Irving Wladawsky-Berger

Getting on the AI Learning Curve: A Pragmatic, Incremental Approach

After decades of promise and hype, AI is now seemingly everywhere.  Over the past several years, the necessary ingredients have come together to propel AI beyond the research labs into the marketplace: powerful, inexpensive computer technologies; huge amounts of data; and advanced algorithms including machine learning.

While AI is likely to become one of the most important technologies of our era, we’re still in the early stages of deployment, especially outside leading-edge technology companies.  But, as AI continues its rapid progress, it’s not too early to ask a few important questions: What is AI’s overall value to the economy? What are the biggest application opportunities?; and, what are AI’s most serious challenges and limitations?

To address these questions, McKinsey recently published a discussion paper on the marketplace potential of AI.  The paper is particularly focused on machine learning and related technologies, and is based on a detail analysis of more that 400 use cases across 19 industries and 9 business functions.

“Two-thirds of the opportunities to use AI are in improving the performance of existing analytical use cases,” is the paper’s overriding finding.  This is a very interesting insight.  AI is now being successfully applied to tasks that not long ago were viewed as the exclusive domain of humans, - machine translation, natural language processing, defeating the world’s top Go players, - but only 16% of the use cases studied by McKinsey are greenfield cases, where only machine learning techniques can be used.  For the vast majority of the use cases, 69%, the key value of machine learning is to improve performance beyond that provided by traditional analytic techniques.  And, in the remaining 15% of cases, machine learning provided limited additional performance over existing analytical methods. 

Education, Work and US Leadership in the 21st Century

A few weeks ago, the Council on Foreign Relations (CFR) released The Work Ahead - Machines, Skills, and U.S. Leadership in the Twenty-First Century, a report by a CFR-sponsored Task Force to assess the future of work and its implications for the US economy and national security.  The Task Force was led by Penny Pritzker, - former Secretary of Commerce and founder and chair of PSP Partners, and by John Engler, - former Governor of Michigan and interim President of Michigan State University.

Their comprehensive report, - over 150 pages and 276 citations, - explored in great depth the changing nature of work as global competition and advanced technologies like AI, robotics, and smart IoT devices transform jobs and careers.  It states right up front that “The most important challenge facing the United States - given the seismic forces of innovation, automation, and globalization that are changing the nature of work - is to create better pathways for all Americans to adapt and thrive.  The country’s future as a stable, strong nation willing and able to devote the necessary resources and attention to meeting international challenges depends on rebuilding the links among work, opportunity, and economic security.”

For much of the 20th century, technology and globalization helped lead America to its leadership position in the world stage.  Underpinning this US leadership was the American Dream, - the promise that anyone can get ahead and achieve success and prosperity through talent and hard work.  But this promise has been eroding for decades.  For many of its citizens, the American Dream has been steadily disappearing.

Technology advances have led to massive innovations and efficiencies, enabling companies to get the same work done with significantly fewer people.  At the same time, many US-headquartered companies are truly global, doing business all over the world.  Beyond outsourcing jobs to countries with lower labor costs they’ve been investing and adding jobs where the demand is highest, - which has often been in faster growing emerging markets.

The US thus faces two major challenges: “creating new work opportunities, better career paths, and higher incomes for its people, while developing a workforce that will ensure U.S. competitive success in a global economy that will continue to be reshaped by technology and trade.” 

The 2018 Inclusive Internet Index

Earlier this year, the Economist Intelligence Unit (EIU) published the Inclusive Internet Index 2018.  Now in its second year, the Index analyzes and compares the current state of the Internet across 86 countries, ranging from advanced to developing economies and covering 91% of the world’s population.  Its key objective is to help policymakers understand the key factors necessary for the wide, inclusive use of the Internet in their respective countries.

Countries are evaluated based on 54 indicators organized around four major categories:

• Availability,  which captures the quality of breadth of the infrastructure available for Internet access, including network availability, access points for landline and mobile connections, and the basic electricity infrastructure needed to support Internet connectivity in urban and rural areas.
• Affordability, which measures the cost of Internet access relative to income, the competitive environment for wireless and broadband operators and the measures taken to decrease costs and promote access.
• Relevance, which looks at the availability of Internet content in the local language(s) and the value of being connected to get access to relevant services like news, entertainment, health advice and business and financial information.
• Readiness, which examines the capacity to take advantage of accessing the Internet, including level of literacy, educational attainment, cultural acceptance, privacy and security, and trust in the sources of online information.

Each country is assigned a score for each of the four categories, as well as an overall index score. 

The Impact of AI on R&D and Innovation

For the past couple of centuries, general-purpose technologies (GPTs) have been the key drivers of productivity and economic growth, - thanks to their rapid improvements in price and performance, pervasive applications, and ability to spur complementary innovations across a wide variety of industries.  The steam engine, electricity and the internal combustion engine are prominent examples of GPTs in the 18th and 19th century.  More recently, semiconductors, computers and the Internet have led to the digital revolution of the past several decades.

Beyond innovations in existing sectors, the rapidly improving price/performance of GPTs have led over time to the creation of whole new applications and industries.  For example, the steady declines in the price of electricity-generated power and the improvement in the efficiency of electric motors led to the radical transformation of manufacturing in the early part of the 20th century with the advent of the assembly line.  It also led to the creation of the consumer appliance industry, e.g., refrigerators, dishwashers, washing machines.  Similarly, as the semiconductor industry took off, it led to the historical transition from the industrial economy of the past two centuries to our ongoing digital economy.

How about artificial intelligence?  Beyond its use by leading edge technology companies, we’re still in the early stages of AI deployment.  It’s only been in the last few years that major advances in machine learning have taken AI from the lab to early adopters in the marketplace.  While considerable innovations and investments are required for its wider deployment, AI is likely to become one of the most important GPTs in the 21st century. 

Harnessing the Collective Intelligence of Humans and Machines

For over a decade, MIT professor Thomas Malone has been conducting pioneering research on the collective intelligence of groups.  Malone is the founding director of the MIT Center for Collective Intelligence, and has authored and co-authored a number of seminal articles on the subject.  A few weeks ago, Malone published Superminds: The Surprising Power of People and Computers Thinking Together, - a book that nicely explains the concept of collective intelligence and how our increasingly capable machines are now complementing the intelligence of groups of people.  The book illustrates these concepts with a wide variety of examples and case studies.

He defines a supermind as “a group of individuals acting in ways that seem intelligent.”  A supermind has measurable properties just as individual do.  It can have a life of its own beyond those of its individuals constituents.  And, as Malone points out, throughout history, groups of people working together as superminds have been responsible for the vast majority of human achievements. 

From Horseless Carriages to Driverless Vehicles

Autonomous vehicles (AVs) may well be the quintessential symbol of our AI/robotics age.  Cars are a major part of our daily lives.  A self-driven car is a concept that requires little explanation, something we can all quickly grasp.  It wasn’t that long ago that the notion on an AV driving us around while we read or sleep would have felt like the stuff of science fiction.  Having experimental AVs coursing through public roads in Silicon Valley, Pittsburgh and Phoenix is concrete evidence that our smart machines are achieving human-like intelligence, raising a number of important questions:  how long before AVs are all around us?; how will they impact our lives?; what unintended consequences might we have to deal with?; and what should be done to ensure that they arrive as safely and smoothly as possible?

These are among the questions addressed in the March 1 issue of The Economist, which includes a comprehensive special report on autonomous vehicles with seven articles on the subject.  The special report starts out with the assumption that whatever technological hurdles lie in their way will be eventually overcome.  But there are wider economic, social and public policy issues to be explored, starting with: what can we learn from the transition to horseless carriages in the 20th century that can now be applied to the transition to driverless cars?

Improving the Odds of Success for Corporate Transformations

Looking back upon my long career, one of the major factors shaping my views of strategy and innovation are the powerful transformational forces that I saw buffeting the IT industry over much of that time.  It’s frankly sobering how many once powerful IT companies are no longer around or are shadows of their former selves.  The carnage might be more pronounced in the fast-changing IT industry, but no industry has been immune.  It’s all part of what Joseph Schumpeter called creative destruction over 75 years ago, - “the process of industrial mutation that incessantly revolutionizes the economic structure from within, incessantly destroying the old one, incessantly creating a new one.”

