The Moon and the Ghetto by Richard Nelson was recommended to me by Piret Toñurist at the OECD Observatory of Public Sector Innovation. I had worked with Piret last semester while writing the report about Anticipatory Innovation Government in the Basque Country. The work on anticipatory innovation has helped me to frame SenseMaker interventions as helping facilitate an innovation ecosystem and improve governance. There is a thread of public policy work that I hope to incorporate into my dissertation, because the government can be one of the best partners to establish human sensor networks. From an innovation governance angle, such a system could help monitor shifts in public value, emerging challenges, and social conflicts at-large. The SenseMaker system would contribute to the “complex action signaling system [that] is needed to assure that the separate economic actors will know what to do to coordinate their actions so as to optimize the system as a whole.”[1] Nelson’s book seems to lay most of the basic groundwork for public sector innovation governance by asking key questions about why policy analysis had failed to bring about substantial social change.
The Moon and the Ghetto was published in 1977 by Richard R. Nelson, an economics professor who had previously been an economic analyst at the RAND Corporation. The long essay begins with the question: “If we can land a man on the moon, why can’t we solve the problems of the ghetto?”[2] With the vast amount of resources and advanced technology that can get us the moon, Nelson says, what accounts for the “uneven development across different areas of wants?”[3] Nelson breaks the book into three parts- the intellectual traditions of logical analysis, two case studies on childcare policy and supersonic transport and breeder reactors, and then a synthesis of a new approach to economic policy choice.
One of the challenges of innovation governance is adequately dealing with political economy as a complex adaptive system. Nelson critiques the assumption that most “problems are technical, and the correct answers a matter of professional judgement and calculation.”[4] He also calls into question the ‘rationality’ of economics and the “logic-of choice approach”[5] taken by many policy analysts. The blindness of many analysts due to their disciplinary training results in a static understanding of the economic system and cannot be attuned to changes in supply, demand, and public value. In Nelson’s words, “public administration has lacked two essential components of an effective intellectual structure- a useful normative apparatus, and an ability to make persuasive predictions.”[6] To establish this ‘effective intellectual structure’ Nelson proposes an organizational analysis that recognizes how the structure of the governance system shapes policy proposals form and are implemented.
Here we see another connection between the top-down economic rationality and a bottom-up complex adaptive systems approach. There is an interesting connection to power that I hope to explore more later, because some of the learnings from complexity demonstrate that small actions might be much more powerful than top-down executive action when done at scale. Nelson explains this dynamic with policy: “Policies bubble up as actions taken or proposals generated from below, only a few of which can be subjected to top executive scrutiny.”[7] In other words, policy is shaped by negotiations and actions at lower levels in the system. This flow of negotiation and action-reaction plays a normative role in establishing priorities and also future possibility. Decision-makers higher in the organizational hierarchy can claim a rational cost-analysis approach, but if this analysis is divorced from the current disposition of the system, then the policy will often fail. After all, the claim to one strategic innovation priority or another is basically arbitrary and based on a set of values- rational economic choice is just one belief system among many possibilities. Nelson asks, “why subsidies for one kind of R & D or for a certain industry but not for others?”[8] The current system, in Nelson’s view, doesn’t provide a good answer.
The book helped me conceptualize a SenseMaker continuous capture story system as a tool for choice within the political economy. Nelson makes the point that the ‘organizational problem’ behind the ‘allocation problem’ rests on “choice of machinery to make the more detailed decisions.”[9] This machinery must deal with economic organization as a complex adaptive system (“evolutionary adaptive system”) and measure shifts in public value, changes in supply and demand, to make innovations adaptive to a wide range of shifting conditions. I have theorized that institutionalizing SenseMaker capture in governmental activities would be one way to create a continuous capture system to continually monitor social conflicts and actively support actions to prevent violence. The needs and bright spots that emerge in SenseMaker in this context can help governments invest in positive peace- the mutually beneficial relationships. This is an alternative theory of change to the conflict monitoring/prevention angle on the assumption that investing in good relationships ultimately creates more value that wasting resources on a small number of outbreaks of violence. Also, the theory goes that positive relationships also build resilience and enable other mechanisms for preventing conflict in the first place. The language of policy analysis and governance systems makes it easier to explain the values proposition to different camps within government. It is difficult to explain a return on investment for R & D for resolving conflicts. However, if the SenseMaker system helps the public sector support innovation by increasing sensitivity to shifts in public value and emerging needs (aggregate demand), then the value is more immediate.
In future weeks, I hope to pick up on some of the questions around the politics of conflict resolution. After all, for something so central to all of our lives, why isn’t there more investment in it in the first place?
[1] Richard R. Nelson, The Moon and the Ghetto, 1st edition (New York: W. W. Norton & Company, 1977). 132.
This week’s reading reflection will cover a book that has been on my list for a long time: Brenda Dervin’s Sense-Making Methodology Reader. During my preparation for this blog, I realized that I hadn’t yet gone into much of the existing sense-making literature. I’ve been using Snowden’s definition of sense-making: getting a better understanding of the world in order to take action. This definition is workable for presenting the basic sense-making approach to audiences during public events, but doesn’t say much about the underlying theoretical and methodological approach. While reading Dervin’s work, I paid special attention to the theoretical and philosophical underpinnings and insight into the methodology itself.
Intro to Sense-Making
Dervin comes from the field of communication. Her Sense-Making methodology arises from a critique of her field’s approach to researching information campaigns. The basic story of Dervin’s critique goes like this: communications theory was developed to help those running information campaigns (often strong institutions, elites, or politicians) to better spread their message. The goal is successful transmission of information to achieve impact. This assumes that information is a thing that can be dumped into peoples heads and also implies action. If the information is not received well or people don’t act on it, then the problem is said to be in the receiver rather than the sender. In that sense, communications theory had reified inequality by continually forcing narratives on people rather than asking them to describe their situation, develop an understanding of what their context changes their perceptions on the information needed for action, and changing communication strategy accordingly.
Dervin’s Sense-Making approach is built on the idea of gap theory. Dervin summarizes a “basic premise of the Sense-Making approach: people seek external input (i.e. information) to help them fill the gaps they see in their understanding of their worlds. Based on this thinking, a core element of the Sense-Making approach is to ask respondents what questions they had about situations, what understandings they saw self as needing, what they needed to make sense out of, find out, learn, or unconfuse.”[1] The central concepts behind this approach are: time, space, movement, gap, power, constraint, and force.[2]
The philosophical points are something that I will likely pick up later when I establish the ‘first principles’ from complex adaptive systems theory that will inform decision-making process through my practice with SenseMaker.
Methods
The most important intersection with my current work is Dervin’s Sense-Making methodology as a set of practices for inquiry. The main method that is included in the Sense-Making Methodology Reader is the Micro-Moment Timeline. Rather than beginning with the message and asking people to confirm if they received and used the information, the Micro-Moment Timeline starts by asking about a situation relevant to the person’s life. The goal is to gather the material for a ‘Sense-Making Triangle” that consists of three aspects: situation, gap, use or helps. Dervin summarizes: “individual use of information and information systems is responsive to situational conditions as defined by that individual.”[3]
For example, Dervin completed a study about a clinic. The interview technique began by asking the person what happened when they arrived at the clinic, and followed up through a series of “and then what happened?” After constructing the timeline, Dervin establishes gaps- the question or concern that requires additional information for the person to achieve their goals- by asking questions like: What questions arose at this step? What Thoughts? What feels? What emotions?[4]
Next, the final leg of the Sense-Making triangle is completed by asking about what led to the question, what aspects were at play, and if the situation was resolved. Dervin then quantifies this narrative material through a pre-determined coding scheme of “Sense-Making movement states.”[5] The movement states form a table that includes items like decisions, waiting around, barriers on one axis (the gap) and items like “got skills,” “able to plan,” “kept going” on the other. This produces an evaluation of how situations and context change the information that is needed to achieve goals. It uses the narrative material about the situation as the starting point but provides tight theoretical constraints on the types of gaps and the activities necessary to bridge them.
Through this dialogical process, the researcher is giving the interviewee an opportunity to voice what is important to them and why rather than trying to impose an artificial view of what should be important to them in the eyes of the institution doing the research. The goal of the researcher is to “invite and assist the other in describing that world as much as possible entirely in the context of his or her own experiences, understandings, and meanings.”[6] The key is staying open enough at the beginning to avoid framing the problem wrong from the start and producing nonsensical (or neo-colonial) solutions as a result.
One of my favorite quotes is when Dervin drives this point home:
“One begins to understand that much of the social sciences is based on mythical data collected by asking people to care about and make sense of things that have nothing to do with their own lives as they see them. (p.11)”[7]
Dervin (1979)
Impact on my work
As you’ve likely read in other blogs by now, I implement a sense-making approach powered by SenseMaker. A SenseMaker survey begin by asking people to share an experience based on a broad prompt relevant to the research area and then the respondent adds additional layers of meaning to the experience by answering a survey with triangle questions, dyads, ‘stones’ canvases, and multiple choice questions. Dervin’s work helped me to recognize the initial importance of starting with the prompt that elicits an experience rather than an evaluation or an opinion. I also see how some of the quantitative dimensions in the SenseMaker design (triads as compositional data, multiple choice questions tallies etc) are ways to get the respondent to signify their experience as Dervin would do through her “Sense-Making Situation States” table.
As I’m working on the design for the SenseMaker instrument that will be used for conflict resolution in the United States, I’m going to revisit some of Dervin’s categories for Situation States, because they nicely relate to decision-making support and action. After all, the goal of building a complexity-informed conflict resolution approach with SenseMaker is to empower people to take action by asking themselves “what can I do tomorrow to create more stories like the ones I want to see, and fewer stories like the ones that I don’t?” One of the things that I’ve noticed is that the SenseMaker design must include questions that allow people to quickly make that connection between context and action. Designs that ask people to signify their experience based on concepts that are not actionable struggle in the intervention phase of the sensemaking cycle (I like to use Kurtz’ participatory narrative inquiry process here). Dervin’s work shows some practical ways to achieve that.
