Progressivism which asserts that the best possible ―posthuman fu- ture‖ is achievable only by ensuring that human enhancement technolo- gies are safe, made available to everyone, and respect the right of indi- viduals to control their own bodies. Appearing several times in Hughes‘ work, the term ―radical‖ is used as an adjective meaning of or pertaining to the root or going to the root. His central thesis is that emerging
§ Technoprogressivism is an ideological stance with roots in En- lightenment thought which focuses on how human flourishing is ad- vanced by the convergence of technological progress and democratic social change. Technoprogressives argue that technological innovations can be profoundly empowering and emancipatory when they are demo-
cratically and transparently regulated for safety and efficacy, and then made universally and equitably available.
§ Technoprogressives maintain that accounts of ―progress‖ should focus on ethical and social as well as scientific and technical dimen- sions. For most technoprogressives, then, the growth of scientific knowledge or the accumulation of technological powers will not repre- sent the achievement of proper progress unless and until it is accompa- nied by a just distribution of the costs, risks, and benefits of these new knowledges and capacities. At the same time, for most technoprogres- sives the achievement of better democracy, greater fairness, less vio- lence, and a wider rights culture are all desirable, but inadequate in themselves to confront the quandaries of contemporary technological societies unless and until they are accompanied by progress in science and technology to support and implement these values.
§ Technoprogressives support the rights of persons to either main- tain or modify his or her own mind and body, on his or her own terms, through informed, consensual recourse to, or refusal of, available thera- peutic or enabling biomedical technology. Technoprogressivism extends beyond cognitive liberty and morphological rights to views on safe, ac- countable and liberatory uses of emerging technologies such as genomic choice in reproduction, GMOs, nanotechnology, artificial intelligence, surveillance and geoengineering.
Hughes holds a doctorate in sociology from the University of Chica- go, where he served as the assistant director of research for the Mac- Lean Center for Clinical Medical Ethics. Before graduate school he was temporarily ordained as a Buddhist monk in 1984 while working as a volunteer in Sri Lanka for the development organization Sarvodaya from 1983 to 1985. Hughes served as the executive director of the World Transhumanist Association from 2004 to 2006, and currently serves as the executive director of the Institute for Ethics and Emerging Technologies, which he founded with Nick Bostrom. He also produces the syndicated weekly public affairs radio talk show program Changesurfer Radio and contributed to the Cyborg Democracy blog. Hughes‘ book Citizen Cyborg: Why Democratic Societies Must Re- spond to the Redesigned Human of the Future was published by Westview Press in November 2004.
The emergence of biotechnological controversies, however, is giving rise to a new axis, not entirely orthogonal to the previous dimensions but certainly distinct and independent of them. I call this new axis bio-
politics, and the ends of its spectrum are transhumanists (the progres- sives) and, at the other end, the bio-Luddites or bio-fundamentalists. Transhumanists welcome the new biotechnologies, and the choices and challenges they offer, believing the benefits can outweigh the costs. In particular, they believe that human beings can and should take control of their own biological destiny, individually and collectively enhancing our abilities and expanding the diversity of intelligent life. Bio- fundamentalists, however, reject genetic choice technologies and ―de- signer babies,‖ ―unnatural‖ extensions of the life span, genetically modi- fied animals and food, and other forms of hubristic violations of the nat- ural order. While transhumanists assert that all intelligent ―persons‖ are deserving of rights, whether they are human or not, the biofundamental- ists insist that only ―humanness,‖ the possession of human DNA and a beating heart, is a marker of citizenship and rights.
―Techno-progressivism, technoprogressivism, tech-progressivism or techprogressivism is a stance of active support for the convergence of technological change and social change. Techno-progressives argue that technological developments can be profoundly empowering and eman- cipatory when they are regulated by legitimate democratic and account- able authorities to ensure that their costs, risks and benefits are all fairly shared by the actual stakeholders to those developments‖
§ Technology Aware – Follows trends in emerging technologies; of- ten eager to acquire and master newest gadgets; knows history of tech- nology development and cultural integration; recognizes necessity for caution and responsibility.
§ Politically Progressive – Follows trends in emerging politics, both national and global; supports better democracy, greater fairness, less violence, and wider rights; enjoys learning about and sometimes partici- pating in political action; knows history of political development and cultural integration; recognizes necessity for caution and responsibility.
And let‘s add one more definition that will help sort things out:
§ Transhumanist – Supports the use of science and technology to im- prove human physical and mental characteristics and capacities; regards aspects of the human condition, such as disability, suffering, disease, aging, and involuntary death as unnecessary and undesirable; looks to biotechnologies and other emerging technologies for these purposes; may believe that humans eventually will be able to transform them- selves into beings with such greatly expanded abilities as to merit the label ―posthuman.‖
7.1.51. Innovation economics
Innovation economics is a growing economic theory that emphasizes entrepreneurship and innovation. Innovation economics is based on two fundamental tenets: that the central goal of economic policy should be to spur higher productivity through greater innovation, and that markets relying on inputresources and price signals alone will not always be as effective in spurring higher productivity, and thereby economic growth. This is in contrast to the two other conventional economic doctrines, neoclassical economics and Keynesian economics.
Joseph Schumpeter was one of the first and most important scholars who extensively has tackle the question of innovation in Economics. In contrast to his contemporary John Maynard Keynes, Schumpeter con- tended that evolving institutions, entrepreneurs, and technological change were at the heart of economic growth, not independent forces that are largely unaffected by policy. He argued that "capitalism can only be understood as an evolutionary process of continuous innovation. But it is only within the last 15 years that a theory and narrative of economic growth focused on innovation that was grounded in Schum- peter‘s ideas has emerged. Innovation economics attempted to answer the fundamental problem in the puzzle of total factor productivity growth. Continual growth of output could no longer be explained only in increase of inputs used in the production process as understood in industrialization. Hence, innovation economics focused on a theory of economic creativity that would impact the theory of the firm and organ- ization decision-making. Hovering between heterodox economics that emphasized the fragility of conventional assumptions and orthodox eco- nomics that ignored the fragility of such assumptions, innovation eco- nomics aims for joint didactics between the two. As such, it enlarges the Schumpeterian analyses of new technological system by incorporating new ideas of information and communication technology in the global
economy.
Indeed, a new theory and narrative of economic growth focused on innovation has emerged in the last decade. Innovation economics emerges on the wage of other schools of thoughts in economics, includ- ing new institutional economics, new growth theory, endogenous growth theory, evolutionary economics, neo-Schumpeterian economics
– provides an economic framework that explains and helps support growth in today‘s knowledge economy. Leading theorists of innovation
economics include both formal economists, as well as management the- orists, technology policy experts, and others. These include Paul Romer, Elhanan Helpman, W. Brian Arthur, Robert Axtell, Richard R. Nelson, Richard Lipsey, Michael Porter, Christopher Freeman.
Innovation economists believe that what primarily drives economic growth in today‘s knowledge-based economy is not capitalaccumula- tion, as claimed by neoclassicalism asserts, but innovative capacity spurred by appropriable knowledge and technological externalities. Economic growth in innovation economics is the end-product of knowledge; regimes and policies allowing for entrepreneurship and in- novation; technological spillovers and externalities between collabora- tive firms; and systems of innovation that create innovative environ- ments.
In 1970, economist Milton Friedman said in the New York Times that a business‘s sole purpose is to generate profits for their shareholders and companies that pursued other missions would be less competitive, resulting in fewer benefits to owners, employees, and society. Yet data over the past several decades shows that while profits matter, good firms supply far more, particularly in bringing innovation to the market. This fosters economic growth, employment gains, and other society-wide benefits. Business school professor David Ahlstrom asserts: ―the main goal of business is to develop new and innovative goods and services that generate economic growth while delivering benefits to society.‖ In contrast to neoclassical economics, innovation economics offer differing perspectives on main focus, reasons for economic growth, and the as- sumptions of context between economic actors:
Despite the differences in economic thought, both perspectives are based on the same core premise: the foundation of all economic growth is the optimization of the utilization of factors and the measure of suc- cess is how well the factor utilization is optimized. Whatever the fac- tors, it nonetheless leads to the same situation of special endowments, varying relative prices, and production processes. So while, the two dif- fer in theoretical concepts, innovation economics can find fertile ground in mainstream economics, rather than remain in diametric contention.
Empirical evidence worldwide points to a positive link between technological innovation and economic performance. The drive of bio- tech firms in Germany was due to the R&D subsidies to joint projects, network partners, and close cognitive distance of collaborative partners within a cluster. These factors increased patent performance in the bio-
tech industry. Additionally, innovation capacity explains much of the GDP growth in India and China between 1981–2004 but especially in the 1990s. Their development of a National Innovation System through heavy investment of R&D expenditures and personnel, patents, and high-tech/service exports strengthened their innovation capacity.
By linking the science sector with the business sector, establishing incentives for innovative activities, and balancing the import of technol- ogy and indigenous R&D effort, both countries experienced rap- id economic growth in recent decades. Also, the Council of Foreign Re- lations asserted that since the end of the 1970s, the U.S. has gained a disproportionate share of the world‘s wealth through their aggressive pursuit of technological change, demonstrating that technological inno- vation is a central catalyst of steady economic performance. Concisely, evidence shows that innovation contributes to steady economic growth and rise in per capita income. However, some empirical studies investigating the innovation-performance-link lead to rather mixed re- sults and indicate that the relationship be more subtle and complex than commonly assumed. In particular, the relationship between innovative- ness and performance seems to differ in intensity and significance across empirical contexts, environmental circumstances, and conceptual dimensions.
All of the above has taken place in an era of data constraint, as iden- tified by Zvi Griliches twenty years ago. Because the primary domain of innovation is commerce the key data resides there; continually out of campus reach in reports hidden within factories, corporate offices and technical centers. This recusal still stymies progress today. Recent at- tempts at data transference have led, not least, to the ‗positive link‘ (above) being upgraded to exact algebra between R&D productivity and GDP allowing prediction from one to the other. This is pending further disclosure from commercial sources but several pertinent documents are already available.
While innovation is important, it is not a happenstance occurrence as a natural harbor or natural resources are, but a deliberate, concerted ef- fort of markets, institutions, policymakers, and effect use of geographic space. In global economic restructuring, location has become a key ele- ment in establishing competitive advantage as regions focus on their unique assets to spur innovation. Even more, thriving metropolitan economies that carry multiple clusters essentially fuel national econ- omiesthrough their pools of human capital, innovation, quality places,
and infrastructure. Cities become ―innovative spaces‖ and ―cradles of creativity‖ as drivers of innovation. They become essential to the system of innovation through the supply side: ready, available, abundant capital and labor; good infrastructure for productive activities, and diversified production structures that spawn synergies and hence innovation. In ad- dition they grow due to the demand side: diverse population of varying occupations, ideas, skills; high and differentiated level of consumer de- mand; and constant recreation of urban order especially infrastructure of streets, water systems, energy, and transportation.
· semiconductors and information technology in Silicon Valley in California
· high-technology and life sciences in Research Triangle Park in North Carolina
· energy companies in Energy Corridor in Houston, Texas
· financial products and services in New York City
· biotechnology in Genome Valley in Hyderabad, India and Bos- ton, Massachusetts
· nanotechnology in Tech Valley, New York
· precision engineering in South Yorkshire, United Kingdom
· petrochemical complexes in Rio de Janeiro, Brazil
· train locomotive and rolling stock manufacturing in Beijing, China
· automotive engineering in Baden-Württemberg, Germany
· digital media technologies in Digital Media City in Seoul, South Korea
Start-up
A startup company is an entrepreneurial venture which is typically a newly emerged, fast-growing business that aims to meet a marketplace need by developing a viable business model around innovative product, service, process or a platform. A startup is usually a company such as a small business, a partnership or an organization designed to effectively develop and validate a scalable business model.
Startup companies can come in all forms and sizes. Some of the crit- ical tasks are to build a co-founder team to secure key skills, know-how, financial resources, and other elements to conduct research on the target market. Typically, a startup will begin by building a first minimum via- ble product, a prototype, to validate, assess and develop the new ideas or business concepts. In addition, startups founders do research to deepen
their understanding of the ideas, technologies or business concepts and their commercial potential. A Shareholders' agreement is often agreed early on to confirm the commitment, ownership and contributions of the founders and investors and to deal with the intellectual properties and assets that may be generated by the startup. Business models for startups are generally found via a "bottom-up" or "top-down" approach.
A company may cease to be a startup as it passes various mile- stones, such as becoming publicly traded on the stock market in an Ini- tial Public Offering, or ceasing to exist as an independent entity via a merger or acquisition. Companies may also fail and cease to operate altogether, an outcome that is very likely for startups, given that they are developing disruptive innovations which may not function as expected and for which there may not be market demand, even when the product or service is finally developed. Given that startups operate in high-risk sectors, it can also be hard to attract investors to support the prod- uct/service development or attract buyers.
The size and maturity of the startup ecosystem where the startup is launched and where it grows have an effect on the volume and success of the startups. The startup ecosystem consists of the individuals; insti- tutions and organizations business incubators and business accelerators and top-performing entrepreneurial firms and startups. A region with all of these elements is considered to be a "strong" startup ecosystem. Some of the most famous startup ecosystems are Silicon Valley in California, where major computer and Internet firms and top universities such as Stanford University create a stimulating startup environment, Boston and Berlin, home of WISTA, numerous creative industries, leading en- trepreneurs and startup firms.
Investors are generally most attracted to those new companies distin- guished by their strong co-founding team, a balanced "risk/reward" pro- file and "scalability". Attractive startups generally have lower "boot- strapping" costs, higher risk, and higher potential return on investment. Successful startups are typically more scalable than an established busi- ness, in the sense that the startup has the potential to grow rapidly with a limited investment of capital, labor or land. Timing has often been the single most important factor for biggest startup successes, while at the same time it's identified to be one of the hardest things to master by many serial entrepreneurs and investors.
Startups have several options for funding. Venture capital firms and angel investors may help startup companies begin operations, exchang-
ing seed money for an equity stake in the firm. Venture capitalists and angel investors provide financing to a range of startups, with the expec- tation that a very small number of the startups will become viable and make money. In practice though, many startups are initially funded by the founders themselves using "bootstrapping", in which loans or mone- tary gifts from friends and family are combined with savings and credit card debt to finance the venture. Factoring is another option, though it is not unique to startups. Other funding opportunities include various forms of crowdfunding, for example equity crowdfunding, in which the startup seeks funding from a large number of individuals, typically by pitching their idea on the Internet.
