August 19th, 2009
Attracting Partners for the Hydrogen Convergence Cause
Many readers of the ebTDesign Forum and twitter followers have asked why spend so much time posting individual hydrogen convergence blog segments on LinkedIn and twitter.com. Why not simply partner with the National Hydrogen Association or the California Fuel Cell Partnership or even the Department of Energy (DOE).
The answer is they are not decentralized communities built to thrive in a world constructed of disruptive innovation. The organizations that were mentioned before are vital to the eventual growth and acceptance of hydrogen cars and the deployment of hydrogen infrastructure but they have built-in cost structures and prior political allegiances.
In order to reengineer the American energy landscape in less then a decade, we need an open source community that is more akin to the Apache project rather than a quasi-Governmental Program much like the lithium battery efforts. This is because large centralized programs are run by committees that are staffed by professional skeptics (tourists).
In the Industry Cluster Empowerment Framework, we spend a lot of time talking about how to spot industry tourists and the negative effects they can have on community initiatives. Industry tourists are gurus and/or subject matter experts that roam from industry to industry looking for self-aggrandizing opportunities. They spread commodity thinking and trumpet the need to maintain the status quo.
By posting individual hydrogen convergence blog segments, we at the ebTDesign Forum are attempting to lead by example and promoting decentralized problem solving. In our estimation, taking action on hydrogen convergence will entice other organizations to partner with us in this effort to put America on a more entrepreneurial footing and make every community an energy producer.
Zachary Alexander
Concepts: disruptive-innovation, entrepreneurial-footing, hydrogen, touristAugust 13th, 2009
Using Industry Cluster Empowerment for Hydrogen Convergence
We at the ebTDesign Forum have been talking to all the major automakers this summer about when they are going to introduce hydrogen cars. They committed to the United States Congress that they would be ready for mass production of hydrogen cars by 2015. But they are starting to coalesce around the potential of limited production by 2012 in order to increase demand for their 2015 launch.
As architects, we at the ebTDesign Forum are always in discovery mode. We are trying find impediments to entrepreneurship. Once we get a better understanding of the true nature of these impediments, we then design building blocks so we can use them later during the industry cluster empowerment process. We also develop semantic viewpoints that can be used to explicitly capture the needs, wants, and relationships of major program stakeholders.
We at the ebTDesign Forum are engaged to help communities, either within a region or within a company, increase their capacity for innovation. So, we want to be working on a solution, not fumbling around in the dark looking for a light switch. If we listen between the lines we can generally hear the faint whispers of challenges that might be years away from breaking through the surface and that’s where we are with hydrogen infrastructure.
Hydrogen convergence does not use industry cluster empowerment the way we normally use this economic growth framework. So we have had to make some minor adjustments to the framework. Normally, we help communities find their own little patch of ground or piece of disruptive innovation to concentrate on. With hydrogen convergence, we are trying to make every community an energy producer.
Zachary Alexander
Concepts: disruptive-innovation, hydrogen, industry cluster, semantic-viewpointJuly 17th, 2009
Hydrogen Convergence Guaranteed to Bring Tears to the Eyes
Let’s talk about Gills Onions and their pioneering efforts in onions-based biomass. Critics of hydrogen convergence like to talk about the lack of hydrogen production as a rationale for delaying hydrogen research and development. They like to ignore the nine million tons of hydrogen produced every year in this country. Estimates say this would power 30 million hydrogen cars a year.
Normally, we at the ebTDesign Forum would be talking how hometown communities can create local cooperatives produce hydrogen regionally. This story is interesting because an individual company saw the benefits in new fuel cell technologies on its own. It serves as a business case for the promotion of and increased deployment of hydrogen convergence solutions.
There are opportunities to produce hydrogen all around us from waste treatment plants to food processing companies. From reforming natural gas to coal-bed methane, new technology solutions are discovered everyday. More incumbents are in danger of becoming victims of disruptive innovation. This is what is meant when we suggest that hydrogen convergence makes every community an energy producer.
Zachary Alexander
The IT Investment Architect®
July 14th, 2009
Will Hydrogen Convergence affect Investments in Algae Biofuels?
Today it was announced that ExxonMobil will be teaming with Craig Venter from Synthetic Genomics to develop algae-based biofuels. Mr. Venter is known for pioneering work on the human genome. From the article on earth2tech it appears that the goal of this project is to create genetically engineered algae capable of producing something akin to gasoline. Unfortunately, this story fails to address potential concerns posed by Hydrogen Convergence.
