Category Archives: Technology

The End of Static Reality

Leading the Shift to Programmable Matter

LAST UPDATED: February 19, 2026 at 6:48 PM

The End of Static Reality - Programmable Matter

GUEST POST from Art Inteligencia


I. Introduction: The Death of the “Finished” Product

“We are moving from an era of designing objects to an era of designing behaviors.” — Braden Kelley

Beyond the Static Boundary

For centuries, the fundamental constraint of innovation has been the static nature of matter. Once a piece of steel was forged or a plastic mold was set, its physical properties—its stiffness, shape, and conductivity—were locked in time. In 2026, that boundary is evaporating. We are entering the age of Digital-Physical Hybrids, where the physical world is becoming as iterative and agile as the software that controls it.

Defining Programmable Matter

At its core, programmable matter refers to materials or assemblies of components that can change their physical properties based on software instructions or external stimuli. Imagine a world where a car’s body panels adjust their shape for optimal aerodynamics in real-time, or a medical implant that remains soft for insertion but “programs” itself to become rigid once it reaches its destination.

The Braden Kelley Perspective: Pulling the Physical Lever

As I often say, “Innovation is the art of pulling the right lever.” In the context of programmable matter, the “lever” is no longer a mechanical switch; it is a software command. This technology collapses the distance between digital intent and physical experience. When matter becomes programmable, the “product” is never truly finished—it is in a state of perpetual adaptation, designed to meet the changing needs of the human beings who use it.

II. The Three Pillars of Adaptive Materiality

To program the physical world, we must manipulate three fundamental characteristics. In 2026, these are the levers that turn “dumb” objects into intelligent systems.

1. Morphology: Shape-Shifting for Performance

Morphology is no longer a fixed design choice; it is a real-time response. Through the use of shape-memory alloys and 4D-printed polymers, materials can now alter their geometry to optimize for the environment. Whether it’s a drone wing that warps its shape to navigate high winds or footwear that adjusts its arch support based on your gait, morphology is the first pillar of physical agility.

2. Variable Stiffness: The Soft-to-Rigid Spectrum

One of the most profound breakthroughs is the ability to toggle a material’s structural integrity. By using phase-change materials—which can switch between liquid and solid states via thermal or electrical triggers—we can create objects that are flexible when they need to be safe (soft robotics) and rigid when they need to bear weight (emergency infrastructure).

3. Conductive Logic: Reconfigurable Intelligence

The final pillar is the ability to program the “nervous system” of an object. Conductive logic involves materials with internal pathways that can be rerouted on the fly. This allows a single component to switch its function—for instance, a car door panel that reconfigures its internal circuitry from a speaker to a heating element based on occupant preference.

The Braden Kelley Insight: Mastery of these three pillars allows organizations to move away from “mass production” toward “mass adaptation.” We aren’t just making things better; we are making them smarter at the molecular level.

III. Case Study 1: Adaptive Architecture and Urban Resilience

The buildings of the 20th century were cages of steel and glass. In 2026, programmable matter is turning the “built environment” into a living, breathing skin.

The Challenge: The Energy of Stasis

Buildings are responsible for nearly 40% of global energy-related carbon emissions, much of which is wasted fighting the environment—heating against the cold or cooling against the sun. Traditional “smart” buildings rely on mechanical motors and sensors that are prone to failure and require massive power draws to operate.

The Innovation: Biomimetic Material Intelligence

Leading architecture firms are now collaborating with material scientists to deploy hygroscopic and thermomorphic materials. These “programmed” building skins react directly to moisture and heat without a single mechanical motor. Like a pinecone opening when dry to release seeds, a building facade can now “unfurl” to provide shade during peak solar hours and “tighten” to trap heat when the temperature drops.

The Human Shift: Buildings that Empathize

This isn’t just about efficiency; it’s about the human experience. Imagine a workspace where the ceiling lowers its density to improve acoustics as a room fills up, or windows that change their molecular structure to diffuse glare while maintaining a view. Through programmable matter, our architecture stops being a static obstacle and starts being a collaborator in our daily lives.

Braden Kelley’s Reflection: We’ve spent a century trying to control the environment with brute force. Programmable matter allows us to dance with it instead. This is the ultimate expression of Sustainable Innovation—doing more by building something that knows how to adapt.

IV. Case Study 2: Soft Robotics in Minimally Invasive Medicine

The human body is fluid and delicate, yet our medical tools have historically been rigid and intrusive. Programmable matter is changing the geometry of healing.

The Challenge: The Rigidity of Current Surgery

In traditional minimally invasive surgery, surgeons use catheters and endoscopes that possess a fixed stiffness. This creates a “navigation tax”—the risk of damaging delicate vascular walls or organs while trying to reach a deep-seated tumor or blockage. The tool must be stiff enough to push, but soft enough not to pierce.

The Innovation: Phase-Changing Surgical “Tentacles”

In 2026, we are seeing the rise of Programmable Soft Robots. These devices utilize low-melting-point alloys (LMPA) embedded within a silicone matrix. By applying a tiny electrical current, the surgeon can “program” specific segments of the tool to become liquid-soft for navigating tight corners, and then instantly “freeze” them into a rigid state to provide the leverage needed for a biopsy or a stent placement.

The Human Shift: Personalized Internal Navigation

This allows for truly personalized medicine. Because the tool adapts to the patient’s unique anatomy in real-time, the “one-size-fits-all” approach to surgical instruments is dead. We are reducing patient trauma, shortening recovery times, and enabling procedures that were previously considered “inoperable” due to anatomical complexity.

A Braden Kelley Note: This is the ultimate example of Human-Centered Change. We are no longer forcing the human body to adapt to our technology; we are programming our technology to empathize with the human body.

V. The Ecosystem: Leaders and Disruptors in 2026

The transition from static to programmable matter requires a new stack of technology—spanning simulation, generative design, and advanced fabrication. These are the players building that stack.

The Giants: Providing the Infrastructure

  • Autodesk: Their Generative Design tools have evolved into “Behavioral Design” platforms. Designers no longer just draw shapes; they define the intent of the material, and Autodesk’s AI calculates the necessary molecular lattice.
  • Nvidia: Programmable matter is notoriously difficult to predict. Nvidia’s Omniverse provides the high-fidelity physics simulations required to “digital twin” a material’s behavior before a single atom is printed.

The Disruptors: Redefining Fabrication

Company Core Innovation Target Industry
Carbon Dual-Cure Resins with variable elasticity Performance Footwear & Automotive
Voxel8 Integrated conductive circuitry in 3D structures Consumer Electronics & Wearables
Aimi (Emerging) Active textiles that change porosity/warmth Defense & Extreme Sports
Strategic Takeaway: You don’t need to be a material scientist to play in this space. You need to be a collaborator. The winning organizations in 2026 are those that partner across the stack—linking software intent to material reality.

VI. The Strategic Impact: Collapsing the Final Frontier

The strategic value of programmable matter goes far beyond the “wow factor” of a shape-shifting gadget. It represents a fundamental shift in Resource Efficiency. When a single object can be “re-programmed” to serve three different functions throughout its lifecycle, we drastically reduce the need for raw material extraction and landfill waste. This is the ultimate tool for a circular economy.

VII. Conclusion: Programming the Future Today

We are moving from a world of “things” to a world of “behaviors.” In this new era, your competitive advantage won’t just be what you make, but how well your creations can learn and adapt to the human beings they serve.

As you look at your product roadmap for the next five years, stop asking what features you should add. Start asking: “If our product could change its physical soul to better serve our customer tomorrow, what would we tell it to do today?”

“The future is not something that happens to us; it is something we program.”
— Braden Kelley

Transform Your Organization’s Future

Ready to turn uncertainty into a resource? Let’s discuss how these emerging technologies can redefine your industry.

Programmable Matter FAQ

1. How is programmable matter different from traditional 3D printing?

Traditional 3D printing creates static objects with fixed properties. Programmable matter, often referred to as 4D printing, introduces a time and behavior dimension. It uses smart materials that can change their shape, density, or conductivity after the manufacturing process is complete.

