I was interested to read the article in the IEEE Spectrum "This car runs on code" that suggests that a premium car now uses over 100 million lines of code when running, while the F-22 Raptor, the current U.S. Air Force front line jet fighter, requires a mere 1.7 million lines.
The hidden story here is that no-one sat down and produced a 100 million lines of unique code to run the car. The code was built up from blocks of code that had already been proven to work and cleverly woven together and installed in the multiplicity devices to produce the finished product.
This now leave me wondering how to manage software in products with long lifetimes? A car may run for 15 years and subsystems replaced several times. With such software complexity will it even be possible to replace parts after six or seven years? Maybe be the end users will have a view on this?
Wednesday, February 4, 2009
Tuesday, January 6, 2009
Mobiles take a great leap forward (a matter for UK pride)
Mobiles take a great leap forward is the title of an interesting little article on the BBC News website. The main focus of the article is about the increasing capability of mobile phones thanks to the inexorable increase in power of microprocessors predicted by Moore's Law . As someone who has studied technology trends I have a huge respect to the man who had the insight and courage to make the assertion that the number of transistors that can be built on a chip would grow exponentially. To make that assertion in 1965 when most of us in the UK were watching valve based televisions and listening to transistor radios was truly visionary.
However, nestled inside the article is a statement that ought to be headlined as a matter of UK national pride, especially given the current economic gloom where the news is dominated by the loss of companies which are house hold names. To me it is proof that the UK still has engineering capability that should make us all proud. Perhaps the most iconic product of the new millennium is mobile phone and, I quote: "...More than 80% of the chips inside mobile phones are designed by UK firm Advanced Risc Machines (Arm)...".
However, nestled inside the article is a statement that ought to be headlined as a matter of UK national pride, especially given the current economic gloom where the news is dominated by the loss of companies which are house hold names. To me it is proof that the UK still has engineering capability that should make us all proud. Perhaps the most iconic product of the new millennium is mobile phone and, I quote: "...More than 80% of the chips inside mobile phones are designed by UK firm Advanced Risc Machines (Arm)...".
Monday, December 22, 2008
Looking to the Future
Almost ten years ago to the day I was part of a small team that help a company to transfer an solid state gyroscope design from the military to automotive domain. The idea behind the work was that accelerometers and gyroscopes could be used as sensors in active suspension systems to improve driving characteristics. Over the years I have watched this technology pop up in all sorts of applications that we never even dreamed of at the time, which leaves me wondering how one can ever really define a "route to market" for a new invention.
I was not surprised to see solid state gyros turn up in high end model helicopters and the like, but their appearance in the last year or so in small indoor helicopters was something of a surprise. Some years ago I was shown a game in a University computing department where the interface was a controller fitted with solid state gyros and accelerometers. Now such controllers are commonplace with game controllers such as the Nintendo Wii.
It is this last application that has really brought home to me the sensitivity of these devices. When ten pin bowling (and I am not very good) I find that I get a spin that causes the bowling ball to veer left at the end of the run. I compensate for this by rotating slightly clockwise. Trying out the ten pin bowling game on the Wii over the holiday period I found that the virtual ball behaved just like the real ball and veered to the left at the end of the run. My on screen avatar (complete with virtual beard) also has to turn slightly clockwise to compensate. Ten years ago I never even dreamed that solid state gyroscope would be a component in a toy. In fact, I am sure I would have been laughed at for even making such a suggestion, but today no-one doubts the size of the market and its potential for growth.
What will the next type of sensor to make the journey from areospace into the games market?
I was not surprised to see solid state gyros turn up in high end model helicopters and the like, but their appearance in the last year or so in small indoor helicopters was something of a surprise. Some years ago I was shown a game in a University computing department where the interface was a controller fitted with solid state gyros and accelerometers. Now such controllers are commonplace with game controllers such as the Nintendo Wii.
It is this last application that has really brought home to me the sensitivity of these devices. When ten pin bowling (and I am not very good) I find that I get a spin that causes the bowling ball to veer left at the end of the run. I compensate for this by rotating slightly clockwise. Trying out the ten pin bowling game on the Wii over the holiday period I found that the virtual ball behaved just like the real ball and veered to the left at the end of the run. My on screen avatar (complete with virtual beard) also has to turn slightly clockwise to compensate. Ten years ago I never even dreamed that solid state gyroscope would be a component in a toy. In fact, I am sure I would have been laughed at for even making such a suggestion, but today no-one doubts the size of the market and its potential for growth.
