A little over 100 years ago the blacksmiths, stable owners and telegraph officers saw with some bemusement the first cars go by. What those vehicles heralded was a revolution driven by oil, electricity and the first telephones. It changed economies, societies and required knowledge. Confronted by the prospects of little or no economic growth, significant environmental constraints, disruptive technologies, expensive energy and the dynamics of social networking redefining communication, we like them, stand on the edge of our own revolution. Indeed its effects are already being felt in Victoria’s (Australia) manufacturing sector as high labour low value work migrates, at bewildering speed, to societies which such industry is viable.

For those that prefer to act rather than return to the anvil, there are pointers to success in this new future. More than a few of them (including live examples) were on display at the recent Business Enterprise Networking (BEN) event in Hume City.

Five in particular are worth mentioning:

1. Start seeing nature as a teacher not a servant. Its taken us a long time to realise that our ‘machine’ dominated thinking and design is not nearly as smart as what nature does. Learning from nature ( biomimicry) is a smart place to start.

Who’s doing it? – InterfaceFlor create carpets in the same way that nature builds a floor and the

Chinese designed their Expo Pavilion using a termites nest for inspiration.

1. Know that collaboration, not competition, is the new basis for advantage. The World Economic Forum has for some time suggested that closed loop thinking is the future of smart manufacturing. This requires us to pay attention and value waste streams, create beneficial (symbiotic) relationships where the transaction costs of doing business with each other is close to zero and find ways to colocate near those that can help us.

Who’s doing it? – Visy’s co-gen plant at Tumut, Shaper Group’s Regional Symbiosis projects

across Australasia and Close the Loop’s Ink Cartridge Recycling are all great examples.

1. Expect disruptive technologies to change the rules. 3D printing, floating biological rafts made of recycled material and open source knowledge exchange are but a few of the technologies that can deliver significantly more value using far fewer resources. In this world the base line is factor 4 by 2020 (half the resources/double the value) and factor 10 by 2030.

Who’s doing it? – The CSIRO and Monash backed East Melbourne Titanium Project is

using malleable material to create world leading almost zero waste product.

1. Business models) are changing. Every day smarter ways are being developed to deliver what people want and need. This means that all of us need to look carefully at how we go about things and be aware that where inflated margins exist that deliver little value they will vanish.

Who’s doing it?-  Look no further than Apple Itunes or catchoftheday.

1. Explore different organisation forms. The old idea of size matters largely disappears in this new networking world. Smaller scale entities collaborating with each other will become the new norm for success.

Who’s doing it? – Riversimple’s proposition to lease its open source cars for $350/month approx.

including fuel, is severely disruptive to our idea of how cars are made and sold.

If some of this sounds strange – well it did to the blacksmiths of old too! But Victoria is well placed to lead in the development of future manufacturing if it choses to. Of course in the meantime we need to keep on doing many of the things that we do now But he revolution is now. What each of us needs to do is take small steps every week to rethink and redesign our future. If we don’t others will design it for us and their interests may not align with ours.

What is the Sustainable Food Lab?

The Sustainable Food Lab is a partnership between 3 Pillars Network and Australia 21. The transformational narrative will form a crucial part of a broader set of narratives being developed by Australia 21 through six action theatres. 3 Pillars Network will act as the secretariat for the Lab.

What will it do?

The Lab will provide a space for diverse stakeholders to work (at speed) on this future narrative and pathway through a common source model.

It will focus on providing both solutions and context for those who understand the need for transformation and rapid transition. Clearly we intend that this will create new connections and learning and drive change in organizations and the larger system.

Of particular interest will the identification of, and action on, key ‘acupuncture points’ within the system that will strengthen resilience and the ability to adapt.

We will also look to draw on the considerable thinking and wisdom about the narrative that already exists both here in Australia and overseas.

In addition, over the next 6 months, we plan to hold a series of focused workshops, offer practical training and facilitate online discussion forums that will feed into the 2012 National Sustainable Food Summit. This will be supported by online resources, research papers and webinars.

We are also in preliminary discussions with several organisations who are interested in creating a new context for their endeavours and we hope to announce a number of projects and partnerships soon.

