How does one lift up an insight of a giant out of undeserved anonymity?

We tell vignettes – engaging, lively, catchy, sticky... real-life people and situation stories, to distill core ideas of daring thinkers and make them accessible. They let the reader 'step into the shoes' of a leading thinker, 'look through his eyeglasses'... They make ideas simple, palpable, understandable by anyone. They give those ideas passion, the ability to move and incite action.

No time for stories?

Recalling what our theme is will help you find the necessary time and patience for these stories, to digest them and take them in properly. So before we begin, bring to mind the image of Galilei in house prison... Who might be the still unknown heros of an emerging approach to knowledge? What are their yet untold histories?

We are here taking up the theme of the second book of Knowledge Federation Trilogy (with title "Systemic Innovation", and subtitle "Democracy for the Third Millennium". What might democracy and innovation have to do with one another? In what way might they synergize and empower one another?

We'll here approach the theme of the genesis of a new approach to knowledge and creative work in general from an entirely different angle – from the point of view of social re-organization of the institutional and other structures; and by looking at the technology that may enable a radical change. So think about the invention of the printing press; it made knowledge work so much more efficient, that it is often considered to be the major contributing factor to the deep societal changes that follow – and which we now want to see happening again in our time. Think about the steam engine, which ignited the Industrial Revolution and the creation of machines that changed our world beyond recognition. Think, further about our task of turning the socio-technical candles into light bulbs. What might correspond to the electricity? What principle of operation might lead to such a pivotal change?

The Internet has.. But we also need to change the way we think.

"The answer is obvious – it's the Web!" we imagine you say. The idea that the Web is the new printing press is of course already widely present. And if that's all there is to the story, then it's all already there. But there's a catch – and that's what we're about to point to. It is exactly by focusing on the difference of the Web that is, and of "the Web that wasn't" (as Alex Wright put it), that the future of not only the Web but also of innovation will be understood.

To see our point, notice that the information technology has tended to be used – by implementing the physical environment we've grown accustomed to over the centuries (the desktop, the filing cabinet, the mailbox and the mail...) in the new digital medium. Talk about implementing the candle in the new technology! But what's the alternative? Well, that's what this story is about.

To point to this difference we focus on Douglas Engelbart. This is not only because he created the core ideas. Not only because he is the 'patron saint' of knowledge federation. Not only because we are inspired by his vision, and because many of us considered him a dear friend. But this is also because his story reflects so well the idiosyncrasies of our present way of thinking and innovating. Doug was Silicon Valley's genius in residence - why was he not understood, or even heard, even after having been recognized as that?

So here's his story in a nutshell: Having decided (in 1950, as a young and idealistic engineer, freshly out of college) to dedicate his career to the betterment of mankind, Doug thought intensely for three months about the best way to do that. Then he had an epiphany... What was it that he saw?

And what is that "new way to think" which we now depend on to enable the technology to make the kind of difference it can and should make?

Many years ago I dreamed that...

Doug was celebrated as a brilliant creator of TECHNOLOGY – who created the technology we have in front of us (yes, it took some years for the people in Silicon Valley to understand that it was not Bill Gates and Steve Jobs... or even the XEROX PARC from which they got the interactive interface that made personal computing such a success – but that it was Doug Engelbart and his lab, who demonstrated this technology, and indeed more, already in 1968, when the humans communicated with computers through punched cards and line printer output.

But really we'll introduce Engelbart not as a technology inventor, but as a brilliant creator of IDEAS ; PRINCIPLES – of the kind that inform our creative action, specifically in technological innovation, but also BEYOND. How important are those ideas? We'll explain them and let you judge for yourself. Then perhaps you'll agree with us, that it is most remarkable that those principles SO MUCH DID NOT HAVE A PLACE IN OUR ACADEMIC AND PRACTICAL SCHEME OF THINGS THAT THEY REMAINED ENTIRELY IGNORED!!!!

Of Engelbart's many contributions of this kind, we'll talk here about only two.

The first one is what Doug called CoDIAK. The point is – this technology is a QUANTUM LEAP!!! The printing press wasn't – it's just an effectivization of what the scribes were doing in monasteries, while copying manuscripts!

But what Doug foresaw (already in 1951 - and then immediately dedicated his career to fulfilling that vision) was that when digital computer technology is interconnected into a network – COMPLETELY NEW PATTERNS OF INTERACTION and SYSTEMIC SOLUTIONS become possible! We can in effect THINK TOGETHER – like cells collected together into a collective mind.

Now the second idea. It's (an instantiation of) the new way to think. It's more general. It's how to innovate – how to use our creative capabilities in general. It's what we are calling systemic innovation.

Doug developed a specific practical approach to systemic innovation. He talked about AUGMENTING our capabilities. Capability infrastructure. Capabilities live in a relative hierarchy (see picture). The capability to communicate in writing, for example, depends on the technological capability to have some medium (clay tablets, paper and pen...); and on the social capabilities comprising script and education. Innovation, according to Doug, would dexterously be guided by the capability hierarchy combined with obvious questions. Looking at our needs: What capabilities we now most urgently need? What could make a largest positive difference? Looking at a new or potential technology: What capabilities could this augment? Looking at both: What more do we need, so that this new technology may empower the kind of capabilities that we most urgently need?