Startups usually need to form partnerships with other firms to enable their business model to operate. To become attractive to other business- es, startups need to align their internal features, such as management style and products with the market situation. In their 2013 study, Kask and Linton develop two ideal profiles, or also known as configurations or archetypes, for startups that are commercializing inventions. The in- heritor profile calls for a management style that is not too entrepreneuri- al and the startup should have an incremental invention. This profile is set out to be more successful in a market that has a dominant design. In contrast to this profile is the originator which has a management style that is highly entrepreneurial and in which a radical invention or a dis- ruptive innovation is being developed. This profile is set out to be more successful in a market that does not have a dominant design. New startups should align themselves to one of the profiles when commer- cializing an invention to be able to find and be attractive to a business partner. By finding a business partner a startup will have greater chances to become successful.
Startup founders often have a more casual or offbeat attitude in their dress, office space and marketing, as compared to traditional corpora- tions. For example, startup founders in the 2010s may wear hoodies, sneakers and other casual clothes to business meetings. Their offices may have recreational facilities in them, such as pool tables, ping pong tables and pinball machines, which are used to create a fun work envi- ronment, stimulate team development and team spirit, and encourage creativity. Some of the casual approaches, such as the use of "flat" or- ganizational structures, in which regular employees can talk with the founders and chief executive officers informally, are done to promote efficiency in the workplace, which is needed to get their business off the
ground. In a 1960 study, Douglas McGregorstressed that punishments and rewards for uniformity in the workplace are not necessary because some people are born with the motivation to work without incen- tives. Some startups do not use a strict command and con- trol hierarchical structure, with executives, managers, supervisors and employees. Some startups offer employees stock options, to increase their "buy in" from the start up (as these employees stand to gain if the company does well). This removal of stressors allows the workers and researchers in the startup to focus less on the work environment around them, and more on achieving the task at hand, giving them the potential to achieve something great for their company.
This culture today has evolved to include larger companies aiming at acquiring the bright minds driving startups. Google, among other com- panies, has made strides to make purchased startups and their workers feel at home in their offices, even letting them bring their dogs to work. The main goal behind all changes to the culture of the startup work- place, or a company hiring workers from a startup to do similar work, is to make the people feel as comfortable in their new office as possible in order to optimize performance. Some companies even try to hide how large they are to capture a particular demographic, as is the case with Heineken recently.
Co-founders are people involved in the initial launch of startup com- panies. Anyone can be a co-founder, and an existing company can also be a co-founder, but frequently co-founders are entrepreneurs, engi- neers, hackers, web developers, web designers and others involved in the ground level of a new, often high-tech, venture. The language of securities regulation in the United States considers co-founders to be "promoters" under Regulation D. The U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission definition of "Promoter" includes: Any person who, acting alone or in conjunction with one or more other persons, directly or indi- rectly takes initiative in founding and organizing the business or enter- prise of an issuer; However, not every promoter is a co-founder. In fact, there is no formal, legal definition of what makes somebody a co- founder. The right to call oneself a co-founder can be established through an agreement with one's fellow co-founders or with permission of the board of directors, investors, or shareholders of a startup compa- ny. When there is no definitive agreement, disputes about who the co- founders are can arise.
Startup investing is the action of making an investment in an early- stage company. Beyond founders' own contributions, some startups raise additional investment at some or several stages of their growth. Not all startups trying to raise investments are successful in their fund- raising. The solicitation of funds became easier for startups as result of the JOBS Act. Prior to the advent of equity crowdfunding, a form of online investing that has been legalized in several nations, startups did not advertise themselves to the general public as investment opportuni- ties until and unless they first obtained approval from regulators for an initial public offering that typically involved a listing of the startup's securities on a stock exchange. Today, there are many alternative forms of IPO commonly employed by startups and startup promoters that do not include an exchange listing, so they may avoid certain regulatory compliance obligations, including mandatory periodic disclosures of financial information and factual discussion of business conditions by management that investors and potential investors routinely receive from registered public companies.
After the Great Depression, which was blamed in part on a rise in speculative investments in unregulated small companies, startup invest- ing was primarily a word of mouth activity reserved for the friends and family of a startup's co-founders, business angels and Venture Capital funds. In the United States this has been the case ever since the imple- mentation of the Securities Act of 1933. Many nations implemented similar legislation to prohibit general solicitation and general advertising of unregistered securities, including shares offered by startup compa- nies. In 2005, a new Accelerator investment model was introduced by Y Combinator that combined fixed terms investment model with fixed pe- riod intense bootcamp style training program, to streamline the seed/early stage investment process with training to be more systematic. Following Y Combinator, many accelerators with similar models have emerged around the world. The accelerator model have since be- come very common and widely spread and they are key organizations of any Startup ecosystem. Title II of the Jumpstart Our Business Startups Act, first implemented on September 23, 2013, granted startups in and startup co-founders or promoters in US. the right to generally solicit and advertise publicly using any method of communication on the condition that only accredited investors are allowed to purchase the securities. However the regulations affecting equity crowdfunding in different countries vary a lot with different levels and models of freedom and re-
strictions. In many countries there are no limitations restricting general public from investing to startups, while there can still be other types of restrictions in place, like limiting the amount that companies can seek from investors. Due to positive development and growth of crowdfund- ing, many countries are actively updating their regulation in regards to crowdfunding.
When investing in a startup, there are different types of stages in which the investor can participate. The first round is called seed round. The seed round generally is when the startup is still in the very early phase of execution when their product is still in the prototype phase. At this level angel investors will be the ones participating. The next round is called Series A. At this point the company already has traction and may be making revenue. In Series A rounds venture capital firms will be participating alongside angels or super angel investors. The next rounds are Series B, C, and D. These three rounds are the ones leading towards the IPO. Venture capital firms and private equity firms will be partici- pating.
The first known investment-based crowdfunding platform for startups was launched in Feb. 2010 by Grow VC, followed by the first US. based company ProFounder launching model for startups to raise investments directly on the site, but ProFounder later decided to shut down its business due regulatory reasons preventing them from continu- ing, having launched their model for US. markets prior to JOBS Act. With the positive progress of the JOBS Act for crowd investing in US., equity crowdfunding platforms like SeedInvest and CircleUp started to emerge in 2011 and platforms such as investiere, Companisto and Seedrs in Europe and OurCrowd in Israel. The idea of these platforms is to streamline the process and resolve the two main points that were tak- ing place in the market. The first problem was for startups to be able to access capital and to decrease the amount of time that it takes to close a round of financing. The second problem was intended to increase the amount of deal flow for the investor and to also centralize the process.
Large or well-established companies often try to promote innovation by setting up "internal startups", new business divisions that operate at arm's length from the rest of the company. Examples include Bell Labs, a research unit within Bell Corporationand Target Corporation and threedegrees, a product developed by an internal startup of Microsoft.
Failed entrepreneurs, or restarters, who after some time restart in the same sector with more or less the same activities, have an increased
chance of becoming a better entrepreneur. However, some studies indi- cate that restarters are more heavily discouraged in Europe than in the US.
If a company's value is based on its technology, it is often equally important for the business owners to obtain intellectual property protec- tion for their idea. The newsmagazine The Economist estimated that up to 75% of the value of US public companies is now based on their intellectual property. Often, 100% of a small startup company's value is based on its intellectual property. As such, it is important for technology-oriented startup companies to develop a sound strategy for protecting their intellectual capital as early as possible. Startup compa- nies, particularly those associated with new technology, sometimes pro- duce huge returns to their creators and investors – a recent example of such is Google, whose creators became billionaires through their stock ownership and options. However, the failure rate of startup companies is very high. One common reason for failure is that startup companies can run out of funding, without securing their next round of investment or before becoming profitable enough to pay their staff. When this hap- pens, it can leave employees without paychecks. Sometimes these com- panies are purchased by other companies, if they are deemed to be via- ble, but oftentimes they leave employees with very little recourse to re- coup lost income for worked time.
Although there are startups created in all types of businesses, and all over the world, some locations and business sectors are particularly as- sociated with startup companies. The internet bubble of the late 1990s was associated with huge numbers of internet startup companies, some selling the technology to provide internet access, others using the inter- net to provide services. Most of this startup activity was located in the most well known startup ecosystem - Silicon Valley, an area of northern California renowned for the high level of startup company activity. Startup advocates are also trying to build a community of tech startups in New York City with organizations like NY Tech Meet Up and Built in NYC. In the early 2000s, the patent assets of failed startup companies are being purchased by what are derogatorily known as patent trolls, who then take the patents from the companies and assert those patents against companies that might be infringing the technology covered by the patent.
7.1.53. Business incubator
A business incubator is a company that helps new and startup com- paniesto develop by providing services such as management training or office space. The National Business Incubation Association defines business incubators as a catalyst tool for either regional or national eco- nomic development. NBIA categorizes their members‘ incubators by the following five incubator types: academic institutions; non-profit devel- opment corporations; for-profit property development ventures; venture capital firms, and combination of the above.
Business incubators differ from research and technology parks in their dedication to startup and early-stage companies. Research and technology parks, on the other hand, tend to be large-scale projects that house everything from corporate, government or university labs to very small companies. Most research and technology parks do not offer busi- ness assistance services, which are the hallmark of a business incubation program. However, many research and technology parks house incuba- tion programs.
Incubators also differ from the U.S. Small Business Administration's Small Business Development Centers in that they serve only selected clients. SBDCs are required by law to offer general business assistance to any company that contacts them for help. In addition, SBDCs work with any small business at any stage of development, not only startup companies. Many business incubation programs partner with their local SBDC to create a "one-stop shop" for entrepreneurial support. Within European Union countries there are different EU and state funded pro- grams that offer support in form of consulting, mentoring, prototype creation and other services and co-funding for them. TecHub is one of examples for IT companies and ideas.
The formal concept of business incubation began in the USA in 1959 when Joseph Mancuso opened the Batavia Industrial Center in a Bata- via, New York, warehouse. Incubation expanded in the U.S. in the 1980s and spread to the UK and Europe through various related forms.
The U.S.-based International Business Innovation Association esti- mates that there are about 7,000 incubators worldwide. A study funded by the European Commission in 2002 identified around 900 incubation environments in Western Europe. As of October 2006, there were more than 1,400 incubators in North America, up from only 12 in 1980. Her Majesty's Treasury identified around 25 incubation environments in the UK in 1997; by 2005, UKBI identified around 270 incubation environ-
ments across the country. In 2005 alone, North American incubation programs assisted more than 27,000 companies that provided employ- ment for more than 100,000 workers and generated annual revenues of
$17 billion.
Incubation activity has not been limited to developed countries; in- cubation environments are now being implemented in developing coun- tries and raising interest for financial support from organisations such as UNIDO and the World Bank.
Since startup companies lack many resources, experience and net- works, incubators provide services which helps them get through initial hurdles in starting up a business. These hurdles include space, funding, legal, accounting, computer services and other prerequisites to running the business.
Among the most common incubator services are:
· Help with business basics
· Networking activities
· Marketing assistance
· Market Research
· High-speed Internet access
· Help with accounting/financial management
· Access to bank loans, loan funds and guarantee programs
· Help with presentation skills
· Links to higher education resources
· Links to strategic partners
· Access to angel investors or venture capital
· Comprehensive business training programs
· Advisory boards and mentors
· Management team identification
· Help with business etiquette
· Technology commercialization assistance
· Help with regulatory compliance
· Intellectual property management
There are a number of business incubators that have focused on par- ticular industries or on a particular business model, earning them their own name. This list is incomplete; you can help by expanding it.
· Virtual business incubator - online business incubator
· Medical incubator - a business incubator focused on medical devices & biomaterials
· Kitchen incubator - a business incubator focused on the food in- dustry
· Public incubator - a business incubator focused on the public good
· Seed accelerator - a business incubator focused on early startups
· Corporate accelerator - a program of a larger company that acts akin to a seed accerator
· Startup studio - a business incubator with interacting portfolio companies
More than half of all business incubation programs are "mixed-use" projects, meaning they work with clients from a variety of industries. Technology incubators account for 39% of incubation programs.
One example of a specialized type of incubator is a bioincubator. Bi- oincubators specialize in supporting life science-based startup compa- nies. Entrepreneurs with feasible projects in life sciences are selected and admitted for these programs.
Unlike many business assistance programs, business incubators do not serve any and all companies. Entrepreneurs who wish to enter a business incubation program must apply for admission. Acceptance cri- teria vary from program to program, but in general only those with fea- sible business ideas and a workable business plan are admitted. It is this factor that makes it difficult to compare the success rates of incubated companies against general business survival statistics.
Although most incubators offer their clients office space and shared administrative services, the heart of a true business incubation program are the services it provides to startup companies. More than half of in- cubation programs surveyed by the National Business Incubation Asso- ciation in 2006 reported that they also served affiliate or virtual clients. These companies do not reside in the incubator facility. Affiliate clients may be home-based businesses or early-stage companies that have their own premises but can benefit from incubator services. Virtual clients may be too remote from an incubation facility to participate on site, and so receive counseling and other assistance electronically.
The amount of time a company spends in an incubation program can vary widely depending on a number of factors, including the type of business and the entrepreneur's level of business expertise. Life science and other firms with long research and development cycles require more time in an incubation program than manufacturing or service companies
that can immediately produce and bring a product or service to market. On average, incubator clients spend 33 months in a program. Many in- cubation programs set graduation requirements by development bench- marks, such as company revenues or staffing levels, rather than time.
Business incubation has been identified as a means of meeting a va- riety of economic and socioeconomic policy needs, which may include job creation, fostering a community's entrepreneurial climate, technolo- gy commercialization, diversifying local economies, building or accel- erating growth of local industry clusters, business creation and retention, encouraging women or minority entrepreneurship, identifying potential spin-in or spin-out business opportunities, or community revitalization.
About one-third of business incubation programs are sponsored by economic development organizations. Government entities account for 21% of program sponsors. Another 20% are sponsored by academic in- stitutions, including two- and four-year colleges, universities, and tech- nical colleges. In many countries, incubation programs are funded by regional or national governments as part of an overall economic devel- opment strategy. In the United States, however, most incubation pro- grams are independent, community-based and resourced projects. The
U.S. Economic Development Administration is a frequent source of funds for developing incubation programs, but once a program is open and operational it typically receives no federal funding; few states offer centralized incubator funding. Rents and/or client fees account for 59% of incubator revenues, followed by service contracts or grants and cash operating subsidies.
As part of a major effort to address the ongoing economic crisis of the US, legislation was introduced to "reconstitute Project Socrates". The updated version of Socrates supports incubators by enabling users with technology-based facts about the marketplace, competitor maneu- vers, potential partners, and technology paths to achieve competitive advantage. Michael Sekora, the original creator and director of Socrates says that a key purpose of Socrates is to assist government economic planners in addressing the economic and socioeconomic issues with unprecedented speed, efficiency and agility.
