Opening new doors... the 4th IR offers a wealth of opportunities that will challenge our present abilities that range from security, to processing applications.
How Did ‘WHAT’ Happen?
It comes as no surprise that we discover the animal-machine industrial revolution 3.0 is making a silent exit. This forward advancement is enticed by new value and economic horizons. What might be a bit shocking is the realisation that the advent of personal computing was not the catalyst but merely a participant.
As we race about preoccupied by social distractions, the lure of intriguing technologies, a wide assortment of entertaining outlets and the need for essential daily self-promotion, we failed to see it coming. We felt a certain level of uneasiness as a result of disruptions and an even more unsettled confusion about where to vest our energies, but we most likely passed it off as normality. What really was happening behind the scenes was a rather significant shift in paradigms. A shift that embraced cohesion between us and the changing role of machines from purposeful to dutiful.
Klaus Schwab – Founder and Executive Chairman of the World Economic Forum, is credited for shedding light on this emergence in his book The Fourth Industrial Revolution. Some would contend that his views reflect a economists view. While this conjecture have some truth, one cannot help but wonder if there were deeply seated opportunities that finally emerged from the depths of the collision of technologies that has been emerging for at least the last two decades.
What Does It All Mean?
It’s time to reassess ourselves. Most likely, our earlier confused ambitions will be further challenged with the possibilities that exist. At the centre of this assessment is the question of our ‘cohesive formula’, the combination of the participative give and take. We will find a wealth of opportunities that will challenge our present abilities that range from security, to processing applications.
Our journey into reexamination will challenge initiatives on the drawing boards, those underway and routine maintenance being exercised. Fortunately, the transition into the 4th IR is not definitive but fluidic, it will take years to achieve even with the present technologies and know-how, despite the rapid rates that we operate at. One must understand that the 4th IR is not in full form. Contributing technologies remain as works in progress, some serving as wonderful examples illustrating possibilities and will remain in their infancy possibility to disappear and then reappear at a much later time during the course of the revolution.
An example that some of you may be familiar with was the learning machine demo carried out by Google. Undoubtedly, though this introduction was captivating and appealing, it also showed that there remained improvements to be made. However, this wasn’t about immediate proficiency but rather to draw attention to the possibilities that exists. It also signified the importance of cohesion and how separation can become a major destructive event.
One concern with the 4th IR centres on governments who have made gradual, but slow adoption of technology in the 3rd IR paradigm.
The 4th IR Influence on YOU
From a high vantage point, I personally am not too worried about the 4th IR What is troubling is the issue of cohesive relationships and by the means it can be achieved.
Cohesion is in some ways interfacing relations, but the key difference being an intelligent virtual passive gateway. An interface is a solid relationship between one or more entities, the intelligent virtually passive gateway is one in which state/conditional events trigger the interfaction. In short, processdriven interfaces vs. event-driven cohesive gateways.
In non-technical jargon, it could equate to your interactions with a range of suppliers based on a particular event taking place. This would be unlike routine day-to-day interactions such as showing your ID to a security guard. A similar situation in the context of the 4th IR would be self-driving cars that use a myriad of components to allow for intervention based on conditions, even reverting to manual human override.
To achieve cohesion, we shift from the concept of negotiation to one of controlled permissiveness. We control what we provide and permit other elements to enjoy. At the same time, we acquire cohesion from other participants and it is quite likely that there will be a slow rate of growth in this regard. Don’t expect full access from the onset, but as we grow and learn as to the extent of the possibilities, there will be a need for change. We will also see a broadening of the number of cohesive relations being formed that far exceed the number of interface relationships that exist.
Peer negotiations and agreements will be formed to usher in the formation of cohesive gateways. Credibility will be a key a factor that will determine the speed and the permissiveness given in this newfound relationship. The effects to which will radically change the organisational and operational dynamics of business. The Software Engineering Institute (SEI) measures and awards engineering maturity based on the Capability Maturity Model Integration (CMMI) framework, yet only 5,000 companies have been assessed. This leaves us with the question as to how much credibility and trust can be assured? First of all, an assessment is a measure of conditions, and these set the climate for credible capability.
However, it is not a guarantee but an indication that the positive potential exists. It will ultimately be the deployment of these pragmatic virtues that will determine control, trust, credibility and ultimately durability in cohesion that is a backbone mandate of the 4th IR.
