qualitative leaps that happen when many elements start interacting. We get a sense of what it takes to harness the collective intelligence and the wisdom of the crowd. We can also analyze the drivers behind the tragedy of commons, in which choices that are perfectly rational at the individual level add up to a collective madness that can be fatal to the entire community.
With a better awareness of non-linearity and chaos we can appreciate that complex issues rarely have clear-cut, certain answers. We learn to think in terms of probabilities, rather than certainty. We accept that we cannot have absolute control of complex process.
Finally, complexity theory teaches us that evolution never stops. Circumstances change, and we must change with them in order to remain fit. Diversity is the raw material for continued development; we need to let variations and mutations try their luck with reality. Those that thrive will carry the torch onwards. This goes for biology, for ideas, as well as for products in the market place.
It's fascinating how these patternes and mechanisms can be observed across all types of complex systems and networks. Systems theory is a basic understanding, which can be applied across disciplines. Like reading, writing and arithmetic, systems theory is a fundamental literacy that gives access to and strengthens ones understanding of all other topics - be it economics, ecology, marketing, micro biology or music.
… And so what?
To stay in the terminology of evolution, one could consider the future as a fitness landscape. Those, which are best adapted and equipped will thrive under the conditions in the landscape - the rest will not make it to the next round. Companies that aren't capable of adapting to the new circumstances will face an uphill battle - while those that have a better understanding of the trends and drivers will experience that their knowledge and the solutions they develop are exactly what the market is asking for.
The same is true for humanity and our way of living. If we manage to leverage the possibilities that massive connectivity offers us; if we find ways to live comfortably within the constraints of the ecosystem - well, then we can hope to keep reproducing. Otherwise, we will join the hundreds of thousands of other species before us that tried but failed to get a foothold on existence.
It is absolutely crucial that we learn the skills for a new, complex reality and, likewise, that we rid ourselves of past habits and mindsets that have now become counter-productive and are standing in the way of our chances of thriving. The sooner, the better.
Some of these skills can be thought of as a return to behaviors that used to be perfectly natural for humans - like being creative and explorative. Others of these competencies require us to train and adapt to a mindset that can seem counterintuitive at first. But we must learn it, just as we had to learn the skills that were relevant and necessary when industrialism happened.
We have been raised with the logic of hierarchies, clear-cut roles, black and white answers and a fundamental approach to life as a zero-sum game in which every one is fighting each other over a finite, limited amount of resources. With that kind of background, it is not easy or natural for most of us to start reaching out, showing trust, assuming responsibility or embracing uncertainty as opportunity. But, as I have argued here, these ways of acting make sense and create advantages in the age of the network.
The hardest part of this mindset to learn is probably also the most pressing. We need to find an understanding of happiness and meaning which is not so narrowly connected to an ever-expanding material consumption.
For this, we might find some inspiration in the skills, patterns and mechanisms I have described. Seeing your self and ones actions in a larger context; thinking in terms of plus-sum games; being accommodating and creating connections; being creative and assuming responsibility, adapting to new circumstance… Those are the skills we will need in a new, complex reality.
My starting point is the long-term trend of humans, machines, cultures and economies to connect - tighter, more often, in greater detail and over larger distances. Occurrences in wildly different realms and areas increasingly interact and impact each other - and on top of it change is accelerating in the global system, as each new technological development enables us to make the next step forward even faster.
We are going through a paradigm shift. The culture of the industrial age is receding and new ways of cooperating and organizing are becoming the new normal. All of this demands a different mindset, which is more relevant to the conditions of the years ahead.
It's not an absolute shift. Large parts of the old culture and the old rules still apply and the norms of the past remain useful in many contexts. It's not like we are ripping out the whole cultural foundation and starting anew, but we need to rebuild, add new features and understandings, and prune away some assumptions that are no longer in line with the new reality. We are in a transition phase where mindsets are clashing. The most interesting places to examine are not the extremes of completely new models. Rather, I'm fascinated with the areas where the old and the new overlap and converge. The grey zones, where you can see all kinds of hybrids emerge.
In an organizational context, for instance, we can observe the softening of the borders between the traditional roles of a ”manager” and ” employee”, between ”producers” and ”consumers”, and between ”partners” and ”competitors”.
Likewise, we see a blending of the hitherto sharp distinction between the individual, personal interest and the interest of the greater good. In technology we experience a blurring of what's ”here” and what's ”there” as everyone and everything comes online.
