EXYSTENCE NoE
Seminar on 12 Nov 2004, Helsinki

Welcome and introduction by Prof. Markku Wilenius, Finland Futures Research Centre.

I think we can have some very fruitful discussions about how to understand the complex world and how to make businesses work better in it. The mission of the Finland Futures Research Centre is to be a basis for multi-disciplinary research, education, training and consultation. The main concept we have in mind and want to approach from different directions, is that of sustainable futures. Everything that we do should be related to the idea of sustainability, though of course the fact that we have different emphases in our activities and our research tradition has meant we have done a lot concerning creative environments and different cultural studies. We have a number of different educational concepts and next year are going to launch a massive program of future studies. At the top of that program is the implementation of different technologies, though at the same time we also want to take care of our basic research. Eve, (Prof. Mitleton-Kelly) has told us about working as a research-based consultancy and we have a similar way of working as we both need to carry out research and have ways of applying it. We have a large number of different clients and very different sources of funding. I am pleased to say there has been a steady increase in our activities.
I would like to propose four approaches to, or views on, the subject matter here today. The first is that of the Network Society. It is an approach that I have personally found important in considering how we understand the formation of our social activities. If we ask the question whether we're becoming a network or knowledge-based society then I prefer the term Network Society and I'll give you some reasons. The globalization of information in society has come about because of the revolution in technology, the restructuring of the economy and the changing culture. Networking has become the dominant form of social organization and the production, processing and transmission of information have become essential in the economic and cultural structure. Networks have become the most efficient organizational form as a result of three major features: flexibility, scalability and survivability. They have flexibility, because they can reconfigure in response to a changing environment. They have scalability, because they can expand in size with little disruption and they have survivability because they have no centre and can operate with a wide range of configurations.
Networks resist attack because the functional codes are contained in multiple nodes that can reproduce the instructions and find new ways to perform. So it is only a physical attack on the infrastructure that can destroy the connective points. I think we are witnessing the emergence of the prototype Network Society, though it is not quite with us yet and what we are seeing, predominantly in the practices of organizations, is still a direct heritage of the Industrial Society. The essential values and practices of Fordism and Taylorism are still holding sway around the world and confining organizations to industrial capitalism. Firstly I think we will see a new paradigm in the form of the Network Society rather than the Knowledge Society. Information flows and information technologies will fertilize a Network society in much the same way as the artificial fertilizers in the nineteenth century helped agriculture increase productivity. So we could call this interim state the Information Society since it is the increasing information flow and sharing of knowledge which are the drivers of change. The culture of a global network society is one of protocols for communication. This involves communication between different cultures, not necessarily on the basis of shared values, but on the way that communication takes place. The new culture is therefore not one of content, but of process. It is an open-ended network of cultural meanings that not only co-exist, but also interact and modify each other on the basis of this exchange.
In my own region of research I try to investigate new cultural sources of competitiveness as a response to the forthcoming division of labor in the global society. One of the approaches my colleagues and I were able to engender was the topic of creative capital and the challenge of leadership in the business world. This brings me to the second point which is about intellectual capital. In terms of innovative ability, researchers have pointed out that in some instances no less than 80% of the company value is derived from this sort of capital, in terms of brand value, reputation, patterns of leadership etc. However the methods for making this capital tangible are still very much in their infancy and what I find the greatest challenge for a corporation is to connect the intellectual capital to leadership and moreover connect the leadership to innovation processes. Most corporations still seem to be managed like sausage factories, where the most important strategic intent is to produce a sausage with stable quality and lowest possible production cost. It is existing production which dictates the processes of strategic development and perception of new possibilities and countless possibilities for the development of the company are lost because the executives of the company do not possess the insight and the creativity to discover fresh innovations, be they technological or social. The question is not about how to control the creative capital, but how to channel it. It is one of appreciating a process whereby different, even conflicting views are traded and processed in a constructive way, and not left as coffee table discussions or in the X files of the corporate executives.
The third aspect I want to touch upon derives directly from my previous remarks and is to do with our interaction. It depends upon our understanding of complex adaptive systems or, in the case of human systems, complex warning systems. When organizations are facing growing complexity they ask how they can manage it and the answer is that it can be met only if previously fragmented information sources and people are connected by organizational learning. To put it simply we need genuine conversation and listening. We need to be able to create a common context, though not necessarily common values or a consensus. As a consequence we will get a new way of seeing things and an understanding of complexity and complex evolving systems. We will be able to see corporations as complex evolving systems that increasingly derive their strength and success from multiple patterns of interaction or, to use the language of complexity science, from attractors. In an organization there are attractors which start at a particular point and are periodic. But if we live in a system of closed attractors then no new ways of thinking can emerge. What we need is a system of open attractors that enable new thinking yet preserve consistency. The success or the failure of an organization ultimately rests on its capacity to engender dynamic and flexible attractors that are the platforms of creative capital.
The fourth and the last theme I would like to suggest derives from long term thinking about humanity and the greater network system that we are essentially a part of. A month ago we hosted an annual conference on what could be called the politico-economy. A key concept in this is that of 'overshoot'. It refers to something that goes beyond the safe limit accidentally or without intention. There are three stages of overshoot. First there is growth acceleration and rapid change, second there is some limit or barrier beyond which the moving system may not safely go, and third there is the delay or mistake in the perception and responses that strive to keep the system within its limits. What has happened from the 1980s on is that the ecological footprint of human action in terms of the land and resources consumed by various nations has overshot the planetary capacity to regenerate its resources. We have already begun to see the consequences which are potentially profoundly dangerous. The situation confronts us with issues never before experienced by our species on a global scale and we lack the perspectives, cultural norms, habits and institutions required to cope. We have very little time, though we do not have to feel helpless. What we need is the capacity to learn and recognize ourselves as a complex evolving system that can make a deliberate turnaround and correct things, first in our heads and then in our actions. We must learn how the system really works and I welcome you all and wish this seminar fruitful.