Innovation as history making. ontological design and the  disclosure of the new
Upcoming SlideShare
Loading in...5
×
 

Innovation as history making. ontological design and the disclosure of the new

on

  • 1,000 views

innovation discourses lecture

innovation discourses lecture

Statistics

Views

Total Views
1,000
Views on SlideShare
995
Embed Views
5

Actions

Likes
0
Downloads
22
Comments
0

1 Embed 5

http://innovationinpractice.pbworks.com 5

Accessibility

Upload Details

Uploaded via as Adobe PDF

Usage Rights

© All Rights Reserved

Report content

Flagged as inappropriate Flag as inappropriate
Flag as inappropriate

Select your reason for flagging this presentation as inappropriate.

Cancel
  • Full Name Full Name Comment goes here.
    Are you sure you want to
    Your message goes here
    Processing…
Post Comment
Edit your comment

Innovation as history making. ontological design and the  disclosure of the new Innovation as history making. ontological design and the disclosure of the new Presentation Transcript

  • Innovation in Practice Pilot 2010 Innovation in Practice
  • Innovation in Practice Pilot 2010 DISCOURSES IN INNOVATION 1: DISCLOSING THE (K)NEW: LEARNING, SKILL ACQUISITION AND THE PRODUCTIVIST LIMITS OF INNOVATION THEORY
  • Innovation in Practice Pilot 2010 DISCOURSES IN INNOVATION 1: DISCLOSING THE (K)NEW: INNOVATION AS CREATIVE DESTRUCTION: SCHUMPETER AND BEYOND
  • Innovation in Practice Pilot 2010 DISCOURSES IN INNOVATION 1: DISCLOSING THE (K)NEW: INNOVATION AS HISTORY MAKING: ONTOLOGICAL DESIGN AND THE DISCLOSURE OF THE (K)NEW
  • Benoît Godin Innovation: The History of a Category
  • Genealogical History of the Category of ―Innovation‖
  • Innovation and the “novelty” of human creation
  • Innovation as ―creative novelty‖ is produced by the interrelationship between the three concepts of imitation, Invention, and Innovation
  • Innovation as a “break with the past”
  • Michel Foucault The Archaeology of Knowledge
  • By episteme, we mean. . . the total set of relations that unite, at a given period, the discursive practices that give rise to epistemological figures, sciences, and possibly formalized systems. . . . The episteme is not a form of knowledge (connaissance) or type of rationality which, crossing the boundaries of the most varied sciences, manifests the sovereign unity of a subject, a spirit, or a period; it is the sovereign unity of a subject, a spirit, or a period: it is the totality of relations that can be discovered, for a given period, between the sciences when one analyses them at the level of discursive regularities Foucault, M. (1972) The Archaeology of Knowledge. Trans.Sheridan, A. M. Harper Collins. New York.
  • Michel Foucault The Order of Things. An Archaeology of the Human Sciences The fundamental codes of a culture - those governing its language, its schemas of perception, its exchanges, its techniques, its values, the hierarchy of its practices - establish for every man, from the very first, the empirical orders with which he will be dealing and within which he will be at home. At the other extremity of thought, there are the scientific theories or the philosophical interpretations which explain why order exists in general, what universal law it obeys, what principle can account for it, and why this particular order has been established and not some other. But between these two regions, so distant from one another, lies a domain which, even though its role is mainly an intermediary one, is nonetheless fundamental: it is more confused, more obscure, and probably less easy to analyse. It is here that a culture, imperceptibly deviating from the empirical orders prescribed for it by its primary codes, instituting an initial separation from them, causes them to lose their original transparency, relinquishes its immediate and invisible powers, frees itself sufficiently to discover that these orders are perhaps not the only possible ones or the best ones; this culture then finds itself faced with the stark fact that there exists, below the level of its spontaneous orders, things that are in themselves capable of being ordered, that belong to a certain unspoken order; the fact, in short, that order exists. As though emancipating itself to some extent from its linguistic, perceptual, and practical grids, the culture superimposed on them another kind of grid which neutralized them, which by this superimposition both revealed and excluded them at the same time, so that the culture, by this very process, came face to face with order in its primary state. It is on the basis of this newly perceived order that the codes of language, perception, and practice are criticized and rendered partially invalid. Foucault, M. (1970) The Order of Things. An Archaeology of the Human Sciences. Vintage. New York. p xx- xxi
