tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-87927198726198754512024-03-12T21:04:41.321-07:00Who KnewAdi Thttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16650800121639021458noreply@blogger.comBlogger38125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8792719872619875451.post-7297141405464298512014-10-30T11:18:00.001-07:002014-10-30T11:18:52.368-07:00Patents: Solution or Problem?Recently I have had two different experiences that have caused me to think really hard about <span style="font-family: inherit;">patents and whether they are really a solution or a problem (or maybe a little of BOTH) in this new age of information that we are <span style="font-family: inherit;">hurtling into.</span></span><br />
<br />
The first event was a lecture by Prof Anil K.Gupta at Guelph a few nights ago. It was inspiring and uplifting to hear this great man tell how he has walked the land in India (and apparently in several other countries around the world) LEARNING the wisdom that the local peoples of those lands have to offer. Many have done this in the past but his is a completely non-exploitative approach. He looks for opportunities that might solve a problem for someone else and that can be commercialized. When and if he succeeds in taking the knowledge and commercializing it he shares the rewards back with the folks who had given him the knowledge in the first place. The network is called the Honeybee Network (an unfortunate choice since it has almost nothing to do with real beekeeping). He proudly mentioned in his talk that he has many patents for different technologies. That started the thought in my head. The cost to obtain these in all the countries his network works in (35 at last count I think), to enforce them and to license them seemed to me to be contrary to the "brand" that he was trying to establish - share the wealth of knowledge that is languishing in the traditions of indigenous peoples around the world for the betterment of everyone.<br />
<br />
To be fair, he did mention that he gets a lot of help (from law firms amongst others) in reducing the costs of getting the patent in the first place. But that is where the problem started for me. It has been said that "It is amazing how everything looks like a nail when all you have in your toolbox is a hammer." (I did mention that there were TWO recent events. The second was a discussion with a patent-lawyer friend of mine who really unknowingly convinced me that patents were NOT always the way to go). Patents, like unions, certainly had their place in the early years of the industrial revolution. To be able to manufacture something and sell it at a profit one had to do a lot of expensive research. To recover these costs and to make the knowledge eventually available to the general public, it seemed appropriate to grant one some monopolistic rights for a limited time.<br />
<br />
Today there is so much knowledge available to everyone and so many technologies that will aid the production of quick prototypes etc. and so much state (read your tax dollar and mine) sponsored research that one might well argue that the tremendous investments of time and costs to just find out if something has a chance to work is reduced not extended.<br />
<br />
Surely there will be those who will point to the increasing costs of developing a drug in the pharmaceutical world and the increased time to get it approved etc. There are indeed fields where it may yet make sense to patent inventions. We are not 100% there yet. But do we see a trend where the number of such fields is increasing or decreasing? Even the pharmaceuticals industry has argued that the idea of the limited time to be able to recover their investments is insufficient. They would of course like MORE exclusivity but the fact remains that even for this industry (the bastion of patenting in a way) patenting in the old traditional sense is not working. We are entering an age of information and knowledge. The more we share it the better off we are all in terms of being able to maximally leverage it to improve our own lots and those of others.<br />
<br />
Lest you are thinking that I may break out into a verse or two of KumBaYaa soon let me assure you that I am at heart a capitalist. I want to see free competition and a vigorous marketplace. But do we need monopolies to do that? Doesn't it sound protectionist to be granting people monopolies even for a limited time? Shouldn't we be relying on market forces to bring about the better products rather than the smug feeling that one can do whatever one wants for some time before one has to answer for it? This is what has happened in the IT world for example. The pace of improvements is so fast now that patenting is NOT considered a serious alternative. Increasingly, folks in that field rely on staying ahead of the market, on trade secrets, and on the ingenuity of their employees (whom, by the way, they have to CONSTANTLY woo to stay where they are) They have found other means like copyrights etc to protect their longer lasting inventions. And the pace of growth in this industry is second to none in my opinion. The developing world (I really hate that term. I wish someone could come up with a better descriptor) has also shown us that patenting may not be relevant there. The costs to inventors, and the rapid pace of incremental invention (to say nothing of the slow and sometimes complicated legal system in their countries) almost makes it uneconomical to patent anything. One simply has to rely on tried and true things like reputation, market acceptance, grass roots desirability etc. to succeed. Is this an altogether bad thing? I think not.<br />
<br />
As the pace of change accelerates in all walks of life we will one day face the challenge that the time and cost to obtain a patent will be greater than the expected lifetime of the object in the marketplace before it is superseded by the next better, cheaper, faster thing. I contend that there are still ways to make money in this sort of marketplace but I question whether patenting is one of them. Those who embrace change early have a chance to ride the wave of experience.Adi Thttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16650800121639021458noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8792719872619875451.post-702591317880408842014-05-26T11:22:00.000-07:002014-05-26T11:22:46.491-07:00NECESSITY (not grant money, or passion, or culture or anything else) is the mother of innovation.I am writing this mostly for myself. I don't expect anyone else to read it let alone voice an opinion about its contents. I have finally had enough. I am a proud Canadian of some fifty years or so. I've often wondered about the apparent gap in out ability to take great research and convert it into good market-ready innovations that move the needle of our economy. I run a company that is dedicated to making a difference in this area. I've read all the books that the pundits have written about how risk averse we are (read "blah, blah, blah") and how we need to change the <i>culture</i> or the <i>mindset </i>of the people etc. etc. etc. Here's a thought for you: If we continue to import the best people from all over the world how come THEY can't start the change for us? Bottom line: I don't think we are addressing the right issue in bemoaning our culture etc.<br />
<br />
The simple fact is that we are living in one of the richest parts of the world no matter HOW you care to measure it. We have all the basics - food, water, shelter, clothing - by and large in GREAT abundance in this great land of ours. And we have so much more! Don't get me wrong, I don't mean we are all well off. Sure there are places that do better than others and groups that do better than others in Canada but ON AVERAGE we are a lucky lot to be just living here in Canada as compared almost to anywhere else on earth! There's an old saying that necessity is the mother of invention. I was at another of these rather common sounding talks this morning where the speaker spoke enthusiastically about how we need to do things which we have a passion for and how we need to take more risks and not be afraid to fail. I'm sure if you are ALIVE and in this country you have not escaped such talks completely. He gave example after example of great innovators and great inventions. He spoke of the "hub" of such innovation - Israel. He gave examples of his life where he has had to be inventive and he gave examples of the banking industry where the littlest bank - Tangerine - simply HAD to be nimble and inventive because they were - as it were - dancing among the feet of the BIG giants of the banking industry and would be crushed if they only stood still long enough. All of the many inspiring examples he gave had one thing in common. They had a SURVIVAL need to innovate. There was a wolf at the door, their very existence hung on their success at being innovative. And it begged the question for me: Until we have dug out the last resource from our beloved country or exhausted the last easy extraction of wealth from this land, HOW will we have this need to innovate which drives every example of success that you can think of?<br />
<br />
So in a sense there is some relief in what I am saying for me. It says that our failures as a nation to succeed at innovation are not the function of an inbred cultural gene that blocks innovation that needs to be removed through cultural reshaping or anything else. We are humans like all the rest of our species Until we have a NEED we will not be inventive enough as a nation. Here is one case where I hope that I am wrong but even if I am right I am confident that when the challenge arises we will rise to it simply because we are... yes HUMAN.<br />
<br />
Now I must come to the nub of what bothers me: our government has a long tradition of interfering in the harsh free market directly rather than attempting to "level the playing field" through legislation. Their most recent fashion is to support entrepreneurship - a noble concept on the surface if well executed. Their solution is to shower your tax dollars and mine on anyone who says they are helping young entrepreneurs in some way. The number of incubators and start-up competitions cropping up all over the country is simply staggering. The government can say they are doing their part by supplying the money. But I have a problem with that. There is no strategic leadership to go along with that supply of money. I understand that this is politically unwise for a government to appear to be "picking winners" as we say in Canada. So they blame the implementation on others. But I contend that they are doing the whole area of entrepreneurship a dis-service by supplying easy money and other support to start-up companies. They have removed the SURVIVAL need from most of these so-called "grantpreneurs" which would otherwise drive them to succeed. They have converted their desire to succeed to a desire to be supported. Let's face it, there is a difference in the effort that will be put into survival by someone who has mortgaged their house, maxed out their credit cards and borrowed from all of their relatives and that which will be invested by someone whose company started through a grant from the government. In the family context we call that a failure to launch. We have lowered the selection criteria for launching something that looks like a start-up but has absolutely no chance of success from the brutal market forces to a kinder-gentler one that is more painful to all of us in the long run because, if NOTHING else, it dilutes those who are REAL entrepreneurs and puts them at a disadvantage in the short term. I am not against helping those with promise. I think we have gone too far and made this into a political game that will not serve anyone well and will simply delay the inevitable.Adi Thttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16650800121639021458noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8792719872619875451.post-11021692310185314202014-03-04T10:14:00.002-08:002014-03-04T10:14:30.477-08:00Does a track record in Business matter?Yesterday, I was at a rehearsal for a start-up company competition. My job was to look at the three FINALISTS in the competition - start-ups that had "made it" to this point and who would be presenting to an illustrious group of REAL judges in a few days so that a "winner" could be announced then. I was struck by a common feature in all of these companies. They each had a world-class academic with multiple decades of scientific experience as their founder and scientific leader AND they each had a young (in some cases not even yet GRADUATED) MBA student as their 'C' level business leader. Does that strike anyone else as odd?<br />
<br />
There are probably several explanations for this phenomenon. Probably there is some sort of government subsidy for a new employee who is taking on their first job. It is possible that there is a genuinely noble thought of giving some young person a start in life. They may have had some relationship with the scientific leader (relative or former student for example) etc. But ALL of the reasons that I could think of should also have applied to the scientific side of the company. Yet NONE of them had made this choice on the science side. Why is it possible that the same academics who would never consider giving the scientific leadership of the company that they founded to some recent graduate (even from their own groups!!) would happily give the BUSINESS leadership to a similarly inexperienced stranger from another discipline?<br />
