The Fourth Revolution Blog - Latest Comments

Re: Fail harder… a wrong concept for stretching oneself!

Jeremie Averous — Sat, 21 Apr 2012 11:18:26 -0000

Hi Michael - fully agree with your comment. My point is just that it's important to survive failure to be able to learn from the mistakes :-)
Jeremie

Re: Fail harder… a wrong concept for stretching oneself!

michaeljgilbert — Sat, 21 Apr 2012 09:34:24 -0000

I agree with both statements. However, I feel the statement FAIL HARDER is a leaning towards LEARN FROM THOSE MISTAKES.

Re: Graduating students

anonymous — Fri, 20 Apr 2012 06:45:10 -0000

lovely pics guys!!!

Re: The proof of the failure of conventional R&D, and what to do about it

Jeremie Averous — Tue, 17 Apr 2012 10:36:05 -0000

Hi Bernard, thanks for your comments! Fully agree the sample here is not representative. Still I believe that the way R&D needs to be done has to change. We know that the old-fashioned model of drug companies R&D is broken, and they replace it with alternate decentralized solutions (foster biotechnology startups, link with universities). In the same way Procter & Gamble are the leaders in open innovation, looking for solutions stemming from outside their walls for more than 50% of their new products. This is a radical change in terms of R&D model, which has to become more 'crowd-sourced' leveraging across silos, specialties and borders. Jeremie

Re: The proof of the failure of conventional R&D, and what to do about it

Bernard Commere — Tue, 17 Apr 2012 09:44:02 -0000

Interesting, but this sample of companies is not representative of activities necessary to meet all numan needs, like food, health and environment protection which require research expenditure. What use will be an ipad to a african peasant without electricity ?

Re: The best change programs are simple and applied ruthlessly

Jeremie Averous — Fri, 06 Apr 2012 07:20:47 -0000

Hi Raju, thanks for the comment! Love it :-)
So much effort in perspective though!!

Re: The best change programs are simple and applied ruthlessly

Raju Mandhyan — Tue, 03 Apr 2012 22:11:49 -0000

I like this idea. Cuts through a lot of data out there about innovation and execution. To turn an iceberg around one needs to get to bottom of it and heave-ho again and again. Raju Mandhyan

Re: How crowd-knowledge dwarfs the obsolete institution of encyclopedia

Jeremie Averous — Tue, 27 Mar 2012 16:14:06 -0000

Salut Laurent!
Thanks for your commentyes the issue of the accuracy of Wikipedia is quite controversial.There have been some studies made which show apparently that the accuracy level of Wikipedia and traditional Encyclopedia is the same, but it is not the same type of inaccuracies.Wikipedia's inaccuracies, as you describe, come from the lack of review and editing of contributions by other users which allow decidedly wrong or even inappropriate views to stay. And Wikipedia tends to reflect common held beliefs rather than the scientifically proven.On the other hand, traditional encyclopedia's inaccuracies stem from the limited number of contributors; and the review by a single editor; so that if the authors and the editor don't want to talk about a subject, for example, they can just avoid it; or they will more easily take a stand on a particular subject. Apparently Encyclopedia Britannica took a few decades to talk about Newton's gravitation because the editor did not want to hear about it.No system is perfect,and we need to be aware of their weaknesses. Still Wikipedia breadth is today much larger than what a traditional encyclopedia could achieve which explains probably why it comes up so often in search results. And I can testify that it is well guarded by the editors and that it is not easy to make amendments that do not fit with the editorial line which is to provide references to the statements you add in there...

Wikipedia will not replace in-depth scientific knowledge of particular subjects, but for a crowd-knowledge exercise I find it's not too bad. And it is more than updated: for example on Fukushima I could not find a better source of information during the accident that was detailed enough for my taste.
Let's just be aware to keep the "esprit critique" and check our sources when it's important!

Re: How crowd-knowledge dwarfs the obsolete institution of encyclopedia

Laurent Cooper — Tue, 27 Mar 2012 15:28:20 -0000

Yes, sometimes wikipedia is wonderful. Yes, sometimes it's full of excellent information, with people of goodwill and competence.

But ... if only mass and crowd were the only measure. What about quality ? Only 5000 contributors for the encyclopedia britannica, perhaps, but they are true experts of their domains.
Having a sister that teaches french literature in a great university, she sometimes sees students having totally false information. When 70% of the students are having the same false information, it always come from wikipedia.

I've also read very controversial article about nuclear technology, full of stupidity. People with enough knowledge were overwhelmed by a crowd of ignorant that destroyed the information because of belief and pains.

Mass knowledge is sometime mass ignorance. Contributors on wikipedia are anonymous and sometimes totally incompetent. Full of good will. But good will is not enough.

Mass knowledge is also sometimes mass manipulation. Some big companies pay people to inspect topics related to them on wikipedia. Some politicians do the same. Having money gives you the power on the informations.

No, definitely no. Wikipedia is not the solution. you almost never know what the competences of the contributor are, you don't know if it is a lobbyist , if he as interest.

Fourth revolution ? Hope it's not the way it will take !

But it's only my opinion.

Re: Educate people, don’t train them anymore

Jeremie Averous — Thu, 15 Mar 2012 21:18:36 -0000

Thanks for the thought Chinchcliffe! I agree with you "training" could be a small part of the overall education; yet once educated to grow by oneself, is training still required?

Re: Educate people, don’t train them anymore

Chinchcliffe — Thu, 15 Mar 2012 09:41:40 -0000

Interesting concept but not everyone can work in a creative environment, thus in my view there is still a need for training in processes however education is a benefit for living a fore filling life.

A mixture of both is required to reach your full potential.

Re: So, will you be coming to attend my public talk on “Project Soft Power”? 6 March at 7:30pm!

Jeremie Averous — Sun, 04 Mar 2012 18:57:27 -0000

I'm not quite sure about what the organizers will have foreseen, we'll see... no promises :-)

Re: Projects that are too easy, are not worthwhile

Jeremie Averous — Sun, 04 Mar 2012 10:24:48 -0000

Hi Debbie, thanks for your deep thoughts on this. Fully agree!

Re: So, will you be coming to attend my public talk on “Project Soft Power”? 6 March at 7:30pm!

Olivier Lareynie — Sun, 04 Mar 2012 09:46:46 -0000

Please, record it and make it available online! That's the power of the 4th revolution :-).

Re: Projects that are too easy, are not worthwhile

Debbie Ruston — Sun, 04 Mar 2012 09:35:48 -0000

Great point Jeremie...society has been conditioned to do what is easy. Those individuals that are willing to take a stand for something worthwhile, no matter how hard, or how many challenges are the people that bring meaningful change to the world.

Re: Another institution under siege from the Fourth Revolution: Universities. Will they reinvent themselves in time?

Jeremie Averous — Thu, 01 Mar 2012 09:06:55 -0000

Hi Glen, thanks for your comment! It looks like more and more people feel the way you do! Keep us updated on your experience!

Re: Another institution under siege from the Fourth Revolution: Universities. Will they reinvent themselves in time?

Glen Grant — Thu, 01 Mar 2012 02:57:49 -0000

I am doing my Masters online. I like it becuase I can work when it suits and at my own pace (slow!). I can go back over lectures if needs be. I dont feel any lack of contact with the university and the feedback I get is sharp and apposite. This is the way to go.

Re: Kaggle.com is still missing the point of Crowd-Innovation – unleashing the Value of the Fourth Revolution

Jeremie Averous — Fri, 10 Feb 2012 08:55:11 -0000

Hi Don, thanks for your insight! There are still quite a lot of platforms for open innovation out there that seem to struggle for growth and success, what would you suggest they do differently?

Re: Kaggle.com is still missing the point of Crowd-Innovation – unleashing the Value of the Fourth Revolution

Don Gooding — Fri, 10 Feb 2012 07:38:53 -0000

I doubt that there is a single "right solution" to Open Innovation. Rather, there will be several (or many?) models depending on the nature of the problem to be addressed. Consumer product open innovation for Proctor and Gamble will be different from software (Open Source collaboration has been solved), different from data-oriented problems that kaggle.com is addressing, which is different from some social problem solving, and so on.

Re: My company is now live, I am in the cockpit, ready to take off!

Helene — Thu, 02 Feb 2012 07:09:34 -0000

beautiful !!!! and congratulations !!!! GO !

Re: The real story of K.E.E.N.’s motivation

Jeremie Averous — Sat, 21 Jan 2012 20:01:39 -0000

Hi, thanks for your interest! This acronym has been used many times on the Fourth Revolution blog, thanks for reminding me to expand it everytime I use it! K.E.E.N stands for Knowledge Exchanging Enhancing Networker. The new typical value producer of the Collaborative Age. “E” can also cover Experimenting, Exploring. It is an expansion of the Knowledge Worker of the second half of the 20th century so well defined and discussed by Peter Drucker

Re: The real story of K.E.E.N.’s motivation

Guest — Sat, 21 Jan 2012 11:46:38 -0000

What the heck is a K.E.E.N.??? Acronyms SUCK when there is no identifying word string to introduce it.

Re: How Eric Schmidt (Google) was almost right, but not quite

Jeremie Averous — Tue, 17 Jan 2012 10:31:40 -0000

I think we are overrating the quality of what was printed in the 17th and the 18th century! Have you gone in a bookshop with old books? A lot of them have very limited interest. So I would say, of course there are a lot of low value stuff... but then now we can at least google or search and find more easily what we are looking for. What's your view?

Re: How Eric Schmidt (Google) was almost right, but not quite

Olivier Lareynie — Tue, 17 Jan 2012 09:48:16 -0000

I agree. Of the
300 million tweets, how many are valuable? Find valuable content is one of the challenges of the 4th revolution, and it seems to be more and more difficult.

Re: How Eric Schmidt (Google) was almost right, but not quite

Inscriptionweb-site — Tue, 17 Jan 2012 06:46:42 -0000

Would be nice to get the same information about the valuable information that is published everyday.
Is any content of the same value ? Not sure.