  • Luc Boltanski and Eva Chiapello The New Spirit of Capitalism
  • ―As an existing concept, constructed around contemporary ideas, technologies and research, associated with a specific vocabulary, models of causality and mathematical models, and formed to offer an alternative to hierarchical algorithms, ‗network' naturally enough finds itself mobilized by capitalism. Employed in academic works in economics and the sociology of work - disciplines that helped to provide management with its theoretical foundations - it was almost bound to invade the literature addressed to cadres that we have studied. This is how the forms of capitalist production accede to representation in each epoch, by mobilizing concepts and tools that were initially developed largely autonomously in the theoretical sphere or the domain of basic scientific research. This is the case with neurology and computer science today. In the past, it was true of such notions as system, structures technostructure, energy, entropy, evolution, dynamics and exponential growth.‖ Boltanski, L and Chiapello, E. (2005) Trans. Ellliott, G. The New Spirit of Capitalism. Verso. London. p. 104
  • Manuel Castells The Network Society
  • Haridimos Tsoukas Complex Knowledge. Studies in Organizational Epistemology
  • Open Ontology/Enactivist Epistemology/Poetic Praxeology The world in which we exist – and thus ―innovate‖ within – can only be truly understood according to the ―complex‖ logic of an: “Open Ontology” as opposed to a ―Closed Ontology‖ – that is a perception of the world or the nature of our existence that sees it as being in a constant state of flux or change, and the future as ―open, unknowable in principle‖ and always holding, ―the possibility of surprise.‖ An “Enactivist Epistemology” as opposed to a ―Representationalist‖ one – that is a perception of the world, or a theory of how we understand it, that recognizes the central role of our own ―enactive‖ participation in its construction, rather than in its ability to transparently ―re-present‖ some absolutely determinable truth or reality. A “Poetic Praxeology” as opposed to an ―Instrumentalist‖ one – that is, similarly to the ―enactivist‖ position, an understanding of how our own individual creative development, utilization of, or taking up of those ―practices‖ that inform those contexts in which we exist, also contribute to the transformation of that background of historically available ―practices‖ that condition those contexts – much in the same way that a poet transforms the language which they use through their utilization of it.
  • Pheonomenology/Pragmatism/Cybernetics/Systems Theory William James - January 11, 1842 – August 26, Heinz Von Foerster born November 13, 1911 – 1910 October 2, 2002 Henri Bergson born, 8 October 1859 – 4 January Stephen Toulmin - 25 March 1922 - 4 December 1941 2009 John Dewey – born October 20, 1859 – June 1, Stafford Beer – born September 25, 1926 - August 1952 23, 2002 Alfred North Whitehead born 15 February 1861 – Humberto Maturana September 14, 1928 – 30 December 1947 Alasdair Macintyre - 12 January 1929 Ludwig Wittgenstein - born 26 April 1889 – 29 April 1951 Richard Rorty – born October 4, 1931 – June 8, 2007 Michael Polanyi - March 11, 1891 – February 22, 1976 George Lakoff - May 24, 1941 Martin Heidegger - born September 26, 1889 – Francisco Varela - September 7, 1946 – May 28, May 26, 1976 2001 Hans-Georg Gadamer - born February 11, 1900 – Charles Taylor - born 28 January 1948 March 13, 2002 Gregory Bateson – born 9 May 1904 – 4 July 1980
  • Process Philosophy, Phenomenology, Hermeneutics, Pragmatism, Cybernetics, Systems Theory, Cognitive Science, Enactive Mind
  • Complex/Emergent/Enactive/Collaborative Clay Shirky - Charles Leadbeater - Chris Anderson - Nassim Nicholas Taleb - Don Tapscott and Anthony Williams
  • Gareth Morgan Images of Organization
  • Catherine Malabou What Should We Do with Our Brain?
  • Slavoj Žižek First as Tragedy, Then as Farce – The “Logic” of “Fetishistic Disavowal”
  • ―Not to replicate the caricature of the world: this is what we should do with our brain. To refuse to be flexible individuals who combine a permanent control of the self with a capacity to self modify at the whim of fluxes, transfers, and exchanges, for fear of explosion. ― ―To ask 'What should we do with our brain?" is above all to visualize the possibility of saying no to an afflicting economic, political, and mediatic culture that celebrates only the triumph of flexibility, blessing obedient individuals who have no greater merit than that of knowing how to bow their heads with a smile.‖ Malabou, C. (2008) What Should We Do with Our Brain? Trans. Rand, S. Fordham University Press. New York.
