1 © 2007 joel cutcher-gershenfeld, working group on lateral alignment in complex systems,...

© 2007 Joel Cutcher-Gershenfeld, Working Group on Lateral Alignment in Complex Systems, University of Illinois and MIT – Materials available for educational use

1

Lateral Alignment in Lateral Alignment in Innovation NetworksInnovation Networks

FAB 4:The Fourth International Fab Lab Forumand Symposium on Digital Fabrication

August 2007

Presentation by: Joel Cutcher-Gershenfeld

University of Illinois, [email protected]


2

Innovation increasingly takes place through interconnected networks where . . .

. . . stakeholders must be able to orient and connect with one another to . . .

. . . identify for new ideas

. . . combine resources in new ways

. . . impact the social, economic, legal and institutional context

Will these networks become the dominant organizational and

institutional form for the 21st Century?


3

Next Generation Air Transportation System (NGATS)

Stakeholder misalignment in innovation networks may not just be bad . . . it can be catastrophic

Fraction of SafetyIncidents Reported

Quality of IncidentInvestigation

Resources forIncident Investigation

Perceived RiskIndex Goal

Likelihood of Reporting andparticipating in incident

investigation

+

EmployeeParticipation

OrganizationMemory Loss Time

Normal IncidentRate

Normal Quality ofInvestigation

System TechnicalRisk (1)

Fear of ReportingTime to Perceive

Risk

PerceivedRisk Index

Perceived RiskChange

Effectiveness ofInvestigation Process

LessonsLearned

Forgetting RateLearning Rate

Time to InternalizeLessons Learned Initial LL

<Isolate IncidentLearning Model>

System Technical Riskvalue in isolation (1)

<System TechnicalRisk>

Effectiveness ofReporting Process

<Status of SafetyOrganization>

<amount and effectiveness ofcrossboundary

communication>

Employee Sensitization toSafety Problems Value

OrganizationalTendencyto Assign Blame

<SchedulePressure>

Quality andquantity ofLessonsLearned

Rate of LL QualityIncrease

Rate of LL QualityDecrease

Initial QualityIndex

Average LessonQuality

<Ratio of AvailableSystem SafetyResources>

<System SafetyEfforts and Efficacy>

tendency for rootcause learning

Normal IncidentReporting Fraction

Table for Effect of Actions onIncentives to Report Incidents

and Participate

Effect of Actions onIncentives to Report Incidents

and Participate

Table for Effectof Overburden

Effect of InvestigationOverburden


Ratio of Available SystemSafety Resources in

Isolation

Ratio of Available SystemSafety Resources Value


Employee Sensitization toSafety Problems in

Isolation


Incidents ReportedIncidentsIncident

Reporting Rate

UnreportedIncidents

UnreportedIncident Rate

Incident Rate

Time to make incidentreporting decision

DiscardedIncidents

IncidentsUnder

InvestigationRate of IncidentInvestigations

Rate of DiscardedIncidents

maxium number ofincidents underinvestigation

IncidentInvestigationOverburden

fraction of incidentsinvestigated

normal fraction ofincidents investigated

thoroughness ofinvestigation process

Time to makeinvestigation decisions

rate of investigationcompletion

Incidents withcompleted

investigation

rate of incidents leadingto systemic action

rate of symptomaticactions implemented

rate of incidents leading tono future action decision

burriedincidents

time to completeinvestigation

effect of utilization ratio ontime to complete

investigation

table for effect of utilizationratio on time to complete

investigation

normal time tocomplete investigation

effect of quality ofinvestigation on time tocomplete investigation

table for effect of quality ofinvestigation on time tocomplete investigation

time to addresscompleted

investigations

Quality ofcompleted

investigationsRate of qualityinvestigation increase

Rate of investigationutilization

average quality ofcompleted investigations

total incidentinvestigations resolved

fraction of incidentsreceiving corrective

action

fraction of incidents receivingaction that receive systemic

action

normal fraction of incidentsreceivin action that receive

systemic action

effect of schedule pressure onfraction of incidents receiving action

that receive systemic action

table for effect of schedule pressureon fraction of incidents receiving

action that receive systemic action

effect of available resources onfraction of incidents receiving

corrective action

table for effect of availableresources on fraction of incidents

receiving corrective action

normal fraction of incidentsreceiving corrective action

normal number ofincidents underinvestigation

fraction of incidents receivingaction that receivesympotmatic action

effect of fraction of incidents receivingaction that receive sympotmatic actionon organizational tendency to assign

blame

table for effect of fraction of incidentsreceiving action that receive sympotmatic

action on organizational tendency toassign blame

Schedule Pressure inIsolation (1)

