Innovation for Jobs

Innovation for Jobs

Innovation and Economics

Jordan Greenhall

Fri Aug 21 2015 14:34:17 GMT-0400 (EDT)

I'd look at the problem using the language of fitness

I'd look at the problem using the language of fitness landscapes from
evolutionary theory. Ordinary business activity (and what we might call
ordinary innovation) is effectively equivalent to endeavouring to find and
occupy the most fit locations on the (economic) landscape.

We might be tempted to consider radical innovation as a mutation that
significantly improves the organism's (firms) ability to compete on the
landscape. But perhaps it is more correct to frame radical innovation as a
change to the landscape itself. Lowering some hills and raising others.
And most intriguingly, extending the landscape at its borders to include
new potentials that did not exist at all in the previous landscape.

If this framing is useful, then it gives us access to a bunch of tools in
evo that aren't readily available in eco. The most intriguing is "portal
pathways" – innovations that are so disruptive (like multicellularity vs.
single cellularity) that they effectively create an entirely new fitness
landscape.


Curt Carlson

Fri Aug 21 2015 16:06:40 GMT-0400 (EDT)

Yes it is an ecosystem and when a major new

Yes it is an ecosystem and when a major new innovation gets introduced it rearranges the players. Is there a big idea there that helps us think about markets and economics?

Curtis R. Carlson, Ph.D.
Founder and CEO, Practice of Innovation
Former President and CEO of SRI International, 1998-2014
Website: www.practiceofinnovation.com

"Our most important innovation is the way we work."


David A Nordfors

Fri Aug 21 2015 16:09:48 GMT-0400 (EDT)

Hi Jordan,

You are right on the mark here.

1) An

Hi Jordan,

You are right on the mark here.

1) An innovation that fits into an existing landscape: The landscape sets the parameters. When you innovate you have variables that you set to fit the parameters. Now you have an innovation that fits the landscape. (If you are into math: compare matrix perturbation theory. If not, don’t go there. You’ll get it anyway.)

2) A radical innovation that changes the landscape: The innovation changes the reality it operates in so much that it’s a different landscape altogether. Like the iPhone has done. There are no fix parameters. Everything is a variable. You introduce a new reality, it’s a new narrative (that;s exactly what it is: a new narrative). If you are into math: look at attractors. Specially strange attractors. If you are not into math, try find some popular science.

Radical innovation, changing the landscape -> a new attractor.

/D


Jordan Greenhall

Fri Aug 21 2015 17:22:17 GMT-0400 (EDT)

Right. And this implies that any sort of "market equilibrium"

Right. And this implies that any sort of "market equilibrium" is going to
be in a constant state of flux – the underlying landscape against which it
is seeking equilibrium is always moving, driven by "radical" innovation.


Kathleen Carley

Fri Aug 21 2015 17:27:18 GMT-0400 (EDT)

One is the philosophical points underlying social network theory is

One is the philosophical points underlying social network theory is that economics is wrong in arguing for equilibrium. What we see historically is that there are no equilibrium unless innovation is suppressed

Sent from my iPhone


Jordan Greenhall

Fri Aug 21 2015 17:38:28 GMT-0400 (EDT)

Its important to distinguish a metaphor (its "like" an ecosystem)

Its important to distinguish a metaphor (its "like" an ecosystem) from a
mapping (it "is" a fitness landscape). The former is going to get you into
all sorts of trouble. The latter can be useful.

And in this context, if the mapping is correct, loads of useful tools.
e.g., that and why the "Great Moderation" is a set up for extinction
events (comparable to the environmental dynamics of north america over the
past million years or so).

A "big idea"? Hmmm. I think the big idea is that an Innovation Economy a
portal pathway. I.e., it is not just a resource economy that moves faster
(or some such), it is something entirely different. As different as
multi-cellularity is to single-cellularity. It means taking the notion of
paradigm shift (or phase transition) seriously.

On Fri, Aug 21, 2015 at 1:06 PM, Curt Carlson […]


Curt Carlson

Fri Aug 21 2015 17:47:20 GMT-0400 (EDT)

Yes equilibrium is one of those simplifying ideas that is

Yes equilibrium is one of those simplifying ideas that is obviously wrong. Smith started there. Equilibrium means you are dying. That is where innovation and the entrepreneur come in — they are the dedicated soldiers fighting against the very idea of equilibrium.

Curtis R. Carlson, Ph.D.
Founder and CEO, Practice of Innovation
Former President and CEO of SRI International, 1998-2014
Website: www.practiceofinnovation.com

“Our most important innovation is the way we work."


David A Nordfors

Fri Aug 21 2015 17:58:54 GMT-0400 (EDT)

Yes. I think of a market equilibrium as an attractor.

Yes. I think of a market equilibrium as an attractor. It’s a kwasi-constant state.


Curt Carlson

Fri Aug 21 2015 18:01:06 GMT-0400 (EDT)

What do you mean? It is an abstraction that is

What do you mean? It is an abstraction that is never true even if from day to day we can't see it at work.

Curtis R. Carlson, Ph.D.
Founder and CEO, Practice of Innovation
Former President and CEO of SRI International, 1998-2014
Website: www.practiceofinnovation.com

"Our most important innovation is the way we work."


David A Nordfors

Fri Aug 21 2015 20:06:48 GMT-0400 (EDT)

Hi – I’m including Kathleen, too! she wrote: One is

Hi – I’m including Kathleen, too! she wrote: One is the philosophical points underlying social network theory is that economics is wrong in arguing for equilibrium. What we see historically is that there are no equilibrium unless innovation is suppressed

I think 'quasi-equilibrium’ is a good description.
There is obviously an attractor, or there wouldn’t be any regularity or periodicity in the economic system. Things make each other recur. That’s what an attractor does.
It recurs until it stops recurring, which may be due to a black swan or a gradual change of how things relate.

(For you mathematically minded folks: There is usually an ‘attractor basin’, the center of the basin is the ‘equilibrium’)

/D


Curt Carlson

Fri Aug 21 2015 20:16:08 GMT-0400 (EDT)

Good — thanks.

Curtis R. Carlson, Ph.D.
Founder and CEO, Practice of

Good — thanks.

Curtis R. Carlson, Ph.D.
Founder and CEO, Practice of Innovation
Former President and CEO of SRI International, 1998-2014
Website: www.practiceofinnovation.com

“Our most important innovation is the way we work."


Mei Lin Fung

Sat Aug 22 2015 01:28:01 GMT-0400 (EDT)

How would you see portal pathways working for human's in

How would you see portal pathways working for human's in terms of
livelihood?

At the I4J SV Forum's Aug 19 event, John Hagel shared 2 big shifts he
anticipates:

Mindset shift from work=paycheck to work = passion

Innovation shift from the task driven model of jobs which today's
institutions are built on – is ready to be superseded by a faster learning
model

On Fri, Aug 21, 2015 at 11:34 AM, Jordan Greenhall <
[…] wrote:


Curt Carlson

Sat Aug 22 2015 13:37:35 GMT-0400 (EDT)

This is fine for folks like us – but 95%

This is fine for folks like us – but 95% of the world is task based – taxis, delivery services, shipping, farming, manufacturing, food, basic services, health, construction, etc. Half the population of CA has almost no formal skills. What do do about them? It looks like an increasing social nightmare as we put them out of work.

Curtis R. Carlson, Ph.D.
Founder and CEO, Practice of Innovation
Former President and CEO of SRI International, 1998-2014
Website: www.practiceofinnovation.com

"Our most important innovation is the way we work."

From: Mei Lin Fung […]
Reply-To: "[…]" […]


Curt Carlson

Sat Aug 22 2015 14:14:10 GMT-0400 (EDT)

This from a Nobel winner and why economic theory is

This from a Nobel winner and why economic theory is so limited. You add his ideas to the impossibility of predicting the advent of major innovations and leads to humility (or should).

Curtis R. Carlson, Ph.D.
Founder and CEO, Practice of Innovation
Former President and CEO of SRI International, 1998-2014
Website: www.practiceofinnovation.com

“Our most important innovation is the way we work."


David A Nordfors

Sat Aug 22 2015 14:28:28 GMT-0400 (EDT)

That’s why we must shift from the ’task-centered’ to the

That’s why we must shift from the ’task-centered’ to the ‘people-centered’ economy.