  • Donald Schon and Chris Argyris Single and Double Loop Learning
  • Single-loop Learning Single-loop learning is an active process of organisational enquiry that results in the modification of the theory-in-use to keep organisational performance within acceptable parameters based on values and accepted norms. The values and norms themselves – the governing variables – are not changed (Argyris and Schön, 1996, p.20). Double-loop Learning Double-loop learning (Figure 1) involves the exploring and sometimes painful reconsideration of values and strategies. This can be done individually or on behalf of an organisation when agents reassess the effectiveness of the organisational values. Double loop learning is a critical part of an organisations culture of it is to maintain unity of vision and purpose during times of conflicting requirements or environmental change.
  • Joseph Schumpeter Innovation as Creative Destruction
  • Henry Chesbrough Open Innovation
  • “Open” vesus “Closed” Innovation
  • Closed Innovation – Centralised R&D The institution of the central research lab and internal product development was thus a critical element of the rise of the modern industrial corporation. Centrally orgaizatized development were central to companies' strategies and were regarded as critical business investments. R&D Functions were a salient feature in the knowledge landscape of the economy, relatively insulated from the universities and small enterprises, relatively unconnected to the government, and largely self- contained.
  • Underlying Logic The logic underlying this approach to innovation was one of closed centralized, internal R&D. At its root, the logic implies a need for deep vertical integration. In other words, in order to do anything, one must do everything internally, from tools and materials, to product design and manufacturing, to sales, service, and support. Outside the fortified central R&D castles, the knowledge landscape was assumed to be rather barren. Consequently, the firm should rely on itself - and not feeble outside suppliers-for its critical technologies.
  • Xerox Similarly, Xerox needed to make its own toner, its own copier, its own light lens, and its own feeding and sorting subsystems in order to deliver high-volume, high-quality xerography to its customers. Because Xerox was pushing mechanical and electrical systems father than anyone else in its applications, there was no available supplier base with which to work. During the early years, Xerox found that it even needed to make its own paper; to get the optimal paper characteristics that would feed well through its copier systems.
  • Erosion Factor 1: The Increasing Availability and Mobility of Skilled Workers Despite the company's dominance, the mobility of disk-drive engineers caused IBM's leadership to erode over time. An engineer named Al Shugart left IBM to go to Memorex, where he helped Memorex improve its hard-disk drives that plugged into IBM mainframe computers. Then he left Memorex to start a company called Shugart Associates' pursuing a new kind of hard-disk drive, the 8 inch disk drive, intended for minimal computers and workstations. Eventually when he fell out with the backers of Shugart, he left to start another new company, called Sea-gate, which made still smaller 5 inch drives for personal computers. With each job change he made, Shugart took a substantial number of people with him to the new company. Each of Shugart's new start-up companies was thus able to hit the ground running.
  • Erosion Factor 2: The Venture Capital Market Prior to 1980, little VC was available in the United States. Although there were start-up companies that arose from people who migrated out of large firms, these new enterprises had to struggle to find capital. The ability of companies to attract older talented staff to due new venture was also impaired by a lack of adequate capital to justify file risk of leaving a well-capitalized company for an unknown start-up company.
  • Erosion Factor 3 : External Options for Ideas Sitting on the Shelf The earlier tensions between the incentives of the research group and those of the development group gave rise to a buffer inventory of ideas sitting on the shelf. The tensions between these functions are not new, but now there is an important difference. As a result of the combination of erosion factors I and 2 there exists a second, outside path to market for many of these ideas.
