On Sun, Jan 31, 2016 at 11:25 PM, Curt Carlson <curt@practiceofinnovation.com>wrote:
Team: Here is a rough outline of one of my big take aways from the conference (in David’s formulation for a meme: name, definition, narrative). Other names are welcomed. More in a bit. What am I missing?Name: Empowered worker communities (EPCs)Definition: The emerging virtuous cycle between networked workers, available work, and skills development on emerging Internet, h/w, s/w, and AI enabled platforms.Narrative: The advent of online web applications that connect workers with work plus the advent of individualized digital education creates a virtuous cycle where workers can find work, advertise their unique skills, and asynchronously develop new skills to make themselves continuously more valuable. It puts power back in the hands of the worker and allows more freedom and choice. Importantly, this generation of learning platforms (e.g., Cornerstone Math) promises dramatic improvements in skills development, an enabling technology.The learning platforms can include academic topics (algebra), tools (spreadsheets), and also collaborative learning and value creation systems and networks. These collaborative networks can be built by individuals who can then leverage the genius of their extended team to add more value to their offerings. These global collaborative networks can ultimately make the world “transparent” so that a great team can be assembled for every project. The teams can be either proprietary or open to the world. Workers can be both participants on other's teams while leaders of their own teams.These emerging empowered worker communities have the potential to transform the rate of innovative success around the world. They open the possibility of a completely different kind of company — one composed of “gigers" but who all share services, insurance, healthcare, and opportunities for new business. This represents a merging of the best networking ideas, the best value creation principles, and the best principles from the learning sciences (see here Doug Engelbart and the idea of a NIC). Clearly it will also transform how established companies work and innovate.Top down government employment programs are only of marginal help in the Global Innovation Economy, which moves so fast and that has so many possibilities for unique work. Only the worker is aware of the unique kinds of work to be done, their individual motivations and abilities, and the skills required to add more value to their offerings. The government cannot build powerful collaborative network communities, where real genius resides. These platforms are on the path of creating meaningful work for millions.On Jan 31, 2016, at 7:11 PM, Curt Carlson <curt@practiceofinnovation.com> wrote:Dear David, Robin, Vint, and Team,You are the best. This was a terrific conference. It is inspiring to see all the progress over these years. Seeing real solutions come out of the fog of only a few years ago shows how prescient you were in developing this area and in giving it a unique twist, not only in terms of content (e.g., the importance of narrative) but also format. The quality and passion of the participants is a testament to the importance of the issues and the value of the meeting. Mazeltov to the Nth power!All the best,CurtPS Steve, What am I missing?Curtis R. Carlson, Ph.D.Founder and CEO Practice of InnovationPresident and CEO SRI International, 1998-2014Website: www.practiceofinnovation.comOur most important innovation is the way we work
Oxford researchers suggest that nearly half of the occupations in the U.S. will be computerized over the next 20 years.
Gartner predicts that one in three jobs will be converted to software, robots, and smart machines within a decade.
And a McKinsey & Co. analysis finds that “as many as 45% of the activities individuals are paid to perform can be automated by adapting currently demonstrated technologies.”
All of which is why I’ve been so intrigued by Robert Cohen, a senior fellow at the Economic Strategy Institute, who is as sanguine about the future of labor as anyone I know.
Cohen not only sees the glass as half full; he sees it brimming over, thanks to three major trends:
With this in mind, Cohen says, “cloud computing, Big Data, and the Internet of Things will employ millions of people in new types of jobs.”
More precisely, Cohen figures that as a new “virtualized infrastructure” gets built out over the next 15 years, as many as 25 million jobs will be created. He acknowledges that automation is certain to wipe out a bunch of positions, but he estimates that the net gain will still be around 15 million.
“It’s almost like building out the road system or railroad system,” says Cohen, who will present his views later this month at the Innovation for Jobs Ecosystem Summitin Menlo Park, Calif. “Now we’re basically building the superhighway for data. It will mean replacing old generations of computers with new ones.”
Cohen arrived at his forecast in two ways: by extrapolating from expected growth in the gross domestic product and by poking around at companies on the cutting edge of the trends he’s citing, including Netflix NFLX -2.82% , Google GOOGL -2.86% , Amazon AMZN -3.85% , and Facebook FB -3.46% .