This kind of investment is typical of how incumbents address disruptive innovation that threatens their current revenue streams. Big oil companies could position themselves to take a leadership role in hydrogen production and hydrogen distribution infrastructure. However, some will choose to ignore hydrogen convergence and defend their current gasoline distribution networks. Only, time will tell which energy future is correct. The only thing that is certain is that the clock is ticking and that technology waits for no one.
Zachary Alexander
IT Investment Architect®
March 30th, 2009
Open Letter to Dir. of Auto Recovery about Industry Cluster Empowerment
To: Mr. Edward Montgomery,
If the auto industry is truly important to the United States Economy then solutions have to be designed to remove impediments to starting new car companies. The best way to do this is to fully invest in industry cluster empowerment. We at the ebTDesign Forum propose the creation of industry programs that unleash the creative skills of middle-class Americans and provides for an orderly movement of these workers into the creative class.
Auto industry research and discovery has to be unbundled from the current manufacturing base and held in independent repositories. Next generation solutions should not have to rely on last generation cost structures and transnational business practices that destroy hometown communities. The current car companies should be thought of as stop gaps that are funded to maintain tacit knowledge. Local communities should then be encouraged to rapidly start industry cluster empowerment programs to take advantage of the available industry specific knowledge.
We recommend the United States investigate the possibility of finding local partners willing to help establish domestic contract auto manufacturing facilities. These facilities could produce “hydrogen skateboards” that would then be sold to hometown entrepreneurs. The hydrogen skateboard was a bright idea considered by auto makers for addressing the continuously low margins associated passenger vehicles. Under this solution, all of the fuel cell technology and drivetrain are manufactured and sold as a single standardized sub-assembly.
Putting America on a better entrepreneurial footing is about creating more than just a slogan pledging support for disruptive innovation. New hydrogen driven companies are needed to produce hydrogen powered cars. This means you need industry leaders (pioneers) who understand the potential of hydrogen fuel cells and are enthusiastic about the current opportunities. Historically, mature companies and aging industries have never led America out of the depths of economic turmoil. It has always been our ability to harness the unknown and yet to be invented.
Zachary Alexander
The IT Investment Architect®
January 12th, 2009
Will Industry Clusters Replace Local Networking Groups?
Non-profits like local networking groups are having problems maintaining their members because of the shifts in American demographics. For example, younger members are less likely to participate in the same organizations as older brothers and sisters. Some readers are asking if industry cluster empowerment because of its ready appeal to multiple generations will spell the end of professional societies.
We, at the ebTDesign, tell our clients that industry clusters are natural partners for industry related non-profits rather than competitors. We suggest executives at these non-profit organizations stay abreast of programs in their area that are engaged in industry cluster empowerment. These programs provide huge potential for disruptive innovation spillover.
Disruptive innovation is a market introduction strategy that can be used by companies both large and small to find new business growth. Industry clusters can use these strategies to help companies find growth in emerging and mature industries. Disruptive innovation spillover is a resulting benefit that occurs in adjacent markets that may be served by participating non-profits.
This spillover may also lead to greater utilization of current services by members of industry related non-profits. It may also lead to the development of new services for a completely unanticipated membership category. Like any investment or change activity there is always some risk involved in the execution. However, the probability of positive market growth for organizations that participate in industry cluster empowerment is well worth monitoring.
The IT Investment Architect®
Concepts: disruptive-innovation, industry clusterJuly 9th, 2008
P2P Economy and the Greening of the Convention and Meetings Industry
This month, we are going to continue our travels in the Hospitality Region of the P2P Economy by way of the Convention and Meetings Industry. Readers are advised to pay particular attention to the economic value chain and innovation-infrastructure designs while on this month’s trip. We apologize in advance for the constantly shifting terrain. It may have something to do with Global Warming.
We will be exploring two similar neighborhoods in the Hospitality Region of the P2P Economy. The first is the “Green Meetings Task Force” of the Convention Industry Council (CIC). The second is the upcoming “World Tourism Day” sponsored by UNWTO. The theme for this year’s World Tourism Day will center on climate change and its affect on global tourism. Both examples lend themselves to creating value through distributed ownership.
