In a sketch on Prairie Home Companion a character said, "Sincerity is the new irony." Similarly, Mr. Nussbaum has promoted transformation as the new innovation. It doesn't appear that "transformation" is any different than what innovation is becoming. His main point is that the word innovation has become overused and degraded.
Nussbaum says this about transformation: "It implies that our lives will increasingly be organized around digital platforms and networks that will replace edifices and big organizations (students already know this, university presidents still have edifice-complexes, which is why so many of them are getting the boot)."
Similarly, @ricetopher said: "Deleuze and Guattari had it right in 'A Thousand Plateaus': the tribe must become nomadic, rhizomatic to survive/thrive." Which, if I understand it correctly, means that there is no longer just one expert, but a multitude of voices contributing to the knowledge base. Wikipedia entry states: "Rhizome theory is also gaining currency in the educational field, as a means of framing knowledge creation and validation in the online era."
If we crowdsource the term, what might we get? Is "Transformation" a better description of what company's need to do to embrace a the future? Or is there something else?
Nussbaum continues: "(Transformation) implies radical transformation of our systems—education, health-care, economic growth, transportation, defense, political representation. It puts the focus on people, designing networks and systems off their wants and needs. It relies on humanizing technology, not imposing technology on humans. It approaches uncertainties with a methodology that creates options for new situations and sorts through them for the best quickly."
Tony Fry, author of "Design Futuring" believes that transformation is wrong.
"Design Futuring argues that responding to ethical, political, social and ecological concerns now requires a new type of practice that recognizes design's importance in overcoming a world made unsustainable."
Nussbaum makes mention of Paul Saffo. Here's a recent discussion he had on KQED. Tim Brown with IDEO on his blog Design Thinking summarized Saffo's thoughts.
"He discusses what he calls the ‘Creator Economy’ based around the simultaneous creation and consumption of value. He thinks of this as the evolution of what was once the producer economy, where scarcity was the controlling factor, and then became the consumer economy, where sales and marketing was the dominant idea. I have been wondering about this idea recently and see it as a natural extension of Robert Wright’s Non-Zero thesis. As our communication networks grow so does our ability to create new kinds of value. The early examples are Google, Facebook, Twitter, Wikipedia, Threadless. These all rely on their ability to generate participation and through that create individual and group value."
What I appreciate about the discussion so far -- across multiple channels -- is the understanding that we can move forward; that we need to move forward. Innovation may very well be old-school, bushleague. Join the conversation at my Friendfeed... it only makes sense, right?