The answer to this latter question is most interesting. It's what we've been calling systemic innovation. This capability most directly has to do with the DIRECTION in which we innovate. And with the DIRECTION of the metaphorical bus. But let's go slowly and develop our understanding of systemic innovation by talking about another giant, ERich Jantsch – whose name we associate most closely with systemic innovation (just ad Doug Engelbart is most closely associated with knowledge federation.

We give power to stories by combining them together.

Remember our holarchy from IMAGES? We string stories together into threads. They synergize and create a dramatic effect. At the same time each of them becomes part of a larger story.

– The university should make structural changes within itself to enhance the society's ability for continued self-renewal (EXACT?)

Two reasons why we chose Jantsch to represent systemic innovation: (1) linked with contemporary issue (2) WORKED to establish the SI as praxis, to change the systems... to ESTABLISH SI as an academic field (details follow)

And this additional reason – it's such a nice story! Like Doug, he passionately advocated the reconceiving of the university to make our knowledge work adaptable to new demands, to new challenges. And like Doug, he never found a footing for his ideas at a university. Doug was mostly present at Stanford. Jantsch brought his ideas to the MIT and to the UC Berkeley. We are talking about three leading US technological universities!

And finally yes, there's another reason – Jantsch and Engelbart combine so nicely into a story. In the 1970s both struggled unsuccessfully to have their ideas accepted – while working across the GGB from each other (Jantsch was at Berkeley, Doug was at Stanford Research Institute in Menlo Park). As it turns out, they each needed each other to make their visions happen! Yet they never collaborated and (as far as we are aware) didn't even know about each other! So the story line is developed by telling how those two streams of thought finally found each other, and what ensued... But that will come as desert here, at the very end. First let's hear about Jantsch.

The task is nothing less than to build a new society and new institutions for it.

So the story about Jantsch: "The task is nothing less than to build a new society and new institutions for it. With technology having become the most powerful change agent in our society, decisive battles will be won or lost by the measure of how seriously we take the challenge of restructuring the “joint systems” of society and technology." Like Engelbart, Jantsch was truly a progenitor of the new paradigm! In 1968, upon giving the opening keynote at the inaugural meeting of The Club of Rome (global think tank organized to investigate the future prospects of our civilization), Jantsch saw clearly what needed to be done, and organized some of the leading systems scientists to (as we now call it) federate their ideas together and compose a detailed answer. What will be the institution whose role will be to implement these necessary changes? Jantsch concluded that it would have to be the university. In 1969 Jantsch was at the MIT, lobbying... and writing a report about the structure of the future university. "The university must xxx itself for the new purpose of giving our society the capability for continued self-renewal. (SEE THE EXACT TEXT)

So you may see now the connection between democracy and innovation: Giving DIRECTION to our 'bus' (modernity, or civilization) means directing innovation (which induces change). We need two things: information (supplied by knowledge federation) and innovation (developed as systemic innovation). So they two together comprise the "headlights and steering and breaking controls" that Doug talked about...

We attain even broader insights by weaving threads into patterns.

We build further up. The insight that we should DIRECT our creative work, that we should use information and knowledge – how fundamental can anything be (pragmatically speaking)?

So let's revisit the way this is currently done, so that we know what exactly we are talking about.

How are they directed today? Well, we trust "the invisible hand" – and other than that we let everyone be as self-serving as one can. The rationale is . The reason why we begin this part of our conversation by pointing to the steam engine is because it started the creation of machines that either made the human labor dramatically more efficient, or made it unnecessary altogether. But since then we have invented just about every gadget that can save human labor or make it more effective or efficient. So what else can happen? And especially – what can be a dramatic news on that frontier?

To have control, we must have suitable feedback.

So let's bring in another giant. The point is that there's a whole science behind this. Or better said – there should be one! Right after the WW2, a group of .. Let Wiener be the icon. In 1948 Cybernetics he addresses the question – how should innovation be directed. "There's an article of faith... Unfortunately...". And he goes on to show why.

The alternative? Of course – to develop the knowledge about systems. How their structure drives their behavior. If a car has no headlights and no breaks, we know what's going to happen. But do we have such knowledge on a much higher – and incomparably more important – level? Do we USE such knowledge?

Our next task is to learn to innovate the systems in which we live and work.

Here's Doug's new thinking... Here's a HL insight that provides us "a way to change course".

We asked our communication design team to create an ideogram that would show the people that they are part of a system. And that the structure of that system, or systems, determines both the quality of their life and the value .The ideogram shown on the right is what they came up with. So imagine a system as a large machine, comprising technology and people. Think of its role as taking everyone's daily work as input, and producing socially useful results as output. How well is it performing in this all-important task? How well is it suitable for that task? How much would its function improve by changing it?

Consider these questions for a moment, and the systemic innovation proposal will begin to emerge in full clarity before your eyes.

Innovation and democracy for the third millennium.

So look at those systems: We innovate to improve them! And we give the people actual control – how our actions impact the systems! Isn't THAT what will need to happen? (This is a VERY brief version, of course. The details will be elaborated in the book. For now they are made available in the linked documents below.

See

While this page is being edited...

Explore the Google doc Completing Engelbart's Unfinished Revolution, where you'll find quite a bit of what is being told here. And if you can read it between the lines, yet another interesting story will reveal itself!