Comments for Futures-Diagnosis

Comment on Facebook valuation: $100 billion for what? by normlewis

normlewis — Sat, 18 Feb 2012 16:52:18 +0000

Jim, I appreciate your comments and agree with your very legitimate concerns. The cultural moment we are in is depressing. We have so lowered our expectations it has become a self-fulfilling prophecy – low expectations, risk aversion, lowered ambitions, and an unwillingness to experiment. At the same time paradoxes abound. There are examples that show some potential. The bifurcation between what is possible and the expectation that nothing will change or is worth trying means the gaps will produce changes that will eventually allow potential to become reality. To your point about the small number of people who are swimming against the stream, it is precisely because these points are being made and the existing culture is being challenged, where small but significant examples are emerging that things change will gather pace. Its contradictory and depressingly slow, but it is and will continue to gather pace. Thanks for your comments.

Comment on Facebook valuation: $100 billion for what? by Innovation Integrators

Innovation Integrators — Fri, 17 Feb 2012 15:22:21 +0000

Norman, Thank you for having the courage to raise the issues around what I fear is rapidly becoming that “unaskable” truth. The hype around Everything Social is creating a large sucking sound that is the warning call for a significant drain on a world that needs some all-too-real answers to “what’s next” in a Post-Industrial World. It would be to easy for others to look at your post and assume it comes from the mind of a neo-Luddite. In reading through your About section, it’s clear that the work that you and Professor Furedi are doing is anything but anti-technology. That being said, there are not enough of us who truly believe in technology’s transformational potential that are asking the tough questions about to what end all this “Social” behavior should be leading. None of us has the answer for most of the tough, intractable, system-wide challenges that confront our world, but collectively we do. As Peter Drucker, A.G. Lafley, John Hagel and John Seely Brown, and many others have pointed out, bringing the outside in is a key element of innovation and productivity in the emerging Creative Economy. One of the biggest problems with Social is that senior management of most of the world’s largest corporations is made up of people who came of age in the Me Decade. They are the ones who are least likely to engage in the meaningful interactions with “outsiders”. Those outsiders are the ones with the unique new perspectives needed to reveal the dots to be connected for those desperately needed new insights. For those who might think this all sounds pretty negative and pessimistic, think again. What many of us see is the potential for digital systems and human cultures to combine synergistically and produce meaningful engagements that can catalyzes our collective wisdom to create the innovation needed for a better planet. Thanks again for a well-written post. Nicely done, sir!

Comment on GOOGLE PATENTS AND THE DEATH OF INNOVATION by normlewis

normlewis — Thu, 03 Nov 2011 15:49:50 +0000

You raise some great points Dirk. However, I think the patent issues I am raising are an effect rather than a cause of innovation decline. The defensiveness inherent in this behaviour arises from a risk averse culture which inevitably stresses the short-term and the realm of the known. If you think through the implications of the decline of open-ended research, then seeking refuge in existing knowledge (the content of patents) is inevitable – if I can’t develop new knowledge, then I’ll stop others (or trade with others) so they can’t.

Comment on GOOGLE PATENTS AND THE DEATH OF INNOVATION by Dirk Trossen

Dirk Trossen — Thu, 03 Nov 2011 15:39:34 +0000

Two points:
a) It is unfortunate to see Google being pushed into this arms race but what choice did they have, given the craziness of non-sense being patented (and apparently patentable). The only thing to do is stopping the arms race by abolishing the patent system at large.
b) I’m confused by the terminology of “first to file” instead of “first to invent”. How is this better? The problem, it seems, is that the patents are about ‘first to file’ since ‘inventing’ doesn’t seem to matter (for many of the high-profile cases recently, in particular used by Apple in court injunctions, there is clear prior art which is neglected in the granting process).

The only way forward is to return to the original intention of patents: they were about protecting innovation, not investment! Any patent that is not innovated with, must be nullified!

Comment on STEVE JOBS: DON’T MOURN, MOBILIZE! by nialldcrowley

nialldcrowley — Thu, 06 Oct 2011 21:38:23 +0000

Spot on.

Comment on CHINA TO LEAD WORLD INNOVATION BY 2020…APPARENTLY by Tweets that mention CHINA TO LEAD WORLD INNOVATION BY 2020…APPARENTLY « Futures-Diagnosis -- Topsy.com

Wed, 08 Dec 2010 14:36:05 +0000

[...] This post was mentioned on Twitter by rsica, Norman Lewis. Norman Lewis said: China will lead world innovation by 2020 according to opinion poll by AstraZeneca. See the futures-diagnosis blog http://wp.me/p3ziE-du [...]

Comment on CHINA TO LEAD WORLD INNOVATION BY 2020…APPARENTLY by Bomi Manekshaw

Bomi Manekshaw — Wed, 08 Dec 2010 14:18:24 +0000

“The growth of the world population is at an all-time high in absolute numbers, with current increments approaching 90 million persons annually … “While it had taken 123 years for world population to increase from 1 billion to 2 billion, succeeding increments of 1 billion took 33 years, 14 years and 13 years. The transition from the fifth to the sixth billion, currently under way, is expected to take only 11 years and to be completed by 1998.

With 19% of the Global population concentrated in China in 2020 the odds are in their favor. Of course, add to this that they already are third behind US and Japan (Globally) in World Innovation and the trends no longer look like impressionistic public perceptions.

Here’s more data on the World Population & Growth http://www.census.gov/ipc/prod/wp96/wp96005.pdf

Cheers!

Comment on WHEN RESEARCH MAKES QUANTUM DEVELOPMENT SENSE by Tweets that mention WHEN RESEARCH MAKES QUANTUM DEVELOPMENT SENSE « Futures-Diagnosis -- Topsy.com

Sun, 01 Aug 2010 13:05:27 +0000

[...] This post was mentioned on Twitter by stefanomizzella, Norman Lewis. Norman Lewis said: Research and innovation: Manjit Kumar on Quantum mechanics -inspiring illustration of science as driver of innovation http://wp.me/p3ziE-bu [...]

Comment on MILLENNIALS AND ENTERPRISE2.O by When too much perspective can be a bad thing « matt.me63.com – Matt Edgar

Tue, 29 Jun 2010 21:14:01 +0000

[...] though, listen to Norman, writing about ‘Millennials’ and Enterprise2.0 on his Futures Diagnosis blog: The Millennial issue in the workplace has become symptomatic of the [...]

Comment on MILLENNIALS AND ENTERPRISE2.O by In No Particular Order | Microposting(s) for May 28th through June 28th

In No Particular Order | Microposting(s) for May 28th through June 28th — Mon, 28 Jun 2010 12:04:04 +0000

[...] MILLENNIALS AND ENTERPRISE2.O « Futures-Diagnosis – Quoth Norman in considering this myth, as a prelude to Enterprise2.0

"The myth of digital whizzkids

The myth of the digital whizzkid needs to be challenged for four reasons:

First, because it mistakenly assumes that young people effortlessly adopt digital technology into their lives because they are into the technology;
Secondly, because the myth of digitally savvy children is actually an expression of adult confusion about how to conduct their relations with children, which has little to do with children’s relationship to the new media;
Third, because it flatters children instead of critically engaging them in a quest to engage more fully with the technology itself; to understand the science and mathematics behind the magic of the digital world;
Fourth, because by reducing adults to the level of children in need of expert guidance, it infantilises serious questions regarding collaboration in the workplace." [...]