Flaws in grand and minor technological narratives
There are plenty of narratives about technological futures, but most seem flimsy. Effective ones need to be well-grounded in realities, not just be aspirational.
My most creative futures work, so far, has been the Four short science scenarios article I had published ten years ago in the Journal of the Royal Society of New Zealand. This imagined different ways in which scientific research could develop in Aotearoa New Zealand in 2030. I still think it is good, when read as provocations rather than prediction.
Continuing on the theme of narratives from my last post, there are plenty of narratives about how technologies can or will shape our future. Narratives are important in helping drive (or resist) change. Regardless of whether they aspire to be grand narratives or minor ones a shared weakness of many technological futures stories and visions is oversimplification. Here I give examples of both, and highlight the need for New Zealand to develop better ones.
Grand technological narratives
At one end of the spectrum are those creating “grand narratives.” These are usually from Silicon Valley, or from those hoping to become part of it. A recent example is Peter Leyden who is developing what he calls “The great progression: 2025 to 2050”
“… a new grand narrative of our historic opportunity to harness AI and other transformative technologies in order to make a much better world in the next 25 years”
As with most techno-futurists, Leyden views technologies as the solution to many of the world’s woes. Progress is a smooth S-curve, uncomplicated by confounding social, political, economic, technological, and environmental realities. And the “old world” is completely, and similarly seamlessly, replaced. Both characterisations are a sure sign of weak futures thinking.
The Three Horizons method provides a more useful tool to consider realistic technological, and other, transitions.
As I noted in my first Future Salience post, grand narratives are generally simplistic and misleading – regardless of whether you are looking forwards or backwards.
Minor local technological narratives
In Aotearoa New Zealand we tend to be at the other end of the spectrum – minor narratives. In terms of scope and scale. Sir Paul Callaghan tried to change that 16 years ago with his book Wool to Weta, but with limited success.
This small-scale thinking is due to a variety of factors – complacency, a failure of imagination or ambition, a focus just on structural & organisational issues, and a reliance on myths.
A report by the consultancy Coriolis into opportunities for developing an advanced bioeconomy in New Zealand noted the tendency to overestimate our technological and innovation capabilities
“New Zealand believes it has world leading capabilities in all agriculture and wider bioeconomy disciplines - In particular, New Zealand regularly highlights that it is ‘world-class’; it is difficult to find a capability where New Zealand does not claim to be ‘world-class’”
Last year’s Science System Advisory Group Report noted another aspect of our culture that contributes to poor levels of innovation
“For reasons based in our cultural mythology (‘number 8 wire’, ‘we punch above our weight’, etc.) and selective interpretation by officials across core agencies over many years, New Zealand is an outlier in its attitude to science. Every other small, advanced country and most major countries, as well as the European Union, have long recognised and demonstrated the core role of SI&T in advancing productivity. Indeed, the international consensus is that investing in SI&T is now the core element to productivity enhancement. … But New Zealand has for too long chosen a different path and has seen its relative wealth and position decline, content to live off past R&D investments in the primary sector.”
One technological future for “NZ Inc.”
An example of poor quality thinking is the proposal for the country’s economic future from the New Zealand office of the Boston Consulting Group
“If we imagine New Zealand in 2050, what will it be known for? And what will foster growth in its existing and upcoming industries?”
They identify five “high-value industrial ecosystems” that could enhance the country’s economic performance. Their definition of an ecosystem is
“… a dynamic environment in which businesses, research institutions and government bodies collaborate to leverage shared resources and synergies, often based in the same geographical area. Ecosystems are focused on industries and capabilities. They aim to accelerate economic development and create competitive advantages that lead to self-sustaining industry growth.”
The five ecosystems that BCG think are worthwhile for New Zealand to explore are:
1. Agriculture 4.0
2. Space and satellites
3. Green tech
4. Future of medicine
5. Creative industries
No surprises there, and I’m left feeling underwhelmed. While it’s good to see more local future-focussed discussions, BCG’s analysis seems superficial. Coriolis’ reports on emerging and future platforms for the bioeconomy are a much better analysis.
BCG may be right on what areas will be important. Most of those opportunities have been raised over the last two decades. And many other countries are also pursuing these.
