I wanted to post an article that has been circulating around the office and was written by one of staff, Patrick Rush. I hope you enjoy it. I know I did.
Cavemen can’t make LEDS, and Thomas Edison can’t sell them.
So why are they setting policy.
When considering a company's ability to deliver in the lighting market, it is erroneous to assume that those who were the largest players previosly are automatically those who can best deliver after a technological shift in the nature of the source and delivery of light. It is a natural inclination to assume that since the ultimate commodity sought (in this case, light) is constant, that the same suppliers who have delivered in the past are best fit to deliver it now. Even when the commodity is constant its production and delivery can vary dramatically.
Why do we change the method of production and delivery for something as fundamental as light? Many factors have influenced the changes we have seen in the technology of lighting. We have seen it go from the most rudimentary of technologies to some of the most elegant technologies. The need for mobility, dependability, control and suitability for the application have all played a part as have advances in fuel and delivery systems. but the one constant is that we have attempted to fill a need to illuminate our world.
Large corporations have been built from the production and distribution of lighting but are they the best suited to produce and deliver the next generation of lighting based on those criteria? To put this in perspective, consider prehistoric man. he possessed the skill to create fire and, by extension, could produce light. His "value chain" necessary to produce his light was to gather appropriate fuel, transport that fuel to his shelter and place it in a way that could combust but not suffocate him. then he had to apply his "technology" for igniting the fuel. when all of the components in his value chain were assembled, he lit the fire and produced light - and heat and smoke and toxic gases. He was adept at this process and it served him well for eons. Even today we can produce light through this same method but would not consider lighting fires in your home in order to light it? The idea seems absurd but the lesson is appropriate - someone may be able to produce the same "product" but the value chain they employ (prehistoric man current lighting industry) can be wildly inappropriate for our time and place.
When faced with adoption of a disruptive technology you must turn to the people who are versed in the technology behind what is being produced , not just the effect (light). Changing from burning wood to putting filaments in glass was quite unique and so to is going from light with heat to light from chips. LEDs are the next generation of lighting but they cannot be produced by prehistoric methods of the previous generation.
No comments:
Post a Comment