Last month, we did not cover the benefits of disruptive innovation to P2P Economy Transition Planning or the process of changing economic value systems. Senior decision markers are invited to join us as we examine targeting on-demand consumers who want eco-friendly goods and services. These customers are not currently fully represented at industry programs because of their sense of higher-order arithmetic or enlightened self-interest. Serving under served customers is one of the primary strategies of disruptive innovation.
The IT Investment Architect®
Concepts: CIC, disruptive-innovation, P2P Economy, transition-planning, UNWTOMarch 19th, 2008
Disruptive Innovation in Grant Making?
After the last blog segment on nonprofit leadership, some of our partners on a youth entrepreneurship program asked if there is a role for disruptive innovation in grant making. The reason is because many nonprofits pay for their capacity building programs using funds provided by grants. Many disruptive innovation advancements would have to start in the grant making process.
We would advise clients to base their evaluations more heavily on execution strategy rather than program originality. The venture capital industry uses this concept of execution over novelty as a cornerstone of its resource allocation process. We would also suggest that grant makers evaluate a program’s disruptive qualities when determining how the new capacity will be produced.
P.S. LinkedIn members are encouraged to add their bright ideas to “Is there a role for Disruptive Innovation in Grant Making?”
The IT Investment Architect®
Concepts: capacity, disruptive-innovation, LinkedIn, nonprofitMarch 17th, 2008
Is Hulu the Next Great New Media Disruptive Innovation?
Readers have asked us how we rank Hulu’s disruptive qualities. Hulu is the Fox/News Corp. and NBC/Universal joint new media venture. The mainstream press has already anointed Hulu the next great example of disruptive innovation in action. We aren’t so sure. Hulu, as we see it, is a classic example of incumbents following their customers into markets that other companies have pioneered.
The William Morris Agency/Venture Capital deal has more disruptive potential than Hulu, assuming they concentrate on ways to create and support new genres. These new content categories could pull underserved customers away from incumbent-sponsored platforms. Broadcast networks have had limited success in creating new genres.
The very tentativeness of the Hulu joint venture will hamper its effort to make up ground on iTunes. On-demand consumers are always interested in fresh new media and hours of familiar old content. This is an example of the Long Tail Economics. However, any effort to limit distribution through the iTunes value network will result in increased frustration and substitution by users.
This is not to say that Hulu won’t be successful in the short term. On-demand consumers have already decided that new media platforms are better than broadcast networks. The problem with platform plays like Hulu is that economic value has shifted away from software to content. In the near term, the availability of quality targeted programming will undo competitors in the platform market. Fragmentation and lack of scale will probably, in the end, overwhelm any perceived disruptive qualities of Hulu.
The IT Investment Architect®
Concepts: disruptive-innovation, New Media, platform, William-Morris-AgencyMarch 11th, 2008
Innovation-Infrastructure Design: Disruptive Nonprofit Leadership
The Philanthropy News Digest has an interesting article called, “The Sustainable Nonprofit.” In this column, the author talks at great length about the need for better training and enhanced personnel standards. Frequent readers will recognize these comments as examples of fixes that incumbents use when sustaining innovation fails.
Nonprofit leaders, at some point, will have to approach capacity building as an exercise in disruptive innovation. When they do, they will learn to leverage their innovation-infrastructure designs in developing influence models which layout strategies for attracting additional capacity. For those who aren’t familiar with influence models, they are like business models for the P2P Economy.
We advise clients that the reason that capacity building projects fail is generally not because of a lack of competent management or leadership training. They fail because change is not approached as though it is a new business opportunity. If they would only ask the simple question, “Where is this new capacity coming from?” When they do, they will see the need for more disruptive nonprofit leadership.
The IT Investment Architect®
Concepts: capacity, design, disruptive-innovation, Innovation-Infrastructure, nonprofitFebruary 5th, 2008
New Media and the Hollywood Power Shift
Many in the mainstream media haven’t noticed that there has been power shift since the Writers Guild of America’s strike began. Perceived value has moved from broadcast networks and their business to business relationships to talent agencies and their potential to act as innovation intermediaries. The conglomerates misjudged the impact of the strike because they don’t understand the P2P Economy or distributed ownership.
Contrary to popular opinion, new media companies will not become the film industry’s major players. Our research suggests that they will continue to be the training ground for emerging talent and a prime source for disruptive innovation. There has been a continuous power shift from the broadcast networks to the talent agencies and the independent producers they will hire.
