Posted by Adam Gordon on Jul 5, 2011 in all, emerging technologies, failed predictions, innovation, technology change
Mansueto Library: robots and underground storage vaults
The University of Chicago’s new Joe and Rika Mansueto Library is, it seems, a caricature of futurism. Under a vast glass dome sits an 8,000 sq-ft reading room, complete with flat screens, a circulation desk, ergonomic furniture, and … no books.
Turns out the books, all 3.5 million of them, are packed efficiently – by size – into 2 x 4 x 1.5 ft metal bins stored in vaults below ground. If you need one, you go tap-tap at your keyboard, which sends enormous rolling robots to fetch the right bin and crank it up to the circulation desk, allegedly in less than 5 minutes.
A number of things are interesting here, the first being that this “library-of-the-future” is about paper books at all. In a Google-digitize-the-planet world where Amazon says that more than half of its books sales are for the Kindle, the University of Chicago’s $81m bet on “dead-tree” storage and retrieval is quite a bet.
It is a good bet. Hype aside, it will be still many generations before “paperless” is any kind of on-the-ground reality, as paperless office evangelists have found out. Imbedded human habits and systems just don’t move that fast.
But systems do. Ingrained human preference for tactile objects doesn’t mean that storing, finding, and retrieving of the objects can’t be improved overnight, which is the essence of what is going on here. The automated search-and-retrieval system creates efficiencies as all automation does – by dumping human beings out of the process. Specifically, it copies advanced manufacturing systems such as those used in automobile assembly plants, which effects just-in-time finding and retrieving of components this way.
[vsw id="ESCxYchCaWI" source="youtube" width="425" height="344" autoplay="no"]
.
The first industry foresight principle at work here is this: where the same problem applies, a solution that creates value in one industry will turn up to create value in another, even if apparently unrelated. Innovation doesn’t respect sector or management thought silos. Ergo, leaders who are able to comprehend challenges at a systemic level and look across industry boundaries for solutions that already exist elsewhere, find the future before competitors do.
Second, although the book definitely survives in the University of Chicago’s forward view of the library, note that the solution is not simply head-in-the-sand “nothing changes.” What changes, they are arguing, is the system aroundthe book, the storage, finding, and shlepping thereof. Moreover, the new system is a radical departure. It turns the status quo upside down, to make the physical book a relatively minor element of the online system, not the other way around.
Finally, the solution on offer is one more piece of evidence that inexorable advances in single-purpose (non-human-like) robotics and sensors are quietly yet absolutely changing the world around us. If we drop the Frankenstein image, and see robots for what they really are in our time, that is, sensors + wheels + software, many imminent changes in industry and society come quickly into focus.
read more
Posted by Adam Gordon on Jan 10, 2011 in all, emerging technologies, leadership, policy, social change
The world is has been changed by the exposure on WikiLeaks of hundreds of thousands US diplomatic cables laying bare the behind-the-scenes manuevering and perspectives of US diplomats and their allies.
The leaks created predictable dismay at the State Department and beyond, along with gritted-teeth promises to bring perpetrators to justice, and there is enough outrage and embarrassment in high places that this kind of action will no doubt go forward.
But, from a foresight perspective, it’s just “noise.” It is not the future. There can be no muzzling in the digital world. Just like we nod and smile when China tries to keep a finger in the Internet dyke, we should nod and smile at these diplomatic machinations to hold back the electronic tide.
A long time coming
This kind of upset has been a long time coming for the diplomatic community. Over the last 20 years, most industries and organizations have been forced to adapt to a world where instant copying and distribution of digital content means that electronic information is soon, if not instantly, freely available in the public domain. That is, an electronic document is effectively a public document no matter what anyone says or does.
Some have learned the hard way. Media companies slow to imbibe this new reality, from Encyclopedia Brittanica to Blockbuster, have gone to the wall. The music industry has fought a long fight against unsanctioned electronic redistribution, a fight it must ultimately lose. Police departments have found out that any time “policing” is going on, someone with a cell-phone is videoing it (digitizing it), and next thing that’s in the public domain too.
So now its US (and global) diplomacy’s turn to learn the digital lesson: if it’s digital, it’s in the public domain — already, or soon.
