Read this article referred above (http://tinyurl.com/25dv423) and following are my observations on the subject.
I would like to take a step back and think about it. Since this phenomenon described in this article has not started yesterday, where was Andy Grove on this point when he was running Intel? Although what he suggests about scaling up on new ideas is noble, but methinks that this article is written out of some compulsion.
From another perspective, if one thinks of USA as an organization being run by the executive offices in the White House, the change in the nature of its "business" has not been recognized so far. The value zone has moved from the manufacturing economy of the early 1900's through the 1970's to a services based economy from the 1980's through to the present days. What USA should do now to regain its "competitive advantage" is to enable and promote this value zone, which is creativity, innovation, patents, etc, in different parts of the country and different countries in the world, the latter being the ecosystem in which it belongs. Trying to recreate the manufacturing base of the US economy - which it lost decades ago to China and other parts of Asia, and Mexico - would not be a very intelligent decision, according to me. Let bygone be bygone.
So what should be done next to regain the market leadership? If the start up environment - as we have seen in the Silicon Valley Bay Area - is spread in this ecosystem, then the US Dollar will again become the strongest currency in the world, because people will start realizing that it is the USD that promotes innovation, and not the Yuans or Euros. Countries would then have to invest in USD to get any advantage of this creative talent. That is what the executive office of the USA Inc should do - sell the creativity / innovative capability and retain the IP and patents with itself, only letting the ecosystem use the IP on a right-to-use basis.
What Andy suggests is to promote this creativity and also take care of the scaling up to ensure that "manufacturing" of those creations also happen in the USA. By that he suggests that US jobs will be protected. This argument is something like - let us keep inventing the personal computers / notebooks / iPhones etc to keep the creative / innovative edge of the US economy in the ecosystem and also keep those creations within the US so that the jobs are not lost!!
Is that the right way to look at / solve the current problem?
I am not sure....any comments??
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment