Thursday, November 1, 2007

Reinventing The Wheel, Slowly by Mark Gimein

Segway hasn't transformed city life, but its technology may yet become pervasive

Segway, the company started by noted inventor Dean Kamen with the modest goal of changing the way the world moves on two feet, recently introduced two new models of its "personal transporter." If you missed it, you're forgiven. It was an announcement met with an impressive silence.


SEPTEMBER 11, 2006
THE FUTURE OF TECH

Reinventing The Wheel, Slowly
Segway hasn't transformed city life, but its technology may yet become pervasive

Segway, the company started by noted inventor Dean Kamen with the modest goal of changing the way the world moves on two feet, recently introduced two new models of its "personal transporter." If you missed it, you're forgiven. It was an announcement met with an impressive silence.


The first Segway -- a clean-running, technologically dumbfounding, fun-as-hell-to-ride device that was pretty much impossible to fall off of -- was introduced to so much fanfare five years ago that the public-relations agency that helped engineer it still uses it as a case study in how to create a media frenzy. It may be an even better case study in media backlash. The initial euphoria had hardly worn off before a new consensus emerged: This was all much ado about a $5,000 scooter. Journalists liked riding it, but they couldn't figure out who would buy it. John Doerr, the Silicon Valley eminence who backed it, had said entire cities would be redesigned around it. Instead, The Washington Post (WPO ) soon was calling it "The Invention That Runs on Hype."

Kamen says every invention is a response to a problem. But the problem he wanted to solve -- the need for a clean, energy efficient vehicle that could coexist with pedestrians and replace the car in the world's cities -- was one that others didn't see.

FUTURE AGNOSTIC
In predicting the future of technology, the hardest part might not be envisioning what can be invented, but determining what will be needed. There's an awful lot of amazing technology in the personal transporter, which is powered by computer-controlled electric motors that automatically keep the machine in balance in response to bumps in the road and the rider's movements. Still, when it comes to clean, inexpensive, one-person transportation, for many people a bike does just fine. Disabled users swear by the Segway, and police departments have adopted it, but that doesn't make the personal transporter the game changer Kamen imagined. Thousands have sold, but not nearly as many as Segway hoped for.

Writing off Segway, however, would be a big mistake. After all the hype and counterhype, there's still time for a very different second act. Kamen's vision of Segway was focused on the two-wheeled personal transporter. But James D. Norrod, the chief executive recruited a year and a half ago by Doerr, is pushing the company toward a much more expansive view of what Segway is about.

"I look at the technology," says Norrod, "and ask, 'Where else can it be used?"' Norrod's approach is what you can think of as "future agnostic." In his view, Segway needn't define a whole new urban ecology or replace the car. It can put its technology into anything that moves. That means unmanned vehicles with potential military or industrial uses, or multiperson vehicles that use Segway's computers and electric engines to glide smoothly over obstacles. And Norrod thinks Segway's efficient electric motors could be central to a new generation of hybrid cars (yes, cars). Segway has already built a four-wheeled, multiperson prototype. "If people want four wheels," says Norrod, "I should give 'em four wheels."

It's not the vision Kamen originally had. Still the chairman of Segway, he had hoped to offer the grand solution to the problems of urban traffic and pollution. Instead, his technology offers the solution to a myriad of less all encompassing but still very important problems. "Life," Kamen says, "is too short for incrementalism." It's a big statement, and, put simply, untrue. Incrementalism might not inspire an initial burst of invention (Kamen is definitely the expert on that), but it's a pretty good description of how inventions actually make it into the real world when the publicity is gone.

