Carlota Perez talks about the patterns of technological revolutions and how they impact industry, society and culture.
When the economy is shaken by a powerful set of new opportunities with the emergence of the next technological revolution, society is still strongly wedded to the old paradigm and its institutional framework. The world of computers, flexible production and the internet has a different logic and different requirements from those that facilitated the spread of the automobile, synthetic materials, mass production and the highway network. Suddenly in relation to the new technologies, the old habits and regulations become obstacles, the old services and infrastructures are found wanting, the old organisations and institutions inadequate. A new context must be created; a new ‘common sense’ must emerge and propagate.
We are migrating from a Read Only (R/O to a Read/Write (R/W)culture. The Read Only (R/O) and Read/Write (R/W) transmission and production of artistic and cultural content. Read Only characterized the passive transmission of culture through the 1900s, while Read/Write has characterized the production of culture in the 19th century-and, now, the late 20th and early 21st centuries-allowing for active and collective making and remaking of content…
… The idea behind the centers is to foster innovation by combining a richer understanding of customer needs with creative links among 3M technologies. “Being customer-driven doesn’t mean asking customers what they want and then giving it to them,” says Ranjay Gulati, a professor at the Harvard Business School. “It’s about building a deep awareness of how the customer uses your product.”
Professor Gulati recently completed a book, “(Re) (Organize) for Resilience,” about how to make customers the center of a business.
A typical customer day at a 3M center begins with a team from a visiting company presenting an overview of their business to a group of 3M marketing and technology experts who pepper them with open-ended questions. The goal is to understand “what our customers are trying to accomplish, not what they say they need,” says John Horn, vice president for research and development at 3M’s industrial and transportation business.
Next is a visit to the “World of Innovation” showroom. The company has more than 40 of what it calls technology platforms — core technologies in areas like optical films, reflective materials, abrasives and adhesives — that can potentially be combined and applied to meet a range of needs in different markets. By exposing customers to these platforms, 3M hopes to prompt the type of novel connections — like using dental technology to improve car parts — that drive innovative solutions. “We never show completed products,” Dr. Horn says. “Doing that would constrain people’s thinking.”
Does it work? Dr. Horn says that “the innovation center experience isn’t just about making everyone feel good.” It has helped 3M to establish productive, long-term customer relationships.
For instance, 3M and the Visteon Corporation, an automotive supplier that is one of its customers, have worked together in the development of a next-generation concept vehiclethat incorporates 3M technologies not originally developed with automotive applications in mind. Visteon’s visit to the innovation center, combined with follow-up collaboration, led to the idea of using 3-D technology from 3M for navigation displays, Thinsulate materials to reduce noise and optical films to hide functional elements of the dashboard unless the driver wants them displayed.
no de los resultados de esta duda es nuestra incapacidad para reconocer la vida en otro lugar que no sea el centro de las ciudades. Esta duda ha condenado a los barrios, a pertenecer a una condición obligatoriamente secundaria, sin otorgarles ninguna capacidad para vivir y ser felices. Al mismo tiempo nos sentimos incapaces de reconocer que los proyectos de los años sesenta, setenta y ochenta son portadores de valores. Es una incapacidad para valorar nuestro pasado reciente, que ha sido condenado a una amnesia inmediata. Esta duda es algo que nos cuesta muy caro. Nos cuesta el placer de las ciudades. Nos cuesta también el placer de lo desconocido y de la aventura, que puede que sea lo esencial de la ciudad.
Yo me siento como el mensajero de otro mundo, que dice que existen otros fenómenos, pero la relación se ha convertido en una especie de diálogo de sordos. Han preferido de una manera un poco simplista, creer que era yo el que estimulaba el mercado, el shopping, la tecnología de la manipulación. Que era yo el que amaba la ciudad como laberinto comercial, cuando, al contrario, solo he tenido la curiosidad de ver si era posible vivir en una situación así. Se me ve como el Señor Anti-contexto, pero este nombramiento es ambiguo, porque también se dice lo contrario, como si fuéramos unos fetichistas del contexto, como todos los demás.
Nuestra incapacidad para modernizar nuestro propio concepto de lo urbano nos ha conducido a un urbanismo loco, que aparece por todos lados, que nos rodea, con su mediocridad, con un simbolismo sostenible de la peor calaña, con un cinismo verde, una nulidad del espacio público que se ha convertido en un espacio de exclusión cada vez más radical. Nuestra agencia ha intentado escapar de todo esto. Por eso es por lo que hemos lanzado hace algún tiempo la idea de una arquitectura genérica, inspirada en Erasmo, Lutero y Calvino, asumiendo así nuestro calvinismo.
