Lets measure success in new ways...Luddites vs. Engineers

"The Luddites were 19th-century English textile artisans who protested against newly developed labour-saving machinery from 1811 to 1817. The stocking frames, spinning frames and power looms introduced during the Industrial Revolution threatened to replace the artisans with less-skilled, low-wage labourers, leaving them without work." Per Wikipedia.


versus Dilberts version of Engineer:

I just experienced this ongoing dilemma with a dry wall finisher. I was asking about some of the technology breakthroughs. He would describe them and I would ask about the downsides (too heavy? lower quality finish?) but he kept coming back to it eliminated jobs.

The dilemma going back to 1811 and maybe even earlier is that as innovation occurs, some people's livelihood is displaced.

In Chris Anderson's book MAKERS, he quotes the CEO of Etsy, ..the rise of small business leads to opportunities for us to measure success in new ways...(my paraphrase)

Why US manufacturing struggles?

I have gradually come to realize that manufacturing in the US has lost its risk taking soul.

Clayton Christensen talks about the only true job creation is via innovation.  Nearly all of my 20 plus years in manufacturing I have seen excellent lean 6 sigma optimizations, and mergers/acquisitions lead to great shareholder profits...but the problem for our country, no incremental growth in employment comes from these 2 activities (as Clayton points out).

One of the most productive times for me grew out of a manager willing to get some "no ROI" required capital funds for a factory operation.  This slush fund allowed good engineering discipline and the engineering group was able to drive great improvements for the factory.  The point is that my boss, his management, and the accountants/MBA's had to "let go", take a risk that the engineers could create value going after things that seemed risky and uncertain.  Seth Godin would call this "art."

Today almost all companies, large and small, incorporated, and privately held;  they all are so risk averse that they gradually give away any competitive advantage.

Michael Araten president of the K'nex company on a new robotic technology:   "we did a little more research and felt that these robots might be able to learn," he said. "And given the fairly disruptive price point that they're available at, we could make some investments, and if we're wrong, obviously, the downside was not super high, and if we're right, the potential upside is dramatic."

Why don't we see this kind of risk taking thought process more?