Many for-profit or "private" incubation programs were launched in the late 1990s by investors and other for-profit operators seeking to hatch businesses quickly and bring in big payoffs. At the time, NBIA estimated that nearly 30% of all incubation programs were for-profit ventures. In the wake of the dot-com bust, however, many of those pro-
grams closed. In NBIA's 2002 State of the Business Incubation survey, only 16% of responding incubators were for-profit programs. By the 2006 SOI, just 6% of respondents were for-profit. Although some incu- bation programs (regardless of nonprofit or for-profit status) take equity in client companies, most do not. Only 25% of incubation programs re- port that they take equity in some or all of their clients. Incubators often aggregate themselves into networks which are used to share good prac- tices and new methodologies. Europe's European Business and Innova- tion Centre Network association federates more than 250 European Business and Innovation Centres throughout Europe. France has its own national network of technopoles, pre-incubators, and EU|BICs, called RETIS Innovation. This network focuses on internationalizing startups.
The Startup Federation is an international incubator network that in- cludes incubators such as Washington, D.C.'s 1776, New York City's General Assembly, Boston's Cambridge Innovation Center, London's Warner Yard, Berlin's Betahaus, Chicago's 1871, and others. The net- work allows collaboration between members of each incubator. Of 1000 incubators across Europe, 500 are situated in Germany. Many of them are organized federally within the ADT.
Business plan
Business plan is a formal statement of business goals, reasons they are attainable, and plans for reaching them. It may also contain back- ground information about the organization or team attempting to reach those goals. Business plans may target changes in perception and brand- ing by the customer, client, taxpayer, or larger community. When the existing business is to assume a major change or when planning a new venture, a 3 to 5 year business plan is required, since investors will look for their investment return in that timeframe. Business plans may be in- ternally or externally focused. Externally focused plans target goals that are important to external stakeholders, particularly financial stakehold- ers. They typically have detailed information about the organization or team attempting to reach the goals. With for-profit entities, external stakeholders include investors and customers. External stake-holders of non-profits include donors and the clients of the non-profit's services. For government agencies, external stakeholders include tax-payers, higher-level government agencies, and international lending bodies such as the International Monetary Fund, the World Bank, various economic agencies of the United Nations, and development banks.
Internally focused business plans target intermediate goals required to reach the external goals. They may cover the development of a new product, a new service, a new IT system, a restructuring of finance, the refurbishing of a factory or a restructuring of the organization. An inter- nal business plan is often developed in conjunction with a balanced scorecard or a list of critical success factors. This allows success of the plan to be measured using non-financial measures. Business plans that identify and target internal goals, but provide only general guidance on how they will be met are called strategic plans.
Operational plans describe the goals of an internal organization, working group or department. Project plans, sometimes known as pro- ject frameworks, describe the goals of a particular project. They may also address the project's place within the organization's larger strategic goals.
Business plans are decision-making tools. The content and format of the business plan is determined by the goals and audience. For example, a business plan for a non-profit might discuss the fit between the busi- ness plan and the organization‘s mission. Banks are quite concerned about defaults, so a business plan for a bank loan will build a convincing case for the organization‘s ability to repay the loan. Venture capitalists are primarily concerned about initial investment, feasibility, and exit valuation. A business plan for a project requiring equity financing will need to explain why current resources, upcoming growth opportunities, and sustainable competitive advantage will lead to a high exit valuation. Preparing a business plan draws on a wide range of knowledge from many different business disciplines: finance, human resource manage- ment, intellectual property management, supply chain management, op- erations management, and marketing, among others. It can be helpful to view the business plan as a collection of sub-plans, one for each of the main business disciplines. The format of a business plan depends on its presentation context. It is common for businesses, especially start-ups,
to have three or four formats for the same business plan.
An "elevator pitch" is a short summary of the plan's executive sum- mary. This is often used as a teaser to awaken the interest of potential investors, customers, or strategic partners. It is called an elevator pitch as it is supposed to be content that can be explained to someone else quickly in an elevator. The elevator pitch should be between 30 and 60 seconds. A pitch deck is a slide show and oral presentation that is meant to trigger discussion and interest potential investors in reading the writ-
ten presentation. The content of the presentation is usually limited to the executive summary and a few key graphs showing financial trends and key decision making benchmarks. If a new product is being proposed and time permits, a demonstration of the product may be included.
A written presentation for external stakeholders is a detailed, well written, and pleasingly formatted plan targeted at external stakeholders. An internal operational plan is a detailed plan describing planning de- tails that are needed by management but may not be of interest to exter- nal stakeholders. Such plans have a somewhat higher degree of candor and informality than the version targeted at external stakeholders and others. Typical structure for a business plan for a start up venture
· cover page and table of contents
· executive summary
· mission statement
· business description
· business environment analysis
· SWOT analysis
· industry background
· competitor analysis
· market analysis
· marketing plan
· operations plan
· management summary
· financial plan
· attachments and milestones
Typical questions addressed by a business plan for a start up venture
· What problem does the company's product or service solve? What niche will it fill?
· What is the company's solution to the problem?
· Who are the company's customers, and how will the company market and sell its products to them?
· What is the size of the market for this solution?
· What is the business model for the business (how will it make money)?
· Who are the competitors and how will the company maintain a competitive advantage?
· How does the company plan to manage its operations as it grows?
· Who will run the company and what makes them qualified to do so?
· What are the risks and threats confronting the business, and what can be done to mitigate them?
· What are the company's capital and resource requirements?
· What are the company's historical and projected financial state- ments?
Cost and revenue estimates are central to any business plan for de- ciding the viability of the planned venture. But costs are often underes- timated and revenues overestimated resulting in later cost overruns, rev- enue shortfalls, and possibly non-viability. During the dot-com bubble 1997-2001 this was a problem for many technology start-ups. Reference class forecastinghas been developed to reduce the risks of cost overruns and revenue shortfalls and thus generate more accurate business plans.
An externally targeted business plan should list all legal concerns and financial liabilities that might negatively affect investors. Depend- ing on the amount of funds being raised and the audience to whom the plan is presented, failure to do this may have severe legal consequences. Non disclosure agreements with third parties, non-compete agreements, conflicts of interest, privacy concerns, and the protection of one's trade secrets may severely limit the audience to which one might show the business plan. Alternatively, they may require each party receiving the business plan to sign a contract accepting special clauses and conditions. This situation is complicated by the fact that many venture capitalists will refuse to sign an NDA before looking at a business plan, lest it put them in the untenable position of looking at two independently devel- oped look-alike business plans, both claiming originality. In such situa- tions one may need to develop two versions of the business plan: a stripped down plan that can be used to develop a relationship and a de- tail plan that is only shown when investors have sufficient interest and
trust to sign an NDA.
Traditionally business plans have been highly confidential and quite limited in audience. The business plan itself is generally regarded as secret. An open business plan is a business plan with unlimited audi- ence. The business plan is typically web published and made available to all. In the free software and open source business model, trade se- crets, copyright and patents can no longer be used as effective locking mechanisms to provide sustainable advantages to a particular business and therefore a secret business plan is less relevant in those models.
· Education
· Business plans are used in some primary and secondary programs to teach economic principles.
· Wikiversity has a Lunar Boom Town project where students of all ages can collaborate with designing and revising business models and practice evaluating them to learn practical business planning techniques and methodology
· Fundraising
· Fundraising is the primary purpose for many business plans, since they are related to the inherent probable success/failure of the company risk.
· Angel investors
· Business loans
· Grants
· Startup company funding
· Venture capital
· Internal use
· Management by objectives is a process of agreeing upon objec- tives within an organization so that management and employees agree to the objectives and understand what they are in the organization.
· Strategic planning is an organization's process of defining its strategy, or direction, and making decisions on allocating its resources to pursue this strategy, including its capital and people. Business plans can help decision makers see how specific projects relate to the organi- zation's strategic plan.
· Total quality management is a business management strategy aimed at embedding awareness of quality in all organizational process- es. TQM has been widely used in manufacturing, education, call centers, government, and service industries, as well as NASA space and science programs.
The business goals may be defined both for non-profit or for-profit organizations. For-profit business plans typically focus on financial goals, such as profit or creation of wealth. Non-profit, as well as gov- ernment agency business plans tend to focus on the "organizational mis- sion" which is the basis for their governmental status or their non-profit, tax-exempt status, respectively – although non-profits may also focus on optimizing revenue. The primary difference between profit and non- profit organizations is that "for-profit" organizations look to maximize wealth versus non-profit organizations, which look to provide a greater
good to society. In non-profit organizations, creative tensions may de- velop in the effort to balance mission with "margin".
European Technology Platforms are industry-led stakeholder fora recognised by the European Commission as key actors in driving inno- vation, knowledge transfer and European competitiveness. ETPs devel- op research and innovation agendas and roadmaps for action at EU and national level to be supported by both private and public funding. They mobilise stakeholders to deliver on agreed priorities and share infor- mation across the EU. By working effectively together, they also help deliver solutions to major challenges of key concern to citizens such as the ageing society, the environment and food and energy security.
ETPs are independent and self-financing entities. They conduct their activities in a transparent manner and are open to new members. ETPs have a strategy, mobilisation and dissemination function. In order to fulfil their role, their main activities encompass:
· developing industry-focused strategic research and innovation agendas including technology roadmaps and implementation plans;
· encouraging industry participation in Horizon 2020, the EU‘s framework programme for research and innovation, and cooperating with networks in Member States;
· fostering networking opportunities with other ETPs and other partners along the value chain to address cross-sectoral challenges and promote the move towards more open models of innovation;
· identifying opportunities for international cooperation;
· acting as one of the channels of external advice for the pro- gramming and implementation of Horizon 2020; notably, ETPs have been a key driving force behind the launch of high profile public-private partnerships under the programme.
Commission engagement with the ETPs takes a number of forms:
· provision of a central contact point with overall coordination re- sponsibility in DG Research and Innovation
· a dedicated contact point for individual ETPs in the relevant Di- rectorate-General
· participation in ETP-organised events
· consultation on implementation aspects of Horizon 2020
· organisation of cross-ETP workshops
7.1.55. The Fourth Industrial Revolution
Ubiquitous, mobile supercomputing. Intelligent robots. Self-driving cars. Neuro-technological brain enhancements. Genetic editing. The ev- idence of dramatic change is all around us and it‘s happening at expo- nential speed.
Professor Klaus Schwab, Founder and Executive Chairman of the World Economic Forum, has been at the centre of global affairs for over four decades. He is convinced that we are at the beginning of a revolu- tion that is fundamentally changing the way we live, work and relate to one another, which he explores in his new book, The Fourth Industrial Revolution. Previous industrial revolutions liberated humankind from animal power, made mass production possible and brought digital capa- bilities to billions of people. This Fourth Industrial Revolution is, how- ever, fundamentally different. It is characterized by a range of new technologies that are fusing the physical, digital and biological worlds, impacting all disciplines, economies and industries, and even challeng- ing ideas about what it means to be human.
The resulting shifts and disruptions mean that we live in a time of great promise and great peril. The world has the potential to connect billions more people to digital networks, dramatically improve the effi- ciency of organizations and even manage assets in ways that can help regenerate the natural environment, potentially undoing the damage of previous industrial revolutions. However, Schwab also has grave con- cerns: that organizations might be unable to adapt; governments could fail to employ and regulate new technologies to capture their benefits; shifting power will create important new security concerns; inequality may grow; and societies fragment.
Schwab puts the most recent changes into historical context, outlines the key technologies driving this revolution, discusses the major impacts on governments, businesses, civil society and individuals, and suggests ways to respond. At the heart of his analysis is the conviction that the Fourth Industrial Revolution is within the control of all of us as long as we are able to collaborate across geographies, sectors and disciplines to grasp the opportunities it presents. In particular, Schwab calls for lead- ers and citizens to ―together shape a future that works for all by putting people first, empowering them and constantly reminding ourselves that all of these new technologies are first and foremost tools made by peo- ple for people.‖
Learning how humankind can benefit from this revolution while ad- dressing its challenges is also the central aim of the World Economic Forum Annual Meeting 2016, which is being held under the theme
―Mastering the Fourth Industrial Revolution‖. Crowdsourcing ideas, insights and wisdom from the World Economic Forum‘s global network of top leaders from business, government and civil society and young leaders, this new book looks deeply at the future that is unfolding today and how we might take collective responsibility to ensure it is a positive one for all of us.
Software design pattern
In software engineering, a software design pattern is a general reusa- ble solution to a commonly occurring problem within a given context in software design. It is not a finished design that can be transformed di- rectly into source or machine code. It is a description or template for how to solve a problem that can be used in many different situations. Design patterns are formalized best practices that the programmer can use to solve common problems when designing an application or sys- tem.
Object-oriented design patterns typically show relationships and in- teractions between classes or objects, without specifying the final appli- cation classes or objects that are involved. Patterns that imply mutable state may be unsuited for functional programming languages, some pat- terns can be rendered unnecessary in languages that have built-in sup- port for solving the problem they are trying to solve, and object-oriented patterns are not necessarily suitable for non-object-oriented languages.
Design patterns may be viewed as a structured approach to computer programming intermediate between the levels of a programming para- digm and a concrete algorithm. Design patterns reside in the domain of modules and interconnections. At a higher level there are architectural patterns which are larger in scope, usually describing an overall pattern followed by an entire system. There are many types of design patterns, for instance
Algorithm strategy patterns
Addressing concerns related to high-level strategies describing how to exploit application characteristics on a computing platform.
Computational design patterns
Addressing concerns related to key computation identification. Execution patterns
Which address issues related to lower-level support of application execution, including strategies for executing streams of tasks and for the definition of building blocks to support task synchronization.
Implementation strategy patterns
Addressing concerns related to implementing source code to support
1. program organization, and
2. the common data structures specific to parallel programming. Structural design patterns
Addressing concerns related to global structures of applications be- ing developed.
Patterns originated as an architectural concept by Christopher Alex- ander. In 1987, Kent Beck and Ward Cunningham began experimenting with the idea of applying patterns to programming – specifically pattern languages – and presented their results at the OOPSLA conference that year. In the following years, Beck, Cunningham and others followed up on this work. Design patterns gained popularity in computer science after the book Design Patterns: Elements of Reusable Object-Oriented Software was published in 1994 by the so-called "Gang of Four" (Gamma et al.), which is frequently abbreviated as "GoF". That same year, the first Pattern Languages of Programming Conference was held and the following year, the Portland Pattern Repository was set up for documentation of design patterns. The scope of the term remains a mat- ter of dispute.
Although design patterns have been applied practically for a long time, formalization of the concept of design patterns languished for sev- eral years. Design patterns can speed up the development process by providing tested, proven development paradigms. Effective software design requires considering issues that may not become visible until lat- er in the implementation. Reusing design patterns helps to prevent sub- tle issues that can cause major problems, and it also improves code readability for coders and architects who are familiar with the patterns.
In order to achieve flexibility, design patterns usually introduce addi- tional levels of indirection, which in some cases may complicate the resulting designs and hurt application performance. By definition, a pat- tern must be programmed anew into each application that uses it. Since some authors see this as a step backward from software reuse as provid- ed by components, researchers have worked to turn patterns into com- ponents. Meyer and Arnout were able to provide full or partial compo- nentization of two-thirds of the patterns they attempted.
