Niki Lauda (1949 - 2019)...Driving Instruction from the Man

Much has been reported regards the mourning of Niki Lauda; and what was simultaneously a private, public and international affair, and it was gracious of his wife and son to allow the public entry to the Viennese Church Service so that many others could show their respect and admiration.

The demonstration of respect shown by F1 teams at Monaco conveyed their reverance, and of course his reputation and legendary status will live on in motor racing and elsewhere.

But it was his willingness to speak 'no bullshit' and demonstrably reject 'bullshit' (from lies to unfairness) that should be regarded as his instructive lesson for those still here.

There are various but relatively few interviews with him, but there is one in which he retells his calm yet firm reaction to another's effort of trying to take advantage of him in his own business.

To help run his aviation enterprise required a capable business manager. And for a time had one where things appeared to run successfully. The man was adept at his role for which he was well paid. Yet he turned his supposed business acumen against his own side and the wrong man.

During a long car-journey, in what was effectively and knowingly a trapped environment - during which the driver (Lauda) is focused on the road, distracted and yet subliminally relaxed - his business manager pressed again and again to be given a share-hold stake in the business.

Threatening to quit if he did not get what he wanted.

Lauda knew the man was an effective component of the firm, yet would not be put under such pressure in what was obviously a contrived manner - waiting for that car journey to make that demand.

It was illustrated that he was well paid for his role and that the terms of the initial agreement was that he was a paid employee of the business, not part-owner. The man persisted, feeling he could utilise the circumstances to his advantage.

Lauda simply slowed the car, pulled to the side of the road and halted. He instructed the man to go, since he was no longer employed by the company.

His decisive action cut out what thereafter would have been nothing other but continued 'bullshit' of continued demands and never-ending self-service.

The fable is that subtle yet powerful actions have far greater effect than any barrage of angry words.

To echo the script upon the Monaco GP's helmets...."Danke Niki"....for illustrating how life and business should be conducted.



   

Niki Lauda (1949 - 2019)

Professionalism















(NB a prime example of the preponderance of modern hyper-normalised 'bullshit', especially prevalent when the top of the Hollywood set 'call-out' the corporate Hollywood practices that made them phenomenally rich.

See the Jerry Channel YouTube clip of Will Ferrell and Jerry Seinfeld driving around in a blue Plymouth Superbird (the pinnacle of 'blue-collar' racing, itself now a toy of the super-wealthy).

The utter irony.

Though rich himself, Niki Lauda was simply what he was, and was no doubt appalled by the way bullshit is plied over bullshit today in an attempt to appear genuine .

Lauda's unreconstructed face and demeanour demonstrated his forthright character, the very antithesis of today's media and social-media spread social falsity.

No true 'unreconstructed man' - in the post-modern parlance - ever drove a 'down-home' , 'good ol' boy's ' Superbird whilst wearing a suit. Perhaps a pair of 501s with those 426 cubic inches. Less Brooks Brothers, more Garth Brooks).

Niki would have laughed inwardly to himself at such obvious "bullshit".

Macro Level Trends - UK Industrial Strategy - The Need for 'Rational Futurism'

As seen with the issues raised by various computing / AI experts at the recent Tesla Autonomy Day, the never ending stream of 'tech-chatter' invariably suggests that the world of tomorrow is within immediate reach and is effectively a given.

That is obviously rarely so, since the future must be created and built within a myriad of PESTEL constraints that exist at national, economic bloc and global levels.
Hence whilst the likes of micro-wave oven did eventually arrive, it actually came almost 30 years after the initially promoted idea of nuclear-radiated food by American kitchen appliance corporations with their  'House of Tomorrow' exhibitions.

The most obvious example of hyped futurism being the notion of the "Flying Car" - the strictures of technical and infrastructure reality prohibited any notion of replicating that central idiom, long seen from the tyrannical warnings of Fritz Lang's Metropolis to the humour of 'The (continually cited) Jetsons'

It has long been recognised by major corporations that 'future-forecasting' in the old sense (ie in a Nostrodamas manner) so as to supposedly 'see the future' is typically fraught with simplistic misunderstandings, misinterpretations and so miscomprehensions.

That is why 'Scenario Planning' (originating from the Armed Forces and embraced by the Consulting world) bercame effectively standard procedure when seeking to fathom the future. Not to try to accurately predict, but to encompass likely outcomes with an eye on low potential but high impact possibilities.

That process allowed the best corporations to re-shape themselves to befit the dynamics of the expected future zeitgeist.

But it was also recognised that technological and sociological change takes time, as new technologies are adopted (or not) given macro and micro circumstances.

Hence, in reality, besides cheap populist 'hi-tech' (eg the 1970s/80s digital watch) - society typically morphs slower than perceived from any such time that is the perceived present into the future.

[NB it must also be well recognised that the speed of arrival of such technologies depends upon perspective: whether scientist, engineer or lay-person. In 1996 I was fortunate enough to drive one of the few pre-production Toyota Prius's, and it was an utter revalation; able to drive through Leamington Spa in (then) a 4-door saloon, in nigh on absolute silence.

Though popularised by the Hollywood set in the USA during the 2000s, it did not truly make an initial impact in Europe until after the late 2000s, impacted by the 2008/9 Financial Crisis, so finally becoming mass accepted only after 2010 when consumer credit reflowed and in its 3rd generation (XW30), and finally seeing UK/European mass acceptance in the mid 2010s.

Hence, my perception here in the UK was that it took nigh on 20 years for Prius to become mainstream accepted in the UK, precisely because of the lack of social (ie media) stimulus and the negative economic impact of the 2008/9 Crisis.

Instead, the vehicle itself became more 'populist' only after the car was used by  private-hire taxi drivers in Central and Inner London because of its ability to avoid the Congestion Charge. Though ironically in London that Prius association with cab firms has helped other latterday Hybrid and EV  offerings, since many private-only buyers did not want a Prius given its 'cab-like' overtones and sought an SUV-esque vehilce].

Quite obviously, the speed of such change is affected by the propensity to spend monies on new technology.

Whether that be the consumer in a booming feel-good era wishing to be seen as modern, or by government doing so to pump-prime specific sectors and the overall economy with specifically directed Keynesian policies.

Thus more rapidly seen change typically being consumer trend-led after a specific aspirational technology has become  scaled-up and so priced-down to become affordable (and invariably based upon a pre-existing infrastructure).

And more slowly seen change being when Central Government is politically indiced to improve and regrow national productivity, hence new, expanded or updated infrastructure and to support instances of revolutionary technologies which invigourates B2B, B2C and C2C activities.

[NB this obviously a central aspect of the Industrial Strategy White Paper: 'Industry 4.0', via select socio-economic themes].

History provides a useful perspective with prescient examples....

From the consumer angle - the original electric light bulb reliant upon installation of district, city and household electrical-wiring and later national grid, the original telephone per switchboard connected telephone cables, or the portable transistor- radio reliant upon the miniturisation and standardisation of 'dry-cell' batteries deployed in WW2 (for radio-backpacks, walkie talkies etc)

And from the political perspective - (beyond national gas, electrical and telephone grids / networks, the late 20th century desire of true mobile communication, to enable the early mobile phones  from having to relying upon a short-distance wireless connection into the national cable network. So that they could operate truly wirelessly and then connect into the internet via network of 2/3/4/5G telephone masts, building-top antenna and communications satellites.

So the invention and innovation story is inevitably both macro and micro orientated

When developed for the aspirational yet also somewhat practical consumer new solutions have to provide substantive improvements in lifestyle convenience, quality and cost over any previous solution.

For business, as a capital expense, it must provide a strong cost reward incentive to improve productivity.

Yet, obviously, the State plays a defining role for inducing its citizens into technological change under the auspice of the Public Good. Yet also recognisies the need for structural change to induce technological adoptions which themselves re-energise the economy.

Hence, the historical examples of the early private gas, electricity and telephone companies and their initial basically implemented networks being soon taken over by Central Government. The creation of state-led entities and organisations so as to create a national standard which could then be rolled out en mass. Then done to slowly eradicate the domestic and industrial coal-fire fumes that harmed personal health the overall atmosphere. And in doing so, able to exploit the newly installed electrical energy infrastructure as the basis for what would numerous consumer electrical goods (bar-heaters, clothes-irons, vacuum cleaners, hair-dryers etc). As regards the then innovative land-line telephone, it obviously increased B2B, B2C and C2C verbal communications to in turn increase business and consumer activity, and so increase national productivity.

Since the first Earth Summit of 1972 (and the formation of Agenda 21), we have seen the governments of many nations - when individually economically and politically feasible - plays an emormous interventionist role in the effort to combat Climate Change.

By seeking to eradicate the urban emissions of diesel vehicles and older petrol vehicles (exempting the few 'classics'), through various economic levers - incentives and disincentives - to promote ever 'greener' vehicles, lower emissions and bring forth the advent of (notionally) no emissions vehicles and clean-air urban areas.

[NB Though of course the 'no emissions' tag is itself presently ironically a misnomer given the proportionately greater energy intensity required to producing battery propelled lightweight aluminium vehicles. From the extraction and processing of rare-earth metals and chemicals, and likewise the extraction and processing of bauxite and alumina. (The latter only truly sustainably feasible by the likes of Aluminium Specilaist 'Hydro' and its reliance on Norway's impressive hydro-powered smelting plants].

That said, the low and no emissions vehicle story stems back to the early 1970s with California's initial efforts at exhaust-gas regulation (ie gas-recirculation) to combat the Los Angeles smog-layer. It strangled horsepower for bigger homegrown engines and was disliked by many, but that regulation proved a plus for Japanese imports with smaller capacity engines with lower-power but operated far more efficiently.

[NB In the 1960s Detroit's 'Big Three' auto-players had long been experimenting with electric commuter cars but (as seen at the beginning of the century) the lead-acid batteries proved poor and the performance capabilities of the prototypes effectively woeful].

Likewise other up and coming nations from Australia to Brazil followed suite with government funded initiatives, but likewise proved highly problematic in practice].

Thereafter, once Californian legislature had staked-out the ecological problem facing the world at large, and cities specifically, once the EM countries started to grow rapidly and face similar congestion and pollution problems, we saw various City-Entry Permit Schemes across Asia to limit the number of vehicles and so contain emissions problems. Then onto the few Car-Free Central  Zones of smaller Southern European Towns (that sought to re-kindle the romantic historical past and bring in tourists), to the Low Emissions Zones and now Ultra Low Emissions  Zone here in London.

And critically now the recognition of what has been effectively been for many years China's low-cost state-aided funding of numerous technical sectors, as well understood by the Western automakers for decades.

From the eventual development of high-speed wireless networks (eg Huawei's low cost 5G offering), to assistance for incumbent and new Electric Car companies, from BYD to Geely to BAIC, and the impressive crop of new EV marques seen very recently at the Shanghai Auto Show.

Thus, as seen with the efforts to combat city smog particulates and the CO2 component of global warming, the bigger and more socio-economically disruptive the issue, the longer the timespan required to obtain solutions.

This at national and global levels.

