7. Organizational structures will change
The hierarchical pyramid organizations stuffed with redundant roles described in libraries of role descriptions are end of life. Frederic Laloux has released an inspiring book called “Reinventing Organizations”, where he uses colors to indicate types of organizations. Today we see an increase in organizations flirting with concepts such as wholeness, increased focus on customer satisfaction, shared values and self-organizing teams.
6. Work cultures will change
Organizational structures can only change if the people change. Think about this from the perspective of all the new generations that flow into the global workforce. Millennials and the iGeneration add more diversity in the workplace, which requires a rethinking of the purpose of our companies. Simon Sinek highlights three characteristics of Millennials: 1. They are parented like they are very special, leading to lower self-esteem. 2. They are addicted to technology and 3. They are impatient, because they are used to instant gratification. If you bring these characteristic in today’s corporate environment, where a fiscal year is more important than people, it results in all kinds of problems.
5. Supporting organizations will continue to automate
The computer takes over more simple administrative tasks. Smart apps and chatbots are already here and will become smarter. As this trend in automation continues I can envision the walls between supporting departments dissolve. From an employee centric perspective there are a lot of questions that can be answered by AI. Maybe not today, but forward thinking organizations are looking to make their ‘ticketing’ systems smarter and bring cost centers together in order to drive down cost. What remains are the creative aspects of running a business: connecting people and driving innovations.
4. Social Collaboration
You have to connect the workforce in order to combine the collective brainpower and supercharge innovation. In 2017 we’ll see organizations dive deeper into social collaboration. There will be more crowdsourcing and less competition, resulting in more cross company collaboration to drive more innovation to solve the bigger problems humanity has.
3. Virtual and Augmented Reality
Gartner states that in 2020, 100 million consumers will shop in AR. Then the world of design is next. Simply because it’s awesome to try out all kinds of furniture in your house or modify your new car in your living room. Kids love it and marketing departments love it. Soon we’ll all love it.
2. Blockchain
The Blockchain is a way to store information decentralized and distributed, where no one person holds ownership of the information. That doesn’t sound impressive at first, but its disruptive power is gigantic and will change our world profoundly. Take Bitcoin for example. It has the power to make the banking industry obsolete. And this is only one application of the Blockchain. There are so many other options for Blockchain, like: proof of ownership of digital content, voting systems, data proof of ideas, etc.
1. Artificial Intelligence
Once upon a time, Siri was a funny voice in your phone we laughed at. But Siri and all her AI and machine learning friends have ambitions and grow up faster than humans. We humans and our deep learning machines will connect more intensely. The computing power and quantity of these machines will explode in the coming years. IOT is already mainstream and our dependence of — and entwinement with — these intelligent machines will grow tighter.
Michael Anissimov:
“One of the biggest flaws in the common conception of the future is that the future is something that happens to us, not something we create.”
1. Faster global growth?
The International Monetary Fund expects faster global growth this year - 3.4% against 2016's 3.1%.
It’s forecasting a further rise to 3.6% by 2018. But the Fund is warning that there are a large number of risks that could derail that recovery.
2. Big changes to US tax and spending policy?
One of the biggest uncertainties in the IMF's forecast is over US fiscal policy. President-elect Trump has talked of major tax cuts. And with talk of a trillion dollars in infrastructure spending, some economists think US growth could accelerate much more sharply.
3. Can China’s rebalancing continue?
Over recent years, Chinese growth has switched from relying on exports to domestic consumption. Supporting this switch has been very high growth in credit (20% per annum.) Some view this as benign - an effective recycling of high Chinese savings. Others, including the IMF, worry it may be unsustainable.
4. How will Europe weather political storms?
In 2016, the EU economy probably grew by 1.8%. Much higher than the average from 2008-2015 but still too weak to make much of a dent in unemployment. The EU expects little change this year. And with elections in France, Germany, the Netherlands and, possibly, Italy, there’s a chance any political turbulence might set growth back again.