Software design techniques are difficult to apply to a broader range of problems. Design patterns provide general solutions, documented in a format that does not require specifics tied to a particular problem. De- sign patterns are composed of several sections. Of particular interest are the Structure, Participants, and Collaboration sections. These sections describe a design motif: a prototypical micro-architecture that develop- ers copy and adapt to their particular designs to solve the recurrent prob- lem described by the design pattern. A micro-architecture is a set of program constituents and their relationships. Developers use the design pattern by introducing in their designs this prototypical micro- architecture, which means that micro-architectures in their designs will have structure and organization similar to the chosen design motif.
Efforts have also been made to codify design patterns in particular domains, including use of existing design patterns as well as domain specific design patterns. Examples include user interface design pat- terns, information visualization, secure design, "secure usability", Web design and business model design. The annual Pattern Languages of Programming Conference proceedings include many examples of do- main-specific patterns.
Design patterns were originally grouped into the categories: crea- tional patterns, structural patterns, and behavioral patterns, and de- scribed using the concepts of delegation, aggregation, and consultation. For further background on object-oriented design, see coupling and co- hesion, inheritance, interface, and polymorphism. Another classification has also introduced the notion of architectural design pattern that may be applied at the architecture level of the software such as the Model– View–Controller pattern.
The engineering design process is a methodical series of steps that engineers use in creating functional products and processes. The process is highly iterative - parts of the process often need to be repeated many times before another can be entered - though the part(s) that get iterated and the number of such cycles in any given project may vary. It is a decision making process in which the basic sciences, mathematics, and engineering sciences are applied to convert resources optimally to meet a stated objective. Among the fundamental elements of the design pro- cess are the establishment of objectives and criteria, synthesis, analysis, construction, testing and evaluation. The steps tend to get articulated, subdivided, and/or illustrated in different ways, but they generally re-
flect certain core principles regarding the underlying concepts and their respective sequence and interrelationship.
One framing of the engineering design process delineates the follow- ing stages: research, conceptualization, feasibility assessment, establish- ing design requirements, preliminary design, detailed design, production planning and tool design, and production. Others, noting that "different authors define different phases of the design process with varying activi- ties occurring within them," have suggested more simplified/generalized models - such as problem definition, conceptual design, preliminary de- sign, detailed design, and design communication. A standard summary of the process in European engineering design literature is that of clari- fication of the task, conceptual design, embodiment design, detail de- sign. In these examples, other key aspects - such as concept evaluation and prototyping - are subsets and/or extensions of one or more of the listed steps. It's also important to understand that in these as well as oth- er articulations of the process, different terminology employed may have varying degrees of overlap, which affects what steps get stated ex- plicitly or deemed "high level" versus subordinate in any given model.
Various stages of the design process can involve a significant amount of time spent on locating information and research. Consideration should be given to the existing applicable literature, problems and suc- cesses associated with existing solutions, costs, and marketplace needs. The source of information should be relevant, including existing solu- tions. Reverse engineering can be an effective technique if other solu- tions are available on the market. Other sources of information include the Internet, local libraries, available government documents, personal organizations, trade journals, vendor catalogs and individual experts available. Establishing design requirement analysis, sometimes termed problem definition, is one of the most important elements in the design process, and this task is often performed at the same time as a feasibility analysis. The design requirements control the design of the project throughout the engineering design process. These include basic things like the functions, attributes, and specifications - determined after assessing user needs. Some design requirements include hardware and software parameters, maintainability, availability, and testability.
In some cases, a feasibility study is carried out after which schedules, resource plans and estimates for the next phase are developed. The fea- sibility study is an evaluation and analysis of the potential of a proposed project to support the process of decision making. It outlines and anal-
yses alternatives or methods of achieving the desired outcome. The fea- sibility study helps to narrow the scope of the project to identify the best scenario. A feasibility report is generated following which Post Feasibil- ity Review is performed. The purpose of a feasibility assessment is to determine whether the engineer's project can proceed into the design phase. This is based on two criteria: the project needs to be based on an achievable idea, and it needs to be within cost constraints. It is important to have engineers with experience and good judgment to be involved in this portion of the feasibility study.
A concept study is often a phase of project planning that includes producing ideas and taking into account the pros and cons of imple- menting those ideas. This stage of a project is done to minimize the like- lihood of error, manage costs, assess risks, and evaluate the potential success of the intended project. In any event, once an engineering issue or problem is defined, potential solutions must be identified. These solu- tions can be found by using ideation, the mental process by which ideas are generated. In fact, this step is often termed Ideation or "Concept Generation." The following are widely used techniques:
· trigger word - a word or phrase associated with the issue at hand is stated, and subsequent words and phrases are evoked.
· morphological analysis - independent design characteristics are listed in a chart, and different engineering solutions are proposed for each solution. Normally, a preliminary sketch and short report accom- pany the morphological chart.
· synectics - the engineer imagines him or herself as the item and asks, "What would I do if I were the system?" This unconventional method of thinking may find a solution to the problem at hand. The vital aspects of the conceptualization step is synthesis. Synthesis is the pro- cess of taking the element of the concept and arranging them in the proper way. Synthesis creative process is present in every design.
· brainstorming - this popular method involves thinking of differ- ent ideas, typically as part of a small group, and adopting these ideas in some form as a solution to the problem
Various generated ideas must then undergo a concept evalua- tion step, which utilizes various tools to compare and contrast the rela- tive strengths and weakness of possible alternatives. The preliminary design, or high-level design includes, often bridges a gap between de- sign conception and detailed design, particularly in cases where the lev- el of conceptualization achieved during ideation is not sufficient for full
evaluation. So in this task, the overall system configuration is defined, and schematics, diagrams, and layouts of the project may provide early project configuration. During detailed design and optimization, the pa- rameters of the part being created will change, but the preliminary de- sign focuses on creating the general framework to build the project on.
S. Blanchard and J. Fabrycky describe it as: ―The ‗whats‘ initiating conceptual design produce ‗hows‘ from the conceptual design evalua- tion effort applied to feasible conceptual design concepts. Next, the
‗hows‘ are taken into preliminary design through the means of allocated requirements. There they become ‗whats‘ and drive preliminary design to address ‗hows‘ at this lower level.‖
Following FEED is the Detailed Design phase, which may consist of procurement of materials as well. This phase further elaborates each aspect of the project/product by complete description through solid modeling, drawings as well as specifications. Design for manufactura- bility is the general engineering art of designing products in such a way that they are easy to manufacture.
· Operating parameters
· Operating and nonoperating environmental stimuli
· Test requirements
· External dimensions
· Maintenance and testability provisions
· Materials requirements
· Reliability requirements
· External surface treatment
· Design life
· Packaging requirements
· External marking
Computer-aided design programs have made detailed design phase more efficient. For example, a CAD program can provide optimization to reduce volume without hindering a part's quality. It can also calculate stress and displacement using the finite element method to determine stresses throughout the part.
The production planning and tool design consists of planning how to mass-produce the product and which tools should be used in the manu- facturing process. Tasks to complete in this step include selecting mate- rials, selection of the production processes, determination of the se- quence of operations, and selection of tools such as jigs, fixtures, metal cutting and metal or plastics forming tools. This task also involves addi-
tional prototype testing iterations to ensure the mass-produced version meets qualification testing standards.
The engineering design process bears some similarity to the scien- tific method. Both processes begin with existing knowledge, and gradu- ally become more specific in the search for knowledge or a solution. The key difference between the engineering process and the scientific process is that the engineering process focuses on design, creativity and innovation while the scientific process emphasizes Discovery.
Design thinking
Design thinking refers to creative strategies designers utilize during the process of designing. Design thinking is also an approach that can be used to consider issues, with a means to help resolve these issues, more broadly than within professional design practice and has been applied in business as well as social issues. Design thinking in business uses the designer's sensibility and methods to match people's needs with what is technologically feasible and what a viable business strategy can convert into customer value and market opportunity.
The notion of design as a "way of thinking" in the sciences can be traced to Herbert A. Simon's 1969 book The Sciences of the Artificial, and in design.engineering to Robert McKim's 1973 book Experiences in Visual Thinking. Bryan Lawson's 1980 book How Designers Think, primarily addressing design in architecture, began a process of general- ising the concept of design thinking. A 1982 article by Nigel Cross es- tablished some of the intrinsic qualities and abilities of design thinking that made it relevant in general education and thus for wider audienc- es. Peter Rowe's 1987 book Design Thinking, which described methods and approaches used by architects and urban planners, was a significant early usage of the term in the design research literature. Rolf Faste expanded on McKim's work at Stanford University in the 1980s and 1990s, teaching "design thinking as a method of creative action." Design thinking was adapted for business purposes by Faste's Stanford colleague David M. Kelley, who founded the design consultancy IDEO in 1991. Richard Buchanan's 1992 article "Wicked Problems in Design Thinking" expressed a broader view of design thinking as ad- dressing intractable human concerns through design.
Design thinking is a method for practical, creative resolution of prob- lems. It is a form of solution-based thinking with the intent of producing a constructive future result. Design thinking differs from the scientific
method, which begins by stating a hypothesis and then, via a feedback mechanism, continues iteratively to form a model or theory, by includ- ing consideration of the emotional content of the situation. While feed- back in the scientific method is mostly obtained by collecting observa- tional evidence with respect to observable/measurable facts, design thinking feedback also considers the consumer's emotional state regard- ing the problem, as well as their stated and latent needs, in discovering and developing solutions. In scientific methods with a heavy emphasis on math or physics, emotional elements are typically ignored. Design thinking identifies and investigates both known and ambiguous aspects of the current situation in an effort to discover parameters and alterna- tive solution sets which may lead to one or more satisfactory goals. Be- cause design thinking is iterative, intermediate "solutions" are potential starting points of alternative paths, allowing for redefinition of the initial problem, in a process of co-evolution of problem and solution.
In 1979 Bryan Lawson published results from an empirical study to investigate the different problem-solving approaches of designers and scientists. He took two groups of students – final year students in archi- tecture and post-graduate science students – and asked them to create one-layer structures from a set of coloured blocks. The perimeter of the structure had to optimize either the red or the blue colour; however, there were unspecified rules governing the placement and relationship of some of the blocks. Lawson found that:
The scientists adopted a technique of trying out a series of designs which used as many different blocks and combinations of blocks as pos- sible as quickly as possible. Thus they tried to maximise the information available to them about the allowed combinations. If they could discov- er the rule governing which combinations of blocks were allowed they could then search for an arrangement which would optimise the required colour around the layout.By contrast, the architects selected their blocks in order to achieve the appropriately coloured perimeter. If this proved not to be an acceptable combination, then the next most favourably col- oured block combination would be substituted and so on until an ac- ceptable solution was discovered. Nigel Cross concluded that Lawson's studies suggested that scientists problem solve by analysis, while de- signers problem solve by synthesis. Kelley and Brown argue that design thinking uses both analysis and synthesis.
The terms analysis and synthesis come from Greek and mean literal- ly "to loosen up" and "to put together" respectively. In general, analysis
is defined as the procedure by which we break down an intellectual or substantial whole into parts or components. Synthesis is defined as the opposite procedure: to combine separate elements or components in or- der to form a coherent whole. However, analysis and synthesis, as scien- tific methods, always go hand in hand; they complement one another. Every synthesis is built upon the results of a preceding analysis, and every analysis requires a subsequent synthesis in order to verify and cor- rect its results.
Design thinking employs divergent thinking as a way to ensure that many possible solutions are explored in the first instance, and then con- vergent thinking as a way to narrow these down to a final solution. Di- vergent thinking is the ability to offer different, unique or variant ideas adherent to one theme while convergent thinking is the ability to find the "correct" solution to the given problem. Design thinking encourages divergent thinking to ideate many solutions and then uses convergent thinking to prefer and realize the best resolution.
Unlike analytical thinking, design thinking includes "building up" ideas, with few, or no, limits on breadth during a "brainstorming" phase. This helps reduce fear of failure in the participant(s) and encour- ages input and participation from a wide variety of sources in the idea- tion phases. The phrase "thinking outside the box" has been coined to describe one goal of the brainstorming phase and is encouraged, since this can aid in the discovery of hidden elements and ambiguities in the situation and discovering potentially faulty assumptions.
One version of the design thinking process has seven stages: define, research, ideate, prototype, choose, implement, and learn. Within these seven steps, problems can be framed, the right questions can be asked, more ideas can be created, and the best answers can be chosen. The steps aren't linear; can occur simultaneously and be repeated. A simpler expression of the process is Robert McKim's phrase "Express–Test– Cycle". An alternative five-phase description of the process is described by Christoph Meinel and Larry Leifer: (re)defining the problem, need- finding and benchmarking, ideating, building, testing. Yet another way to look at it is Shewhart's "Plan-Do-Study-Act" PDSA cycle.
Although design is always influenced by individual preferences, the design thinking method shares a common set of traits, mainly: creativi- ty, ambidextrous thinking, teamwork, user-centeredness, curiosity and optimism. These traits are exemplified by design thinking methods in "serious play". The path through these process steps is not strictly circu-
lar. Meinel and Leifer state: "While the stages are simple enough, the adaptive expertise required to choose the right inflection points and ap- propriate next stage is a high order intellectual activity that requires practice and is learnable."
Christoph Meinel and Larry Leifer, of the HPI-Stanford Design Thinking Program, laid out four principles for the successful implemen- tation of design thinking:
· The human rule, which states that all design activity is ultimate- ly social in nature, and any social innovation will bring us back to the 'human-centric point of view'.
· The ambiguity rule, in which design thinkers must preserve am- biguity by experimenting at the limits of their knowledge and ability, enabling the freedom to see things differently.
· The re-design rule, where all design is re-design; this comes as a result of changing technology and social circumstances but previously solved, unchanged human needs.
· The tangibility rule; the concept that making ideas tangible al- ways facilitates communication and allows designers to treat prototypes as 'communication media'.
Design thinking is especially useful when addressing what Horst Rit- tel referred to as wicked problems, which are ill-defined or tricky. With ill-defined problems, both the problem and the solution are unknown at the outset of the problem-solving exercise. This is as opposed to "tame" or "well-defined" problems where the problem is clear, and the solution is available through some technical knowledge. For wicked problems, the general thrust of the problem may be clear, however considerable time and effort is spent in order to clarify the requirements. A large part of the problem solving activity, then, consists of problem definition and problem shaping.
The "a-ha moment" is the moment where there is suddenly a clear forward path. It is the point in the cycle where synthesis and divergent thinking, analysis and convergent thinking, and the nature of the prob- lem all come together and an appropriate resolution has been captured. Prior to this point, the process may seem nebulous, hazy and inexact. At this point, the path forward is so obvious that in retrospect it seems odd that it took so long to recognize it. After this point, the focus becomes more and more clear as the final product is constructed.