New Media is about reducing cost structures and fostering disruptive innovation. This is done best by modestly funded small companies and business federations. The film industry is a large industry with a lot of mouths to feed and the governance systems of these emerging companies aren’t up to the task managing large inflows of capital. Wall Street investment houses may act as angels but too much money in the system will damage the risk taking climate.
Producers add value to business federations because they manage cost structures and bring finely-tuned governance systems. The entertainment industry has many partners with deep pockets like apparel companies, theme parks and other lifestyle players. Investing the kind of cash some these very large projects require in new media companies would cause another internet bubble. The governance systems of most of the emerging new media companies will not handle huge inflows of capital.
The broader implications are that innovation intermediaries will have a larger role in the P2P Economy because they support business matchmaking and distributed ownership. Eventually there will be a need for p2p companies to develop enhanced governance systems and cost management capabilities.
The IT Investment Architect®
Concepts: business-federations, disruptive-innovation, film-industry, governance-system, Hollywood, innovation-intermediaries, New Media, P2P Economy, p2p-companiesOctober 15th, 2007
America’s Innovation-Infrastructure Changeover: The Role of Active Seniors
Any discussion about improving America’s innovation-infrastructure must address the access needs of active seniors. In past blog segments, we have talked about the problems with basing innovation agendas on entry-level education strategies. As life expectancies have increased so has the role of active seniors in the United States workforce. They increasingly use innovation technology to contribute to any organization willing to listen.
Imagine a time when retirement communities are designated innovation hubs. Onsite lifestyle business incubators will provide innovation technology selection services and estate planning. A place where active seniors will reinvent the “American Dream” and everyone has a chance to contribute without regard to their age or physical challenges.
Globalization needs to be redefined so that it addresses the concerns of active seniors. We have frequently talked about the economic impact of overseas entrepreneurs using disruptive innovation against companies in the United States. However, we have never talked about the disruptive properties of human longevity. America’s innovation-infrastructure changeover cannot take place until there is a place for active seniors and their access needs are addressed.
The IT Investment Architect®
Concepts: American-Dream, Americas-innovation-infrastructure, business-incubators, changeover, disruptive-innovation, globalization, Innovation-Agenda, Innovation-Infrastructure, innovation-technology, Invest in AmericaSeptember 6th, 2007
Innovation-Infrastructure Design: Challenges to Traditional Hierarchies
Recently, the magazine Computer World had an article which asked if the traditional IT department will disappear. The story listed a set of challenges that technical organizations face fitting into traditional business hierarchies. But the question doesn’t take into account the 21st century realities that centralized incumbents must deal with everyday.
Large multinationals with traditional hierarchies are under siege from decentralized p2p companies. The placement of the IT department doesn’t matter. When the markets of these once relevant giants are attacked by p2p companies, they tend to implement innovation-infrastructure designs which become more centralized and reduce the level of communication. This is a common mistake that incumbent organizations make when responding to the upward pressure of competitors who are using disruptive innovation.
When large centralized companies pioneered the movement to decentralization, they only half-heartedly embraced the implications. During the 1980’s when the Japanese were taking market share by the boatloads, American companies debated the possibilities of giving business units more autonomy. However, business intelligence took hold in the latter part of the 1990’s and senior executives fell in love with the potential of controlling millions of micro strategies. This led to even more corporate centralization.
The only way to defend against entrepreneurs using disruptive innovation is to develop new innovation-infrastructure designs. Continuing to use innovation-infrastructures based on traditional hierarchies won’t protect centralized incumbents. It will only hasten the economic decline of these no longer relevant giants. P2P companies have to be met with the deployment of new innovation-infrastructure assets or the game is truly over and stakeholders will be left holding the bag.
The IT Investment Architect®
Concepts: 21st-century, design, disruptive-innovation, Innovation-Infrastructure, large-multinationals, p2p-companies, realitiesJuly 17th, 2007
Innovation-Infrastructure Design: Visibility Risks
Decision makers are saying that the face of risk is changing. They say the most dominate risk is no longer purely financial or operational. These executives are talking about the impact of missing new synthesized markets or identifying the correct influence investment to monetize them.
We call these challenges visibility risks and advise clients that they are associated with poorly monitored feedback loops. In future blog segments, we will discuss innovation-infrastructure designs that mitigate visibility risks. Hopefully, this will prevent our readers from being caught off guard by entrepreneurs using disruptive innovation.
