April 2010 – Page 3 – artdiamondblog.com

If We Want More Jobs, We Need More (Steve) Jobs

(p. A19) Mr. Obama and his advisers need to grasp this essential fact: Entrepreneurs are not just a cute little subsector of the American economy. They are the whole game. They will give us tomorrow’s Apples and the multiplier effect of small businesses and exciting new jobs that go with them. Entrepreneurs are necessary to keep our large multinationals on their toes. It’s no coincidence that the entrepreneurial flowering of the 1970s forced a managerial revolution in large companies during the 1980s and 1990s. Without Steve Jobs, there would have been no Lou Gerstner to reinvent IBM in the ’90s. Entrepreneurs like Steve Jobs make everyone better.

For the full story, see:
RICH KARLGAARD. “Apple to the Rescue?” The Wall Street Journal (Thurs., JANUARY 28, 2010): A19.

Smaller, Compact Design Makes Nuclear Reactor Cheaper, Safer and Quicker to Build and Expand

Source of graphic: online version of the WSJ article quoted and cited below.

(p. A1) A new type of nuclear reactor–smaller than a rail car and one tenth the cost of a big plant–is emerging as a contender to reshape the nation’s resurgent nuclear power industry.

Three big utilities, Tennessee Valley Authority, First Energy Corp. and Oglethorpe Power Corp., on Wednesday signed an agreement with McDermott International Inc.’s Babcock & Wilcox subsidiary, committing to get the new reactor approved for commercial use in the U.S.
. . .
The smaller Babcock & Wilcox reactor can generate only 125 to 140 megawatts of power, about a tenth as much as a big one. But the utilities are betting that these smaller, simpler reactors can be manufactured quickly and installed at potentially dozens of existing nuclear sites or replace coal-fired plants that may become obsolete with looming emissions restrictions.
“We see significant benefits from the new, modular technology,” said Donald Moul, vice president of nuclear support for First Energy, an Ohio-based utility company.
He said First Energy, which operates four reactors at three sites in Ohio and Pennsylvania, has made no decision to build any new reactor and noted there’s “a lot of heavy lifting to do to get this reactor certified” by the NRC for U.S. use.
. . .
(p. A16) One of the biggest attractions, however, is that utilities could start with a few reactors and add more as needed. By contrast, with big reactors, utilities have what is called “single-shaft risk,” where billions of dollars are tied up in a single plant.
Another advantage: mPower reactors will store all of their waste on each site for the estimated 60-year life of each reactor.
. . .
. . . , some experts believe that if the industry embraces small reactors, nuclear power in the U.S. could become pervasive because more utilities would be able to afford them.
“There’s a higher likelihood that there are more sites that could support designs for small reactors than large ones,” said David Matthews, head of new reactor licensing at the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
. . .
Experts believe small reactors should be as safe, or safer, than large ones. One reason is that they are simpler and have fewer moving parts that can fail. Small reactors also contain a smaller nuclear reaction and generate less heat. That means that it’s easier to shut them down, if there is a malfunction.
“With a large reactor, the response to a malfunction tends to be quick, whereas in smaller ones, they respond more slowly” which means they’re somewhat easier to control, said Michael Mayfield, director of the advanced reactor program at the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. Once on site, each reactor would be housed in a two-story containment structure that would be buried beneath the ground for added security. They would run round the clock, stopping to refuel every five years instead of 18 to 24 months, like existing reactors.
Jack Baker, Energy Northwest’s head of business development, says he was initially skeptical about small reactors because of the “lack of economies of scale.” But he says he now thinks small reactors “could have a cost advantage” because their simpler design means faster construction and “you don’t need as much concrete, steel, pumps and valves.”
“They have made a convert of me,” he says.
Babcock & Wilcox’s roots go back to 1867 and it has been making equipment for utilities since the advent of electrification, even furnishing boilers to Thomas Edison’s Pearl Street generating stations that brought street lighting to New York City in 1882.
Based in Lynchburg, Va., the company has been building small reactors for ships since the 1950s. In addition to reactors for U.S. Navy submarines and aircraft carriers, it built a reactor for the USS NS Savannah, a commercial vessel which is now a floating museum in Baltimore harbor. It also built eight big reactors, in the past construction cycle, including one for the ill-fated Three Mile Island plant.
When a U.S. nuclear revival looked imminent, the company debated what role it could play.
“Instead of asking, ‘How big a reactor could we make?,’ this time, we asked, ‘What’s the largest thing we could build at our existing plants and ship by rail?’ ” said Christofer Mowry, president of Modular Nuclear Energy LLC, Babcock’s recently created small-reactor division. “That’s what drove the design.”