All in all, this book gave me insight into:
The importance of establishing a dialogue in the process rather than trying to get a single point across
Recognizing that people seek out information when it is useful to them
Sitting in the middle of modernist/ postmodernist philosophical stances through mixed methods
Arguments for why a Sense-Making method challenges power structures and increases equity.
I’m sure that I’ll return to this book frequently in my studies- there is a lot more to unpack that will not make it in this week’s blog!
Dervin’s Sense-Making Model (p. 238)
Updates
There are two Carter School Peace Engineering Lab events that you should sign up for this semester:
April 15th: Stories from the Field: Complexity and Post-Conflict Reconstruction
This event features Graham Day- an ex UN official and SenseMaker practitioner. It will be a great conversation about how complexity can be a game changer in the field.
April 22nd: Peace Engineering Roundtable: How Technology Can Prevent Conflict and Spur Peacebuilding
This event hosted by Dean Alpaslan Ozerdem will showcase how we are using technology for Peace Engineering.
Register and I’ll see you there!
[1] Brenda Dervin, Lois Foreman-Wernet, and Eric Lauterbach, eds., Sense-Making Methodology Reader: Selected Writings of Brenda Dervin (Hampton Pr, 2003). 204.
This semester, I’m taking the required CONF 812- Qualitative Research Methods course. Our final project is conducting a small study and creating a research portfolio. I’ve chosen to pilot a few test questions that could be implemented in the Peace Engineering Lab’s SenseMaker framework that will be rolled out in the fall. Some of the questions are derived from the SenseMaker Design Workshop that I held for the Carter School’s Spring Peace Week.
My goal is to collect at least 20 stories for the pilot from March 29th-April 5th. You can help by…
Excerpt from my class proposal on why I’m doing this:
“The first stage of project development is the creation of a SenseMaker framework that adequately captures experiences that provide the raw material for conflict resolution practice. In SenseMaker methodology, participants are asked to share an experience in response to one or two “story prompts” that elicit a wide range of lived experience, positive or negative. SenseMaker does not collect narrative that is evaluative or opinionated. These lived experiences are then self-interpreted by the storyteller with multiple question types on the SenseMaker survey, including triangle questions that provide lenses for important elements of theory and practice.
The story prompts are of central importance to the entire SenseMaker design, because they determine the scope and focus of narratives that are then interpreted later in the survey. Inadequate testing of the prompting questions can waste research resources if participants choose to share experiences that are not relevant to the researcher. The research questions of the proposed pilot study are pragmatic: What kind of narrative material do the three proposed prompts provide? How could the story prompts and SenseMaker questions being tested contribute to complexity-informed conflict resolution practice (decision-making, fractal engagement, anticipation, mapping elements of conflict systems)?”
I’m searching for ways to bake in concepts like epistemic justice into the participatory sensemaking process, so that people are behaving ethically by nature of participating.
This morning I hosted an event for the Carter School Peace Engineering Lab featuring Angela Hanson and Piret Toñurist from the OECD Observatory of Public Sector Innovation. I’m looking forward to seeing how Peace Engineers can participate in ore anticipatory and futures work to help prevent conflicts and avoid negative unintended consequences.
You can watch the video and raw transcript and download the slides from the OPSI team below:
Below is the automatic transcription from Zoom and likely contains some errors. Hoping it can orient you to interested segments of the video!
1 00:00:08.370 –> 00:00:31.710 Keil L Eggers: So good morning everybody, welcome to another piece engineering lab events at the Carter school this morning we’re very fortunate to be joined by Angela Hansen and print the newest from the OECD Observatory public sector, innovation and really excited about this event, this morning because.
2 00:00:32.790 –> 00:00:41.850 Keil L Eggers: The think that piece engineering has a role to play and adapting some of these anticipatory approaches and dealing with.
3 00:00:42.540 –> 00:00:56.610 Keil L Eggers: uncertain futures and making sure that people in the public sector have the tools and the knowledge to kind of navigate these uncertain spaces and i’ve done some work with PSI in the past.
4 00:00:57.840 –> 00:00:59.520 Keil L Eggers: And it’s been a.
5 00:01:01.230 –> 00:01:05.700 Keil L Eggers: great help to me just in terms of my own development on understanding this area so.
6 00:01:06.780 –> 00:01:11.190 Keil L Eggers: very much looking forward to sharing that with all eat today.
7 00:01:12.540 –> 00:01:18.120 Keil L Eggers: So with that I will go ahead and hand it over to Angela gets kicked off here.
8 00:01:19.350 –> 00:01:20.130 Angela Hanson-OECD: Thank you kyle.
9 00:01:21.450 –> 00:01:22.920 Angela Hanson-OECD: So it’s kyle mentioned.
10 00:01:23.010 –> 00:01:29.250 Angela Hanson-OECD: My name is Angela Hansen i’m here with my colleague parrots Turner us as well hi Chris.
11 00:01:30.450 –> 00:01:32.730 Angela Hanson-OECD: We have our very official backgrounds going today.
12 00:01:33.840 –> 00:01:47.280 Angela Hanson-OECD: So I think what what we can do is give a little bit of an overview of of the anticipatory innovation governance project and then have a discussion with this group about kind of what it means for.
13 00:01:47.940 –> 00:02:08.070 Angela Hanson-OECD: This topic of peace engineering and I realized that not everybody here is very familiar with the OECD, the observatory or the program of anticipatory innovation governance so i’m going to give a little overview of that as a bit of a prompt for our discussion.
14 00:02:09.450 –> 00:02:10.800 Angela Hanson-OECD: So in.
15 00:02:11.820 –> 00:02:14.100 Angela Hanson-OECD: i’m going to share some slides here.
16 00:02:16.110 –> 00:02:20.610 Angela Hanson-OECD: And kyle jump in, and let me know if he if it doesn’t look right.
17 00:02:21.390 –> 00:02:23.670 Angela Hanson-OECD: But this is yeah okay.
18 00:02:26.520 –> 00:02:39.930 Angela Hanson-OECD: So just a little bit about the well, so the OECD is a group of 37 member countries that work on shared policy areas everything from.
19 00:02:40.680 –> 00:02:51.390 Angela Hanson-OECD: You know oceans and space and agriculture and economic policy, taxation things of that sort, but we also collaborate on governance topics.
20 00:02:52.140 –> 00:03:07.230 Angela Hanson-OECD: Primarily, we work with national governments, but we also do quite a bit of work with sub national governments as well because that’s where a lot of the lot of the action is, so to speak, when when we’re talking about innovation in the public sector.
21 00:03:08.310 –> 00:03:13.350 Angela Hanson-OECD: And we have three main mission areas in the Observatory.
22 00:03:14.370 –> 00:03:23.670 Angela Hanson-OECD: One of them is uncovering what’s next so we look at trends of how how different trends are emerging.
23 00:03:24.270 –> 00:03:40.170 Angela Hanson-OECD: Within governments how governments are responding to external shifts in their in their context and their operating environment and looking at specifically different technology topics and doing.
24 00:03:41.190 –> 00:03:52.710 Angela Hanson-OECD: Quick investigations on what are they how do they work, what does it mean for civil servants on a day to day basis, as well as decision makers at the kind of policy level.
25 00:03:53.400 –> 00:04:05.940 Angela Hanson-OECD: And this is kind of a way of having our our eye out to the horizon and picking up on some of the signals of things that might affect governments in a very big way on the horizon.
26 00:04:08.580 –> 00:04:20.760 Angela Hanson-OECD: And then another thing we do is turn the new into normal so once some of these practices and patterns are established in government, we also tried to normalize.
27 00:04:21.630 –> 00:04:38.640 Angela Hanson-OECD: Those practices as well, so normalizing how innovation is done, innovate normalizing how innovation is managed as a portfolio, increasing the the access and capabilities to different tools and methods these kinds of things.
28 00:04:39.990 –> 00:04:53.400 Angela Hanson-OECD: And then another thing we we’ve done in 20 2019 was we we had 40 plus countries sign on to this declaration on public sector innovation so they’re.
29 00:04:53.910 –> 00:05:05.880 Angela Hanson-OECD: agreeing to basically support innovation and agreed to certain shared principles so that was a kind of a high level normalization as well at the policy level.
30 00:05:08.310 –> 00:05:25.800 Angela Hanson-OECD: And then we also provide trusted advice to governments on specific topics, so this is where the the anticipatory innovation governance project fits in, but we also do country reviews and scans on different topics.
31 00:05:26.880 –> 00:05:41.370 Angela Hanson-OECD: So things like procurement will dive into that specific topic or do kind of system level analysis of, for instance, the innovation system of the public service of Brazil and Canada.
32 00:05:44.670 –> 00:05:51.270 Angela Hanson-OECD: These are the, this is the team that’s working on the anticipatory innovation governance project and then we’ve been pulling in.
33 00:05:51.930 –> 00:06:04.620 Angela Hanson-OECD: Additional resources, as well as we’ve ramped up the number of projects that we’re working on and i’ll tell you a little bit more about that, but it’s more than just pure at and I.
34 00:06:05.790 –> 00:06:11.010 Angela Hanson-OECD: we’ve got a full team of very, very smart people supporting this work.
35 00:06:14.220 –> 00:06:33.330 Angela Hanson-OECD: And for those of you who haven’t seen this yet and a couple of you have seen this model, this is our our model of the purposes of different public sector innovation so we call it our facets model, the reason why it’s called facets and not kind of it’s not a two by two.
36 00:06:34.530 –> 00:06:43.620 Angela Hanson-OECD: matrix like a lot of management consulting frameworks look like is because these are not meant to be mutually exclusive purposes.
37 00:06:44.580 –> 00:06:52.890 Angela Hanson-OECD: But rather difference, I mean a single project, for instance, can serve all of these different purposes at once.