  • Erosion Factor 4: The Increasing Capability of External Suppliers When companies like IBM wanted to increase the performance of their early mass-storage systems, they found that they could not rely on external suppliers to supply components of sufficient technical capability in sufficient volume with high quality. More generally, companies seeking to create new products and services in the middle of the twentieth century found that the surrounding environment lacked the requisite knowledge, production experience, and financial capital to serve as reliable partners in building the materials, components, and systems needed to serve the market. Thanks to the confluence of Many of the factors already noted, such as tile expansion of universities and university enrollments, the availability of well-trained workers to companies of all sizes, and the increased presence of VC, the external supply base is much more developed that it was prior to WWII
  • Open Innovation New Attitudes, Directions, and Practices The traditional paradigm that companies used to manage industrial R&D is indeed over in most industries. But that does not mean that internal R&D itself has become obsolete. What we need is a new logic of innovation to replace the logic of the earlier period. Companies must structure themselves to leverage this distributed landscape of knowledge, instead of ignoring it in the pursuit of their own internal research agendas. Companies increasingly cannot expect to warehouse their technologies, waiting until their own businesses make use of them. The new logic will exploit this diffusion of knowledge, rather than ignore it. The new logic turns the old assumptions on their head. Instead of making money by hoarding technology for your own use, you make money by leveraging multiple paths to market for your technology. Instead of restricting the research function exclusively to inventing new knowledge, good research practice also includes accessing and integrating external knowledge. Instead of managing intellectual property as a way to exclude anyone else from using your technology, you manage IP to advance your own business model and to profit from your rivals'
  • Innovation in Practice Pilot 2010 DISCOURSES IN INNOVATION 1: DISCLOSING THE (K)NEW: INNOVATION AS HISTORY MAKING: ONTOLOGICAL DESIGN AND THE DISCLOSURE OF THE (K)NEW
  • Disclosing New Worlds: Entrepreneurship, Democratic Action, and the Cultivation of Solidarity
  • Hubert Dreyfus – Fernando Flores – Charles Spinosa
  • Hubert Dreyfus Phenomenological Philosophy and critique of Artificial Intelligence
  • Fernando Flores Engineer, Economist, Politician, Systems Theorist, Cybernetician, Business Consultant.
  • Terry Winograd and Fernando Flores Understanding Computers and Cognition. A New Foundation for Design
  • Francisco Varela and Humberto Maturana Autopoiesis and Cognition. The Realization of the Living.
  • Purpose or aims… are not features of the organization of any machine (allo or autopoietic); these notions belong to the domain of our discourse about our actions, that is, they belong to the domain of descriptions, and when applied to a machine, or any system independent from us, they reflect our considering the machine or system in some encompassing context. Maturana, Humberto and Varela, Francisco. 1980. Autopoiesis and Cognition: The Realization of the Living, Dordrecht: D. Reidel
  • J.L. Austin How to Do Things With Words
  • John. R. Searle Speech Act Theory
  • ―Performative Utterances‖ and ―Illocutionary Acts‖ For both Austin and Searle language does not simply ―re-present‖ some ultimately verifiable reality, truth, or fact that it unproblematically mediates - and can thus be consensually agreed upon – indeed as Austin originally points out this ―truth- value‖ concept of language is only one part of the nature and function of language. It also – in terms of what both he and Searle will ultimately call ―illocutionary acts‖, ―performative utterances‖, or ―speech acts‖ – also embodies or ―performs‖ reality, facts, or truths rather merely communicating them. Iconic examples of this are sentences like: "I take this man as my lawfully wedded husband" where the sentence is not being used to describe or state what one is 'doing', but being used to actually 'do' it.
  • Types of Speech Acts
  • Action Technologies
  • Pluralistic Networks
  • Charles Spinosa Professor of English, Comparative Literature, and Business Consultant
  • Haridimos Tsoukas Complex Knowledge. Studies in Organizational Epistemology