Naturally first efforts are to protect and restore but now the focus has turned to rebuilding. The inital instinct is to try and put back what was there. But is this really smart? Might it be that the attempt to rebuild what was, locks the community into a range of sub optimal outcomes that undermines resilience and future adaptability? What happens if these events (not including the earthquakes), as dreadful as they have been, are symptomatic of a climate changed future? This paper proposes consideration of some subtly different end states in the rebuilding process and the use of different design principles as reconstruction starts. It is intended to enrich conversations in the thinking about such reconstruction rather than be prescriptive.

Design with the end in mind. In an ideal world, our environment, infrastructure, communities, people and economy should be sustainable, resilient (capable of withstanding future shocks), increase their ability to adapt and above all be future focused. While this truth may seem self evident, the history of rebuilding would suggest that many of the conversations, projects and outcomes (end states) fall far short of this ideal. These four end states though should be central and almost unconditional. Indeed, where they have been applied new and different communities have been created. One of the most notable of these was Greensburg Kansas. Here a little town, utterly destroyed by a tornado, decided that it would reinvent itself as the ‘greenest little town’ in the USA. The consequence has been a revitalization and growth that would not have been possible if they had simply tried to put back what was.

Shock proofing. For some communities, like Tully, in far North Queensland, resilience is becoming increasingly important. This town and the sub region around it are now living through the nightmare of a second cyclone in just a few years. Others endured shock after shock in the space of just a few months. Moreover, they face a future where the likelihood of future severe events is both possible and probable. This clearly becomes a problem for communites where the fabric and infrastructure, was established in a world where they were poorer and probably simpler than they are now. This is important where the cost of replacement is often far higher, or takes longer than the community can bear. If the future is more disruptive and potentially environmentally violent, it is vital that future investment conforms to one of two central principles. The first principle is to design and establish standards that ensure a level of robustness and resilience that will withstand anticipated extremes. If this is the preferred path, then perhaps wisdom and guidance of those who live with such extremes as ‘normal’ should be sought? The Florida Keys come to mind as one such place The other principle is the exact opposite. Some things might be reconceived and rebuilt in a way that they are easily disassembled and reassembled when the threat has past. Circus infrastructure in a sense provides a potential model for such rapid assembly and disassembly.

Being chameleon. Resilience and adaptability are closely linked ideas. In the redesign process, there is the opportunity to create infrastructures and communities that are more adaptable. This adaptability might include rethinking of how utilities are positioned and connected. It might for example include the installation of electrical networks that can easily adapt to a future of smart grids, water systems that allow the communities to live with the water that falls in that catchment (water sensitive cities and regions) and of course the creation of infrastructure that makes future broadband, fixed or wireless, possible. However, adaptability might go further. It could include a rethink of tourism infrastructure for a climate changed and energy starved world, the development of regional systems that are less oil intensive and economic and social infrastructure that builds vibrant 3rd spaces. It might provide the platform for rethinking the whole structure of how we farm. Simply watching failure after failure might also lead to a major rethink of ‘learning’ and ‘wellness’ fabric. Just as a few of us would not buy a 60 year old car, why do we continue to build schools and hospitals based on designs firmly anchored in the 20th century? The drive to create such 21st century societies needs to be carefully managed. It requires different conversations with communities. It demands a clear demonstrate, for it is that value that provides an easy path to adaptability.

Treading lightly on the planet. All of what we have witnessed is forcing us to confront the ‘Sustainability’ question in all its dimensions. An intense focus on sustainability might be described as a way of ensuring that the best value is obtained for the resources that are used. This is a definition that goes beyond the concern about carbon or water to a wider understanding that our footprint (the stuff we use) is far past the capacity of the environment to support us over the medium term. Large scale devastation is an opportunity to retrofit communities in a more sustainable way. This is not just about housing and green technology. It is about rethinking and repositioning utilities, how industry, living and recreation interact and thinking through new investments so that they reduce community exposure to things like rising oil prices. It might be described as the point where transition towns meet the future.

