I will enjoy reading the details but on the surface ... good, well done -> UK and Japan agree historic free trade agreement - gov.uk/government/new…
X : Do you agree with brexit?
Me : Always have done. It's not an easy path but if UK can manage to engineer trade deals with US and China, if UK uses state aid to encourage development of industries particularly around areas that are industrialising (hint ... use a map) ...
Me : i.e. follow the same path as China, special economic zones focused on encouraging startups in areas that are industrialiing then an internal game of last man standing before pushing the winners onto a global market ... rinse and repeat ...
Me : ... then we will be fine. In fact, far better than fine, it could well become a golden age and worth a few broken eggs along the way.
X : What about the vaccine moonshot?
Me : Tricky. If done in the right way, it could be about industrialisation of an important space ...
Me : ... but it has to be about industrialisation, climbing the value chain on the right (see China or Amazon). The danger is we fall into the trap of genesis (the novel and new) rather than take the Amazon like approach.
Me : It's a bit like Space. If the partial acquisition of OneWeb is used to focus on industrialisation of space then it'll be fine. If the focus and attitude becomes building novel and new, then it'll be a white elephant. I am alas, not filled with confidence by this Government.
X : Don't you think the vaccine moonshot is about industrialisation and mass scale?
Me : It could and should be. But if we start talking developing novel technology ... it's a bit like PPE when we should be focused on industrialisation not building novel ventilators.
Me : It's a problem with creative industry where people want to reinvent the existing into the novel and new rather than focusing on industrialising the pre-existing (as per Amazon, China).
It's about attitude i.e. rather than pioneering space, we should aim to make it boring.
Me : Which brings me back to that trade deal. There is some obvious good headlines i.e. ban on data localisation but at the same time things which raise concerns i.e. new protections for UK creative industries. This is why the details will matter.
X : State aid is allowed under EU rules.
Me : Sure, for research. But what we need is to encourage the industrialisation of pre-existing technology and that would count as interference in a pre-existing market. But I'm unconvinced the UK approach is really that nuanced.
Me : mix of innovation funds to encourage research into the uncharted space plus moonshots focused on industrialising specific areas (including use of special economic zones to encourage startups to do that job) is the right way to play in my book. Not all state aid is the same.
If UK gets this right, then brexit will be a boon. If UK gets this wrong and these moonshots become a bonanza of the creatives then it will be a bust.
Well, at least we get to find out if Dominic has a bit of Deng Xiaoping about him. Not exactly filling me with confidence.
X : UK is all about creative industries.
Me : Our history isn't. What put Great into Great Britain is the same as what makes Amazon and China great - the boring. We used to be great at turning the novel and new into boring - the industrial revolution, the age of electricty etc.
So, if we can make vaccines boring, if we can make Space boring, if we can make Robots boring, if we can have a motto of "putting the boring into everything" then UK has a decent shot. If we rely on creative industries and creative finance ... we're in a lot of trouble.
X : What's your gut feel?
Me : Right now? I suspect we're going to double down on creative and build a whole bunch of Theranos' with not a single Amazon among them. That's why the details matter about the trade deals, the moonshots etc.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
X : Our strategy doesn't align with our business.
Me : How do you mean?
X : We create these strategy documents but they never really get implemented as the day to day business takes over.
Me : That's common. Can I ask a question?
X : Sure
Me : ...
Me : Do you map?
X : I've heard of your technique but we don't use it.
Me : Ok, so your business operations is not based upon a map of the landscape?
X : No
Me : And your strategy is not based upon a map of the landscape?
X : No
Me : What made you think they would align?
X : They are supposed to align and we wrote our strategy on our understanding of the business.
Me : Your wrote your strategy based upon stories. There's no means to create a consensus of your landscape, to challenge what your are doing. There is no mechanism for alignment.
X : Why do you continue to use twitter / X?
Me : Because I like the tool and the crowd.
X : Do you support @elonmusk
Me : No. I disagree on many of his views.
X : He is far right.
Me : Perspective matters. US is generally more right wing & Silicon Valley especially so.
X : What do you mean by "Perspective matters"?
Me : Elon's views are not that unusual for Silicon Valley - . There's a lot of support based upon a different view of economics and government.
X : Different?
Me : Different from Europe. cbsnews.com/news/trump-jd-…
X : People should just accept it?
Me : No. They should argue against it. The "left" did itself no favours by diluting its voice across multiple platforms.
X : Are you left?
Me : I view the market as tool to be used in the common interest of society. I'm a socialist.
X : What do you need to do in order to map a business?
Me : Ask ... 1) "Who are the users?" (at the least, include consumers and the business) 2) "What are their needs?" 3) "What is the chain of components required to meet those needs?" 4) "How evolved are those components?"
...
Me : Once you have done that, allow others to challenge it. Even better, build the map with others. It really is that simple.
X : But creating a map is difficult.
Me : Only to those used to making decisions without understanding users, needs, the supply chain etc.
X : How common is that?
Me : In business? The majority of decisions tend to be made with no understanding of users, needs, supply chain and how evolved those components are. We tend to rely on gut feel and stories with little to no effective challenge.
dX: How do you deal with strategy?
Me: First, we need to answer the Where question, which depends a lot on the what and why.
dX: And?
Me: Ok, some very simple steps ...
Step 1: Visualise your environment. That means getting people to discuss, collaborate & challenge in order to create a "good enough" map of your environment. Should be a couple of hours.
Step 2: Look at what's changing which is competitor moves, your moves & economic patterns.
Step 3: Using the map, determine where you could invest/focus on. You're not making a decision yet, you just want the options. By now, you could have spent four hours on the exercise.
Step 4: Decide where you should invest i.e. look at the options using why & what
Those born in the 1890s experienced electrification, telephone, radio, television, nuclear age, penicillin, two world wars, commercial flight, computer age and a moon landing. By the 60s we had AI, VR and 3D printing.
Today, we have the internet / www and have improved stuff.
Is it me, or is human progress slowing down? Great breakthroughs, moments of change, and radical transformations seem like a thing of the past. What we call "revolutions" in industry today seems mostly a marketing slogan.
If you think back to 1957 and the Mark I Perceptron machine that was built at Cornell, then consider the changes in the previous 60 years ... you can't help but think they would be bitterly disappointed with how slow we have progressed in the following 60 years.
We will be entering a phase in which the US high-tech industry (including the military complex) is highly dependent upon China, whilst China is not dependent upon the US.
For those who doubt how clear the intentions were ... go read Made in China, 2025.
China's government made its intentions evident in 2015. The US sabre rattling of sanctions reinforced that purpose whilst the US essentially continued with a misguided "market knows best" policy.