<br />
As I ruminated on this strange phenomenon - one which I see repeated ALL across the country - I could come up with only one explanation; one that I am sincerely VERY loathe to accept (hence this blog to recruit other explanations from my readership). The only explanation I could entertain in the end was that scientific academics have extremely low respect for the value that an experienced business person brings to the eventual success of the startup. Is it any wonder then in Canada (where the OVERWHELMING support for start-ups and innovation is based on the assumption that academics somehow are best equipped to create this country's future Sustainable Global Companies (SGCs)) that we have no real world-class global companes to show for our DECADES of adherence to this approach?<br />
<br />
Now, I have heard many times from serious nvestors that "It is far better to invest in mediocre technology and a stellar business team than the other way around". Is it possible that there is some truth to this saying? Could it be that as Canadians we are investing in the wrong BUSINESS end of the success story? Would it be worth even taking a larger FRACTION of what we invest today in technology and investing it in our Small and Medium Enterprises (SMEs) so that those with a proven BUSINESS track record can expand their operations, try something new, increase their capacity for risk, open new markets for themselves etc. etc. etc. and maybe someday even BECOME SGCs.<br />
<br />
I know that there are several government programs that supposedly help the SMEs. But by and large the SMEs I meet all tell me that the only interaction they have with the government is at tax time. So I ask, would we all be better off if we started to help smaller but strategically already proven companies become bigger global players? Would this approach be better than our government continuing to squander all of our collective bets on the belief that academic technologies are the answer to our future?<br />
<br />
As usual your comments are most welcome.Adi Thttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16650800121639021458noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8792719872619875451.post-25183548028665219892013-11-20T07:49:00.000-08:002013-11-20T07:49:35.624-08:00Is "Mentorship" becoming a four letter word like "Innovation"?Yesterday I was part of a teleconference set up by one of the many start-up incubators that have been springing up like mushrooms all over the country in response to the Government's well-meaning but misguided insistence on investing in the Startup side of the economy without any regard to how one would RETAIN these companies in Canada after they mature.<br />
<br />
The truth is that a MAJOR part of any success of any start-up, of many of the careers of our future leaders, and many other important facets of our economy; depends on volunteers who have decided to put something back in this great country of ours. If one paid the standard consulting fees to this <b><i>army</i></b> of people all over the country for their endless hours spent in helping those in need of their hard-earned experience, we may well bankrupt certain segments of the economy and halt the progress that our Government so sincerely wants to help forward. It is often taken for granted that such individuals will step forward and do what needs to be done to make the flashy government investment actually SUCCEED on the ground. These folks do what they do for a simple reason or two. They usually want to help the next generation benefit from the mistakes they have made in the past and their joy is seeing that the price they have paid to gain this experience is reduced by the fact that others benefit from the lessons learned for free. Another great driver I have noticed is that they want to connect with the next generation of leaders of society and build trans-generational understanding and friendships in this global, non-linear world we live in today. These folks in my opinion are true mentors. They want little more than the joy of the long-term interaction.<br />
<br />
Yesterday's well-intentioned teleconference hit a nerve. The moderator had a need. Because of limited budgets and a pressure to show results he was trying; in the best tradition of Canadan-ism; to be all inclusive in his definition of "mentors". For him anyone offering some free service that could be used by the start-ups that he was incubating, was a mentor. I want to emphasize that I don't FOR A MOMENT seek to demean the services that law firms, accountants, etc. offer for free to such start-ups. It is an equally valuable and vital part of the survival of what the Government likes to portray as THEIR investment in the future. But it is not the same as mentorship in my eyes. It is more of a soft sales pitch not different in detail from any offering of a "free" sample of a drug, or other product (in this case it is a service). On the internet we have a name for this. We call it a "free-mium" offering. Something useful is offered free so that you get hooked on using it and then hopefully you upgrade to the paying premium version.<br />
<br />
Admittedly, it is a grey area with many having difficulties in making a clear distinction between what I have described as mentorship and a version of fremium offering. But I want to say that if we can't reserve a name (MENTOR) for that special class of people who really give without ANY expectations then we shortchange the very group to whom we owe so much already. ANY expectation of a business transaction taking place as a result of providing any goods or services is - I would humbly submit - NOT mentorship. We need to find another name for it and appropriately show our gratitude for that too but it cannot be called mentorship. True mentorship to me is something sacred. Every one of us who have succeeded at something have a mentor to thank for some role in that success and we would not be doing them all a service by mixing them up with other equally valuable but distinct activities.<br />
<br />
The latter is no less vital or necessary or desired by companies and young professionals alike. It is, and it should be, acknowledged and valued. I simply submit that it is NOT mentorship. Mixing the two up and blurring the lines is not good for either part of this very vibrant ecosystem of ours.<br />
<br />
Your views and comments are always welcome.Adi Thttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16650800121639021458noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8792719872619875451.post-88188747797024951642012-01-08T09:22:00.000-08:002012-01-08T09:22:16.199-08:00Good v Evil (?)Something has been ruminating in my mind over the last few weeks and months and I THINK I have it ready to share now in at least a "strawman" or draft form. The thoughts I have been having, seek to go to the root of what will open our hearts and minds to evil things however we may define them and what will possibly counteract those things. <br />
<br />
I have come to a rather simple (but I hope not simplistic) thought that at the root of all things that I consider negative or "toxic" forces in my life are four mental states: FEAR, HATE, ANGER, and DESPAIR. If I examine what the root cause of negative things happening in my life are, they are all reducible to these four "horsemen of the apocalypse" as it were. Fear of one thing or another is by far the most important of all of these in the world even in a historic sense. If one considers the amount of evil that has happened in the world because of this one factor, one is astonished. Even some of the others (hate and anger) can in some ways be thought of as "progeny" of fear. So if one wants to change things one REALLY needs to recognize fear as the "gateway" drug of evil and try one's best to live a life of "No Fear" as the old bumper stickers used to proclaim.<br />
<br />
Now if one examines what can be done to counteract these forces that play a role in our lives one sees at once that the counteracting POSITIVE forces are TRUST, LOVE and HOPE (yes unfortunately there aren't conveniently four to help our artificial ideas of symmetry). <br />
<br />
We are at a time of the year of making resolutions. What if we decided to recognize the seven forces that play such an important part in our lives and to adjust them so that we achieve a POSITIVE balance in all we do. Would that be something we could live by for the rest of the year? I for one am going to try.Adi Thttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16650800121639021458noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8792719872619875451.post-74214834883420370632011-11-22T08:36:00.000-08:002011-11-22T08:50:57.921-08:00Tech. Tran. and the "Societal Contract"Let us imagine a one-day brainstorming exercise at a well known Canadian university. I'm going to write it as if it REALLY happened. We were charged with looking at the technology transfer activity of that university from a “zero-base” starting point and coming up with a set of principles and policy guidelines that would make the whole activity better from the ground up. In attendance were all of the major players of the university – a member of the Board of Governors, The President, and most of the Vice Presidents. There were even a representative number of Deans and Chairs.<br /><br />The day was divided into two parts: <br /><br />- The morning session (with a break for lunch) would be to get a clear picture of what Technology Transfer meant (or better, SHOULD mean) to this institution and what the major obstacles were in the way of it BEING that optimal organizational machine. <br /><br />- The afternoon session would then focus on how those obstacles could be removed to clear the path towards actually achieving the state that was envisaged as optimal. <br /><br />It seemed like a good strategy.<br /><br />The morning went reasonably well. There was of course the usual discussion about the role of the university in generating funds through commercialization the expectation of the granting agencies etc etc etc. To some “commercialization” is a “dirty” word on campus while to others it is the only path forward, making this a VERY controversial issue on most campuses in Canada. I was galvanized however by a definition that was readily reached by everyone. The role of the University is to enhance the society that feeds it and nurtures it. There seemed to be some sort of a universal agreement that there was an implicit “social contract” that the society would care for ITS university and that the university would in return enhance that society in every way possible. On this there appeared little doubt. The ways in which the university would justify the immense investment (make no mistake we invest our sons and daughters AS WELL AS HUGE AMOUNTS OF MONEY) from society included putting great minds and trained personnel into that society; great artists and inventors, scientists, entrepreneurs, politicians with a set of moral values etc. – and THINGS: improvements in our carbon footprints, ways to live sustainably, cures for diseases, etc etc etc.<br /><br />Working with this remarkable unanimity we quickly focused in on the WAYS that this social contract can be fulfilled and by lunch we had come up with the definition of the ideal function of Technology Transfer being to put back into society the TECHNOLOGIES that had been invented through public funding as widely, quickly and efficiently as possible. This was clearly at least sometimes at odds with the goals of COMMERCIALIZATION which were centered around making money (sometimes sufficient to run the office, sometimes more than that). So we made a clear distinction between commercialization and Tech. Transfer. The harmony between groups that had disagreed for a long time about a place for any such activity on campus seemed to dissolve into thin air before us as we continued the dialogue. It became clear that the disputes were around the making of money through this activity. Of course I am simplifying greatly a debate that has raged on our campuses for quite a while but the principle is nonetheless true. The major obstacles that were identified seemed to center around two topics and, after a simple process of grouping and consolidation of thoughts, we came up with them just in time to write them on the whiteboard and break for lunch:<br /><br /><span style="font-weight:bold;">The purpose of a university is to better society which supports it and the Technology Transfer activities of a university need to serve this greater “societal contract”.