2. What are the primary benefits of adaptive materials in industry?

The primary benefits include resource efficiency and personalized performance. By allowing a single material to adapt to its environment (such as a building facade that opens and closes without motors), companies can reduce carbon footprints and create products that evolve with user needs.

3. Is programmable matter ready for commercial use in 2026?

Yes, it is currently in the “Scale-Up” phase. It is already being deployed in high-stakes sectors like aerospace for adaptive surfaces, medical devices for shape-shifting surgical tools, and high-performance athletics for responsive textiles.

Disclaimer: This article speculates on the potential future applications of cutting-edge scientific research. While based on current scientific understanding, the practical realization of these concepts may vary in timeline and feasibility and are subject to ongoing research and development.

Image credits: Google Gemini

Subscribe to Human-Centered Change & Innovation WeeklySign up here to get Human-Centered Change & Innovation Weekly delivered to your inbox every week.

What is the right time horizon for technology development?

What is the right time horizon for technology development?

GUEST POST from Mike Shipulski

Patents are the currency of technology and profits are the currency of business. And as it turns out, if you focus on creating technology you’ll get technology (and patents) and if you focus on profits you’ll get profits. But if no one buys your technology (in the form of the products or services that use it), you’ll go out of business. And if you focus exclusively on profits you won’t create technology and you’ll go out of business. I’m not sure which path is faster or more dangerous, but I don’t think it matters because either way you’re out of business.

It’s easy to measure the number of patents and easier to measure profits. But there’s a problem. Not all patents (technologies) are equal and not all profits are equal. You can have a stockpile of low-level patents that make small improvements to existing products/services and you can have a stockpile of profits generated by short-term business practices, both of which are far less valuable than they appear. If you measure the number of patents without evaluating the level of inventiveness, you’re running your business without a true understanding of how things really are. And if you’re looking at the pile of profits without evaluating the long-term viability of the engine that created them you’re likely living beyond your means.

In both cases, it’s important to be aware of your time horizon. You can create incremental technologies that create short term wins and consume all your resource so you can’t work on the longer-term technologies that reinvent your industry. And you can implement business practices that eliminate costs and squeeze customers for next-quarter sales at the expense of building trust-based engines of growth. It’s all about opportunity cost.

It’s easy to develop technologies and implement business processes for the short term. And it’s equally easy to invest in the long term at the expense of today’s bottom line and payroll. The trick is to balance short against long.

And for patents, to achieve the right balance rate your patents on the level of inventiveness.

Image credit: 1 of 1,050+ FREE quotes for your meetings & presentations at http://misterinnovation.com

Subscribe to Human-Centered Change & Innovation WeeklySign up here to join 17,000+ leaders getting Human-Centered Change & Innovation Weekly delivered to their inbox every week.

Digital Phenotyping and the Future of Preventative Experience Design

The Silent Pulse

LAST UPDATED: February 16, 2026 at 6:01 PM

Digital Phenotyping and the Future of Preventative Experience Design

GUEST POST from Art Inteligencia


I. Introduction: Beyond the Survey

The Death of “Self-Reporting”

For decades, the gold standard for understanding employee well-being or customer satisfaction has been the survey. We ask people how they feel, and they give us an answer filtered through their own biases, current mood, or what they think we want to hear. In the world of innovation, self-reporting is a lagging indicator — and a flawed one at that.

Defining Digital Phenotyping

We are entering the era of Digital Phenotyping: the moment-by-moment quantification of the individual-level human phenotype in situ using data from personal digital devices. By analyzing the “digital exhaust” from smartphones and wearables — mobility patterns, social interactions, and even typing rhythm — we can infer behavioral, emotional, and cognitive states with unprecedented accuracy.

The Paradigm Shift: From Reactive to Preventative

The true power of this technology lies in its ability to turn experience design from a reactive fix into a preventative strategy. We no longer have to wait for a “burnout crisis” or a drop in productivity to realize our team is under excessive stress. The signals are there, in real-time, hidden in the cadence of our digital lives.

“Innovation is about solving the problems that people haven’t yet found the words to describe. Digital Phenotyping gives us the ears to hear those unspoken needs.”
— Braden Kelley

As we move beyond the survey, we must lead with a human-centered lens. The goal isn’t to monitor; it’s to support. We are shifting from a world that reacts to failure to a world that senses — and sustains — human flourishing.

II. The Mechanics of Passive Sensing

Digital phenotyping relies on passive data — information collected in the background without requiring any active input from the user. This removes the “friction” of participation and provides a continuous stream of objective reality.

The Three Primary Data Streams

1. Mobility and Physical Activity

Using GPS and accelerometers, we can map “life space.” A sudden constriction in a person’s physical movement — fewer locations visited or reduced steps — can be a powerful proxy for depressive states or social withdrawal. Conversely, erratic movement patterns might signal high levels of anxiety or agitation.

2. Social and Communication Meta-data

This isn’t about what is being said, but how the person is interacting. Call frequency, text latency, and social media engagement patterns reveal shifts in social connectivity. A drop in outbound communication often precedes a burnout phase before the employee even feels “tired.”

3. Human-Computer Interaction (HCI)

The way we interact with our screens is a window into our cognitive health. Typing speed, the frequency of “backspacing,” and scrolling patterns can indicate cognitive overload or a lapse in focus. These “digital biomarkers” are the most immediate indicators of whether a task is designed for human success or human failure.

The Synthesis: From Signals to Insights

The magic happens in the AI synthesis layer. By correlating these streams, machine learning models can identify a “baseline” for an individual. When the data deviates from that baseline, the system identifies a “glitch” — a moment where the human-centered design of the environment is no longer supporting the human within it.

“Data is just a signal; insight is the story. In digital phenotyping, we are learning to read the stories written in the rhythm of our daily digital interactions.”
— Braden Kelley

III. Value Creation: Turning Insight into Action

The true ROI of digital phenotyping isn’t found in the data itself, but in the Experience Design it enables. By moving from reactive to preventative models, we can create environments that adapt to the human state in real-time.

Preventative Experience Design in Practice

Real-Time Burnout Mitigation

Imagine a project management tool that senses cognitive overload through typing patterns and erratic screen switching. Instead of pushing another notification, the system “softens” — delaying non-essential alerts and suggesting a recovery break. This is human-centered design in action: protecting the asset (the person) before the damage occurs.

Adaptive User Interfaces (AUI)

In high-stakes environments like healthcare or emergency response, digital phenotyping allows interfaces to simplify themselves when stress markers are detected. By reducing the “information density” during moments of high stress, we prevent human error and improve outcomes.

The Strategic Advantage of “Wellness as a Service”

Organizations that implement these tools as a benefit rather than a monitor will see a massive shift in retention and engagement. When an employee knows the “system” is looking out for their mental health — flagging potential depression signals or isolation patterns early — the relationship between employer and employee evolves from transactional to collaborative.

“Value in the future of work won’t be measured by output alone, but by the sustainability of the human spirit behind that output.”
— Braden Kelley

By leveraging these insights, we aren’t just innovating products; we are innovating the way we treat people.

IV. The Innovation Ethical Frontier

Digital phenotyping sits at the intersection of extreme utility and extreme vulnerability. As innovators, we must acknowledge that data is a surrogate for intimacy. When we measure a person’s gait or typing rhythm, we are entering their private mental space. Without a robust ethical framework, we risk building a “Digital Panopticon” rather than a supportive ecosystem.

The Three Pillars of Ethical Phenotyping

1. Radical Transparency & Consent

Standard “Terms and Conditions” are insufficient. Consent must be active and ongoing. Users should know exactly what biomarkers are being tracked and have the “Right to Disconnect” without penalty. Transparency isn’t just a legal hurdle; it’s a trust-building feature.

2. Purpose-Driven Data Minimization

The temptation to “collect it all” is the enemy of ethics. We must practice data minimalism: collecting only the specific signals required to provide the promised human-centered value. If a signal doesn’t directly contribute to a preventative intervention, it shouldn’t be gathered.

3. The “Benefit Flow” Guarantee

The value derived from the data must flow primarily back to the individual. If the organization is the only one benefiting (through higher productivity), it’s surveillance. If the individual benefits (through better mental health and reduced stress), it’s empowerment.

