Unevenly distributed futures (cont’d)

A quick pointer to an article on The Guardian that takes an in-depth look at drugs that enhance cognitive performance:

In 2004 he coined the term “cosmetic neurology” to describe the practice of using drugs developed for recognised medical conditions to strengthen ordinary cognition. Chatterjee worries about cosmetic neurology, but he thinks that it will eventually become as acceptable as cosmetic surgery; in fact with neuroenhancement it’s harder to argue that it’s frivolous. As he notes in a 2007 paper: “Many sectors of society have winner-take-all conditions in which small advantages produce disproportionate rewards.” At school and at work, the usefulness of being “smarter”, needing less sleep and learning more quickly is “abundantly clear”. In the near future, he predicts, some neurologists will refashion themselves as “quality-of-life consultants” whose role will be “to provide information while abrogating final responsibility for these decisions to patients”. The demand is certainly there: from an ageing population that won’t put up with memory loss; from overwrought parents bent on giving their children every possible edge; from anxious employees in an efficiency-obsessed, BlackBerry-equipped office culture where work never really ends.

The most appropriately named ship in the world

I was intrigued to read on the BBC today that a Western shipping company has successfully delivered cargo via the once impassable North East Passage. The significance of cannot be understated for it’s impact on world trade:

…the once impenetrable ice that prevented ships travelling along the northern Russian coast has been retreating rapidly because of global warming in recent decades. The passage became passable without ice breakers in 2005. By avoiding the Suez canal, the trip from Asia to Europe is shortened by almost 5,000km (3,100 miles). The company behind the enterprise says it is saving about $300,000 per vessel by using the northern route.

One of the ships was named Beluga Foresight.

AMP Innovation Festival – followup

As mentioned earlier I headed to Sydney to attend the AMP Innovation Festival a couple of weeks back.  In a previous post I interviewed the organiser – Annalie Killian – about the event.  I’m not going to revisit that, however I am going to say that the event was simply stunning on a number of levels.

However don’t just take my word for it, but have a read of what one of the speakers – James Gardner – says:

Amplify09 is the most magnificent ideation campaign I’ve ever seen. […] AMP is an institution that’s realised that the real competitive advantage it has is the people who choose to work there. Who cares about technology and products and processes, when you have the ability to invent uniqueness whenever you want?

It’s worth reading his entire post.

The Yes Men do it again – newspapers from the future

As I’ve mentioned before, I’m a great fan of creating fake newspaper front pages from the future.  They are very effective at positioning people to think differently about how the future could be, and what decisions lie ahead.

Last week, The Yes Men did it again, and printed a fake IHT from December 19th 2009 to illustrate the decisions facing the Copenhagen Climate conference.  Read all about it here.

Fringes and edge disruption

From the cover story of the June 09 issue of Fast Company comes this quote from Neri Oxman at the MIT Media Lab:

“I like to be on the edge because it makes me vulnerable. On the fringes, I think, is where disruptive innovation begins.”

Oxman appears to be a one-person study of exploration across disciplines. She’s described as “artist, architect, ecologist, computer scientist, and designer.” Digging slightly deeper behind the hyperbole, it turns out not to be far from reality. She studied medicine in Israel, graduated from the Architectural Institute in London and is now based in the computation department of the architectural department of the MIT Media Lab. Her work has recently been displayed at MoMA, now part of its collection.

That’s the sort of background that would even make Frans Johansson’s head spin. The collision points between disciplines are often where the sparks are created that light the fires of disruption. Given Oxman’s background, she’s probably got enough spark-ability to re-start the Large Hadron Collider.

Interview with Bill Cockayne – Director Stanford Centre for Critical Foresight

I recently got in touch with Bill Cockayne at Stanford.  The conversation was wide and varied – as you’d expect  – and among other things we discussed the Shell Technology Futures work I’d done with Innovaro. As he lectures at Stanford on foresight and innovation, I was interested in his perspective on some of the issues that I had encountered with various organisations.  With that in mind, I asked him four questions:

1. While a lot of people may describe you as a futurist, your work extends a lot further than that.  Do you have a title that sums up your work?

Innovation is the simplest word.
My team and I take the stance that future that will exist is the one we build.
We’ve developed our tools and methods with the goal of helping potential innovators move from thinking critically about the long-term to building… starting today… the future that will emerge.

2. In my work I see a continuum between foresight, strategy, innovation and design. I expect that you have a similar view, and, if so, where do you see the links between these disciplines?

The links are the most important part, and at the same time the last understood. But they are not hard to understand.