38 00:06:53.610 –> 00:07:02.370 Angela Hanson-OECD: The point is to be more intentional, about which ones which pieces of a project or which structures and an organization are serving.
39 00:07:03.060 –> 00:07:16.800 Angela Hanson-OECD: Which purpose, so we have two dimensions to this model direct level of directness so very top down directed versus undirected or bottom up activity.
40 00:07:17.640 –> 00:07:29.910 Angela Hanson-OECD: And then on left to right as as the level of certainty so it’s about kind of exploiting or incremental activities versus more exploring activities so.
41 00:07:30.780 –> 00:07:45.600 Angela Hanson-OECD: We get for four different facets of innovation, and this is a model that we’ve used quite extensively in our work with different with different governments at the both at the national level and sub national level.
42 00:07:46.770 –> 00:08:02.310 Angela Hanson-OECD: You may have heard of the kind of mission oriented innovation So these are things like getting plastic fleet free oceans by 2030 or solving climate change or transitioning in energy.
43 00:08:03.390 –> 00:08:19.500 Angela Hanson-OECD: grid, for instance, this is kind of and all of the sustainable development goals are great examples of missions, and this is when usually top of government says, we need to get this done.
44 00:08:20.850 –> 00:08:25.980 Angela Hanson-OECD: No matter what let’s all reorient ourselves around this mission and figuring out.
45 00:08:27.390 –> 00:08:35.820 Angela Hanson-OECD: there’s enhancement oriented innovation, which is taking finding efficiencies in existing systems and trying to.
47 00:08:39.660 –> 00:08:47.190 Angela Hanson-OECD: find a new way of delivering the same service are the same value, but in a more kind of efficient manner.
48 00:08:48.060 –> 00:08:58.410 Angela Hanson-OECD: adaptive innovation is focused on changing the modes of action or the types of activities based on how the environment has shifted.
49 00:08:59.010 –> 00:09:10.650 Angela Hanson-OECD: we’re seeing a lot of this activity around Kobe response, right now, a lot of governments are having to deliver services and entirely new ways using new channels.
50 00:09:11.340 –> 00:09:36.030 Angela Hanson-OECD: to adapt to that changing reality and then anticipatory innovation, which is the subject today is is situated on the far right here, this is looking into kind of the unknown and more ambiguous shifts that we we see signals of or shifts that we can intentionally help shape.
51 00:09:37.980 –> 00:09:47.760 Angela Hanson-OECD: So these are things like what are the effects that climate change will eventually produce the effects of aging.
52 00:09:49.140 –> 00:09:50.910 Angela Hanson-OECD: The effects of migration.
53 00:09:51.930 –> 00:10:05.310 Angela Hanson-OECD: And what can governments do to kind of step into this space and play a more proactive role, so this is what we’ll be diving into today, but just to say that this is situated in an overall.
54 00:10:06.960 –> 00:10:18.480 Angela Hanson-OECD: kind of a overall framework of innovation and it’s different purposes and you can’t have just one of these something really important an important distinction is.
55 00:10:19.950 –> 00:10:20.910 Angela Hanson-OECD: A lot of times.
56 00:10:22.230 –> 00:10:33.120 Angela Hanson-OECD: Governments wants clear returns on investments and ways to evaluate the impact of these different activities, the things above the line here are quite.
57 00:10:34.050 –> 00:10:43.830 Angela Hanson-OECD: You know, easy to to measure, a lot of the work that happens in government is is enhancement oriented so it’s being measured on you know kpis and.
58 00:10:44.670 –> 00:10:53.670 Angela Hanson-OECD: Tax dollars saved and things like this missions, of course, you know something like you know getting someone to the moon you either did or you didn’t.
59 00:10:54.900 –> 00:11:00.450 Angela Hanson-OECD: So its measured, based on the objective, whether it was achieved things like.
60 00:11:01.470 –> 00:11:14.130 Angela Hanson-OECD: adaptive and anticipatory are much, much more difficult to to measure that return and we’ll get into the nuances of what that means.
61 00:11:16.800 –> 00:11:27.780 Angela Hanson-OECD: So kind of activating question of each of these different purposes is for mission oriented is how might we achieve X for enhancement, is how might we do X better.
62 00:11:28.590 –> 00:11:41.220 Angela Hanson-OECD: For adaptive how might our evolve situation change how we do X and for anticipatory how might emerging possibilities fundamentally change what X could or should be.
63 00:11:44.670 –> 00:11:56.010 Angela Hanson-OECD: There are some different strengths these different facets, so I talked a little bit about about that, but there’s also some weaknesses so it’s also.
64 00:11:56.790 –> 00:12:04.740 Angela Hanson-OECD: challenge of over investing heavily in these areas as well, so you can get, for instance with missions.
65 00:12:05.340 –> 00:12:14.190 Angela Hanson-OECD: You can get locked in for the next 10 years into into the wrong mission, while the context around changes, for example.
66 00:12:14.970 –> 00:12:29.340 Angela Hanson-OECD: And for anticipatory it’s, this is a challenge that we see a lot and we’re trying to to navigate this is how do you do anticipatory work without losing sight of the immediate.
67 00:12:30.660 –> 00:12:48.030 Angela Hanson-OECD: Because there are always crises and things that are needed desperately by citizens and now, and so, how does a public official justify and have the legitimacy to to also operate in this area of ambiguity.
68 00:12:51.690 –> 00:13:04.740 Angela Hanson-OECD: Something that is has been a focus of my work is on tools and methods and there’s through the work of built this kind of understanding that certain tools have their own.
69 00:13:05.250 –> 00:13:17.940 Angela Hanson-OECD: Logic built in, so if an organization heavily invest in a specific tool or method, it will they will more likely result in certain kinds of.
70 00:13:19.200 –> 00:13:41.670 Angela Hanson-OECD: Innovation so, for instance, if an organization heavily invest in lean business process improvement service design behavioral insights they’re likely to get a lot of enhancement oriented innovation or that’s how those tools and methods have been used typically.
71 00:13:42.720 –> 00:13:45.030 Angela Hanson-OECD: And so, this is just to say that.
72 00:13:46.530 –> 00:13:55.140 Angela Hanson-OECD: The the working methods that governments spend their time on tend to also influence what they get out of it.
73 00:13:57.420 –> 00:14:11.370 Angela Hanson-OECD: If you want, this is a little promo for a tool that we have on our our site it’s a toolkit navigator so it includes some kind of features and foresight and anticipatory tools as well, but also.
74 00:14:12.300 –> 00:14:27.810 Angela Hanson-OECD: Hundreds of other toolkits based on the the topic of interest or a specific action that someone wants to take to either solve a problem design a new strategy, etc, so this is a free, a free resource on the.
75 00:14:30.270 –> 00:14:33.120 Angela Hanson-OECD: Excuse me, the OECD website, the Odyssey website.
76 00:14:36.030 –> 00:14:43.800 Angela Hanson-OECD: So something we’re exploring currently specifically related to these tools are what are the jobs to be done.
77 00:14:44.940 –> 00:14:57.000 Angela Hanson-OECD: Through the anticipatory innovation tool, so what needs to happen, and this is kind of a working model for how we’re thinking about different tool pathways.
78 00:14:57.570 –> 00:15:13.410 Angela Hanson-OECD: So there’s a need to understand kind of what’s happening having that contextual awareness and perceiving what what is going on, detecting, for instance those weak signals there’s a why it matters.
79 00:15:14.850 –> 00:15:23.550 Angela Hanson-OECD: and making sense of Okay, so what what does this all mean what are the patterns what what Could this mean for our values.
80 00:15:25.800 –> 00:15:38.520 Angela Hanson-OECD: it’s looking into the question of what we could do differently so bit of reframing of what is currently understood as the problem and defining a different approach to it.
81 00:15:39.690 –> 00:15:51.090 Angela Hanson-OECD: And then there’s a component of what we can do so, what is the kind of instrumental capacity, and how are we going to act.
82 00:15:51.690 –> 00:16:03.270 Angela Hanson-OECD: Based on this information, and what we think it means so different tools different methods are all in the anticipatory space serve these different.
83 00:16:03.870 –> 00:16:17.610 Angela Hanson-OECD: Jobs they’re all you know distinct but also inter interrelated so we’re trying to identify identify those in which pathways that public sector officials, really, really need the most.
84 00:16:20.760 –> 00:16:39.810 Angela Hanson-OECD: And, of course, this is something that I like to point out, specifically with tools and methods and at the OECD, there is a strong tendency to try to find best practices that work across contexts that have a high level of certainty that are transferable.
85 00:16:40.920 –> 00:16:59.610 Angela Hanson-OECD: And this is of course what we would all like in a perfect world, but as you, as we know, things change, we are dealing with complexity and uncertainty and sometimes those practices, need to be well they are emergent or novel.
86 00:17:00.840 –> 00:17:21.210 Angela Hanson-OECD: Where there’s high level of this ambiguity, the approach needs to be very bespoke and it’s very context dependent so we’re working a bit in this space in the anticipatory work but trying to find some repeatable patterns that are.
87 00:17:22.800 –> 00:17:27.240 Angela Hanson-OECD: At least principles, maybe that are helpful across different contexts.
88 00:17:30.270 –> 00:17:34.950 Angela Hanson-OECD: And then just another part of our work is working on a portfolio.
89 00:17:36.030 –> 00:17:54.540 Angela Hanson-OECD: portfolio management approaches, so we look at, not only from a project in an activity perspective, but also a support structure perspective and look at where governments are investing their time and energy and asking is that, where you want to be.
90 00:17:55.590 –> 00:18:00.660 Angela Hanson-OECD: Because it’s while anticipatory innovation is something that is.
91 00:18:01.860 –> 00:18:09.030 Angela Hanson-OECD: It it’s under under invested in across basically every every context we encounter.
92 00:18:10.440 –> 00:18:28.950 Angela Hanson-OECD: anticipatory is is under under resourced, but it doesn’t mean it’s it’s, the only thing and it’s all everybody should do from from here forward, so this is a work we do alongside anticipatory work is to understand what’s the whole portfolio.