For the full story, see:
REBECCA SMITH. “Small Reactors Generate Big Hopes .” The Wall Street Journal (Thurs., Feb. 18, 2010): A1 & A16.
(Note: ellipses added.)

Source of graph: online version of the WSJ article quoted and cited above.

“Coase’s Penguin” and the Motives for “Commons-Based Peer Production”

(p. 108) Noted Yale law professor Yochai Benkler has a theory. In a widely circulated and famous essay on the Internet called “Coase’s Penguin,” he offered his thinking on why people participate in efforts such as Linux and other “free” projects. There was already a culture, before Wikipedia, of folks donating their time, effort, and skills to the collective good for no monetary gain or immediate compensation. Benkler observed this part of the hacker ethos and was curious to know what the common thread was.

He dubbed it “commons-based peer production.” It’s a fancy moniker for the phenomenon of people working together toward the same end–creating computer code or content that is free to be copied, distributed, used, and modified by others.
Benkler believes the Internet and the “free culture” movement have allowed individuals to connect and combine their efforts in ways unprecedented in history. The legal academic is not shy to combine scholarship outside his area of training by drawing on economics, sociology, and technology to form his theory.
According to Benkler, if monetary rewards and the creation of corporate firms have been the accepted driving force for human innovation and progress, there has to be something else driving volunteers in Linux, Wikipedia, and other “free” projects that have become so pervasive and monumental in the digital age.
He asserts the motivation comes from two main things other than money: the “socio-psychological” reward of interacting with others, and the “hedonic” personal gratification of the task.
Wikipedia’s magic occurs when these two things come together. One person’s personal affection and indulgence—mapmaking, grammar checking, baseball statistics, history of stamps—easily finds a home in Wikipedia’s amalgam of topics, where it also feeds into and inspires activities by others.

Source:
Lih, Andrew. The Wikipedia Revolution: How a Bunch of Nobodies Created the World’s Greatest Encyclopedia. New York: Hyperion, 2009.

Daniel Pink on What Motivates Workers to Work Well

Source of book image: online version of the WSJ review quoted and cited below.

Daniel Pink’s Free Agent Nation was a provocative account of how the entrepreneur benefits from being an entrepreneur. I enjoyed the book, and reference it frequently.
I have not had a chance to read Pink’s recent Drive, but hope to do so soon.

(p. A17) Science, Mr. Pink says, has shown that we are motivated as much intrinsically, by the sheer joy and purpose of certain activities, as extrinsically, by rewards like pay raises and promotions.