Almost everything John Hagel ever said resonates with me. I specially salute him for pursuing ‘narrative’ – it’s been my mission for so long, a champ like John will make people understand. People will understand that if we learn faster, we might stay ahead of the machines that learn what we’ve learned to do and do so successfully that it’s business in letting machines do it. But I see that not as the solution, but rather as a segway into a new narrative, where ‘passion’ will be the more important word. And John was indeed most passionate when he spoke about the importance of passion. Today, ‘passion’ is more linked to ‘hobby’ than to ‘job’. And John is probably a wise general to pitch ‘learning’.

My own suggested segway to ‘passion' is ‘people-centered economy’. I’m certain this overlaps with John’s vision/strategy – learning is just that: people-centered. The keywords for create income and growth in the economy will be ‘raising the value of people beats rather than just lowering the cost of tasks” and “ more innovation that helps people earn better, to match all the existing innovation that helps people spend or save better”. The examples would be "a super-individualized ‘Manpower”’ or “Match.com <http://match.com/> instead of “Monster.com <http://monster.com/>”.

I developed those thoughts a bit more in my techcrunch columns and in the ‘jobly’ scenario (with the aura-healer_ that I did with Vint.
https://i4j.info/2014/07/disrupting-unemployment/ <cc55b5c2154d1dce0d61eed8ad84b12f88a0a09f> (w Vint)
http://techcrunch.com/2015/02/21/the-untapped-140-trillion-innovation-for-jobs-market/ <b7dfda58442718bb09e8599e848842cd2334a864> (TechCrunch)

I want to thank you, Jordan, for bringing up the important topic, and I’m very happy to follow your thoughts. Very profound and very creative.

/D


Curt Carlson

Sat Aug 22 2015 16:17:38 GMT-0400 (EDT)

Thanks but I guess I don’t understand that either. I

Thanks but I guess I don’t understand that either. I understand the aspiration and I appreciate the idea of trying to change the narrative in a positive way. And I resonate with John too and I ran my group at Sarnoff, and then SRI, that way for 30 years. It was very successful. IDEO and a few other companies do similar things also with great success. But I also know how hard that is and how special are the people who thrive under those conditions. Many people don’t want it at all. We hang around folks whose IQ varies from 120 to 180 and are super motivated. But half the population is below average!

And yes, most people are inspired by many similar motivators and yes, if you have a customer, you can create more value for them, but we are about to eliminate many tens of millions of jobs. I 100% agree that most people can do more and that there are tens of millions that are anti-employed, under-employed, miss-employed, or not-employed at all. Not being employed and being on welfare is not good for one’s soul (and a disaster for a country).

To make progress you might define people centered again. And what kinds of jobs might replace today’s jobs that are mostly task based for 95% of the population? Amazon is an example. 95% of the people in that “most advanced” company are fulfilling tasks. I always assumed what I was doing at SRI was people centered, both in terms of our customers and staff. I profoundly believe that it is a better way to work and live. But for the narrative to spread it must be based on a reality that is grounded in economics, our emerging market ecosystem, and basic human skills and behaviors.

PS Here is another video from Shiller that comments on our discussions — I share many of his views. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ABvtKGrIDUs

Curtis R. Carlson, Ph.D.
Founder and CEO, Practice of Innovation
Former President and CEO of SRI International, 1998-2014
Website: www.practiceofinnovation.com

“Our most important innovation is the way we work."


Curt Carlson

Sat Aug 22 2015 17:29:39 GMT-0400 (EDT)

This is also good — how economics is trying to

This is also good — how economics is trying to adjust. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oZsYxVe0KE8

Curtis R. Carlson, Ph.D.
Founder and CEO, Practice of Innovation
Former President and CEO of SRI International, 1998-2014
Website: www.practiceofinnovation.com

“Our most important innovation is the way we work."


David Michaelis

Sat Aug 22 2015 18:13:57 GMT-0400 (EDT)

Dear Curt.re ;your comment on skills and 90%…Upskilling is a

Dear Curt.re ;your comment on skills and 90%…Upskilling is a possible answer to your comment. The White conferred with a bunch of business people on this issue recently. seeUpskilling – What it means and where it stands

|   |
|   | |   |   |   |   |   |
| Upskilling – What it means and where it standsNational Skills Coalition is a broad-based coalition working toward a vision of an America that grows its economy by investing in its people so that every worker an… |
| |
| View on www.nationalskillscoal… | Preview by Yahoo |
| |
|   |


Hagel, John (US – San Francisco)

Sat Aug 22 2015 19:08:26 GMT-0400 (EDT)

Glad to hear that David is such a big fan

Glad to hear that David is such a big fan of my perspectives! 😉

For those who were at the SVForum event this week that David hosted or for those who are intrigued about what I might have said, I drew heavily on two research reports that I have published at Deloitte’s Center for the Edge:

The imperative for institutional innovation in the Big Shift – http://dupress.com/articles/institutional-innovation/
Curt below expressed concern that most work is task based, much of it done by workers with little or no skills. Certainly true in today’s economy and business world, but the question to be posed is whether this is intrinsic to the nature of work or whether it is simply a reflection of the way we organize work today. My argument is that, if we take institutional innovation seriously, we will move beyond work as isolated tasks and create environments where all workers, regardless of their role in an organization or even as independent contractors, will become focused on working together to learn faster.

I suspect that the institutional innovation that I explore in this paper could provide the basis for one of those “portal pathways” that Jordan Greenhall describes below

The increasing need to integrate passion and work – http://dupress.com/articles/worker-passion-employee-behavior/ (I have a lot more that I’ve written on this topic for those who are interested.

I’m actually in the process of crafting a blog post based on the talk that I gave at the SVForum and I’ll share that when it goes up in the next day or two.

David also mentioned my work on narratives, which will actually be the basis of a new book I am developing but, for those who are interested, here’s one of my first forays into the topic. http://edgeperspectives.typepad.com/edge_perspectives/2011/05/the-pull-of-narrative-in-search-of-persistent-context.html I believe that crafting a powerful narrative around the opportunity for innovation for jobs will be essential to mobilizing the ecosystems required to address this opportunity.

I actually have about 10 other blog posts exploring the power of narrative (which I differentiate from stories) for those who might be interested, so just let me know if you’d like links to the other posts as well.

I would certainly welcome and all feedback and reactions to these perspectives since I am continuing to pursue research on all of the above.

John Hagel
Director
Deloitte Consulting LLP

Co-Chairman
Center for the Edge

Tel: +1 415 932 5578
Fax: +1 877 481 3123
www.deloitte.com<http://www.deloitte.com/>

Deloitte Consulting LLP
555 Mission Street
San Francisco, California 94105

Executive Assistant – Carrie Howell
Tel: +1 408 704 2703
E-mail: […]

Have you read
The Power of Pull?
[Book Power of Pull dust jacket 050911]

From: David A Nordfors [mailto:[…]]
Sent: Saturday, August 22, 2015 11:28 AM
To: Curtis Carlson
Cc: Mei Lin Fung; Jordan Greenhall; […]; […]
Subject: Re: [i4jdc 2015] Re: [i4j2015] Innovation and Economics

That’s why we must shift from the ’task-centered’ to the ‘people-centered’ economy.

Almost everything John Hagel ever said resonates with me. I specially salute him for pursuing ‘narrative’ – it’s been my mission for so long, a champ like John will make people understand. People will understand that if we learn faster, we might stay ahead of the machines that learn what we’ve learned to do and do so successfully that it’s business in letting machines do it. But I see that not as the solution, but rather as a segway into a new narrative, where ‘passion’ will be the more important word. And John was indeed most passionate when he spoke about the importance of passion. Today, ‘passion’ is more linked to ‘hobby’ than to ‘job’. And John is probably a wise general to pitch ‘learning’.

My own suggested segway to ‘passion' is ‘people-centered economy’. I’m certain this overlaps with John’s vision/strategy – learning is just that: people-centered. The keywords for create income and growth in the economy will be ‘raising the value of people beats rather than just lowering the cost of tasks” and “ more innovation that helps people earn better, to match all the existing innovation that helps people spend or save better”. The examples would be "a super-individualized ‘Manpower”’ or “Match.com<http://Match.com> instead of “Monster.com<http://Monster.com>”.

I developed those thoughts a bit more in my techcrunch columns and in the ‘jobly’ scenario (with the aura-healer_ that I did with Vint.
https://i4j.info/2014/07/disrupting-unemployment/ (w Vint)
http://techcrunch.com/2015/02/21/the-untapped-140-trillion-innovation-for-jobs-market/ (TechCrunch)

I want to thank you, Jordan, for bringing up the important topic, and I’m very happy to follow your thoughts. Very profound and very creative.