<br /><br />The major obstacles to Technology Transfer (as defined here) are:<br />1. The need to own IP<br />2. The need to participate in revenues from our inventions<br /><span style="font-style:italic;"></span></span><br />The session after lunch was actually quite lighthearted and optimistic. It was quickly realized that the two major obstacles were under the COMPLETE control of the university itself. There was a simple clear path to achieving the goals of the ideal TTO. Give up its desire to hold (and of course to DEFEND) IP and simultaneously give up its desire and expectation to gain monetarily DIRECTLY from revenues that may result from the commercialization of one of its inventions. This is not such a remarkably unorthodox or novel idea as it may seem at first. The colleges in Canada owe a large part of their recent success in Technology Transfer (they call it something else and define it much better) to these two simple principles coupled to a third one: "We measure ourselves by the placement of our graduates in your companies". Even the government granting agencies have realized that their mandate to create jobs and improve society is more directly served by the colleges' actions than the universities' TTOs. Such great centers of learning as the major universities even in the US (the heartland of commercialization and free enterprise) have learned this lesson and have imposed limits on what an academic can make in revenues from any invention. <br /><br />Another convincing argument for this approach is the careful examination of what one would be giving up. Few if any universities have made significant revenues from an invention compared to their general overall budget. For sure there are always the cases which defy the general rule. Taxol, Gaitoraid, WARF, and some remarkable other classical success stories come to mind. But surely the generality of that rule is not challenged by one or two exceptions. The general rule is that, for all of the effort that is expended in the field in Canada, there is hardly a justification for it based on the overall revenues that are received. And lets not forget the cost of obtaining this right to exclude others (that is what a patent is after all) and the damage that a lawsuit or a court battle (even if it is eventually won) can bring to a university.<br /><br />The second part was a bit more contentious: Give up any claim on revenues. There is always the possibility that an invention will become a blockbuster drug or the new internal combustion engine or the new data compression algorithm for all cell phones etc. Why lose out on the chance to make some money. The reason was clear to this group. IT OBSTRUCTS THE CORE PURPOSE OF TECHNOLOGY TRANSFER. Industry is long past the selfish shortsighted era where it would not decide to nurture the very source of its new ideas and future products. That is amply shown in the case of Waterloo where RIM has been known to write multimillion dollar checks to the university more or less just by being asked and without any contractual tie to do so as a result of a technology licensed from that university.<br /><br />So now the only thing that lay before us (and our flights home) was a plan of how this would be implemented. And HERE is where the creativity comes in. Take yourself out of the box of conventional thinking for just a moment and play along with me now. After all you have read down to this point haven't you? <br /><br />If a university were to announce one day that it had the mandate to put technologies as quickly, widely, and efficiently into society as possible and as a result was prepared to GIVE AWAY an exclusive, worldwide right to commercialize (for free!) to that company which could demonstrate that it could do this best, then the table would have been turned overnight. Companies would approach the university instead of the usual unsuccessful approach by the TTO to companies. They would bring a “business plan” to the table rather than a skeptical attitude. They would tell how they could benefit society with the invention rather than asking the TTO to show them how this could be achieved. The nature of the contract would also be very different. It would be built around the promises made in the proposal and it would hold the company to that delivery or else the license would be revoked and all of the information and data generated so far would revert to the university and IT would be free to re-announce the competition – now armed with more real and useful innovative data. It would project the TTO into a place in society which really made a difference – that of the steward of value between the inventor and the societal benefit. The idea is not ENTIRELY new either. Joe Irvine of the University of Ottawa has in fact done this (in part) with some success. I believe that the TTO has announced that it will give away rights to its technologies for a limited time so that industry can take the technology for a “test run” and see what it can do. After that the university would be ready to negotiate a more formal contract. I would suspect that the limitations on the initial success of this approach are because the industry is not ready to trust that the terms will be as advantageous to them after they have demonstrated (to themselves and to the TTO) that the technology has legs. But the principle remains.<br /><br />Bottom line: If, as people involved with the transfer of technology into society, we want to change the way we impact society we need to admit that the BASIC premises of what we do are not right and that we need to rethink the very foundational assumptions we have relied upon until now. In so doing we don't actually give up that much in reality and we gain a whole new perspective – of ourselves, our purpose, and the metrics by which we measure our success and along the way we align ourselves to the more wide societal contract that is the foundation of a university's success. The two ideas outlined above are a start. I would welcome any and all discussion as usual.Adi Thttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16650800121639021458noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8792719872619875451.post-61267292228771904092011-07-09T08:06:00.000-07:002011-07-09T08:50:16.216-07:00The EASt may be the solutionIn the last four days I have visited no less than TWO of the three cities rated as the top on the scale of unemployment in Ontario if not CANADA as a whole. The three cities are Peterborough, Oshawa, and Windsor. It strikes me that the auto crisis in North America is hitting some people really hard. All that infrastructure that goes into an auto plant, all those highly skilled people and all of that support structure from the towns and provinces going to waste hit me hard. I began to think "What can I do?". It would have been easy for me to dismiss this thought and just forget about it. After all I am a mere CHEMIST. I have never been involved with the auto sector professionally except VERY recently and that too in only a peripheral way. But the thought kept nagging at me.<br /><br />It was a long drive back from Windsor and this gave me time to rethink a conversation I had had there and to refine it. Somewhere we were discussing developments in India in the auto sector and how they are producing now (after the success of the Tata Nano)a car that will run 300 miles on a tank of... (wait for the drum roll) COMPRESSED AIR! They are setting about solving THEIR problems and addressing THEIR needs. It struck me that we in Canada are actually NOT doing that. Rather, we are allowing ourselves to be absorbed by a marketing campaign that is suited for the US and generated by the US and that actually doesn't suit our needs in Canada in this sector in some key ways.<br /><br />I recalled that almost a half century ago some bright mind in India had thought about the needs of the middle class. They had decided that a STABLE manufacture of a relatively good but not "fancy" or "stylish" car at a reasonable price was the MAIN need. They went to the Austin company (in the UK) and bought the details for the manufacture of the model of the Ambassador car for the year just completed. They then made a commitment to make this SAME EXACT car for the next decade, year after year. Think what that did for the price. Think what that did for the "after market" industry for this particular make and model. Think what that did for the RELIABILITY of service - literally every auto-mechanic in the COUNTRY would eventually know this car like the back of their hands. Almost fifty years later in 2005 I stepped off a plane from Canada to India. There, to greet me was a brand new company car from the host company. Guess which one it was??? YES the SAME one that had been made there year after year for that long. The so-called Hindustan (the name given by these astute folks to the Austin Ambassador). I got into a conversation with the driver and he said that the after-market industry in this car had flourished to such a point that it was unthinkable that anyone would be able to stop its manufacture. You could quite literally do almost ANYTHING with these cars now.<br /><br />I wonder if the Canadian minivan is not that sort of a car for Mums all across Canada. Think what they want: Reliable, easily serviced, reasonably priced, roomy enough for the 2.5 kids and high enough to be safe in the traffic. Of course reasonable on gas would be a plus but really that is getting much better these days for even the minivan. And there is no end to what one can think of to do in this category in after market add-ons.<br /><br />What if some enterprising moneyed person were to buy this years minivan details and take one of the minivan factories that is now being abandoned and commit to make the SAME minivan for the next decade. Would that turn our auto sector around? Could it make jobs where today there is despair? Could its inevitable success spill over to say... the Pickup Truck sector? Who knows. But it is an experiment that has succeeded somewhere else in the world. And lest you are thinking "That could work in a DEVELOPING country but not in a DEVELOPED country like Canada."; that same experiment worked with taxis in London some years before the Indian experiment.<br /><br />I think I can venture a guess as to where your mind is going at this time. You are probably thinking "Yeah but I like the fact that I get "new features" with each new model. That after all is the thrill of getting a new car." Let me point out that this is a marketing ploy invented by big companies with the PRIMARY aim of squeezing out the after-market industry so that those dollars spent there are funneled back to the big companies in the first place. Every one of us doesn't get a new car each year. And when we do we like some of the new features but I can't think of anyone who likes ALL of the ones they got and NONE of the ones offered by the competition. With the purchase of a simple relatively cheap "standard" model and a thriving after-market industry (need I point out that this could be UNIQUELY Canadianif such a canadian minivan were to be manufactured!) we could all get the features we WANTED - and only those - and we could get them as we could afford them not being forced into buying them all of them at the same time. Think of the eco-friendliness where car parts that have NOT outlived their useful lifetimes can be simply reused and the parts that have come to their useful limits could be simply replaced. We do some of this tese days but the used parts industry is very redundant. Look at the scrap yards in the country if you have any doubts.<br /><br />Who knew that sometimes old and foreign is a possible solution to today's domestic problems. Your thoughts would be most welcome.Adi Thttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16650800121639021458noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8792719872619875451.post-80805642259506937842010-12-08T15:24:00.000-08:002010-12-08T19:29:27.276-08:00The Warm Glow of having been heard!The panelists were many and varied. They came from all the sectors of the field: Industry, Government, Small and Medium Enterprises (SMEs), Community Colleges, National Network Centers of Excellence (NCEs),and of course Universities from all across the country. We numbered about EIGHT HUNDRED people. I am talking about the INNOVATION 2010 conference that was held on Monday and Tuesday of this week in Ottawa. This was the FIRST combined meeting of the Association for the Commercialization of Canadian Technologies (ACCT),the Federal Partners for tecchnology Transfer (FPTT) and one or two other umbrella organizations. It was the largest conference of its kind apparently in Canada. <br /><br />As the three simultaneous tracks proceeded with members of all of the different sectors serving on panels to stimulate discussions about key issues for this group one theme became apparent - and this theme is what gave me the warm and fuzzy feeling that I refer to in the title of this blog. The theme I am referring to? RELATIONSHIPS MATTER!!! MAYBE EVEN MORE THAN THE TECHNOLOGIES THEMSELVES. (OK OK that last part is my own addition but the first was loud and clear!).