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.