/D

This is fine for folks like us — but 95% of the world is task based — taxis, delivery services, shipping, farming, manufacturing, food, basic services, health, construction, etc. Half the population of CA has almost no formal skills. What do do about them? It looks like an increasing social nightmare as we put them out of work.

Curtis R. Carlson, Ph.D.
Founder and CEO, Practice of Innovation
Former President and CEO of SRI International, 1998-2014
Website: www.practiceofinnovation.com<http://www.practiceofinnovation.com>

“Our most important innovation is the way we work."

This message (including any attachments) contains confidential information intended for a specific individual and purpose, and is protected by law. If you are not the intended recipient, you should delete this message and any disclosure, copying, or distribution of this message, or the taking of any action based on it, by you is strictly prohibited.

v.E.1

From: Mei Lin Fung […]
Reply-To: "[…]" […]
Date: Friday, August 21, 2015 at 10:28 PM
To: Jordan Greenhall […]
Cc: "[…]" […], "[…]" […]
Subject: [i4jdc 2015] Re: [i4j2015] Innovation and Economics

How would you see portal pathways working for human's in terms of livelihood?

At the I4J SV Forum's Aug 19 event, John Hagel shared 2 big shifts he anticipates:

Mindset shift from work=paycheck to work = passion

Innovation shift from the task driven model of jobs which today's institutions are built on – is ready to be superseded by a faster learning model

On Fri, Aug 21, 2015 at 11:34 AM, Jordan Greenhall […] wrote:

I'd look at the problem using the language of fitness landscapes from evolutionary theory. Ordinary business activity (and what we might call ordinary innovation) is effectively equivalent to endeavouring to find and occupy the most fit locations on the (economic) landscape.

We might be tempted to consider radical innovation as a mutation that significantly improves the organism's (firms) ability to compete on the landscape. But perhaps it is more correct to frame radical innovation as a change to the landscape itself. Lowering some hills and raising others. And most intriguingly, extending the landscape at its borders to include new potentials that did not exist at all in the previous landscape.

If this framing is useful, then it gives us access to a bunch of tools in evo that aren't readily available in eco. The most intriguing is "portal pathways" – innovations that are so disruptive (like multicellularity vs. single cellularity) that they effectively create an entirely new fitness landscape.

Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/a/i4jsummit.org/group/i4j2015/.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/a/i4jsummit.org/d/msgid/i4j2015/CAFc8ix5vX-8OAocaWB0JfTdAfaNTdV387oiWb9G4ouOV1q_kvw%40mail.gmail.com<https://groups.google.com/a/i4jsummit.org/d/msgid/i4j2015/CAFc8ix5vX-8OAocaWB0JfTdAfaNTdV387oiWb9G4ouOV1q_kvw%40mail.gmail.com?utm_medium=email&utm_source=footer>.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/a/i4jsummit.org/d/optout.


Mei Lin Fung
(cell) 650 279 7892
(email) […]
(twitter) meilinfung
(web) https://meilin-fung.squarespace.com<https://meilin-fung.squarespace.com/>

Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/a/i4j.info/group/dc2015/.

To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to […].


You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "i4jDC 2015" group.
To post to this group, send email to […].
Visit this group at b3d0fe2e38ce906c9fbad9c211daee9441a09f58.


You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "i4j Leadership Forum" group.
Visit this group at 1b7f3bc8a067223fbf68ceb5d65e85521e929d16.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/a/i4jsummit.org/d/msgid/i4j2015/3EB85A18-34B6-4D92-8734-E11985DCC023%40iiij.org<https://groups.google.com/a/i4jsummit.org/d/msgid/i4j2015/3EB85A18-34B6-4D92-8734-E11985DCC023%40iiij.org?utm_medium=email&utm_source=footer>.
For more options, visit 1870df37cf9c4e99f12b7ead67b006a1899dad90.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to […].


David A Nordfors

Sat Aug 22 2015 22:28:59 GMT-0400 (EDT)

John, thanks!

Will you let us publish your post about the

John, thanks!

Will you let us publish your post about the i4j/SVForum on https://i4j.info <https://i4j.info/> – would be superb!

Curt – the people-centered economy isn’t strange. I’ll make some examples.

cheers

/D


John Hagel

Mon Aug 24 2015 18:25:30 GMT-0400 (EDT)

I posted a blog entry this morning summarizing my keynote

I posted a blog entry this morning summarizing my keynote talk at the
SVForum gathering last week on the need to re-frame innovation in order to
disrupt unemployment. It's available here –

http://edgeperspectives.typepad.com/edge_perspectives/2015/08/the-real-unemployment-innovation-challenge.html

I would welcome any and all feedback since I'm continuing to work on this
topic.


Jordan Greenhall

Mon Aug 24 2015 19:08:36 GMT-0400 (EDT)

Good stuff John. My take is that the next area

Good stuff John. My take is that the next area of focus should be on the
predictable intransigence of existing institutional structures / complexes
and how these might be overcome.

As a nicely provocative example, i guesstimate that the entire global
economy could be run on 15% of the current workforce. Provided:

1. Everyone in that 15% is passionate and fully resourced to the kinds of
things you talk about.

2. The large chunk of folks stuck in the gears of the machine in jobs they
really don't like are removed as obstacles from the folks in #1.

I mention it because reworking an entire economy on the fly while 85% of
the population is being exhausted and both trained and incented wrongly is
likely a non starter. But a "jubilee year" that takes the folks off
line might give a real opportunity for a reboot.

There, now I've cleared the room. Space for anything now 🙂


Mei Lin Fung

Mon Aug 24 2015 19:39:37 GMT-0400 (EDT)

This then becomes the wonderful opportunity for thinking about what

This then becomes the wonderful opportunity for thinking about what we want
as humans
<http://designmind.frogdesign.com/2015/01/embracing-our-humanness-to-increase-productivity/>,
that the current economy does not provide for.

Here are some examples of goals we could set and work out how to incent
engagement and participation. Not as volunteers. (1)

1. More fulfilling lives. More fulfilled lives. Where people of all
generations have a right to a sense of purpose right up to their dying
breathe.

2. Learning how to go about achieving #1 – in education, in social
services, in environmental and transportation and housing planning,

3. Acquiring skills that make us more emotionally intelligent and socially
intelligent, so we can collaborate together with more joy and less angst to
learn how to make progress in #2

4. Working out how communities can distinguish themselves at something
(like an Olympics for communities instead of individuals – think about what
a breakthrough it was to have the original Olympics provide an alternative
to wars for gaining admiration and social kudos for physical prowess. We
need the next breakthrough for communities/tribes for showing off community
prowess) So that as we do #1,2,3, communities can look at each other and
say 'how did they do that?" just like soccer teams look at the teams who
beat them and work out how to not be beaten next time.

5. Working out what is important to us as humans – and how to measure it,
and how to get better at "taking care" of what is important to us. I
brought this up at the SVFI4J event where John Hagel spoke last week: We
focus on what we measure, and now we find that we don't measure what
matters to us, than we should not be surprised that we don't improve what
matters to us. Like the quality of our lives, how much where and how we
live, contributes to our thriving or suffering.

(1) We value the tracking of 'usage patterns" (eg browsers, mobile phones)
because it helps businesses understand how to create value.
There might be ways to have constant experiments that people could
participate in on an opt in basis and receive compensation for. Each action
might warrant a micro payment. Participants who are adaptive and quick
learners could be highly sought after as pioneers in value creation.

On Mon, Aug 24, 2015 at 4:08 PM, Jordan Greenhall <
[…] wrote:


Curt Carlson

Mon Aug 24 2015 20:03:27 GMT-0400 (EDT)

Dear John,
Very nice – you and David are kindred spirits.

Dear John,
Very nice – you and David are kindred spirits. I obviously agree with almost all that you described so well, at least for some in society.

Small point – this is too strong: "Today, the rationale for all of our institutions is scalable efficiency." As Steve and I have written about many times that is too extreme. There are many organizations that have not behaved that way for decades and thrived.

My old company was an exemplar for everything you describe. My teams were acting that way for 30 years with tremendous results. I wrote a Top-ten Business Week book about it.

