Chinese Premier Li Keqiang on Thursday expressed the hope that, with joint efforts, the traditional friendship between China and Pakistan could bear more fruits.
Visiting Chinese Premier Li Keqiang and Pakistan's would-be prime minister Nawaz Sharif vowed Thursday to create a new pattern of bilateral strategic cooperation.
In the clash of the smartphone operating system titans, we take a look at what Google has brought to the table.
BRINGING IT: A Google Android figurine sits on a welcome desk at the new Google office in Toronto. – Reuters
FANCY having a Donut, Eclair, Froyo, Gingerbread, Honeycomb, Ice Cream Sandwich, or Jellybean?
While the list above seems like a mouth-watering spread of sinful desserts, it can refer to something else in the technological world today.
For the uninitiated, those are also the names of the different update versions of the Android smartphone operating system (OS).
Before we touch on the topic of Android, let’s first start with smartphones and how they have become an integral part of our lives in this day and age.
It wasn’t too long ago when the sheer mention of the word ‘smartphone’ brought to mind an image of a busy businessman holding a personal digital assistant (PDA) phone to check and send work e-mail messages on the fly.
Aside from businessmen and those with deep pockets, it was uncommon to see an average consumer owning a smartphone. Among my peers during my time as a student, anyone who owned a smartphone was deemed to be a rich spoilt brat.
Fast forward to today, the advancements of technology has made it so much easier to own a smartphone.
What is a smartphone? By Oxford dictionary’s definition, a smartphone is a mobile phone that is able to perform many of the functions of a computer, typically having a relatively large screen and an operating system capable of running general-purpose applications.
The early smartphones came into existence in the 1990s, although the early incarnations of smartphones were basically mobile phones incorporating PDA (personal digital assistant) features, and not necessarily with large screens.
Throughout the years, there have been various operating systems supporting the vast multitude of smartphones that have reached the hands of consumers. Among the operating systems that we have come to know and love are Symbian, Palm OS, Windows Phone, BlackBerry, Android and iOS.
As the title suggests, this column will be all about Google’s Android operating system.
Meteoric rise
The first ever smartphone sold running on the Android operating system was the HTC Dream, which was released in 2008.
Since then, Android has come a long way, climbing up the ranks and capturing the biggest share of the pie in the smartphone operating system market. Aside from smartphones, the operating system is also widely used on tablet computers.
With a whole plethora of Android devices being unleashed into the market, the operating system from Google overtook long-time leaders Symbian at the end of 2010 to be the world’s most widely used smartphone operating system, according to online sources.
It is growing at an estimated 1.5 million activations per day. This means that everyday, 1.5 million Android devices are powered on by consumers for the first time. Android leads the smartphone OS world, with a market share of 75% during the third quarter of 2012.
Being a product of Google, Android smartphones come readily available with a staple of Google applications (apps), such as Gmail, Google Maps, Google Calendar, Google+ and Google Chrome browser.
Interestingly, every update version of the operating system is named after a form of dessert, and in alphabetical order. The first system version was named Donut (1.6), followed by Eclair (2.0 – 2.1), Froyo (2.2), Gingerbread (2.3), Honeycomb (3.1 – 3.2), Ice Cream Sandwich (4.0), and Jellybean (4.1 – 4.2).
Unlike the other main operating systems in the smartphone market, Google has made its Linux-based OS open source. This means that the software can be freely distributed and modified by device manufacturers, wireless carriers and developers.
This move has successfully attracted a large community of app developers, as can be proven by the whopping 800,000 apps available for download on the Google Play store as of January.
In October 2012, the Google Play store celebrated a milestone of 25 billion app downloads.
Tailor made
Android has become a favourite choice for manufacturers as it is easy to adopt and implement, rather than having to develop a whole new operating system from scratch. We can find this operating system from Google being adopted by a diverse range of manufacturers, ranging from big brand names such as Samsung, HTC, Motorola, Sony Ericsson and LG to smaller, upstart Chinese companies.
However, not every Android smartphone provides the same experience. Different hardware manufacturers have different “skins” or add-ons, above the base Android software, to differentiate themselves from the rest of the pack. Samsung’s Touchwiz user interface and HTC’s Sense user interface are examples of the types of “flavoured” Android offerings by other manufacturers.
Google also collaborates with different hardware manufacturers to release their flagship Android smartphones under the Google Nexus line. The Nexus phones provide the original “vanilla” Android experience for users and are the first to receive the latest Android version updates.
Because of this diversity, we can find Android smartphones for every segment of the market. Aside from the pricier high-end smartphones, there is also a wide selection of mid- to low-end Android smartphones which are more affordable, hence making it easier for more consumers to own a smartphone.
Android has been so popular that we are seeing it in more and more electronic products and not just smartphones or tablets. There are even manufacturers who are starting to incorporate Android into their microwave ovens!
Among the advantages of the Android operating system are its ability to multitask, the huge amount of options for devices, the notification bar, homescreen widgets, and the connectivity to the Google brand. The advantages and disadvantages of the operating system will be delved into in future editions of this weekly column which will appear on TechCentral.my.
This weekly column will be a medium to share about everything Android. Expect to read about news on the operating system updates, app reviews or the new devices running on Google’s operating system. Stay tuned!
(Donovan is a full-time auditor and big-time gadget lover who discovered the wonders of the Android world after a chance encounter with Samsung’s Galaxy S back in October 2010.) Related post: Chinese smartphone innovators shrug off Android dominance.
American technology giant, Apple, has issued a public letter of apology to Chineseconsumers over the company’s warranty policies in China. Apple’s CEO Tim Cook signed the statement, saying the company is sorry for any “concerns or misunderstandings” that have been caused.
In the letter, Cook said that over the past two weeks, Apple has received feedback concerning its warranty policies in China and the company has “reflected” on this.
He said APPLE takes the feedback seriously and is seeking to allay concerns that the company was being arrogant by not responding to them. He said this was due to lack of communication on Apple’s part and that it was sorry for any inconvenience caused to consumers.
In the statement, Apple said the company is making four major adjustments to improve its after-sales services for Chinese consumers, including improving its warranty for iPhone 4 and iPhone 4S, enhancing supervision over and training for authorized service providers.
APPLE’s apology comes after the China Consumer’s Association asked Apple to “sincerely apologize” to Chinese consumers and “thoroughly correct its problems,” after taking little action to address criticism, started by China Central Television , which exposed Apple’s after-sales services failings in China in a special TV program.
The CCA demanded that Apple inform consumers if refurbished parts are used when repairing broken devices, and that repair costs should be calculated accordingly.
South Korea, Australia and Italy have filed similar claims against Apple, citing cases where refurbished products had been used to repair damaged iPhones, higher prices had been charged and its failure to publish warranty information in those countries.
Apple products have gained huge popularity in China over recent years. Iphones and ipads are the “must-have” accessory, particularly in urban areas while the company’s stores are often overflowing with customers trying out the latest gadgets.
But there’s now a scandal brewing over Apple’s warranty and repair policy, and concern that Chinese consumers are being given a rough ride.
In a recent interview, Apple CEO Tim Cook said China will soon become Apple’s biggest market.