<br /><br />Now most who know me today know that I have been on that particular theme for as long as ArrowCan has been in business. It was tough in the early years to convince the Technology TRANSFER people who were focussed on selling me the latest TECHNOLOGY that I was not actually as interested in the technology per se as I was in meeting the stars on campus and building lasting relations with them. They could not believe that client companies would actually PAY me to develop relationships with the stars on campuses across Canada in ALL disciplines so that when they needed the right talent with a technology they could simply ask me who that was. My business was BUILT on knowing the right people and being able to make VETTED introductions to the right experts based on MATURE relationships that ArrowCan had cultivated already. "But what technologies are your companies interested in today?" they asked. "None!" was my stock answer. But I made sure that I helped every person I met with something that made a difference to them whether it was a contact of someone I knew in some related field or an interesting observation about some interest that the person had or simply a shared experience that may be relevent to something they were doing. I tried to carry best practices from one place where I had observed them to another office or researcher that might not have had the chance to observe them first hand. And all the time our database of GENUINE and respect-based contacts grew.<br /><br />The crowning statements on this topic for me came from the last panel I attended on the second day. I drove home in a cloud of happiness that even the snow storm could not dispell. Natalie Tokers from Nigara College said something that I am sure many will resonate with. She said that when a new person starts in her office she says to them "get coffee with the people in the college, buy them a donut, get to know them, get to know their kids names". RIGHT after her came Johhny Xavier from the University of Saskatchewan Technology Transfer Office and he said that his number one "secret for success" was to develop lasting RELATIONSHIPS with the people he interacts with from industry and from the campus. Part way through his talk he suddenly turned to me in the audience and asked "Don't you agree Adi?" I could barely stammer out "100%!!" my emotions were running so high. I felt that warm glow. <br /><br />I had struggled along for five years by this time. The first 18 months were at times without clients and I was not even sure if the approach would work. I had spent part of the first year's travel money out of my own pension savings but I was determined to go on. Many doubted that I would ever get enough visionary clients who could see the value proposition. Today the old saying that has adorned my e-mail signature file for all of these years "Good deals are a CONSEQUENCE of good relationships and not the other way around!" was resonating through this community. I believe we may have turned a corner. I am filled with hope again.<br /><br />Johnny went on to explain that the relationships he was talking about did not happen overnight and that they took time to build and then MORE time to maintain. Turnover in both the industry business development sector and particularly in the university TTOs acts against this desire to build lasting relationships. I was reminded of why ArrowCan was formed. Those relationships we have built have lasted, they have survived many changes in TTOs (mandated from above and chosen by the frontline people as well) because of the CONSTANT visits and effort to help each and every time we visit. Today they offer us an edge that no one can easily challenge without putting in the time we have to initiate, build, and maintain these very important and personal relationships on BOTH the industry and the academic sides. There was a genuine need for a third link to make the connections possible, sensible and trust-based. We saw it and we filled it out of a genuine belief about the value of doing just that. It gives us an edge that we pass on each and every day to our industry clients and our academic partners alike. <br /><br />Today I am deeply grateful to all of those people on BOTH sides of this equation who saw that vision with me in those early years and who supported the effort (each in their own way)and encouraged me on. This moment belonged to all of us collectively. I am THRILLED that we are now all involved with really getting to know one another before we actually do deals. I do believe that this is going to pay off in a BIG way for Canada in the long run.Adi Thttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16650800121639021458noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8792719872619875451.post-24770945703431474302010-09-29T19:19:00.000-07:002010-09-29T19:46:30.732-07:00Is it REALLY indentured Servitude if....?A seven hour drive from Sudbury to Kingston today with Nature's STUPENDOUS tapestry of reds, golds, and greens that was the Autumnal Landscape formed the fitting backdrop to ponder a question that has been rolling around in my mind for some decades now.<br /><br />I have often said to myself that the chief PRODUCT of a center of higher learning is the STUDENT. The inventions and the creations and the IP, valuable as they may be, are in the end only VEHICLES to train and develop the students in many facets of life. If the university were to think like a business it would be asking how it could derive VALUE from the putting out of this valuable product. After all, many industries have said to me that the REAL interest they have is in the graduating students who could become highly qualified and valuable members of their workforce one day. They still seek out the best because they realize that without the infusion of the latest understandings and talents they will fall behind and eventually be consumed by their competition. Oddly enough these same companies do not have that angst about the latest new TECHNOLOGIES comong out of the same university labs.<br /><br />On the other side the STUDENTS come to universities trusting in the knowledge of those who are paid to develop them into the good professionals that they eventually become. They honestly believe that, armed with the experience of graduate studies they will be able to get better jobs and lead more satisfying lives.<br /><br />Third parties such as recruiters etc. make a healthy living finding the best candidates for a given opening in industry. They hardly know the students as well as those who have taught them. But they serve a need in the marketplace to find for the companies the candidates that would be suitable for them to hire.<br /><br />So I come to my question. If universities sought to properly market and "sell" their most valuable product - the student - would they be able to tap into a good revenue stream? Say for example (and I offer this only as ONE possible model) that universities were to go to their best "consumers" (the top ranked companies or the best local ones or some combination of that) and say to them "For a fee we will make sure that you get to interview the top 10 of our graduating class." What do you think they could command as a fee? My guess is that this number is large. Now they would have had to inform the incoming class that the condition of their acceptance is that the top 10 graduates would have to FIRST interview with the best industries (the ones they have chosen). Which student would rebell at that thought? <br /><br />I know that we in Canada are VERY sensitive to anything that looks even VAGUELY like a required pre-commitment. We worry that this may be "coersive" in nature and we therefore eschew such activities claiming that this somehow keeps us pure. But my question is "IF two rational adults decide of their own free will to undertake this activity, both being not just willing but EAGER to do it, does this STILL constitute Indentured Servitude?" If so we ought to re-examne the sports scholarships that we so glibly hand out. We ought to re-examine several things that we do at universities such as undertaking contract work for industry and foreign exchanges of students etc. Surely if students WANT it and Industry WANTS it and the universities can realize a good revenue stream from it; it is at least worth THINKING about? As always your thoughts are welcomed.Adi Thttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16650800121639021458noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8792719872619875451.post-9618276816707184962010-05-24T06:10:00.000-07:002010-05-24T06:58:30.669-07:00Givers and TakersIt seems to me that the human race can actually quite EASILY be divided into two categories (actually there are probably several different binary divisions of that same biomass possible but I want to concentrate on this particular categorization today) - GIVERS and TAKERS.<br /><br />Every one of us has been on one side of this divide AND the other at different times of our lives. None of us would, for example, have even survived the earliest part of our lives without being shameless Takers. After all there is precious little MATERIAL that a newborn gives to the world (well, not counting the mountains of human excrement of course). There are correspondingly moments in everyone's lives where they have been selfless Givers too. So one might quite justifiably argue that NO ONE is a Giver or a Taker but that we pass through these states at different times of our lives. This thought, coupled with the concept of “forgiveness” (which in turn is itself coupled with the concept of some value-judgment attached to one or the other of these states), confused me for some time in my life until recently it became more clear to me that these are not “better” or “worse” states or “right” or “wrong” states. They are simply STATES that one can be aware of and that one can adjust one's own actions towards. If one sees a charging bull and a dove one does not think one is right and the other is wrong. One simply adjusts one's own behavior and either runs for cover or reaches out. They are both creatures of the universe and no doubt they have a rightful place in that universe. But our actions towards them are different. In a steady-state universe there is a balance between Givers and Takers. After all how can one give without someone or something there to accept that action?<br /><br />So now, armed with the realization that Givers and Takers are simply a classification of the human race, and not encumbered with any value-judgment about those who are one or the other, I can ask myself two questions:<br />(1)How can I easily classify those I know into one or the other from a purely anthropological point of view?<br />(2)If I can actually create some criteria that help me classify those I know into one or the other category what can I do with that information that would help me survive better?<br /><br />The answer came to me recently in an interaction I had with someone in the business world. The classification is not based on the actions (which are so tangible and easy to measure, and which I still place a very high value on over the words of people). This particular classification is based on our own personal estimate of the INTENT of the person. Although this is often tougher to ascertain, I feel that it is in fact how our minds work. <br /><br />I believe that GIVERS want to leave the world a bit better than when they came into it. Now sometimes they may take things from their environment but they have the genuine belief that this incurs some sort of Karmic debt and they feel a need to repay that debt in their lifetime. TAKERS on the other hand have the intent that they want to THEMSELVES be a bit better off than when they came into the world. Again, this doesn't mean that occasionally they won't do something for someone or show some act of kindness. But, at the core they believe that this somehow sets them back a small amount and they feel that somehow they deserve some compensation (preferably MORE compensation that thye have invested in the act of kindness) for this action. If one interacts with a person for some time it becomes clear on some intuitive level which philosophy they espouse. There is no set of ten questions that will help one decide (or at least I have not yet found them. If you have maybe you wouldn't mind sharing).<br /><br />The ugly fact seems clear to me (based on where we are today in this world) that the universe is NOT in a steady state yet. Takers outnumber Givers or at least outperform them. This also makes evolutionary sense (survival of the fittest). But it doesn't make sense from the sustainability point of view. So what can people who self-classify as Givers (and don't we all think we are in that category) do about it? It seems to me we can do three things:<br />(1)we can work harder to do MORE for the universe we live in. I call this the “outperform” approach.<br />(2)We can try to find others who we genuinely believe to be other Givers and help them to achieve synergistic things with each other. I call this the “kindling the forest fire” approach.<br />(3)We can identify for ourselves those we believe to be in the Taker category and either try to win them over or run the other way from them. I call this the “survival” approach.