Cost of paranoid optimist on AI

Information age has evolved to stage where technological development has become overly complex, manifold and fuzzy for general audience – and for top executives. The lack of technological conception and foundations has led to cult, religion or theology like believing on generalist and appealing human nature concepts like intelligence, sustainability and privacy. This fundamental group thinking is challenging societies ability conceive the new technological era beyond biases, cults choice of opinion and defective decision making. Groupthink is “a pattern of thought characterized by self-deception, forced manufacture of consent, and conformity to group values and ethics.” (M-W, 2019) and “mode of thinking in which individual members of small cohesive groups tend to accept a viewpoint or conclusion that represents a perceived group consensus, whether or not the group members believe it to be valid, correct, or optimal” (Britannica, 2019). Paranoid optimism is one of the key risks defined in the cult like biased and we-feel groupthink meaning “deterioration of mental efficacy, reality testing and moral judgement” (Janis, 1971) leading to professional shunning or even overly expression of self-worth and self-confidence. The social belonging is the most critical human need linked directly to psychological and safety needs, becomes risky when combined with personas personal esteem and recognition desires. The groupthink leads to monoculture with “smart executive” decisions that fit to their own we-feel view of the world where-as the pluralistic “leadership wisdom” should lies on dissension, debate and dialog to gain full, holistic and comprehensive view systemic and versatile technological sphere.  

The concurrency seeking tendency in groupthink has caused many costly political and business failures in past etc. Bay of Pigs, Pearl Harbor, Marshall plan, Cuban missile crisis, O-ring in Challenger Disaster, Iraq War intelligence information regarding weapons of mass destruction, Atari, Enron, IT Factory, Food Lion, WorldCom, AOL Time Warner, Vivendi, Mattel, Tyco, Schwinn, Motorola, J&J, Rubbermaid, Wang Labs, Nokia and Boeing. All these companies have experiences billion dollar or euro failure as executives have led the company to wrong path with cognitive failures at time when decision where maid. Many of these organizations and their executives are embodiments of past and history. The past and history is embarked in organizational narrative, memory, precedents, customs, culture and cogntions. Organizations and their executives are too often focused to believe in superior, seniority or rank based rule of thumb worldview rather that believing on systemic approach analysing every aspect and part of socio-technical system. It is believed that organizations can only learn if they know their past and know what the past’s relation is to systemic whole both from technological and social as a whole socio-technical ecology.

Today’s digital software technology business are nothing like pasts very simple analogic and standardized Henry Ford’s T-Ford automobile mass-product and Taylorian production technology line. Modern software-based products and business models cannot be governed and managed with past worlds analog general administrative compliance, comply-explain physical worlds business knowledge or narrow polishing focused customer value marketing. None of these are able to conceive and understand diligently the whole enterprise wide systemic business operations, systems-of-systems, ecosystems and industrial ball-park in which business is taking place. There is clear strategic decision-making difference in organizations having digital software technology business as they tend to have formal diligent, comprehensive and professional oversight of whole technology – not just Artificial Intelligence (AI) or general technology trends. Organizations and their executives have not understood that AI is just small, typically much less than 5% effort, of all engineering taking place to design, architect, develop, test, deploy and maintain large human life or business critical software system-of-system. 

The year 2019 will be remembered as paranoid optimism on executives’ competencies on artificial intelligence and software systems in general. There is clear and remarkable distinction between Europe and USA on reactions on these severe causes behind these failures. In USA even the financial industry analysts are calling better technological governance, expertise and supervision to high tech companies with comments like “This is an engineering company, it needs an engineering culture and engineering management.” In Europe financial market, analysts and owners have NOT declared such views or interest on executive’s technology competencies leading to false prince charming governance and risk controls by keeping sleeping beauty in deep groupthink with loss of billions in financial assets and eventually leading to business and innovation failures on the growing digital market. USA companies have far many director and senior level positions open focusing on systemic, systems-of-systems and enteprise wide socio-technical "biz savvy engineering" profession capabilities than European organizations mainly relying on outsourcing or external competencies. This missing strategic capability refers to "architecting" of business (NOT technology alone) by managing the design of large heterogeneous intangible software system-of-systems constructions. “Thousands of years of history would suggest the only known strategy for addressing complexity and change is architecture” (ESC, 2004). I quess only very very few organizations have executive talent to conceive what skills and comptencies are needed in moderns software intensive business creation and development - thats why too many European based organizations are failing to innovate, compete, transform and grow in the evolutionary advancement of software-based information age. Does your organizations have modern and real software engineering executive leadership and management capabilities in business architecting rather than something thats only valid on paper or in theory?

Here some systemic insigts to digital software business domain:

"AI - artificial intelligence or insane stupidity" (Helenius, 2017)

"Intelligent Strategy - path toward economic growth" ( Helenius, 2017)

"Artificial Intelligence - ABC for decision makers and influencers" (Helenius, 2017)

"Data Economy - Robotics and Artificial Intelligence" (Helenius, 2018)

"Artificial intelligence sparked a cycle of corruption" (Helenius, 2018)

"AI, data or software - where is the real value?" (Helenius, 2018)

"The true economic effects of AI are created on software platforms" (Helenius, 2019)

Business innovation evangelist,

Mika

You may follow me at Twitter @MikaHelenius or contact by email mika . helenius (at) iki.fi