Especially so given the inevitable economic cycles of Capitalism that which is both negative to the support of emergent technologies when budgets are cut, yet also ironically provides for the 'creative destruction' that brings about revolutionary technological changes.

Hence, thus the innate vaguaries of developing and adopting new technological solutions.

This the reality of a socially necessary yet financially fluctuating Mixed-Market Economy - even in the Capitalist-centric  USA.

An interesting example follows per the evolution of 'Detroit Iron'....

The Fly-Over and Southern (agricultural) States hold the F-series, the Silverado and Ram pick-up trucks and large American made SUVs very close to their hearts; as the embodiment of what is 'All American', traditional and unchanging.

But even here exploratory avenues have been taken given the adoption of military grade aluminium for body in white and chassis rails and critically the recent rise of the largest Hybrids and EVs.

So, on first impressions, Heartland America seemingly affected by the impact of (often reviled) Californian media and celebrities, their  'Prius Mentalities' stemming back to overtly Democrat leanings with roots back to the 1960s 'Hippy Tree-Huggers' who would not defend 'Old Glory' in Korea and Vietnam, and the fact that the vast majority talking about nature have never lived in rural areas, only holidayed there; and opposition to gun ownership.

(Just one of the central idioms of the current political and politicised chasm)

[NB the comedic (but telling) song 'City Boy Stuck' by Granger Smith (as the character Earl Dibbles jnr) is an amped-up reflection of the disparity between Traditionalist and Liberal America].

Yet on the surface it appears that a meeting of minds has taken place with initially the low series production Hybrid Silverados, now expanded, Ford's 2020 MY Hybrid F150, Ford's buy into the nascient all-electric Rivian Truck brand, and FCA's exploration of mild-Hybrid tech in the 2019 Ram e-Torque.

The arrival of Hybrid pick-up trucks is an automotive landmark, given that for decades dedicated truck enthusiasts could never see beyond the singular might of either Ford's Powerstroke, GM's Duramax or Dodge-Ram's Cummins units.

Even though still tentative, Detroit's Big 3 have rationalised the application of high-torque electric motors. For towing heavy trailers and for precisely controllable traction on off-highway terrain and fully off-road.

But critically, moreover - and very rationally - it was recognised that the truck itself could be used as a power-pack to (with inverters) power construction equipment. And just as usefully, the battery of the vehicle itself could be charged on the very construction sites it often occupies, by either the in-situ or transportable petrol/diesel generators which power  the raft of electrical tools and the banks of batteries that power on-site offices and dorm-huts.

It was this version of practical rationalism - as much as the PR spin of being seen to be ecologically friendlier with Hybrid and EV trucks - that prompted the truckmakers to delve into alternative powertrains and increasingly explore the deployed use of an "electrical truck".

That's the kind of enlightened rationalism required to ensure technological change  happens for all the right reasons, eventually takes hold in an industry or sector and has multiple good reasons for adopting said tech.

[NB the reason cordless electric hand-tools became so beloved in the construction sector was because it reduced 'down-time' and only after battery pack density and power grew and modularisation allowed the ability to switch the battery pack between various tools, whilst the spare packs were simultaneously on charge. So much easier and safer than extension cords and the need to swap lead connected tools.

Again, absolute rationality, better solutions that were even more 'fit for purpose'.

Trucks and tools obviously operate at the micro-level, and evolve to meet circumstances and user needs. But what of the macro-level upon which the IoT (Internet of Things) is conceived?

The previous 20th century examples of emergent consumer goods were only made possible by the change in infrastructure. Thus, the IoT appears to promise much.

However, the 20th century devices were physical and so product orientated, essentially electrical practicality wrapped in stylish plastic casings. The 21st century and IoT oobviously offers a new dimension in interactiveness, from 'on-demand' services (taxis, TV programmes, internet shopping, with the growth of 3-D gaming and Virtual Reality (headsets) prompting the growth of 'Augmented Reality'.
Everything at one's fingertips, so it would seem.

But rationality must be applied, over and above the plethora of supposed 'good ideas' tha have emerged, most of which in the consumer space inevitably seeking to transform almost every function of life to be activated from a smartphone or home device via a 'Digital Assistant'.

That presently effectively limited to voice activated App short-cuts, switching on few domestic items (lights, heating, security camaras), specific in-vehicle functions, and improvement of voice dictation to text. The names 'Alexa', 'Siri' and 'Echo' have now become synonymous; and have ever increasing 'share of mind' in the under 50s.  

A cybernetic spectrum then, from the 'Uberisation' of worldwide Taxi services, to activation of urban bicycle-sharing schemes, to a e-enabled PIN code use of a 'smart' bicycle lock.

It seems as if everyday a plethora of new possibilities is unlocked by the smart-phone, when infact much is simply a hi-tech replication of previous solutions and services.

Perhaps the most ironic of which is the robotic lawn-mower. This 'invention' has been around since the 1950s with 'magic eye' (infra-red) tech, but never taken-off. Why? Because for most people who have lawns enjoy the very task of gardening, it places them amongst nature and momentarily removes them from the pressures of everyday life. It was a solution to an non-existent problem.

And whilst theoretically useful for the lawns of public parks and large private gardens, the ride-on mower, or rotar attachment to a small tractor performed the task by garden owner or member of the garden staff.

And ironically, the latest robotic mowers owe their technical basis to Automatic Routing, QR codes and GPS derived from solutions born from the warehousing sector.

[NB itself a fascinating well-spring of various solutions, as seen by one investment bank's recent recognition of one delivery company's solution being far faster and so superior to another].    

Thus as stated, in the commercial space, the most obvious use of IoT type solutions has been regards Inventory Management, expanding beyond the use of QR codes born from Japanese Lean Manufacturing and Inventory Management, to identify low stock levels in ever bigger and more site remote warehouses.

It has been the development of those technologies, reliant on real-time smart sensors, which has underpinned the very ideology of intelligent networked multi-modal transport systems for society at large.

And thus the very notion of the 'autonomous vehicle'. If car components can be transported intelligently and efficiently, why not other goods and people?

Hence, far beyond the original instances of electronically prompted re-stocking of auto-parts, the cyber-based transport eco-system - based upon quickly adaptive Message and Reader sensors 'emplanted' in infrastructure, vehicles and with users, (I-to-U, I-to-V, V-to-V, etc) promises to create efficiencies in the logistics (of loads and people) that serve to "save the planet" by - with non-fossil fuel propulsion - massively reducing greenhouse emissions.  

Yet to restate the obviously pertinent, any such technical evolution or revolution will invariably relate to major positive shifts per either:

- product or service Cost,
- product or service Quality,
- product or service Speed.

And will inevitably conform to the age old business models, directed toward:

- the Mass (scale)
- the Differentiated (to expand offerings)
- the Niche (to dedicate offerings)

Given this endemic basic commercial structure, the current rhetoric regards Autonomous Vehicles utilising the IoT to create 'Utopian Solutions' poses certain dilemmas.

Beyond 'the digital economy' reducing operational costs by inter-connecting more and more people better through specific App channels as 'providers' and 'users', the business models mentioned are very often highly theoretical, and do not reflect the behavioural realities of people in the world at large. Good in principle, problematic in practice.

Elon Musk talks of a Tesla owner being able to rent-out his/her car to others - via Tesla's phone based Apps - so as to defray the ownership costs. Yet unless a very select group of known predetermined users, the owner becomes highly likely to encounter the problems of 'Rental Car Syndrome', wherein it becomes at best an uncared for commodity or at worst the vehicle is at some point heavily abused. Yes the report 'stars system' (as originated with ebay, and utilised by Uber) does build in higher levels of user/operator trustworthiness, but a taxi-cab owner-driver is a very different concept to an effective rental car. And yes internal and external cameras should detect anomalies of use, but things are never that simple.

Anyone who takes up the possibility to reduce personal costs - a notional rational action - becomes a de facto taxi/rental-car supplier. (Wealthier or more private people will seek personal-only transport to avoid said problems). Recognising the realities, he/she will likely order the base model for their own effective no-cost or low-cost transport.

As such though, why bother running the vehicle at all? Why not simply be a similar call-on-demand user for basic travel needs utilising another person's or Tesla's own fleet vehicle; since Musk states that any region without enough privately held Teslas operating as Cabs will be buoyed by the company's own fleet.

So is the premis itself flawed for the private owner? Since it inevitably results in necessary operational professionalism of the local taxi/rental/autonomous car services by either small banded together consortiums, or large operators. Inevitably all professional service providers will seek scale and do so by buying market share, which the single user-operator cannot compete with.

Thus the very notion of an upmarket Tesla used as an everyday cab becomes hollow, when in rental and rental autonomous (ie unsupervised) modes.

[NB remember, the Stuttgart and Munich taxi drivers who originally only used Mercedes W114 and W123 generation cabs had basic utility interiors, and used the cars simply because of their robustness and reliability].

Of course with auto-sector over-capacity, availability of credit and heavy competition in the private hire / taxi space in most countries, cabs have become more luxurious, but the typical owner-driver also cares for the vehicle, often more so than him/herself.

Tesla will need to somehow differentiate its offering - beyond the wonder of eventual autonomy - if truly seeking to revolutionise on-demand hired transport  

Likewise, for all the rhetoric of connected transport and private-public vehicles, it should be recognised that public transport vehicles have always had utility, practicality, robustness and long-life designed-in; which goes against the grain of luxurious materials.

[NB herein Renault's EZ-GO concept provides a good perspective. The exterior looks sleek and limousine-like, yet the interior is less salubrious].

It is no coincidence that the original 1959 Routemaster bus, and latest Elizabeth Line trains, utilise the same 'moquette' weave in their seating, even though 60 years apart - the unsurpassed technical-engineering solution for very high numbers of 'bums on seats'.

Thus, whilst Renault's very svelte and sophisticated and partially realistic EZ-GO concept was shown as the current vision of the 'private-public' model, any such ultimate vehicle by any such manufacturer or service provider, itself will have to appear plush yet be robust. The automotive equivalent of a moquette seat, just as the Routemaster bus itself was: an emotionally and physically warm interior schematic (compared to previous buses and many cars.

Thus whilst there has been much talk of the 'sharing economy' to befit mass-scale solutions to personal needs, thus far the historical idea of 'Mass-Customisation' has been strictly achieved when only in privately purchased hands.

Automakers provide the basic vehicle (eg VW new Beetle, BMW new Mini, Fiat new 500 etc) and the customer upgrades and differentiates it through specified equipment and cosmetics to arrive at a specific combination of factors that provides the idea of customisation and so exclusivity. A formula seen since the early Ford Model T's, and in the 1920s with Austin Sevens, and ever onwards.

Being able to reverse that idiom, so as to make a standard notional 'public-private' vehicle so adaptable in the moment of use to feel personal to the user(s) is far harder.

After all, in a group of travelling strangers who gets to 'call the shots' about ambiance lighting, background music, infotainment magazines on screens or other aspects of the travel experience?

Herein again, rationality must take precedence by the service supplier, whether that be a  corporate-led 'Renault Travel Solutions' (or any other auto-producer's scheme), state-led such as the generic 'City Transit Corporation' or any 'disruptive' Alternative Service Provider such as Google, Apple, etc seeking a 'public-private' effort akin to a private-public 'Autolib' type scheme.