I call these converging areas the power zones, because that's where the action is. They are dynamic. This is where you find fast growth and development, this is where the business model of the new economy are created, and this is where you can observe the demand for new skills and mindsets - and see the need for new kinds of organization and cooperation.
The enormous increase in material wealth that we experienced during industrialization was made possible by standardization and mass production. Moving forward, we need to think in terms of customization and a much greater focus on the demands and needs of the individual.
In the era of assembly lines, it took large amounts of capital to create new products. Only a shrinking handful of big companies could compete on the market for cars, refrigerators, sewing machines or Broadcast media.
Today, the most important means of production is a computer connected to the Internet. Incidentally, that is also one of the most important platforms for consumption. Knowledge that was exclusive to specialists can be accessed by anyone in 0.14 second using Google, and most teenagers take it for granted that they can upload photos and videos to youTube in an instant.
Both the means of production and the access to knowledge has become radically broader, and this democratization is changing our roles in society. Rather than being passive consumers, the majority of us will become participants and co-creators. In an increasing number of contexts we will no longer accept things as they are. We will demand influence; we will interact and engage in the continued developed of the objects and processes which we use.
Creativity is a key word in this context - but the word has acquired a new layer of meaning. Creativity is no longer a somewhat elitist, artistic activity. It has become a basic, necessary skill. Creativity is an imperative. It has become a demand on us in our everyday life that we are able to develop and add something new to the processes we participate in - whether it is on the job or as a consumer.
Being creative, however, does not necessarily imply creating something new from scratch. It is as much about remixing; combining existing elements in new ways. In short: Creativity has become more of a continued, collective process.
It's not like consumers are completely taking over the production of goods and services, but consumers are increasingly involved in determining what the final product looks like. Consumers become participants in creation; they configure, they contribute data and content, they provide feedback and they help spreading knowledge of the product to others.
Consumers are thus in a tight interaction with the producers - and vice versa. That interaction is a precondition in order to create exactly what an individual needs or demands in his or her particular context, here and now. The focus moves from producing finished products for passive consumers, to designing tools that empower the end users to contribute to solving their individual needs.
Producers that aren't capable of involving and listening to their costumers run the risk of commoditization; that is, ending unable to differentiate your product by meeting the individuals needs of the costumers. Then you can only compete on price.
The trend towards participation affects our notion of responsibility and power. If you are a co-creator it follows that you must see yourself as co-responsible. And this is a major cultural shift. Rather than just doing
what you are told by those higher up in hierarchy, we must learn to take an initiative and be proactive in using the opportunities we have been given to shape our circumstances.
The divide between the upper and the lower tiers of our future society will be marked by those that assume responsibility and are pro-active, and those that remain passive. Arguably that was also the case in the industrial society, but the difference is that in the past century only the privileged few had an opportunity to be creative and to assume responsibility. Today it is a fundamental demand in most jobs.
Leaders, too, will need to adapt to the fact that the nature of power has changed. As competency and initiative moves from the center and out into the network, the function of leadership shifts. To telling employees ”why” and ”where to”, rather than telling ”how” the organization should work.
The progressive coupling of everything and every one implies that we will need to consider ourselves as part of a larger context. No one can really see themselves as independent or self-sufficient any more - neither individual persons, nor companies, organizations or nation states. We are intensely interdependent.
Climate and environmental issues are perhaps the clearest illustrations of how the interests of the individual and the interests of the greater good are converging.
On the Internet we can see the so-called Web 2.0 services - like Wikipedia - as examples of how egoism and altruism are becoming harder to distinguish as motivation for the creators.
In business there is a strong trend towards more integrated and complex products and services, and this in turn means that a single company is unlikely to have all the skills in house that are needed in order to deliver a complex service. In order to be competitive, companies need to cooperate, create alliances and platforms that invite others - companies or consumers - to contribute. The utility of a product or service will depend on the extent to which it links and re-enforces the value of other products and services.
In networks where the stakeholders are interdependent and the interaction is continued, you can get a sense of how to behave in order to create mutual value by studying the field of game theory.
It's all about creating win-win situations, in which the result that emerges from cooperating is greater than the simple sum of the individual contributions.