Escaping sub optimal futures. All communities need a sense of self, an identity that they can relate to. Identity is what makes us as people, families and communities what we are, albeit that the ‘consumer society’ has blunted that need somewhat in recent times. If the old identity has been for the most part destroyed, as is currently the case in Christchurch NZ, then the quest must be to find a future view of what might be. A new identity which transforms and transcends the old while being respectful of the history, is often what is required. While there is no doubt that after such extreme events the natural grieving cycle will click in, at some time early in the recovery process, each community needs to think soberly about this identity; what they might look like 10 years hence. To do this, they need to understand the range of environmental and energy system shifts confronting us all, which assumptions are no longer valid and where they need to reach beyond where they are now. In developing this future focus, the art of story telling is more than useful as a device. Just like Greensburg Kansas, every community needs a narrative it can subscribe to. Such narratives drive true hope, inspire innovation and act as a ‘strange attractor.’ It provides a framework in which many small transactional efforts can make sense. When viewed through this lens, the sameness of our ‘cloned’ suburbs, retail complexes and resource intensive utilities is truly cause for concern and the opportunity that crisis provides, however hurtful, is much greater than appears to be the case at the outset.

21st Century Design Principles. While it is clear that in many debates about reconstruction smart futures are often articulated by respected doyens, such views often get lost and are overwhelmed by dialogue and effort focused principally on transactional futures, for in recent times the transactional option has always been the preferred pathway to change. For better futures to emerge, therefore there needs to be a different set of design principles. These include the following; facilitating conversations that transcend transactional outcomes, designing in an integrated and systemic way, creating new synergies through rethinking how societies might work, harnessing the power and innovation that the networking technologies afford and ensuring that what is intended and what actually occurs accelerates the restoration of the ‘five capitals’ of the city or region in question.

Orchestrating conversations. At the core of the debate about restoration is a question of focus. How we answer this question requires careful facilitation. While in times of tragedy it is hard to think about it as a time of opportunity, some consideration needs to be given to the scope of what is possible. If transactional futures are preferred then what emerges are a range of short term value for money solutions that essentially reflect most of what we do now. If, however, there is interest in different futures then the assumptions that need to be rethought must be identified and stories and models of transformational and going beyond today developed. This rethinking then provides the context for very different design conversations which then feed into a very different transactional pathway. By way of example, think of Apple’s future (circa 2004) as a computer company as a transactional future and its future as an online store as its transformational future. The facilitation of this conversation is not about picking winners, although it is about getting clear what we might stop doing. In an ideal world this kind of facilitation is about creating the conditions for a new diversity. It requires some new language and the ability to let go, it requires looking out at that which is hard when the first instinct is to look inwards and it requires leadership that goes beyond short termism This kind of leadership stands like a beacon signalling the option that there is a safe harbor beyond if only we wish to navigate to it.

The community as an ecology. During the 20th century cities and regions actually had design and planning frameworks, which for the most part wasn’t true before then. These tended to separate out ‘living’ from ‘working and recreation.’ In short, since the advent of the motor car and cheap oil promoted suburbia as we now know it, we have planned and built socities where many of the key elements required for modern lifestyles were separated and isolated one from the other. In the process, we allowed and even promoted, development where many of the ongoing costs are born by the community at large without much thought to where benefit truly lay. In the process we subconsciously created a fabric that reflects the mechanistic principles that underpinned the technologies we deployed. This separation however has had both benefits and costs, as the morning commute testifies. Now, as we enter a phase of more expensive energy, the costs are beginning to overwhelm the model. Perhaps in times of rebuilding, we need to rethink the framework for planning; we need to think about communities as ecological systems where the design of one part of the system impacts on the other. Inside these new ecological communities must be some new DNA which has, at its core, a reduction in oil based energy use, for to do otherwise seems unwise. In 2010, the Chinese hosted a world trade expo that was systemic in design and reflected many of the possibilities currently available. The expo presented a glimpse of a world where utilities were integrated into urban fabric, where waste systems were enclosed and green spaces on roofs and walls substantially moderated local environments. Most air conditioning was delivered through means other than electricity, many buildings mimiced the best designs nature has on offer and open spaces were more than accommodating for the 500,000 that visited every day. What was interesting was that for the most part, the technologies used were well known. What was different was how they were integrated into a holistic system. The challenge therefore in the restoration process is to create a set of policy and planning settings that allow for this kind of systemic rethinking and for the realization of the benefits of emergent technologies.

