©2024 Alexander Manu




Abstract


The theory of generative art redefines creativity by bridging human intention with the computational power of artificial intelligence (AI). Historically, creativity has been seen as uniquely human—a product of imagination and self-expression. Generative art challenges this view, positioning machines not as mere tools but as collaborators. This shift reshapes our understanding of authorship, originality, and technology’s role in shaping artistic expression.

At the heart of generative art lies “creative generativity,” which transcends simple algorithmic reproduction. While AI can generate unique outputs by recombining patterns from existing data, creative generativity produces works that defy prediction, extending beyond the machine’s learned limits. This innovation mirrors human creativity—not through imitation but by contributing fresh perspectives and possibilities. Generative art highlights what humans and machines can achieve together, exploring the boundaries of imagination.

Generative art also challenges traditional power dynamics between humans and technology. Once subservient to the artist’s vision, machines now operate with autonomy, introducing spontaneity into the creative process. While humans define the initial framework, machines generate unexpected outcomes, creating a collaborative dynamic. This raises ethical questions about authorship and bias, including the ownership of works and the influence of societal biases embedded in datasets. Addressing these concerns is critical to understanding and responsibly integrating AI into creative practices.

Its interactive nature sets generative art apart, transforming audiences from passive observers to active participants. Many generative works evolve based on viewer input, blurring boundaries between creator, artwork, and audience. This participatory model aligns with contemporary ideas of co-creation, dynamically shaping meaning through interaction. By broadening aesthetic possibilities with algorithms and AI, generative art offers new ways to experience beauty, reimagining creativity as a shared journey and redefining what art can be.

KEYWORDS: Futureproofing, Foresight, Art Theory, Generative Art, Creativity

©2024 Alexander Manu
UNDERSTANDING THE DISRUPTION CONTINUUM

In the constant flow of technological evolution, the concept of a disruption continuum offers a paradigm shift in how we view change. Disruption, in this sense, is not a singular event marked by one technological leap but rather a continuous unfolding, an intricate process that perpetually transforms our cultural, societal, and economic landscapes. This notion invites us to abandon reactive thinking and embrace a proactive stance toward the future. For leaders, this means cultivating a mindset that anticipates constant innovation, recognizing that the true nature of disruption is found not in the isolated breakthrough but in the gradual, persistent waves of change that ripple across time.

DISRUPTION AND THE THREADS OF CIVILIZATIONS

Disruption, much like the threads intertwining our existence, is an intrinsic force embedded within the very essence of humanity. It is neither a foreign intrusion nor an aberration but rather a natural and inevitable rhythm that defines human evolution. Just as a tapestry gains strength and complexity through the interlacing of its threads, so does disruption propel human civilizations forward, forcing them to adapt, evolve, and ultimately transcend. It is a force as primal as the flame that first ignited human progress, reminding us that transformation is not just a chapter in our story—it is the story itself.

The first spark of fire, for instance, was not just a momentary flicker in the history of human innovation; it was the birth of a new way of interacting with the world. This disruption ignited a flame of possibilities. Cooking food unlocked new nutritional benefits, warmth allowed for survival in colder climates, and the fire became a communal gathering point, reshaping the fabric of human interaction and perception. Similarly, the invention of the wheel was a fundamental disruption that extended the reach of human hands, enabling the movement of goods, the rise of commerce, and, ultimately, the birth of complex societies (Diamond, 1999). These moments were not merely technical achievements; they were seismic shifts in how humanity perceived its relationship with the environment and each other, opening up new horizons of possibility.

History is a mosaic of disruptive instances, each leaving an indelible mark on the human condition. Gutenberg's printing press stands not only as a technological advancement but as an originator of a societal revolution. The press did not merely reproduce words on paper; it democratized knowledge, weakening the gatekeeping structures of authority and igniting the intellectual and spiritual hunger of the Reformation. The ripple effects of this disruption were profound—without it, Luther's theses might have remained obscure, and the course of Western religious and cultural history would have been irrevocably altered (Eisenstein, 1980). Disruption, in this light, becomes synonymous with evolution—a relentless force that reconfigures societal structures and human understanding.

Accepting that disruption is woven into the fabric of humanity’s existence means recognizing that we are, by nature, beings in a state of continual becoming. We are not static entities but dynamic, creative forces that must perpetually reimagine and reconstruct the world around us. Each wave of technological, cultural, or intellectual disruption forces us to reassess who we are and what it means to be human. The printing press did more than proliferate ideas; it redefined what it meant to know. Today, as artificial intelligence and machine learning permeate every aspect of our lives, we are confronted with a similar reckoning—what does it mean to create when co-creating with machines? How does our sense of labour, identity, and even existence evolve in this new partnership ?

However, the essence of disruption is not confined to technological or societal shifts. It resides deeply within the human psyche, where it mirrors the internal conflicts and ambitions that shape our desires and fears. Technologies like augmented reality (AR) and artificial intelligence (AI) are not just external innovations; they extend our perceptions, transforming how we experience and engage with the world. AR blurs the boundaries between the physical and virtual realms, offering us new dimensions of reality and expanding our sensory capabilities. Through this lens, disruption invites us to explore the edges of human experience, extend our understanding of what is possible, and transcend the limits of our biological faculties.

Looking ahead, it is inevitable that future disruptions will continue to challenge and redefine human faculties. We are on the edge of a new era where virtual and augmented realities might endow us with perceptual tools far beyond what our ancestors could have imagined. These technologies will likely endow us with new ways of interacting with the world, just as literacy and scientific knowledge transformed previous generations. As these disruptions unfold, they will add new layers to the human experience, broadening our capacities and perhaps even reshaping the very nature of what it means to be human (Brynjolfsson & McAfee, 2014). In essence, disruption is as much a part of our humanity as the emotions that define us—love, fear, curiosity, and hope. It is the force that drives us to evolve, to push beyond the boundaries of what we know, and to redefine our reality. Each disruption, from the mastery of fire to the dawn of AI, reflects humanity’s innate drive to transcend itself. These moments of transformation are not merely milestones; they are the markers of our collective journey toward self-realization, toward understanding who we are and what we are capable of becoming.

Through the metaphor of fire, we see that disruption is not a singular, isolated event—it is a continuous force, much like the flames that reshape and renew the earth. Just as fire clears the way for new growth in nature, disruption is the framework through which humanity innovates and transforms. It is an ongoing narrative that reveals the inextricable link between disruption and our capacity to reshape the world around us. In this sense, disruption is a force to be reckoned with and a source of profound potential that calls us to embrace the ever-present possibility of evolution and enlightenment.

Considering historical examples like the Renaissance or the birth of Impressionism, it becomes evident that these movements were not sudden ruptures but the culmination of many incremental advancements. The Renaissance, with its profound impact on art, science, and human thought, unfolded over centuries, spurred by the rediscovery of classical knowledge, humanistic ideals, and groundbreaking scientific inquiry and this prolonged period of transformation altered the very fabric of Western civilization, leaving echoes that still resonate today. Similarly, the Impressionist movement, though now iconic, was a radical departure that evolved gradually, reshaping the art world through new perceptions of light, colour, and form over decades, led by pioneers like Claude Monet and Edgar Degas. In our contemporary era, the digital revolution exemplifies this ongoing nature of disruption. From the invention of the transistor to the rise of artificial intelligence, each technological milestone builds upon the previous one, creating an evolving narrative of change. The introduction of microprocessors led to personal computing, which, in turn, gave rise to the internet, smartphones, and now machine learning and AI. Each development is not an endpoint but a chapter in an ever-expanding continuum, where the boundaries of what is possible are constantly being pushed further (Christensen, 1997).

The evolution of the automobile industry is an illustration of the disruption continuum. The shift from horse-drawn carriages to automobiles was not an abrupt revolution but a gradual transition marked by numerous incremental advancements, including the development of the internal combustion engine, the introduction of assembly line production, and continuous innovations in safety and design. Today, the industry faces another wave of disruption with the rise of electric vehicles, autonomous driving, and connected car technologies. Each of these innovations builds on the past, driving a continuous transformation of the industry and reshaping the future of transportation. ^[1]

One of the most profound examples of technological disruption can be found in refrigeration technology. Before the invention of mechanical refrigeration, food preservation was labour-intensive, relying on methods such as salting or smoking, with limited access to fresh produce. The advent of refrigeration in the late 19th century revolutionized food storage and distribution, drastically altering agricultural practices, consumer habits, and urban planning. This shift enabled the global trade of perishable goods and continues to evolve today, influencing modern supply chain logistics and raising new considerations around environmental sustainability (McKinsey & Company, 2019).

Disruptors do not simply modify how we perform tasks; they fundamentally reshape the nature of those tasks and redefine entire industries. Take, for example, the overwhelming shift brought about by online shopping. The rise of e-commerce has not only altered the logistics of shopping but also transformed consumer behaviour. In a world where people no longer need to visit physical stores, purchasing has transcended geographic and temporal boundaries. The convenience of shopping from home has reshaped the retail landscape, affecting what people buy and how they make purchasing decisions. With the ability to compare prices instantly, read reviews, and access a global marketplace, consumers now enjoy an unimaginable level of agency and discernment. Moreover, e-commerce has enabled niche markets and personalized products to flourish, which were once limited by geographical proximity.

A parallel shift can be seen in the entertainment industry, where streaming services have redefined media consumption. Before the rise of platforms like Netflix and Spotify, media consumption was chained to physical media or broadcast schedules. Today, with on-demand access to vast content libraries, viewers and listeners curate their entertainment experiences to suit their preferences and schedules. This shift has not only transformed how we consume entertainment but also changed what is produced. Data-driven insights into user preferences allow streaming platforms to create content tailored to specific audiences, ushering in a new era of personalized media consumption (McKinsey & Company, 2019).

Education, too, has been fundamentally altered by digital disruption. The rise of online learning platforms has transformed how we approach education, supplementing or replacing traditional classroom instruction. This transition has democratized education, breaking down barriers of geography and time and allowing people from all corners of the globe to access courses and degrees that would otherwise be unattainable. Additionally, education content is evolving, with courses being updated more frequently to align with technological advancements and industry demands. This shift represents a change in how education is delivered and a reimagining of what education can be in a digital world. The disruption continuum is exemplified by the ongoing integration of technology into teaching. From the introduction of computers to the acceleration of online learning during the COVID-19 pandemic, the education landscape is shifting toward digital and hybrid models.

These examples illustrate a crucial truth about disruption: it does not merely tweak processes but redefines entire industries and activities. Leaders who recognize this broader impact can better navigate the complexities of continuous change. Instead of viewing disruption as a challenge to be managed, they can leverage it as a powerful tool for innovation and growth, transforming industries and consumer behaviour in the process.

Think about the rise of social media platforms. The disruption shaped by social media has been incremental yet transformative, evolving over the years from platforms like Friendster and MySpace to the global giants of Facebook and Twitter. This gradual integration into daily life has redefined how we communicate, share information, and perceive our social identities. Social media's influence extends beyond personal interactions, reshaping political landscapes, marketing strategies, and even how we understand social movements. Each new iteration of these platforms introduces features that build upon previous innovations, creating a dynamic digital ecosystem that continues to evolve and shape societal norms (Christensen, 1997).[2]

Technological, social, and economic shifts are often interconnected, revealing how disruption shapes industries, cultural practices, and societal norms. In the evolution of photography, for example, we see a continuum of disruption, from the labour-intensive daguerreotypes of the 19th century to today’s ubiquitous smartphone cameras. Each advancement, from film to digital to smartphone technology, has democratized photography, enabling millions to document and share their lives in real time.^[3]

The literary world offers another example of disruption's continuum, from the printing press to e-books. The democratization of knowledge that began with the printing press continues in the digital age, where vast libraries are accessible with a single click. E-readers and online platforms have redefined how we engage with literature, how authors distribute their work, and how readers access content. This has not only transformed the publishing industry but has also brought readers and authors closer together in a more direct and immediate exchange of ideas (McKinsey & Company, 2019).

Healthcare is another domain where incremental innovation has driven profound change. Advances in antibiotics, medical imaging, and minimally invasive surgery have transformed patient outcomes over the years, but today's rise of telemedicine and AI-driven diagnostics is continuing that trajectory. These developments promise to revolutionize how healthcare is delivered, creating more personalized, efficient, and accessible services for patients across the globe.

The business world, too, is continuously reshaped by disruptive forces. The gig economy, led by platforms like Uber and Airbnb, has redefined employment and business models, challenging existing labour frameworks and prompting a reevaluating how work and commerce are structured (McKinsey & Company, 2019). Recognizing disruption as a continuum in every sector helps us see the broader picture. By understanding the interconnectedness of innovations and their cumulative impact, we can better prepare for and harness the potential of future disruptions. This proactive, forward-thinking mindset will enable leaders to thrive in an age of constant change.
For executives, this understanding necessitates a shift in organizational philosophy. Instead of viewing disruption as a sporadic threat, they must acknowledge it as an ongoing process that requires continuous learning and adaptation. A culture of experimentation, where employees are encouraged to innovate and take calculated risks, becomes essential. This also involves a keen awareness of emerging trends and technologies, ensuring that strategic pivots can be made when necessary. The ability to balance short-term responses with long-term resilience is paramount, as some disruptions, like those in the digital space, may unfold over decades, while others, such as a breakthrough in AI, might have more immediate and far-reaching consequences (Rogers, 1962).

The emergence of generative AI marks a pivotal moment in our era, heralding profound changes that ripple across all human undertakings. Generative AI is not simply an incremental innovation but a transformative force that redefines how we produce, create, and interact. Its influence extends beyond technological refinement—reshaping entire industries and human creativity's nature. As we explore the vast capabilities of generative AI, we recognize that it touches fields where human ingenuity and ideation are central. The magnitude of this disruption, driven by technological advances, requires an acute understanding from today’s leaders, who are tasked with guiding their organizations through this seismic shift (Perez, 2002).

Generative AI is a disruptor with a unique duality, acting as an inside-out and outside-in force. Emerging from the core of the tech research ecosystem, it rapidly became an external imperative, revolutionizing how organizations function worldwide. This dual nature—born from internal technological innovation and extending its disruptive power outward—makes generative AI not just another tool but a force that reconfigures business landscapes. Leaders must grasp the far-reaching implications of generative AI and develop strategies that embrace its capabilities, integrating it into every facet of their organizational structure. Since the release of ChatGPT in November 2022, the pace of generative AI’s adoption has been unprecedented, marking it as one of the fastest technological shifts in history. No longer a choice but a necessity, the adoption of generative AI is now a critical component of future success for any organization.

THE URGENCY OF TRANSFORMATION

The imperative behind this book is grounded in its aim to equip leaders with the necessary insights and frameworks to navigate and harness the transformative power of disruptors in general and generative AI in particular. The disruption sparked by generative AI is not a transient event—it is an ongoing evolution that permeates across sectors and will span generations. This book offers leaders a comprehensive view of disruption, emphasizing the importance of creating an organizational culture rooted in adaptability, continuous learning, and experimentation. Leaders must cultivate environments where new ideas are encouraged and acted upon, ensuring that innovation thrives. This involves a heightened vigilance to emerging trends and technological shifts, a commitment to research and development, and a readiness to pivot in response to new challenges.

Such leadership demands boldness. To fully capitalize on the power of emerging technologies, leaders must be willing to make courageous decisions, shift strategies as necessary, and abandon traditional models that may no longer serve the organization’s best interests. Success in this new age will require balancing immediate, tactical responses with a long-term vision that embraces the complexities of continuous change (McKinsey & Company, 2019).

THE CONTINUUM

At the heart of understanding the disruptive impact of emerging technologies lies the concept of the disruption continuum. This idea challenges the notion of disruption as a single event, presenting it as a continuous journey of evolution. For leaders, this mindset shift is critical. By viewing disruption as an ongoing process rather than a finite challenge, organizations can better anticipate the changing tides of the business landscape. Instead of fearing disruption, leaders can leverage it as a catalyst for growth and innovation. This proactive, holistic approach to disruption transforms challenges into opportunities, positioning organizations to survive and thrive in constant change.

"The Disruption Continuum" is designed to equip leaders with the knowledge and tools necessary to embrace disruption, particularly in generative AI. By exploring historical precedents, modern case studies, and emerging trends, the book provides a roadmap for integrating disruptive technologies into organizational strategies. This comprehensive understanding enables leaders to craft approaches that balance short-term needs with long-term objectives, fostering organizational resilience and agility (McKinsey & Company, 2019). However, the journey does not end with understanding disruption. Leaders must move beyond reactive strategies to embrace proactive measures that fully harness the power of disruptive technologies. The future will belong to those who can anticipate change, adapt swiftly, and lead with vision. This mindset will foster a new generation of leaders who are ready for and actively shaping the future. Understanding the disruption continuum is not merely an intellectual pursuit—it is a strategic necessity for any organization that aims to remain competitive and relevant in an ever-shifting world (Perez, 2002).

In this relentless pace of technological change, embracing the disruption continuum becomes essential for organizations seeking to maintain a competitive edge. This requires leaders to adopt a strategy of foresight, agility, and a constant willingness to evolve. Organizations that embrace this mindset will find themselves better equipped to turn the uncertainties of disruption into a fertile ground for growth and opportunity. Generative AI represents more than just another technological advance; it is a redefinition of what is possible, reshaping the boundaries of human creativity and productivity. As leaders grapple with its implications, their ability to remain nimble, forward-thinking, and courageous will determine whether they can guide their organizations to new heights of innovation and success. This transformation is not a passing phase but the new norm—one where the challenge is no longer merely to keep pace with change but to lead it.


[1] A similar evolution can be seen in the telecommunications industry. Each step represents an ongoing continuum of disruption from the telegraph to the telephone, from mobile phones to the advent of 5G networks. These innovations have revolutionized communication and transformed how societies operate on a global scale. They have redefined how individuals connect, businesses function, and information is disseminated, creating a far-reaching impact beyond the immediate technological landscape.
[2] The renewable energy sector also exemplifies the disruption continuum, particularly transitioning from fossil fuels to sustainable energy sources like wind and solar power. Early innovations in renewable energy faced immense technical and economic challenges, yet incremental advancements in engineering, materials science, and energy storage have gradually made these technologies more viable. This ongoing process of improvement, rather than any breakthrough, is driving the global shift toward sustainability and reducing carbon footprints.

[3] Similarly, the journey from vinyl records to streaming services like Spotify in the music industry illustrates how each wave of innovation builds upon the previous one, continuously reshaping how we consume, share, and monetize music.

ABSTRACT

This article explores the integration of Strategic Foresight and Artificial Intelligence (AI) in Talent Management to future-proof human resources. Strategic Foresight, a methodology used to anticipate and prepare for future scenarios, is essential for navigating complex business environments. Incorporating Strategic Foresight into Talent Management strategies helps organizations identify future skill needs, adapt to workforce changes, and foster a culture of continuous learning and adaptability. Generative AI (GenAI), which creates new content by learning from large datasets, can revolutionize Talent Management processes by automating tasks, personalizing employee experiences, and enhancing decision-making. This article proposes a framework for integrating GenAI into Talent Management, highlighting the need for a holistic approach that includes understanding industry changes, identifying new value sources, developing distinctive competencies, and adapting business models. By leveraging AI and Strategic Foresight, organizations can enhance innovation, efficiency, and resilience, ensuring long-term competitiveness in a rapidly evolving business landscape.

INTRODUCTION TO STRATEGIC FORESIGHT AND TALENT MANAGEMENT

In a time defined by significant change and complexity, the Strategic Foresight approach has proven invaluable for businesses looking to navigate the future successfully. This discipline involves a thoughtful exploration of possible future scenarios, including challenges and opportunities, helping organizations anticipate and adapt to the dynamic business environment [1]. Incorporating strategic foresight into talent management strategies is becoming increasingly important as companies seek to equip their workforce with the uncertainties that lie ahead.

UNDERSTANDING STRATEGIC FORESIGHT

Strategic Foresight is a critical methodology organizations, governments, and individuals use to envision potential futures and strategically prepare for emerging trends and changes. This approach systematically explores possible scenarios and uses the insights gained to shape proactive strategies that improve resilience, drive innovation, and secure competitive advantages. [1,2]

Strategic Foresight starts with environmental scanning, continuously monitoring internal and external environments to detect early changes by analyzing political, economic, social, technological, and legal factors. Then, it examines existing trends to predict their evolution and impacts, aiding in strategic planning. Next, we have future scenarios central to Strategic Foresight, where narratives about possible futures are crafted based on trends and uncertainties. This helps visualize different outcomes, test current strategies, and develop new ones. Visioning sets long-term goals that guide decision-making. Strategy development uses insights from foresight to align with environmental changes, setting priorities, and designing adaptable plans. Implementation involves launching initiatives to exploit opportunities and mitigate risks, with continual adjustments based on feedback. Strategic Foresight improves risk management by preparing for disruptions and drives innovation by expanding decision-makers' horizons. It also improves decision-making and competitive advantage, informed by a deep understanding of potential futures. Despite challenges such as unpredictability and resource demands, Strategic Foresight is crucial for thriving in dynamic environments. [1]

THE ROLE OF STRATEGIC FORESIGHT IN TALENT MANAGEMENT

A systematic HR and organizational development approach is essential in an era of imminent societal and economic transformations. Developing “transformation literacy" through foresight can cultivate a mindset that views change as a continuous process, thereby reducing organizational resistance. [3]
Foresight informs Talent Management strategies by identifying future skills needs, understanding emerging roles, and preparing for workforce changes. It underscores the importance of flexible talent management practices that are capable of adapting to evolving future conditions. In figuring out how to move forward, an organization needs to focus on helping its people grow. It can be challenging to nurture and retain talent without a clear plan. Ensuring that employees feel valued and integrated into the company culture is crucial. More than a simple plan is required; companies must identify the right individuals for specific roles and support their development. This forms the foundation for effective Talent Management. Once the right individuals are identified, aligning their journey with the company vision is vital, especially during rapid change. Leaders must anticipate future changes and adapt their plans accordingly. [4]
By anticipating new technologies, organizations can proactively develop training programs to equip employees with future skills, ensuring competitiveness and resilience. Strategic Foresight helps identify skill demands early, fosters cross-departmental thinking, and strengthens HR's position. Foresight tools, well established in other areas, should become standard in HR. [3]

FUTURES THINKING AND TALENT DEVELOPMENT

Futures thinking encourages the creation of "future-ready" talent pools by emphasizing lifelong learning and adaptability. UNESCO (United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization) is already promoting at the global level the concept of lifelong learning facilitated by digital innovations as part of the essence of society. It highlights the importance of leveraging AI for personalized learning and building a resilient and future-ready population. [5]
Organizations must proactively implement changes in their business models and seize opportunities before they arise. A key point is also to promote an agile work culture, defined by core values, behaviours, and practices, which enables individuals at all levels to adapt effectively to cultural, strategic, and other changes. [6] Looking ahead, proactive talent development strategies that prepare employees to thrive in an uncertain future are another critical point. For instance, by integrating futures thinking into talent development programs, organizations can encourage continuous learning, adaptability, creativity, and innovation, ensuring employees are well-equipped to navigate the challenges and opportunities of tomorrow. Despite substantial investment, many training programs fail to enhance business performance significantly. Influential companies promote personalized learning, empowering employees to choose their focus on skill development. [7]
To future-proof their businesses, enterprises are increasingly prioritizing internal mobility by focusing on the development and growth of their existing employees. Companies can retain talent, foster job satisfaction, and build a more resilient and adaptable workforce by creating opportunities for career advancement, skill development, and cross-departmental moves. [8]

1 Generative AI transformation for Talent Management

GenAI is a class of algorithms that can create new content such as text, images, audio, and video by learning from large data sets. These models identify patterns within the data and generate outputs similar to the original data, effectively simulating creativity and human-like decision-making. [9] In Talent Management, GenAI can revolutionize various processes. It can automate the creation of job descriptions and training materials, making them more accurate and tailored. Additionally, GenAI can develop personalized candidate assessments and engagement strategies, helping HR professionals identify and nurture talent more effectively. GenAI can help improve efficiency and decision-making and create a more engaging and personalized employee experience.
People’s creativity sparks new ideas while generativity executes them, involving choice and rationalization. It requires discerning judgment to select ideas and logical understanding to develop them. It highlights the importance of actively and logically using our minds to create and execute ideas. GenAI has great potential to change our perception and help us overcome the barriers to our creativity and imagination. [10]
From an HR and Talent Management perspective, GenAI emphasizes the importance of feedback and validation, making users active participants in the creative process. As we explore this new landscape with AI as co-creators or collaborators, we must contemplate our choices and results to shape our experiences effectively.