The scientific research into game theory has indicated some of the factors that can enable so-called “plus-sum games”: You should be initiating cooperation; you should show and establish trust; you should connect, engage in networks, and send your creations into circulation and interaction.
It's very close to what's called “open innovation” in a business context.
And it sounds pretty - but it's not simple or easy. All kinds of noise and disturbances tend to erupt when we are integrated in new contexts. In Europe the debate on integrating immigrants is an obvious example, and it raises the questions of where the border to our community runs; who will we include, and under which conditions?
The European Union itself illustrates the issue: In principle a union is in the interest of the greater good, but from a local perspective the union implies an often controversial surrender of sovereignty.
When the circle, which delineates our sphere of interest, expands it is not always in sync with an expansion of our circle of empathy. And it is by no means certain that all stakeholders agree on the borders to the area of shared interests.
This also affects our concept of openness. When you are cooperating and working for a common good it makes sense for all stakeholders to make their resources freely available to each other, so they can be integrated in the co-creation process of new utility. But often, cooperation is only partial, not complete. There's a grey zone with some cooperation, and some sharing - and some consideration about where to draw the limits to openness.
An example: Excessive enforcement of patents and copyrights can lock up the raw material for new development. Individual inventors and creators want to be paid for the efforts and ideas, but it may come at a cost to the greater good if new products - technological or cultural - are not developed as fast as they could have beeen if all knowledge and tools where freely at the disposal for everyone to utilize and build upon.
Likewise with privacy. There's a very strong trend towards recording all details of our lives and making the information available to others. It's a Faustian bargain, because the data makes it possible create services that help us very effectively and in an individualized fashion. For the greater community the information about our actions also means that society can hold its citizens accountable in every detail - for better or worse.
For the individual, however, it feels intimidating and abusive when we experience that our sphere of privacy is intruded upon and we lose control of our personal information.
Nonetheless I believe we will go on connecting everyone and everything ever closer. It's the arrow of time; a trajectory of evolution which we have followed since the big bang, simply because cooperation and alliances provide an evolutionary advantage. We are becoming one global system, and, given time, perhaps one collective organism.
Historically, we have understood the world and the mechanisms behind it, by splitting it into pieces and analyzing the individual components. For good reasons. Until recently we didn't have the technology to examine systems holistically and while they were running.
Not only do we now have the computing power and tools to visualize enormous data sets, but the issues that are crucial to us and the systems with which we are interacting are now of a nature, which we basically can't gauge if we just reduce them to their components.
Whether it's physical phenomena like urban traffic, eco systems or climate change, or if it's social phenomena like civil war, fashion or online services, we need to approach them with a perspective that is holistic and which considers the interactions and the relationships between the many components of the system.
This is where complexity theory enters. If a multitude of components are coupled tightly and the interaction between them becomes sufficiently rich and fast, that's more or less the recipe for a complex, dynamic, adaptive system.
You may never have heard of the concept before, but once you learn about them, you start noticing them all around us. Despite the fact that physics, societal change, ecology, economy etc. are governed by the mechanisms of complex dynamic systems, we tend to only understand those issues in terms of the traditional, Newtonian, linear and mechanical paradigm which was the underpinning of the scientific and philosophical worldview of the industrial age. This is no longer sufficient.
In the 21st century having a deeply internalized understanding of mechanisms such as feedback, self-organization, non-linearity, probability and evolution will be crucial in order to understand and act intelligently in an increasingly complex reality.
By examining the mechanisms of positive and negative feedback we can explain why some systems are inert and resistant to change, while other systems can easily be drawn into rapidly accelerating and self re-enforcing processes.
Knowing about self-organization we can better grasp the qualitative leaps that happen when many elements start interacting. We get a sense of what it takes to harness the collective intelligence and the wisdom of the crowd. We can also analyze the drivers behind the tragedy of commons, in which choices that are perfectly rational at the individual level add up to a collective madness that can be fatal to the entire community.
With a better awareness of non-linearity and chaos we can appreciate that complex issues rarely have clear-cut, certain answers. We learn to think in terms of probabilities, rather than certainty. We accept that we cannot have absolute control of complex process.
Finally, complexity theory teaches us that evolution never stops. Circumstances change, and we must change with them in order to remain fit. Diversity is the raw material for continued development; we need to let variations and mutations try their luck with reality. Those that thrive will carry the torch onwards. This goes for biology, for ideas, as well as for products in the market place.