A new symbiosis. In the strongest ecologies, the parts act with one another in a way that reduces or modifies the resources and ‘waste streams’ so that each derives or creates benefit for the other. Using symbiosis as a platform for design is very different from the individualistic competitive meme that has underpinned the planning of most modern socities. Such closed loop thinking not only reduces the costs and volumes of resources and services used, but it allows new possibilities. Symbiosis as an idea relies on new collaborative relationships and works best where there is geographical proximity. Indeed many local high streets, where they still exist, are evidence of such symbiosis. As was mentioned earlier, symbiosis should underpin the redesign of our utility systems. It makes no sense to position utilities far away from those they are required to serve. Thinking about how such symbiosis might occur at a local level has two key benefits. Firstly, it reduces the level of resources used to value created by, in most instances, a factor of four. This often not just enhances but redefines local viability. Secondly, it builds opportunities for a very different kind of prosperity, while strengthening the sense of identity at the same time. This ability to change the resources value dynamic is seen as the key to future ‘competitive advantage’ and is without question critical to the end states discussed earlier. Through symbiosis we can decouple ideas past there use by date ( how we travel and work come to mind) and look for ways to strip complexity and complication from the benefits we all want.

Our networked world. In recent disasters social technologies have clearly demonstrated that the way we communicate to ensure safety, find people, seek help and provide direction has fundamentally changed. We have gone well beyond the mediums of the 20th century and indeed some consider that these emergent tchnologies are as profound for our society as the Gutenburg Printing Press was to the 15th century and the Renaissance that followed. What we might now consider, is how to rethink and redesign our social fabric and institutions so that it both reflects and enhances these technologies and others that form what are often termed location based services. This requires us to understand what a Web 3.0 learning or wellness fabric might look like, to use virtual and visualization technologies for planning and management, to build some form of intelligence into all parts of the fabric we put back (roads that can tell us their state of repair!), to make sure that restored utility services are on the path towards what are broadly termed smart grids. Ubiquitous broadband and wireless must be axiomatic. What these technologies require us to do is to leave behind the command and control models that were part of our mechanistic world. For some this will be hard as the language that is used here seems foreign. However, in times of rebuilding the opportunity should not be wasted.

Five capitals for the 21st century. In the process of creating durable communities five ‘capitals’ are critical. These are environmental, reproducible (infrastructure & man made), social, human and financial capital. The reality is that the legacy of the 21st century was that both environmental capital and social capital were being rapidly eroded by the consumption society. Further, our reproducible capital was rapidly becoming obsolescent through shifts in technology and for some, their skills were becoming rapidly outdated. What this essay has been arguing is that through care and design, all the capitals must be in focus. It is unacceptable to make all the capitals subservient to financial capital as in the end it creates a society that will collapse like a house of cards. Further, it contends that hitherto neglected environmental and social capital can be greatly enhanced and that a fabric suitable for our future post carbon society can be created if the right kinds of conversations are had. Indeed suggestions for redevelopment that pay scant attention to any kind of capital balance should be seen to be unacceptable. For to do otherwise is to create a debt by this generation to the future; a series of follies that would add up to a legacy that none of us would wish to be remembered by.

The new normal. What great disruption does is that it removes our sense of normality and propels us into a vortex of uncertainty. For some it clearly signifies that the old normal can never be again. In the rebuilding and reconstruction process a ‘new normal’ must be created. This ‘new normal’ must be sufficiently different and attractive that is subsumes interest in trying to rebuild what was. Ideally it must be a bold step towards the post carbon world that we know we will have to create and inhabit, sooner or later. It must provide us with a pathway out of uncertainty to a place which gives us much more than we had before. If this can be achieved, then all the heartache and suffering has some purpose. To think otherwise is really not worth contemplating.

Mike McAllum, a New Zealander by birth, is a futures architect based in Torquay, Victoria. As a writer, facilitator and commentator, he works with organisations, communites and institutions, mainly in the Asia Pacific region, to rethink how they do things and design better futures.

Naturally first efforts are to protect and restore but now the focus has turned to rebuilding. The inital instinct is to try and put back what was there. But is this really smart? Might it be that the attempt to rebuild what was, locks the community into a range of sub optimal outcomes that undermines resilience and future adaptability? What happens if these events (not including the earthquakes), as dreadful as they have been, are symptomatic of a climate changed future?