The science that Mr. Pink is referring to rests largely on the work of Edward Deci and Richard Ryan at the University of Rochester and Mihaly Csikszentmihalyi at Claremont Graduate University. These three researchers have found that we do our best work when motivated from within, when we have control over our time and decisions and when we feel a deep sense of purpose. Under such conditions, we can achieve real mastery over whatever it is that we do.
The modern workplace, Mr. Pink laments, is too often set up to deny us this opportunity. Firms that hope to optimize efficiency by making their employees clock in and out, attend compulsory meetings, and receive pay for performance are de-motivating through excessive control. What they should be doing, he argues, is giving workers the chance to do their best work by granting them more autonomy and helping them to achieve the mastery that may come with it.
Mr. Pink cites an Australian software firm, Atlassian, that allows its programmers 20% of their time to work on any software problem they like, provided it is not part of their regular job. The programmers turn out to be much more efficient with that 20% of their time than they are with their regular work hours. Atlassian credits the 20% with many of its innovations and its high staff retention. Companies as large as Google and 3M have similar programs that have produced everything from Google News to the Post-It note.
. . .
. . . : Beyond serving our basic needs, money doesn’t buy happiness. We need a greater purpose in our lives. Our most precious resource is time. We respond badly to conditions of servitude, whether the lash of the galley master or the more subtle enslavement of monthly paychecks, quarterly performance targets and the fear of losing health insurance. Work that allows us to feel in control of our lives is better than work that does not. . . . , these lessons are worth repeating, and if more companies feel emboldened to follow Mr. Pink’s advice, then so much the better.

For the full review, see:
PHILIP DELVES BROUGHTON. “More Than a Paycheck; Workers are more efficient, loyal and creative when they feel a sense of purpose–when work has meaning.” The Wall Street Journal (Tues., Feb. 2, 2010): A17.
(Note: ellipses added.)
(Note: the online version of the review is dated Feb. 5, 2010.)

Philosopher Duped by Hoax Because He Failed to Consult Wikipedia

(p. A4) PARIS — For the debut of his latest weighty title, “On War in Philosophy,” the French philosopher Bernard-Henri Lévy made the glossy spreads of French magazines with his trademark panache: crisp, unbuttoned white Charvet shirts, golden tan and a windswept silvery mane of hair.

But this glamorous literary campaign was suddenly marred by an absolute philosophical truth: Mr. Lévy backed up the book’s theories by citing the thought of a fake philosopher. In fact, the sham philosopher has never been a secret, and even has his own Wikipedia entry.
In the uproar that followed over the rigors of his research, Mr. Lévy on Tuesday summed up his situation with one e-mailed sentence: “My source of information is books, not Wikipedia.”

For the full story, see:

DOREEN CARVAJAL. “Philosopher Left to Muse on Ridicule Over a Hoax.” The New York Times (Weds., February 10, 2010): A4.
(Note: the online version of the article is dated February 9, 2010.)

“We’re Taking Care of the Streets, Just in Case They Try to Rob Us”

“Jaime Silva, 10, wielded a stick with a nail on the end in Los Ángeles, Chile, “just in case they try to rob us,” he said.” Source of caption and photo: online version of the NYT article quoted and cited below.

(p. A16) LOS ÁNGELES, Chile — At night, residents huddle around bonfires and guard their streets with torches and sticks, ready to repel outsiders who might try to break into their darkened homes.

Elsewhere, the military and the federal police enforce nighttime curfews, guard the entrances to supermarkets and monitor gasoline rationing to make sure no one gets more than his share.
As darkness settled in and the curfew took effect on Wednesday, residents on the outskirts of Los Ángeles began placing wooden barriers in front of their streets and picking up weapons to protect against armed bandits they said were taking advantage of the chaos to steal from their homes.
“We’re taking care of the streets, just in case they try to rob us,” said Jaime Silva, 10, as he wielded a thick stick with a nail on the end.
Nearby, his mother looked on, her arms crossed, watching her son and other boys as they stood guard behind the barrier.
“We’re trying to take care of the little we have here,” said the mother, Ana Beroiz, 34, noting that there had been robberies in other parts of town. “We’re here all night, first the mothers and then the fathers.”

For the full story, see:
ALEXEI BARRIONUEVO. “Fears of Lawlessness Prompt Show of Force in Chile.” The New York Times (Thurs., March 4, 2010): A16.
(Note: the online version of the article is dated March 3, 2010.)