The IT Investment Architect®
Concepts: design, disruptive-innovation, entrepreneur, influence-investment, Innovation-Infrastructure, synthesized-market, visibility-riskJuly 6th, 2007
Innovation-Infrastructure Design: Strategic Networking and Innovation Intermediaries
Recently, a reader asked how decision makers can increase the effectiveness of their disruptive innovation initiative. When our clients ask this question, we suggest that they engage in a targeted strategic networking activity. Strategic networking is the act of assembling a group of peers who can help with the execution and adoption of the company’s innovation products. Sometimes these individuals form an advisory board.
It is important that the strategic networking activity is coordinated through the company’s innovation-infrastructure. There are at least two reasons that this is the case. The first is that the innovative executives and the A-players who lead high-profile initiatives are often lured away by other companies. The projects they head run the risk of becoming orphans. The second is that the innovation-infrastructure can be designed to provide just the right mix of transparency and autonomy to foster collaboration from ad hoc teams.
If the strategic networking program doesn’t yield the desired results, we propose the use of innovation intermediaries. This is a fairly new corporate role that should be embedded in the company’s innovation-infrastructure. They identify external resources and advocate for use of the company’s innovation products. Innovation intermediaries offer a combination of many of different services to help the floundering or resource-starved innovation projects. In the coming weeks, we will offer more insights into the developing world of innovation intermediaries.
The IT Investment Architect®
Concepts: ad-hoc-team, design, disruptive-innovation, Innovation-Infrastructure, innovation-intermediaries, innovation-product, strategic-network, strategic-networkingJune 21st, 2007
Kaizen versus Disruptive Innovation
Some readers have asked how kaizen and disruptive innovation differ. When this comes up with our clients, we suggest that they think of kaizen as continuous improvement. While disruptive innovation is an act of creative destruction bent on destroying cost structures and having the potential to create legends.
From a resource standpoint, we advise decision makers that kaizen only requires low-intensity influence investments. A brown-bag lunch or two can get the ball rolling rather nicely. Kaizen will thrive with a minimum number of advocates and an informal innovation-infrastructure initiative.
Disruptive innovation requires all hands on deck. The innovation-infrastructure must be robust and well funded. Pursuing a disruptive innovation strategy usually requires modification and enhancements to the organizations governance system. We advise decision makers that disruptive innovation requires high-intensity influence investments because if it’s successful it can change the world.
The IT Investment Architect®
Concepts: disruptive-innovation, General, governance-system, influence-investment, Innovation-Infrastructure, kaizenJune 6th, 2007
Has Disruptive Innovation Become Overused?
In many situations, disruptive innovation has become an excuse for undertaking pet projects with little market appeal. Once the prototype is built, technologists quickly volunteer their marketing team to lead the sales effort for their newly minted “disruptive innovation.” Unfortunately, these marketing teams are conceptually unprepared to handle these types of projects.
Many technologists think that once they have built their bleeding edge technology, their job is done. They think that they can hire a sales or marketing guru to help create demand for their newly minted “disruptive innovation.” In the 21 century, sales and marketing people cannot create demand for anything. They only discover new pockets of existing demand.
As you know, decision makers are inundated with requests for new projects that profess to be examples of disruptive innovation. Many ask us to help them build systems for sorting through the projects and managing their portfolios. We advise these executives to concentrate on building robust innovation-infrastructures that identify acts of true creativity and routinely handle unfounded assertions of innovation. This process draws on ad hoc teams in multiple market segments and identifies the existence of new market segments composed of underserved consumers. The best projects are selected from these opportunities.
The next step is to make influence investments in these synthesized market segments. We suggest decision makers create new media properties and not rely on traditional media outlets. At best, traditional media outlets provide mixed market opportunities which can confuse consumers in the synthesized market segments. At worse, traditional media outlets can be hostile to any form of disruptive innovation. Blogs and wiki pages provide the best new media tools for identifying pockets of underserved demand and engaging them.
The IT Investment Architect®
Concepts: 21st-century, ad-hoc-team, bleeding-edge, disruptive-innovation, influence-investment, Innovation-Infrastructure, New MediaMarch 22nd, 2007
Perils of Disruptive Innovation on Movie Financing
Last week, the Economist magazine ran an article about the changing face of movie financing. The article called “Hollywood’s new model” is provocative but incomplete. This article describes the phenomenon of “outside money” being used to fund Hollywood movies but misses the much bigger issue of disruptive innovation.