Leading with Empathy-Led Ethics

We must move beyond “compliance-based” privacy. In a human-centered organization, we ask: “Would our employees feel cared for or watched if they knew how this worked?” If the answer is “watched,” the innovation is flawed at the architectural level.

“Trust is the only currency that matters in the future of innovation. Once you spend it on surveillance, you can never buy it back.”
— Braden Kelley

By establishing these guardrails early, we ensure that digital phenotyping remains a tool for human flourishing rather than a weapon for corporate control.

V. Leading the Human-Centered Change

Implementing digital phenotyping is not a technical deployment; it is a cultural transformation. If leaders treat this like a software update, they will face immediate resistance. To succeed, we must lead with transparency and a clear focus on the “human” in human-centered innovation.

The Role of the “Architect” in Rollout

Leaders must act as the architects of trust. This means the Chief Innovation Officer and the CHRO must work in lockstep to ensure that the purpose of the data is clearly defined and that those definitions are unshakeable.

Strategies for Successful Integration:

  • The “Opt-In” Mandate: Never make passive sensing mandatory. The power of these tools comes from voluntary participation. When people choose to participate, they become stakeholders in their own well-being.
  • Stakeholder Education: We must educate every level of the organization — especially our “Sensors” (the employees) — on what digital biomarkers are and how they are used to trigger supportive interventions.
  • Feedback Loops: Create a mechanism where employees can provide feedback on the interventions. If a system suggests a “burnout break,” was it helpful or annoying? The human must remain the final authority.

Transparency as a Competitive Feature

In the future, the most successful organizations will be those that are radically transparent about their data practices. By being open about the algorithms and the “why” behind the sensing, we remove the mystery and the fear. Transparency turns a “black box” into a “glass box.”

“Change happens at the speed of trust. If you want to innovate at the edge of human behavior, you must first build a foundation of absolute integrity.”
— Braden Kelley

By focusing on the human-centered change, we ensure that digital phenotyping isn’t something done to people, but something done for them.

VI. Conclusion: Designing a More Intuitive World

The transition from reactive to preventative design represents one of the most significant leaps in the history of Human-Centered Innovation. Digital phenotyping allows us to stop guessing and start knowing — not for the sake of control, but for the sake of care.

The Future is Empathetic

We are moving toward a world where our tools understand our limits as well as we do. Imagine a workplace that recognizes your stress before you have a headache, or a digital assistant that knows you’re cognitively overloaded and helps you prioritize. This is the Intuitive World we are designing.

A Leader’s Final Responsibility

As innovators and leaders, our responsibility is to ensure that as our machines become more “human-literate,” we do not become less human in our leadership. Digital phenotyping is a tool of immense power. Used correctly, it can eradicate burnout, foster deep engagement, and support mental health on a global scale.

“The most advanced technology is the one that makes us feel most human. Our job is to ensure digital phenotyping does exactly that.”
— Braden Kelley

The signals are all around us, pulsing through the devices in our pockets and on our wrists. The question is no longer whether we can hear them, but whether we have the innovation leadership and ethical courage to act on what they are telling us.

Deep Dive: Frequently Asked Questions

Does Digital Phenotyping mean my boss is reading my texts?

Absolutely not. Ethical digital phenotyping focuses on metadata and patterns, not content. It looks at the frequency of communication or the speed of your typing, not the words you say. As an innovation leader, I advocate for systems where the content remains private and encrypted.

Why is this better than a monthly wellness survey?

Surveys are “lagging indicators” — they tell us how you felt in the past. By the time a survey is analyzed, burnout has often already occurred. Digital phenotyping provides real-time signals, allowing for immediate, helpful interventions that can prevent a crisis before it starts.

Can I opt-out of this kind of data collection?

In any human-centered organization, the answer must be yes. Trust is the foundation of innovation. For digital phenotyping to work, it must be an opt-in benefit that employees use because they see the value in their own well-being and professional growth.

Disclaimer: This article speculates on the potential future applications of cutting-edge scientific research. While based on current scientific understanding, the practical realization of these concepts may vary in timeline and feasibility and are subject to ongoing research and development.

Image credits: Google Gemini

Subscribe to Human-Centered Change & Innovation WeeklySign up here to get Human-Centered Change & Innovation Weekly delivered to your inbox every week.

Causal AI

Moving Beyond Prediction to Purpose

LAST UPDATED: February 13, 2026 at 5:13 PM

Causal AI

GUEST POST from Art Inteligencia

For the last decade, the business world has been obsessed with predictive models. We have spent billions trying to answer the question, “What will happen next?” While these tools have helped us optimize supply chains, they often fail when the world changes. Why? Because prediction is based on correlation, and correlation is not causation. To truly innovate using Human-Centered Innovation™, we must move toward Causal AI.

Causal AI is the next frontier of FutureHacking™. Instead of merely identifying patterns, it seeks to understand the why. It maps the underlying “wiring” of a system to determine how changing one variable will influence another. This shift is vital because innovation isn’t about following a trend; it’s about making a deliberate intervention to create a better future.

“Data can tell you that two things are happening at once, but only Causal AI can tell you which one is the lever and which one is the result. Innovation is the art of pulling the right lever.”
— Braden Kelley

The End of the “Black Box” Strategy

One of the greatest barriers to institutional trust is the “Black Box” nature of traditional machine learning. Causal AI, by its very nature, is explainable. It provides a transparent map of cause and effect, allowing human leaders to maintain autonomy and act as the “gardener” tending to the seeds of technology.

Case Study 1: Personalized Medicine and Healthcare

A leading pharmaceutical institution recently moved beyond predictive patient modeling. By using Causal AI to simulate “What if” scenarios, they identified specific causal drivers for individual patients. This allowed for targeted interventions that actually changed outcomes rather than just predicting a decline. This is the difference between watching a storm and seeding the clouds.

Case Study 2: Retail Pricing and Elasticity

A global retail giant utilized Causal AI to solve why deep discounts led to long-term dips in brand loyalty. Causal models revealed that the discounts were causing a shift in quality perception in specific demographics. By understanding this link, the company pivoted to a human-centered value strategy that maintained price integrity while increasing engagement.

Leading the Causal Frontier

The landscape of Causal AI is rapidly maturing in 2026. causaLens remains a primary pioneer with their Causal AI operating system designed for enterprise decision intelligence. Microsoft Research continues to lead the open-source movement with its DoWhy and EconML libraries, which are now essential tools for data scientists globally. Meanwhile, startups like Geminos Software are revolutionizing industrial intelligence by blending causal reasoning with knowledge graphs to address the high failure rate of traditional models. Causaly is specifically transforming the life sciences sector by mapping over 500 million causal relationships in biomedical data to accelerate drug discovery.

“Causal AI doesn’t just predict the future — it teaches us how to change it.”
— Braden Kelley

From Correlation to Causation

Predictive models operate on correlations. They answer: “Given the patterns in historical data, what will likely happen next?” Causal models ask a deeper question: “If we change this variable, how will the outcome change?” This fundamental difference elevates causal AI from forecasting to strategic influence.

Causal AI leverages counterfactual reasoning — the ability to simulate alternative realities. It makes systems more explainable, robust to context shifts, and aligned with human intentions for impact.

Case Study 3: Healthcare — Reducing Hospital Readmissions

A large health system used predictive analytics to identify patients at high risk of readmission. While accurate, the system did not reveal which interventions would reduce that risk. Nurses and clinicians were left with uncertainty about how to act.

By implementing causal AI techniques, the health system could simulate different combinations of follow-up calls, personalized care plans, and care coordination efforts. The causal model showed which interventions would most reduce readmission likelihood. The organization then prioritized those interventions, achieving a measurable reduction in readmissions and better patient outcomes.

This example illustrates how causal AI moves health leaders from reactive alerts to proactive, evidence-based intervention planning.

Case Study 4: Public Policy — Effective Job Training Programs

A metropolitan region sought to improve employment outcomes through various workforce programs. Traditional analytics identified which neighborhoods had high unemployment, but offered little guidance on which programs would yield the best impact.

