domingo, diciembre 14, 2014

A Systemic Civilization Global Declaration of Interdependence

Executive summary: seventh update. Global Debout proposal to create Systemic Civilization solves Big Problems. Inviting feedback, for practical purposes, we suggest that the apparent situation of the world’s society can be misunderstood by lineal thinking this way:  Jason Pontin, Robert Gordon, and Thomas Piketty arguments are that: 1) we can’t solve big problems, 2) prosperity has plateau, and 3) soaring inequality is here to stay, respectively, with big non measurable losses by the general population unaccounted for by management. Such a situation is due to the tyranny of the prevailing mechanical management mindset that the late W. Edwards Deming unveiled in the early 90’s. That old mindset myopia has been facing non lineal decreasing returns that will be addressed with a new systemic profound knowledge management increasing returns economic mindset as a result of an information revolution that has a precedent of 5 centuries. The real situation calls for the emergence of a global interdependent systemic civilization that needs to be created as soon as possible. We can then have the choice to leap from the saturated carbon energy upper segment, of the independent countries industrial civilization learning curve, to the hyper-growth green energy segment of the systemic civilization learning curve. As a result: 1) many of those big problems can be solved, 2) prosperity significantly increased, and 3) soaring inequality reversed. Overregulated market activities under representative democracy of the industrial civilization are candidates for less regulated direct democracy of the systemic market (#DD_SM), that could not be done with the old mindset. One strong candidate for #DD_SM is the electric power sector of the Dominican Republic, which is ready to become the framework change with a vibrant retail market’s increasing returns. That framework change will enable pattern change opportunities that will increase the systemic civilization global market share. There are 26 references in this update.

Resumen Ejecutivo: séptima actualización. Propuesta Global Debout para crear la Civilización Sstémica resuelve grandes problemas. Invitando retroalimentación, a efectos prácticos, se sugiere que la situación aparente de la sociedad del mundo puede ser mal interpretada al pensar de esta manera lineal: los argumentos de Jason Pontin, Robert Gordon y Thomas Piketty son que: 1) no podemos resolver grandes problemas, 2) la prosperidad tiene meseta, y 3) el alza la desigualdad está aquí para quedarse, respectivamente, con grandes pérdidas no cuantificables por la población en general no contabilizadas por la gerencia. Tal situación se debe a la tiranía de la mentalidad de gestión mecánica predominante que el difunto W. Edwards Deming dio a conocer a principios de los 90. Ese viejo modo miope de pensar se ha enfrentado con rendimientos decrecientes no lineales que serán tratados con una nueva forma de pensar gestión sistémica económica del conocimiento profundo de rendimientos crecientes como resultado de una revolución de la información que tiene un precedente de 5 siglos. La situación real exige la aparición de una civilización sistémica interdependiente global que necesita ser creada tan pronto como sea posible. Entonces podremos tener la opción de saltar desde el segmento superior de energía de carbono, de los países independientes de la curva de aprendizaje civilización industrial, hacia el segmento de la energía verde con híper-crecimiento de la curva de aprendizaje civilización sistémica. Como resultado: 1) muchos de los grandes problemas se pueden resolver, 2) la prosperidad aumenta significativamente , y 3) se invierte el alza de la desigualdad. Las actividades de mercado reguladas en exceso bajo la democracia representativa de la civilización industrial son candidatas para la democracia directa menos regulada del mercado sistémica (#DD_SM), que no se podía hacer con la vieja forma de pensar. Un fuerte candidato para #DD_SM es el sector eléctrico de la República Dominicana, que está listo para convertirse en el cambio de marco de referencia con rendimientos crecientes de un mercado minorista vibrante. Ese cambio en el marco de referencia permitirá oportunidades para cambios el patrón que incrementarán la cuota de mercado global de la civilización sistémica. Hay 26 referencias en esta actualización.

Seventh update. Global Debout proposal to create Systemic Civilization solves Big Problems. This is a follow up to the January 2nd, 2010, post A Better Decade Require the End of the Prevailing Style of Management, whose summary says:
As suggested by W. Edwards Deming, the main barrier to basic innovations, like the EWPC-AF, and an increased standard of living, is the prevailing style of management. A better decade is thus dependent on the adoption of Deming’s System of Profound Knowledge.
Interestingly enough with respect to what’s develop below in relation to great insights gathered from the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT), that post had a paragraph that said:
This article expands on the EWPC post The Electric Power Industry is Missing a Vibrant Retail Market, which was posted under the blog post On the Evolution of Technology, by Jason Pontin, the Editor in Chief and Publisher of Technology Review. The text of this post has evidence that the missing retail market is in fact due to the prevailing style of management, which is based on obsolete mechanical thinking instead of on systemic thinking that leads to a superior solution path.
As a short answer, we first reiterate the above (to be expanded below) to Jason Pontin’s big story [1] of October 24, 2012, which was given by Deming at the end of his fruitful life. Deming used his wisdom to say right in the first sentence of the preface (more below) of his last posthumous must read book [2], that “… we are living under the tyranny of the prevailing style of management.”