Second, I think the issue of scaling needs to be addressed. That is, scaling across society. I certainly believe that underutilized resources is a huge opportunity. But giving people the skills is something else again.

I have worked on educational innovations my entire career and they, and every "solution" we studied, either didn't work (almost all) or didn't scale to a majority of students.

The only major exception I know of is Cornerstone Math from SRI to teach algebra, based on 15 years of research with the best partners across the globe. It is both transformative in results and it can scale to all schools educationally, economically, and politically!

I mentioned this the other day and you can look it up on the web. SRI is now doing a 50,000 student trial in Florida, I believe the largest such trial in US history after winning the top rating from DoEd out of 650 proposals.

It would be interesting to hear how you would address the scale issue. I have also talked to David about the scaling issue and that he needs to address it too.

As I said the other night, my biggest concern is that we are about to have half the US population in many states with no skills, no education, and no hope. Through the vote they can, like in Brazil, cause all kinds of serious issues because they see no realistic prospects for their future.

All the best,
Curt


Curtis R. Carlson, Ph.D.
Founder and CEO, Practice of Innovation
Former President and CEO of SRI International, 1998-2014
Website: www.practiceofinnovation.com

"Our most important innovation is the way we work."


Jordan Greenhall

Mon Aug 24 2015 20:32:51 GMT-0400 (EDT)

Agreed. To my entrepreneurial heart one of the most challenging

Agreed. To my entrepreneurial heart one of the most challenging and
greenfield opportunities in history. At long last a game actually worth
playing.


Curt Carlson

Mon Aug 24 2015 20:52:47 GMT-0400 (EDT)

A question. I can’t imagine that a society where 85%

A question. I can’t imagine that a society where 85% of the people don’t work would be a good thing. Work is at the heart of being human — ones identity and self worth depend on it. It seems unstable and likely to collapse from terrible policies that the 85% would impose on the 15%. How do you think about that?

Curtis R. Carlson, Ph.D.
Founder and CEO, Practice of Innovation
Former President and CEO of SRI International, 1998-2014
Website: www.practiceofinnovation.com

“Our most important innovation is the way we work."


Gary A. Bolles

Tue Aug 25 2015 02:52:09 GMT-0400 (EDT)

Just wanted to toss into the mix a few insights

Just wanted to toss into the mix a few insights we've gained from 40 years
of learning from readers of "What Color Is Your Parachute?" and "The Three
Boxes of Life," and continuing with learnings from our users at
eParachute.com:

1. Completely agree with Curt: Most people seem to be drawn to the
opportunity to perform "useful" work, rather than simply occupying space.
However, what's "useful," and what's "work," are often subjective. For
example, does "work" always need to be paid?

2. Completely agree with John: When given the choice between work that's
meaningful to the individual, but at lower pay, versus work that's less
meaningful, but at higher pay, the vast majority of people choose Door
Number 1 over Door Number 2. (The major exception is when people need more
money due to their circumstances, such as having to feed their family –
even though that may often be a false choice.)

3. What defines "meaningful," though, is also extremely subjective. To most
people, it turns out that it's the ability to use the skills that are
unique to each of us – but most especially the skills we each love using.
Most of us are in a constant search for that match, between what we love
doing, and the tasks we're able to perform in our work. The happiest
workers turn out to be those who have the ability to actually choose or
shape the tasks they perform to match the skills they love using.

4. I think of "passion" as being at the end of a scale, with "mild interest
or curiosity" at the other end. It's absolutely ideal if each of us is
driven by passion for some aspect of our work. But finding a passion is
sometimes a long process of trial and error. It's also often an issue of
permission: Many people believe they need to have permission to dream about
doing something that deeply motivates them.

5. If I had to choose, I'd say that the single most important attribute for
success in the future world of work is "agency" – what some people call
entrepreneurial thinking, and others call "being proactive." In a
constantly-changing world, those who feel they can continually take action
to find productive, compensated work.

David, it sounds like your ideal future is one where "agency" is actually
performed by an agent, such as a Manpower function on steroids. History
says that these kinds of intermediary functions work reasonably well for
people with much-needed skillsets, and they perform poorly (or not at all)
for most others, with constant downward pressure on wages. So I'll be
interested to hear thoughts in DC about how this might work differently in
a people-centered economy – especially how less-needed skillsets might
still have representation – and how we might rapidly test some of the
underlying assumptions to be sure that such a marketplace would scale.

gB

On Mon, Aug 24, 2015 at 5:52 PM, Curt Carlson […]


Katz Kiely

Tue Aug 25 2015 10:27:08 GMT-0400 (EDT)

Thanks for sharing your key points John. I too

Thanks for sharing your key points John. I too am in full agreement (
looking forward to meeting you) and with David’s points on the necessity of
a move towards a people-centred economy.

A successful shift to a more sustainable employment model needs to involve
significant changes in traditional mindsets, attitudes and behaviours.
Embedding behaviour change is notoriously difficult. The more deeply
embedded the behaviour, the more difficult to shift.

We have worked within the similar operating norm for a very long time. Work
is not “life” but the thing people do to “make a living”. For 9 hours every
day. Those lucky enough to be employed spend more time with their work
colleagues that with their loved ones. Employers expect employees to wear a
cloak of the “professional persona” during working hours. Most expect
employees to stick rigidly within the confines of their role. Stepping
outside these rigid “job” walls, even to share knowledge to help
colleagues, is often regarded as disruptive behaviour: and thus a massive
chunk of skills, knowledge and experience are kept locked firmly away to
avoid upsetting the status quo. Frustrating and bad for productivity – but
“that just the way things are.

A shift to a ‘people centred economy” has to start by understanding what
makes people tick.

Lets look at this norm through the lens of the the way the brain is wired.

People are most receptive to change (and most productive) when they are in
“reward” mode. In this mode, we do our best, most creative thinking, we are
open to collaboration and feel secure enough to try new things.

There are six key triggers to this reward state:

*Respect: *People feel that their opinions are valid. They feel part of
decision making processes and that their voices are heard.

*Certainty: *When there are no unexpected surprises. As an example, Zappos
make all of their live data open to everyone across the whole organisation
all the time. Nothing is hidden. Everyone knows what is happening. There
are no board room secrets.

*Autonomy: *They don’t want to be watched and micromanaged. People are most
productive and most collaborative when they are trusted to do the right
thing – especially as part of a community working toward a shared vision.

*Connectedness: *We are social creatures. We are at our best when we part
of connected communities – where we feel safe to share, to give, to be
involved. We are most empowered when we are connected by a shared vision or
collective mission.

*Fairness: *People like to know how and why decisions are made.

*Empathy: *Even a message saying that leadership understands that change is
not easy for anyone makes an enormous difference to how change is adopted.

Check back to standard current organisational operating systems.

Employees are expected to keep their opinions to themselves and to tow the
line. Leaders see knowledge as power and keep it locked away from prying
eyes. Most leaders find the idea of employee autonomy uncomfortable and
most workers are accustomed to doing as they are told without question.
Sharing and cross silo collaboration is not incentivised, if tolerated.
Decisions are made behind closed doors and delivered with not even a nod to
the people most affected by them.

The gap between organisational norms and more engaged, and therefore more
sustainable, operating systems is enormous. Travelling between one and the
other will involve significant change.

Therein lies the rub.

When presented with any kind of significant change, or anything that feels
different to the norm, the brain triggers a threat “fight or flight”
response. We become distracted as we try to figure out how that threat
will affect us.

Faced with change, people start to see threats even where there are no
threats. People are less able to focus or think clearly. Memory and
decision making is impaired, the field of focus narrows. They become more
emotional and stressed, which further impacts ability to perform.

Unfortunately, the threat response is contagious. When one person starts to
behave in a defensive way, the people around them react to the change in
their behaviour.

While we considering how to innovate employment through the use of
technology, we should not underestimate the challenge of introducing and
embedding organisational and systemic change. Throughout the brainstorming
process we should imagine what kind of frameworks could support
organisations and cities (leaders and employees) through the pain on change
into a new more sustainable norm.

Access to affordable and pervasive data, neuroscience, social physics and
behavioural psychology provide us with an unprecedented understanding of
how humans make decisions, what drives action and how behaviour change can
be “nudged.” This research should be kept front of mind as we are plotting


Curt Carlson

Tue Aug 25 2015 14:32:21 GMT-0400 (EDT)

Thanks—see below.

