Participatory Democracy - A plea for intelligent rule setting

by Oebele Bruinsma, Synmind bv

Oebele Bruinsma is also a Knowledge Stream Leader about Trade in Asia at the Summit for the Future - May 3-5, 2006.

In democracies, like any endeavour under the stars, it may pay off to set rules and guidelines. This observation is based on the fact that human knowledge and behaviour are usually flawed. In other words, we should be able to start every new venture with a clean sheet of paper; otherwise the word new is meaningless.

Based on the cliché that transparancy leads to understanding and understanding to knowledge, and knowledge in a number of cases to acceptance, we advance the assumption that rule setting will enhance the acceptance of the game, in this case (participatory) democracy.
From experience it has been shown that chaotic processes when governed by the simpliest of rules will rapidly order themselves, often because it appears the most efficient way of reaching a goal.

A number of examples of such rule setting exercises are being discussed:
1) The football Cambridge rules
2) Rules of evidence based medicine
3) Synmind mental arena rules

The Cambridge rules
In 1848 an 8 hour long meeting with 15 representatives of British colleges and schools produced the first set of modern rules governing the game of football. Before that date it was nearly impossible for schools to play each other, as each school played their own rules.
The universal acceptance of these transparent rules, which are still under development, has contributed in a significant way to the global spread of the world’s most popular game.

Evidence based medicine
Evidence based medical practise is the basis of modern patient treatment. The complex environment surrounding the diagnosis and subsequent treatment is forcing participants e.g. medical personnel, their organisations, patients and their organisations, insurance, regulators, politicians, to act within certain priorities and limits. These priorities and limits are ordered on the basis of evidence thus are considered a feed-back loop refining the medical process at hand. Furthermore such rule based standardisation of treatments allows for their rapid spread among practitioners.

The conclusion is drawn that without rules there will be no development. In other words, survival and development is the goal of the game. Note that development in this context is a process leading to an aspired level of affairs.

When we analyse the internal machinery available to individuals participating e.g. in a democracy, we observe that this machinery, the brain, has different states or mindsets.
These different mindsets will generate different outputs. Consequently, individual behaviour (e.g. setting priorities) even when presented with identical stimuli, will vary all the time.

This variability is obstructing the basic functioning of a participatory democracy.
Variability in time and space (cultural) will generate a fluid base of debate and discussion often to such an extent that the ability to absorb, let alone synthesize the presented knowledge, experience or information, is lost.

We use a simple set of rules to overcome this: the Synmind rules.

One way of solving that variability is to advance the idea that individuals, including their thoughts, strife to survive; in a participatory democracy this can be done in a “mental arena” in which opinions are treated in an equivalent (not equal!) way. Through peer review and a first round of intuition based contributions from participants, a priority based filtering system is growing automatically. The beginning of goal setting! And all done by the participants.
The second round based on ratio and experience generates a (self-) filtered argumentation base coupled with individual, or group voting, allowing transparent and rapid decision making.

Why should this work?
Because of the way the brain works:

The conscious mind[1] is a serial processor, one thing at the time. The unconscious mind, which in fact is totally conscious, is a parallel processor coping with numerous things at the same time (intuïtion). In the Synmind “mental arena” the alternate use of these two mind types allows participants to leap ahead in time in formulating goals, solutions, plans.

Studies comparing intuïtive and analytical contributions to (simple) problems showed that members of the intuïtive groups were half as likely to achieve a perfect answer, but the range and magnitude of their errors was much smaller than that of the analytical problemsolvers.
In other words when analysis was done correctly, it was near perfect; but when it was done poorly, it was wildly wrong! (Food for thought)

In combination ( with the rules of “engagement”) these two mind types are able to perform remarkably well, as being discussed in the Science article of January 2006, Vol 311 pp 47 – 52, which is just scraping the surface of this intriguing phenomenon.

[1] The conscious mind has different modes or mindsets due to impacting levels of comfort, status and uncertainty.

Advertising, R.I.P.

By Scott G, President, G-Man Music & Marketing Miracles

How information overload, data glut, and media excess will lead to consumer revolt that puts an end to marketing, advertising and public relations as we know it.

A fateful day is coming when there will be no more advertising, marketing, or public relations. Why? Simple: we're killing our industry by being too successful at it.

The communications field keeps finding new ways to send sales messages to target audiences, and by utilizing these new methods to the maximum extent possible, we are strangling the effectiveness of all media. Quite frankly, marketing intrusiveness is out of control.

Ads Beyond Counting.
Some reports claim you'll view 10,000,000 ads in your lifetime, yet with new communication channels and new techniques of marketing, that number is probably under-estimated.

Sponsored data is built into your mail, e-mail, Web sites, video games, online games, magazines, newspapers, newsletters, and media broadcasts. Ads are delivered by TV, radio, phones, outdoor boards, private vehicles, and transit posters. Marketing messages are sprayed on walls, chalked on sidewalks, printed on condoms, acted out in the streets, waiting to ambush you in restrooms, and beamed at you from electronic displays of every shape, size, and description, including sound-emitting urinal cakes.

