Thread by @swardley

X : Thoughs on industrial 4.0?
Me : In 2006-2008, I gave numerous public talks about how we were approaching a new industrial age.
X : So, you agree?
Me : Not with the term. This is about the 8th industrial age, this idea of it being the 4th is not mindful of the past.

I also don't like this pre-event classification, hence the "about", "approaching". The causes of the change seem to driven by social media, industrialisation of pre-existing activities, access to data and the changes are vast and recently accelerated by the isolation economy,

X : What changes?
Me : Long list ...
1. SWARMING (of people and machines)
2. DISTRIBUTED AND INDIRECT LEARNING
3. DISTRIBUTION OF PROVISION (not power but provision)
4. ACCEPTANCE OF STANDARDS (identification and adoption of)
...

5. INCENTIVES & FUNDING MODELS (worth based / outcome based models)
6. FOCUS ON INTENT (long term goals)
7. MANAGEMENT OF CONSTRAINTS (including enabling constraints)
8. FOCUS ON PRINCIPLES (over beliefs)
9. SUPPLY CHAIN MANAGEMENT
...

10. IMMERSION
11. RESOURCE MANAGEMENT
12. SUSTAINABILITY (not just tickboxes in a CSR)
13. REUSABILITY
14. MANAGING INERTIA (models for identifying and managing)
...

15. RESILIENCE (both engineering and ecological)
16. MOBILISATION (of people and resources)
17. MANIPULATION (of perceptions and defense against)
18. SITUATIONAL AWARENESS
19. AUGMENTED INTELLIGENCE
...

20. REDUCTION OF WASTE
21. RADICALISATION (beyond PR)
22. PROTECTIONISM (including conservation)
23. CORPORATE SHARING (including models for using open source)
24. ADAPTATION (anticipation of change and reacting to)
25. PERCEPTION OF TRUST (creation and maintenance)
...

26. ETHICS
27. SECURITY (in a virtual world including defense against deep fakes)
28. SOFT POWER (application to a corporate setting)
29. AUTONOMOUS (people and machines)
30. SIMULATION (including digital twins)
31. BASELINES (re-evaluation and use of)
...

32. AUTOMATION (of processes, identification of such)
33. LOCATION
34. DIVERSITY (creating sustainable and resilient systems)
35. SAFETY (including psychological)
36. BIOLOGICAL MIMICRY (learning from nature)
...

37. LOGISTICS
38. EXPERIENTIAL MODELS (mechanisms of learning)
39. ASSET OPTIMISED BUSINESS MODELS
40. FORECASTING (and scenario planning)
41. AMORPHOUS BOUNDARIES (fluidity between systems)

... most of the stuff I read on "industry 4.0" is not mindful of history, it lacks situational awareness and basic economic patterns, fails to understand the causes or even the implications. Most of it feels like storytellers flogging themselves as mystic megs of the future.

So, no, I'm not a fan of the term, I don't use it and I don't engage with it.

X : So, it's industry 8.0?
Me : Which bit of "about", "approaching" do you not get? We will know a long time after the event (post event classification) ... we are still arguing over the dates for the first industrial revolution.

Then you have to add in the complication that there are many smaller waves of change ... so this sequential ordering implying some linear process is frustrating. I prefer generic terms ... the age of oil etc. I understand what they're trying to do (I've marked their ages in red)

... I just don't agree with this pre-event linear style classification. We're still in the "people are still coming up with names for it" age ... let alone describing the next cycle and designating it as Industry 4.0 or whatever.

X : There will be another age though?
Me : There will always be another age (assuming supply and demand competition exists) as the evolution of technology causes a co-evolution of practice which leads to societal changes and new organisational forms.

When those changes of practice are large (i.e. impact many value chain i.e power or communication or compute) then we tend to describe it as an age. There are lots of smaller waves which are more localised (impact few value chains) which don't get that monniker.

X : Why social media?
Me : Communication ... it's a massive impact, hits many value chains. People seriously underestimate its impact and often concentrate on the negative (i.e. misinformation) rather than the positive (i.e. challenge of existing orthodoxy).

i.e. most of the list above is being directly impacted by social media and access to data. I know people go "robots" and "AI" and yes, there is industrialisation occuring and AI has a large impact but that's only a fraction of what is happening.

X : IoT?
Me : Industrialisation of sensors is part of the story, so is further industrialisation of networks.
X : 5G?
Me : Hmmm, that's just a protocol / radio interface ... think more starlink and project kuiper vs wired or wireless ISPs.

X : You say mystic meg but you predict with maps!
Me : You can't predict except the simplest of things which are already known. You can anticipate change but there are boundaries i.e. ...

... with climatic patterns you can often say what [high p(what)] is going to happen but not when [low p(when)] or you can say when something will happen [high p(when)] but not what will happen [low p(what)] but you still face the issue that the map will be imperfect and wrong ...

... imperfect because it's a map and wrong because it's a model. Hence the best you can hope to do is anticipate. Maps aren't a crystal ball and I have no way of removing uncertainty because at the heart of a map is uncertainty ...

... i.e. we only become certain once the components become a commodity and then we can say with certainty what its past was. Until that point, it's all anticipation, uncertainty.
X : So why use them?
Me : Usefulness. That's it. Maps aren't crystal balls.

X : I don't udnerstand that.
Me : When you look at a map, then it's an imperfect presentation of the space in the myriad of potential possibilities. When you anticipate (i.e. apply patterns) you're trying to find the likely path through a myriad of future possibilities ...

... maps help you do that, to navigate through the myriad of possibilities. They won't give you the answer but they help you steer. You still have to decide, you have to apply thought, you have to make the choice. They are an aid, a useful tool.

Which is also why, if you don't find them useful then ... don't use them.

X : Where is time on the map?
Me : There is no time. You measure time by the change of a map. I had to abolish the concept of time and replace it with uncertainty in order to create a map ... it's all in the book - medium.com/wardleymaps.

So with a map you don't use time, you use anticipation, weak signals etc. There are some patterns we can predict with a higher predictability of when (i.e. a rapid explosion of new things) after an event (industrialisation of a technology) but that's about it.

X : Can you explain more?
Me : On possibilities? You use the map and patterns to try and identify what is possible, what you should act upon and then use it to discuss the future path (red dots)

X : What's FinDev?
Me : It's what most would now call FinOps. That map is bit old. it was a past anticipation. You'd have to update it if you want to use it today.

X : How should Gov react to industry 4.0?
Me : Hmmm. First, stop using the term. Second, gain a bit of situational awareness. Third, learn to apply different economic approaches depending upon how evolved something is.

X : Invest in industrialising data centres?
Me : That's an old map from 2012 and an example of how to apply different approaches. Even back then the right approach was to remove DCs and focus on using IaaS (compute as a utility). Today, you should be focused on serverless.