The links exist at the boundaries between “disciplines.” But like the ampersand in R&D, the link is often viewed as a boundary between research and development. I’m sure we’ve all heard the old adage about “throwing it over the wall” as being the biggest problem in actually doing R&D. And at the same time we’ve read the stories of the innovations that can occur when real researchers and developers made the link.

Viewed this way, the links that make the innovation process work — from foresight to the next new thing — are the result of the practitioners. Our tools and methods help, say, a foresight thinker to anticipate the information that the strategist and engineer need, then work hard communicate his learning to them. At the same time, he must play a role in helping the strategist and engineer to understand his needs as a partner in the overall process. So it is with these two pieces — an understanding of how the knowledge I create in the innovation process will be used by others, and a focus on communicating it in a way that they can use it — that the links work.

3. Many consultancies confuse the four disciplines, and try to sell themselves in areas where they lack experience.  For example, I’ve witnessed one of the worlds best design agencies try to sell themselves as strategists. In your experience which organisations have a good understanding of how to traverse the spectrum between foresight and design?

The list of companies that have succeeded in bringing truly innovative solutions to the world span industries, eras, and inventions. So it is from these stories that I’d look for our best understanding of connecting foresight to innovation. The answer to the question of who has the best understanding is the same in each and every story — it is the people who imagine building a better future, and who then take it upon themselves to do the building.

4. Given the current economic climate, what is your advice for an organisation that is toying with the idea of cutting back on strategic innovation?

As we’ve all read, this economic environment is the best time to invest in the discovery and creation of the next big thing. The reasons are well understood, and yet it’s not easy for companies to be thinking and investing long-term when they are so busy delivering the next product. My only recommendation to companies lately is to worry less about “thinking long-term” and more about “planning the next few steps.”

A company knows when it hopes to deliver that new product to its customers. The company is planning for that next new opportunity developing in the marketplace. And it has developed the financial and talent plans for making these events happen. Any company that is thinking ahead, planning, and then making sure to measure how well it performs to plan, is doing exactly the right thing in this and any other economic environment. At which point I might mischievously ask, “if you are happy with your plans… have you thought about what you’re going to do after those plans come to fruition?”

There’s a nice bio of Bill here, along with a video of him speaking at LIFT 08.

Sustainability and long term thinking (guest post)

In futures thinking there is an increasing level of conversation around sustainability, and the concepts that surround it.  It’s worth a closer look, and with this in mind I asked Tim Nichols to weigh in with his view. Tim came recommended by a colleague and as a recent graduate, brings a fresh and informed perspective (in June 2008, he completed a Masters in Strategic Sustainable Development at the Blekinge Institute of Technology in Karlskrona, Sweden).  Here’s Tim’s view:

What is meant by sustainability? For many people who work to promote the idea, the essence of the concept is centred on cultivating long-term thinking. The goal is to get people to be thinking about the repercussions of the actions beyond their lives. In essence, think about your grandchildren.

This seems easy enough, but it actually goes against human nature. We thrive on immediate satisfaction; feed me when I’m hungry, sleep when I’m tired, etc. And we have ingrained this methodology for life into the fabric of existence, with everything at our disposal and disposable. The “take, make, waste” mantra of our culture has put us on a speeding train into an unknown abyss. And currently, actions to try to stop the train has had been the equivalent of throwing marshmallows on the tracks, soft, easy to swallow but doing nothing.

Fortunately, sustainability was the buzzword of 2008, so the seeds have been sown. And it is unlikely that the core targets of sustainability: degradation of the environment, pollution from heavy metals and toxic chemicals, and the destruction of humans ability to meet their basic needs, will not be as easily altered as changing buzzwords. The current economic atmosphere offers the perfect opportunity for society to call on business and government to come together to form a model that has a more long-term view.

Without risking being called an alarmist, or underestimating the brilliantly resilient nature of humans, it seems we have been given another, possibly last, chance. With a plethora of scientists claiming that we are pushing the ecological thresholds of multiple natural systems, as well as the ever-increasing population surviving on constantly decreasing natural resources, there’s no time like the present.

Sustainable Futures covers an area too wide to fully define. However, it will require the collaboration of business and NGO, Government and 3rd Sector, communities and business, and on and on to ensure full participation. These groups must come together to establish where sustainability needs to be, and understand where it’s at now. They can then develop a plan to move from where they are to where they want to go, always with that clear, collaboratively formed vision of a sustainable future.

Timothy J. Nichols is an independent Sustainability Strategist for the public, private, and third sector. Current partners include Energizer Batteries, Clarks Shoes, Student Partnership Worldwide and the Brixton Pound, a local community currency to be launched in September 2009. The Brixton Pound is part of a greater movement called Transition Town which seeks to engage communities on how they can move towards becoming low-carbon communities. Tim is also affiliated with The Hub, a worldwide organization which provides a space for entrepreneurs focusing on social and sustainable projects.  In addition to sustainability, Tim is passionate about writing, biking and beer.

