Innovation as »thinking from the future as it emerges« - Markus F. Peschl

© Peschl | 1

Innovation as »thinking from the future as it emerges« Designing work spaces with the findings from cognitive science

Markus F. PeschlUniversity of Vienna | Cognitive Science & theLivingCore

http://www.univie.ac.at/knowledge/peschl

http://www.thelivingcore.com/

!

we enable desired futures

© Peschl |

Overview

2

1. Organizations

2. Innovation

3. Learning from the future as it emerges — Emergent Innovation

4. Enabling Spaces

5. Case study

© Peschl |

How organizations have developed over the last decades

3

Type%A Type%B Type%C Type%D

Time 1880$onwards 1960$onwards 1995$onwards 2005$onwards

Premise command$and$control mo4va4on$and$delega4on

focus$and$libera4on future<orientedness$and$innova4on

Belief workers$are$lazy$so...$strict$structures$are$imposed$for$them$to$be$produc4ve

workers$are$willing$so...$they$can$be$mo4vated$by$a$vision$&$rewarded$(career)

workers$are$individualists$so...$expect$them$to$be$their$own$leaders

workers$are$responsible$and$entrepreneurial$visionaries$

Mode%&%a6tudes

set$strategy$supervise$&$measure$increase$produc4vity

paint$vision$manage$by$objec4ves$build$consensus

suggest$purpose$design$culture$provoke$experiment

shape$the$future$$exhibit$radical$openness$prototyping$and$fast<cycle$learningng$provide$space$for$deep$understanding$

Shape hierarchy network ecosystem future/innova4on$lab

adapted from woreport.wolffolins.com

© Peschl |

Innovation Classical definitions & characteristics

—Innovation as change in the environment: — „Innovation is conceived as a process that includes the generation, development, and

implementation of new ideas or behaviors. Further, innovation is conceived as a means of changing an organization, either as a response to changes in the external environment or as a preemptive action to influence the environment. Hence innovation is here broadly defined to encompass a range of types, including new products or services, new process technologies, new organizational structures or administrative systems, or new plans or programs pertaining to organizational members.“ (Damanpour 1996, p 694)

— the point of departure of any innovation is the creation of new knowledge („creativity“)

— necessity of implementation of this new knowledge

— innovation changes the organization

— innovation changes the environment (market)

— innovation as „pre-adaptation“/preemptively induced change in the environment

— innovation does not only concern products; it comprises almost all internal and external fields: products, services, processes, organizational structures, production processes, business models, social processes, whole ecosystems, etc.

4

© Peschl |

Innovation Issues and challenges

—Innovation as socio-epistemic process — Innovation is a knowledge/epistemological process

— knowledge is a key asset for any organization

— dynamics of knowledge is the driver of innovation

— future is always in the domain of knowledge as it is yet to come (i.e., it does not yet exist)

— innovation involves various kinds/types of knowledge and epistemic practices

— Innovation is intrinsically social

— in most cases it is an individual who creates novelty

— however: he/she is always embedded in a social, cultural, and historical context

— social & extended cognition & scaffolding: other cognitive systems, jointly created artifacts, etc.

— focus on co-creation, collaboration, and team-interaction

— innovation is the result of an integration of epistemological and social processes

— innovation is a socio-epistemological technology in the sense of „tool-mediated social practices“ (Cole & Derry 2005)

5

© Peschl |


—The dominance of the past (in the future) — our cognition is heavily determined by the past

— predictive mind hypothesis (e.g., Clark, Hohwy)

— our mind predicts the future by making use of past experiences

— goal: minimize prediction error

— leads to rather conservative behavioral/learning dynamics

— most innovations are extrapolations from the past into the future

— „more of the same“

— not future-oriented

— leads to optimizing existing solutions and incremental innovations

6

© Apple

© Peschl |


—Innovation by creating diversity and selection — most innovations are created by the strategy of generating high diversity and then

selecting the promising innovations (e.g., stage-gate process; Cooper)

— compare also to evolutionary processes (trial-and-error & selection)

— Problems & open questions:

— where do initial ideas come from?

➡ unspecific, erratic & unstructured & unconstrained ideation processes, wild brainstormings, creativity techniques, „the crowd“, etc.

— ideas are in many cases (unreflectingly) driven by the past

— high quantity of low quality ideas as starting point -> where does quality come from?

— which criteria are applied for the selection process?

