Howdy Jones,
Back in the 1960's I sat across from man owned a 500 million control valve
mfg business. He was in his 70's at the time.. He allowed he started it from
scratch and now the leading mfg in it's category. I remarked that he should
take some of the 500 mil , plus 5 of his brightest young minds in his
company, move them to Dallas and design and build a radical new control
valve.
He was astounded and asked me why he would want tto create a competitor to
his wonderful business? Answer is "if you don't somebody else will"
I mentioned I was in constant contact with these bright guys and they felt
he was holding them back. fast forward 45 years later.. nothing happened..
the 500 mil is gone and nothing to show for it but memories of "old times
gone but not forgotten".
Interesting the valve design idea I had offered and was rejected .. was
recently picked up by one our people and "bingo" Rangrrr Valve Company is
off and running. combined cost of startup.. $150 k. What was the idea? make
a flow meter with thrrottling characteristics for extreme wide range flows..
how? by measuuring the valve position and not the flow. fun stuff.
Dont tell me these auto company's lack brains and imagination in the ranks..
the problem is the head man. ask ole George Patton. My long time friend was
his head motor sargeant.. Patton would come to him and tell him to make
things happen regardless of what the officer corps said. They once built a
bridge across a river by running 2 1/2 ton trucks in the creek until, they
had a bridge for the battle tanks.. later everybody got court marshalled for
the damage to the trucks.
Richard
Jones wrote,
Interesting insight on the importance of the "tinkerer" and his resources.
[think: the "Homebrew Computer Club" and similar idea-seeders: perhaps even
Vortex on occasion]
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/05/13/science/13make.html?_r=2&pagewanted=1&sq=maker%20faire%20&st=cse&scp=1&oref=slogin
Also interesting: can this megatrend be taken to the next level by a company
like GM, and possibly avoid nearly inevitable bankruptcy?
Edward Tenner, an author and observer of the way that technology affects
society, said "tinkering" had waxed and waned but never disappeared in
American culture.
A great deal of mechanical know-how, he said, came from people
raised on farms, where they had to fix their own equipment.
[think: Henry Ford and the early auto pioneers]
But these days, he said, “this improvisation is starting to flourish in a
mainly suburban and perhaps urban milieu.”
[think: Apple, Hewlett Packard, etc and now the new-energy]
It is pretty clear the the $500 million that GM has already sunk into the
Volt will pay off sometime in the next several decades, but could it have
been done sooner, better -- or for much less cost - by encouraging smaller
companies and even individual inventors to participate?
As it stands now, in addition to what they have already spent, GM will be
forced to buy any breakthrough which comes along at greatly inflated cost.
Which is not to say that throwing money at a problem always results in a
breakthrough ... but consider the oft-mentioned EEStor - which GM could have
participated in, but declined. After all they have no real way to weed out
the shysters:
http://www.evworld.com/article.cfm?storyid=1517
Therefore - the proper strategy to stimulate the nearly unpredictable
breakthrough, which is never guaranteed at any price, is much easier to
pinpoint in hindsight. For instance:
Unlike some observers, I strongly feel that the EEStor thing is for real-
and just going through the expected growing pains. The Wiki page is being
continuously updated, and it seems that there must be an 'inside' source for
this (probably at Lockheed). OTOH - if EEStor is high-level BS then this is
the way a good viral marketer would work; so it is easy to see why there can
be a valid difference of opinion.
But as for the Megatrend itself - if this 'bettery' (bat-cap) technology
does indeed work out as a major breakthrough - then yes it was essentially
invented in the metaphorical silicon valley 'garage' by a couple of
tinkerers, and then followed the VC model of getting into production
quickly. Any car company could have gotten involved on the ground floor for
$25 million now instead of several billion later.
Which -- all things considered, IF one wanted to benefit and 'bootstrap'
from this societal insight even further -- i.e. to up the stakes in
megatrends to the next level, it would seem to be prudent for the successful
car company of the future to operate more like the VC and less like the
entrenched bureaucracy.....
.... so that instead of shunning outside innovation - they actually embrace
the notion of "not invented here" and actually seek out the good 'tinkerers'
proactively, and invest on the ground floor (even if most of them do not
succeed).
... what is that pun-ny old truism about the quick and the dead?
Jones
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG - http://www.avg.com
Version: 8.0.169 / Virus Database: 270.7.0/1682 - Release Date: 9/20/2008
10:24 AM