The full essay is available for download under books and articles.

This is a book about these times of turbulence, uncertainty and rapid change with a difference. it does not fill us with empty utopias not does it give us endless litany of bad news; rather, it challenges us to move towards designing better futures.

Please follow the links on the hole page to purchase this book in paper or e format or contact the author

Focused on cities and the organizations that inhabit them, it faces head on the many contradictions that we face. it gives us insights into how we can think more intelligently and deeply about the future. Among them, why sustainability is inextricably linked with the real economy, how to ensure the development and deployment of responsible and far reaching technologies and why we should confront the tough questions of equity and access. Finally it provides us with examples of organizations who are successfully navigating the rapids and creating a more sustainable future. This is not a journey where we need to walk alone.

• current networks are unidirectional and thus are unable to realise the full potential of what are known as smart grids. This is of particular concern given the widespread desire by many customers and some governments for environmentally friendly small scale power generation.
• despite the rhetoric which suggests that change is on the way, there is a deep cultural reluctance to enter into conversations that will require utilities to enter into dialogue with customers about demand management where shared arrangements are considered.
• in the short term the only way to have some control of alternative generation and demand management at the source of consumption (beyond managing efficiencies) is to introduce some kind of storage arrangement as the primary interface with the utilities.

In short the power of the network utilities has until now never been challenged. But now the technologies and systems of the post carbon age are almost upon us and whether they like it or not they will have to change.

While bricolage has long been the default approach of the very poor, and by the way a source of innovative ideas for the developed world if we look carefully enough, there are a good reasons to suggest that the rest of us may soon join them.  Why? Because the costs of participating in an increasingly unsustainable consumption society will make some of what we now take for granted either unaffordable or unobtainable. Bricolage may become the hallmark of resilience.

This may not be a bad thing. In the process, many of us may rediscover the joy of ‘creating’ or ‘fashioning’ or ‘growing’ things that have high levels of emotional investment and oft times more than a little ingenuity. Bricolage is after all the default option for children with little understanding  of, or access to money, as they create gifts for their parents – or at least it was before we allowed them to be turned into consumers before they could barely talk!

Soon bricolage will have a few helpers along the way. The advent of 3D printing – the ability to ‘spray print’  or form through ink jets three dimensional objects – will provide a platform where designers can bypass mass production techniques and connect directly to small scale manufacture close to the source of consumption. For example, I know of instances where designers of ‘rally’ car parts operate in one corner of the room and formers are creating those parts in almost real time in the other.

As the technologies related to this manufacturing revolution become better understood those who can design will multiply, the products that are possible will explode and the materials used will proliferate beyond our wildest imaginings. This design and manufacturing revolution will drive the bricolage phenomena. In the end we might wonder how it was that we once experienced a society where we allowed ourselves to be seduced by an ocean of poorly made generic products not specifically tailored to our needs, made without our input. Makes the idea of bricolage sound almost fun.

Their indignation and embarrassment has been loud and for the most part self righteous. Have they forgotten the story of the emperor with no clothes? While it is clear that every leader has the right to wise and confidential counsel, this storm of condemnation appears to have little philosophical depth and thus in the process lacks gravitas and impact. Contrast this with the right to freedom of speech and the role of the media responses of many journalists.

Perhaps what the wikileaks saga reveals more than anything else is that the philosophies that guided our leaders in the 20th century have long ago been swapped for more cynical consumerist and popularist approaches. Could it be that we now need to develop a range of philosophies more appropriate to this coming decade and beyond. If so what might some of these philosophical elements be?

In my view the development of a new range of philosophies is a critical precondition to the many conversations that humanity needs to have as it confronts the backdown of planetary systems. Without it there cannot be the transformational narratives that we must develop to make sensible progress. How exciting would it be if in a few years, when the next round of  leaks are exposed, what overwhelms us all is the thoughtfulness and humanity of the confidential conversations are leaders and advisors are having behind the scenes.

Highly recommended. To view this article please go to http://fiveliteracies.typepad.com/richard_hames/2010/02/paradigm-in-progress.html