Viral creations contain ad messages. Word of mouth advertising (WOM) is expanding fast. Channel One delivers commercials to kids in schools.

In stores, RFID (radio frequency identification) chips track your purchases. Watch TV and your selections are tracked. Online, every click is monitored. That information is available for sale, so demographic and psychographic data can be accumulated and you, the targeted consumer, can be more accurately reached.

Read the full article: click here

Consumer Idealized Design: Involving Consumers in The Product Development Process

by Susan Ciccantelli and Jason Magidson

A product or service is designed effectively if it provides consumers with
what they want, rather than merely removing what they do not want. But determining
what consumers need or will want is an effort that does not often meet with
success. In fact, suppliers' beliefs about consumers' wants have led to more
product failures than successes. The main reason for this is not hard to understand:
Consumers' needs and desires are elusive because consumers themselves generally
have not consciously formulated what they are or how to fulfill them.

Even when consumers are aware of what they want and are willing to reveal it,
their wants are likely to be conditioned by what is available. And when the
product or service available is basically unsatisfying to them, they are unlikely
to reveal startling new desires or concepts. At best, the typical ways in which
consumers are involved in product design-focus groups, surveys and questionnaires-tend
to elicit mostly information about what they do not want, rather than startling
new insights about what they really want or need. This is due in part to the
fact that people often attempt to provide answers that they think the inquirer
wants, rather than probe for their own preferences.

So the search continues, and product developers continue to seek ways to help
consumers (1) become more aware of what they need or want, and (2) reveal these
wants as accurately as possible. One such way, developed by Russell L. Ackoff,
is a process called Consumer Idealized Design (Consumer Design).

Consumer Idealized Design

Consumer design involves actual or potential consumers in an unconstrained
design of their ideal product or service.

In consumer design, participants are told not to be concerned with the feasibility
of the designs they create, only with their desirability. They are also encouraged
to specify ways in which the product might be made flexible enough to accommodate
changes in consumers' needs. In proposing the design, consumer participants
are free of all constraints except two:

(1) The product or service cannot involve any technology that does not currently
exist.

For example, a participant could say that she wants publicly available drive-it-yourself
taxis that are coin-operated, because the technology exists to construct them.
On the other hand, she cannot say that she wants an automobile that can run
on water, since this is not possible using current (proven) technology.

In some cases, knowing whether technology exists to realize consumers' designs
may be difficult to assess. However, we have found that the collective knowledge
of a group is generally sufficient to make decisions regarding the inclusion
of uncertain technological capabilities. The product or service must conform
to the law. This constraint extends to any rules or regulations imposed by the
government that limit the use of the product or service. For example, one cannot
design an automobile that emits a poisonous gas.

Consumer design starts from the ground up and ignores feasibility in the early
stages of the design process. This is because it is based on the belief that
the principal obstruction to creativity is a preoccupation with feasibility,
a condition that is usually associated with self-imposed (rather than actual)
constraints.

Consumer design assumes that, given the proper tools and facilitation, average
consumers are often best equipped to design-from a functional standpoint-those
products and services that are required for situations with which they have
become familiar. It is this input from consumers early on in the product development
process that differentiates consumer design sessions from traditional focus
groups and surveys.

How Consumer Design Works

Consumer design is similar to a focus group in some general ways:

A small group is selected from a segment of the market that the product developer
has chosen to target; The process takes place in a large conference room; and
the event can either be taped or viewed behind one-way mirrors. At this point,
the similarities end. Unlike focus groups, which are usually completed in less
than 3 hours, consumer design sessions generally require an entire day. Participants
are usually not required to prepare in any way for the session. However, discussion
by the client organization should provide an accurate description of the characteristics
of ideal participants. It may be desirable to have prospective participants
complete a questionnaire before the session, to ensure that participants meet
the client's profile of the ideal consumer of their forthcoming product or service.

Assisted by a facilitator -someone who guides but does not provide content
to the session - the participants are asked to imagine that an existing product
or service with which they are familiar was destroyed overnight, and that they
are going to have the opportunity to create something totally new in its place.
They then engage in a brainstorming session to prepare a basic list of specifications
for the ideal product or service to be designed. Specifications can include
any feature desired by the participants, no matter how outrageous, as well as
standard characteristics such as color, weight, function, size, speed, shape,
availability, cost, and so on.