1.1 Integrating Generative AI into business operations

In our evolving digital landscape, businesses must stay ahead of the curve to thrive during widespread changes, particularly with the rise of GenAI. This requires a strategic transformation in two critical domains: the customer value proposition (what is being offered) and the operating model (how it is delivered). These were highlighted in the 2010 IBM study to identify the challenges companies face when it comes to digital transformation and their readiness to face future markets. [2]
In integrating GenAI into business operations from an HR perspective, re-evaluating its impact on employees and the frameworks supporting its implementation is crucial. Two primary considerations can guide this transformation:

•  Enhancing employee value proposition: GenAI opens paths for innovation in products and services, can provide personalized experiences and dynamic content, and fosters unique employee engagement strategies.
•   Revamping the operating model: GenAI can seamlessly integrate business & HR insights into the entire business model. This streamlines data management and tracking across all business activities, ensuring employee preferences and behaviours inform decision-making processes.

Historically, companies have tackled these areas through specific initiatives, either enhancing product and service offerings or streamlining operations. However, the integration of Generative AI requires a more holistic approach to HR and Talent Management.

AI significantly enhances employee psychological empowerment by automating routine tasks, providing real-time insights, and fostering continuous learning. This technology enables employees to focus on higher-value activities, make informed decisions, and develop new skills. Integrating AI tools supports a culture of innovation and self-efficacy, where employees feel more autonomous and competent, leading to increased job satisfaction and improved overall performance. [11]

1.2 A strategic framework for integrating Generative AI into Talent Management

Referencing the 2010 IBM case study, which remains relevant today, we can use their research, client experiences, and insights from consulting firms to identify critical elements for a strategic approach to integrating Generative AI in Talent Management. We are experiencing a significant period of transformation, where innovation is expected to be driven by Generative AI, and we can identify three main aspects to which business should give thought to [2,8,12,13]:

• The first is to consider adopting a comprehensive strategy with AI at the core of talent and operations. This approach will promote the development of an AI-centric collaboration culture. This can position the organizations as leaders by demonstrating how businesses can thrive in the digital future while empowering employees to identify and suggest areas where AI can be utilized. In this way, companies will create a perpetual cycle of innovation, learning, and adaptation, ensuring they stay ahead of future trends.
•  The second point is how to recreate the user experience through AI-enabled talent, even setting new industry standards.
• Third, to reflect on how to transform operations by embedding AI in talent models and programs for boosting efficiency and innovation.
• The AI-enabled Talent Management Framework that we propose integrates AI across all facets of Talent Management to enhance user experiences, operational efficiency, and organizational culture. This simplified future-ready talent framework is structured around four main pillars, each with specific actions that utilize AI for continuous adaptation and innovation:

1.  Understanding the changing landscape
·      Description: this first step involves recognizing changes in industry, technology, and workforce dynamics.
·      Purpose: to stay informed about external factors that impact the organization.
Actions:
·      Trend monitoring: continuously monitor trends and changes in the market and workforce using AI-driven analytics.
·      Data analysis: utilize AI to analyze user and market data, enabling proactive adjustments to strategic plans.
·      Real-time adaptation: implement AI-driven platforms for real-time talent analytics to optimize workforce deployment and productivity.

2. Identifying new sources of value
·      Description: discover opportunities to meet new needs or solve talent problems using AI.
·      Purpose: to leverage AI to uncover new areas where the organization can add value.
Actions:
·      AI Tools: AI tools analyze data and identify unmet needs or inefficiencies in current processes.
·      Personalization: introduce next-gen AI tools like virtual reality (VR) environments and AI-driven emotional intelligence analytics to create personalized user experiences.
·      Tailored solutions: use AI to design products or services tailored to specific user needs.
·      Cross-functional AI projects: encourage cross-functional teams to work on AI projects that improve operational workflows.

3. Developing new distinctive competencies
·      Description: build capabilities that leverage AI and Strategic Foresight for competitive advantage.
·      Purpose: to enhance the organization's strengths and create a competitive edge through AI.
Actions:
·      Training programs: train talent in Generative AI tools to create personalized user experiences.
·      Skill development: Implement continuous programs to train, retrain, and upskill employees in user engagement and AI-driven analytics.
·      Creativity and technology: launch initiatives that blend human insight with AI capabilities to design futuristic user solutions.
·      Enhanced decision-making: empower employees with AI tools to improve decision-making, efficiency, and productivity.

4. Adapting business models
·      Description: realign organizational structures to capture new value effectively.
·      Purpose: ensure that the organization is structured to maximize the benefits of new opportunities.
Actions:
·      Business model adjustment: reevaluate and adjust business models and organizational structures based on identified opportunities and new competencies.
·      Dynamic teams: use AI to facilitate dynamic team formations based on evolving project needs.
·      Innovation laboratories: establish labs where employees can experiment with AI applications in a risk-free environment.
·      Blockchain feedback: leverage blockchain for secure, transparent feedback loops, ensuring real-time adaptation and personal growth paths.
·      Streamlined HR operations: integrate AI into HR operations to streamline recruitment, onboarding, and training processes.

This cyclical framework emphasizes the importance of continuous adaptation and strategic use of AI to remain competitive in a changing landscape.

Selecting the optimal path for Generative AI transformation involves understanding employee behaviour, the company’s unique context, competitive pressures, and user expectations. In addition, a significant factor is to be ready to address the potential challenges in implementing Strategic Foresight within Talent Management, such as cultural resistance, difficulty predicting the future, and the need for organizational agility. Generative AI transformation is not just about adopting new technologies but about reimagining how businesses operate and engage employees in a fundamentally AI-driven world.

CONCLUSIONS

Throughout history, we have integrated technology into our lives, viewing it as part of our essence and nature, offering opportunities for reflection. AI represents a chance to enhance our talents but also a risk if we fail to adapt and evolve. The quality of our intentions directly influences AI's outcomes. Emphasizing understanding over inquiry, we must adjust our work methods, focus on the phenomena, and prioritize logical thinking. The rapid adoption of artificial intelligence is crucial to redefining knowledge and fostering talent evolution.[14]

Incorporating Strategic Foresight into Talent Management offers numerous benefits, including enhanced preparedness for future workforce trends, the ability to anticipate and develop future skills, and the creation of a resilient and adaptable organizational culture. By embracing Strategic Foresight, organizations can not only navigate the uncertainties of the future more effectively but also seize the opportunities that these changes present, ensuring long-term success and competitiveness in the ever-evolving business landscape.

AI is reshaping the workforce by merging labour and software markets, functioning as internal "colleagues" and as external services that automate workflows. This shift offers new opportunities to innovate and streamline processes. As automation targets more complex tasks, strategic adaptations to adaptations to the business model are essential to leverage these advancements. [15] According to a Gartner study, by 2026, over 80% of businesses will use or implement Generative AI-enabled applications, a significant increase from less than 5% in 2023. [12] Generative AI I will become the most transformative force, making it a non-optional future-proofing alternative for organizations and societies at the global level. This becomes the strategic imperative that must be treated with a sense of urgency.

References

[1]            Manu A. The imagination challenge: Strategic Foresight and innovation in the global economy. New Riders; 2007.
[2]            Manu A. Behaviour Space: Transformation, Pleasure and Business in the Millennial Economy. 2011.
[3]            Ambrosat S, Grünwald C. Towards a future-proof organization: using foresight in HR and organizational development. Strategic HR Review 2023;22:169–73. https://doi.org/10.1108/SHR-07-2023-0040.
[4]            Manu A. The philosophy of disruption. From transition to transformational change. 2021.
[5]            Fostering a Culture of Lifelong Learning in the Digital Era | UNESCO n.d. https://www.unesco.org/en/articles/fostering-culture-lifelong-learning-digital-era (accessed July 2, 2024).
[6]            Rožman M, Tominc P, Štrukelj T. Competitiveness Through Development of Strategic Talent Management and Agile Management Ecosystems. Global Journal of Flexible Systems Management 2023;24:373–93. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40171-023-00344-1.
[7]            McKinsey & Company. Increasing your return on talent: The moves and metrics that matter 2024. https://www.mckinsey.com/capabilities/people-and-organizational-performance/our-insights/increasing-your-return-on-talent-the-moves-and-metrics-that-matter (accessed July 2, 2024).
[8]            How Organizations Are Future-Proofing Their Business n.d. https://www.shl.com/resources/by-type/blog/2023/how-organizations-are-future-proofing-their-business/ (accessed July 3, 2024).
[9]            What is ChatGPT, DALL-E, and GenAI? | McKinsey n.d. https://www.mckinsey.com/featured-insights/mckinsey-explainers/what-is-generative-ai (accessed July 3, 2024).
[10]        Manu A. Transcending imagination: Artificial Intelligence and the Future of Creativity. 2023.
[11]        Fan X, University S, Korea Shulang Zhao S, Zhang X, College M, Lingchai Meng U, et al. The Impact of Improving Employee Psychological Empowerment and Job Performance Based on Deep Learning and Artificial Intelligence. Https://ServicesIgi-GlobalCom/Resolvedoi/ResolveAspx?Doi=104018/JOEUC321639 2023;35:1–14. https://doi.org/10.4018/JOEUC.321639.
[12]        Real Power of GenAI: Bringing Knowledge to All n.d. https://www.gartner.com/en/articles/generative-ai-can-democratize-access-to-knowledge-and-skills (accessed July 3, 2024).
[13]        Boston Consulting Group. How GenAI Will Transform HR 2023. https://www.bcg.com/publications/2023/transforming-human-resources-using-generative-ai (accessed July 3, 2024).
[14]        Manu A. Your view on AI and creativity will never be the same - YouTube 2023. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y8lgSUuxf1M&t=1s&ab_channel=SineadBovell (accessed March 30, 2024).
[15]        The AI Workforce is Here: The Rise of a New Labor Market 2024. https://www.nfx.com/post/ai-workforce-is-here (accessed April 14, 2024).

The Three Horizons framework, widely known for strategic foresight and planning, provides a structured way for organizations to navigate the complexities of innovation across different timeframes.[1] Designed to help companies balance their current operations while preparing for future disruptions, the framework divides innovation into three distinct horizons: Horizon 1, which involves continuous improvement within the current business model; Horizon 2, which extends existing business models into new markets; and Horizon 3, which focuses on creating new capabilities in response to disruptive opportunities. However, despite its widespread adoption, the model has significant limitations that can misguide organizational strategies, especially in a fast-paced and unpredictable environment.

THE MISCONCEPTION OF LINEAR PROGRESSION

A primary critique of the Three Horizons model comes from Steve Blank, who, in his influential article in the Harvard Business Review, challenges the assumption of linear progression that the model often implies (Blank, 2019). Initially formulated by Baghai, Coley, and White (1999), the framework was designed to help senior managers balance the need to execute current business models while simultaneously developing new capabilities. (See Fig.4.) The model delineates innovation into the following horizons:

Horizon 1: Continuous innovation within the current business model.
Horizon 2: Expanding existing business models to new markets.
Horizon 3: Developing new capabilities to respond to or counteract disruptive opportunities.
In the past, each horizon was associated with specific delivery times: Horizon 1 innovations within 3-12 months, Horizon 2 innovations within 24-36 months, and Horizon 3 disruptions taking 36-72 months to develop (McGrath & MacMillan, 2009). This temporal framework was relevant when disruptive innovations took years to research and implement. However, in the 21st century, technological advancements have significantly altered this timeline. Disruptions, particularly those within Horizon 3, can emerge as quickly as those in Horizon 1. Uber, Airbnb, and Tesla have rapidly deployed Horizon 3 technologies and business models, effectively upending entire industries in months (Christensen et al., 2015).


The rapid deployment of Horizon 3 disruptions highlights a critical flaw in the traditional understanding of the framework. Today’s disruptions prioritize speed, scalability, and adaptability over incremental improvements, often manifesting as minimum viable products (MVPs). These MVPs are rapidly launched, iterated upon, and disruptive by design (Curry & Hodgson, 2008). Once they gain traction, they challenge incumbent firms that rely on slower, more methodical innovation processes. The new entrants—unencumbered by legacy systems—are often best positioned to leverage Horizon 3 disruptions, leaving established companies scrambling to catch up.

To combat these rapid disruptions, incumbent firms can adopt several strategic responses:

1. Incentivizing external innovation through competitions or contracts to quickly align external resources with their objectives.
2. Acquiring innovative startups that operate at the pace of disruptors, integrating new capabilities without the burden of legacy systems.[3]
3. Emulating disruptive innovations quickly by leveraging their existing market dominance to outpace newer entrants (Curry & Hodgson, 2008).
4. Out-innovating disruptors, although overcoming internal cultural and structural barriers, is a challenging yet essential task (Christensen, 1997).

SHORTCOMINGS OF THE THREE HORIZONS MODEL

Despite its strategic value, the Three Horizons framework has several significant areas for improvement, which can limit its effectiveness in fostering long-term innovation in a rapidly evolving business landscape.

Overemphasis on Categorization
One of the main criticisms of the model is its rigid categorization of innovation into distinct time horizons. While this categorization helps clarify different stages of innovation, it risks oversimplifying technological progress’s fluid and interconnected nature. Innovations often need to fit more neatly into the horizon-based timeframes outlined by the model. Forcing projects into fixed horizons can stifle creativity and flexibility, preventing organizations from adopting more integrated approaches to innovation (O'Reilly & Tushman, 2016). This rigid structure may encourage organizations to view Horizon 1 as focused solely on incremental improvements, while Horizon 3 becomes the realm of radical innovations. However, the reality is much more complex, as innovations often blur the lines between these categories (Pisano, 2019).


Disregard of Interdependencies
Another significant limitation of the Three Horizons model is its failure to recognize the interdependencies between different horizons. By treating each horizon as relatively independent, the model overlooks how innovations in Horizon 3 can fundamentally reshape the landscape for Horizon 1 and Horizon 2 initiatives (Govindarajan & Trimble, 2010). For example, disruptive technology in Horizon 3—such as artificial intelligence—can dramatically alter projects' viability or strategic direction in other horizons. Despite this, the model treats each horizon separately, ignoring these crucial interactions.

Organizations that rely too heavily on the framework may need to pay more attention to how Horizon 3 disruptions could render Horizon 1 projects obsolete. Without accounting for these interdependencies, businesses risk misallocating resources or pursuing strategies that are no longer relevant in the face of emerging disruptions.

Inadequate Handling of Disruptive Change
While Horizon 3 is intended to focus on disruptive innovation, the framework does not inherently prepare organizations to handle the chaotic and unpredictable nature of disruptive change. By their nature, disruptions defy linear progression and are often unforeseen and abrupt. The Three Horizons model may create a false sense of security, encouraging organizations to believe they can manage disruption through structured planning. Disruptive forces often arise unexpectedly, outpacing the timeframes and assumptions built into the model (Markides, 2006).

Disruptions such as the rise of the smartphone industry, the emergence of electric vehicles, or the sudden dominance of streaming services show how unpredictable these shifts can be. In industries experiencing rapid technological advancements, the traditional timeframes associated with each horizon can become misleading (Schmidt & Druehl, 2008). As a result, organizations that rely too heavily on long-term planning may be caught off-guard when disruptive technologies emerge much faster than anticipated. [4]
Resource Allocation Challenges
Another challenge the Three Horizons model presents is allocating resources effectively across all three horizons. While the model encourages a balanced distribution of resources, organizations often need help determining how much investment to commit to each horizon. In practice, short-term pressures, such as the need to meet quarterly financial targets, can lead to a disproportionate allocation of resources toward Horizon 1 initiatives. This can result in Horizon 3 projects needing more funding or addressed, limiting the organization's ability to foster long-term innovation (Kaplan & Norton, 2008). Without proper investment in Horizon 3, companies may be ill-prepared for future disruptions and unable to sustain their competitive edge.

Cultural and Operational Fit
Implementing the Three Horizons framework requires an organizational culture that supports long-term thinking and embraces uncertainty. However, many organizations, especially those in highly regulated industries or those driven by short-term financial goals, struggle to adopt this forward-looking approach. The cultural and operational barriers that prevent organizations from embracing Horizon 3 innovation can be significant, and the framework does little to address these challenges. Without the proper cultural and operational support, the framework may not deliver the intended benefits (Edmondson & McManus, 2007).

Scalability and Flexibility
The simplicity of the Three Horizons framework can become a limitation as organizations grow and scale. Larger companies with more complex operations may find the model too simplistic to capture the full breadth of their innovation efforts. The linear approach to innovation may not be flexible enough to account for rapid technological shifts or consumer behaviour, particularly in industries where innovation cycles are increasingly compressed (Moore, 2004).

THE LINEAR MYTH: THE ILLUSION OF PREDICTABILITY [5]

At its core, the Three Horizons model suggests that innovation progresses linearly and predictably. However, this assumption overlooks the inherent unpredictability of disruptive innovation (Christensen, 1997). Disruptions are characterized by sudden, unforeseen changes that dramatically alter the landscape. For instance, the iPhone's introduction in 2007 revolutionized the mobile technology sector, transforming communication, photography, internet access, and software distribution (Isaacson, 2011). Many analysts initially predicted the iPhone’s failure due to its high price point and lack of a physical keyboard (Gans, 2016). However, Apple redefined the market by integrating multiple functionalities into one device, rendering previous mobile technology innovations obsolete.

The iPhone’s success exemplifies how disruption can defy traditional models of linear progression. Rather than incrementally improving existing technologies, the iPhone introduced a new paradigm that disrupted the entire mobile phone industry. This case demonstrates how the Three Horizons framework may fail to predict and manage such abrupt, radical shifts.[6]

EXAMPLES OF THE MODEL'S LIMITATIONS

The Smartphone Revolution
As mentioned above, introducing the iPhone in 2007 is a quintessential example of how the Three Horizons model fails to account for rapid and unpredictable disruptions. Traditional mobile phone manufacturers like Nokia and BlackBerry were focused on Horizon 1 innovations, making incremental improvements such as enhancing camera quality and extending battery life (Doz & Kosonen, 2010). These companies adhered to the linear progression outlined by the Three Horizons framework, expecting gradual market evolution and technological enhancements. However, Apple bypassed this linear trajectory entirely by reimagining the phone as a multifunctional device, combining the internet, music, and communication into a single unit. The iPhone was not merely a better phone but a new category that disrupted the entire industry (Manu, 2022). This leap was a Horizon 3 disruption delivered far more rapidly than the model anticipated, illustrating the limitations of using the Three Horizons framework in fast-evolving sectors.

The Media Industry Disruption
Netflix's media industry disruption offers another prominent example of the Three Horizons model's shortcomings. Adhering to the model, traditional television networks and cable companies focused on Horizon 1 and Horizon 2 innovations—improving content delivery and gradually embracing digital platforms (Johnson, 2010). Their efforts were largely incremental, aimed at enhancing existing business models rather than rethinking them entirely. However, Netflix introduced a Horizon 3 disruption by pioneering a streaming model that fundamentally altered media consumption. Instead of following a predictable, linear path of evolution, Netflix leapfrogged traditional content distribution systems, shifting consumer behaviour and introducing a radically different business model (Yoffie & Baldwin, 2016). Incumbent media companies, anchored by their incremental advancements, were slow to respond to this disruptive innovation, which drastically redefined the entire industry (Kumar & Robertson, 2018).

Artificial Intelligence
The rapid advancements in artificial intelligence (AI) further exemplify the shortcomings of the Three Horizons model. Many companies categorized AI as a Horizon 3 technology, expecting it to follow a slow, methodical development trajectory over decades (Russell & Norvig, 2010). However, the swift emergence of AI-driven innovations by companies such as OpenAI and DeepMind disproved this assumption, revealing that disruption could happen far more quickly than anticipated. By harnessing the power of deep learning, neural networks, and vast computational resources, these companies achieved breakthroughs that moved AI from theoretical research to transformative applications almost overnight (Sutton, 2019). This Horizon 3 disruption bypassed the traditional linear path expected by many industries, leaving businesses scrambling to catch up with the rapid pace of AI development (Mnih et al., 2015).

The Convergence of Technologies
The convergence of multiple disruptive technologies presents another challenge to the traditional Three Horizons framework, further exposing its limitations. The rise of electric vehicles provides a compelling illustration of this phenomenon. Established automotive companies adhered to the Three Horizons model by focusing on Horizon 1 innovations, such as improving internal combustion engines, while experimenting with Horizon 2 hybrid technologies. However, the advent of companies like Tesla disrupted this incremental approach. Tesla's success did not follow the traditional Horizon 3 scenario of gradual, predictable development. Instead, it resulted from converging several advanced technologies, including battery advancements, renewable energy integration, and autonomous driving capabilities (Thiel, 2014).

This convergence of technologies created a perfect storm of disruption that rapidly accelerated the pace of change, fundamentally altering the automotive landscape in ways traditional companies were unprepared to address.[7]

A MORE FLEXIBLE APPROACH

While the Three Horizons framework offers a helpful structure for organizations attempting to balance short-term and long-term strategies, its limitations in today’s rapidly evolving business environment are evident. Its rigid categorizations, overemphasis on linear progression, and failure to adequately account for the unpredictability of disruptive innovation make it increasingly insufficient for guiding organizations through periods of rapid change.

Disruption, by its very nature, defies the orderly progression suggested by the Three Horizons framework. The rapid emergence of Horizon 3 disruptions—exemplified by innovations like the iPhone, Netflix’s streaming model, and AI—illustrates that organizations cannot rely solely on the traditional timelines and strategies prescribed by the model. In a world where disruptive technologies can emerge and scale at unprecedented speeds, businesses must adopt a more flexible, agile approach to innovation that recognizes the fluidity and interconnectedness of different horizons.

Additionally, organizations must acknowledge the limitations of linear forecasting and embrace a mindset that anticipates rapid, unpredictable change. Companies must foster a culture of agility, innovation, and resilience to remain competitive in the face of disruption. This involves investing in Horizon 1 and Horizon 2 projects and being prepared to pivot quickly when Horizon 3 disruptions arise. The future of innovation lies not in rigid planning but in the ability to adapt to an increasingly volatile and interconnected world, where disruptive technologies can emerge and reshape industries in ways that are difficult to predict. To thrive in an era of rapid technological change, organizations must move beyond the constraints of traditional models and embrace a more integrated, agile approach to innovation that recognizes the unpredictability and complexity of disruption.

DISRUPTION AND THE QUESTION: BUT WHAT IF THE PROBLEM IS NOT KNOWN?

In emergent technologies, we often encounter scenarios where the problem we must solve is unclear. Unlike the incremental improvements typically seen in product redesigns, like enhancing an existing espresso maker or refining a ketchup bottle’s design, the real challenge is to create something entirely new—akin to inventing the espresso method itself. This strategic foresight innovation requires a fundamentally different approach from traditional frameworks, as the solution does not yet exist and must be discovered through exploration and creative problem-solving (Manu, 2007).
When dealing with known problems, the typical method usually involves analyzing existing parameters and working within well-established constraints. For example, companies often use traditional economic models to study market trends, focusing on metrics like market expansion potential, social impact, and financial value. These models help businesses detect patterns and draw conclusions based on past and current data (Christensen & Raynor, 2003). Questions like "What is the future of mobile communications?" or "What is the future of advertising on the web?" are frequently addressed by projecting future outcomes from existing trends.