At the end of the day, common sense and business rationality of how people in the world really behave.

As their economic wealth grew the Chinese understandably rejected mass transport of bicycles and buses that had been the only options for decades; so bought into motorcycles and then quickly into private cars.

Aside from President Trumps recent retractions regards Climate Change, to bolster domestic industry, the West (though actually led by Japan) has long touted itself as the leading light of Eco-Consciousness and practice, from 1970s Los Angeles to 2019s London ULEV zone.

And although the stock-market has boomed since 2008, and employment figures show near full employment, people know their salaries and wages are being stretched and their credit-cards likewise, at this time (what economists well recognised in 2010 as 'the new norm').

Not the consequence of corporate profiteering, simply the need for most commercial entities to cautiously advance with 'zero budget' operating mindsets, counting every penny.

So it is more important than ever that governments and industries (from Computing to Cars to Tin-Can Recycling) not be absorbed by slickly presented utopian ideals of an idealised Future Society, as dreamt-up in a Californian think-lab.

Society does not progress in a linear way simply as an extrapolation of emergent technical trends, and never has; even if the adoption timelines are shortening.

(NB it took 40 years for the landline telephone to become present in everyone's home, 25 years for PC's to become common in homes and 15 years for mobile phones).

The reality of people's behaviour and era-molded expectations (good times vs bad times) derived from the inevitability of boom and bust economic cycles (many financial 'talking-heads' sayng we are near the 'top' after a ten-year bull-run), plays an enormous part.

'Rational Commercialism' is the sine-qua-non of most successful firms throughout history; and it must be recognised that Silicon Valley has both created enormous economic growth from the silicon chip onward, but also with many many failed big-promise start-up ventures destroyed enormous amounts of capital aswell.  

Silcon Valley then sould not be considered the 'god-head' it appears to have become, though undeniably important.

Cold rationality must prevail, not over optimistic absorbing story-telling.

Detroit's Big Three have produced Hybrid pick-up trucks not to be seen as eco-friendly (though it has positive PR), but for 4 main reasons:

1. Assisting the meeting of CAFE regulations
2. To avoid the need to buy Carbon-Credits in the mid-term future
3. To improve MPG for truck (and SUV) owners
4. To create the beginnings of a next-gen vehicle platform deploying On-Board Energy Storage and Provision : that actually adds to Vehicle Utility.
(A practical Tool. Just as PTO units were upon 1950s/60s Jeeps and Land-Rovers).

New 'white space' opportunities obviously exist and must be identified, so ensure companies future earnings and to stay well 'in the black' for shareholders into tomorrow.

This the very basis upon which start-ups such as Rivian Truck, Atlis, Bollinger and the expanding Workhorse Group centred -  and into which Tesla's own pick-up concept might be focused, with greater exploitation of consumer lifestyle activities.

So it is somewhat ironic that presently whilst the Californian futurists opine about the wonderment of autonomous vehicles and overly optimistic business models in a 'shared economy' , Detroit and Michigan is quietly shifting from 'Power-Stroke' units  known to  "Roll-Coal", to what will eventually be the equivalent of highly functional Mobile Battery Units that can provide feed to a plethora of devices, to assist much, from Construction to Camping to Carnivals.

At a time of somewhat reduced but still highly bombastic Tech IPO valuations, investors should look to the practical ideals and ideas that will truly change the world, on Main Street and far beyond.

Since it is the tangible and useful that ultimately sustains and provides the basis of the Income Statement, provides the surplus value of physical Assets over Liabilities in the Balance Sheet, and the cash-flow and loan-level components of the Sources of Funds Sheet.

'Rational Futurism' is the only common sense manner for creating true national economic strength.



  

    

Macro - Level Trends - UK Industrial Strategy - The 'Utopian' Autonomous EV Future.... within Global PESTEL Trends

Previously, the UK Industrial Strategy White Paper of late 2017 was put under the spotlight, and viewed as a well crafted Prospectus as opposed to the beginnings of a true Working Paper. it was broad, as it should be, but shallow in providing a meaningful map to lead into the future.

The big themes presented as the 'Grand Challenges' to be conquered across high-line topics such as an Aging Society, Clean Energy, Big Data (ie Intelligent Infrastructures for the 'Internet of Things') and new methods of Societal Mobility (from the humble bicycle to an age of Autonomous Vehicles).

Yet as then mentioned, the very administrative structure of delivering upon the innate promises of that Paper - heavily Big Data dependent Success measurement Committees, so as to support the use of Big Data - appeared under-whelming, process and stake-holder democracy out-trumping any idea of innate vision. The kind of national vision seen in teh Victorian Age or the 1950s and 1960s, when the country was truly re-inventing itself, and propelling itself into a better future.

Thankfully, beneath the surface of that informational flimsy White Paper, and the government admin commitees, there have been the previous Industrial Catapult Schemes designed to direct funds to those who have the capabilities that underpin such national visions, even if many of them are imported directly from America's Silicon Valley, and not so home grown.  

Hence the UK's 'New Future' still appears some way away, as the very plans for the building of that true new future - beyond HS2 etc - appear still somewhat hazy.

The research and proof of concept exploration of various, ever evolW

Battery solutions at the Warwick Manufacturing Group illustrates the spectrum of possibilities just per battery architectures (Tesla vs Nissan vs VW-Porsche).  This but one aspect of the overall enormous tech refinement process to reach macro-level applicability.

 And as for creating the predictive computer brain that is able to 'see' and respond to the complexity of the outside world - roadways, vehicles, bicycles, people, animals, etc - the presenters at the very good and detailed Tesla Autonomy Day, conveyed just how hard that task is, even with much improved processing capabilities (that it notionally calls 'neural network').

And the 'IoT promise' still to be made manifest beyond some domestic appliance app based services, and all too ironically, the national security questions surrounding the emergent global champion that is China's Huawei and its 5G/6G infrastructure offerings upon which fast-speed IoT must run.

(24.04.2019 - the decisin not to be hostile toward Huawei by Britain and to allow non-core IT infrastructure development, is a positive step amongst the 5 -Eyes club. It demonstrates Britain's lead in recreating internationalist ties between West and East).

So instead of walking semi-blindly in the futuristic haze, the previous weblog sought to illustrate how in one instance a part of that future had been made tangible already and had been with us for some years.

BMW had back in 2006/7 sought to reshape fundamental aspects of the automotive world - and so society - with its MegaCity Project. Which in turn led to the inaugral i3 and i8 models of its i-series sub-brand.

Unlike so much else we are fed in the permanent financial and social media-stream, which views everything through the lens of the Digital (Connectivity, Big Data etc) that simply overlays the what are in effect cyber-based message mediums onto the conventionally engineered world; BMW had decided (like Tesla) to alter the very ground-rules of vehicle design.

And unlike the emergent brand names of the burgeoning ecologically directed sharing economy - for the good of humankind - in the notional roots of the business models of Uber, Lyft etc, which for the consumer did little more than 'app-ify' the calling of a typically conventional taxi and actually sought to capture enormous 'share of mind' to boost stock prices; BMW recognised it had to change the real world.

A world actually made  of materials, engineering hard-points and from the output of production processes. A world that ultimately must be eco-consciously re-designed, and which spans everything from aeronautics to zoological centres.

By substantively altering the BIW (body in white) of its car from conventional steels and alloys to a high content carbon-fibre shell placed over aluminium rolling chassis, and producing en mass, it altered the automotive landscape.

Thanks to enormous financing backing (PayPal profits, Wall Street and the US Governement) and massive media-platform PR assistence over the course of a decade, Tesla might have  cult status amongst Millenials given Elon Musk's personality and associated achievements; but the trends of the very zeitgeist (combining the web with US QE)  provided much of Tesla's uplift. All the socio-economic tailwinds were there to be utilised.

The picture was very different at BMW in 2006/7. Yes it had been enormously succesful thanks to 25 years of initial 1980s 'Yuppiedom' being culturally absorbed by the credit-enabled aspirant Western middle-classes, but unlike Musk who was able to start from scratch with enormous backing, Munich had to manage business as usual with highly capital intensive research, development and production of conventional cars, whilst also creating i-series anew.

Hence, a fundamental issue for society, business and investors is the ability of those long encumbent companies that must evolve ecologically and digitally, and able to - like BMW - very well manage that transition by controlling their destinies.

Of course various vehicle manufacturers have sought to better future-proof themselves by literally buying into the digital future through partial shareholdings in those new-generation firms : from autonomous vehicle technologies to mobility firms, awaiting the day that app-hailed driverless cars become reality, to ever more sophisticated battery structures,  chemical compositions and anode/cathode types.

The plethora of possibilities and divergent technical strategies createsan ever greater number of technical possibilities and so combinations, each auto-maker and their suppliers seeking the best performing formulae to reduce range anxiety and improve vehicle re-charging time.

Yet that plethora of possibilities only serves to create greater technical complexity, when - so as to ensure widespread adoption of electrification - greater standardisation is required so as to create the very infrastructure required to promote electrification.

Thus the reality of building the EV future is far more complex than the constant media hype and press releases conveys.

Elon Musk seeking to calm fears about such issues by highlighting the global roll-out of charge stations, though many of the older points themselves having to be retro-fitted to be able to connect and charge new Tesla models.

Thus the future is still very much in flux.

Yet the central message about an almost utopian electric-autonomous vehicle future is necessarily relayed by vehicle manufacturers keen not to be seen as dinosaurs of the past, precisely because today is presented as if the past.    

As seen with the ever increasing number of concept 'Autonomous Pod' type vehicles shown at Auto-shows and video sites (eg Renault's EZ-GO, EZ -Pro, EZ-Ultimo), that distant goal of full autonomy is the end-point, all fed from Green Energy and Big Data.

But as with part-ownership of Venture-Cap owned firms, the publicising of such concepts with even full-size moving models, is very different to actually re-shaping the very foundations of the world at large and concomitant business models; so as to actually meaningfully step further forward toward Tomorrow's World.

That's why BMW's i3 was so important, it was a very meaningful step forward regards the single dimension (of many) per vehicle structures. Although just one dimension, it was a profound piece of the overall jigsaw directly materialised in the real world.

But the issues to be considered are far more than technical and go beyond the socio-economic ramifications of such technologies (eg. the excavating of salt-flats to obtain specific rare-earth minerals required for high-density batteries, and the proclivity of futures-trading upon such minerals).

The issues to be addressed are diverse, across both a broad spectrum and deep into detail.

Two of the best publicised are from End-of-Life scenarios of what will eventually be old vehicle batteries once past their prime and past recycled 2nd life use as domestic energy storage units; to the responsibilities, morals/ethics about various autonomous accidents; to the question of possible cyber-terrorism hacking and deliberately injuring or killing  innocent private and publicly shared robo-car users.

To convince the auto-industry itself, academia, government and public of the enormity of the issue and debate, a number of books have been published to expound upon the history, present picture and the concept of the hive-like intelligent transport system at the micro-level and the automted mobility pod at the micro-level.

'Autonomous Driving', authored by Herrman/Brenner/Stadler is but one, itself published by Emerald and released last year. Its ten chapters span all PESTEL issues to be addressed, whilst providing detail, soundbites and 'take-away' messages aboout each subject.

Broadly the chapters cover:

1. Evolutions and Revolutions in Mobility (inc Megatrends)
2. Perspective on Autonomous Driving (inc Economics and Techno-Public Policy Roadmap)
3. Technology of the Autonomous Car (inc Automation Levels 1-5, Data Securit and Privacy)
4. Arena of Autonomous Driving (inc. Fields, Stakeholders, Players)
5. Customers and Their Mobility Behaviour (inc Societal, Expectations, New Segments)
6. Framework Conditions for Autonomous Driving (inc Norms, Standards, Ethics)
7. Impact on Vehicles (inc Vehicle Eco-System, Design, Interface, Cost and Safety)
8. Impact on Companies (inc Business Models, Value Chains, Sharing Economy, Insurance)
9. Impact on Society (inc Urban Development, Emerging Societies, Competitiveness)
10. What Needs to be Done (inc An Industry Agenda, Ten Point Plan)

The effective recommendations thus appear in Chapter 10 as the effective next steps.

For Automakers:
- Develop a Digital Company
- Change the Culture
- Renew the Structure
- Rethink the Product
- Cannabalise Your Business
- Increase Speed
- Invest in Partnerships
- Use the Data

For Governments:
- Create a Legal Framework
- Initiate Social Discourse
- Invest in Transport Infrastructure
- Invest in Communications Structure
- Co-opting Private and Public Transport
- Establishing Autonomous Mobility as Industry of the Future
- Develop Industry Clusters
- Integrating Autonomous Vehicles in Cities
- Promote Research, Development and Education
- Promoting Tests within Autonomous Vehicles

The recommendations however are essentially already well recognised and 'generic' as per those hot topics which must be addressed and molded to befit society and vice versa.

Thus mainstream automakers and their suppliers have for a long time been well aware of the building blocks required, and as such have been seeking to obtain and place the various pieces of the jigsaw, from next-generation battery possibilities, to  the latest advancements in 'roadscape antenni' (camaras, radar, lidar etc), to broadscale GPS mapping, to aero and control inspired 'vehicle platooning' to the emergent apps-based mobility platforms so beloved by the young.

And beyond such new era technical strategies recognition of the enormous effort and cost challenges faced by old guard corporations of running conventional yet complex  business whilst also transitioning, so adding further organigram comlexity and cost.

Hence the now recognised need for segment specific platform simplification together with greater scale to provide yet further economies.

So, whilst Tesla previously offered its 'open-source' software so as to try to gain first-mover advantage, now Volkswagen has (via sub-contract transplant manufacturing) offered one of its small car platforms for 'open-use' by its competitor, in the bid  to drive down conventional production costs so as to free-up capital for itself and other incumbents to better direct finances toward ever greater electrified and cyber-enabled vehicles of the future.

This is a somewhat unrecognised 'very big deal', since - after the examples JV platform projects between typically two players and the scale impetus behind mergers and acquisitions, - it finally seeks to provide for the Automotive Industrial Business Model change that the investment community have sought for nigh on 20 years; but which Automakers were reticent to grasp, given the loss of  individual corporate control over the complex design, development and production 'front-end' of their businesses - the arenas they typically knew most about and could best leverage even under JV terms.

(NB see 'Time for a Model Change' by Wormald and Maxton, Cambrdge University Press, released in 2004)

The book 'Autonomous Driving' ends with an Epilogue providing a scenario snapshot of the idealised picture in 2040.

Vehicle  Autonomy has become engrained as the everyday convention, and so all the conventional vehicles from cars to buses to refuse trucks are self-propelled and directed. Vehicle windows have become touch-screens, and interiors offer a digitally enhanced environment, from simple Info-tainment (as known today) to Augmented Reality regards the surrounding environment to Virtual Reality options.  

One example being...."allowing passengers to dive into a completely different world...(perhaps)...a journey through London in the year 1900 to experience the city in a totally different era....Or a picture of 2100 inspired by the ideas of designers, urban planners and architects".

This example obviously deployed as way to enthuse today's designers, urban planners and architects to 'build the future' in the autonomous image.

As expected, Data and Artificial intelligence run everything invisibly. People's everyday routines so well understood that the vehicles within the IoT are effectively waiting for use exactly on time. And creates the desired environment through favourite musicians' soundtracks etc. Transport might even become free for the 'last mile' journeys as corporations sponsor the shuttle cars from station to front door. Accidents very rarely happen and the previously immobile or limited (children, OAPs and disabled) have the same options as capable adults; hence they are more independent.

The book provvides a very good overview of the pros to be had from autonomous driving, they are easy to recognise.

But what of the unstated cons? Will people instead gradually feel themselves to be increasingly simply cogs inside the machine, even if it has been visually and audibly humanised as the 3D materialisation of Alexa or Siri?

Many PESTEL issues raising many questions still remain.

And although the media, disruptors and even car-makers themselves depict the Utopian ideal, the reality is that today the industry and society is very much in flux.
Thus in some ways today feel like the re-idealised of 1950s America's Futuramas (by GM, Ford and Chrysler) depicting a radio-wave, robotically controlled freeway system, but applied to both City and Inter-City.

For many reasons that future-scape never materialised.

That in itself should not undermine the idea of a distant fully autonomously driven society, and but let us not be over-excited with enthusiasm given the true Timescales involved, the need for so much Central Planning (possibly appearing Authoratarian/Totalitarian) and the reality of so many macro and micro-level variables that could likely hinder (but possibly quicken) the process and so destination date of such an outcome.

The complexity is huge, and today's existence of self-guided Teslas and other marques are very encouraging; although presently realistically limited to the on-highway scenarios of that  1950s dream. Yet the current increasingly urbanised autonomous experiments appear promising; even if wholly reliant upon the capabilities of the vehicles and little meaningful interaction with any form of AI assisted Intelligent Infrastructure.

As stated, on the vehicle front, BMW has made a prolific step forward with its i3 and successor cars. Arguably much more so than Tesla (whose own ambition concerns the full remit of combined clean energy and mobility). And not just from a materials perspective, since unlike Tesla's monocoques, the i3 is effectively body on chassis, so providing for a myriad of body-types, from country-side sportscar to small urban an or pick-up truck, so rapidly able to expand from its  centre-ground of a 5/3 door compact family hatchback.

Yet much more societal understanding requires insight and recognition by Government, Corporations, Academia and other stakeholders, to ensure the future is bright if it is to be autonomous.

That means effectively getting inside the heads of those with vision, from auto-designers to renowned architects: themselves ever more involved in expansive intelligent urban planning projects, that form new realms within and outside the emergent MegaCities of the world.

To do so politicians and policy-makers need to not simplify - as seen in the UK's Itrial Strategy White Paper with its few Grand Challenge Themes - but hone true understanding and awareness of the pertinent socio-economic trends and details that must be encompassed within our 'Intelligent Future'; and better explain in greater detail.

People are not stupid, even if busy in their lives and distracted by ever greater nonsense via screens. And what is left of the old British (ie Anglo-Saxon) middle class - the once silent majority - is increasingly infuriated to being perceived by the liberal political class as the mere remnants of yesteryear, in the overall global growth story.

They want the future economic growth story explained, so as to have faith and participate. Not simply unwittingly directed by social forces.

Here in the UK we have seen what was once David Cameron's idea of subtle 'mental nudging' progressively expanded into what might appears policy-attuned social engineering - through the omnipotence of the web, basic AI algorithms feeding 'suggested content' and all too obvious increase in deplorable 'social acting'.

Societal divisions created by  what appears ever more divergent 'them and us' camps : the culturally engrained 'brainwashed liberal' Left (literally acting en mass and in concert to gain social and financial power) and the increasingly 'intransigent, traditionalist ' Right (moving ever more right to oppose the socially transparent machinations of the Left in recognition of the immense highly-politicised fakery subsumed into everyday behaviour over the last 10-15 years).

As such the UK Government, Whitehall and senior commercial and industrial luminaries need to gain a good grasp of the details of PESTEL trends as espoused and lived by not only the West's baby-boomer, Gen X-ers, Gen-Yers and Millenials, at home and in the West. But also the new factions of globally aware yet also culturally sensitive thought leaders in the EM countries to which 'the West' will sell its services and products born from cyber-centrIc 'Industry 4.0' ambitions.

Perhaps start with 1990s Faith Popcorn, via 2000s Patric Dixon and into the oxymorinic 'Capitalistic-Marxist' Slavoj  Zizeck, then onto any centrist and objective Sociologists within the new crop from the BRICS and beyond.

In a post Brexit or even partial Brexit era, it will be the fusing of the UK's commercial and industrial capabilities to the rest of the world, that will be vital.

And given the enormity of Northern Europe's retained technical capabilities - as per the BMW i3 - that also means likely operating as a scientific, technical and cultural commercial brokerage house between nations.

Through the 1920s and 1930s it was very well recognised that "the business of America is business". That idiom must be echoed in a culturally sensitive manner internationally by the UK in the 2020s and 2030s.

The 'ideation' of autonomous vehicles should be able to be summed-up in the words of an old REM album title : "Automatic For the People", if not necessarily actually "By the People".

The mistakes of the very much socially-engineered Modernist tower blocks of the 1960s and 1970s - that replicated the Soviet bloc itself upon high but unrealistic ideals - did not take into account the perspective and foibles of its inhabitants.

Today's MegaCities, Intelligent Transport Systems and Autonomous Cars must not repeat the same mistake of not recognising specific human natures for what they are.

To expand upon the words of a very well known quietly spoken but insightful man...we cannot have 'automotive carbunkles' upon the worst of  'architectural carbunkles'. And nor should we export such to the rest of the world.






     

Interval - Momentary Observations, Parallels and Metaphors for a Better World

Presently, technical problems prohibit a web-log post of the normative length and detail, and likewise the uploading of an info-based accompanying graphic.

Hence. the remainder of the UK Industrial Strategy web-log to come.

Instead, investment-auto-motives wishes to provide a 'social snapshot', prompted by the major socio-economic challenges the UK faces and the seeds of improvement in  the everyday events of  the world around us.

The last blog ended with the high praise of BMW's i-series cars, specifically the i3, with now the i4 due; the i8 more of a 'brand halo' exercise that also provided the company with valuable research and production learning, itself somewhat compromised in supercar use

The i3 was born from BMW's Megacity study and concepts initiated in 2007 and having an international team question an array of urban stakeholders, from Mayors to consumers (whom they generally classified as 'eco', 'economy' and 'lifestyle').

At the time Design Chief Adrian van Hooydonk recognised a mentality shift regards the very definition of 'Premium'; from a past of aesthetic extravagance, conventional materials and precision,  toward far greater concern for rationality and sustainability (thus repair, re-use and recycling).

By 2010 that message, partly following trends and itself partly massaging trends, had become a central mantra amongst Design Managers, keen to sway their young designers away from the all too obvious cosmetic cues drawn from the icons of  auto history (repeated ad nuaseam in 'retro' styling) and toward new holistic thinking.