Design methods and design process are often used interchangeably, but there are significant differences between the two. Design methods
are techniques, rules, or ways of doing things that someone uses within a design discipline. Methods for design thinking include interviewing, creating user profiles, looking at other existing solutions, creating proto- types, mind mapping, asking questions like the five whys, and situation- al analysis.
Because of design thinking's parallel nature, there are many different paths through the phases. This is part of the reason design thinking may seem to be "fuzzy" or "ambiguous" when compared to more analytical, Cartesian methods of science and engineering.
Some early design processes stemmed from soft systems methodolo- gy in the 1960s. Koberg and Bagnall wrote The All New Universal Traveller in 1972 and presented a circular, seven-step process to prob- lem-solving. These seven steps could be done lineally or in feed-back loops. Stanford's d.school developed an updated seven step process in 2007. Other expressions of design processes have been proposed, in- cluding a three-step simplified triangular process by Bryan Lawson. Hugh Dubberly's free e-book How Do You Design: A Compendium of Modelssummarizes a large number of design process models.
Design thinking calls for considering the given user case from vari- ous perspectives, empathizing with users, and addressing various stake- holders. Ill-defined problems often contain higher-order and obscure relationships. Design thinking can address these through the use of analogies. An understanding of the expected results, or lack of domain- related knowledge for the task, may be developed by correlating differ- ent internal representations, such as images, to develop an understand- ing of the obscure or ill-defined elements of the situation. The process involves several complex cognitive mechanisms, as the design task of- ten has elements in multiple cognitive domains – visual, mathematical, auditory or tactile—requiring the usage of multiple "languages", like visual thinking.
Social challenges require systemic solutions that are grounded in the client's or customer's needs. Nonprofits are beginning to use design thinking as well to develop better solutions to social problems, because it crosses the traditional boundaries between public, for-profit, and non- profit sectors. By working closely with the clients and consumers, de- sign thinking allows high-impact solutions to bubble up from below ra- ther than being imposed from the top.
As an approach, design thinking taps into innate human capacities but that are overlooked by more conventional problem-solving practic-
es. It does not only focus on creating products and services that are hu- man centered, but the process itself is also deeply human. The process is best thought of as a system of overlapping spaces rather than a sequence of orderly steps: inspiration, ideation, and implementation. Inspiration is the initial problem or opportunity that leads you to the finding of the solution; ideation is the core of the development process where the idea is better defined; and implementation is the final step where the solution comes in contact with the outer world. Projects may loop back through inspiration, ideation, and implementation more than once as the team refines its ideas and explores new directions. Therefore, design thinking can feel chaotic, but over the life of a project, participants come to see that the process makes sense and achieves results, even though its form differs from the linear, milestone-based processes that organizations typically undertake. Design thinking activities are carried on in different steps which are: empathize, define, ideate, prototype and test. Within these steps, problems can be framed, the right questions can be asked, more ideas can be created, and the best answers can be chosen.
Generally, the design process starts with the inspiration phase, in which the previous step is the definition of the brief. The brief is a set of mental constraints that gives the project team a framework from which to begin, benchmarks by which they can measure progress, and a set of objectives to be realized – such as price point, available technology, and market segment. Designers approach users with empathy, understanding what humans need or might need, what makes life easier and more en- joyable, what is technologically useful and more usable. It is not only about making things more ergonomic but about understanding people - the way they do things and why, their physical and emotional needs, how they think about the world, and what is meaningful to them. Conventional research methods, like focus groups and survey, can be useful in pointing towards incremental improvements, but those don't usually lead to breakthroughs because these techniques simply ask peo- ple what they want. Henry Ford understood this when he said, "If I'd asked my customers what they wanted, they'd have said 'a faster horse." and no one would have said a car.
Ideate is the mode of the design process in which you concentrate on idea generation. Mentally it represents a process of "going wide" in terms of concepts and outcomes. The process is characterized by the alternation of divergent and convergent thinking, typical of design thinking process. To achieve divergent thinking, it is important to have a
diverse group of people involved in the process. Multidisciplinary peo- ple—architects who have studied psychology, artists with MBAs, or engineers with marketing experience – often demonstrate this quality. They're people with the capacity and the disposition for collaboration across disciplines.
Interdisciplinary teams typically move into a structured brainstorm- ing process by "thinking outside the box". During this process own ideas and the other's one have not to be judged and participants shouldn't take a non-generative role. Instead, participants are encouraged to come up with as many ideas as possible and to explore new alternatives. Good ideas naturally rise to the top, whereas the bad ones drop off early on. Every member of the team needs to possess a depth of skill that allows him or her to make tangible contributions to the outcome, and to be em- pathic for people and for disciplines beyond one's own. It tends to be expressed as openness, curiosity, optimism, a tendency toward learning through doing, and experimentation. Convergent thinking, on the other hand, allow to zooming and focusing on the different proposals and to select the best choice, which permits to continue the design thinking process to achieve the final goals. After collecting lot of ideas, a team goes through a process of synthesis in which it has to translate what is been seen and is been headed into insights that can lead to solutions or opportunities for change. This approach helps multiply options to create choices and different insights about human behavior and define in which direction the process should go on. These might be either visions of new product offerings, or choices among various ways of creating interactive experience. Once there are lot of ideas, the following step is to select the most extreme one in order to find solutions that solve unmet needs.
More choices mean more complexity, which can affect organization's decisions to restrict choices in favour of the obvious and the incremen- tal. Although this tendency may be more efficient in the short run, it tends to make an organization conservative and inflexible in the long run. Divergent thinking is the route, not the obstacle, to innovation, and a way to diverge is to define a mindset of condition in which people are encouraged to produce lots of ideas. The most notable themes fall into three general traits: open-minded collaboration, courage, and convic- tion. Open minded refers to the concept of being opened and accept new ideas and contributions. Courage is also fundamental because innovative ideas are characterized by a high risk of failure. It permits to face fail- ure, element of high importance in order to improve in the right way. In
addition, conviction is the mindset which permits to carry on a process or an idea even if there are constrains or obstacles.
The third space of the design thinking process is implementation, when the best ideas generated during ideation are turned into a concrete, fully conceived action plan. At the core of the implementation process is prototyping: turning ideas into actual products and services that are then tested, iterated, and refined. A prototype helps to gather feedbacks and improve the idea. Prototypes speed up the process of innovation because allow to understand strengths and weaknesses of new solutions. Proto- typing is particularly important for products and services destined for the developing world, where the lack of infrastructure, retail chains, communication networks, literacy, and other essential pieces of the sys- tem often make it difficult to design new products and ser- vices. Prototyping, testing, "failing many times but quickly and cheaply in order to succeed"are different existing methods to test solutions, but the earlier users can give feedbacks, the lower are the costs for the or- ganizations and higher is the level of adaptation of the solution to cus- tomer needs. Although many design fields have been categorized as ly- ing between science and the arts and humanities, design may be seen as its own distinct way of understanding the world, based on solution- based problem solving, problem shaping, synthesis, and appropriateness in the built environment.
One of the first design science theorists, John Chris Jones, postulated that design was different than the arts, sciences and mathematics in the 1970s. In response to the question "Is designing an art, a science or a form of mathematics?" Jones responded:
The main point of difference is that of timing. Both artists and scien- tists operate on the physical world as it exists in the present (whether it is real or symbolic), while mathematicians operate on abstract relation- ships that are independent of historical time. Designers, on the other hand, are forever bound to treat as real that which exists only in an im- agined future and have to specify ways in which the foreseen thing can be made to exist.
Nigel Cross built upon the early work of Bruce Archer to show the differences between the humanities, the sciences, and design in his pa- per "Designerly Ways of Knowing".He observed that in the sciences the phenomenon of study centres around the natural world, the appropriate methods being controlled experiment, classification, and analysis. In this culture, objectivity, rationality, neutrality, and a concern for "truth"
are most valued. In the humanities, analogy, metaphor, and evaluation serve as methods of study of the human experience. The values of this culture include subjectivity, imagination, commitment, and a concern for "justice". Design, however, concerns itself with the artificial world and uses modeling, pattern-forming, and synthesis to study it. In design, practicality, ingenuitry, empathy, and a concern for "appropriateness" are the core values.
Conventionally, designers communicate mostly in visual or object languages. Symbols, signs, and metaphors are used through the medium of sketching, diagrams and technical drawings to translate abstract re- quirements into concrete objects. The way designers communicate, then, is through understanding this way of coding design requirements in or- der to produce built products. Design thinking has two common inter- pretations in the business world:
1. Designers bringing their methods into business by either taking part themselves in business process, or training business people to use design methods
2. Designers achieving innovative outputs or products
The first interpretation has been described by Tim Brown, CEO of DEO, at a TED lecture, though his blog also considers the second inter- pretation.
The limits of the first kind of design thinking in business are also be- ing explored. Not all problems yield to design thinking alone, where it may be a "temporary fix". Design thinking companies including IDEO and Sense Worldwide are responding to this by building business think- ing capabilities.
Tim Brown has argued that design thinking is now widely, but spo- radically, used in business. He argues that competitive advantage comes from sustained use of design thinking, from becoming "masters of the art."
In organization and management theory, design thinking forms part of the Architecture/Design/Anthropology paradigm, which characterizes innovative, human-centered enterprises. This paradigm also focuses on a collaborative and iterative style of work and an abductive mode of thinking, compared to practices associated with the more traditional Mathematics/Economics/Psychology management paradigm.
A study by the London Business School found that for every percent of sales invested in product design, profits rose by an average of 3 to 4 percent. Historically designers were only introduced in the last steps of
product development process, focusing their attention on improving the look and functionality of products, instead looking for a high impact on the world and the society. Design was a tool of consumerism, able to make products more attractive, easier to use and more marketable. In recent years designers developed specific methods and tools to deliver products and services and businesses are beginning to realize the neces- sity of design as a competitive asset. Therefore, designers bring their methods into business by either taking part themselves in the earliest stages of business processes or training business people to use design methods and to build business thinking capabilities. Design thinking, as the perfect balance between desirability, technical feasibility and eco- nomic viability helps organizations to be more innovative, better differ- entiate their brands, and bring their products and services to market fast- er.
Design thinking has been suggested for use in schools in a variety of curricular ways, as well as for redesigning student spaces and school systems. Design thinking in education typically takes three forms: help- ing school administrators solve institution-based problems, aiding edu- cators to develop more creative lesson plans, and engendering design thinking skills in students.
There are currently many researchers exploring the intersection of design thinking and education. The REDLab group, from Stanford Uni- versity's Graduate School of Education, conducts research into design thinking in K-12, secondary, and post-secondary settings. The Hasso Plattner Design Thinking Research Program is a collaborative program between Stanford University and the Hasso Plattner Institute from Pots- dam, Germany. SPJIMR, a top B-school in India, offers a road map to build design thinking culture in the organisation and has implemented the approach across its different management programs.
In addition to enriching curriculum and expanding student perspec- tives, design thinking can also benefit educators. Researchers have pro- posed that design thinking can enable educators to integrate technology into the classroom. Design thinking as a viable curricular and systemic reform program is increasingly being recognized by educators.
In the K-12 arena, design thinking is used to promote creative think- ing, teamwork, and student responsibility for learning. The nonprofit Tools at Schools aims to expose students, educators, and schools to de- sign thinking. The organization does this by facilitating a relationship between a school and a manufacturing company. Over a minimum of six
months, representatives from the manufacturing company teach students the principles of design and establish the kind of product to be designed. The students collaborate to design a prototype that the manufacturer produces. Once the prototype arrives, the students must promote the product and support the ideas that lead to its design.
An example of the Tools at Schools partnership is the redesign of school equipment by 8th grade students at The School at Columbia Uni- versity. The students were divided into groups and asked to redesign a locker, chair, or a desk to better suit the needs of 21st century pu- pils. The students' final products were displayed at the International Contemporary Furniture Fairwhere they demonstrated their product to fair attendees and industry professionals. Overall Tools at Schools not only introduces students to the design process, it exposes them to the design profession through their interactions with designers and manu- facturers. Since the students work together in groups, design thinking in education also encourages collaborative learning.
Another organization that works with integrating design thinking for students is the corporation NoTosh. NoTosh has a design thinking school to teach instructors how to implement design thinking into their curriculum. One of the design thinking techniques NoTosh adopted from the corporate world and applied to education is hexagonal think- ing. Hexagonal thinking consists of gathering cut-outs in hexagon shapes and writing a concept or fact on each one. Students then connect the hexagons by laying related ideas or facts together. The visual repre- sentation of relationships helps students better conceptualize wicked problems. Another concrete example of design thinking in action is No- Tosh's "Googleable vs NonGoogleable Questions" exercise. Apart from non profit entities and corporations, research universities are also in- volved in deploying design thinking curriculum to K-12 schools. Part of Stanford University's efforts to incorporate design thinking in education into a hands-on setting is the Taking Design Thinking to Schools initia- tive. The Stanford School of Education and d.school partner with K-12 teachers in the Palo Alto area to discover ways to apply design thinking in an educational setting. Taking Design Thinking to Schools identifies the following design thinking process:
· Understand: students explore the topic through research and de- velop familiarity with the subject matter
· Observe: this phase consists of students taking note of their en- vironment, which includes physical surroundings and human interac-
tions; students gather more information about peoples' actions and pos- sible motivation through discussion
· Point of view: students consider alternate points of views to bet- ter understand the problem and to inform their ideas in the next phase
· Ideate: this phase consists of students brainstorming ideas with- out criticism or inhibition. In this phase, the focus is on generating lots of ideas with an emphasis on creativity and enjoying the process.
· Prototype: in this phase students create quick prototypes to in- vestigate ideas generated during the ideation phase
· Test: students test their ideas in a repetitive fashion and deter- mine which aspects of the design are effective and which could be im- proved.
By employing this process, the Stanford team and Taking Design Thinking to Schools participants collaborate to develop coursework that students will find engrossing and «hands-on».Thus, the program at Stan- ford combines both design thinking for teachers who must create alter- native curriculum and students who must complete the design thinking- based projects.
The Design Thinking for Educators toolkit was developed in 2011 by the design firm IDEO in partnership with the PreK-12 independent school Riverdale Country School. The Design Thinking for Educators toolkit that is currently offered to the public for free download is the second version. Design Thinking does not necessarily require special- ized facilities, tools, and environments. Design thinking sessions in a higher educational setting can also be conducted on a shoestring budget. Hand-on guidelines fitting to the needs of typical university settings shall help to be able to conduct Design Thinking sessions within the context of normal university settings. Media management education has been acting as one sample scenario for performing these type of Design Thinking sessions.