However, we face a scenario where no such precedent exists to frame the question logically when it comes to emergent technologies. The interaction with these technologies reveals latent behaviours that do not fit within any existing model, making traditional analytical approaches inadequate. These approaches rely on rigid frameworks that analyze fluid, complex variables. However, defining and measuring these variables becomes extremely tricky in environments where conditions are rapidly changing. In fact, at this granular level, the investigation itself can influence outcomes (Schmidt & Druehl, 2008). As a result, these systems demand an adaptive learning process rather than a linear, left-brain approach to thinking and analysis.[8]

The Inadequacy of Traditional Models in Addressing Unknown Problems
Disruption is characterized by an unprecedented increase in technological and social diversity, creating an environment constantly in flux. Each new group of interactions introduces complexity that defies traditional sequential analysis. These emerging micro-signals—small but meaningful shifts in behaviour and technology—are dynamic and often resistant to objective analysis. They require a flexible and adaptive approach that embraces uncertainty and fosters innovation through an ongoing process of exploration and learning (Pisano, 2019). The shift away from rigid models is critical for navigating this unpredictable technological landscape (Manu, 2007).

As discussed earlier in this chapter, while providing a structured method for managing incremental change, the Three Horizons Model falls short of addressing disruptive innovations that arise unexpectedly and alter entire industries. Such disruptions are characterized by nonlinear and often exponential development (Christensen & Raynor, 2003).

DETAILING THE FORESIGHT INNOVATION CYCLE (FIC)

To address the challenges of innovation in a world where the problems are not always clear or defined, the Foresight Innovation Cycle (FIC) provides an alternative approach. First introduced in my work “The Imagination Challenge” (Manu, 2007), the FIC framework encourages organizations to move beyond problem-solving based on current challenges and instead embrace exploration of the unknown. In contrast to traditional models that focus on refining existing systems, the FIC emphasizes the need to create entirely new approaches—similar to how the invention of the espresso method revolutionized coffee brewing.

While tactical innovations address immediate needs and provide incremental improvements, true strategic innovation requires a different mindset. It shifts the focus away from enhancing what already exists and toward creating something fundamentally different. The FIC framework encourages organizations to foster collaboration, collective intelligence, and diverse perspectives to drive these groundbreaking innovations. The FIC provides a more adaptive and flexible approach where linear models fail to address unpredictable disruptions. By encouraging organizations to look beyond immediate market needs and cultivate creativity and foresight, the FIC helps ensure businesses remain agile and responsive to continuous and unpredictable changes. The framework emphasizes the importance of collective imagination and collaborative creativity, creating an open-ended, participatory process that brings together diverse perspectives to generate shared visions of the future (Manu, 2022).

The strength of the FIC lies in its ability to harness a group's collective intelligence, creating an environment where unconventional ideas flourish and innovative solutions arise naturally. By integrating various experiences and viewpoints, the FIC encourages participants to push beyond conventional thinking, fostering a space for radical innovation. Its focus on dialogue, co-creation, and collaborative exploration ensures that the futures envisioned are imaginative and deeply reflective of the group’s collective aspirations and concerns (Manu, 2007).

 COMPARING THE FIC AND THE THREE HORIZONS FRAMEWORK

The differences between the FIC and the Three Horizons Framework (3H Framework) are noticeable. While the FIC thrives on creativity, disruption, and imaginative exploration, encouraging nonlinear thinking and unexpected outcomes (Manu, 2007), the 3H Framework takes a more linear and analytical perspective. It focuses on managing future evolution in well-defined stages. The 3H Framework values structure and continuity, ensuring the path to future change is grounded in present-day realities (Curry & Hodgson, 2008).

Despite their differences, the FIC and the Three Horizons Framework can be complementary. The FIC injects creative energy into the 3H Framework by introducing visionary, open-ended scenarios into what is otherwise a structured process. At the same time, the 3H Framework provides a solid foundation for ideas generated within the FIC, ensuring that even the most disruptive concepts have a realistic path to implementation. Together, these approaches offer a powerful toolkit for strategic foresight, with the FIC encouraging creative disruption and the 3H Framework ensuring that those innovations can be realized through structured planning. This synergy creates a more holistic and robust approach to exploring future possibilities (Manu, 2007).

BENEFITS OF THE FIC OVER THE THREE HORIZONS FRAMEWORK

The Foresight Innovation Cycle provides a more adaptable and creative approach to foresight than the Three Horizons Framework. As organizations navigate increasingly complex technological and societal landscapes, the FIC offers several key advantages:

1. Holistic and Dynamic Exploration vs. Linear Categorization
The FIC begins with signal discovery, allowing for a flexible and nonlinear investigation of potential disruptions and innovations as they emerge (Manu, 2007). In contrast, the Three Horizons Framework relies on linear progression through predefined phases, which can limit its adaptability to the rapid pace of change (Curry & Hodgson, 2008).

2. Imagination and Creativity at the Core
 The FIC emphasizes imaginative scenario-building, encouraging organizations to ask bold questions and envision future possibilities that push beyond current realities (Manu, 2022). While the Three Horizons Framework acknowledges the need for innovation, it lacks a structured approach to fostering the creativity necessary for transformative innovation (Curry & Hodgson, 2008).

3. Interconnected Process vs. Compartmentalization
The FIC operates as an interconnected and iterative process, allowing ideas to continuously evolve and refine as new information is discovered (Manu, 2007). In contrast, the Three Horizons Framework’s compartmentalized approach can miss opportunities to integrate short-term innovations with long-term disruptive possibilities (Curry & Hodgson, 2008).

4. Thorough Opportunity Analysis
The FIC rigorously evaluates opportunities from multiple perspectives, ensuring that innovations are creatively envisioned and grounded in practical feasibility (Manu, 2007). The Three Horizons Framework often struggles with resource allocation, leading to overemphasizing short-term projects at the expense of long-term innovation (Curry & Hodgson, 2008).

5. Cultural and Operational Integration
The FIC fosters a culture of creativity and long-term thinking, integrating foresight into the organization’s operations more organically (Manu, 2022). In contrast, the Three Horizons Framework often requires significant organizational shifts that can be difficult to implement (Curry & Hodgson, 2008).

6. Adaptability to Rapid Change
The FIC’s flexible approach allows it to respond more effectively to rapid technological and market changes (Manu, 2022). With its fixed timeframes, the Three Horizons Framework can struggle to adapt to the fast-paced shifts in today’s innovation landscape (Curry & Hodgson, 2008).

The Foresight Innovation Circle offers a more adaptable, dynamic, and creative approach to strategic foresight than the Three Horizons Framework. By placing imagination and collaboration at its core, the FIC encourages organizations to actively shape the future through exploration and innovation rather than simply preparing for it. The FIC’s emphasis on flexibility and creativity makes it a valuable tool for navigating the rapidly changing technological and societal landscape. It offers a more effective alternative to traditional foresight models' rigid, linear structures (Manu, 2022).[9]

A BLUEPRINT FOR DISCOVERY, IMAGINATION, AND TRANSFORMATION

The Foresight Innovation Cycle is a framework that combines creativity and structured foresight to help organizations navigate the complexities of an ever-evolving technological landscape. Emphasizing collective discovery and imaginative thinking, the FIC provides a pathway for innovators to transcend existing limitations and actively shape the future. By integrating trend analysis and diverse insights, this method encourages visionary thinking, helping participants actively shape emerging industries and technologies (see Fig.5).

Discovery as the Catalyst for Innovation
At the heart of the FIC is discovery, the starting point for innovation. Discovery is more than just identifying existing problems; it involves actively exploring emerging concepts that can potentially create new industries. The rise of the creator economy—fueled by platforms such as TikTok and YouTube—is an excellent example of this. What was once an unimaginable idea—monetizing personal content—has now transformed into a multibillion-dollar industry.

Through technological advancements and cultural shifts, individuals have become content creators, reshaping economic models and offering new paradigms for engagement and monetization. This kind of innovation exemplifies how the FIC enables organizations to discover untapped opportunities that can radically alter the economic landscape.

Imagination as the Key to Transformation
Once potential opportunities are uncovered, the FIC focuses on imagination, encouraging participants to explore the most far-reaching possibilities. Imagination is crucial in transforming emerging trends into actionable innovations, but this process is not purely speculative. The FIC employs an iterative approach that balances creativity with pragmatism, ensuring that visionary ideas are eventually narrowed into feasible, real-world applications. This balance is essential for creating innovations that are not only revolutionary but also practical and scalable. The iterative cycle of experimentation, refinement, and adaptation allows innovators to test bold ideas without fear of failure, enabling them to evolve their solutions continuously.

The Role of the Behaviour Economy
A significant aspect of the FIC is its attention to the behaviour economy, which emphasizes how platforms like Facebook, YouTube, Amazon, TikTok and Uber have fundamentally changed how people engage with technology. Rather than being passive consumers, users are now active participants, engaging in dynamic two-way interactions with digital platforms. This shift underscores the need for foresight innovation that tracks these emerging behavioural patterns and translates strategic visions into marketable products and services.[11]  By continuously monitoring these signals, the FIC helps organizations anticipate and adapt to shifts in human behaviour, crafting narratives that align with new market demands and societal changes.

Crafting New Narratives Through Experience Mapping
A core component of the FIC’s approach to strategic foresight is the construction of new narratives through experience mapping. This involves asking critical “what could be possible” and "what if" questions to explore the potential of emerging technologies. For example, what if innovative health diagnostics could be integrated into everyday interactions in the household environment? This simple question could lead to transformative innovations in personal wellness, creating new healthcare models that are more proactive and personalized. Understanding human motivation is central to this process, as it guides the development of experience maps that align new technologies with the needs and desires of users. By staying attuned to these emerging signals, the FIC helps organizations stay ahead of the curve, ready to implement technologies that resonate with the behaviours and expectations of future consumers.

Viability, Platformability, and Imagination
The FIC’s process of moving from discovery to application involves a critical evaluation of the viability and scalability of new concepts. Take telemedicine and wearable health devices as prime examples. These technologies were once considered novel, yet they have become essential to modern healthcare. Their adaptability to existing systems allowed them to transition from innovative ideas into scalable solutions that improve access to healthcare services. The FIC fosters this kind of iterative innovation, encouraging organizations to experiment, learn from failures, and ultimately bring to market products and services that not only address current needs but are also future-proof.

 A New Era of Leadership in Digital Transformation
The FIC also calls for a new kind of leadership—one that is capable of guiding organizations through continuous adaptation and cognitive transformation. In this new digital transformation era, leaders must cultivate an agile culture that embraces uncertainty, challenges established norms and fosters creative thinking. Organizations that adopt this foresight-driven approach are better positioned to react to technological disruption and actively shape their future. By embracing discovery, imagination, and creativity while maintaining a structured approach to innovation, the FIC enables organizations to create meaningful value at both personal and societal levels.

CLOSING THOUGHTS
 The Foresight Innovation Cycle offers a framework that goes beyond conventional problem-solving. It equips organizations with the tools to anticipate and shape the future rather than merely react to it. The FIC encourages bold thinking by fostering a culture of possibility. These envisioning scenarios are far removed from the present but achievable through collective creativity and innovation. The FIC provides a blueprint for discovery, imagination, and transformation in a world where problems are often undefined. As industries evolve and new technologies emerge at an unprecedented pace, organizations can no longer afford to rely on traditional, linear innovation models. The FIC invites organizations to embrace the unknown, fostering a mindset of curiosity, flexibility, and adaptability. It encourages leaders to cultivate environments where failure is seen as part of the learning process and creativity and visionary thinking are central to the innovation strategy.

The power of the FIC lies in its ability to combine structured foresight with imaginative thinking. This allows organizations to navigate the complexities of the modern world while staying grounded in practical, real-world solutions. By leveraging the insights gained through discovery, imagination, and collaborative exploration, the FIC ensures that the future is not left to chance but is actively shaped by those with the courage and foresight to dream beyond the present. Ultimately, the Foresight Innovation Cycle offers not just a framework for innovation but a new way of thinking that emphasizes the importance of foresight, adaptability, and the collective power of imagination in driving transformative change. This approach allows organizations to create innovations that meet today's challenges and anticipate tomorrow's opportunities, ensuring their relevance and success in an unpredictable future.

[1] The Three Horizons Mapping method, developed by Bill Sharpe and detailed in H3Uni's facilitation guide, is a strategic foresight tool designed to help groups and organizations address complex, evolving issues by envisioning transformative actions (Sharpe, 2019). This method encourages participants to explore the future through three distinct perspectives, or "horizons." Horizon 1 represents the dominant current system, often characterized by structures and practices that may be becoming less relevant in the face of emerging challenges. Horizon 2 reflects innovations that are beginning to surface, responding to pressures for change and potentially disrupting the status quo. Finally, Horizon 3 embodies long-term aspirations, where systemic change takes place, driven by new values and models that could eventually replace the first horizon (Sharpe, 2019). In a typical Three Horizons Mapping session, participants collaborate to map out these horizons, using colored sticky notes to represent different ideas and initiatives across the time scale. The goal is to move from a narrow, present-focused mindset toward a broader future consciousness. Facilitators play a crucial role in guiding participants through this process, helping them recognize both the failures and the opportunities within Horizon 1, while simultaneously identifying early signs of Horizon 3 within Horizon 2 innovations (H3Uni, 2019).  This process is divided into two stages: the initial stage focuses on sense-making, allowing participants to map out their insights and explore systemic changes, while the second stage, typically conducted separately, is dedicated to action planning. In some cases, a third phase involving multi-actor mapping may be introduced to broaden understanding by incorporating perspectives from other stakeholders (Sharpe, 2019). The method's strength lies in its ability to help participants not only forecast potential futures but also identify concrete steps they can take toward innovation and transformation in the present.

[2] Adapted from (Baghai, Coley & White, 1999), (Terwiesch & Ulrich, 2009), (Nagji & Tuff, 2012) Gartner

[3] Google, Microsoft, and Unilever demonstrate how leading companies are adopting strategic responses to combat disruption in dynamic and innovative ways. Google leverages external innovation through initiatives like the Google AI Impact Challenge, which provides grants and support to organizations using AI to address critical social issues. This strategy enables Google to align external resources with internal strategic goals, fostering a collaborative ecosystem of social impact and technological advancement (Google, 2019).  Microsoft employs a targeted acquisition strategy to stay ahead of industry disruption. Its 2018 acquisition of GitHub—a global platform for open-source development—enhanced Microsoft's capabilities in cloud services and developer tools, strengthening its position in the software development community. This move broadened Microsoft's developer ecosystem and reinforced its long-term strategy for open-source integration and cloud dominance (Microsoft, 2018).  Unilever advances its open innovation model through its Unilever Foundry initiative, which invites startups and entrepreneurs to co-develop sustainable solutions and respond to emerging consumer trends. By fostering cross-industry collaboration, Unilever taps into a global network of entrepreneurial talent, ensuring agility in the face of shifting market demands and sustainability goals. This model positions Unilever as a forward-thinking player in the consumer goods sector, reinforcing its commitment to sustainable development and co-created innovation (Unilever, 2020). Collectively, these approaches exemplify how corporations are reimagining traditional strategic models, favouring open innovation, acquisitions, and external engagement as mechanisms to navigate disruption and sustain long-term growth.


[4] Companies from the USA, Europe, and Asia have encountered and addressed the shortcomings of the Three Horizons model in distinct ways, illustrating the challenges of managing simultaneous innovation across multiple horizons. In the USA, Intel faced significant disruption due to its delayed recognition of the transformative potential of ARM-based chips (Horizon 3) in mobile devices. This oversight had a direct impact on its Horizon 1 core business of PC processors, forcing the company to recalibrate its innovation strategy and address the growing interdependencies between its product horizons (Cusumano et al., 2015).  In Europe, Siemens sought to transcend the rigidity of the Three Horizons framework by integrating digital transformation initiatives across all horizons simultaneously. Its development of the MindSphere IoT platform exemplifies this approach, as it blurs the boundaries between Horizon 2 (emerging platforms) and Horizon 3 (disruptive innovation). This agile strategy enables Siemens to accelerate transformation and maintain a competitive edge by ensuring continuous evolution across all horizons (Siemens, 2019).  In Asia, Samsung illustrates how proactive investment in Horizon 3 technologies can reshape its position in Horizon 1 product lines. By making early investments in OLED display technology—despite initial uncertainty about market demand—Samsung secured a dominant position in the smartphone display sector, transforming its ability to lead in Horizon 1 consumer electronics. This forward-thinking approach demonstrates how companies can mitigate unpredictability in Horizon 3 by embracing speculative, long-term investments (Lee & Lee, 2014). Collectively, these cases underscore the limitations of the Three Horizons model, particularly its tendency to compartmentalize innovation and highlight how companies in the USA, Europe, and Asia have pursued adaptive, cross-horizon strategies to confront this challenge.


[5] Linearity vs. Continuity: To better understand the linear myth, we must contrast the concepts of linearity and continuity. I will use the example of disruption in art and, specifically, the disruption introduced by photography. Linearity suggests a direct, proportional progression, a model that fits well with the artistic trajectory from the Renaissance to the early 19th century (Chua & Desoer, 1987). However, in truth, art's evolution is only partially linear. Conversely, continuity refers to an uninterrupted flow, even if that flow takes unexpected turns. Art history can be seen as a continuum, where even significant disruptions like photography do not break the thread of artistic evolution but transform it nonlinearly. This nonlinear continuum resembles the behaviour of complex systems in fields like physics and mathematics, where outcomes are shaped by disruptions and shifts rather than smooth transitions. In fluid dynamics, for example, nonlinear systems do not follow straightforward, proportional paths. They evolve unpredictably but remain continuous (Landau & Lifshitz, 1987). Much like these nonlinear systems, art exists in a continuum marked by sudden ruptures that redefine its trajectory and purpose. In the same way that nonlinear systems in physics defy linear progression while maintaining continuity, the invention of photography introduced a nonlinear continuum in art. Photography did not merely enhance existing artistic practices—it fundamentally altered the relationship between the artist and their medium. By freeing artists from the constraints of realism, photography invited complexity and unpredictability into the evolution of art, mirroring the behaviour of nonlinear physical systems (Ogden, 1997).

[6] Spotify and Zoom Video Communications illustrate two profound cases of industry disruption that challenge the applicability of the Three Horizons model. Both companies defied the model's traditional assumptions of sequential development across horizons, demonstrating how Horizon 3 innovations can rapidly displace Horizon 1 incumbents without following a gradual, linear evolution. Spotify redefined the music industry by introducing a streaming-first model that shifted the focus from ownership to access. Before Spotify’s entry, the industry relied heavily on physical media sales (like CDs) and digital downloads through platforms like iTunes. Unlike the gradual evolution suggested by the Three Horizons model, Spotify's Horizon 3 innovation—the streaming subscription model—did not evolve incrementally from existing Horizon 1 models. Instead, it bypassed Horizon 2 entirely, forcing record labels to rethink licensing and distribution strategies almost immediately. The rapid shift from download-based music stores to on-demand streaming exemplifies how Horizon 3 disruptions can emerge abruptly and render Horizon 1 revenue streams obsolete (Mulligan, 2015).  Zoom Video Communications disrupted the video conferencing sector in a way that also defied the linear progression of the Three Horizons model. While platforms like Skype and Cisco Webex were established Horizon 1 players, Zoom's entry did not evolve from these existing models. Instead, it leapfrogged Horizon 2 with its Horizon 3 simplicity-driven platform, offering a significantly improved user experience that was immediately embraced during the COVID-19 pandemic. Zoom’s rapid dominance illustrated how a Horizon 3 disruptor can create a paradigm shift in real-time, compelling incumbents to adapt to new expectations around ease of use, scalability, and cross-sector applicability. The adoption of Zoom for corporate, educational, and personal use revealed that the rigidity of the Three Horizons model could not fully capture the nature of disruption driven by global crises and user-driven adoption at scale. Together, the cases of Spotify and Zoom demonstrate that Horizon 3 innovations can bypass Horizon 2 entirely, forcing established players to react in real-time, and ultimately revealing the limitations of the Three Horizons model in predicting the speed, direction, and nature of disruptive innovation.

[7] Tesla’s rise highlights the model’s inability to account for how multiple, overlapping disruptions can magnify one another, creating a far more volatile and unpredictable innovation environment than the Three Horizons framework suggests (Musk, 2015)

[8] The rise of blockchain technology and autonomous vehicles exposes the limitations of traditional models of market prediction and disruption management. Both technologies challenge the assumption that industry evolution follows a linear, incremental path. Instead, they demand adaptive learning processes capable of responding to non-linear, paradigm-shifting innovation.  Blockchain technology represents a fundamental shift in the financial landscape. By introducing decentralized governance, tokenization, and smart contracts, blockchain moved beyond conventional financial instruments, rendering traditional market analysis ineffective. Bitcoin and DeFi did not follow the evolutionary logic of prior financial products but emerged as Horizon 3 disruptors—entirely new systems of trust, exchange, and ownership (Nakamoto, 2008). In response, firms like J.P. Morgan developed the JPM Coin, signaling a shift from reliance on state-backed currencies to digital, consensus-driven financial assets (J.P. Morgan, 2020).
A similar break from conventional logic is seen with autonomous vehicles. Traditional models for market entry and consumer adoption proved inadequate in accounting for the regulatory, ethical, and technical complexities of self-driving technology. Companies like Waymo faced challenges in addressing questions of liability, safety, and human-machine interaction, requiring new analytical models to guide development and policy compliance (Litman, 2021). Unlike previous automotive innovations, autonomous vehicles demanded a shift from enhancing product performance to redefining the mobility ecosystem itself. Both blockchain and autonomous vehicles illustrate how Horizon 3 disruptions bypass traditional progression, forcing firms to adopt new strategic frameworks that embrace uncertainty. These cases reveal a shift from predictability to adaptability as a core competency, requiring organizations to engage in real-time learning rather than reliance on past models.


[9] IKEA’s approach to future-proofing its business model exemplifies the superiority of the Foresight Innovation Cycle (FIC) over the Three Horizons Framework. While the Three Horizons model compartmentalizes innovation into distinct phases, IKEA’s strategy reflects the fluid, interconnected nature of the FIC, allowing for continuous engagement with emerging signals and long-term societal shifts. Through its dedicated innovation hub, the IKEA Future Lab (Space10), the company actively explores sustainable living, smart home technology, and circular economy principles. This iterative, signal-driven process allows IKEA to identify weak signals and convert them into transformative innovations, such as flat-pack urban farming kits and AI-enabled design tools, which go far beyond the incremental enhancements characteristic of Horizon 1 thinking (Space10, 2020).  Unlike the Three Horizons model, which encourages organizations to focus on sequential evolution, the FIC's interconnected structure allows IKEA to simultaneously engage with immediate needs (Horizon 1) and long-term transformation (Horizon 3). This approach ensures that the company is not constrained by the short-termism of product line extensions but instead remains responsive to broader cultural and technological shifts. The FIC's emphasis on adaptability, imagination, and co-creation empowers IKEA to stay ahead of emerging disruptions, enabling it to shape the future of living spaces rather than simply react to it. This foresight-driven strategy highlights how the FIC’s ability to synthesize weak signals into bold innovation pathways offers a more robust, forward-thinking framework for managing long-term transformation.

[10] Innovation objects are tangible or intangible entities representing the practical embodiment of innovative ideas. These objects include new products, services, processes, technologies, and business models that drive value creation. Their key characteristics are novelty, value creation, and implementation. Innovation objects can be incremental (small improvements), disruptive (market-changing), or radical** (industry-transforming). By realizing these concepts, organizations can leverage them to achieve a competitive edge and foster societal progress.
[11] The rise of the behaviour economy signals a shift from passive consumption to active participation, where users become co-creators of value and experience. Companies like Robinhood, Strava, and Airbnb exemplify this shift by fostering engagement, interaction, and co-creation. Through gamification, social competition, and peer-to-peer collaboration, these companies transform user participation, driving deeper emotional and behavioural engagement.  Robinhood redefined the investment landscape by introducing commission-free trading and using behavioural design elements like confetti animations and instant notifications to incentivize frequent trading. This approach turns users from passive investors into active market participants, reflecting how firms in the behaviour economy seek to shape user behaviour rather than merely facilitate transactions (Bhargava & Loewenstein, 2021). Robinhood's use of gamification raises critical discussions on user agency and financial risk in investment decision-making.  Strava converts personal fitness tracking into a socially driven fitness experience. Gamified features like leaderboards, community challenges, and social sharing shift users from passive tracking to active competition and community goal setting. By tapping into users' desires for achievement and recognition, Strava builds stronger emotional connections and platform loyalty (Hind & Palacios, 2020). This approach exemplifies how social connectivity can amplify user engagement and motivate sustained participation.  Airbnb transforms users into micro-entrepreneurs, blurring the line between consumer and producer. By enabling hosts to personalize guest experiences and respond to feedback, Airbnb allows users to shape the platform’s value proposition. This two-way engagement model drives co-creation, where hosts actively contribute to hospitality innovation (Zervas et al., 2017). Unlike traditional hospitality firms, Airbnb empowers users to become active agents of change, reconfiguring the nature of the hospitality industry.  Together, Robinhood, Strava, and Airbnb highlight how the behaviour economy reimagines user engagement. By embedding gamification, social interaction, and participatory design, these companies enable users to become creators, competitors, and collaborators in larger, value-generating ecosystems.