Causal AI empowered policymakers to model the effects of expanding job training, childcare support, transportation subsidies, and employer incentives. Rather than piloting each program with limited insight, the city prioritized interventions with the highest projected causal effect. Ultimately, unemployment declined more rapidly than in prior years.

This case demonstrates how causal reasoning can inform public decision-making, directing limited resources toward policies that truly move the needle.

Human-Centered Innovation and Causal AI

Causal AI complements human-centered innovation by prioritizing actionable insight over surface-level pattern recognition. It aligns analytics with stakeholder needs: transparency, explainability, and purpose-driven outcomes.

By embracing causal reasoning, leaders design systems that illuminate why problems occur and how to address them. Instead of deploying technology that automates decisions, causal AI enables decision-makers to retain judgment while accessing deeper insight. This synergy reinforces human agency and enhances trust in AI-driven processes.

Challenges and Ethical Guardrails

Despite its potential, causal AI has challenges. It requires domain expertise to define meaningful variables and valid causal structures. Data quality and context matter. Ethical considerations demand clarity about assumptions, transparency in limitations, and safeguards against misuse.

Causal AI is not a shortcut to certainty. It is a discipline grounded in rigorous reasoning. When applied thoughtfully, it empowers organizations to act with purpose rather than default to correlation-based intuition.

Conclusion: Lead with Causality

In a world of noise, Causal AI provides the signal. It respects human autonomy by providing the evidence needed for a human to make the final call. As you look to your next change management initiative, ask yourself: Are you just predicting the weather, or are you learning how to build a better shelter?

Strategic FAQ

How does Causal AI differ from traditional Machine Learning?

Traditional Machine Learning identifies correlations and patterns in historical data to predict future occurrences. Causal AI identifies the functional relationships between variables, allowing users to understand the impact of specific interventions.

Why is Causal AI better for human-centered innovation?

It provides explainability. Because it maps cause and effect, human leaders can see the logic behind a recommendation, ensuring technology remains a tool for human ingenuity.

Can Causal AI help with bureaucratic corrosion?

Yes. By exposing the “why” behind organizational outcomes, it helps leaders identify which processes (the wiring) are actually producing value and which ones are simply creating friction.

Disclaimer: This article speculates on the potential future applications of cutting-edge scientific research. While based on current scientific understanding, the practical realization of these concepts may vary in timeline and feasibility and are subject to ongoing research and development.

Image credits: Google Gemini

Subscribe to Human-Centered Change & Innovation WeeklySign up here to get Human-Centered Change & Innovation Weekly delivered to your inbox every week.

Why We Love to Hate Chatbots

Why We Love to Hate Chatbots

GUEST POST from Shep Hyken

More and more, brands are starting to get the chatbot “thing” right. AI is improving, and customers are realizing that a chatbot can be a great first stop for getting quick answers or resolving questions. After all, if you have a question, don’t you want it answered now?

In a recent interview, I was asked, “What do you love about chatbots?” That was easy. Then came the follow-up question, “What do you hate about chatbots?” Also easy. The truth is, chatbots can deliver amazing experiences. They can also cause just as much frustration as a very long phone hold. With that in mind, here are five reasons to love (and hate) chatbots:

Why We Love Chatbots

  1. 24/7 Availability: Chatbots are always on. They don’t sleep. Customers can get help at any time, even during holidays.
  2. Fast Response: Instant answers to simple questions, such as hours of operation, order status and basic troubleshooting, can be provided with efficiency and minimal friction.
  3. Customer Service at Scale: Once you set up a chatbot, it can handle many customers at once. Customers won’t have to wait, and human agents can focus on more complicated issues and problems.
  4. Multiple Language Capabilities: The latest chatbots are capable of speaking and typing in many different languages. Whether you need global support or just want to cater to different cultures in a local area, a chatbot has you covered.
  5. Consistent Answers: When programmed properly, a chatbot delivers the same answers every time.

Chatbots Shep Hyken Cartoon

Why We Hate Chatbots

  1. AI Can’t Do Everything, but Some Companies Think It Can: This is what frustrates customers the most. Some companies believe AI and chatbots can do it all. They can’t, and the result is frustrated customers who will eventually move on to the competition.
  2. A Lack of Empathy: AI can do a lot, but it can’t express true emotions. For some customers, care, empathy and understanding are more important than efficiency.
  3. Scripted Retorts Feel Robotic: Chatbots often follow strict guidelines. That’s actually a good thing, unless the answers provided feel overly scripted and generic.
  4. Hard to Get to a Human: One of the biggest complaints about chatbots is, “I just want to talk to a person.” Smart companies make it easy for customers to leave AI and connect to a human.
  5. There’s No Emotional Connection to a Chatbot: You’ll most likely never hear a customer say, “I love my chatbot.” A chatbot won’t win your heart. In customer service, sometimes how you make someone feel is more important than what you say.

Chatbots are powerful tools, but they are not a replacement for human connection. The best companies use AI to enhance support, not replace it. When chatbots handle the routine issues and agents handle the more complex and human moments, that’s when customer experience goes from efficient to … amazing.

Image credits: Unsplash

Subscribe to Human-Centered Change & Innovation WeeklySign up here to join 17,000+ leaders getting Human-Centered Change & Innovation Weekly delivered to their inbox every week.

The Greatest Inventor You’ve Never Heard of

Meet the Invisible Man of Innovation

The Greatest Inventor You've Never Heard of

GUEST POST from John Bessant

There’s a famous test, originally developed by psychologist J.P. Guilford, to give an idea of how ‘creative’ a person is. Ask them to think of as many uses as possible for an everyday object – a brick, a glass, a shoe, etc. The idea is that the more ideas you come up with (fluency) plus the number of different categories of idea (flexibility) gives an indication of your ability to think creatively.

If we tried the test with the simple safety pin it would certainly trigger some of the usual suspects – a nappy (diaper) pin, a clothes fastener, a medical device or an item of jewellery. Not so frequent a visitor to many peoples’ lists might be ‘a weightlifting aid’ – yet arguably that has been its most glorious moment so far. For one very good reason.

A $15 debt isn’t a big deal, even if it is incurred in 1849; its value would be around $600 in today’s money. An annoyance but not likely to bring on imminent bankruptcy if it remained unpaid. But for Walter Hunt there was a principle involved (he was, by all accounts a very moral man) and also the practical consideration that his relationship with his creditor (one J. R. Chapin) mattered. Chapin had helped him with a number of other projects as a draughtsman, providing the technical drawings needed for his patent applications. So Walter duly worried about how to repay the debt.

A period of hand wringing and fiddling which lasted about three hours, during some of which he picked up a piece of wire to keep his hands busy. And came up with the basic and still powerful principle behind the mechanism of the safety pin. Most pins up to that point were either simple and sharp with a point at the end or loops which came undone easily. These hadn’t changed much since the days when Roman legionaries pinned their cloaks with a fibula, a kind of simple brooch clasp pin.

By coiling the wire on itself he created a simple spring mechanism and by providing a catch at one end he was able to make the safe closure mechanism which we have come to know and love.

Quite a lot of us, in fact; estimates put the number of safety pins produced and sold per year around the world at around one billion, with specialised machines capable of turning out millions per day.

Walter Hunt was not a fool; he recognized that this idea could have value. And he was not inexperienced; he already had a healthy track record of successful innovation behind him and knew how to work the patent system. So he duly filed and was awarded patent number US6281A; he then offered this (and the accompanying rights it conferred) to the W R Grace company who snapped it up (excuse the pun), paying Hunt $400, enough to enable him to settle his debt and have some spare capital. And to lift a small but annoying weight from his shoulders…

It turned out to be a good deal for them; on an initial outlay of $15,000 in today’s money they secured profits running into millions over the next years.

Safety Pins

Image: U.S. Patent Office, public domain via Wikimedia

This kind of thing was second nature to him; he had a gift for seeing and solving problems in a practical way. By 1849 he’d already built a legacy of (mostly) useful items which he had (mostly) patented and had a growing reputation as an inventor. Though not necessarily an innovator – as in someone who can create value from their ideas. Hunt seems to have had a second ‘gift’; in addition to being a visionary inventor he seems to have been cursed with the inability to profit from his inventions.