What Deming didn’t foresee back then was that in his book on the The New Economy he was suggesting calls for the emergence of The New Civilization of an interdependent world. That’s the same kind of world that Steven R. Covey was calling for in his best selling book at the same time, while giving the wisdom for us to change our habits to be more effective [3].

Covey suggested to embrace interdependence as something more mature while returning to the character ethic (that lasted about 200 years before World War II) in order to enable win-win or no deal success. For many reasons, we have been calling the new civilization the systemic civilization, which will increasingly take global market share from the industrial civilization (more below).

As the prevailing style of management has resulted in a global leadership vacuum, the systemic civilization has not emerged yet. For sure, under such vacuum we can’t solve the Big Problems identified by Pontin, but there are mounting evidence begging for their resolution, the most recent of which has to do with electoral contests [4]. We should give thanks to the late Peter F. Drucker for the insights [5], that let us learned that the assumptions that political parties, countries and unions of countries are operating all over the world are far way from reality.

This update is grateful to a collection of 7 stories sent by the MIT Technology Review, on July 2, 2016, in an email with the subject "Weekend Reads: July Fourth." Its introduction says:
For Independence Day, we’re taking a moment to look back at some of the grand challenges that have faced our nation and the obstacles that we must still overcome. Enjoy these long reads on your long weekend.
Instead of looking back, our aim has been for quite some time looking to the emergent future. From those great stories on the grand challenges we take insights to update this post and its previous six updates which deal with “the obstacles that we must still overcome” for the whole world. As a complement to the discussion of electoral contests far away from reality, one of the stories synthesis sent was "Political candidates opposed to free trade say Apple should make phones in the United States. Let’s see what that would look like [6]."

Those candidates are wrong, as a result of the distortion of anti-systemic markets which are protected markets. Instead what the world need is "In their 2008 book “the new age of innovation,” Prahalad and Krishnan suggested what I understand is a new normal synthesis based on two principles that beg for deregulation from Fordism into what I coined as Jobsism in the Grupo Millennium Hispaniola Blog [7]:
N=1 (Firms have to learn to focus on one consumer and her experience at a time…) and

R=G (All firms will access resources from a wide variety of other big and small firms – a global ecosystem.)
Let’s try to overcome those obstacles based this on what Rahm Emanuel said: “You never let a serious crisis go to waste. And what I mean by that, it’s an opportunity to do things you could not do before.” Embracing fully the first part of his quote, we have been concentrating on the second part in order to leap from the industrial civilization to the systemic civilization where it makes sense all over the world.

The Big Problems are reframed here as anti-systemic problems

Now we deal with the long answer to the obstacles. Taking insights from the stories, while having well in mind posts and updates of this blog related to other prominent key MIT researchers, like the late Fred C. Schweppe (on electricity), Peter Senge (on systemic thinking), Otto Sharmer (on the Theory of the U), to name a few, with respect to what we have learned from the emergent future consistent with a shift away from lineal into non-lineal thinking.  As a result, we think an interdependence Day is overdue in several ways. It is overdue with regard to what’s said to John Hagel in the initial text of this post, which for convenience is repeated here:
That's why I am surprised reading about a Declaration of Independence.  I have at least three arguments about Interdependence. While it is certainly true, what is written to support independence in "When in the course of human events, it becomes necessary for individuals to dissolve the institutional bands which have connected them with another," Isn't it also true when 'connected' is replaced with 'disconnected,' for example, about the disconnected people that live at the Bottom of the Pyramid. "

In addition, as the late Steven R. Covey told us: "the greatest human achievements come from people working at the third level, interdependence. This is when people work together to achieve a common goal, and is the level of maturity of many people in a mature society or organization. This is how mankind has achieved things together that no single person could do alone. Interdependence is the state of human development of greatest maturity and power." That's the underlying reason why I wrote, for example, the blog post Scotland’s independence got around the world before its interdependence got its pants on.