There are of course good arguments for secrecy. The sensitive baby-steps of international agreements need privacy protection. Leaking information may embarrass partners, scupper deals, put lives at risk, or compromise counter-terrorism. This is all true.
But to wag fingers over this is like EMI saying: “creator incentive is compromised by copyright violation.” True, but there go mp3s, zooming around the Internet.
Far from the public gaze
As already evident, first response of the authorities will be to try to shore up the system. The Secret internet Protocol distribution (SIPDIS) electronic archive will disappear or be ushered behind much higher security, access clearances will be hiked, and tougher followup and penalties for official secrets violations will be enacted —to make it safe for diplomats to go back in the water. That is, back to the 19th Century gentlemanly art of a quiet word here, a confidential nudge there, far from the public gaze.
But electronic information cannot be contained, and to think that it can is to live stupid. We inhabit a world where the electronic machinations of diplomacy and national interest can be sent anonymously to a drop box at any time. If the forces of national interest close down the current actors and Web sites, others will open (broadly supported by the quality news media.) Digital capabilities cannot be withdrawn and the thought of an anonymous electronic drop box cannot be unthought.
The writing is on the wall, and it says: “This Writing is On Everyone’s Wall.”
So we should anticipate that the public going forward will have a much greater visibility into the diplomatic process no matter what diplomats want or think is best.
The issue for senior government leaders is to choose their response path. Do they, as expected, act furiously to preserve the past; or do they embrace the future of their sector and perhaps even exploit the possibilities in it? Not everything should be made public, that’s what “top secret” is for. But for the rest, bringing the public into a high-quality, two-way sense of what is being done in its name could bear fruit of real political grounding for diplomatic initiatives, therein greater legitimacy.
read morePosted by Adam Gordon on May 27, 2010 in 2015, all, emerging technologies, failed predictions, Future Savvy, Perils of Prediction, strategic foresight, systems dynamics, technology change
Successful people are considered to be better future prognosticators than average. Why? Because it is assumed they must have known something about the future at some previous point in order to become as successful as they are. (Unfortunately Taleb’s various injunctions as to the workings of randomness fall on deaf ears, as do Gladwell’s many observations as to the tricky relationship between cause and effect.)
In 1995, at the height of Microsoft’s power over the economy and the zeitgeist (before Google came into its own, before Apple renewed, etc.) Bill Gates wrote “The Road Ahead,” which was, as one would expect, a broadly techno-optimistic look at the future. Did it see 9/11? No. Iraq War 2? No. The Credit Crunch? No. For a start it only really thinks about digital technology, and that’s going to be a very partial guide to the road ahead, at best.
But, in a recent The Atlantic article, “Bill Gates: More Profit than Prophet,” Tom McNichol evaluates Gates’s foresight on its own terms. As reproduced below, he finds it more “miss” than “hit.”
In general, Gates makes the mistakes outlined in Future Savvy, particularly in predicting the future based on its technological possibility rather than economic or social practicality. He’s short on systemic/feedback thinking and therefore misses side effects and unintended consequences. He also falls into the wishful-thinking bias: mixing up what he and (and Microsoft business) would like the future to be with what it really will be.
This last factor is less a mistake than a classic tool of future advocacy, and Gates would no doubt admit to a bit of this. It is illuminating (and sobering for future predictors) to see how much of the digital future Microsoft had within in its area of control in 1995, which it ceded to others. That lowered Microsoft’s ability to influence the road ahead and therefore weakened Gates’ predictions.
The McNichol analysis (shortened in places):
E-Mail
Prediction: Gates wrote, “Electronic mail and shared screens will eliminate the need for many meetings. … when face-to-face meetings do take place, they will be more efficient because participants will have already exchanged background information by e-mail. … information overload is not unique to the (information) highway, and it needn’t be a problem.”
Verdict: Miss. Gates’s view of e-mail now seems naively Utopian, failing to account for unintended consequences. If anything, e-mail has made workplace meetings more frequent and less efficient. “Didn’t you get that e-mail?” is probably the single most common question posed at meetings, a query that often leads to … another meeting.