“Expert Scholarship” Versus “People of Dubious Background”

(p. 71) The acknowledgment, by name, of volunteers in the preface sections of the OED is akin to Wikipedia’s edit history, where one can inspect who contributed to each article. Some Oxford contributors were professors, some royalty, but most were ordinary folks who answered the call. Winchester, in The Professor and the Madman: A Tale of Murder, Insanity, and the Making of the Oxford English Dictionary, tells the story of the “madman” William Chester Minor, a U.S. Civil War survivor whose “strange and erratic behavior” resulted in him shooting an “innocent working man” to death in the street in Lambeth. He was sent to Broadmoor asylum for criminal lunatics. He discovered the OED as a project around 1881, when he saw the “Appeal for Readers” in the library, and worked for the next twenty-one years contributing to the project, receiving notoriety as a contributor “second only to the contributions of Dr. Fitzedward Hall in enhancing our illustration of the literary history of individual words, phrases and constructions.” Minor did something unusual in not just sending submissions, but having his own cataloging system such that the dictionary editors could send a postcard and “out the details flowed, in abundance and always with unerring accuracy.” Until Minor and Murray met in January 1891, no one working with (p. 72) the OED knew their prolific contributor was a madman and murderer housed at Broadmoor.

As we will see in later chapters, a common question of the wiki method is whether one can trust information created by strangers and people of dubious background. But the example of the OED shows that using contributors rather than original expert scholarship is not a new phenomenon, and that projects built as a compendium of primary sources are well suited for harnessing the power of distributed volunteers.

Source:
Lih, Andrew. The Wikipedia Revolution: How a Bunch of Nobodies Created the World’s Greatest Encyclopedia. New York: Hyperion, 2009.
(Note: italics in original.)

“Real Innovation in Technology Involves a Leap Ahead”

“GAME CHANGER? After months of anticipation, Apple unveiled its iPad tablet computer last week.” Source of caption and photo: online version of the NYT article quoted and cited below.

(p. 1) The more, the better. That’s the fashionable recipe for nurturing new ideas these days. It emphasizes a kind of Internet-era egalitarianism that celebrates the “wisdom of the crowd” and “open innovation.” Assemble all the contributions in the digital suggestion box, we’re told in books and academic research, and the result will be collective intelligence.

Yet Apple, a creativity factory meticulously built by Steven P. Jobs since he returned to the company in 1997, suggests another innovation formula — one more elitist and individual.
This approach is reflected in the company’s latest potentially game-changing gadget, the iPad tablet, unveiled last week. It may succeed or stumble but it clearly carries the taste and perspective of Mr. Jobs and seems stamped by the company’s earlier marketing motto: Think Different.
. . .
(p. 6) Great products, according to Mr. Jobs, are triumphs of “taste.” And taste, he explains, is a byproduct of study, observation and being steeped in the culture of the past and present, of “trying to expose yourself to the best things humans have done and then bring those things into what you are doing.”
His is not a product-design philosophy steered by committee or determined by market research. The Jobs formula, say colleagues, relies heavily on tenacity, patience, belief and instinct. He gets deeply involved in hardware and software design choices, which await his personal nod or veto. Mr. Jobs, of course, is one member of a large team at Apple, even if he is the leader. Indeed, he has often described his role as a team leader. In choosing key members of his team, he looks for the multiplier factor of excellence. Truly outstanding designers, engineers and managers, he says, are not just 10 percent, 20 percent or 30 percent better than merely very good ones, but 10 times better. Their contributions, he adds, are the raw material of “aha” products, which make users rethink their notions of, say, a music player or cellphone.
“Real innovation in technology involves a leap ahead, anticipating needs that no one really knew they had and then delivering capabilities that redefine product categories,” said David B. Yoffie, a professor at the Harvard Business School. “That’s what Steve Jobs has done.”

For the full commentary, see:
STEVE LOHR. “The Apple in His Eye.” The New York Times, Week in Review Section (Sun., MARCH 4, 2010): 1 & 6.
(Note: ellipsis added.)
(Note: the online version of the article is dated January 29, 2010 and had the title “Steve Jobs and the Economics of Elitism.”)