93 00:18:31.740 –> 00:18:41.580 Angela Hanson-OECD: i’m going to hand it over to my colleague Perez to go into some of the specifics of the anticipatory innovation governance project.
94 00:18:42.660 –> 00:18:43.530 Angela Hanson-OECD: Over to you correct.
95 00:18:44.970 –> 00:18:59.790 Piret T?nurist: Thank you, Angela i’ll keep my video off because i’ve been struggling with connectivity issues at the moment, but hopefully you can hear me, or at least signal or jump in if there’s any problem in kind of hearing the.
96 00:19:01.170 –> 00:19:02.640 Piret T?nurist: hearing what i’m talking about.
97 00:19:03.660 –> 00:19:21.060 Piret T?nurist: So why did we go into this kind of anticipatory innovation space very strongly in its entirety because Angela has been talking about the portfolio approach and different strategic approaches to innovation and innovation management in the public sector, but we really saw that.
98 00:19:22.110 –> 00:19:31.500 Piret T?nurist: kind of anticipatory space was under developed in governments in its entirety, so we have a lot of enhancement oriented innovation activity.
99 00:19:32.160 –> 00:19:46.500 Piret T?nurist: We have some kind of emergence basis for adaptive inhalation to emerge in public sector and kind of political forces behind also mission oriented innovation, but the specifically.
100 00:19:47.550 –> 00:19:58.290 Piret T?nurist: anticipatory space was the weakest in terms of methods approaches covered for governments and they also saw the most urgent need structurally.
101 00:19:59.040 –> 00:20:10.320 Piret T?nurist: Because of the kind of the changes paradigm shift value shifts on the kind of the transformation that is upcoming we saw a huge need to actually deal with this issue as urgent as possible.
102 00:20:11.010 –> 00:20:18.570 Piret T?nurist: So two and a half, three years ago, already we started to think about these topics and also build up an hour program and.
103 00:20:19.530 –> 00:20:30.090 Piret T?nurist: disappear innovation governance and the really, the idea is to go from perceiving the future or thinking about the future in shaping the future and what we see.
104 00:20:31.050 –> 00:20:47.730 Piret T?nurist: happening currently in governments as well is none the there’s an impact gap from kind of foresight and futures activities into actually policy processes implementation experimentation.
105 00:20:48.420 –> 00:21:00.300 Piret T?nurist: and strategic thinking on the ground so government some governments have developed quite good foresight capacities that translating to risk assessment.
106 00:21:01.170 –> 00:21:13.140 Piret T?nurist: and inform risk assessment, but what we have learned, especially through the corporate crisis, as well as that doesn’t really mean that governments are shaping or taking this information into strategic action.
107 00:21:13.680 –> 00:21:21.120 Piret T?nurist: That the its information is using to innovative capabilities of capacities in government at all so.
108 00:21:22.020 –> 00:21:37.890 Piret T?nurist: Currently in different governments different capabilities already exists, but the really the value chain, from an anticipatory thinking or future and foresight thinking through strategic choices and from then on, also.
109 00:21:38.880 –> 00:21:53.400 Piret T?nurist: through innovation and innovation practice and experimentation and the feedback loop back doesn’t really seem to exist in a kind of structured and systemic manner, and this is something that we want to really address with the work that we do.
110 00:21:54.780 –> 00:22:01.410 Piret T?nurist: and doing that anticipation, the submitter innovation and anticipatory innovation governance.
111 00:22:02.340 –> 00:22:17.370 Piret T?nurist: The real core concept that we’re working with our are connected to creating more knowledge about the future from existing contextual factors on the line values worldviews what is upcoming and really the kind of the thinking and.
112 00:22:18.480 –> 00:22:29.460 Piret T?nurist: reception and features thinking in place, but not only for just having reports about scenarios of 2015 or 2035 or so forth.
113 00:22:30.030 –> 00:22:38.610 Piret T?nurist: But really also having the action link so having anticipatory innovation practices in place acting upon that knowledge already today.
114 00:22:39.120 –> 00:22:55.890 Piret T?nurist: Actually, shaped those processes, not to kind of be in a wait and see end of the pipe solution kind of a policy making process, but actually shaping by exploring and giving signals that some of these upcoming topics are important for us and we actually need.
115 00:22:57.000 –> 00:23:03.240 Piret T?nurist: kind of an anticipatory innovation governance system to support that that in terms of social structures and mechanisms that.
116 00:23:04.140 –> 00:23:07.740 Piret T?nurist: make that happen because it currently doesn’t happen governments as such.
117 00:23:08.280 –> 00:23:18.480 Piret T?nurist: And why does it happen in governments is because of the innovators dilemma or that is known for big corporations or public and private sector, cooperation is as well as that.
118 00:23:19.170 –> 00:23:28.170 Piret T?nurist: it’s actually very difficult to look at parodic magically different ideas or proposed transformative in other innovations.
119 00:23:28.890 –> 00:23:40.290 Piret T?nurist: In established organizations and established structures, because you have you know most of your activities are already closed strategically committed your budgets are committed.
120 00:23:40.800 –> 00:23:55.170 Piret T?nurist: So in our kind of board meetings or higher leadership meetings your current status quo and of tactical responses and issues get invariably more attention than any kind of anticipatory action.
121 00:23:56.010 –> 00:24:03.810 Piret T?nurist: Also there is kind of issues with kind of current stakeholder needs and user feedback as such as well because.
122 00:24:04.410 –> 00:24:19.800 Piret T?nurist: Your current users may not actually relate to new, innovative ideas services or types of activities or approaches to actually have to deal with the kind of lead users or users that actually don’t exist for new types of solutions.
123 00:24:20.250 –> 00:24:36.960 Piret T?nurist: So how do you have that dialogue or feedback system where your current connections networks may actually give you the wrong information about what is what will work in the future, and of course this resistance to change within the kind of a topical issue in place everywhere.
124 00:24:38.130 –> 00:24:49.530 Piret T?nurist: And, especially when we think about technology, then also have the issue of kind of a double blind situation for governments and we talk about the Coleman crutches dilemma.
125 00:24:49.980 –> 00:25:05.250 Piret T?nurist: In a sense that the evidence dilemma as well that in especially of technological issues and also some of the social economic developments, the possibility of control or during areas of prevention or early.
126 00:25:07.050 –> 00:25:19.470 Piret T?nurist: Intervention into debt and logical development or other development is higher, have the possibility to act and control something or not something is much higher in the beginning of the face of the development.
127 00:25:20.310 –> 00:25:32.670 Piret T?nurist: But at the same time, the evidence of impact or possible impacts of roads of impacts is also much, much smaller and while you have evidence later on in the process.
128 00:25:33.630 –> 00:25:42.030 Piret T?nurist: You it’s almost impossible to then put cats in the back of the bag or always proven to be technologically possible stats to also.
129 00:25:42.630 –> 00:25:48.270 Piret T?nurist: Impact kind of social economic adoption different technologies and also different processes.
130 00:25:48.780 –> 00:25:58.680 Piret T?nurist: So you always have to act or when you have the possibility to act, you will not actually have the evidence needed to backup those actions.
131 00:25:59.100 –> 00:26:05.040 Piret T?nurist: And yet, you still have to do something if you are we don’t want to be in a spectator sport of doing nothing.
132 00:26:05.700 –> 00:26:13.560 Piret T?nurist: So that is the kind of the position governments in and that’s why you actually need a radical experimentation pro process or experimental governance versus.
133 00:26:13.980 –> 00:26:18.810 Piret T?nurist: accompanying are being really a core part of anticipatory innovation governance.
134 00:26:19.410 –> 00:26:36.600 Piret T?nurist: Because you have to create evidence on the go and make decisions based on that dynamically rather than doing a waterfall process of meeting early with no information into strategic teams that potentially may not pan out in reality.
135 00:26:37.920 –> 00:26:48.330 Piret T?nurist: And all of this we look at the model of having agency and having gotten authorizing environment so in governments that we work together with in Finland and elsewhere.
136 00:26:48.810 –> 00:27:00.360 Piret T?nurist: We look at the ability to take up anticipatory innovation, how do you do alternative explanation which institutional structures support your ability to add.
137 00:27:00.750 –> 00:27:12.480 Piret T?nurist: What kind of organizational capacity, you have data measurement issues we’re working with tools and methods or even how your sense, making this structured to meeting those alternate explorations and experimentation.
138 00:27:13.140 –> 00:27:21.480 Piret T?nurist: And the only other hand, we really are interested in feedback system or actually what says that what you’re doing this relative and all is.
139 00:27:22.740 –> 00:27:31.920 Piret T?nurist: Important and taken seriously, so what kind of evidence evaluation learning loops legitimacy processes, you have in place, but also very importantly.
140 00:27:32.220 –> 00:27:38.580 Piret T?nurist: What, how do you actually control vested interest interest and cognitive biases in your system that feedback.
141 00:27:39.330 –> 00:27:57.450 Piret T?nurist: Or is pro status go pro linear thinking and some of these aspects and how you also deal with them involve public interest in participation, which is a very difficult topic in the in the public sector, because if you are actually talking about basic magic changes.
142 00:27:58.620 –> 00:28:11.400 Piret T?nurist: Would you also have very negative scenarios which are very motivating to start acting but which play out very badly in media, so how civil servants are public servants are actually allowed to kind of have.
143 00:28:12.390 –> 00:28:23.880 Piret T?nurist: Wild card testing that may be challenging to current strategic games and there was a lot of actually fear from media and and public interest to actually deal with these issues.
144 00:28:25.380 –> 00:28:38.010 Piret T?nurist: And how do we know what is working and what is not working, because a lot of these issues, actually exist, also in in private sector so in terms of big organizations and dealing with issues, we are not.
145 00:28:39.240 –> 00:28:46.650 Piret T?nurist: Having a magic solution, so we have an actually an action oriented research program around the world, with different cases.