[NB the innate truism yet irony that to move ahead of the zeitgeist BMW had to perform a 180° reorientation. Having previously backed Frank Stephenson's R50 retro Mini in the mid 1990s over Ollie Le Grice's perfectly packaged and styled Spiritual Mini (which itself as an egg on wheels was so subtly futuristic). The retro R50 Mini (effectively born in Munich) won because of is marketability and obvious long-term commercial promise].

This stuff is well understood in auto-design circles at the senior level, even if true creativity is stifled.

But yet illustrates how to run a business profitably, where abject rationality must prevail over any idealism. Compare the basic egg-like and very good Ford Ka versus the populist style-led New Beetle,  in what was an era of ever more easily available credit, and so automotive 'dream-catching'. The imperative was of consumer lifestyle satiation so as to  to 'milk the  market', and so the need  to overcome any high idealism of either unfamiliar innovative  high-artistry (as per Chris Bangle's 'flame-surfacing') or even in the opposite direction, the hi-Modernism of hyper-rational auto-design. R50 befitted its era perfectly, after New Beetle and before New Nouvo Cinquecento.

[NB the case study of FIAT's 1998 Multipla illustrated that fact. The high functionality of space provided by vertical sides, 3 abreast seating  and good all-round vision - drawn literally from the 'coffee-pot' inspiration - was loved by designers but was too odd for most real-world customers outside of homeland Italy. (The irony being that it came into its own in China when manufactured by Zotye to fill the City-Taxi segment there, much as the original 1960s Multipla had done in Rome). Likewise, Patrick Le Quement's grande vision of Renault's new generation of Grande Tourer commercially flopped when Avantime was regarded as too unorthodox  being a monospace coupe, loved by designers, unloved by the public].

These past case studies illustrate why the demonstrably brave BMW i3 was envisaged as far more than a singular car, but as part of a new dimensional sub-brand that departed enormously from the formulaic BMW recipe of  stance, proportion and surfaces, kidney grille and hockey-stick. i3 was born of 'new vision' and appreciation as to how the world would change - and be led toward that change by BMW  - over the coming decades.

Far from the sardine-can like social density of Tokyo, or the heavy smog of Beijing, here in the relatively small Mega-City of London, that change has become very evident since 2007.

More then ever today the British public and its politicians need to spend less time engrossed in Brexit - since it all seems political theatre and less so true nation-building - and more time looking around at the actual dynamics of the urban landscape.

In the last week alone - through personal observation - the signs of socio-economic change have shown themselves clearly and for the better.

whilst politicians' words that placate the masses regards 'the war' against inner-city gang crime are all good and well, they often ring hollow; mere lip-service to a problem that they themselves are highly unlikely to encounter.

(After all, the Hollywood depictions of future mega-cities typically illustrate a wide chasm between dystopian under-class and utopian elite; simply exaggeration of today's perceived norm. Though what is not illustrated are the invisible connections between notional high and low societies that runs through glamorous activities).

Nonetheless, the fact is that it is at the very coal-face, upon the average street, societal problems are being better recognised and met, with a new strain of reduced tolerance of anti-social crime. The 'had enough' attitudes of everyday people, and the forces of law and order, who have had their own hands tied by the strictures of political correctness.

Here in London, it is by 'The Met' Police; operating reactively and proactively; and with hopefully greater freedoms than has been so to date. Just a few examples of a better aligned police service:

- A Commissioner who readily admits the rise of knife crime in Parliament, to ensure greater resources are provided, whilst possibly endangering her own position for not 'playing things down' as they may have been in the past.

- A white female PC seen driving a multi-task vehicle very skillfully at speed, concentration on her face , well trained  eagle-eyed awareness and afore-thought akin to the hard-core facial expressions of Sabine Schmitz when driving an unfamiliar track or vehicle.

- A muscular black male PC nigh on filling the interior of a local beat BMW i3; illustrating strength (via his innate physicality) yet also simultaneously exuding external social concern (via his role, the electric vehicle) and so the subliminal idea of a friendly futuristic 'Robocop' character. Its all too easy to overlay cinematic tropes but that essence of authority / power coupled with overt conscientiousness was a strong - very likely self-recognised role-model - signal to both young 'on the edge' males and the public at large.  

(NB Tho' it must be said that the very backbone of the nation's forces appears - as ever - inevitably to be the unsung hero of the lower middle class white male, who have become increasingly overlooked).

Thus, away from the Westminster Village and Brexit, back in the real world that concerns 99.99% of people, it is those "who do the right thing", whether (more obviously and frequently) in uniform or not, that set the template for the cities and world we all live in.

As the very business model of intra and inter city mobility evolves - as seen by the enormous value of the Lyft IPO - The BMW Megacity concept that became the i3 shone a light as to how our products, values and environment can be better envisioned.

Whether that be from the high ideals of the Quandt family (and their longtime BMW shareholder connections) that espouse German social sensitivity and conservatism by the rich and influential, to the major institutional shareholders seeking greater CSR, to the product designers and engineers, manufacturing engineers of new materials and propulsion systems to the marketeers and sales staff trained to enthuse the public , to the end users from overly 'PC' (politically correct) yummy mummies to the PCs (police constables) that must operate on high alert when called.

If the very vision of a better society - simply as better, moral, creative, happy and productive people - could be far better communicated,....without the identity politics that ultimately labels and divides, and the hyper-libertarianism that increasingly echoes forms of mind-control an social engineering,....we would not need knife amnesties.

Knives would be solely used in the kitchen for cutting foodstuffs and not used on the street for ultimately cutting to shreds the all too fragile ties of the urban social construct.

By way of a poor metaphor between vehicles and weaponry, the BMW i3 by virtue of its avante-garde shape, advanced materials and processing,  and ease of handling, could be seen as akin to a Japanese Samurai sword.

Though crafted from intense belief and passion, and often viewed as simply for battle, most of the time the role of the sword and actions of the Samurai was to actually deter social misconduct, to be displayed and not drawn-out. Itself and wearer appearing the embodiment of nobility, distant from and so much more than pettiness and squabble. Its everyday intent was actually to illustrate and remind of  responsibility and so the prompt good conduct by all.

A signifier of crafted beauty that can - in extremis - end a life.
So illuminating the very importance of life.

Without such low-brow behaviours, greater attention paid by the many as to what is truly important and thereafter what can be achieved by a harmonious society. That is why even today the Japanese hold such items as even the latterday Tanaka sword as most venerable.

The i3 intentionally was designed to illustrate an engineering and cosmetic structural break from the past and so a better way forward. And as such its vision (together with that of original Toyota Prius) could act as modern-day social totems; by which to better form ourselves, as the products of ourselves as more rational, better considered, higher thinkers.

Not reliant upon the edicts of today's all too obvious social engineering, by which "people do not hold ideas...but ideas hold people", and so the cause of  inevitable social tensions.
   
Think anew and from rational basis and for all the right reasons...that was the lesson of BMW's 2007 Megacity project and its subsequent car(s).

Even all these years on, with even other more affordable and very well dialled-in aluminium and steel bodied  EVs,  it has shown itself to be inspirational. Unlike the others, it was engineered 'right first time'... CF structure upon AL under-pinnings with story led tactile Eco materials to directly satiate head and heart....and that no compromise formula will ensure its leadership status for decades to come.

That's why it encompasses tomorrow, today.

Macro Level Trends – UK Growth - From White Papers to White Space Opportunism (Part 2)

The previous weblog simply outlined the major issues addressed by the White Paper for Industry Strategy. Itself part of the outcome of the findings from The Industrial Strategy Commision.

The Commission's leading participant's comprised of few people: respected Economists and Public Policy Advisors, orientated around Manchester and Sheffield Universities, with one foot in the past (regards the Coal Board) and the notional 'future' (regards Nano-technology).

The academic centres and original candidates obviously chosen to illustrate the metamorphosis from old industry to new industry; and to support the notion of the regional transition toward the Northern Powerhouse as a prime element of the eventual Industrial Strategy.

The Commission itself then, seemingly created to fulfil the ideological need to be seen to re-invent and re-energise swathes of the 'long forgotten' North and elsewhere. As such it was obviously a politically generated totem, to provide new hope for large sections of 'down-trodden' and 'water-treading' society.

Its Key Recommendations were:

1. Universal Basic Infrastructure – for all citizens

2. Health and Social Care – well-being a focus

3. Place Matters – “something for everywhere, not everything for everywhere”

4. Further and Faster Devolution – decentralisation to empower local regions and cities

5. Innovation Policy – utilising the state's purchasing power to boost innivation

6. New Institutions – a Treasury led, new institutional framework

7. Monitoring and Measuring Success – via the Office for Strategic Economic Management

8. New Methods of Appraisal – overhaul of large project decision-making process

So as to meet the strategic goals...

A. Ensure Adequate Investment in Infrastructure

B. Decarbonise the Energy Economy

C. Develop a Sustainable Health and Social Care System

D. Unlock Long-Term Investment

E. Support High Value Industries and Build Export Capacity

F. Enable Growth in All Parts of the UK

These recommendations and goals are of course derived from the utopian idealism of a better and more socio-economically stable nation with greater local identity to motivate participants.

This the very necessary political message of the era, so it should be no surprise that the Commission was sited in the North and that its efforts were born largely from the considerations of Political-Economics and Social Public Policy generalists. Who (though experts in their respective fields, given prominent positions as advisors to various Boards) were themselves appointed to formulate what was effectively a predetermined formulaic message.

But it is (and will be) of course, thanks to the contribution of Commerce, Industry (small, medium and large), the insightful sections of Academia and other realistically informed economic stakeholders, upon which the basic framework of the ultimate Strategy rests.

They must formulate the detailed superstructure upon the underpinnings of national regional challenges and global macro socio-economic trends.

Thus, to utilise the parallel metaphor of the Construction sector, the Commission provided the broad brush strokes of the Architect's loose 'concept rendering', and the Strategy Council will seemingly operate as the Concept Engineers.

But it will be Industry Leaders (British and Foreign) who will have to actually undertake the vast majority of the work. Euphemistically acting as the : Structural Engineers, Site Surveyors, Quantity Surveyors, Groundworks, Scaffold Erectors, Brick-layers, Carpenters, Plumbers, Electricians, Second-Fix, Last-Fix and Snagging Inspectors

On to the White Paper itself....

To delve deeper, the following summarises the content of the White Paper's accompanying presentation.

Firstly, to repeat....

The Grand Challenges encompass -

• Artificial Intelligence and Data Economy
• Clean Growth

• Aging Society
• Future of Mobility

These themes operate both as individual forces at the micro-level (such the competition to create advanced electronics and software amongst rivals, or at the research level to make the leap from binary digital to 'neural-networks' to even the realms of the cyber-organic) , as a consequence of the human motivation for driving theoretical and part-proven innovation, yet also more presciently when the themes converged with new era innovative solutions derived from new exploratory solutions that provide various answers to mutually coalesced trends, from 2 to 4 of the Gran Challenges identified.

That November 2017 presentation states that...

….“A truly strategic government must do more than just fix the foundations: it must also plan for a rapidly changing future, look to shape new markets and industries, and build the UK's competitive advantage”.