What has caught his eye is how many other companies are suddenly trying to be like them. Ford F -1.72% , for instance, is partnering with Amazon and home-automation company Wink to allow people to control lights, thermostats, security systems, and other features of their houses from the driver’s seat of their cars. Boeing BA -2.76% is collecting data from sensors and mobile devices to provide its airline customers with real-time insights into how to better fly their planes and manage their fleets. Banks, insurers, hospitals, and pharmaceutical companies are all heading down similar paths as they seek to remain competitive, Cohen notes.
“It’s very impressive to see how many different types of companies, in how many different sectors, are beginning to operate in these ways,” he says. “This service orientation is going to ripple through every area.”
As the business world transforms itself, Cohen believes that there will be especially high demand for three types of workers: computer programmers, data analysts, and those who design, make and install all sorts of sensors across the commercial landscape—a process, Cohen says, that “will require several stages of rebuilding to add more capabilities.”
Importantly, Cohen doesn’t think that the only ones poised to land good jobs in this new “software age” are the highly educated or highly skilled—a decidedly contrary assessment to those who maintain that all too many folks are destined for “gig economy” work that lacks security, benefits, and a chance for advancement.
“Substantial numbers” of managerial, marketing, manufacturing, cybersecurity, and support roles will be required as more “programmable enterprises” take shape, Cohen says, adding that “there will be whole new categories of jobs for people who lack formal degrees.”
Indeed, while some worry that the U.S. isn’t doing enough to train workers for the new economy, Cohen is optimistic here, as well. He is confident that community colleges, coding academies, and nonprofit organizations such as Girls Who Code will begin to supply talent and demonstrate mechanisms that companies can tap to fill openings. “We’re going to change our assumptions about how people access jobs,” Cohen says.
At the risk of succumbing to some Luddite fallacy, I must confess that I’m not terribly convinced by the case Cohen makes. Yes, new technologies have historically generated more jobs than they’ve killed off. But these days, it really seems to me like something is different.
The speed with which entire industries are likely to be upended is unprecedented; imagine, for instance, what autonomous vehicles are going to do to those driving trucks, taxis, and more. In addition, higher productivity—which is often a result of new technologies being introduced—used to go hand in hand with job creation. But that link is now broken.
At the least, the labor market may well be subject to “greater disruptions” than in the past, as Erik Brynjolfsson and Andrew McAfee write in their book, The Second Machine Age.
Yet Cohen is unmoved, relishing his place as the positive provocateur. “Ninety-nine out of 100 people will tell you that technology is going to destroy jobs,” he says. “The media has almost made it acceptable that we’re not going to have job growth in the future. The argument has become so dominant, it’s almost like a reflex reaction.”
Only time will tell who is right—worriers like me or Bob Cohen. Frankly, I hope it’s him.
Rick Wartzman is the executive director of the Drucker Institute at Claremont Graduate University. The author or editor of five books, he is currently writing a narrative history of how the social contract between employer and employee in America has changed since the end of World War II.
We will create a world where jobs apply for people, instead of people applying for jobs.
These questions will be answered at ‘The Innovation for Jobs Summit’ at the end of January.
The founders of Jobly are incentivized to find people work they love. They work for the seeker not for the company!
The job seeker is incentivized to hone their skills and clearly communicate their desires.
Those offering the jobs get talented applicants who are excited about working for them.
CSIRO: $200 million to the CSIRO placed into an innovation fund aimed at co-investing in new companies and existing start-ups developed by the CSIRO itself, publicly funded research agencies or universities. Only $15 million funded by budget- balance by receipts from Cairo royalties and private capital .
Engel: When I arrived in Silicon Valley, the revolution of the personal computer was in full swing. Many companies were involved in this wave, big companies like IBM and success stories like Apple — and all kinds of start-ups. There were lawyers who knew what the needs of these garage companies were; there were loads of inventors and venture capital providers. Silicon Valley was — and still is — a very lively ecosystem. One thing I noticed was that all the companies there shared an urge to dominate new and growing markets. They didn’t think regionally; they immediately thought globally. From the very beginning, for example, the design company Autodesk, which I helped found back in 1982, wanted to create design software that would be used around the world.