For a startup a transformative innovation is all upside, an opportunity to take-on established companies with new products that offer significantly better capabilities and/or lower costs.  Startups hope that their compelling new offerings will help them establish a foothold in the marketplace and, over time, become leaders in their industry.

But change is often difficult for established companies.  Over the years, they’ve amassed a number of valuable assets and extensive organizations.  Already consumed with managing their existing operations, - e.g., products and services; supply chain and channel partners; sales and marketing; revenues, profits and cash; -  they may see a transformative innovation as more of a threat or distraction than an opportunity. 

The Growing Importance of Resilience in an Increasinsgly Turbulent World

In March of 2017, Northeastern University launched a new interdisciplinary initiative, the Global Resilience Institute (GRI).  GRI is a university-wide research and educational effort to advance the resilience of individuals, communities, economies and societies around the world by strengthening their capacity to adapt to an increasingly turbulent world.  Its key mission is to develop and deploy practical tools, applications and skills to help effectively respond to human-made and naturally-occurring disruptions and disasters.

GRI’s Founding Director is Northeastern professor Stephen Flynn.  In his Director’s Welcome web page, Flynn writes that “Building resilience within and across multiple levels, from individual to societal, requires a comprehensive effort that matches the complexity of the increasingly interdependent systems and networks we all rely on… Our aim is to serve as both a channel and a catalyst for experts in industry, academia, and government to collaborate on solving the world’s most pressing resilience challenges.  These include both slowly emerging disruptions as well as shocks and sudden disasters.”

Most everyone agrees that dealing with our increasingly turbulent, complex world us requires significant enhancements to the resilience of our societies and systems.  But, five critical barriers stand in the way:

• Widespread risk illiteracy and a limited understanding of the new dependencies and interdependencies that pervade our more connected lives;
• Inadequate designs for embedding resilience into systems, networks, and infrastructure at multiple levels;
• Pervasive economic disincentives for investing in proven resilience measures;
• Inadequate governance frameworks and policy guidance to foster resilience; and
• A lack of adequate training and education to support the development and implementation of comprehensive capabilities for advancing resilience.

A Framework for the Safe Management of Digital Identities and Data

Identity plays a major role in everyday life.  Think about going to an office, getting on a plane, logging to a website or making an online purchase.  Identity is the key that determines the particular transactions in which we can rightfully participate as well as the information we’re entitled to access.   But, we generally don’t pay much attention to the management of our identity credentials unless something goes seriously wrong.

For much of history, our identity systems have been based on face-to-face interactions and on physical documents and processes.  But, the transition to a digital economy requires radically different identity systems.  In a world that’s increasingly governed by digital transactions and data, our existing methods for managing security and privacy are proving inadequate.  Data breaches, large-scale fraud, and identity theft are becoming more common.  In addition, a significant portion of the world’s population lacks the credentials needed to participate in the digital economy.  Our existing methods for managing digital identities are far from adequate.

As explained in A Blueprint for Digital Identity, - a 2016 report by the World Economic Forum, - identity is essentially a collection of information or attributes associated with a specific individual.  These attributes fall into three main categories:  inherent - attributes intrinsic to an individual, - e.g., age, height, date of birth, fingerprints, color of eyes, retinal scans;  assigned - attributes attached to but not intrinsic to the individual - e.g., e-mail address, telephone numbers, social security, drivers license, passport number; and accumulated - attributes gathered or developed over time - e.g., health records, job history, home addresses, schools attended.

While mostly associated with individuals, identities can also be assigned to legal entities like corporations, partnerships and trusts; to physical entities like cars, buildings, smartphones and IoT devices; and to digital entities like patents, software programs and data sets.

Data attributes are generally siloed within different private and public sector institutions, each using its data for its own purposes.  But to reach a higher level of privacy and security, we need to establish trusted data ecosystems, which requires the exchange and sharing of data across a variety of institutions.  The more data sources a trusted ecosystem has access to, the higher the probability of detecting fraud and identity theft while reducing false positives.  In addition, an ecosystem with a variety of data sources can help foster economic inclusiveness by certifying the identities and credit worthiness of poor people with no banking affiliation.

However, safeguarding the data used to validate identities creates security and privacy issues of its own.  It’s unsafe to gather all the needed attributes within one institution or central data location, making it a target for data breaches.  But, it’s also highly unfeasible, as few institutions will let their critical data out of their premises.

The Vital Role of Culture in Business

The January-February issue of the Harvard Business Review spotlights The Culture Factor, with five articles on the subject.  “Culture is the tacit social order of an organization: It shapes attitudes and behaviors in wide-ranging and durable ways,” notes the issue’s lead article.  “Cultural norms define what is encouraged, discouraged, accepted, or rejected within a group.  When properly aligned with personal values, drives, and needs, culture can unleash tremendous amounts of energy toward a shared purpose and foster an organization’s capacity to thrive.”

In Who Says Elephants Can't Dance?, - his excellent chronicle of the IBM transformation he led as Chairman and CEO from 1993 to 2002, - Lou Gerstner wrote: “I came to see in my time at IBM that culture isn’t just one aspect of the game - it is the game.  In the end, an organization is nothing more than the collective capacity of its people to create value.  Vision, strategy, marketing, financial management - any management system, in fact - can set you on the right path and can carry you for a while.  But no enterprise - whether in business, government, education, health care or any area of human endeavor - will succeed over the long haul if those elements aren't part of its DNA.” 

The Complex Relationship Between Science and the Public

More than ever, scientific and technological innovations touch every aspect of our lives and influence the choices we make in a wide variety of areas.  A 2015 study by the Pew Research Center revealed that most Americans have a positive view of science and of the accomplishments of scientists.  But, despite broadly similar views about the place of science in the country, there were large differences between the general public and scientist across a number of important issues, including genetically modified foods, vaccine safety and climate change.

Two years ago, the American Academy of Arts and Sciences launched The Public Face of Science, an initiative whose objective is to better understand the complex relationship between scientists and the public in America.  A few weeks ago, the Academy released Perceptions of Science in America, the first in a series of reports from the Public Face of Science initiative.  The report aims to analyze the public’s perception of scientists, explore how opinions vary among different populations, and shed light on how public opinions are shaped.  Its analysis is based on survey data from multiple sources, including the Pew Research Center, the National Science Board Science and Engineering Indicators, the National Opinion Research Center, Research!America and ScienceCounts.

What do we mean by science?  “The term science encompasses a range of disciplines in the physical, social, and life sciences, along with applied fields, such as engineering and medicine,” notes the report. “Science can be defined as ‘the use of evidence to construct testable explanations and predictions of natural, as well as the knowledge generated through this process.’”  But, one must keep in mind that the word science is interpreted differently by different individuals, - e.g., medical treatments, technological advances, fundamental research.  “When interpreting the available survey data, it is important to consider the range of responses a question might prompt.”

Blockchain and the Promise of an Open, Decentralized Internet

The January 21 issue of the NY Times Magazine included a very good article, Beyond the Bitcoin Bubble, by science writer Steven Johnson.  His article aims to explain what blockchain, cryptocurrencies and related technologies are all about as well as their potential impact on the economy and society.  These are not only complex but esoteric subjects, as nicely illustrated in this funny video.  While blockchain and Bitcoin have been frequently in the news lately, beyond knowing that they have something to do with money, most people don’t really know what they are or why they should care.

This is not surprising.  In their early years, it’s hard for most people to appreciate the potential of a transformative technology.  There’s generally a considerable time-lag between the time we start reading articles about their exciting potential and their adoption by companies and industries across the marketplace.  This is particularly the case for general purpose technologies, like electricity, the Internet and blockchain, which are the most potentially transformative due to their widespread use.   Their deployment time-lags are longer because attaining their full benefits requires a number of complementary co-inventions and investments, including additional technologies, applications, processes, business models, and regulatory policies.

Human Beings Need a Story

It wasn’t that long ago that we didn’t have much use for probabilities in our daily life, - outside of weather reports, election predictions, baseball and financial markets.  But that’s all changed with the growing datafication of the economy and society.  Probabilities have been playing an increasing role in our work and personal life given our newfound ability to quantify just about anything.  In all kinds of everyday situations, - from medical diagnoses to financial decisions, -  we now have to accept the fact that it’s impossible to predict what will actually happen.  Instead, we have to get used to living in a complex world of uncertainties and probabilities.  We have to learn how to deal with the very messy world of big data, and how to best apply our learning to make good decisions and predictions.

