Common Purposes

Have you accessed the new My GlobalSpec capability offered by GlobalSpec? It is a simple, effective and FREE means to organize projects while collecting information on suppliers and parts for future efforts, too. I am part of the development team at GlobalSpec and your feedback will help us expand this resource. For example, I am involved in the liquid filtration industry and have already completed a project using My GlobalSpec. In addition to simplifying the search for components and suppliers, I now have a personal index I am using on a regular basis.

Click here to join My Globalspec. The Beta site is also accessible to all registered GlobalSpec users by clicking on the Your Stuff link at the top right of the GlobalSpec home page. Users have the option of continuing to work with Your Stuff or to convert to the new My GlobalSpec format. To me, the most valuable feature of My GlobalSpec is the new tool bar that is accessible from all GlobalSpec web pages. So, for example, when I am searching for industrial pipe made from a high performance polymer and find a new resource of interest, I can save that information immediately to My GlobalSpec.

Also, I really find it of great value to save notes with regard to my searches. I have never been able to make much sense of my "Favorites" list on most browsers since I have to remember why I saved something long after I saved it. Finally, I can download this information for further analysis and discussion with other engineers. And, from what I see, there will be additional capability in the near future to share information directly through GlobalSpec to other registered users.

Have others found this tool of value? I'd be interested to hear your thoughts on CR4. And, there is also a feedback link on the right side of the My GlobalSpec pages so the good folks who are managing this capability can continue to enhance the value to users while maintaining the simplicity and effectives of My GlobalSpec…and, it will always be FREE.

If you could invite anyone (living or not, real or fictional) to dinner at your home who might you ask? While I'm sure many around the globe would ask Wu Yi, Mahatma Gandhi, Eleanor Roosevelt or Neil Armstrong, I would ask Ron Howard (and his family, too).

Ron was born a year before me and has been in the public eye for as long as I can remember. As a child, I identified with his role as Opie Taylor in The Andy Griffith Show, a light-hearted look idyllic, rural American life. As a teenager, I participated in the nostalgia initiated by his work in American Graffiti and the subsequent television program, Happy Days. In the aftermath of the Vietnam War, the Watergate Scandal, the OPEC Oil Embargo and a general economic malaise (stagflation), many in the US longed for a return to what Howard and his cohort seemingly portrayed as somewhat simpler, carefree times.

As I pursued my interests in engineering, Ron pursued his studies in Cinematic Arts at UCLA and has become one of the most successful movie directors and producers. Over the past 30 years, he has produced such memorable films as Apollo 13, A Beautiful Mind, Backdraft and Cocoon. In many of his films he has had to communicate complex technical material in a concise and meaningful manner. And, he has done so brilliantly.

For example, I vividly recall the Apollo 1 fire, where three astronauts died, and the Apollo 13 rescue mission. But, I had not grasped the human drama of these events nor did I ever link the two events as so many in the NASA family must have. I knew the facts but did not understand either the meaning or emotion; Ron Howard certainly did. Also, he took a certain artistic license with the character portrayals in his film adaptation of Dan Brown's fictional, The Da Vinci Code. Those changes made the movie more relevant, more thought-provoking and more than just a box office thriller.

His work, and life, has made mine all the more fulfilling on a personal and professional level. I would like to share that message with him, learn more about him as a person and, if possible, share what I might have to offer.

Might there be someone you would like to meet and share a meal?

Technorati Profile

What's new? That question is a common pleasantry shared between friends and colleagues. Yes, it can open a good dialog or, more typically, it is a way of showing interest in what engages others.

During a marketing class at Fairfield University's Charles F. Dolan School of Business our professor asked us, "What's New?" And, therein began a discussion of what meaning we ascribe to the word "new". Some considered landing a man on the moon as new (even though it had been 20 years since that event had occurred). New Coke (a failed product launch) was considered new; "New and Improved" laundry detergents were considered new by some. And, I suspect that in today's class, the iPhone would be considered new even though it is, mostly, a combination of pre-existing communication products.

As we discussed each item, it was difficult to determine what made something "new". We each had our own ideas but, much like beauty, something considered new seems to be in the eyes of the beholder. Then, the professor shared his pragmatic perspective that he defined something 'new' as a product that served as the foundation for a much larger business opportunity. For example, he shared his observation that people had been snow skiing for centuries and that it was not an uncommon sporting activity of the wealthy in the early 1900's. But, it was Howard Head who introduced the laminated metal ski that revolutionized the industry. With that 'new' product, it was easier to ski, more affordable to ski and much more enjoyable. With his product came more consumer interest, ski lifts were built, advances were made in apparel and other equipment and skiing became something that was enjoyed not just by the adventurous but by all who had interest.