Further, the also late Peter F. Drucker wrote, we are only in the Fourth Information Revolution, on which I understand that very deeply that interdependence is as important, as it was the Third for independence. It is that huge difference that Cartesian thinking of independence lets us go to Systemic or Peircian (after the American philosopher Charles Sanders Peirce) thinking of interdependence. That shift is also about the emergence of what I have been naming the systemic civilization that's now doing what the industrial civilization did to the agricultural civilization."
That last paragraph will help us find the main flaw in the above mentioned Technology Review story, where Jason Pontin says:
But Silicon Valley’s explanation of why there are no disruptive innovations is parochial and reductive: the markets—in particular, the incentives that venture capital provides entrepreneurs—are to blame. According to Founders Fund’s manifesto, “What Happened to the Future?,” written by Bruce Gibney, a partner at the firm: “In the late 1990s, venture portfolios began to reflect a different sort of future … Venture investing shifted away from funding transformational companies and toward companies that solved incremental problems or even fake problems … VC has ceased to be the funder of the future, and instead become a funder of features, widgets, irrelevances.  ... what seemed futuristic at the time of Apollo 11 “remains futuristic, in part because these technologies never received the sustained funding lavished on the electronics industries.”
We believe that is the most important insight from the seven stories. It is not in any of the thought experiments of the seven stories, but in what "Founders Fund’s manifesto" says at the very beginning, because it is easy to see that there are very few opportunities left in the industrial civilization:
The Problem: We have two primary and related interests:
Finding ways to support technological development (technology is the fundamental driver of growth in the industrialized world).

Earning outstanding returns for our investors. 
While we will show below that technology is not the fundamental driver, in fact, it is those two interests: trying to drive growth in the industrial civilization and only thinking for investors to win are what have been driving soaring inequality. The problem is the management (marketing) myopia [8] of the saturation of the learning curve of the industrialized world doesn’t allow much gain anymore. We will return below to address on how to solve what we believe are the two most important of the big problems:  energy and climate change with the above mentioned missing vibrant retail market.

It is only under such saturation that the Technology Review story by David Rotman [9] makes sense. Referring to Northwestern University economist Robert J. Gordon, he synthesizes that “Despite the allure of apps and social media, today’s digital technologies are doing little to generate the kind of prosperity that previous generations enjoyed...”

When we increase the architecting scope in time to 500 years ago and in space to the whole world, Gordon’s story doesn’t make any sense as we reframe it to support the emergence of the systemic civilization. Then entrepreneurs can leap to the hypergrowth range of the learning curve of the systemic civilization, where productivity is discovery driven [10]. We are now able to use social media to raise the productivity to a higher plateau, from quantity to quality collaborations [11]. As we will see next the problem is not the tech slowdown, but management myopia which has been threatening not just the American Dream, but the dream of people at the Bottom of the Pyramid.

Such a dream is in contrast to the finding on the Technology Review story by Kevin Bullis [12], which says “Given the resilience of coal, though, it’s hard to be optimistic that the decreased rate of emissions will persist—absent new regulations.” That’s the problem of the transition agreed upon under COP21 [13] under the primacy of the parts, we upgrade it to absent the systemic civilization. Instead of a low carbon transition, we suggest a zero carbon transformation under the primacy of the whole that will bring high green economic growth [14].

Returning to the idea that the Global Interdependence Day is overdue, let's say it is from at least from the beginning of the 1990’s, the time that MIT published W. Edwards Deming book [2], whose first paragraph of the preface says:
This book is for people who are living under the tyranny of the prevailing style of Management. The huge, long-range losses caused by this style of management have led us into decline. Most people imagine that the present style of management has always existed, and is a fixture. Actually, it is a modern invention – a prison created by the way people interact. This interaction afflicts all aspects of our lives – government, industry, education, healthcare.”
In perfect alignment with Steven R. Covey, the first of the last two sentences of the second paragraph say:
It would be better if everyone would work together as a system, with the aim for everybody to win. What we need is cooperation and transformation to a new style of management.
As the world has become highly interdependent, the first insight from those seven sentences is that such a tyranny has not led just the USA into decline but most of the whole world which is under soaring inequality. The second insight is that such tyranny is the result of entities that don’t work together as a system and that a new style of management needs to emerge. We believe that such an style has been emerging, as we consider a post by Steve Denning about the publication of an article in the Harvard Business Review [15], which says:
The article correctly notes that “Innovation is what agile is all about” and that Agile is central because “these days most companies operate in highly dynamic environments.” Yet the article misspeaks when it says that Agile teams “can churn out innovations faster.” Agile teams don’t churn out things. Innovation isn’t something that can be “churned out” To suggest that it can is to adopt a 20th Century industrial mindset, which is the antithesis of Agile and innovation.
On that timely observation, we are only concerned on the meaning of “20th Century industrial mindset.” Does that mean that Agile is about 21st Century industrial mindset? We are not only on a midst of a technological revolution, but also and more important of an information revolution. Peter Drucker said that the precedent is the 3rd information revolution [16].