National Challenges on Lagging Nations
Everyone will be touched by the 4th IR in some shape or form. It is likely that most will face ambitious challenges. New enablers and the dynamics of human thinking will place the degree of flexibility at its limits. One concern with the 4th IR centres on governments who have made gradual, but slow, adopting of technology in the 3rd IR paradigm. Initiatives involving the digitisation of records, eCommerce and the shift into a participative role in the Internet of Things (IoT) for service delivery, continues to lag behind commercial enterprises.
This gaps in maturity burden the evolving process of the 4th IR by creating delay. Inevitably, there will be a need for revisions of legislation, the removal of intra-agency separation, and the introduction of laws relative to privacy, security and use of data.
This creates not just disadvantages, but reshapes the way we would go about adopting and adapting. We must not ignore the importance of giving attention to human capital in both the science of the 4th IR and also the social adaptations that must be undertaken.
Do not take this imbalance lightly, as a nation can no longer be considered an island in the global context. At the most fundamental levels, disaster preparedness and relief are critical elements that will benefit from the 4th IR. Through early detection and damage assessment, automatic robotic deployment of resources or artificial intelligence applied to reconstructive efforts can be deployed. But without information from the affected nation, these elements of the 4th IR are inefficiently and expeditiously hobbled.
Given these conditions, all governments must act and assess now. This will not be an easy feat and will be one that will require an internal spirit of reshaping the government and discontinue the age-old practice of pillar protection. It will tear down barriers between nations if there is a hope that the 4th IR will be a positive shift.
In many of the market collaboratives (ASEAN, NAFTA, and EU), these discussions have hardly started and their tone has remained diplomatic. Sharing and collaboration may be the main objective but operationally, they remain staunch self-promoters using the collective as a simplistic show of strength. Therefore it will be the individual governments themselves that will have to undertake this exercise.
In some recent broad-based discussions, I asked the question about feasibility. To my surprise, most organisations felt they were ready to accept the challenges of 4th IR. But when questioned further, these opinions were based on specific technologies like analytics, robotic process automation (RPA), industrial robotics and dabbling in artificial intelligence (AI). It was not based upon cohesion and the interaction between man, industry and physical conditions. This was universally the case for all industries represented in these informal discussions, leaving us to believe that there remains a lot of work to be done and mindsets to change. A resounding need for guidance, unbiased coaching and active facilitation was shared by all that were making decisions or contending with the 4th IR engagement efforts.
Attention must be given to the 4th IR recipients, specifically the global societies made up of individuals. Will the 4th IR deprive select groups, whether it be based on economic status, age or even social responsibilities that may raise concerns about the 4th IR misuse? Keeping in the mind that cohesive interaction between the 4th IR elements will create global visibility – unless contained, the inner soul of governments, businesses and individuals will create potential opportunities for misuse.
One cannot rely simply on negotiated cohesion but must also take action within our own enterprises to manage exposures accordingly. Also, present day attention to data privacy remains an ongoing concern and attention continues to be given (initial attention afforded back in 1974 Data Privacy Laws and subsequently adapted to address Transborder Data Sharing and commercial management of customer data), which will greatly help the cohesive relationships formed under the 4th IR.
Ensuring all issues are fixed...we must rely upon the skills, training and experience developed over the course of the 3rd IR.
There is NO Conclusion
The 4th IR is here and now. It is no more avoidable than a screaming child in a crowded plane. The question isn’t whether we respond but rather how we will do so. Most certainly we may be not entirely ready but have we ever been? It’s for this reason that we must rely upon the skills, training and experience developed over the course of the 3rd IR.
We know that we need to:
• Have a vision that is cohesively thinking beyond the present to a landscape of opportunities.
• Bolster pragmatic engineering and decision making paradigms to advance credibility.
• Center our focus on the landscape and not the elements that comprise the present list of the 4th IR attributes.
• Encourage others to advance their efforts in order to affect a positive and expedient growth in the 4th IR.
• Cast aside silos/pillars that inhabit a productive role in the 4th IR and accelerate the potential in others who are bonded with us.
• Seek help to engage the necessary contemplation, free thinking, and create abject independence that is free from defensive bias.
The 4th IR is powerful, and as with most change, quite risky if engaged in a haphazard way. This is not simply about technological utilisation but empowerment. A competency that remains a vested responsibility of humans to inapt technological servitude.
Humans will always play a stewardship responsibility in the delivery of deployed unified cohesive solutions. Our transition will not be without challenges, but it will also carry with it advances that can achieve greater fundamental social value.
Jerry E. Durant is the Founder & Chairman of 3rdLAW.