©2024 Alexander Manu

HOW DOES TECHNOLOGY CONDITION HUMANITY?

This book examines the relentless forces driving societal transformation in an era of continuous technological evolution. By exploring pivotal historical moments and technological innovations, it becomes evident that disruption is not a singular occurrence triggered by a specific event or invention but an ongoing, dynamic process that reshapes societies. Within this framework, the question arises: "How does technology condition humanity?" This question demands a deep investigation into the complex and intricate relationship between humans and their creations. Technology transcends its traditional role as a mere collection of tools and devices, emerging instead as a fundamental force that shapes human existence, behaviour, and thought. This exploration requires a multifaceted approach incorporating historical, philosophical, and sociological perspectives to fully grasp the profound and often subtle ways technology impacts human life.

Understanding this complex interplay reveals how technology influences and actively moulds our societal structures, personal identities, and collective aspirations. As technology evolves, it changes how we view ourselves, organize our work, and relate to one another. This book aims to unravel these nuances, highlighting how technology conditions external realities and the internal landscapes of thought, perception, and values.

 THE HUMAN CONDITION AND TECHNOLOGY

One of the most compelling lenses through which to examine technology’s conditioning power on humanity comes from Hannah Arendt’s distinction between "labour," "work," and "action." Arendt emphasizes that modern technology, particularly automation, transforms labour—historically a defining aspect of human life—into an almost invisible activity (Arendt, 1958). In this process, human identity is inevitably altered as work, once a source of meaning and social organization, is redefined. Automation displaces traditional forms of labour, freeing humans to engage in more intellectual and creative pursuits. Still, it also raises existential questions about the value and purpose of human labour in an increasingly mechanized world. This shift, Arendt suggests, fundamentally changes how individuals perceive their societal roles and contribution to the collective good.

Lewis Mumford offers a complementary analysis, categorizing technological development into distinct phases—eotechnic, paleotechnic, and neotechnic—each representing different relationships between humans and their machines (Mumford, 1934). As societies transition through these phases, technology increasingly mediates human existence, moving from simple tools that assist manual labour to complex systems that replace or fundamentally transform human roles. In the neotechnic phase, for instance, automation and digital technology reduce the necessity for human intervention in production, creating a profound shift in how individuals relate to work, community, and even leisure. In this view, technology is not just an external tool; it becomes an agent that conditions human experience, shaping everything from economic systems to interpersonal relationships.

However, this transformation is not without its darker implications. Siegfried Giedion, in his influential work on mechanization, highlights how the integration of machines into daily life can simultaneously increase productivity and lead to dehumanizing routines (Giedion, 1948). While machines liberate humans from repetitive tasks, they also condition people to interact with the world mechanically, emphasizing efficiency and predictability over creativity and spontaneity.[1]

FROM HAVING TO BEING WITH TECHNOLOGY

Erich Fromm’s distinction between the "having" and "being" modes of existence provides further insight into how technology conditions human life. In the "having" mode, technology often becomes a symbol of status and a means of accumulating wealth, reinforcing materialistic values and competitive behaviour (Fromm, 1976). This mode of existence is characterized by the drive to own more, control more, and accumulate material possessions, with technology serving as a marker of success and dominance. For example, luxury cars are often purchased not just for utility but as symbols of achievement and status, reflecting Fromm's materialistic drive with the "having" mode.

Conversely, in the "being" mode, technology can enhance human experiences and promote personal growth. In this mode, technology serves not as a tool for acquisition but as a means of enriching life, fostering connections, and encouraging self-expression. As an example of this, social media can be used to foster superficial connections and status competition (the "having" mode), or it can build genuine communities and facilitate the exchange of knowledge and support (the "being" mode). This dual potential shows how human technological choices can condition us toward different modes of existence, highlighting technological progress’s ethical and existential dimensions. The challenge is to harness technology to promote being rather than having—nurturing deeper relationships, creative expression, and a more meaningful engagement with the world.


TECHNOLOGICAL EVOLUTION AND EDUCATION

The evolution of technology and its impact on education exemplify how profoundly technology conditions humanity. Technology has consistently transformed the educational landscape; every technological breakthrough demands the acquisition of new skills, cultivating an environment of ongoing learning. As technological advancements unfold, the skills and knowledge required to navigate and leverage these tools evolve, creating a constant interplay between innovation and human adaptation. During the Industrial Revolution the rise of factories and mechanized production created a demand for a workforce skilled in operating machinery and understanding industrial processes. In response, educational institutions adapted by developing technical schools and vocational training programs, thus conditioning humans to adapt to industrial labour and the structured rhythms of factory work (Ashton, 1997).

As discussed earlier in this book, the invention of Johannes Gutenberg’s printing press in the 15th century revolutionized knowledge dissemination by making books affordable and widely available, thus democratizing education for the masses. The Industrial Revolution, in turn, introduced new educational needs, leading to the rise of technical and vocational training programs to meet the demands of an industrial workforce.[2]  In the digital age, the widespread adoption of personal computers and the internet necessitated a shift in educational priorities, with schools and universities incorporating digital literacy into their curricula. Students were conditioned to understand and operate in a technology-driven world where digital tools became essential to personal and professional success (Castells, 2000). The proliferation of computers and the internet fostered the development of digital literacy and coding skills, conditioning humans to adapt to new technological demands. Schools integrated computer-based learning into their curricula, and the rise of online educational platforms like Khan Academy and Coursera further democratized access to education (Castells, 2000). More recently, the rise of artificial intelligence has created a demand for expertise in data science, programming, and algorithm development, prompting the creation of specialized educational programs to prepare individuals for a future shaped by AI technologies. This process of educational adaptation conditions not only individual skills but also societal expectations, shaping how we view intelligence, capability, and human potential in an AI-integrated economy.

However, this period also brought attention to the digital divide, with significant portions of the global population lacking the tools and knowledge needed to thrive in a digital world. The ability to leverage technology has become a defining factor in socioeconomic status, with those on the wrong side of the digital divide often relegated to lower-paying jobs and limited opportunities for advancement. Addressing this divide requires focused efforts to ensure equitable access to technology and education.     


TECHNOLOGICAL CONDITIONING

Throughout history, various technologies have played a pivotal role in conditioning human behaviour, societal structures, and personal identity. The printing press conditioned society to value literacy and access to information (Eisenstein, 1980). In their respective eras, the telegraph and telephone conditioned humans to prioritize long-distance communication and maintain relationships across vast distances, reshaping business practices and personal interactions (Standage, 1998). The introduction of electricity transformed domestic life, conditioning society to expect convenience and efficiency in household tasks while also revolutionizing industrial production (Hughes, 1983). Recently, the internet has conditioned humans to expect instant access to information, reshaping commerce, education, and social interaction globally. The invention of smartphones has further conditioned individuals to prioritize constant connectivity, blurring the lines between personal and professional life and reshaping how we communicate, navigate, and even experience time. These technologies illustrate how technological advancements condition human behaviour and social structures profoundly and often unexpectedly.

As we explore the ongoing relationship between technology and humanity, it becomes clear that technological advancements do not merely alter our external realities; they fundamentally shape who we are. Technology conditions our behaviour, reshapes our social structures, and moulds our identities. Understanding this dynamic relationship is crucial for navigating the future in an era of constant technological disruption. By recognizing technology's profound impact on human life, we can approach technological innovation with intentionality, ensuring that progress aligns with human values and fosters a more meaningful and equitable future.

THE ARCHITECTURE OF DESIRE: A CENTRAL BUILDING BLOCK FOR INNOVATION

A conversation about the philosophical foundations of technological change must start at the root of what drives human action, and that is desire. The architecture of desire is an examination of what people want and a deeper exploration of how human longing and aspiration shape the world and drive innovation. We can see how civilizations have been propelled to create, transform, and innovate through understanding desire. Desire, in this sense, is a potent force that transcends basic needs, reaching into the realms of self-expression, identity, and legacy. It is woven into the fabric of economic systems, artistic creation, and technological advancement, becoming both the engine and the blueprint for progress. This drive to satisfy deeper human longings is central to individual behaviour and the evolution of societies, influencing the direction of technological and cultural development.

Desire is a powerful force that shapes economic systems, influencing the products and services created, marketed, and consumed. It transcends the simple fulfillment of needs and reaches into the broader sphere of human aspirations. The creation of the first piece of jewelry, approximately 8,750 years ago, exemplifies this concept. It signified more than just a functional item—it represented a desire for self-expression and social recognition. The use of such an object, devoid of practical utility, speaks to an intrinsic human need for adornment and a desire to be seen in a certain way by others. Rather than any practical necessity, this desire shaped early economic systems, pushing human societies to create, trade, and innovate (Manu, 2015).

The same principles apply in modern economic landscapes, where desire often precedes need. Devices like mobile phones did not simply meet a technological need but transformed entire cultural landscapes. They redefined how we communicate, consume information, and present ourselves to the world. They were designed not merely to function as phones but to meet the deeper desires for social connection, status, and personal expression. In this way, desire is an undercurrent and a driving force behind economic systems, shaping supply and demand.

BEHAVIOUR SPACES AS CATALYSTS FOR DESIRE

In the contemporary digital world, platforms such as Facebook, LinkedIn, and TikTok have become what can be termed "behaviour spaces” —environments specifically designed to engage and amplify latent human desires (Manu, 2012). These platforms are not just technological tools; they are deeply intertwined with the psychology of human interaction. Bertrand Russell once noted, “Desire is to behaviour what force is to mechanics” (Russell, 1954). These digital spaces activate deep-seated desires for social validation, recognition, and belonging, providing users with instant feedback in the form of likes, shares, and comments. This instant gratification reflects and amplifies these desires, creating a feedback loop that conditions users to engage repeatedly with these platforms (Goffman, 1959).

These platforms capitalize on the human longing for identity and recognition, fulfilling the desire to connect with others and project a particular image of oneself. By engaging with these digital environments, individuals navigate the complexities of self-presentation and social interaction, often using these tools to enhance their perceived social standing or validate their identity. The digital platforms act as catalysts, bringing latent desires to the surface and conditioning behaviour to reflect broader social and cultural values. This creates a dynamic interaction between technology and desire, where the tools we use both shape and are shaped by the deep-seated human longings they aim to satisfy.

The influence of desire extends beyond the digital world into cultural artifacts and monuments, a lasting testament to human longing. The Taj Mahal, often cited as one of the most beautiful structures in the world, is not merely a monument but a profound expression of the desire for immortality through love and memory. It symbolizes enduring human emotions—grief, love, and the desire to preserve one's legacy. This principle underlies many of the world's great wonders, from the pyramids of Egypt to the Eiffel Tower, where individual desire transcends the personal and becomes embedded in the cultural memory of civilizations (Manu, 2021).

These monumental creations serve a dual purpose. On the one hand, they reflect the desires of individuals—often rulers or elites—to immortalize their memory and leave a lasting mark on the world. On the other hand, they fulfill a collective human longing for meaning and transcendence as reminders of life's impermanence and the enduring nature of human aspiration. Desire, in this context, is not fleeting; it is eternal, driving individuals to create objects and structures that outlive their creators and serve as symbols of their deepest longings.

THE FOUNDATION: HUMAN MOTIVATION

The foundation of all innovation and creation lies in human motivation—the underlying forces that drive individuals to act, create, and innovate. In Hannah Arendt’s "The Human Condition" (1958), she explores these motivations, emphasizing the human drive to leave a lasting impression and participate in life's broader discourse. This motivation manifests in how individuals interact with digital platforms like Facebook, where the desire to be remembered, understood, and acknowledged fuels the constant production and sharing of content. These platforms serve as arenas where individuals can pursue the perpetual desire to exist within a larger social fabric. This drive to be seen and recognized is not new. Digital platforms represent the latest evolution of this desire, providing tools that allow individuals to protect their identities and leave a digital footprint that may outlive them. In doing so, these platforms fulfill a deep-seated human need for immortality through self-expression and social interaction.

Central to the discussion of human desire and motivation is Carl Rogers’ self-theory, which suggests that the fundamental drive of an individual is to maintain, enhance, and propagate the self. This idea becomes particularly significant in the digital age, where platforms mentioned earlier provide individuals with the means to project and propagate their identities in real time. They allow individuals to curate their public personas, thus fulfilling their intrinsic need to be seen, acknowledged, and validated (Rogers, 1959).

The structure of modern economic systems, particularly those in the technology and consumer goods sectors, mirrors this human desire for self-enhancement. Whether through health and wellness products, social media platforms, or educational tools, the global economy is designed to cater to individuals' desires for self-actualization and recognition. Every product, from the latest fitness tracker to the newest smartphone, aligns with the primary human motivation of maintaining and enhancing the self, whether through improved health, more connectivity, or increased social status.

DESIRE AS THE ENGINE OF INNOVATION

Understanding the architecture of desire enables us to recognize that desire is the engine of innovation. Human longing shapes the products we create and the systems through which those products are developed and consumed. Spinoza’s observation that "We do not desire something because it is good; it is good because we desire it" captures how desire drives innovation (Spinoza, 1677). The products and services that thrive in the marketplace tap into latent desires that may not even be fully articulated but shape the choices and behaviours of individuals and societies.

As we look to the future, the implications of this understanding are profound. Generative AI, virtual reality, and personalized medicine are not merely technological advancements; they are manifestations of deeper human desires for control, immortality, and self-enhancement. These innovations will reshape the world by meeting needs, anticipating desires, and providing new ways to fulfill them. In doing so, they will propel society forward, driving transformation in unexpected and transformative ways. The architecture of desire is thus a key to understanding the past, the present, and the future. By recognizing the power of human longing, we can better predict the direction of innovation and design the systems, products, and services that will shape the world.

FORESIGHT AND ADAPTABILITY

These narratives of disruption propelling human desire compel us to engage with a logical question: How do we perceive the future? Is it an enigmatic horizon, distant and unknowable, or more similar to a blank canvas, waiting to be shaped by our actions, decisions, and foresight? The future, for organizations and individuals alike, is not something passively awaited but a domain actively crafted. It invites us to question whether the future is predetermined or if we, much like the oracles of antiquity, interpret the signs of change and navigate a path forward with wisdom and foresight. This question reflects our engagement with time and our understanding of the dynamic interaction between innovation, technology, and human creativity.

When we juxtapose the established with the innovative, we encounter a complex web of choices and outcomes, each decision branching into multiple futures. As it reveals itself, the future is not simply the culmination of external forces but a testament to human ingenuity—a continuous fusion of technology and creative thought (Manu, 2022). The narrative of adaptability, then, is not merely about survival; it is about legacy. To adapt is not just to endure the storms of disruption but to chart a course that leaves a meaningful imprint on the unfolding story of human progress.

 THE FUTURE AS CHOICE

Where do we draw the line between what has happened and what is yet to come? The line is not as distinct as we might imagine, for the present moment is deeply entangled with both past legacies and future possibilities. In this continuous flow, we uncover a dynamic interplay between signals and trends—each casting light on our adaptive choices and shaping what we consider the "future" (Schwab, 2016). Signals are the early indicators of change, often subtle but pregnant with the potential to shape industries, societies, and even individual lives.[3]  Conversely, trends represent the broader forces already in motion, driving the direction of these shifts. These reflections bring us to an essential facet: the economics of choice. Signals may seem economically sound and promising—after all, early adoption often presents significant advantages. However, to advocate for an emerging signal is to risk becoming its emblem, placing oneself or one's organization at the forefront of opportunity and uncertainty (Manu, 2022). In this delicate dance of foresight, we see the canvas of tomorrow awaiting the bold strokes of innovation.

The future, then, is not something we encounter passively but something we craft through deliberate action, vision, and risk-taking. Why, then, do we speak of the future as a choice? Is the future a concrete reality or an ephemeral construct shaped by our decisions? Fundamentally, the future is not a fixed entity. It is a spectrum of potentialities shaped and moulded by our present choices (Manu, 2022). However, not every element of today will carry forward into tomorrow. The alchemy of the future is a selective synthesis of today’s elements—those data points that we consciously or unconsciously decide to carry forward. Thus, the future, whether for an individual, an organization, or society, is forged by distinctive choices crafted against the backdrop of a unique present.

If the future is a dynamic canvas born from the present palette, it calls for a critical reassessment of how we approach change. As catalysts of transformation, are we merely passive observers of emerging realities, or are we active participants in shaping them? The forces that will define the future—the phenomena already in motion—are steadily advancing. Some may still be nascent, yet their eventual impact is inevitable. The decisions we make today, whether through active engagement or passive acceptance, will shape the contours of the future (Schwab, 2016).

Within this framework of signals, trends, and choices, we find the ambitious narrative of human agency. The future, it becomes clear, is not an abstract concept hovering beyond the present moment. It is the sum of our choices, a continuously evolving story authored by our decisions in the here and now (Manu, 2022). This framing of the future as an active, malleable entity challenges us to engage more deeply with the forces shaping tomorrow. It reminds us that we are not merely at the mercy of trends but, rather, creators of the future with the ability to influence its unfolding.


REFLECTING ON THE KNOWN AND THE UNKNOWN

There is a fascinating and perplexing phenomenon in organizational thinking: deliberate engagement with time and uncertainty. Why do organizations, with all their resources and intelligence, often adopt what seems to be a stance of deliberate naiveté toward the future? This is not merely a matter of lacking knowledge but usually a calculated defence, a strategic positioning designed to mitigate risk and shield against potential criticism (Manu, 2022). By maintaining a stance of cautious foresight, organizations can balance prediction and plausible deniability, allowing them to adapt flexibly to changes while avoiding the pitfalls of over-commitment.[4]

This defensive stance is both intriguing and practical. Could corporations find comfort in a pretense of ignorance, sheltering themselves from the charge that they could have foreseen adverse outcomes but chose not to act? This strategic ambiguity allows organizations to avoid the harsh judgment that comes from making bold predictions that fail to materialize. They can always claim, “We could not have known for sure,” thereby preserving their reputation despite disruption.  This dynamic reveals the tension between foresight and self-preservation, with organizations walking a fine line between embracing the future and protecting themselves from its uncertainties.

Venturing deeper into the forces shaping this dynamic, we uncover the concept of driving forces. These are not the subtle breezes of change but the powerful gales that steer the course of technological, economic, and societal evolution. They are the unseen hands that mould trends into fixtures of reality, transforming nascent ideas into the norms of tomorrow (Schwab, 2016). However, what are these driving forces? Are they uniform across the globe, or do they present diverse expressions depending on regional, cultural, or political contexts? [5]

Consider the various dimensions influencing these driving forces: social mandates, political climates, economic currents, technological breakthroughs, and cultural progression. Each sphere influences sectors as varied as education, healthcare, labour, and media. In an age of global interconnectivity, we see that the contributions of individual nations—through their distinct laws, traditions, and societal behaviours—create a complex mosaic of change. Each driving force carries the weight of its context, ensuring that an interplay of local and global influences shapes the future. In this landscape, organizations are not passive observers. They possess the authority and capability to be more than reactive—they can be architects of the future. However, how? Organizations can shape trends into concrete realities by recognizing and elevating these driving forces into collective awareness. They can transform the unknown future into something recognizable and actionable (Manu, 2022). This approach allows organizations to root out future developments in the domain of the known, reducing uncertainty while maximizing innovation potential.

Think of the emergence of the Internet of Things (IoT). What began as a conceptual framework for connected devices quickly evolved into a transformative force that redefined industries, economies, and daily life. The IoT is not merely a collection of devices but a philosophical shift in understanding the interaction between the physical and digital realms. Objects, environments, and individuals are now part of an interconnected dialogue.[6] This shift prompts us to ask new questions: What stories might unfold when objects can "speak"? What conversations could exist between a bench and a streetlight, a building and its occupants? (Ashton, 2009). These imaginative intellectual exercises invite us to push the boundaries of interaction and communication, challenging the limits of what we consider possible. As technology and human ingenuity converge, we approach an era where the lines between living and non-living blur. The narratives of tomorrow will be composed not just by human voices but by the dialogue between humans and their creations. 

These narratives of disruption challenge us to engage more deeply with the future we are creating. The future is not a distant, abstract concept but a living canvas shaped by our choices, actions, and innovations. Human agency is central to this process. Our decisions today are the seeds from which tomorrow's realities will grow. Whether we face the future with bold innovation or cautious foresight, we are constantly contributing to the evolving story of humanity. Organizations, like individuals, must recognize that their role is not to await change passively but to craft the future with intention and vision. As technology continues to merge with human creativity, the opportunities for shaping this future are boundless. Ultimately, the future is both known and unknown. While we may not predict every twist and turn, we hold the tools to navigate and mould the pathways that lead us forward. Whether through embracing signals and trends, balancing foresight with caution, or redefining the boundaries of interaction, we must acknowledge that the future is ours to shape.

EXPLORING THE FUSION OF TECHNOLOGY AND BEING

We have arrived at a moment of significance with a significant question: To what destination are we headed? The trajectory of human progress seems to accelerate toward a reality augmented in richness and capability. However, what does it mean to augment? Traditionally, augmentation implies improvement—an increase in value, function, or status. Yet, in the current context, augmentation signifies something more profound: a transformation of existence, heralding the dawn of a new era where technology becomes an inseparable extension of humanity (Manu, 2022). This transformative augmentation finds its test at the intersection of automation, subscription models, and artificial intelligence. Once considered distinct, these domains now converge to shape our lived reality in unprecedented ways.

As we contemplate the constructs of our current existence—our homes, cities, and the very modes of transportation that define our daily lives—we begin to see these entities not as static structures but as dynamic, intelligent systems. This vision for innovative technology transcends the notion of tools or devices designed to assist us; it points to a redefinition of reality itself (Schwab, 2016). The inspiration for such reimagining is not abstract—it is grounded in nature’s examples of self-sufficiency, particularly the autonomy of plant life.[7] This leads us to another question: How might our creations mirror the autonomous completeness of nature? Picture, for instance, buildings that do not merely host plants on their surfaces but embody vertical gardens, transforming architecture from static infrastructure into living organisms. In this vision, the concept of a home or a city is no longer confined to passive shelter. Instead, architecture evolves into a dynamic, living entity that responds to its environment and inhabitants, seamlessly blending into the natural world. This is not an unattainable fantasy but an emerging reality in which technology and nature converge.

When we consider the smart home, we must look beyond the aesthetic design or the integration of gadgets. A truly intelligent home surpasses the traditional notion of space and function; it becomes an ecosystem, a living, breathing organism aware of its inhabitants (Brynjolfsson & McAfee, 2017). Imagine a home that recognizes you, adapts to your preferences, and precisely anticipates your needs. The future home is no longer a collection of walls, appliances, and furniture; it is a sentient environment composed of light, sound, and energy that harmonizes with your existence. Such a vision urges us to reconsider what we define as a “house.” Could the intelligent homes on the horizon challenge our very concept of dwelling? Is a home merely a sanctuary, or can it become a living extension of ourselves, responsive and adaptive, an actual augmentation of human life? By rethinking our living spaces and how we engage with our environment, we are setting the stage for the next epoch of human existence, which promises to blur the lines between the artificial and the organic.