For example, the Economist article says:
…financiers have noticed that cheap hits such as “Little Miss Sunshine” can be hugely profitable. And beneath their maverick exteriors, [firms that produce only a few films a year] are reassuringly obsessed with cost control.
As readers of the ebTDesign Forum know, incumbents are vulnerable to small competitors who create “hugely profitable” products and services that are directed at underserved niches. This is by definition disruptive innovation. Clayton Christensen couldn’t have written this scenario any better in either of his books, The Innovator’s Dilemma or The Innovator’s Solution.
The following from the Economist magazine article would benefit from a discussion of innovation-infrastructures:
The film industry’s real problem, says John Sloss, a consultant, is not so much a shortage of films as a shortage of eyeballs. [Established studios] have global networks and legions of marketing men…
Many incumbents have succumbed to the onslaught of entrepreneurs using disruptive innovation to overcome “global networks and legions of marketing men.” As readers of the ebTDesign Forum know, it is not about capturing eyeballs or high-priced overhead. It is about the innovation-infrastructure. A robust innovation-infrastructure provides an organization with the ability to differentiate products and services without alienating audience. This leads to a more comfortable fit and a better satisfied customer.
In industry after industry, we see American icons being toppled because their management teams have chosen to move up market. They have used their considerable resources to focus on blockbusters. Well-advised decision makers should know all the global networks and marketing people in the world cannot protect an organization whose cost structures are out of line and whose ability to innovate is compromised.
The IT Investment Architect®
Concepts: Clayton-Christensen, disruptive-innovation, entrepreneur, film-industry, General, Hollywood, Innovation-Infrastructure, movie-financingMarch 13th, 2007
Repositioning America for Success in the 21st Century Part 2
The America Competes Act places the President’s Council on Innovation and Competitiveness in charge of the next generation’s economic growth. However, the Act does not direct the creation of new government organizations to address 21st Century concerns. This is a common mistake that incumbent organizations make when responding to upward pressure of competitors who are using a disruptive strategy. They attempt to increase the load on an already overtaxed innovation-infrastructure and share overburdened management resources.
The DOD, NASA, NIST and the rest of the United States military-industrial complex (MIC) performed heroically during the Cold War Era. They dealt admirably with the competitive challenges in the 20th Century. On a day-to-day basis they continue to perform their current tasks well. However, the MIC has not been able to keep up with the disruptive innovation created by small and micro businesses. It is highly unlikely that the MIC will be able to compete in the future because of its inherently high cost structures required by its participants.
The 110th Congress would be well-advised not to make Innovation and Competitiveness programs compete with basic science and math programs for funding. Middle and working class people in America are being displaced by disruptive innovation and lower cost structures offshore. The President’s Council on Innovation and Competitiveness should learn from the mistakes of other incumbents. We propose investing in a robust innovation-infrastructure and devoting unencumbered management resources as the best way to make America successful in the 21st Century.
The IT Investment Architect®
Concepts: 110th-Congress, 21st-century, America-Competes-Act, Cold-War-Era, disruptive-innovation, General, Innovation-Infrastructure, micro business, military-industrial-complexMarch 8th, 2007
Repositioning America for Success in the 21st Century?
This week, the United States Senate joined the conversation on improving public innovation-infrastructure in America. They have proposed the establishment of the President’s Council on Innovation and Competitiveness. The proposal was included in the America Competes Act and will attempt to reposition the United States for success in the 21st Century.
The America Competes Act is filled with Cold War Era thinking and very little innovation. It tasks government organizations, with deep ties to the scientific research community, like NASA, NIST and the DOD to come up with creative ways to promote innovation. It defines innovation as activities that relate to knowledge in math, science and engineering. All of the actions described in the America Competes Act positioned NASA and the United States to win the Cold War Era space race.
Upon passage of this legislation, middle and working class Americans will still be highly vulnerable to disruptive innovation from workforces in Asia and Central Europe. Reliving NASA’s Cold War Era heroics will not make the United States less susceptible to job losses from entrepreneurial threats in the future. Pushing Americans up market into science related-fields will not stem the tide of off-shoring or rebuild critical innovation-infrastructure in the United States.
The IT Investment Architect®
Concepts: 21st-century, America-Competes-Act, Cold-War-Era, disruptive-innovation, General, Innovation-Infrastructure