Schedule PressureValue (1)


System Safety Efforts andEfficacy in isolation (2)

System Safety Effortsand Efficacy Value (2)normal tendency for

root cause learningeffect of system safety effortsand efficacy on tendency for

root cause learning

table for effect of system safetyefforts and efficacy on tendency

for root cause learning

effect of schedule pressureon tendency for root cause

learning

table for effect of schedulepressure on tendency for root

cause learning

Normalized Quality andQuantity of lessons

learned

<Type ofLearning>

<Degree ofIndependence of Safety

Oversight>

Fraction of Safety IncidentsReported when high

Indepence

Fraction of incidentsinvestigate when high

indepence


Oversight>

rate ofsymptomatic

actionsreworked

fraction of correctiveactions rejected by review

panel

rate of incidents leading tosymptomatic corrective

action


Oversight>

table for effect of degree ofindependence on fraction of

corrective actions rejected by reviewpanel

NASA Moon/Mars Mission

Consider the consequences of misalignment in these and other innovation networks . . .

DoD Global Information Grid

International Civil Aviation Organization

AAEA

Next Generation Air Transportation System

Internet BackboneGlobal Water Partnership


4

Four types of stakeholder alignment

↓ top-down alignment

↑ bottom-up alignment

↔ lateral alignment

↕ cross-layer alignmentExamples: • Government regulation• Commodity supply chains • Re-engineering initiatives

Examples:• Open source software• Grameen bank micro- lending• Kaizen-Teian continuous improvement systems

Examples: • Strategic alliances and partnerships• Multi-stakeholder forums in complex systems• Voluntary protocols and standards

Examples:• Government (federal, state, local)• Telephone (local, long distance)• Internet (end user, middleware, etc.)

Source: Adapted from visual representation by Dietrich Falkenthal, MITRE and MIT


5

Defining lateral alignment

“The extent to which interdependent stakeholders orient and connect with one another to advance their separate and shared interests.”

Source: MIT Working Group on Lateral Alignment in Complex System, Joel Cutcher-Gershenfeld and Joel Moses (co-chairs)

Assumptions:– No single, overarching hierarchical organization– Multiple stakeholders with common and competing interests

– Accelerating rates of technological change


6

Focus on an earlier period of transition150 car makers in Indiana since the turn of the century -- only a handful doing final assembly in Indiana today (GM, Honda, Subaru, Toyota)

Leading manufacturer -- Auburn Motors -- established an assembly line with standardized parts, but it was fixed for chassis -- moving manually from one set of saw horses to another -- and they resisted abandoning wood for steel in body frames. They almost had the new mass production system.

What will we say in the future about what is almost an innovation network?

Source: Auburn & Cord by Lee Beck and Josh B. Malks, Motor Books, Intl., 1996


7

At the frontiers of theory, practice and policy

Applied Research Basic Science

Informal Science?


8

Towards a theory framework

Sta

keh

old

er

Communications & Information SharingLeadership & Decision MakingNegotiations & Conflict ResolutionLearning & Development

Functional/ Structural Alignment

(middle cycle)

Work Flow & Technical InterdependenceLevels of Governance & Forums Functional Roles & Technical Expertise Performance Metrics & Reward SystemsSupport Functions & Support Systems

Systems/ Cultural

Alignment (Long cycle)

Overarching Systems ArchitecturesCore Interests, Priorities & Strategic IntentUnderlying Values, Norms & Assumptions

Sta

keh

old

er

Behavioral Alignment (short cycle)

Source: MIT Working Group on Lateral Alignment in Complex System, Joel Cutcher-Gershenfeld and Joel Moses (co-chairs)


9

Applying Principles to the Fab Lab Network

(using a mix of examples from fab labs and research on the Next Generation Air Transportation System)


10

1) Strategically mix loosely and tightly coupled connections over time. . .

Loosely Coupled: Engage Full Network; Strengthen Ties Over Time

Tightly Coupled: Build Strong Core; Extend Network Over Time

Note: Illustrative charts, not drawn with specific data

Hybrid Process: Establish Weak Ties; Create a Strong Core; Strengthen Over TimeWhich connections among Fab Labs

and other stakeholders need to be tightly coupled and which ones

should be loosely coupled?