Physics went through such a transition about 100 years ago.  In the deterministic world of classical mechanics, there’s always a real truth.  The same objects, subject to the same forces, will always yield the same results.  Elegant mathematical models can be used to make perfect predictions within the accuracy of their human-scale measurements.  Early in the 19th century, French mathematician and scientist Pierre-Simon Laplace observed that if we knew the precise state of the universe as represented by the position and speed of every one of its particles, classical mechanics would enable us to calculate all past and future states of the universe.

But, this predictable world began to fall apart in the early 20th century.  19th century classical physics was replaced by a kind of 20th century magical mystery tour, ruled by the new principles of quantum mechanics and relativity.   Classical mechanics could not explain the counter-intuitive and seemingly absurd behavior of energy and matter at atomic and cosmological scales.

At these scales, the world is intrinsically unpredictable.  Instead of a deterministic world, we now have a world based on probabilities.  You cannot predict all the future states of an electron, for example, based on its present state.  You can map out its behavior, but only as probability distributions of all the possible states it could be at.  Moreover, the Heisenberg uncertainty principle tells you that it’s impossible to know the exact state of a particle.  You cannot simultaneously determine its exact position and velocity with any great degree of accuracy no matter how good your measurement tools are.

Will There Be Enough Work in the Future?

Will there be enough work in the future?  Opinions are fairly divided between those who believe that technology advances will reduce human jobs, and those who believe that technology advances will produce as many jobs as they displace.  It’s easier to predict the jobs that will be automated away by technology, but much more difficult to predict the new jobs that these same technologies will create.  In the end, we don’t really know.

In December of 2017, the McKinsey Global Institute published Jobs Lost, Jobs Gained: Workforce Transition in a Time of Automation, a report that directly addresses this question.  The McKinsey study examined in great detail the work that’s likely to be displaced by automation through 2030, as well as the jobs that are likely to be created over the same period.  It analyzed data from 46 countries comprising almost 90 percent of global GDP, focusing particularly on six countries: China, Germany, India, Japan, Mexico and the US.  For each of this six countries, the study modeled the potential for employment changes in more than 800 occupations based on different scenarios for the pace of automation adoption and for future labor demand.

The report’s overall conclusion is that a growing technology-based economy will create a significant number of new occupations, - as has been the case in the past, - which will more than offset declines in occupations displaced by automation.  However, “while there may be enough work to maintain full employment to 2030 under most scenarios, the transitions will be very challenging - matching or even exceeding the scale of shifts out of agriculture and manufacturing we have seen in the past.”

The Impact of Automation on Everyday Life

This past October, the Pew Research Center released Automation in Everyday Life, a report on what Americans think about advanced technologies like artificial intelligence and robotics, and the impact they expect them to have on their everyday lives.  The report is based on a national survey of 4,135 randomly selected American adults.  To help gauge their opinion on such complex topics, the survey questions were framed around four specific scenarios related to these advanced technologies: driverless cars, workplace automation, robot caregivers, and computer algorithms that evaluate and hire job applicants.

“Americans anticipate significant impacts from various automation technologies in the course of their lifetime,” noted the report.  “Although they expect certain positive outcomes from these developments, their attitudes more frequently reflect worry and concern over the implications of these technologies for society as a whole.”

Let me discuss some of the report’s key findings.

AI and the Productivity Paradox

AI is being successfully applied to tasks that not long ago were viewed as the exclusive domain of humans, matching or surpassing human level performance in more and more domains.  But, at the same time, productivity growth has significantly declined over the past decade, and income has continued to stagnate for the majority of Americans.  This puzzling contradiction is addressed in Artificial Intelligences and the Modern Productivity Paradox, a working paper recently published  by the National Bureau of Economic Research (NBER).

The paper’s authors, - MIT professor Erik Brynjolfsson, MIT PhD candidate Daniel Rock, and University of Chicago professor Chad Syverson, - note that “aggregate labor productivity growth in the U.S. averaged only 1.3% per year from 2005 to 2016, less than half of the 2.8% annual growth rate sustained from 1995 to 2004…  What’s more, real median income has stagnated since the late 1990s and non-economic measures of well-being, like life expectancy, have fallen for some groups.”

This productivity puzzle isn’t confined to AI.  “Few topics in economics today in most large economies generate as much debate as the productivity puzzle,” said McKinsey in a March, 2017 report.  “In  the United States, productivity growth has declined sharply since 2004 yet digital technology has been widely apparent during this period…  The answer to this puzzle holds the key to future prosperity because now more than ever our economy depends on productivity improvements for long-term economic growth.  Economists have proposed competing explanations for declining productivity growth and so far have failed to reach a consensus.” 

Blockchain and the Music Industry: Turning Pennies into Dollars

Just about every industry has been significantly transformed in the past few decades.  But few have been as disrupted as the music industry.  Everything seems to be changing at once, from the way content is produced and delivered, to the sources of revenue and profits.  Digital technologies, - the Internet, smartphones, cloud computing, … - have literally turned dollars into pennies.  Now, blockchain and related technologies may once more play a major role in the music industry, - this time helping to turn those pennies back into dollars.

We’re truly surrounded by music as never before, - in a wide variety of styles; in physical and digital formats; over the Internet, satellite, and broadcasts; in mobile devices and home music systems.  But, the shift from physical to digital, and then from downloads to streaming have wreaked havoc on the business of music.  US retail revenues of recorded music were close to $14 billion in 1998 before starting their decline.  According to the Recording Industry Association of America (RIAA), revenues fell from roughly $12 billion in 2006 to around $7 billion in 2010.  They stayed flat at $7 billion though 2015, starting to increase in 2016 mostly due to a growth in paid streaming music subscriptions.  Revenues are expected to be around $8 billion in 2017.

Turning dollars into pennies succinctly captures the music industry’s precipitous revenue declines.  As this article noted, “During the heyday of the 80s, the music industry was rolling in so much money it could afford to leave some on the table… which it often did…  There were so many dollars coming in, they didn’t bother paying attention to the pennies.  Well, as we all know those days are gone.  And after a decade of losses from its traditional revenue stream (sales), we’ve seen the music industry forced to look for revenue in new places and in different ways.  In the absence of dollars, the pennies now matter.”

As a result, the music industry now finds itself trying to figure out how to keep track of all those pennies in the hope of turning them back into dollars.  In the first half of 2017, streaming services accounted for 62% of the total market, with digital downloads and physical sales accounting for 19% and 16% respectively, said the RIAA.  But streaming pays royalties in fractions of pennies, so legislation, new business models and technological innovations are needed to make sure that all the necessary data are efficiently collected so the various artists involved in a song are paid.

The Rise of Winner-Take-All Urbanism

Earlier this year, Richard Florida published Why America’s Richest Cities Keep Getting Richer in The Atlantic.  Florida is a leading urban studies author and researcher, professor at the University of Toronto and Director of Cities at its Martin Prosperity Institute.

“The most important and innovative industries and the most talented, most ambitious, and wealthiest people are converging as never before in a relative handful of leading superstar cities that are knowledge and tech hubs,” wrote Florida.  “This small group of elite places forge ever forward, while most others struggle, stagnate, or fall behind.  This process is one I like to call winner-take-all urbanism.”

Winner-take-all urbanism is another manifestation of the winner-take-all economics of the past few decades, in which a relatively small number of players reap a very large share of the rewards, upending whole industries with their outsized returns.

AI and The Future of Work

Last month I attended AI and the Future of Work, a conference hosted by MIT’s Computer Science and Artificial Intelligence Laboratory (CSAIL) and its Initiative on the Digital Economy (IDE).  The two-day agenda included over 20 keynotes and panels on AI-related topics, and around 60 speakers and panelists from academia and business.

New technologies have been replacing workers and transforming economies over the past two centuries.  But, over time, these same technologies led to the creation of whole new industries and new jobs.  While the technologies of the industrial economy helped to make up for our physical limitations, the technologies of the digital economy are now enhancing our cognitive capabilities.  They’re being increasingly applied to activities that not long ago were viewed as the exclusive domain of humans.  Will the AI revolution play out like past technology revolutions, - short term disruptions followed by long-term benefits, - or will this time be different?