The facilitator records all suggestions and proposals on a large flip-chart
so that everyone present can see them. At this stage, all specifications are
recorded, even those that may be in conflict with each other. The entire group
then debates the merits of each point raised and finally arrives at some decisions
regarding the ideal. In sessions of over 6 people, participants then break into
smaller groups to plan out designs which will incorporate as many of the specifications
as possible. This generally takes between one and two hours. The entire group
is then reassembled to present their designs and discuss the advantages and
disadvantages of each. After this discussion, the smaller groups re-convene
to refine and change their designs, incorporating the ideas presented by the
other group(s) as desired. This process is repeated as many times as possible
until the end of the day, with the goal being to arrive at one design that incorporates
all of the participants' idealizations.

If a facilitator is skillful, it seldom takes more than three iterations to
reach a consensus on a consumer idealized design (i.e., all participants feel
the end product is better than anything else currently available). In our experience,
several skills contribute to success. First, if the participants refer to or
complain about existing products or services, the facilitator should immediately
break in and remind the group that for the purposes of this session these no
longer exist and they should stay focused on the objective of designing what
they would like if they could have anything they wanted. Second, when disagreements
arise, the facilitator can handle them in several ways. In some cases, the facilitator
can ask the group to assess the importance of the disagreement and consider
whether they should set it aside for discussion later, so that progress can
be made in other areas. Where agreement cannot be reached, the facilitator should
suggest an experiment or other research by which the better approach can be
determined in practice (e.g., manufacture two types of roofing materials that
consumers disagree on, offer them for sale, and see whether one sells better
than the other). This is a resolution approach to which people often unanimously
agree.

A third skill that contributes to a successful design effort is remembering
to probe, when design specifications are contributed, by asking the question
"Why?" This can help to eliminate redundancy in the final design, but, more
importantly, it forces the designers to articulate desires which are often not
known to producers.

Finally, facilitators of a successful design effort should guide participants
toward their ideal and away from what they perceive as obstructions. In this
respect, the objection which is most often raised in the group design effort
is cost.

Interactive Design vs. Reactive "Focus"

A consumer design session is characterized by at least three features which
distinguish it from a focus group.

(1) It requires innovation and interaction from participants.

(2) It is task-oriented, competitive and consensus-generating.

(3) It requires the articulation and design of the group's notion of the ideal
in a designated product or service category.

Innovation

Focus groups generally begin and end with the product developers' concept
for a new or improved product or service. Conversely, a consumer design session
begins with a blank slate. When consumer design is successful, the end result
is a design that represents not only previously unarticulated needs and wants
of the participants, but a record for the product developer of the underlying
reasons for those design decisions.

For example, in a design of the ideal men's clothing store, participants-who
had been selected from the store owner's targeted customer group-arranged different
articles of similar types of clothing by size, rather than by type. In their
scheme, all available styles of suit jackets, sport jackets, vests, shirts,
and outerwear for the upper body were grouped together by size. The reason given
was that the consumer designers didn't like hunting all over the store to retrieve
these different articles. Armed with this new understanding of their preferred
customer group, the store's owners' identified alternate ways to address this
need: having a salesperson select the desired articles in the appropriate sizes
for VIP customers, and maintaining records of customers' clothing and size requirements.

Task-Orientation, Competition, and Consensus

As anyone who has led or participated in a focus group knows, these groups
can easily degenerate into "beef sessions." In some cases the group will become
polarized, or launch an all-out attack upon the product idea being introduced.
A consumer design session eliminates this possibility since the group is itself
responsible for producing answers to the challenge posed by a particular product
or service need.

For example, in the design of an ideal service station, one group designed
a full-service facility while another wanted a drive-up geared to speed and
convenience. Their solution: a fast, fully automated, express lane which could
either be conveniently located near the exit of a full-service station, or placed
in a smaller location as stand-alone (or "micro-) station. These units would
utilize a credit or debit card and personal ID code, thereby eliminating the
need to leave the pump area. They would also provide an option similar to an
automated teller machine's "Fast Cash" service, and allow consumers to select
$2, $5, $10 or $20 worth of gas with a single entry.

The "combination design" was further refined by the group at large to be adapted
for both urban and highway uses.

Even in those cases in which consensus is not reached, information is revealed
in disagreements that may be useful to the product or service provider. Generally
such situations suggest the desirability of providing options, or conducting
further research to determine what is preferred by the majority of a target
market. Repeated attempts to meet all of the group members' desired specifications
often raise new questions and issues, requiring revamped decisions and subsequent
discussion. In addition, consensus provides the consumer design process with
direction; it also-in conjunction with the time constraint-pushes participants
to come up with imaginative solutions.

Designing the Ideal

Consumer design offers participants a chance to become the designer. As such
is places them in a position of power, if only temporarily and hypothetically.
At the same time, they are faced with the challenge of getting to the heart
of what it is that they really want. For example, the customers of an urban
neighborhood grocery store and outdoor cafe were quick to trade off the occasional
noisiness of people and music during the summer months for the security provided
along the block by the store's late-night activity and lighting.

