It’s always a challenge writing in a non-native language, because you may miss the nuances that can make a message powerful in your own. Still, perhaps it will work this time.

I’d like to talk about consumption. Thanks to the increasing number of channels that consumers nowadays can access for information, we should – in principle – be able to make better informed consumption decisions. Not just based on price, but also on other characteristics that we deem important. These might include aspects of the company, performance of the product, comparison with similar products, and stuff like the environmental impact during production and use, referring for example to material and energy use.

Enriched with such information, consumers are increasingly able to (whether and how often they do it is another matter) to give their own twitsts to their consumption pattern. It can also affect this behaviour in other ways: deciding not to simply buy everything you can think of on a whim, careful considerations about what you actually need, and conscious choices whether you really need the product or merely the service/function that ir provides. With the latter we enter the realm of rent/ lease/ share models. For all such decisions I would say the key consideration is not so much “how can I REDUCE because otherwise the Earth goed bankrupt”, but rather “What constitutes the best choice for ME, taking these questions into account?”.

These are all examples of what you could call “smart consumerism”, where the emphasis does not primarily lie on austere cut backs, but rather on consuming in much smarter ways. If only governments would follow the same logic… The interesting effect of taking decisions in this way is often a reduction of largely unnecessary consumption after all, but through a channel of wanting and not one of feeling pressured and succumbing to that under protest. The smart choice is often also a more fun option and on top of that you promote yourself from a one dimensional zombie to an actual 3D persona. The movie industry would be proud.

In an effort to boost this phenomenon, I will introduce the term “smart sumption”. When I say “introduce” that is virtually true. Mighty Google returned 2 hits, one seemed only marginally related and the other one dated from 1976! Time to see whether it will catch on now. Happy Birth of Smart Sumption, and Easter!

Much has been said about generations and their characteristics, and society as a whole changing its paradigms. Not all these developments point in the same direction. Still, there are several developments that do:

• The MeMeMe-era is more or less ending: complete lack of a certain sense of responsibility for more than just your own bank account is by now quite rare.
• Governments are often caught up in a paralyzing net of trying to satisfy too many interests, therefore achieving little to no progress. In bad cases this leads to stalemates (like Climate policy), in others the laggards are cut loose (UK in the EU-negotiations). In most cases, the field opens up for others (private sector and civil society) to take the lead.
• Life without Social Networks by now seems almost unimaginable. For better AND worse. Drawbbacks are becoming apparent, but the very strengths of (competing) social media is used to protest the worst effects as well. To which side the balance will tip is I guess in our own hands.
• People are empowered (DIY – Do It Yourself) to make themselves less dependent on the Powers that Be. For many however, the step will be big.
• When you combine the last two items, you get Groups of People, Doing It Themselves.  Banks, FabLabs, wonderful imaginative services like Friendsurance, Crowdmortgage. Others like Groupon and its variants.

This is my prediction for 2012: the definite rise of the DIWO-society: Do it (Together) With Others. Examples are rife and all around is. From Me to We is not about losing your own identity, it is about gaining new opportunities.

The world is neither flat, nor curved, nor round (well it is of course). It is squared. And that square is the different window everyone has to the world. Their personal (TV) screen. We are connected as never before for better and worse. But what does this mean for the information we receive, generate and share?

My view is that people will increasingly want to have control over this. So we decide what we watch and through hosts of filters can have some control over what we receive from the Information Jungle out there.

The last part is trickier, and that is the question what we share. In a Wikinomics-planet sharing is important, essential. Not just to get things back but because it creates value. However, I am convinced that we want to be in control of WHAT we share and who with. It is therefore of no surprise that a modern mammoth like Facebook is critisised for reversing the desirable order of things: they decide what you want to share and if you don’t agree you have to change their decision. This is how big companies antagonise people. And we are increasingly able to fight back, even in semi-organised fashion.

So beware Gods of the Internet, you still need US to keep you Big. We will want to keep control over these matters and if you ignore that wish, you will feel the results. The true Leaders of this age are the best Facilitators of ordinary people to keep control, i.e., to personalise the information flows in our Hyperconnected Globalised Universe.