For Apple, business must stay business
Apple Inc has been having a hard time in China since China Central Television (CCTV) revealed on March 15 that the technology giant allegedly applies a different service policy to Chinese consumers than in other countries and regions. A wave of onslaught has surged in Chinese State media in the past few days, with Chinese authorities ordering the company to change its policies or face punishment according to Chinese regulations.
However, many Chinese fans have shown their loyalty toward Apple, allying with some foreign media outlets in saying that this is a “well-coordinated” campaign led by the Chinese government to pinch the US company. It is also said that Apple is merely the victim of China’s vengeance against the US government’s treatment of Chinese telecom giants. China’s Huawei and ZTE have long been restricted in the US markets under security and other accusations.
The drama began as a typical business incident, as CCTV did not only point its finger at Apple in its March 15 exposé. It is no good for either side that the issue is gradually turning political.
Generally speaking, CCTV’s annual showcase program on World Consumer Rights Day has played a positive role in digging out business scandals. It is also the reason why the program has remained influential among Chinese viewers for a long time.
Had Apple been more sincere in its response to the criticism, the result could have been different. The statement Apple made right after the CCTV exposé was very different with that of other multinational companies who were also reported to have consumer rights issues. With the sheer weight of the company behind it, Apple’s detached tone could easily be seen as proof of arrogance.
Apple has won respect from Chinese consumers with its perseverance in developing leading technologies and styles. But the company is not impeccable. Like its continuing stride in exploring for technological breakthroughs, the company also needs to keep working hard to raise its service quality.
Apple should not follow the media speculation and consider itself the target of political persecution. As for its fans in China, if they do love this brand, they should let the truth emerge instead of joining the speculations.
If the issue developed into a head-on confrontation between Apple and the Chinese authorities, the US company will never be a winner, nor will China necessarily do well. Of course, Apple will suffer the most, as its products are already facing increasing competition in China.
It will be wise for Apple not to entangle itself into political debates. For Apple, it is still a matter of business. – Global Times
Why call US tech giant rotten Apple?
State broadcaster Central China Television (CCTV) took the first bite. The People’s Daily followed, and now others like Guangming Daily and The Global Times have joined the fray.
China’s state media has been piling the pressure on Apple since the American tech giant was criticised during CCTV’s annual show on March 15 to mark World Consumer Day.
This week alone, the People’s Daily has run articles four days in a row to lash out at Apple for allegedly discriminating against its customers in China.
“Why is it that Apple is so incredibly brazen and arrogant in China when it doesn’t dare to be so in the United States and other countries?” asked a commentator in the People’s Daily, the mouthpiece of the Communist Party. It also likened Apple to a wolf pretending to be innocent.
Many observers are wondering about the real reasons behind the coordinated media attacks.
Could China be retaliating against the difficulties faced by its tech behemoth Huawei in the US? Or is it Apple’s lack of advertisements in the state media?
“I wish I knew,” Bill Bishop, a Beijing-based analyst and founder of The Sinocism China Newsletter, told The Straits Times.
There are some who say there is nothing more to it than Apple behaving badly.
“When it comes to China, a market with great potential, Apple has taken advantage of its fans’ crazy enthusiasm by using incredulous sales tactics,” wrote blogger Shu Shusi, a frequent commentator on consumer issues.
Not only are iPhones released later and sold at a higher price in China than elsewhere, their after- sales service is bad too, he added.
Apple might also have violated Chinese regulations, noted others. CCTV on Wednesday said consumers had complained that Apple offered only a one-year warranty for its MacBook Air in China, when the country’s rules mandate a two-year warranty for the main laptop parts.
Then there is the sense that Apple needed to be taught a lesson for not being contrite enough.
“Errant companies” featured on CCTV’s 315 Evening Gala, like Chinese net firm Netease, had been quick to apologise and make peace. But Apple insisted that its China customers enjoy the highest service standards.
Some wonder whether the attacks are just a case of tit-for-tat.
A US Congressional report last October accused Huawei of being a security threat.
“Just as the US attacked Huawei, China is taking it out on Apple in revenge,” claimed “Blank Neo” on his Sina Weibo microblog.
Another possible explanation could be Beijing’s unease with the wide usage of iPhones in China.
“There is a serious official desire for an indigenous mobile operating system,” noted Bishop.
Also, the iPhone’s operating system may be seen as a foreign security threat as it is a closed one and not easily monitored. The Android operating system, in contrast, is open and thus less of a threat, say observers.
The attacks could be a way of attracting eyeballs, suggested a consumer rights advocate.
“Apple has a huge customer base in China. Its news value is high,” Wang Hai said.
What can Apple do to stop the rash of attacks?
Said Bishop: “I expect Apple to have to change its policies, express public contrition, and then this particular storm will blow over.
“They may also need to buy some ads on CCTV, as (search engine) Baidu and many other Chinese firms who have been on the receiving end did.”
In China’s booming smartphone market, which overtook the United States as the world’s largest last year, a host of domestic firms have innovation on the brain, especially as the industry is on pace for even greater growth.
Within minutes of going on sale online, Xiaomi Technology sold 2.5 million units of its M12 smartphone, which has specifications that, some say, exceed that of the iPhone and retails for less than half the price on the Chinese mainland.
Lei Jun, CEO of Xiaomi Technology Co., forecast that the company’s sales would double this year. In 2012, the turnover of the company founded less than three years ago amounted to 12 billion yuan (1.93 billion U.S. dollars).
Chinese smartphone firms believe that long-term efforts in innovation are required in developing home-grown operating systems and are not concerned by the dominance of Android.
A report published by the China Academy of Telecommunication Research warned that Chinese companies may face commercial discrimination because the Android operation system — what is deemed as a “core” technology — is strictly controlled by Google.
The report, released on March 1, urged China’s smartphone makers to develop self-innovated systems as the country lacks its own big name, with Android’s supremacy in 97.7 percent of domestic smartphones.
Android’s dominance is the market’s choice, and its popularity is worldwide.By the end of 2012 in China, Google’s Android took up 86.4 percent in the market and Apple’s iOS 8.6 percent. Home-made systems account for less than one percent, statistics suggested.
Many industry insiders, like Lei, have faith in China’s mobile phone market. Big names like Huawei, ZTE and Lenovo have elbowed their way in, hoping to grab a piece of the market.
Statistics from IDC, an IT company and market researcher, show that China’s smartphone market could grow by as much as 44 percent this year, with total smartphone shipments approaching 300 million units.
A total of 67.21 million smartphones were sold in China in the fourth quarter of 2012, up 236.4 percent year on year, with domestic brands contributing to 77.9 percent of total sales, according to statistics from the China Academy of Telecommunication Research.
“Domestic makers made great strides in the smartphone market for their abundant manufacturing experience and the cheap prices favored by those using a smartphone for the first time,” the report said.
Lenovo, a leading PC firm, emerged as the second-biggest smartphone seller, with 13.2 percent of China’s market share last year, following the Republic of Korea’s Samsung Electronics, which took a 17.7 percent.
Apple came in third, with 11 percent, and domestic companies Huawei Technologies Co. and Coolpad rounded out the top five, with 9.9 and 9.7 percent of the market share, respectively.
Yang Yuanqing, chairman of the board of Lenovo Group, said the company started developing smartphones and tablet PCs to compete with Apple in both domestic and overseas markets.
The company’s star product, the Lephone, is a low-cost smartphone that industry insiders have hailed as a challenge to Apple’s iPhone.
