This article in the New York Times - http://www.nytimes.com/2009/01/26/technology/26spend.html - tells the familiar story of innovation and creative destruction. Although most people have read these stories and understand them objectively, I understand creative destruction viscerally. When I went to work for AT&T in 1971, this firm had 1 million employees making it the largest and most enduring company in the world. Although a US Department of Justice Consent Decree caused the diverstiture of the Bell Operating Companies in 1984, AT&T still had 350,000 employees and was the largest company by market capitalization in 1992. What occurred during the next decade was hard to believe for those of us who had spent our adult lives being proud of our careers with "The Telephone Company". Deregulation, competition, globalization, spin-offs, acquistions, the Telecom Bubble and Collapse was the epitomy of "Creative Destruction". Even though AT&T survives as the largest telecom company, it has been sold, bought, re-structured, re-engineered, and fundementally changed. But the innovation that created its greatness - telephone, transistor, laser, and optical communications - have never regained their status as the primary drivers of the firm.
While a technology company is in rapid ascent (Google in the early 2000's, Microsoft in the 1980's and 1990's), there appears to be no stopping the profitable growth. The excitement makes these firms the darlings of the business world and the place that the most talented graduates want to work. This virtuous cycle extends until a new "more innnovative" company takes the mantle leaving the previous superstar (IBM since the mid-1990's, GE since the early 2000's) struggling for modest growth.
During the current economic and financial crises, new innovative firms will emerge somewhere in the world to shine for the next few years.
Monday, January 26, 2009
Tuesday, January 20, 2009
Halleluiah
Having just seen the inauguration of President Obama, all I can say is "Halleluiah". In addition to the inspiring inaugural address, the moving music, and the eloquent poems and prayers, the huge crowd of support was stimulating. To Obama's call for responsible action, count me in.
"Let's be Friends"
When family squabbles or business disagreements erupted, I half jokingly would say, "Let's be friends". Part of this declaration resulted from an innate dislike of conflict and part of this exhortation came from the practical progress from consensus. Today, I am delighted that Barack Obama will be inaugurated as President of the United States. He is a uniter and pragmatist, who in an unsophisticated moment, might say, "Let's be friends".
On this inauguration day, David Brooks' column -http://www.nytimes.com/2009/01/20/opinion/20brooks.html - states these principles more eloquently. I greatly dislike the George W. Bush administration's requirement of loyalty - "You're with 'em or agin 'em". I think that honest, thoughtful debate from many perspectives is the only way to approach a fair and realistic solution to complex problems.
In contrast, the "Think Again" column by Stanley Fish, entitled "The Last Professor" - http://fish.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/01/18/the-last-professor/?em - paints a stark choice between utilitarian and non-utilitarian higher education. As an engineer and businessman, I should naturally come down on the side of practical education to the exclusion of liberal arts, but I do not. Having attended Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute as an undergraduate and Princeton University as a graduate student, I saw the extreme differences in these academic philosophies. With another engineer as a roomate, and another engineer as my baseball teammate, learned engineering efficiently at RPI. At Princeton, my roomate was a linguistics major and my table mates at dinner in the Graduate College studied philosophy, physics, and medieval history. During my life and career, the combination of insights from the arts and humanities were at least as impactful as those from engineering. So, I disagree with the premise of "The Last Professor". I believe that there should be a "grand debate" about higher education and the that a rich and chaotic mix of the practical and the humane forms of intellectual pursuit should continue for another 800 years. And to the proponents of these distinctly different types of higher education, "Let's be friends".
On this inauguration day, David Brooks' column -http://www.nytimes.com/2009/01/20/opinion/20brooks.html - states these principles more eloquently. I greatly dislike the George W. Bush administration's requirement of loyalty - "You're with 'em or agin 'em". I think that honest, thoughtful debate from many perspectives is the only way to approach a fair and realistic solution to complex problems.
In contrast, the "Think Again" column by Stanley Fish, entitled "The Last Professor" - http://fish.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/01/18/the-last-professor/?em - paints a stark choice between utilitarian and non-utilitarian higher education. As an engineer and businessman, I should naturally come down on the side of practical education to the exclusion of liberal arts, but I do not. Having attended Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute as an undergraduate and Princeton University as a graduate student, I saw the extreme differences in these academic philosophies. With another engineer as a roomate, and another engineer as my baseball teammate, learned engineering efficiently at RPI. At Princeton, my roomate was a linguistics major and my table mates at dinner in the Graduate College studied philosophy, physics, and medieval history. During my life and career, the combination of insights from the arts and humanities were at least as impactful as those from engineering. So, I disagree with the premise of "The Last Professor". I believe that there should be a "grand debate" about higher education and the that a rich and chaotic mix of the practical and the humane forms of intellectual pursuit should continue for another 800 years. And to the proponents of these distinctly different types of higher education, "Let's be friends".