It's fascinating how these patternes and mechanisms can be observed across all types of complex systems and networks. Systems theory is a basic understanding, which can be applied across disciplines. Like reading, writing and arithmetic, systems theory is a fundamental literacy that gives access to and strengthens ones understanding of all other topics - be it economics, ecology, marketing, micro biology or music.
… And so what?
To stay in the terminology of evolution, one could consider the future as a fitness landscape. Those, which are best adapted and equipped will thrive under the conditions in the landscape - the rest will not make it to the next round. Companies that aren't capable of adapting to the new circumstances will face an uphill battle - while those that have a better understanding of the trends and drivers will experience that their knowledge and the solutions they develop are exactly what the market is asking for.
The same is true for humanity and our way of living. If we manage to leverage the possibilities that massive connectivity offers us; if we find ways to live comfortably within the constraints of the ecosystem - well, then we can hope to keep reproducing. Otherwise, we will join the hundreds of thousands of other species before us that tried but failed to get a foothold on existence.
It is absolutely crucial that we learn the skills for a new, complex reality and, likewise, that we rid ourselves of past habits and mindsets that have now become counter-productive and are standing in the way of our chances of thriving. The sooner, the better.
Some of these skills can be thought of as a return to behaviors that used to be perfectly natural for humans - like being creative and explorative. Others of these competencies require us to train and adapt to a mindset that can seem counterintuitive at first. But we must learn it, just as we had to learn the skills that were relevant and necessary when industrialism happened.
We have been raised with the logic of hierarchies, clear-cut roles, black and white answers and a fundamental approach to life as a zero-sum game in which every one is fighting each other over a finite, limited amount of resources. With that kind of background, it is not easy or natural for most of us to start reaching out, showing trust, assuming responsibility or embracing uncertainty as opportunity. But, as I have argued here, these ways of acting make sense and create advantages in the age of the network.
The hardest part of this mindset to learn is probably also the most pressing. We need to find an understanding of happiness and meaning which is not so narrowly connected to an ever-expanding material consumption.
For this, we might find some inspiration in the skills, patterns and mechanisms I have described. Seeing your self and ones actions in a larger context; thinking in terms of plus-sum games; being accommodating and creating connections; being creative and assuming responsibility, adapting to new circumstance… Those are the skills we will need in a new, complex reality.
Saturday, November 08, 2008
More Power Zones
Here’s another couple of ”power zones”; areas in which the convergence of realms that used be seperate creates some interesting and challenging new results.
We are not at the point where our machines our truly conscious, but a lot of smart systems seem to have moved way beyond simple, mechanical and linear computing. They have a certain new quality; one gets the sense that there is ”something” in the way the machine works that was not explicitly installed there by an engineer.
Likewise, our systems have started to show traits that we would traditionally only associate with organisms that are alive.
Wednesday, October 22, 2008
Googles clean energy vision
In this podcast, Eric Schmidt, CEO of Google speaks for 30 minutes about his vision of the future of energy supply. He provides an excellent summary of the general vision of “de-carbonization” which he shares with a large part of the Californian clean tech venture capital community. This includes an intelligent power grid, massive investments in solar, taxes and quotas on CO2 emissions and a tax policy that doesn’t support the fossil fuel based logic of the past.
All in all a very good example of how hard American entrepreneurial spirit in combination with great amounts of capital can pull, once they catch a glimpse of the Next Great Thing.
Eric Schmidt does not dismiss that Google could enter the energy generation or distribution business – he compares a future intelligent power grid to the internet.
Thought provoking, inspiring – and a reminder that cleantech is moving forward fast.
All in all a very good example of how hard American entrepreneurial spirit in combination with great amounts of capital can pull, once they catch a glimpse of the Next Great Thing.
Eric Schmidt does not dismiss that Google could enter the energy generation or distribution business – he compares a future intelligent power grid to the internet.
Thought provoking, inspiring – and a reminder that cleantech is moving forward fast.
Sunday, September 28, 2008
Power zones
So, I'm working on this book, and one of the main themes in it will be the idea of "power zones", where the old and the new paradigm is converging.
Our industrial culture is fading, and new ways of organizing and cooperating are becoming more relevant in order to thrive under today's and tomorrow's circumstances.