HUMANITY: THE EPICENTER OF DISRUPTIVE FUTURES

When examining the philosophical foundations of technological change, we must ask: What directs our collective hand as we shape the future? The conversation is not abstract but deeply rooted in the human condition. As this chapter demonstrates, we fundamentally reflect on human nature when discussing disruption and paradigm shifts. The forces driving innovation, technological breakthroughs, and societal changes all circle back to humans' core desires and behaviours. As individuals and collectives, we are the epicentre of the vast systems that govern the world. Our needs, wants, and whims are the gears that turn the engine of the global economy. Every aspect of life fuels this continuous cycle of disruption and reinvention, from the water we drink to the stories we tell. However, we must also confront a paradox: Is human behaviour as enigmatic as we believe it, or can we discern a pattern beneath the complexity? How many philosophies must we study, and what behavioural patterns must we decode before realizing that our diverse desires often flow along predictable channels (Manu, 2022)? There is a simplicity beneath the surface complexity of human behaviour—an enduring pattern of connection, comfort, delight, and fulfillment. These are not just engagement tactics but the fundamental points guiding the human quest for meaning (Kahneman, 2011).

Despite the diversity of human existence, it is remarkable how our deepest dreams often mirror one another. What does this suggest about the collective human experience? Across geographies and epochs, we all seek happiness, strive for success, desire love, and long for recognition. Our ambitions may differ in their expression, but they reflect shared human aspirations (Maslow, 1943). As we build potential futures, we must align these futures with the fundamental desires that unite us. We are not merely strategists or technologists but cultivators of human potential, sculpting the collective psyche as we navigate the corridors of time.

Moving from personal reflection to the vast scale of economic systems and enterprises, we encounter an essential truth: Even the most complex global structures are shaped by the same human desires we contemplate individually (Manu, 2022). When we speak of disruption, we discuss how to tap into universal longings—to connect, create, and innovate in ways that resonate with the human experience. Enduring truths about human nature guide us as we explore the frontiers of potential futures, discerning the most promising paths for businesses and societies. At the intersection of individual aspiration and global innovation, we witness the profound interconnectedness of all things (Schwab, 2016). Disruption is not a force that operates in isolation; it reflects the human drive to shape and reshape our world in alignment with our evolving desires. Successfully navigating this dynamic requires a deep understanding of the human factor—not merely predicting the next trend but comprehending the intricate nuances of human desire. This understanding clarifies the future, allowing us to shape it with intention and insight.

CLOSING THOUGHTS

The relationship between technology and humanity is one of continuous dialogue and mutual influence. As technology evolves, it shapes human behaviours, expectations, and social structures. In turn, human creativity and need drive technological advancements. From the printing press to the smart home, technological innovation has continuously redefined what humans do, know, and aspire to achieve. By understanding this reciprocal interplay, we gain insights into the profound impact of technology on human development and the necessity of adaptive education to prepare for the ongoing changes that technology will bring.

In this continuum of disruption, it is not just technology that changes—humanity itself is the agent of disruption. We have not only adapted to technological shifts but have become the drivers of these disruptions, continually pushing the boundaries of what is possible. This pattern is evident in every aspect of life—agriculture, communication, healthcare, and energy. For example, the shift from fossil fuels to renewable energy has reshaped the energy sector, requiring new skills and prompting educational institutions to develop programs that prepare individuals for a sustainable future (Jacobson & Delucchi, 2011).

As we integrate intelligent technologies, automation, and artificial intelligence into everyday life, humanity becomes the disruption continuum. This force continuously reshapes society in alignment with evolving desires and capabilities. The ability to drive and navigate disruption is a testament to human resilience and ingenuity. We appreciate the deep, reciprocal relationship between humanity and technology through this lens. As we move into it, the future is not just a destination but an unfolding story of human potential, one we are collectively writing with every choice and innovation.






[1] This mechanization extends beyond factories and into personal life, where domestic routines, once filled with manual labour, are now streamlined by appliances, altering the rhythm and structure of daily existence. In this way, technology changes how we work and live, subtly shifting our priorities and perceptions of time, effort, and value.

[2] Institutions like the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT) were founded to train individuals in the burgeoning field of engineering and industrial sciences, reflecting how education adapted to technological shifts.

[3] Weak signals in foresight are the subtle precursors to significant future developments, encompassing novel insights or ambiguous phenomena that challenge existing frameworks. Despite their low probability of occurrence, their potential for disruptive impact underscores their importance. Characterized by their novelty, difficulty in detection, and potential transformative effects, these signals manifest as emerging issues, shifts in public sentiment, early-stage research, or unforeseen policy proposals. They function as tools for expanding futures thinking, acting as early warnings, and inspiring innovation, thereby aiding organizations in preparing for future uncertainties. Detection necessitates environmental scanning, monitoring unconventional sources, and leveraging intuitive interpretation, enhancing resilience to disruption.
[4] This stance of "deliberate naiveté" often manifests in the form of disclaimers and "forward-looking statements," which, while providing a legal safeguard, can also reflect a deeper organizational reluctance to fully commit to strategic foresight. These tools, rather than solely mitigating risk, may inadvertently foster a culture of ambiguity and hedged accountability. By emphasizing the uncertainty of future projections, organizations often absolve themselves of responsibility for unfulfilled expectations, potentially undermining stakeholder trust. This practice, though pragmatic, can lead to a lack of bold, actionable vision, reducing organizational agility and the proactive capacity to shape the future rather than merely react to it.
[5] Driving forces are the deep currents that shape societal, industrial, and global evolution. Emerging from phenomena such as technological advances, economic shifts, and environmental crises, they operate beneath the surface, creating the conditions for trends to emerge and thrive. Unlike trends, they are foundational and transformative, with expressions that vary across cultural, political, and regional contexts. Their impact highlights both global interconnectedness and local specificity, reflecting the shared and diverse human experience. 
[6] The Internet of Things (IoT) emerged as a living network of interconnected physical entities—devices, vehicles, appliances, and beyond. These objects, infused with sensors, software, and connectivity, transcend their static nature, merging an intricate web of data exchange across the ether. Through this seamless interaction, IoT brings real-time responsiveness, enabling automation and fostering harmony between human intention and technological capability. 

[7] Plants, which draw life directly from the sun without reliance on complex external networks, present a self-sustaining, intelligent design model that could inspire the innovative ecosystems of the future.


©2024 Alexander Manu

The Polynon is a ground-breaking concept that seeks to unify the world's knowledge in a single geometric representation.^[1] By combining the language of mathematics, physics, chemistry, and other sciences and arts, this representation can be used to describe collective knowledge. In doing so, we can draw connections between disparate fields of study, fostering innovative and creative solutions to complex problems. This concept can potentially revolutionize how we think, feel, and interact with the world.

Can a geometric framework of cognition be disruptive in science and technology? What are the advantages and disadvantages of such a model in today's world?

The development of the Polynon framework is founded on the belief that fundamental changes are possible in our society. Within the structure of a society, there are disciplines and dimensions that, over time, have become distanced from the world of cognitive practice. The Polynons encourage discussions around new directions of science, driven by the use of a new type of architectural and conceptual framework of cognition. By introducing the new ways cognitive science can be linked to the latest cognitive technologies and getting feedback from different fields, the Polynons can show that disruptors can help explore new realms of knowledge and new ways of experience.

Our approach to creating a new framework for cognition is guided by the belief that improving technology must push the boundaries of thinking.

THE IMPACT OF DISRUPTION ON COGNITIVE SCIENCE

Until the 20th century, science existed in two domains, the subject matter (facts and laws) and the process of discovery. Both were observable and largely independent of one another.^[2] The classical science of the 17th and 18th centuries, starting with the scientific revolution, provided an ideal framework for how science operates today: the process of inquiry and discovery leads to both foundational theories, whose principles and fundamental structures can be defined and refined, and the generalizations from such theories that are acted upon by other researchers (which is what was traditionally considered discovery). The foundational theories provide an outline of the areas to be studied and the reasoning behind the data observations, which can then be applied to determine underlying structures in the new knowledge and their dynamical consequences to form new and improved theories and new findings. The resulting improvements in the most fundamental foundational theories lead to a change in discovering and adopting new theories.


The classical rationality framework cannot explain the cognitive mechanisms related to decision-making and cognition in all fields of knowledge and intelligence. If we start from pre-existing knowledge structures, can pre-existing knowledge structures be disrupted and changed through transformations in their geometric structure?

Let us look at the change in cognitive systems through the framework of pre-existing knowledge structures and pre-existing information. We can see that there will be an increase in the ability to find patterns and structures in the data.

The disruption of pre-existing knowledge structures can be changed by new designs and computational frameworks that build on pre-existing models and theories, leading to new ways of thinking about the world and knowledge structures.

There is a particular risk with disruptive models for knowledge as they can temporarily destroy existing structures, systems, and intellectual infrastructure. They can stimulate new processes and technologies and become a new benchmark in all scientific fields. A new model of scientific understanding can lead to a new information culture, new fields, and new ways of interacting with and thinking about complex systems.

Can a model be defined to be disruptive if it increases scientific knowledge? Does it disrupt scientific norms by introducing a new, more robust, contextual, and, thus, principled way of developing models? The answer to this question can be given by adopting the definition that distinguishes disruptive processes as those that disrupt the physical or social framework of the system. By considering scientific and technological phenomena, the leading example of disrupting scientific knowledge is known as cognitive disruption.

The Polynon framework is a knowledge framework describing the geometric and topological properties of specific models. It gives a glimpse into the model's inner workings and how, through these interactions, new ways of producing and interpreting data can be built and interpreted. The Polynon framework makes it possible to model any process where an understanding is generated through a few parameters that exist in the system. In other words, it represents all processes, regardless of where they occur, where the data is gathered, and by which method it is data collected.

The Polynon is a powerful tool that doesn't just capture the knowledge from the various disciplines and serves as a descriptive representation of that knowledge. By unifying so much data into a single geometric shape, we create a powerful tool that gives us a greater understanding of the world around us. The Polynon represents the sum of all knowledge from the various disciplines. By uniting the five senses to our brain, we can create a visualization that allows the true nature of the world around us to be seen and gives us a powerful tool to improve our knowledge of how the world works. By combining all of the information from all sources, the Polynon collects the first-order knowledge, which is the retained knowledge. By having a single visualization with such high-level insight, the combined wisdom of the users enables them to see the true nature of the world around them.

How can a geometric framework be a disruptive force? The answer to this question comes down to three factors. The first factor is cognitive, which I define as the ability to capture, analyze and reproduce things in your cognitive field of view. The second factor is the aggregation of all fields of study, from physics, engineering, computer science, engineering, cognitive science, cognitive psychology, and sociology. The third is a set of new behaviors, actions, and experiences. These changes, in which the cognitive frameworks become more and more accurate and reliable, lead to new abilities and behaviors in cognitive fields, which are facilitated and accelerated by disruptive technologies.

We can make meaningful changes by pulling psychology and cognitive science into the frame of disruption. The Polynons have the potential to bring about many new technologies based on physical and cognitive principles. Some of these new technologies will challenge traditional methodologies. For instance, theories and models based on geometry can explain previously existing phenomena in new, more correct, and correctable ways.

More specifically, cognitive scientists can model behaviors, complex systems, and the rules and mechanisms that create these behaviors, and create new cognitive algorithms, machine-learning models, and theories.

By understanding how knowledge is encoded and retained in the brain and, in the end, how one can change behavior based on sensory inputs, cognitive scientists create new networks, theories, and cognitive constructs that can analyze complex systems and processes to create more cognitive models, allowing for new kinds of experiences and cognitive potential.

USE CASE PROPOSAL

Metaverse, Virtual Reality, and Mixed Reality enabling technologies will be implemented broadly in the next decade. Every object, every place, and person will have the capacity to receive, generate, transmit, and store data in the Metaverse.

Understanding the Metaverse is about understanding the implications of a decentralized life and transforming these implications into a design opportunity, which means asking questions.

We believe the Metaverse is a browser for Metaspaces – markets where a new form of tokenized commerce will occur. The presence of people in a Metaspace is more than a virtual presence; it is a communication presence expressed by the nature of the data people bring to the space.

Within the Metaverse, identity and information are inseparable. Everything is the metadata it is made of and looks like the metadata it represents. The question then becomes, what geometry can best represent this metadata in the Metaverse?

We propose the Polynon as the holder and representation of data and the knowledge it contains into a single geometric shape. We propose the Polynon as the means to capture knowledge from various disciplines, unifying it into a single descriptive representation. Furthermore, we propose that every shape constructing a Polynon is a Smart Contract and a Token to be consumed.

Creativity is often thought of as an action that disrupts the environment. Creating is disrupting. By focusing on new ways of looking and thinking about things, cognitive science and psychology would change the world of technology.


[1] The Polynon as a geometric framework for cognition was created and developed by Tib Roibu.

[2] Scientific discovery is the process or product of successful scientific inquiry. Objects of discovery can be things, events, processes, causes, and properties, as well as theories and hypotheses and their features (their explanatory power, for example). Most philosophical discussions of scientific discoveries focus on the generation of new hypotheses that fit or explain given data sets or allow for the derivation of testable consequences. Philosophical discussions of scientific discovery have been intricate and complex because the term "discovery" has been used in many different ways, both to refer to the outcome and to the procedure of inquiry. In the narrowest sense, the term "discovery" refers to the purported "eureka moment" of having a new insight. In the broadest sense, "discovery" is a synonym for "successful scientific endeavor" tout court.

Retrieved from https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/scientific-disc...



©2023 Alexander Manu

Intention articulation and manifestation in creating artifacts of incidental beauty are entirely different in terms of experience than the experience of producing art or design in traditional ways. In the traditional physical understanding of creating an art piece, one starts with an image in mind, something in the imagination, and tries to transpose it on a canvas or stone. Same thing in design, when one is searching for a form that is sensed and arrived at through sketching and manifesting the form in a three-dimensional model.

This is entirely different when using a text prompt image generation artificial intelligence bot. With a text prompt, the intention is to create something of a specific nature, for example, a "radical-centric design example." The radical-centric design example can have many forms and many manifestations, which means that one has to articulate what kind of manifestation one is looking for, so a few details are added to the descriptors, indicative of the mood, the geometry, the colour palette, the structure and texture of the forms to be developed and so on. Once this intention of obtaining a "radical centric design violin" is given to the text prompt, the AI returns something always beyond imagination. In normal art production, the artist understands what the manifestation might be based on the skill of interpreting their articulation of ideas and intention. Still, with AI, the result is beyond imagination and something extraordinary, which creates not only a moment of profound beauty and contemplation but a moment of surprise and a moment of sacredness that cannot be encountered in any other way.

There is a sacredness of the experience at play here because of the element of surprise in discovering incidental beauty. Incidental beauty is born in articulating the AI bot's prompt to create a contemplative object. In this new context of partnership with technology in the creation of meaningful artifacts, if one cannot articulate something, it cannot be manifested. The more and deeper one can articulate, the more meaningful the outcome is.

The intention is the key to meaningful creation.

With this ability to articulate art and design, the intention is, of course, to expand the excellence of the outcome produced and because of the opportunities given to artists and designers to create works that may be far beyond what they would ever have thought of in the context of traditional art forms. This is the realm of sacredness and beauty beyond imagination, and in this sacred realm, the concept of original artwork or design can only come from the depth of the intent and the poetry of the articulation.

As more humans learn to utilize these tools and collaborate with AI, the boundaries of meaningful experience in art and design and life and the realm of imagination can grow beyond anything we could imagine today.

Art is the radical human impulse to transform and transcend what is. And Artificial Intelligence is the tool that opens us up to new dimensions of transformation beyond imagination.

Intention, Articulation, and Manifestation: Art and the Sense of Sacredness

Art is an experiential journey, and Contemplative Portals and Objects in Metaspace have a Purpose, Attributes, and Forms. Metaspace is designed to generate spaces that allow for sustained reflection. A broad range of colors and patterns remind us that design is meant to be distinct and of a moderate scale, creating an effect of contemplation. At the center of the portal is an entryway that invites one to enter the space through a profoundly contemplative and inwardly reflective place.

Contemplative Objects in Metaspace: Purpose, Attributes, and Forms
Surreal objects flutter by as the dark interior of Metaspace unfolds like a dream. Rows of alien plastics wrapped in white silk sit like giant cocoons in darkened rooms filled with sculptures of green algae sitting on plastic beds. Complete with vibrating air curtains and dim light settings, Metaspace feels alien but safe. A place beyond the imagination, inviting to wonder and exploration, something imaginary where hidden gems dwell. Looking at those surreal objects and stepping into this new world is transcendence beyond imagination. It feels as if you have sampled heaven. Beautiful corridors of dreamers' muses now stretch out into the darkness as contours of soft, soothing blue and white light turn the mind to sparkling rainbows in the dust and imagination of those who walk down this visionary path, exploring beautiful alcoves. Surreal things have a profound meaning beyond words or concepts of form.

Metaspace was designed to evoke profound wonder and contemplation and to generate spaces that allow for sustained reflection. It is to inspire the imagination with stunning imagery that echoes beyond imagination. At the center of the portal is an entryway that invites one to enter the space through a profoundly contemplative and inwardly reflective place.

Beyond the rational world, Metaspace contemplates, thus inspiring visions of the best and better.The Metaspace is intended to contemplate wondrous beauty and unexpected encounters with unimaginable buts strangely familiar shapes (such as the musical objects shown here). In our deliberate age, it may be the only art space dedicated to the contemplation of pure beauty, providing just that: time and space for contemplating all surrounding manifestations.

In Metaspace, surreal elements and design come together to form objects in which each form explores a different aspect of Metaspace's alien beauty and intricate core. Where the interior appears purged and illuminated with a quiet, reflective feeling, it is visually relaxing and mesmerizing to encounter the exterior of Metaspace, which gives the illusion of entering the interior.

The interior is richly illuminated with a warm orange glow that provides a contemplative space for reflection. The interior seems to allow a purely contemplative response to any extreme condition or stimulus. It is meant to be an ample space where the gaze takes its course between the internal and the external until there is contemplation upon the expanse of space. Consequently, an internal spatiality seems entirely different from what a rectangular design space would produce.

Surreal Complexities are Integral Shapes in Metaspace
The central vertical space that stretches upward and outward at a right angle to the front façade expresses the structure and boundaries of the interior while forming a complex spatial interplay with its surroundings. The relative symmetry and centricity of the component forms createsmany interesting organic shapes that display an exceptional quality of elegance and subtle complexity.

The deeper interior space, defined with geometric elevations and rectangles, shapes an interior that follows a purely geometric way of thinking. It is a radically different experience, and the design of Metaspace allows you to contemplate those exciting and joyful forms built with the tradition of stunning geometrical complexity. If we look through the structure of the interiors, we see many different dimensions that produce a heightened beauty and absolute pleasure in contemplating. These spaces are created with basic geometric shapes that blend in intuitive and atmospheric forms to give us a sense of being lost in a novel and almost other-worldly space.

This research project is organized around the hypothesis that behavior platforms – any real or virtual place where people gather around the same social and/or innovation object - are an ideal experience and monetization tool and as such, they are ultimately Business Platforms.

Platforms are organized around PURPOSE and not product. The real product is the individual. Platforms are not about technology but about purpose. Platforms are about places to behave. They are also about the creation of a standard experience and the acquisition of behaviors on the platform (Amazon, Lemonade, Pinterest,) which results in Social Marketing Intelligence leading to potentially lower cost per relevant audience(CPA) but more so in a granular definition of value for each user. The definition of marketing as "the creation and delivery of a standard of living to society "(Paul Mazur) and through this lens business platforms perform as the pinnacle of marketing.

An example of such large behaviour platform which, while technologically agnostic, has succeeded in deepening its relationships with users through the use of all technology at all times is RELIGION. Religion is the ultimate platform. It contains: Purpose, The Source, Actors, Incentives, Daily Ritual Activities. The ultimate experience. Platforms are behaviour extensions and thus, are tools for the extension of the human experience. How does the FLIRT method of acquisition and retention of users on a platform apply to religion?
Strategic Focus:the world is a creation of a superior power. One should be at all times in awe of this power and seek to be in its grace at all times by performing specific rituals and behaving within specific norms.
Strategic Language: We worship this power in words and deeds.
Tactical Incentives:If we worship we will be protected and our life will be overseen by the power.
Tactical Rules: The ten commandments - a directive for a life prescribed.
Tactical Tools: The cross as symbol, the cathedral, the book.

This book aims to prepare executives for the ambiguous challenge of creating and supporting a culture of innovativeness, within the framework of a value creating enterprise, in times of profound and dynamic technological and behavioural disruption. The executive team's ability to focus on developing inspiring exploration and discovery opportunities within teams, as well as increasing the value of their own imagination and creativity. The content will detail how to architect and construct the means for New Value by incorporating emerging disruptions and their behavioral attributes. Techniques that identify significant strategic shifts at their early stages, as well as the tools needed to assess the potential of these strategic shifts in technology and behaviour as possible monetization markets are also disclosed and detailed. The book further explores how foresight informs strategic decision-making and aligns the desires of people with the potential of technology, into new business models and how to integrate disruption in everyday business by restoring the equilibrium between core competencies and new value creation.

The value of a dynamic future-proofing strategy lies in bridging the gap between business competence and the creation of new value. This book explores the attributes and new behavioral imperatives of disruptive technologies, and the shape and urgency of the strategic transformation required to prosper in this emerging context.

The future of human life needs a new story, one that is not conditioned by opposites, a future that is not connected to the past but only by the possibilities that are seeded in the present. We are currently conditioned to conceptual frameworks that seem immutable, concepts such as 'the market economy'. 'money', 'income' and 'work' to name just a few. We are also conditioned to the language of the market economy and language can at times be a barrier to transformative evolution. The assumption that 'income'- or some form of revenue- is a precondition for being or belonging in society gives rise to any number of secondary frameworks which construct sets of relationships between humans, relationships that have in effect no connection to the meaning of life itself. We have allowed at times the tools we have created to lead us into techniques which we no longer question, resulting in systems of living that are further and further distancing humans from their purpose and meaning.

This project explores the possibility for a new story in which human life is not conditioned by opposites –work as the opposite of leisure for example- but is the result of designed attributes. But what if there was no labor to measure work by? What if there was no work to measure and define play by? This state of surrendering to the purity of an unnamed moment is not something humans are comfortable with or capable of doing. And herein lies our incapacity to imagine a future in which the present plays no role. This is why we still need to name things: we still can't express the idea of life without work and without payments for work rendered- we take refuge in the concoction of 'basic income', maintaining the concept of 'income' in the framework of a society where all labor is automated, and humans do not engage in what was previously considered the creation of value.

The New Story is that of a society in which humans will have no mechanical role in the creation of GDP - a metric that will become useless over the course of time, along with many other metrics concerned with measuring the quantity of our goods and services and not the quality of our life's moments. When designing a new story is critical to understand that we cannot design it on an old framework, but we need to define a new framework that reinterprets human desires and reformulates the themes, perspectives and possibilities of what human life might be in the age of automation and augmentation.

We need new consumption models that recognize that work is not inherently part of human life; humans do not need work to express their humanity. Machines need work. Machines are made for the purpose of work. We are so conditioned to think that the purpose of life is to work that we forgot what the purpose of work was in the first place: 'We work to have leisure, on which happiness depends' (Aristotle) (the leisure Aristotle has in mind is productive activity enjoyed for its own sake, while work is done for something else).

The advances in technology and behavior that took place over the past 25 years represent in effect the re-symbolization of what life could be when technology becomes embedded in everyday life. This recent past has demonstrated the power of our capacities to embrace transformation.

New models for human life in the industrialized world start from here, with new generative questions and with revisiting our fundamental frameworks while redefining new foundations of free education, free information, free health care, equality of information, equality of network access, empowered participation in all decisions.

We are now at the brink of a new destination that will create new pathways for human action and a new consciousness. Embracing the future means not looking backwards and not assuming that anything from the present condition – our current tools, shells, networks and settlements - will necessarily be part of the future. There is little connection between the world today and the world's 20 years ago. Not even countries are called the same way, some countries, as they were 20 years ago. Borders have changed; mentalities have changed, and generations have changed. We keep referring to ourselves as being rooted in some ideology, communism, capitalism, market economy, and this is a mistake because what where rooted in is our humanity, our roots as human beings.

The Richly Imagined Future is not a destination, but a mind-set conducive to frameworks for existence, frameworks that will change in the course of time, subject to the number and type of participants and subject to the emerging ecosystem of the techno sphere. The Richly Imagined Future is not a concept, but the place where concepts come into being. A life attitude, a decision that one's life – and by extension the life of organizations or other human groups – can be designed on a values-based framework, permanently evolving in purpose and meaning.