Curtis R. Carlson, Ph.D.
Founder and CEO, Practice of Innovation

Thanks—see below.

Curtis R. Carlson, Ph.D.
Founder and CEO, Practice of Innovation


Jordan Greenhall

Tue Aug 25 2015 16:33:49 GMT-0400 (EDT)

Yes, that is the deep question. Thank you for getting

Yes, that is the deep question. Thank you for getting right to the meat
of the matter.

What i would do is first separate actual needs from the "satisfiers" that
our civilization model has developed to meet those needs. And then look
at what new kinds of satisfiers can be innovated to meet those needs in the
emerging environment.

In this process, it is important to be mindful of the "coupling" that
tends to develop between and among ostensibly different satisfiers. The
credentialism linkage between our education institutions and our economic
institutions, for example. These linkages make it nearly impossible to
radically innovate in jobs without also radically innovating in
education. Hence my use of the concept of "civilization model".

Although it begs the question of how we define "work", I can say that
human beings don't need work. They need more fundamental things like
agency, creativity, community, a sense of material safety, etc.
Mileage will vary, but my go to here is Max Neef on human needs.

As it turns out, our civilization model has pushed a great number of these
needs into "work". Increasingly so over the past four centuries.
Indeed, a big cause of the modern ennui is the fact that work is a poor
satisfier for many of the needs that are being piled upon it. Even really
creative work, but particularly the kind of stuff that usually goes under
the heading "work".

Now, clearly, we can not simply delete work. 85% of the population
"just sitting around" is a disaster. What we must do is innovate
entirely new satisfiers. Optimally satisfiers that meet human needs much
more effectively than our legacy approaches and do so much more
efficiently. Neef calls the best of these "synergistic satisfiers".

Obviously a challenge for the ages, but my sense is that we are very well
positioned to meet it. To me, the hard part is doing it in the face of
and in the midst of the broad institutional dysfunction that is
characteristic of the current environment. For example, take
education. When nearly every child, teacher and parent is fully tapped
day in and day out by the legacy system, there isn't a lot of room for
innovation. Let alone radical innovation. But, if by some
circumstance, the entire educational system shut down all at once and, as
a consequence, got out of the way; we would develop a dozen new models
that are at least as effective in months. And in a year we'd be well on
our way to a set of satisfiers that are 10x more effective.

The key, in my mind, is to get legacy systems and legacy habits out of
the way while keeping people feeling safe enough to collaborate coherently
(and avoid chaos) and maintain enough infrastructure to enable that
collaboration. In general, a move like this is unwise. New is usually
a dangerous choice. But as i believe that a decomposition of the legacy
system is coming one way or another, my "jubilee year" starts to become a
plausible scenario.
On Aug 24, 2015 5:52 PM, "Curt Carlson" […]
wrote:


Curt Carlson

Tue Aug 25 2015 17:34:47 GMT-0400 (EDT)

See below.

Curtis R. Carlson, Ph.D.
Founder and CEO, Practice of Innovation
Former

See below.

Curtis R. Carlson, Ph.D.
Founder and CEO, Practice of Innovation
Former President and CEO of SRI International, 1998-2014
Website: www.practiceofinnovation.com

“Our most important innovation is the way we work."


David Michaelis

Tue Aug 25 2015 17:40:36 GMT-0400 (EDT)

agree that we need to redefine WORK and its meaning.

agree that we need to redefine WORK and its meaning. The writing of Hanna Arendt in the Human Condition might be relevant to this challenge. Arendt theorizes that the "human condition" is tri-partite, that is, composed of three dimensions: labor, work, and action.  To reduce the human condition to labor (as Marx did) and/or to work (as capitalism does), she argues, is to deny the fundamentally significant work that human beings can engage in, namely, action.  Understanding this, she believes, makes it possible to understand better how this allows political and economic systems to enslave human beings.  bestdavid


Curt Carlson

Tue Aug 25 2015 17:43:10 GMT-0400 (EDT)

Yes—thanks. The Japanese, among many others in different contexts, realized

Yes—thanks. The Japanese, among many others in different contexts, realized this with TQM. If you can put them together it is pretty powerful.

Curtis R. Carlson, Ph.D.
Founder and CEO, Practice of Innovation
Former President and CEO of SRI International, 1998-2014
Website: www.practiceofinnovation.com

“Our most important innovation is the way we work."

From: David Michaelis […]
Reply-To: David Michaelis […]


David Michaelis

Tue Aug 25 2015 18:29:50 GMT-0400 (EDT)

Very challenging to bridge between Managerial work performance tools of

Very challenging to bridge between Managerial work performance tools of measurement and philosophical theory by Arendt or Buber. As you rightly say we need to cover 100 percent of jobs and relate not only to Palo Alto but also Palo Alto East.

Sent from my iPad


Curt Carlson

Tue Aug 25 2015 18:31:18 GMT-0400 (EDT)

Right. Oakland versus Atherton.

Curtis R. Carlson, Ph.D.
Founder and CEO, Practice

Right. Oakland versus Atherton.

Curtis R. Carlson, Ph.D.
Founder and CEO, Practice of Innovation
Former President and CEO of SRI International, 1998-2014
Website: www.practiceofinnovation.com

“Our most important innovation is the way we work."


Jordan Greenhall

Tue Aug 25 2015 18:53:29 GMT-0400 (EDT)

Interestingly i was just in Oakland. I'd say they are

Interestingly i was just in Oakland. I'd say they are more ready for a
"portal pathway" than atherton by a fair margin.
On Aug 25, 2015 3:31 PM, "Curt Carlson" […]
wrote:


Jordan Greenhall

Tue Aug 25 2015 19:00:37 GMT-0400 (EDT)

Ill only point out the number of "Not likely in

Ill only point out the number of "Not likely in our lifetimes." that have
happened in the past decade.
On Aug 25, 2015 2:34 PM, "Curt Carlson" […]
wrote:


Curt Carlson

Tue Aug 25 2015 19:02:07 GMT-0400 (EDT)

I have had committed social value friends who went there

I have had committed social value friends who went there to teach and came out with TBI. A hard place.

Curtis R. Carlson, Ph.D.
Founder and CEO, Practice of Innovation
Former President and CEO of SRI International, 1998-2014
Website: www.practiceofinnovation.com

“Our most important innovation is the way we work."


Jerry Michalski

Tue Aug 25 2015 19:07:52 GMT-0400 (EDT)

Jordan I love your description of the civilization model. You

Jordan I love your description of the civilization model. You nail many
things I've been looking at from a different perspective, with similar
results.

I don't think we can have The Day the World Stood Still on the major
institutions of our day, mostly because people need to see proof that a
next step will improve their situation before they'll head that way.

Luckily, I see everywhere evidence of small movements that are the examples
everyone needs, from open source and unschooling to natural farming,
traffic calming, restorative justice, social streets and many many more.

Unfortunately, the major media are so focused on celebrities and "if it
bleeds, it leads" that they have no attention for the cool new things,
particularly because these new things don't operate by the same values as
the old things, so they look extra weird.

You've got me thinking in new ways, for which I am grateful.

Cheers,
Jerry

On Tue, Aug 25, 2015 at 4:02 PM, Curt Carlson […]


Curt Carlson

Tue Aug 25 2015 19:11:15 GMT-0400 (EDT)

True and you have to “expect" them. Uber was able

True and you have to “expect" them. Uber was able to beat back, in part, DeBlasio in NYC. I gave some examples where people are getting on with it without entire systems just disappearing. If the walls come down and the unions go away, for example, it will be because of these pioneers. But the forces against them are mighty. We simply assumed the unions were here for the next 20 years and designed a system that was great for all customers: kids, teachers, superintendents, parents, and the unions. Up to that point everyone thought that that was impossible. The result is we are on the verge of one of the biggest educational transformations, ever. Is that what you mean?

Curtis R. Carlson, Ph.D.
Founder and CEO, Practice of Innovation
Former President and CEO of SRI International, 1998-2014
Website: www.practiceofinnovation.com

“Our most important innovation is the way we work."