11

2) Leverage via protocols and standards

Fab Lab Charter

Mission: fab labs enable invention by providing access for individuals to tools for digital fabrication.

Access: you can use the fab lab to make almost anything (that doesn't hurt anyone); you must learn to do it yourself, and you must share use of the lab with other uses and users

Education: training in the fab lab is based on doing projects and learning from peers; you're expected to contribute to documentation and instruction

Responsibility: you're responsible for:safety: knowing how to work without hurting people or machinescleaning up: leaving the lab cleaner than you found itoperations: assisting with maintaining, repairing, and reporting on the lab's tools and supplies

Secrecy: designs and processes developed in fab labs must remain available for individual use although intellectual property can be protected however you choose

Business: commercial activities can be incubated in fab labs but they must not conflict with open access, they should grow beyond rather than within the lab, and they are expected to benefit the inventors, labs, and networks that contribute to their success.

draft: 6/26/07 What are the “minimum critical specifications” for global Fab Lab

innovation networks?


12

3) Leadership by influence, not authority

60 stakeholders from 38 organizations

• 6 months• 1 vision• 3 recommended actions

A National Vision for Aviation and the Environment:

In 2025, significant health and welfare impacts of aviation community noise and local air quality emissions will be reduced in absolute terms, notwithstanding the anticipated growth in aviation. Uncertainties regarding both the contribution of aviation to climate change, and the impacts of aviation particulate matter and hazardous air pollutants, will be reduced to levels that enable appropriate action. Through broad inclusion and sustained commitment among all stakeholders, the US aerospace enterprise will be the global leader in researching, developing and implementing technological, operational and policy initiatives that jointly address mobility and environmental needs.

How to ensure the distributed leadership needed to enable a

global Fab Lab network?


13

4) Internal Alignment for Lateral AlignmentFormal AEE

StructureICAO/CAEP Structure

Environment IPT Research Partnerships

Periodic “Crises”

Front OfficeChief ScientistSenior Adv. for Environmental PolicySpecial Asst. for Economic Environmental AnalysisInternational/ JPDO LiaisonSenior Adv. on Tools & ModelsAEE-100 Noise DivisionAircraft Integrated Support TeamAirports & Airspace Integrated Support AEE-200 Environment, Energy and Employee Safety Division Environment & EnergySafetyAEE-300 Emissions DivisionAircraftModeling & Analysis

International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO) Council

ICAO Committee on Aviation Environmental Protection (CAEP)Working Group 1- Noise Technical IssuesWorking Group 2- Operations (includes Models)Working Group 3- Emissions Technical IssuesFESG- Forecasts and EconomicsTask Groups on Emissions Trading and Charges

EIPT Secretariat and International Liaison

Analytical Tools Panel

Science/ Metrics Panel

Technology Panel

Operations Panel

Policy Panel

Volpe National Air Transportation Systems Center

PARTNER research studies, including:Low Frequency Noise StudyMeasure-ments, Metrics and Health Effects of NoiseContinuous Descent ApproachLand Use and Airport ControlsQuiet Rotocraft and Short-Field OperationsSupersonic TransportEmissions Measurements, Health Effects, and Atmospheric ImpactsOther topics (including the study of lateral alignment in complex systems)

Immediate technical assistance for airport environmental certifications

Immediate technical assistance for engine and airframe manufacturers regarding environmental issues

Immediate technical assistance for airlines regarding environmental issues

What are the internal barriers to lateral alignment for different stakeholders in

the Fab Lab networks?


14

5) Structure drives behavior

• Fab lab annual conferences• Midwest weekly calls/video• Common websites• MIT engine for innovation• Fab Lab Foundations

What are (and will be) the structural gaps or disconnects

in the Fab Lab networks?


15

6) Culture eats strategy and structure for breakfast

• National cultures• University cultures• Government cultures• Museum cultures• NGO cultures• Ethnic and religious

cultures

• Local community cultures• Informal science and

invention cultures• Professional engineering

and science cultures• Open source cultures• Emergent fab lab culture

How will we build capability to bridge across cultures – particularly as functional

interdependence increases?


16

7) Patterned interaction changes culture over time

Network mapping of patterns of interaction in NGATSNetwork Map of Integrated Product Team Activity: Jan (week 1) and Feb (week 6) 2006

Key: Connections originate in red circles and are received in black boxes. Connections of 15 minutes or more during the week are represented by an arrow.

