ECCS'10 was held in Lisbon, I saw this huge graffiti by the artists Os Gemeos one evening when I went back to my hotel, also about ethics...

Let me conclude my series of posts on the ECCS 2010 with few notes on power and ethics. You will be convinced by reading my previous posts that complex systems theory has many applications. The discipline is relatively new and we are only at the beginning of discovering the impact it will have on our daily life. As for any science, it can lead either to a better world or a nightmarish society, depending on how we use it. I could feel it throughout the week of the conference. Most scientists advocate the positive impacts of their research, but do see the possible misappropriations. Complex systems theory is central in the development of a more sustainable society, as illustrated in innovations such as smart grids and intelligent transport infrastructure, which happen to be decentralized systems. Complex systems theory provide us with a better understanding of our cultures and the way we operate together, which could help us address societal challenges. It could help us better classify knowledge, plan our cities, simplify our laws, reach altogether informed decisions and preserve cultural diversity. But it could also lead to control over public’s opinion, to a wider social gap between influencers and their followers, to a resilience of monopolistic systems, and to partitioned societies. The choice is ultimately to citizens, and it worries me to see that the vast majority doesn’t care much about recent advances in complex systems theory, as in any science, too busy to cope with what has been already decided for them long time ago in other fields. What is necessary to make that change? In the meantime, it seems to me that scientists are left on their own, their only interlocutors being large corporations and short-sighted politics (who cannot carry any public will on the subject because the public doesn’t care). Scientists improvise the best they can social and philosophical criticism of their own research, but it would much more beneficial to have other disciplines involved.

After the inspiring presentation  by Jeffrey Johnson, “Policy and Design of Complex Systems”, I wondered if a form of ethics in social systems analysis might prescribe the modelling of every person involved , including the creators of the model and their commissioners. Self-interest and personal motivations could then become much more apparent than in current researches.

“There is a power struggle for ‘the Truth’ [...] Scientists must model themselves and the politicians, both are inside the system being studied. Modelling the system can change the system!”

http://vimeo.com/15899828

Applications of complex systems theory in policy making

“Intervention and Policy Making in Complex Socio-Economic and Technical Systems”

by Peter Allen

Smart grids

“Modelling the growth of distributed energy generation for a low carbon economy: Part I the approach”
by Liz Varga

The greatest challenge for the UK government is to ensure that energy demand is met and sustainable over the long-term. This assurance is currently achieved through centralized control over various gas and electricity licensees, including generators, inter-connectors, distributers, etc. The future however is dependent in a significant way upon households and organizations, taking responsibility for their use and, where possible, their generation of energy. This new decentralized model which has the opportunity for self-organization and growth, in the same way as the internet had with the deregulation of telecommunications, is known as the ‘smart grid’ in the USA. The purpose of modelling the power industry is three-fold. First, the power industry cannot be experimented upon because of its scale and the reliance placed upon it by the economy. Second, effects of potential governmental interventions will depend upon the evolving environment and other dynamics existing within the system and so are difficult to predict because of the dependence upon the context of the interventions. Third, is to demonstrate with reasonable probability given the assumptions made and given the effects of noise in the system that desired outcomes relating to low carbon, security and sustainability are achievable. Human or social agents and artificial or smart agents will be modelled at similar levels of abstraction and simulated together, allowing an understanding of the interactions between technology, information, individuals, communities and organizations, building on the use of interpretive agents who learn.

http://vimeo.com/15623991

UK Transport Emission Reduction

Most often in environmental issues, not one but several policy measures need to be implemented in order to get positive effects, and the interaction between these measures becomes key in their success. Finding the set of measures that will lead to the best synergies is a very complex problem indeed. Araz Taeihagh argues that policy makers should let science help them, and use policy models in their design process. His model is based on five types of relation between policy measures: a measure can be required for the application of another (precondition); a measure can facilitate the application of another (facilitation); two measures can work well together (synergy): two measures can produce conflicting outcomes under certain conditions (potential contradiction), two measures definitely produce conflicting outcomes (contradiction).

“A Case Study in the Application of an Agent-Based Approach in the Formulation of Policies for UK Transport Emission Reduction”
by Araz Taeihagh and René Bañares-Alcántara

http://vimeo.com/15624248

Hospital refurbishment

By The Open University

Hospitals are complex: they involve strict codes of operations, nurses, doctors, specialized equipment, operating rooms, and patients of course. They are optimized for maximum effectiveness in healing patients. A single change in their settings can lead to chain reactions and unpredictable consequences in daily operations. How to integrate then planned refurbishments and new requirements such as reduction of energy consumption? The new study of the Open University will attempt to model hospitals using complex systems theory in order to address the challenge.