David Michaelis

Tue Aug 25 2015 19:29:21 GMT-0400 (EDT)

The media – mainstream- is becoming irrelevant in the social

The media – mainstream- is becoming irrelevant in the social media communication Eco system. More people listen to the small movements than we might be aware of. People are looking for and finding new ways to relate to their environment through all the new channels available .
This blogging/ messaging/ visualizing ,new Eco system will not change legacy institutions,but will help build other options. If you examine education and the
New available materials in many formats,you have an opening for creative self actualization and enhancement. Innovative self education is already happening for millions. Mooc and Khan are just the beginning.
David
Sent from my iPad


Katz Kiely

Wed Aug 26 2015 07:24:01 GMT-0400 (EDT)

Just checking you have seen Dan's TED talk what really

Just checking you have seen Dan's TED talk what really motivates us at work

Here's as TED overview if you haven't got time: http://ideas.ted.com/what-motivates-us-at-work-7-fascinating-studies-that-give-insights/

Sent in haste from my iPhone so accuse typos


David Michaelis

Wed Aug 26 2015 08:03:04 GMT-0400 (EDT)

Motivation works on many levels,and there are good insights in

Motivation works on many levels,and there are good insights in the Ted report.
Especially when your work is your identity. how does it influence people today- according to the latest estimates-when you
will Change 5 careers in a life time.?
David

Sent from my iPad


John Hagel

Wed Aug 26 2015 08:07:20 GMT-0400 (EDT)

Jordan – You're absolutely right – the transition is going

Jordan – You're absolutely right – the transition is going to be the
challenge. I suspect the bulk of the transition will come from new
entrants who pioneer and innovate around the scalable learning model and
use this as a basis for unseating the incumbents who hold on to the
scalable efficiency model. This will likely lead to a painful and
tumultuous transition with great potential for backlash as incumbents
mobilize to use regulation and other weapons to try to block the new
entrants from undermining their position.

On the other hand, as an optimist, I believe it is possible for existing
institutions to transform themselves, but not through the classic top down,
"big bang" approach to transformation that has proven to have a very high
failure rate. Instead, I have been a proponent of a different approach to
large scale organizational change that I call "scaling edges" –
http://www2.deloitte.com/us/en/pages/center-for-the-edge/articles/scaling-edges-methodology-to-create-growth.html
A few of our existing institutions will be able to navigate through the
changes using this approach.

On Mon, Aug 24, 2015 at 4:08 PM, Jordan Greenhall <
[…] wrote:


Curt Carlson

Wed Aug 26 2015 10:40:51 GMT-0400 (EDT)

Nice talk — thanks.

Curtis R. Carlson, Ph.D.
Founder and CEO, Practice

Nice talk — thanks.

Curtis R. Carlson, Ph.D.
Founder and CEO, Practice of Innovation
Former President and CEO of SRI International, 1998-2014
Website: www.practiceofinnovation.com

“Our most important innovation is the way we work."


Curt Carlson

Wed Aug 26 2015 10:50:19 GMT-0400 (EDT)

It depends on what you change to. At SRI people

It depends on what you change to. At SRI people stayed for a lifetime because there are constantly new major challenges. When I worked for RCA I had the two best projects — HDTV and the Internet — and life was boring and frustrating. Why? Nothing ever got done. On the outside it looked great but inside it was not meaningful work. It you have meaningful work: learning, rewards proportional to effort, autonomy — you can stay happy. At SRI I was always engaged in meaningful work and we literally changed the world. The trappings of big companies don’t mean a thing — it is what you are doing and who you are doing it with.

Curtis R. Carlson, Ph.D.
Founder and CEO, Practice of Innovation
Former President and CEO of SRI International, 1998-2014
Website: www.practiceofinnovation.com

“Our most important innovation is the way we work."


Katz Kiely

Wed Aug 26 2015 12:10:37 GMT-0400 (EDT)

Couldn’t agree with you more Curt 🙂
Katz

Katz Kiely
Digital Strategist

Couldn’t agree with you more Curt 🙂
Katz

Katz Kiely
Digital Strategist & Transformation Agent
Mobile: +44 7855 333458
Skype: katzkiely
Twitter: @katzy


Jordan Greenhall

Wed Aug 26 2015 13:23:52 GMT-0400 (EDT)

John,

Agreed. To me the best way to describe what is

John,

Agreed. To me the best way to describe what is happening is that there are
currently two different attractors vying to dominate the shape of the
fitness landscape. We might call them the legacy attractor and the
emerging attractor. As you say, the legacy attractor is largely dominated
by strategies that (following Geoffrey West's discoveries) are
fundamentally mappings of biological dynamics – "scalable efficiency". The
emerging attractor is dominated by strategies that respond to the entirely
different "informational" dynamics. Increasing returns to scale,
non-rivalrousness, network effects, etc., etc., etc.

Over the past few centuries, the influence of the emerging attractor has
been increasing. At the same time, the pull of the legacy attractor is
still significant. The more "informational" a domain, the more it is in
the basin of the emerging attractor. The more "energetic" a domain, the
more it is in the legacy basin. As more and more of our overall domain has
been moved from "energy" to "information" or "analog to digital" or however
one likes to frame it, the overall balance of the attractors has changed.

When we talk about a phase transition or a portal pathway we are looking at
a tipping point where big chunks of the overall system move their center of
gravity from the legacy attractor to the emerging attractor. We have good
empirical evidence on this if we zoom into specific domains. My personal
expertise is in the digital media domain and in every single case the
dynamics are typical. Small bits of the domain are "sucked over the falls"
by and into the emerging attractor. If and as the domain is affordant to
"going digital" this process accelerates creating a kind of disruptive
shear between legacy dynamics and emergent dynamics. Ultimately, a tipping
point is reached and the whole domain gets sucked over and starts to
operate according to emergent dynamics. Of course, these systems are still
operating in the larger context of legacy dynamics (e.g., law, governance,
economics, education, cultural norms, etc.). So Google is more emergent
than Yahoo but still isn't fully there. YouTube is more emergent than
Hulu, etc.

I've seen this happen so many times now that its almost intuitive. And
I've had so many "not in our lifetimes" conversations with domain specific
legacy elites that I've come to read that phrase as the leading indicator
of a tipping point.

What is different now is the degree to which the local domains of the
legacy system (e.g, media companies, banks, pharma, auto companies, taxi
companies, etc.) are pulling on each-other to maintain their coherence
agains the pull of the emerging attractor. What this means is that the
whole legacy system is now undergoing the process described above. So we
watch as pieces get sucked over the falls – each one accelerating the
overall process – until a tipping point has been reached. And then lots of
things happen in our lifetime.

Here is the fun part – that which seems most solid is in fact most subject
to change. Education, health care, law, etc. These are at the core of the
legacy attractor and, consequently, will be some of the last to go. But
when they go they will not change slowly. Its actually very similar to
liquefaction in an earthquake. All of those same linkages (e.g., unions,
credentials, health insurance) that keep them rigorously coherent orbiting
the legacy attractor become so many ropes pulling them over the falls when
the tipping point is reached.

So, to reframe my dialogue with Curt, my point is that we must look to
emerging dynamics to find ways to satisfy the deep human needs that are
currently satisfied under legacy satisfiers. There is absolutely no doubt
that there is something in what is currently called "Work" that is deeply
important. But two things:

1. Whatever satisfies those deep needs in the future will be from the
emerging attractor, not the legacy attractor and while it might contain
elements of what we call work, it will likely look so very different as to
be unrecognizable. You can't walk linearly from the legacy attractor to
the emergent attractor. You have to "teleport" to the emergent attractor
and then cohere satisfiers that meet those needs.

2. Nearly all of our expectations, habits, heuristics and intuitions
adapted to the legacy attractor are going to stop working. We will need to
train a new gut that is adapted to the new landscape.


David A Nordfors

Wed Aug 26 2015 16:22:11 GMT-0400 (EDT)

Gary,

Yes, I think the future will ‘unpack’ the idea of

Gary,

Yes, I think the future will ‘unpack’ the idea of employment.
Manpower does that today. It buys services on W-2 and sells them on 1099.
This is task-based. I’m just suggesting a switch to people-based.
Instead of asking “which person can perforrm this task?”, the agency asks “what is the most valuable thing this person can do?”
We didn[t have the computing power or data to answer the latter question previously. Now perhaps we have.

/D


David Michaelis

Wed Aug 26 2015 16:32:10 GMT-0400 (EDT)

Are you aware that Obama organized recently "Upskill America" initiative

Are you aware that Obama organized recently "Upskill America" initiative that pointed out that there 5 million job opening in America today.More than at any other time. Who can preform these tasks? Only the Upskilled….how to do it
Is the centre of this challenge.

