Storage, Vacuums, Automobiles, and Smarter Thinking
Warning: What follows is will likely be nerdy and full of techno jumble, so if you're so inclined, read on.
Everyone seems to be so freaking wound up about the next big thing in science and technology: quantum computers, hybrid cars, fuel cells, space elevators, and face transplants. Maybe it's because I'm cautious, or maybe just plain old cynical, but I get far more excited about an old thing that has morphed into something great. These things are not really disruptive or sustaining technologies in and of themselves, but rather innovative improvements to existing and common items. Allow me to offer some examples:
The Dyson Vacuum
Most people have heard of a Dyson vacuum. It's the cool yellow (or purple) vacuum that you see in stores all of the time now. It's expensive, quite trendy, and supposedly is the first vacuum to not lose suction over time. It is still a vacuum cleaner, just as the previous several generations used, but for several reasons, it's a better vacuum. It has far more suction than a regular vacuum, has a very intuitive design, and is easy to maintain. It looks nice, runs quietly, and is almost fun to watch because of how it displays all of the dirt and debris that you are sucking up. Is its integrated telescoping wand as "cool" as something like a computer-driven lawn mower? No way. Does it work, and work well? Quite so. The moral is that it's not a new kind of a magic oobie-doobie floor cleaning device, but rather a series of very directed and well designed improvements on an existing technology. Take that Hoover (who, by the way, refused to buy the technology from Dyson when he offered it to them.)
Network Appliance
Okay, this one isn't for any but the computer storage savvy, but it is a prime example of my point. Network Appliance started out as a company that created NAS storage servers. They did nothing but serve up file shares to Windows and NFS clients. Nothing all that cool about that, especially given that there are a million other vendors who claim they can do it better (including Micro$oft, but that's another rant...) Anyway, they've added features over time to make a common appliance into a world-class storage device. I'm not talking about some kind of a new processing engine or a new whiz-bang memory technology that blows away the competition. I'm talking about taking existing storage hardware and making it work more efficiently through better software technologies and better design. WAFL, RAID-DP, and Data ONTAP in general, are just a few examples of ways NetApp has made a common device into something much, much better. Again, they didn't re-invent the wheel, but they sure as hell got it to spin like no one else. Compare the NetApp line of products to anything that EMC, HDS, HP, IBM can offer, and I challenge you to find anyone that is being smarter about how they use and manipulate storage. Sure, the uber-high-end stuff from the big vendors might perform a little better (well, maybe not either...), but I challenge you to find anyone that is being as smart about how they design, innovate, and package their product.
Everyone seems to be so freaking wound up about the next big thing in science and technology: quantum computers, hybrid cars, fuel cells, space elevators, and face transplants. Maybe it's because I'm cautious, or maybe just plain old cynical, but I get far more excited about an old thing that has morphed into something great. These things are not really disruptive or sustaining technologies in and of themselves, but rather innovative improvements to existing and common items. Allow me to offer some examples:
The Dyson Vacuum
Most people have heard of a Dyson vacuum. It's the cool yellow (or purple) vacuum that you see in stores all of the time now. It's expensive, quite trendy, and supposedly is the first vacuum to not lose suction over time. It is still a vacuum cleaner, just as the previous several generations used, but for several reasons, it's a better vacuum. It has far more suction than a regular vacuum, has a very intuitive design, and is easy to maintain. It looks nice, runs quietly, and is almost fun to watch because of how it displays all of the dirt and debris that you are sucking up. Is its integrated telescoping wand as "cool" as something like a computer-driven lawn mower? No way. Does it work, and work well? Quite so. The moral is that it's not a new kind of a magic oobie-doobie floor cleaning device, but rather a series of very directed and well designed improvements on an existing technology. Take that Hoover (who, by the way, refused to buy the technology from Dyson when he offered it to them.)
Network Appliance
Okay, this one isn't for any but the computer storage savvy, but it is a prime example of my point. Network Appliance started out as a company that created NAS storage servers. They did nothing but serve up file shares to Windows and NFS clients. Nothing all that cool about that, especially given that there are a million other vendors who claim they can do it better (including Micro$oft, but that's another rant...) Anyway, they've added features over time to make a common appliance into a world-class storage device. I'm not talking about some kind of a new processing engine or a new whiz-bang memory technology that blows away the competition. I'm talking about taking existing storage hardware and making it work more efficiently through better software technologies and better design. WAFL, RAID-DP, and Data ONTAP in general, are just a few examples of ways NetApp has made a common device into something much, much better. Again, they didn't re-invent the wheel, but they sure as hell got it to spin like no one else. Compare the NetApp line of products to anything that EMC, HDS, HP, IBM can offer, and I challenge you to find anyone that is being smarter about how they use and manipulate storage. Sure, the uber-high-end stuff from the big vendors might perform a little better (well, maybe not either...), but I challenge you to find anyone that is being as smart about how they design, innovate, and package their product.