Friday, January 16, 2009
Financial Crisis and Psychology
David Brooks' column on the financial crisis and the failings of classical ideology from both the left and the right is outstanding - http://www.nytimes.com/2009/01/16/opinion/16brooks.html?_r=1.
Thursday, January 15, 2009
Poverty and Sweatshops
This column by Nick Kristof argues persuasively for manufacturing in poor countries even if the conditions are considered "sweatshops" in developed countries, http://www.nytimes.com/2009/01/15/opinion/15kristof.html. It has been my experience from over 30 years working in developing and developed countries that a manufacturing facility in a developing country increases living standards and offers jobs that are desired by the local population.
Having planned and managed manufacturing facilities in over 25 countries including China, India, Indonesia, Thailand, Korea, Taiwan, Poland, Russia, and Saudi Arabia, I do not feel that I have exploited people in poor countries. Nevertheless, some family members and others that I have discussed these experiences with, have felt that I taken advantage of poor persons in these developing countries. I am reading "Factory Girls" by Iris T. Chang which is an excellent non-fiction depiction of the lives of young women who "came out" from villages from the poorer provinces in China to the manufacturing centers in southern China such as Dongguan and Shenzhen. The working conditions described in "Factory Girls" are very familiar to me since I had the responsibility for a joint venture in Guangdong Province for the manufacture of printed circuit boards for AT&T in 1988. Young women from Sichuan, Hunan, and other rural provinces lived 8 to a room in the dorms and worked 10 hours per day six days a week for 50 weeks a year. Although I would not have wanted my daughters to have worked under such conditions, I was told through interpreters that most of them saw work in this factory as an opportunity to improve their own lives and those of the rest of their family. The working conditions in all of the other factories that I managed in China, India, and elsewhere were significantly better than the one in Guangdong Province, but a common message emanated from the vast majority of these experiences. People flocked to these factories as a means of improving their own standard of living and that of their families.
This past summer, I read "The Bottom Billion: Why the Poorest Countries are Failing and What Can be Done About It" by Oxford Developmental Economist, Paul Collier. This is the best book that I have ever read about poverty. This book not only detailed the horror of poverty, but gave concrete causes and suggested remedies. Many of the points were counter-intuitive to me. Nevertheless. one key theme was that the poorest countries must develop a globally competitive manufacturing industry to bring individuals and societies out of poverty.
Having planned and managed manufacturing facilities in over 25 countries including China, India, Indonesia, Thailand, Korea, Taiwan, Poland, Russia, and Saudi Arabia, I do not feel that I have exploited people in poor countries. Nevertheless, some family members and others that I have discussed these experiences with, have felt that I taken advantage of poor persons in these developing countries. I am reading "Factory Girls" by Iris T. Chang which is an excellent non-fiction depiction of the lives of young women who "came out" from villages from the poorer provinces in China to the manufacturing centers in southern China such as Dongguan and Shenzhen. The working conditions described in "Factory Girls" are very familiar to me since I had the responsibility for a joint venture in Guangdong Province for the manufacture of printed circuit boards for AT&T in 1988. Young women from Sichuan, Hunan, and other rural provinces lived 8 to a room in the dorms and worked 10 hours per day six days a week for 50 weeks a year. Although I would not have wanted my daughters to have worked under such conditions, I was told through interpreters that most of them saw work in this factory as an opportunity to improve their own lives and those of the rest of their family. The working conditions in all of the other factories that I managed in China, India, and elsewhere were significantly better than the one in Guangdong Province, but a common message emanated from the vast majority of these experiences. People flocked to these factories as a means of improving their own standard of living and that of their families.
This past summer, I read "The Bottom Billion: Why the Poorest Countries are Failing and What Can be Done About It" by Oxford Developmental Economist, Paul Collier. This is the best book that I have ever read about poverty. This book not only detailed the horror of poverty, but gave concrete causes and suggested remedies. Many of the points were counter-intuitive to me. Nevertheless. one key theme was that the poorest countries must develop a globally competitive manufacturing industry to bring individuals and societies out of poverty.
Sunday, January 11, 2009
Even the very, very bright are just people
This Ben Stein article, http://www.nytimes.com/2009/01/11/business/11every.html?partner=rss&emc=rss, captures my thoughts about persons who think they have all the answers to this financial crisis. I greatly respect bright and thoughtful people. Nevertheless, I have observed hubris (including my own) at AT&T, Rensselaer, and the US government cause immeasurable human and financial loss. So, I think that curiosity and humility are necessary characteristics of all persons, especially those that are very IQ smart.
Stimulus package should stimulate the mind
Thomas Friedman's column says is well: Stimulate the mind. http://www.nytimes.com/2009/01/11/opinion/11friedman.html?_r=1
Friday, January 2, 2009
Risk Management
Joe Nocera's column in the New York Times http://www.nytimes.com/2009/01/04/magazine/04risk-t.html?partner=rss&emc=rss is excellent. Since I don't know much about risk management, this article put the mistakes made during the recent financial crisis in perspective.