“The public and private sector must work with universities, researchers and civil society....breaking down the conventional barriers within and between business sectors and academic disciplines. This is what the Grand Challenges will achieve”.

The White Paper cites Germany's 'Industrie 4.0' as a good example of government assiting industry, while in the USA (the well known) DARPA Competitions have spurred innovation such as the internet and smart phones.

[NB The history of innovation if often blurred, since typically (as with Marconi and Baird per Television) simultaneous but separate similar research-work will likely be underway in various laboratories. But more likely, the very nature of syndicated research, by academia, government and industry, will – with god national research policy – seek to connect the various aspects of an 'innovation chain' – that illustrated the innovative origins to come from multiple sources.

The Internet itself has been variously stated as deriving from Tim Berners-Lee at when at CERN, UK Universities, the US Military (fort then 3C Comms) and various US Universities. Thus we see that world changing innovation rarely stems from a single source].

The UK's competitive advantages are seen by the White Paper as:

- Cyber-Security

- Machine Learning

- Micro-Electronics Design

- Composite Compound Chip Technology

- Biotechnologies and Life Sciences

Thus, once again to reiterate historic experiences...

...“Simultaneously, new strengths must be built in emerging sectors, by deploying partnerships between Business, Scientists, Investors, Educators and Policy Makers”.

“These Partnerships must be nation-wide, in accordance with (successful achievement of) Devolution”.

“For each Grand Challenge leading figures from induetry and academia will act as Expert Advisors, led by a Business Champion, operating in tandem with Ministers, to raise the profile of the specific Challenge. How to make the most of a global opportunity, like buoying nascient markets with supply-side initiatives to boost initial low-level demand, and ensuring innovations can 'diffuse' and 'scale-up' “.

As regards each Grand Challenge, the following provides greate insight into the ambitions and levels of funding :

Artificial Intelligence:

Boosting of STEM subjects, Ethics, Linguistics, Datasets, Microchips, Microcomputers, Robotics and the Internet of Things.

(Since 2010 the CAGR of AI has been 57%, from £0.2bn to nearly £2.0 by 2016).

Aims: to make the UK a Global AI Centre, 'Next Generation of Services', 'Early Diagnostics and Precision Medicine', Regulaton to foster AI via ideas generation 'Sandbox' schemes.'

The Alan Turing Centre will become the National Research Centre for AI with Fellowships.

£45m for PhDs and related disciplines.

Industry funded Masters programmes, starting with 200 places.

Cross-Discipinary learning for professionals to apply AI in their fields.

The AI Council to perform a leadership role, reporting to new AI Gov't Office.

Promotion of greater Diversity in the AI labour force

6 Priority business sectors: Cyber-Security, Life Sciences, Construction, Manufacturing, Energy, Agriculture

The 'Digital Catapult' provides various assistance packages for Start-Ups, SMEs and large Corporations.

The 'Global Entrepreneur' programme to attract foreign ventures into the UK for HQs

New Centre for Data Ethics and Innovation – world's 1^st AI advisory body.

£406m for Skills Development in Education and Industry, with New National Centre for Computing Education.

National Re-Training Scheme to reskill and upskill.

Clean Growth:

(In tandem with published Clean Growth Strategy)

Low Carbon Technologies and Efficiency of Resources.(perhaps x4 nominal GDP growth)

New Industries created and Existing Industries transformed.

Paris Agreement of 2015 seeks to Revolutionise: Power, Transport, Heating, Cooling, Industrial Processes and Agriculture.

Public and Private Financing, (individually and cooperatively).

(Since 2011 Global Green Bond issuances risen from $3bn to $125bn in 2017)

Clean-Tech primarily directed to Autos, Aero and Construction sectors.

New Markets: eg Smart Energy Systems, 'Bio-Economy' (renewable bio-based resources from land and sea to produce food, materials and energy).

Cities – cleaner air, Rural – regenerated natural capital

Electric Vehicle Manufacturing, Off-Shore Wind Power, Smart Energy Systems, Sustainable Construction, Precision Agriculture, Green Finance.

Partnership ideology between Industry, Academia, Government and Civil Society

Support Schemes to assist the upfront costs of Innovation development, roll-out and scale-up

(regulation, taxes, investment to promote new market growth) and so Commercialise

International initiatives (eg Mission Innovation)

To make Clean-Tech the more cost effective alternative to High-Carbon Trad-Tech.

Future Mobility:

UK as World Leader in Shaping Next Gen Mobility

Profound Changes in Mobility Models for People, Goods and Services

Innovation in Engineering, Technologies and Business Models

Major Investments in Electrification, Automation and Network Efficiency of Road Vehicles and Rail Networks.

Autonomous Aerial and Marine Transport

'On Demand' Ride-Hailing Services, Ride-Sharing, 'Mobility as a Service'...new perspectives

Potential to Transform Public Transport

Road and Rail De-Congestion and Improved Traffic Flow, De-Pollution and Efficiency

(Electric Cars (all but basic hybrids) sales risen from 1,000 in 2010 to 38,000 by 2016)

Government aim of testing fully self-driving cars on UK roads by 2021

New Flexible Regulatory Framework to Encourage Transport Innovation

Changes to Codes of Practice for Automatic Vehicle Testing

Law Commission projects to create Regulatory Frameworks for Automated Vehicles

£400m Charging Infrastructure Investment Fund (£200 of which by Gov't)

£100m Plug-In Car Grant (NB since retracted)

£40m (to be matched by Industry) for Charging Tech, On-Street and Wireless

Government to lead with 25% of Central Gov't cars Ultra-Low Emmisions by 2022.

Publication of a 'Transition to Zero Emissions Road Transport' Strategy.

To be World Leader in Development, Manufacture and Use of ULEV vehicles.

The blurring of distinction between private and public transport

A Mobility Marketplace that Functions Differently to the Transport System of Today

Publish 'The Future of Urban Mobility' Strategy

The National Infrastructure Commission's Innovation Prize per AI Road-Building

West Midlands a UK Centre of Expertise and Key Testing Location for best entries

£5m for the 5G Testbeds and Trials, as of 2018, including maximising productivity benefits

Support for Simulated Environments to accelerate developments

Centre for Connected and Autonomous Vehicles Research Competition

Ageing Society :

“We will harness innovation to help meet the needs of an ageing society”

Longer lifespans and reduced birth rates across the Developed world

Baby-Boomer generation reaching retirement

This prospect requires people to plan their lives differently

Older peoples will create new demands for tech, products and services,

eg new care tech, new housing models and innovative retirement financial instruments

Government's obligation to help older people lead independent, fulfilled lives, contributing

UK population aged 65 + : 1976 14%, 2046 25%

Innovative age related products and services assist Uk productivity and wellbeing

These solutions offered to a growing global marketplace

Without action, an aged society is a rediced labour force and so a poorly productive one.

“If we succeed, we will have an economy that works for everyone”

Increased support of Smart Home-Tech, 'Wearables', other Health-Tech

British businesses having redesigned jobs and workplaces to align to older needs

Workers will have more flexibility to balance work, caring and life.

Younger generations able to plan life-long careers with confidence

Japan - at the forefront of the Ageing Challenge.

Britain - NHS datasets, Design Institutes, AI Research, Life Sciences, Fininancial Services

4 Priority Areas identified:

- General Support : 'Healthy Ageing' project, New Markets, Foreign Markets,

- Sector Support : Business Champion to adapt business for older and all worker types

- Health Data : NHS data can help create new tools to diagnose and treat illness earlier

Regional Innovation Hubs to use data for research purposes, regulated by

National Data Guardian

Health and Social Care Devolved, but Tech opportunities can be taken

'Data to Early Diagnostics and Precision Medicine' programmes

- Care Provider Support : to alter business models and new models of care, and use of the

Growth Hub Network

The Five 'Foundations' to meet the abovementioned Challenges are, once again and expanded:

• Ideas
• People

• Infrastructure
• Business Environment
• Places

Ideas :

Ambition “to be the world's most innovative economy”

Past examples of Jet Engine, Bagless Vacuum Cleaner, World Wide Web etc

[herein questionable examples : 

Jet Engine - technology led by the Germans

Bagless Vacuum - tech transfer from industry processing

WWW – various sources.

Perhaps, citing more convincing examples would engage more people, since STEM enthusiasts themselves (as 'born researchers') can easily investigate each's origins].

However, to continue

UK is home to 4 of the top 10 Universities in the world.

Must ensure New Discoveries are translated into applications in Industry / Commerce

Need for greater investment by Private sector and Government.

The biggest increase in Public Investment in history

Key Policies : Research Expenditure of 2.4% of GDP by 2027, Increase Research Tax Credit to 12%, Invest £725m in Industrial Strategy Fund

Innovation is about New Ideas in Technologies, Products and Services

From Radical Transformation or Incremental Improvements, from In-House Incumbent or New Insurgent Business, a major Scientific Advancement or Technology Transfer

Ideas = Productivity Gain = Higher Earnings Power

The UK Research Base (field weighted) shows a marginal shift away from Business, Humanities and Social Sciences....marginally toward....Engineering, Physical Sciences, Environmetal Sciences, Biological Sciences and Clinical Sciences.

“Over half UK firms Innovatng” in Business Practice, Organisational Methods, Marketing, Processes, New Products.

23% above EU average performance

Product Leaders: Life Sciences, Aero, Auto, Technology, Energy, Creative Industries.

Service Leaders : Law, Accounting, Financial Services, Insurance, Architecture

The UK attracts foreign talent (into Universities and into Professional fields)

Four Key Challenges the Industrial Strategy will address:

1. Level of Public and Private Investment: 1.7% vs 2.9% USA, 2.8% Germany
   (this even so [likely because] a Services dominated economy). Innovation most seen in a small number of big firms in Autos, Pharma, Technology; 75% of Investment by 400 firms. SME's perform worse than EU counterparts. New Research strengths within EM countries. Public spending stimulates the Private by 140%.
2. Ability to Commercialise : historically seen than UK ideas can founder or are quickly purchased by MNCs (eg MRI scanner, Lithium-Ion Battery, Monoclonal Anti-bodies, Genetic Sequencing. “the D aspect of R and D needs boosting”. Much UK innovation is in Software and Branding. Uk is good at low-cost innovation and flexible start-ups, but poor at the long-haul process regards Technology. In general, UK businesses favour quick routes to market, rather than long development times. And selling businesses rather than growing them.
3. Growing Research and Innovation : need to maximise University, Public Project and Leading Business innovation activities. Bolster these strengths and the Local Eco-Systems that support Innovation and Sustained Growth.

(Britain sits 20^th in the world for % of GDP R and D Expenditure)

Science and Innovation Audits (led by a consortia of business, universities and local enterprise partnerships) reveal distinct local and regional strengths, and opportunities for inter-regional collaboration. But also recognise Barriers against building Eco- Systems by attracting Investment and Talent.

4. Remain as a Global Collaborator : 17% FDI and >50% activity in Foreign MNCs

Grow International Connections to be part of Foreign Innovation Stories.

“By 2030 to be the most innovative country in the world”.

