This blog post is co-authored with Devesh Raj, Senior Vice President and Head of Strategy and Planning at Comcast-NBCU. Devesh and I are friends and both Young Global Leader at the World Economic Forum. In this blog post we share some of our observations and thoughts after attending the World Economic Forum's annual meeting in Davos.
This year's World Economic Forum Annual Meeting in Davos focused on the Fourth Industrial Revolution, a term coined by Klaus Schwab to describe the new generation of technological advances – sensors, robotics, artificial intelligence, 3D printing, precision medicine – coming together to define the next wave of progress.
These new technologies have the potential to transform our lives. Beyond sci-fi like scenarios – such as each of us having our own personal R2-D2, summoning our Batmobile, or colonizing Mars – these advances also have the potential to solve many real-world problems. With more intelligent, automated technology, we could generate renewable energy, address climate change, connect billions of people to the internet, develop affordable housing solutions and cure chronic diseases.
These advances are not far into the future. A recent report on Technology Tipping Points and Societal Impact anticipates many such moments of inflection within our lifetimes – in fact, we may see major advances in transportation, artificial intelligence, and new payment technology as soon as the next decade. Yet, somewhat surprisingly, much of the discussion in Davos last month focused on the negative impacts of these technologies, rather than their positive potential.
|- Storage for all||- Robots and services||- The Internet of Things
- Wearable internet
- 3D printing and manufacturing
|- Implantable technologies
- Big Data for decisions
- Vision as the new interface
- Our digital presence
- Governments and the block chain
- A supercomputer in your pocket
|- Ubiquitous computing
- 3D printing and human health
- The connected home
|- 3D printing and consumer products
- AI and white-collar jobs
- The sharing economy
|- Driverless cars
- AI and decision-making
- Smart cities
One consistent, fearful theme was the potential for job losses. As automation continues to replace manufacturing or blue collar jobs, artificial intelligence will subsequently do the same for skilled, white collar jobs in banking, law or medicine. Estimates as to the impact this will have on jobs vary, but many prognostications in Davos suggested a depressive impact on the global economy. While it's true that technological leaps have often eliminated older, human-powered methods of doing things, many in Davos also recognized that advances in technology create new jobs, most of which we can't even dream of today. For example, the invention of the airplane created hundreds of thousands of jobs, from pilots, to stewards, to airport personnel, to international agents and more prognostications not to mention the transformative economic impact of billions of people traveling vast distances in a short span of time.
A second concern at Davos was growing inequality in the world between "digital haves" and "have-nots". This was reflected both as a challenge among nations – developed vs. developing – but also an issue for specific socio-economic groups within individual nations, some of which arguably are still not past the second or third industrial revolution. What does 3D printing or precision medicine do, for example, for rural parts of India and Africa that still don't have reliable electricity, while urban centers in those same countries race towards an era of smart, automated living?
A third common concern (particularly driven by robotics and artificial intelligence) was the "dehumanization" of our lives. There was a case for a renewed emphasis on qualities that make us uniquely human – empathy, sensitivity, creativity and inspiration.
Another issue centered on the ethical and moral challenges of many advances. Some conversations at Davos discussed the dangerous potential of eugenics-like scenarios in medicine, enabled by advances such as CRISPR/Cas9. On the flip side, could machines make positive decisions regarding human lives, such as a self-driving car making a choice between hitting a pedestrian or sacrificing its passenger?
One could argue some of these concerns are overblown Luddism. But in some ways, it doesn't matter – the march of technological progress is inevitable, as it has always been. Certainly, no one at Davos suggested slowing down the pace of technological advancement. The gist of the discussions was that we should figure out how to avoid, or address, the negative, unintended consequences of these changes.
We believe there is a major challenge with the Fourth Industrial Revolution that didn't get adequate attention in Davos – the issue of prioritization.
To date, the technological innovation that has driven the Fourth Industrial Revolution is shaped by the commercial prospects of small or large firms in the market. After all, one definition of "innovation" is the commercial application of invention. As an example, investment in alternative energy R&D fluctuates depending on oil prices, just as demand for hybrid or electric vehicles become more or less attractive depending on gasoline prices.
What if, instead of being driven solely by commercial returns, we could focus the Fourth Industrial Revolution more directly on the big problems our world faces? What if we could prioritize technological advances that have the most beneficial impact to society?
The world has recently defined its problems very clearly in a set of 17 Sustainable Development Goals (Wikipedia), also known as the Global Goals, that were adopted by all countries last year to "end poverty, protect the planet and ensure prosperity for all". The goals cover poverty, hunger and food security, health, education, energy, and water and sanitation – to name a few. A successor list to the earlier Millennium Development Goals, the Sustainable Development Goals get quite specific.