The man who was labelled a ‘Yankee mechanical genius’ was born in 1796 in Lewis County, New York to a Quaker family. The eldest of thirteen children he was lucky to receive an education and went on to earn a master’s degree in masonry at the age of twenty-one. Although a practical skill much needed in a rural farming community masonry also involves a way of thinking which is much more than simply piling stones on top of each other. Arguably his understanding of interdependence and systems derived in part from this early experience – and enabled him to approach widely differing problems with a sense of their underlying similarities.

Yet if you look back at his track record of inventions he rapidly emerges as a serious contender for being the greatest inventor you’ve never heard of.

For example:

The repeater rifle, in 1848 – up there as a symbol of ‘how the West was won’ in a thousand cowboy movies and the undoubted making of the Winchester Repeating Arms Company with their Winchester rifle. Hunt not only developed the original idea for a ‘volition repeating rifle’ but also the ammunition it might use (his ‘rocket ball’) which was revolutionary in putting the powder charge in the bullet’s base. His designs weren’t very workable and he sold the patents; these changed hands a number of times in the growing armaments industry before being bought by Messrs Smith and Wesson who used them as the basis for a new company. The biggest investor in the new Volcanic Repeating Arms Company was one Oliver Winchester….

Think fountain pens and writing implements and the transition from goose quills to refillable devices and you may well think of the companies which made their name with the innovation. But whilst companies like Parker Pen created the market the foundations were laid by, amongst others, Walter Hunt who predated their work by decades. In 1847, he patented a fountain pen (U.S. Patent 4,927) combining inkstand and pen into one unit, “convenient for the pocket.”

Knife sharpening ? Nail making? Rope making? Castors to help move furniture around? Disposable paper collars? A coal burning stive which would radiate heat in all directions? A saw for cutting down trees? A flexible spring attachment for belts and braces? An attachment for boats to cut through ice? An inkstand? A non-explosive safety lamp? Bottle stoppers? Hunt turned his hand and imagination to hundreds of challenges across an almost impossibly wide spectrum. Leonardo da Vinci would have been proud of him, not least in his ability to draw together ideas and inspirations from many different fields.

His first patented invention was for an improved flax spinning machine in 1826. He worked as a farmer in a region dominated by textile milling and most of his family and friends were in the business of spinning wool and cotton. Faced with rising costs and falling product prices the local mill owner, Willis Hoskins, wanted to reduce wages; Hunt persuaded him to hold off and offered instead to develop a more efficient flax spinning machine. He patented this on June 22, 1826 and its contribution to improving productivity saved the jobs.

His motivation was often underpinned by a social concern. Another early invention (1827) was for a coach alarm system. Visiting New York to try and raise funds for developing the falx spinning machine further he witnessed an accident where a horse-drawn carriage ran over a child. The driver, his hands fully occupied with the reins of the team, had been unable to sound a warning horn in time. Hunt was shaken by this and the fact that this was not a rare occurrence; he began thinking of ways to help prevent these accidents. He came up with the idea of a metal gong with a hammer that could be operated by foot; his “Coach Alarm” was patented on July 30, 1827. Facing an uphill struggle he sold the rights to the stagecoach operators Kipp and Brown; the invention became a standard feature on streetcars across the United States, saving countless lives.

Late in life, Hunt addressed the laundry problem. In 1854 a crisp white collar was a mark of status, but keeping linen white required constant starching and ironing. Hunt invented the ‘paper shirt collar’ (U.S. Patent 11,376) which offered the advantage of looking like linen but being disposable after use.

Some of his ideas were, shall we say, a little fanciful though the prototypes proved their point. Inspired by the way flies negotiated ceilings his ‘antipodean apparatus’ was designed to help circus performers (and anyone else mad enough) to walk upside down. Although this one wasn’t patented it was still in use by performers a hundred years later!

antipodean apparatus

Altogether he was responsible for hundreds of patents and about two dozen of Hunt’s inventions are still used in the form in which he created them over one hundred years ago.

Including, of course, the really big one that got away – the sewing machine. The mid 19th century saw a flurry of inventive activity around trying to enable it, eventually converging on a dominant design which combined different elements for feeding, sewing with a lockstitch, holding the fabric, powering the feed, etc. Isaac Singer walked away with the prize in 1851 after a long and bitter battle with Elias Howe whose patent he liberally borrowed from and which predated his machine by several years.

What’s not always mentioned is that Howe’s idea wasn’t original; he’d based his 1846 machine on something he’d seen more than a decade before. In fact this ‘prior art’ was what Singer tried to use in his defence only to have the judge throw it out because the original idea, though clearly the core design for a working sewing machine, had never actually been patented.

The man who’d let this incredible opportunity slip through his fingers? Our very own Walter Hunt.

Sewing Machine

Image: National Museum of American History, public domain

In 1830, Barthelemy Thimonnier in France had patented a machine that used a hooked needle to make a chain stitch, but it was slow and fragile. Hunt’s experiments in the early 1830s led him to a new approach; he realized that a machine didn’t need to mimic a manual seamstress and in particular it didn’t need to pass the needle all the way through. Instead he designed a curved needle with the eye at the point; the needle would pierce the cloth, carrying a loop of thread with it and then a shuttle would pass a second thread through the loop formed by the needle. When the needle retracted, the two threads would lock together – lockstitch.

He kept it in the family, employing one of his many brothers, Adoniram, to improve on his wooden prototype by making a machine out of iron. It worked well, sewing straight seams with a durability and uniformity that manual sewing could not touch. By 1834 – twelve years before Elias Howe – Hunt had a working machine that could have made him one of the richest men in the world. But he held back from patenting it.

Not for want of experience or vision; he’d seen the possibilities which is why he’d been working on the idea. But his vision was partly shaped by his strong-willed and socially conscious daughter who saw it not as a labour-saving device but as a labour killer, threatening the livelihoods of women who worked as seamstresses to establish themselves and find a measure of financial independence. She persuaded Hunt to hold back from registering his patent though he had the working design ready a full twenty years before Singer’s successful entry.

Instead he allowed his invention to ‘slumber’, existing but not being patented or commercialised. He sold the rights to the prototype to George Arrowsmith, but Arrowsmith, the lack of a patent, also failed to commercialize it.

In the infamous ‘Sewing Machine Wars’ of the early 1850s the two big antagonists were Howe and Singer; as part of his campaign Singer discovered Hunt’s ideas and pressed him to search for any evidence of the earlier machine which might help invalidate Howe’s lockstitch-based patent. Eventually they found the rusty remnants of the 1834 machine and Hunt rebuilt it to working status, enabling Singer to argue that Howe was not the first inventor.

In 1854, Patent Commissioner Charles Mason issued a ruling that became a cornerstone of patent law; he acknowledged that Hunt had indeed invented the machine first. However, he ruled against Hunt based on the doctrine of laches (abandonment), writing that “…. When the first inventor allows his discovery to slumber for eighteen years, with no probability of its ever being brought into useful activity, and when its only resurrected to supplant and strangle an invention which has been given to the public… all reasonable presumption should be in favour of the inventor who has been the means of conferring the real benefit upon the world”.

The ruling forced Singer and other sewing machine manufacturers to settle their differences and operate a patent pool with each paying relevant royalties to the others for use of particular intellectual property. Hunt received a small payment from Singer for his testimony, but he missed out on the royalties that built the fortunes which came to Singer and Howe.

He was granted a patent for another improvement to the sewing machine dealing with feeding of material into the machine without jamming it. Singer eventually agreed in 1858 to pay Hunt $50,000 for this design – but Hunt didn’t live long enough to collect his due.

He died on June 8, 1859 of pneumonia in his workshop in New York City. His grave in Green-Wood Cemetery is marked by a modest granite shaft, a stark contrast to the massive monuments of other ‘Gilded Age’ entrepreneurs.

Although Hunt died without a fortune to his name he was no fool. His name might be missing from the pantheon of great inventors who changed the world through steel and steam – creating the products and the markets which defined a new industrial age. Yet anyone who could twist a piece of wire into a global success in three hours in order to settle a debt deserves a closer look.