A producer's notion of the ideal is generally very different from his customer's.
In the case of the new software product (described below), consumer participants'
unanimously rejected the (sponsors') idea of a hand-held tracking device. In
addition, prior to this, the group had agreed that the best system of all would
involve no software or hardware at all, just a trusted friend or relative who
would take all responsibility for tracking household expenses. This ideal set
the priorities in the minds of the sponsor: the product would need to be simple,
straightforward and require as little interaction with technology as possible.

Consumer design is similar to focus groups in that it does not attempt to
deliver finished product designs. But unlike focus groups, the output of consumer
design sessions is treated as a point of departure for the remainder of the
product development process. This is because effective consumer designs should
give product and service providers information about what consumers want, and,
even more importantly, they should increase their understanding of why they
want what they want.

Consumer Design Outcomes

Consumer design sessions have been conducted for a wide variety of businesses:
a major oil company; a major manufacturer of roofing materials; a large supermarket
chain; neighborhood grocery stores; a men's clothing retail chain; a computer
software company; insurance and banking companies; health care facilities; and
national food producers. Three of these experiences are are summarized here.

The Ideal Roof

A major producer and marketer of asphalt roofing shingles had a larger line
of roofing materials than its major competitor, but one of the competitor's
products dominated the market. Previous efforts to cut into the competitor's
market share had met with little or no success. Consumer Design was selected
as a way to explore potential new products that could take some of the dominant
product's share.

One of the first facts recognized was that there are many participants in
the decision to buy a particular style of roofing shingle: homeowners, architects,
roofing contractors, material distributors and retailers. But the answer to
the question "Who makes the buying decision?" is important only if the different
participants have different preferences. With this in mind the company set out
to determine which type of roof designs and styles each type of participant
preferred.

To accomplish this, small groups of each type of buyer were brought to a specially
prepared room where they were asked to design their notion of the ideal roof.
They worked on 3' x 4' wood panels, and used a wide variety of components, textures,
colors, and so on. Components were prepared in such a way that the designs need
not resemble any existing type of roofing. Each participant prepared several
designs. When each group had completed its design, they were asked to review
each others' creations, those of previous groups, and also a selection of roofs
available on the market at that time.

The effort produced a total of 120 different designs, prepared by 9 different
groups over the course of several weeks. The designs were analyzed and categorized
according to 20 variables. The findings deemed most useful by the client were
as follows:

-Asphalt roofing materials do not have to be made to resemble slate, wood shingles,
or clay tiles to be considered attractive.

- The narrow cut-outs-spaces that separate tabs on conventional shingles-are
considered unattractive.

- Homeowners showed a preference for roofing that appears 3-dimensional.

- All participant groups except roofing contractors showed a preference for
strong patterning and regularity. The contractors find such designs difficult
to install.

- In general, homeowners' and architects' designs were much more exotic than
the conventional designs produced by contractors who install roofs and material
distributors who sell roofing products.

Several of the designs produced by customers and the analysis were subsequently
used to modify the client's product line.

The Ideal Service Station

Two groups of consumers-one composed entirely of men and the other of women-were
recruited to design the ideal service station. In general, both groups revealed
a desire for more choices: a variety of service facilities, product options,
and auxiliary services. The groups acknowledged early on in the process that
auto service needs varied in a number of ways: long or short trips; planned
versus unplanned service; an urban or a highway setting; and the desire for
personalized or completely automated service. Two representatives of the sponsoring
organization (a major oil company) took part incognito in two day-long sessions.

Some interesting differences emerged between the final designs produced by
the two groups. Women wanted the station to be a source of reliable, straightforward
information covering all elements of what they referred to as "the total driving
experience." This included background, training, and references for their car
mechanics; information about fuel sources and composition; and information about
insurance and maintenance options. They also expected businesses to show some
concern for the local community. Finally, women's designs addressed the special
needs of children and the handicapped by including things such as changing tables
in restrooms and wheelchair access.

Both men and women redesigned the pumps and nozzles to make them easier use
and store. Other design features common to both were:

- a selection of major brands available at every pump

- a fast, fully automated express lane which could be conveniently located and
adapted either as a stand-alone "micro-station" or as part of the super station
design for both urban and highway use;

- a commuter lot/station with "disposable" cars

- an emphasis on service-respect for and attention to the customer ("like McDonald's")

- a system for servicing cars when they're not being used.

Both groups produced their own detailed drawings of what the stations would
look like, including landscaping, lighting, and clearly marked approaches and
exits.

The Ideal Financial Software Product

Two sessions, involving different groups of people, were held to have participants
design financial-planning software for household use. The goal was a new product
that would appeal to a market segment different from the company's existing
(successful) financial-planning software product. The existing product had its
largest market among persons with a relatively high level of financial sophistication.
The new product was intended to cultivate a new, less sophisticated customer
base, many of whom would then "graduate" to become users of the existing product.

Participants were asked to supply information about themselves, including
household income and estimated home value. They were also asked to rate themselves
on a scale of 1 to 10 in two areas: (1) their knowledge and understanding of
investments; and (2) the amount of control they felt they had over their money.