Sent from my iPad


Mei Lin Fung

Wed Aug 26 2015 17:26:29 GMT-0400 (EDT)

Here's the report for the UpSkill Summit

https://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/docs/150423_upskill_report_final_3.pdf

On Wed,

Here's the report for the UpSkill Summit

https://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/docs/150423_upskill_report_final_3.pdf

On Wed, Aug 26, 2015 at 1:32 PM, David Michaelis […]
wrote:


Gary A. Bolles

Wed Aug 26 2015 17:32:18 GMT-0400 (EDT)

To the point about career change… There's absolutely no question

To the point about career change… There's absolutely no question that
we'll all be changing "jobs" more often in the future. As far as Baby
Boomers go, though, our average is to change jobs about every four years
from age 24 to 48 – and about once a year from 18-24. The Department of
Labor doesn't actually track career change statistics, though, because they
don't really have a definition of what that means…
http://www.bls.gov/news.release/pdf/nlsoy.pdf

gB

On Wed, Aug 26, 2015 at 7:50 AM, Curt Carlson […]


Esko Kilpi

Wed Aug 26 2015 18:12:01 GMT-0400 (EDT)

Some (controversial) thoughts on “upskilling”, although I call it learning:

Some (controversial) thoughts on “upskilling”, although I call it learning: https://medium.com/@EskoKilpi/can-we-learn-to-be-intelligent-241ef515b7d9 <de9dd15128911fe82f32709ad6bfcf4a5fbc3911>

Esko
Sitra, Finland

Esko Kilpi Oy Rehbinderintie 3 00150 Helsinki www.kilpi.fi <http://www.kilpi.fi/> Voice +358 400 501 800 Blog http://eskokilpi.blogging.fi Twitter @EskoKilpi Skype eskokilpi


Curt Carlson

Wed Aug 26 2015 18:32:31 GMT-0400 (EDT)

Nice. "The collective intelligence of our societies depends on the

Nice. "The collective intelligence of our societies depends on the tools that augment human intelligence.”
Do you know the work of Douglas Engelbart and the human augmentation laboratory — mouse, windows, collaboration, etc. He is a giant in the field.

Curtis R. Carlson, Ph.D.
Founder and CEO, Practice of Innovation
Former President and CEO of SRI International, 1998-2014
Website: www.practiceofinnovation.com

“Our most important innovation is the way we work."


Curt Carlson

Wed Aug 26 2015 18:40:18 GMT-0400 (EDT)

One reason I think all bets are off is that

One reason I think all bets are off is that we are about to start bio-engineering humans. I have no idea where that ends up. Talk about haves and have nots.


Curtis R. Carlson, Ph.D.
Founder and CEO, Practice of Innovation
Former President and CEO of SRI International, 1998-2014
Website: www.practiceofinnovation.com

“Our most important innovation is the way we work."


Curt Carlson

Wed Aug 26 2015 18:51:59 GMT-0400 (EDT)

Nice. It is a very coherent description and I too

Nice. It is a very coherent description and I too have seen it over and over. I think we already see what will happen to education — the trick is always how to start the transition. I think we (SRI) has one of the most disruptive innovations for creating the future of education. It has most of the critical features but like in a computer with 10K of memory. I saw that again with digital, where my team started the HD revolution with both satellite delivery and the US HDTV standard. Now those efforts seems like something from the ancient Greeks — 4K – 8K –16K —? Same with speech (Nuance) robotic surgery (Intuitive) and a dozen more. The issue is always what will cause the tip?

Curtis R. Carlson, Ph.D.
Founder and CEO, Practice of Innovation
Former President and CEO of SRI International, 1998-2014
Website: www.practiceofinnovation.com

“Our most important innovation is the way we work."


David A Nordfors

Wed Aug 26 2015 18:53:54 GMT-0400 (EDT)

Yes, bio-engineering is drastic stuff. Now we can REALLY shape

Yes, bio-engineering is drastic stuff. Now we can REALLY shape people to fit job slots.
I remember reading a scifi short story in my teens, its the future olympic games – the US and the Soviets are competing with bioengineered athletes. The climax of the story is when the Soviets send in their heavy-weight boxing champ, bio-engineered to that his head is below his belt!

We need new economics where meaning isn’t the same as maximizing means. For example, you can see work as an activity that creates financial value, where good team spirit is reflected in increased generation of financial value. Or you can se work as a place where people engage with each other in what they feel is a meaningful way, generating the means for improving wellbeing for people on the team. The former will develop prize boxers with heads below their belts, the second will develop healthy, happy boxers. Perhaps they’ll feel so fine that they’ll stop beating each other up and do something else instead. I don’t know. But whatever it is, they’ll think it’s meaningful. But they’ll certainly need the means for doing it, so it connects. I think that’s a good economy.

/D


Curt Carlson

Wed Aug 26 2015 19:09:59 GMT-0400 (EDT)

Ah—not so easy. Today we already have all the money

Ah—not so easy. Today we already have all the money one could have dreamed about 50 years ago and the plight of our poor has gotten worse — much worse in almost every way that matters to a society. We have destroyed many of the “attractors" that hold a society, a community, a family, or a person together. And nothing has come forth to replace those attractors. Indeed, most of the solutions have made things worse. Not because people are bad but because some things are so fundamental to what it means to be human that it is almost impossible to find a substitute. Goodness knows people have tried for thousands of years. Interesting that this is Burning Man week — we are back to pagan festivals to create meaning for techies who ought to, if any groups does today, have meaningful work.

Curtis R. Carlson, Ph.D.
Founder and CEO, Practice of Innovation
Former President and CEO of SRI International, 1998-2014
Website: www.practiceofinnovation.com

“Our most important innovation is the way we work."


David A Nordfors

Wed Aug 26 2015 19:21:03 GMT-0400 (EDT)

John’s post, reposted on i4j.info : https://i4j.info/2015/08/the-real-unemployment-innovation-challenge/ <e2b7f7213359deea3c8f41f7770e27b0781dc1a2>

Also

John’s post, reposted on i4j.info : https://i4j.info/2015/08/the-real-unemployment-innovation-challenge/ <e2b7f7213359deea3c8f41f7770e27b0781dc1a2>

Also posted on i4j FB & Twitter feeds.

Participants in the i4j Leadership Forum (i.e. YOU) can publish posts on i4j.info
.


David Michaelis

Wed Aug 26 2015 19:22:23 GMT-0400 (EDT)

Dear Esko
Very well defined thoughts.I like the exuberance of your

Dear Esko
Very well defined thoughts.I like the exuberance of your verbosity…
Upskillling or Learning are the same tools to get to "JQ", instead of IQ.
Job intelligence (JQ) is a secret sauce that needs to be formulated and data
Based. JQ is just an innovative linguistic tool of mine.
My grandfather William Stern formulated the IQ equation when he was asked by the German government to test women if the can drive street trolleys . As all the men went to the front.WW1.
I am telling this story , as he believed in a holistic view of the person,which includes
All the parameters you relate to
David

Sent from my iPad


Tammy Johns

Wed Aug 26 2015 22:41:41 GMT-0400 (EDT)

David, since we launched Skills.com<http://Skills.com> at UpSkill America,

David, since we launched Skills.com<http://Skills.com> at UpSkill America, on the premise of sharing practical skills so that we can learn from each other, I would love to hear more about your (and of course the rest of the group) thoughts about the potential of video based situational learning – like a mentor in your pocket?

Best

Tammy

Sent from my iPhone


Jamai Blivin

Wed Aug 26 2015 22:51:40 GMT-0400 (EDT)

I don’t have a blog to publish but I agree

I don’t have a blog to publish but I agree with what this states, however I want to note that there are a lot of solutions already on the ground…matching supply and demand. The conversation is now over…it is now time to act.
For too long there have been white papers and policy papers stating the problem. That must end….it has to move to implementation.

Jamai


Vint Cerf

Thu Aug 27 2015 02:10:39 GMT-0400 (EDT)

Read Asimov: about Solaria for a glimpse of the reductio

Read Asimov: about Solaria for a glimpse of the reductio ad adsurdum
outcome of the trends that Curt worries about.

v

On Wed, Aug 26, 2015 at 7:09 PM, Curt Carlson […]


Mei Lin Fung

Thu Aug 27 2015 02:19:44 GMT-0400 (EDT)

> I did enjoy looking this up on Wikipedia ….