His life reveals a complex man of high principles – a ‘benevolent Quaker’ – and possessed of an internal motivation owing much more to a fascination with solving problems and puzzles than the inspiration of a possible fortune. Someone who found joy in the quest rather than the goal, the ultimate ideas man.

An obituary published in the New York Tribune on June 13th, 1859 captured a little of this restless spirit. “For more than forty years, he has been known as an experiment in the arts. Whether in mechanical movements, chemistry, electricity or metallic compositions, he was always at home: and, probably in all, he has tried more experiments than any other inventor.”

Sometimes the quest is more exciting than the destination, sometimes the act of creating something new is its own reward.


You can find my podcast here and my videos here

And if you’d like to learn with me take a look at my online courses here

And subscribe to my (free) newsletter here

All images generated by Google Nanobanana or Substack AI unless otherwise indicated

Subscribe to Human-Centered Change & Innovation WeeklySign up here to join 17,000+ leaders getting Human-Centered Change & Innovation Weekly delivered to their inbox every week.

How Engineered Living Therapeutics Are Redefining Healthcare

The Living Cure

LAST UPDATED: January 29, 2026 at 5:38 PM

How Engineered Living Therapeutics Are Redefining Healthcare

GUEST POST from Art Inteligencia

For centuries, medicine has been about chemistry — pills and potions designed to intervene in biological processes. But what if the medicine itself could think? What if it could adapt? What if it was alive? This isn’t science fiction; it’s the audacious promise of Engineered Living Therapeutics (ELTs), and it represents a paradigm shift in human-centered healthcare that will redefine our relationship with illness.

As a thought leader in human-centered change and innovation, I’ve seen countless industries disrupted by radical new approaches. Biotechnology is no exception. ELTs are not merely advanced drugs; they are biological systems, often engineered microbes or cells, programmed to perform specific therapeutic functions within the body. This is innovation at its most profound: leveraging the inherent intelligence and adaptability of life itself to heal.

Beyond the Pill: The Intelligence of Living Medicine

Traditional pharmaceuticals often act as blunt instruments, targeting specific pathways with limited specificity and potential side effects. ELTs, by contrast, offer a level of precision and dynamic response previously unimaginable. Imagine a therapy that can detect disease markers, produce therapeutic compounds only when needed, or even self-regulate its activity based on the body’s changing state. This intelligent adaptability is what makes ELTs a truly human-centered approach to healing, tailoring treatment to the unique, fluctuating biology of each individual.

“The future of medicine isn’t just about what we put into the body; it’s about what we awaken within it. Engineered Living Therapeutics aren’t just treatments; they’re collaborations with our own biology.”

— Braden Kelley

Case Study I: Reprogramming the Gut for Metabolic Health

A burgeoning area for ELTs lies within the human microbiome. Consider the challenge of chronic metabolic diseases like Type 2 Diabetes. Current treatments often manage symptoms without addressing underlying dysregulation. One biotech startup engineered a strain of probiotic bacteria to reside in the gut. This engineered bacterium was programmed to sense elevated glucose levels and, in response, produce and deliver an insulin-sensitizing peptide directly within the intestinal lumen.

This targeted, localized intervention offered a novel way to manage blood sugar, reducing the systemic side effects associated with orally administered drugs. The innovation here wasn’t just a new molecule, but a living delivery system that dynamically responded to the body’s needs, representing a truly personalized and responsive therapy.

Case Study II: Targeted Oncology with “Smart” Cells

Cancer treatment remains one of medicine’s most formidable challenges. While CAR T-cell therapy has revolutionized certain hematological cancers, ELTs are pushing the boundaries further. Imagine immune cells engineered not only to identify cancer cells but also to produce potent anti-cancer molecules directly at the tumor site, or even to activate other immune cells to join the fight.

One research initiative is exploring tumor-infiltrating lymphocytes (TILs) engineered to express specific receptors that bind to unique tumor antigens and simultaneously secrete localized immunomodulators. This approach aims to overcome the immunosuppressive microenvironment of solid tumors, a significant hurdle for many current immunotherapies. This represents a leap towards truly precision oncology, where the body’s own defenders are given a sophisticated, living upgrade.

Leading the Charge: Companies and Startups in the ELT Space

The ELT landscape is rapidly evolving, attracting significant investment and groundbreaking research. Established pharmaceutical giants like Novartis and Gilead Sciences (through Kite Pharma) are already active in the approved CAR T-cell therapy space, which serves as a foundational ELT. However, a vibrant ecosystem of innovative startups is pushing the frontier. Companies like Seres Therapeutics are leading with microbiome-based ELTs for infectious diseases. Synlogic is developing engineered bacteria for metabolic disorders and cancer. Ginkgo Bioworks, while not a therapeutic company itself, is a critical enabler, providing the foundational synthetic biology platform for engineering organisms. Additionally, numerous academic spin-offs and smaller biotechs are emerging, focusing on niche applications, advanced gene editing techniques within living cells, and novel delivery mechanisms, signaling a diverse and competitive future for ELTs.

Designing Trust in Living Systems

ELTs raise questions about control, persistence, and governance. Human-centered change demands proactive transparency, ethical foresight, and adaptive regulation.

The future of ELTs will be shaped as much by trust as by technology.

The Human-Centered Future of Living Therapies

Healthcare innovation has long been constrained by an assumption that treatment must be static to be safe. Engineered Living Therapeutics (ELTs) challenge that assumption by embracing biology’s native strength: adaptability.

ELTs are living systems intentionally designed to operate inside the human body. They sense, decide, and respond. In doing so, they force leaders, regulators, and innovators to rethink what medicine is and how it should behave.

“True healthcare innovation begins when we stop trying to control biology and start designing with it.”

— Braden Kelley

The journey with ELTs is just beginning. As with any transformative technology, there are ethical considerations, regulatory hurdles, and manufacturing complexities to navigate. However, the potential for these living medicines to offer durable, highly targeted, and adaptive treatments for a vast array of diseases — from cancer and autoimmune disorders to infectious diseases and chronic conditions — is immense. By placing the human at the center of this innovation, ensuring patient safety, accessibility, and shared understanding, we can unlock a future where our biology becomes an ally in healing, not just a battlefield.


Frequently Asked Questions

What are Engineered Living Therapeutics (ELTs)?ELTs are biological systems, typically engineered microbes (like bacteria) or human cells, programmed to perform specific therapeutic functions within the body to treat diseases.

How do ELTs differ from traditional drugs?Unlike static chemical drugs, ELTs are dynamic and can sense the body’s environment, adapt their function, and produce therapeutic effects precisely where and when needed, offering a more intelligent and targeted approach.

What types of diseases can ELTs potentially treat?ELTs show promise across a wide range of conditions, including cancer, autoimmune disorders, metabolic diseases (like diabetes), infectious diseases, and gastrointestinal disorders.

Disclaimer: This article speculates on the potential future applications of cutting-edge scientific research. While based on current scientific understanding, the practical realization of these concepts may vary in timeline and feasibility and are subject to ongoing research and development.

Image credits: Google Gemini

Subscribe to Human-Centered Change & Innovation WeeklySign up here to get Human-Centered Change & Innovation Weekly delivered to your inbox every week.






Win Your Way to an AI Job

Anduril’s AI Grand Prix: Racing for the Future of Work

LAST UPDATED: January 28, 2026 at 2:27 PM

Anduril's AI Grand Prix: Racing for the Future of Work

GUEST POST from Art Inteligencia

The traditional job interview is an antiquated artifact, a relic of a bygone industrial era. It often measures conformity, articulateness, and cultural fit more than actual capability or innovative potential. As we navigate the complexities of AI, automation, and rapid technological shifts, organizations are beginning to realize that to find truly exceptional talent, they need to look beyond resumes and carefully crafted answers. This is where companies like Anduril are not just iterating but innovating the very hiring process itself.