  • Open Ontology/Enactivist Epistemology/Poetic Praxeology The world in which we exist – and thus ―innovate‖ within – can only be truly understood according to the ―complex‖ logic of an: “Open Ontology” as opposed to a ―Closed Ontology‖ – that is a perception of the world or the nature of our existence that sees it as being in a constant state of flux or change, and the future as ―open, unknowable in principle‖ and always holding, ―the possibility of surprise.‖ An “Enactivist Epistemology” as opposed to a ―Representationalist‖ one – that is a perception of the world, or a theory of how we understand it, that recognizes the central role of our own ―enactive‖ participation in its construction, rather than in its ability to transparently ―re-present‖ some absolutely determinable truth or reality. A “Poetic Praxeology” as opposed to an ―Instrumentalist‖ one – that is, similarly to the ―enactivist‖ position, an understanding of how our own individual creative development, utilization of, or taking up of those ―practices‖ that inform those contexts in which we exist, also contribute to the transformation of that background of historically available ―practices‖ that condition those contexts – much in the same way that a poet transforms the language which they use through their utilization of it.
  • Disclosing New Worlds: Entrepreneurship, Democratic Action, and the Cultivation of Solidarity
  • The most original or primordial way in which we encounter our world - or ―ontologically disclose‖ it – is through our ―practical‖ engagement with it rather than studying its formal characteristics.
  • Truly innovative or ―history making‖ modes of disclosure are ones in which our conventional modes of understanding, ―practice,‖ or ―being-in-the-world‖ are completely transformed.
  • The three main ways in which we can engender this process: Articulation, Cross-appropriation, and Reconfiguration. ―Articulating is the most familiar kind of style change. It occurs when a style is brought into sharper focus… All articulating makes what is implicit explicit.‖ This is usually done through a process of ratification, refinement, and expediency. Cross-appropriation takes place when one disclosive space takes over from another disclosive space a practice that it could not generate on its own but that it finds useful. The example that they provide for this is like when a technology like a mobile phone that was originally designed or conceived for a business context gets adopted by the wider community and carries with it all ―affordances‖ and modes of behaviour or use that are/were central to that technology. Or alternatively when the ―logic‖ of human rights and equal opportunity are mobilized by women in order to demand gender equality. ―Reconfiguration is a more substantial way in which a style can change. In this case some marginal aspect of the practices coordinated by a style become dominant..‖ The examples that they provide for this are like when, with the advent of modern machine technology, the process through which a rider ―governed‖ a horse and tried to ―symbiotically‖ guide it, turned into a relationship of control with the automobile, or a master craftsman who had to respect the limitations and constraints of the materials that he used could seemlessly bend them according to his will or when curiosity and play turns into ―non-productive‖ facinated absorption of the internet.
  • John F. Kennedy Connection of the ―logic‖ or ―identity‖ of the ―frontiersman‖ or the ―pioneer‖ that was so deeply entrenched within the American psyche with that of the astronaut and the exploration of the ―final frontiers‖ of space.
  • Indra Nooyi Chairman and CEO of PepsiCo The feminist ―cross-appropriation‖ of the ―logic‖ of various forms of social organization, equality, and rights has created an entire new way of both dealing with and thinking through the questions of gender equality.
  • The Internet The ―non-productive‖ but essential nature of curiosity and play in learning is turned into fascinated absorption and our concepts of identity and subjectivity are ―morphed‖ almost unrecognizably