Following a previous post, more on the concept of 'eco systems economics'. In short: not how can we valuate ecosystems services, but how can we design the economy to work more like eco-systems? If these have existed for a few billion years, something must be right there. So, what ingredients would need to be present to mimic this success?
* Interdependence: different parts of society depend on each other. Businesses can try to just generate short term profits, but if they ignore the feedback they receive from other parts of society, they will go down. Instead of only focusing on their own (financial) value, for their own survival, they are interdependent on their other stakeholders to function as well. They need to cooperate to create shared value. Otherwise their success will be short-lived.
* Self-organisation: we need structure up to a certain degree. But too much structure deteriorates the ability of the system to react, to be creative, to flow and find the appropriate equilibriums. If structure is added in places where the system needs flexibility, the system and its part suffers. Such over-structuring could come from many sources: rigid regulations that focus on means and not on goals, pricing mechanisms that prevent energy (ideas, transactions, creativity) to flow and mechanisms that favour extraction-based processes that ignore that they need to give back to live.
* Diversity: it's simple. Monocultures do not survive. They are vulnerable, anything that enters them will kill them. They share the same successes, but also the same failures. A diverse system, that develops and cherishes various complementary skills and assets stands the best chance of survival and further development. Society provides us with feedback about which (combination of) approaches gain momentum at a certain point in time. This can result on some approaches to die off), but show me the monopoly that has worked for more than a few years. This post has in part been inspired by sources as diverse as TNS (The Natural Step) and HBR (Harvard Business Review). Case in point…
* Development instead of growth: unchecked (financial) profit oriented growth may with some sense of drama, be compared with cancer cells: they only focus on their own growth, in volume, in size, and in the process only benefiting some brothers in arms that try to clean up the mess. But in that process too, the body it feeds on dies; and thereby the cancer cells themselves with it. Society as the human body. A counterexample? Inoculations. Inject a little of the bad, for the system to adapt and be able to fight when a lot of the bad arrives. Work together to improve the overall resilience.

The economy of the future is system that encourages the wonderful interplay between these qualities.

We live in dynamic times and business structures are evolving. With boundaries between organisations becoming blurrier, models becoming more hybrid and new types of cooperations abound, we might need a shift in business model thinking as well.

Whereas traditionally a business (and revenue) model is characterised basically by: cash in > cash out, this linear type of thinking may no longer suffice. Primarily because the definition of 'in' and 'out' is changing in light of he developments described above. I increasingly like to refer to the new ways how organisations deal with each other and other stakeholders as an eco system.

And how is an eco system characterised in nature: by different elements existing together and seeking not just synergy but benefiting from symbioisis, Let's call that intrinsic synergy. How does that materialise? By the different elements of the 'system' interplaying with each other, strengthening each other in natural ways, thereby creating a much larger whole than the sum of the isolated parts.

Ecosystems are characterised by flow, grow, blossom, in expected and unexpected places and many of these not subject to formal management, or measuring. Now how does that translate to the business world? Businesses need revenues, profit. So we have invented transactions, and these are monitised.

All this leads to the big question: which 'transactions' (flows) in a (business) eco system should be monitised, and how? Which flows should be managed and how? What is the ultimate optimum between letting everything blossom and reaping the benefits, and measuring how much it blossoms exactly and who specifically should benefit financially from that? How would measurement, especially monetary one perhaps be counterproductive if it is done in the wrong way?

Fascinating questions, I think. It does seem like modern day innovation will therefore not only come from technology or even application, but from the way we manage to productively deal with these questions. Any thoughts on this, anyone?

In addtion to the post below, a small addendum. The rest of the book built on the ideas as briefly discussed 2 weeks ago. In short: it is the natural state of ideas to flow freely, and we can decide whether to faciitate that flow or block it artificially.

Yes, in the larger whole there may be a role for traditional protection of ideas through the classic patent system, but in the end society and thus we, will benefit much more by acknowledging the inherent advantages of participating in the platforms that really make use of the ideas, i.e., apply and deploy them. It's about connections. Or in short to paraphrase the final quotes from the book: "the patterns are simple but taken together they create a sum that is much larger than the parts: go for a walk, cultivate hunches, embrace serendipity, make generative mistakes, visit liquid networks, borrow and let your ideas be borrowed, recylce en re-invent."

Facilitate and embrace the flow and sip from its nutrients.

Ending the year with a post about a great book I have started to read: Where do good ideas come from (Steven Johnson). It reads like the script of Casablanca: one big collection of memorable thoughts and quotes supported by examples and reading like a novel.

Although I'm only 1/3 underway it is useful to share some insights already. For starters with 7 say elements that stimulate new idea forming: adjacent possible (translate as: an idea can be ahead of its time but maybe not too far ahead to make it work), liquid networks, allowing slow hunches, serendipity, error, exaptation (haven't gotten around to what that means yet…), platforms. 

But summarised in one word: connections. Between (small) ideas, hunches, people. Allowing, encouraging, fostering them. "When nature finds itself in need of new 'ideas' it strives to connect, not protect". And so many more super-quotes. "To get a new idea sometimes you just have to open a door, at other monents you have to move a wall". etc etc.

But in essence it's about connections. A famous case where this did not happen was the FBI information processing structure; would they have allowed a more connecting structure and have allowed their people to use it (neural networks are the most powerful of all), they might have – nothing is certain of course – prevented 9/11.

It's not all chance. For 'serendipity' (accidental connections) to work, the discoveries need to find an anchor. So: create an environment that allows serendipity, error, new connections; but somehow stimulate that people anchor them as well so the results become useful. One of the ways that this could take place is allow people (talking about organisational policies right now) to take time off their regular chores and allow them to do something different. As easy as taking a walk, do something unrelated to ordinary tasks. To get new ideas, old information has to be rearranged differently, and sometimes that requires a different physical environment as well.

