The Journey to Singularity

It's been 8 years since my last LinkedIn article about industry 4.0. Join me now on human's journey towards Singularity - the total technological dependence of humans on technology.

Slowly taking-off the Digital Way

"The most profound technologies are those that disappear. They weave themselves into the fabric of everyday life until they are indistinguishable from it." [1]

Digital transformation is on everyone's lips. Not just for a few months, but for years and decades now, these words have been used again and again to describe something that is apparently set to fundamentally change the world.

One group of researchers, for example, gave the following verdict on the Digital Transformation overview:

First, from a cynical perspective, digital transformation could be seen as a management fad or as a revamped version of earlier IT-enabled change programs. In recent years, the business process management movement has brought IT-enabled change back into the spotlight. A new keyword has emerged in an effort to pique managers', consultants', and software vendors' interest as business process management appears to be losing ground. On the other hand, proponents would counter that the digital transformation involves unique components that need attention and present intriguing study problems. The findings, in particular, suggest that managers should integrate new technologies into their business models in order to adapt their company strategies to the digital reality. This highlights the significance of the topic of processes and operations management. [2]

Past attempts to define the term in the literature have sounded a lot like marketing promises, such as the definition by Dominic M. Mazzone, who writes:

"Digital Transformation is the deliberate and ongoing digital evolution of a company, business model, idea process, or methodology, both strategically and tactically." [3]

Thomas Hess, who additionally distinguishes the term from digitisation, delimits the term more technically:

"Digitisation describes the introduction of new solutions based on digital technologies. In English, we speak of digitalisation - easily confused with digitization; the latter refers to the transfer of information from an analog to a digital storage form and thus a very specific form of digitalisation.

The term digital transformation goes one step further. This term places greater emphasis on the change brought about by digital technologies. It accentuates the introduction of a specialist solution (e.g., a new sales management concept), but also emphasises the driving role of new digital technologies." [4]

Other approaches speak of a degree of maturity. Nota bene: This term is also used ambivalently. On one hand, there are approaches that use the term “Digital Maturity Model” to measure and visualise the status quo of digital transformation in companies, and on the other hand, there are approaches that use the term “Digital Maturity” to provide a continuous further development in form of a flexible and digital maturity process without a defined end, in which the company constantly adapts to new technological possibilities, also called “permanent beta” [5].

A pioneer in the area of the “Digital Maturity Model” is the Faculty of Business Informatics at the University of St. Gallen with its Maturity Index: a questionnaire that divides answers from representatives of various companies into nine dimensions and makes the results comparable. Companies can thus classify their self-assessed and relative level of maturity between the results of other companies. The maturity model per se does not provide any assistance with what digital transformation is. We know it's general applicability, as the model was developed bottom-up from data collected by the University of St. Gallen using existing models, a literature analysis and expert interviews which was validated by a focus group. [6]

The definition of "Digital Maturity" by Gerald C. Kane, which is closer to change management, is better suited to the context of this article because it has a longer span:

?Aligning an organization’s people, culture, structure, and tasks to compete effectively by taking advantage of opportunities enabled by technological infrastructure, both inside and outside the organization.“ [7]

In addition, the underlying organisational congruence theory of David A. Nadler and Michael L. Tushman must be included in order to develop a greater understanding of the thought pattern:

?Other things being equal, the greater the total degree of congruence or fit between the various components, the more effective will be the organisation-effectiveness being defined as the degree to which actual organisation outputs at individual, group, and organizational levels are similar to expected outputs, as specified by strategy.“ [8]

Paradoxically, a more far-reaching definition is provided by Ralf E. Strau?, a management consultant specialising in marketing, sales, service and digitalisation, who describes digital transformation in his book as an ongoing process of change based on digital technologies that affects society and, in economic terms, companies in particular. [9]