AIGA has implemented a movement, DesignEd K12, to take design- ing thinking to schools. This movement is guided by volunteers and there is not a specific program to follow; instead volunteer designers introduce students to the design field and consequently, design thinking. DesignEd K12 intends to motivate students to use design thinking to solve problems; to create a network where designers, students, and edu- cational professionals share best practices; to shape a recommended ap- proach to teaching design; and to cultivate a passion for design among young people. Across the nation, many of AIGA's chapters are working
with school districts. The programs range in scope; some mentor stu- dents who have shown an interest in design, while other programs offer students the opportunity to explore design and participate in design thinking projects within scheduled classed or through an after-school activity.
The University of Kentucky also has formalized instruction on de- sign thinking through its dLab. The dLab serves a multitude of functions from helping schools resolve their issues with design thinking to con- ducting empirical experiments on design thinking to collaborating with outside organizations to provide issues that plague their organization. Radford University, located in Radford, Virginia, currently offers a Master of Fine Arts (MFA) degree in design thinking. The MFA degree offered is a completely online degree that emphasizes design thinking, design history, design research, design management, and design doing. The Johns Hopkins University Carey Business School and the Maryland Institute College of Art began offering an MBA/MA in design leader- ship in 2012. Students simultaneously earn a master of arts degree in design leadership from an art school as well as an MBA from a research institution.
The accountability to succeed on high-stakes standardized tests in K- 12 environments prevents the implementation of design thinking curric- ulum. Educators feel that focusing on classic curriculum will better pre- pare their students to perform well on these exams. Resistance to design thinking also springs from concerns about the appropriateness of apply- ing design thinking to an educational setting. It has been argued that design thinking is best applied by professionals who know a field well. Therefore, K-12 students who are limited by their reduced under- standing of both the field and their still developing intellectual capaci- ties may not be best suited to design thinking activities.
Another more subtle obstacle to design thinking in schools may come from members of the academic community who believe design thinking should remain in the milieu of avant-garde companies. Other issues that may prevent the implementation of design thinking in scho- lastic settings may be a lack of awareness of the field, educators' uncer- tainty in implementing new approaches to teaching, and lack of institu- tional support.
The integration of ICT into teaching and learning presents many challenges that go beyond issues dealing with technical implementation. Some researchers have already claimed the limited effects of ICT adop-
tion in learning; Considering the emphasis and the investment that has been placed on the use of ICT in formal learning settings it is important to identify where the problems are. In this regard, some voices of the educational community focus on the methods used for integrating ICT in teaching and learning. In this sense, the adoption of a design thinking mindset is regarded as a promising strategy to develop holistic solutions. Design thinking in teaching and learning through ICT can be consid- ered as similar activities. First, it's important to acknowledge that the type of problems faced by the educational community when adopting learning technology are unique, ill-defined and do not have clear solu- tions. This definition corresponds very well to the term wicked prob- lems used by the design community. Secondly, similarly to what hap- pens in design, the diversity of actors brings another layer of complexity that should be recognized. In this regard, collaboration between differ- ent stakeholders during the design process is another key issue that
could contribute to develop more meaningful technologies for learning. Design thinking has been outlined as a meaningful approach for fac-
ing wicked problems. The adoption of a design mindset helps under- stand that there can be many solutions for a given situation and that any design requires testing. From this perspective, bringing design thinking to learning design and design expertise to the development process of technological learning solutions can contribute to the creation of more holistic solutions in learning through ICT.
Design is the creation of a plan or convention for the construction of an object, system or measurable human interaction. Design has different connotations in different fields. In some cases, the direct construction of an object is also considered to use design thinking.
Designing often necessitates considering the aesthetic, functional, economic, and sociopolitical dimensions of both the design object and design process. It may involve considerable research, thought, model- ing, interactive adjustment, and re-design. Meanwhile, diverse kinds of objects may be designed, including clothing, graphical user interfaces, skyscrapers, corporate identities, business processes, and even methods or processes of designing. Thus "design" may be a substantive referring to a categorical abstraction of a created thing or things (the design of something), or a verb for the process of creation as is made clear by grammatical context. It is an act of creativity and innovation.
More formally design has been defined as follows:
(noun) a specification of an object, manifested by an agent, intended to accomplish goals, in a particular environment, using a set of primitive components, satisfying a set of requirements, subject to constraints;
(verb, transitive) to create a design, in an environment (where the de- signer operates)
Another definition for design is a roadmap or a strategic approach for someone to achieve a unique expectation. It defines the specifications, plans, parameters, costs, activities, processes and how and what to do within legal, political, social, environmental, safety and economic con- straints in achieving that objective. Here, a "specification" can be mani- fested as either a plan or a finished product, and "primitives" are the el- ements from which the design object is composed.With such a broad denotation, there is no universal language or unifying institution for de- signers of all disciplines. This allows for many differing philosophies and approaches toward the subject.
The person designing is called a designer, which is also a term used for people who work professionally in one of the various design areas usually specifying which area is being dealt with (such as a fashion de- signer, concept designer, web designer or interior designer). A design- er's sequence of activities is called a design process while the scientific study of design is called design science.
Another definition of design is planning to manufacture an object, system, component or structure. Thus the word "design" can be used as a noun or a verb. In a broader sense, the design is an applied art and en- gineering that integrate with technology. While the definition of design is fairly broad, design has a myriad of specifications that professionals utilize in their fields. Substantial disagreement exists concerning how designers in many fields, whether amateur or professional, alone or in teams, produce designs. Kees Dorst and Judith Dijkhuis, both designers themselves, argued that "there are many ways of describing design pro- cesses" and discussed "two basic and fundamentally different ways", both of which have several names. The prevailing view has been called "The Rational Model", "Technical Problem Solving" and "The Reason- Centric Perspective". The alternative view has been called "Reflection- in-Action", "Evolutionary Design", "co-evolution", and "The Action- Centric Perspective". The Rational Model was independently developed by Herbert A. Simon, an American scientist, and Gerhard Pahl and Wolfgang Beitz, two German engineering design theorists. It posits that:
1. designers attempt to optimize a design candidate for known constraints and objectives,
2. the design process is plan-driven,
3. the design process is understood in terms of a discrete sequence of stages.
The Rational Model is based on a rationalist philosophy and under- lies the waterfall model, systems development life cycle, and much of the engineering design literature. According to the rationalist philoso- phy, design is informed by research and knowledge in a predictable and controlled manner. Technical rationality is at the center of the process. Typical stages consistent with The Rational Model include the follow- ing:
· Pre-production design
· Design brief or Parti pris – an early (often the beginning) state- ment of design goals
· Analysis – analysis of current design goals
· Research. – investigating similar design solutions in the field or related topics
· Specification – specifying requirements of a design solution for a product (product design specification) or service.
· Problem solving – conceptualizing and documenting design solu- tions
· Presentation – presenting design solutions
· Design during production
· Development – continuation and improvement of a designed solu- tion
· Testing – in situ testing of a designed solution
· Post-production design feedback for future designs
· Implementation – introducing the designed solution into the envi- ronment
· Evaluation and conclusion – summary of process and results, in- cluding constructive criticism and suggestions for future improvements
· Redesign – any or all stages in the design process repeated (with corrections made) at any time before, during, or after production.
Each stage has many associated best practices.
The Rational Model has been widely criticized on two primary grounds:
1. Designers do not work this way – extensive empirical evidence has demonstrated that designers do not act as the rational model sug- gests.
2. Unrealistic assumptions – goals are often unknown when a de- sign project begins, and the requirements and constraints continue to change.
The Action-Centric Perspective is a label given to a collection of in- terrelated concepts, which are antithetical to The Rational Model. It pos- its that: designers use creativity and emotion to generate design candi- dates, the design process is improvised, no universal sequence of stages is apparent – analysis, design and implementation are contemporary and inextricably linked
The Action-Centric Perspective is based on an empiricist philosophy and broadly consistent with the аgile approach and amethodical devel- opment. Substantial empirical evidence supports the veracity of this per- spective in describing the actions of real designers. Like the Rational Model, the Action-Centric model sees design as informed by research and knowledge. However, research and knowledge are brought into the design process through the judgment and common sense of designers – by designers "thinking on their feet" – more than through the predictable and controlled process stipulated by the Rational Model. Designers' con- text-dependent experience and professional judgment take center stage more than technical rationality.
At least two views of design activity are consistent with the Action- Centric Perspective. Both involve three basic activities. In the Reflec- tion-in-Action paradigm, designers alternate between "framing", "mak- ing moves", and "evaluate moves." "Framing" refers to conceptualizing the problem, i.e., defining goals and objectives. A "move" is a tentative design decision. The evaluation process may lead to further moves in the design.
In the Sensemaking-Coevolution-Implementation Framework, de- signers alternate between its three titular activities. Sensemaking in- cludes both framing and evaluating moves. Implementation is the pro- cess of constructing the design object. The concept of the Design Cycle is understood as a circular time structure, which may start with the thinking of an idea, then expressing it by the use of visual and/or verbal means of communication (design tools), the sharing and perceiving of the expressed idea, and finally starting a new cycle with the critical re- thinking of the perceived idea. Anderson points out that this concept
emphasizes the importance of the means of expression, which at the same time are means of perception of any design ideas.
· Army design methodology
· Applied arts
· Architecture
· Automotive design
· Biological design
· Communication design
· Configuration design
· Design management
· Engineering design
· Experience design
· Fashion design
· Game design
· Graphic design
· Information architecture
· Information design
· Industrial design
· Instructional design
· Interaction design
· Interior design
· Landscape architecture
· Lighting design
· Modular design
· Motion graphic design
· Organization design
· Product design
· Process design
· Service design
· Software design
· Sound design
· Spatial design
· Systems architecture
· Systems design
· Systems modeling
· Urban design
· User experience design
· Visual design
· Web design
There are countless philosophies for guiding design as design values and its accompanying aspects within modern design vary, both between different schools of thought and among practicing designers. Design philosophies are usually for determining design goals. A design goal may range from solving the least significant individual problem of the smallest element, to the most holistic influential utopian goals. Design goals are usually for guiding design. Design philosophies are fundamen- tal guiding principles that dictate how a designer approaches his/her practice. Reflections on material culture and environmental concerns can guide a design philosophy. In The Sciences of the Artificial by pol- ymath Herbert A. Simon, the author asserts design to be a meta- discipline of all professions. A design approach is a general philosophy that may or may not include a guide for specific methods. Some are to guide the overall goal of the design. Other approaches are to guide the tendencies of the designer. A combination of approaches may be used if they don't conflict.
Some popular approaches include:
· Sociotechnical system design, a philosophy and tools for partic- ipative designing of work arrangements and supporting processes - for organizational purpose, quality, safety, economics and customer re- quirements in core work processes, the quality of peoples experience at work and the needs of society
· KISS principle, which strives to eliminate unnecessary compli- cations.
· There is more than one way to do it, a philosophy to allow mul- tiple methods of doing the same thing.
· Use-centered design, which focuses on the goals and tasks asso- ciated with the use of the artifact, rather than focusing on the end user.
· User-centered design, which focuses on the needs, wants, and limitations of the end user of the designed artifact.
· Critical design uses designed artifacts as an embodied critique or commentary on existing values, morals, and practices in a culture.
· Service design designing or organizing the experience around a product and the service associated with a product's use.
· Transgenerational design, the practice of making products and environments compatible with those physical and sensory impairments associated with human aging and which limit major activities of daily living.
· Speculative design, the speculative design process doesn‘t nec- essarily define a specific problem to solve, but establishes a provocative starting point from which a design process emerges. The result is an evolution of fluctuating iteration and reflection using designed objects to provoke questions and stimulate discussion in academic and research settings.
Design methods is a broad area that focuses on:
· Exploring possibilities and constraints by focusing critical thinking skills to research and define problem spaces for existing prod- ucts or services – or the creation of new categories;
· Redefining the specifications of design solutions which can lead to better guidelines for traditional design activities;
· Managing the process of exploring, defining, creating artifacts continually over time
· Prototyping possible scenarios, or solutions that incrementally or significantly improve the inherited situation
· Trendspotting; understanding the trend process.
Today, the term design is widely associated with the applied arts as initiated by Raymond Loewy and teachings at the Bauhaus and Ulm School of Design in Germany during the 20th century.
The boundaries between art and design are blurred, largely due to a range of applications both for the term 'art' and the term 'design'. Ap- plied arts has been used as an umbrella term to define fields of industrial design, graphic design, fashion design, etc. The term 'decorative arts' is a traditional term used in historical discourses to describe craft objects, and also sits within the umbrella of applied arts. In graphic arts, the dis- tinction is often made between fine art and commercial art, based on the context within which the work is produced and how it is traded. To a degree, some methods for creating work, such as employing intuition, are shared across the disciplines within the applied arts and fine art. Mark Getlein, writer, suggests the principles of design are "almost in- stinctive", "built-in", "natural", and part of "our sense of 'rightness'." However, the intended application and context of the resulting works will vary greatly.
In engineering, design is a component of the engineering process. Many overlapping methods and processes can be seen when comparing Product design, Industrial design and Engineering. The American Herit- age Dictionary defines design as: "To conceive or fashion in the mind; invent," and "To formulate a plan", and defines engineering as: "The
application of scientific and mathematical principles to practical ends such as the design, manufacture, and operation of efficient and econom- ical structures, machines, processes, and systems". Both are forms of problem-solving with a defined distinction being the application of "sci- entific and mathematical principles". The increasingly scientific focus of engineering in practice, however, has raised the importance of new more "human-centered" fields of design. How much science is applied in a design is a question of what is considered "science". Along with the question of what is considered science, there is social sci- ence versus natural science. Scientists at Xerox PARC made the distinc- tion of design versus engineering at "moving minds" versus "moving atoms".
The relationship between design and production is one of planning and executing. In theory, the plan should anticipate and compensate for potential problems in the execution process. Design involves problem- solving and creativity. In contrast, production involves a routine or pre- planned process. A design may also be a mere plan that does not include a production or engineering processes although a working knowledge of such processes is usually expected of designers. In some cases, it may be unnecessary and/or impractical to expect a designer with a broad multidisciplinary knowledge required for such designs to also have a detailed specialized knowledge of how to produce the product.
Design and production are intertwined in many creative professional careers, meaning problem-solving is part of execution and the reverse. As the cost of rearrangement increases, the need for separating design from production increases as well. For example, a high-budget project, such as a skyscraper, requires separating architecture from construction. A Low-budget project, such as a locally printed office party invitation flyer, can be rearranged and printed dozens of times at the low cost of a few sheets of paper, a few drops of ink, and less than one hour's pay of a desktop publisher.
This is not to say that production never involves problem-solving or creativity, nor that design always involves creativity. Designs are rarely perfect and are sometimes repetitive. The imperfection of a design may task a production position with utilizing creativity or problem-solving skills to compensate for what was overlooked in the design process. Likewise, a design may be a simple repetition of a known preexisting solution, requiring minimal, if any, creativity or problem-solving skills from the designer. Processes are treated as a product of design, not the
method of design. The term originated with the industrial designing of chemical processes. With the increasing complexities of the information age, consultants and executives have found the term useful to describe the design of business processes as well as manufacturing processes.