This seems part of a push that that BCG is making internationally promoting innovation ecosystems and the advisory services they can provide. Innovation ecosystems are already important in some other places, as they point out. But I’m unimpressed with their pitch, finding their ecosystem narrative simplistic for several reasons.
Firstly, what they focus on is just components, without an exploration of how to create an effective and enduring ecosystem. Their identification of a centralised “Orchestrator” and emphasis on “channelling financial resources” suggests (perhaps unintentionally) a command-and-control structure, rather than a dynamic network that (innovation) ecosystems typically have.
The “Orchestrator” component facilitates collaboration and connections.
“Successful innovation ecosystems require a credible ecosystem orchestrator—an organization with a major stake in the financial investment necessary as well as the benefits to be captured. The key job of the orchestrator is to set up a governance model for the entire ecosystem; in this role, the orchestrator should maintain a central position in the ecosystem blueprint, with a significant stake in the ecosystem’s success and a reputation as a fair and neutral player.”
Yes, a coordination role is critical, but BCG do not address the way research and development is moving away from the traditional model of the “funder sets the rules” and institutional gate-keeping, which have been key constraints for many past innovation projects. Successful innovation ecosystems evolve, with shifting semi-permanent relationships, some participants leaving or joining along the way, and adaptive R&D priorities.
Secondly, BCG’s list of groups or actors is exclusionary, a key risk for innovation ecosystems. It doesn’t include some important components – non-science & technology professionals, Polytechs, and learned societies. Their roles in innovation were emphasised by the UK’s 2014 Allas report on science and innovation systems
“non-STEM professionals … provide critical services to the science and innovation system from managerial and clerical to energy supply”
The UK’s most recent innovation report laments the lower share of workers there with vocational education and the technical skills needed by industries compared with other advanced economies.
In Aotearoa the growing value of including mātauranga Māori and cultural perspectives in supporting innovation has been highlighted by the National Science Challenge Science for Technological Innovation, and the Science System Advisory Group.
Where’s the mindset change?
A third problem I have with BCG’s economic ecosystems narrative is the absence of a discussion about developing an innovation mindset. They seem to assume a “build it and they will come” attitude. Over the past few decades New Zealand has tried developing new “economic engines”, such as biotechnology and advanced manufacturing. None of these have fulfilled their ambitions.
What New Zealand has done reasonably well at, as the Coriolis report discusses, is thinking rather than executing
“In farming systems, New Zealand is stuck in McKinsey’s unhealthy pattern called “ideas but not building businesses.””
Yes, we have a fledgling space industry now, an amazing high-performance boat building sector (whose expertise and novel materials support rocket companies too), a strong film industry, small biotech firms, and some great digital companies. But they aren’t yet providing the scale and revenue of the agriculture and tourism sectors.
Ecosystems are the appropriate way to help achieve that scale, it’s just BCG have done a lame job at covering important issues. They jump to what the ecosystems could be without addressing some of the fundamentals for creating the conditions for those systems to emerge and flourish.
These are more adequately discussed by Klerkx et al. (2023) and some of the reports from Science for Technological Innovation. The Science System Advisory Group also describe other institutional incentives and regulatory settings, and poor funding and communication practices that inhibit rather than enhance more collaborative and innovative economic activities.
Sadly, the current and previous governments haven’t taken much of this on board. Centralised control, low levels of funding, and incentivising short-term outputs and outcomes seem to be still in favour.
Whether the current government will progress all of the recommendations from the Science System Advisory Group (and the as yet unreleased associated report from the Advisory Group on universities) appears unlikely. Their decision dictating which scientific disciplines contribute to economic growth illustrates they are stuck in old ways of thinking.
After the narrative
I concluded my Four short science scenarios article
“While chance plays a role in science, new policies, approaches and organisational changes will be required so that our future does not just rest on hopes.”
That’s still seems to be waiting to happen. Narratives have come and gone, and will keep on coming. They can be a powerful way to drive change. But they need to have depth and have a strong connection to current realities.
However, the Coriolis report stressed the importance of not just abandoning some narratives but to also not see narratives as end points
“We need to move beyond descriptive and narrative driven discussions of capabilities; New Zealand needs improvement in multiple areas to deliver on the bioeconomy of the future…A capability is not a descriptive or narrative story or marketing pitch, rather it is the ability to execute.”