The author of this article comes to the conclusion that all the published attempts to define the term "digital transformation" mentioned so far are correct and useful at their core, but do not have the richness of facets that such a term, which is often projected in the media as holy grail, in the world of work and in everyday life - from a wide variety of perspectives, at different times and with different backgrounds - should actually have, with its much-cited potential to change the world. Don't misunderstand the author: For most organisations in the market, it makes sense to increase efficiency where the benefits are highest and the applicability is easiest. In the capitalist world in which we live, this is usually the attempt to increase sales of its products in order to increase the corresponding performance indicators such as turnover, EBIT, etc. or a ratio of profitability. However, the definition should not be limited to this, but should be much more generally valid, so that functions other than sales, marketing or information technology in the company also feel addressed. The author has been dealing with these considerations on digital transformation for some time already. In doing so, he has acquired his own perspective on digital transformation, which is used in this article to make digital transformation tangible. To understand it, we must first understand the journey we are on: We are on a journey to a fully networked world. A world in which every object is constantly communicating with any other object. Humans are enriched by technology and what humans perceive is enriched by technology. For example, a chip could be implanted that imitates the functions of a telephone and could be implanted directly in the ear canal. Or a contact lens could be used to display navigation data directly in the field of vision. Marc Weiser wrote about this back in 1991: "The most profound technologies are those that disappear. They weave themselves into the fabric of everyday life until they are indistinguishable from it." [10]

Pervasive to Ubiquitous, next stop?

Experts call this full interconnection "ubiquitous computing". The precursor to this is "pervasive computing", in which certain technologies already pervade everyday life but are not yet fully interconnected at all times. A navigation system in a car is such an example, which is available to the consumer during a journey in the vehicle, but is not constantly available outside of it. According to the author of this article, the ultimate form of the fully interconnected world lies in the dependence of people on technology. In the distant future, it is conceivable that people's consciousnesses could be saved by technology before they die and transferred to another host, such as a clone of themselves. This theory may seem a little far-fetched, but genius and madness are closely related in the vernacular, even if this is considered a "relic of the 19th century " [11] by experts. Nevertheless, NASA predicted as early as 1993 that humanity would have the opportunity to create intelligence superior to humans within thirty years, shortly after which it would be extinguished [12] and called this state singularity.

Elon Musk takes a more positive view and tries to reaffirm his dependence on technology with visions of what the world - or even an alternative world- will one day look like to reaffirm the dependence on technology. He conjures up that humanity will become a "multi-planetary" species [13] and wants to make the flight to Mars affordable for almost everyone [14]. This vision shines like a North Star in his company SpaceX. Here, too, the dependence on technology can be clearly seen. In the context of this article, we speak of the singularity as precisely the dependence of humans on technology. Furthermore, for the further course of the work and for the delimitation of the term "digital transformation", we note that our North Star is the belief in "ubiquitous computing", i.e. the belief in the coming fully interconnected world. We also equate the terms "digital transformation" and "digitalisation" and also assume that once the singularity has been reached, efficiency will increase even more, as humans will have made their lives completely dependent and will therefore be much more willing to accept further technology, for example in the form of implants in the body that subsequently form a cybernetic organism.

"Digital transformation or digitalisation leads to Ubiquitous Computing, the fully interconnected world. Singularity prevails in it, i.e. the total technological dependence of humans on technology." [15]

And there it goes...

The rest is almost self-evident: In capitalism, companies will continue to try to increase profits on the way to a fully interconnected world. In order to increase profits, most companies will - as already mentioned - try to increase sales as a first step. This is an ongoing process and with the corona crisis, even the smallest village stores understand the importance of using an eCommerce platform that can receive customers outside of store opening hours so that they can place orders and reservations for germ-free pick-up or even home delivery. Admittedly, this example is a very trivial form of "digital transformation" on the journey to singularity. Much further ahead are companies that were founded with a digital business model and generate profits beyond store opening hours, for example with subscriptions that regularly generate revenue.

Netflix and Spotify are innovative examples of this, and Apple has also made a name for itself with its various subscriptions have recently followed suit. Platform operators such as Uber and Facebook are going one step further. They only provide the digital basis for business models and generate their revenue in the form of transactions made via the platform or by inserting suitable advertising into the user's content on the platform. Uber is considered one of the pioneers of platforms because they have revolutionised the market for cab rides without owning a single vehicle. But what is the difference between innovation and revolution in terms of the market? The author of this paper draws in part on a definition from one of his former research projects. It used the following formula for innovation [16]: Innovation = idea + invention + diffusion [17], i.e. a true innovation only results from the formula when the idea actually becomes a product, a service or a process that is successful on the market. This step is called diffusion. The more a product, service or process succeeds in the market, the more intensive the diffusion becomes. From the diffusion level at which the product, service or process can also turn other sectors, industries or business models upside down or even make them obsolete, diffusion becomes disruption and innovation becomes revolution. A suitable definition of a revolution can therefore be derived as follows: "Revolution = idea + invention + disruption" [18].