“Innovate. Take action. It’s about the verb — innovating — and not the noun. Personally, I’m tired of talking about the noun innovation and reading books about that noun, and only want to help people and organizations get in better touch with their creative confidence so that they can go out and innovate. Trying to understand how to get to innovative outcomes via a process analyzing the inputs and outputs of innovation is akin to trying to understand love by reading textbooks on biology and genomics. I’d wager that the best lovers in history didn’t read books on the subject. Much better, methinks, to go out and do it in order to understand it. Love, innovate, do, live: you’ll come to understand your own self and process in due time. Which is the whole point.”—metacool: Innovating Day: a new (un)holiday?
Harvard Business School Finance Working Paper No. 10-038
In this paper we assess the economic viability of innovation by producers relative to two increasingly important alternative models: innovations by single user individuals or firms, and open collaborative innovation projects. We analyze the design costs and architectures and communication costs associated with each model. We conclude that innovation by individual users and also open collaborative innovation increasingly compete with - and may displace – producer innovation in many parts of the economy. We argue that a transition from producer innovation to open single user and open collaborative innovation is desirable in terms of social welfare, and so worthy of support by policymakers.
Their first policy recommendation should come as no surprise:
The roots of this apparent bias in favor of closed, producer-centered innovation are certainly understandable – the ascendent models of innovation we have discussed in this paper were less prevalent before the radical decline in design and communication costs brought about by computers and the Internet. But once the welfare-enhancing benefits of open single user innovation and open collaborative innovation are understood, policymakers can – and we think should – take steps to offset any existing biases. Examples of useful steps are easy to find.
First, as was mentioned earlier, intellectual property rights grants can be used as the basis for licenses that help keep innovation open as well as keep it closed (O’Mahony 2003). Policymakers can add support of “open licensing” infrastructures such as the Creative Commons license for writings, and the General Public License for open source software code, to the tasks of existing intellectual property offices. More generally, they should seek out and eliminate points of conflict between present intellectual property policies designed to support closed innovation, but that at the same time inadvertently interfere with open innovation.
Designers have traditionally focused on enhancing the look and functionality of products. Recently, they have begun using design tools to tackle more complex problems, such as finding ways to provide low-cost healthcare throughout the world. Businesses were first to embrace this new approach—called design thinking—now nonprofits are beginning to adopt it too.
The future is ‘terra incognita’: although we may be able to guess the outcome of events that lie close to us, as we project beyond this we enter an unmapped zone full of uncertainty. Paradoxically, the range of options this reveals can seem paralysing.
No one can definitively map the future, but we can explore the possibilities in ways that are specifically intended to support decision-making. At Shell we use scenario building to help us wrestle with the developments and behaviours that shape what the future may hold and prepare ourselves more effectively. We also believe it can inspire individuals and organisations to play a more active role in shaping a better future - for themselves, or even on a global scale…
In this book, we use a metaphor of exploration and map-making to describe how we think about building scenarios. Like a set of maps describing different aspects of a landscape, scenarios provide us with a range of perspectives on what might happen, helping us to navigate more successfully. Exploration - of a territory or the future - involves both analytical thinking rooted in whatever facts are clear, and also informed intuition.
Service data. Service data is the data you need to give to a social networking site in order to use it. It might include your legal name, your age, and your credit card number.
Disclosed data. This is what you post on your own pages: blog entries, photographs, messages, comments, and so on.
Entrusted data. This is what you post on other people’s pages. It’s basically the same stuff as disclosed data, but the difference is that you don’t have control over the data — someone else does.
Incidental data. Incidental data is data the other people post about you. Again, it’s basically the same stuff as disclosed data, but the difference is that 1) you don’t have control over it, and 2) you didn’t create it in the first place.
Behavioral data. This is data that the site collects about your habits by recording what you do and who you do it with.
Sessió 1: Educació expandida Dimarts 2 de febrer de 2010
Amb ZEMOS98, Juan Freire i Brian Lamb. Assessoria: Òscar Martínez Ciuró
El nou context digital difumina les fronteres de l’aprenentatge tal com el coneixem. Sorgeixen nous conceptes com Open Social Learning o EduPunk, que fan referència a l’Educació expandida. Una educació que supera els límits de les institucions, de les metodologies i de les assignatures. L’educació es converteix en un laboratori en xarxa on els processos són eines d’investigació i la innovació és font de coneixement.