One of the key aspects that Deming insisted is about management (not just product or service) quality under a systemic (interdependent) mindset. In the first chapter, after introducing some of the usual suggestions for improvement of quality and telling what’s wrong with them, he writes:
Quality is determined by the top management. It can not be delegated. Moreover, an essential ingredient that I call profound knowledge is missing…
A reinterpretation of why quality can’t be delegated has to do with what used to be called unintended consequences, which have become larger than management’s intended effects, in many highly interdependent situations, like soaring inequality. So management must be responsible for all effects by being responsible to adopt Deming’s profound knowledge. One ineteresting example of lack of profound knowledge from the weekend reads sent by Technology Review is the effect of the USA as an independent warrior, which has resulted in "Thousands of U.S. soldiers have survived powerful explosions in Iraq. Many are returning home with brain injuries that could result in long-term disabilities [17]."

Based on a recent update on this blog that quoted Deming’s book we reaffirmed our naming of entities organizations and disorganizations as systems and anti-systems [11]. Anti-systems are those we keep operating under representative democracy from the public and private sectors by overregulating markets that have also become anti-systemic. That’s why we suggest that Deming should be considered the Father of the Direct Democracy of Systemic Markets (#DD_SM in Twitter).

This speciphically updates what we said about a conjecture on e-government in the initial text of this post, as direct democracy of the State, for example, a referendum, is complemented by a market direct democracy that emerges in the systemic civilization. This is where Rahm Emanuel quote gives us “… an opportunity to do things you could not do before.”

The example on which #DD_SM emerged to address one the ‘wicked’ problems of the industrial civilization, which first we consider as a systemic problem, is suggested to be understood as an anti-systemic problem. Its solution had the benefit of insights that came from the MIT Technology Review article at the beginning of this update [18, 19], with the subtitle “New technologies are missing many things, but especially their markets,” where Jason Pontin wrote:
One market-oriented way of thinking about the protracted adoption of new technologies is to understand that among the “missing pieces” of new domains are the modes of business that will sustain the constituent technologies. That is to say: the real economic value of new technologies is almost always imperfectly understood because the technologies’ markets do not yet exist.
Having said that, we are now able to respond what Pontin said in two of his paragraphs of his Technology Review story [1] sent on Saturday:
Blithe optimism about technology’s powers has evaporated, too, as big problems that people had imagined technology would solve, such as hunger, poverty, malaria, climate change, cancer, and the diseases of old age, have come to seem intractably hard.

Sometimes we fail to solve big problems because our institutions have failed. In 2010, less than 2 percent of the world’s energy consumption was derived from advanced renewable sources such as wind, solar, and biofuels. (The most common renewable sources of energy are still hydroelectric power and the burning of biomass, which means wood and cow dung.) The reason is economic: coal and natural gas are cheaper than solar and wind, and petroleum is cheaper than biofuels. Because climate change is a real and urgent problem, and because the main cause of global warming is carbon dioxide released as a by-product of burning fossil fuels, we need renewable energy technologies that can compete on price with coal, natural gas, and petroleum. At the moment, they don’t exist.
Yes! The institutions of the industrial civilization have failed us with anti-systemic markets. However, we have now the institutional innovation of #DD_SM, which is available in the Dominican Republic as a solid global framework change [20]. It is easy to see that the economic reason is that of decreasing return wholesale markets of the industrial civilization which don't fit the highly variant distributed solar and wind energy technologies, whose "markets do not yet exist." As we discovered, the missing market for solar and wind technologies is the retail market of the systemic civilization where increasing returns are available to the whole world.

As it happened, those problems that are intractably hard are hard because of the tyranny that Deming described as the prevailing style of management.  But as described below, the missing market is related to knowing first what’s socially desirable.  In fact, a there is now conclusive evidence that the electricity anti-systemic problem dissolves a big chunk of the climate change anti-systemic problem [21].

Learning from the past with a mechanistic mindset (that led to Fordism), in an industrial civilization (composed of independent entities) that is operating in an experience curve that has become saturated [8], both economist Thomas Piketty and Robert Gordon came to conclusions about a world managed under Deming’s tyranny, without considering the emergence of the systemic civilization that has been begging to be created by global leaders for quite some time. Piketty documented the increasing inequality people face all over the world. Our response [22], included this:
I guess the most important issue with his book refers to the future, as you have been pointing out both in the article and in the comments. This starts with the same error of Ricardo's extrapolation, under the assumption that the future is a continuation of the past. That assumption is integral to the restriction of his macroeconomics tools. But today, it is possible to learn from the emergent future. In addition, such learning is leading increasing returns based on positive feedback.
Taken from the Technology Review story by David Rotman, the above comment also applies to Gordon as “technologies are doing little to generate the kind of prosperity that previous generations enjoyed [7].” If technologies are selected for prosperity, we are left with: Can decreasing inequality be reversed under increasing returns?

