That is going to be next… the third level of maturity, but then there is the far deeper level which is: “can I design my system? My next system, from the ground up, to be social?” Moneygram fees which means only this simply, when most information systems are developed, we consider the actor to be predetermined to be dumb, to be able to do only a few certain things on the system. We assume that, and we assume that these actors are isolated elements. They are there only to trigger off these actions in the system that we are building. But that is not what actors are, right, so you have to start thinking about the actor as an autonomous entity, which is able to take decisions by itself.
But then again it is connected, for its success it is dependent upon the other actors also, in the environment in which the system exists, which means now we are talking about sociality, and the actor, in addition to reasoning, to be able to take decisions, they also have motivations, so that their decisions are always motivated to a certain kind of a decision. It might not always be the best for the organization nor for the system or anything, they might have their own intrinsic motivations, because of which they will not behave the way predefined in our systems design. Which means that all these years, these 60 years, 50-60 years or whatever, we have in designing information systems, we have been assuming that the actors, I am more talking about the human actors, but of course you could also include many various artificial intelligence programs there, we have been assuming that these actors are dumb, have predator mind actions possible, it’s not the case, but still we have been doing that. So that’s going to be the farthest that I am able to look at right now, when people, when they design the systems itself they will consider the autonomous nature or the social behavior of these actors.