It is difficult to predict in advance whether market penetration will develop into diffusion or disruption, as it depends on various factors and framework conditions. However, if we look behind the scenes at one of the biggest technology giants, we can still find a clue. The former CEO of Google, Eric Schmidt, writes that for Google, innovation means "new, surprising and extremely useful" [19] . The author of this article would like to continue using the usefulness in particular, which Google emphasizes in its definition, as he is convinced that usefulness is closely linked to the purpose of the company and management, but more on this in the following chapters. At this point, usefulness should be explained as being the main cause for the degree of market penetration. Since a product, a service or a process always solves a problem, the degree of usefulness, i.e. the benefit generated by solving the problem, is also crucial for market penetration and ultimately determines whether or not it develops as an innovation or as a revolution in the market. This fact is also used outside of the market in the context of this article.

"Whether or not a service, product a process or similar develops as an innovation or as a revolution in the market, depends on the degree of its usefulness." [20]

We assume that the framework conditions for different products, services or processes are the same. This thoroughly theoretical approach is also partially applicable in practice. Nevertheless, in practice it is not necessarily possible to derive the market penetration in the same proportion as the usefulness of the products, services or processes, as it is diluted by different factors such as different marketing budgets. As lots of potential readers who reached this lines of this article might only be indirectly active in the market, we assume that the innovation must be new and extremely useful, but not necessarily surprising, hence the following applies also for sub-structures within enterprises. Innovation cannot be surprising if the innovation is a logical further development of something that already exists.

In the context of this article, innovation is defined as new and extremely useful. [21]

But how do we measure usefulness if the areas that our work deals with is not directly market-oriented, i.e. operate as so-called cost or service centres [22]? In the context of this article, the answer is efficiency. Here, too, the author uses a definition from other sources. According to the literature, the definition of efficiency can be summarised as follows [23]:

• Economic Viability: The ratio of input and output; like for example resources needed to cut trees (finally costs) and the number of trees being cut (within a timeframe).
• Effectiveness: The ratio between the the output and its impact; like for example the number of trees being cut (within a timeframe) and their respective market value (revenue when sold).
• Efficiency: The ratio between the Economic Viability and Effectiveness; like for example you are able to cut trees with 100 nail-files or 100 chainsaws. The output, so the number of cut trees within the same time-frame, is going to differ significantly, hence it's the same for the respective market value and the generated revenue of the bunch of cut trees.

In the digital world where input and output have ever since been the constant of operations efficiency can be summarised even more simplified:

Efficiency is the ratio between input and output during and until an accomplishment of a goal. [24]

The final destination

Up to this point, digital transformation seems to be nothing new. But why, has this buzzword seemed to be in constant use for a few years now? The reason for this is the increased and still increasing opportunities that arise from the rise in technology performance (especially performance in the form of computing power, storage capacity and transmission speed) with the simultaneous fall in its costs. These factors -let's call them catalysts- include cloud computing, high-speed mobile networks, artificial intelligence, virtual and augmented reality, robotics, 3D printing and, in the future, nano-implants, genetic engineering and cybernetic organisms.

In a market-oriented context, digital business models usually result from those opportunities; in a non-market-oriented context, those opportunities are chances to increase efficiency, i.e. to achieve the same or higher output with fewer input or resources, hence usually lower costs. In traditionally structured and managed companies, digitalisation was often equated with the IT department. In organisational terms, it was attached to the finance department, for example, where it was seen as a cost factor that needed to be kept to a minimum. This led to the fact that IT departments were preoccupied with themselves, often only providing minimal service for an employee's workplace and were not directly involved in value-adding projects, i.e. they acted as cost centres. In this article, the author confirms this paradigm shift that the digital transformation is bringing to thought structures. The prerequisite for this is that people believe in the digital transformation.

Admittedly a very unscientific thesis for an article with so many sources, but is it not the case that projects are very likely to fail without the necessary support from stakeholders and the necessary commitment from employees? Their behaviour is decisive and can also be proven with experience from project management [25].

We remember earlier lines of this article and the scope of the digital transformation: the journey to total connectivity and full interconnection. If people's behaviour is the decisive factor for the success of a project and it is precisely these people who are driving the aforementioned journey with their belief, it can be concluded that people are the most important components of digital transformation. The author is not alone in this affirmation, as Gerald C. Kane dedicated an entire book to this topic entitled: "The Technology Fallacy: How People Are the Real Key to Digital Transformation." He goes one step further and writes that the success factor depends on how quickly people adapt to the changing technology [26].