Segway 是著名发明家迪恩·卡门创建的一家公司,它的目标并不远大,就是要改变这个世界靠双脚前行的方式。最近 Segway 公司推出了两款新型的“个人交通工具”。如果你对此一无所知,也是情有可原。因为这个消息宣布时,社会各界的反应出奇的平静。

  5 年前,第一款 Segway 踏板车问世,它不会污染环境,使用的技术令人啧啧称奇,乘坐它更是乐趣无穷,而且几乎不会摔下来。它一经推出便引起轰动,以致于帮公司策划了这次宣传活动 的公关公司到现在仍把它当作如何创造媒体宣传风暴的教学案例。但是它也许更适合做研究媒体宣传反作用的案例。当最初的兴奋劲还未消退,人们很快又达成了新 的共识:这个售价高达 5000 美元的踏板车实在不值得人们如此兴奋。记者们喜欢乘这种车,但是却想不出有谁会买它。硅谷名人约翰·多尔则力挺此车,他曾断言所有城市都将围绕 Segway 踏板车重新展开设计。相反,《华盛顿邮报》没过多久就称之为“夸大其辞的发明”。

  卡门说,每项发明都是要解决某个问题。但是他想要解决的别人却不认为是问题。卡门认为有必要发明一种清洁的、能源利用效率高的交通工具,它可以在世界各大城市的人行道上行驶,同时又能取代汽车。
未来不可知论
在 预测技术未来时,最难的可能并不是憧憬将来的发明是什么,而是判断未来将会需要什么。这款个人交通工具拥有许多惊人的技术,它由计算机控制的电子发动机提 供动力,在遇到道路上的沟沟坎坎时,这种发动机能够让交通工具自动保持平衡。然而,当谈到无污染、价格便宜而且可以单人驾驶的交通工具时,许多人认为自行 车就非常好。残疾人用户则对 Segway 踏板车信赖有加,警察局也已采用了这一工具,但这并未使这种个人交通工具成为卡门想象中能改变生活方式的利器。尽管已经售出了数千部 Segway 踏板车,但距离公司期望的目标还有很大差距。

  然而,轻视 Segway 将会是个巨大的错误。在被大肆吹捧又遭到反对贬抑之后, Segway 仍然有探寻其他应用可能的时间。卡门关于 Segway 的设想集中在两轮的个人交通工具上。但是多尔一年半前聘请来的首席执行官詹姆斯·诺德却带领 Segway 朝着更广阔的领域迈进。

   “我看着这项技术,”诺德说,“不禁在问:‘它还能用在什么地方?'”诺德的方法会让你想到“未来不可知论”。在他看来, Segway 无需开创一种全新的城市生态环境或者去取代汽车。它可以把技术应用到一切运动的事物中去,即军事或工业用途的无人驾驶交通工具或者使用 Segway 的计算机和电子发动机、能够平稳翻越障碍物的多人驾驶工具。诺德还认为, Segway 的高效电子发动机可以成为新一代混合动力汽车的核心。 Segway 已经开发出了一款 4 轮多人交通工具的初始模型。“如果人们想要 4 个轮子,”诺德说,“我就应该给他们 4 个轮子。”

   这并不是卡门最初的设想。仍然担任 Segway 公司董事长的卡门曾经希望为城市交通和污染问题提供解决方案。然而,他的技术却为许许多多不那么包罗万象但又非常重要的问题提供了解决方案。卡门说:“生 命对于渐进主义者来说实在太短暂。”这其实是一句大而空的话,渐进主义也许不会激发初始的发明创造,但它却准确地描述了当宣传效应逐渐消退后,发明创造是 如何真正融入现实世界的。

Sleeping With The Enemy by Peter Coy

More companies are finding that "co-opetition," or learning to work with rivals on certain projects, may be the best strategy

There's one Shai Agassi who harbors violent visions of defeating Microsoft Corp. (MSFT ) "We're both going in with swords drawn, and we're going to do battle until we win. And there's not going to be any other result. We'll do everything possible to draw blood," vows this Agassi, the top technology strategist of German software titan SAP.
Another Shai Agassi considers Microsoft his company's closest partner. This kinder and gentler Agassi fancifully traded bags of green M&M's last year with his Microsoft counterpart, Jeff Raikes, to seal a deal to jointly develop a piece of software called Duet.

Both these Shai Agassis are two sides of the same person: a U.S.-based member of SAP's executive board who oversees the complex relationship with Microsoft. "This is the beauty of being human," he says. "You can have two conflicting thoughts at the same time and not go crazy."