Hyundai Motor Company
We all know who this company is, or at least anyone who has watched any commercials on television in the past several months. Hyundai is a foreign auto maker that makes, generally, fairly average vehicles. Yes, the new Sonata and Azera models look pretty slick, but in general, the cars are not super performers, ultra-efficient gas sippers, or anywhere close the pinnacle of luxury or style. So, why do I think that the Hyundai compares to the Dyson vacuum and Network Appliance? It has to do more with how the cars are manufactured than the cars themselves. Hyundai, in addition to trying to keep costs down the traditional way, have decided to automate as much of the assembly process as possible, much like other manufacturers. What they have done differently is that their goal was not to decrease costs by replacing workers, but to decrease costs by increasing the precision and quality of the vehicles. The more mechanically and electrically precise a vehicle is, the more that the assembly process can be automated. The transverse is true as well: the more an assembly process can be automated, the more precise the end product will be. Similarly, workers are dedicated wholly to jobs that are not well suited to automation, such as engine assembly, some electrical work, and overall control of quality. By putting the right tools in the right place, a more precise and qualified car is produced at a lower price. This also has a wonderful second-order effect: if a car is ultimately of better quality, it is less likely to fail. This is ultimately what allows a company like Hyundai to sell a high quality family-sized sedan with a 10-yr/100,000 mile warranty for under $20,000. Traditional American car companies have a lot of work to do to compete with this kind of mentality.
So I'm left with a question. Should a company/individual strive to make a better product, or should they strive to make a product better. After some pondering, I feel that continually making a product better by means of smart thinking will ultimately end up in a better product, so I don't think they're necessarily exclusive. I do think that the definition of "smart thinking" is something that I can not begin to understand other than by example. Better ask Dyson, NetApp, or Hyundai if you want a good answer to that question.
We all know who this company is, or at least anyone who has watched any commercials on television in the past several months. Hyundai is a foreign auto maker that makes, generally, fairly average vehicles. Yes, the new Sonata and Azera models look pretty slick, but in general, the cars are not super performers, ultra-efficient gas sippers, or anywhere close the pinnacle of luxury or style. So, why do I think that the Hyundai compares to the Dyson vacuum and Network Appliance? It has to do more with how the cars are manufactured than the cars themselves. Hyundai, in addition to trying to keep costs down the traditional way, have decided to automate as much of the assembly process as possible, much like other manufacturers. What they have done differently is that their goal was not to decrease costs by replacing workers, but to decrease costs by increasing the precision and quality of the vehicles. The more mechanically and electrically precise a vehicle is, the more that the assembly process can be automated. The transverse is true as well: the more an assembly process can be automated, the more precise the end product will be. Similarly, workers are dedicated wholly to jobs that are not well suited to automation, such as engine assembly, some electrical work, and overall control of quality. By putting the right tools in the right place, a more precise and qualified car is produced at a lower price. This also has a wonderful second-order effect: if a car is ultimately of better quality, it is less likely to fail. This is ultimately what allows a company like Hyundai to sell a high quality family-sized sedan with a 10-yr/100,000 mile warranty for under $20,000. Traditional American car companies have a lot of work to do to compete with this kind of mentality.
So I'm left with a question. Should a company/individual strive to make a better product, or should they strive to make a product better. After some pondering, I feel that continually making a product better by means of smart thinking will ultimately end up in a better product, so I don't think they're necessarily exclusive. I do think that the definition of "smart thinking" is something that I can not begin to understand other than by example. Better ask Dyson, NetApp, or Hyundai if you want a good answer to that question.
posted by Christopher C. Weis at
9:27 PM
3 Comments:
As a side note, I had a social conversation with an non-technical old friend over the weekend who was interested in what my company does. I told him I worked with computer storage. He thought for a while and offered that I need to get out of computer storage because it's a dead-end field. Well, after about another 5 minutes of constructive arguing, I realized he thought that my company actually stored computers... as in, storing a Dell desktop in a rented storage unit. It's the details that lead to confusiong... ;-)
By
Christopher C. Weis, at 10:03 PM
err..., confusion. ;-)
By
Christopher C. Weis, at 10:06 PM
LOL...that was funny about your friend...hey, do you store monitors as well?
Here is a note about Hyundai Motor Company. They were just rated #2 in the most reliable cars over a long period of time. The main engineer was hired by Mitsubishi to over haul Diamond star factory in Normal. He gave them a HUGE list of what needed to be fixed to produce better cars. After the man left, Mitsubishi decided that working on the list would be too much work. So one day...when the Japan workers showed up and they were attaching a hood to a car, then noticed that the frame of this car was a little off so the hood would not go on correctly. The DS workers were going to fix the cars...but the workers from headquarters in Japan just brought out a rubber mallet and was hitting the hood until it fit. My brother (who used to work there and told me these stories) told me if I ever bought another mitsubishi, he would kill me!
And besides the stories from the plant...I had my SUV for 35,000 miles and had to put in a new motor! The uniframe of my SUV has flaws and is not sitting right on the base of the car. Making the passanger area feel loose from the base frame...and yes...it does move. I need a new car! Don't buy Mitsubishi.
By
G13, at 11:25 AM
Post a Comment
<< Home