Innovation Plan -- Concept Overview

Google Docs is an easy-to-use, "Web 2.0" approach to presenting ideas, or collaborating on presentations. I'll use it to provide an overview of my Prediction and Socio-Technical Plan:

Exploring the Future

I think Nanomanufacturing represents one of the most drastic changes for the future. Nanomanufacturing is based on molecular-level construction, which means we can build absolutely anything that we can describe in the form of a molecular-level blueprint (which is obviously a major challenge, but we're exploring the future here).

I saw a Discovery channel TV show the other night that talked about the possibilities. They described the concept of "personal fabrication devices", which could be used to manufacture anything we wanted. They compared this to "printing" a hard-copy represenation of a document -- push the "print" button on the personal fabricator and create whatever you want (e.g. new pair of shoes, new car, new boat).

What about cloning? From a physical perspective, we're just a carbon-based life form built from a collection of molecules (e.g. 60% water, etc). Do you think our memories, personality, etc would be replicated? In other words, do you think a molecular-based "print" of yourself would retain all your memories and personal charactersics? Freaky. Identity theft takes on a whole new meaning. But imagine the potential of our Olympic swim team if we simply replicate Mike Phelps using Mike Phelps blueprints.

I guess that also means we could manufacture any food source (with the molecular blueprint of the food source). That basically means we could take all the pollution in the world -- as raw molecular material -- and transform it into food, water, shelter, luxuries, a Saturday night date, etc.

Our economy would be driven by the purchase and sale of molecular blueprints. Creating these blueprints would probably be the only other job on the planet, since we no longer need retail stores, or manufacturing,... or banks, because we can build our own money from molecular blueprints.

Useful Web Tool

I never liked the way Browsers managed my favorite links, and I was never that excited about Deli.cio.us as a 'social bookmarking site', so I didn't bother...  but I did finally try Furl. 

I like Furl's full text search, and the fact that Furl saves copies of my content to my personal storage area, creating what Furl folks call your 'personal web'.  I find this great for saving my research-related content. I can search, access, organize, or update a consolidated set of favorite links from any one of my 12 computers, or any other computer I happen to be working from. 

Here is a useful review of Furl, which includes a comparison with Deli.cio.us.

Think Tanks

The web is full of definitions for Think Tanks, including the top Google search result from Wikipedia. So I'll spare the world from having to sort through another one, and offer a more personal perspective on the concept instead.

I work at a Federally Funded Research and Development Center (FFRDC), which is a special type of Think Tank. It's a great place to work -- we've been listed on Fortune's "100 Best Companies to Work For" for the past 7 years.

The National Science Foundation describes an FFRDC as "R&D-performing organizations that are exclusively or substantially financed by the Federal Government and are supported by the Federal Government either to meet a particular R&D objective..."

Yep, that's right. The DoD is one such sponsor. One of the DoD's current R&D objectives involves the transformation to net-centric operations. This involves a full spectrum of considerations for people, process, and technologies.

Regarding innovation (the topic of our course), I think the past decade's explosion of computer technology advancements (e.g. processing, storage, and network) have out-paced our ability to fully utilize these technologies. In other words, I think we have many opportunities for innovative design (aka applied research).

There are obvious benefits in speculating about the distant future, and basic research for discovery of new technologies.... but I think we have real challenges right now, along with the technologies to meet these challenges right now. Innovation can occur within the process of applied research and design... my favorites.

Back to Think Tanks... The National Center for Policy Analysis provides an interesting historical perspective on Think Tanks.

Web 2.0 - Podcasts

As I've mentioned, I'm not an active participant of the Web 2.0 social scene. I spend my entire day (and many nights) working with computer technology, so I prefer to explore other adventures when I get some free time....

There are times when I find these new Web toys useful. I have a simple set of criteria for choosing my tools: 1) free, and 2) easy to use. I also prefer to host my content on my own server, or a server that I have file-level control over. I avoid the public "cloud" form of content storage.