But it’s not a complete change. The old ways are still with us, and they are still useful in many contexts. What’s interesting to study is not so much the extreme cases of way new behaviours. Rather, it’s the areas where the old and the new overlap and converge that are most important. The zones in which there’s some of both.
I call them the power zones, because that’s where the action is.
They are dynamic. This is where you find fast growth and development, this is where the business model of the new economy are created, and this is where you can observe the demand for new skills and mindsets – and a need for new kinds of organization and cooperation.
So here are some of the power zones of convergence:
Producers/consumers
Consumers are not taking over the entire production, but increasingly they have a say in determining what gets created. They participate in the creation, they configure, contribute content, give feedback and spread the word to others... They interact with the producers – and vice versa - in order to get exactly the product or service they want in their current, personal context.
Producers who fail to involve and listen to their users are more at risk of commoditization; rather than competing by meeting individual demands, they can only differentiate their product on price.
There is still a place for expertise and professional skills and experience, but amateurs, who are passionate about their interest, are getting the tools to create to standards that used to be exclusive to professionals. Companies are finding that the greatest experts on their products are often the fans and users, rather than the employees.
Topdown/bottom up
Not a complete rejection of leadership and hierarchy but an increasing share of inputs and initiative come from the periphery rather than the center of the system. The network manages itself, but there is still a need for leadership and vision in order to align.
Competing, yes, but cooperating as well. Co-creating in order to establish a greater platform to do business on.
Me/we
Not entirely altruistic, but conscious that in a connected world of tightening resources, the well being of the system is in the individuals’ own interest – and that any harm or defects to the system quickly translate into negative consequences for the individual.
Not a complete surrender to the collective, still motivated by personal goals and gains, but with an understanding of increasing interdependence and the value of cooperation. The circle of empathy, responsibility and accountability is widening, but there are clashes at the boundaries.
Not letting go of all secrets and possessions, but moving from a completely protected and closed mindset to one of reciprocal sharing – enabling rapid innovation and learning for the benefit of all players.
Not giving up all privacy, but finding a new balance where accountability to the system gives you better service and guards the majority against the excesses of the few.
Here/there
Not gone entirely into a virtual world, but simultaneously present in both the virtual and physical reality. The experience of the local physical reality is augmented, but also distracted by a digital layer of information.
Physically present here, but communicating and acting with consequences elsewhere. And likewise, not just acting on what’s taking place here, but affected by information streams or events that are remotely controlled by others.
A merging of disciplines
Not giving up deep knowledge of a subject, but augmenting your understanding with insights from other fields – transferring systemic features, cross fertilizing disciplines. In many cases because the context and the problems that need to be solved are so complex that the solutions require knowledge from a range of disciplines.
Our industrial culture is fading, and new ways of organizing and cooperating are becoming more relevant in order to thrive under today's and tomorrow's circumstances.
But it’s not a complete change. The old ways are still with us, and they are still useful in many contexts. What’s interesting to study is not so much the extreme cases of way new behaviours. Rather, it’s the areas where the old and the new overlap and converge that are most important. The zones in which there’s some of both.
I call them the power zones, because that’s where the action is.
They are dynamic. This is where you find fast growth and development, this is where the business model of the new economy are created, and this is where you can observe the demand for new skills and mindsets – and a need for new kinds of organization and cooperation.
So here are some of the power zones of convergence:
Producers/consumers
Consumers are not taking over the entire production, but increasingly they have a say in determining what gets created. They participate in the creation, they configure, contribute content, give feedback and spread the word to others... They interact with the producers – and vice versa - in order to get exactly the product or service they want in their current, personal context.
Producers who fail to involve and listen to their users are more at risk of commoditization; rather than competing by meeting individual demands, they can only differentiate their product on price.
There is still a place for expertise and professional skills and experience, but amateurs, who are passionate about their interest, are getting the tools to create to standards that used to be exclusive to professionals. Companies are finding that the greatest experts on their products are often the fans and users, rather than the employees.
Topdown/bottom up
Not a complete rejection of leadership and hierarchy but an increasing share of inputs and initiative come from the periphery rather than the center of the system. The network manages itself, but there is still a need for leadership and vision in order to align.
Competing, yes, but cooperating as well. Co-creating in order to establish a greater platform to do business on.
Me/we
Not entirely altruistic, but conscious that in a connected world of tightening resources, the well being of the system is in the individuals’ own interest – and that any harm or defects to the system quickly translate into negative consequences for the individual.
