Marshall wrote: You have a classic chicken-and-egg dilemma.
In RP&M, you have what is called, in one currently popular business book,
a classic Innovator's Dilemma. To the extent that RP fits into the mass
production business model, it will likely remain a marginal technology,
enabling incremental cost reductions and cost avoidances, some of which can
be documented by the current financial accounting system.
However, to the extent that RM is a disruptive technology, it needs to be
taken out of the hands of the line managers and put into a skunk works
somewhere, to serve that currently modest set of customers that want or need
customized products. It takes a far-sighted CEO to recognize to attack
and even destroy your own current business model. Perhaps GE has such a CEO.
I've got a couple of other clients that think that way. The problem is,
it's something that does not make any sense, from a short-term profit
perspective. Why invest in a technology that makes products more expensively,
less accurately, out of materials that are limited in performance? Because
in ten years or twenty years, it will eat your lunch.
Tom Richards wrote:
>Marshall Burns wrote to firstname.lastname@example.org regarding their
>symposium in early 2000. All RP people should visit
>http://rpmi.marc.gatech.edu and weigh-in. Marshall's statement included
>"If you happen to agree with what I'm saying, that doesn't mean that you
>solve the problem by directing your promotion of the conference to CEOs,
>lobbyists, and entrepreneurs. Because, by and large, those groups do not
>have any idea that fabbers are a phenomenon worth paying attention to.
>have a classic chicken-and-egg dilemma. The purpose of your conference
>raise the consciousness of America about the fabber future, but to get
>attendance you need to find people who are already believers."
>Marshall Burns' insightful comments make sense to me: CEO's,
>Entrepreneurs had better become aware of what could happen.
>I would like to see a plenary session built around a possible or
>emerging TENSION between two kinds of MANUFACTURERS of widgets, and the
>parts for widgets: A) Organizations (companies) vs B) Individuals
>or cottage industries), as they might soon be competing for production
>prototypes, 2) early economical production quantities at minimum
>by consumers and 3) full-scale production quantities, of either I) Same
>Design from OEM's, catalogs or dealers or II) Custom Designs or Reverse
>Engineerings per order. It could become a classic struggle over
>channels. Given the rapidly emerging internet communications and market,
>would bet on a new paradigm to emerge and prosper, of B) producing 1,2 &
>of II, if RPG+M people do their jobs well. Canny CEO's themselves might
>apply the new paradigm within their organizations.
>Best Regards, Tom Richards, Metallurgist
>For more information about the rp-ml, see http://ltk.hut.fi/rp-ml/
>Received: from bart.lpt.fi ([184.108.40.206]) by mgw-mp.sric.sri.com
> (Netscape Messaging Server 3.6) with ESMTP id AAA7218;
> Fri, 23 Jul 1999 07:41:53 -0700
>Received: from major by bart.lpt.fi with local (Exim 1.90 #2)
> for email@example.com
> id 117gDC-0001nY-00; Fri, 23 Jul 1999 14:22:10 +0000
>Received: from [220.127.116.11] (helo=kes.ici.net)
> by bart.lpt.fi with esmtp (Exim 1.90 #2)
> for firstname.lastname@example.org
> id 117gDB-0002ZJ-00; Fri, 23 Jul 1999 17:22:09 +0300
>Received: from tomr (d-ri-providence-5.ici.net [18.104.22.168])
> by kes.ici.net (8.8.8/8.8.8) with SMTP id KAA16525;
> Fri, 23 Jul 1999 10:21:37 -0400 (EDT)
>X-Sender: email@example.com (Unverified)
>X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Pro Version 2.2 (32)
>Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
>Date: Fri, 23 Jul 1999 10:22:12 +0000
>From: Tom Richards <firstname.lastname@example.org>
>Subject: RPMI Symposium 2000
For more information about the rp-ml, see http://ltk.hut.fi/rp-ml/
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.2 : Tue Jun 05 2001 - 22:52:13 EEST