At the Mobile World Congress in January in Barcelona, there were plenty of Chinese domestic devices on show, ranging from those costing less than 1,650 yuan to high-end products valued at more than 3,000 yuan.
“We are providing products that cater to each level, from beginners to high-end consumers,” Yang explained.
Lenovo’s flagship product, the 3,299-yuan K800, boasts a 1.6 GHz Intel processor and a 4.5-inch screen. But it is still based on Android, an open-sourced, Linux-based operating system controlled by Google.
A report issued on March 1 by the China Academy of Telecommunication Research warned that Chinese smartphone makers may face commercial discrimination, as most domestic smartphones are over-dependent on the Android system.
Lenovo’s Yang said Sunday that creating an operating system is not as difficult as providing an active platform on which people are encouraged to develop software.
“Developing a system that only offers tedious software development is useless,” Yang said.
Yang, who is also a member of the National Committee of the Chinese People’s Political Consultative Conference (CPPCC), said, “I am saying it is not impossible to develop a home-made operating system, as the future market is promising with China’s homemade brands expanding their global influence.”
Behind concerns about companies’ over-reliance on the Android system, among others, is a lack of innovation — the soft spot that has become apparent despite the country’s neck-breaking development over the past three decades.
But innovation is not restricted to an operating system, according to Lei Jun, the Xiaomi CEO and a member of the CPPCC National Committee, who says the ways his company develops and markets its products are also innovative.
“Innovations we made included differentiated functionalities in response to various consumers’ needs. This sort of innovation is not ground-breaking, but at least it is a breakthrough,” said Lei.
Yu Wenqing, an industry insider with China Mobile Research Institute, gives these companies credit for putting a twist on existing technology.
“There were so called micro-innovations in those brands,” Yu said, adding that China has to move step by step, as fundamental changes require great time and investment.
Chris Evdemon, a manager with Innovation Works, which invests in seed-stage companies to encourage innovation, called the “micro-innovations” a steppingstone for fundamental innovation.
These initiatives may inject fresh energy to the larger-scale, enterprise-driven innovation that the government is expecting. China has adopted a strategy of building itself up through the development of science and education and boosting the country’s core ability to sustain innovation-driven development.
“Everyone has his own dream to pursue,” Yang Yuanqing said.
Yang’s dream includes seeing all Chinese people living well-off lives and enjoying dignity on the world stage.
“Also, Chinese enterprises will embrace worldwide recognition, not only for scale or sales, but for their capacities for innovation,” he added. – Xinhua
SIMPLY put, Design Thinking produces creative solutions to solve complex problems. In other words, you have to be creative to be innovative. But can one learn creativity or for that matter, innovative skills?
Yes, if you believe David Kelley, the design thinking guru and founder of global design firm Ideo and the School of Design Thinking at Stanford University.
“So many people think that it’s kind of in your gene – you’re a creative person or you’re not. I don’t buy it,” says Kelley in Design & Thinking, a documentary on design thinking by San Francisco-based One Time Studio. Kelley argued that human beings are naturally creative (just observe kids!) and you just need to rediscover your creative confidence to crack open the door to innovation. The process of design thinking is a “scaffolding for creativity” as design thinking advocate, Tim Brown of Ideo, calls it.
Hence when Genovasi was initiated by the Government to produce “innovation ambassadors,” the organisation settled on design thinking methodology to cultivate these innovators.
“We wanted an approach that would instil a sense of curiosity for technology and entrepreneurship among youths. And any innovation that derives from the approach should include empathy towards the needs of people,” says Datuk Seri Dr Kamal Jit Singh, chief executive officer of Unit Inovasi Khas (UNIK) which manages Genovasi.
“Design thinking fits these criteria perfectly as it offers a human-centred approach to innovation.”
Under the Innovation Ambassadors Development Programme, participants go through a 10-week programme to grasp the nuts and bolts of design thinking and apply their know-how to solve real-life problems posed by project partners. To date, project partners include The Millennium Project, an independent, non-profit think thank, and RSA (The Royal Society for the Encouragement of Arts, Manufactures and Commerce), a London-based charity committed to finding innovative solutions to today’s social challenges. Upon completion of the programme, these “ambassadors” may go on to create startups or find placements in Genovasi’s partner organisations like government agencies, GLCs or corporations.
“These Ambassadors are expected to bring positive changes to three core areas: improve public service delivery within government departments, ministries and agencies; improve the quality of life in rural and local communities and create new economic wealth through entrepreneurship or industry game-changing efforts,” says Dr Kamal. Genovasi’s plan is to produce a minimum of 5,000 Innovation Ambassadors over the next five years.
As collaborators, the Hasso-Plattner-Institut (HPI) School of Design Thinking in Potsdam, Germany, not only helped develop the programme for Genovasi but also conducted strategy and trainers’ workshops and assessments.
“It was really great to see there are a lot of Malaysians who are keen to do something under the innovation programme,” says Dr Claudia Nicolai, the general programme manager of HPI D-School. Nicolai was in Malaysia to help set up the programme. “People are extremely open-minded and willing to work together.”
“Malaysia’s advantage, compared to Germany, is that you are so diverse. You have influences from different ethnic cultures, customs and religions – that’s an advantage to generate truly creative ideas.”
The D-School in Germany did not copy and paste Stanford University’s D-School model but instead adapt it to the European environment.
“Genovasi’s programme is basically an Asian version of what we are doing. It puts a new flavour in design thinking,” says Professor Ulrich Weinberg, HPI D-School’s director.
“You have the chance to build on the experiences of Stanford and HPI,” he adds. “You can build something which is the next version or reinvent what we’re doing.”
The Innovation Ambassadors Development Programme (IADP) is open to university students or entrepreneurs up to the age of 35. Students and experts from all disciplines are welcome to apply. The programme is free for Malaysians. IADP’s second intake starts from May 27. Closing date for application: March 31, 2013. For more info, go to genovasi.my
Grooming innovators
To produce innovative Malaysians, innovation agency Genovasi teamed up with a Germany-based institute to teach ‘design thinking’. We travel to Potsdam, Germany, to find out more about this creative approach.
NEON-coloured sticky notes, Lego blocks, rainbow-hued foam peanuts, knitting threads, cardboard boxes and colouring pens – these are “tools” for brainstorming and constructing prototypes. Whiteboards on wheels replace walls that separate the “classrooms.” Chatter and guffaw waft across the space.
You can’t help but feel the creative vibes and peppy energy that emanate from the Hasso-Plattner-Institut School of Design Thinking (aka D-School). Located in the historical city of Potsdam, southwest of Berlin, D-School is part of the Hasso-Plattner-Institut, an IT-Systems Engineering university founded by Hasso Plattner, the man behind software giant SAP.
We are on a media familiarisation trip organised by Unit Inovasi Khas (UNIK), an innovation agency under the Prime Minister’s Department, to get an insight into D-School, which partners Unik to train Malaysian youths to become innovators.
Founded in 2007, the D-School curriculum is based on the “design thinking” process – an approach that looks at users’ needs and desires, leading to sustainable innovations that can make people’s lives better. It is not about design per se.
And unlike the mythical lone genius inventor, design thinking involves teamwork. It draws on the expertise of individuals from varying backgrounds and disciplines, from engineers and anthropologists to accountants and fashion designers.
