SocInfo

The "Best Society" is not the one made by the best individuals, but that which makes individuals better and enables them to achieve their best.

Society, understood as the shared physical, legal, cultural, geographical, ideological, real and virtual space where this enigma we call Humanity exists, should not be a restrictive framework which defines, directs and picks the best individuals according to pre-existing rules.

In order for us to advance towards a Humanity 2.0 conducive society, we must aim to build an open environment where freedom, diversity, change, experimentation, problem solving and innovation are encouraged through enabling mechanisms and realms based on accountability and acknowledgement of true merits supported by opportunities and options available to all without restrictions or exclusion.

For such Utopia to happen, we need both worlds, our old institution-based, rules-supported and certification-enabled world and this new unrestricted, community-ruled, transparent and accountable open world where merits, knowledge, content, actions and thoughts can be made instantly available to all and everyone.

A student entering college merely 10 years ago might have read a handful of books, probably borrowed from friends, available at the family's bookshelf, bought them at the local bookstore or received them as a present by an old-fashioned, well-intentioned relative.

In contrast, most students at college today, have browsed thousands of websites, downloaded hundreds of music files, pictures and movies and might have even bought some content on-line from iTunes, Amazon or other digital content stores. Legal or not, he or she would have gained access to this content almost instantly (or after the delay involved in downloading files) and with very few exceptions in digital format. Most students don't care for CD's or other physical media and are as used to downloading files as to share them with their peers. USB sticks, mobile phones, mp3 players, e-readers and computers are the closest they ever get to physically handling content.

If all the knowledge in the world is freely available, can I include it as an asset in my resume? If all information is owned by anyone and we end up being measured by our capacity to solve problems, how can we demonstrate which problems have been solved by us and how we have contributed to the solution of other problems? Being master editor at Wikipedia, collaborator "deity" on a virtual community or having a Twitter reputation of 100 on Klout.com is hardly going to get most people hired or secure income and career advancement for anyone. Or maybe it will. Many positions are now being created related to social media and all things 2.0, from "Chief Listener" to "Digital Reputation Manager".

While it is true that great value can be achieved through the process of "crowd sourcing", or massive participation of individuals, regardless their formal education, level of experience or any type of distinction of the participants, we must be aware that this is a case where individual value and social value can be quite different.

The argument goes that the shortcomings of some individuals are overcome by the advantages of others, and as long as we have a critical mass of participants, enough diversity and value can be achieved. There are many existing experiences which back this statement, from modern day Wikipedia to the XIX century origins of the Oxford dictionary, where even a mad man in an asylum was able to largely contribute to the definite reference publication of the English language. Whatever shortcomings or tricks his mind could have played were overcome by the massive participation of others and the review and structured process implemented by a formal body governing the creation of the dictionary.

Having made the statements above, let us make very clear that they do not dare to suggest that an uneducated mind, un-experienced or effort-lacking individual  can or will achieve life-changing breakthroughs. For a mind to be able to see great solutions, come up with great ideas, it must have certainly been exercised in research, critical thinking, reasoning, problem solving, experienced in dealing with complex systems, seasoned from field and practical work or even in the mysterious field of simplified thinking.

To criticize formal education and institutions is not to advocate for laziness or random attempts at problem solving, but to suggest that good problem-solving, visionary skills can be achieved through alternative mechanisms and environments than those provided by formal institutions.

Out of the many kinds of innovation, let us focus our attention on a rather simple categorization: Innovation from within and Innovation from beyond.

Innovation is often pursued by institutions and academia within the deep core of a body of knowledge, within a formal structure of accumulated knowledge accessible only to experts with formal and long years of education in specific field whose work is the only means to advance even deeper into this deep core.

Quite often, however, life, market and industry changing innovation takes place at the frontier of bodies of knowledge and is brought forward either by outsiders or people able to think outside the restrictive framework and paradigms of a formal body of knowledge.
Both kinds of innovation are equally important and necessary for our advancement as a society. And while Innovation from within is ideal for formal institutions and academia, Innovation from outside can thrive in open, unstructured and distributed environments and ecosystems.

(or why we can't have the 2.0 without 1.0)

Last week I attended an interesting panel on Humanity 2.0 featuring distinguished of Asia's innovation ecosystem. At some point in the interaction with the public, the discussion turned to a dead-end where some professors argued about the value of formal education and formal institutions and some members of the panel counter-argued about the irrelevance of current institutions and their innovation promotion mechanisms. As extreme and opposite as both positions were and how adamantly they were being argued, it was clear to me that both sides were 100% right and that we needed both in order to advance towards a true inclusive, innovative, participative, wealth-generating society.

Here's why and how expressed in 5 simple arguments…

En la actualidad la estrategia del océano azul está cobrando mayor importancia, para aquellos que no hayáis escuchado hablar sobre ésta, fue formulada por W. Chan Kim en su libro ” La estrategia del océano azul”. La idea central de este libro se basa en la idea que la mejor estrategia para sacar del juego a la competencia no es competir directamente con esta, sino todo lo contrario: dejar de competir. En otras palabras: en vez de tratar de superar a la competencia con el fin de captar una porción del mercado existente (océano rojo), se debe buscar un “océano azul”, un mercado virgen que nadie haya tocado aún, donde la competencia sea irrelevante y que tenga el potencial de crecer.

Un ejemplo claro ha sido Nintendo, que con su consola de videojuegos Wii encontró un océano azul. Les pregunto a los abuelos, amas de casa (sus no-clientes) porqué no compraban sus productos y Nintendo descubrió que estos consideraban la consola difícil de entender y manejar. De allí fue que nació la nueva consola Wii de Nintendo, con la que la compañía pensó llegar a clientes nunca antes pensados y que ahora ha llegado.

La policía de Valladolid ha estrenado un avanzado sistema de simulación y formación que mejorará, en gran medida, el entrenamiento de los agentes.

Se trata de un simulador que combina las técnicas de realidad virtual e inteligencia artificial para reproducir escenarios y personajes. Así, los agentes pueden vivir situaciones peligrosas de adiestramiento sin ningún tipo de riesgo.

Este sistema incorpora las más avanzadas tecnologías para la formación de los cuerpos de seguridad, gracias a un innovador sistema que facilita la realización de ejercicios tácticos de simulación adaptados al grado de instrucción de cada agente y a las circunstancias del entorno. Las prácticas podrán ser realizadas tanto en una sala táctica de formación como en un simulador de tiro y harán posible la aplicación de protocolos de actuación más acordes con posibles situaciones reales.

Hace unos días estuvimos leyendo con interés un artículo publicado en el New York Times que explicaba en que se fundamenta la aplicación de IBM, Watson. Para aquellos de vosotros que no sepáis quién o qué es Watson; Watson es un programa de ordenador inteligente alojado en una supercomputadora de IBM que responde a cualquier pregunta que le quieras hacer analizando la información disponible en internet y razonando sobre ella. Lo interesante es que para probar la potencia de Watson lo pusieron a concursar contra humanos en una simulación del famoso programa de preguntas y respuestas estadounidense Jeopardy!… y ganó.

Las aplicaciones de este tipo de tecnología son innumerables. Cada vez estamos más acostumbrados a ser atendidos por asistentes virtuales inteligentes que hacen las veces de guías, vendedores o banqueros que responden a nuestras preguntas como si fueran una persona.