In the first session, participants were asked to imagine an ideal setup which
would help them track their personal finances. At this point, the sponsors had
a preconceived notion of the new product which incorporated a small, hand-held
device (similar to a pocket calculator) for tracking daily expenditures. This
device would then plug into a personal computer, where a modular system of software
programs would organize, integrate, and analyze the data. They participated
in this first session incognito.

What happened during the first session caused the sponsors to completely revise
their ideas. Participants revealed that they would like better organization
and control of their finances, but that they were unwilling to use a hand-held
tracking device, no matter how small or "cute." They also didn't want any of
the "extra work" required to organize their finances. Instead, they wanted a
simplified "snapshot" of their total financial situation, as well as graphic
representations delineating what they spent in certain categories. Other specifications
were that the proposed system include some type of imposed discipline on their
spending, and the ability to see progress toward stated financial goals.

The first session convinced the sponsors that the product would have to be
aimed at households and individuals who regularly experience cash-flow problems.
To design software aimed at such a group, a second session was organized with
a different set of participants. This group produced a complete set of requirements
for the new product. These included:

- ease of use

- graphics to show what today's dollars today will be worth at retirement

- savings plans for acquiring major purchases

- tax implications

- and a variety of other consumer information sources, such as credit card rates,
travel options, vacation packages, and housing costs in different parts of the
country.

In addition, extensive specifications were provided for system outputs, such
as monthly, quarterly and annual (printed) reports; balance-sheets, household
budgets, and a long-term "snapshots." Participants decided that the system should
be geared to low-end hardware (costing under $1000), and compatible with existing
popular word-processing and spreadsheet programs. Such a package, they said,
should assist individuals who purchased it by "demystifying the chaotic blur"
of financial imperatives and options. Finally, the participants said that they
would pay between $40 and $60 for the product.

Conclusion

Many in upper- and middle-management know that in today's complex industrial
relationships, with many middlemen, organizations can be very distanced from
their ultimate consumers, and they realize that this distance makes it easy
to miss the big picture. Involving consumers in designing products and services
can put the organization back in touch with its consumers and infuse fresh ideas.

However, customer involvement often has not produced the expected results.
Six principles have come out of examination of successful and failed efforts.
Companies should: get consumers involved in product and service development
as early as possible and at all subsequent stages, encourage consumers to focus
on what is wanted rather than what is not wanted. encourage consumers to think
beyond what is currently available by focusing on what they would like ideally
(starting from a clean slate), get consumers to go beyond simply telling what
they would like by involving them in designing the product or service, encourage
consumers not to worry about likelihood of implementation (feasibility) but
to be concerned with desirability, and probe for the reasons why consumers want
what they want.

We have discussed how consumer idealized design has helped a number of companies
in a variety of industries improve performance by following the above principles.
Even companies that felt confident in their existing marketing strategy and
tried consumer idealized design have often been surprised at how much they learned,
how it affected their beliefs and practices, and how this led to improved performance.
In a world where successful performance is increasingly a moving target, companies
would be wise to become partners with their consumers in shaping it and pursuing
it.

Russian Prospects - political and economic scenarios

by Kåre Stamer Andreasen & Jakob Kelstrup, Copenhagen Institute for Future Studies (CIFS)

Developments in Russia over the next 15 years could become of great importance to the World. There are many paths that Russia’s political and economic development may follow towards 2020. This members’ report evaluates the various possibilities and challenges that face tomorrow’s Russia.

[...]

Economic Scenarios
The economic scenario cross for Russia A.D. 2020 is based on two uncertainty axes. One concerns whether Russia evolves towards a market economy (free enterprise) or whether it evolves towards a planned economy. The other uncertainty axis concerns whether Russia’s economy becomes based on raw material production or whether it becomes a differentiated production and service economy. Below is a brief presentation of the trends that pull economic developments in Russia in different directions.

Based on Russia’s major developmental trends and on the selected uncertainties we’ve worked out four different economic scenarios. They are presented first in a point-by-point summary followed by a closer look at each economic scenario.

Two economic uncertainty axes
I. Market economy or planned economy?
Russia has experienced sweeping economic and political reforms, but they haven’t really become consolidated yet, and the shape of the future is still uncertain. In spring of 2004, Putin promised more economic reforms and new programs to encourage investments. Legislation and institutions are more or less in place, but there is still no detailed framework of laws and administrative rules to protect the rights of private investors. Most business legislation is already in place, and once the various institutions have been established, they will be able to enforce the law more efficiently than is presently the case. Russian membership of WTO will most likely consolidate and improve a market economy.