Vision for a Knowledge Led Economy

'Innovation Clusters' around Universities (Research / Business / Entrepreneurship),

driven by STEM subjects academic enhancement.

To jump-start, £12.5bn Public Expenditure for 2021/22 (£9.5bn in 2016/17)

New Innovation Roadmap focused on Key Sectors and Technologies and Clusters,

aswell as Access to Finance, Altered Regulatory Frameworks, Intellectual Property

£725m (as 2^nd wave) of the ISC programmes

£300m (over 3 years) in world class talent

Create better relations between Research and Investment, just 50 businesses responsible for 40% of private sector investment globally. (Attracting +5% from this top 50 would add +/- 30% to R and D funding.

Operate with UKRI to develop a Strategic Priorities Fund per a 'Common Fund'

This to identitify multi-disciplinary and inter-disciplinary Research topics

Also to provide +20% budget rise for 2019/2020.

'Quality Research' also highlighted via Research England at university level

Innovate UK to also be better assisted to help business collaborate, with piloting of:

- £50m innovation loans
- Investment Accelerator for private equity 'seed-funding' alongside grant funding

British Business Bank to have new Investment Fund, for access to Venture Capital so as to 'scale-up' the nascient business.

Grant competitions run in 2017/18 worth £150m in assisted funding.

Agile Regulation to promote innovation yet protect the citizenry via Digital Charter

Improved Public Procurement as important source of finance to innovative firms...

...so as to not dilute equity and so endorses others to invest.

The USA's Small Business Innovation Research programme seen as guide...

- the GovTech Catalyst Fund >£20m/3 years to gain more efficient public services

- the 'nquiringminds' case study (per dataset exchange in Belfast)

The new Umbrella organisation of UK Research and Innovation better integrates:

- 7 Research Councils

- Innovate UK

- Higher Education Funding Council (for England)

The Industry Challenge Fund – Wave 1 assisted:

- Batteries to design, develop, produce Electric Vehicles and Remewable Energy

- AI and Robotic Systems for Extreme Environments (space / nuclear)

- Satellites

- Medicines manufacture

Wave 2 assists:

- Eco-Construction and Low-Impact Use

- Renewable Energy and Smart Systems

- Global Food and Clean Water Production

- Audio-Visual Immersive Technologies

- Next Gen Services (across various disciplines)

- Early Diagnosis and Precision Medicine

- Healthy Ageing

UK Research and Innovation to create:

- New Knowledge Exchange Framework across Universities....alongside

- (Research Excellence Framework)

- (Teaching Excellence and Student Outcomes Framework)

The 5 Foundations Demonstrate that :

Under the heading of 'Ideas', obviously Research and Development investment was the prime issue, with a sought total economic input of 2.7% of GDP by 2027.

With also £725m put into the Industrial Strategy Challenge Fund.

Under 'People', the creation of a Technical Education system that mimics the best of UK Higher Education; so as to redress the much declined capabilities in the STEM subjects.

With £406m invested, and a retraining scheme focused on IT and Construction.

Under 'Infrastructure', an increase in the 'National Productivity Investment Fund' to £31bn, regards Transport, Housing, Digital Infrastructure.

To support Electric Vehicles with £400m in Charging Infrastructure and £100m additional to the Plug-In Car Grant.

£1bn public investment in infrastructure including 5G and £200m for local Full-Fibre Networks.

The 'Business Environment' improved with 'Sector Deals' as partnerships between government and industry to improve sector productivity.

Initially in Life Sciences, Construction, Artificial Intelligence and the Automotive Sector.

Over £20bn of Investment in Innovation and high potential businesses via an initial £2.5bn Investment Fund incubated within the British Business Bank.

To review how to assist productivity in SMEs.

Specifically the 'long tail' of lower productivity firms.

[NB The 'long tail' idiom is the idea of a small firm to gain sizeable profits from selling many various niche-volume products: this focusing upon 'Niche' instead of 'Volume' or 'Differentiation'.

A good example – with its own recent 'aero-induced long-tail' vehicle variant is McLaren sports cars. All part of the apparent customer preferance for non-mainstream as a way of self-identification of being different, this at all levels of the price spectrum, from Hyper-Cars to Hyped-Coffee]

As regards 'Places', the desire to agree Local Industrial Strategies that utilise local strengths and economic opportunities. Creation of a Transforming Cities Fund via £1.7bn worth of intra-city projects, that drive productivity with improved physical connections. And a pilot Teacher Development scheme at a cost of £42m with £1,000 for professional development in 'fallen behind' subjects.

Quite obviously, thus far a broad and shallow overview.

At press release, the accompanying slide presentation's qouted that... “We are a location of choice for businesses at the cutting edge of innovation and technology, attracting more overseas investment in R and D than many other major countries, including Germany, France and China”. And beyond, flexible labour, a competitive environment and rule of law were cited as strong incentives for FDI. Ranked 7^th globally per the World Bank's 'Ease of Doing Business' Index.

Strengths were recognised in Automotive, Aerospace, Food and Drink, the Creative Sectors and elsewhere in Financial Services and Business Services.....from Satellites to Synthetic Biology to General Healthcare.

The 'Core Cities' of London, Birmingham, Manchester and Glasgow cited as obvious economic hubs, whilst vibrant local economies in areas like Milton Keynes, Oxford and Cambridge, are seen as model towns; to be replicated if possible. Within this regional development schema, the age old recognition of the need to promote growth via inter-connection and the cluster-effect; even in a notional cyber age.

National weaknesses were also recognised by way of under-use of 'Export Potential', itself hampered by Under-Investment in Education, Skills and Plant.

It is recognised that too many cities outside London 'under-perform' against the national average, and so National Productivity is poor compared to international peers. However, the advantages of Flexible Labour structures must be matched by Sustained Higher Productivity, so as to promote higher wages; the key to improving living standards across the country.

Critically, the 'Long Tail' problem seen as crucial to resolve.

This term a euphamism for the apparent large chasm that exists between the performance of the Best Corporates and SME firms.

[NB though the previous McLaren Cars example and that of revived Harris Tweed illustrate that not always so. Though obviously far easier to reserect a famous name that to start from scratch – hence the rebirth of Brabham and Lister; though brands such as 'House of Hackney' (domestic interiors) as once new start-ups are able to do so if themselves reviving specific historical design trends]

As of 2016 Britain's GDP per Hour Worked was behind Germany, France, the USA and (even) Italy, only slightly above Canada (with small population) and Japan (aged population).

To re-invigourate, one (now presently concerning) clarion call was made at the timeof release...

“We successfully rebuilt our Automotive Industry by deliberately attracting investment from abroad, most notably from Japan and most recently from India and continental Europe”

[NB Though of course presently in Q1 2019, we see the slow-down and possible closure of Honda's Civic production in Swindon, Nissan's altered plans for X-Trail production in Sunderland via 'repatriation' to Japan, BMW's altered plans for production at Oxford to include only higher margin Minis and likely new 1-series so as to cover costs, and JLR's retrenchemnt of people and model programmes given parent TATA's cautiousness (the idea of a hardly aesthetically altered even higher priced Range Rover 'Coupe' always a bad idea and thankfully no more), whilst Jaguar seeks to reconsider and rationalise its model-line (combing XE and XF...presumably to create room for a smaller B-C category car) whilst also effectively sponsoring the rebirth of Lister as a revived UK brand.

Turbulant times for volume UK Autos, but at last the appearance of rationalisation, given the unjustified concept and production exuberance seen in the latter half of past decade].

Beyond Autos, deployed initiatives to date included the 'Advanced Manufacturing Strategies', the 'Eight Great Technologies' and the 'Catapult Network'.

This then followed in the footsteps of other successful economies, which through strategic leadership were able to “coordinate and convene efforts to develop and disseminate new technologies and industries. Individuals, businesses and researchers are motivated by ambitious missions”.

“Governments can make long-term investment that no single commercial of academic player can take alone. The modern nation state is the most powerful means we have of pooling risk”.

[NB Hereafter the presentation talks of 'risk' and plays-up the Silicon Valley idiom of elevating risk, even if “accepting not all will work out successfully. An Industrial Strategy that avoids risk is no Industrial Strategy at all.”

This is somewhat non-sensical, since the whole point of strategy is to avoid and reduce risk, whether upon sector by sector, business by business, or product by product basis.

Small-scale inevitabilities of 'risk' do occur, since a Capitalist and Mixed Economy is obviously not a fully Planned Economy (which itself is known to become dysfunctional).

That said, there should be little risk in the overall Industrial Strategy if properly conceived.

This then appears a retraction of responsibility for such a Strategy. If commercial industrial strategists said this, they would not be in their professional role for long].

“We have studied previous attempts at Industrial Strategy, which have had successes as well as failures. One lesson is that government cannot do this on their own, instructing and planning, but listening or consulting”. “So our partnership is with businesses, workers, universities and colleges, local government and the devolved administrations where we work together to achieve our goals”

[This is the ideology of stakeholder participation, if not the necessity of consensus building. Buut it also conveys the likewise reducted government responsibility for the absolute eventual success of the pronounced Industrial Strategy].

The Grand Challenges (as previously depicted) recognise that it is “not just enough to look at the economy we have. We must make preparations for the economy we need to become”. Obviously true, hence (like other notional AM and first phase EM nations) recognition of sweeping global trends, and so government's role in prompting participation in those trends.

Returning to the subtle observation at the beginning of this weblog about enthno-centrism and the power of that to serve Britain overseas, the central mantra of the White Paper is 'Global Britain'.

“The decision to leave the EU was not a decision to retreat from the world....if fact we need to embrace it”.

[ie to embrace both the EU and RoW; hence the present political Brexit tussle in Westminster; and so the very critical nature of the Brexit talks with Brussels. To be avidly either a 'Brexiteer' or 'Remainer' is extremely short-sighted.

Given personal circumstances, people can be, and are, led to various and specific attitudinal 'isms' so as to take sides in the 'democratic process'. 

But better to (as with Brazil's Foreign Policy, be open to all possibilities. Herein, at last, Britain (as a smaller global force) appears to be seeking to carve out a new era of Internationalism for itself, not based upon military or currency might of the distant (yet regurgitated) past, but upon truly reciprocal internationalist advancement, with both the RoW (BRICs, MINTS, CIVETS) and the EU.

A very unlikely but possible outcome that 'to save the rest of the EU' as a combined singular entity is that it does 'turn its back' on the UK and USA, to forge far stronger connections to Russia, Turkey, the CIS States and China. To bolster trade by creating a Eurasian super-continent. With expanded connections to Brazil and S.America (via Portugal and German/Italian efforts – as seen in Brazil during the 1950s to 1970s). This through deliberately directed German leadership that the other smaller and reliant nations would follow.

Highly unlikely that the EU 'turns its back' on the UK, but not impossible].

To continue...

“Preparing for Our Future Trade Policy” necessitates the formation of new trade relationships – presented as 'old friends and new allies'. The IMF posits that over 80% of new growth will be outside of the EU, and so new relations need to be put in place.

“Our Industrial Strategy will be flexible to take account of developments in negotiations between the UK and EU or changes in the global economy”....so the Industrial Strategy will adapt.