Conference participants generally agreed that AI will have a major impact on jobs and the very nature of work.  But, for the most part, they viewed AI as mostly augmenting rather than replacing human capabilities, automating the more routine parts of a job and increasing the productivity and quality of workers, so they can focus on those aspect of the job that most require human attention.  Overall, a small percentage of jobs will be fully automated, while many more will be significantly transformed.

Conference participants also generally agreed that the more advanced AI-based transformations will not happen rapidly, but are likely decades away.  Much progress has been recently made in the ability to extract features from all the data we now have access to, as well as in machine learning algorithms that give computers the ability to learn by ingesting large amounts of data instead of being explicitly programmed.  While such statistical pattern recognition approaches can be applied to many tasks, they’re no substitute for model formation, the main approach used by humans, - from toddlers to physicists, - to understand how the world works.  We’re a long way from the development of AIs that truly learn and reason like people. 

The Emergence of Industry 4.0

Over the past few years, Industry 4.0, - aka the 4th Industrial Revolution, - has been the subject of several articles, studies, and surveys, as well as a book published earlier this year by Klaus Schwab, founder and executive chairman of the World Economic Forum (WEF).  They all attempt to describe and put a name to the disruptive changes taking place all around us within the context of the past 250 years.

“Industrial revolutions are momentous events,” said A Strategist Guide to Industry 4.0, - a 2016 article in strategy+business.  “By most reckonings, there have been only three.”  The First Industrial Revolution, - starting in the last third of the 18th century, - introduced new tools and manufacturing processes based on steam and water power, ushering the transition from hand-made goods to mechanized, machine-based production.  The Second starting a century later, brought us steel, cars, chemicals, petroleum, electricity, the telephone and radio while creating the age of mass production.  The Third, - following World War II - saw the advent of computers, digital technologies, the IT industry, and the automation of process in just about all industries.

There’s general agreement that the 4th Industrial Revolution is primarily driven by a fusion of once separate technologies that when joined together are integrating the physical and digital worlds.  But, there’s a spectrum of opinions as to the scope of its impact, some arguing that Industry 4.0 applies primarily to manufacturing technologies and industries, while others argue that it’s profoundly transforming our economies and societies.

A Historical Perspective on the Digital Economy

A few months ago, the magazine strategy+business (s+b) published a roundtable discussion between s+b editor-in-chief Art Kleiner, economic historian Carlota Perez, and PwC UK partner Leo Johnson.  The discussion was centered on Perez’s theory of technology revolutions and economic cycles.  In her 2002 influential book, Technological Revolutions and Financial Capital: The Dynamics of Bubbles and Golden Ages and in several other publications, Perez framed the digital economy of the past few decades from a historical perspective.  If we examine the long term historical big picture, patterns emerge which can help guide our understanding and planning for the future. 

According to Perez, since the onset of the Industrial Revolution we’ve had 5 major technology-driven economic cycles, each one lasting roughly 50-60 years.  First was the age of machines, factories and canals starting in 1771.  This was followed by the age of steam, railways, iron and coal, starting in 1829; steel, electricity and heavy engineering in 1875; oil, automobiles, and mass production in 1908; and our present ICT-based digital age starting in 1971.

Each economic cycle is composed of two very different periods, each lasting roughly 20 - 30 years.  The installation period is the time of creative destruction, when new technologies emerge from the labs into the marketplace, entrepreneurs start many new businesses based on the new technologies, VCs encourage business model experimentation, and the new ventures attract considerable investments and financial speculation.  Inevitably this all leads to a financial bubble, which eventually bursts in spectacular fashion leading to a time of crisis.

After the crash, comes the deployment period, which Perez views as a time of economic transformation and institutional recomposition.  The now well accepted technologies and business paradigms become the norm; infrastructures and industries start getting better defined and more stable; and production capital drives long-term growth and expansion by spreading and multiplying the successful business models.

Human-AI Decision Systems

I recently read The Human Strategy, a very interesting article on Human-AI decision systems by MIT Media Lab professor Sandy Pentland.  Pentland is the faculty director of MIT Connection Science, - with which I’m associated as a Fellow, - as well as director of the Human Dynamics Lab.  In 2014 he published Social Physics: How Social Networks Can Make Us Smarter.

“Perhaps the most critical function of any organization or society is its decision systems,” wrote Pentland.  “In modern societies, decision systems provide a leader the ability to make informed and timely decisions, supported by a complex enterprise of distributed information and communication systems that provide situational awareness.  Traditionally, decision systems have been confined to individual physical domains, such as logistics, physical plant, and human resources, and more recently virtual domains such as cyber, by both policy and technology, resulting in challenges with the integration of information across disparate domains.”

But, despite the increasingly complex decisions that organizations are called upon to make, decision-making remains human-intensive and anecdotal.  Few organizations have applied social network analysis to help them scale the size and expertise of the decision-making group.  Nor have they integrated the large amounts of data, analytical tools and powerful AI systems now at our disposal into their decision making systems. 

Where is Technology Taking the Economy

I recently read Where is Technology Taking the Economy?, an article in McKinsey Quarterly by W. Brian Arthur, - External Professor at the Santa Fe Institute , Visiting Researcher at PARC, and former faculty member at Stanford University.

According to Arthur, the digital revolution has morphed through three distinct eras over the past several decades.  The first era, in the 1970s and 1980s, brought us Moore’s law and the dramatic advances in semiconductor technologies.  From mainframe and supercomputers to PCs and workstation, IT was now being used in a wide variety of applications, from financial services and oil exploration, to computer-aided design and office systems.  “The economy for the first time had serious computational assistance.”

Then came the second era in the 1990s and 2000s, which enabled us to link computers together, share information, and connect digital processes.  “Everything suddenly was in conversation with everything else,” giving rise to “the virtual economy of interconnected machines, software, and processes…, where physical actions now could be executed digitally.”

We’re now in the third era, which began roughly in the 2010s.  It’s brought us smartphones, ubiquitous sensors, IoT devices and oceans and oceans of data.  Powerful computers and intelligent algorithms are enabling us to make sense of all that data by searching for patterns and doing  something with the results, including computer vision, natural-language processing, language translation, face recognition and digital assistants.

The MIT 2017 Inclusive Innovation Challenge

The MIT Initiative on the Digital Economy (IDE) was organized in 2013 by Erik Brynjolfsson and Andy McAfee to examine the impact of digital technologies on the world.  Understanding the future of work and jobs is one of the major areas of research being address by IDE.  What will the workforce of the future look like?, Where will jobs come from in the coming years, especially for the workers must impacted by automation?,  How can we accelerate the transformation of institutions, organizations, and human skills to keep up with the quickening pace of digital innovation?

To help come up with breakthrough, real-world answers to these tough questions, IDE launched the MIT Inclusive Innovation Challenge (IIC) last year.  The Challenge aims to identify, celebrate and award prizes to organizations around the world that are developing innovative approaches for improving the economic opportunities of middle- and base-level workers.

Now in its second year, the IIC introduced the winners of its 2017 competition at an event held on October 12 as part of Boston’s annual HUBweek.  Over $1 million was awarded to the winners in four categories: job creation and income growth, skills development and matching, technology access and financial inclusion.  The grand prize winner in each category received $150,000, while the three runners up in each category received $35,000.  The awards were funded with support from from Google.org, The Joyce Foundation, ISN and Joseph Eastin.

A Novel Approach for Measuring the True Impact of the Digital Economy

Gross domestic product (GDP), the basic measure of a country’s overall economic output, is generally used by governments to inform their policies and decisions.  “What we measure affects what we do; and if our measurements are flawed, decisions may be distorted,” noted a 2009 Commission convened to look at the adequacy of GDP as an indicator of economic performance, - which was led by Nobel-prize winning economists Joseph Stiglitz and Amartya Sen.

GDP is essentially a measure of production.  While suitable when economies were dominated by the production of physical goods, GDP doesn’t adequately capture the growing share and variety of services and the development of increasingly complex solutions in our 21st century digital economy.

Digital Spillover, a recent report co-developed by Huawei and Oxford Economics, explores how to better define and measure the true impact of the digital economy.  It argues that the scope of the digital economy is expanding and proposes a novel way of measuring its impact.