The Wallet PC
Prediction: “You’ll be able to carry the wallet PC in your pocket or purse. It will display messages and schedules and also let you read or send electronic mail and faxes, monitor weather and stock reports, play both simple and sophisticated games, browse information if you’re bored, or choose from among thousands of easy-to-call up photos of your kids.”
Verdict: Hit. Gates’s wallet PC is more or less today’s mobile smartphone with voice capability added.
Wireless Networks
Prediction: “The wireless networks of the future will be faster, but unless there is a major breakthrough, wired networks will have a far greater bandwidth. Mobile devices will be able to send and receive messages, but it will be expensive and unusual to use them to receive an individual video stream.”
Verdict: Miss. Today, receiving a wireless video stream is neither expensive nor unusual; in fact, it’s so commonplace that most people don’t give it a second thought. Gates failed to anticipate that wireless would become cheaper and faster, but his chief mistake was a common but flawed assumption among techno-futurists: that new technology is adopted chiefly on the basis of technological superiority rather than social factors.
Social Networking
Prediction: “The (information) highway will not only make it easier to keep up with distant friends, it will also enable us to find new companions. Friendships formed across the network will lead naturally to getting together in person.”
Verdict: Hit and Miss. One of the killer apps of the information highway has turned out to be social networking… But friendships formed online don’t regularly lead to face-to-face meetings. Far more common is the user with 250 Facebook friends, most of whom he rarely, if ever, sees in person.
Online Shopping
Prediction: “Because the information highway will carry video, you’ll often be able to see exactly what you’ve ordered. … you won’t have to wonder whether the flowers you ordered for your mother by telephone were really as stunning as you’d hoped. You’ll be able to watch the florist arrange the bouquet, change your mind if you want, and replace wilting roses with fresh anemones.”
Verdict: Miss. Gates was right that the information highway would carry video, but he completely misread the social and economic factors that would shape its use in online commerce. How on earth would a harried florist find the time to hold a videoconference with every customer who orders flowers for Mother’s Day? What company would absorb the colossal expense of having orders changed at the last second according to customers’ shifting whims? Gates’s vision of online shopping has turned out to be a lot like past predictions about personal jet packs and moving sidewalks: a future that’s technologically possible but socially and economically impractical.
Videoconferencing
Prediction: “Small video devices using cameras attached to personal computers or television sets will allow us to meet readily across the information highway with much higher quality pictures and sound for lower prices.”
Verdict: Hit. What came to be called webcams are standard issue on PCs, or can be purchased from Bill Gates’s favorite company for under $30.
The Internet and the Web
Prediction: Gates’s 286-page book mentions the World Wide Web on only four of its pages, and portrays the Internet as a subset of a much a larger “Information Superhighway.” … Verdict: Miss. Gates’s notion that the Internet would play a supporting role in the information highway of the future, rather than being the highway itself, was out-of-date the day The Road Ahead was published… and he made major revisions to a second edition of The Road Ahead, adding material that highlighted the significance of the Internet. In many ways, Gates’s cloudy crystal ball regarding the Internet amounted to wishful thinking. Gates built Microsoft into a global powerhouse by selling proprietary software that users loaded onto their PCs. He wasn’t likely to warm to the idea that the same functions could be delivered cheaper and faster through a decentralized network that he couldn’t control.
Privacy
Predication: “A decade from now, you may shake your head that there was ever a time when any stranger or wrong number could interrupt you at home with a phone call. … by explicitly indicating allowable interruptions, you will be able to establish your home — or anywhere you choose — as your sanctuary.”
Verdict: Little Hit, Big Miss. It’s true that technology lets you explicitly indicate allowable interruptions — you can use caller ID to dodge unwanted calls or sign up at the National Do Not Call Registry to nix telemarketers. But the notion that technology would pave the way to greater privacy has turned out to be anything but true.