146 00:28:47.280 –> 00:29:00.660 Piret T?nurist: Where we are trying to capture this practice by participating in creating those mechanisms and actually also involving or being part of anticipatory innovation processes, so we are looking at.
147 00:29:02.100 –> 00:29:09.810 Piret T?nurist: various topics from disappear story greenhouses and Sweden or radical experimentation, we are looking at the building.
148 00:29:10.830 –> 00:29:28.080 Piret T?nurist: Technology ecosystems and how to govern that with inside and outside government partners in that fear we are looking at out to align missions with anticipation and tools and methods connected to that in Norway and huge project, since in.
149 00:29:29.220 –> 00:29:40.200 Piret T?nurist: Finland, Slovenia and elsewhere around the kind of Ireland around the kind of the mechanisms of how to actually build those kind of value change within government and make them work in practice.
150 00:29:41.490 –> 00:29:51.870 Piret T?nurist: So going forwards are added activities really our method is active research but also convenient peer led learning networks that can.
151 00:29:52.170 –> 00:30:01.110 Piret T?nurist: Also on the go learn what works and what doesn’t work and what the contextual factors putting it to our and also disseminate those findings and.
152 00:30:01.650 –> 00:30:10.980 Piret T?nurist: learnings already, and what we have done so far is that we also have a policy brief and longer kind of initial working paper open these topics, so if you want to.
153 00:30:11.610 –> 00:30:23.550 Piret T?nurist: learn more about this than will also share the files slides afterwards as I can read more on the kind of short brief for police officers, but also longer prefer more.
154 00:30:24.540 –> 00:30:30.270 Piret T?nurist: dynamic and research oriented questions, and I think that the question for the today and for the betas.
155 00:30:30.780 –> 00:30:40.350 Piret T?nurist: What is the connection between the occipital for innovation, governance and peace engineering, I think that the kind of links are definitely there because of.
156 00:30:41.160 –> 00:30:52.980 Piret T?nurist: Ethical use of emerging technologies political implement implicate implications kind of systemically analyzing the changing values mapping ecosystems connected to that and.
157 00:30:53.610 –> 00:31:08.850 Piret T?nurist: Also, about their implications for building kind of peace and resolving conflicts and also the prevention aspects to that what may require to also have a kind of an anticipatory and anticipatory innovation approach in place to actually work in practice.
158 00:31:09.930 –> 00:31:15.330 Piret T?nurist: So that’s all from me and happy to have a discussion on the topic.
159 00:31:18.750 –> 00:31:20.790 Keil L Eggers: yeah thanks so much Angela.
160 00:31:22.530 –> 00:31:28.740 Keil L Eggers: Fantastic overview and looks like interior walls are really coming along to it’s been fun to see how.
161 00:31:30.360 –> 00:31:39.570 Keil L Eggers: The you’ve been adding to it, like some of the weaknesses of the approaches and the other things like that I think are really useful to get a grip on that.
162 00:31:41.730 –> 00:31:48.570 Keil L Eggers: So for anybody in attendance, I know that we’ve had a couple questions kind of come up in the chat so.
163 00:31:50.280 –> 00:32:05.370 Keil L Eggers: In asked business second and if you have any other questions that you want to put in the chat or you want to raise your hand feel free to do so and we’ll kind of open it up here for discussion because we’re Response Group.
164 00:32:07.350 –> 00:32:09.960 Keil L Eggers: But one of the things that I was really thinking about.
165 00:32:11.070 –> 00:32:13.320 Keil L Eggers: As you were speaking, is that.
166 00:32:14.460 –> 00:32:20.250 Keil L Eggers: One of the kind of common conversations that comes up a lot within the piece engineering space is how.
167 00:32:24.990 –> 00:32:29.160 Keil L Eggers: How engineers are lacking a little bit of that.
168 00:32:31.650 –> 00:32:40.080 Keil L Eggers: insight into how engineering projects like infrastructure or post conflict reconstruction or putting in.
169 00:32:42.000 –> 00:32:56.760 Keil L Eggers: You know, helping build local capacity and international building context, out of that can really affect, or have an impact on the development of conflicts and really that you know it’s us into a pretty.
170 00:32:59.250 –> 00:33:11.100 Keil L Eggers: Well, complex domain where we’re not really sure of some of that and so some of these tools of how to better map the environments we’re use that technology to.
171 00:33:11.580 –> 00:33:22.230 Keil L Eggers: You know, build those relationships with communities and kind of get a better sense of what’s happening that there are massive unintended consequences that.
172 00:33:23.490 –> 00:33:30.150 Keil L Eggers: You know, actually make the interventions of the engineers worse off.
173 00:33:31.530 –> 00:33:33.000 Keil L Eggers: So I think that’s.
174 00:33:34.080 –> 00:33:50.040 Keil L Eggers: One pretty clear connection that I see in all of this, and the way that you articulated the Agency and authorizing environment I think it’s definitely something that i’d like to engage with a little bit more as we’re thinking about.
175 00:33:51.510 –> 00:33:54.930 Keil L Eggers: How we’re talking about some of the experiments are going on at the piece of Chang lab.
176 00:34:02.280 –> 00:34:11.010 Keil L Eggers: And I guess just another conflict related question which this can be a little bit of a softball maybe for you.
177 00:34:12.180 –> 00:34:20.730 Keil L Eggers: But when you’re trying to get more focused on anticipation, what are some of the common conflicts that come up.
178 00:34:21.990 –> 00:34:34.530 Keil L Eggers: Within governments or a name mentioned between the media and the government, so what are some of those common challenges that that occur and what, how do you advise people to navigate those.
179 00:34:36.510 –> 00:34:42.180 Angela Hanson-OECD: yeah I can think of one of them and we’re trying to trying to understand how.
180 00:34:43.980 –> 00:34:46.920 Angela Hanson-OECD: How to resolve this particularly in democracies.
181 00:34:48.060 –> 00:35:01.530 Angela Hanson-OECD: But the first one that comes to my mind, and I know that period, probably has a couple of other that bubbled to the top with our work, so far, but one of one of them is around that legitimacy and having.
182 00:35:02.640 –> 00:35:14.730 Angela Hanson-OECD: You know oftentimes these decisions have to be made it a very political level, so when we’re talking about what should happen that that word should is often in the domain of.
183 00:35:15.960 –> 00:35:23.850 Angela Hanson-OECD: Politicians not civil servants, we often work with both but primarily with with civil servants.
184 00:35:25.200 –> 00:35:48.390 Angela Hanson-OECD: who also have to engage with with the political side and kind of advise them on what they should be looking out for but ultimately when when kind of those top level decisions need to be made there, often political and political cycles are short term so for five years, generally and.
185 00:35:49.530 –> 00:35:58.260 Angela Hanson-OECD: And of course there’s a political calculus to making any decision if results are not likely to be seen within that four to five year time frame.
186 00:35:59.010 –> 00:36:15.720 Angela Hanson-OECD: And of course there’s also a bias against action because anything that you do to shape a to shape a system that prevents a crisis from happening there’s something No politician will ever get credit for.
187 00:36:17.220 –> 00:36:23.820 Angela Hanson-OECD: But if you resolve something that’s already a problem you get to look like a hero, and you get reelected.
188 00:36:24.660 –> 00:36:44.160 Angela Hanson-OECD: which is more in that reactive and adaptive space or sometimes in the mission space, if you get out ahead of some of these some of these changes and things that are you know evident as problems, but you know the opportunity to act in a way that’s the lowest.
189 00:36:46.530 –> 00:37:02.220 Angela Hanson-OECD: The lowest cost and the ability to have the most impact is very early on, but that’s often not when politicians have the political legitimacy to act we’re seeing this This is like.
190 00:37:03.330 –> 00:37:10.020 Angela Hanson-OECD: I know that kyle’s familiar with the work in the in the Basque Country and give us go up in in northern Spain.
191 00:37:10.890 –> 00:37:21.480 Angela Hanson-OECD: You know they have a legacy of doing everything together a very consensus based system, but they also have this initiative about looking to the future.
192 00:37:21.960 –> 00:37:34.620 Angela Hanson-OECD: And when those problems are not evident and felt by everyone on the ground and there’s no active conflict, but maybe there’s a signal of future conflict.
193 00:37:35.700 –> 00:37:40.560 Angela Hanson-OECD: Do they have the legitimacy to take bold actions.
194 00:37:41.760 –> 00:37:44.250 Angela Hanson-OECD: In a democracy, when we see.
195 00:37:45.660 –> 00:37:53.190 Angela Hanson-OECD: Maybe examples elsewhere of of kind of acting toward the future where they you know you don’t have this pesky problem of democracy.
196 00:37:54.090 –> 00:38:10.080 Angela Hanson-OECD: But in democratic systems, you need to balance that out and find that legitimacy somewhere so that’s a big challenge that that comes to the front of my mind I don’t know if you have some others that come rise to the top as well.
197 00:38:19.680 –> 00:38:20.400 Piret T?nurist: yeah.
198 00:38:22.590 –> 00:38:23.250 Piret T?nurist: He.
199 00:38:24.600 –> 00:38:36.180 Piret T?nurist: Doing validation sessions well and you’ve actually proper problems connected practicing the stratosphere of nine to 10 the medic sessions around this topic delicious.
200 00:38:37.350 –> 00:38:38.580 Piret T?nurist: I think it also sounds quite a.
201 00:38:38.580 –> 00:38:43.860 Piret T?nurist: lot with like the silo issues in governments in general, the fact that the.
202 00:38:44.940 –> 00:38:56.040 Piret T?nurist: kind of foresight risk assessment innovation strategic planning are not actually something that happen, are very well connected and we will also organized.
203 00:38:56.430 –> 00:39:09.540 Piret T?nurist: In governments in its entirety so everything becomes extremely kind of clustered and not so well coordinated and, of course, in different countries as well, what we see is that.