[This generates the idea that although there are specific fore-front sectors, the details of an actual strategy are relatively scant.

Effectively left in the hands of the Business Strategists of each industrial sector, and its most powerful companies. This suggests that the business leaders of each sector might - as pseudo global syndicate members – seek to 'slice-up the world' to suit their comparitive and planned commercial capabilities to form 'non toe-stepping' growth plans. So as to obtain descrete markets and avoid profit sapping over-competition – which itself relies upon buying market share and ultimately become Value Destructive for investors as scale and inevitable internal inefficiencies grow faster than Marginal Profits].

Furthermore, as regards Devolution, the Paper cites that micro-level data will be made available to each National Assembly, so that they play a role in identifying strengths and weaknesses in specific parts of the country. A shared evidence base upon which to build the Industrial Strategy.

[This again infers that to date, little actual planning regards the forefront sectors has taken place.

This assumption supported by the words “we must have the right reporting mechanism in place”

The creation of the details of the Strategy will ultimately rely upon a 'bottom-up' feed in of analsysis data, as opposed to the wholly 'top-down' approach of Industrial Planning in the past].

The Economy and Industrial Strategy Cabinet Committee chaired by the PM remains responsible for “driving delivery across government. An independent Industrial Strategy Council is to develop measures to assess and evaluate our Industrial Strategy and make recommendations”.

[That Council, formed as of 01.11.2018, comprised of representatives from :

- The Bank of England

- National Infrastructure Commission

- Public Policy think tank

- Local Enterprise Partnership

- Private Equity

- Alternative Asset Management

- the CBI,

- the TUC

- Universities (specialist in Sociological disciplines)

- the RSA. (Royal Society for the Arts)

…....and companies in:

- Finance

- Retail

- Engineering

- Advertising

- e-Commerce

Interestingly rather than being wholly responsble for the formation and implementation of Strategy, its role is that of recommending 'Success Measures' for Implementation.

And 'Commenting on Delivery of those Success Measures and their Contribution to the UK Economy.

As stated....How to Improve the Measurement of Success, the Better Use of Data Across Government, the Effectiveness of Programme Evaluation, Publishing Reports about Assessing Progress on Implementation Against Success Measures and Ways to Improve Measurement and Evaluation.

The Industrial Strategy Council then appears centred around Improvement and Success Rate Reporting Procedures, convening 3 times a year to do so.

[NB Thus, from a Private Equity perspective – the most sophisticated of Strategy Analysts given the focus on ROI - beyond contributing to general discussions regards hi-potential sectors, and getting a 'heads-up' 'on-paper' about what will be the better assisted new and incumbent commercial sectors, Rupert Harrison of BlackRock will likely be either seeking to steer the Commitee's activities to the more investment productive sectors, and or, 'tearing his hair out' at the apparent bureacracy involved.

Not quite the hands on detailed Strategy Policy Formulation that Blackrock would hope for, but at least part of the seemingly heavily beauracratic data reporting mechanism that is meant to eventually steer such detailed policy formulation.

This appears to not bode well for any aspirant visionary UK industrialists in the grand yesteryear Georgian and Victorian meld. But appears instead, the conduit mechanism ultimately steered by reciprocal Production and Research related FDI of increasingly wealthy EM Multi-National corporations, to both serve as the Services Export Base of the UK through its Research and Development activities, and utilising the UK as itself an export market for increasingly 'Globally Converged' products and services.

Nothing at all wrong in this expectation – inherent to the Global Econony - but if that be so, it should be far more clearly stated to highlight the critical importance of EM nations to the UK economy.

The near bombastic nature of some Brexiteers – seemingly seeking to regain yesteryear colonial glories – is wholly misplaced. The tables of inherent global power have obvioulsy turned, and so the prime message is that of Internation Reciprocity, the antithesis of jingoistic bombast].

In Summary -

The Green and White Papers sought the input of many (over 2000 organisations), and has inevitably recognised the most obvious socio-economic trends; and so seeks to leverage the country's 'Innovative Capital' in the form of Money, Technology and Minds to do so; to create a new and evolved 'Industry 4.0' template.

But inevitably, from an industrial practioners perspective (especially amongst SMEs), the presentation of the White paper falls short. High on repeated rhetoric, yet meagre on more supportive statistics and meaningful examples of past innovation. (As shown some of the examples given are disputable as having even originated in the UK).

The White Paper does however – very importantly - highlight the historic 'British Disease'.

Whereby the innovation process itself was scuppered from long-term success for the nation, given the manner in which innovative solutions would be sold-off soon after incubation and proof of theory. The process of innovation itself packaged by The City and Wall Street, so as to become a marketable commodity. Innovation originators quickly morphing from life-long scientists into highly tactically minded, personal profit-hunting, business people. With either a lump sum upon incubator company exit, or thereafter retained as a notional board member or 'consultant'.

The presentation then does highlight the financially motivated early-phase market reality of UK innovation, long before any such innovation itself is marketed to the B2B or B2C arenas under the auspices of a much larger (often foreign) corporate entity that can more quickly scale-up and trickle-down the innovation across its own product sector and geographical market.

Ultimately, the White Paper presentation was/is little more than recognition of obvious global themes, illustrating the application of expanded bureaucracy – possibly acting as the actual arbiter of innovation application and so ultimately an individual company's success. Thus different in name and process but ultimately akin to the Brazilian government model using its own web-site as the Industry 4.0 funnel.

If so, this then – as effective 'cherry-picker' - the very opposite of a nurturing but pragmatic national innovation template. One that seeks to encompass innovation routes on the merits of product and service betterment; based upon the priniciples of objective rationality, the impact of feasible technological advancement and true feasible market opportunity.

There is – as ever – a danger that ironically the bureaucrats responsible for running the Industrial Strategy create internal operating mechanisms akin to a bureaucratic junket in itself.

{NB this especially ironic given the anti-EU Brussels 'gravy train' sentiment)

Heavy on trendy initiative names, rationalised flow-chart processes (such as eponymous 'evaluation') and check-box procedures.

Thus running the risk of putting process over knowledge and pragmatic insights, since, unless truly insightful experts regards each commercial sector, likely to acquiesce to the various stakeholder's 'inputs' which drive the hard choices of Strategy and Innovation.

[NB eg Previously investment-auto-motives mentioned the apparent dichotemy between Renewables and New Nuclear as regards the reality of real world Climate and Environment impact. This just one of the types of pragmatic choices and multi-option mixes, that must be made.

That is regards the available technology choices of the 'here and now', so forecasting and 'backing' various suites of Innovation becomes even more theorectical, and so demands greater understanding and foresight. Not to blindly select a technology or route, because it is the flavour of the day, or positioned in the public's consciousness].

And so the possibly of being unable to truly pragmatically assess the viability for eventual success - when providing grants and loans – is a very real concern.

Hence the voices of Industry and Investment should be given greater weighting over the oft idealism of Academia, Quango or Public Stakeholders.

Industry and Investors have 'skin in the game'.

Typically, objective critical analaysis often arrives later down the Investment Road, when private financing and private equity get on board.

But even then such interests may only be short to medium term – themselves understandably in the business of maturing and securing an exit - so repeating the well recognised 'short-sighted' problems of the past. That British Disease, of early exits and lost opportunities to capitalise, will not magically dissappear, and the temptation may grow even larger as the exit prices grow thanks to the endemic growth of EM economied themslves. EM corporations will have biger an bigger revenues and budgets by which to buy-in innovations.

And with ever greater foreign corporate interests on an increasingly EM inclined world, the PE firms et al will be sure to set out their own strategies to market each of their small but 'rising star' portfolio companies.

There is no perfect solution when creating a framework to boost national innovation, since so much is about the capability to innovate itself – where science meets creativity.

That sits within the minds of innovators themselves, not in stakeholder meetings, process charts, the tick-box bureacratic mentality, or the unrealistic over-optimism of such middle-ranking state employees who believe the rhetoric, yet have never been part of a creative industrial or commercial process itself.

The White Paper is only a broad ambition....much needs to be done to achieve that ambition.

Post Script...

It must be remembered that Jaguar's XJ-based 'Limo-Green' project was itself assisted by government funding; as had two decades earlier Rover Group's development mule, a ,Petrol-Electric Hybrid Metro.

But it was the initial 'electric exploration' of Toyota with Prius, dependent upon Toyota's nationalistic will to reduce reliance on imported petroleum and the Kyoto Summit, that truly started Hybrid and EV innovation. And whilst the Japanese government provided some finance, it was the strength of the corporate balance sheet that paid the way for Prius.

Thereafter it was PSA's and Renault's small volume series vans and cars that set the ball rolling in Europe; PSA itself an Alliance partner with Toyota on the small C1 / Aygo city car; itself ripe for eventual electrification.

Then Silicon Valley's Private Equity and Wall Street's deep-pocketed 'front-runner' funding of Tesla Motors.

With only really then – once the threat of billions of dollars in backing and Tesla's success on the stock-market, that prompted the remaining major auto-players to react to changing trends with their own e-centric sub-branded model variants.

Jaguar Land Rover's own real-world Hybrid and All-Electric technical strategy – though connected to 'Limo Green' and the C-X75 concept, was to become fully realised in production cars such as initial E-Pace, and now publicised I-Pace, came from the coupled drivers of TATA Motor's backing, increasingly successful roll-out of conventional products providing the income, and critically, the competitive challenge set by others and the need to shift from pollutive diesels and into far cleaner engines and powertrains.

But it was Germany's BMW that scaled-up production of a carbon-fibre body production process toward the lower end of mid-volume, that really shook-up the industry from a technical perspective. More efficient electric motors and improving 'rare earth' battery packs has been mated to steel and aluminium structures; but it was Germany's excellence in chemicals and materials science and production manufacturing that made perhaps the biggest leap in the 21st century. Added to that was the use of recycled materials (various wood and paper pulp) to provide additional eco-credentials. Much reduced mass and higher ecological content - together with the real-world necessity for small capacity ICE based 'range extenders - put BMW in the driving seat of 21st century cars, and it is the template that all will inevitably eventually follow. 

Hence, Britain's Strategy Council and the off-shoot New Institutions set under the auspices of The Treasury, need to be sure to be truly informed and wholly 'au fait', with what's happening both in the Innovations Laboratory, each sector's Commercial Structure and Competitive Backdrop, the world of High Finance and the plethora of B2B and B2C buyer mindsets.

[NB and an indepth study into the real stories of historically successful and historically failed innovations, would be immensely helpful guidance].

This requirement to actually create the sound basis for Industrial Strategy - is a 'country mile' away from the recent and present focus upon Social High Idealism of Process Success Measures.

The good efforts of the Previous 'Industrial Catapult' Initiatives recognised – from a virtual Scenario Planning start-point – where government assistance would be most valuable. Industry leaders painted the picture.

More of the same please - connected to an even bigger meaningful micro and macro pictures- so as to depict a properly considered Visioneered Future.

Getting there requires: less central and regional governmental PR spin, less civil-service like process 'bureaucratisation' and a meaningful decison-making framework derived from very broad real-world objectiveness and rationality.