25 October 2005

That old chestnut - how do you measure innovation? From the FT (don't think that it's subscription only).

"The warning should be heeded by those western observers who, dazzled by China’s rise in basic manufacturing, breathlessly proclaim it is destined to become a global leader in science and technological innovation."
Many of whom should know better that China's centrally driven economy has as little chance as Russia's technoparks of succeeding. I sat opposite one of the scions of Valley investing as he breathlessly proclaimed that China was the next "BIG" thing. He knew as much about China as I do about innovation in the UK; Enough to sound knowledgeable, little enough to be enthusiastic.

Innovation is about breaking apart business models; Skype is not a new technology but it has more innovation in its business model than the outstandingly technologically brilliant SJPhone had for breakfast. End result - Skype - $2.6+bn SJPhone 2.4Rbls.

Technorati Tags: , , ,

1 comment:

Daniel Nerezov said...

"little enough to be enthusiastic"- that's timeless!

interesting article...the authors make room for thorough economic analysis.

the interesting thing I find with analyzing China, Russia or any other emerging economy - is the inherent limit to economic analysis.

mathematically speaking, anything as complex as China is subject to a lot of randomness, so quantitatively it's going to be statistically impossible to predict anything short of the immediate near term. yes..."extrapolation will make you blind", but that both ways for extrapolating positive as well as negative bias (such as in the article).

the more interesting thing, scientifically speaking, is that economics is a social science. things don't happen because of immutable physical laws, but as a consequence of people's predominant perceptions and subsequent actions.

I say (reservedly), if everyone believes China (or Russia) is going to "become a global leader in science and technological innovation", then so be it! If enough people want it to happen- it will happen. The aforementioned is a self fulfilling prophecy in as much as any other analyst report.

So where to from here? The emerge of China and Russia is important. It creates opportunity to better the world. In these circumstances I'd side with evangelizing the kind of Russia and China we want to emerge, rather than relying on chicken-little economic analysis which is empirically, little more than a slightly better educated guess.

Economic reality is seeded in the minds of men and revels it self through the actions of faithful crowds. I, for one, have faith in Russia (and China)- enough to be enthusiastic.

25 October 2005

That old chestnut - how do you measure innovation? From the FT (don't think that it's subscription only).

"The warning should be heeded by those western observers who, dazzled by China’s rise in basic manufacturing, breathlessly proclaim it is destined to become a global leader in science and technological innovation."
Many of whom should know better that China's centrally driven economy has as little chance as Russia's technoparks of succeeding. I sat opposite one of the scions of Valley investing as he breathlessly proclaimed that China was the next "BIG" thing. He knew as much about China as I do about innovation in the UK; Enough to sound knowledgeable, little enough to be enthusiastic.

Innovation is about breaking apart business models; Skype is not a new technology but it has more innovation in its business model than the outstandingly technologically brilliant SJPhone had for breakfast. End result - Skype - $2.6+bn SJPhone 2.4Rbls.

Technorati Tags: , , ,

1 comment:

Daniel Nerezov said...

"little enough to be enthusiastic"- that's timeless!

interesting article...the authors make room for thorough economic analysis.

the interesting thing I find with analyzing China, Russia or any other emerging economy - is the inherent limit to economic analysis.

mathematically speaking, anything as complex as China is subject to a lot of randomness, so quantitatively it's going to be statistically impossible to predict anything short of the immediate near term. yes..."extrapolation will make you blind", but that both ways for extrapolating positive as well as negative bias (such as in the article).

the more interesting thing, scientifically speaking, is that economics is a social science. things don't happen because of immutable physical laws, but as a consequence of people's predominant perceptions and subsequent actions.

I say (reservedly), if everyone believes China (or Russia) is going to "become a global leader in science and technological innovation", then so be it! If enough people want it to happen- it will happen. The aforementioned is a self fulfilling prophecy in as much as any other analyst report.

So where to from here? The emerge of China and Russia is important. It creates opportunity to better the world. In these circumstances I'd side with evangelizing the kind of Russia and China we want to emerge, rather than relying on chicken-little economic analysis which is empirically, little more than a slightly better educated guess.

Economic reality is seeded in the minds of men and revels it self through the actions of faithful crowds. I, for one, have faith in Russia (and China)- enough to be enthusiastic.