11-14 h / 16-18h: Taller “Models i Pràctica en l’Educació Expandida” amb Zemos 98 i Juan Freire (Mirador)*
18-19 h: Documental “La escuela expandida“, dirigit per Zemos 98 (Auditori)
19-21 h: Taula rodona “L’experiència d’EduPunk” amb Brian Lamb (Mirador)
* Places limitades al taller (30 persones); inscripció via mail: firstname.lastname@example.org; es pot portar ordinador, però no és obligatori.
- En el fondo, Moodle es un sistema de control. Convierte a la institución en un entorno protegido dentro de Internet y da mucho poder a los profesores, que pueden tener toda la información sobre sus alumnos. Los estudiantes a quienes gusta ser dirigidos aman Moodle. El resto, no.
Becta, the UK government agency promoting the use of information and communications technology in the British education system, has published a new report reviewing the evidence of the impact of digital technologies on formal education, which demonstrates their positive impact on measurable learning outcomes.
The so-called hard evidence is supplemented by softer observational evidence, which has an important role in explaining why the positive outcomes have or have not accrued.
Conventional wisdom about young people’s use of digital technology often equates generational identity with technology identity: today’s teens seem constantly plugged in to video games, social networks sites, and text messaging. Yet there is little actual research that investigates the intricate dynamics of youth’s social and recreational use of digital media. Hanging Out, Messing Around, and Geeking Out fills this gap, reporting on an ambitious three-year ethnographic investigation into how young people are living and learning with new media in varied settings—at home, in after school programs, and in online spaces. By focusing on media practices in the everyday contexts of family and peer interaction, the book views the relationship of youth and new media not simply in terms of technology trends but situated within the broader structural conditions of childhood and the negotiations with adults that frame the experience of youth in the United States.
Integrating twenty-three different case studies—which include Harry Potter podcasting, video-game playing, music-sharing, and online romantic breakups—in a unique collaborative authorship style, Hanging Out, Messing Around, and Geeking Outis distinctive for its combination of in-depth description of specific group dynamics with conceptual analysis.
This book was written as a collaborative effort by members of the Digital Youth Project, a three-year research effort funded by the John D. and Catherine T. MacArthur Foundation and conducted at the University of California, Berkeley, and the University of Southern California.
“The bottom line is that no handbook relieves a professional counterinsurgent from the personal obligation to study, internalize and interpret the physical, human, informational and ideological setting in which the conflict takes place. Conflict ethnography is key; to borrow a literary term, there is no substitute for a “close reading” of the environment. But it is a reading that resides in no book, but around you; in the terrain, the people, their social and cultural institutions, the way they act and think. You have to be a participant observer. And the key is to see beyond the surface differences between our societies and these environments (of which religious orientation is one key element) to the deeper social and cultural drivers of conflict, drivers that locals would understand on their own terms.”—David Kicullen: SWJ Blog: Religion and Insurgency - Small Wars Journal
This paper proposes an alternative approach to addressing the complex problems of climate change caused by greenhouse gas emissions. The author, who won the 2009 Nobel Prize in Economic Sciences, argues that single policies adopted only at a global scale are unlikely to generate sufficient trust among citizens and firms so that collective action can take place in a comprehensive and transparent manner that will effectively reduce global warming. Furthermore, simply recommending a single governmental unit to solve global collective action problems is inherently weak because of free-rider problems. For example, the Carbon Development Mechanism (CDM) can be gamed in ways that hike up prices of natural resources and in some cases can lead to further natural resource exploitation. Some flaws are also noticeable in the Reducing Emissions from Deforestation and Forest Degradation in Developing Countries (REDD) program. Both the CDM and REDD are vulnerable to the free-rider problem. As an alternative, the paper proposes a polycentric approach at various levels with active oversight of local, regional, and national stakeholders. Efforts to reduce global greenhouse gas emissions are a classic collective action problem that is best addressed at multiple scales and levels. Given the slowness and conflict involved in achieving a global solution to climate change, recognizing the potential for building a more effective way of reducing green house gas emissions at multiple levels is an important step forward. A polycentric approach has the main advantage of encouraging experimental efforts at multiple levels, leading to the development of methods for assessing the benefits and costs of particular strategies adopted in one type of ecosystem and compared to results obtained in other ecosystems. Building a strong commitment to find ways of reducing individual emissions is an important element for coping with this problem, and having others also take responsibility can be more effectively undertaken in small- to medium-scale governance units that are linked together through information networks and monitoring at all levels. This paper was prepared as a background paper for the 2010 World Development Report on Climate Change.