One of the characteristics of the prevailing style of management of the industrial civilization is that there was no need to consider solutions to be socially responsible after restructuring in the 1990s. Earlier than that, the vertically integrated power industry at some jurisdictions were designed and operated for maximum social welfare. In Deming's terms electric restructuring brought a new fixture, that didn't consider MIT's Fred C. Schweppe and its reseach team warning that said: "We believe the deregulation which considers only the supply side of the supply-demand equation is dangerous and could have very negative results [14],"

As a result of the fourth information revolution we will show that anti-systemic (‘wicked’) problem resolution can benefit now from a software first system architecture approach that was not available in the past. This responds to what was anticipated in a September 9, 2013 conjecture [23], whose complete text says:
The conjecture is a generalization of the findings of the article Great electricity service. As smart-grids are no considered to be socially desirable, the social wicked electricity problem is not addressed.

The main problem is that smart-grids system architecture was based on the hardware first architecting system approach. In this case, the client of the system is the utility.

To follow Steve Jobs heuristic to "start with the customer experience and work back to the technology and not the other way around," a software first architecting system approach is implied to address the wicked system problem. In this other case, the client is the customer.
As can be seen, the strong supporting details about “to be socially desirable,” are based on the outstanding books “Good to Great," by Jim Collins, and “Change by design," by Tim Brown [24]. Here we see that Steve Jobs quote is also in line with the Technology review story about Rob Fisher [25], by saying:
Although the computer made the work possible, Fisher views technology as only a means to an end. “I want to find the simplest expression of technology to do the job,” he says. “It’s the way nature works. A river finds the simplest way out.”
However we will also prove Steve Jobs architecting heuristic is about the systemic civilization. To do it, let’s take what John Hagel wrote on his March 28, 2011 post [26], under the section “From diminishing returns to increasing returns:”
What is the full potential here? By taking experience design to the next level, we may for the first time have the opportunity to shift diminishing returns performance curves into increasing returns performance curves.

What does this mean? Think of the well-known experience curve, developed and popularized by Boston Consulting Group.  Over the years, they have demonstrated that it applies to an awesome array of industries, ranging from semiconductors to Japanese beer and toilet paper.  It is a remarkably accurate description of operating performance improvement in many industries.  But it is a diminishing returns curve – the more experience an industry accumulates, the longer and harder people have to work to get the next increment of performance improvement.  Perhaps this helps to explain the increasing stress most of us are experiencing.

What if there were an alternative? What if we could turn this diminishing returns curve on its side and unleash an increasing returns curve, one where the more people who join in, the faster everyone would learn? What would that require?

Well, for one thing, it would require a major shift in our beliefs and practices – a key dimension of what we call the Big Shift – and a corresponding shift in design focus.
While there is a clear hint of a technological revolution, Will we be operating later on a different experience curve after the Big Shift leads us into a stable environment? If that’s the case, as the Big Shift is a global scenario, away from the industrial civilization, we might be in a new civilization, which is documented in this post and its updates. Last but not least,


[1] Jason Pontin, Why we can’t solve Big Problems, MIT Technology Review, December 21, 2009.
[2] W. Edwards Deming , “The New Economics: for industry, government, education,” The MIT Press, 1994, Second Edition.
[3] Steven R. Covey, “The Seven Habits of Highly Successful People.” 1990.
[4] "Second update. Advice to the European Council and Global Debout for the transformation of the European Union," June 25, 2016, of the GMH post Scotland’s independence got around the world before its interdependence got its pants on, September 15, 2014.
[5] Peter F. Drucker, "The Theory of the Business," Harvard Business Review, 1994.
[6 ] Konstantin Kakaes  The All-American iPhoneJune 9, 2016
[7] "Second update. Whichever party embraces a Systemic Energy Policy Act strategy will probably win the 2016 election," March 26, 2016, of the GMH  post Elections in USA, Germany, Spain, DR are under unstable equilibrium, as they were in Argentina, Brazil, Venezuela, Spain, March 17, 2016.
[9] David Rotman, Tech Slowdown Threatens the American Dream, MIT Technology Review, April 6, 2016.
[10] "Tenth update. Help #GlobalDebout entrepreneurs at the Bottom of the Pyramid 'Be discovery driven,'"May 16, 2916, of the GMH post Can we agree with the Second Curve, while not with Handy?, October 2, 2015.
[11] "Segunda actualización. W. Edwards Deming: Padre de la democracia directa del mercado sistémico (#DD_SM)," July 1, 2016, of the GMH post Debate electoral: ¿no será una distracción contra la democracia directa?, February 10, 2016.
[12] Kevin Bullis, How Energy Consumption Has Changed Since 1776, MIT Technology Review,, July 3, 2013.
[13] "First update.  Does a disruptive #ClimateChange transformation for #OWS & #15M, makes #COP21 too little too late for #Davos 2016?" January 21, 2016, of the GMH post World Economic Forum Davos 2016: Will #OWS and #15M love The Industrialist’s Dilemma?, Januaary 19, 2016.
[14] GMH post Minimalists governments with fair global free deregulated markets must arrive soon, April 12, 2016.
[15] Steve Denning, HBR's Embrace Of Agile, Forbes, June 7, 2016.
[16] Peter F. Drucker, “Management Challenges for the 21st Century,” page 102.
[17] Emily Singer  Brain Trauma in Iraq, April 22, 2008
[18] Jason Pontin, On the Evolution of Technology, MIT Technology Review, December 21, 2009.
[24] GMH post  Great electricity service, July 22, 20113.
[25] Sally Atwood, Declaration of An Artist, MIT Technology Review, April 1, 2004.
[26] John Hagel III, Anticipating the Next Wave of Experience Design, March 28, 2011.