Take Goal 3 as an example: "Ensure healthy lives and promote well-being for all at all ages". This goal is linked to 12 targets, including these top three:
- By 2030: reduce the global maternal mortality ratio to less than 70 per 100,000 live births.
- By 2030: end preventable deaths of newborns and children under 5 years of age, with all countries aiming to reduce neonatal mortality to at least as low as 12 per 1,000 live births and under-5 mortality to at least as low as 25 per 1,000 live births.
- By 2030: end the epidemics of AIDS, tuberculosis, malaria and neglected tropical diseases and combat hepatitis, water-borne diseases and other communicable diseases.
Of course, technological advancement is not the only solution to all Sustainable Development Goals – there is much more to do – but it is likely one of the major contributors.
As the world thinks through how to harness the Fourth Industrial Revolution, we think it is worth questioning which technologies we should be prioritizing to meet these Sustainable Development Goals. How do we draft policies and create economic incentives to encourage the right types of technology advances? What should governments and the private sector do differently to focus technology on addressing these goals? How do we direct the energy and creativity of millions of entrepreneurs towards improving the state of the world?
The world's innovation system is powerful and has generally worked well. However, it could use a guiding hand to nudge it in a direction that will benefit the planet beyond the incentives of commercial returns. Expanding our criteria for importance to solving areas of global need is not an inherently anti-capitalist idea. But it is one that would channel capitalism in the best direction for humanity as a whole. That, we hope, is the real agenda initiated by the focus in Davos on the Fourth Industrial Revolution, which the world will seek to address in the coming year.
There has been a lot of discussion around the future of the Drupal front end both on Drupal.org (#2645250, #2645666, #2651660, #2655556) and on my blog posts about the future of decoupled Drupal, why a standard framework in core is a good idea, and the process of evaluating frameworks. These all relate to my concept of "progressive decoupling", in which some portions of the page are handed over to client-side logic after Drupal renders the initial page (not to be confused with "full decoupling").
My blog posts have drawn a variety of reactions. Members of the Drupal community, including Lewis Nyman, Théodore Biadala and Campbell Vertesi, have written blog posts with their opinions, as well as Ed Faulkner of the Ember community. Last but not least, in response to my last blog post, Google changed Angular 2's license from Apache to MIT for better compatibility with Drupal. I read all the posts and comments with great interest and wanted to thank everyone for all the feedback; the open discussion around this is nothing short of amazing. This is exactly what I hoped for: community members from around the world brainstorming about the proposal based on their experience, because only with the combined constructive criticism will we arrive at the best solution possible.
Improving Drupal's user experience is a topic near and dear to my heart. Drupal's user experience challenges led to my invitation to Mark Boulton to redesign Drupal 7, the creation of the Spark initiative to improve the authoring experience for Drupal 8, and continued support for usability-related initiatives. In fact, the impetus behind progressive decoupling and adopting a client-side framework is the need to improve Drupal's user experience.
To iterate or to disrupt?
To date, much of our UX improvements have been based on an iterative process, meaning it converges on a more refined end state by removing problems in the current state. However, we also require disruptive thinking, which is about introducing entirely new ideas, for true innovation to happen. It's essentially removing all constraints and imagining what an ideal result would look like.
I think we need to recognize that while some of the documented usability problems coming out of the Drupal 8 usability study can be addressed by making incremental changes to Drupal's user experience (e.g. our terminology), other well-known usability problems most likely require a more disruptive approach (e.g. our complex mental model). I also believe that we must acknowledge that disruptive improvements are possibly more impactful in keeping Drupal relevant and widening Drupal's adoption.
At this point, to get ahead and lead, I believe we have to do both. We have to iterate and disrupt.
From inside-out to outside-in
Let's forget about Drupal for a second and observe the world around us. Think of all the web applications you use on a regular basis, and consider the interaction patterns you find in them. In popular applications like Slack, the user can perform any number of operations to edit preferences (such as color scheme) and modify content (such as in-place editing) without incurring a single full page refresh. Many elements of the page can be changed without the user's flow being interrupted. Another example is Trello, in which users can create new lists on the fly and then add cards to them without ever having to wait for a server response.
