This article was originally published as The Cost of Being Comfortable on Technorati.

I read an interesting article from a Forbes advisor called A Young World is No Place for Old Corporations; in a nutshell it talks about nostalgia for “what the WSJ calls America’s  ‘Midcentury Moment’, those post war  “golden years of the 1940’s, ‘50s and early ‘60s?” The boom years when Americans forged the world’s new super power, as those in Europe diminished.“

It goes on to say, “During this time US companies became dominant corporations on a world stage, strongly influencing how business was conducted all over the world.

Fast forward to 2011, America now competes in a fierce global market against young and dynamic economies.”

It lauds the dynamic spark that drove the US economy; a common theme, but one I get tired of seeing.

Tired because it only tells only the upside of the story and ignores so much.

I am neither an economist nor an historian, but here is my view of the same history.

• European industry didn’t diminish, it was crippled by WWII.
• The US became dominant because we were the only country in a position to produce as opposed to spending our efforts and money to rebuild.

In other words, in comparison to the material and psychological devastation experienced by the rest of the world what the US suffered was more like a serious inconvenience.

But not too inconvenient, since we kept on producing and selling.

War’s end left us in the cat-bird seat—not rebuilding, just retooling to sell what the rest of the world needed to rebuild.

A lack of competition breeds arrogance, sloppy practices and fat—fat management and fat labor; it is easy to succeed in a world with little-to-no competition.

When countries no longer needed us because they produced their own we were surprised; when they went beyond and more efficiently produced what we produced and innovated where we had not bothered we were shocked.

When comfortable, we humans seem to believe that some version of what is will always be; it isn’t that we don’t believe in change, but we seem blind to radical change.

We are taken by surprise when it happens and long instead for whatever version of the “good old days” brings us back to our (false) comfort zone.

Flickr image credit: Bruce Turner

Your comments-priceless

Don’t miss a post! Subscribe via RSS or EMAIL

One light plane + Alaskan wilderness + fishing bait + one bear = necessity.

Two new tires + three cases of duct tape + sheet plastic = innovation—

and a ride home!

Flickr image credit: Handforged

Your comments-priceless

Don’t miss a post! Subscribe via RSS or EMAIL

There is a sizable difference between accepting positional leadership when a company is at the bottom and there is no place to go but up and taking over when its at its height—even more so when what was the growth engine and source of extraordinary profits disappears from the economic landscape.

It is one thing to maximize what you have, wringing out every last possible dollar, and investing in innovation for sustainable growth in the future.

It is one thing to create a culture where public shame and the likelihood of termination for missing your numbers rules and changing that to a culture that encourages appropriate risk-taking and never kills the messenger when the risk doesn’t pan out; a culture that understands not every innovation will be a home run, but encourages and applauds the effort anyway.

These are the differences between Jack Welch

But Welch had taken over when the company was in the bottom of an economic cycle. He took over GE in a recession, not the height of a bubble. Immelt got the job right after the end of the high-flying 1990s, an era which crowned CEOs with mythical, God-like crowns, and Welch was bestowed the biggest of them all.

and Jeff Immelt.

Immelt had known before the meltdown the company needed to ween off the leveraged risk from finance that was begun under Welch. … He admitted mistakes, as any good leader must do, and GE more quietly if not humbly went about its business in making the company a 21st century sustainable and reliable profit engine.

The differences are worth noting.

Flickr image credit: laurita13

Your comments-priceless

Don’t miss a post! Subscribe via RSS or EMAIL

I frequently see comments on blogs and social sites along the lines of “I know I could be an entrepreneur if I just had a good idea” or “I want to be an entrepreneur and change the world.”

Sadly, it seems that most are looking for ideas to make them the next Groupon or Foursquare and while that might make them rich, it will hardly change the world.

There’s nothing inherently wrong with that, but it won’t change much or get you into the history books.

You change the world by tackling real-world problems, often with hard science

But you don’t need to be a scientist; self-taught Gary Cola invented the world’s lightest, strongest steel that takes less than ten seconds to make.