204 00:39:10.260 –> 00:39:20.550 Piret T?nurist: We see assume that some of these kind of core functions in government that actually exists, but that assumption has proven also wrong in terms of.
205 00:39:21.360 –> 00:39:30.630 Piret T?nurist: The number of times that we have actually found that governments are not actually very good at strategic planning at all they’re good at planning, but not that strategic thinking.
206 00:39:31.200 –> 00:39:37.620 Piret T?nurist: And that’s why they are also very bad at sense, making or thinking about the future, because they haven’t really seen the need for that.
207 00:39:38.670 –> 00:39:45.990 Piret T?nurist: it’s yeah it’s quite that it’s been quite challenging connected to that, but what you especially said as well, then.
208 00:39:46.860 –> 00:39:55.650 Piret T?nurist: grinding those windows of opportunity really taking into account political cycles, where they actually demand for this type of work emergence.
209 00:39:56.310 –> 00:40:06.390 Piret T?nurist: That we are not doing now kind of systems and line to that at the moment, so we need to also do a lot of aligning action and then of course there’s a lot of kind of on the brand.
210 00:40:07.200 –> 00:40:18.150 Piret T?nurist: supply of anticipatory innovation governance, as well as the work on methods tools that are just a little bit foreign governments that they need to also have helped connected to that.
211 00:40:18.660 –> 00:40:32.280 Piret T?nurist: But this kind of supply of this type of information also has to land somewhere like you have to have a kind of a fertile soil that that takes up on these initiatives, so we tried to also work on both sides.
212 00:40:35.730 –> 00:40:36.270 Piret T?nurist: The.
213 00:40:36.630 –> 00:40:39.930 Angela Hanson-OECD: Speaking of the and I know there’s a couple of questions that are coming up.
214 00:40:41.160 –> 00:41:08.670 Angela Hanson-OECD: i’m waiting for some agency or government that is not working in Defense that is doing this work, because actually we do see like Defense department’s doing anticipatory innovation it’s just that, where can we find legitimacy if it’s not from kind of existential threats as.
215 00:41:10.050 –> 00:41:23.910 Angela Hanson-OECD: we’re looking for examples of that so I I just think it’s an interesting angle, given the the peace engineering work that you’re doing so I hope we can find some of those areas together.
216 00:41:25.080 –> 00:41:28.530 Keil L Eggers: yeah i’m sure we can get some other existential threats to get.
217 00:41:30.840 –> 00:41:36.330 Keil L Eggers: To make it happen all right, I think we have a next question from Jackie.
218 00:41:38.580 –> 00:41:47.070 Jackie Counts: yeah that’s Angela kind of my question and i’m thinking about the relief dollars that are coming down and.
219 00:41:47.640 –> 00:41:58.230 Jackie Counts: it’s really going to be buckets of money, and so, how do we really use this opportunity and to reserve a portion of that for.
220 00:41:58.920 –> 00:42:23.640 Jackie Counts: anticipatory and because it is coming down and it’s so vast there isn’t going to be the scarcity mindset for a window of opportunity, and so I curious if you’re working with any other and government to are thinking about how we could reserve and be intentional and.
221 00:42:24.810 –> 00:42:33.690 Jackie Counts: actually have a meeting on Friday and i’m talking about how we can like use the facets of innovation, how we can use some of the futures horizons for.
222 00:42:34.560 –> 00:42:46.830 Jackie Counts: How we can use some of trans formative innovation to be intentional and not just do all immediate responses that are just going to turn the dial up a little bit.
223 00:42:49.140 –> 00:42:49.560 Angela Hanson-OECD: I mean the.
225 00:42:52.890 –> 00:42:57.240 Angela Hanson-OECD: That was just announced from federal level that’s what you’re talking about.
226 00:42:58.080 –> 00:43:11.100 Jackie Counts: yeah and I just think you know there’s going to be that’s going to be a common thing across the world and are we just going to rebuild the broken systems we have and.
227 00:43:13.050 –> 00:43:23.520 Jackie Counts: Or we, how can we collectively use the language and start building some of these like innovation labs and different systems.
228 00:43:24.420 –> 00:43:37.080 Jackie Counts: and have that be, I mean like one of the things I look at on the Agency slide that you have the authorizing an agency is, if you get the mindset of some of your politicians and people.
229 00:43:39.330 –> 00:43:48.360 Jackie Counts: On board for this there aren’t the structures to do it because that’s not the way money flows and competition is not reserved for.
231 00:43:52.620 –> 00:43:54.930 Jackie Counts: How do we start turning the ship.
232 00:43:57.600 –> 00:43:59.670 Angela Hanson-OECD: And Oh, this is something that also the.
233 00:44:01.440 –> 00:44:10.350 Angela Hanson-OECD: European Commission is starting to think about you know in they are big basically similar to the US Federal Government a big grant making.
234 00:44:11.400 –> 00:44:26.790 Angela Hanson-OECD: organization, but the way that those funds are given and the kind of the strings attached to those can really help shape what gets invested in so they’re also thinking during this recovery of how do you incentivize.
235 00:44:28.020 –> 00:44:41.850 Angela Hanson-OECD: These anticipatory capacities is alongside the actual recovery so basically how you keep poking at recovery like response recovery and anticipation, at the same time.
236 00:44:42.480 –> 00:44:54.960 Angela Hanson-OECD: Because a lot of the political attention is going to, of course, be on you know, did the did the money gets spent did where the problem solved by the next by the end of the political cycle.
237 00:44:56.310 –> 00:44:57.150 Angela Hanson-OECD: And, of course.
238 00:44:58.740 –> 00:45:01.860 Angela Hanson-OECD: Anything going into the exploratory area.
239 00:45:02.940 –> 00:45:09.450 Angela Hanson-OECD: That that yields not so tangible results when people are still suffering and feeling real needs.
240 00:45:10.530 –> 00:45:12.990 Angela Hanson-OECD: are often frame does wasteful spending.
241 00:45:14.100 –> 00:45:16.800 Angela Hanson-OECD: So there’s there’s a real risk there.
242 00:45:19.230 –> 00:45:33.660 Angela Hanson-OECD: And i’m trying to think of some examples of where this has already been done well, but I think, given the least in the pandemic response it’s yet to be seen, but I think those.
243 00:45:35.490 –> 00:45:44.490 Angela Hanson-OECD: Building some of those capabilities that are tied into the response systems so building alongside the response systems ways of learning.
244 00:45:46.140 –> 00:45:53.520 Angela Hanson-OECD: That are not just kind of sequestered away in a special unit that can easily be shut down.
245 00:45:55.650 –> 00:46:00.780 Angela Hanson-OECD: According to kind of political winds, but really integrating that thinking.
246 00:46:02.670 –> 00:46:13.800 Angela Hanson-OECD: As a core business so that’s another challenge that we see is oftentimes these foresight and anticipation units are they serve specific purpose for a certain length of time.
247 00:46:14.460 –> 00:46:27.270 Angela Hanson-OECD: or they’re doing really wild stuff off in a corner and it’s easy to kind of forget about the learnings, especially when there’s active, you know, recovery and tangible needs felt elsewhere.
248 00:46:29.520 –> 00:46:33.510 Angela Hanson-OECD: Any other any thoughts on on jackie’s question period.
249 00:46:34.650 –> 00:46:38.070 Angela Hanson-OECD: Maybe some examples that come to mind from.
250 00:46:39.600 –> 00:46:40.800 Angela Hanson-OECD: From the cases so far.
251 00:46:41.460 –> 00:46:57.060 Piret T?nurist: No, I think you covered it well, one of the areas where there’s highest legitimacy, of course, for this work is the area of Defense but especially towards the kind of scenario processes and investment, then.
252 00:46:58.320 –> 00:47:05.070 Piret T?nurist: It kind of traditional Defense technology and areas because they’re highly legitimising factors.
253 00:47:05.610 –> 00:47:14.730 Piret T?nurist: So, internal security and Defense is where we have seen kind of practices not both form systems, but practices in this area.
254 00:47:15.420 –> 00:47:33.000 Piret T?nurist: But they also don’t get the very well reported out on to to Of course I kind of secrecy connected to those that have relevance there and they are very specific to the context as well, and the kind of feedback system is very easy to understand, in terms of.
255 00:47:34.320 –> 00:47:40.770 Piret T?nurist: International threats and also kind of saving lives logic which is very, very, very.
256 00:47:42.390 –> 00:47:46.290 Piret T?nurist: kind of speaks volumes, as is very limited legitimizing in certain circles.
257 00:47:55.260 –> 00:47:57.990 Keil L Eggers: you’re a stick, we got another question from Paul.
258 00:47:59.700 –> 00:48:00.240 not me.
259 00:48:02.100 –> 00:48:12.120 Paul Ader: yeah hi thanks kyle it’s not so much a question, but just I wanted to reflect on and take forward some of the points that have been mentioned so far.
260 00:48:14.100 –> 00:48:28.950 Paul Ader: So there’s lots of things that have been said by Angela and appear at that resonate with me something correct said was that you need to have fertile soil for some of these anticipatory methods.
261 00:48:29.400 –> 00:48:30.420 Paul Ader: And I.
262 00:48:30.930 –> 00:48:35.430 Paul Ader: absolutely agree with that and that, for me, is probably one of the must haves.
263 00:48:37.620 –> 00:48:47.250 Paul Ader: it’s it links to the comments are presented during the presentation about what I refer to as the distinction between supply Bush and demand pool.
264 00:48:47.850 –> 00:48:51.840 Paul Ader: Supply pushes were as you were saying all this foresight work going on.
265 00:48:52.230 –> 00:48:59.490 Paul Ader: Maybe got even on the corner, maybe not people mainstream that they’re doing stuff that they know is important or think is important and then you’ve got all the.
266 00:48:59.790 –> 00:49:14.730 Paul Ader: policymakers and the leads sitting over there, getting on with their day to day work and the two are the impact gap there’s just the two aren’t connected, so it felt feels to me like it’s almost as if one needs to have.