Method engineering
Method engineering in the field of information systems is the disci- pline to construct new methods from existing methods. It focuses on the design, construction and evaluation of methods, techniques and support tools for information systems development.
The meta-process modeling process is often supported through soft- ware tools, called Computer Aided Method Engineering tools, or Meta- CASE tools . Often the instantiation technique has been utilised to build the repository of Computer Aided Method Engineering environ- ments. There are many tools for meta-process modeling. In the litera- ture, different terms refer to the notion of method adaptation, including 'method tailoring', 'method fragment adaptation' and 'situational method engineering'. Method tailoring is defined as:
A process or capability in which human agents through responsive changes in, and dynamic interplays between contexts, intentions, and method fragments determine a system development approach for a spe- cific project situation. Potentially, almost all agile methods are suitable for method tailoring. Even the DSDM method is being used for this purpose and has been successfully tailored in a CMM context. Situation- appropriateness can be considered as a distinguishing characteristic be- tween agile methods and traditional software development methods, with the latter being relatively much more rigid and prescriptive. The practical implication is that agile methods allow project teams to adapt working practicesaccording to the needs of individual projects. Practices are concrete activities and products that are part of a method framework. At a more extreme level, the philosophy behind the method, consisting of a number of principles, could be adapted. Situational method engi- neering is the construction of methods which are tuned to specific situa- tions of development projects. It can be described as the creation of a new method by
1. selecting appropriate method components from a repository of reusable method components,
2. tailoring these method components as appropriate, and
3. integrating these tailored method components to form the new situation-specific method.
This enables the creation of development methods suitable for any development situation. Each system development starts then, with a method definition phase where the development method is constructed on the spot. In case of mobile business development, there are methods available for specific parts of the business model design process and ICT development. Situational method engineering can be used to com- bine these methods into one unified method that adopts the characteris- tics of mobile ICT services.
The developers of the IDEF modeling languages, Richard J. Mayer et al, have developed an early approach to method engineering from study- ing common method engineering practice and experience in developing other analysis and design methods. The following figure provides a pro- cess-oriented view of this approach. This image uses the IDEF3 Process Description Capture method to describe this process where boxes with verb phrases represent activities, arrows represent precedence relation- ships, and "exclusive or" conditions among possible paths are represent- ed by the junction boxes labeled with an "X. According to this approach there are three basic strategies in method engineering:
· Reuse: one of the basic strategies of methods engineering is reuse. Whenever possible, existing methods are adopted.
· Tailormade: find methods that can satisfy the identified needs with minor modification. This option is an attractive one if the modifica- tion does not require a fundamental change in the basic concepts or de- sign goals of the method.
· New development: Only when neither of these options is viable should method designers seek to develop a new method.
· This basic strategies can be developed in a similar process of con- cept development
A knowledge engineering approach is the predominant mechanism for method enhancement and new method development. In other words, with very few exceptions, method development involves isolating, doc- umenting, and packaging existing practice for a given task in a form that promotes reliable success among practitioners. Expert attunements are first characterized in the form of basic intuitions and method concepts. These are often initially identified through analysis of the techniques, diagrams, and expressions used by experts. These discoveries aid in the
search for existing methods that can be leveraged to support novice practitioners in acquiring the same attunements and skills.
New method development is accomplished by establishing the scope of the method, refining characterizations of the method concepts and intuitions, designing a procedure that provides both task accomplish- ment and basic apprenticeship support to novice practitioners, and de- veloping a language(s) of expression. Method application techniques are then developed outlining guidelines for use in a stand-alone mode and in concert with other methods. Each element of the method then undergoes iterative refinement through both laboratory and field testing.
The method language design process is highly iterative and experi- mental in nature. Unlike procedure development, where a set of heuris- tics and techniques from existing practice can be identified, merged, and refined, language designers rarely encounter well-developed graphical display or textual information capture mechanisms. When potentially reusable language structures can be found, they are often poorly defined or only partially suited to the needs of the method.
A critical factor in the design of a method language is clearly estab- lishing the purpose and scope of the method. The purpose of the method establishes the needs the method must address. This is used to determine the expressive power required of the supporting language. The scope of the method establishes the range and depth of coverage which must also be established before one can design an appropriate language design strategy. Scope determination also involves deciding what cognitive activities will be supported through method application. For example, language design can be confined to only display the final results of method application (as in providing IDEF9 with graphical and textual language facilities that capture the logic and structure of constraints). Alternatively, there may be a need for in-process language support facil- itating information collection and analysis. In those situations, specific language constructs may be designed to help method practitioners or- ganize, classify, and represent information that will later be synthesized into additional representation structures intended for display.
With this foundation, language designers begin the process of decid- ing what needs to be expressed in the language and how it should be expressed. Language design can begin by developing a textual language capable of representing the full range of information to be addressed. Graphical language structures designed to display select portions of the textual language can then be developed. Alternatively, graphical lan-
guage structures may evolve prior to, or in parallel with, the develop- ment of the textual language. The sequence of these activities largely depends on the degree of understanding of the language requirements held among language developers. These may become clear only after several iterations of both graphical and textual language design.
Graphical language design begins by identifying a preliminary set of schematics and the purpose or goals of each in terms of where and how they will support the method application process. The central item of focus is determined for each schematic. For example, in experimenting with alternative graphical language designs for IDEF9, a Context Sche- matic was envisioned as a mechanism to classify the varying environ- mental contexts in which constraints may apply. The central focus of this schematic was the context. After deciding on the central focus for the schematic, additional information that should be captured or con- veyed is identified.
Up to this point in the language design process, the primary focus has been on the information that should be displayed in a given sche- matic to achieve the goals of the schematic. This is where the language designer must determine which items identified for possible inclusion in the schematic are amenable to graphical representation and will serve to keep the user focused on the desired information content. With this gen- eral understanding, previously developed graphical language structures are explored to identify potential reuse opportunities. While exploring candidate graphical language designs for emerging IDEF methods, a wide range of diagrams were identified and explored. Quite often, even some of the central concepts of a method will have no graphical lan- guage element in the method.
For example, the IDEF1 Information Modeling method includes the notion of an entity but has no syntactic element for an entity in the graphical language.8. When the language designer decides that a syntac- tic element should be included for a method concept, candidate symbols are designed and evaluated. Throughout the graphical language design process, the language designer applies a number of guiding principles to assist in developing high quality designs. Among these, the language designer avoids overlapping concept classes or poorly defined ones. They also seek to establish intuitive mechanisms to convey the direction for reading the schematics.
For example, schematics may be designed to be read from left to right, in a bottom-up fashion, or center-out. The potential for clutter or
overwhelmingly large amounts of information on a single schematic is also considered as either condition makes reading and understanding the schematic extremely difficult. Each candidate design is then tested by developing a wide range of examples to explore the utility of the designs relative to the purpose for each schematic. Initial attempts at method development, and the development of supporting language structures in particular, are usually complicated. With successive iterations on the design, unnecessary and complex language structures are eliminated.
As the graphical language design approaches a level of maturity, at- tention turns to the textual language. The purposes served by textual languages range from providing a mechanism for expressing infor- mation that has explicitly been left out of the graphical language to providing a mechanism for standard data exchange and automated mod- el interpretation. Thus, the textual language supporting the method may be simple and unstructured, or it may emerge as a highly structured, and complex language. The purpose of the method largely determines what level of structure will be required of the textual language.
As the method language begins to approach maturity, mathematical formalization techniques are employed so the emerging language has clear syntax and semantics. The method formalization process often helps uncover ambiguities, identify awkward language structures, and streamline the language. These general activities culminate in a lan- guage that helps focus user attention on the information that needs to be discovered, analyzed, transformed, or communicated in the course of accomplishing the task for which the method was designed. Both the procedure and language components of the method also help users de- velop the necessary skills and attunements required to achieve consist- ently high quality results for the targeted task.
Once the method has been developed, application techniques will be designed to successfully apply the method in stand-alone mode as well as together with other methods. Application techniques constitute the "use" component of the method which continues to evolve and grow throughout the life of the method. The method procedure, language con- structs, and application techniques are reviewed and tested to iteratively refine the method. Methods engineering is a subspecialty of industrial engineering and manufacturing engineering concerned with human inte- gration in industrial production processes.
Alternatively it can be described as the design of the productive pro- cess in which a person is involved. The task of the Methods engineer is
to decide where humans will be utilized in the process of converting raw materials to finished products and how workers can most effectively perform their assigned tasks. The terms operation analysis, work design and simplification, and methods engineering and corporate re- engineering are frequently used interchangeably. Lowering costs and increasing reliability and productivity are the objectives of methods en- gineering. These objectives are met in a five step sequence as follows: Project selection, data acquisition and presentation, data analysis, devel- opment of an ideal method based on the data analysis and, finally, presentation and implementation of the method.
Methods engineers typically work on projects involving new product design, products with a high cost of production to profit ratio, and prod- ucts associated with having poor quality issues. Different methods of project selection include the Pareto analysis, fish diagrams, Gantt charts, PERT charts, and job/work site analysis guides.
Data that needs to be collected are specification sheets for the prod- uct, design drawings, quantity and delivery requirements, and projec- tions as to how the product will perform or has performed in the market. The Gantt process chart can assist in the analysis of the man to machine interaction and it can aid in establishing the optimum number of work- ers and machines subject to the financial constraints of the operation. A flow diagram is frequently employed to represent the manufacturing process associated with the product. Data analysis enables the methods engineer to make decisions about several things, including: purpose of the operation, part design characteristics, specifications and tolerances of parts, materials, manufacturing process design, setup and tooling, working conditions, material handling, plant layout, and workplace de- sign. Knowing the specifics of product manufacturing assists in the de- velopment of an optimum manufacturing method.
Equations of synchronous and random servicing as well as line bal- ancing are used to determine the ideal worker to machine ratio for the process or product chosen. Synchronous servicing is defined as the pro- cess where a machine is assigned to more than one operator, and the assigned operators and machine are occupied during the whole operat- ing cycle. Random servicing of a facility, as the name indicates, is de- fined as a servicing process with a random time of occurrence and need of servicing variables. Line balancing equations determine the ideal number of workers needed on a production line to enable it to work at capacity.
The industrial process or operation can be optimized using a variety of available methods. Each method design has its advantages and disad- vantages. The best overall method is chosen using selection criteria and concepts involving value engineering, cost-benefit analysis, crossover charts, and economic analysis. The outcome of the selection process is then presented to the company for implementation at the plant. This last step involves "selling the idea" to the company brass, a skill the methods engineer must develop in addition to the normal engineering qualifica- tions.
Futurology and philosophy
Futurists or futurologists are scientists and social scientists whose specialty is futurology or the attempt to systematically explore predic- tions and possibilities about the future and how they can emerge from the present, whether that of human society in particular or of life on Earth in general.
The term "futurist" most commonly refers to people who attempt to predict the future such as authors, consultants, thinkers, organizational leaders and others who engage in interdisciplinary and systems thinking to advise private and public organizations on such matters as diverse global trends, possible scenarios, emerging market topportunities and risk management. Futurist is not in the sense of the art move- ment futurism. The Oxford English Dictionary identifies the earliest use of the term futurism in English as 1842, to refer, in a theological con- text, to the Christian eschatological tendency of that time. The next rec- orded use is the label adopted by the Italian and Russian futurists, the artistic, literary and political movements of the 1920s and 1930s which sought to reject the past and fervently embrace speed, technology and, often violent, change. There are a number of organizations that special- ize in this field including the World Future Society.
Visionary writers such as Jules Verne, Edward Bellamy, and H. G. Wells were not in their day characterized as futurists. The term futurol- ogy in its contemporary sense was first coined in the mid – 1940s by the German Professor Ossip K. Flechtheim, who proposed a new science of probability. Flechtheim argued that even if systematic forecasting did no more than unveil the subset of statistically highly probable processes of change and charted their advance, it would still be of crucial social val- ue. In the mid – 1940s the first professional "futurist" consulting institu- tions like RAND and SRI began to engage in long-range planning, sys-
tematic trend watching, scenario development, and visioning, at first under World War II military and government contract and, beginning in the 1950s, for private institutions and corporations.
The period from the late 1940s to the mid-1960s laid the conceptual and methodological foundations of the modern futures studies field. Bertrand de Jouvenel's The Art of Conjecture in 1963 and Dennis Gabor's Inventing the Future in 1964 are considered key early works, and the first U.S. university course devoted entirely to the future was taught by the late Alvin Toffler at the The New School in 1966. More generally, the label includes such disparate lay, professional, and aca- demic groups as visionaries, foresight consultants, corporate strategists, policy analysts, cultural critics, planners, marketers, forecasters, predic- tion market developers, roadmappers, operations researchers, invest- ment managers, actuaries, and other risk analyzers, and future-oriented individuals educated in every academic discipline, including anthropol- ogy, complexity studies, computer science, economics, engineering, Ur- ban design, evolutionary biology, history, management, mathematics, philosophy, physical sciences, political science, psychology, sociology, systems theory, technology studies, trend analysis, and other disciplines. Futures studies – sometimes referred to as futurology, futures re- search, and foresight – can be summarized as being concerned with "three P's and a W", i.e. "possible, probable, and preferable" futures, plus "wildcards", which are low-probability, high-impact events, should they occur. Even with high-profile, probable events, such as the fall of telecommunications costs, the growth of the internet, or the aging de- mographics of particular countries, there is often significant uncertainty in the rate or continuation of a trend. Thus, a key part of futures analysis is the managing of uncertainty and risk. Not all futurists engage in the practice of futurology as generally defined. Pre-conventional futurists would generally not. And while religious futurists, astrologers, occult- ists, New Age divinists, etc. use methodologies that include study, none of their personal revelation or belief-based work would fall within a consensus definition of futurology as used in academics or by futures
studies professionals.
Several authors have become recognized as futurists. They research trends, particularly in technology, and write their observations, conclu- sions, and predictions. In earlier eras, many futurists were at academic institutions. John McHale, author of The Future of the Future, published a 'Futures Directory', and directed a think tank called The Centre For
Integrative Studies at a university. Futurists have started consulting groups or earn money as speakers, with examples including Alvin Tof- fler, John Naisbitt and Patrick Dixon. Frank Feather is a business speak- er that presents himself as a pragmatic futurist. Some futurists have commonalities with science fiction, and some science-fiction writers, such as Arthur C. Clarke, are known as futurists. In the introduction to The Left Hand of Darkness, Ursula K. Le Guin distinguished futurists from novelists, writing of the study as the business of prophets, clair- voyants, and futurists. In her words, "a novelist's business is lying".