Finding the right formula for this kind of "co-opetition" has never been more important. Many new products, from video to financial services, can be provided only in complex packages of hardware, software, and services. By working together, such as agreeing on the Wi-Fi standard for high-speed wireless, competitors can expand the market so everyone wins. "The traditional model says you have a fixed-size pie and you kill each other for a slice of it," says Navi Radjou, a vice-president at Forrester Research Inc. (FORR ) in Cambridge, Mass. "This new vision calls for collaboration to increase the size of the pie."

Putting aside narrow self-interest for the common good sounds easier than it is. Most companies hate to yield a millimeter to archrivals. Witness the war over a standard for high-definition DVDs between camps led by Toshiba Corp. (TOSBF ) and Sony Corp. (SNE )Neither side will back down. Customers are hesitating to buy for fear of picking the standard that becomes obsolete. Everyone loses.

The trick to getting deals done is to remember the real objective, which is bigger sales and profits. That's what SAP and Microsoft did. The companies vie for sales to midsize businesses, but elsewhere they're natural partners, since each dominates a different part of the software world. Duet, their jointly developed product, allows a Microsoft spreadsheet to pull in data from an SAP accounting program. Agassi said he had to assuage concerns of SAP's reps that working behind Microsoft's user interface would undercut SAP's sales efforts. Says Agassi: "The customer base wants us to stay gentlemen, so that's what we do. We keep the competition inside a fence and don't let the blood leak out."

TIT FOR TAT
A simple but effective strategy for cooperating with a rival was worked out by University of Michigan political scientist Robert Axelrod. In a computer experiment, he found that the best approach is tit for tat. Start by cooperating. After that, copy the other person. If he keeps cooperating, you do too. If he defects, retaliate. To stave off a breakdown of trust, be somewhat forgiving of mistakes by the other side. Axelrod showed that by following these rules, even if the other person doesn't initially cooperate, you will guide the relationship toward consistent cooperation with a minimum of cheating. According to Axelrod, the strategy has been used by "nations, bats, birds, and monkeys."

Of course, fraternizing with the enemy is a fire-able offense if it's initiated by anyone outside the C-suite. That's why the top boss has to be 100% behind the arrangement. Engineers tend to adapt quickly and view the deal as just another technical problem to solve, but salespeople are often harder to bring around. Microsoft's Raikes says that when the deal with SAP was announced, "the salesforce said: 'How can that be? You're now partners with a company that we compete with. Does that mean we're going to back away?"' His response was that Microsoft had no intention of going easy on SAP. "People have had a hard time parsing that," Raikes says. "[CEO] Steve Ballmer and I had to step up at the sales meeting last year and take them through the idea." Red Hat (RHAT ) CEO Matthew J. Szulik had similar difficulties this summer explaining to interns why his Linux software company considered IBM (IBM ) a partner, even though IBM sells competing software and partners with Red Hat rival Novell Inc. (NOVL ) "It was an hour discussion," he says with a sigh.

Get ready to have plenty of those conversations. The power of co-opetition will only grow as products become more complex and as competition widens globally. Says SAP CEO Henning Kagermann: "Our larger customers don't tolerate vendors acting like children and fighting among themselves. There's a point where you step back from being too competitive." In other words, it's not just about bashing the other guy. "This is a different type of competition," he adds. "You focus on what you can do for the customer."

  一个名叫夏嘉曦的人一心要和微软公司分出高下。身为德国软件巨头 SAP 公司的顶级技术战略师,他发誓说:“双方都已亮剑,不分胜负决不罢休。我们别无选择,只有血战到底。”

  而另一个夏嘉曦则把微软看成是自己公司最紧密的合作伙伴。这位更加宽容的夏嘉曦去年异想天开地与其微软的同行杰夫·雷克斯共同销售绿色 M&M's 巧克力豆游戏软件,并达成协议联合开发一种名为 Duet 的软件。