Time 1

Time 2

Would feedback on network connections and alignment perceptions facilitate

innovation across Fab Labs?


17

8) Deliver on separate and shared interests

Separate outcomes:• Sustainable funding and staffing

for individual Fab Labs• Individuals with schooling and

careers enabled by individual Fab Labs

• Entrepreneurial initiatives coming out of individual Fab Labs

Shared outcomes:• Shared use of software, hardware,

and know-how across Fab Labs• Technical and financial help in

launching new Fab Labs• R&D innovations by Fab Lab

supplier network• New institutions at the intersection

of informal and formal science

By what measures will you know how well the Fab Lab networks are delivering on

separate and shared interests?


18

Summing up

Principles enabling lateral and cross-layer alignment for Fab Lab networks:

1. Strategically mix loosely and tightly coupled connections over time

2. Leverage via protocols and standards

3. Leadership by Influence, not Authority

4. Internal Alignment for Lateral Alignment

5. Structure Drives Behavior

6. Culture Eats Strategy and Structure for Breakfast

7. Patterned Behavior Changes Culture

8. Deliver on Separate and Shared Interests


19

Concluding phrases, adjectives, metaphors. . .

“Many firms are pushing ‘partnerships’ which means ‘you give, I take.’ True mutuality of interests is still not recognized as a goal.”

“After the first date, we are still wondering if this is a new love that can last forever.”

“We are not as good at collaboration across corporate boundaries as we know we need to be.”

“Our relationship with our stakeholders is a means to an end.”

“Our relations are like a roller-coaster.”

“We are beginning to apply stakeholder analysis as a tool to shape the transactional environment of our enterprise through a relationship management plan.”

“Our outside stakeholders see us as the fat, rich king of the jungle and rarely choose to spar with us.”

“We sit on the same side of the table with our primary stakeholders.”

“We are seen as thought leaders and consensus builders.”

“Like rain into a lake. . .”Source: Open comments on lateral alignment surveys to industrial organizations in the US, the UK and Sweden


20


21

Appendix


22

Frontiers of graph theory and game theory

Graph Theory

Game TheoryTheory of

Alignment

Nash Equilibrium

Min/Max Theorem

Cost Function on Graphs

Mapping Sequences of

Moves

Tracking Flow Among Nodes in

a Network

Defining Sub-Graphs with Set Theory

Evolutionary Stability


23

Perceived Functional/structural alignment – ILP data

1.00

1.50

2.00

2.50

3.00

3.50

4.00

Interdependent WorkAmong Stakeholders

Forums AmongStakeholders

Technical Skills andKnowledge Among

Statekholders

Rewards andReinforcement Among

Stakeholders

ILP Supplier Relations (n=10)

ILP Strategic Partners Relations (n=16)

ILP Govt. and NGO Relations (n=7)

Caution: Preliminary Results

with Small Samples

Notes: A concern with rewards and reinforcement by all groups. Generally high perception of technical skills and knowledge. A potential concern with forums for supplier relations.


24

Normative Model

LongCycle

MiddleCycle

ShortCycle

Learning, Feedback,

Adjustment1.0 Strategic Intent

2.0 Stakeholder Map

3.0 Alignment Assessment

4.0 Shared Vision

5.0 Alignment Initiatives

6.0 Stakeholder Outcomes

7.0 System Outcomes

Enabling Lateral Alignment in Complex Systems

Political, Legal, Economic, Social, and Cultural Co-evolution

Negotiated Dialogue and Leadership


25

Lateral AlignmentLateral Alignmentin Complex Systemsin Complex Systems

Understanding emergent institutional formsRelevant science, social science, and humanities disciplines (green), inter-disciplinary fields (yellow), and engineering disciplines/fields (blue)

Political Science Management

Science

Negotiations & Decision Science

International Relations

Industrial Relations

Organizational Behavior

Operations ResearchTransportation

EngineeringCivil and

Environmental Engineering

Engineering Systems &

Systems Eng.

Electrical Engineering & Computer Sci.

Aerospace Engineering

Mathematics

Visual Arts

HistorySociology

Economics

1 © 2007 joel cutcher-gershenfeld, working group on lateral alignment in complex systems,...

Documents

mit slide

mit materials available

types of stakeholder

educational use innovation

educational use focus

innovation networks

interconnected networks

standards examples