----- Original Message -----
From: "Leonard Matusik" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "Killer Bs Discussion" <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, May 31, 2005 8:26 PM
Subject: Re: Will someone, anyone please explain to me..........
> None taken Warren, I was smiling when I sent it (not smirking either!)
>
> I'm sort of interested in a scenario where the next Thomas Edison(s) pop
up in places other than the >USA. Technical (bio or otherwise) renders US
"superiority" obsolete. Consider the harware and info, >both new and
surplus, just out there for the purchase. Also, there are place where
respect for patent law >and government restrictions are non-existant or
winked at. Innovation and reverse engineering are
>cheap.
> It doesn't have to something "grand" either. Consider the new LED
flashlights. My understanding is that >LEDs are nanotech devices.
I wouldn't call them nanotech. They've been around since the times when a
computer with a fraction of a percent of the power of a low end PC.
>These things will practically blind a person on a pitence of power.
Maybe you are thinking of small lasers....which can do that because they
are very focused. A florescent light is around 15%-20% efficient, so the
theoretical limit is only about 5x to 6x that efficiency.
> We are then left as a nation of lab rats, dedicated to the adverse
effects of overindulgence.
> All of our intrigues, our plotting, and our fears will eventually melt
into a historical tribute to Ozymandous.
I really don't see where you are coming from with this. The idea of a
singular Thomas Edison changing technology single handed is a bit of an
urban myth.....with a good deal of promotion from Mr. Edison himself. He
certainly did his share of innovation, but he was one of the first
marketing spin doctors we had do.
One thing worth remembering is the last time the US was about to be
overtaken...by Japan in the '80s. Japan's use of TQM showed (and shows)
tremendous potential for improving manufacturing techniques. The consensus
building philosophy of the Japanese was considered much better suited for
development. The government sponsorship development of 5th generation
computer technology was listed as a critical factor in the US's computer
industry being left in the dust.
The only thing was this "fifth generation" was a giant mainframe blind
alley. Lotsa distributed small computers was more effective. Indeed, the
new supercomputers are based on one super processors, but thousands of
processors, like those in workstations, all assigned to the same problem.
Since you are relatively new here, [I don't think I've said welcome yet, so
consider yourself welcomed by me now. :-) ], you probably don't know my
background. I'm a research physicist that has been working in research,
development and engineering in nuclear applications (mostly in the oil
field) for about the last 25 or so years. I've served on a patent
committee for about 8 years, I have had the chance to receive a few
patents....including a couple that are now the standard industry
techniques. I've seen buddies of mine cut $2.50/barrel or so off the price
of oil with their innovations.
I've also worked in multinationals, with people from all over the world,
before I went out on my own. I think that the US has some structural
advantages for innovation that are not going to disappear overnight. A few
of them are:
1) Flexibility
2) Failure tolerance
3) Demographics
1) Flexibility
Ex pats working here have frequently remarked to me about the flexibility
the US has in business. A customer of mine, who immigrated from
Switzerland, told me how he could not just open a company up as a young man
in Switzerland. It would take years of establishing himself before he
could do that. He was amazed at the way I and a colleague could set up our
own businesses, just like that. He said that the social restrictions were
much more severe in Europe.
You can see that in the sociology of the workplace too. When my cousin
went to Germany to work for a couple of years (he worked for a German
company in the US..and this was part of an exchange program), people were
shocked that Herr Doctor would get his own coffee. When I was manager of a
development group, I got dinner when the team worked late, made sure that
they had what they needed, etc. My job was taking care of them.
The last manifestation of this that I wish to consider is documentation and
procedures. People in Great Britain, for example, tend to be much more
concerned with following the right procedures than folks in the US. Just
get it done and document it later is more common here. While there is a
real downside to that in manufacturing, software support, etc., not going
by the book all the time is critical for an innovative culture.
2) Failure Tolerance
The US has a fairly high tolerance for failure. A good effort that didn't
work out as planned is not a source of shame, but a chance to learn
something in order to get it right the next time. Contrast this with
Japanese engineering, where failure is a source of great shame. When a
buddy of mine worked with a Japanese technology firm, he pulled his hair
out because they would never agree to run meaningful tests....they would
only run tests that had a high probability of success.
In the technology fields of the US, having started a company that didn't
pan out is not considered a big black mark when someone is looking for a
job. If one fails one's customers, then that would be a problem. But, if
the market just wasn't as good as originally thought, that just happens.
No guts, no glory.
Now, putting these two factors together, let me put together some
generalities (with the understanding that there are many exceptions to
these generalities) about how engineering is done in various nations.
US: The US is considered full of cowboys, often trying something before it
is carefully thought through.
Europe: Very much by the book, with procedures written up before going
forward.
Japan: Consensus driven....shame with failure. Engineers work in big
rooms, like classrooms, with their boss facing them. They have to sign out
to go to the bathroom.
India: Very bureaucratic. When an old boss of mine went to India, he had a
hard time finding who was really in charge because everyone's card stated
"manager" or "director". He finally got a card that said "managing
director" so he guessed that person was the boss.
China: China is the hardest one to fathom because there has not been a lot
of exchange of engineers between mainland China and multinational
companies. My impression is that the need for the government to still
control the flow of information will put a ceiling on their innovation.
Finally, let me get to point
3) demographics.
This is most important in comparing the US and Europe. Europe's
demographics are that of a rapidly aging population, with the expectation
of population decline starting in the relatively near future. Historically,
older populations have not been known for high flexibility and innovation.
Further, Europe may get to a point where they have a hard time maintaining
their GDP, which should reduce the funds available for innovation.
Japan has a similar aging population. They are, on the whole, healthier
than Europe, so the population fall might be slower. But, it would be hard
for them to maintain even the present level of innovation as they age.
So, while we do need to attend to our own demographics problems (Medicare
and SS in particular), the US is in a relatively good position to keep it's
leadership in innovation. There will always be wild cards, but the US is
still the chalk pick.
Dan M.
_______________________________________________
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