What will the next type of sensor to make the journey from areospace into the games market?
Tuesday, August 12, 2008
The little light goes out: End of an Era
When Asus announced the launch of their new PC I was interested to read that the specification included a 64GB solid-state disk (SSD). Clearly Asus are convinced that SSD technology has matured enough to be a reliable alternative to the magnetic hard drive that has been a part of our lives for so long. The problem with SSDs is that there is a limited "write endurance" beyond which the drive becomes unreliable.
So why are Asus so confident? Slowly the penny dropped. The little disk activity light on my Asus notebook only flickers when I boot up or save a file. A quick check of my modestly specified desktop PC running Linux showed the same, and then the silence hit me.
For years I have been aware of the chunter of the hard drive coupled with the flicker of the disk activity light. The distinctive sound told me my (excessively large) spreadsheets were recalculating and all was well with my PC. While running one particular research project, I kept the server in my office as I could tell by the disk drive chatter that all was well. On two occasions it was hacked. The changed sounds of disk activity were the first warning that all was not well.
But my Linux desktop computer sits there almost silent, with only a quiet whirr of the fan. Clearly write endurance is not going to be the problem it was, at least with Linux. Now the disk activity light has gone out, at least on some PCs, it is the end of an era. For me the hard drive has been one of the iconic images illustrating integration between, mechanical design, material properties, and electronic control. That is why we chose an image of a hard drive as our banner on the home page of the Integrated Products KTN. But it now looks like it is the beginning of the end of the hard drive, and soon the SSD will reign supreme.
So why are Asus so confident? Slowly the penny dropped. The little disk activity light on my Asus notebook only flickers when I boot up or save a file. A quick check of my modestly specified desktop PC running Linux showed the same, and then the silence hit me.
For years I have been aware of the chunter of the hard drive coupled with the flicker of the disk activity light. The distinctive sound told me my (excessively large) spreadsheets were recalculating and all was well with my PC. While running one particular research project, I kept the server in my office as I could tell by the disk drive chatter that all was well. On two occasions it was hacked. The changed sounds of disk activity were the first warning that all was not well.
But my Linux desktop computer sits there almost silent, with only a quiet whirr of the fan. Clearly write endurance is not going to be the problem it was, at least with Linux. Now the disk activity light has gone out, at least on some PCs, it is the end of an era. For me the hard drive has been one of the iconic images illustrating integration between, mechanical design, material properties, and electronic control. That is why we chose an image of a hard drive as our banner on the home page of the Integrated Products KTN. But it now looks like it is the beginning of the end of the hard drive, and soon the SSD will reign supreme.
Tuesday, July 29, 2008
New ways of Business On-line
Social websites remain big news and it is interesting look at ways that businesses are starting to exploit new ways of working on-line. A trend that I have been following is the short video clip, hosted through YouTube or similar service.
An example that caught my eye recently was the UK Trade and Investment channel on YouTube. To see a government department leading the way with this innovation is particularly welcome as it sends a clear sign about the acceptability of the medium for business use. Too often it is associated with news about illegal file sharing.
An example that caught my eye recently was the UK Trade and Investment channel on YouTube. To see a government department leading the way with this innovation is particularly welcome as it sends a clear sign about the acceptability of the medium for business use. Too often it is associated with news about illegal file sharing.
Monday, July 14, 2008
Firms 'miss' social site success
See BBC Article http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/technology/7501073.stm
Social networking sites are now big news. Part of their appeal is the way in which they meet a fundamental human need to communicate. While sites such as Facebook and YouTube have captured the public imagination in a variety of positive (keep in contact with family and friends worldwide etc.) and negative (bad people from all over the world will steal your identity etc.), it is worth remembering that less flashy Bulletin Board Systems and news groups have been used to keep communities of enthusiasts in contact since the 1990's.