And on and on and on. Examples are myriad. Applying these lessons in practice successfully is what will make the difference. Allow chaos to an extent, as order seldom creates innovation. And that's it for this year. Until the uneventful number 2011, but therein lies a chance as well…

Bear with me, this is going to take a few seconds of your time, but I think it is worth it.
I have been thinking about the term "sustainability" and which reactions it tends to provoke nowadays. And unfortunately it seems to be associated to a worrying extent with doom, reduction, putting the interest of polar bears before people, and according to a much followed philosophy: boring.
This is taking the completely wrong angle. I've said it before and I will say it again: sustainability is about people; they have to (want to!) make it work. If you look at the still-accepted original definition of sustainability (the Brundtland definition, 1987), there is no mentioning of polar bears, or reduction. It is about intelligence, smart development, and foremost: people. "next (human) generations". Need I say more.
Well, just a bit. Sustainable development is about smart but still people centered development. Better yet, society centered development. And a society is made up out of social and natural environments. The 'economy' is a virtual result of these two. So this means that the economy will thrive best if the first two are taken as basis for action. It is an automatic result, not the artificial starting point.
That means that we can still think in terms of growth, but qualitative in the time we spend here, not quantitative in the stuff we acquire. Qualitative in terms of how we engage with other people. Call it "collaborative consumerism" (not a term I invented). The more the better. Spend time with friends, with family, in nature and suddenly the importance of keeping all of these alive becomes so apparent we don't need to discuss it. Natural resource and human BEING management. The MORE the two are seen in unison the better.
So this requires not a mindset of reduction, but a mindset of exuberance. But that exuberance is not found in material stuff, as closed loop as it should be, but in the immaterial intangible, magical and sustainable (or call it resilient, I don't care) reality around it. Do the best you can, with the stuff we have and the thoughts that are infinite. F*** recuction, when human creativity is concerned.
Embrace people and mobilize the creativity that is required to thrive in our environment in the broad sense and you have "sustainability", as a continuous and default mindset. Nothing boring about it. Exciting, by and for the people. Then the polar bears will thrive as well.

Here's a possibly unusual view on balance. Balance usually has a positive association: balance between extremes, balance between private life and work, balance between serious and fun. And that all seems to make sense. Also in the sustainability domain, balance is THE thing: balance between people, planet, profit is the sacred cow. Or is it?

Especially when talking about innovation, balance might not just have positive connotations. Balance also means: stability, status quo, no change, static. Just for that reason, I would rather use the term equilibrium because at least that conveys some dynamics: an optimum is ok, but where the optimum lies can shift throughout time. 

But still not happy with that. Back to sustainability. Balance, or equilibrium, convergence: as long as there is some point where interests converge, we're doing well. But is that really the case? Convergence also means limitations, reduction of space to manouevre. Whereas creativity and innovation, especially in support of sustainability, need space, divergence. As I have said in past posts: balance (rather: equilibrium) should be the STARTING point of our thinking, not the destination.

So I am hereby introducing a new term and one that I have experienced as extremely useful in capturing the essence of what I mean: productive INbalance. By cherishing the fact that NOT everything is optimally tuned and evened out, new things happen. No standing stil, no status quo, no balance that lulls us into sleep. Worth a try?

A popoular topic of this blog throughout it's years of existence revisited: how should innovators benefit from their efforts, how should they be protected, or are there other ways how (competitive) advatnage can be achieved?

The traditional paradigm goes: to make sure innovators can benefit from their efforts and reap some financial return their fruits needs to be protected, e.g., by patents, copyright etc. One consequence is that if people infringe on these (legally obtained) rights, you bascially opt by default to sue. Meaning, invoking (high) legal costs, lots of time, energy and part of your entrepreneurial life in court battles. You have opted to play defense and these are the rules. Understandable, in many ways and very much the way it has been done for the last 100+ years. Because that was considered the only way to do it…

Or is it…?? The common wisdom goes: you need to recover your development costs and legal protection is the only security you can build some security that YOUR profits are not stolen by cheaper rip-ofsf.So welcome to a life in court. Oh joy?

Now the question is, can what *other* ways are there to make sure you can reap the benefits from your labour? By 'attacking'? There might be. Yes, others can copy, revewrse engineer, sell more cheaply. But they cannot do other things: be the first on the market, be the original, move on tho the next idea, find better (production) partners etc etc. These are advantages that you can play out and that mostly cannot be copied. Exploting the image of the Original, the Real Thing. Putting time and energy into that might just be more energy positive, effective, and and make sense from a costs point of view. Since you save a barrel on legal costs. At the very least there is a break even point, even apart from the fun-aspect

There may be situations where this strategy is more likely to succeed thhan others, but the point is, it hardly is tried because the old paradigm of protecting rights (defense) is considered the only way to go. To innovate is to challenge paradigms. So maybe just *considering* whether the time for the Paradigm of Attack is relevant for you would make sense.

The only fact is that we all die, the rest of our assumptions need to be challenged, without it no progress. Comments welcome.