Sixth update.  A Systemic Declaration of Interdependence model for COP21. As Conferences of the Parts (COPs) are based on the primacy of the parts, they have been organized by independent governments of the industrial civilization, up to this one, to try to enact an emerging future having forbid the consideration of a deep transformation that requires a generative dialogue to help emerge a system architecting effort that's unprecedented. Hereby is a complement of the "Fifth update. Can COP21 participants address energy antisystem strategic myopia?" of the post Applying #Jobsism to transform current global #Fordism marketing myopia.

Such declaration must be based on a mindset shift to the primacy of the whole in that, for example, systems results from transformations of antisystems. Another way of looking at systems organizations is to consider them as agile organizations, while antisystems are consider as fragile ones.

Under such mindset shift, COP21 participants would be able to develop a global systemic declaration of interdependence based on the model corresponding to the agile organizations, which reads as follows:

Agile and adaptive approaches for linking people, projects and value

We are a community of project leaders that are highly successful at delivering results. To achieve these results:
We increase return on investment by making continuous flow of value our focus.

We deliver reliable results by engaging customers in frequent interactions and shared ownership.

We expect uncertainty and manage for it through iterations, anticipation, and adaptation.

We unleash creativity and innovation by recognizing that individuals are the ultimate source of value, and creating an environment where they can make a difference.

We boost performance through group accountability for results and shared responsibility for team effectiveness.

We improve effectiveness and reliability through situationally specific strategies, processes and practices.
In addition to take into consideration the post The Systemic Civilization is reconfirmed by curating John Hagel's post The Dark Side of Technology as part of the primacy of the whole, to support the development of the Systemic Civilization Global Declaration of Interdependence, COP21 participants need to agree the they are dealing with fragile antisystems when they concentrate on the primacy of the parts. In that regard, when the Editor of Fortune Magazine, wrote the post The Six New Rules of Business, I responded essentially as follows to support the emergence of the systemic civilization:
To Mr. Alan Murray.

Good morning!

I find that Mr. Colvin's article "Why every aspect of your business is about to change," is a must read for everyone. I was led to it when I started reading the article "Can The 21st Century Corporation Operate Without Agile?," by Mr. Steve Denning, but my attention was shifted when I saw that “'The world,' ... 'is in the midst of a new industrial revolution.'”... Would what follows help in any way your post to become a foot on the door for the time-pressed to read the whole article as soon as possible?

I guess "a new industrial revolution" may be an important denial of risk and peril, as Jim Collins tell us in "How the mighty fall." It is also important, because in promoting his own article (which was what attracted me in the first place) Mr. Denning tweeted "Mindsets are more important than methodologies." I understand that the Cartesian industrial civilization mindset needs to be changed.

I respect and follow Dr. Carlota Pérez analytic scientific research. She suggested at the very beginning of the 21st Century that we are shifting from the 4th to the 5th technological revolution of the industrial civilization. But somehow I found there was a disagreement with Alvin Toffler's synthetic Third Wave. Later I learned that the current Big Shift (not Change - as John Hagel III characterizes it) is not unprecedented. Peter Drucker wrote that about 5 centuries ago we had the 3rd information revolution associated with the printing press.

Based on the above, I suggest that we are in the midst of the 1st technological revolution of the systemic civilization, as I named it. That's where mechanistic Cartesians mindsets are changed to organic systemic mindsets. Most of the above insights are pinned on my personal @gmh_upsa Twitter account.

Please advise!

José Antonio Vanderhorst Silverio, Ph..D
Consulting engineer on systems architecting
Servant-leader Dominican and global citizen

Fifth update: Will the Eurozone continue in its Doom Loop unless the Troika is killed? The members of the Troika were organized to protect the industrial civilization, but as the world has changed significantly they have become the main protector of the international systemic corruption of that civilization that has enable the debt crisis. Such a Doom Loop, introduced by Jim Collins in his book Good to Great, was recently described by Joseph Stiglitz in his article Europe’s Last Act?, as "The troika’s forecasts have been wrong, and repeatedly so. And not by a little, but by an enormous amount. Greece’s voters were right to demand a change in course, and their government is right to refuse to sign on to a deeply flawed program." It is clear that such forecasts are not just for Greece but for Europe as a whole.