Posted by Adam Gordon on Dec 15, 2009 in all, economy & finance, emerging technologies, lifestyles & values, policy, politics of the future, strategic foresight, technology change
I have a fond little memory from one of the early multi-candidate debates in the last US election campaign. It was on prime-time TV: there were still about a dozen or so candidates in the running, including Obama and Hillary Clinton, each was standing behind a podium, and as the topic of climate change came up they were asked en masse: “So, who didn’t fly here today in a private plane, raise your hand?” The delegates all sheepishly kept their hands down but one – I forget which – raised his. “I came in yesterday,” he explained. (laughter)
So to the Copenhagen climate change summit, and all the luminaries and dignitaries and celebrities landing at København airport, many of them in private jets.
http://www.cph.dk/CPH/DK/MAIN
This tells us something about the future, and what it says is: ‘needs must.’ What are they going to do, row a boat to Copenhagen? Scale that up and you have the real, actual future. People will fly. In fact the entire new global middle class of billions will fly. And they will heat their homes. And they will eat meat, and so on. And any even remotely democratic system that tries to take away this will be out on its ear.
But we will of course move to cleaner, renewable, sustainable systems. How fast this happens depends essentially on money, which in turn depends on political will, which in turn depends on public concern. Money is required to fund new energy technology research, and — the core issue of Copenhagen this week — it is needed to buy off industrializing countries.
There’s no doubt that climate change (manmade or not) is real, and a real danger. But when scientists and academics are worried about it that means little in terms of changes to human practices. When the public gets concerned — as they now are — we get the possibility of fundamental change. This is true of the future generally, not just climate and the environment.
Between the public sentiment and the money lies political will. Essentially the political will of post-industrial economies on the one side, who find it politically easy, relatively, to pay the price of emissions constraints vs. that of developing economies which will be choked economically and therefore politically by those constraints.
Inequality
Correlating degrees warming with ecological and therefore social upheaval is important. But to think that is what the argument is about is to miss the point. The point is global inequality and its future, and how developing economies are not going to allow emissions constraints to further entrench it.
The future goes always to the most powerful side. That’s what power is for: determining the future. The sides are both strong in this dispute, so this battle will not be won or lost in Copenhagen this week. We are still in its early stages. The effects of climate change are incremental (unlike, say, nuclear holocaust) meaning there is plenty of room for postponement even if the planet can’t and won’t ultimately take it. And those who would occupy the moral high ground have burned public and private jet fuel to be there to do it, and will no doubt indulge in a bit of Smørrebrød and Frikadeller too. Needs must.
So expect the political clock to remain stuck as it has been for a while now, at ’5 minutes to midnight,’ while the issue smolders slowly without definitive resolution — until technology advances get human energy, finally, off fossil fuels and the problem works its way out of environmental and human systems.
read morePosted by Adam Gordon on Nov 19, 2009 in all, decision-making, emerging technologies, failed predictions, foresight tools & methods, Future Savvy, Perils of Prediction, scenario planning, strategic foresight, technology change
In a recent Times article ‘The future was never going to be the C5‘ actor-comedian Ben Millar offers a familiar criticism of foresight work. Inter alia he says: “For all our achievements in art, science, and technology, the human race has always been spectacularly bad at predicting the future. Literature is littered with shockingly wide-of-the-mark utopias, dystopias, shiny suits, flying saucers and whole meals contained in a single pill. As a child of the Seventies, I was taught that as an adult in a world run by machines my main challenge would be how to spend my endless hours of leisure time…”
Yes, Ben. I’m sure you know this has all been said before ad nauseam. But more importantly, 40 years on many lessons have been learned, and it wouldn’t run foul of quality journalism standards to reflect this.
First, let’s be clear: nobody can predict the future. Anyone who says they can is a charlatan. Also, yes, unconscionably dreadful and irresponsible predictions have been made and are continually being made. But there are three problems with the ‘no-flying-car-so-there-we-can’t-predict-the-future’ argument:
(1) The kinds of predictions Millar cites are a product of a particular moment in Western thought and therefore foresight. The 1960s and early 70s were a time of Post-War American emergence, unleashing for a while a techno-futurist predictive rapture, most of which has indeed proved to be rubbish. There are still people, very famous talking-head futurists, promoting techno-rapture for the 21st century (caveat emptor) but as a whole the foresight field has moved on to become much more circumspect about what can be predicted.
Balancing techno-fantasy
Foresight practitioners are these days more likely to balance technology wowee with economic, social, and environmental friction; see systemic (often indirect or counter-intuitive) effects where once only simple cause-and-effect was seen; and create scenarios of key alternative outcomes rather than predict one.
