Sunday 11 April 2010

Heat (Hitte)

Science related to climate change is not easy. The scientific findings often depend on who ordered the study. I can't judge who is wrong or who is right. Perhaps temperature and gas composition will get out of control in a few years and we're gone. Perhaps, on the contrary, our great grandchildren will consider climate change as the madness of the century, just like we laugh now with the witch executions in the 16th-17th century.

George Monbiot, the author of 'Heat', may be considered as a typical 'enfant terrible' by political and industrial leaders but his concern for the climate change is genuine and authentic. He describes how we don't seem to be able to change our daily behaviour.

In case of scientific uncertainty, the principle of precaution should prevail. Compare with the eruption of the Eyjafjallajökull volcano in Iceland. We knew a plane could crash from the ash clouds, we were not sure about it but we decided to stop flying as a precaution, although we desperately need to fly. Obviously and fortunately, the measure was temporary.

Suppose you ignore the principle of precaution. In the case of the ash clouds, one could then have to sacrifice a few planes and passengers, but humanity would fly and still survive (I'm cynical). In the case we continue ignoring the precaution principle in climate change, we could face an uncontrollable destabilisation of the temperature and gas composition on earth. Then don't forget: we don't have an emergency exit here. Nobody escapes. Nothing can save us, no Swiss bunkers, no Biosphere II, no undersea glass domes, no moon base, nor Star Trek space ships to protect us. But perhaps it is a chance for another species to take over the management of the Earth.

Wednesday 7 April 2010

Internet access as utility?

Internet access is something you need more and more, everywhere, anytime. You need it in the office, in internal and external meetings, on business trip, at home and even on holiday. Being cut off from internet and e-mail is being cut off from society. It had become just as bad as not having a telephone. Internet is becoming a utility like water, electricity, gas or telephone.

One would think that after so many years of mobile phone networks, ADSL and WLAN that internet access is easy. One has to admit it has become easier than a few years ago. But easy?

First let us take an average hotel or guest house. Look at all the problems. The signal may be too weak in your room. You may need a WEP or WPA key and your computer may not recognise it. Then you usually need a username and a password. Either the hotel is expensive and the internet access will be extremely expensive (at least 10 Euro per hour on your VISAcard). Or the hotel is cheap and the landlord doesn't know anymore how to generate you a password. You spend ages at the reception desk until the sole person who can help you appears or doesn't appear. The hotel leaflet contains all information you need, except the way to get access to the internet. If you were lucky to get internet access, your webmail or any other application may suffer from an overprotective firewall installed at the hotel's premises.

Now that should not be a problem if you have a mobile phone network data card? Just try it. First, you will go bankrupt if you use it abroad. They charge you 'only' 3.63 Euro/Mbyte, but they will charge you a new Megabyte as seen as you have requested the first bit of that Megabyte. Secondly, you will buy a 3G-4G card and be unfortunately just out of range of the 3G network. As a result, you can download at GPRS speed of 56 kbits/s, something like a good old telephone line speed. Good luck if you happen to have received a few Mbytes in your e-mail box or if you would have liked to watch television on your mobile.

And yet, it seems easy...Why not equip every building with easily accessible Wifi or WIMAX? If internet access is just like water and electricity, every hotel room should offer it, even without submitting a form or asking for your VISA card? Suppose the hotel manager would have to generate you a password if you needed to use electricity for your shaver or your hairdryer? Indeed, you could use the electricity for malicious purposes, so why not register first? It shows how paranoid our society has become.

Friday 2 April 2010

The paradox of public R&D subsidising

Public R&D subsidies are generally considered as blessings for innovative industries. Especially for young dynamic start-up companies and growing Small and Middle size Enterprises (SME's) they are supposed to help bridge the gap between idea and product. Every nation and region is helping its start-up companies in one or the other way and that is fine.

But there is a paradox in the R&D policies as they are implemented today. They tend to have a negative side effect.

A typical start-up SME needs perform 3 to 5 years development work with a small team to come to a product prototype. Then it needs 3 to 5 years work in an extended team or network to come to full production. Only then, the product revenues start coming in, fulfilling the dream of the entrepreneur. Essential for a start-up SME is therefore the focused effort to reach this goal. Where does the money come from to make this come true? This money is supposed to come from venture capital or from a business angel who believes in the idea. A sound business plan is supposed to exist.

The public R&D money is only supporting this process. Public decision makers usually need to satisfy as many people as possible and tend to cut their budgets in small pieces. Therefore public tenders usually cover only tiny portions of the complete product development cycle.

When money gets scarce (we don't even need a blessful time like ours), the private investors and entrepreneurs will encourage / force the start-up SME employees to submit many tenders in reponse to the public programme calls. But because the budgets are small, the SME's need to differentiate the subjects of the tenders and participate in many programmes. This is often contrary to their initial core mission. They lose focus and may never come to a product in the end. After each project, they have to come up with a completely different project to qualify for a new subsidy programme.

But also at the public side, there is a problem. First, evidently, the R&D money needs to come from somewhere and often charges, through taxes, the same industry that needs the support. Secondly, the political need to satisfy all stakeholders leads to a fragmentation of the budgets so that in the end, none of the subsidised organisations receive enough money to reach the critical level that is needed in a mondial competition.

The only way to overcome the problem is to develop a regional vision. Political and economic actors need to develop a common R&D subvention vision and decide on what they want to be good at and what NOT. Very often, this vision brings one large and several small companies together around a common technology. A good example is the car telematics 'valley' developed in Sweden around Volvo. Or the creation of SES Astra in Luxembourg. Small countries like Sweden and Luxembourg have the advantage that the political and economic actors easily cooperate on such a joint vision. They have the courage to make a choice. In such a context, worldwide excellence in one specific area becomes possible.