While the greek government was expecting the Troika to be killed to increase the power of the greek state, what Europe should seriously consider is killing the Troica on the emergence of a new world order, by follwing up the advice of a referendum in the fourth update just below.

Fourth update: What about a high leverage European referendum that avoids the Greece's crisis go to waste? We understand that the message of the third update didn't get accross as intended. I strongly hope this adjustment that integrates the main text (in response to John Hagel III) and all updates will. The opportunity to do it emerged with this new input: "Tsipras announces bailout referendum" on 5 July for voters to decide whether to accept a bailout deal offered by international creditors."

Reinforcing that input is the following tweet: Yanis Varoufakis ‏@yanisvaroufakis - Democracy deserved a boost in euro-related matters. We just delivered it. Let the people decide. (Funny how radical this concept sounds!). What if it's not radical enough, not just for Greece, but for people all over the world being pressed by debt whose main origin is international and local systemic corruption. This must remind us of what Rahm Emanuel said: “You never let a serious crisis go to waste. And what I mean by that, it’s an opportunity to do things you could not do before.”

What's at stake is the urgent need for Europe to consider a high leverage referedum organized for themselves on the dismantling of the systemic corruption that is in great part the reason of the debt crisis in many countries all over the world. In either referendum we need to suspend civil obedience to express their understanding, not on a yes or no vote to the bailout deal, but instead:

Yes vote: to enable private sector innovation, for companies that add value to people. This is about great (systemic civilization) capitalism that gives oportunities to all.

No vote: to continue private sector systemic corruption with the help of government regulations that substract value to people. This is about good (industrial civilization) capitalism for a few.

Third update: How much does Greece matter to the 99.9%? As a starter, Should the Electricity Pact be redesigned? This is a very different perspective from that of CNBC news with video How does Greece matters to US markets. It is also a translation and an upgrade to the comment placed yesterday under El País news ¿Cómo vive Wall Street el drama griego? (How Wall Street lives the greek drama?), which is placed at the end of this post.

Instead of being an analysis, this synthesis is in general a follow up to many GMH blog posts, and in particular, for example, to the "Séptima actualización: Los Indignados de Clase Media global (Nativos Digitales) necesitan que el Pacto Eléctrico sea rediseñado para el 99.9% que está por encima de la política" of the post Una propuesta anti-corrupción sistémica para Podemos y Ciudadanos que los Nativos Digitales no están esperando pero les encantará, which is something like "The Global Middle-Class Indignados (Digital Natives) need that the Elecicity Pact be redesigned for the 99.9%," of the post "An anti-systemic corruption proposal for Podemos and Ciudadanos that Digital Natives are not expecting but will love."

In both languages, the initial comment said:
One thing is the interpretation we have been reading from the journalists who are covering the negotiations in Europe. Very interesting, valuable and timely is the second interpretation that was made by Wall Street analyst: fears that negotiations with Greece become a precedent for future negotiations with, for example, Spain, Portugal or Italy. As some already know, there is a third interpretation I have been offering based on a very different common sense from those two interpretations which are based on Cartesian thinking . This appears in the second update of this post, "in which the actor Matt Damon reads part of Howard Zinn's November 1970 speech "The problem of civil obedience." What do you think?
 Una cosa es la interpretación que hemos venido leyendo de parte de los periodistas que están cubriendo las negociaciones en Europa. Muy interesante, valiosa y oportuna es la segunda interpretación que hace ese analista de Wall Street: teme que la negociación con Grecia se vuelva un precedente para futuras negociaciones, por ejemplo, con España, Portugal o Italia. Como algunos ya saben, existe una tercera interpretación que he venido ofreciendo con base a un sentido común muy distinto al de esas dos interpretaciones que se basan en el pensamiento Cartesiano.  Esta aparece en "Second update:  5 min. video. Is systemic corruption a problem of civil obedience? (2da actualización: Video de 5 minutos. ¿Es la corrupción sistémica un problema de obediencia civil?)" de la nota "A Systemic Civilization Global Declaration of Interdependence (Una declaración global de interdependencia de la civilización sistémica) (  )," en la que el actor Matt Damon lee parte del discurso "El problema de la obediencia civil," que Howard Zinn pronunció en noviembre de 1970. ¿Qué les parece?
Second update: 5 min. video. Is systemic corruption a problem of civil obedience? In recent updates in Spanish blog posts (see them in the right hand column of the blog at this time), we have come to the conclusion that systemic corruption is right now a feature of the industrial civilization and that we need to help emerge, for example, the systemic civilization to end it. Please recall, for example, the post Is systemic corruption.the main cause of inequality between rich and poor? See Electricity Pact. In the transcript of the following video the conclusion is a call for a Global Declaration of Interdependence.