267 00:49:16.350 –> 00:49:24.150 Paul Ader: As part of this reconstruction that we we say we need to go through whether actually we do need to get through it, I don’t know.
268 00:49:25.080 –> 00:49:39.990 Paul Ader: Because the world is is a strange place, but what we almost need is we need everyone to have the requirement in their day to day jobs to have like three emmys to say half a day of innovation.
269 00:49:41.010 –> 00:49:53.910 Paul Ader: Here, what we need is half a day to think outside their box to do to look what’s available in your toolkit toolkits to try them on to take to pull them into their work.
270 00:49:54.630 –> 00:50:08.910 Paul Ader: And so, somehow we’ve got to enable people need enabling constraints in terms that that allow people to take some of these ideas and try them on in smaller bits.
271 00:50:09.420 –> 00:50:22.170 Paul Ader: There is the sense, a lot of this conversation i’m hearing that anticipated governance is the big thing and it needs to happen as a thing i’m not sure I think actually smaller.
272 00:50:23.190 –> 00:50:33.210 Paul Ader: little bits are all we can do, because in the complex world, and I think a lot of despair, the government is in the complex well you can’t do big things not only.
273 00:50:34.500 –> 00:50:42.030 Paul Ader: I mean it’s just the the uncertainty, the the the energy required to to comprehend and deal with all the complexity is too difficult.
274 00:50:42.990 –> 00:50:52.890 Paul Ader: But not only that, but in the complex world, it is said that it becomes a big thing, people will see you coming now block you, particularly in a political world.
275 00:50:54.210 –> 00:50:56.220 Paul Ader: Now let’s talk about politicians.
276 00:50:57.510 –> 00:51:09.570 Paul Ader: And the political world that they are in, and I think you Angela said that so i’m looking at my notes here, I think you Angela said something about that.
277 00:51:10.200 –> 00:51:24.690 Paul Ader: Politicians only get credit for resolving problems at resolving crisis actually said that’s all they focus on yes, that is true, because of the game that politicians play it’s a it’s a completely different world.
278 00:51:25.350 –> 00:51:34.020 Paul Ader: Actually, the connection during the political world in the real world is so tenuous these days is i’m not quite sure who’s doing what, to whom.
279 00:51:35.010 –> 00:51:44.940 Paul Ader: But, but one thing I think that we could say is if we could that people are interested in to spend your governance, whether it’s in peace engineering or elsewhere.
280 00:51:45.390 –> 00:52:04.440 Paul Ader: If we can identify the people that are more amenable to this sort of mindset and then go to them and say Look, we know that you got to live in the political world, but how about every time you resolve a crisis, how you the way a little bit of anticipatory something in the corner.
281 00:52:05.580 –> 00:52:15.900 Paul Ader: So they’re actually they’re getting political cover air cover, because this is what I say about my work in tent maker, you know if I try and sell a really big sense maker project.
282 00:52:16.800 –> 00:52:27.210 Paul Ader: it’ll it’ll get all sorts of resistance, however, if I sell a hybrid project has a lot of standard stuff people know about and then hide a little bit of sense make in the corner.
283 00:52:27.720 –> 00:52:34.590 Paul Ader: It then proves it actually looks good because it proves by difference so that’s part of what I was saying, and.
284 00:52:35.700 –> 00:52:38.760 Paul Ader: The last thing then that i’ve got here is.
285 00:52:42.270 –> 00:52:50.910 Paul Ader: yeah i’ve got the word trust I don’t know where that came from doesn’t matter the kind of you were talking about engineering I think it’s hard engineering.
286 00:52:51.360 –> 00:52:59.730 Paul Ader: You were talking about peace, engineering terms building things I don’t know where the soft engineering and social engineering come into the peace engineering.
287 00:53:00.270 –> 00:53:11.850 Paul Ader: field and how do you build that in and again for me part of the argument is that if you’re doing hard engineering put a bit of software engineering on the edge.
288 00:53:13.050 –> 00:53:17.400 Paul Ader: You know just tack it on the edge make them incentivize each other.
289 00:53:18.720 –> 00:53:29.970 Paul Ader: anticipation, is, I think we in some ways we’re talking about the thing in the wrong way anticipation isn’t something you gotta do is somebody’s got to release everyone does it.
290 00:53:30.570 –> 00:53:41.190 Paul Ader: We all live some I was listening to the other day Nancy klein’s book she says that assumption, we all depend on assumptions every day all the time we live.
291 00:53:41.580 –> 00:53:51.720 Paul Ader: By making assumptions assumptions and anticipation, are very similar but cousins i’m not quite sure how they differ, but they do, they are very more similar than different.
292 00:53:52.200 –> 00:54:09.510 Paul Ader: And I think, then, we are all anticipating all the time, so we’re going to all go to do it’s not as easy as that, but what we need to think about is how do we release that anticipation that we are all capable of as a permission thing, rather than a.
293 00:54:10.740 –> 00:54:12.210 Paul Ader: push thing so.
294 00:54:12.270 –> 00:54:13.680 Keil L Eggers: I could go on for ages and.
295 00:54:14.490 –> 00:54:27.570 Paul Ader: Less ever more more time so I was just stop there, and pass some of this all of this back to you, you are recording it so you will hold me to account for things that I said and didn’t mean to say or meant to say, though.
296 00:54:27.840 –> 00:54:30.180 Paul Ader: Whichever way radley goes you’re welcome.
297 00:54:31.500 –> 00:54:32.190 Keil L Eggers: Thanks Paul.
298 00:54:32.610 –> 00:54:33.150 Paul Ader: and
299 00:54:33.450 –> 00:54:37.530 Keil L Eggers: See if Angelo bread, if you have any responses to that.
300 00:54:39.300 –> 00:54:41.340 Angela Hanson-OECD: yeah I think these are really good points and.
301 00:54:41.520 –> 00:54:42.690 Angela Hanson-OECD: You know, we see the.
302 00:54:43.410 –> 00:54:58.170 Angela Hanson-OECD: The resistance issue come up not only with anticipation work, but also with missions work any anytime anyone declares something needs to happen it’s a very easy focus point to also resist.
303 00:54:59.220 –> 00:55:01.710 Angela Hanson-OECD: So that’s certainly a challenge.
304 00:55:02.730 –> 00:55:16.920 Angela Hanson-OECD: The point about creating the good environments and doing kind of little things I think that’s definitely part of kind of showing what’s possible and building cultivating that different mindset.
305 00:55:18.150 –> 00:55:34.770 Angela Hanson-OECD: What we often see in this is for all types of innovation and government is that it’s often based on individuals so it’s left up to individual efforts versus some kind of incentivizing structures for teams or kind of.
306 00:55:37.500 –> 00:55:48.810 Angela Hanson-OECD: More than just one person to depend on for coming up with something brilliant and usually those people get burned out and move out of government Anyway, thank.
307 00:55:49.920 –> 00:56:08.820 Angela Hanson-OECD: You used to that that resistance on an individual level so something we’re you know, looking at is how, how do we build those mechanisms in the operating structures of governments in order to kind of create that fertile that fertile ground.
308 00:56:10.110 –> 00:56:22.770 Angela Hanson-OECD: But yeah you’re right, if any, any kind of big bold action is going to create resistance and really it’s I think it’s interesting to try to find the the projects that.
309 00:56:23.280 –> 00:56:39.180 Angela Hanson-OECD: The projects and then that have a narrative behind them, that have instant legitimacy, but they will require that infrastructure and mechanisms will have to be built in order to get those done, and those are the pieces of sustainable.
310 00:56:40.650 –> 00:56:46.110 Angela Hanson-OECD: Sustainable anticipate anticipatory work that we could rely upon.
311 00:56:47.130 –> 00:56:56.760 Angela Hanson-OECD: I don’t care, what do you have other I know your your audio has been cutting in and out here, I don’t know if you heard all of the question or comment, but do you have any other.
312 00:56:58.350 –> 00:57:00.180 Angela Hanson-OECD: reflections on what Paul mentioned.
313 00:57:05.520 –> 00:57:09.120 Keil L Eggers: yeah she put a little bit in the chat here i’m talking.
314 00:57:11.370 –> 00:57:11.970 Keil L Eggers: To.
315 00:57:12.660 –> 00:57:12.900 Paul Ader: But.
316 00:57:13.350 –> 00:57:14.040 Paul Ader: that’s the right.
317 00:57:14.070 –> 00:57:14.820 Paul Ader: game, or you can.
318 00:57:14.880 –> 00:57:25.350 Keil L Eggers: move all uncertainty like see, but we have to really be supportive of the things the overall environment, and I think definitely agree with a lot of what i’m.
319 00:57:26.280 –> 00:57:43.080 Keil L Eggers: always saying, but it was one of the things that I think it’s been so great about the anticipatory innovation governance project is that it also gives the language to tie it into those bigger initiatives and frame some of these problems as practical policy making questions, rather than.
320 00:57:44.400 –> 00:57:48.840 Keil L Eggers: As you were saying just things that should be the capability of an individual person.
321 00:57:49.710 –> 00:58:00.960 Paul Ader: it’s permission thing kyle by doing by setting the frame around the dispensary governance, then you are setting a frame within which people think and act.
322 00:58:01.470 –> 00:58:08.820 Paul Ader: As if their permission or they can get permission so, even if the your framework or he CDs framework your.
323 00:58:09.150 –> 00:58:24.990 Paul Ader: lps is very much can’t actually go in and do big things you can set the frame within which people, then, can do small things and then grow and so i’m very much supportive and I really do like your your facets dagger and I think it’s clear I think it’s usable.
324 00:58:26.700 –> 00:58:32.040 Paul Ader: I would like to think more about the industry three part because I didn’t quite follow all of that.
325 00:58:33.900 –> 00:58:43.140 Paul Ader: So yeah, but I can work with you carlin on that because I just want to bring this together for myself one last thing that.