This means designing life and organizations at the level of the possibility that surrounds us, and not at the level of our inherited capability. This book imagines possible and probable futures with the aim of constructing images of possibility which are attractive and have compelling power leading to the future of human life in a world that we purposefully assume and meaningfully define.

The emerging present is a fast-changing context for incumbent organizations, especially in market segments where online behavior is replacing physical proximity, and users engage with digital platforms for the acquisition of products and services. These are platforms that allow users to behave, to leave a mark, and to participate in the community of others, which are the values people now seek.

In this reality transactions take place on behavior platforms, some of which are for entertainment – Twitch, YouTube - and some which are service and retail platforms - Amazon, AliExpress, eBay - allowing users to conduct remote transactions online. The potential of this behavior, its true possibility is the delivery of everything as a subscription service. This leads us into the Subscription Service Economy, possibly the most significant disruption the economic system has experienced in the last 200 years. In this new context, increasing numbers of incumbent organizations in a variety of industries will be challenged to the core of their imagination.

For these organizations the challenge is not simply about change, but about transformation. While Change affects the condition of something in relation with a previous condition, Transformation operates at the strategic level and affects the nature of something, the very structure and working mechanisms of an activity, as well as its relationship to everything around. Transformation affects the interaction and thus user behavior. By distinction, change operates at the tactical level, affecting the condition of something often in relation with the surrounding environment, as an alteration of thequantity or as in an increase or decrease of something. And this is where change meets transformation, as any change in the physical state of an object transforms our interaction with it; technological change transforms the experience.

This research project explores some ideas about what could be possible if we transform the present. The narrative is organized around what is actual and what is potential; what is the probable future that we can arrive at through change, and what is the possible future that we can build through transformation. When engaging in transformation the following strategic question develops: if you were designing your organization today, how would you design it? In other words, how would you go about it starting from scratch?

Starting from scratch is the ability to create the future from the ingredients of the present alone. With this, we create fresh new roots, not encumbered by the pre- existing structures of our current social constructs, organizations and habits.

The portfolio of companies owned by Google Ventures (as of this writing) is an insightful real-life model of an organization comfortable with the concept of creating the future from the NOW. Uber, Nest, Medium, Editas, FlatIron, Impossible, Slack and Airware are just a few examples of a new way of thinking, bold, courageous and risk embracing. The very essence of the word "enterprise", which is a bold and courageous undertaking.

There is a great deal of creative freedom when starting from scratch, as it means drawing a clean line and imagining everything as it should be, and not as an improvement of what is. This means designing organizations at the level of the possibility that surrounds us, and not at the level of our inherited capability. We are not fixing the old; we are maximizing the possibility of the present.

This research project investigates new dimensions of value present in transactions that do not involve traditional value exchanges involving accepted national currencies. Such transactions are the norm in the behaviour platform economy created by massive participation in social media as well as online tools – Facebook, Snap Chat, YouTube and Google being just a few quick examples.

The project further investigates the return of the Mono Consumer and the demise of the Poly consumer – mono consumerism is best exemplified by the Apple Watch – and the relevance of the findings for the world design of mass consumption and global brands. This study aims to redefine the relationship between People and Things and between Markets and Money, through a few radical proposals for the redesign of the current financial systems practiced in industrial economies.

"Is that a TV screen in your pocket?" A paraphrasing of Mae West's famous line serves well to define the new context for content creation: mobile content delivery and engagement. In this context, the Internet is just the means for streaming content; what is new here is the mobility part. Mobility, location proximity and full accessibility on any number of possible screens, makes mobile content delivery a unique new opportunity as well as a unique new user experience. Add to this the convergence of a few technologies – Snap, Magic Leap, Near Field Communication and The Internet of Things – and I see an explosion of location specific experiences - destination streams - in the very near future, with content that will invite the participation of all senses, and will engage the user in multiple layers of experience.

I have termed this new experience Full Spectrum Entertainment, an experience that has multiple compelling attributes and multiple dimensions of engagement: Intellectual engagement, Physical engagement (audio, video, motion, purpose, action, duration, risk), Emotional Engagement, Spiritual engagement, Social Engagement, a Temporal dimension (time and space) and a Transformative Dimension.

The transformation from linear TV to Mobile Internet TV is not a technical or tactical challenge, but a strategic challenge. For content creators the strategic challenge is understanding that Mobile Internet TV is not just another distribution platform. It is a new behavior space, a personal mode of action. This calls for new distinctive competencies and for a reframing of the challenge as the strategic domain of cyber streaming: think beyond the conversion of traditional content onto mobile platforms, to the ultimate destination where the Internet resides, which is Cyberspace. Cyberspace is the territory where the future of entertainment is being shaped.

This project surveys the changing context for marketing and communication, and explores a few questions that will help organizations identify and validate ideas, transforming them into platforms for engagement and participation, or what I have termed in my work, "a new behavior space". Near Field Communications – NFC – is precisely that: a new behaviour space, a space where new interactions can take place; the opportunity that results here is that any new interaction carries within it the potential for monetization. I propose that corporations can expand their revenue extraction potential by designing new experiences in the behaviour space of NFC.

The challenges of this new context are not technical or tactical; this is strategic challenge, a challenge to our innovative capacities, and to our desire to transform possibility into reality. If technology is a medium into the possibilities of any experience, what experiences do we want to make possible now?

Four critical contexts frame the opportunity of the new behaviour space:
1. People's actions and engagement in life or commercial activities expressed as data, will become a new form of currency.
2. Location based structured data will become the marketing communication media of choice.
3. Any company with an audience will is in the granular broadcast business, as a curator and broker of the experience of place.
4. Every company establishing an NFC Link with a user is now in the Media business.

NFC IS A TEMPORARY LINK SPACE

This temporary Link will allow for a number of new possible transactions to take place, transactions which represent a new set of rich opportunities for interested third parties, either in proximity to the retailer or connected via trust to the user. An NFC tag can now connect the participant in a transaction with relevant, related, and associated products, services, and experiences. And this represents a new revenue extraction platform for anyone initiating NFC transactional links.

What is LINK SPACE? The amount of memory space available on an intelligent tag can be broken up into many categories beyond payment data, logistical data or product information. Linkspace is data space on an NFC tag dedicated to containing a link, that once activated, would connect a smart device, appliance, or environment with specific content and experiences via the internet. Features and benefits include appliances and devices capable of reading and searching intelligently through links on tags, then connecting content based on the user's profile and preference. This opportunity suggests a number of Strategic Questions:

1. What do organizations have to do now to become leaders in the monetization of NFC LinkSpace?
2. How can organizations transform every transaction into a collateral user experience opportunity?

This project studies the difference and relative advantages, of organizations that use a business ideology for the motivation of both employees and customers. Through current practice as well as historical surveys, the study will compare the merits of methodology (execution and tactics) versus ideology (strategy and vision) in the development and financial sustainability of global organizations.

First, let me qualify what I call a business: it is the organized capability of crating and distributing media for the manifestation of behavior. In other words, a business brings a medium to a motivation. Once the medium meets motivation, we have manifest behavior. Manifest behaviour – people using products or services – is what a business monetizes.

The media can be soap, a shaver, a book, an automobile, an insurance scheme, etc. it will not get monetized unless it fits the motivation of the people to whom it was addressed (the demographic) and only when the people are engaged in using it – buying the product or service. There is no such thing as a "product that makes money"; there are only products that PEOPLE USE.

This opens two needed capabilities for a business; the first is upstream, creating and manufacturing the products and services people what to engage with. The second is downstream: marketing, distributing and selling these products or services. By the nature of the activities involved, the upstream and downstream capabilities are quite different in scope, inputs and outputs. The downstream calls for methodology – what do we have to do and how? - while the upstream call for ideology - why and for whom are we doing this?

Advocating an ideology as opposed to a methodology involves the risk of asking people to think about the difference between the two. One is a tool, the other is a way of being, behaving and influencing the world. An attitude. A mindset. As business offers are now about engagement and participation with people (users), business activities are nothing but the elegance – the relationship esthetic- of the engagement, its form and depth.

The project expands on the chapter submission in the Handbook of Design for Sustainability. S. Walker and J. Girard (Eds.), Chapter 27. Oxford Press: Berg. 2013. The intention is to formulate a thinking framework for the design and development of products and systems, frameworks that are radical in their acceptance of the compelling motivation in human behaviour as the basis of human economic exchanges and thus the economic system.

Sustaining human life on Earth is too complex a task to embark on, before understanding what 'being human' is in the first place. Culture in all its forms is not a sustainable human activity in the ecological perspective, yet humans without these forms of knowledge and culture transmission are not sustainable as a species. In the discourse about sustainable practices, I find a moral dissonance between the condition of being human and the modes of creation and consumption that are proposed by advocates of sustainability. This is a dissonance between Meaning and the Means we create as humans. Short of purposefully changing the context and meaning of what it means to be human, the rhetoric against current forms of consumption is challenging the nature of being human. We must include in any approach that seeks to change our means of being human, a reasoned and balanced understanding of the meaning of humanity.

The project explores the drive humans have towards becoming more than they are, which is the drive to be human, the drive to leave a mark, and the drive to participate. It is only when we are ready to examine our desires and motives for creating, by design, the tools that surround us and the ecosystems that support them that we will be ready to engage with sincerity in the sustainable enterprise of life on planet Earth.

This is not a critique of current sustainability practice, but a new starting point for both academics and practitioners. A starting point that addresses the moral dissonance between Meaning and the Means we create as humans.

Massive Play explores play as a social and cultural instrument over the centuries. The principal view is that play is not for children, but for humans as grownups. Play is not for children: this may sound like an extreme proposition, but consider two streams of evidence: the behavioural (motivation) and the physical. Motivation is critical in human behaviour – humans are goal-orientated beings – and behaviorally, play is a conscious activity. Grownups KNOW they are at play. Children do not know. For the grownup, play is conscious – grownups ELECT to play - while for the child, play is just a manifestation of being. Some have argued that children learn through play; if anything results from play, then it is not play, as having a purpose and an expected productive result will deny the nature of play itself. According to Huizinga (Homo Ludens, 1938) play is unproductive. Play has no other purpose but itself. (Roger Caillois, Man Play and Games, 1961). On the physical evidence side we have the Classic toys – the oldest forms of toys found to be cup and ball type skill games, Kendama in Japan, Ballero in Mexico, Perinola in Venezuela, Bilboquet in France – are not playable by children with any proficiency. Numerous illustrations and early photographs show that the players of these devices were well grown adults… These "toys" were developed and maintained in use by adults. Games are not for children either. The study will show that some games meant for children are practice for future games played by the grownups.

Play operates outside the constraints of real life. No one really "needs" an iPod, a Twitter account, and a Facebook page. I argue that these are spiritual activities, respites from everyday life, very much like play. Adults play in secrecy, being more comfortable to calling the activity by another name (business, stock market, golf). We will review the role of play in the shaping of culture and society, by looking at the societal value of massive play events, what sustains them and their economic impact.

The overriding economic argument of this study is that products and services that succeed and are economically sustainable (they are profitable, desired, used and create vast economic benefits) are rooted in play behaviour, providing experiences which are Fund, Challenging, Rewarding, Absorbing, Non-Frustrating and have Repeat Play Value, all of which are play behaviour characteristics. iPad, iPhone, YouTube, Facebook, Twitter, Google are all Play Platforms. And they succeed precisely because they never hide this fact.

The study demonstrated that Play has been essential in the development of civilization, around behaviours that are made manifest by objects which transcend their original nature of "toys" or "gadgets" and become tools for everyday life. Incorporating play behaviors in products and services defines the experience as compelling, and also defines the process of design and development as an experience design process, rather than a traditional industrial design process.

An international technology corporation offered (at the time of this project) quantum signature solutions (frequencies) targeting two liquids (Water, and Fuel). These are manifested as frequencies that serve a particular economic purpose. For example, "making hard water appear like soft water", serving the purpose of reduced scaling with corresponding reduction in maintenance costs. Ayus proprietary technology is both transformative and disruptive. Its ability to effect change in liquids at the molecular level without the need for external energy, alters the fundamental energy relationship that has formed the basis of our modern society since the advent of the industrial revolution. As such, it represents a first foray into an economy based on new, non-energy dependent principles. This will both transform society and disrupt existing economic structures. As we are at the beginning of this transformation the path ahead is ambiguous. In effect, we don't know what we don't know as it relates to how to maximize its economic return.

Given this context, the purpose of the research activity was:
1. To identify, potential economic gains associated with new frequency signature liquids and potential for these targets in both Business to Consumer and Business-to-Business frequency applications.

2. To develop intellectual property around each frequency with corresponding revenue models.

Culture cannot survive without gaming entertainment. It is one of the oldest forms of entertainment. While form of stake entertainment have changed and will change over time, the fundamentals will not change: we seek comfort in the hope for the possibility of a better life; we seek to be touched by destiny. This study aimed to uncover the challenges and opportunities for G3 in a society characterized by the mobility of personas and data.

We define the desire economy as the economy of the post industrialized world, where goods and services are no longer driven by needs (if that was the case at all) but by the human desire to become, to achieve, to exist at a different level.

We argue that current best innovation practices and business models are driven by desire – not in the hedonistic sense, but in the higher motivational theory sense of the "desires to know and to understand". The desire to become better - education, literacy, tools, systems, services – all provisions for the achievement of this higher goal.

Further, we defined the current ethos of innovation by comparison with the past 200 years as well as the historic record prior to industrialization, to prove our theory that the human innovation ethos – and its subsequent economic development – is a sequence that starts with a competitive motivation and is found today to be pre-competitive; not based on fear but on the desire to exist and achieve. We will explore – in order to contrast - COMPETITIVE INNOVATION – innovation bound by FEAR, REACTING TO THE PRESENT AND FINDING A PLACE IN IT.

We also looked at the associated innovation funnels, benchmarks, and corporate strategies. We will show that at various stages of development, our innovation ethos (and business strategies, execution, etc) was driven by our human condition at the time, namely, competitive survival, being the weaker species. In that condition we innovate ways to defend ourselves, to run from the other animals, to compete in their world. We will contrast that state with today's ethos for PRE-COMPETITIVE INNOVATION – bound by DESIRE, WANT, SHAPING THE FUTURE, DEFINE YOUR ROLE IN IT.

How can individuals and organizations cope with the challenges of our time? By deepening their understanding of human motivations and reframing them as what they truly are: desires, wants and visions of a better self.

This project studied the triggers for the emergence of latent play behaviour in adults and proposes a link between new technology as well as the associated applications and services they create, as first and foremost triggers for the emergence of latent play behaviour. This is due to the motivational aspect of the task and the goals which generate the behaviour: each new technology is approached first as "a toy" by the adult therefore in a state of suspension from defined time frames, tasks and structures.

Calling it "play" or "work" does not change the very nature of the activity which is that of the playful and free exploration of the possibilities of the new device, service or application. This is described as play in the sense of the current adult understanding of a behavior that brings no immediate monetary gain.

The research questions for this project were: What is the capability required for transforming play pattern and play behaviour in adults into Societal Wealth? How does latent imagination and play potential in adults influence he shift from work to play can contribute to a much more productive society?

This project blends the current cultural and societal landscape – inclusive of technology, social factors and future trends with scenarios that reveal new opportunities for the manifestation and triggering of play behaviour in adults.

We define as a crisis in Innovation the lack of purpose most innovation stems from: often confused with research, innovation lacks meaning as most processes are about the advancement of a particular technology and then mitigation of that advantage while lacking the necessary consequence in people's lives. This translates in innovations lacking commercial application as they lacked the vision of benefit from the get go. Vision is the demand side innovation creating meaning for technology and vision, at the national, personal or organizational level is motivated in personal and national ethos, culture, habit, desire and knowledge. To this lack of ethos, we have substituted processes that encourage mitigative innovation are rooted in the need to have metrics for everything, so effort outputs could be measured against input. We argue that this goes contrary to the ambiguous nature of breakthrough innovation, a place of exploration in which big questions are asked, strategic desires are expresses while the "how" is not known as the output o the process is primarily concerned with the "what".

What is known is the desired state at the end of a process that can be best described as pre-competitive innovation. We propose that Pre-Competitive Innovation starts with Innovation Questions – a reframing of the strategic desire - "put a Man on the Moon" - rather than Innovation Problems.

In the next decade enabling technologies will become ubiquitous and every object, place and person will be capable of receiving, generating, transmitting and storing data. This is DataSpace, exponentially increasing the density of networks as objects and spaces become actors within this new type of social network, the DataSpace Network, and it reveals new forms of social capital. As social objects and social places, these new actors bring with them new sets of relationships; the key to converting this network into net-worth will be the recognition that relationships are based on reciprocity, and reciprocity creates value.

We argue that the new forms of social capital revealed will retrieve latent behaviours of reciprocity, exponentially increasing the value of the network and therefore creating greater social capital. This potential for reciprocity between people, places and objects will be transformed into net worth once the taxonomy and ontology of DataSpace is undertaken as a strategic business activity, one that is mandatory in the creation of value which is at the core of the monetization opportunity of any social network.

We propose an alternative to classic "weak signal" methodologies (developed by Igor Ansoff) by postulating that signals are not at the periphery of present day reality. Signals are in our midst. The fact that signals are not perceived in the Task Environment of the receiver is due to the sender and the receiver not sharing the same behaviour range. The Task Environment is a set of perceptual and cognitive constructs which dynamically frame our experience and expectation, changing and shifting with the integration of new or newly perceived signals. These signals surround us, and are neutral in meaning, value and intensity until we assign it to them. However, the Task Environment is only able to infer meaning upon these signals through the analysis of content, context, and history, and the versatility to synthesize this information. Thus, the Problem Space is created, in alliance with the Task Environment, as a place where the reconstruction of meaning is ordered by rational behaviour through the use of Operators and methods.

Because we are taught to make the signals make sense with efficiency and reason, the Operators seek out and identify recognizable or familiar signals at the expense of unknown or strange signals. We may dismiss these strange signals because of our reticence or inability to redefine the process of expectation, to imagine their possibility.

This inability to see beyond the boundaries of rationality is the Imagination Gap. The Beal Theory of Signals further proposes the creation of a new space, the Free Play Space, enabling individuals to amplify the scope of their vision by creating a space where possibility can exist. In Free Play Space every disruption, innovation or emerging behaviour is revealed to contain from its inception four types of emerging signals: Precise, Undeniable, Intuitive and Sensed. The capability to map these signals in the earliest stages accelerates the maximization of possibilities leading to opportunities in business, culture and society.

The gap between current intellectual and technical capability and current possibility – for an individual or a group - is what we are defining as the Imagination Gap According to Lev Vygotsky, the inability to see beyond the Imagination Gap is called the Zone of Proximal Development, which is the gap between what an individual can accomplish independently and what they can accomplish with the assistance of a More Knowledgeable Other. Within the Free Play Space, the methods of strategic creativity are the More Knowledgeable Other, enabling individuals to amplify the scope of their vision. Through the use of scenarios as a platform for the Trickster to perform upon, where perspectives shift from one location to another and behaviour sets are modified, signals acquire new and unexplored meaning.

This paper studies the strategic advantages that can be created in outcome-based interactions between organizations in the same market space and the best strategy that determines what actions organizations should take to secure the best outcome for themselves. We propose that a symmetric condition exists every time organizations are actively pursuing a desired outcome at the same moment in time while an asymmetric condition can be created by purposefully opting out of participation.

Taking the game out of gaming is a metaphor inspired by the game of poker where we can observe the same interaction between players as can be observed in the given market space. The work of Thomas Shelling (The Strategy of Conflict 1980) makes the case that if one of two parties in a relationship can choose between two courses of action and the other party has three options, there are 2 x 3 = 6 possible outcomes. Applied to the poker as a market metaphor this translates into the possibility of one player opting out on purpose – thus not actively pursuing a desired outcome – and creating an asymmetric advantage.

By not participating in the game the non-player/participant has a higher percentage chance of not being eliminated and eventually winning the game. The voluntary opting out eliminates "rational" choice deliberations between the number of potential courses of action.

Both a methodology and a group dynamic used in the discovery, interpretation and acceleration of emerging signals into strategic experience concepts. Analyzed according to McLuhan's LOM (Laws of Media) Strategic Circles enhance/ maximize the opportunity of emerging signals; they obsolesce traditional formal and informal innovation groups and organizations that fail to focus on emergence; they retrieve the start-up spirit in a mature organization; they flip into the next emerging signal. The Strategic Innovation Circle contains the following nodes of action: Basic research, emerging signals, powerful questions, points of departure, scenario building , service and product disclosure, pre-competitive business models and post signal maps and new learning.

In the next decade enabling technologies will be implemented in a broad spectrum and every object, every place and every person will have the capacity to receive, generate, transmit and store data. This is DataSpace. The presence of People in a DataSpace is more than a physical presence, it is a communication presence expressed by the nature of the data they bring to the space. Thus, a DataSpace Social Network is formed.

With this expansion, the density of participants increases exponentially and new forms of social capital are revealed. By expanding the notion of social networks to include DataSpace networks, we place in the network actors previously not engaged, namely objects and spaces enabled to store, transmit and receive data. As social objects and social places, these new actors bring with them new sets of relationships; the key to converting this network into net-worth will be the recognition that relationships contain reciprocity, and reciprocity creates value.

We argue that DataSpace Networks and their density will reveal new forms of social capital; these new forms will retrieve latent behaviours of reciprocity, exponentially increasing the value of the network, therefore creating greater social capital. The reciprocity now possible between people-place-object will be transformed into net-worth once the taxonomy and ontology of DataSpace is undertaken as a strategic business activity; we see this as a mandatory step in the creation of value which is at the core of the monetization opportunities of any social network.

ESSENTIAL THEMES
1. DATASPACE ECOLOGY AS FIELD OF OPPORTUNITY

DataSpace: A place in which every person, object and space is both a link and a holder of information. DataSpace is the emerging system of intangible environments created by the proliferation of smart tags and other context-aware technologies. In a DataSpace, people are the carriers of place to the spaces they enter. Upon entering a DataSpace, a person transforms that space through the chain of links they provide. This transformation is not unidirectional; the space will in turn leave its mark on the person, thus touching all subsequent spaces that person will enter.

DataSpace topologies are generated by the very flow of the people who travel through them. They will shape and be shaped by human experience. Once enabled to do so, people will reveal their needs and wants through their very interactions and behaviours. In an emerging world of omnipresent data, the role of technology will shift radically; technology will become an essential element of the ecosystem, determining its very nature. When places and objects are data enabled they take meaning from people. When meaning is enabled it becomes benefit. In the Enabled Landscape, every different combination of people, devices and places will create a wealth of unique social capital possibilities. Every setting and every interaction will determine a one of a kind ecosystem of opportunity. Presence is proximity and data transfer is potential.

The essential study is not one of forcing opportunity but of simply observing the opportunities enabled by the DataSpace. The crucial question: Upon entering a DataSpace, how do people transform the space itself through the links they provoke?

A PRACTICAL DEFINITION : DataSpace is any perimeter containing communication and data enabled devices, fixtures or structures. A prerequisite for DataSpace is that it contains a minimum of one of the following tactical agents:
Enabled Objects
Enabled Spaces
A third tactical agent of DataSpace is Enabled People, which can be defined as users in possession of a device that enables them to retrieve or transmit data to the objects or spaces in their proximity, as well as to objects and spaces outside the immediate proximity (through a carrier). The proximity of any two enabled entities creates Enabled Data. Enabled Data is a descriptive term for data that has been filtered through personal criteria and has been transformed in Information of benefit to a user.

The data contained by Enabled People, Spaces or Objects is Information of a defined nature, which combined, becomes Knowledge. Once Knowledge is acted upon it becomes Wisdom, or what we refer to as Enabled Data Use. Enabled Data Use is the management and collection of all transaction or location data that can further result in a user benefit. The tactical agents of DataSpace are the Enabled Actors of a DataSpace Network.

DATA TRANSFER
DataSpace expands the scope of transferable data to an unprecedented magnitude. Due to the scale of this data, the obvious question is how and when does this data become information - how do we make sense of it? Every time that data is collected it must be organized for expression and transmission. The transfer conditions should not simply measure access to data; they must also reflect purpose, context and method of request.