➡ again driven by past experiences and risk-averse business factors

— Results: optimization and incremental innovation

7

© Peschl |


—Innovation and design as dealing with various levels of uncertainty & opportunity 1.Uncertainty about a future whose distribution exists and is known

— search & optimization

2.Uncertainty about a future whose distribution exists but is not known

— discovery

3.Uncertainty about a future that is not only unknown, but also unknowable

— creation of new opportunities/possibilities

— questioning the notion of problem- & solution space

— -> they are permanently changing

— -> questioning paradigm of innovation as searching and problem solving in the solution space vs. creating novelty

— these three options mutually depend on each other

— however option 3 is the most general & interesting and prerequisite for 1 and 2

8

© Peschl |


—Reacting to changes vs. creating new niches — most innovations are driven by external changes

— innovation = reaction to a change in the environment (internal or external)

— innovation as problem solving & adaptation

— innovation = process of adaptation to the new situation in the environment

— again: driven by the past (= a change that has already occurred)

— innovation is „following“/„behind“ the environment

— result: there is always some kind of complementarity/fit between the (changed) environment and the innovation

— „key-lock situation“

— -> in most cases the lock remains unchanged

— only the key adapts to previous change in the lock

9

© Peschl |


—Reacting to changes vs. creating new niches (ctd.) — vs. (pro-)active change/innovation (adjacent possibles, pre-adaptation)

— (pro-)active internally: create (new) internal structures that enable the creation of novelty

— prepare for future changes and/or change the environment proactively

— e.g., new organizational processes/innovation capacities, etc.

— (pro-)active externally: create new niches in the environment/market that do not yet exist

— future-oriented, innovations are „ahead“ of reality, radical innovations

— taping, developing, and exploiting not-yet realized potentials

— more challenging, however more interesting innovations

— how can this be achieved?

10

© Peschl |


—The innovation paradox:creating radically new and yet fitting, sustainable, thriving, and cognitively/emotionally comprehensible/acceptable/appropriate innovations — many radical innovations are not successful, because

— they are „too far out“, they are „too creative“, they are „too out-of-the-box“

— they do not (yet) fit the users´ needs, expectations, cognitive categories, perceptual patterns, etc.

— they are „too early“

— they do not connect with the user, market, or the organization (not „anschlussfähig“)

— they impose a structure or force reality into a state that is not (yet) thriving (= „fighting against“ an intrinsic dynamics of reality)

111992 Apple Newton | http://oldcomputers.net/pics/newton-pen.jpg1981 Xerox Star | http://www.theoligarch.com/microsoft_vs_apple_history.htm

© Peschl |

Strategies for innovation as designing for the future

12

© Peschl |


13

© Peschl |


14

© Peschl |


15

© Peschl |


16

© Peschl |

Strategies of coping with novelty

17

Καιρός

http

s://u

ploa

d.wi

kimed

ia.o

rg/w

ikipe

dia/

com

mon

s/th

umb/

0/02

/Fra

nces

co_S

alvia

ti_00

5.jp

g/75

2px-

Fran

cesc

o_Sa

lviat

i_005

.jpg

Emergent Innovation getting in resonance with a thriving future

EMERGENT INNOVATION – PRINCIPLE 1LEARNING TO SEE

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Berlinermauer.jpg#/media/File:Berlinermauer.jpg

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wall#/media/File:Brick_wall_close-up_view.jpg https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Klagemauer#/media/File:Jerusalem_Western_Wall_BW_1.JPG

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/0/07/Spis_castle_wall_and_tower_02.JPG

EMERGENT INNOVATION – PRINCIPLE 2DEEP UNDERSTANDING

OF THE CORE

separation protection

closed border

EMERGENT INNOVATION – PRINCIPLE 3

GETTING IN RESONANCE WITH POTENTIALS AND WITH

WHAT WANTS TO EMERGE

http

://ww

w.m

yfre

etex

ture

s.co

m/w

p-co

nten

t/upl

oads

/201

1/05

/IGP0

246_

11.jp

g

http

s://f

arm

8.st

atic

flickr

.com

/752

3/15

7211

5161

9_6f

2eab

2e51

_k_d

.jpg

http

s://fl

ic.k

r/p/d

pF7K

7

http

s://fl

ic.k

r/p/5

zkhq

H

© Peschl |

Enabling

—What does „enabling“ mean in the context of generating new knowledge & innovation? —Leave behind the regime of control, determinism, mechanism, and making

—Instead: Provide a set of constraints or a facilitating framework/affordances supporting (and not determining) the processes of bringing forth new knowledge

—Assumptions —There is something latent in reality/knowledge which wants to break forth (“potentia”,

“actus”, “emergence”)

—It is not “visible” or “obvious” in most cases

—It is highly fragile & too weak to break through/forth by itself in most cases

31

© Peschl |

Enabling

—Enabling requires an alternative set of attitudes, values, habitus, and epistemic practices —„Epistemological virtues“ of openness, being able to reflect, to let go & to explore

—Being able to listen & observe closely | follow/„surfing“ flow of reality

—Being able to wait & to let come & to „suffer“

—Have a love for details and for „weak signals“

—Creating a dialogue-based communication culture

—Being able to identify potentials and to deal with latent knowledge

—Provide a context of cultivation and facilitation rather than a regime of control and forced change

—Enabling is a relatively weak & „poor“ concept, because we have to give up on control

32

© Peschl |

Enabling Spaces

—Leading question:

What are environments and eco-systems that support processes of innovation and knowledge creation? How can we design them?