Contrast this with Drupal's approach, where any complex operation requires the user to have detailed prior knowledge about the system. In our current mental model, everything begins in the administration layer at the most granular level and requires an unmapped process of bottom-up assembly. A user has to make a content type, add fields, create some content, configure a view mode, build a view, and possibly make the view the front page. If each individual step is already this involved, consider how much more difficult it becomes to traverse them in the right order to finally see an end result. While very powerful, the problem is that Drupal's current model is "inside-out". This is why it would be disruptive to move Drupal towards an "outside-in" mental model. In this model, I should be able to start entering content, click anything on the page, seamlessly edit any aspect of its configuration in-place, and see the change take effect immediately.
Drupal 8's in-place editing feature is actually a good start at this; it enables the user to edit what they see without an interrupted workflow, with faster previews and without needing to find what thing it is before they can start editing.
Making it real with content modeling
Eight years ago in 2007, I wrote about a database product called DabbleDB. I shared my belief that it was important to move CCK and Views into Drupal's core and learn from DabbleDB's integrated approach. DabbleDB was acquired by Twitter in 2010 but you can still find an eight-year-old demo video on YouTube. While the focus of DabbleDB is different, and the UX is obsolete, there is still a lot we can learn from it today: (1) it shows a more integrated experience between content creation, content modeling, and creating views of content, (2) it takes more of an outside-in approach, (3) it uses a lot less intimidating terminology while offering very powerful capabilities, and (4) it uses a lot of in-place editing. At a minimum, DabbleDB could give us some inspiration for what a better, integrated content modeling experience could look like, with the caveat that the UX should be as effortless as possible to match modern standards.
This sort of vision was not possible in 2007 when CCK was a contributed module for Drupal 6. It still wasn't possible in Drupal 7 when Views existed as a separate contributed module. But now that both CCK and Views are in Drupal 8 core, we can finally start to think about how we can more deeply integrate the two. This kind of integration would be nontrivial but could dramatically simplify Drupal's UX. This should be really exciting because so many people are attracted to Drupal exactly because of features like CCK and Views. Taking an integrated approach like DabbleDB, paired with a seamless and easy-to-use experience like Slack, Trello and Backand, is exactly the kind of disruptive thinking we should do.
We shouldn't limit ourselves to this one example, as there are a multitude of Drupal interfaces that could all benefit from both big and small changes. We all want to improve Drupal's user experience — and we have to. To do so, we have to constantly iterate and disrupt. I hope we can all collaborate on figuring out what that looks like.
A few weeks ago at Davos, I had the honor of meeting the King and Queen of Belgium. VTM, the main commercial television station in Belgium, captured the moment for the evening news. Proof in the video below!
Last week, a member of my family died in a car accident. Jasper was on his way home and was hit by a taxi. He fought for his life, but died the next day. Jasper was only 16 years old. I was at Davos and at one point I had to step out of the conference to cry. Five years ago, another family member died after she was hit by a truck when crossing the road.
It's hard to see a tragedy like this juxtaposed against a conference filled with people talking about improving the state of the world. These personal losses make me want to fast-forward to a time in the future where self-driving cars are normal, and life-saving innovations don't have as much regulatory red tape to cut through before they can have an impact. It's frustrating that we may have the right technology in sight today, but aren't making it available, especially when people's lives are at stake.
Imagine two busses full of people crashing, killing everyone on board, every single day. That is how many people die on America's roads every day. In fact, more people are killed by cars than guns, but I don't see anyone calling for a ban on automobiles. Car accidents (and traffic jams) are almost always the result of human error. It is estimated that self-driving cars could reduce deaths on the road by 90%. That is almost 30,000 lives saved each year in the US alone. The life-saving estimates for driverless cars are on par with the efficacy of modern vaccines. I hope my children, now ages 6 and 8, will never need a driver's license and can grow up in a world with driverless cars.
The self-driving car isn't as far off as you might think but is still being held back by government regulators. Delayed technology isn't limited to self-driving cars. Life-saving innovations in healthcare are often held back by regulatory requirements. The challenge of climate change could be addressed faster if the regulatory uncertainty around solar and wind power permits and policies were reduced. The self-serving interest of lobbying groups focused on maintaining the status quo for industries like Big Oil make it harder for alternative energies to gain momentum.
Regulators need to frame their jobs differently; they need to ask how they can facilitate and enable emerging disruptive innovations, rather than maintain existing systems. Their job should focus more on removing any barriers that prevent disruptions from having a faster impact. If they do this job well, some established institutions will fail. In some cases, economic sacrifices by the incumbents should be of lesser concern than advancing social health and safety for the benefit of society. I'm less concerned about technology destroying jobs, and more concerned about our children not being able to benefit from available technical advances that improve their lives. We should realize that opportunities for long-term economic growth come with short-term disruption or temporary pain.