2. SOCIAL CAPITAL
Social capital refers to those stocks of social trust, norms and networks that people can draw upon to solve common problems. Social capital is the structure of relationships, the mutual trust between actors and participation in associations. We argue that new social capital is formed by expanding the notion of social networks to include actors previously not engaged, namely objects and spaces enabled to store, transmit and receive data.

3. REMIX CULTURE AS SOCIAL CAPITAL
Remix culture represents a new creative and cultural awareness. Remix has, and will always be, a constant process weaving itself throughout all cultures and society. All at once, remix is both meaningful action and critical response to the environment. Today, remix culture represents a fundamental shift in human behaviour, signaling an undeniable transition from old to new models of learning, consumption, creation, production and distribution. This inspiring transition has for the most part been enabled by the digital information era within which culture is free, fast flowing, mutable, and perhaps most importantly, self-aware.

Remix is response. Remix is all at once a process, an action and a result. Remix represents also a desire and a realization that one is not satisfied with the experience at hand. Remix reflects a knowledge, insight and awareness of the future compatibility and latent potential hidden within two or more independent elements. Remix is a conscious action taken to improve upon the moment or experience at hand, of what has become boring predictable or over familiar.

Digitally literate and capable, re-mixers work, play and learn with completely different values, expectations and relationships with and towards culture and content. Remix culture is empowered to organize around, respond to, locate and subvert established patterns and systems. And Remix is best positioned to generate net worth through a dynamic network, by identifying the emerging capabilities of the elements within a DataSpace system as a source to be sampled, articulated and transformed.

As a social platform, Remix is a constructive learning space where the fundamentals of the current era are mastered in defense and promotion of its own culture, knowledge and value systems. The Remixer's imagination is able to identify and exploit the potential within a sample or a source by leveraging its meaning and message into a new context or genre. The imaginative use and re-use of a sample within a new composition can therefore raise the value of the node. A sliver or niche that can be used to inspire or retrieve a new perspective, highlight and expose a situation or characteristic, make relevant something again, reinforce a deeper or broader message, is of great implicit value. The social capital created will leverage not only its strength but also the potential for its legacy. In the new enabled landscape people, places and things will at all times be the source, sample or loop in somebody else's mix. NETWORK becomes NET-WORTH.

4. TRUST AND RECIPROCITY IN SOCIAL NETWORKS
Reciprocity is a learned and rational response to an action. The actor is responding to friendly or hostile actions even if no material gains can be expected. It is an appropriate response to beneficial or harmful acts. The value is in the response. The golden rule: treat others as you want them to treat you. How can the Enabled Object and the Enabled Space help me do that?

TRUST
In order to establish benefit and value in social networks, we must enable and leverage trust behaviours in all actors. Trust occurs when an actor has goals and beliefs, intentions and purpose, and requires action to make those manifest.

A complex mental state towards relevance and meaning, trust is crucial in the development of social capital in networks. Without trust, we have difficulty accomplishing goals, building relationships, generating a cohesive understanding of our surroundings and maintaining our value within a network.
As a reciprocal social response, trust defines that we respond to our perceptions of others' behaviours, their motivations, the context of the situation and its social norms, in the hope that they will respond in kind, in a dynamic, continually evolving through new information, interactions, experiences and perceptions.

Trust elicits trust. A mutual trust relationship can diffuse through reputation and repetition to other people. This relationship can then be communicated to others and enhance social capital. Amazon's collaborative filter recommendation system is a mirror: what did others like me buy?

5. MORE ACTORS MORE TRUST
In the course of human relationships, we trust because we need to feel that the group will protect our propagation. A trusted environment is one in which we feel safe to act in. In this, objects and places perform only the role of conduits: they trust or not trust FOR OURSELVES and because of OURSELVES. Collaborative filters are trusted because they are about OURSELVES. They reveal what people "just like me" have purchased as well. However, trust is not an end in itself.

Enabled Actors in networks create trust by the size of the collaborative filter they form. The creation of trust is one of the first layers of social capital created by the network. The DataSpace Network represents a Trusted Collective Filter.

6. NEW NETWORKS = NEW VALUE CREATION
DataSpace Networks and their density will reveal new forms of social capital; these new forms will retrieve latent behaviours of reciprocity, exponentially increasing the value of the network, therefore creating greater social capital. This reciprocity will be transformed into net-worth once the taxonomy and ontology of DataSpace is undertaken as a strategic business activity; we see this as a mandatory step in the creation of value which is at the core of the monetization opportunities of any social network.

While there is a rush to enable and monetize technologies before creating value by giving it meaning, we propose that the creation of value as social capital is the principal benefit that can be commoditized in order to be monetized.

Monetization
We propose a dynamic relationship of reciprocity: there is a relationship between Enabled Actors in a DataSpace, relationship in which each actor has access to the Social Capital (SOCCAP) of the other actor and has the ability to leverage its network to the fullest at a given time. Each actor in turn feeds off of the moment taking advantage of the potential links of the other actors and depositing SOCCAP credits proportionate to the value each actor's response adds to the network. Simply, one is rewarded in response to how deeply they can unfold what actor can be. A monetary transaction happens at the intersection between these two interdependent dynamically unfolding identities. One may make or lose money depending on how relevant each one is to each other at a specific moment.

7. INFORMATION AS CAPITAL VALUE
People find value only in the objects, spaces and ideas that allow them to propagate their organization. Only "What has Value to ME" is Value! It is about me in Direct, Indirect and Shared ways. Technology is "about me" in the sense of how does this tool help me propagate who I am? At the core, the primary motivation expressed by propagation of organization is shared by all creatures as well as by our forms of social organization.

Propagation of Organization. Ecologies are composed of various organisms that continually interact with one another, developing relationships and responses to other each other and their environment. They collaborate and compete, adapting their physiological, technical and cognitive behaviours to propagate their organization, perpetuating the survival and success of those behaviours.

Humans propagate their organization in exactly the same way as individuals as well as groups. We adapt and tailor our behaviours to enable the continuation of our technologies, knowledge, and culture. We seed every encounter with a collaborative and competitive reciprocity, motivated by the intrinsic desire to propagate ourselves. The social value occurs when these behaviours are produced, reproduced and transformed throughout, as the imprint disperses.

As creatures, we always lived in an Information Age. Each of our generations had its own Age; It is our perpetual state of biological being. From passing on information as DNA, to following directions to find food, it is and always was about information. Our images are about information. Our transmitted knowledge as culture is about information. Animals are all about information as well. Where is the Sun, and I will turn toward it? Where is the flock going and I will go with it? We are seeking to transmit the information than has to do with US, with how we survive and how we propagate. Everything else is either a diversion or a tool that helps us transmit or retrieve information about ourselves. Any ontology of DataSpace needs to understand and connect with these basics.

PROPAGATION OF ORGANIZATION = PROPAGATION OF INFORMATION
The SELF is the CENTRE. The SELF is the viewpoint from which we create a Perspective of the World. This is why what we want to propagate is OUR information. This explains blogging, mySpace, as well as youtube videos. They are the means by which we fulfill our hunger to inform others about ourselves.

Social Networks are about how OUR INFORMATION relates to others in a given group. Value in information is always related to the Self. The information that has value is only the information that teaches, speaks, refers to the self or to the ones the self is protecting or cares about. Social Networks are not ends in themselves but conduits for the larger purpose of Self Expression in the service of propagation.

8. THE VALUE IN OBJECTS
Objects have specific value to individuals for specific reasons and they have potential general value to groups – or the network for different reasons. A set of keys has value only to the owner of the locks the keys open. – or to anyone that knows which key opens which lock and it is interested in the contents.

The same set of keys on a key ring has an assigned value deriving from the key ring, which can be of a design or markings that can be desired by someone other than the owner of the locks. Consequently, the social capital that the keys on a key ring brings to a network is the keys + the key ring, multiplied by the number of individuals for which the ring has value. The ring increases the capital. What is more interesting, the capital is for all practical purposes immaterial- the design of the ring does not perform any practical function. Extrapolating this to other person/artifact situations will result in defining the value opportunities in person/object/place networks.

Any Enabled Actor should detect context and up its value by adding new content of value to the network of which it is temporarily a part of. In a network of 6 -12 year olds the Enabled Object will add Winnie the Pooh features which are of value to the group, while in a network of golfers it will display the latest golf scores from the US Open.

Value and its Role in Taxonomy/Ontology Definitions
You cannot define a space by what architectural features you see; you need to know what people do there. The social value of a space resides in what we do there, what transforms it in "place". Same can be said about objects; their value resides in who is using it and for what purpose. The value of networked objects is exponential with network size and composition. Objects will know the capabilities of other objects like them. How does social capital value in a network changes when we introduce Enabled Objects in that network? Traditionally, objects allow individuals to make manifest their value thus contributing to increasing the social capital of the network. The object also allows for an individual to self-actualize his potential.

Objects mean something somewhere, but may not have the same meaning anywhere else. Objects have meaning in some way or another – they have intrinsic potential value. As these "topologies" are mental constructs then they can be challenged and shaped. In DataSpace, Enabled Objects and Enabled Spaces can be shifted around like letters in an alphabet, remixed to create new stories, and structures with new opportunities, to do anything.

CONTEXT IS THE VALUE VARIABLE
What is the difference between us and our objects? Our objects are us as they serve to propagate us, as they serve to enhance us, as they serve to augment the Self. We look at people, place object as distinct when in effect they are one: People are actualized through object and place. We exist and produce through objects and places. Objects do not exist without People. Nor do Places exist without what makes them meaningful – and that is People.

If we bring place to space then WE ARE PLACE. Being European does not mean living in Europe. It means that Europe lives in You. We are object and We are Place. We actualize through both. Beethoven includes the piano, Gretzky includes skate, puck, ice and stick. He is actualized through objects and places – he is made not a human being but Gretzky. Consequently, introducing objects that allow Gretzky to manifest his Gretzky-ness in a network increases the value of that network by the amount we value Gretzky's skills with a stick on ice. Other individuals need less to be actualized; Carlos Santana needs just a guitar. Objects introduced in a network allow people to participate with what they know as well as with WHAT THEY CAN DO with the object. With traditional objects, the social capital of the network depends on physical proximity of the participants. With Enabled Objects, a DataSpace Network is created in which physical proximity is not necessary. Value resides in what the Enabled Objects know, in what Enabled People can do with that knowledge as well as in the value the Enabled Object brings as an avatar of other objects.

We are proposing that Enabled Objects can become the avatars of ANY object; then Enabled Objects bring to the DataSpace Network a value which is exponential to the Objects they are the Avatars of.
Every object can perform as every other object at any given moment of need. The value resides in the use of it as what it is not. Shifting value. Objects will have complementary avatars – to do what they cannot. Everything is Everything Else that makes sense.

VALUE IN ENABLED TRACES
Aside from the physical "codification" of objects and spaces, human beings leave traces of ourselves in our wake. We construct through our behaviours a digital shadow; we can see the beginnings of this in "the paper trail" or now, bit trails of surveillance cameras, credit cards and cell phone use, computer use. In this emerging ecology these ethereal Traces are the currency, they are what is spliced and recombined, traded and circulated, the social capital of which the value is variably dependent on context.

Behavioural traces, emotional traces, cognitive traces, social traces. The value of these traces will be determined by their relevance to the moment, how critically they are to the moment, how "helpful they are in that context. Everyplace is my place because every object is the object I need right now. DataSpace and the networks it will render, will let us create value by doing what comes naturally, just being.

ENABLED OBJECTS AND ENABLED SPACES AS TRACES
DataSpace is primed to become the substrate of our propagation, an active entity of our communal chorus of political and economic, social and cultural activity. DataSpace is not about the objects, or spaces themselves, but about their new capacity as socio-cultural barometers. In this sense, objects and spaces will be active participants in the co- production of meaning. The living room, the café, are all mental constructs, object topographies are a platform for a prescribed framework of experience, each with unique culturally formed behavioural expectations. These are social networks of objects and spaces. Within DataSpace, new links between "unrelated" objects or spaces could be forged through the social capital they can offer to outside social circles.

Objects and spaces and the built environment, are rich with associations; they are the residues of behaviours, which are socially formed. They are the product of communal ideas and energy so much so that we can see and feel them. They are the first "traces". They are contextual triggers.

9. VALUE AT THE MEETING OF OBJECT AND CONTEXT
DataSpace represents a world in which the physical and the digital are linked not through dedicated and stationary nodes, but through every person, place and object. As digital platforms become distributed and connected, the experiences that they enable become increasingly significant. The expansion of isolated digital platforms toward a connected virtual ecology will obsolesce the term "virtual experience".

In this evolving notion of place, purpose and identity, all aspects of life can occur simultaneously in physical and digital space. The tension of this duality will change the way we perceive and define our environments, our communities, our tools and ourselves.

THE OBJECT IS CONTENT AND CONTENT IS CAPITAL
These mobile physical elements will possess digital traces and traits which will allow them to be searched, filtered, and aggregated; and they will have the ability to contain, retrieve, receive and transmit data. Their intelligence and presence will create new languages and opportunities within the built environment, modes which can be articulated and shaped by what is close and what is capable. These new languages will not only create new relationship models between objects, spaces and people, through shared history and experience, but ultimately, they will strengthen the relationships between people.

10. ACTORS IN CONTEXT CREATE NEW CONTENT
We create and participate in dynamic social ecologies, unique and shared networks of knowledge, culture and economy that inform our experiences and shape our existence, giving purpose to our lives. In the current social climate, these ecologies are developing in astonishing and unforeseen ways, adapting, collaborating and competing with each other to ensure that their relevance and legacy will survive. Like any living system, our social ecologies continually expend and exchange energy to propagate their organization, leveraging their social capital, their available resources and relationships, to benefit and strengthen their relationships and overall dynamic. However, until very recently, people were the only participants in a network with the ability to express and alter their current or desired intent; the spaces and objects around us were unable to autonomously collaborate or adapt to new circumstances or contexts. But the paradigm has shifted: objects and spaces are in the process of adapting, collaborating and leveraging themselves to ensure their own survival and contribute to the overall health of the network.

What can we do to negotiate these emerging dialogues, when the objects and spaces cease being they and instead become we, when all creatures become creators?

11. NEW CAPABILITIES: WHAT ELSE CAN I BE?
The capability to recognize, articulate and transform the purpose and scope of our experience, to provide maximum benefit to all participants, is not to be found within new technological applications or interfaces, but within the latent human behaviours they retrieve, and how those behaviours are leveraged to strengthen and affect the system at hand.
In DataSpace all objects could be empowered with the ability to transmit not only their location and capability, but also their composition. Since these signals are remotely retrievable the constituent elements could be located, sorted and efficiently repurposed from anywhere. In this context, the existence of a material in any form will generate and answer the implicit question "where else could I be?" – or more accurately "what other place could I make for you right now?"

Conclusion
Technology itself does not create behaviours in individuals, groups or organizations; rather the behaviours are latent within them until the technologies and the contextual circumstances co-create the opportunity for it to manifest. It requires both the bicycle and the Tour de France to retrieve a Lance Armstrong; the tool must mesh with the network for a champion to emerge. Ultimately, the manifest behaviour (the social capital) will propagate itself -be leveraged- only when the affordances of both the behaviour and the network inform a mutual and evolving dialogue.

In the context of a DataSpace, where the elements have a shifting and adaptive agency, how can we anticipate, map and influence future opportunities in content and experience? It is becoming more apparent that the traditional methods we use to analyze and maximize the value of the network's complexity, pattern and potential are no longer appropriate or accurate: a new lens is required.
Strategic foresight is this lens, the capability required to empower and nurture possibility from multiple perspectives. Strategic foresight concentrates our attention on emergent macro- and micro systems as a means of retrieving behavioural latencies. It unifies the how with the what, the "means" with the "meaning" in the organized exploration of what could be.

In order to enable and retrieve behaviours, leverage core capabilities and exploit DataSpace opportunities, network participants can adapt, sample and modify content - a rendering and response that takes advantage of imaginative potentialities made possible within a content rich DataSpace. The degree to which the elements of DataSpace have been integrated into the social experience, and the opportunities they provide, is the measure of their benefit. This benefit is directly proportional to the actual and potential quantity and quality of nodes within the DataSpace network, and the intrinsic social capital of all actors.


•••

Strategic Foresight seeks to discover the signals that create the patterns of emergence. Emergent behaviour patterns start with very simple acts that get multiplied on a collective scale. One person in a crowd, using his or her cell phone screen as a torch, at the latest U2 concert. And then five thousand cell phone screens, all moving in unison. This is a simple example of a causal effect based on direct feedback. Could the behaviour of the first person doing this be predicted? Could the behaviour of the crowd be predicted?

The answers are no and no or yes and yes, according to how imaginative and playful one wants to be. If we see the cell phone as just another cordless telephone, then the first answer is no. But if we recognize the cell phone as a communication device and if we understand communication as expressing ideas and feelings via multiple means of transmission, than the answer is yes. Understanding the nature of humans and the basic human needs for expression, expansion, community and exchange makes it rather easy to predict the pattern of possible interactions between the crowd at a concert in their use of cell phones as a torches.

A BIT OF HISTORY
On March 10, 1876, in Boston, Massachusetts, Alexander Graham Bell working with Thomas Watson invented the telephone. The device was a crude looking object containing a wooden stand, a funnel, a cup of acid, and some copper wire. This is what the first telephone did not have: a numeric keypad, caller id and call waiting information, full-duplex speakerphone, call waiting display, voice announced caller identification, mailboxes for general and private use with customized greetings, conference transfer 200-name and number call log, built-in hands-free speakerphone , backlit display, busy station indicators, memory keys. And one more thing: there was no system ready and capable of supporting it. Was this telephone a "weak signal"?

ARCHETYPE RETRIEVAL
Telephone comes from Greek: tele, which means from afar and phone which means sound made by voice. So any device that reproduces sounds made by voice over a distance is a telephone. And what is the question for which the telephone is the answer? To answer this question we need to look at both the precursors of the device we now call a telephone, as well as at the behaviours that created them. In this investigation one will soon realize that the history of the telephone is as old as human civilization itself: human beings have always wanted to communicate from great distances. The precursors that have allowed this behaviour to become manifest were light signals, smoke signals, drums, flag signals, carrier birds and various semaphores. These were not about voice but about communication. Specifically, communicating messages about us, our status, where we are now and the quality of our existence in this place. It is important to note while retrieving the precursor and behaviour archetype of communication from afar, that the first "telephone" – the first transmission of condition over a distance - was a visual signal.

Now think of the most frequently asked question in a telephone communication over the past 75 years – "Can you hear me?" Two words are key to uncovering the deep behaviour archetype of the telephone: one is the word hear, a verb, the other is the word me, a pronoun. The verb is a reflection of the phase of technological development in which the transmission took place. For all purposes, the technology is transitory and hear was soon to be replaced with see. The verb(s) represents the technology of the moment.

The how and not the what and why. More often than not, companies dedicate a large amount of innovation effort aimed at adding value to the how. This is a tactical innovation; it protects the how against competitors.

The pronoun is more revealing: me. It refers to me. It is about me. It is about my personality and the things I wish to communicate to you, over distance at this moment and from this place. Give me more technology and I will use more verbs as I will want you to hear ME, see ME, smell ME, feel ME…I want, need, desire all the technology that will empower me, that will expand my capability and allow me to actualize all I want to express of my emotions, of myself, to you. To communicate my condition to you, where ever you may be. In other words the what and the deeper why. This is the field of Strategic Innovation, where value is created and pre competitive positions are established. So, What is the question for which the telephone was the answer? How do I express myself to you wherever you may be? And in this effort of expressing all of myself, I will use any technology that you, the telephone, the current technology, make available to me. I will use a photo camera, I will use video, I will use sounds, smells, motions, vibrations, flashing lights, ANYTHING that technology can and will invent and enable me to actualize "me" expressing myself to "you" more completely.

From this, we gain the insight that allows us to forecast the future of what we now call a cell phone: the future of the cell phone is its past enhanced and actualized by current technology. Or, in a more generic definition: The future of an artifact is a measure of its capability to create the experience most conducive to emerge our latent behaviour, and the desires that shape who we are in our best representation. Unfolding the future is not about technology signals; it is about signals in us.

THE CAPABILITY TO EXPLORE POSSIBILITY
In a January 23, 2006 speech at the Ford Motor Company Business Review, Bill Ford, Chairman and CEO, Ford Motor Company, stated the needed change in the company's stale business model: "We're going to figure out what people want before they even know it – and then we're going to give it to them." Ford's statement is the opportunity and case for strategic creativity. Individuals and organizations expert at identifying latent behaviours and the shape of the technology experience that will allow them to emerge, will become indispensable to organizations in the next decade. Strategic Creativity is this new capability, bridging the gap between humanities, business, science, technology and the social sciences. Strategic foresight explores the significant possibilities at the intersection of new technology and emergent latent behaviour. The exploration of possibility requires imagination as a prerequisite for strategic change and innovation.

IMAGINATION AS A SPACE OF POSSIBILITY
On October 12, 1492, at dawn, a fleet of three ships - the Niña, the Pinta, and the Santa María – had first sighting of land since leaving Spain, two months earlier. The place was close to San Salvador, in the Bahamas. The people that greeted Columbus called it Guanahan. They were the Taíno, an indigenous culture who lived peacefully as farmers and fisherman. They traveled in dugout canoes, trading with other islands and sharing a common language while sustaining sensitive and respectful relationships with their environment. They were led by the Cacique, the chief, and advised by the Bohique, the village shaman.

When Columbus and his men landed, the Taino greeted them with gifts of food and drink. They had never before seen white men, fully clothed with beards, and carrying all the fanfare of the Spanish Conquistadors. Accounts of the meeting emphasize the curiosity of both parties to learn about the other, although their agendas (especially that of the Spanish) may be questionable. However, after some time, the Taino and the Spanish found a way to communicate, and proceeded to ask questions about each culture.

One unexplained detail bothered the Taino about the Spanish...
"How did you get here?" they asked.
"Well, we got here on these three big boats that you can see over there", replied the Spanish.
"What boats? We can see no boats!"

Puzzling? Not necessarily. While the Taino were not blind, they had never encountered such enormous boats, and had no way to understand what one of that size meant. They could look at it for hours and still not be able to see it. The Bohique of that village -the trickster - looked at their puzzled faces and said,
"Close your eyes, and I will describe the boats to you". The Trickster was creating a space in their imagination for the possibility of a boat that big. The trickster was acting as a medium into the unseen possibilities, asking them to see with their mind first and with their eyes second. He knew that imagination creates meaning; one cannot see what one cannot imagine.

MEANING AND METHOD
Meaning is what humans create to construct a sense of reality- we are meaning making machines. We constantly try to make sense of our life by forming schemas about our experiences, actively constructing a context for identity that varies from person to person. These individual perceptions are what we base our values, goals, and aspirations on, and, in turn, those drive our behaviour and preferences. In short, the way we create meaning defines who we are and the choices we make.

But how does something become meaningful? How does it become attached and integrated? We can make meaning by looking at how something connects to the world around us, and by how something connects to each of us. More than anything, for something to be meaningful that connection has to be immediately relevant, what will this mean for my life and me? How does this "new thing" fit, change or enhance the ecology of my life and that of my behaviour?

THE DYNAMIC SYSTEM ECOLOGY OF BEHAVIOUR
A system is a set of imposed constraints on a set of variables. The word "constraints" can be misleading in this context and often seen as a negative. It is a summary of what we may call parameters, boundaries, rules of conduct, controls or operators. Typical system representations are the places and situations we encounter everyday at work, at leisure, at home.

The office, the workplace, the classroom and the baseball field are a few examples of such systems. Each one contains variables, and the rules that make them work in a way that is for the common good of all involved in the system. In the workplace, the variables are the space, the furniture, the equipment present and used, and the people using it. The constraints or rules of behaviour between variables are contained by both the physical relationship between furniture, technology and the space as well as the set relationships between the people inhabiting the space. Within the office environment we engage in actions that are seen as common for the time, place and objective to be satisfied. These actions set our behaviour range.