That the principle of on-line networking works is not in dispute, but accusing the business community of not seeing the potential is rather harsh. It is easy to say "set up an on-line community" but not so easy to actually achieve that goal. I say this from the perspective of personal experience. Part of the original vision of the UK Knowledge Transfer Networks (KTNs) was to set up and mobilise UK businesses and Universities (the research base) in an organised on-line community. As Director of the IPM KTN I know how hard that challenge is to achieve. Cyberspace is littered with the remnants of on-line one stop shops, portals and other little used shells of would be communities; the KTNs have at least had the advantage of funding and and an attempt at large scale co-ordination through a unified on-line offering, but I will be first to admit that we still have much more work to do before we have truly established an on-line community.
Even though I buy into the vision of on-line business communities I know that for them to become a reality, it will take more than that vision to bring them into being. The successful on-line communities to which I belong are united by common interests, rather than personal gain, and the desire to share knowledge and experience rather than just to use it. Effective use of social networking sites for business use is going to require much greater openness amongst commercial organisations than is usual at the moment. I believe that many businesses can see the benefits of everyone jumping into the open exchange of information offered by social networking, but are afraid that the first to jump will be disadvantaged by unequal information exchanges.
Social networking sites are now big news. Part of their appeal is the way in which they meet a fundamental human need to communicate. While sites such as Facebook and YouTube have captured the public imagination in a variety of positive (keep in contact with family and friends worldwide etc.) and negative (bad people from all over the world will steal your identity etc.), it is worth remembering that less flashy Bulletin Board Systems and news groups have been used to keep communities of enthusiasts in contact since the 1990's.
That the principle of on-line networking works is not in dispute, but accusing the business community of not seeing the potential is rather harsh. It is easy to say "set up an on-line community" but not so easy to actually achieve that goal. I say this from the perspective of personal experience. Part of the original vision of the UK Knowledge Transfer Networks (KTNs) was to set up and mobilise UK businesses and Universities (the research base) in an organised on-line community. As Director of the IPM KTN I know how hard that challenge is to achieve. Cyberspace is littered with the remnants of on-line one stop shops, portals and other little used shells of would be communities; the KTNs have at least had the advantage of funding and and an attempt at large scale co-ordination through a unified on-line offering, but I will be first to admit that we still have much more work to do before we have truly established an on-line community.
Even though I buy into the vision of on-line business communities I know that for them to become a reality, it will take more than that vision to bring them into being. The successful on-line communities to which I belong are united by common interests, rather than personal gain, and the desire to share knowledge and experience rather than just to use it. Effective use of social networking sites for business use is going to require much greater openness amongst commercial organisations than is usual at the moment. I believe that many businesses can see the benefits of everyone jumping into the open exchange of information offered by social networking, but are afraid that the first to jump will be disadvantaged by unequal information exchanges.
Friday, June 27, 2008
Intellectual-property scepticism
Bewailing the shortcomings of small businesses is a popular sport. Everyone’s at it – from government ministers and other politicians to providers of business services (including IP services), and from management scientists to journalists. Every imaginable failing attracts their opprobrium. But there's one kind that gets more than its fair share. I call it the lack-of-awareness-of-X. In each case, of course, X stands for some supposedly critical ingredient of business success. It might be information technology, marketing, the market for their products, finance, law, their carbon footprint… In fact, you name it; lots of SMEs don't get it. Apparently.
Intellectual property is no exception. It’s natural enough, I suppose. Accepted wisdom says high-labour-cost economies will depend more and more on intellectual property. So businesses need to get their heads around it. It stands to reason, doesn't it?
I don't doubt that many are the SMEs that could benefit from understanding IP better. I do wonder, though, if there wouldn’t be merit in turning the tables as well. In other words, wouldn't things be even better if those who urge SMEs to get to grips with IP themselves got to grips with the reasons why SMEs don't behave towards IP as they, the critics of SMEs, suppose they should?
The problem with continually charging SMEs with a lack of awareness of IP is that it sweeps these reasons under the carpet and makes a single reason stand in place of them all – namely plain ignorance. SMEs don't play the IP game as they should, it suggests, because they know nothing – or virtually nothing – about intellectual property.
