I have written extensively about humanity being in transition between the Information Age and the Shift Age.  Those who have heard me speak or read my writings come to understand and accept this.  That said, this is a higher concept than the simple reality of the calendar.  No one can dispute the numerical fact that we are 10% into the 21^st Century, unless you want to debate whether the scientific concept of linear time verses the older concepts of cyclical time or chaotic time.

Once you start to look at the world, its’ institutions and both business categories and specific companies, through this 20^th versus 21^st century filter, things become clearer.

Here are some examples:

I could go on for pages, but the lists above should both provide clarity and food for thought.

A very simple way to look at the world is through this filter as it will bring clarity as to what will last and what won’t, to what will be significant and what will not be.  It is clear that companies created in the 20^th century that ...]]> In the past year I have found that framing conversations about certain topics with the context of being of the 20^th century or of the 21^st century to be clarifying for most people.

I have written extensively about humanity being in transition between the Information Age and the Shift Age.  Those who have heard me speak or read my writings come to understand and accept this.  That said, this is a higher concept than the simple reality of the calendar.  No one can dispute the numerical fact that we are 10% into the 21^st Century, unless you want to debate whether the scientific concept of linear time verses the older concepts of cyclical time or chaotic time.

Once you start to look at the world, its’ institutions and both business categories and specific companies, through this 20^th versus 21^st century filter, things become clearer.

Here are some examples:

I could go on for pages, but the lists above should both provide clarity and food for thought.

A very simple way to look at the world is through this filter as it will bring clarity as to what will last and what won’t, to what will be significant and what will not be.  It is clear that companies created in the 20^th century that do not transform themselves are at high risk.  While going from good to great, searching for excellence or re-engineering corporations were all good for 20^th century businesses, only transformation and on-going re-invention will keep companies competitive in these next ten years.

People, societies and businesses can often get stuck in a context largely created in the past.  The ‘as long as it seems to be working, let’s keep doing it’ mindset hasn’t served large 20^th century industries or companies very well these past few years.

On 01/01/10  I suggested  here that the 2010-2020 decade would be the Transformation Decade.  The definition of transformation is “a change in nature, shape, form or character of something”.  Any company, any business that does not do this in the next ten years will likely not be around in 2020.  This of course is particularly true of anything created in the 20^th century.

Start to look at the world through this filter of is something 20^th century or 21^st century and you will start to suddenly see the future separating itself from the past as the past quickly falls away.

Last month the prototype of the $100 laptop had its public unveiling at a computing conference. It is about the size of a hardback book, has an orange plastic shell with two pop up ‘rabbit ears’ that enhance wireless reception and a small, clear LCD display.  It also will come in three other bright colors and has the ability to be powered by a crank.  Other technical specifications include having dual displays, one in color and one in black and white that is sunlight readable. It will use Linux software, it has a 500MHz processor, 128 of DRAM and a 500MB of Flash memory.  It does not have a hard drive, but it does come with three USB ports.

The first stage of the effort has been to find ways to assemble a useable laptop at a low cost.  Finding less expensive ways to produce create and find innovative technology and stripping down software to its fundamentals has been the goal, and it seems as though this phase is drawing to a close.  The next phases will be ...]]> The first post I made here was about the significance of the MIT Media Lab and the fact that its founder, Nicholas Negroponte was taking a leave of absence to launch the noble effort of supplying $100 laptops to children in the Third World.  In the six months since that post, the $100 laptop has moved toward becoming a reality.  It has also started to affect the computer marketplace in beneficial ways.

Last month the prototype of the $100 laptop had its public unveiling at a computing conference. It is about the size of a hardback book, has an orange plastic shell with two pop up ‘rabbit ears’ that enhance wireless reception and a small, clear LCD display.  It also will come in three other bright colors and has the ability to be powered by a crank.  Other technical specifications include having dual displays, one in color and one in black and white that is sunlight readable. It will use Linux software, it has a 500MHz processor, 128 of DRAM and a 500MB of Flash memory.  It does not have a hard drive, but it does come with three USB ports.

The first stage of the effort has been to find ways to assemble a useable laptop at a low cost.  Finding less expensive ways to produce create and find innovative technology and stripping down software to its fundamentals has been the goal, and it seems as though this phase is drawing to a close.  The next phases will be production and distribution of this life altering education tool.  The goal is the production of 5 million laptops in 2007 and up to 150 million in 2008.  Further, with help from its development partners the OLPC is hoping to lower the cost to $50 by 2010.