In fact, you don’t have to be an adult. Take a look at the winners of the first Google Science Fair and you will be blown away; none are 18 yet and none of their ideas involved the Internet.

Here’s an idea; if you want to change the world look for problems with global impact. Blake Mycoskie is changing the world with shoes and glasses, while Anthony Capone, CEO of Nimbus Water Systems, is changing it with inexpensive, solar-powered, portable water purification systems.

Then there are toilets.

Yes, toilets.

That handy gadget that we take for granted (unless it isn’t working) and that many parts of the world only dream about.

“No innovation in the past 200 years has done more to save lives and improve health than the sanitation revolution triggered by invention of the toilet.” –Sylvia Mathews Burwell, president of the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation’s global development program

And the Gates Foundation is putting its money where its mouth is.

Look around; think about changing the world by reinventing or innovating something that addresses a basic need.

You may not end up as rich as Mark Cuban, but I guarantee that it’s the sexiest, most exciting, rewarding, feel-good thing you’ll ever do.

Image credit: idf-fotos

Your comments-priceless

Don’t miss a post! Subscribe via RSS or EMAIL

I never did understand the frenzy around startups and small biz as an engine for job creation, but I kept still—no one makes a fool of themselves intentionally.

Then last July I read an article by Andy Grove about what it takes to create jobs and my thoughts didn’t seem quite so ignorant. In September I read that after the first rush of hiring small and large companies are fairly even regarding job creation.

I also couldn’t understand the economic value of companies such as Groupon, Twitter, Zynga or even Facebook. I really couldn’t see how new ways to sell stuff was going to rebuild the middle class; it just didn’t seem that anything new and real was actually being created, but I didn’t broadcast those heretical views, either.

Now I’m seeing my heretical ideas voiced by people with cred.

So if this tech bubble is about getting shoppers to buy, what’s left if and when it pops? [Steve] Perlman [founder or WebTV] grows agitated when asked that question. Hands waving and voice rising, he says that venture capitalists have become consumed with finding overnight sensations. They’ve pulled away from funding risky projects that create more of those general-purpose technologies—inventions that lay the foundation for more invention. “…But they are building on top of old technology, and at some point you exhaust the fuel of the underpinnings.”

Beyond all this is the fact that selling stuff requires a strong middle class to buy it and even startups with real products aren’t contributing to the manufacturing jobs that underpin that same middle class.

“The scaling process is no longer happening in the U.S. And as long as that’s the case, plowing capital into young companies that build their factories elsewhere will continue to yield a bad return in terms of American jobs.” –Andy Grove

China and India are consumer powerhouses not because of their newly minted uber-rich, but because of their growing middle class.

Most of this has been said in one way or another, but it doesn’t seem to have sunk in. I certainly don’t have the answers, but I am sure that the conversation needs to become a lot louder before anyone notices, let alone takes action.

Image credit: Flickr

Article first published as No Help Wanted on Technorati.

Your comments-priceless

Don’t miss a post! Subscribe via RSS or EMAIL

Quick. What comes to mind when you hear “entrepreneur?” Do you think first of someone young?

Does innovation bring to mind a new social or mobile app?

Does it excite you that it was US ingenuity that gave the world a social way to get discounts (Groupon), tell the world they what they had for lunch (Twitter) and brag that they are mayor of the local Starbucks (Foursquare)?

These questions come from a recent conversation I had and my response to all three was ‘no’, which, obviously, puts me way out in left field. (My answers were that entrepreneur is age-neutral and innovation links directly to the stuff that excites me, such as the polio vaccine, semiconductors and DARPA, which counts the internet among the things it fostered.

The kinds of innovation and invention that blow me away are rarely focused on supplying ephemeral consumer experiences, but rather they directly make or cause material changes in our world—hopefully for the better; they often take years of effort and don’t result in rock star status or millions of followers and friends.

A recent example is a guy you’ve probably never heard of named Gary Cola, founder of Bainite Steel.

