Google, China, Innovation and Western Corporations

James Fallows has some terrific posts on the Google-China issue.  One has a comment from a reader that gives a remarkable perspective on the history of innovation. I hope they don't mind me sharing it.

"Analogously, in the information revolution following the introduction of the printing press, censorship in Catholic countries (especially Spain) had a similar "non-effect" initially because there was an active black market in banned books. However, in less than 50 years, in the Protestant countries, where the press was not controlled, people of the crafts-producing class were able to become literate and change the way they produced goods. Over time this new way of producing goods became capitalism.

"In Spain, Italy, Portugal and to lesser extent France people of the crafts-producing class did not become literate. They continued producing goods in the same way as they had in the past. Soon they were out competed by Holland and then England where better goods were produced more cheaply. Over time this had a profound economic impact on the wealth and power of the various countries.

"Innovation by the "out group" based on access to the benefits of the new information technology that creates new sources of wealth and power. I would conclude, therefore, that China, having made Spain's decision to control information, is now out of the running for world leadership."

My question is this.  What do Western corporations think they are doing when they impose China-like restrictions on their employees? They are killing the use of information technology and innovation.  The corporate firewall is an effective form of deathwish. Will they learn from the Google  fight with China? What fight?

Integration, resilience and specialization in meeting the user experience

Information Arbitrage has a very interesting post on vertical integration. It, and the comments, go wider than vertical integration, into what sorts of organizational structures are best able to support an experience economy and keep up with user needs and aspirations driving technology. The author, Roger Ehrenberg has moved from a firm belief in a tight organizational focus and specialization, citing Apple as an example of how having tight control over hardware and software enables them to provide a user experience not matched by Dell/Intel/Microsoft. His case for integration is based on speed. My suspicion is that flexibility in investment, freedom from IPR wrangles and the ability to move resources are more important than organizational speed. The need for flexibility and redundancy in supply chains is discussed. There are some very good comments.

The move to deglobalisation or reglobalisation with much less material travelling round the world (especially with slow steaming) looks quite likely.

Clarkson is right about the internet

This blog does not intend to become a Jeremy Clarkson fanzine, but the man has the impact of the internet exactly right.

"It’s a monster. An invisible machine over which mankind has absolutely no control. We can’t even turn it off."

This is a nihilist view compared to Kevin Kelly's view of the Technium as an unruly child but similar in view. Kevin Kelly:
"We don't quite appreciate it yet, but our child, technology, is more powerful than we its parents are. "

Clarkson's post about Murdoch vs. google seems, like most material on this topic, to miss the main point. How did the very-savvy newspaper industry let its advertising revenue go to google? I used to know a newspaper advertising manager (Bob's dad), and the importance of raising advertising revenue used to be fully understood. What happened?

Update:
Great piece by Clay Shirky from March 2008.

How do you like your innovators?

I have had innovators boiled and roast. Most of the innovators I have met are pretty hard-boiled, but these ones were fine.

Is this cannibalism?

"Fluffy mash" sounds more like ergonomics than innovation.

Redesigning the Stop Sign

Needs no words from me. Tells it like it is.

Quality = ease of use

Pure Digital's Simon Fleming-Wood(Flip video camera) defines quality entirely in terms of ease of use. He says "We will always prioritize accessibility over features".

This appears in the Wired article 'The Good Enough Revolution: When Cheap and Simple is Just Fine'.

The article says much that is not new. Which? magazine has been banging on for a long time about how people like VW Beetle (original not retro) technology and dislike 'featuritis'. However, it has some interesting observations about the potential for mini-clinics, which I suspect that the current NHS plans will not realise for us in the UK

We need some tools to be able to relate Quality In Use to price point; the usability community has kept itself 'pure' by ignoring the framing that price brings.

User-Centred Innovation - reaching the laggards

User-centred innovation has been around for some years now (and will be one of the main themes of this blog). The diffusion of this approach appears to have become mature, to say the least, on the basis of a couple of recent developments.

NESTA have found the term and are taking baby steps in their lab; very welcome. If they can convince the public sector to listen to users for new ideas, it would be a big breakthrough.

The European Commission has recently finished a consultation on user-centred innovation (I know, chalk and cheese, but there we are). The consultation is based around a Commission Staff Working Document on 'design as a driver of user-centred innovation'. The document is a decent synopsis of policy and measurement issues. Their measurement problems could have been simplified immensely if they had known that there are International Standards aimed at doing much of what they want. I suspect that the authors were briefed to try and combine design-driven and user-driven approaches, which makes for some confusing writing in places.

Still, nice to see that user-centred innovation is no longer solely the province of smart companies.