James Drogan

Re Conversations with Dave

Maier prompts the following thought experiment.
 
Sort the world into big companies (which she seems to disdain) and small companies. Presume that all of the work of the big companies is transferred to small companies.  The loss is the economies of scale of the big companies; the gain is people are more productive (yes, the model is a bit simple, but it matches the data).  Put the loss and the gain on the economic balance and see which way it tips.
 
Doubtless Maier has expunged from her life all goods and services made by big companies.
 
I inclined to equate Bonjour Paresse with a hula hoop.
 
Having been reasonably sarcastic, let me also say I agree with your comment as to what she should be really driving at.

Were I a party unfriendly to America I would welcome the politico-blog-MSM attention to this matter.  This keeps America from focusing its energies on the real issues.

Suppose in the beginning this was a planned diversion.

Re: Conversations with Dave

Saturday, March 27, 2004

THE EMPIRE STRIKES OUT

In the Senge and Carstedt article, Innovating Our Way to the Next Industrial Revolution (MIT Sloan Management Review, 2001. 42(2): p. 24-28.), the issue is raised of the sustainable corporation. In Forces I have called this out as a fundamental idea for "getting to the other side."

The Empire Strikes Out article, by Kenny Ausubel and brought to my attention by Dave Pollard (who, by the way, has a very insightful, provocative blog) speaks more eloquently about this than can I. I recommend it as required reading.

The issue is really one of politics, and particularly political leaders. We lack the number of leaders with vision, and strong moral and ethical underpinnings, and courage to take us where we need to go. The pettiness of the current national campaign in the US does not inspire hope.

For me, the important issues and objectives are:

1. Education: Lift the level of learning of primary and secondary students, and prompt increased college enrollments.

2. Health: Improve the health of Americans, then deal with the issues of the cost of healthcare.

3. Economy: Reduce the deficit through a reductlon in federal spending.

4. Security: Develop sufficient capacity to deter and, if necessary, defeat threats to American interests at home and abroad.

5. International Relationships: Be recognized around the world as an example of ethical and economic leadershlp.

I look at the political choices in terms of their ideas for resolving these matters.

posted by James at 9:02 AM

My thinking on these matters has become more sophisticated (I hope I'm learning) since I first posted this over a year ago, but I think the thrust of what I said then stands now.

One interesting thing about the article on Indian math tutors is that it mentions no outraged response from the educational community that jobs are being lost. Perhaps that is a reflection of what Americans really think about education.

This article from Material Handling Management says:

' GMB (London), a U.K. trade union with more than 600,000 members, recently demanded an end to the "electronic tagging" of workers. Specifically, the group decried the use of handheld computers linked to local area networks to tell employees which goods to pick. The organization's primary objection is the work monitoring capabilities of such devices. "This technology which involves the electronic tagging of workers has been imported into Britain from the U.S. The GMB is no Luddite organization but we will not stand idly by to see our members reduced to automatons," said Paul Kenny, GMB Acting General Secretary. "The use of this technology needs to be redesigned to be an aide to the worker rather than making the worker its slave. The supermarkets that rely on just-in-time shelf filling rather than holding buffer stocks are incredibly profitable companies. They can well afford to operate a humanized supply chain." '

It would be helpful if this union would provide some ideas as to what needs to be done.   It's not my point to  pick on this union or the use of technology, but rather to suggest that criticism without recommendations as to what needs to be done to correct the situation is pretty much useless.

This morning brings the juxtaposition of interesting opinion from MSM.

The "incompetent" in the title of this post refers to the op-ed piece in today's NYT by Bob Herbert.  If either the Administration or Congress were running businesses, producing results, and behaving as the currently are doing, boards, shareholders, and investors would have sacked them long ago.

Why do we Americans put up with this level of incompetence?  Are we inured to this level of performance?  Are our political leaders simply operating at the level of our expectations?  Have our expectations been adjusted by their performance?

Whatever the reason, the performance is abysmal, particularly at a national level.  I can't see much prospect for change.

Which leads me to the word "constructive" in this title and the editorial from today's WSJ.   The Democrats (Abbreviated "dims" by a friend of mine.  I see this as an apt slip on the keyboard.) have little constructive to say on any important subject.   What of their presumptuous leader,  The Great Screamer?  Are  they thoughtless?  Do they lack the will and courage to advance their thoughts?

Perhaps the political parties are participating in a race to the bottom.  Presumably the party that gets to the bottom last is the winner.

Reality has left the Beltway.

Re Conversations with Dave

da Vinci was very much ahead of his time and contemporaries in very many areas.

The Navesink Logistics Review as well as the article from you last night on IBM getting into the logistics consulting business, on the one hand, and, on the other hand, the logistics activity at IBM in the decade beginning in 1985, in which you played a significant role, remind me of Leonardo.
 
Someone has to be first, and sometimes being first doesn't lead to fame and fortune.

I was on my way home on the train last night.  A gentlman (we might later revise the description) sat across from me reading.   After awhile I thought I heard the ripping of paper.  Sometime later his stop came, he got off, and left this.

The rippng of the paper was the address label.   No one can connect him with the "crime."  Where is his mother when we need her?

I was viewed by both sides of not understanding the situation.

"We hypothesized that a major part of the problem was the incentive structure combined with the unwillingness to risk new things." applies, in my view, to both sides.

Business may not be concerned because any organization brings in a relatively small number of new graduates each year. This number multiplied by their presumed knowledge and skills deficiency likely amounts to an insignificant risk. Why worry? Be happy.

Tenure insulates many in academia from the cold winds of the marketplace. One very good institution in New York sent 48 of its finest into the accounting and finance community to find jobs. No offers were made. Faculty and staff wring their hands, but no one is willing to identify this as a significant issue and mount a plan to resolve the matter. What do you think the 48 are going to tell their friends about the value of their educational experience at this institution?

And yeah, I'm pretty satisfied at the moment. The number of dragons that need to be slain play no small part in this satisfaction. "Come, Sancho. Bring my lance."

What a waste, but I'm not surprised.

Re Conversations with Dave

I read the same article this morning.

In a presentation I proposed for CUNY's 2nd Annual IT Conference "Instructional/Information Technology in CUNY: Issues, Innovations, Integration" scheduled for November 14, 2003 I included the following chart.

The gap between what academia produces and what business wants is constantly increasing. Holstein would seem to support the hypothesis. This hypothesis did not, by the way, come to me after I had left IBM. I suspect it has been in my thinking the last decade or so.

I don't think this hypothesis necessarily applies to all subject matter. Calculus is calculus. But in fields that are subjected to more buffeting by the forces of the world (logistics, medicine, foreign policy come to mind as examples), I think it relevant.

I support Holstein's suggestions. Rather than pointing fingers, academia and business ought to come to the realization it is in their common interests to work together to resolve the issue. The combination of academically qualified and business qualified teachers is a must. The trick in all this is to somehow prevent class warfare.