5. Will battles over trade undermine growth?
After very weak growth in 2016, international trade is set to expand more quickly. But it is unlikely to meet the long-term average of 5% a year. And with the new US administration voicing concerns about unfair trade, the IMF sees restrictions on global trade as one of the biggest risks.
|
Back in September, the Chan Zuckerberg Initiative – the philanthropic company set up by Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg and his wife, Dr. Priscilla Chan – set a goal to invest $3 billion to cure, prevent, and manage disease by the end of the century.
The company has taken a huge first step toward the objective by partnering with scientists, doctors, engineers, and other key stakeholders. With the acquisition of Toronto-based company, Meta, the team is moving even closer to their goal by creating tools and technology designed to empower the scientific community. Meta is a research paper search engine that uses artificial intelligence (AI) to deliver the most relevant results to researchers. Following this acquisition, the Chan Zuckerberg initiative will enhance the service before eventually rolling it out for free.
Democratizing science is a big deal for the scientific community. Last year, NASA announced that all research it has funded will be free and accessible to anyone through their new open portal PubSpace. A company called ScienceMatters is also seeking to provide an open-access, peer review platform that eliminates the politics behind scientific research and publication. For access to information to truly empower the scientific community, one has to be able to systematically analyze and review all the available data available. That’s where Meta comes in. It can easily find the most relevant material that will further the research in a fraction of the time it would take a human.
Such a service would prove to be invaluable for students and scientists. Armed with the right information, they could make more informed decisions regarding research budgets, identify trends significant to their research, and find similar studies that show promise related to their own work.
D. Zachary Hambrick, Michigan State University and Fredrik Ullén, Karolinska Institute
Some people are dramatically better at activities like sports, music and chess than other people. Take the basketball great Stephen Curry. This past season, breaking the record he set last year by over 40 percent, Curry made an astonishing 402 three-point shots – 126 more than his closest challenger. What explains this sort of exceptional performance?
This question is the subject of a long-running debate in psychology, and is the focus of the new book “Peak: Secrets from the New Science of Expertise” by Florida State University psychologist Anders Ericsson and science writer Robert Pool. In a 1993 study, Ericsson and his colleagues recruited violinists from an elite Berlin music academy and asked them to estimate the amount of time they had spent engaging in “deliberate practice” across their musical careers.
Ericsson and his colleagues’ major discovery was that there was a positive correlation between the skill level of the violinists and the amount of deliberate practice they had accumulated. As deliberate practice increased, skill level increased. On the basis of the studies, these researchers concluded that deliberate practice, rather than talent, is the determining factor for expert performance.
Based on this evidence, the writer Malcolm Gladwell came up with his “10,000-hour rule” – the maxim that it takes 10,000 hours of practice to become an expert in a field. In the scientific literature, however, Ericsson’s views have been highly controversial from the start.
For our part, working with colleagues around the world, we have focused on empirically testing Ericsson and colleagues’ theory to find out more about the relationship between deliberate practice and performance in various domains. Each study included a measure of some activity that could be interpreted as deliberate practice, as well as a measure of skill level in a domain such as music, chess or sports.
The study revealed that deliberate practice and skill level correlated positively with each other. In other words, the higher the skill level, the greater the amount of deliberate practice. However, the correlation wasn’t so strong as to warrant the claim that differences in skill level are largely due to deliberate practice.
In concrete terms, a key implication of this discovery is that people may require vastly different amounts of deliberate practice to reach the same level of skill.
As we discuss in a recent review article with behavioral geneticist Miriam Mosing, this evidence tells us that expertise – like virtually all phenomena that psychologists study – is determined by multiple factors.
In view of this evidence, we have argued that the richness and complexity of expertise can never be fully understood by focusing on “nature” or “nurture.” For us, the days of the “experts are born versus made” debate are over. The task before us is to understand the myriad ways that experts are born and made by developing and testing models of expertise that take into account all relevant factors, including not only training but also genetic influences.
Far from discouraging people from following their dreams, this research promises to bring expert performance within the reach of a greater number of people than is currently the case.
| ||||||||||||||||
|
No comments:
Post a Comment