Is affordability the new luxury?
One of the core foundational theories that sparked the creation of Sofcoast is that there has been and continues to be massive creation activity in a broad array of areas to include material science, textiles, manufacturing processes, web, computing and mobile tech. Yet there is a gap in the areas of activity stream integration, human computer communications, human computer interfaces, end-user relevence and affordability. The way I describe it today is that I'm an adherent to Paretto's principle, check out a previous post where I talk about "Good Enough".
In one of my previous posts, I introduced my personal philosophy for innovation, titled "Low Friction Innovation" (I haven't yet discussed my framework for analysis and design called "PIP-C, which I'll do another time.)
In this thoughtstream, I was making observations by drawing parallels with the work that Dr. Eliyahu Goldratt has done in developing his philosophy called theory of constraints, which is a discourse on effectively producing desired outcomes. For me, innovation is very simply that: Finding or creating ways, methods, means, techniques or tools to effectively produce outcomes ---- THAT ARE CONTEXTUALLY RELEVANT.
In the course of my studying his philosophy, Dr. Goldratt's point that social inertia can in fact become the largest constraint for groups and organizations to overcome. Social Inertia is defined on Wikipedia as a term "...used to describe the resistance to change presented by societies or social groups, usually due to habit."
Understandably, there are other approaches to innovation that are critically important. My point here is that Low Friction Innovation is not new to humanity and only in recent modern history has mankind even had alternative structures (collectively termed by yours truly as "high-friction innovation") to tackle problems. Obviously, in modern history as societies developed industrialization and now as we're all witnessing, post-industrialization, bigger problems have been solveable as these new structures such as government organizations, militaries, taxation systems, economic and monetary policy, education, industries and of course markets with customers continued to evolve.
Think about it, people living in caves had very little choice and were faced with tremendous resource constraints other than to simply adapt as best they could. It's kind of funny to think about how fire, the wheel and a common language are the three most significant innovations of pre-industrialized society, yet to us they seem crude, prehistoric and "totally obvious!".
Alternatively, think about the difficulty of putting man on the moon without a commitment to a higher purpose and a willingness to target something with massive (almost unfathomable) friction and constraints like the Apollo Space Program. This is one of those accomplishments of humankind that rest on thousands of innovations, some of them low-friction and others high-friction and if cost/risk were the driver, Tranquility Base wouldn't exist.
So, how should society view innovation today and in the future? Should this be an "either - or" question? or some type of hybridized way of thinking? Perhaps the question is a simple one: How does social inertia impact our military industrial complex and academic research community? Does it produce bias towards high-friction innovations? (I guess I could ask the same question the other way about the structures for financing new ventures and startups as well..) If so what does this bias mean to all of the constiuents including the most important constituent (in my humble viewpoint) the end-user, followed closely by the taxpayer?
What Social Inertia's are we dealing with in the United States in our socio-economic systems, our politics, financial and economic and our military and defense establishments?
Alternatively, what social inertia's are present in developing societies? In failed states and 3rd world countries? How does this play out on a global scale? How does this play out regionally and locally? What is the impact to the Humanitarian Assistance Organizations and Relief Groups?
In his farewell Military Industrial Complex speech in 1960, President Eisenhower provided a warning to the American People of the risks to our society in developing the "armament industry" as he put it....
"This conjunction of an immense military establishment and a large arms industry is new in the American experience. The total influence -- economic, political, even spiritual -- is felt in every city, every State house, every office of the Federal government. We recognize the imperative need for this development. Yet we must not fail to comprehend its grave implications. Our toil, resources and livelihood are all involved; so is the very structure of our society."
Throughout my entire career spanning military service as well as my post-service career, I've had ongoing discussions about this "low friction" or "good enough" philosophy. In many cases I've proven over and over that this philosophy works in very practical ways and this has provided me with opportunities to further describe additional advantages and benefits which include reduced cost requirements. (Actually the costs don't disappear, they are simply "transferred" from hardcosts to intangible "soft" costs, i.e., the organization must shift from a "top-down" model to a learning and self-aware knowledge focused organization) which can translate into increased efficiencies across the organization (and as a byproduct, lead to more efficient cost models which equates to "affordable" capabilities) that can be fielded much faster and with increasingly precise relevance for end users.
Of course my background is with Special Operations Forces, which has been shown to be one of the most economical and cost effective military capabilities in the history of modern warfare, so efficiecient use and deployment of resources to tackle tough problems is kind of in my DNA....
If you'd like a more recent example of someone warning society about the hazards of certain social inertia's inducing painful constraints, look no further than this week. In an October 7th, 2009 article titled "Future Weapons Need to be Adaptable, Cost Less" (Aerospace & Defense News) General James E. Cartwright, the vice chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff stated that the United States can no longer afford to "cut out large chunks of its defense budget" for weapons systems that provide "ony a niche capability".
The most poignant comment made by General Cartwright is that "no matter how good a weapon system is, it has to be affordable, which flies in the face of most of the entrenched industry experts
Does this mean that affordability is now the new luxury for a society confronted with constraints ("contractions" or "corrections") not seen since the great depression? Even for Large Defense Programs procurement? Is this an indication of some sort of a shift?
I'm not sure.
These are my thoughts. I guess they manifest from my own social inertia's, coming from a rural community in Southeastern Kentucky where as they say "pickens are slim", since I was a little boy struggling to find food for my mother and myself, to growing up observing a genius entrepeneur (my grandfather, RL Owens), to my unforgettable experiences as a Navy SEAL to the most challenging experience of my life (no kidding) starting Sofcoast, it's ingrained in me to find or create a solution to whatever problem I'm faced with. I think most people have this survival instinct, whether they know it or not.
Sometimes we as people forget that we can accomplish much more than we may think we can. Sometimes we as people need to produce experiences to remind us of this.
Don't let yourself be what President Theodore Roosevelt called "..those cold and timid souls who know neither victory or defeat."
Get moving.
This is important because it is at the core of Sofcoast's value system. Everything Sofcoast stands for is based on the vision that affordability is not a codeword for "small", "cheap","low quality", "sub-par" or a "partial fit".
Affordability means being responsible. It means making a positive contribution to society and humanity. It means being mindful to maintain a balanced view. It means developing and adhering to a sort of intellectual discipline and "technical frugality" to elegantly design in ways that continuously contribute positively to humanity.
Maybe another excerpt from President Eisenhower's farewell speech might help describe one of the core tenents of Sofcoast's value system as he warns all of us to be careful of impalanced views....
"Another factor in maintaining balance involves the element of time. As we peer into society's future, we -- you and I, and our government -- must avoid the impulse to live only for today, plundering, for our own ease and convenience, the precious resources of tomorrow. We cannot mortgage the material assets of our grandchildren without risking the loss also of their political and spiritual heritage. We want democracy to survive for all generations to come, not to become the insolvent phantom of tomorrow."
Cheers,
John S. Surmont, Sofcoast founder & CEO
Sofcoast develops affordable, game-changing solutions that empower local, national and global entities in the public and private sectors to connect and enable mobile field workers, defend against danger and loss, and restore stability in the event of disaster.