Not a complete surrender to the collective, still motivated by personal goals and gains, but with an understanding of increasing interdependence and the value of cooperation. The circle of empathy, responsibility and accountability is widening, but there are clashes at the boundaries.
Not letting go of all secrets and possessions, but moving from a completely protected and closed mindset to one of reciprocal sharing – enabling rapid innovation and learning for the benefit of all players.
Not giving up all privacy, but finding a new balance where accountability to the system gives you better service and guards the majority against the excesses of the few.
Here/there
Not gone entirely into a virtual world, but simultaneously present in both the virtual and physical reality. The experience of the local physical reality is augmented, but also distracted by a digital layer of information.
Physically present here, but communicating and acting with consequences elsewhere. And likewise, not just acting on what’s taking place here, but affected by information streams or events that are remotely controlled by others.
A merging of disciplines
Not giving up deep knowledge of a subject, but augmenting your understanding with insights from other fields – transferring systemic features, cross fertilizing disciplines. In many cases because the context and the problems that need to be solved are so complex that the solutions require knowledge from a range of disciplines.
Friday, August 08, 2008
Hybrid taxis
Stockholm has a lot of Toyota Prius hybrids running as taxis. Nice touch. As usual, we can learn from the Swedes.
Friday, July 11, 2008
Starting up a new book
I guess I might as well advertise it: I’ve started writing on my next book, and this time it will be in English. It will be a business book, focusing on how society and the economy is getting more complex and how this will demand a very different attitude and perspective than what the industrial age called for.
I’ve tried to get an overview of the (intended) content by writing the headlines – and I’ve posted it all here. For anyone interested in the subject, I hope this list of headlines can convey a sense of where the content is heading.
Obviously, I’d love to have any comments.
I’ve tried to get an overview of the (intended) content by writing the headlines – and I’ve posted it all here. For anyone interested in the subject, I hope this list of headlines can convey a sense of where the content is heading.
Obviously, I’d love to have any comments.
Wednesday, July 09, 2008
Wednesday, June 04, 2008
Ars electronica: A new cultural economy
Just noticed that this years' Ars Electronica festival will be about "A new cultural economy - the limits of intelletual property". It's curated by Joi Ito. Sounds interesting - maybe a bit too predictable? What I usually find really stimulating about Ars E. is their ability to define completely new agendas, that may have been evolving just below the surface.
Thursday, May 29, 2008
Zero Carbon Cities - konference
Sorry, this announcement is in Danish:
Jeg har været en del involveret i Project Zero, et meget ambitøst projekt om at gøre Sønderborg området carbon-neutralt inden 2030. Det er et langt, sejt træk, og det er ikke noget en enkelt by kan løse alene. For at få kontakt til andre der arbejder med de samme problemstilinger, holder Project Zero en konference den 17. juni om bæredygtig byplanlægning - specielt med fokus på små og mellemstore byer, der har ganske andre udfordringer end storbyer på miljøområdet.
Vi har fået indlægsholdere fra de 3 europæiske projekter vi mener er de mest interessante: Freiburg, Växjö og Wien. Desuden vil der være præsentationer fra en stribe danske byer som arbejder i retning af carbon reduktion: Frederikshavn, Lolland, Albertslund - og selvfølgelig Sønderborg.
Programmet kan downloades her
Friday, February 08, 2008
World out of sync
This seems seriously spooky. Cherry trees blossoming in London a couple of days ago - on february 5th.
Friday, January 25, 2008
Thursday, January 24, 2008
What does "Bright Green" mean?
At work we throw the phrase "Bright Green" around a lot. I've made another attempt to define what it might mean:
Bright green is a strategy for meeting our needs and securing a pleasant, modern lifestyle without reducing the opportunities of future generations and harming the foundation for civilization in the long run.
In that sense, the term ”bright green” means the same as ”sustainable”, but by choosing a different phrase we get to rethink the issue and define a vision that is more in line with the realities of today.
No one owns the definition of ”bright green”, but as we see it, the following are some of the characteristics:
Bright Green is basically about understanding ones actions and their consequences in a global and long-term perspective. It is becoming increasingly clear that it is in our own interest that the entire system which we depend upon remains healthy.