Looking back on Russia’s developments towards a market economy over the last 15 years, it seems unlikely that Russia would turn back to planned economy, the defunct system of the Soviet Union. But it is important to consider the governmental interference with the activities of private companies that has taken place in recent years and how the country’s business and economic life has become more subject to political attention as a result. Boris Yeltsin’s time in office during the 1990s was a time of mass privatization that may not always have been fairly carried out, but nevertheless the period was one of lessening political interference with the business world. Under Vladimir Putin this trend has reversed. The energy sector has been nationalized, and other attempts have been made at government interference with sectors that worked well enough without it (e.g. telecommunication). It is thus not unlikely that the next five to ten years (Putin’s remaining time in office and the next term under his successor) may lead to a more ‘take-charge’ government that feels entitled to decide when it is ‘sensible’ to impose restrictions and guidelines on the private sector. This may reduce foreign investments in Russia and cause a lack of confidence in the transparency of the Russian market.

II. Raw material based economy or differentiated production and service economy?
Russia possesses some of the World’s largest oil and gas deposits, and its economy is very sensitive to price fluctuations. Russia’s positive economic growth depends primarily on high oil prices on the global market. Unless Russia begins to diversify its production infrastructure further and to invest in other sectors, it may experience externally generated economic shocks from time to time. A prolonged sizable reduction in the price of oil would throw Russia into an economic recession that if worst came to the worst could result in a crisis of similar scope as that of 1998. In 1998 the value of the rouble plummeted as a result of a massive flight of capital brought about by a loss of confidence in the Russian market. Following that, international trade with and investments in Russia fell drastically, and Russia experienced a major economic decline in many sectors. Paradoxically, despite the country’s huge deposits, its dependence on oil and gas is one of the greatest uncertainties connected with future political and economic developments.

Decentralization and liberalization of foreign trade are of crucial importance to Russia’s future economic relations with the outside world. If they continue apace, Russia will in time become fully integrated with international division of labour and international trade. A lot depends on Russia’s ability to change its industry from being mostly based on raw materials to a more diversified industrial structure.

Also a trustworthy legal system needs to be implemented. Infrastructure and the service sector should constitute a greater part of the overall GDP structure in order to reduce Russia’s vulnerability to the price of oil on the global market and to increase Russia’s ability to compete on the global market. Russia would be able to attract more foreign investors if the country sent out unmistakable signals to the outside world about introducing a more transparent law of ownership and about constructing a more liberal and diversified financial sector. It is likely that over the next 15 years, the country will build a healthier and more flexible industrial sector on top of its current economic mainstay, the raw materials sector.

You can read the full report: click here

How now wit! Whither wander you?

by Mathijs van Zutphen, Philosopher, educator, artist and creator of VISH, www.vish.nl. He participates as a philosopher in the Knowledge Stream Life Sciences of the Summit for the Future.

The challenges of software engineering

On november 30th the Club of Amsterdam organized its 'Future of Software Architecture' conference. The meeting was hosted by Syntens, a government sponsored 'Innovationnetwork' for entrepreneurs, who have their office in the center of Amsterdam in a modern highrise overlooking the water. Cargo ships lazily coasted by, as the winter sun gave way to the long winter evening. The meeting proved to be what is becoming a trademark of the Club of Amsterdam's events. New insights arose out of a series of constructive confrontations between radically opposing viewpoints. The big surprise was that a seemingly straightforward technical subject, in appearance almost dull, generated such different, almost diametrically opposed, perspectives. The contrast inspired a frantic discussion about complexity, history, values, and the role of technology in today's and tomorrows world.

Maarten Boasson, professor at the University of Amsterdam and chair of the Industrial Complex Computer Systems Department, started of the evening in minor mode. The title of his presentation "Do we want to keep software Architecture alive" says it all; software architecture is a terminal patient. Boasson emphasised that in his view software architecture concerns itself with the technical design of systems. This is a relevant remark, since the term software architecture has acquired such diverse meanings over the years. From a purely technical term it has evolved into an all inclusive concept, containing everything from generic properties of computer systems, to users, to a wider context of stakeholders, 'software architecture' can describe all possible relations and structures that exist between these elements. In fact this conceptual inflation of the term 'Software Architecture' will be reflected by the diverse opinions that will be exchanged during the evening's discussion.

The succes of the digital revolution, or perhaps we should say semi-conductor revolution, has left no aspect of society untouched. The explosion of computing power, expressed by Moore's law, has generated a myriad of complex systems that pervade all corners of reality. The discipline of software engineering seems to be split between the drive to design robust functioning systems which exhibit predictable properities and the ever quickening development of business needs, discovering new market opportunities which require ever newer applications. In this dynamic we are constructing our tower of Babel on an imperfect foundation of frantically, and shabbily integrated legacy systems and components. In short: software architecture is a mess. There is no comprehensive theory, and practical (i.e. business) considerations drive most of software development, leaving little room for reflection on design and the pursuit of quality. Education and research are key to creating quality systems, but these considerations are completely marginalized by forces driving the development of technical systems. Software is unstable and unreliable, and we're not just talking about PC operating systems. Onboard computers in airliners also do fail for no other reason than bugs in the programming; which is a daunting realization. (For more on this: http://catless.ncl.ac.uk/Risks).