Shell Technology Futures

From 2006-2008 I spent the majority of my time working alongside the Shell Gamechanger team in The Hague. It was a fascinating exercise on many fronts.

Firstly I was based in New Zealand and working for Innovaro in London for a client which although had some of it’s team in The Hague, could meet anywhere in the world.  Inevitably London and The Hague worked fine for us, although Houston or Bangalore would have equally fine. Personally Europe worked well for me as I could regularly visit Singapore on the way – a city with a firm view on the future (but that’s another story).

Secondly, as an organisation Shell is arguably the best user of scenarios in the world. Innovaro’s Technology Futures programme dovetailed into – and fed – the scenario development.  Innovaro ran the programme in 2004, again in 2007 and there should be another update in 2010.

The Technology Futures programme built a view of the impact of technology on society in the next twenty years. To construct something that was robust  – but still captured enough leading edge thinking – was a detailed process.  the summary is as follows : identify which adjacent sectors can impact upon the core business (either postively or negatively), seek out the subject matter experts in these sectors, gather them together for a week and then synthesise the output of the sessions.

We assembled a huge variety of people – from those who are pioneering the creation of life from scratch, to Mars roboticists and architects that are designing massive new green cities in China (the workshops are held under Chatham House rules which means that I cannot name the people or organisations that were represented). The conversations that resulted were compelling, intriguing, confronting, dynamic and never dull.

From the discussion we created a view of the world in twenty years time.  What is interesting about this view is that we can track everything back to a spark in a peer reviewed journal, or the commentary of a world expert in a certain field.

In this instance there were a series of outputs, the most visible being the book I co-edited and breathed into life (along with Barry Fox of New Scientist fame).  The book is also the only publicly accessible output from the programme, and you can download it here (5MB PDF).

The book is also the only publication to leave Shell without being edited by the PR department and as such is an untouched view of the Technology Futures programme.

The Innovaro Futures programmes are a proven way of seeking out white space opportunities for organisations looking to find new high-growth businesses, but they are also applicable at a macro level.  Innovaro has been talking to Governments about the possibility of running the programme at a country level, and this would be a natural fit for the process.

People get intrigued by the programme, but in the interests of blogging brevity I will close this post.  Howewver if you are interested to know more, please drop me a mail (now *at* rogerdennis.com)

Seeking alternate viewpoints

Further to my posting about the McKinsey article about seeking contradictory opinion, there’s an interesting new book on Amazon.  It’s called “The Deniers” and contains articles from scientists challenging the paradigm of climate change.

Note that I say that the theory of climate change is now a paradigm. People that challenge paradigms are often ridiculed and professionally ostracised.

Before you get hysterical and start hyperventilating, it’s important to point out that I’m not a climate change sceptic. Please don’t try and burn me at a stake, or stone me.  That would ruin my day.

The difference with the theory of climate change is that the stakes are too high to ignore it.  If we disregard the theory – and it is a theory – then the planet as we know it will be a distant memory.  That’s not a risk worth taking, no matter how highly regarded the nay-sayers are.

Why is this interesting from an innovation point of view? Watch the comments that this book receives, and see how much anger and disbelief it attracts. Paradigms are not easily changed, and assumptions not easily challenged.

Disruptive innovation tackles paradigms and assumptions head on.  There will always be the sceptics, the doubters and the critics. Sometimes – but not always – the most ardent of these will be the ones you need to convince.  In the majority of companies they’re usually the ones that site in the C-suite of your company.

Indicators of the future

It’s one thing to spend time talking about where things are going, it’s another when you encounter some of those things. Sometimes even I fail to mentally move things from the  theoretical world to the real world.  Two recent examples:

1. Most people know about the potential for hybrid and electric vehicles, but not many extend that knowledge to a business context.  I now use hybrid taxis where ever possible, and have some fascinating conversations with drivers. Each one tells the same story about fuel consumption: in a petrol taxi they would spend up to $80 every two days. In the hybrid they spend less than this each week. It’s a quantum shift in the economics of transportation.  Note that it’s economics and not the feel good factor that drives cabbies to move to hybrids.

2. On a completely different note (if you’ll excuse the pun) I was listening to an interview with David Byrne (ex-Talking Heads singer).  He said that the last music-superstore just closed down in New York, and now it’s no longer easy to buy CDs in this type of retail environment.  People know that digital music is the leading format, but it’s not until this sort of shift happens in the real world that you start to see tipping points.

Here endeth the lesson for today…