Complex systems theory applied to hospitals

I don’t know many fields that are not confronted with complex systems. Chemistry, physics, maths and all the scientific disciplines I studied at university are dealing with structures that require more than simply understanding their parts. I had the occasion to deal with other types of systems when I was working in business innovation: organisations are made of networks of people, networks of processes and are intricately connected with their economical ecosystem. I have seen many complex systems in culture too: semiotics, linguistics and urbanism just to give few examples. Finally, in the researches I’m currently making on consciousness, systems play also a major part, such as in neuroscience. So, complex systems are everywhere. We are only beginning to understand their mechanisms, and how interdisciplinary their study is. I will publish a series of posts on the subject in the coming weeks, which I hope will interest you as much as I was by the conference.

The presentation of Professor Uri Hasson was fascinating (see this article from the New Scientist). By using fMRI and observing brain’s activity, it is now possible to tell if two spectators go through similar mental states when watching a movie: do they pay attention to the same things (e.g. a face or a decor); do they experience the same picks?

Uri Hasson was careful to not suggest that movies controlling more effectively brain’s activity are necessary better (ambivalence can also be a virtue). He also emphasized how his researches could be used for other purposes than studying films. Films could be used to simulate the effect of real-life situations on the brain for example.

However, it is very easy to predict what Hollywood studios will make of these researches, whatever their initial purpose was. They will use them to optimize trailers and films so that they can generate the ‘optimum’ effect on the brains of the audience. They already do so, but through approximate methods, such as asking a test audience to explain what they experienced when watching a movie (technique used for Harry Potter films). Hollywood studios have always been obsessed in controlling their audience, for economic reasons, or American propaganda. It is very frightening to think of what they will do with this new technique.

The film director Amos Gitai didn’t let it pass. He overreacted to the research, accused Uri Hasson of having a hidden agenda, and clearly wished that the research never existed. He felt that his artistic practice of filmmaking was threatened. The debate became very passionate and confrontational between the two orators and the audience, in a typical German fashion.

I think for my part that we cannot ignore the evolution of science. It is counterproductive to simply wish that it didn’t exist, especially when the research could also have positive applications. Hollywood studios will use any trick at their disposal to ‘control’ their audience. The audience should be aware of these techniques; this is why this talk is so valuable. The audience has also the capacity to choose other options, and to support instead independent filmmakers and alternative movie theatres, which are becoming increasingly popular.  Even when they watch a Hollywood blockbuster, and I do sometimes, they can let their mental states being controlled for a while, and still remain critical. The problem lies more in education and the audience’s capacity to remain critical, which is sadly appalling in many socio-cultural groups.

The “Better city, better life” official theme of the Shanghai World Fair was an excellent choice. It encapsulated all that needs to be addressed nowadays: sustainability, globalisation, urbanisation, fairness between the poor and the rich. The right questions were asked. However, the states and corporations present at the expo showed how unconvincing their answers were. Their self-interest and reliance on established industries lead them to the most desperate and risible rhetoric, see my previous posts for some examples.

The solution to all our problems is technology according to the participants of the Expo. Yet, and as far as I know, none of the big pavilions had an absolute zero impact on the environment. Instead, a splash of energetically very demanding presentations explained to the audience that some symbolic features of the buildings were sustainable, a non-sense.

Throughout my visit, oil companies, car manufacturers, heavy industries told me that their technology will bring soon a solution to the challenges that the world is facing. And the only role of the national pavilions was to repeat the absurd solutions that their biggest industries had to sell. How lower a national self-esteem could be?

The best place to experience these contradictions was in the area of the Expo devoted to industries. There, I was being told that I will have a better life thanks to bigger boats, more oil and concept GM cars; Answers that were totally inadequate and only increased my feeling of insecurity. To be fair, there were some good intentions and ideas at the Expo, and technology is surely part of the solution. But they were squeezed in an absurd vision serving national and supranational short-term interests.

In his book, Jay Winter explained how the Paris World Fair of 1937 was a desperate invocation of the illuminations of technology to prevent another war. Reality was not long to impose itself. Let’s hope that history will give us more time to resolve our incapacity to face limited resources on earth.