With those criterion in mind, I performed the following steps to create the podcast below:

1. Recorded the audio in mp3 format with a digital recorder
2. Cleaned up the audio with Audacity (free), which exports to mp3
3. Moved the mp3 content to one of my file servers
4. Embedded the link to the mp3 file using an Odeo player

Innovation in other fields

Innovation is not limited to technology. Cris Angel has revolutionized "magic". If you haven't seen his work, check out these videos. There's lots more on YouTube.

This is an innovative approach to a classic magic trick:



I'd say this an innovative approach to getting from one side of a pool to another:

Satellite Communication - Analysis of a Successful Prediction

I raised a few questions in my previous post: why were early predictions of satellite communication successful? Was satellite communications inevitable, or was it driven by the creative minds of the people who predicted it's development?

David Whalens postulates that John Pierce, from AT&T's Bell Telephone Lab, identified satellite communications as a billion-dollar technology. Hmmmmm.... could that impact the likelihood of success for this prediction? By 1960, AT&T filed for permission from the FCC to launch an experimental communication satellite.

Richard Albright provided some interesting perspectives on technical forecasts. He notes that 80% of forecasts in computers and communications are correct, while forecasts in other areas are less than 50% correct. He lists a few potential reasons why:

1. Sustained exponential trends in enabling technologies. It's easier to extrapolate (predict) when you have more sample points to work with.
2. Lower investment for innovation. Technology advances have dropped the cost barriers, so we can effectively iterate more solutions for less cost. This allows many people from many organisations to make contributions to the progression.

Personally, I believe that the likelihood of success for any prediction will be directly proportional to the potential profit that can be made from it's success. Of course there are other factors (like gravity and other technical, political, organizational hurdles), but I believe that greed is a powerful force that can significantly impact the success of any technological prediction.

Satellite Communication - a Successful Prediction

Aurthur Clarke, a Sci-Fi author, published a technical paper in 1945 titled: "Extra-terrestrial Relays – Can Rocket Stations Give World-wide Radio Coverage?" Clarke later described the technical concept of satellite communications in essays he published between 1958 and 1961.

In 1967 Herman Kahn and Anthony Wiener published "The Year 2000", which listed 100 technology innovations for the 20th century. One of their many successful predictions included this one: "Direct broadcasts from satellites to home receivers". Kahn and Wiener basically extended Clarke's vision to predict wide-spread commercial use of satellite communications.

Satellite communications have become a many-billion-dollar technology. What made this such a successful prediction? Was the future inevitable, and completely independent of these predictions? Or did these predictions influence the future? I'll explore these questions in my next post.

Y2K Crisis - Analysis of a Failed Prediction

The predicted catastrophic 'end-of-the-world' consequences of Y2K did not happen. Did the predictions prevent the disaster? This is analogous to asking whether a prediction enables itself to become true (e.g. self-fulfilling prophecy).

There are many examples of companies that made significant investments in patching their software to avoid the predicted problems from the date-change transition. In fact, the US spent $100 billion on the Y2k problem ($8.5 Billion on Federal government alone)!

Was the $100 billion justified? I was not surprised to read that the Govt folks who fueled this level of spending determined that it was justified (self-fulfilling justification). The fact is, there was not enough time or money to re-write all the software in the world, and yet the end-of-the-world did not occur.

Finkelstein describes some factors that fueled the panic that led to the gross exaggerations (the end of the world as we know it):

1. Public ignorance led to panic. Many religious organizations exploited the situation to predict the end of the world. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FKv563gbJbE
2. Business managers created more panic when they suddenly realized their businesses depended on computer technologies, none of which they really understood.
3. IT managers exploited the panic to justify increased budgets for new equipment and various software projects.
4. Consultants exploited the panic, "hoping to charge companies thousands of dollars a day to fix the problem."

The Y2K Crisis -- a Failed Prediction

How would you like to be one of the people quoted on the top failed prediction lists, like the "Top 87 Bad Predictions about the Future" or the "Top 30 Failed Technology Predictions"? Do you think Ken Olson is being consulted about the future of computing? (Ken's famous prediction: "there is no reason anyone would want a computer in their home").