Bright Green thinking is circular; realizing that resources, activity and waste are connected in a cycle which is becoming tighter on a planet where a rising population of people are rapidly increasing their consumption – while natural resources are dwindling or depleted despite amazing progress in developing more efficient technologies.
Meeting the future needs of humans calls for radical new technologies, so Bright Green technology must be based on science and facts. Bright Green solutions do not depend on faith or luck – they are proven, well documented and robust technologies with an effect that is reliable and well understood.
Obviously, money is not the only value in life, but the spreading of bright green products and solutions should be driven by market forces. They have to be attractive and make economical sense. Bright green solutions may be supported by regulation - and indeed taxation and regulation are important ways of determining what is economical in society - but basically Bright Green solution should be chosen based on competitive merits and not because of guilt or good will. Bright green solutions are efficient as they seek to optimize the use of natural resources.
Bright Green solutions are thought through at a systemic level and they work in large and complex contexts. Bright Green thinking implies deliberately looking at the larger picture – understanding that whether a solution is in fact positive is determined in a complex interaction between many, interdependent factors. Bright Green is no about quick, local fixes.
Bright Green solutions can scale to mass markets. They are not hand crafted or targetted at small and special groups of users. Rather, they can be rolled out at an industrial scale and be useful to millions of people.
Bright Green solutions offer transparency and overview. They enable users to act appropriately and participate in optimizing their outcome. They invite users to act in a responsible way – to become co-creators rather than passive consumers.
Strictly speaking, the best environmentalist is a dead environmentalist – no longer wearing on nature’s resources. But Bright Green thinking is not about excusing our presence and minimizing our existence. Bright Green should be an attractive, hopeful and fun vision of the future. Nature is not grey and frugal. Nature is an explosion of colours, variety and opportunity, but this richness of the planet has co-evolved as an entire system. Our wealth can only be maintained in balance with the rest of the system – and evolution is littered with designs that did not respect that.
Bright green is a strategy for meeting our needs and securing a pleasant, modern lifestyle without reducing the opportunities of future generations and harming the foundation for civilization in the long run.
In that sense, the term ”bright green” means the same as ”sustainable”, but by choosing a different phrase we get to rethink the issue and define a vision that is more in line with the realities of today.
No one owns the definition of ”bright green”, but as we see it, the following are some of the characteristics:
Bright Green is basically about understanding ones actions and their consequences in a global and long-term perspective. It is becoming increasingly clear that it is in our own interest that the entire system which we depend upon remains healthy.
Bright Green thinking is circular; realizing that resources, activity and waste are connected in a cycle which is becoming tighter on a planet where a rising population of people are rapidly increasing their consumption – while natural resources are dwindling or depleted despite amazing progress in developing more efficient technologies.
Meeting the future needs of humans calls for radical new technologies, so Bright Green technology must be based on science and facts. Bright Green solutions do not depend on faith or luck – they are proven, well documented and robust technologies with an effect that is reliable and well understood.
Obviously, money is not the only value in life, but the spreading of bright green products and solutions should be driven by market forces. They have to be attractive and make economical sense. Bright green solutions may be supported by regulation - and indeed taxation and regulation are important ways of determining what is economical in society - but basically Bright Green solution should be chosen based on competitive merits and not because of guilt or good will. Bright green solutions are efficient as they seek to optimize the use of natural resources.
Bright Green solutions are thought through at a systemic level and they work in large and complex contexts. Bright Green thinking implies deliberately looking at the larger picture – understanding that whether a solution is in fact positive is determined in a complex interaction between many, interdependent factors. Bright Green is no about quick, local fixes.
Bright Green solutions can scale to mass markets. They are not hand crafted or targetted at small and special groups of users. Rather, they can be rolled out at an industrial scale and be useful to millions of people.
Bright Green solutions offer transparency and overview. They enable users to act appropriately and participate in optimizing their outcome. They invite users to act in a responsible way – to become co-creators rather than passive consumers.
Strictly speaking, the best environmentalist is a dead environmentalist – no longer wearing on nature’s resources. But Bright Green thinking is not about excusing our presence and minimizing our existence. Bright Green should be an attractive, hopeful and fun vision of the future. Nature is not grey and frugal. Nature is an explosion of colours, variety and opportunity, but this richness of the planet has co-evolved as an entire system. Our wealth can only be maintained in balance with the rest of the system – and evolution is littered with designs that did not respect that.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)