Hardly a newfangled idea making its runway debut, the concept has been bandied about for decades and used as a mantra by some of the biggest creative companies in the world, including San Francisco-based global design firm Ideo.
But the methodology was pioneered from Stanford University in California, and taught and explored at the Hasso Plattner Institute of Design at Stanford since 2005. As part of the coursework, students get to work on real-life “design challenges” developed together with project partners from the industry, public sector or non-profit organisations.
Design thinkers
In the corporate realm, award-winning companies like Ideo employ design thinkers who are marketers, engineers, psychologists, industrial designers and architects. Ideo has 12 offices in eight countries and high-profile clients like Visa, Toyota, Samsung, Procter & Gamble and Coca-Cola.
Take their design project with Shimano, the leading supplier of bicycle components in the world. In 2004, Shimano was grappling with stagnated growth in its high-end road-racing and mountain-bike sectors in the United States. Driven by technology innovations for years, the company’s initial instinct was to introduce high-end casual bicycles that might appeal to baby boomers.
But with the help of Ideo, adopting the design thinking method, the company realised they should reach out to the 161 million US adults who aren’t riding bicycles. Using a human-centred approach, Ideo and Shimano hit the streets to survey why 90% of American adults do not ride bicycles. Findings reveal that the complexities (like shifting gears) and costs of modern bikes, the high maintenance, and the danger of cycling on roads are factors that put off casual cyclists.
Shimano then partnered with bicycle manufacturers like Giant, Trek and Raleigh to produce a biking experience that stirred up childhood memories of simple, joyful riding. These “coasting” bicycles have coaster brakes (back pedalling to brake), automatic shifting and puncture-resistant tires to make cycling easier and low maintenance.
To ensure a holistic experience, a comprehensive website helps people to locate safe places to ride. Shimano also launched a trade campaign and training curriculum to educate retailers to better serve recreational customers. In six months, the three manufacturers sold out the 30,000 Coasting bikes produced.
“Design thinking is a mindset and a set of methods you can use to solve problems that can impact society and businesses,” explains Dr Claudia Nicolai, the general programme manager and lecturer of D-School, on our visit.
“It’s not like it has never been done before,” admits Nicolai who has been studying strategic innovations, the precursor to design thinking, for a decade.
“What it does is to combine different methods and developments and put it under the design thinking label.”
Nicolai develops and designs teaching content, coaches students and teachers, hosts workshops and develop design-thinking strategies for companies.
At D-School, there are three core elements in design thinking: focus on multi-disciplinary team, team-supported space that is highly flexible and dynamic, and the process itself, Director of D-School Professor Ulrich Weinberg added.
Dubbed the “grandfather of computer graphics in Germany,” Weinberg is instrumental in getting D-school going from the beginning.
He has 25 years of experience in 3d animation, simulation and computer games. At D-School, the course runs over one term (Basic track) or two terms (Advanced track) spanning 12 weeks, and students are assessed based on their teams.
“What I learned in the last five years is that you will not get the full, dynamic energy of the people, whether in companies or schools, if you have incentive models that focus on individual performance.”
In recent years, huge corporations in Germany are also jumping in on what D-School is doing.
“Companies are calling us to partner on projects or to book workshops on design thinking,” says Weinberg. Some of D-School’s partners include industry giants like Siemens, Johnson & Johnson, DHL, Panasonic and Lufthansa Airlines.
The enthusiasm of D-School students is as infectious as their teachers’.
“I think the key benefit is learning how to design for people, focusing on their needs or wishes. You are not trying to sell things but to fulfil needs,” says Juliana Paolucci, 24. A product and graphic designer from Brazil, Paolucci and her teammates Andrezej Karel, Sabrina Meyfeld and Laura Kroth are working on a design challenge for Genovasi. Their subject: how to engage young people in the development of the community.
They had to set out to find solutions that can convert Malaysian youths from armchair critics to empathetic doers.
“The youths are the future of the country, they need to engage the community and change reality,” explains Paolucci. “But first we need to find out their needs, wants and desires, and ways to fulfil them.”
“Also we need to take into account activities they like to do, for example, how do they use social networking to take community action?”
Using design thinking methodology brings together different actions in a structured way, Karel added.
“The first idea might not be the best solution, so we go through an iterative process multiple times: understand, observe, define point of view, ideate, prototype and test,” says the 25-year-old Polish who is working on his thesis for his marketing/management degree.
Room for failure is the DNA of design thinking.
“In a conventional design process, you just sit in your room, and keep going at it until you think it’s perfect,” explains Meyfeld, 27, a communication scientist.
“But with design thinking, we’re out testing prototypes on the second or third day and if it doesn’t work, we start at it again.”
“I am keen on social innovation and want to learn more about how to apply the methodology in my social enterprise,” adds Kroth, 29, who studied communications and public relations. She hopes to start a small business to bring people of different generations together to develop dialogues on German history and keep history alive for future generations.
D-School experience
As for D-School alumni like Jeremias Schmitt, his experience prepared him for how he wants to work with people and how to develop projects further.
“After the D-School experience, students actually find real meaning in what they do, why they do it and how they want to do things,” quips the 27-year-old Berliner.
“Some even applied for jobs that they never thought of applying, for example, a student who studied information science seeking for a business development job.”
In Europe, more and more start-ups are using design thinking as a tool to innovate, Schmitt added.
So is design thinking the be-all and end-all of innovation? And how does one measure its efficacy or success rate?
“For me, it’s not about how many products are successful in the market. I care more about how design thinking deeply impacts the students, how they got the chance to experience the process, and how it changed the way they do things,” says Weinberg.
To date, D-School has done about 70 projects. One-third of the ideas were implemented at some point, the other third came up with solutions that led to different things, and one-third led to nothing.
Clients who worked on the project either left their companies or there was no follow-up from the clients’ side. The role of design thinking at D-School is to create innovators, not so much innovations.
In the case of Shimano’s Coasting programme, three years after its initial success, the company pulled the plug on the programme and manufacturers stopped rolling out coasting bikes because sales fell below expectations.
Some industry observers blamed it on the bike brands that weren’t doing their jobs to communicate the benefits of Coasting to retailers and customers, among other factors.
It wouldn’t be fair to say this design thinking experiment has flopped.
Suffice to say, design thinking isn’t the magic pill for success.
But “use it to its advantage: to give new insights, outline new ways of thinking, introduce new techniques or develop new entries to the market,” as innovation and design writer/editor Helen Walters (formerly with BusinessWeek and Bloomberg) attested in her talk “Design Thinking Won’t Save You.”
I LOVE the Internet. The best Christmas present I got last year was a preview of a forthcoming book by a banker/historian in Boston. He sent me electronically his PhD thesis, a piece of masterly detective work on how ideas travel over time and space, become adopted successfully in a different place, and then comes back to where they started.
Dr Frederic Grant Jr‘s forthcoming book uncovered how the US bank deposit insurance system has its root in ideas borrowed from Canton (Guangdong province in southern China) of the 19th century. The origins of the US deposit insurance scheme arose from the 1828 The Safety Fund statute of the State of New York, drafted by a legislator named Joshua Forman.
In those days, if the state-authorised banks failed, the state would have to pay for their failure. Forman borrowed the idea from Canton that those authorised for privileged trade (in banks the privilege of private currency issue) should be responsible for their own debts.