—A space reflecting the need for different environments/contexts for different types of knowledge/innovation processes/work

—In most cases we are confronted with „dis-abling spaces“ —Impede flow of knowledge, communication, and social processes

—Necessity of a new paradigm: Enabling

33

© Peschl |

2. ENABLING SPACES

34

© Peschl |

Enabling requires a new set of attitudes, values, and skills — preparing for the future-ready organization

35

Old%organiza?onal%design%Primacy%of%control%&%management

FutureBready%organiza?ons%Primacy%of%enabling

Planned,$rule$oriented,$algorithmic,$„making“$(„facere“) Enabling,$facilita4on

Following$rules$&$„recipes“,$execu4on$of$rou4nes$$ Providing$suppor4ng$environment$&$enabling$constraints

Trying$to$keep$things$under$control LeQng$things$go,$follow$the$flow,$emergence

Problem$solving$&$„puzzle$solving“$(T.Kuhn),$paradigm$accep4ng$ Problem$seQng$&$paradigm$seQng

Staying$within$the$predetermined$problem/knowledge/search$space Ques4oning$assump4ons$and$methods,$open$ended

Analy4cal,$„science$like“ Design$(<thinking)$based$/$„ar4s4c“

Star4ng$with$already$exis4ng$solu4ons,$concerned$with$details Star4ng$with$blank$sheet,$taking$the$large$perspec4ve

© Peschl | 36

CASES

© Peschl |

Selected projects

Smart Working | Credit Suisse | Zürich, CH

Zeppelin Universität, new Campus | Friedrichshafen, DE

Creative Settlement, SFERIQ Town | Franchise, RU

37

SEE ALSO www.thelivingcore.com

© Peschl |

Selected projects

Bene AG | New World of Working | Global

Merck AG | Innovation Center | Global

Hoerbiger AG | Workplace of the Future | Global

38

SEE ALSO www.thelivingcore.com

© Peschl |

Conclusions

—„Learning from the future as it emerges“

—openness for the emergence of new (relevant) thematic fields & novelty

—Take an integrated, holistic and interdisciplinary perspective — integration of culture, strategy, innovation, HR/personal development, technology… and

architecture/office design

— change project

—Enabling & Enabling Spaces — provide enabling framework according to the knowledge processes in the particular

phases of the innovation process

— Engagement comes from providing employees enabling enabling environments

— brings about a radical change in attitudes

39

© Peschl |

Further readings

— Peschl, M.F. and T. Fundneider (2014). Designing and enabling interfaces for collaborative knowledge creation and innovation. From managing to enabling innovation as socio-epistemological technology. Computers and Human Behavior 37, 346–359.

— Peschl, M.F. and T. Fundneider (2014). Evolving the future by learning from the future (as it emerges)? Toward an epistemology of change. Behavioral and Brain Sciences 37(4), 433-434.

— Peschl, M.F. and T. Fundneider (2014). Why space matters for collaborative innovation networks. On designing enabling spaces for collaborative knowledge creation. International Journal of Organisational Design and Engineering (IJODE) 3(3/4), 358–391.

— Peschl, M.F. and T. Fundneider (2013). Theory-U and Emergent Innovation. Presencing as a method of bringing forth profoundly new knowledge and realities. In O. Gunnlaugson, C. Baron, and M. Cayer (Eds.), Perspectives on Theory U: Insights from the field, pp. 207–233. Hershey, PA: Business Science Reference/IGI Global.

— Peschl, M.F. and T. Fundneider (2013). Branding as enabling knowledge creation. the role of space and cognition in branding processes. In S. Sonnenburg and L. Baker (Eds.), Branded spaces. Experience enactments and entanglements, pp. 261–277. Wiesbaden: Springer.

— Peschl, M.F. and T. Fundneider (2008). Emergent Innovation and Sustainable Knowledge Co-creation. A Socio-Epistemological Approach to “Innovation from within”. In M.D. Lytras, J.M. Carroll, E. Damiani et al. (Eds.), The Open Knowledge Society: A Computer Science and Information Systems Manifesto, pp. 101–108. New York, Berlin, Heidelberg: Springer (CCIS 19).

— http://www.thelivingcore.com/en/

40

we enable desired futures

Health & Medicine

Innovation as »thinking from the future as it emerges« - Markus F. Peschl