“A truly digital economy is one in which businesses from across the industrial spectrum are investing in digital and making the most productive use of it,” notes the report.  “The mechanisms by which this is happening are complex and evolving.  Over and above the direct productivity boost that companies enjoy from digital technologies, a more profound chain of indirect benefits also takes place, as the impact spills over within a firm, to its competitors, and throughout its supply chain.  These digital spillover effects materialize through numerous channels, and are integral to understanding the role digital technologies play in the economy.”

Jobs, Skills and Education

Earlier this year the communications firm Burson-Marsteller along with research firm PSB interviewed 1,500 Americans from all walks of life to shed light on their feelings about the current state of the economy and their expectations for the future.  “Americans are concerned about the present, but optimistic about the future,” was the survey’s overriding finding.  “However, opinions about the economy and the future are somewhat driven by education level.”

While only 33% said that the country is headed in the right direction, 67% said that they were somewhat or very optimistic about the future.  To a large extent, this optimism is based on the belief that their jobs are safe over the next 5 years, with 62% believing that they won’t be laid off and 60% that a machine couldn’t replace them.  In their opinion, the high cost of living, unemployment and jobs, the gap between rich and poor and taxes are the top issues facing the US economy, ahead by a fairly wide margin over corporate corruption, loss of manufacturing jobs, and falling or stagnant wages.

Their feelings about the future differed by educational level.  71% of Americans with a college education or more said that they have the right skills to succeed in the 21st century, compared to 42% of those with a high school education or less.  Only 14% of survey participants with a college education worried that their jobs could be automated within five years, compared with 30% of those with high school or less.  And 55% of Americans with college or more felt that technology will improve overall employment compared to 45% of those with high school or less.

Gender Diversity, Empathy and Technology

What’s the value of gender diversity in technology-based disciplines?  Is gender diversity an asset for technology-based companies?  Are men inherently better than women at technology-based jobs?

These are questions that have long been discussed.  Lots of progress has been made in addressing them.  But they recently resurfaced following an internal memo by Google engineer James Damore that criticized the company’s diversity initiatives, for which he was subsequently fired by Google.

Let me attempt to explore these questions based on relatively recent academic research in three key areas: gender-based behavioral differences; how to create smarter working groups; and the changing skills requirements in the digital economy.

The True State of Globalization

The July-August issue of the Harvard Business Review features an article by NYU and IESE professor Pankaj Ghemawat, - Globalization in the Age of Trump: Protectionism Will Change How Companies Do Business - But Not in the Ways You Think.  Ghemawat has long been conducting research on globalization, and has written extensively on the subject.  His latest book, The Laws of Globalization, was published in October of 2016.

“Business leaders are scrambling to adjust to a world few imagined possible just a year ago,” notes the article’s opening sentence.  “The myth of a borderless world has come crashing down.  Traditional pillars of open markets - the United States and the UK - are wobbling, and China is positioning itself as globalization’s staunchest defender.  In June 2016, the Brexit vote stunned the European Union, and the news coverage about globalization turned increasingly negative in the U.S. as the presidential election campaign progressed.”

What should companies do?  Should they pack up and return home?  Is this the end of globalization, only a dozen years after Thomas Friedman’s The World is Flat became a prominent international best-seller?  “Not according to my research,” says Ghemawat. 

Blockchain and the Future of the Firm

Last week I wrote about Machine, Platform, Crowd: Harnessing Our Digital Future, a recently published book by MIT’s Andy McAfee and Erik Brynjolfsson.  The book is organized into three main sections: Mind and Machine, Product and Platform, and Core and Crowd, each based on  a business trend that’s significantly reshaping the business world.  I based my discussion on the Mind and Machine section, which I found to be an excellent explanation of recent advances in artificial intelligence.

I now want to focus my attention on the provocative questions raised in the book’s latter chapters.  “In this era of powerful new technologies, do we still need companies?”  How are firms likely to evolve given the continuing advances of Internet-based technologies, as well as emerging blockchain-based technologies such as distributed ledgers and smart contracts?  “Are companies passé” in an increasingly decentralized economy?

Following the Great Depression and WW2, the country welcomed the stability promised by corporate capitalism.  Big, multinational companies dominated most industries, - GM, Ford and Chrysler in cars, Citibank, American Express and Morgan Stanley in finance, and Esso/Exxon, Mobil and Texaco in oil and gas.  It was an era characterized by bureaucratic corporate cultures, - not unlike military hierarchies - focused on organizational power and orderly prosperity.

This all started to change a few decades later with the advent of a more innovative, fast moving entrepreneurial economy.  The 1980s saw the rise of young, high-tech companies, - e.g., Microsoft, Apple, Oracle, Sun Microsystems, - and Silicon Valley became the global hub for innovation, emulated by regions around the world.  Turtlenecks and jeans replaced blue suits, white shirts, and ties.

The advent of the Internet and e-commerce pushed all these trends into hyperdrive in the 1990s.  The Internet made it much easier for companies to transact with each other around the world.  Vertically integrated firms evolved into virtual enterprises, increasingly relying on supply chain partners for many of the functions once done in-house.  Management experts noted that large firms were no longer necessary and would in fact be at a disadvantage in the Internet era when competing against agile, innovative smaller companies.

Minds and Machines

A few months ago, Andy McAfee and Erik Brynjolfsson published Machine, Platform, Crowd: Harnessing Our Digital Future, - their third book on the impact of the 21st century digital revolution on the economy and society, - following the publication of The Second Machine Age in 2014 and Race Against the Machine in 2011.  Brynjolfsson and McAfee are professor and research scientist respectively at MIT’s Sloan School of Management, as well as co-Directors of MIT’s Initiative on the Digital Economy.

The book is organized into three sections, each focused on a major trend that’s reshaping the business world: the rapidly expanding capabilities of machines; the emergence of large, asset-light platform companies; and the ability to now leverage the knowledge, expertise and enthusiasm of the crowd.  These three trends are combining into a triple revolution, causing companies to rethink the balance between minds and machines; between products and platforms ; and between the core and the crowd.

I cannot possible do justice to all three trends in one blog, so let me summarize the key themes of the Mind and Machine section, which I found to be an excellent explanation of the current state of AI.

Artificial Intelligence is Ready for Business; Are Businesses Ready for AI?

AI is now seemingly everywhere.  In the past few years, the necessary ingredients have come together to propel AI beyond the research labs into the marketplace: powerful, inexpensive computer technologies; advanced algorithms and models; and most important, oceans and oceans of data.

“Artificial intelligence is getting ready for business, but are businesses ready for AI?,” asks McKinsey in a recently published report - Artificial Intelligence: the Next Digital Frontier.  “AI adoption outside of the tech sector is at an early, often experimental stage,” is the report’s succinct answer.  “Few firms have deployed it at scale.”

The report is based on a survey of over 3,000 AI-aware C-level executives across 10 countries and 14 sectors.  Only 20 percent of respondents had adopted AI at scale in a core part of their business.  40 percent were partial adopters or experimenters, while another 40 percent were essentially contemplators.

AI encompasses a broad rage of technologies and application.  It’s often viewed as the leading edge of IT.  As soon as AI is successfully applied to a problem, the problem is no longer a part of AI.  The McKinsey report is focused on five technologies being increasingly deployed in business, that most everyone agrees are part of AI: robotics and autonomous vehicles, computer vision, language, virtual agents, and machine learning.

Platforms, Blockchains, and the Evolution of Trust

“In primitive economies, people traded mostly with members of their village and community,” wrote David Brooks in a June, 2014 NY Times OpEd, - The Evolution of Trust.  “Trust was face to face.  Then, in the mass economy we’ve been used to, people bought from large and stable corporate brands, whose behavior was made more reliable by government regulation.  But now there is a new trust calculus, powered by both social and economic forces.”

Brooks’ article focused on the rise of the on-demand economy, - aka, the collaborative, sharing, peer-to-peer economy, - and in particular on the surprising success of Airbnb.  Rooms for rent in boarding houses and child and pet care services are nothing new.  What’s new is the impact of technology, platforms and blockchain in particular, on the growing on-demand economy.  Companies are being disrupted as consumers are now able to deal with each other bypassing traditional hotels and taxi services.  All kinds of on-demand products and services are now coming to market.