The success of the New York Safety Fund inspired the adoption of similar schemes by 13 other American states. In 1933, the Banking Act of 1933 created the Federal Deposit Insurance Corp (FDIC), following the failure of many banks across the US. This idea of a national deposit insurance scheme has been adopted by many countries around the world, and is currently being considered in China.
How did Forman get the idea about the Canton Guaranty Scheme? Apparently, New York was already the major port for US-China trade and the scheme was familiar to New York businessmen.
How the Canton system evolved
It all came about because the Qing dynasty official merchants, namely merchant houses (or hongs) authorised by Beijing to conduct foreign trade, often require trade credit to conduct business with foreigners in Canton. If these traders defaulted on their loans, the foreigners threatened to take action on the weak Qing dynasty. Hence, in order to prevent individual merchant failure, the Qing government used a collective responsibility method evolved by the Manchu court in Beijing that ensured that those authorised to benefit from the foreign trade also collectively guaranteed each other’s trade debt, and a premium was paid yearly into a fund to pay off any individual failure.
The Qing government solved the problem of defaults by imposing collective responsibility everyone was responsible for the group’s debt. The good news is that the group as a whole made sure that no member got into trouble, engaging in what is today called “peer surveillance”. The bad news is that with collective guarantee, the smaller traders have an incentive to take higher risks, creating moral hazard private gain at collective loss. Moreover, as history showed, if trade was really bad, more traders failed and since the Qing government also borrowed or taxed the accumulated fund regularly, there were not enough money in the fund to settle all debts. Eventually the Canton Guaranty Fund also failed.
Corruption and misappropriation of fund was to blame, but the main culprit remained what Grant called “the perennial dilemma of inadequate capital and lack of access to affordable credit” for smaller hongs.
These problems plagued all deposit insurance schemes, even today. Large banks loath to support deposit insurance because they pay a larger share of the premium than smaller banks. Small banks enjoy the group insurance, but are more prone to failure because they were more likely to take more risks, which meant that there should be supervision to make sure that these riskier players do not destroy the group as a whole.
Deposit insurance worked very well in the United States, as the FDIC not only participated in supervision of the insured banks, but also engaged actively as the mortuary of failed banks. In the recent crisis, from 2009 to currently, the FDIC smoothly managed the exit of over 400 banks in the United States, without disruption to the system as a whole. But this time round, it was the failure of the shadow banks and larger banks that created the problem. Yes, smaller banks failed, but they did not take down the whole system because deposit insurance prevented large-scale bank runs at the retail level.
The time has come for China to adopt a formal deposit insurance scheme. There are at least three good reasons why it should occur. The first is that deposit insurance will help stop retail bank panic, exactly the reason for the Canton Guaranty Fund. The second is that there must be an orderly exit mechanism for financial institution failure. Some argue that a deposit insurance would duplicate supervision. Today we realise why we have two kidneys instead of one we need redundancy in the system, in case one fails.
The third, based on my personal experience, is that regulators who are good at daily operations may not always be very good at conducting the messy operations of restructuring failed banks. This is a very complicated process that needs strong skills, good bankruptcy laws and more investment banking skills than regulation. Deposit insurance is specialised work and needs specialised skills.
As Grant rightly said, the historical record of the Canton Guaranty System offers a number of valuable lessons to the modern world. “These include (1) that the tax that supports a guaranty fund must be based on measured risk of loss; (2) that the fund and its insureds must be made subject to strong independent supervision; (3) that laws enacted to avoid risk contingencies must be enforced; and (4) that both corruption and the diversion of fund assets must be strictly prohibited.”
The trouble with history is that we never seem to learn from history.
THINK ASIAN
BY ANDREW SHENG
> Tan Sri Andrew Sheng is president of the Fung Global Institute.
Innovation practitioners know that they should not listen to the experts who approach life with rigid blinkers that prevent them from visualising anything outside their conditioned minds.
TAKING a leaf out of what our Prime Minister wrote in this space two weeks ago, innovative thinking is undoubtedly a significant driver in propelling the nation’s economy to new heights. It is imperative that Malaysians embrace a culture of innovation.
But let’s take a step or two back, before we can begin to move forward. It is important to pin down exactly what innovation means. Several readers have asked me if innovation is the same as invention, especially after reading about Malaysian researchers winning awards for their inventions. In fact, although they may appear similar at first glance, upon closer inspection both are very different indeed.
If you make something unique or original, that’s an invention. Whether the invention has value or not is immaterial. This is why we see whacky inventions like toothbrushes for dogs or a clip-on fan on chopsticks to cool down noodles. Both these examples are unique and original but offer little value to most citizens.
Innovation demands creating additional value, even though a product or service may not be unique or original. The innovator must first unravel customer needs, and then figure out how to inject greater value at different parts of the solution. Let’s look at two examples.
Forty-five years ago, the radical economist and philosopher E.F. Schumacher formed an NGO called Practical Action to help people in developing countries help themselves. Practical Action states that more than 1.6 million people in developing countries die of diseases and accidents caused by cooking and heating fires in homes. This is not surprising, given that one third of humanity still uses rudimentary stoves fuelled by wood, charcoal or dung.
Liquefied petroleum gas (LPG) is a viable solution as it costs less than wood or charcoal, but most villagers cannot afford the stoves. Some African countries have implemented an innovative “revolving fund” credit system that allows villagers to buy stoves. It works exactly like the “kutu” scheme prevalent in Malaysia for decades, although illegally. Ten households get together and form a fund, with each household contributing a fixed amount to the fund each month, for 10 months.
Every month, one household collects the contributions that month to buy a stove. The following month, another household gets the total contributions to buy their stove. Households draw lots to see who will get the fund over the next 10 months. Within 10 months, all 10 households get their LPG stove. Now imagine adapting this idea to meet the needs of entire communities and you see the power of this innovative funding system. No handouts or subsidies from the government and no bank loans either – the villagers help themselves, through innovation. This is a common sense solution, not rocket science. To be precise, this is innovation.
Let’s look at the second example. Does the number of new books that hit the bookshelves every month overwhelm you? It was predicted that the Internet would spell the death of the printed word, but in fact the reverse has happened. There are now more books in print than at any other time in history. How does one keep up?
As it is commonly known, a number of innovative online companies have found a practical solution to this. For a small fee, these companies provide a short summary of a book containing all the essential ideas presented in the book. Most people can read these summaries in 15 minutes, making it possible to read at least one book each day. This “compressed knowledge” is another example of innovation.
Ultimately, innovation is not confined to technologies, products or services. You can have innovation at every stage of the business cycle – from manufacturing to distribution to sales to post-sales support.
Just look at Nike, the world’s largest supplier of athletic shoes and apparel. It does not own a single manufacturing factory, but focuses on innovation in design and marketing. Another well-known example is DHL, a world-leading courier and logistics company that relies on innovation to accurately ship a document or parcel from the point of origin to its destination.
For you to benefit and profit from innovation, you have to dissect your business or activity into its key pieces or “parts”. The “eco-system” must be correctly identified, as dealing with just one part of the problem or value-chain is unlikely to bring satisfactory results. Nothing exists in isolation and even seemingly unconnected things are actually connected, so a “village” or holistic approach to innovation is necessary.