Unfortunatele we cannot step back and start all over again from scratch. Boasson's presentation amounts to a passionate plea to start focusing on quality and appreciate the crucial impact of great minds. Really good software, if it exists at all, is without exception the product of a few brilliant programmers, whose skills cannot be matched by a mulitude of mediocre developers. The road ahead is unclear, but if we want improvement, we should learn from our mistakes and develop general principles for understanding how architecture is related to specific applications and not merely adopt the fashion of the moment. Whether this will actually happen, or even has a chance of happening, is uncertain. The final conclusion is depressing, looking back on three decades of systems engineering, software architecture, as a way to mindfully design the best possible systems, is more or less a failure.

A greater contrast with the next presentation can hardly be imagined. Maarten Visser, a self-styled Performance, Productivity and Integration evangelist takes us into the promises of Web 2.0 and the emerging reality of an ever more complex array of communication and information processing applications. His focus is on communities which organize themselves around online applications, and he explains how these community needs will become important drivers for the development of next generation information and communication tools. The massive amount of information available is so overwhelmingly large and complex that we will need new layers of interpretation between the information and our needs. Such 'semantic' web technologies are to help us find what we need in the exploding informational complexity that is the internet. Visser bounces with energy as he performs his fast-paced sermon with an exuberance and optimism that indeed resembles divine inspiration. A numbing list of emergent technologies are presented: blogs, XML and RSS (Really simple syndication) feeds are already superseded by SSE (simple sharing extensions), RDF (Resource Description Framework) and an new ambitiously named standard called WOL (Web ontology language). Things don't appear to become less complex folks! Everything is to become connected to everybody everywhere, with machines and applications taking care of the semantics of it all…

Niek Jetten's subsequent presentation brings home the point already bemoaned by Boasson: software engineering in general, and software architecture specifically, are driven by business interests, and as we all know: business has a dynamic all of its own. In effect we learn why the interests of business (low-cost, high-pressure, short time-to-market, scalability) are so diametrically opposed to the interest of software architects attempting to build robust quality system with predictable properties, requiring research, reflection, and ample time.

Given the contrasting views in the presentations the discussion promised to be lively, and so it was. In spite of Boasson's critical assessment of the quality of most software, the general focus seems to be on new developments, and since these developments have an impact beyond the technology itself the discussion quickly expanded into non-technical areas. Software architects value robust systems, web communities seek intangible values in their interaction with each other, business is interested in financial value and healthy bottom lines, these represent very different value domains.

Even though the high expectations of Web 2.0 may be exagerated (it wouldn't be the first time the internet will have inspired fantasies) the internet will increase its influence, as certain as its internal chaos will increase as well. As the internet is sucking in information and communication functions that are traditionally provided by other media like radio, television and telephones, it will become the dominant knowledge and and communication system of the global village, and its architecture will be a crucial asset (or liability) in our brave new world. It seems clear that software engineering will increasingly be driven by what users, and communities of users, want and need. Isn't that a good thing? Perhaps, but the internet already is such an intense cocktail of interrelated technologies, components, systems and protocols. How are we to guarantee its stability and sustainability? How are we to rely on a system containing so many possible glitches?

A real solution to the problems outlined by Boasson does not present itself. So what if we just reinterprete the problem? Could software engineering become somewhat akin to a behavioural science; empirically studying autonomous organic systems? So that we recognize the inherent instability of systems and admit that the level of complexity is beyond the reach of our understanding? Properties of a system then become emergent rather than predicted by design. Boasson is visibly appalled by this suggesting while Visser is eagerly nodding, having found a metaphor that strikes a chord with his visions.

Did we discuss the future of software architecture? Not everyone agreed. To some the discussion lacked technical content, to others the entire session had too limited a focus on technology and insufficiently addressed the humanity of it all. Well, we did end up discussing quite a range of topics. What do value systems, human needs, communities and social developments have to do with software architecture? Well, as with many things, context determines everything, whether we like it or not, and systems are an integral part of their supersystem. As such the "Future of Software Architecture" exemplified the Club of Amsterdam's for diversity, creativity.

Review: The Future of Software Architecture

by Colby Stuart

The discussion after the speakers covered a wide scope of views. The heart of the discussion wasn't really about software architecture, but more along the lines of people's and society's relationship with business. The core issue about the future of software architecture seemed to lie somewhere between:
.....having enough time to invest in developing real solutions rather than holding the solution hostage by business politics
.....and educational standards that leave children without the knowledge to contribute at a level higher than business tasking.

What I also heard - from those not involved in the field of computer sciences - was a voice for the human factor and the human value system. Is the role of software keeping our children from learning - or is it helping our children learn differently? Should computers reflect our human capacity for emotion? This raised the conversation to another level until one young man tried to turn the discussion into an instrumental talk about learning about software architecture. Thankfully, the group did not want to let go of the more philosophical discussion about the "future of...".