A self-taught inventor named Gary Cola has developed a process for manufacturing steel that results in the creation of a product that’s 7% stronger than the strongest steel – and 30% lighter. The steel is also incredibly ductile – meaning that it can crumple a great deal before reaching a breaking point. Even better? His heat-treating process only takes 10 seconds. Compare that to conventional steel manufacturing, where heat-treating can take hours or even days.

Many that will reshape the world are born through academic research, such as Glassimetal Technology (a metal alloy that can be molded like plastic).

Then there are Hugh Crenshaw and Charles Pell, who, using their background in biomechanics, keep inventing and innovating in multiple fields.

And over the past 20 years they’ve profitably translated their understanding of biomechanics into inventions, from robotic submarines to pill sorters.

They aren’t stopping, either, now they’ve focused on reinventing the surgical tray, starting with the rib spreader.

Now you know what excites me, what innovation/inventions excite you?

Flickr image credit The U.S. National Archives

Your comments-priceless

Don’t miss a post! Subscribe via RSS or EMAIL

No, Kim Kardashian does not figure in any way in this post. Actually, I’ve never seen her, know almost nothing about her and have no interest in changing that. But I am going to introduce you to some very cool people and their fashion-connected innovations.

But first, something for all those who were ever forced to change not only their job, but their entire career.

What if you had the coolest, most awesome job in the world and your company closed, eliminating your position? Worse, what if it was the only company in that business? What would you do?

Next up is David Barton, a five foot, five inch powerhouse who created and runs the coolest gyms on the planet. (If I’m wrong about that you can correct me in comments.)

Every wonder who profits from the millions of toys that are given away in cereal boxes and places like Carl’s Jr? Meet George Namkungm founder of Namkung Promotions Inc.; the same guy who traded in the plush lifestyle those toys gave him to create a way to feed lunch five days a week to 15,000 children.

Innovation can also be turned on ones-self. What kind of career would you create for yourself if you were a six foot tall fashionista? Image-maker, of course, which is exactly what Rachel Johnson did, only she styles celebrity athletes, instead of the glitterati.

Ever wondered what else clothes can do besides the obvious?

On the high tech side there is wearable there are clothes that act as sunscreen and “anti-odor” polo shirts.

On the low tech side is something far cooler. A mom who wanted to give her blind daughter access to the fun of cool slogans on tees found 3-D embroidery and connected with the right company. The result is Braille-A-Wear—check it out.

This final link doesn’t address entrepreneurs or innovation, but it does take a look at the flip-side of an age old fashion dilemma that every woman knows—and it’s hilarious. Enjoy!

Image credit:  MykReeve on flickr

Your comments-priceless

Don’t miss a post! Subscribe via RSS or EMAIL

During the original dot com boom a young woman told me that there had been no startups before the Internet and that all startups involved it.

Once again it seems as if all the focus is on web startups that sell, or help sell, stuff to consumers.

But there are other kinds of entrepreneurs, some start companies, while others innovate inside the system—and the system isn’t always a company nor is the end result a product.

Sometimes it’s people.

Dr. Carnell Cooper, an associate professor of surgery at the University of Maryland in Baltimore, is such an entrepreneur, although I’m sure he doesn’t think of himself that way.

Those who treat young victims of violence know that there is a high probability that the same kids will be back again and again and that one of the next incidents is likely to be fatal.

Dr. Cooper knew that, but he believed there was a way to break the cycle.

In a country where violence remains a major public health issue and homicide remains the 15th leading cause of death and the leading cause of death among African-American males ages 15 to 34, the work of Dr. Cooper and his colleagues has resulted in an 83 percent decrease among participants in repeat hospitalizations for violent injuries, a 75 percent reduction in criminal activity and an 82 percent increase in employment. He created a hospital-based violence intervention program that has helped more than 1,500 victims of violent crime and their families.

According to Mark Suster, an entrepreneur turned VC, a successful startup needs to solve a real problem and “win the battle for share of mind.”

Granted, Suster is referring to Net startups, but there’s no question that the problem Dr. Cooper is addressing is very real. Nor is there any question that its impact is wide-spread, its cost enormous and its impact on our GDP substantial.