Anduril, a defense technology company known for its focus on AI-driven systems, recently announced its AI Grand Prix — a drone racing contest where the ultimate prize isn’t just glory, but a job offer. This isn’t merely a marketing gimmick; it’s a profound statement about their belief in demonstrated skill over credentialism, and a powerful strategy for identifying talent that can truly push the boundaries of autonomous systems. It epitomizes the shift from abstract evaluation to purposeful, real-world application, emphasizing hands-on capability over theoretical knowledge.

“The future of hiring isn’t about asking people what they can do; it’s about giving them a challenge and watching them show you.”

— Braden Kelley

Why Challenge-Based Hiring is the New Frontier

This approach addresses several critical pain points in traditional hiring:

  • Uncovering Latent Talent: Many brilliant minds don’t fit the mold of elite university degrees or polished corporate careers. Challenge-based hiring can surface individuals with raw, untapped potential who might otherwise be overlooked.
  • Assessing Practical Skills: In fields like AI, robotics, and advanced engineering, theoretical knowledge is insufficient. The ability to problem-solve under pressure, adapt to dynamic environments, and debug complex systems is paramount.
  • Cultural Alignment Through Action: Observing how candidates collaborate, manage stress, and iterate on solutions in a competitive yet supportive environment reveals more about their true cultural fit than any behavioral interview.
  • Building a Diverse Pipeline: By opening up contests to a wider audience, companies can bypass traditional biases inherent in resume screening, leading to a more diverse and innovative workforce.

Beyond Anduril: Other Pioneers of Performance-Based Hiring

Anduril isn’t alone in recognizing the power of real-world challenges to identify top talent. Several other forward-thinking organizations have adopted similar, albeit varied, approaches:

Google’s Code Jam and Hash Code

For years, Google has leveraged competitive programming contests like Code Jam and Hash Code to scout for software engineering talent globally. These contests present participants with complex algorithmic problems that test their coding speed, efficiency, and problem-solving abilities. While not always directly leading to a job offer for every participant, top performers are often fast-tracked through the interview process. This allows Google to identify engineers who can perform under pressure and think creatively, rather than just those who can ace a whiteboard interview. It’s a prime example of turning abstract coding prowess into a tangible demonstration of value.

Kaggle Competitions for Data Scientists

Kaggle, now a Google subsidiary, revolutionized how data scientists prove their worth. Through its platform, companies post real-world data science problems—from predicting housing prices to identifying medical conditions from images—and offer prize money, and often, connections to jobs, to the teams that develop the best models. This creates a meritocracy where the quality of one’s predictive model speaks louder than any resume. Many leading data scientists have launched their careers or been recruited directly from their performance in Kaggle competitions. It transforms theoretical data knowledge into demonstrable insights that directly impact business outcomes.

The Human Element in the Machine Age

What makes these initiatives truly human-centered? It’s the recognition that while AI and automation are transforming tasks, the human capacity for ingenuity, adaptation, and critical thinking remains irreplaceable. These contests aren’t about finding people who can simply operate machines; they’re about finding individuals who can teach the machines, design the next generation of algorithms, and solve problems that don’t yet exist. They foster an environment of continuous learning and application, perfectly aligning with the “purposeful learning” philosophy.

The Anduril AI Grand Prix, much like Google’s and Kaggle’s initiatives, de-risks the hiring process by creating a performance crucible. It’s a pragmatic, meritocratic, and ultimately more effective way to build the teams that will define the next era of technological advancement. As leaders, our challenge is to move beyond conventional wisdom and embrace these innovative models, ensuring we’re not just ready for the future of work, but actively shaping it.

Anduril Fury


Frequently Asked Questions

What is challenge-based hiring?

Challenge-based hiring is a recruitment strategy where candidates demonstrate their skills and problem-solving abilities by completing a real-world task, project, or competition, rather than relying solely on resumes and interviews.

What are the benefits of this approach for companies?

Companies can uncover hidden talent, assess practical skills, observe cultural fit in action, and build a more diverse talent pipeline by focusing on demonstrable performance.

How does this approach benefit candidates?

Candidates get a fair chance to showcase their true abilities regardless of traditional credentials, gain valuable experience, and often get direct access to influential companies and potential job offers based purely on merit.

To learn more about transforming your organization’s talent acquisition strategy, reach out to explore how human-centered innovation can reshape your hiring practices.

Image credits: Wikimedia Commons, Google Gemini

Subscribe to Human-Centered Change & Innovation WeeklySign up here to get Human-Centered Change & Innovation Weekly delivered to your inbox every week.






We Must Stop Fooling Ourselves and Get Our Facts Straight

We Must Stop Fooling Ourselves and Get Our Facts Straight

GUEST POST from Greg Satell

Mehdi Hasan’s brutal takedown of Matt Taibbi was almost painful to watch. Taibbi, a longtime muckraking journalist of some renown, was invited by Elon Musk to review internal communications that came to be known as the Twitter Files and made big headlines with accusations regarding government censorship of social media.

Yet as Hasan quickly revealed, Taibbi got basic facts wrong, either not understanding what he was looking at, doing sloppy work or just plainly being disingenuous. What Taibbi was reporting as censorship was, in fact, a normal, deliberative process for flagging problematic content, most of which was not taken down.

He looked foolish, but I could feel his pain. In both of my books, I had similarly foolish errors. The difference was that I sent out sections to be fact-checked by experts and people with first-hand knowledge of events before I published. The truth is that it’s not easy to get facts straight. It takes hard work and humility to get things right. We need to be careful.

A Stupid Mistake

Some of the most famous business stories we hear are simply not accurate. Gurus and pundits love to tell you that after inventing digital photography Kodak ignored the market. Nothing could be further from the truth. In fact, its EasyShare line of cameras were top sellers. It also made big investments in quality printing for digital photos. The problem was that it made most of its money on developing film, a business that completely disappeared.

Another popular fable is that Xerox failed to commercialize the technology developed at its Palo Alto Research Center (PARC), when in fact the laser printer developed there saved the company. What also conveniently gets left out is that Steve Jobs was able to get access to the company’s technology to build the Macintosh because Xerox had invested in Apple and then profited handsomely from that investment.

But my favorite mistold myth is that of Blockbuster, which supposedly ignored Netflix until it was too late. As Gina Keating, who covered the story for years at Reuters, explains in her book Netflixed, the video giant moved relatively quickly and came up with a successful strategy, but the CEO, John Antioco, left after a fight with investor Carl Icahn and the strategy was reversed.

Yet that’s not exactly how I told the story. For years I reported that Antioco was fired. I even wrote it up that way in my book Cascades until I contacted the former CEO to fact-check it. He was incredibly generous with his time, corrected me and then gave me additional insights that improved the book.

To this day, I don’t know exactly why I made the mistake. In fact, as soon as he pointed it out I knew I was wrong. Somehow the notion that he was fired got stuck in my head and, with no one to correct me, it just stayed there. We like to think that we remember things as they happened, but unfortunately our brains don’t work that way.

Why We Get Fooled

We tend to imagine that our minds are some sort of machines, recording what we see and hear, then storing those experiences away to be retrieved at a later time, but that’s not how our brains work at all. Humans have a need to build narratives. We like things to fit into neat patterns and fill in the gaps in our knowledge so that everything makes sense.

Psychologists often point to a halo effect, the tendency for an impression created in one area to influence opinion in another. For example, when someone is physically attractive, we tend to infer other good qualities and when a company is successful, we tend to think other good things about it.

The truth is that our thinking is riddled with subtle yet predictable biases. We are apt to be influenced not by the most rigorous information, but what we can most readily access. We make confounding errors that confuse correlation with causality and then look for information that confirms our judgments while discounting evidence to the contrary.

I’m sure that both Matt Taibbi and I fell into a number of these pitfalls. We observed a set of facts, perceived a pattern, built a narrative and then began filling in gaps with things that we thought we knew. As we looked for more evidence, we seized on what bolstered the stories we were telling ourselves, while ignoring contrary facts.

The difference, of course, is that I went and checked with a primary source, who immediately pointed out my error and, as soon as he did, it broke the spell. I immediately remembered reading in Keating’s book that he resigned and agreed to stay on for six months while a new CEO was being hired. Our brains do weird things.