For each piece or part, you have to ask a fundamental question: How can I do this better, so that the outcome is greater than it is now – at a lower cost? Your brain will rebel at first and tell you that it cannot be done. Don’t listen to your brain; it is a lazy device looking for the easiest way out. Innovation practitioners know that the last person you should listen to is your own self. Don’t listen to the experts either, for they approach life with rigid blinkers that prevent them from visualising anything outside their conditioned minds.
Adopt a child-like disposition and question the assumptions that you and others have taken for granted. Persist until you have questioned each and every aspect of all the pieces of the puzzle and found answers that are uncommon.
This sounds easy, but it is the most difficult step as it questions all the sacred cows lurking in your belief system. Done correctly, however, it can lead to breakthrough innovations.
If you have been through this process, share your stories with me at kamal@pmo.gov.my so that other readers can benefit from your lessons too.
The Star Ignite
By DATUK SERI DR KAMAL JIT SINGH
> Unit Inovasi Khas CEO Datuk Seri Dr Kamal Jit Singh is hoping to jolt Malaysians out of complacency.
The Difference Between ‘Invention’ and ‘Innovation’
From its inception, the site received a tremendous amount of attention. The New School, USC Annenberg, the Online News Association and, ultimately, the Knight Foundation all saw something interesting in what we were doing. We won awards; we were invited to present at conferences; we were written about in the trades and featured in over 150 blogs. Yet despite all the accolades, not once did the word “invention” creep in. “Innovation,” it turns out, was the word on everyone’s lips.
Like so many up-and-coming entrepreneurs, I was under the impression that invention and innovation were one and the same. They aren’t. And, as I have discovered, the distinction is an important one.
Recently, I was asked by Jason Nazar, founder of Docstoc and a big supporter of the L.A. entrepreneurial community, if I would help define the difference between the two. A short, 3-minute video response can be found at the bottom of this post, but I thought I’d share some key takeaways with you here:
INVENTION VS. INNOVATION: THE DIFFERENCE
In its purest sense, “invention” can be defined as the creation of a product or introduction of a process for the first time. “Innovation,” on the other hand, occurs if someone improves on or makes a significant contribution to an existing product, process or service.
Consider the microprocessor. Someone invented the microprocessor. But by itself, the microprocessor was nothing more than another piece on the circuit board. It’s what was done with that piece — the hundreds of thousands of products, processes and services that evolved from the invention of the microprocessor — that required innovation.
STEVE JOBS: THE POSTER BOY OF INNOVATION
If ever there were a poster child for innovation it would be former Apple CEO Steve Jobs. And when people talk about innovation, Jobs’ iPod is cited as an example of innovation at its best.
But let’s take a step back for a minute. The iPod wasn’t the first portable music device (Sony popularized the “music anywhere, anytime” concept 22 years earlier with the Walkman); the iPod wasn’t the first device that put hundreds of songs in your pocket (dozens of manufacturers had MP3 devices on the market when the iPod was released in 2001); and Apple was actually late to the party when it came to providing an online music-sharing platform. (Napster, Grokster and Kazaa all preceded iTunes.)
So, given those sobering facts, is the iPod’s distinction as a defining example of innovation warranted? Absolutely.
What made the iPod and the music ecosystem it engendered innovative wasn’t that it was the first portable music device. It wasn’t that it was the first MP3 player. And it wasn’t that it was the first company to make thousands of songs immediately available to millions of users. What made Apple innovative was that it combined all of these elements — design, ergonomics and ease of use — in a single device, and then tied it directly into a platform that effortlessly kept that device updated with music.
Admittedly, when it comes to corporate culture, Apple and IBM are worlds apart. But Apple and IBM aren’t really as different as innovation’s poster boy would have had us believe.
Truth is if it hadn’t been for one of IBM’s greatest innovations — the personal computer — there would have been no Apple. Jobs owes a lot to the introduction of the PC. And IBM was the company behind it.
Ironically, the IBM PC didn’t contain any new inventions per se (see iPod example above). Under pressure to complete the project in less than 18 months, the team actually was under explicit instructions not to invent anything new. The goal of the first PC, code-named “Project Chess,” was to take off-the-shelf components and bring them together in a way that was user friendly, inexpensive, and powerful.
And while the world’s first PC was an innovative product in the aggregate, the device they created — a portable device that put powerful computing in the hands of the people — was no less impactful than Henry Ford’s Model T, which reinvented the automobile industry by putting affordable transportation in the hands of the masses.
INNOVATION ALONE IS NOT ENOUGH
Given the choice to invent or innovate, most entrepreneurs would take the latter. Let’s face it, innovation is just sexier. Perhaps there are a few engineers at M.I.T. who can name the members of “Project Chess.” Virtually everyone on the planet knows who Steve Jobs is.
According to Venkatakrishnan Balasubramanian, a research analyst with Infosys Labs, the key to ensuring that innovation is successful is aligning your idea with the strategic objectives and business models of your organization.
1. Competitive advantage: Your innovation should provide a unique competitive position for the enterprise in the marketplace;
2. Business alignment: The differentiating factors of your innovation should be conceptualized around the key strategic focus of the enterprise and its goals;
3. Customers: Knowing the customers who will benefit from your innovation is paramount;
4. Execution: Identifying resources, processes, risks, partners and suppliers and the ecosystem in the market for succeeding in the innovation is equally important;
5. Business value: Assessing the value (monetary, market size, etc.) of the innovation and how the idea will bring that value into the organization is a critical underlying factor in selecting which idea to pursue.
Said another way, smart innovators frame their ideas to stress the ways in which a new concept is compatible with the existing market landscape, and their company’s place in that marketplace.
This adherence to the “status quo” may sound completely antithetical to the concept of innovation. But an idea that requires too much change in an organization, or too much disruption to the marketplace, may never see the light of day.
A FINAL THOUGHT
While they tend to be lumped together, “invention” and “innovation” are not the same thing. There are distinctions between them, and those distinctions are important.
So how do you know if you are inventing or innovating? Consider this analogy:
If invention is a pebble tossed in the pond, innovation is the rippling effect that pebble causes. Someone has to toss the pebble. That’s the inventor. Someone has to recognize the ripple will eventually become a wave. That’s the entrepreneur.
Entrepreneurs don’t stop at the water’s edge. They watch the ripples and spot the next big wave before it happens. And it’s the act of anticipating and riding that “next big wave” that drives the innovative nature in every entrepreneur.
By Tom GrastyThis article is the seventh of 10 video segments in which digital entrepreneur Tom Grasty talks about his experience building an Internet startup, and is part of a larger initiative sponsored by docstoc.videos, which features advice from small business owners who offer their views on how to launch a new business or grow your existing one altogether.
Bad intellectual property image clouds the country’s real progress in encouraging inventors and building an innovation-based society.
CHINA has been an easy prey worldwide as it is labelled as a country with one of the worst environments for intellectual property (IP) development.
But little has been known about the nation’s steady progress in raising a greater awareness of IP rights protection and significance to build a more innovation-based society.
Chinese State Intellectual Property Office commissioner Tian Lipu admitted that China is still full of pirated goods and copycats but he also pointed out that many more individuals and companies are turning innovators instead.
“I think the Western media has painted a wrong picture of China on its efforts to protect IP rights. China’s image has been quite bad in other countries,” he said in a recent interview in Beijing.