<br /><br />When I think back about my human interactions over my own lifetime I find that most of my grief in life has been because I misclassified someone into one of these categories or used one of these approaches with a Taker when I should have used another. I have used the third approach much too infrequently. From now on as soon as I firmly establish in my mind that someone is a Taker by the above definition, I will RUN the other way! Hopefully it will help me survive what I see as an increasingly tough world.Adi Thttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16650800121639021458noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8792719872619875451.post-13995719593610617592010-01-17T08:33:00.000-08:002010-01-17T08:53:48.820-08:00... and the goodness is coming BACK!Those who know me have often heard me refer to the way I like to lead my life as follows:<br />"I step into the stream of life each day and start casting good deeds on the waters without expecting anything in return. The stream carries them away without so much as a trace. I do this for a long time and then ALL OF A SUDDEN I look behind me... and there they are GOOD THINGS COMING BACK MY WAY!! Its a round small planet and no one gets out alive"<br /><br />I had just such an experience yesterday. I am helping a young and brilliant gent through one of the mentorship programs that I help out with. Let's just call him Chris. Yesterday I had the opportunity to meet his wife Somyia for the first time as we got together for a dinner with spouses. My wife spotted it first. She is usually so cautious and so discrete that I was somewhat embarrassed as she kept staring at this young lady's blouse and nudging me. Finally she blurted it out "you have an RHB pin on!" she said. Then I noticed it there proudly on her blouse. She had attended one of Dave's seminars in Waterloo, heard the story and thought that this was a "movement" that was worth being a part of. The best thing about it was that she is a lawyer who is starting fresh in this great land of ours having come from India only 3 short years ago and qualified in Canadian law. She's now practicing corporate law in the Waterloo area AND has a young son!! It was so great to see such an accomplished person think that this was something worth proudly being a part of.<br /><br />For those of you who don't know about it the RHB movement is something that a close friend and GREAT marketer - Dave Howlett - started some years ago based on a story I once shared with him from my life. Dave is the REAL hero but I could not help but feel a feeling of "goodness" from the stream of life coming back to me... and the wave was almost overwhelming. It will certainly be a long time before I forget that feeling of the "circle of life completing itself". Thank you Dave for your global evangelical work in bringing common values and humanity back into our lives! You are indeed making this a smaller better planet! <br /><br />If you want to check out Dave's web page or attend one of his many GREAT seminars go to http://www.realhumanbeing.org/Adi Thttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16650800121639021458noreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8792719872619875451.post-5514023873943061152009-12-28T05:40:00.000-08:002009-12-28T05:43:40.082-08:00Points of LightOK! So maybe it is the copious amounts of “dairy-free eggnog” (just start with 12 parts of rum... and enjoy!) or maybe it is the Festive Season. I don't know what to blame this one on but most people who know me know that I give advice only VERY rarely and then only if somehow coerced into doing it. So this is maybe a one-time break with tradition. Think of it not so much as <span style="font-weight:bold;">advice<span style="font-style:italic;"></span></span> per se but rather the sharing of a revelation that I had over the Holidays.<br /><br />Most of our universe is covered in darkness. The recent “dark matter” discoveries seem to substantiate that thought. Look up at the night sky sometime. The universe is mostly dark emptiness. But the remarkable thing about all of this darkness is that when we look up at the night sky it is NOT the darkness we see. It is the little points of light. They give us an “orientation”. They help us see more clearly. They give us hope. They confer a sense of “eternity”. How many times have we heard the sentiment that we are probably NOT alone in the universe? Never has the answer been more “obvious” to me than looking up at the night sky. Seeing all those stars out there shining their little hearts out into the darkness (almost literally) gives me the courage to say that it is almost bordering on probabilistically <span style="font-weight:bold;">ridiculous<span style="font-style:italic;"></span></span> to think that we are the ONLY life forms out there in the universe. … And this gives me hope!<br /><br />The point is that the stars don't know and don't care that they give me hope. But their shining just DOES. We have that choice in our lives. To be points of light or to simply see the “darkness”. There is much of it around us (we may feel that this is particularly true these days but this has been true throughout the ages) and we can easily see nothing but the loneliness of that darkness in our lives. We can take social “averages” and tell ourselves that we are “bright enough” or that “others are darker than us” etc. and so give ourselves the excuse to sink to the level of gray empty darkness that surrounds us and swallows us whole. But if we look at the history books, they are not filled with the vast “emptiness” of “average humanity” They are filled with the “heros”, the “points of light that did something because it was the RIGHT THING TO DO. <br /><br />The alternative is to think of ourselves as the social equivalent of the stars in the night sky and to do our best to shine <span style="font-weight:bold;">without expecting anything to happen as a direct consequence in our lifetime.<span style="font-style:italic;"></span></span> To seek out the other “points of light” in the darkness and to take comfort in their presence throughout history. To be a part of hope and faith in other human beings in future generations whom we may not yet know. This is a wholesome and positive way to live and by doing this in our own lives and seeking to synergize with others who do so in their own ways in their own lives (think of our “shining” as one wavelength in what will be a whole SPECTRUM through the combination with other “wavelengths”) we can hopefully create a brightness that outshines the darkness and brings hope and faith to countless generations.<br /><br />There is a need in this world today I believe for such a grass roots “Points-of-Light” movement. We cannot change the way the universe is but through it we can just make the light more memorable than the dark. <br /><br />Are you with me on this one? Let me know.Adi Thttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16650800121639021458noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8792719872619875451.post-18842294585764868622009-10-16T13:04:00.000-07:002009-10-16T13:18:00.631-07:00Free Software can be SO goodI recently had trouble opening files that people sent to me which they had been made with the most recent version of Microsoft's famous Office suite of software (you know, the ones with the docx, pptx, etc endings). Of course, I was a bit dismayed that I would have to now spend some more hard-earned cash just to stay up with the moving times in the word processing software (I still think Wordstar was one of the best for the buck! YES I'm that old!!). A friend of mine told me about Sun Microsystem's Open Office suite of software and so I went out and downloaded it thinking "what difference could it make? If it doesn't work I can always just uninstall it and go out and spend my money." I am in AWE that a suite so good and apparently complete can be absolutely FREE! There IS a God!! I am happily using it for the time being and I would recommend ANYONE to try it out. The added advantage is that it opens a wide variety of file types and saves data in a wide variety of formats too. The spreadsheet part for example opens old Excel files absolutely without problems. and the ones I made in this software and saved to the old xls format opened in my old copy of Office PERFECTLY.<br /><br />It started me thinking how the writers of this software make money and FOR SURE they didn't make as much as Office has made it's parent company. But do we all NEED to get filthy rich? Can we not just enjoy being happy and a LITTLE rich? OpenOffice.org you have helped me believe in people again!Adi Thttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16650800121639021458noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8792719872619875451.post-69096605711353905622009-07-13T12:16:00.000-07:002009-07-13T12:32:48.846-07:00Attitude is EVERYTHINGToday I was talking to a former colleague and she told me a story that really encapsulated the very essence of the old adage that is the headline of this blog. The words were prominently displayed in 5 foot tall letters over the entrance to a school my daughter went to. "ATTITUDE IS EVERYTHING". <br /><br />The Neuro-biologists now have actual proof (so they say anyway) that the brain "filters" most of what the senses deliver to it and actively collects "evidence" in support of the biases we hold. What this means is that if we think the world is an awful place where gloom and doom preside over everything else then we will subconsciously collect information from our daily lives that more supports this idea than the evidence that refutes it REGARDLESS of the ACTUAL preponderance of the evidence one way or another. This will lead to a spiral effect that can only lead to one conclusion. (Maybe that's why they call science a DISCIPLINE - because you have to discipline yourself NOT to do that and to allow yourself to be led by the evidence only)<br /><br />My former colleague told me a story today of her aunt (who has this OVERWHELMING attitude that the world is essentially a good, benign and "lucky" place for her) who visited New York City. During her visit she was parked somewhere and someone smashed her windshield and stole something from her car. She reported it to the police and in the course of the report the police discovered that she was not insured. She called the insurance company to find that although she had paid her renewal fee THEY had failed to cash her cheque and so technically she was not insured. Of course, when they found out the circumstances of her call they refused to insure her ANYWAY.<br /><br />Her attitude? "How luck am I!!! This could have been an accident where some serious damage was done and then I would be liable for so much more." Her "lucky streak" was further confirmed in her mind when she returned home to Canada and shopped around and found similar insurance that was EVEN CHEAPER than she would have paid before.<br /><br />Life is what we make it. We have to play the cards we are dealt so why not START with the attitude that they are the luckiest ones and try to find the evidence that supports that?Adi Thttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16650800121639021458noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8792719872619875451.post-80058473444149781982009-06-26T08:44:00.000-07:002009-06-26T08:45:49.847-07:00Everyone does NOT own a BlackBURY!<meta equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=utf-8"><meta name="ProgId" content="Word.Document"><meta name="Generator" content="Microsoft Word 10"><meta name="Originator" content="Microsoft Word 10"><link rel="File-List" href="file:///C:%5CDOCUME%7E1%5COwner%5CLOCALS%7E1%5CTemp%5Cmsohtml1%5C01%5Cclip_filelist.xml"><o:smarttagtype namespaceuri="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:smarttags" name="country-region"></o:smarttagtype><o:smarttagtype namespaceuri="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:smarttags" name="State"></o:smarttagtype><o:smarttagtype namespaceuri="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:smarttags" name="City"></o:smarttagtype><o:smarttagtype namespaceuri="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:smarttags" name="place"></o:smarttagtype><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml> <w:worddocument> <w:view>Normal</w:View> <w:zoom>0</w:Zoom> <w:compatibility> <w:breakwrappedtables/> <w:snaptogridincell/> <w:wraptextwithpunct/> <w:useasianbreakrules/> <w:usefelayout/> </w:Compatibility> <w:browserlevel>MicrosoftInternetExplorer4</w:BrowserLevel> </w:WordDocument> </xml><![endif]--><!--[if !mso]><object classid="clsid:38481807-CA0E-42D2-BF39-B33AF135CC4D" id="ieooui"></object> <style> st1\:*{behavior:url(#ieooui) } </style> <![endif]--><style> <!-- /* Font Definitions */ @font-face {font-family:"MS Mincho"; panose-1:2 2 6 9 4 2 5 8 3 4; mso-font-alt:"MS 明朝"; mso-font-charset:128; mso-generic-font-family:modern; mso-font-pitch:fixed; mso-font-signature:-1610612033 1757936891 16 0 131231 0;} @font-face {font-family:"\@MS Mincho"; panose-1:2 2 6 9 4 2 5 8 3 4; mso-font-charset:128; mso-generic-font-family:modern; mso-font-pitch:fixed; mso-font-signature:-1610612033 1757936891 16 0 131231 0;} /* Style Definitions */ p.MsoNormal, li.MsoNormal, div.MsoNormal {mso-style-parent:""; margin:0in; margin-bottom:.0001pt; mso-pagination:widow-orphan; font-size:12.0pt; font-family:"Times New Roman"; mso-fareast-font-family:"MS Mincho";} @page Section1 {size:8.5in 11.0in; margin:1.0in 1.25in 1.0in 1.25in; mso-header-margin:.5in; mso-footer-margin:.5in; mso-paper-source:0;} div.Section1 {page:Section1;} --> </style><!