I have not forgotten that class and have tried to apply that wisdom in my work. While most of my work has been directed towards industrial markets rather than consumer markets, I have focused my efforts on developing products that change the game, that create more opportunity and serve as the basis for a much larger commercial opportunity or societal need. And, may the same be true for all who read Common Purposes.

What's new, everyone? What engages you?

What if you had US$30 billion, knew the limits of your earthly life and wanted to ensure the money was used wisely for future generations? What would you do?

If you are really concerned about global warming, US$30 billion could certainly be well spent forging global resources (and securing much more funding) to reduce our carbon footprint. The money could be invested to develop alternative energy sources, enhance the efficient use of current fuel sources, build nuclear power plants and more.

Or, if you prefer to alleviate current human suffering, the US$30 billion could be spent enhancing global health through such efforts as eradication of disease and malnutrition, infrastructure improvement for drinking water and waste management, better preparedness for catastrophic weather and seismic events. Enhanced education, communication and transportation could also be provided on a global scale.

While my question may seem to be purely a hypothetical exercise, it was a real question for Warren Buffett, the venerable Chairman of Berkshire Hathaway Inc.. His answer: Take the earnings from many years of business investing and give that money to the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation. The Gates Foundation's goal is "bringing innovations in health and learning to the global community".

He could have given all or part of his wealth to organizations addressing global warming. Doing so would surely have impressed devotees of former U.S. Vice President Al Gore's movie, "An Inconvenient Truth". But, Mr. Buffett chose to address a palpable, immediate social good where his wealth could help the most people in a timely fashion. He definitively chose global health as the most significant issue of our generation and of generations to come.

I agree wholeheartedly with Mr. Buffett's choice. But, there are many other issues and many other voices. What would you do? And more importantly, what will you do?

We engineers are an integral part of global politics, political agendas, governmental policies, military prowess and any prospect for world peace. Whether we knew that fact or not when we chose to study engineering, whether we prefer to be involved or not as practicing professionals, we are.

Recently I read an essay, "Laughing and Crying" by Thomas L. Friedman, that I find damaging to the engineering community and the common purposes we may serve, as well as to higher educational opportunities for all, what I consider the greatest gift the United States has offered the world. In my discussions with others, including graduate students and engineering professors whom he impugns, I am most troubled by Friedman's apparent fear-mongering.

In his earlier works Tom Friedman, a Foreign Affairs columnist for The New York Times and winner of the 2002 Pulitzer Prize, provided valuable insight on contemporary issues. I enjoyed his book, "The World is Flat: A Brief History of the Twenty-First Century" and an abridged audio version of his "Longitudes and Attitudes: Exploring the World After September 11", a collection of his essays from 2001-2002.

I learned of Mr. Friedman's works when he was interviewed by Fareed Zakaria, Ph.D., host of Foreign Exchange, a production of Azimuth Media and available on the Public Broadcasting Service in the United States. They discussed issues of global economic growth with equal passion and seemingly similar perspectives; I now realize that I was correct about the passion and flat wrong about their perspectives.

In January, 2006, my college-age sons and I attended a DowMel Lecture Series presentation by Dr. Zakaria in Great Barrington, MA. During the lecture, Dr. Zakaria spoke about the growing number of engineering and science graduates in developing nations while graduation rates have stagnated in the United States and many European nations. As a political scientist, Mr. Zakaria addressed the potential repercussions of these trends; he commented that he believed the growth of the global engineering community was what democratic societies had sought (since WW II and through the Cold War) and achieved as a means of supporting economic growth and political stability. Bravo, Mr. Zakaria!

A thought for the CR4 community to consider: Neither Zakaria nor Friedman are engineers. Dr. Zakaria has a B.A. from Yale (with no field of study listed on several web sites) and a Ph.D. in political science; Mr. Friedman has a B.A. in Mediterranean Studies from Brandeis and an M.A. in Middle Eastern Studies. Albeit well educated and informed on worldly matters, neither individuals have the unique experience, expertise or perspective that engineers have.

Yes, there are many challenges ahead but there are even more opportunities. We engineers, the "doers", the practitioners know that better than the pundits. Let us make the most of those opportunities for all we serve.