He acknowledged that one would be able to find pirated goods in places like Beijing’s Sanlitun and Luohu district in Shenzhen but many had overseen the fact that China had developed a comprehensive system and legal structure to protect local and foreign patents and trademarks.
“Last year, we received 526,000 applications for invention patents, accounting for 25% of the world’s total. About 110,000 local applicants were granted patents. While the number of applications reflects the level of awareness of IP protection among the public, the figures of patents granted indicate how good is the quality of the inventions.
“However, the intellectual property office is more concerned about the valid patents and to see whether these patented creations are well received by the market and how well the patent is maintained by its owner. To date, there are about 350,000 valid patents owned by locals,” he said.
In China, applicants can register patents for invention, patents for utility model and patents for design. The office processed 1.63 million applications for these three types of patents last year.
As for trademarks, China received a total of 9.71 million applications as of the end of last year, with 6.65 million of them successfully registered. Besides, some 110,000 software copyrights were registered last year.
“Not many people know that China is one the countries which pay the most royalties for patents, trademarks, copyrights and franchises and one of the world’s largest genuine software buyers.
“Government departments, banks, insurance firms and many companies are using original softwares. Many firms buy books, music, movies and TV shows through copyright trade,” Tian said.
He said foreign companies had gained huge profits in overseas markets after the production of their original equipment manufacturer (OEM) goods in China.
“I think because of the conducive environment for IP protection in China, foreign investors would have a peace of mind to entrust Chinese manufacturers to produce their OEM goods.”
Last week, the office’s patents administration department announ-ced that as of June, all the departments of the 31 provincial and municipal governments had installed genuine softwares.
By the end of next year, it said, all city and county-level governments would do the same. As of the end of October, all levels of government spent some 1.48 billion yuan (RM725mil) on 2.3 million licences for operating system, office and anti-virus softwares.
It is learnt that most of the state-owned enterprises have been equipped with proper softwares while 50% of smaller companies would be given until next year to follow suit.
Tian said China might not have a society priding itself on IP like in the United States but it would not take too long for the Chinese to catch up with the rest of the world.
“China used to be a country with the highest number of inventions during the Song dynasty – and 50% of the world’s total inventions came from China. China then laid dormant for centuries until we started educating our people on the value of IP 20 years ago. I think it may take one or two more generations for us to build a society that lives by the IP culture,” he said.
He revealed that his office, the Trademark Office under the State Administration of Industry and Commerce and the National Copy-right Administration were amending the Patent Law, Trademark Law and Copyright Law to give more tooth to enforcement and judiciary agencies to carry out their duty.
Under the amended patent law, damages will be calculated based on the illegal gains of the party which infringes the owner’s right rather than the owner’s actual loss. This is because the act of infringing one’s right is relatively easy compared to the act of protecting and maintaining it, he said.
He warned that as Chinese companies reinforce their IP development, they should be on guard to face the so-called “patent trolls” which tend to buy patents at low prices and go around taking action against those infringing their rights.
“These ‘patent trolls’ did not involve in any R&D and innovation. They are a byproduct of IP development sidetracking its real spirit.
“Piracy and IP infringement exist everywhere in the world and cannot be totally wiped out. But investors should be confident about doing business in China as its government is resolute in addressing the problem.”
The recent Stoos gathering identified diversity as one of the pillars of the organization of the future. Why?
It’s an appropriate question to ask on the holiday honoring Martin Luther King Jr. at a time when the country has come a long way towards becoming color blind and realizing his dream that his “four little children will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin but by the content of their character.”
At the same time, the Stoos gathering recognized that it’s also good to celebrate difference. Why? In his wonderful book, The Difference: How the Power of Diversity Creates Better Groups, Firms, Schools, and Societies, (Princeton, 2007) Scott Page shows in detail and with considerable intellectual rigor when diversity does lead to better outcomes and how and why, as well as when it doesn’t.
His short answer is that in some circumstances diversity doesn’t lead to better outcomes:
“… if a loved one requires open-heart surgery, we do not want a collection of butchers, bakers and candlestick makers carving open the chest cavity. We’d much prefer a trained heart surgeon, and for good reason.”
But in other circumstances, particularly complex problems, such as constructing a welfare policy, cracking a secret code or evaluating post-heart attack treatment, diversity not only merits equal standing with ability.
Diversity Trumps Ability?
Page goes beyond the conventional wisdom that other things being equal, diversity trumps like-mindedness. Page makes the startling claim that diversity often trumps ability. In some situations, a group of ordinary people who are diverse can defeat a group of like-minded experts. Page backs up his claim with detailed arguments and evidence.
The prediction markets also show the power of diversity in their ability to make better predictions about the outcome of presidential elections than the experts.
When are two heads better than one? When do too many cooks spoil the broth? Clearly all great restaurants have many cooks. So having lots of cooks won’t spoil the broth, if they are all following the same recipes. The chaos comes if they start to follow different recipes at the same time. In fact, having lots of cooks is essential to running a great restaurant. And when it comes to solving a difficult problem, like coming up with a better way to make coq au vin, having cooks with different points of view will usually help.
Unpacking the idea of diversity
One of the useful things Page does in The Difference is to unpack the notion of diversity. He focuses on cognitive differences between people, not identity differences like race, gender, ethnicity or religion. He suggests that cognitive diversity has four dimensions: perspectives, interpretations, heuristics, predictive models.
Diverse perspectives: people have different ways of representing situations and problems; they who see or envision the set of possibilities confronting them differently.
Diverse interpretations: people put things into different categories and classifications. To some people, I might be someone who worked at the World Bank. To others, I might be an leadership storyteller. To others, I might be an author about radical management. All are true. They are different interpretations of the world.
Diverse heuristics: People have different ways of generating solutions to problems. Some people like to talk through their thinking about problems; others prefer to write out his solutions first and then talk
Diverse predictive models: Some people analyze the situation. Others may look for the story)
This enables Page to explore exactly how these kinds of diversity might help to solve difficult problems or make better predictions.
Why is diversity vital for innovation?
A second thing about the book is the simile that he uses in comparing the solving of problems with climbing rugged landscapes. If our object is to climb as high as possible, our chances of accomplishing that depend on which mountain we decide to climb. If we climb a local hill, we might consider yourselves doing well, because we have never seen the Rockies, let alone Mount Everest. While we’re climbing up one mountain, often we can’t really see how high it is, or how it compares with other neighboring mountains, until we’ve already climbed it. Climbing the highest mountain may entail descending the mountain we are on, and moving to a completely different mountain range.
The image of what it’s like to solve a difficult problem is illuminating in showing how and why having people with different perspectives might enable a group of diverse people to do better than a group of like-minded experts who think they know they are on climbing the highest mountain.
Cognitive vs identity diversity
A third virtue of the book is his summary of the evidence as to whether diversity leads to benefits, including comparisons of cognitive diversity and identity diversity. Cognitive diversity doesn’t improve performance when it comes to routine tasks, like flipping burgers. But when we are dealing with complex tasks like engineering problems, or tasks requiring creativity and innovation, or managerial issues, cognitive diversity is a key explanatory variable in levels of performance.