On the baseball field, the behaviour range is a different one and it is determined by the constraints of the rules of the game, inclusive of both the type of equipment used by the players as well as the manner in which the game is played. The variables are the players, the time of day, the temperature and the general conditions including field conditions. In the sport of high jumping, some of the variables are the jumper, the height of the bar, the landing pit contents, the time of day, the lighting conditions, the style the jumper chooses to perform in order to clear the bar, and the gallery. The constraints are the maximum distance; the jumper can run before the jump; the distance between the bar and the landing pit; and the minimum distance he must clear for a successful jump.

In cognitive behaviour, any of the systems described above are referred to as the "Task Environment": the environment that dictates and controls the task we are engaged in while in it. The combination of variables and constraints in this task environment defines our behaviour range in that specific environment. Everything within the range is seen as common. Everything outside the range of what we have defined as "normal" according to social norms in the Task Environment is considered as deviant.

The dynamic system ecology of behaviour is a system of continual change and adaptation in which each new variable entering the system – each new technology, each new individual- appends its own constraints, which in turn modify and expand the existing constraints of the variables already present in the system.

This dynamic enhances the common behaviour mode characteristics – what we have taken as the norm up to the point of the entry of a new variable - through new sets of dispositions and expectations, which become new constraints to be satisfied. By satisfying the combination of new and old constraints, we are engaged in movement leading to growth and the manifestation of new human potential.

THE COMMON MANIFEST BEHAVIOUR MODE
The actions and tasks we perform and we can observe everyday in a given task environment are referred to as the common manifest behaviour mode. In this mode the manifest variables satisfy the constraints defined by the given system as common. Common in this context refers to the manner of conducting yourself towards other people and other variables present in the given environment within the normative constraints defined as "common" or "for the common good". (Belonging to or participated in by a community as a whole; public; for the common good; common to or shared by two or more parties)

In the common manifest behaviour mode, any NEW variable introduced into the system - such as a new technology, or a new piece of furniture, or a new employee – is subjected to the same constraints (same rules, benchmarks, questions) as all the OLD variables present in the system. The new variable should provide the answer to the question "what is the problem for which the new variable is a solution?" How does this change, help or impede what I have always done.

FRAMES OF INQUIRY
In the common behaviour mode we pursue inquiry to uncover meaning by looking at the capability of a new variable - a new innovation, a new piece of equipment, etc - to be a solution to a defined or yet undefined problem. The capacity of a solution to be relevant to perceived problems in the common behaviour mode is the measure by which the variable is assigned value and meaning.

Rubber foam was the new variable introduced in the high jump drop pit box to replace sand, wood shavings and air filled bladders. Thousands of high jumpers and their coaches treated foam as if it was sand or any of the old materials used in the pit to absorb the impact of the fall. They applied to foam the same constraints as they applied to everything else; in effect, foam was seen as being the same solution to the problem of landing softly in the pit. In this Problem / Solution space we do not assign new meaning and new constraints to new variables but we make them work better. For years after the introduction of foam rubber in the landing pit the standard high jumping technique called the straddle remained virtually unchallenged. Until Dick Fosbury. For Fosbury the foam was a trigger towards the mastery of a new way to jump: the Fosbury Flop.

Fosbury perfected a style that has the jumper approach the bar with his back to it, doing a modified scissor-kick and going over the bar backwards and horizontal to the ground. A soft landing on the jumpers back requires plenty of cushioning. And the foam provides just that. Fosbury took creative advantage of the characteristics of foam rubber by exploiting the knowledge that the new variable brought about a new set of constraints. Constraint is seen here as a property of allowable use: as such, it is in fact an opportunity.

In the Common Manifest Behaviour Mode – such as the behaviour that characterizes the straddle style high jump - we use creativity to improve our condition. In this mode, creativity results in tactical innovation But we must first recognize the different nature of a new variable. The Fosbury Flop is a proven tactical innovation: it exposes a minimum of the body to the bar at any one time. It takes advantage of the body's symmetry because both arms and both legs are doing the same thing, at the same time in a straight line. In this technique the jumper can run harder towards the bar, decelerating less and achieve more power from the ground.

THE FULL BEHAVIOUR MODE
The full behaviour mode is the mode that includes the variables of both manifest as well as latent behaviour subjected to a new set of constraints specific to a moment in time. The principle here is that a new artifact - idea, environment, object or technology - reveals the latent behaviour of its users. The artifact reveals the master. The foam – as the new variable in the landing pit- revealed the full mastery of Dick Fosbury's technique. By combining the constraints of the old variables with the constraints of the new variable, Fosbury entered into a full behaviour mode, the mode in which he allowed himself to be revealed and enhanced by a new technology, a mode in which he could attempt self-actualization. He understood that the landing on foam WAS PART of the high jump. In this mode Fosbury's creativity resulted in a strategic innovation.

Technology artifacts are not only an extension of our human capability, but also a means by which we discover the new limits of our capacity. What we are capable of and the manner in which we are capable. This is consistent with Carl Roger's "self concept" and the humanistic view of psychology. According to Rogers (1951, 1959) the most basic striving of an individual is toward the maintenance, enhancement, and actualization of the self. For thousands of high jumpers active at the competitive level in Fosbury's time, the foam was seen only as a means to maintain something they were already doing. To Fosbury, the foam represented the possibility of enhancing his performance toward self-actualization: the best he could become.

"The problem with something revolutionary like that was that most of the elite athletes had invested so much time in their technique and movements that they didn't want to give it up, so they stuck with what they knew," Fosbury said. It took a full decade before the flop began to dominate the sport.

Ideas, events and many other new variables in our environment can also be triggers that allow our latent behaviours to emerge. We engage in a full behaviour mode every time we see a movie or we read a fiction story. Both movies and stories are expert at constructing triggers for emerging latent behaviour – be that fear, love, hate, desire for revenge, etc. Both serve as operating platforms that connect common manifest behaviour with latent behaviour.

SIGNALS AND THE BEHAVIOUR MODES
The hardest thing to see is what is in front of your eyes.
Goethe.

The "weak signal" methodology was developed by Igor Ansoff in order to improve strategic planning management practices and make organizations attentive to "weak-signals". Weak signals discovery, monitoring and interpretation are vital capabilities to business strategy, futures research, communication research, research on international security and international politics and more. According to Ansoff, "weak signals" are often inexact and difficult to observe or understand. "When a threat/opportunity first appears on the horizon, we must be prepared for very vague information, which will progressively develop and improve with time".

Ansoff defined five stages of a "weak signal":
1) the sense of threat/opportunity,
2) the source of threat/opportunity is known,
3) the shape of threat/opportunity is concrete,
4) the response strategies are understood and
5) the outcome of response is forecast-able.

The five stages assume that the signal is more often than not a change in technology, a disruption, and an event outside ourselves. Current weak signal definitions see the individual as a receiver, as a spectator to the change that is about to take place. The earlier the interaction between the receiver and the signal takes place, the more involved individuals and organizations are in shaping their own future. This view does not recognize that the signal could manifest itself in the behaviour of the people themselves and that the emergence of a latent behaviour is in effect a signal.

Others have suggested that weak signals usually come from the periphery, as half-hidden ideas or trends. In other words the burden is on the signal: it is the signal that is weak and not the organization unable to detect it. This view discounts the fact that the foam rubber pads were introduced in the high jump pit in front of everybody. The foam was in plain sight. And so was the flop. The weakness was that of individuals and not of the signal itself.

THE BEAL THEORY OF SIGNALS
We believe that signals are not at the periphery of present day reality. Signals are in our midst. The weakness of individuals and organizations in recognizing the meaning and the potential of signals – be they in emerging technologies or emergent behaviour - comes from the limits of their rational boundaries as dictated by the Task Environments in which individuals and organizations operate. The Task Environment defines the set of perceptual and cognitive constructs that dynamically frame our experience and expectation, changing and shifting with the integration of new or newly perceived signals. The weakness comes from treating signals as novelties with potentially little impact on the present. These signals surround us, and until we assign meaning, value and intensity to them, they are neutral. As if they do not exist. However, in the Task Environment we only able to infer meaning to these signals through the analysis of content, context, and history, and the versatility to synthesize this information.

Thus the Problem Space is created – the space in which every variable must be a solution to an identified or yet unidentified problem, but a solution it must be. If a new variable does not present a solution, then it has no meaning in that particular Task Environment. The first Taino setting his eyes on the Pinta would have had a hard time finding the problem for which such a large boat was a solution. In the Taino space, and in the Taino common manifest behaviour mode, such a large vessel was not only a practical impossibility for them, but did not present a solution to any of the problems the Taino could define. Therefore the boat became invisible. And without meaning.

Because we are traditionally taught to make signals make sense with efficiency and reason, we seek out and identify recognizable or familiar signals at the expense of unknown or strange signals. We may dismiss these strange signals because of our reticence or inability to redefine the process of expectation, to imagine their possibility. This inability to see beyond the boundaries of rationality is the Imagination Gap – a gap between current intellectual and technical capability and current possibility for an individual or a group.

The Beal Theory of Signals proposes the creation of a new space, the Temporary Play Space, enabling individuals to amplify the scope of their vision by creating a platform where possibility can exist and can be explored. And since the eye cannot see what the mind does not understand; a new space must be created in the mind, a space that allows for the possibility of a gigantic boat. That space is in one's imagination.

This is the creation of a new platform allowing for a full behaviour mode, a platform in which common manifest behaviour can be connected with released latent behaviour.

This is the creation of the capability to see the boat.

In Temporary Play Space every disruption, innovation or emerging behaviour – every signal - is revealed to contain from its inception four folds: Precise, Undeniable, Intuitive and Sensed.

FOUR FOLDED SIGNALS
In "Scenarios, Strategies and the Strategy Process" Kees van der Heijden recounts a passage from the movie "Lawrence of Arabia". It is a scene in which Lawrence and his guide are taking a rest at a well during a trip through the desert. They are thirsty, tired and very hot when they barely see a small, almost imperceptible speck on the horizon. As they sit around, the speck grows, moving toward them, coming closer and closer. This is a story about a sensed signal about to become precise. One can intuitively distinguish a form – it is a rider on a camel – and in time, both Lawrence and his companion can undeniably declare that this is a man, with a gun, on a camel. As van der Heijden puts it "They wait. They watch. They wait. Two guys standing there, not knowing what to do about an approaching unknown." It is not long before the "signal" becomes precise for Lawrence's companion; while attempting to retrieve his revolver, he is shot dead by the approaching rider.

According to van der Heijden this story "illustrates some of the weaknesses of the 'predict and control' approach to decision making and suggests why scenario thinking may help. Having identified an approaching speck on the horizon the decision maker tries to work out what it might be. In the film the two people work hard at it. Various hypotheses are explored. On the other hand nothing much is done in terms of response while they are trying to find the right answer. They assume they need to know what the future will bring before they can work out what needs to be done. "
Would an animal have done nothing? Unlikely. An animal would have been in motion, in action, from the first sighting of the speck on the horizon. And what if the travelers were not Lawrence of Arabia and his guide resting at a well in the desert, but Sony and Vivendi International? And what if the speck was the iPod? Or Nokia and Motorola were at the water well and Skype was the blurry speck on the horizon?

Van der Heijden's example points to the imperative of having the "capability to see the boat". To see, make meaning and understand the implication. And most important: to be provoked to action from the first trace of a signal. As used in strategic foresight, action research is a flexible process that allows the knowledge it discovers to change the parameters of the inquiry itself, and to pursue that which it discovers. This is a process of change and of understanding the nature of the change; informed change in turn informs change. Action informs understanding. And understanding unfolds the signal.

UNFOLDING SIGNALS
In the case of the Taino, this capability would have revealed that behind the precise signal of the boat - its physical presence – one will find it undeniable that the boat contains people; it would have been easy then to intuitively understand that there are, somewhere beyond the horizon, more boats like this one and more people and finally, one could sense that both the people and their boats must come from someplace, a place where they make boats this big and a place that has even more people, probably lots of houses and definitely more boats.

The apparition of the Pinta was a trigger event. It signaled the boat and everything that came with it. In the precise fold the signal is exact, accurate and detailed; it gives the receiver all the data that becomes the needed information to reveal another signal fold: that which is undeniable. That which is real, cannot be ignored or refused, and is of potentially high impact. Experience and context transforms the information into knowledge, and unfolds the intuitive: something is there, it is likely to change, and I have witnessed this before. I need to make a decision. Drawing on knowledge and experience, insight and common sense, I use wisdom, to sense the possibility that the signal brings about. Insights allow for the awareness of that possibility; I can now draw a full picture of the events about to become history.

The capability to map these signal folds in the earliest stages of the apparition of a signal accelerates the understanding of the possibilities resident in the signal, and allows for the appropriate course of action to be chosen. An appropriate course of action will maximize the opportunity – or minimize the threat - for both individuals and society. The ecology of behaviour creates or inhibits the opportunity for latent behaviour. The Ecology of the Temporary Play Space creates opportunity; the Ecology of Common Manifest Behaviour suppresses it.

The Temporary Play Space is a construct that allows for the emergence of latent behaviour faster because new technology is generally encountered in Play Space – in toys, in story telling, in newsprint and books. Our first exposure with technology is by means of the toys we played with as children. In the recent past the electric train, the electric car, the flying discus, the electric boat; today all forms of play on digital consoles. This "wow" moment of the encounter with a new variable is a moment removed from everyday life and from common manifest behaviour. We believe that Emergent Technology and Emergent Behaviour are best understood when explored in the Temporary Play Space.

THE TEMPORARY PLAY SPACE AS PLATFORM FOR POSSIBILITY
The Temporary Play Space is the operating platform where, in the form of Future Scenarios, we can simulate new environments in which common manifest behaviour is connected with latent behaviour.
The Future Scenario suspends the rules of the common behaviour mode creating instead a new set of variables from both manifest and latent behaviour. By combining objects and environments we are familiar with – and to whom we have assigned value and meaning – with objects, technologies, ideas and environments we have never encountered before – the future scenario creates a full behaviour mode with its own individual constraints.

The Future Scenario becomes the fuel of the Temporary Play Space, where imagination can accelerate an ecology of possible meaning without the hindrances and limitations of rational behaviour found in the Problem Space. The Space provides a venue to learn imagination and incorporate its meaning and implication into cognitive behaviour. The premise of the narrative – the future scenario's point of departure – establishes a new set of dispositions and expectations that allow for the emergence of latent behaviour. Future scenarios are not about what technology will do in the future; they are about what we want to do and will be able to do in the future. They are people centered.

By dissolving the rational boundaries of the Problem Space and conventional education, the Temporary Play Space is a platform limited instead only by imagination. A future scenario is a story about people and how they interact with daily life, chores, and objects. It describes interactions with technologies, products and services that do not yet exist. A future scenario describes possibility.


CHARACTERISTICS OF TEMPORARY PLAY SPACE
The Temporary Play Space is a construct that combines the attributes of a compelling experience with the characteristics of play behaviour. The innovation strategy firm Doblin, under the leadership of Larry Keeley, has described (1997) Compelling experience dimensions as having three stages, two transitions and six attributes. The stages are Attraction, Engagement and Extension with Entry and Exit as transitions. The attributes of these stages are Defined, Fresh, Immersive, Accessible, Significant and Transformative.

The space has a distinguishable entry point – a point of departure. The point of departure is attractive and engages the imagination. Take the question "Would you like to be invisible for a certain period of time every day? If the answer is yes, then you have entered the space. A follow-up question might be "How would you use your invisibility?" – this insures that you are now engaged. The attributes of the story – future scenario - need to be definable. One should be able to explain the intent of the narrative with minimum effort to others. This implies a level of emotional and intellectual accessibility. Once emotionally involved in the story, one is immersed and will continue to be so for as long as the experience is significant and presents a continual challenge, but a challenge that can be mastered. Mastery is the reward. (There are clues around, and the mystery can be solved.)

As a compelling experience, the temporary play space uses these dimensions while adding the characteristics of play behaviour.
A Free Engagement: by which the entry in the story space is not obligatory;
Separate: by which the story space is circumscribed within limits of space and time, defined and fixed in advance;
Uncertain: by which no course can be entirely predictable, leaving room for surprise, wonder and discovery;
Unproductive: by which the aim is not to create with that space any goods or any formal elements of wealth;
Governed by rules: by which the space suspends ordinary laws and establishes new legislation, which alone counts; and
Never a Task: by which there are no tasks to be accomplished and benchmarks to be measured against.

FRAMES OF INQUIRY AND BEHAVIOUR MODES
In the full behaviour mode we pursue inquiry to uncover meaning through the capability of a new variable to define the question for which the variable represents the answer. The hypothesis here is that answers have generating – even if sometimes undefined - questions. The ability of a disruption – a new variable - to define a generating question is the measure by which the variable has value and meaning within the Full Behaviour Mode of Inquiry.

Imagine you have just witnessed the landing of a UFO and a huge flying saucer is sitting right in front of your eyes, heat still rising from the hidden engines. What do you see? What is the meaning of this object? You cannot measure it according to old benchmarks – it is not just another form of transportation, it does not present a solution to any of your practical everyday problems. In our task environment the landing of the UFO brings a new variable with, potentially, many new sets of constraints. You are now in a full behaviour mode and the frame of inquiry that will reveal meaning by unfolding the precise signal is "What is the question for which the variable is the answer?

So, What is the question for which the UFO is the answer?

While in the problem/solution frame of inquiry we can find a number of solutions suitable to solving a given problem, in the question/ answer frame there is only one question for which the UFO is the answer. "Is there life on other planets?"

ONLY ONE RIGHT QUESTION
A quick exercise in the Question/Answer frame: take a coin and place it on a table. Show the coin to a friend and then cover it with a book. Ask your friend the following "what is the question for which the coin is the answer? "What's behind this book?

This frame of inquiry results not only in the unfolding of a signal, but also in revealing the meaning and archetypal purpose of an existing human artifact – seen here as any construct of purpose to human behaviour represented by an idea, a space or an object.

Imagine you have to design a new task light. You want to make a statement; you want to define a new classic. In any methodology you chose you would have to start with a question –providing you are not interested in redesigning something that already exists. You will chose a question that will help you get a deeper understanding of what a light is, and hopefully, a new insight that will make your light not only "different" but also meaningful to users. You want them to have a "wow" moment when they see it, but also the "aha" moment when they experience it.

The frame of inquiry you choose will be critical to the end result as well as to the process you choose to get there. In the common behaviour mode we pursue inquiry to uncover the deeper meaning of things through the capacity of the variable to be a solution to a defined problem. In this example the task light we are presently trying to design. This frame of inquiry leads you to ask a question very much like this one:

"What is the problem for which the task light (a lamp) is the solution?"

In the full behaviour mode described earlier, we pursue inquiry to uncover meaning through the capacity of a new variable (the flying saucer) to define the question for which it represents the answer. The hypothesis here is that answers have generating yet undefined questions. And so, "What is the question for which the task light is the answer? Let us look now at where the two frames of inquiry will lead when it comes to the example of developing a new task light.

We have conducted experiments with this question with over two hundred designers, product developers and "think outside the box" practitioners. With very little variation, the process unfolded as follows:

Q. "What is the problem for which the task light is the solution?"
A. "Darkness"

So where does one go from here? How do we improve the task light in a meaningful way, if all we know is that it is a solution to "darkness"? We need to ask another question – actually, a series of questions.

Q. "Why is darkness a problem?"
A. "Because I want to be productive after it gets dark."
Q. "Why do you need to be productive after dark?"
A. "Because I need to finish this project by the end of the week."

We are now three questions into this process and by all appearances, no closer to the insight that may provoke a moment of inspiration leading to the "classic task light" we are seeking.
It is important to note that the sequence in which the questions are asked will greatly influence the direction of the inquiry and the end result. So it is likely that different individuals in different circumstances will arrive at different questions and answers. Some may consider this variability as a sign of individuality and some will see it as a sign of creativity, a capability that we should encourage.
But are any of these answers bringing us closer to the meaning we are seeking? Are we now ready to design this new classic?

So what are the opportunities offered by the inquiry
"What is the question for which the task light is the answer?

ANOTHER ARCHETYPE RETRIEVAL
This is no different that the question asked earlier about the UFO. There is a question that reveals the meaning of the task light; as it was the case with the boat and the telephone, the task light comes from 'somewhere' and it leads "somewhere". We propose that this frame of inquiry results in the discovery of the archetypal purpose of the artifact, its deeper meaning.

So where does the task light come from? As we have done in the example of the telephone, we need to look at the predecessors of the task light, at the archetypes that have helped us achieve our purpose – what ever that purpose might have been - in the absence of daylight. We need to engage in a retrieval journey that will unfold in a very predictable, bias free, research based fashion: What is the predecessor of the task light?

You would have ascertained correctly that it was the lantern. What was the predecessor of the lantern? The candle. And that of the candle? In a very short time you will come up – intuitively or through a quick search- with the torch. So now we have something relevant to ask, something that contains at the core of the query the archetype, the model and the most meaningful representation for all that followed. And so:
"What is the question for which the torch is the answer?

THE MAMMOTH OUTSIDE THE CAVE
We jump back in time 180,000 years. You are, by now, a "Homo Sapiens", part of a group, taking shelter in a cave. You have barricaded the entrance to the cave, terrified by the mammoth parked outside. Soon, you will run out of food. And going out is not an option. Something needs to be done; you need to find something to eat "inside" this cave. But it is a dark and frightening place that you have never ventured into. And you may ask yourself "how can I explore this cave and find something we can eat?" You poke a stick into the firebox, your group's most precious holding. The stick caches on fire, throwing enormous shadows on the walls of the cave. You can "see" the walls. You can see beyond the darkness in front of you just a few moments before. And you have just invented the torch. And the task light.

How can I explore? Did you ever wonder why the Statue of Liberty holds a torch in her hand? And what is the meaning of that torch? And did you know that most university insignias have a torch as one of their central elements? The torch is the symbol for enlightenment and knowledge. The pursuit of a wondrous journey.

"What is the question for which the task light is the answer?" How can I explore, how can I enlighten myself? How can I journey from being to becoming? You are now ready for strategic innovation and ready to develop a new classic.

THE KEY OPPORTUNITY
The opportunity for strategic foresight is in recognizing the different nature of the inquiry that we undertake in different modes of behaviour, and the inherent capacity of one frame of inquiry to generate strategic outcomes.

1. In the common manifest behaviour mode we use creativity to improve our condition. This is the Problem/Solution space. In this space any new variable must be a solution to an identified problem – and creatively, we use the variable to improve the efficiency of our daily tasks with the result creating a Tactical Innovation.

2. In the full behaviour mode we use imagination to transform our world by actualizing our capabilities. This is the Question/Answer space; in this space new variables allow us to imagine and discover new capabilities that reveal latent behaviours and new needs. In the full behaviour mode Imagination results in Strategic Innovation.

•
•
•



Sources:
Ansoff, Igor H. – McDonnell, Edward. (1990). Implanting Strategic Management, Second Edition. Prentice/Hall International Inc.
Blackler, F., (1995), Knowledge, Knowledge Work and Organizations: An Overview and Interpretation, Organizational Studies
Carson, Robert C., Butcher James N.(1992). Abnormal Psychology and Modern Life. Harper Collins Publishers Inc.
Jones, Bryan D.(1999). Bounded by Rationality, Annual Reviews Sci. 2:297-321
Department of Political Science, University of Washington, Seattle, Washington
Heijden, K. van der.(1997) Scenarios, Strategies and the Strategy Process. Centre for Organizational Learning. Research Centers of Universiteit Nyenrode, The Netherlands Business School. Nyenrode Research Papers Series 1997-01
Newell, A. & Simon (1972), H. Human Problem Solving. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall
Newell, A. (1982). The knowledge level. Artificial Intelligence.
Newell, A. (1990). Unified Theories of Cognition. Harvard University Press. Cambridge, Massachusetts.
Rogers, C.R. (1951). Client-centered therapy. Boston: Houghton Mifflin.
Rogers, C.R. (1959). A theory of therapy, personality, and interpersonal relationships as developed in the client-centered famework. In S.Koch (Ed.) Psychology: A study of a science (Vol.3 pp.184-256) New York:McGraw-Hill.