Losing family members in fatal accidents makes one think about what could have been done. I'm often asked how one can create a "Silicon Valley" model elsewhere in the world. I may have an answer. If you want to out-"Silicon Valley" Silicon Valley, create a region with a regulatory environment that supports prompt, responsible innovation to drive the adoption and iteration of new technologies. A region where people can responsibly launch self-driving cars, fast-track healthcare and address climate change. A region where long-term advantages are valued more than short-term disadvantages. Such a region would attract capital and entrepreneurs, and would be much better for our children.
On December 29, 2000, I made a code commit that would change my life; it is in this commit that I called my project "Drupal" and added the GPL license to it.
A couple weeks later, on January 15, 2001, exactly 15 years ago from today, I released Drupal 1.0.0 into the world. The early decisions to open-source Drupal and use the GPL license set the cornerstone principles for how our community shares with one another and builds upon each other's achievements to this day.
Drupal is now 15 years old. In internet terms, that is an eternity. In 2001, only 7 percent of the world's population had internet access. The mobile internet had not entered the picture, less than 50% of the people in the United States had a mobile phone, and AT&T had just introduced text messaging. People searched the web with Lycos, Infoseek, AltaVista and Hot Bot. Google -- launched in 1998 as a Stanford University research project -- was still a small, private company just beginning its rise to prominence. Google AdWords, now a $65 billion business, had less than 500 customers when Drupal launched. Chrome, Firefox, and Safari didn't exist yet; most people used Netscape, Opera or Internet Explorer. New ideas for sharing and exchanging content such as "public diaries" and RSS had yet to gain widespread acceptance and Drupal was among the first to support those. Wikipedia was launched on the same day as Drupal and sparked the rise of user-generated content. Facebook and Twitter didn't exist until 4-5 years later. Proprietary software vendors started to feel threatened by open source; most didn't understand how a world-class operating system could coalesce out of part-time hacking by several thousand developers around the world.
Looking back, Drupal has not only survived massive changes in our industry; it has also helped drive them. Over the past decade and a half, I've seen many content management systems emerge and become obsolete: Vignette, Interwoven, PHP-Nuke, and Scoop were all popular at some point in the past but Drupal has outlived them all. A big reason is from the very beginning we have been about constant evolution and reinvention, painful as it is.
Keeping up with the pace of the web is a funny thing. Sometimes you'll look back on choices made years ago and think, "Well, I'm glad that was the right decision!". For example, Drupal introduced "hooks" and "modules" early on, concepts that are commonplace in today's platforms. At some point, you could even find some of my code in WordPress, which Matt Mullenweg started in 2003 with some inspiration from Drupal. Another fortuitous early decision was to focus Drupal on the concept of "nodes" rather than "pages". It wasn't until 10 years later with the rise of mobile that we started to see the web revolve less and less around pages. A node-based approach makes it possible to reuse content in different ways for different devices. In a way, much of the industry is still catching up to that vision. Even though the web is a living, breathing thing, there is a lot of things that we got right.
In the end, I feel fortunate that our community is willing to experiment and break things to stay relevant. Most recently, with the release of Drupal 8, we've made many big changes that will fuel Drupal's continued adoption. I believe we got a lot of things right in Drupal 8 and that we are on the brink of another new and bright era for Drupal.
I've undergone a lot of personal reinvention over the past 15 years too. In the early days, I spent all my time writing code and building Drupal.org. I quickly learned that a successful open source project requires much more than writing code. As Drupal started to grow, I found myself an "accidental leader" and worried about our culture, scaling the project, attracting a strong team of contributors, focusing more and more on Drupal's end-users, growing the commercial ecosystem around Drupal, starting the Drupal Association, and providing vision. Today, I wear a lot of different hats: manager of people and projects, evangelist, fundraiser, sponsor, public speaker, and BDFL. At times, it is difficult and overwhelming, but I would not want it any other way. I want to continue to push Drupal to reach new heights and new goals.
Today we risk losing much of the privacy, serendipity and freedom of the web we know. As the web evolves from a luxury to a basic human right, it's important that we treat it that way. To increase our impact, we have to continue to make Drupal easier to use. I'd love to help build a world where people's privacy is safe and Drupal is more approachable. And as the pace of innovation continues to accelerate, we have to think even more about how to scale the project, remain agile and encourage experimentation. I think about these issues a lot, and am fortunate enough to work with some of the smartest people I know to build the best possible version of the web.
So, here is to another 15 years of evolution, reinvention, and continued growth. No one knows what the web will look like 15 years in the future, but we'll keep doing our best to guide Drupal responsibly.