Thursday, January 1, 2009
Welcome to Your Brain
I have just finished reading "Welcome to Your Brain" by Sandra Aamodt and Sam Wang. I found it to be a fascinating book for the serious general reader. The authors blog about the book is at http://www.welcometoyourbrain.com/. It is relatively short (about 179 pages) and chocked full of interesting science and practical applications.
In today's New York Times article, http://www.nytimes.com/2009/01/01/health/31memory.html?partner=rss&emc=rss, a link is shown between blood sugar control at memory loss. I can understand the key points in the article better having read "Welcome to Your Brain". Excercise is again shown to be a good antidote to blood sugar spikes and memory loss.
Probably too late for me, I am off to some snow shoeing in the mountains of Colorado this afternoon.
In today's New York Times article, http://www.nytimes.com/2009/01/01/health/31memory.html?partner=rss&emc=rss, a link is shown between blood sugar control at memory loss. I can understand the key points in the article better having read "Welcome to Your Brain". Excercise is again shown to be a good antidote to blood sugar spikes and memory loss.
Probably too late for me, I am off to some snow shoeing in the mountains of Colorado this afternoon.
Global Competitiveness and Cultures
Thomas Friedman's columns are frequently compelling. His column today, "Time to Reboot America" http://www.nytimes.com/2008/12/24/opinion/24friedman.html?_r=1 represents my views completely.
On the train from New York to Boston last Friday, I sat next to a man from Korea who ran a global logistics company. He had moved to Shanghai ten years ago to run his company from the global financial and competitive capital. He said many fascinating things, but the ones that I remembered most clearly were those about culture, competitiveness, and corruption. He said that Confucian based cultures including those of China, Korea, Japan, and other east Asian countries, respected parents, age, hierarchy, and education. Although we generally know this background, I was unaware of the point that he made next. Because Confucian based cultures defer to age and rank, there is no absolute right and wrong. Judeo-Christian based cultures define right and wrong irrespective of age and hierarchy. This Korean suggested that Confucian concepts were best for "developing" economies where a degree of order is necessary. But for "developed" economies, individual freedom and "meritocracy" were most appropriate for innovation. Korea, China, and other Asian countries have grown economically at a higher rate for the last 25 years. But they will not necessarily continue to grow at a faster rate than the US without encouraging individual freedom and innovation.
On the train from New York to Boston last Friday, I sat next to a man from Korea who ran a global logistics company. He had moved to Shanghai ten years ago to run his company from the global financial and competitive capital. He said many fascinating things, but the ones that I remembered most clearly were those about culture, competitiveness, and corruption. He said that Confucian based cultures including those of China, Korea, Japan, and other east Asian countries, respected parents, age, hierarchy, and education. Although we generally know this background, I was unaware of the point that he made next. Because Confucian based cultures defer to age and rank, there is no absolute right and wrong. Judeo-Christian based cultures define right and wrong irrespective of age and hierarchy. This Korean suggested that Confucian concepts were best for "developing" economies where a degree of order is necessary. But for "developed" economies, individual freedom and "meritocracy" were most appropriate for innovation. Korea, China, and other Asian countries have grown economically at a higher rate for the last 25 years. But they will not necessarily continue to grow at a faster rate than the US without encouraging individual freedom and innovation.
Healthcare IT
This article in the NY Times http://www.nytimes.com/2008/12/27/business/27record.html?_r=1 summarizes several aspects of electronic medical records and their potential impact on health care productivity. I believe that information technology will have the greatest postive improvement in health care and government (e-government) over the next few decades.
Government agencies like the Veterans Hospital Administration (VA Hospitals) and Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) have the opportunities to influence the quality of life and the economic well being of the US in a significant way. Large companies in the healthcare IT industry such as Epic Systems http://www.epicsystems.com/index.php and Cerner Corp. http://www.cerner.com/ have a large opportunity to benefit society and their shareholders. Small companies like Blue Slate Solutions http://www.blueslate.net/site/homepage?url=homepage and DualAlign http://www.dualalign.com/index.html should enhance the quality of life of people and subsequently benefit from the Obama administration's investment in healthcare IT.
Government agencies like the Veterans Hospital Administration (VA Hospitals) and Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) have the opportunities to influence the quality of life and the economic well being of the US in a significant way. Large companies in the healthcare IT industry such as Epic Systems http://www.epicsystems.com/index.php and Cerner Corp. http://www.cerner.com/ have a large opportunity to benefit society and their shareholders. Small companies like Blue Slate Solutions http://www.blueslate.net/site/homepage?url=homepage and DualAlign http://www.dualalign.com/index.html should enhance the quality of life of people and subsequently benefit from the Obama administration's investment in healthcare IT.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