Cut to a presentation at a recent seminar put on by a trade association we work with. The owner of a start-up was talking us through the history of the innovation he'd set up his company to develop. This was a man who'd worked for years as a sales person in the marketplace where he's soon going to be selling this, his first product. This guy knew his onions.
Following the usual advice, he'd patented his invention and the IP had helped him finance product development. But going through the process gave him pause for thought. Now he's decided he probably won't patent the next inventions he has in the pipeline. Why? Well, the price of obtaining a patent was high on his list of reasons. His business is also protected by requirements that medical inventions like his have to meet before they can be legally placed on the market. Approval takes time – time an imitator probably can't afford.
Top of the list, though, was one reason that doesn't often feature in those introductory IP-for-dummies lectures you come across at business events. This inventor reckons a patent isn't very valuable to him unless he has the capacity to sue an infringer. Finance for start-ups being as hard to come by as it is, he knows he wouldn't be able to raise the funds to pay for court action against a large corporation that chose to infringe.
But the specific reasons are not important to what I'm suggesting here. The important thing is that ignorance had nothing to do with this company's decision to think twice before applying for patents in future.
Many other companies are in a similar position; they have some knowledge of IP but are not entirely sold on its merits, and with good reason. Who knows how widespread those in the middle ground are, between the completely ignorant and the well-informed but healthily sceptical? The answer, I suspect, is the vast majority. I suggest we won't find out – and so may not be able to raise industry's IP game by much – until we break free of the lack-of-awareness fixation. Improving IP exploitation by SMEs needs to be a two-way thing. Yes, many SMEs stand to gain from a richer understanding of IP. But getting IP experts to understand how IP is regarded and can practically be exploited by sceptical SMEs is no less urgent a task.
Intellectual property is no exception. It’s natural enough, I suppose. Accepted wisdom says high-labour-cost economies will depend more and more on intellectual property. So businesses need to get their heads around it. It stands to reason, doesn't it?
I don't doubt that many are the SMEs that could benefit from understanding IP better. I do wonder, though, if there wouldn’t be merit in turning the tables as well. In other words, wouldn't things be even better if those who urge SMEs to get to grips with IP themselves got to grips with the reasons why SMEs don't behave towards IP as they, the critics of SMEs, suppose they should?
The problem with continually charging SMEs with a lack of awareness of IP is that it sweeps these reasons under the carpet and makes a single reason stand in place of them all – namely plain ignorance. SMEs don't play the IP game as they should, it suggests, because they know nothing – or virtually nothing – about intellectual property.
Cut to a presentation at a recent seminar put on by a trade association we work with. The owner of a start-up was talking us through the history of the innovation he'd set up his company to develop. This was a man who'd worked for years as a sales person in the marketplace where he's soon going to be selling this, his first product. This guy knew his onions.
Following the usual advice, he'd patented his invention and the IP had helped him finance product development. But going through the process gave him pause for thought. Now he's decided he probably won't patent the next inventions he has in the pipeline. Why? Well, the price of obtaining a patent was high on his list of reasons. His business is also protected by requirements that medical inventions like his have to meet before they can be legally placed on the market. Approval takes time – time an imitator probably can't afford.
Top of the list, though, was one reason that doesn't often feature in those introductory IP-for-dummies lectures you come across at business events. This inventor reckons a patent isn't very valuable to him unless he has the capacity to sue an infringer. Finance for start-ups being as hard to come by as it is, he knows he wouldn't be able to raise the funds to pay for court action against a large corporation that chose to infringe.
But the specific reasons are not important to what I'm suggesting here. The important thing is that ignorance had nothing to do with this company's decision to think twice before applying for patents in future.
Many other companies are in a similar position; they have some knowledge of IP but are not entirely sold on its merits, and with good reason. Who knows how widespread those in the middle ground are, between the completely ignorant and the well-informed but healthily sceptical? The answer, I suspect, is the vast majority. I suggest we won't find out – and so may not be able to raise industry's IP game by much – until we break free of the lack-of-awareness fixation. Improving IP exploitation by SMEs needs to be a two-way thing. Yes, many SMEs stand to gain from a richer understanding of IP. But getting IP experts to understand how IP is regarded and can practically be exploited by sceptical SMEs is no less urgent a task.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