• Contrary to the widespread belief, brainstorms are more about giving sense to old ideas than discovering new ones.
• Every model is based on assumptions. Paradigms and stereotypes are more abstract models that don’t necessary come with explicit assumptions, which narrows down creativity.
• Creativity is about changing perception. Innovation is about changing things.
• Techniques for workshops:
  • Choose a random organisation having nothing to do with your industry. What is the probability it takes over your business in 10 years? Explain SWOT.
  • Speak about your job without using the most commonly used words to describe it.
  • A paradox is when reality doesn’t follow the model. A new model must then be applied. An ambiguity is when reality can be represented by several models; it is far more common. Creativity is about building new conceptual ‘boxes’ inspired by ambiguities.

Luc de Brabandère is ‘corporate philosopher’ and director at BCG, check out his books here.

• An economy of contribution is an economy where actors contribute without having necessary a measurable counterpart (e.g. money, product). This model is radically different from an economy of exchange and must be taken into account when the externalities underlying an industry become central to its process. In this context, the function of companies is to capture positive externalities.
• An organisation is at the cornerstone of three axes:
  • Patrimony: the former ‘inner’ single reference for a company: legitimacy, expertise, employees…
  • Employability: capacity to inscribe its products and usages in shared values. Employability is related to economical theories of ecosystems in which an organisation is seen as a part of a system, either parasitic or in symbiosis.
  • Interactivity: capacity to adapt to the needs of individuals and communities who will in return support the activities of the organisation. With the rise of social media, brands want to be seen more and more as Customer to Customer ‘CtoC’, like if they were initiated by customers and driven by them.

I collaborated with him to prepare the photographs and Polaroids, you can find the details here.

I hope it conveys the message and the exciting mission of the Philosophy and Management association.

The conference room of PICNIC 2009

The presentation by Gentry Underwood at PICNIC 2009 was useful because it gave some hopes that employee engagement could truly be improved using the intranet. The key is to stay focus on the practical objectives of the employees and the core priorities of the organisation. It is illusionary to believe that employees will really share their thoughts on the intranet just for the sake of the organisation, and for colleagues that they never met. It is insulting the intelligence of employees to believe that they would participate in internal forums thinking they are taking part in a democratic process. I see the knowledge sharing system developed by IDEO as one that acknowledges that employees have personal ambitions and are all well aware of the competitive environment they are working in. If writing something on the intranet has no implication for my career, why would I do it? If reading the intranet doesn’t help me in my personal goals, why would I bother? In an intranet platform that IDEO developed for its own internal use, employees can create their personal pages on which they can list all the projects they worked on and why. When a new project is about to start in the company, the manager can search on the intranet for employees that are potentially either the best suited or motivated for the project. The intranet becomes a tool truly improving the efficiency of the organisation, employing the best people for each task, and an effective way for employees to influence their career within the organisation. It is furthermore much more motivating and efficient to put in touch people having complementary expertise than to ask them to write down their knowledge on an intranet document. Writing down documentation is long and boring, why would I do it for the benefits of people I don’t know? The approach requires obviously much more than the creation of a new intranet website, it changes the way the organisation operates. Intranet tools need for this reason to be adapted for the goals and culture of each organisation. It seems to me an essential step if one truly wants to motive his collaborators with practical opportunities. An Intranet based on a wishful but only superficially executed democratic model becomes a dangerous daydreaming which demobilizes people because it doesn’t offer them any realistic mean to prevail.

Another illustration of wishful thinking are intranet websites that encourage employees to post their brilliant ideas for the company, and how often they end up being broken for years because no one ever use them. If a politician or an entrepreneur has an idea, he will exploit it in order to obtain more power or revenues. What could an employee hope to get in exchange of his ideas? Nosco developed a software called Ideas Exchange in which participants not only share ideas, but can also invest virtual shares in ideas from others. Not only it makes the process more exciting, it also helps identifying good ideas, the ones considered as being the best investments by the employees themselves. If coupled with the right incentives, such as real life returns on investments or opportunities to participate in the direction of the projects, the system could also lead to a higher level of engagement.

-  -  -  -

Pain-free animals could take suffering out of farming, NewScientist

-  -  -  -

Our daily bread documentary.

Welcome to the world of industrial food production and high-tech farming!

-  -  -  -

Is this post about art, innovation, governance or philosophy? I let you decide…