Thoughts on ‘The Big Shift’

Have you heard of the ‘Big Shift’? If not. You could do worse than cast your eye over these blogs (The Big Shift and Irving Wladawsky-Berger) for an introduction. The Big Shift is a phrase coined by John Seely Brown, John Hagel III and Lang Davison to describe a transformation of the business environment which they assert is working out around us right now. The transformation they describe is from the Industrial Age to the Information Age and is driven along by technological development. I don’t think I can improve on Irving Wladawsky-Berger’s summary of the thinking behind the Big Shift so do follow the link above and read his review. I also agree wholeheartedly with his concluding paragraph which I reproduce here: “ The Big Shift is a very innovative, difficult and important project. I strongly urge you to look at the full report to learn more about their objectives, methodologies and conclusions. You may not agree with all the measures chosen by the Center for the Edge team, but that is to be expected. Like any complex initiative, getting going is what counts. The Big Shift project will undoubtedly keep getting better and sharpening its results over time, especially, as it practices the spirit of learning and collaboration that it so strongly advocates. (from Irving Wladawsky-Berger’s blog)”.

Seely Brown, Hagel and Lang identify three waves of change which they call foundational, flow and impact. The foundational wave reflects the development of information technology and the almost contagious nature of its penetration into all the nooks and crannies of our society and, in one form or another, into the majority of social groupings on the planet. The second wave of change reflects their perception of the temporal nature of value, particularly in the context of knowledge; they believe there is more value in the flow of knowledge than in the stock of knowledge which changes in the foundational wave are rapidly making obsolete. The flow wave can be quantified in terms of the flow of knowledge and the movement of talent – it is interesting that the former seems to spread and the latter to concentrate. Seely Brown, Hagel and Lang’s third wave describes the impact of the two preceding waves on performance in the context of firms, markets, consumers and creative talent. One telling statistic they quote is that the average return on assets for US companies is now 25% of what it was in 1965. Another interesting observation is that value seems to be migrating from corporations to individuals, in terms of better deals for individual consumers and better compensation for individual ‘creative’ talents.

The study was performed at the Deloitte Center for the Edge of which Seely Brown and Hagel are co-chairmen and Lang Davison is the Executive Director. Their work represents a substantial advance in our ability to describe and therefore to discuss the economic environment of today. It raises a number of questions in my mind, which I hope will contribute to the dialogue:

1. The authors appear to imply a correspondence between the three waves of change as measured by the Foundational Index, the Flow Index and the Impact Index; as far as I can see, there is no fundamental reason for any correspondence. Am I missing something?
2. The authors appear to expect the rate of foundational change as measured by the Foundational Index to moderate; this may well be the case but given the demands of achieving a sustainable post industrial economy I don’t see it happening any time soon. Do they have a timescale in mind?
3. The concept of consumer disloyalty seems to reflect a corporate-centric perspective. This almost implies that customer disloyalty is bad; I would rather start from the position that customer loyalty is something to be earned.  Is this project corporate centric in its approach or is it more generic?
4. The authors describe a transition from scalable efficiency to scalable learning. I am concerned that learning is not enough; it has to lead to action and for want of a better word, I can only come up with the idea of scalable adaptation. Does this make any sense to you or to the authors?

The authors have pitched a significant contribution into what was a void – I had begun to wonder why John Hagel’s blog was less active than it had been. Now I know  and what they have written is well worth the wait. Stimulating stuff – so many thanks for the brain food.

Interoperability can be fun

I am so frustrated – I recently read an article in the FT by Michael Schrage entitled “Interoperability: the great enabler” (5th Feb). In his article, Schrage introduces the concept of IQ or the Interoperability Quotient but he does not describe how to measure it.  Here I am, in France struggling with interoperability every time I venture out of the house and I could conclude from his article that, with a low IQ, I might be  destined to underachieve. Perhaps willingness makes up a large part of the IQ measure; certainly buying food in a street market was successful and ultimately satisfying as was, at a much deeper level a guided tour of a country house by one of the family who could tell a story about every one of many ‘objets d’interet’ in the house and garden. Even if I could only understand one word in five, the personal intensity of the message conveyed all the meaning necessary.

So here is my real frustration with the article.  While it recognises the technological driving force behind interoperability and an economic context in which it can develop, it does not acknowledge the importance of culture and organisation in determining potential for the wider implemention of interoperability In my opinion, the  factors that will determine success in interoperability have more to do with people, organisations and culture than a quotient relating to components and systems. Alberts talks about this in his book “Power to the edge” where he discusses interoperability in the physical, information, cognitive and social domains. It is not that all these domains are relevant to every instance of operability as this is obviously not the case but Alberts also talks about the need for ‘jointness’ which I take to mean the responsibility of the people involved at each end of any ‘interoperation’ to take responsibility for effective interoperability. People with a shared intent and awareness working ‘jointly’ can provide resilience and adaptability in the deployment of interoperability and these underpin the evolutionary capacity that is a prerequisite for survival.

Exploring the edge

I first came across the word ‘edge’ being used in the context of business organisation in the work of John Hagel III and John Seely Brown. The material in their book, “The Only Sustainable Edge” and in John Hagel’s blog “Edge Perspectives” (http://www.edgeperspectives.typepad.com/ and http://www.edgeperspectives.com/) provided a rich vein of resource material as I began to think about how to respond to the increasing uncertainty in my own work environment. If you are familiar with situations where your efforts to improve productivity are like sticking ‘a finger in the dyke’ and there are alluring but poorly quantified references to the benefits of outsourcing and offshoring, then give this material a look. However, they are not on their own; powerful support comes literally in the form of “Power to the Edge” (http://www.dodccrp.org/files/Alberts_Power.pdf), a treatise by David Alberts and Richard Hayes on a transformation that is being proposed for military organisation. With an occasional nod to the industrial and commercial world, this book describes in compelling fashion how networked communication provides the only basis for an effective and affordable force, capable of responding in diverse conflict situations. If the words ‘flexible’ and ‘agile’ are being bandied about in your business, read these texts.