The on-demand economy wouldn’t be possible without the mobile devices and platforms that enable peer-to-peer transactions among individuals any time and place; the digital payment systems that reliably and securely broker the transactions between buyers and sellers; and the social reputation systems, where people rank buyers and sellers, - a critical requirement for the smooth functioning of collaborative markets like Airbnb.  In the digital economy, our online reputations follow us everywhere, whether we are the renters or the ones renting, the service providers or the service consumers.

Automation Anxieties - We’ve Been Here Before

“The rise of artificial intelligence is the great story of our time,” notes What to Do When Machines Do Everything in its Preface.  The book was published earlier this year by Malcolm Frank, Paul Roehrig and Ben Bring of Cognizant’s Center for the Future of Work.  “Artificial intelligence has left the laboratory (and the movie lot)…  It’s pervading all the institutions that drive our global economy.… And this is just the beginning.”

The book deals with a number of important questions: When machines do everything, what am I going to do?; Will a robot take my job away?; How are humans going to make a living?; What will my industry look like in 10 years?; Will my children be better off than I am?

Overall, the authors are optimistic about the future, reminding us that we’ve been here before.  Automation anxieties have been with us ever since the 1810s, when the so-called Luddites smashed the new weaving machines that were threatening their textile jobs, and they continued to resurface over the past two centuries right along with advances in technology.

Over 60 years ago, the advent of computers led to a new round of automation fears.  In 1965, Newsweek devoted a special issue to The Challenge of Automation, which it called  “the most controversial economic concept of the age.  Businessmen love it.  Workers fear it.  The government frets and investigates and wonders what to do about it.

In his 1964 Bill creating the National Commission on Technology, Automation and Economic Progress, President Lyndon Johnson said that “Technology is creating both new opportunities and new obligations for us, opportunity for greater productivity and progress - obligation to be sure that no workingman, no family must pay an unjust price for progress.”

What’s the Core Priority of Corporate Managers?

In a recent Harvard Business Review article, - The Error at the Heart of Corporate Leadership, - Harvard Business School professors Joseph Bower and Lynn Paine raised a number of important questions. What’s the core priority of corporate’s management, the near-term gains of shareholders or the long-term health of the company?  Do shareholders generally share common investment objectives?  Can a governance model focused on maximizing shareholder value threaten a company’s overall health and financial performance?  These questions go to the heart of what a corporation is all about as well as to the very nature of modern capitalism.

The idea that maximizing shareholder value should be the primary goal of corporate managers is relatively recent, first put forth by academic economists in the 1970s, - most notably by University of Chicago economist and Nobel Prize recipient Milton Friedman.  In a 1970 NY Times Magazine article, The Social Responsibility of Business is to Increase its Profits, Professor Friedman wrote:

“In a free-enterprise, private-property system, a corporate executive is an employee of the owners of the business.  He has direct responsibility to his employers.  That responsibility is to conduct the business in accordance with their desires, which generally will be to make as much money as possible while conforming to the basic rules of the society, both those embodied in law and those embodied in ethical custom.”  He believed that business concerns beyond making a profit, - such as “promoting desirable social ends,” or “providing employment, eliminating discrimination, avoiding pollution and whatever else,” amounted to “preaching pure and unadulterated socialism.” 

Global Arbitrage and the Productivity Puzzle

A couple of weeks ago I wrote about The Productivity Puzzle, - namely that despite our continuing technology advances, the US and other developed economies have experienced a sharp decline in productivity growth over the past 10 to 15 years.  In an article published earlier this year, McKinsey offered three main possible explanations for this productivity growth decline: the difficulty of measuring productivity in the digital economy, the shortage of demand and investment opportunities, and the impact, - or lack thereof, - of technological innovations. “So far, though, economists have failed to reach consensus on the causes of the  productivity growth slowdown or indeed the relative significance of the various arguments,” wrote McKinsey.

But another article, The New Class War by Michael Lind, offers a different, rather provocative explanation for our low productivity growth.  According to Lind, the last few decades have seen the rise of managerial elites in advanced economies which have been pursuing profits by methods other than technology-driven innovation and productivity growth.  Instead, they’ve been taking advantage of the significant reductions of trade barriers over this timeframe to pursue profits based on global labor arbitrage, as well as tax arbitrage and other forms of financial engineering.

Lind references James Burnham, John Kenneth Galbraith, and other political scientists and economists whose works I’m not familiar with.  I found the article quite interesting because Lind’s explanation for our declining economic and productivity growth seems quite different from those of most other economists.  Let me attempt to summarize his key arguments. 

Is Blockchain Ready to “Cross the Chasm”? Lessons from the Internet

Earlier this year, IBM conducted the largest study to date on the state of adoption of blockchain.  The study interviewed almost 3,000 C-Suite executives from over 80 countries and 20 industries to learn about their company’s blockchain plans.  Survey responses where classified into three groups: explorers, investigators and passives.

Explorers are already involved in blockchain pilots and experiments.  They make up an average of 8 percent across all industries, with higher activity in certain industries like financial services.  25 percent of organizations are investigators, - considering but not yet ready to deploy blockchains, and 67 percent are passives, - not considering blockchains so far.

These survey results are not surprising for a technology as new and complex as blockchain.  With such technologies, you typically have a relatively small number of early adopters.  A larger number of followers are waiting to learn from the early adopters’ experiences, while the laggards are not yet sure what the technology is about or if it applies to them.

The Productivity Puzzle

Last year, Foreign Affairs focused its March/April issue on Surviving Slow Growth.  “The first decade of the twenty-first century was a time of unprecedented economic growth,” said the issue’s introductory article.  “The rich world got richer, and the developing world raced ahead: by 2007, the emerging-market growth rate had hit 8.7 percent… Then came the fall… growth has ground to a halt almost everywhere, and economists, investors, and ordinary citizens are starting to confront a grim new reality: the world is stuck in the slow lane and nobody seems to know what to do about it.”

Economic growth has two main components, productivity growth and the growth of the labor force.  Fewer workers is one of the key reasons for our stagnant economic growth.  The labor force is still growing in some developing countries like India, Nigeria and the Philippines, but it’s already shrinking in China, Japan and Germany.  In the US, the labor force is growing very slowly.

Over the coming decades, the labor force is expected to shrink in most parts of the world as fertility rates continue to decline.  The 2016 US fertility rate was the lowest it’s ever been.  Increasing productivity is thus more crucial than ever to promote economic growth.  But, in the US and other advanced economies, productivity growth has significantly slowed down over the past few decades.

Robocalypse Now? Technology, Productivity and Employment

Is the Robocalypse upon us?, asked MIT economist David Autor in his presentation at a recent Forum of European central bankers.  His presentation was based on a paper co-written with Utrecht University economist Anna Salomons.  “Is productivity growth inimical to employment?,” they asked in the paper’s abstract.  “Canonical economic theory says no, but much recent economic theory says maybe  - that is, rapid advances in machine capabilities may curtail aggregate labor demand as technology increasingly encroaches on human job tasks.”

Fears that machines will put humans out of work are not new.  Throughout the Industrial Revolution there were periodic panics about the impact of automation on jobs, going back to the Luddites, - textile workers who in the 1810s smashed the new machines that were threatening their jobs.  But, “In the end, the fears of the Luddites that machinery would impoverish workers were not realized, and the main reason is well understood,” noted a 2015 article on the history of technological anxiety.

“The mechanization of the early 19th century could only replace a limited number of human activities.  At the same time, technological change increased the demand for other types of labor that were complementary to the capital goods embodied in the new technologies.  This increased demand for labor included such obvious jobs as mechanics to fix the new machines, but it extended to jobs for supervisors to oversee the new factory system and accountants to manage enterprises operating on an unprecedented scale.  More importantly, technological progress also took the form of product innovation, and thus created entirely new sectors for the economy, a development that was essentially missed in the discussions of economists of this time.”

Automation fears have understandbly accelerated in recent years, as our increasingly smart machines are now being applied to activities requiring intelligence and cognitive capabilities that not long ago were viewed as the exclusive domain of humans. “Previous technological innovation has always delivered more long-run employment, not less.  But things can change,” said a 2014 Economist article.  “Nowadays, the majority of economists confidently wave such worries away…  Yet some now fear that a new era of automation enabled by ever more powerful and capable computers could work out differently.”