A survey found the following shared assumptions:
1. We are in the midst of a historical transformation. Current times are not just part of normal history.
2. Multiple perspectives are at heart of futures studies, including unconventional thinking, internal critique, and cross-cultural compari- son.
3. Consideration of alternatives. Futurists do not see themselves as value-free forecasters, but instead aware of multiple possibilities.
4. Participatory futures. Futurists generally see their role as liberat- ing the future in each person, and creating enhanced public ownership of the future.
5. Long-term policy transformation. While some are more policy- oriented than others, almost all believe that the work of futures studies is to shape public policy, so it consciously and explicitly takes into ac- count the long term.
6. Part of the process of creating alternative futures and of influ- encing public (corporate, or international) policy is internal transfor- mation. At international meetings, structural and individual factors are considered equally important.
7. Complexity. Futurists believe that a simple one-dimensional or single-discipline orientation is not satisfactory. Trans-disciplinary ap- proaches that take complexity seriously are necessary. Systems thinking, particularly in its evolutionary dimension, is also crucial.
8. Futurists are motivated by change. They are not content merely to describe or forecast. They desire an active role in world transformation.
9. They are hopeful for a better future as a "strange attractor".
10. Most believe they are pragmatists in this world, even as they imagine and work for another. Futurists have a long term perspective.
11. Sustainable futures, understood as making decisions that do not reduce future options, that include policies on nature, gender, and other accepted paradigms. This applies to corporate futurists and other non- governmental organizations. Environmental sustainability is reconciled with the technological, spiritual, and post-structural ideals. Sustainabil- ity is not a "back to nature" ideal, but rather inclusive of technology and culture.
Philosophy o forecast
The future is what will happen in the time after the present. Its arrival is considered inevitable due to the existence of time and the laws of physics. Due to the apparent nature of reality and the unavoidability of the future, everything that currently exists and will exist can be catego- rized as either permanent, meaning that it will exist forever, or tempo- rary, meaning that it will end. The future and the concept of eternity have been major subjects of philosophy, religion, and science, and de- fining them non-controversially has consistently eluded the greatest of minds. In the Occidental view, which uses a linear conception of time, the future is the portion of the projected time line that is anticipated to occur. In special relativity, the future is considered absolute future, or the future light cone. In the philosophy of time, presentism is the belief that only the present exists and the future and the past are unreal. Reli- gions consider the future when they address issues such as karma, life after death, and eschatologies that study what the end of time and the end of the world will be. Religious figures such as prophets and diviners have claimed to see into the future. Organized efforts to predict or fore- cast the future may have derived from observations by early men of heavenly objects. Future studies, or futurology is the science, art and practice of postulating possible futures. Modern practitioners stress the importance of alternative and plural futures, rather than one monolithic future, and the limitations of prediction and probability, versus the crea- tion of possible and preferable futures.
The concept of the future has been explored extensively in cultural production, including art movements and genres devoted entirely to its elucidation, such as the 20th century movement futurism. Forecasting is the process of estimating outcomes in uncontrolled situations. Forecast- ing is applied in many areas, such as weather forecasting, earthquake prediction, transport planning, and labour market planning. Due to the element of the unknown, risk and uncertainty are central to forecasting.
Statistically based forecasting employs time series with cross- sectional or longitudinal data. Econometric forecasting methods use the assumption that it is possible to identify the underlying factors that might influence the variable that is being forecast. If the causes are un- derstood, projections of the influencing variables can be made and used in the forecast. Judgmental forecasting methods incorporate intuitive judgments, opinions and probability estimates, as in the case of the Del- phi method, scenario building, and simulations. Prediction is similar to forecasting but is used more generally, for instance to also include base- less claims on the future. Organized efforts to predict the future began with practices like astrology, haruspicy, and augury. These are all con- sidered to be pseudoscience today, evolving from the human desire to know the future in advance.
Modern efforts such as future studies attempt to predict technological and societal trends, while more ancient practices, such as weather fore- casting, have benefited from scientific and causal modelling. Despite the development of cognitive instruments for the comprehension of future, the stochastic and chaotic nature of many natural and social processes has made precise forecasting of the future elusive.
Future studies or futurology is the science, art and practice of postu- lating possible, probable, and preferable futures and the worldviews and myths that underlie them. Futures studies seeks to understand what is likely to continue, what is likely to change, and what is novel. Part of the discipline thus seeks a systematic and pattern-based understanding of past and present, and to determine the likelihood of future events and trends. A key part of this process is understanding the potential future impact of decisions made by individuals, organisations and govern- ments. Leaders use results of such work to assist in decision-making.
Futures is an interdisciplinary field, studying yesterday's and today's changes, and aggregating and analyzing both lay and professional strat- egies, and opinions with respect to tomorrow. It includes analyzing the sources, patterns, and causes of change and stability in the attempt to develop foresight and to map possible futures. Modern practitioners stress the importance of alternative and plural futures, rather than one monolithic future, and the limitations of prediction and probability, ver- sus the creation of possible and preferable futures.
Three factors usually distinguish futures studies from the research conducted by other disciplines. First, futures studies often examines not only possible but also probable, preferable, and "wild card" futures. Se-
cond, futures studies typically attempts to gain a holistic or systemic view based on insights from a range of different disciplines. Third, fu- tures studies challenges and unpacks the assumptions behind dominant and contending views of the future. The future thus is not empty but fraught with hidden assumptions.
Futures studies does not generally include the work of economists who forecast movements of interest rates over the next business cycle, or of managers or investors with short-term time horizons. Most strate- gic planning, which develops operational plans for preferred futures with time horizons of one to three years, is also not considered futures. But plans and strategies with longer time horizons that specifically at- tempt to anticipate and be robust to possible future events, are part of a major subdiscipline of futures studies called strategic foresight.
The futures field also excludes those who make future predictions through professed supernatural means. At the same time, it does seek to understand the models such groups use and the interpretations they give to these models.
СПИСОК РЕКОМЕНДОВАННОЙ ЛИТЕРАТУРЫ
1. Арлазаров М. Винт и крыло, - Москва, Знание, 1980.– 140 с.
2. Боно Э. Шесть шляп мышления: - СПб. Питер; 1997. – 102 с
3. Бунге М. Интуиция и наука, - Москва, Наука, 1967 –123 с.
4. Веллингтон, П. Стратегии кайзен для успешных продаж / П. Веллингтон. – СПб: Питер, 2004. –272 с.
5. Горохов, В.Г. Техника и культура. Возникновение философии техникик и теории технического творчества в России и Герма- нии в конце XIX – начале XX столетия // В.Г. Горохов. – М.: Ло- гос, 2010. –. 376 с.
6. Ильин, Е.П. Психология творчества, креативности, одаренности.
– СПб.: Питер, 2011, - 434 с.
7. Имаи, М. Кайдзен: ключ к успеху японских компаний / М. Имаи
– М.,: Альпина Бизнес Букс, 2005. –271 с.
8. Имаи, М. Японское чудо / М. Имаи// Сой бизнес. – 2007. - № 1. – С.13-17.
9. Кайдзен для рабочих / Группа разработчиков издательства Productivity Press/ - М. Из-во ИКСИ, 2007. –152 с..
10.Кароу, И. Японские методы управления качеством / И. Кароу. – М.: Экономика, 1988. –215 с.
11.Креативная лаборатория: диалог творчесткх практик / М.С. Бе- дова [и др.];под общ. ред. О.А. Карлова. – М: Акад. Проект, 2009. –476 с.
12.Коленсо, М. Стратегия кайзен лоя успешных организационных перемен / М. Коленсо. – М.: ИНФА-М, 2002. –175
13.Куликов, Г.В. Японский менеджмент и теория международной конкурентноспособности / Г.В. Куликов. – М.: Экономика, 2000.
– 247 с..
14.Лендри, Ч. Креативный город / Ч. Лендри. – М.: Классика – XXL, 2005. –397 с.
15.Лойко, А.И. Духовность, наука, технологии, нравственность в современном обществе / А.И. Лойко // Духовность. Образова- ние. Наука: толерантность и нравственность в структуре духов- ной жизни общества. – Минск: БНТУ, 2017. – С. 24-43.
16.Лойко, А.И. Коэволюционная динамика и стратегии инноваци- онного развития Республики Беларусь / А.И. Лойко, В.П. Стар- жинский, Н.И. Мушинский, Е.Б. Якимович. – Минск: БНТУ, 2010. – 296 с.
17.Лойко, А.И. Курс лекций по философии техники / А.И. Лойко. – Минск: Технопринт, 2001. – 91 с.
18.Лойко, А.И. Методология инновационной деятельности: фило- софия техники и философская антропология / А.И. Лойко, Е.Б. Якимович. – Минск: БНТУ, 2010. – 156 с.
19.Лойко, А.И. Модернизация деятельности: философско- аксиологический аспект / А.И. Лойко. – Минск: Право и эконо- мика, 1997. – 160 с.
20.Лойко, А.И. Модернизация экономики и ее институциональные ресурсы / А.И. Лойко // Экономикс, 2014. № 2. - С. 6-10.
21.Лойко, А.И. Основы научных исследований / А.И. Лойко, И.И. Терлюкевич, В.И. Канарская. – Минск: БНТУ, 2012. – 83 с.
22.22.Лойко, А.И. Основы современного естествознания / А.И. Лойко, В.П. Старжинский, Э.А. Фонотова, В.И. Канарская. – Минск: БНТУ, 2012 – 119 с.
23.Лойко, А.И. Синергетика социального пространства / А.И. Лой- ко. - Саарбрюккен: Пальмариум Академик Публишинг, 2015. – 145 с.
24.Лойко, А.И. Социальная психология партикулярных структур / А.И. Лойко. – Саарбрюккен: Пальмариум Академик Публишинг, 2016. – 140 с.
25.Лойко, А.И. Технонаука и этико-гуманитарные исследования / А.И. Лойко // Философские традиции и современность. 2016. № 2. - С.34-37.
26.Лойко, А.И. Трибофатика и философия: стратегия трансдисци- плинарных исследований / А.И. Лойко // Вестник Белорусского государственного университета транспорта. 2016. № 1. – С. 45-
49.
27.Лойко, А.И. Четвертая промышленная революция: риски Евра- зии / А.И. Лойко // Thesauris: зборнiк навуковых прац. – Магiлеу: Магiлеускi iнстытут МУС, 2016. – С. 52-62.
28.Лойко, А.И. Философия дизайна / А.И. Лойко, Е.К. Булыго, Е.Б. Якимович. – Минск: БНТУ, 2017. - 81 с.
29.Лойко, А.И. Философия межкультурных отношений: Беларусь в диалоге цивилизаций / А.И. Лойко, В.А. Семенюк, Л.Е. Лойко, В. Юйхун. – Минск: БНТУ, 2012. – 147 с.
30.Лойко, А.И. Эффективное использование потенциала модерни- зации / А.И. Лойко, В.И. Канарская, Э.А. Фонотова. – Минск: БНТУ, 2011. – 147 с.
31.Мельникова, Е.В. Улучшения в стиле кайдзен / Е.В. Мельнико- ва// Методы менеджмента качества. – 2007.- № 3. – С.8-11
32.Мотивация персонала. Ключевой фактор менеджмента / под ред.
Й. Кондо. – Н.Новгород: СМЦ ―Приоритет‖, 2002. –206 с.
33.Оу, И. Японский менеджмент: прошлое, настоящее и будущее / И. Оу. – М.: Эксмо, 2007. –160 с.
34.Попов, А.Б. Синергетика/Изобретатель и изобретатель. – 1984,
№ 12. – С. 32-33.
35.Рансбер, Ж. На краю политического / Ж. Рансбер – СПб: Европ.
Ун-т, 2007 – 264 с.
36.Розин, В.М. Философия техники. Учебник для вузов // В.М. Ро- зин. – М.: Nota Bene, 2011 - 456 c.
37.Саламатов Ю.П., Как стать изобретателем: 50 часов творчества.
– М., Просвещение, 1990. –240 с.
38.Старжинский В.П. На пути к обществу инноваций / В.П. Стар- жинский, В.В. Цепкало. – Минск: РИВШ, 2016. – 446 с.
39.Столярова, О.Е. Социальный конструктивизм: антологический поворот (Послесловие к статье Б. Латура) / О.Е. Столярова // Вестн. Моск. ун-т, Сер. 7, Философия – 2003. - №3, - С. 39-51.
40.Творческие индустрии в современном городе: как развивать та- лант и предпринимательство в Санкт – Петербурге / Под ред. Е. Беловой [и др.]. – СПб: Tacis, 2002 – 44 с.
41.Турен, А. Возвращение человека действующего: очерк социоло- гии / А. Турен. – М.: Научн. Мир.,1998 – 203 с.
42.Философия. Идеологическая и воспитательная направленность лекций и семинарских занятий. Методические рекомендации. Под общей редакцией А.И. Лойко. – Минск: БНТУ, 2014. – 127 с.
43.Флорида, Р. Креативный класс: люди, которые меняют будущее/ Р. Флорида. – М.: Кластика – XXI, 2005. – 419 с.
44.Формирование навыков креативного мышления у студентов при изучении философии, логики. Конспект лекций для студентов всех специальностей. Под общей редакцией А.И. Лойко. – Минск: БНТУ, 2015. – 80 с.
45.Хюбнер, Б. Произвольный этос и принудительность эстетики / Б. Хюбнер. – М.: Прометей, 2000. - 152 с.
46.Хюбнер, Б. Смысл в бес-СМЫСЛЕННОЕ время: метафориче- ские расчеты, просчеты и сведения счетов/ Б. Хюбнер. – Минск: Экономпресс, 2008 - 384с.
47.Шустов, М.А. Методические основы инженерно-технического творчества. – Томск: Изд-во Томск. Политехн. Ун-та, 2010. – 78 с.
48.Электронный ресурс. Материалы сайта: Центр Think –Tech – теория решения изобретательских задач.
49.Энгельмейер, П.К. Теория творчества/ П.К. Энгельмейер. – М: ЛКИ, 2007. – 208 с.
50. Adorno,T. W. The culture industry: selected essays on mass culture /
T.W. Adorno. – London: Rontladge, 2001 – 215 p.
51. Caves, R.E. Creative industries: contract between art and comers /
R.E. Caves. – Harvart: Harvart Unir. Press, 2002- 464 p.
52. Hartley, J. Creative industries / J. Hartley// Creative industries/ed J. Hartley - Malolen, 2008 – Р. 1-40.
53. Harvey, D. The condition of post modernity: an enquiry into origins of cultural change / D. Harvey.- Oxford: Basic Blackwell, 1990. – 378 p.
54. Porter, M/ The competitive advantage of nations / M. Porter/ - 2 - ed/
- New York: Fru Press, 1998. – 896 p.
55. Porter, M / Local clusters in a global economy / M. Porter// Creative industries/ J. Hartley. Malden, 2008. – Р. 259-268
Дата: 2019-07-24, просмотров: 321.