326 00:58:44.070 –> 00:58:50.340 Keil L Eggers: Here oh hold on a second, and when I wanted to do you have a question.
327 00:58:51.870 –> 00:58:55.620 Wahidullah Azizi: Hello i’m really sorry I joined a bit later and.
329 00:59:00.450 –> 00:59:01.680 Wahidullah Azizi: However, i’m.
330 00:59:04.230 –> 00:59:06.330 Wahidullah Azizi: love to have a look to the slides.
331 00:59:06.330 –> 00:59:10.590 Wahidullah Azizi: And look more to get the idea of this project.
332 00:59:11.760 –> 00:59:17.640 Wahidullah Azizi: However, I am an engineer, and I have like practical experiences and.
333 00:59:20.610 –> 00:59:30.000 Wahidullah Azizi: humiliated providing humanitarian assistance lifesaving projects and refugee camps and send engineer, and then, as well as post conflict country.
335 00:59:34.290 –> 00:59:44.490 Wahidullah Azizi: As an engineer working how to provide the facilities for the returnees So if I could be any help i’m happy to join the team.
336 00:59:45.330 –> 00:59:55.410 Wahidullah Azizi: I can’t comment on the process, because I I joined later, like, I have to look at that again and maybe if you kind of share the slides so and.
337 00:59:56.040 –> 01:00:11.190 Wahidullah Azizi: Like life saving operations it’s ingenious plays I think you’re very vital role they do as an engineer in a refugee camp, we used to provide the water for the refugees, I managed.
338 01:00:11.850 –> 01:00:13.770 Wahidullah Azizi: A couple of Li gh ag camps and.
339 01:00:13.800 –> 01:00:32.070 Wahidullah Azizi: Pakistan and many years ago Afghan refugee camps and as well as when you when people go back post conflict situations, then they return is they need obviously shelter, they need access to facilities, they need to.
340 01:00:33.240 –> 01:00:34.710 Wahidullah Azizi: have access to.
341 01:00:35.220 –> 01:00:37.110 Wahidullah Azizi: My children need to go to school.
342 01:00:38.040 –> 01:00:42.750 Wahidullah Azizi: They need access to health services so i’ve got some experience there as well.
343 01:00:45.570 –> 01:00:47.460 Wahidullah Azizi: can be any help i’m happy to be.
344 01:00:47.460 –> 01:00:48.480 Wahidullah Azizi: Part of this.
346 01:00:52.920 –> 01:00:55.680 Keil L Eggers: yeah thanks so much, and if you want to.
347 01:00:56.430 –> 01:00:57.780 Keil L Eggers: Think i’ll have your email.
348 01:00:57.780 –> 01:01:06.660 Keil L Eggers: Address through the event bright, but also, if you want to send it to me in the chat I can follow up with you there and send this pencil on to.
349 01:01:08.130 –> 01:01:13.710 Keil L Eggers: And android bread just real quick because i’m conscious of the time, do you.
350 01:01:15.900 –> 01:01:17.790 Keil L Eggers: Are you needing to hop off soon.
351 01:01:19.530 –> 01:01:34.350 Angela Hanson-OECD: I will, in just a minute, but i’m also curious about what what this could mean or what anticipation looks like from the piece engineering perspective and kind of that that soft to soft side as well, so i’m curious of how.
352 01:01:34.980 –> 01:01:35.550 Angela Hanson-OECD: Like what.
353 01:01:35.640 –> 01:01:38.070 Angela Hanson-OECD: Is there anything that can be drawn from this to.
354 01:01:39.060 –> 01:01:42.330 Angela Hanson-OECD: Come to inform your your work, your work there.
355 01:01:45.030 –> 01:01:45.450 Keil L Eggers: yeah.
356 01:01:45.570 –> 01:01:56.520 Keil L Eggers: i’m one of the projects that we’re starting to work on, is using sense maker in peace engineering efforts to start to map.
357 01:01:57.300 –> 01:02:12.390 Keil L Eggers: The conflict systems or the social environment to help better support anybody who considers themselves peace engineers to you know get a grip of some context, be a way to.
358 01:02:14.190 –> 01:02:16.080 Keil L Eggers: start to see.
359 01:02:17.130 –> 01:02:22.140 Keil L Eggers: Some of the you know, the current disposition of the system and then use that to.
360 01:02:23.850 –> 01:02:24.960 Keil L Eggers: buy Thank you.
361 01:02:27.150 –> 01:02:45.780 Keil L Eggers: To start to think a little bit more from the anticipatory perspective, so I think, as you saw on what those comments there’s a lot of peace engineering that happens in a reactive way or its post crisis or post conflict or.
362 01:02:47.490 –> 01:02:56.820 Keil L Eggers: You know that’s that’s a big part of where the domain is so what what i’m really hoping to do is to start to bring this language in so that we can be.
363 01:02:58.650 –> 01:03:06.390 Keil L Eggers: changed the scope of the piece of cheering field to the proactive side and start to develop different.
364 01:03:07.740 –> 01:03:13.290 Keil L Eggers: You know mechanisms to see where we’re at now using technology.
365 01:03:14.580 –> 01:03:18.150 Keil L Eggers: and have peace in today’s be more active and saying here’s something that we can do now.
366 01:03:20.070 –> 01:03:32.700 Keil L Eggers: That would you know prevent a massive humanitarian crisis or help a government better react to some of these big problems so there’s also a lot of work that’s happening right now around.
367 01:03:35.130 –> 01:03:36.750 Keil L Eggers: You know, climate change.
368 01:03:38.340 –> 01:03:38.910 Keil L Eggers: or.
369 01:03:41.460 –> 01:03:48.960 Keil L Eggers: get it digital transformation stuff as you were saying and so they’re all problems like cross cut about engineering issues.
370 01:03:51.450 –> 01:03:51.690 and
371 01:03:53.070 –> 01:03:54.150 Keil L Eggers: So then.
372 01:03:55.200 –> 01:04:09.210 Keil L Eggers: there’s also stuff that we’re looking into on kind of data data Observatory decision making support type of realm and a lot of other Members are really interested in some of the.
373 01:04:10.290 –> 01:04:13.380 Keil L Eggers: Peace technology and ethics side of that too.
374 01:04:15.030 –> 01:04:27.450 Keil L Eggers: And so I think a lot of that because it’s not capability that currently exists is kind of sitting in that anticipatory space, because we know that we will need.
375 01:04:29.010 –> 01:04:34.290 Keil L Eggers: Better better tools, so that those technologies don’t cause more problems.
376 01:04:35.370 –> 01:04:36.480 Keil L Eggers: than good.
377 01:04:38.010 –> 01:04:47.280 Angela Hanson-OECD: yeah Thank you I it’s it’s gonna be really interesting to follow the the research that you do, and I think it’s interesting to kind of keep keep.
378 01:04:48.840 –> 01:05:02.310 Angela Hanson-OECD: keep in touch with the as the research progresses, because this is an important part of our thinking that you know it’s been good to be here today and kind of be tested on a stress test in our thinking too, and we don’t have.
379 01:05:03.660 –> 01:05:14.040 Angela Hanson-OECD: kind of magic formula, so this is it’s been really interesting feedback as well, for us, and I think that these this area of peace, engineering is really.
380 01:05:15.120 –> 01:05:21.360 Angela Hanson-OECD: going to be enlightening for for the anticipatory work that we’re doing so looking forward to.
381 01:05:22.200 –> 01:05:27.300 Angela Hanson-OECD: to keeping in contact and sharing notes and research and cases and.
382 01:05:27.300 –> 01:05:37.380 Angela Hanson-OECD: Things so yeah thanks so much kyle i’ll have to jump off here in a couple of fairly soon here but it’s been really great to chat today.
383 01:05:38.940 –> 01:05:43.200 Keil L Eggers: yeah thanks thanks so much Angela Robert do you have a final question or.
384 01:05:43.290 –> 01:05:43.890 let’s talk you.
385 01:05:46.230 –> 01:05:54.570 Robert Nesko: know, I was, I was looking forward to seeing the slides again and reviewing I absolutely like to how you broke down.
386 01:05:56.580 –> 01:06:05.910 Robert Nesko: Just the the different facets, so that I also like that the call out for Defense being those institutions that have that.
387 01:06:06.990 –> 01:06:10.110 Robert Nesko: You know that that sense, making so.
388 01:06:11.880 –> 01:06:15.990 Robert Nesko: And certainly you know I think that’s something that other agencies need.
389 01:06:17.010 –> 01:06:22.470 Robert Nesko: And this existential threat should not be the only reason we have any form of sense, making.
390 01:06:23.970 –> 01:06:28.440 Robert Nesko: So i’m i’m actually excited to see that, who I want to apply it.
391 01:06:28.470 –> 01:06:30.990 Robert Nesko: To how how I do things if.
392 01:06:31.020 –> 01:06:32.940 Robert Nesko: If possible, so thanks.
393 01:06:34.380 –> 01:06:34.800 Robert Nesko: Excellent.
394 01:06:35.070 –> 01:06:36.690 Keil L Eggers: yeah if you want to drop your email in the.
395 01:06:36.690 –> 01:06:40.590 Keil L Eggers: chat Robert I can follow up with the slides.
396 01:06:45.630 –> 01:06:51.270 Keil L Eggers: Well, I think we can in there and let Angela and read go so thanks so much for.
397 01:06:52.140 –> 01:07:04.380 Keil L Eggers: Coming today and sharing all of your work with us, I think there’s going to be a lot of really interesting pathways to collaborate on all this in the future, and so it’s been a great it’s going to introduce you to the Community with this event.
398 01:07:05.370 –> 01:07:07.260 Angela Hanson-OECD: Yes, thanks so much yeah.
399 01:07:07.440 –> 01:07:11.100 Angela Hanson-OECD: thanks for the invitation and look forward to seeing you all again.
400 01:07:13.440 –> 01:07:16.410 Keil L Eggers: we’ll see you soon alright have a good day everybody.
Keil Eggers 