Engel: No, not in such a disruptive manner. Innovations, such as the ones developed by start-ups in Silicon Valley and elsewhere, don’t fit easily into the relatively rigid structures of large companies, because they rely on constant experimentation, and they’re accompanied by a lot of uncertainty. For a long time, on the other hand, the innovations supplied by established companies have been incremental, consisting in small steps. They generally only improve on what’s already successful. As a rule, a corporation will also take care not to promote innovations that undermine its own business model. To make up for this, however, large companies are masters at putting plans into action – whether it be improving their products, manufacturing them efficiently, or global sales and marketing. If companies manage to use this backbone to take a more playful approach to innovation in individual fields — and pursue a strategy of relying on their strengths for support while taking some risk — then they can be very successful too. But courage is needed to take that step.
Engel: Sure. An example would be nuclear technology. Commercializing that is not at all a straightforward matter; it’s extremely capital intensive; and it’s subject to very stringent national and international regulations. Another field is automotive technology. But there are exceptions here too. As you can see in the case of electric car maker Tesla, a start-up can be successful in this area, if it doesn’t have to show deference to any existing business models — and has the necessary startup capital, of course.
Engel: That’s right, corporations and start-ups can complement one another with their own particular strengths. But there is still room for improvement in the open innovation model with regard to the interaction of large companies and recently established market participants. Large companies have to learn to operate ambidextrously, and continue to pursue their core areas of expertise while experimenting elsewhere. Many companies have already started to go this route by acquiring start-ups that might not involve their core business and letting them operate largely on their own. Siemens, for example, does this very well with its Technology to Business (TTB) centers in Shanghai, Munich, and Berkeley. Whenever new technologies or new trends emerge whose development holds great potential, the TTBs’ scouts are on the lookout for start-up companies that may be of interest to Siemens. This way, the company ensures that promising innovations from all sources, whether developed inside or outside Siemens, can be developed into new products and services to power their business. There has to be room in established companies for this kind of true open innovation.
Engel: Silicon Valley is not the only innovation cluster, although it’s a very successful one. There are also innovation clusters in Israel, Germany, Taiwan, and other places. They all have similar characteristics. And that goes beyond just a certain set of components and players, such as start-up founders, venture capitalists, and established companies. These ecosystems are characterized above all by a certain behavior: highly mobile resources, money, people, and knowledge. Think, for example, of Mark Andreessen, who founded the web browser company Netscape and is now a venture capitalist. The people involved in Silicon Valley are constantly striving to create and drive forward innovations that have the potential to change the world — and they are willing to experiment and also fail. And ultimately, they’re pursuing goals that they can’t achieve alone but only collectively. Entrepreneurship and innovation are the order of the day here, and it can pay off in a big way for many — not just those at the top. the Twitter IPO created about 1,600 millionaires at one stroke; the Facebook IPO over 1,000. Add to that the ripple effect as that wealth is consumed and you can see that it can have a massive effect in terms of energizing and motivating an entire community.
About Jerome Engel
Venture capitalist, company founder, and university professor Jerome S. Engel is an innovation expert and senior fellow at the University of California at Berkeley, where he established the Lester Center for Entrepreneurship in 1991. He has also founded start-ups, including Internet company Allbusiness.com, which has provided support to young companies with information and helpful links, and was acquired by TV broadcaster NBC in March 2000. Today, he manages a venture capital fund with a partner. In recent years, Engel has been devoting much of his attention to innovation clusters, which tend to differ from regular industrial centers in their dynamism and willingness to call into question established business models. Engel edited the collection of essays titled Global Clusters of Innovation: Entrepreneurial Engines of Economic Growth around the World, a 409-page volume published by Edward Elgar Publishing Ltd in late 2014.
 |
An idea from Professor Caroline Wagner - Ohio State University
How to engage students, innovators to collaborate and grow |
 |
| National service in an Altruistic Capacity Right now, our pro-social students are overwhelmingly attracted to a year of service at Teach for America, City Year, Peace Corps, ViSTA – |