   这两个夏嘉曦是同一个人的两面:他是美国 SAP 公司的执行委员会成员,负责处理与微软间复杂微妙的关系。他说:“这就是人性的玄妙所在。你在同一时刻会有两种矛盾的想法,却又不会失去理智。”

   为这种“竞合策略”( Co-opetition )寻求合适的操作规则至关重要。诸如视频和金融服务等许多新产品,只能通过软硬件及服务的复杂组合形式提供。通过协同合作,竞争对手们可以把市场的蛋糕做 大,使大家都受益。位于马萨诸塞州剑桥的福里斯特研究公司的副总裁纳维·拉德杰说:“传统模式是基于蛋糕大小一定的情况下,大家为分得一杯羹而拼得你死我 活。而新观念则倡导通过合作来把蛋糕做大。”

  为了共同利益而放弃狭隘的一己私利,这个道理说来容易做起来难。大多数公司在竞争中寸步不让。由东芝和索尼领导的两大阵营之间在高清 DVD 标准上的纷争就很能说明这个问题。双方都不愿让步。消费者持币观望,担心会选择过时的标准,其结果只能是一损俱损。

   达成妥协的诀窍是要牢记真正的目标,那就是谋求更高的销售额和利润额。这也正是 SAP 和微软的做法。这两家公司在中等规模企业客户的争夺上尤为激烈,但在其他方面,它们是天然的合作伙伴,因为双方都在各自不同的软件领域占主导地位。它们合 作开发的产品 Duet 软件允许微软的电子表格直接从 SAP 公司的财务软件中抽取数据。夏嘉曦说他必须打消 SAP 公司销售代表的顾虑,让他们不要担心在微软用户界面上工作会影响销售,他说:“客户群希望我们和平共处,而我们也正是这么做的。我们的竞争局限在一定范围 内,不会让外人看出争斗的端倪。”

针尖对麦芒
  密歇根大学的政治学者罗伯特·艾克斯罗德研究出一种简单有效的与对手合作的战略。通过电脑试验,他发现最佳方法是要针锋相对。大家开始进行合作,然后 仿效对方的做法。如果对方愿意继续合作,则相安无事;如果对方背叛你的话,就报复他。为了避免信任危机,对于对方的一些错误也要采取宽容的态度。艾克斯罗 德的研究表明,只要遵循这些规则,即使对方一开始并不合作,你也应尽量以坦诚的态度引导双方朝着长久合作的关系发展。

   当然,如果向敌人伸出橄榄枝的人不是营运主管,则很有可能引火上身。因此最高领导应是 100% 的幕后策划者。工程师们很快就能适应,并把这项协议仅仅看成是又一个需要解决的技术问题,但是销售人员有时很难被说服。微软的雷克斯介绍说,当与 SAP 公司的合作协议宣布以后,“销售人员纷纷质疑:‘怎么能这样?我们现在成了竞争对手的合作伙伴。这是否意味着我们要作出让步?'”他认为微软与 SAP 很难会相安无事。雷克斯说:“人们对此进行了深入细致的分析,首席执行官史蒂夫·巴尔默和我去年不得不出席销售会议,帮助他们理解这个想法。”红帽公司( Red Hat )的首席执行官马修·佐利克今夏也遇到类似的麻烦,即向内部员工解释旗下的 Linux 软件公司为何要与 IBM 公司合作,尽管 IBM 公司正在出售与其竞争的软件并与红帽公司的对手 Novell 公司合作。他叹息道:“我们费了一个小时来讨论这个问题。”

   做好大辩论的心理准备吧。只有在产品变得愈发复杂、竞争在全球愈演愈烈的时候,“竞合策略”的能量才会被释放出来。 SAP 公司的首席执行官孔翰宁说:“我们的大客户不能容忍厂家之间像小孩子那样打打闹闹。应该掌握一个度,在竞争升级时,你应该做一定让步。”换句话说,就是不 要只知一味穷追猛打。他进一步指出:“这是另一种形式的竞争。你应该把精力放在为客户服务上。”

作者:彼得·科伊( Peter Coy )

译者:夏芳