This brings up an interesting question: will a failed prediction impact your career, or the reputation of your company? But I digress... back to the assignment:

I think Y2K is a good example of a failed prediction for analysis because: 1) it was recent; 2) it was related to the pervasive use of computer technology; and 3) there was world-wide awareness of this doomsday prediction. I remember people pulling money from banks based on the fear that the Y2K crisis would cripple our economy. The company I was working for at the time set up a 24-hour support service in anticipation of system crashes and frantic customer calls. We didn't have a single problem.

The world survived. There was no crisis.

In my next posts, I'll provide more insights into this failed prediction.

Web 2.0 Tools

I prefer to keep my Internet-based information sharing to a minimum (e.g. when required for class), so I don't use many of the popular Web 2.0 tools -- at least not the way other folks use them. I subscribe to RSS feeds from some of the best thinkers in my profession, but you won't find me on MySpace, youTube, or any of the other 'socialization' sites. I'd rather go hiking....

That doesn't mean I don't use web-based collaboration tools. My work requires network-based interaction, but that's always conducted in secure, closed sessions (at least we hope it is). I use NetMeeting, WebEx, and other collaboration tools. I wouldn't associate these with the "Web 2.0" buzzword, but there are some commonality in terms of purpose and technology.

I'm more interested in the underlying mechanisms that support the Web 2.0 approach to information sharing. I've worked on projects that use REST, XML, Atom/RSS, and a variety of large-scale data dissemination / management strategies --- the same underlying technologies that support all this Internet-based collaboration. Theses technical aspects are far more interesting to me than reading some anonymous person's opinions on gun ownership, or the plight of the caribou.

ted.com: "Brain Magic"

I've always been intrigued by the human brain -- especially discussions on 'untapped potential'. ted.com had some interesting dicussions on the topic, but I wouldn't consider them futuristic or innovative. At least not like Ian Pearson's predictions about the future of our brain...

Ian Pearson is a "Futurologist". He's got some interesting predictions for human evolution. According to Ian, we'll be evolving from Homo Sapiens into more intelligent life forms:

• Homo Optimus, which are humans with modified brains
• Homo Cyberneticus, which will leverage cybernetic prosthesis with full-duplex mind-machine links
• Homo Hybridus, will bring telepathic communication with other machines and people
• Homo Machinus, where the mind-machine link becomes totally transparent

That's a bold prediction! But as Ian points out, "I usually get it right, but since the future is never totally predictable, I sometimes get it wrong too, about 15% of the time. But I specialise in doing long term stuff, so I have a lot of fun. I hope to be retired before anyone can prove me wrong."

I'll avoid the temptation to rant about "futuring"... (as I said in class, I think the most interesting predictions about the future would come from six graders).

I'll be spending more time discussing brain-computer interfaces in future posts. For now, check out this article: "The Human Brain: Should we Upgrade?"

Intro

This is my last course of my 4th academic degree. If I ever consider another engineering-related degree, please shoot me. My future educational pursuits will be in the area of finance and tax laws, to support my professional athletic career (aka retirement).

My expertise and interests have changed over the past 3 decades. I started doing board-level hardware design of high-performance multi-processor signal processing systems, then moved to device drivers, and finally to software-based infrastructures for distributed systems -- both LAN- and WAN-based systems, small- and large-scale systems, commercial and military. I'm currently more interested in distributed system design strategies that maximize performance while reducing software complexity.

My dreams for what will be needed in 10-15 years don't really match my expertise and interests. For example, I think the most important things we (USA) need are 1) alternative energy strategies, 2) homeland security solutions, 3) more cost-effective, proactive health care management, and 4) more effective military technologies for urban fighting.

The technologies that I'd be interested in exploring are based on my expertise and interests (not the top needs of the USA, which I'll leave as an exercise for the reader):

1. Advanced medical technologies, including the computer technology aspects of brain-human interfaces (for handicapped) or non-invasive monitoring solutions for proactive health care.
2. Cluster computer technologies, which is a fertile area for CS research. This is narrowly scoped to multi-processor, multi-core technologies (it's not focused on the world's critical needs), but that's my interest and my expertise.