The author of this article is aware that not everyone wants to reach a state of complete dependency on technology. However, we assume that the entrepreneurial and personal benefits of such a dependency will be so high that it will nevertheless develop over time. Companies can only remain competitive if they keep up. Topics such as IT security, digital ethics, digital responsibility, data protection and privacy will become eminently more significant over the same period.

The biggest success factor of digital transformation is the human being. [27]

In previous writings the author describes digital transformation as follows: "The continuous and logical implementation and continuation of the entrepreneurial pursuit of better efficiency with the use of digital technology." [28] In the context of this article, the author eliminates the word "digital" because technology already implies the digital component. He also adds the word current before the word technology to emphasise that the improvement in efficiency should be driven forward with current technology so as not to be at a competitive disadvantage. As already mentioned, digital transformation is also a journey to singularity. It therefore results in: "The continuous and logical implementation and continuation of the entrepreneurial pursuit of better efficiency with the use of current technology up to the singularity", which we can therefore make tangible with the change in efficiency. As the whole of humanity is on this journey, all sectors and industries are also affected in an entrepreneurial sense.

What is described in this section can be visualised as shown in the following figure [29]:

External Sources

[1] Marc Weiser; 1991; The Computer for the 21st Century - Scientific American; Pages 94 - 104

[2] Jo?o Reis, Marlene Amorim, Nuno Mel?o & Patrícia Matos; 2018; Digital Transformation: A Literature Review and Guidelines for Future Research - Springer International Publishing; Page 419

[3] Dominic M. Mazzone; 2014, Digital or Death: Digital Transformation - The Only Choice for Business to Survive, Smash, and Conquer

[4] Thomas Hess; 2019; Digitale Transformation strategisch steuern - Vom Zufallstreffer zum systematischen Vorgehen

[5] Prof. Dr. Thorsten Petry; Digitale Reife als Schlu?ssel fu?r eine erfolgreiche Transformation; changement Magazin

[6] Prof. Dr. Andrea Back; 2016; Digital Maturity & Transformation Studie - U?ber das Digital Maturity Model; https://iwi.unisg.ch/wp-content/uploads/digitalmaturitymodel_download_v2.0-1.pdf

[7] Gerald C. Kane, Anh Nguyen Phillips, Jonathan R. Copulsky and Garth R. Andrus; 2019; The Technology Fallacy - How People Are the Real Key to Digital Transformation; The MIT Press

[8] D. Nadler and Michael Tushman; 1980; A Model for Diagnosing Organizational Behavior; Organizational Dynamics 9

[9] Ralf E. Strau?; 2019; Digitale Transformation: Strategie, Konzeption und Implementierung in der Unternehmenspraxis; Sch?ffer-Poeschel

[10] Marc Weiser; 1991; The Computer for the 21st Century - Scientific American; Page 94

[11] Tanja G. Baudson; 2008; MinD-Magazin 63; https://orbilu.uni.lu/bitstream/10993/33973/1/mindmag63-tgb.pdf

[12] Verner Vinge; 1993; NASA Lewis Research Center, Vision 21; https://ntrs.nasa.gov/api/citations/19940022856/downloads/19940022856.pdf

[13, 14] Elon Musk; 2017; Making Humans a Multi-Planetary Species; New Space

[17] Tobias Müller-Prothmann, Nora D?rr; 2014; Innovationsmanagement - Strategien, Methoden und Werkzeuge für systematische Innovationsprozesse; Carl Hanser Verlag

[19] Eric Schmidt; 2014; How Google works; New York Publishing

[22] Christian Schawe, Fabian Billing; 2018; Top 100 Management Tools; Springer Gabler

[23] Peter Eichhorn, Joachim Merk; 2016; Das Prinzip der Wirtschaftlichkeit; Springer Fachmedien

[25] Georg Kraus, Reinhold Westermann; 2014; Projektmanagement mit System; Springer Gabler

[26] Gerald C. Kane; 2019; The Technology Fallacy; The MIT Press

Own Sources

[16, 18, 28] Fabio Iannone (author of this article); 2017

[15, 20, 21, 24, 27, 29] Fabio Iannone (author of this article); 2020