These discourses stimulated by the Club of Amsterdam help to build our knowledge and give us a venue to share our thinking on topical issues. We meet interesting minds, help address the issues in our society, and grow relationships.

In the beginning of the evening, I though "Uh-oh.." when the host started to literally read from a PowerPoint presentation about her company, Syntens. Rather than share why syntens had hosted the evening and what role they play in the context of the subject, she opted for reading a sales pitch. Lost opportunity to engage themselves in the evening.

Thankfully, that ended quickly and Maarten Boasson, a professor at the University of Amsterdam shared his views on the issues of developing software architecture in today's world. Though Maarten didn't hold out many hopes for the future of software architecture, he did address the stumbling blocks to success. Big issue: clients with their own agenda opting for software development based on an already chosen, politically motivated solution, rather than letting the architect develop a solution based on identified parameters guided by the real problem. Another big issue: the academic standards that leave us with a pool of talent that do not have the abilities needed to think about solutions for addressing the real problems.

The second speaker was Maarten Visser, an young and enthusiastic entrepreneurial evangelist for social software and the value it creates for business, people and society. He visually demonstrated the integration of the different layers of technology their construction into web applications and interfaces.

The third speaker, Niek Jetten, presented the issues facing business right now with integrating new systems with legacy systems.

This gave us three completely different perspectives of approach and interest - as well as age.

the future of Futurist Tools

the future of Futurist Tools
how to improve your strategy and planning processes

Wednesday, January 25, 2006
Registration: 16:00-16:30, Conference: 16:30-19:15



Michael Jackson
Business Futures in a Digital Age
Increasing complexity, uncertainty and disruptive change is provoking a surge of interest in longer-term thinking, better tools and early and broader warning systems. Dr. Mike Jackson will share his extensive knowledge of the changes being made to strategy and planning systems by forward-thinking organisations and how leading edge suppliers are delivering new capabilities to make the processes quicker, all-encompassing and collaborative.

Patrick Crehan
The Death of A Strategist
A context of complexity, uncertainty and rapid change for both private enterprise and public life will lead to a steady increase in the delegation of responsibility for decision-making away from traditional centers of control. This will create the need for organisations to continuously re-visit, re-vise and re-envision their plans and strategic positions. Decisions large and small will be made using participatory approaches. They will incorporate the latest information available. This will create a burden of work for which existing tools are inadequate. It will lead to a re-distribution of responsibilities for which most organisations are ill-prepared.
Patrick Crehan looks at how the nature of decision-making is changing and how it will continue to change in the future. He looks at associated changes in the burden of work, shifts in the location of responsibility that this implies and the challenges that decision support systems of the future will need to address. He provides a vision of the future of decision-making in both private enterprise and public life.
Related Reading: 'The Wisdom of Crowds' by James Surowiecki. The subtitle of this book is 'Why the Many are Smarter than the Few' and 'How Collective Wisdom Shapes Business, Economies, Societies and Nations'. The final chapter is especially interesting in that it considers the future of democracy as a form of collaborative decision-making.

George Pór
The New Wave of Futuring: Co-Sensing –> Co-Presencing –> Co-Creating This will be an experiential introduction to the "U model" featured in Presence: Human Purpose and the Field of the Future, co-authored by Peter Senge, C. Otto Scharmer, Joseph Jaworski and Betty Sue Flowers.
Suggested Reading: Introduction to THEORY U: Leading from the Emerging Future Presencing as Social Technology of Freedom by C. Otto Scharmer, Massachusetts Institute of Technology www.ottoscharmer.com

Summit for the Future

Summit for the Future
Club of Amsterdam
Date: May 3-5, 2006

What is the Summit for the Future?
The Club of Amsterdam presents its second, global “Summit for the Future” bringing together international Thought Leaders to discuss significant, global challenges and opportunities.

This year we focus on the subject of risk and the role of risk in innovation and global growth.

Frank-Juergen Richter, former Director of the World Economic Forum, in charge of Asian affairs: "As corporations confront uncertainties that pose important strategic dilemma in their endeavour to grow into global players they need to understand the current and emerging risks associated with their business."

5 Knowledge Streams
Life Sciences
Media & Entertainment
Trade - Asian Leadership?
Healthcare
Corporate Governance

5 Interdisciplinary Streams
Innovation as Risk Taking
Knowledge based Risk Management
Values and Spirituality
Cross-Cultural Competence
Creative Leadership

Who should attend?
The Summit for the Future will attract senior strategic thinkers, decision makers, policy planners and knowledge workers. If you’re involved in shaping the future of your company you’ll get a broader overview and a deeper understanding by attending the Summit. The Summit for the Future is an ideal venue for those who need to link theory with practise.