by 
Futurists love the idea of transformation. We get into the field because we are fascinated by change, and transformation is systems change on a large scale. Most people, however, are not fans of change, and most certainly not fans of large-scale systems change.
Thus we have a mismatch. We talk about resistance to change. We have come to the position that it is totally normal. We futurists are the outliers; we are the tiny minority and most people, who prefer not to change are the overwhelming majority. So we futurists are the ones who must adjust!
The basic equation is that change is difficult, thus transformation, as large-scale system change, is extremely difficult. Okay, but my predecessor at the UH Foresight program, Peter Bishop, reminds us, however, that “stagnation is fatal.” Just because change is difficult and most would rather avoid it, does not mean that it is not necessary at times.
Systems eventually lose fitness-to-purpose.
Our experience is that transformation is relatively rare, but there are times when it is absolutely necessary. But not all the time. We must play our transformation cards wisely. What happens? Systems are structured in a way that produce certain behavior. When they are working well, the behavior is what the people in the system want. Over time, however, either the system itself begins not to work as well as it used to, or the people in the system want changes. The system may not work well for various reasons, such as the context it operates in begins to change, or it may lack certain inputs, or produce outputs that harm the larger context.
For an example, let’s look at After Capitalism. Capitalism has for several centuries now been the dominant economic system that overall has produced behavior that generally been viewed as acceptable (with exceptions for sure). My argument for After Capitalism, is that capitalism is losing fitness-to-purpose. It is no longer producing behavior that is desirable by most. The system itself is no longer working well, as we see adverse effects it is having on the context, such as carrying capacity and climate impacts.
When a system loses fitness, supporters will, rather loudly, argue for reform and preservation. Understandable, but there is a point where it can no longer be fixed. It is time for a new system. That is what transformation is all about. Transformation is needed when an old system has lost its fitness-to-purpose. – Andy Hines
Roger Martin yesterday did a Strategy Practitioner Insight on fixing Strategy that mimics your position about what Deming called “fitness for use”. This is a worthwhile topic for dialogue.
The problem that you do not explain is if capitalism is no longer creating ‘fitness for purpose’ how did China bring nearly 1 Billion citizens out of poverty and what about the several billion world citizens who are stuck in poverty?
I really like Roger Martin’s stuff, so I’m happy to hear we are aligned!!!
The focus of my After Capitalism work is on “late-stage” capitalism. Basically, what is happening where capitalism is most mature (thus, US emphasis)? Indeed, there is a huge issue of how to address areas where development is still needed. If late-stage areas move to a post-work context, there are questions about “what will we do?” One thing we could do is work with areas needed developmental assistance … among other things, of course