-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 1
Why 4.0
The version numbers go back to the idea of Konratijev cycles. Since a lot of people do not know this, it is not consistently used in most of publications. Thus the explanations for what is Industry 1.0, 2.0,…4.0 and Web 1.0,…4.0 vary massively. If done right its easy to tell what exactly it is.
Each Major version shift is determined by a groundbreaking invention that disrupted the previous way to do things. Thats what is also called a paradigm shift. While it is not changed WHAT is done, the invention changes HOW it is done.
from manual craftsmanship to steam powered mechanics and first usages of assembly lines
from a mechanical steam powered to The assembly line becomes electric
Software controls the assembly line Comprehensive Programming models determine every step of the assembly line. One undefined state stops it.
Assembly lines can self optimize for better performance and mitigate problems autonomously
In this list each paradigm shift goes back to a dedicated invention that was unavailable previously. But with its availability early adopters outperformed their outdated competitors and made them disappear from the market or adopting the change as late follower under major pain. In al versions the WHAT stays the same (here car manufacturing) but the HOW and the capabilities of the required coworkers completely change.
This brings us to the fundamental CAPABILITY MATURITY MODEL that defines 5 maturity levels which should align also to the fundamental 4 phases of paradigm shifts if the versioning pattern is applied to a domain like Industry or Web.
Any Capability (WHAT) can be done in multiple different ways (HOW) but therefore results in very different characteristics that form a level of maturity.
| Level | Maturity |
|---|---|
| Level 1: | Chaotic |
| Level 2: | Repeatable |
| Level 3: | Defined |
| Level 4: | Managed |
| Level 5: | Optimized |
Definitions and characteristics:
You do something for the first time. Try and Error. Unexpected results. Confusion. Misunderstandings. maximal expensive
You do something the 10th or the 100th time. You created templates. They are incomplete and differ from others who did it similarly often.
Measure your performance to a level 1 competitor you will completely outperform level 1. But still 2 executions with your own template will not produce the same results regarding time required, resources needed and quality provided. Measurements of these values would have a certain noise level.
Everything is defined and automated e.g. with a software process that guarantees constant measurement points for time required, resources needed and quality provided. The definitions had to be complete compared to the grown level 2 templates and cover all cases.
Even if it is a major effort to reach this level, once it is achieved you outperform every level 2 operation.
That's where level 4 can come in. You want to change something in the level 3 process so that it becomes faster each time (or cheaper, or …) But „changing a process” is a whole different capability than the original capability. So your first change may be a level 1 change and it made things actually worse than better unexpectedly in try and error and it's now more expensive. On level 2 you changed about 10 to 100 things in your process and you found patterns emerge, when it's getting better and when it's worse. Finally with your level 3 changes nothing unpredicted happened any more and you can start to reliably target a change in a measurement result and e.g. speed the process up 10% while saving 30% of the cost. If you even automated the regulatory feedback loop between measured output and to be changed inputs for a future better output, then you finally reached CMM level 4. In the meantime you happened to be on some level 3, 3.1, 3.2, 3.3, and finally level 4 regarding „Change“ within your original capability.
Where you made your way to establish an automated feedback loop then you stepped up to level 4.1, 4.2, 4.3, and the perfect level 4.4, regarding resilient adoption to change in your original capability.
This level is something that you are not targeting voluntarily. It’s all about being the absolute best in a given capability. So normally you have an outer authority that forces you into this level 5. E.g. The FDA (Federal Drug Administration) or FAA… so if it is about protection of life and healthiness while you produce a medical MRT device. Or if the cost of failure is so exorbitant that you can afford control but not failure, e.g. on deep space missions.
The Pareto effect applies here: 80% of a desirable result can be achieved with 20% of effort. So 80% of additional effort is needed (factor 5) to improve by (only) 20% to 100% target. And if not being forced by regulation it’s not a decision you would take. CMM level 5 is Pareto-inefficient! But what can be learned during the research of „for example winning Formula 1 Car races constantly“ can also produce results which keep you ahead of the competition in the other levels. The key learning of CMM is that each increase of CMM level requires you to change the paradigm. You do the same capability (WHAT) but you change the HOW you do it to outperform the competition. By changing the HOW to a different level, you execute a paradigm shift, a system change, a game change, a disruptive innovation which are all exchangeable terms. Effective Economics is deeply rooted in these fundamental principles that are completely underdeveloped in current curricula. They stem from system and design thinking which is seen mainly as a different discipline or capability.
- Pareto Principle
- Paradigm shift
- Capability Maturity
- Composed Capability Maturity
- Kondratiev Cycles
Applying a maturity alignment to the Industry Versions would impact the list for the better: In the list above, the change from industry 1.0 to 2.0 is a paradigm shift but it is not a shift in maturity. Basically the word industry or industrial already implies the paradigm shift from manufacturing age to industrial age. This paradigm shift is mainly the used source of power. During the manufacturing age it was the use of biological power of humans or animals. In the Industrial Age new heat driven artificial power sources changed the game by having more accessible power supply. So the Kondratiev Cycles are large-scale paradigm shifts, that lead to whole new ages or eras of civilization. The invention of computers and software systems is more a Kondratiev scale Paradigm shift. That's why we say the Digital age follows the previous Industry Age.
Combining Industry with Software enables Industry to achieve CMM 3 and 4 in full scale for the first time. Before Software and Robotics the industrial process had to be enriched with many manual biological capabilities of lower maturity. The key fact regarding maturity is that, if you combine capabilities of multiple different maturity levels, always the lowest maturity determines the overall maturity of the overall capability.
Ironically the capability of creating software today is still more a manufacturing art than an industrial process. And when humanity finally had developed industrial software development capabilities catastrophic disasters made them forgotten and they had to be reinvented multiple times. Or the „not invented here“ Syndrome prevented their adoption. Or the AI filter bubbles phenomenon prevented the next generation of software programmers to find it and therefore learn it. Never a Web developer learned from the wonders of organizing PL1 mainframes, nor did COBOL programmers learn from the wonders of Java JEE Application servers, nor do you probably understand right now what I am even talking about.
Humanity lost the big picture and hopes it can create an AI that will help it to gain it back. So rare people on the planet had the graceful gift to live at the exact right times and places to retain the overall big picture and even transform it into a finite science of IT and Economics. But obviously the adoption of The Last Architecture into the educational inheritance has completely failed up to now. That’s where Web 4.0 comes in as a reference implementation of The Last Architecture.
to achieve a CMM 4 world wide web that enables sustainable resilient change to save the existence of humanity from their potential to extinct themselves.
The CMM model suggests that there will be no Industry 5.0 or Web 5.0. Once a capability reaches level 4, it is managed. This means that the focus is on maintaining and improving the existing system, rather than on developing a new one. In the case of industry, this means that we will continue to see incremental improvements in manufacturing processes and technologies. However, we are unlikely to see a fundamental shift in the way that goods are produced. In the case of the web, this means that we will continue to see new features and applications developed. However, the underlying architecture of the web will remain largely unchanged. This is not to say that there will be no innovation in industry or the web. However, it is likely that innovation will be focused on improving existing systems and processes, rather than developing entirely new ones.
Here is a different noisy non-historical perspective: https://webfour.io/#/ to https://webfour.io/#/webfive
Do not get me wrong, I totally like their idea to buy back power over the Web...