By comparison, the impact of identity diversity is mixed. One part of this is due to the fact that routine tasks are better done by individuals. A second part of it is due to the fact that identity diversity doesn’t necessarily lead to cognitive diversity. The whole idea of medical training, for instance, is to get medical students thinking alike, i.e. like doctors. It shouldn’t be surprising, then, that doctors who are diverse in identity terms are cognitively alike, and hence may do no better than doctors who are not diverse in identity terms. A third part is due to the fact that getting the benefits of diversity depends people being able to work together. We would expect that some people who are diverse in identity terms find it difficult to work together effectively.
Diversity offers “super-additivity”
The fourth good quality of the book is when Page goes on the offensive and addresses the question of: so what? Given what we have learned, what should we do differently? Page points out that diversity offers not merely the advantage of a diverse stock portfolio where different stocks do better in different conditions, adding up to an overall average that does reasonably in all conditions.
Diversity in teams offers what he calls super-additivity. When a collection of people work together, and one person makes an improvement, the others can often improve on this new solution even further: improvements build on improvements. Diverse perspectives and iverse hueruistics apply sequentially: one gets applied after the other and in combination. As a result, one plus one often exceeds two.
What does this imply? Page has several suggestions that bear on the issue of creating high-performance teams:
Bring in outsiders with different, relevant perspectives. But be careful! Outsiders don’t stay outsiders for long. If outsiders become insiders, they will cease to think differently. And be careful of brining in “highly paid consultants in fancy suits to add credibility to decisions that directors have already made—‘Look, McKinsey agrees with me!’” And the diversity must be relevant to the task at hand: you don’t ask villagers from Papua New Guinea to advise on the implementation of Sarbanes-Oxley.
Encourage inter-disciplinary efforts: When faced with difficult problems, requiring innovation and creativity, the advantages of having cognitively diverse people working on them are overwhelming.
Diverse preferences can be beneficial: If we agree on the goal then disagreements about different ways to reach the goal can be helpful in expanding the array of solutions. But diversity in terms of fundamental preferences can also help. Although solving problems of fundamental differences will often require compromise, diversity in terms of fundamental differences may lead to improvements: Gwen and Tess may disagree on goals, but if Gwen and Tess are cognitively diverse, Gwen may find a solution that Tess improves on, which they both like better.
Diversity needs to be a factor in recruiting: If the work is mainly done by individuals or is routine, cognitive diversity is unlikely to lead to improved performance, although it might be pursued for other reasons. But where people have to work together on difficult problems, cognitive diversity should be very important in hiring. Page praises Google [GOOG] for trying to hire people with diverse interests and skills while also requiring that the recruits have basics skills in fields relevant to Google, i.e. computer science and mathematics.
Recruiters should assess the cognitive aspects of diversity: Identity diversity correlates to a certain degree with cognitive diversity. Since it is easier to assess identity diversity, that may be a first rough approximation of cognitive diversity. But it is also possible to test for cognitive diversity directly, and Page encourages firms to do so.
Overall, this is a terrific book—one of the best management books I’ve read. It takes a complex subject, moves beyond metaphor and mysticism and politics and places the claims of diversity’s benefits on a solid intellectual foundation. Using precise definitions, rigorous analysis and clear conclusions, Page tells you everything you need to know about this subject. His book is well-written and has many interesting apercus and examples, although, given the effort to be rigorously, it’s not always an easy read. Yet it’s a book that tries hard to make us think clearly and what more can we ask than that?
‘Rinnovating’ your home to be greener and cheaper to maintain can sometimes be just a matter of choice of colour or materials, and the result is an improved quality of life.
INNOVATION, contrary to popular belief, is not exclusive to scientists, inventors and tech companies. It isn’t an alien concept that will overwhelm the average Joe or some complicated formula that becomes a magic potion for big problems.
More often than not, innovation is simplifying complicated things, whether it’s a product or a process. Innovative products or processes may result in new wealth being created, increased productivity and efficiency and so on.
The bottom line is, innovation is something we all can do by challenging conventions, asking the right questions and thinking outside the box. And the result is an improved quality of life.
And what better place to start living innovatively than right at home?
In the context of our homes, innovation can be applied to improve not only the livability and comfort of the house, but also security, safety, and health levels, environmental impact and maintenance costs, in addition to prolonging the lifespan of the structure and its contents.
When we talk about a home being comfortable and livable, the most immediate requirement that comes to mind will be space maximisation and optimisation.
With home-owning costs skyrocketing, most of us have had to pay more for less space, especially in urban areas like the Klang Valley.
With things only getting tougher for the next generation, the first innovative ideas involve picking fixtures, furniture and accessories that are not only functional and aesthetically pleasing, but also don’t take up too much space, are multi-taskable, expandable or collapsible.
Reorganise your storage areas and utilise unused space (wall mounted shelves are a good example).
There are many innovative products out there that can make your dwelling a 21st century home, but understandably, getting them will probably set you back quite a bit.
Innovating your home doesn’t have to cost a bomb. In fact, innovatively renovating (“rinnovating”, perhaps?) your home to be greener, cheaper to maintain can be DIY (do-it-yourself), and sometimes it’s a matter of choice of colour or materials that make the difference.
Allow more natural lighting into the house by either having more windows or picking lighter coloured curtains, furniture and paint. Put up mirrors to reflect lights around the house — they also help to give the illusion of space.
Use energy-saving bulbs and low-energy appliances, solar-powered outdoor appliances and heaters, in addition to collecting rainwater for general washing purposes.
Check the pipes and cables, ensuring they are maintained to prevent leakages. These choices not only save you money, but help save the environment, too.
Encourage occupants to live better or adopt better and healthier lifestyles, like separating recyclable wastes, recycling old products and used packages, repurposing them and extending their lifespan.
Stick reminders to inculcate the habit in everyone in the household to switch off appliances and lights when not in use. Encourage the family to exercise by placing things that naturally go together in different rooms or on different floors.
If you absolutely must get a video game console for your children, go for wii, which requires gamers to move more muscles in their bodies than just their fingers to enjoy the games.
Better yet, get your kids sports gear or bicycles and devise an innovative way to chase them out of their rooms and play outside every evening!
Plant certain herbs like citronella, horsemint or marigold that repel mosquitoes. That way, you avoid using harmful chemical-based insecticides and save, too, in addition to having a lovely garden.
Needless to say, there are millions of ways to innovate your home and the household, according to your taste, budget and needs. The point is for you to be constantly excited about truly improving your home.
After all, who says smart buildings are only the modern skyscrapers?
> Datuk Dr Kamal Jit Singh is the CEO of Agensi Inovasi Malaysia (AIM). It is the vanguard of innovation in Malaysia. Established by the Government through an Act of Parliament, AIM will be the driving force behind Malaysia’s push towards establishing an innovation economy.
Iran?s permanent representative to the International Atomic Energy Agency says a recent report by the UN nuclear watchdog is indicative of Iran?s progress in nuclear technology.
Play Video
But let’s take a step back for a minute. The iPod wasn’t the first portable music device (Sony popularized the “music anywhere, anytime” concept 22 years earlier with the Walkman); the iPod wasn’t the first device that put hundreds of songs in your pocket (dozens of manufacturers had MP3 devices on the market when the iPod was released in 2001); and Apple was actually late to the party when it came to providing an online music-sharing platform. (Napster, Grokster and Kazaa all preceded iTunes.)
By 