--[if gte mso 10]> <style> /* Style Definitions */ table.MsoNormalTable {mso-style-name:"Table Normal"; mso-tstyle-rowband-size:0; mso-tstyle-colband-size:0; mso-style-noshow:yes; mso-style-parent:""; mso-padding-alt:0in 5.4pt 0in 5.4pt; mso-para-margin:0in; mso-para-margin-bottom:.0001pt; mso-pagination:widow-orphan; font-size:10.0pt; font-family:"Times New Roman"; mso-fareast-font-family:"Times New Roman";} </style> <![endif]--> <p class="MsoNormal">It’s happened to me before and each time the frustration grows a little bit more but it subsides and my normally generous nature gets the better of my writing anything down that I would someday possibly regret. But today I was pushed over the edge by someone and have to simply write about it to (mostly) just get it out there and see if there is any resonance with others about this feeling or if I have REALLY finally slipped below the baseline of what is “generally accepted practice” in our business society. Do you ever have the feeling that sometimes – maybe JUST SOMEtimes – people use technology as an excuse to look better socially than they should? </p> <p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p> <p class="MsoNormal">I am talking about that e-mail that is sent MOMENTS before you are set to enter a meeting or walk in the door of your next appointment (after a 30 minute drive through rush hour traffic) as if just sending it absolves the sender of any responsibility for having inconvenienced you. This time it was a meeting at someone’s office. The kind-faced gentle and VERY apologetic young lady greeted me at the door (I really got the impression that this was NOT her favorite part of the job but that she had become used to doing it because she’s done it so many times before) with “I’m so sorry but we tried to reach you by e-mail… Oh you DIDN’T get the note? Well my boss has been unavoidably delayed in <st1:place><st1:city>WASHINGTON</st1:city> <st1:state>DC</st1:state></st1:place> and will not be able to make your appointment today.” Now I’m in <st1:city><st1:place>Mississauga</st1:place></st1:city> (near <st1:city><st1:place>Toronto</st1:place></st1:city> <st1:country-region><st1:place>CANADA</st1:place></st1:country-region>!!!) as is his office. The flight from Washington DC is at least an hour long. Since it’s an INTERNATIONAL flight from a sensitive area I would suppose that he needed to get to the airport at least 90 minutes ahead of time. If he’d been too lazy to check his flight before leaving from his hotel he’d STILL have known something was not going to happen ABOUT 90 minutes BEFORE the flight left. Then there is the hour of flying time and the inevitable 45 minutes of delays (those of you who travel through Pearson on Air <st1:country-region><st1:place>Canada</st1:place></st1:country-region> know what I am talking about) before the flight can disgorge its tired passengers. Then there would be the 15 minutes or so cab ride to the office. All in all I figure 90+60+45+15=THREE AND A HALF HOURS before our meeting was the LATEST he could have known. Now on a good day the office is about 20 minutes away from mine. It took me 30 today and I checked my own e-mail before I left. Have they already invented “Beam me up Scotty”? What supersonic travel machine was EVER going to put him in his office seat in time for our meeting earlier? So the only conclusion I can reach is that the last minute note is only a lame way of saying “You know what? I don’t value you AT ALL!” That is certainly the way I took the “brush off”. <span style=""> </span>In all fairness, I’ve been trying to reach out to this individual FOUR times already and each time there is something or the other that SUDDENLY comes up at the last minute. Things do happen in this crazy world we all live in and the first three times I was ready to give him the benefit of the doubt. The truth of it is we all meet people we don’t see a “connection” with. I usually try to man enough to say that directly and give the other person a chance to show me why I am (or may be) wrong. It’s the least we can do for one another.</p> <p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p> <p class="MsoNormal">When we treat people in a way that says “I don’t value you” we offend them. Why not simply say “I don’t think we have any business to discuss so I am not going to be able to make an appointment right now”. It’s because we all function on a bit of uncertainty. We don’t KNOW that we don’t have any business to discuss. The problem is that it is a round SMALL world that is getting ever-smaller. I happen to know people who INVESTED in the company run by this individual and who are genuinely value-driven people. They would be APPALLED by this “KISS up, SPIT down” attitude. We need to treat all people with respect. One never knows where that will lead. It MAY even be good business practice!<o:p></o:p></p> Adi Thttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16650800121639021458noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8792719872619875451.post-34324844090602773572009-06-10T09:54:00.000-07:002009-06-10T10:17:44.777-07:00"Points of Light" in this modern world?I am writing today after a long break in this activity because I have a need to express some thoughts. Maybe they are helpful to some of those who read this blog but that advantage, major as it may be to you, is only incidental THIS TIME to me. Please forgive me for this.<br /><br />It seems that all around me BIG things are happening - family is doing very well, daughter just graduated from Medicine, she's getting married this weekend, some of my adopted professional "children" (those of you who know me know that I adopt a small band of people early in their careers and help them in some catalytic way and then watch as they set their part of the world on FIRE with successes) have found new GREAT jobs and are happy, one just had a baby, the business is thriving even in these so-called tough times and all is well etc etc etc.<br /><br />And yet through all of that there is an occassional DEEP dark cloud that overpowers me and shakes my belief in this world to the core. You see my good friend Larry Falls is suffering from late stage pancreatic cancer. I almost cannot bear to see someone of his quality and personal and professional stature have to suffer the indignity that this illness brings on its vistims. I know that some of you have read the website that describes the concept of the Real Human Being ( <a href="http://www.realhumanbeing.org/index.php/about-rhb">http://www.realhumanbeing.org/index.php/about-rhb</a> ) where my friend Dave Howlett describes a story I once told him and has quite successfully converted that story into a way for people to think and interact with one another. Well, I feel that Larry Falls is the ULTIMATE REAL HUMAN BEING. He's compassionate, generous of spirit and continuously sees only the GOOD in others. So it is PARTICULARLY painful for me to see this modern-day hero have to suffer like this.<br /><br />Yesterday, a ray of sunshine shone into that gloom and I was somehow reassured about my fellow man. It turns out that news of Larry's situation spread far and wide and SOMEONE took it upon himself (thanks Grant) to make a web site to honor Larry Falls ( <a href="http://www.everybodyoveslarryfalls.com/">www.everybodyoveslarryfalls.com</a> ). The news is spreading even faster and farther now and the posts are absolutely HEARTWARMING. You really SHOULD try to get to know Larry while there is still time or at least see for yourself what the acclaim for a REAL HUMAN BEING looks like through the posts. Its great to know that good people ARE recognized by all of us and that there IS room for Points-of-Light like this one in this universe yet. When one touches YOUR life next time remember that this modern day approach is a way to give people an opportunity to see what the world thinks of them while they are still on it and it helps those whose lives they have touched to "find" one another and to carry on a tradition. Thanks Larry for being a mentor to me!! I hope that you become the first person to CONQUER this horrible disease and that you get the miracle you so RICHLY deserve.Adi Thttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16650800121639021458noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8792719872619875451.post-31764545530077195962009-04-10T07:58:00.000-07:002009-04-10T07:59:51.879-07:00Gossip-The social weapon Friends- The antidoteScientific American today posted an interesting article which appeared in my Google Reader (for those of you who don’t KNOW about Google Reader you REALLY should look into it… and NO I’m not paid by Google.). Here’s the connection to that article<br /><br /><a href="http://www.sciam.com/blog/60-second-science/post.cfm?id=pssst-gossip-hurts--but-friends-can-2009-04-09">http://www.sciam.com/blog/60-second-science/post.cfm?id=pssst-gossip-hurts--but-friends-can-2009-04-09</a><br /><br />The main thesis in this short note was that Gossip hurts (A somewhat OBVIOUS fact) but that friends are the antidote to this weapon of society. Having been the victim of bad rumors and innuendo behind my back I am ACUTELY aware of how dangerous and sinister the effects of gossip can be. Some time ago a person I had known for over a DECADE at that time and whom I considered a personal friend used a workplace situation he had become a victim of to turn the tables and make me an unsuspecting victim of that very same situation. The tragedy; I had actually worked HARD behind the scenes to help him by standing up for him and speaking out against the conclusions that were being spread about him. His utterly false, backstabbing gossip, which he spread far and wide, actually had a devastating effect on my career. I am not alone. Today we know for a fact that adolescents use gossip to cement cliques which can be used by some to force others into horrible acts (including murder). Now we often hear that the “cream always rises to the top” and that “adversity makes one strong” etc. but the net effects of false gossip can be the same as an assault with a weapon on someone. If that attack is strong enough and well enough planned, it can have a crippling effect on one’s future. Does this mean that gossip is ITSELF evil? I’d rather believe that all powerful instruments in our civilization have the capacity to do as much GOOD as they can do evil in the wrong hands. The skill is in using the tool in the right way.<br /><br />There is need in my opinion to harness the social power that can be exerted in gossip. What if we all made a decision to stand up and say what we believe to be correct of our friends when we hear others (even larger groups of others and even powerful groups of others) saying things about our friends that would diminish them in the eyes of the society that they want to be a part of. It’s risky but don’t we OWE it to our friends to do them this favor? People’s reputations are made by people talking about them when they are not there to defend themselves. Well chosen gatherings can make it possible to spread lies about anyone (even Mother Teressa was not exempt) and to make them stick and propagate by hearsay and gossip. If we make a decision to say good things about people, that too can stick and propagate through gossip. Wouldn’t it be a much better world if we could rely on our friends to (a) quash false rumors about us and (b) propagate GOOD stories about us when we were not there? Who knew it could be so simple to make this a much better society for all of us to live in?Adi Thttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16650800121639021458noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8792719872619875451.post-77280570733558018752009-03-12T07:28:00.000-07:002009-03-12T07:29:49.478-07:00Dubai, Mumbai, Shanghai,…or Bye Bye.A week ago I was in Vancouver and visited with my good friend Paul. Paul runs a successful business connecting Asia with Canada. As we enjoyed a delightful dinner at a really super restaurant in the downtown area the conversation inevitably turned to the financial downturn we are all experiencing these days and I asked him “How is it in Asia?” His comments were distinctly optimistic compared to the doom and gloom we hear everyday on this side of the Pacific. So I asked him why this might be the case. His answer REALLY struck a chord with me. He said “Back East they have a phrase these days…” you guessed it! …”Dubai, Mumbai, Shanghai … or Bye Bye” The financial power structure is REALLY moving away from North America and those of us who choose to look at the world STILL only through North American glasses (defining all of reality ONLY as NA centric) do so at our own peril.