How Our Errors Perpetuate

In addition to our own cognitive biases, there are a number of external factors that conspire to perpetuate our beliefs. The first is that we tend to embed ourselves in networks that have similar experiences and perspectives that we do. Scientific evidence shows that we conform to the views around us and that effect extends out to three degrees of relationships.

Once we find our tribe, we tend to view outsiders suspiciously and are less likely to scrutinize allies. In a study of adults that were randomly assigned to “leopards” and “tigers,” fMRI studies noted hostility to out-group members. Research from MIT suggests that when we are around people we expect to agree with us, we don’t check facts closely and are more likely to share false information.

In David McRraney’s new book, How to Change a Mind, he points out that people who are able to leave cults or reject long-held conspiracy theories first build alternative social networks. Our associations form an important part of our identity, so we are loath to change our opinions that signal inclusion into our tribe. There are deep evolutionary forces that drive us to be stalwart citizens of the communities we join.

Taibbi was, for years, a respected investigative journalist at Rolling Stone magazine. There, he had editors and fact checkers to answer to. Now, as an independent journalist, he has only the networks that he chooses to give him feedback and, being human like all of us, he subtly conforms to a set of dispositions and perspectives.

I probably fell prey to similar influences. As someone who researches innovation, I spend a lot of time with people who regard Netflix as a hero and Blockbuster as something of a bumbler. That probably affected how I perceived Antioco’s departure from the company. We all have blind spots and fall prey to the operational glitches in our brains. No one is immune.

Learning How To Not Fool Ourselves

In one of my favorite essays the physicist Richard Feynman wrote, “The first principle is that you must not fool yourself — and you are the easiest person to fool. So you have to be very careful about that,” He goes on further to say that simply being honest isn’t enough, you also need to “bend over backwards” to provide information so that others may prove you wrong.

So the first step is to be hyper-vigilant and aware that your brain has a tendency to fool you. It will quickly grasp on the most readily available data and detect patterns that may or may not be there. Then it will seek out other evidence that confirms those initial hunches while disregarding contrary evidence.

This is especially true of smart, accomplished people. Those who have been right in the past, who have proved the doubters wrong, are going to be less likely to see the warning signs. In many cases, they will even see opposition to their views as evidence they are on the right track. There’s a sucker born every minute and they’re usually the ones who think that they’re playing it smart.

Checking ourselves isn’t nearly enough, we need to actively seek out other views and perspectives. Some of this can be done with formal processes such as pre-mortems and red teams, but a lot of it is just acknowledging that we have blind spots, building the habit of reaching out to others and improving our listening skills.

Perhaps most of all, we need to have a sense of humility. It’s far too easy to be impressed with ourselves and far too difficult to see how we’re being led astray. There is often a negative correlation between our level of certainty and the likelihood of us being wrong. We all need to make an effort to believe less of what we think.

— Article courtesy of the Digital Tonto blog
— Image credit: 1 of 1,050+ FREE quotes for your meetings & presentations at http://misterinnovation.com

Subscribe to Human-Centered Change & Innovation WeeklySign up here to join 17,000+ leaders getting Human-Centered Change & Innovation Weekly delivered to their inbox every week.






Supercritical Water Oxidation (SCWO)

Designing the Future of Waste Destruction

LAST UPDATED: January 22, 2026 at 5:36 PM

Supercritical Water Oxidation (SCWO)

GUEST POST from Art Inteligencia

As we navigate the complexities of 2026, the global innovation community is increasingly focused on sustainable competitive advantage. But sustainability is no longer just a buzzword for the Environmental, Social, and Governance (ESG) report; it is a fundamental engineering and human-centered challenge. We are currently witnessing a paradigm shift in how we handle the “unhandleable” — toxic wastes like Per- and Polyfluoroalkyl Substances (PFAS), chemical agents, and industrial sludges. At the heart of this revolution is Supercritical Water Oxidation (SCWO).

Innovation, as I often say, is about increasing the probability of the impossible. For decades, the permanent destruction of “forever chemicals” felt like a biological and chemical impossibility. SCWO changes that math by leveraging the unique properties of water at its critical point — 374°C and 22.1 MPa — to create a “homogeneous” environment where organic waste is effectively incinerated without the flame, converting toxins into harmless water, carbon dioxide, and salts.

“Innovation transforms the useful seeds of invention into widely adopted solutions valued above every existing alternative. With SCWO, we aren’t just managing waste; we are redesigning our relationship with the environment by choosing permanent destruction over temporary storage.” — Braden Kelley

The Mechanism of Change

In a standard liquid state, water is a polar solvent. However, when pushed into a supercritical state, its dielectric constant drops, and it begins to behave like a nonpolar organic solvent. This allows oxygen and organic compounds to become completely miscible. The result? A rapid, high-efficiency oxidation reaction that happens in seconds. For the human-centered leader, this represents more than just a chemical reaction; it represents agility. It allows us to process waste on-site, reducing the carbon footprint and risk associated with transporting hazardous materials.

Case Study 1: Eliminating the “Forever” in PFAS

In a recent multi-provider demonstration involving 374Water, Battelle, and Aquarden, SCWO technology was tested against Aqueous Film-Forming Foam (AFFF) contaminated with high concentrations of PFAS. The results were staggering. The systems achieved a 99.99% reduction in total PFAS. By shifting from a “filtration and storage” mindset to a “destruction” mindset, these organizations proved that the technical debt of past industrial eras can be settled permanently. This is a classic example of using curiosity to solve a legacy problem that traditional ROI models would have ignored.

Market Leaders and The Innovation Ecosystem

The commercialization of SCWO is being driven by a dynamic ecosystem of established players and agile startups. 374Water (NASDAQ: SCWO) remains a prominent leader, recently expanding its board to accelerate the global rollout of its “AirSCWO” systems. Revive Environmental has also made significant waves by deploying its “PFAS Annihilator,” a mobile SCWO unit that can treat up to 500,000 gallons of landfill leachate daily. Other key innovators include Aquarden Technologies in Denmark, Battelle, and specialized engineering firms like Chematur Engineering AB. These companies aren’t just selling hardware; they are selling a future where waste management is a closed-loop system.

Case Study 2: Industrial Sludge and Energy Recovery

A European chemical manufacturing plant integrated a tubular SCWO reactor to handle hazardous organic sludges that previously required expensive off-site incineration. Not only did the SCWO process destroy 99.9% of the toxins, but the plant also implemented a heat recovery system. Because the oxidation reaction is exothermic, they were able to capture the excess heat to pre-heat the influent waste, significantly lowering operational costs. This transformation of a cost-center (waste disposal) into a self-sustaining utility is exactly the type of systemic innovation I encourage leaders to pursue.

Final Thoughts: The Curiosity Advantage

The half-life of our current waste management techniques is shrinking. Landfills are filling, and regulations are tightening. The organizations that thrive will be those that exercise the collective capacity for curiosity to adopt “future-present” technologies like SCWO. We must stop asking “How do we hide the waste?” and start asking “How do we unmake it?”


Supercritical Water Oxidation (SCWO) FAQ

What are the primary benefits of SCWO over traditional incineration?

SCWO operates in a closed system at lower temperatures than incineration, preventing the formation of harmful NOx, SOx, and dioxins. It also allows for higher destruction efficiency (often >99.99%) for persistent organic pollutants like PFAS.

Can SCWO systems recover energy from waste?

Yes. The oxidation process in SCWO is exothermic (it releases heat). Many modern commercial systems are designed to capture this energy to pre-heat the influent waste or generate steam for other industrial processes.

Is SCWO technology ready for large-scale industrial use?

While historically challenged by corrosion and salt buildup, 2026-era SCWO systems from leaders like 374Water and Revive Environmental use advanced materials and “transpiring wall” designs to handle these issues, making them viable for municipal and industrial scale-up.

Disclaimer: This article speculates on the potential future applications of cutting-edge scientific research. While based on current scientific understanding, the practical realization of these concepts may vary in timeline and feasibility and are subject to ongoing research and development.

Image credits: Google Gemini

Subscribe to Human-Centered Change & Innovation WeeklySign up here to get Human-Centered Change & Innovation Weekly delivered to your inbox every week.