One Laptop Per Child is not about technology, but rather about empowering children, and others in Third World countries through the spread of knowledge and education. Negroponte states:  “It is an education project, not a laptop project.”  This is a key point to be made about this marvelous venture: it is not a technology effort, but an effort to better the world with connectivity and education by the creation of a new technological tool.  The goal for the next few years is to have governments of Third World countries, helped by foundations and corporate grants distribute these $100 laptops to as many people as possible.  While the price may start out being more than $100, OLPC promises that future innovation, technological breakthroughs and scale production will be devoted to always lowering the price, rather than increasing complexity or adding features.  The goal is ever lower cost of basic laptops to increase distribution and thereby provide windows to the world to millions who may otherwise be left without a chance to be educated and to improve their knowledge and therefore their lives.  The One Laptop Per Child has a great, informative, inspirational web site  that I urge all of you to check out.

If this core mission was all that resulted from the OLPC effort it would be one of the most visionary, compassion fueled, dedicated and significant education efforts in the world, and perhaps in history.  What is interesting is that, in pursuit of this great goal, there has been a side development that has already started to change the world of personal computing in a way that will benefit all of us.  Just the efforts of the OLPC group to find ways to lower costs, strip away complexity and find open source and collaborative ways to create this tool has brought challenge and resistance from the business powers that be in computer hardware and software.  Vested interests are being challenged.

 Negroponte has consistently stated his opinion that for too long technology companies have overloaded computers with features and software that has kept the prices up. [ I’ll bet that many of you are reading this on screens of computers that have features that you have never used, will probably never use, but paid good money to have]  Simply by the action of showing that a laptop can be produced for such a low cost, the OLPC has affected the computer marketplace.  Stripped down desktops and laptops have recently come on the market with price tags under $500.  This is transformative as it will allow school districts, governments and foundations to afford wider distribution of computers.  Anytime price points come down distribution goes up, so this will also help expand distribution in the general marketplace.  In this new day of flash drives, external hard drives and connectivity it makes sense for this to occur.

Negroponte and the people at OLPC are not only going to change the world in a significant way, they are also bringing change to a major marketplace that affects all of us. I hope that there are many more noble and successful efforts like OLPC in the coming years, particularly in the areas of technology, communications and energy.  It is essential if we are to successfully navigate the dangers of the next three decades.

This news story, as much as anything else this week, provokes thinking about the last two decades and the coming decades. It needs to be looked at and discussed on several levels.

First, a disclosure: I think Nicholas Negroponte is one of the coolest visionary guys on the planet. I only met him once after a speech he gave, so this observation is based on viewing at a distance, and of course reading his seminal book “Being Digital”. During a time when technology, media and electronic innovation took off, he has been at the forefront in terms of vision and advocacy.

Creating and launching the Media Lab in 1985, Negroponte set a standard not seen since the Bell Labs days of the 50s, 60s and 70s. His innovation was to take the research out of the corporation and out of the university, but blend the two in a wonderful way, getting funding from corporations and housing the Media Lab at one of the greatest scientific universities in the world.

The fact that he started the Lab in 1985 and made the decision to leave active management of it in 2005 has a particular relevance to me. In speeches I give and in current essays I have coined the 20 year ...]]> This week it was announced tha the MIT Media Lab has a new leader, Frank Moss. He will be replacing the visionary founder, Nicholas Negroponte. NN is relinquishing leadership of the Media Lab to focus full-time on his global initiative of the $100 laptop.

This news story, as much as anything else this week, provokes thinking about the last two decades and the coming decades. It needs to be looked at and discussed on several levels.

First, a disclosure: I think Nicholas Negroponte is one of the coolest visionary guys on the planet. I only met him once after a speech he gave, so this observation is based on viewing at a distance, and of course reading his seminal book “Being Digital”. During a time when technology, media and electronic innovation took off, he has been at the forefront in terms of vision and advocacy.

Creating and launching the Media Lab in 1985, Negroponte set a standard not seen since the Bell Labs days of the 50s, 60s and 70s. His innovation was to take the research out of the corporation and out of the university, but blend the two in a wonderful way, getting funding from corporations and housing the Media Lab at one of the greatest scientific universities in the world.