<br /><br />It strikes me that just as the book that all of us in the “hippy generation” grew up on - I’m OK you’re OK” – shows, there are three phases in the development of anyone’s personality (I’m NOT OK you’re OK, I’m OK you’re NOT OK, I’m OK you’re OK) so also there are the SAME three phases in the development of North America as a persona in the global village. Certainly Canada is still in late phase ONE but the US may be in late phase TWO. In order to really thrive we need to all come to Phase THREE. We need to look for the STRENGTHS in each of our trading partners and ask what we can do with them not how we can develop the SAME strengths so that we can out compete them. Then we need to understand what the rest of the world perceives as OUR strengths and make ourselves excel at THOSE things – to REALLY become world LEADERS in those strengths - and attempt to recover real and sustainable value from them. The old order would be wrapped up in having sufficient amounts of all of the required strengths to create and sustain a COMPLETE human ecosystem in one country. This is OLD WORLD thinking in my opinion. It is no less parochial and no more sustainable than the same attitude in each province or each main city. We are a SINGLE entity – the world! We need to think of life in this way to survive the emerging new order of things.<br /><br />Busting with all of these rather revolutionary thoughts (at least for me) I attended the annual Roger Martin event. He’s the Dean of the Rotman School of Business in Toronto and the head of the Institute for Competitiveness and Prosperity – to most of us fans he’s simply referred to as Dean Martin! I heard one speaker after another say how great and world-renowned our research in Canada in SEVERAL sectors is. Then they all went on to say (in one way or another) that we need to MATCH the spending on TECHNOLOGICAL innovation with spending on MANAGERIAL innovation (for the cynics this was sort-of self-serving for the head of a BUSINESS school but I was not amongst them) and I couldn’t help thinking ”Do we REALLY need that in Canada?” I could not help thinking that this was only true if we wanted to build the entire ecosystem WITHIN Canada’s borders only. What if we thought GLOBALLY for a moment? What if we contributed what the world CLEARLY identifies as our strength – TECHNICAL innovation? This would only work for Canada if we could recover enough ROI from the licensing of those technologies to ANYONE worldwide who could build them into successful products and profitable companies. What if we left that to those with indigenous VCs (REAL VCs not disguised bankers) and innovative managers? We hear a LOT these days about starting companies from the FIRST DAY with a global view of the markets. What if we take that one step further and start a company from the MANAGEMENT point of view by thinking globally too? Would such a company that seeks to draw what it needs (technologically AND managerially) from wherever in the world where it is STRENGTH actually have an edge? Would it make impossible demands on the cultures of the participants? Would travel become an unsustainable burden? Do we HAVE to develop all of the strengths that we need in EVERY country that aspires to succeed? It strikes me that the better way to reach Phase THREE for all of us is to acknowledge and demand the strengths from each country that they already have and create truly GLOBAL enterprises that could be housed anywhere in the world but which have multinational stakeholders so that EVERY participating nation gains from its success. This would be a world worth living in as long as we can TRULY work out an equitable share for each contributor NOT based on the dollar value of what they contribute but based on the added value that they CONTRIBUTE through their own special skills and expertise. As always your comments would be welcomed.Adi Thttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16650800121639021458noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8792719872619875451.post-82350959113886049282009-01-19T14:10:00.000-08:002009-01-19T14:59:57.698-08:00The "Join my network" diseaseHas anyone noticed the recent upswing in requests to join someone's network on Linkedin or Facebook or is it that I suddenly have friends in places where I didn't even know there were places before? I have one contact who, together with his wife may account for about 10 to 20 announcements of new linkages made PER DAY!(sustained for the last 6 months or more) I know, I should simply turn off the RSS feed on my site if I don't want to get all of these tidbits. But ... in the good old days it was actually FUN to see who is connecting with whom. If it were still a serious effort to connect with people and do something with that connection (such as even update poeple about your life from time to time) it might be worthwhile. I know of a group who have simply made it a game to see who can "reach" the most people through this tool. It is really a bit of a shame and actually undermines the value of the tool. The original idea was to be able to check for common friends etc. when meeting someone new. I think that with 2400 in the list of this couple and climbing on a daily basis this could become a bit of a farce.<br /><br />Now don't get me wrong, I am always flattered that someone asks to have me join their particular "exclusive" little network. But when you see that you are simply a part of a number counting game it could have the opposite effect. I think it all boils down to the economy right now and how that affects all of our self confidence and how THAT in turn can lead one to want to have a large "network" of "friends", but folks; there is SIMPLY NO EASY WAY TO MASS PRODUCE A REAL NETWORK. It is (as I have mentioned before) like planting a fruit tree when one is hungry and looking to eat the fruits before one starves.<br /><br />I recall once when I had lost a job and someone decent tried to help me. Let's just call him John ... because his real name WAS John :). After he had helped me through the worst part of the initial loss and shock, John said to me "I want you to update me with your progress each month so that I can offer REAL help whenever I see the opportunity." I started writing to John each month summarizing my progress and emphasizing the POSITIVE things that had happened that month. Soon it became a daily goal to find something positive that I could put down on the note to John. Sometimes it was nothing more that the weather being exceptionally suitable for job hunting etc. But always there was something. The thoughts and observations often sparked some suggestions and encouragement and soon that changed my whole disposition. When I landed my next job, one day I was chatting with my new boss (with whome I have developed a lasting friendship over the years) and he mentioned that the REASON he had hired me was that he'd been struck by my incredible optimism even though I'd been on the job hunt for asome time at that point. It is possible that John actually DID help me find my next job after all! As time went on I encountered others who helpedme and seemed GENUINELY interested in participating in my life's journey. The "John list" has grown over the years and I now send out the same monthly note (no more that a few lines NOT like a Christmas letter!) to 56 people. THIS is my network. Luckily for me I have never had the need to tap into this network to get a job but I am sure that if I needed the encouragement and REAL help it would be THIS group who would give it and not anyone else. I would encourage those now engaged in the time-consuming task of simply increasing their contact network to spend the same time REALLY getting to know a small part of that group. THIS is the REAL network that will grow like a tree and shade you when you are scorched, feed you when you are hungry, and cover you in the storm. Who knew that simply old fashioned ideas may STILL be useful. Your thoughts and comments are (as always) most welcome.Adi Thttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16650800121639021458noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8792719872619875451.post-9984693783135481712008-11-21T03:39:00.001-08:002008-11-21T03:39:55.692-08:00Networking is Like Planting a TreeI’ve written about networking, and how much the very word has been misused, before but I today I had occasion to think again about the same topic. I was at a breakfast meeting which has, as one of its express purposes, the promotion of networking amongst its members. Each attendee gets a chance to stand up and say a few choice words about themselves so as to orient others about their own interests and expertise. Every one of us has, no doubt, been to one of these types of meetings. Far too often it is when we are “looking for our next adventure on the journey of life”. After the meeting people generally hang around and chat with some old friends and try to meet some new ones based on these introductory remarks.<br /><br />TWO people stood up at the introductions and said “…I am looking for a job so I’m networking here today…” and it struck me! Networking is like planting a TREE. One starts with a sapling. One waters it and nourishes it and makes sure no one accidentally steps on it. In a short while the sapling starts to put down roots. On the surface nothing much happens at first as all of the nourishments go to make better stronger roots below the surface. Then it starts to grow. It becomes tall and strong and withstands some storms and MANY winters. It resists drought and pestilence and even begins to offer shade on those hot summer days. Eventually it bears flowers, leaves… and yes; if it is the right kind of tree it offers fruits.<br /><br />“I’m looking for a job so I’m here networking…” is like saying “It’s almost lunchtime and I’m hungry so let’s plant a fruit tree…” I just doesn’t work like that. Now each of us is in a rush and have little time to just be friends with EVERYONE we meet but those who have taken the time and made the effort in the right area for the right length of time have shown their commitment to that area over others and it is PRECISELY the reason why their network will pay off in that area eventually. We need to nurture our network like we take care of a plant. We need to nourish it, protect it with constant effort, and shelter it in good times and in bad so that it grows and flourishes. If we are too busy to network we IMPLICITLY say this is not important enough to me to be a priority. There are a hundred urgencies that could EASILY displace this activity from our daily routine. But we do this at our own peril. When we are hungry, or need shelter from the storm we cannot expect the network to sustain us and to do for us what we have not done for it. Far too often young professionals network actively until they find their first job and then simply drop out of the networking scene. They are soon not missed any more and then even forgotten while their employers get full days of dedicated work. Unfortunately, their job situations being what they are these days they soon find themselves dusting off the old rolodex and trying to resurrect old acquaintances. This is like trying to water a plant that one has put in the closet for a few years and forgotten about. People have moved on. They are busy moving their own networks forward and most of all they remember that the last time you used them until you didn’t have an immediate need for them. This implicitly made fools of them and pointed up their inability to judge who to trust and this is something people remember. There’s an old saying “Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice shame on ME”. So more than not being useful, the old efforts may actually act AGAINST you if you pursue a shortsighted view of the networking game. People base their decisions about who to help out on TRUST and RESPECT and that is only built over time and with steady constant effort. I know we are all busy but I’m sorry; there is simply no quick fix to this problem. Make the commitment early and STICK with it. Don’t be on the lookout to harvest what you have barely planted.Adi Thttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16650800121639021458noreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8792719872619875451.post-58702901149533966462008-10-27T12:04:00.000-07:002008-10-27T12:13:13.234-07:00The Privilege of Mentorship“No man ever stood so tall as one who stooped to help a child” so the saying goes. This saying sounds simultaneously profoundly touching and somewhat condescending to me. I think of the act of helping the next generation somewhat differently. I think of it as a privilege granted to me by someone who trusts me enough to genuinely expect me to put them above my own life’s agenda.