En esta segunda parte dedicada al ciclo de inteligencia analizo las principales críticas realizadas sobre el modelo y los modos alternativos para plantear el proceso de inteligencia. En este sentido, lo que cuestiono es si es preciso y posible plantear un paradigma alternativo al ciclo.
Como he adelantado antes, no sólo es preciso y posible repensar un nuevo modelo desde el punto de vista conceptual, sino que es necesario dado que se deben recoger las realidades actuales con los nuevos drivers de cambio. Debe ser un modelo vivo para que se pueda adaptar a las nuevas realidades que irán emanando. Y dependiendo del sector que se trate, ya sea público o privado, habrá modelos ajustados a cada necesidad. Lo misma ocurre con los modelos de negocios empresariales.
Este nuevo post trata el origen y la vigencia del Ciclo de Inteligencia como modelo hegemónico para describir el proceso de generación de inteligencia.
Los orígenes del Ciclo de Inteligencia son difíciles de precisar. El historiador Michael Warner lo sitúa en los siglos XVIII y XIX cuando los revolucionarios franceses necesitaban un sistema para explicar la inteligencia a su personal cualificado. Pero el concepto del Ciclo de Inteligencia se popularizó en Estados Unidos por Sherman Kent, siendo su obra clave para el entrenamiento de los profesionales de inteligencia.
Según el informe WEOdel FMI el crecimiento mundial de la economía en 2016 está estimado a día de hoy en un 3,1%. Sin embargo, por otro lado, la OMCestima que el crecimiento del comercio mundial se situará en el 1,7%, por debajo del crecimiento económico mundial. Desde hace 15 años no sucedía que el comercio mundial crecía a un ritmo inferior al de la economía.
Ideas start with ourselves. In sports, being familiar with or knowing the playfield has been debated to a great extend about how this made a difference to obtain a competitive advantage over the local team.
At the same time, this has had to do with the kind of grass and the size of the field. But at the end all teams obtained the same victory rate playing at home.
The question lies in not having found a real differentiating factor that could give any team a competitive advantage over its adversaries, beyond the advantage of playing at home.
The quality of the team counts and a bigger budget can attract more talent and, therefore, more victories.
Then, am I just saying that the team with more resources is the one able to attract more talent and therefore capable of improving its victory rate? Or, on the other hand, a team on a lower budget will never be able to get a talented and competitive team on low wages?
To both questions the answer is no. As the film Moneyball points out, it’s about breaking the rules.
“I´ve seen things you people wouldn´t believe. Attack ships on fire off the shoulder of Orion. I watched c-beams glitter in the dark near Tannhäuser Gate. All those moments will be lost in time, like tears in rain. Time to die”.
These were the wonderful las words by Batty (Rutger Hauer), Nexus 7 replicant in Blade Runner. A film, boldly ahead of our time, which sets up different questions that probably the future will answer: how genetic engineering and AI produce artificial humans (replicants) for tough and dangerous tasks, but also taking human sides into account, as Batty exposes in his monologue (tears in rain).
This post title comes from a sentence by Matt Ridley, a British journalist, businessman and author of popular science books with a very strong scientific background, who when pointing this idea out was making a word game which is easy to accept. Yes, ideas have intercourse taking into consideration that an idea is a combination of several ideas.
Tinder combines match.com with a smartphone. Pizza Hut melts Mc Donald’s and pizza. Mc Donald’s takes hamburgers through a production chain. There would be a wide number of success cases and all of them have in common the conjunction of different ideas.
Market polarization as a trend is not new. On the contrary, it has been going on for the last years. What it is happening, maybe, due to fast changes taking place, is that has been unnoticed for some, while for others has become something normality.
Economic growth models always go through cyclic and anticyclic processes. Somehow, it is like test they take and results will depend upon their stability and resistance.
In any case, manpower takes most of the damage while these processes are on and consequences are usually devastating. Unemployment increases and a part of the population is put aside because it has specialized in an obsolete model that will never come back. This population group must reinvent itself.
Both of them, with different goals but with a common artistic gift for gastronomy, have made a revolution. One has contributed to create a brand: Peru. The other has spread a healthier food style transforming cooking into a lever with a social effect. In both cases, technology, innovation and education are the columns in which their movements are built on.
In one of the last posts, technology was spotted as a driver for social, economic, political, legal and environmental change.
Technology, as a tool to improve efficiency and competitiveness, can be regarded as an economic lever, responsible for 25% of GDP growth.
Avoiding to adapt to this new reality is not, therefore, an option. Due to its huge impact, the outcome is that citizen, client or consumer, becomes the center of everything instead of the product.
Current citizen’s profile has evolved in different areas in how she/he communicates, socializes or builds up an identity. This new citizen gets information through multichannel platforms, assuming a key role in debates and having an opinion about matters in which he/she might be interested. Her/his voice, amplified and critical, demands quick and quality answers, in a more sophisticated way.
This new situation rises a challenge as a new paradigm: the business management of the citizen in his/her role as client in the technological environment.