On the Governance of Blockchain: Lessons from the Internet

A few weeks ago, the World Economic Forum (WEF) released Realizing the Potential of Blockchain, a report by Don Tapscott and Alex Tapscott, authors of Blockchain Revolution which was published in May, 2016, and founders of the recently launched Blockchain Research Institute.  “The last few decades brought us the internet of information.  We are now witnessing the rise of the internet of value,” wrote the authors in the report’s Executive Summary.  “Like the first generation of the internet, this second generation promises to disrupt business models and transform industries… pulling us into a new era of openness, decentralization and global inclusion.”

“However, this extraordinary technology may be stalled, sidetracked, captured or otherwise suboptimized depending on how all the stakeholders behave in stewarding this set of resources - i.e. how it is governed,” they add in a strong note of caution.  “How we govern the internet of information as a global resource serves as a model for how to govern this new resource: through a multi-stakeholder approach using what we call global governance networks.”

I totally agree.

The Internet and World Wide Web brought a badly needed culture of collaboration and standards to the IT industry.  In the 1980s, it was quite difficult to get different IT systems to talk to each other.  Just sending an e-mail across two different applications from two different vendors was quite a chore, as was sharing information across disparate systems.  Then in the 1990s, the open Internet protocol, - TCP/IP, - was widely embraced by the general IT marketplace, making it possible to interconnect systems and applications from any vendors.  Internet e-mail protocols, - SMTP, MIME, POP, IMAP, - enabled people to easily communicate with anyone on any system.  At the same time,  the Web’s open standards, - HTML, HTTP, URLs enabled any PC connected to the Internet to access information on any web server anywhere in the world.

A similar story played out with Unix.  In the 1980s, Unix became a popular operating system for technical workstations, supercomputers and other kinds of systems.  Every vendor had developed its own version of Unix, - IBM’s AIX, Sun’s Solaris, HP’s HP-UX, and several others, - and they were all somewhat different and incompatible, making it difficult to port applications across these different flavors of Unix.  Attempts to unify UNIX were not successful.  Finally, in the 1990s Linux emerged as a Unix-like operating system that over time was embraced by just about all vendors.

The Growing Value of a Dual-Track Education

A few weeks ago I read a very interesting article in The Chronicle of Higher Education, - Why Colleges Need to Embrace the Apprenticeship.  The article raised a number of important questions on the future of college education, in particular, the value of an education that combines formal schooling with real-world practical experience, often referred to as a dual-track educational system.

Lots has been written about the critical importance of a good education in our knowledge-based digital economy.  At the same time, lots of questions are been raised about college and careers.  Is a four-year college education necessary to attain a good job and to have a successful long-term career?  Is it sufficient?  Are colleges properly preparing students for the job market?  Is there a role for liberal arts colleges?  Is college still worth it, given their increasing costs and the student loan debt crisis?  Should we continue to encourage young people to get a college degree? 

The Chronicle article addresses a number of these questions.  It writes that “Apprenticeships - long embraced as a work-force-training method in other countries - may now have an opening to become a far more common pathway to education and employment in the United States.  The enthusiasm for apprenticeships represents a kind of refutation of college education - a recognition that something about the path from college to career is not working for many people.”  The article explains why vocational apprenticeships have not fared as well in the US as they have in other advanced economies, and why apprenticeships, and similar dual-track systems, are increasingly important for all careers, including white-collar and professional careers requiring a bachelor’s or higher professional degree.

Serious AI Challenges that Require Our Attention

Several weeks ago Vanity Fair published and article by NY Times columnist Maureen Dowd, - Elon Musk’s Billion-Dollar Crusade to Stop the AI Apocalypse.  “Elon Musk is famous for his futuristic gambles, but Silicon Valley’s latest rush to embrace artificial intelligence scares him,” noted Dowd.  “And he thinks you should be frightened too.”

Entrepreneur and inventor Elon Musk is one of a number of world-renowned technologists and scientists who have expressed serious concerns that AI might be an existential threat to humanity, a group that includes Stephen Hawking, Ray Kurzweil and Bill Gates.  But, the vast majority of AI experts do not share their fears.  A few months ago, Stanford University’s One Hundred Year Study of AI project published a report by a panel of experts assessing the current state of AI.  Their overriding finding was that:

“Contrary to the more fantastic predictions for AI in the popular press, the Study Panel found no cause for concern that AI is an imminent threat to humankind.  No machines with self-sustaining long-term goals and intent have been developed, nor are they likely to be developed in the near future.  Instead, increasingly useful applications of AI, with potentially profound positive impacts on our society and economy are likely to emerge between now and 2030, the period this report considers.  At the same time, many of these developments will spur disruptions in how human labor is augmented or replaced by AI, creating new challenges for the economy and society more broadly.”

Just because experts conclude that, - at least for the foreseeable future, - AI does not pose an imminent threat to humanity, doesn’t mean that such a powerful technology isn’t accompanied by serious challenges that require our attention.

Become a More Productive, Empathetic, Creative Person With the Help of AI-Based Tools

Despite dramatic advances in technology, most of the world’s economies have been stuck in a long period of slow growth and slow productivity.  This is one of the most serious challenges in our 21st century economy.  Opinions abound, but there’s little consensus on its causes, and, nobody seems to know what to do about it, or how long it will likely last, - years or decades. 

In a recent article in the MIT Sloan Management Review, MIT Research Fellow Michael Schrage proposed a provocative and counterintuitive approach for enhancing innovation and productivity through man-machine collaborations.  Schrage’s approach has been more influenced by behavioral economics than by technology or algorithmic advances.  Instead of just asking how can people create more valuable innovation?, why not also ask How can innovation create more valuable people?  Don’t just leverage advanced technologies, - e.g., bots, software agents, and digital assistants, - to automate away a large portion of the workforce, but also focus on enhancing innovation and productivity by leveraging technology to create higher-performance versions of employees.

“Designing and training smarter algorithms may be cheaper and easier than retraining smart people,” wrote Schrage.  “Advocates of autonomous systems and machine learning typically innovate to minimize or marginalize human involvement in business processes.  For them, people are part of the problem, not the solution.  Organizations that take productivity seriously, however, understand that false dichotomies make poor investments: Smarter machines can - and should - be keys to unlocking greater returns from human capital.”

Global Trends and Business Strategy

McKinsey recently published an article on the long-term trends that are reshaping the business environment.  The article reminds us that the trend is your friend is an old adage that applies to business strategy as well as to investing.  The ability to anticipate where your industry is moving and to begin to reposition your company ahead of competitors is one of the most important elements of business strategy.  Companies that correctly identify and ride the tailwinds of technology and market trends will generally perform significantly better than companies for whom these same trends become tough headwinds.

But, the full version of the phrase is “The trend is your friend, until the end when it bends.”  Identifying long term trends is easier said than done.   Major trends involve competing complex forces interacting with each other, making it even more difficult to ascertain where things are heading.  And, they will eventually change direction.  It can be just as painful to miss an important trend as to stay with the trend once it starts to bend.

The article discusses nine major global forces organized into three distinct mega-trends: global growth shifts, accelerating industry disruption, and a new societal deal.  Let’s take a closer look at each of them.

Peering into a Confusing, Paradoxical Future

Every four years since 1997, the US National Intelligence Council has been publishing a Global Trends report on the key trends that will shape the world over the following twenty years.  This unclassified strategic report is intended to provide the incoming administration and other senior leaders with a framework for long-range policy assessment.

Global Trends 2030: Alternative Worlds, released four years ago, identified four overarching megatrends that are expected to shape and transform the world by 2030: the empowerment of individuals - which will accelerate the reduction of poverty and raise the standard of living around the world; the diffusion of power among states, - which will shift power to networks and coalitions in a multipolar world; changing demographic patterns especially rapid aging, urbanization, and increased migration; and growing demands on resources such as food, water and energy, - which might lead to scarcities.

The latest Global Trends report, Paradox of Progress, was released earlier this year.  It begins by explaining its title. “We are living a paradox: The achievements of the industrial and information ages are shaping a world to come that is both more dangerous and richer with opportunity than ever before… The progress of the past decades is historic - connecting people, empowering individuals, groups, and states, and lifting a billion people out of poverty in the process.  But this same progress also spawned shocks like the Arab Spring, the 2008 Global Financial Crisis, and the global rise of populist, anti-establishment politics.  These shocks reveal how fragile the achievements have been, underscoring deep shifts in the global landscape that portend a dark and difficult near future.”