<br /><br />Imagine a society where the ONLY way to achieve anything of significance in one’s life was to help others to achieve it… where one NATURALLY ascribed all of a person’s achievements to their TEACHER rather than directly to the person themselves. The consequences of having such a societal norm would transform society – no less. In order to succeed in such a society one would have to pick the right people to mentor and then devote oneself to making them better - MUCH BETTER - than oneself. This would be the only way to succeed since nothing we could do ourselves would ever result in acknowledgement to the doer but rather only to the teacher. We would be forced to convey all of what we have learned – not just the essentials – to the next generation and insist that they be better than we ever were. We would have to be sincerely engaged in this or we would have no hope of having achieved anything. Think of the consequences of such a societal norm. The next generation would be sincerely interested in learning from the previous since they could trust that the older generation would genuinely WANT (even for the most self serving of needs) to transfer all of their experience and knowledge to them. It would ensure progress – true progress - of our society, and it would empower all of us with a common purpose – to learn as much as we could from the experiences of past generations so as to be BETTER than them. It would make both teacher and student PROUD when the student exceeded the teacher! It would make us also pick and choose the very best teachers and students so that the possibility of truly moving past ourselves could be realized for both parties.<br /><br />By now you are probably thinking “This can never REALLY happen! Right?” but history has already proved you wrong. This is the old eastern tradition of “GURU” and “CHELA”. In old eastern cultures a distinguished teacher simply walked the land teaching in villages and at other gatherings as he thought fit. They would naturally gather about a dozen or so younger people intent on learning as much as they could from the guru through experiencing life with the teacher. The guru for his part would carefully select these “chelas” so as to maximize the chances of producing, through them, a generation of gurus MUCH better than the present one since it was the ONLY way they had of truely achieving their lifes goals. Then the teacher would dedicate his life to transmitting as much of what he knew to these deciples as possible in the time left to him on earth. This is actually not such a foreign tradition even in the west. It is at the heart of Christianity itself. In other words not only is it POSSIBLE it is in fact part of the fabric of who we are today. But the tradition has been lost. Somewhere along the line society started to look no further than the performer rather than looking at the teacher. The teacher began to see the student as his “competition” and therefore started to teach them a little less than what they knew so that they would always have the upper hand over their students. One upmanship was born. Who can blame them for this. It is what they had to do to survive. But their survival has put our society at risk today. We are doomed to repeat the mistakes of our teachers. We are slowly – generation by generation – diminishing as a collective. We are all complicit in this evolution and we all have it in our power to change it if we so desire. Mentorship is one of the avenues to do that. If we each start by deciding to GENUINELY help someone realize their dreams by contributing our own experiences to their success – exposing all of the embarrassing mistakes that we have made along the way - with nothing asked in return except the sheer joy of watching a promising younger person succeed better than we ever could hope to, then we will have done something of GREAT significance in the world. We will have changed it forever. Mentorship is a privilege and those who perform well as mentors can be truly proud of their achievements and their legacy.Adi Thttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16650800121639021458noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8792719872619875451.post-6116706201666303992008-10-13T11:39:00.000-07:002008-10-13T12:01:42.124-07:00Inter-University CollaborationsAccording to <a href="http://www.kellogg.northwestern.edu/faculty/uzzi/ftp/buwww.html">Brian Uzzi</a>, <a href="http://www.kellogg.northwestern.edu/faculty/bio/jones_b.htm">Benjamin F. Jones</a>, and Stefan Wuchty of Northwestern University's Kellogg School of Management as quoted in Chemical and Engineering News this week <a href="http://pubs.acs.org/cen/news/86/i41/8641notw11.html">http://pubs.acs.org/cen/news/86/i41/8641notw11.html</a> the amount of INTER university collaborations is on the rise in the US and also produces better quality research than INTRA university collaborations or single-author papers. It is apparently a very thorough and complete piece of work.<br /><br />This is worth thinking about as two things happen around us 1: the financial crunch in North America is bound to put the squeeze on research dollars at universities eventually making it all the more important to utilize our research dollars in the best possible way. 2: Fields of research are interacting more and more and the BEST new discoveries now appear to come from those interfaces between previously quite disparate disciplines of science. Given that research dollars will be shrinking one can only assume that travel to meetings (especially meetings in OTHER disciplines) will be on the decline. So one can reasonably ask "How will intelligent, successful scientists in one discipline meet really successful scientists in another so that the most fruitful sorts of cross-discipline collaborations can develop?"<br /><br />One answer is provided by services like that which ArrowCan Partners Inc provides. Last year we connected more that 100 scientists in Canada with others in seemingly orthogonal fields of science whom they would not otherwise have met. There is a real need for the scientist turned business entrepreneur who will seek out the best and connect them with others through personalized and trusted introductions. Knowing how important a trend this is helps me to continue this work even in the dead of winter in Canada when travel is not at its easiest.Adi Thttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16650800121639021458noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8792719872619875451.post-84267627534687184972008-09-03T13:14:00.000-07:002008-09-03T13:15:02.909-07:00After ALL I’ve done for them…How often have we heard those accusatory words? They usually convey a bit of a “moral” disappointment in someone. The attitude is that one has put in some effort and time and done a few things and IMPLICIT in that “giving” is a belief that it should come back to the giver. Now here’s the trouble I have with that. Giving with some unspoken (usually too high) expectation of a return isn’t in fact GIVING; it is INVESTING. I never saw anyone go up to a bank window and say “Here’s some cash. Take it!” One usually goes to a bank to make a deposit in one’s account and the terms of the return are clearly spelled out ahead of time (and are usually believed to be too low by the investor). I suspect that if we spelled out what the expectations were in advance for things we did for people two things would happen: (1) The receiver might not want the favor. The cost to them might just be too high. (2) WE ourselves might not feel so proud and self righteous as we do when we supposedly do “no strings attached” favors for people.<br /><br />The truth is that GIVING means absolutely NO expectation of any return. The funny part is that such giving where the true reward is the feeling one gets from the act ITSELF usually comes right around and rewards you in ways you never thought of. It is the paradox of life I feel that those who don’t want to be REPAID get REWARDED many fold. The other thing I’d like to put out there while I’m on this topic is that WORK or THINGS don’t buy love and loyalty. ONLY LOVE buys LOVE and only genuine loyalty buys that. We all do things for people we don’t feel the slightest bit of either emotion for but we do it because we have to for one reason or another. Our bosses and co-workers don’t LOVE us or imply everlasting loyalty for us just because we do things with and for them. Its part of the work we do. But when we feel someone genuinely cares about us the ONLY thing we can do to show our appreciation is to reciprocate that feeling. No amount of “doing things” can replace that.Adi Thttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16650800121639021458noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8792719872619875451.post-30172673399179364092008-07-07T09:27:00.000-07:002008-07-07T09:49:53.775-07:00Kublai Khan & Marco PoloSome time back I heard this very educational tale. This guy called Marco Polo goes to work for an organization - let's call it China. the Big Boss is a guy called Kublai Khan - revered by all, feared by many. After a good tenure Marco Polo gets homesick one day and says to the Boss (who by this time thinks the WORLD of him - and THIS is the part of the story that makes sense even today) " It's been REALLY great working for you in your court but I need to get home."<br /><br />Kublai takes a flat piece of gold and writes on it "This man, Marco Polo, has my blessings" he signs it with his PERSONAL SEAL. The result? Marco travels cost- and difficulty-free from Beijing to Venice. Everyone he meets looks after him like he was the Boss himself. Why? Because there are two consequences and everyone knows them. If you treat the bearer of such a tablet well, the Boss himself will compensate you tenfold. If you MIStreat such a person the Boss himself will be insulted and will bring death not only to you but to your entire family. Small wonder eh?<br /><br />Why do I tell this story? Because the same principle works in our everyday lives even today. We all work in organizations and if we somehow have the favor of the Kublai Khan of that organization somehow we tend to succeed more than the next guy and the whole thing becomes a self-fulfilling cycle. If we don't or if we fall OUT of favor we might just as well head for Venice. I have seen the scenario repeat itself in MANY different walks of life and the lesson is always the same. Work to get (and stay) in the best books of the leader of the organization you want to work for or find another organization. I see many young people trying for alternative 3. THERE IS NOT ALTERNATIVE 3 if you need to work for an organization. Oddly enough, it also explains another phenomenon which I have also seen in many places. I call it the "Favor Disease".<br /><br />Have you ever seen how people react to someone based on their current standing with the Kublai Khan of their organization? If someone is out of favor no one will want to be seen talking to them in the halls or sitting next to them or acknowledging good ideas from them etc etc etc lest they too will come down with the dreaded fatal disease which COULD affect nt ony them personally but also their entire families. Needless to say these folks wither and die away by themselves even if they could have been a great value to their colleagues. If you are in a position of power it behooves you to be conscious about how much YOU can affect the success of others in your organization and therefore of the whole organization itself. In this very competitive world we live in these days it may just make the difference between life and death. Just something to think about. Your thoughts are welcome.Adi Thttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16650800121639021458noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8792719872619875451.post-581887276538650772008-06-25T04:58:00.000-07:002008-06-25T05:13:08.610-07:00Survivalism versus "Progressivism"It hit me suddenly. The sheer obviousness of it is quite stunning. Yet I am sure that a lot of us "know" this without ever having explicitly thought about it. There are in fact two major approaches to life. I will call them the "survivalist" approach which simply wants to finish the day with life being as "same" as it can be to the day(s) before. Those folks simply want to end the day without having made a mistake, without having done something that they would regret. To them not doing the wrong thing is preferable to not doing anything. This is their "safe" zone, their comfort zone.<br /><br />Then there is a different kind of beast altogether. To this person not doing anything is DEATH. To them it is better to have dreamed the big dream and made an effort to get there. To them the worst day is where they made NO progress, took NO risks, and made NO mistakes. they equate mistakes to "experience" and a day spent without gaining any experience is a day lost out of their lives. These are the "Progressivists". Life is no worth LIVING if it is not worth risking. They mouth phrases like "everyone dies... only few people really LIVE!"<br /><br />Now the sad part. The world is moving at an ever increasing pace. Progress and risk taking is accelerating to the point where just to SURVIVE (the goal of the survivalists) one needs to try new things every day and at ever increasing odds. Does this mean that the survivalists are now on the horns of a very peculiar dilema? To survive they must take risks? What type of person are you? Do you want to make waves and change the world? Are you a romantic? Are you proud that you will retire in the same job you started your career in? Comments welcome.Adi Thttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16650800121639021458noreply@blogger.com0