My hope is that this kind of spirit will take place not just in this country but in other countries because they all need it. People in all countries need the spirit of disobedience to the state, which is not a metaphysical thing but a thing of force and wealth. And we need a kind of declaration of interdependence among people in all countries of the world who are striving for the same thing.

First update of February 2, 2015. Under the article More On Why Managers Hate Agile, I posted the following comment (with redundancies removed) that reinforces the need for a systemic civilization global declaration of interdependence to his author :
Dear Steve Denning,

Thank you for a very timely and valuable article. I agree with you that there are two and only two very “different understandings about how the world works.” The Copernican paradigm shift after the Middle Ages gave way to the industrial civilization. Now we are in a similar situation as the industrial civilization doesn’t work anymore, as can be seen in Thomas Piketty’s discovery a huge inequality problem, which is similar to a second Middle Age in the making.

More than 200 years ago, the nation-states emerged after their declaration of independence. In the 4th technological revolution of the industrial civilization, the factory underwent an institutional innovation led by Henry Ford, in what is being called the common sense (I prefer it from ideology) of Fordism. Just Google #Fordism to see the tweets I have been pinning on Twitter.

In those tweets, I have been saying that a new civilization, which I call systemic, wants to emerge from a Declaration of Interdependence. The inspiration on that declaration comes from the 2001 agile declaration of interdependence.

Just as the factory served as the institutional model of the industrial civilization, we now have agile networks value chains that serve as the new model, which I call the common sense of Jobsism (after Steve Jobs). To reinforce Jobsism we can take this article and the one you wrote 3 years ago with the title Is Apple Truly ‘Agile’?,” which together with this post shows a strong support on the common sense of Jobsism.

We need to see Fordism as a common sense without the Internet, while the Internet being a key characteristic of Jobsism.

Best regards,

José Antonio
Under John Hagel III's article A 21st Century Global Declaration of Independence, I posted the following comment:

While reading articles written by Steve Denning, a contributor to Forbes, I have learned a lot of insights from John Hagel III. In a comment under Mr. Denning's article "Can A Big Old Hierarchical Bureaucracy Become A 21st Century Network?," that doesn't involves Mr. Hagel, I wrote 8 month ago: "Dear Steve Denning Thank you for your view of the current situation that prevent Agile approaches and the change you infer that emerged from the Occupy movement. I guess the promise of e-government may be viewed from a technological revolution or from an information revolution perspective. If the invention of the printing press was what enable in due time the declaration of independence of many states, of which the Constitution of the United States is one of the best examples of a lasting design, I conjectured earlier that e-government will be the result of a declaration of interdependence. By looking at the examples of the nimble networks, presidents will no have the power they [have] today. I know many questions might spring from the conjecture, but the key one might be if it would lead, for example, to interdependence wars?"

In that light, I am testing the following hypothesis: "As Piketty's inequality is due to Feudalism corrupting capitalism, Can we transform capitalism to go for a Golden Age, like Luther reformed Catholicism to get out of the Middle Ages?" So far I have received comments in the Linkedin groups of the SSIT in which right now has 8 comments and of the IEEE Spectrum in with 2 comments also so far."

That's why I am surprised reading about a Declaration of Independence. I have at least three arguments about Interdependence. While it is certainly true, what is written to support independence in "When in the course of human events, it becomes necessary for individuals to dissolve the institutional bands which have connected them with another," Isn't it also true when 'connected' is replaced with 'disconnected,' for example, about the disconnected people that live at the Bottom of the Pyramid. "

In addition, as the late Steven R. Covey told us: "the greatest human achievements come from people working at the third level, interdependence. This is when people work together to achieve a common goal, and is the level of maturity of many people in a mature society or organization. This is how mankind has achieved things together that no single person could do alone. Interdependence is the state of human development of greatest maturity and power." That's the underlying reason why I wrote, for example, the blog post "Scotland’s independence got around the world before its interdependence got its pants on ( )."

Further, the also late Peter F. Drucker wrote, we are only in the Fourth Information Revolution, on which I understand that very deeply that interdependence is as important, as it was the Third for independence. It is that huge difference that Cartesian thinking of independence let´s us go to Systemic or Peircian (after the American philosopher Charles Sanders Peirce) thinking of interdependence. That shift is also about the emergence of what I have been naming the systemic civilization that's now doing what the industrial civilization did to the agricultural civilization."

José Antonio Vanderhorst-Silverio, Ph.D. Consulting engineer on electric sector systems architecting."