Dr. Cooper started his program in 1998, ran out of funding in 2001 and has subsisted on grants ever since.

He found a real solution to a real problem, but still can’t capture mindshare.

Will Americans ever accept that we have problems that can’t be solved with an app? And that the solutions that do work should be funded even if they don’t offer an obvious 10x return?

Image credit: University of Maryland Medical Center

Your comments-priceless

Don’t miss a post! Subscribe via RSS or EMAIL

By now you all know that I am a digital dinosaur, no cell phone, no iAnything, and a careful participant online.

I would rather brand my company, RampUp Solutions, and product, Option Sanity™, than brand myself.

I probably qualify for residency in the privacy nut house.

However, I read with interest an opinion piece by Richard H. Thaler, an economics professor, who makes a great point.

If a business collects data on consumers electronically, it should provide them with a version of that data that is easy to download and export to another Web site. Think of it this way: you have lent the company your data, and you’d like a copy for your own use.

He goes on to offer specific examples of ways in which people would gain significantly from having access to that data if it was in a user-friendly form.

(His comments reminded me of the legal fight by people whose genomes were added to data bases without their consent.)

Senators John Kerry and John McCain (wow, that is an odd couple) have co-authored a bill called the Commercial Privacy Bill of Rights, which is good (if it passes), but Thaler says it only addresses privacy and security issues, not useable access.

Both sound like a good idea.

The UK already has both.

US marketers claim that any kind of privacy or data control will affect the economy adversely; I even heard some say that any kind of limitations on the use of data in the US could impair the global recovery.

Pu-leeeze!

If, as Thaler demonstrates, giving useable access to collected data would allow consumers to better evaluate pricing to find the best deal the result would be less smoke and mirrors and (slightly) more authenticity.

It seems to me that would benefit the recovery—at least for those companies that aren’t playing games.

Image credit: http://www.flickr.com/photos/smemon/4478876573/

Your comments-priceless

Don’t miss a post! Subscribe via RSS or EMAIL

There is much talk these days about entrepreneurs and entrepreneurism, what makes the first and the importance of the second.

Today we look at the story of Vijender Shekhawat, a struggling small business owner turned entrepreneur with an unlikely product, but one that is changing lives for the better.

Eight years ago 29 year old Vijender Shekhawat, warrior caste and descendant of kings, did what millions of Indians do each day—he stepped in elephant poop.

But unlike the other millions, his reaction was to study the poop and in doing so he realized it was similar to the wood pulp he used to make his custom paper (that wasn’t doing all that well).

Through trial and error he found the right ration of poop to cotton to produce a unique and beautiful custom paper; he uses organic dyes, including beet juice for red paper, dried pomegranate skins for gray and the castor oil plant for green.

Talk about sustainable!

When dung prices skyrocketed because there was a market for it, Shekhawat found a solution that not only made everyone happy, but also improved the quality of his raw material.

He provided the elephants’ food, pleasing the mahouts. The beasts ate better, pleasing the elephants. And higher-quality dung emerged, pleasing Shekhawat. “Before, keepers skulked around dumping it at night,” Shekhawat said. “Now they’re delighted.”

The paper is now sold in Europe and the US.

Like many entrepreneurs Shekhawat wants to do good along with doing well and that attitude drives his expansion plans.

Shekhawat has always had a charitable bent — as a boy he gave his lunch to beggars, his mother said — and his next dream is to help villagers by moving his workshop to a rural area and providing jobs, especially for women who often don’t have much chance to leave the house, and serving as an example for wannabe entrepreneurs.

Metaphorically speaking, we have all stepped in elephant poop at one time or another and are bound to do so again.

The real question is what will you do the next time it happens?

As Shekhawat points out, “the difference between being a fool and a genius is success.”

But first you have to try.

Image credit: http://www.flickr.com/photos/56796376@N00/1027372659

Your comments-priceless

Don’t miss a post! Subscribe via RSS or EMAIL