Globalization at a Crossroads

Earlier this year I wrote about the future of global firms, based on two recent articles on the subject, - The retreat of the global company in The Economist, and The Global Enterprise: Where to Now? in Foreign Affairs by IBM’s former CEO Sam Palmisano.  As both articles noted, global firms boomed over the past few decades, driven by IT advances that made it much easier to do business around the world and by the fierce global competition that forced companies to become more efficient and lower costs.

But now, “The biggest business idea of the past three decades is in deep trouble,” said The Economist.  Palmisano pointed out that the world stands at a major crossroads.  “A rising chorus of nationalism echoes across developed countries; it calls for tighter borders and restrictions on immigration.  Global trade negotiations have essentially ceased, and regional trade deals face strong headwinds of opposition.”

How should business address the very important issues now surrounding globalization?  This question was explored in two recent Harvard Business Review articles, - People Are Angry About Globalization. Here’s What to Do About It, by NYU and IESE professor Pankaj Ghemawat, and An Agenda for the Future of Global Business by BCG strategists Martin Reeves and Johann Harnoss.

Not Your Grandfather’s Manufacturing

The February 23 issue of the NY Times Magazine was devoted to the future of work, and in particular, to what it called the new working class.  The Oxford Dictionary defines working class as “The social group consisting of people who are employed for wages, especially in manual or industrial work.”  The working class includes many traditional blue-collar occupations, - factory workers, truck drivers, electricians, plumbers, - but it also now includes an increasing number of white-collar and service jobs.

While the new working class comprises a variety of jobs, most discussions on the topic are generally centered on the deindustrialization of America over the past few decades, as well as on the ensuing decline in both the number and the wages of manufacturing jobs.  “Now when politicians invoke the working class, they are likely to gesture, anachronistically, to an abandoned factory,” notes the issue’s introductory article.

The ongoing transformation of manufacturing jobs was the subject of Learning to Love Our Robot Co-Workers by Kim Tingley.  Her article nicely explained the major changes taking place in US manufacturing, especially the appearance of a new generation of flexible, programmable, moderately priced robots that are designed to safely collaborate with humans, - each doing what they do best.

Robotics is an exciting, fast moving discipline, which is playing an increasingly important role in the future of manufacturing.  All computers are defined by what their brains, - that is, their hardware and software, - are capable of computing and controlling.  Robots are computers that have both a brain and a body.  A robot’s capabilities are defined by what its brains and body can jointly do.

What’s the Value of Blockchain?

A few weeks ago I attended the IBM Blockchain Summit 2017 in New York.  The Summit included a number of talks and panels, and - most important, - presentations of concrete blockchain use cases IBM has been working on in a number of areas, including finance, supply chains and healthcare.  Such real-world use cases are particularly important when introducing a new, complex set of technologies in the marketplace.  They’re the best way of getting on the learning curve for the new technologies as well as of explaining the kinds of problems they help us address.

Blockchain has the potential to transform our economic and social systems, but such a transformation is still many years away.  Like the Internet, blockchain is a foundational technology, whose adoption process is gradual, incremental and steady, unlike the hockey stick adoption we typically associate with disruptive technologies as defined by Clayton Christensen 20 years ago.  Foundational transformations must overcome many barriers, - technological, organizational, governance, political, - which is why they take a long time to play out.

Lest we forget,  TCP/IP, - the communications protocol that defines the Internet to this day, - was first adopted in the mid-1980s.  So were the protocols used in e-mail, - the first widely used Internet application which enabled its user base in government, universities and research institutions to easily communicate with each other.  It wasn’t until the late 1980s that the Internet was first opened up to public, commercial users.  General Internet adoption took off a few years later with the advent of the World Wide Web and the Web browser, and its transformational power wasn’t fully evident until the late 2000s, with the explosive growth of smartphones and the mobile Internet.

The concrete uses cases presented by IBM as it defines its blockchain strategy brought to mind the approach we took in the early days of formulating IBM’s Internet strategy, which I was closely involved with.

Technology, Capitalism and “The American Way of Life”

Much has been written about our digital technology revolution and its impact on economies, societies and individuals.  But few have brought the kind of historical perspective to the subject that helps us better understand our turbulent times like scholar and consultant Carlota Perez in her 2002 book Technological Revolutions and Financial Capital:  The Dynamics of Bubbles and Golden Ages and related publications.

According to Perez, over the past few centuries, we’ve had a technology revolution every 40 to 60 years, starting with the Industrial Revolution in 1771, which was characterized by the emergence of machines, factories and canals.  This was followed by the age of steam, coal, iron and railways starting in 1829; steel, electricity and heavy engineering in 1875; and oil, autos and mass production in 1908.  Our present age of information and communication technologies (ICT), whose starting point she pegs at 1971, is the fifth such major revolution.

Technology revolutions have two distinct periods, each lasting 20 to 30 years.  The installation period is the time of creative destruction, when new technologies emerge from the lab into the marketplace, entrepreneurs start many new businesses based on these new technologies, VCs encourage experimentation with new business models, and the new ventures attract considerable investments and financial speculation.  Inevitably, this all leads to bubbles and crashes like the recent dot-com and subprime mortgage bubbles.

After the crash, comes the deployment period, a time of institutional recomposition.  The now well accepted technologies become the norm.  New paradigms emerge for guiding innovation and for determining winners and losers in the marketplace.  Over time, these new paradigms significantly transform the economy and everything around it, as well as re-shaping social behavior and the institutions of society.

Last year Perez published Capitalism, Technology and a Green Global Golden Age: The Role of History in Helping to Shape the Future.  In this recent article, she argued that we’re going through a crucial moment in history similar to the 1930s, which requires the kind of creative thinking and bold measures for which we justifiably celebrate statesmen like Franklin Delano Roosevelt and John Maynard Keynes.  Let me summarize her argument.

The State of American Jobs

Last year, the Pew Research Center, - in association with the Markle Foundation, - conducted a survey about the state of American jobs to shed light on how people think about work and about the skills and training needed to get ahead in our fast changing digital economy.  The survey was based on landline and mobile telephone interviews with a national sample of over 5000 adults.  Their analysis and conclusions were published last October in a highly detailed 94 page report, - The State of American Jobs.

“Tectonic changes are reshaping U.S. workplaces as the economy moves deeper into the knowledge-focused age,” said the report in its opening paragraph.  “These changes are affecting the very nature of jobs by rewarding social, communications and analytical skills.  They are prodding many workers to think about lifetime commitments to retraining and upgrading their skills.  And they may be prompting a society-wide reckoning about where those constantly evolving skills should be learned - and what the role of colleges should be.”

Let me summarize some of the report’s key findings.

Should the US Slowly Phase Out the $100 Bill?

Last November, Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi shocked the country by banning the use of all 500- ($7.50) and 1,000-rupee ($15) notes, effectively removing over 85 percent of India’s currency in circulation.  Modi said that the ban was intended to curb corruption, tax evasion and the flow of counterfeit money, as well as disrupting terrorist organizations.  By December 30, people had to deposit their banned bills in bank accounts, or exchange them for the new bills the government was printing.

But, the Indian government didn’t print enough replacement notes in time for a smooth change, creating a cash shortage that disrupted large sectors of the economy.  In response, Indians started switching to electronic payments faster than had been anticipated.   Modi’s bold move will likely accelerate India’s push towards digital payments, - a major long-term benefit.

In a recent Washington Post article - What the U.S. can learn from India’s move toward a cashless society, - academic and writer Vivek Wadhwa noted that India has built a digital payments infrastructure that’s enabling it to skip two generations of financial technologies.  When it comes to digital payments, India may be actually leapfrogging the US, based on practical innovations, hard work, and, - necessity being the mother of invention, - the urgent need to step up to a major problem, - a decade ago, nearly half the Indian population had no identification whatsoever.

Wadhwa explained that “When you are born in a village without hospitals or government services, you don’t get a birth certificate.  If you can’t prove who you are, you can’t open a bank account or get a loan or insurance; you are doomed to be part of the informal economy - whose members live in the shadows and don’t pay taxes.”  He then described some of the key steps taken by the Indian government to address this problem.