(2) The second thing that is missed in gleefully deriding foresight work, is how many people and institutions get it right, or right enough. It’s axiomatic that in order to be successful a person or organization must have correctly assessed both key changes and rate of change in their operating environment. To take a famous case, as quoted in Future Savvy, while Nixon’s Vice President Spiro Agnew in 1972 erroneously forecast super-sonic passenger air travel, Herb Kelleher, founder of SouthWest Airlines, foresaw the low-cost air travel industry. Bingo. Billionaire. Similarly, behind every success one can find future thinking that, while sometimes latent, was present and correct.
(3) The purpose of foresight work is misunderstood. We cannot predict the future and it’s pointless to try. We can only assess signals of change, trends, and potential for surprises and reversals, including challenging our all-too-easily calcified mental models, and take this into a process of understanding alternative outcomes and pre-considering best strategic actions. In other words, actively stimulating the investigation and analysis of future conditions in order to create the basis of better decision-making today.
In fact sometimes the ‘strategic conversation’ that results from poor predictions is instructive to managers. As I say to clients: the goal of foresight work is better decisions not better predictions.
Back-street abortionists
The reality is that there is good and bad foresight work. Yes, some futurists are the technical and moral equivalent of back street abortionists. But the good work remains, and quality foresight is a critical advantage to decision-makers. The key thing is to be able to tell good foresight work from bad.
Simplistic trashing of foresight work en bloc ignores the weight of case evidence that people and organizations can improve their management of future uncertainty and/or create a situation where they manage the future better than competitors. Further, it encourages managers to fly blind into changing environments, often resulting in spectacularly poor decisions that deeply and widely punish their dependent stakeholders.
read morePosted by Adam Gordon on Sep 14, 2009 in 2025, all, emerging technologies, failed predictions, foresight tools & methods, managing uncertainty, Perils of Prediction, technology change
I note from a link on the Ian Miles Futures blog that “2025: Scenarios of US and Global Society Reshaped by Science and Technology” by Coates, Hines, & Mahaffie, is now available free for full-text download.
For full disclosure, I should say I worked in the Coates office in Washington D.C. during the mid-late 1990s (but got there just after the book was done.)
There are deep and ultimately overwhelming problems with the book itself. It sees science-technology as the primary driver of change, when what science is done and what technology is produced is often the product of policy or economic or values / zeitgeist decisions further up the chain. It also has an astoundingly poor conceptual framework (‘Worlds 1, 2, 3′) for dealing with non-US societies and cultures, and their economic and social development: one that would make Tom Friedman (‘World is Flat’) giggle and Hans Rosling surely cry. Truly there are many reasons they have to give this book away for free.
But its importance is elsewhere. It remains remarkable for one thing — the thing that the Coates & Jarratt foresight firm was known for — a willingness to speculate confidently and in detail (and sometimes even stupidly) about future changes. The book is likewise exemplary in its commitment to concrete, interesting, ‘fearless’ long-range speculation, in a world where most analysts waste most of their foresight ink timidly equivocating and covering their back.
Quality, reloaded
Evocative, concrete speculation is important, even if it is wrong. It is commonly misapprehended that the purpose of foresight work is to “predict the future,” (and someone with this perspective is going to pop up in 2025 and say “so, how right or wrong was this book?”) But, nobody can be right. The real value of foresight work is other: to know as much as we can about the present, and the forces and factors changing it, to be able to preconceive the full range of possible future outcomes that pertain, in order to make decisions today towards an outcome we prefer. (Who “we” are and what “we” prefer — social welfare; shareholder value maximization; environmental sustainability, etc., — will vary hugely among interest groups of course.)
This preconception (of a range of scenarios, if you like) is what allows truly effective discussions and debates to take place in considering alternatives, and therefore promotes better decision-making regardless of whether the scenarios ultimately turn out to have been, in themselves, ‘right’ or ‘wrong.’ High-quality scenarios are to be preferred of course, but quality is in the ability to stimulate and provoke management attention to the right areas in a timely manner, not in having been right in prediction. As Coates used to say (and I echo this to my Industry Foresight students): “You don’t have to be right, you just have to be interesting.”
read more