> I did enjoy looking this up on Wikipedia …. I'm glad this came up…


Katz Kiely

Thu Aug 27 2015 03:06:01 GMT-0400 (EDT)

Hi there Curt

I’m not sure if "pagan festival to

Hi there Curt

I’m not sure if "pagan festival to create meaning for techies” is an accurate description of Burning Man.. But thanks for bringing it up as it is an entirely relevant topic when considering the future of (un) employment.

I was lucky enough to be invited by the founders a couple of years ago. I may not have accepted (“I’ve got work to do”) but Dan Ariely explained that I, with my passion for organisational transformation and behaviour change, should experience it.

I now see Burning Man as a social experiment, exploring what happens when money and brands are taken out of the equation and volunteerism, creativity, collaboration and empowerment are put centre stage.

Participants come from all sorts of sectors: arts, media, finance – you name it. While there are elements of “pagan” festival, many of the activities are less widely understood.

Contrary to the popular conception, I see the playa as a prototyping engine: with a wide variety of workshops, innovation camps, conferences, unconferences. The level of conversation and debate at Burning Man are, from my experience, exceptional.

A couple of take aways to share a couple of experiences relevant to this discussion:

I had to visit the onsite hospital last year. The hospital, like everything else on the playa, is managed and manned by volunteers: professional nurses and doctors. I asked why they had given up their precious holiday time to volunteer. Each and every one said the same thing. At Burning Man the paperwork is taken out of the equation. They get to do what they signed up for : help people get better. The service was impressive, and efficient, but human. The relationship between professional and patient is very different than in your typical hospital. The patients are genuinely grateful. The endless bureaucracy and paperwork is taken out of the equation. Most said they come back to volunteer year after year.

Impressed, and Infected by the volunteer spirit, I did a morning shift at the coffee centre the next morning. I brewed coffee for 4 hours. We served thousands of people. It could not have been a more menial job – but is one of my favourite memories of Burning Man. Why? Because of the work environment. We were working together to support a connected community. Our efforts were respected and celebrated by those we served. Our playfulness did not get in the way of our work, but made the team more empowered and efficient. Empowerment leads to productivity.

In some ways the playa may have been an appropriate platform for Tuesdays meeting. Maybe next year 🙂

Katz Kiely
Digital Strategist & Transformation Agent
Mobile: +44 7855 333458
Skype: katzkiely
Twitter: @katzy


Curt Carlson

Thu Aug 27 2015 13:55:13 GMT-0400 (EDT)

Thank you — very nice. I was trying to be

Thank you — very nice. I was trying to be funny but also make a point. Your answer makes it — there is still something missing from those who have the best jobs on the planet. The values you describe are fundamental to being a full human.

Curtis R. Carlson, Ph.D.
Founder and CEO, Practice of Innovation
Former President and CEO of SRI International, 1998-2014
Website: www.practiceofinnovation.com

“Our most important innovation is the way we work."


Ivan Kaye

Thu Aug 27 2015 17:06:24 GMT-0400 (EDT)

Wow – thanks Katz,
Are music festivals and doofs – a

Wow – thanks Katz,
Are music festivals and doofs – a social experiment – solving the need for jobs? A precursor to the new kibbutz?

My daughters (22 and 25) love going to music festivals, (what they call "doofs" )

Are these festivals / communities , a social experiment that will be a base for a "new way" of connecting / adding value / living – creating for their community , a sense of self worth / finding ways to spend your day in a positive motivating way. Is this a better way than the "establishment – 9-5 work week – (for most) doing a job to survive, so they can feed and educate their family, and take 4 weeks a year annual leave – ( they say that job stands for "just over the breadline").

I have uploaded this on my blog if that's ok !

http://australianinnovation.blogspot.com/2015/08/are-music-festivals-and-doofs-social.html

Best
Ivan

Sent from my iPhone
Ivan Kaye
BSI
0413339888


Jordan Greenhall

Thu Aug 27 2015 17:56:32 GMT-0400 (EDT)

Heh. Timely. For those who are interested, I'll be at

Heh. Timely. For those who are interested, I'll be at Camp Mystic 2
and G


Katz Kiely

Thu Aug 27 2015 19:35:48 GMT-0400 (EDT)

Hi Ivan

Thank you ..and always more than happy to

Hi Ivan

Thank you ..and always more than happy to share 😉

Katz

Katz Kiely
Digital Strategist & Transformation Agent
Mobile: +44 7855 333458
Skype: katzkiely
Twitter: @katzy


David Michaelis

Thu Aug 27 2015 19:37:24 GMT-0400 (EDT)

would this help see the relationship of jobs to festivals

would this help see the relationship of jobs to festivals and passionate concerts?
david


Knight, Jim

Tue Sep 01 2015 05:18:04 GMT-0400 (EDT)

Scaling in K12 education is very hard, especially in the

Scaling in K12 education is very hard, especially in the US and the UK where the school system are highly delegated. Incidentally Curt, congrats on Cornerstone – I am a visiting Professor at the London Knowledge Lab where we have done some work with it and like the results.

Part of the problem of scale and schools is the tension between top down procurement and bottom up change. This is best exemplified by PD in the US where 14,000 districts procure at least $2billion worth of PD and yet teachers still find it necessary to buy at least $200 million of PD from their own pockets because the quality and relevance of the district provided stuff is so poor. Administrators appear to buy PD to suit their own priorities rather than innovative ways of developing teacher talent. Meanwhile 40% of teachers leave the profession within 3 years at huge cost to the US taxpayer.

By contrast look at Khan Academy, MOOCs and TES Connect (where I now work). These offer free content that are very successful. Ironically online learning is showing that the quality bar is higher with free than paid. Paid online relies on people being vested in completion because they are effectively buying the certificate – they will therefore suffer a horrible UX and boring lonely learning. By contrast free content needs to be relevant and/or engaging to get traction. TES has over 7 million users downloading over one million teaching resources each day. This UGC is by and for teachers and largely free.

In this, more public service, context the innovation and the economics are not well aligned. It is hard to make money from free! Undoubtedly a political decision to give teachers the PD budget to spend individually would massively increase effectiveness and free a powerful B to C market. But as a former politician I know I am probably being fanciful!

J

Dear John,
Very nice — you and David are kindred spirits. I obviously agree with almost all that you described so well, at least for some in society.

Small point — this is too strong: "Today, the rationale for all of our institutions is scalable efficiency.” As Steve and I have written about many times that is too extreme. There are many organizations that have not behaved that way for decades and thrived.

My old company was an exemplar for everything you describe. My teams were acting that way for 30 years with tremendous results. I wrote a Top-ten Business Week book about it.

Second, I think the issue of scaling needs to be addressed. That is, scaling across society. I certainly believe that underutilized resources is a huge opportunity. But giving people the skills is something else again.

I have worked on educational innovations my entire career and they, and every “solution" we studied, either didn’t work (almost all) or didn’t scale to a majority of students.

The only major exception I know of is Cornerstone Math from SRI to teach algebra, based on 15 years of research with the best partners across the globe. It is both transformative in results and it can scale to all schools educationally, economically, and politically!

I mentioned this the other day and you can look it up on the web. SRI is now doing a 50,000 student trial in Florida, I believe the largest such trial in US history after winning the top rating from DoEd out of 650 proposals.

It would be interesting to hear how you would address the scale issue. I have also talked to David about the scaling issue and that he needs to address it too.

As I said the other night, my biggest concern is that we are about to have half the US population in many states with no skills, no education, and no hope. Through the vote they can, like in Brazil, cause all kinds of serious issues because they see no realistic prospects for their future.

All the best,
Curt


Curtis R. Carlson, Ph.D.
Founder and CEO, Practice of Innovation
Former President and CEO of SRI International, 1998-2014
Website: www.practiceofinnovation.com<http://www.practiceofinnovation.com>

“Our most important innovation is the way we work."

From: John Hagel […]
Date: Monday, August 24, 2015 at 3:25 PM
To: C Carlson […], David Nordfors […], "[…]" […], "[…]" […], "[…]" […], "[…]" […]
Subject: Innovation and Economics

I posted a blog entry this morning summarizing my keynote talk at the SVForum gathering last week on the need to re-frame innovation in order to disrupt unemployment. It's available here –

http://edgeperspectives.typepad.com/edge_perspectives/2015/08/the-real-unemployment-innovation-challenge.html

I would welcome any and all feedback since I'm continuing to work on this topic.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/a/i4j.info/group/dc2015/.

Post Importer