  • Dear Chauncey: As we discussed, I am in the process of starting a new enterprise that takes the work that we have done together in the past to the ―next frontier‖ if you will, by putting it in the center of what people need to cope and thrive in the reality of our world today. I have no doubt that the work we did together in the past, at Action Technologies and Business Design Associates, was world class work. Among other things, we invented The Coordinator, we developed a theory of communication and conversation, we created a discipline for software design rooted in the claim that an enterprise is a network of commitments, and we created a discipline for process analysis and design rooted in the same claim. Many people have experienced the benefits of learning to be what we called ―the observer of the observer‖ and of developing the capacity to design while fully engaged in action. As you know, the central aspect of our work is the understanding that the world is not a fixed reality. Human beings are not passive Cartesian observers. We are intentional actors, inventors, ‗configurators‘, and interpreters of the world. However, we are not only intentional beings. We are also social and historical beings. We are receptors and inventors of traditions, religions, philosophies, institutions, laws and so forth. For everything, we depend on everyday coordination with others.
  • Paradoxically, people feel more and more isolated in the increasingly global, interconnected world. As our access to information and web-enabled networks grows, and our capacity to connect to other people expands, people are generally more lost as to how to articulate their identities, build a reputation, develop new offers. Many people realize that they don‘t have the skills necessary to navigate in a constantly changing world, but don‘t know what to do about it. Hence, many people live in fear and anxiety about the future, and lack confidence not only in their capacity to cope with the reality at hand, but with our leaders‘ capacity as well. Over and over, despite the best of intentions, we see our politicians making things worse. Yet, there are a few who are not lost. Steve Jobs, Bill Gates, Larry Page and Sergey Brin, are interesting case studies for us of people who have been able to successfully navigate the realities of the world today. None of these men have PhDs in management — two of them did not even finish college — yet, they were receptive to the world around them, knew how to resonate with situations they found themselves in, and they all invented themselves, and their companies accordingly. As Alan Kay once said: ‖ the best way to predict the future is to invent it.‖ But how were these people able to configure the world that they invented? Were they born with this capacity? Why aren‘t there more examples of people like Gates, Jobs, Page and Brin?
  • A simple answer is that our schooling has been focused on the acquisition of knowledge and the application of concepts, but as knowledge becomes a commodity, it is increasingly evident that this is not what we need to cope and thrive in today‘s world. Instead, we need new practices that are not trivial — practices that allow us to cope with an increasingly global, constantly changing world, where communication is instant, and our identities are examined and at risk at all times. As you know very well, practices are new ways of being that evolve over time. To configure and master them requires biological transformation, social mastery and spiritual strength. In our work together, we had some important successes in configuring and bringing new practices to our clients. However, we were limited by the amount of time required to ―cook.‖ Our experience showed that we could produce practical business results for clients, but we could not produce ―embodied wisdom‖ for the individuals we worked with without a significant amount of reflection, a luxury that is not always available for people. On the other hand, reflection alone is not sufficient. If people only study and read about what we are talking about, they will not necessarily learn to act. In the end, learning happens in the body. A person is said to ―know‖ once he or she is able to do something they were not able to do before. As such, immersion in a space where action is required is critical for embodied learning to take place.
  • Technology today, combined with the work that we have done in the past, opens up the possibility to move people quickly from theory to practice, allowing us to produce a significant breakthrough in the embodied learning of skills and practices that are critical for the 21st century. One of the tools that I have been using to teach people to navigate this new world, for example, is games — online social games. Using these games, we have been able to create virtual laboratories for embodied learning where people learn to: work with others in teams; work with other cultures; work across distances; create trust and intimacy with others, particularly with people from different cultures; and develop ―mastery of network orchestration,‖ a new term that I‘ve coined to capture the idea of being able to mobilize many resources in a network, external to an individual or to the organization he or she belongs to.