As suggested by W. Edwards Deming, the main barrier to basic innovations, like the EWPC-AF, and an increased standard of living, is the prevailing style of management. A better decade is thus dependent on the adoption of Deming’s System of Profound Knowledge.
This is the time of informed predictions on the New Year. As can be seen below, I was led to concentrate myself not just on the New Year, but on the New Decade to predict the widespread adoption of the Electricity Without Price Control Architecture Framework (EWPC-AF), which I designed as a basic innovation.
In his post Systemic failure requires new holistic cure, Mark Montgomery clearly summarizes the barrier to the adoption of a the EWPC-AF: “The current system so protects the status quo that it all but assures that new systems will not be adopted, particularly any system that is effective, thus either killing innovations or neutralizing functionality in the adoption process.” So as W. Edwards Deming suggested we need to change the prevailing style of management to allow for the development of the EWPC-AF basic innovation in the New Decade.
This article expands on the EWPC post The Electric Power Industry is Missing a Vibrant Retail Market, which was posted under the blog post On the Evolution of Technology, by Jason Pontin, the Editor in Chief and Publisher of Technology Review. The text of this post has evidence that the missing retail market is in fact due to the prevailing style of management, which is based on obsolete mechanical thinking instead of on systemic thinking that leads to a superior solution path.
Further evidence is given in the EWPC article Think Deming to Enable Much More than Just Freedom, whose summary says “Deming’s economics replaces the prevailing system [I learned that is better to keep the word style, because the system might be already destroyed] of management with a system of profound knowledge to push economies onto a higher productivity plateau. With the new economics, EWPC will enable a superior solution path.”
In one paragraph of that EWPC article I wrote that “… to lead the transformation of the prevailing system [style] of management to get the world to begin ‘pulling the whole group of core economies onto that higher productivity plateau,’ as Carlota Pérez, describes in her book ‘Technological Revolutions and Financial Capital.’ That is the way to get capitalism back to its roots, as the American forefathers wished.”
That said, this article was triggered by the post Natural technology evolution vs. failed innovation?,bylilykim on 12/29/2009, that was also posted under Pontin’s blog post. The reader will see that lilykim said that “This piece reminded me of an article I read earlier this year by Michael Mandel of Business Week on "The Failed Promise of Innovation in the US"… Mandel claims that failed technological innovation has contributed to the slow economy... I'm curious what others think of Mandel's ideas, especially in the context of Arthur's theories on technology evolution.
Without loss of generality, the needed context on Arthur’s theories on the EWPC-AF can be restricted from what Pontin writes:
Arthur makes a distinction between bodies of technology, or "domains," such as electronics, photonics, and microfluidics, and their individual technologies. Domains emerge "piece by piece." Technologies within domains may be adopted quickly, but only after those domains have been encountered first by users who are bewildered. What are these technologies? How are they used? What do they allow people to do that could not be done before, or at least not as efficiently? Always, new domains betray "missing pieces" that technologists must develop before useful applications can be successfully commercialized. All this, says Arthur, "normally takes decades. It is a very, very slow process."
In the EWPC post about the retail markets, I also mentioned Demand Response, as “missing pieces” to successfully commercialize the modern power systems. However, the reason why the retail markets are missing has taken decades is not technological, but government intervention I mentioned that are also based on the prevailing style of management.
The New Decade was framed by what Mandel asks at the beginning of his article: “… What if outside of a few high-profile areas, the past decade has seen far too few commercial innovations that can transform lives and move the economy forward? What if, rather than being an era of rapid innovation, this has been an era of innovation interrupted? And if that's true, is there any reason to expect the next decade to be any better?” The New Decade will be better if Deming’s system of profound knowledge is adopted.
Just as I mentioned under Pontin’s post, the EWPC-AF as a basic innovation results “when all required technologies became available, and were tightly integrated.” In the same light, Mendel writes that “Of course, no industrial revolution in the past has been based on a single technology. A combination of radio, television, flight, antibiotics, synthetic materials, and automobiles drove the productivity surge of the early and mid-20th century. The Industrial Revolution of the second half of the 19th century combined railroads, electricity, and the telegraph and telephone.”
He adds, “Similarly, for sustainable economic growth, the U.S. needs breakthrough innovations outside of core IT. Some technologies weren't ready for prime time 10 years ago but have matured.” The author says that organogenesis and MEMS have matured, but adds that “The imponderables are biotech and alternative energy… the potential for innovation in alternative energy is enormous, but it's hard to know which approach will pay off.” Alternative energy especially that involved as distributed demand resources need to be approached under the EWPC-AF.