Collaborative Advantage
"The days of U.S. technological domination are over. The nation must learn to thrive through working with others."
Leonard Lynn
Hal Salzman
Blog Summary
I found this kicking around on my hard drive. I had apparently downloaded it from the Kauffman Foundation a while ago, a copy of this document can be secured by selecting the title of this entry. Collaboration is clearly a key attribute of how work will be done in the future. Collaboration facilitated by technologies that are available today provide competitive advantages, and different methods and means of completing work. This article suggests the American dominance in technology leadership is waning. How the U.S. can regain the leadership position they once enjoyed is suggested in this article is through collaboration. This document takes a critical look at the realities of globalization for the U.S. Based here in Canada, much of the same feelings of the need to compete is shared by most. We have lost some of our leading position, however, the U.S., and to a lesser degree Canada, were in need of a competitive challenge. Competition is good, and we are faced with some formidable competitors in a globalized world. This document focuses on collaboration in the sciences and technology, and specifically noting the role of engineers in providing the means for North America to compete.
It at times seems that the differences that made North Americans unique are fading quickly. Whether or not a reconciliation of the standard of living of all people is in force, most people would concur with this documents premise and hypothesis. The authors note;
"It is not that the new globalization has gone unnoticed. Many observers are concerned that the United States is beginning to fall into a vicious cycle of disinvestment in and weakening of its innovation systems. As U.S. firms move their engineering and R & D activities offshore, they may be dis-investing not just in their own facilities but also in colleges and regions of the country that now form critical innovation clusters. These forces may combine to dissolve the bonds that form the basis of U.S. innovation leadership." pp. 75Were these challenges demand driven? Or, has the scientific and engineering capability to conduct most of the high end complex tasks what made North America so dominant? Or was it the freedom and liberty were being released in the former communist nations, that is now rising up to challenge the west? I think it is the latter, that with China in 1978 and the Former Soviet Union (FSR) since 1989, can now focus on quality of life issues and be less concerned with controlling their populations. The authors seem to think that some of the ways in which business had been conducted has been exploited by other countries. In an open society that is what will happen, and did happen to the benefit of all people. Although losing these competitive attributes is possible, the competitive focus they unleash is both the purpose of an open society and the key to its future.
"Strategies that may have served U.S. firms in the second generation globalization will not work in the third generation world. The new emerging economies are an order of magnitude larger than those that emerged a generation ago, and they are today's growth markets. Nor does the United States, despite its undeniable strengths, enjoy global dominance across the range of cutting-edge technologies. More-over, U.S. multinationals are weakening their national identities, becoming citizens of the countries in which they do business and providing no favors to their country of origin. This means that the goal advocated by some U.S. policy makers of having the United States regain its position of leadership in all key technologies is simply not feasible, nor is it clear how the United States would retain that advantage when its firms are only loosely tied to the country." pp. 77These comments may appear to resonate more with a protectionist mindset then with a more globalized point of view. It also seems to state a wanting for a greater share of a smaller pie then sharing a large pie to a certain extent. If the third generation globalization ties into Professor Carlotta Perez's theories, the third generation is the point where the benefits are soon to arrive. Dr. Perez made that call just recently. So the installment period as she described has been made, and thankfully we had a large and growing China and India to help sustain the world through this transition. It is also necessary to point out that what fuels this activity is the oil, gas and coal industries. These resources are constrained due to the global demand, and are potentially a hindrance to the progress of the world economy. The only manner that the energy industry can meet this demand is to re-organize for this challenge. This reorganization has to be made explicit through the software that defines and supports the structure. We should be less concerned about the losses of competitiveness and focus more on how they can be solved collectively.
The authors offer some of the ways in which the past competitiveness of the U.S. market is slipping away. In these four categories I can clearly see that the authors are not offering a means to stop the hemorrhaging of the U.S. economy. But offering constructive ways in which the U.S. can participate in the global economy and compete.
The Bandwagon Syndrome.
"As U.S. multinationals join the bandwagon of offshore technology development, they often seem to go beyond what makes economic sense." pp. 77The Snowball Effect.
"The more that U.S. multinationals move activities offshore, the more sense it makes to offshore more activities." pp. 77The loss of Positive Externalities.
"Some multinationals are finding that if their technology is developed offshore, then it makes more sense to invest in offshore universities than in domestic universities." pp.78The Rapid Rise of Competing Innovation Systems.
"Regional competence centers or innovation clusters in the United States grew haphazardly in response to local market stimuli. China, India and other countries are much more explicitly strategic in creating competence and innovations centers." pp. 78
"Rather, the United States needs to develop new strengths for the new generation of globalization. With U.S. and other multinational firms globalizing their innovation work, emerging economies developing their education systems and culling the most talented young people from their huge populations, and communication technologies enabling the free and fast flow of information, it is hard to imagine the United States being able to regain its former position as global technology hegemony." pp. 79
"No amount of science and engineering expansion will restore U.S. technology autarchy. Instead, a new approach - collaborative technology advantage - is needed to develop a vibrant S&T economy in the United States." pp. 80Policies for strength,
"We believe that the government, universities, and other major players in the U.S. innovation system need to work toward three fundamental major goals:" pp. 80
- "The United States should develop national strategies that are less focused on competitive, or even comparative, advantage in the traditional meaning of these terms, and are more focused on collaborative advantage." pp. 80
- "To start, the nation needs to counter the bandwagon and snowball effects that are driving the out-sourcing of the technology in potentially harmful ways." pp. 80
- "Designers of Tax Policies at all levels also can redirect policies in these directions." pp. 81
- "To a large degree, the U.S. patent office serves as the patent office for the world." pp. 81
- "As a second goal, the United States need to help create a world based on the free flow of S & T brainpower rather that a futile attempt to monopolize the global S&T workforce." pp. 81
- "Immigration policies that support global circulation would allow easy short term entry of three to eight months for collaboration with U.S. based scientists and engineers." pp. 81
- "Finally, in working toward the first two foals, the United States needs to develop an S&T education system that teaches collaborative competencies rather than just technical knowledge and skills." pp. 81
- "Our finding suggest that it is not the technical education but the cross - boundary skills that are most needed (working across disciplinary, organization, cultural, and time / distance boundaries)." pp. 81
Finally as part of the conclusion of this paper, "the enhanced communications within and between organizations". In oil and gas the consistency of motivation between the members of a Joint Operating Committee (JOC) resonates with the recommendations of this paper. The science, technology and engineering is the focal point of those JOC members. It is their backgrounds and scientific interests. The JOC has the operational decision making capabilities, however, it must retard these processes for the various bureaucracies to sign off on the plan. Its time to stop placing the bureaucrats at the centre of the organization and adopt this papers recommendations. And it is my opinion that the start of this change would be to develop the software as part of the solution to our long term economic well being.
"Our research suggests that the new engineering requirements, like the old, should build on a strong foundation of science and mathematics. But now they go much further. Communication across disciplinary, organizational, and cultural boundaries is the hallmark of the new global engineer. Integrative technologies require collaboration among scientific disciplines, between science and engineering, and across the natural and social sciences. They also require collaboration across organizations as innovation emanates from small to large firms and from vendors to original equipment manufacturers. And obviously the require collaboration across cultures as global collaboration becomes the norm. These requirements mandate a new approach not only to education but to selecting future engineers:colleges need to recognize that the talent required for the new global engineer falls outside their traditional student profiles. Managers increasingly report that although they want technically competent engineers, the qualities most valued are these other attributes."
Technorati Tags: Genesys, Call-to-Action, Engineering, Science, Trends