The fact that he started the Lab in 1985 and made the decision to leave active management of it in 2005 has a particular relevance to me. In speeches I give and in current essays I have coined the 20 year perios 1985-2005 as the “Threshold Era”. Threshold because it was a time between, a time after what was and before what will be, the place between the room of the past and the room of the future. So the way I see it is that Negroponte perfectly bridges this time. He creates a Lab to birth new ideas and products, acts as the midwife and then leaves with one of the offspring. That offspring is one of the most transformative of ideas: to provide underdeveloped countries, and childrend in particulare with a $100 laptop. So for me he is one of the people that embody the Threshold Era.

In the media, Frank Moss, the new director of the MIT Media Lab, has described his job as that of living 20 years in the future. Hear! Hear! That is what many more people of power and influence must do if we are to survive.

Let’s take a look back at 2006 from the vantage point of 2026 to get an idea how to manage our affairs today. Well, from the vantage point of 2026 it is clear that a large amount of global conflict that occurred between 2006 and 2016 was due to the instability of the petroleum market. The lines of ever increasing appetite for petroleum products and the declining supply crossed, which, due to a fundamental tenet of market economy, drove up prices. When the price for crude hit $125 a barrel the negative ripple effect through the world’s economies was significant. The altercations between nation states, the damage to the supply from terrorists all took a human toll that lasted as long as it did because the full throttle research for renewable energy sources really did not take off until oil had so increased in cost that alternative energy sources no longer seemed expensive. If only we had not waited to begin we could have had a much wider use of these alternative sources much earlier. It wasn’t until 2020 that oil became the second largest source of energy. If that had occurred even 5 years earlier, tens of thousands of lives could haves been saved, trillions of dollars in business losses and bankrupted nation states could have been avoided. Too bad those that had power in 2006 were not paying attention.

Speaking of nation states, it became clear early on in the new millenium that, in the face of the global economy and the electronic connectedness of the planet, they were clearly anachoronistic entitites that were solidified and had their zenith during the Industrial Age. Increasingly the heads of nation states became managers, not leaders. What they have now been relegated to is the management of the infrastructure, the safety of the citizenry, providing reliable services such as garbage pick up and disposal, and an intelligent melding of the economy with the global economy. If you had lived in the United States in 1795, the leaders of your government were the same people that wrote the Declaration of Independence, the Constitution of the United States, and the Bill of Rights. Leadership of ideas, of government philosophy resided in the same people who also managed the government. Compare that to today. Case closed.

There are no great leaders of national governements today, just people who have attained power. Increasingly heads of nation states look like heads of corporations: people who somehow have survived the climb to the top and now work at managing their enterprises. Why did we wait to creat the Global Government Council until 2016? Why did we suffer all the turmoil from the fact that humanity, lead by economics and communications had become global in its consciousness but the political leaders stayed behind?

The answer is the same as the energy question: we waited until there was no recourse. We-and by we I mean humanity – were reactive, we didn’t invest in solutions for the future, we accepted political and economic pay-offs from our leaders rather than demanding innovation from them.

If only “leaders” of government, heads of energy companies and manufacturers of all modes of transportation had decided to live “20 years in the future” like Frank Moss did after he took over the Media Lab, we would not have had to suffer so much pain during this critical time.

Too bad that in the first decade of this new millenium, governments around the world didn’t divert pork barrel money to the funding of a hundred Media Labs. Instead of investing in short term job growth they could have invested in long term innovation, which would have partially or completely prevented the economic upheavals (and ironically loss of jobs) that occurred in the second decade. Fund Media Lab centers for future-focused creativity and then let them create and innovate for the betterment of humanity.

Thank god for all the entrepreneurial, visionary leaders in the technology industry. It can clearly be said that if not for them and all the innovation they provided, provoked and disseminated, humanity would be in even greater danger than it now is in 2026. The connectedness they provided allowed humanity to move towards a global way of thinking that actually forced those holding on to power in the traditional Industrial Age sense to come around just in time.

Which now brings back to Nicholas Negroponte and 2006. He is one of the patron saints – Saint Nick? – of those that now provide innovation in the world of technology and communications. The Media Lab was a renaissance entity that helped midwife us into our future. The $100 laptop is the ultimate deomocratic and informational too, as it provides a true opportunity for transformative change in the underdeveloped world. It is the worthy offspring of the Media Lab to rear now that it has been births conceptually. Thank you NN and good luck!

The Media Lab has gathered some Moss, in a good way, but both the Media Lab and Nicholas Negroponte are busy being born, not busy dying. We can all be thankful.