Efficiency should not be the objective of its own

The fire on a Boeing 787 Dreamliner at London Heathrow Airport reignited concerns on the airworthiness of the new plane with lengthened records of troubles, and contrary to its nickname, it is starting to look more like a nightmare.

Dreamliner features heaps of innovative state of art technologies originally intended for a more futuristic airplane to fly just barely under Mach 1 called the Sonic Cruiser. I think those technologies were too much for the not-so-exiting purpose, fuel-efficiency.

Every housewife knows well that any flashy new features claiming that they will save time and money in household should not be taken as their face values. They often end up higher costs, longer efforts and lower utilisations than the time-tested ordinary ways with wise, sure and simple inventions. Dreamliner may have fallen the same pitfall.

Also, there is a problem about the motivation of engineers. If engineers are tasked with solving problems with newly introduced technologies, which objective is more motivating, to create the fastest commercial jetliner, or to create the most economical jetliner? The answer would be evident.

Of course, to create something very economical is a noble purpose. However, it is not enough to motivate a person just because the work supposed to do is a good thing. Every school teacher must admit it. Also, when you are told to do make a plane or an automotive more economical, do you suppose you would be lavishly paid for it?

Efficiency should not be the objective of its own. As a human nature, it just does not work. In this sense, it is not efficient at all. It should always be linked to something much more motivational for the people to do the job.

Incompatibility of seniority systems with disruptive innovations

The seniority system plays a significant role in Japanese culture. When you learn Japanese language in an advanced level, you would notice it in the uses of a different set of respectful expressions to elders than of general polite expressions to peers. From the seating positions at a dinner table to payment systems in companies it affects every aspect of Japanese society. It may seem to be social pecking order and unfortunately sometimes it actually is, but traditionally it should be more accommodating and accompanied by passing on of time-tested wisdom and leadership by examples as an elders responsibilities.

Japan is not the only country to retain such a prominent seniority system but Korea has an even stricter one. Once I acquainted with a Korean gentleman at a cosy bar in Tokyo and we started conversations very casually and friendly. But eventually it turned out that I was by far senior than him and he turned sober immediately with his face pale and began apologising for his rudeness. It was quite hard to calm him down and convince him I was not insulted at all.

The cultural system of emphasising on respect for elders is not necessarily bad especially in the culture of diligence and commitment for lifetime learning. However, the recent technological roller-coaster with disruptive innovations changed the entire landscape. Time-tested wisdom is now often obsolete and even obstructing before the advancements of technologies. Because in a seniority system it may be troublesome to promote a youth with greater knowledge and familiarity about latest technologies than elders who generally do not appreciate such new developments.

It is interesting that recently Koreans are doing better in high-tech industires than Japanese despite its sterner seniority system than of Japan. In my opinion, it works counter-wise. As having a sterner seniority system, Korean youths see more opportunities overseas and succeed in business in the global market for accelerating innovations. Japan is just comfortable enough to stay but prohibiting to innovate within for its youths.

Proud Japanese elders are not happy with their current odds against the rival country. They are openly suggesting that a stricter seniority system like Korea's would be required to restore Japan's once mighty high-tech industries. However I think it would not work and even if it works it would be because Japanese youths abandon their country over more accommodating countries - the result Japanese elders would not want.

Return to manufacturing or go for object-oriented?

I started learning a new programming language today. It is Ruby. Having heard about it and knowing it was made in Japan but somehow I hadn't picked it up until a health IT standard guru mentioned it in his blog. As soon as my expression of interest on twitter about using it for building a knowledge base system, a suggestion from a generous geek came and I started looking into its Java VM based implementation, JRuby.

Ruby is a kind of object-oriented programming language. You can write a book on the object-oriented paradigm/programming or OOP, but let me say it just simply here, that it is a way of writing programs by putting together heaps of well-designed and proven-to-work parts and modules just like manufacturing automobiles. Actually it came from an idea of turning software engineering into a kind of manufacturing rather than of art.

However, Japan, which was once the manufacturing powerhouse flooding the world with its products, has not seen any significant software products influencing the world except rare exceptions like Ruby, the very tool for OOP. "Return to manufacturing" is the current popular slogan in Japan with the Japanese word "Mono-zukuri" which means "manufacturing things". But I think "Go for object-oriented" is more suitable slogan for that country because good objects may produce good things but it would be dangerous to making material things primary objects.

Ray Murakami