EDS' Next Big Thing Blog: Read and Respond to What the EDS Fellows Say About Technology

Nanotechnology and The Consumer

After posting my blog on nanotubes I found this great link that very neatly brings together an extensive list of nanotechnology consumer products. There are more than 200 consumer products of all types listed here.

Total Service Orientation – Business As Usual or Paradigm Shift?

Service orientation and service architecture principles have the potential to become the glue and the ordering principle across all layers of business process design and the supporting IT solutions.

On the business side, industrialization of hitherto vertically integrated enterprises calls for better structuring and decomposition of business processes, leading to shared business services and associated orchestration and integration architectures.

On the technology side, virtualization and grid computing, through higher levels of abstraction, lead to new ways of specifying functionality in business and service terms (contract, policy, quality, security…), as is already in evidence with Web services. Service science, though still in its infancy, will be growing. These trends are pointing in the same direction: service-orientation.

The gap between business and IT will be closed, leading to substantial efficiency and effectiveness improvements, as well as to risk reduction due to improved communication based on common terminology. The opportunity to arrive at seamless integration and alignment based on common service models and architecture principles is on the horizon, on one hand vertically specialized within industry sectors, on the other by sharing horizontal services - total service orientation.

Removing interoperation barriers will stimulate innovation and growth. Once the sheer computing capability is a commodity, the winners will be the companies mastering the knowledge and contact networks, which enable them to access, combine and adapt business critical services and standard service-oriented enterprise packages on a global scale faster than anybody else.

Service architecture closes the gap. People will mainly buy services of all kinds - business as usual or paradigm shift?

The New Role For Business Intelligence

I've mentioned in the past the role of pattern recognition changing in the future. Currently, most organizations confine their business intelligence (BI) use to highly skilled analysts. These analysts are expected to have deep industry and process expertise that helps them make sense of what the tool is saying.

In the future, this information will need to be incorporated into a wider range of the organization and packaged so it can be consumed by the target audience. The EDS Fellows have written about the issue of Attention Management and the need to ensure the audience does not become overwhelmed with the information flowing at them. It needs to be provided in context.

There are those who say that wide use of BI will be expensive because training everyone to use the tools and perform analysis will be hard. I believe if it takes that much training it is because the interface was written poorly. Most people do understand the context in which they work. The information needs to be presented in that context (e.g., there is something wrong with milling machine #3) and integrated with workflow. Therefore, little or no training should be required.

Sure, it will be harder in the software analysis and development activities, but at least that is performed by a small group and the activity (if done right) is only done once. BI today is underutilized but by using these kinds of techniques, it will move to be a powerful, continuous use business tool.

Manufacturing Innovation

I saw this article entitled "Creating a Culture of Constant Innovation." It reminded me of buzzword bingo, an entertainment familiar to anyone who has completed an MBA in recent history.

To be innovative maybe you can just randomly choose three technologies, have an open mind and think about the implications of their interaction. Could it be that simple?

Nanotubes To The Core

It may have been my recent blog about batteries that rekindled my interest in these amazing carbon tubes, but the more I read about the wonders of nanotechnology, the more aware I become of the nanotube’s importance, both historically and technologically.

Somehow nanotubes seem to be the central axis around which modern commercial nanotechnology revolves (at least the popular version). Over the last 5 years, nanotube-based products have unceremoniously made their way into the market place. Like XML adoption in the late 1990s, early nanotube-based products were probably more about manufacturers saying they used the technology and less about them actually having the ability to exploit any real technological benefits. After all, who wouldn’t buy an ostensibly nanotube-reinforced sports toy after reading about nanotube elevators to space!

As nanotube technology has matured so has its importance. Just like XML, nanotubes are building blocks. But it’s not just what we make with nanotubes that make them important; it is what we learn in working with them that will become the foundation for greater pursuits in nanotechnology. XML did the same for computer science, helping to create the mindset and foundation for SOA.

With a wide range of research and applications in medicine, sports, electronics, physics, computer science, chemistry, etc., nanotubes help us appreciate the wider field of nanotechnology for what it is: a brand new discipline poised to help us solve some of today’s and tomorrow’s most complex problems. The simple nanotube also reminds us that when it comes to nanotechnology, we have not even scratched the surface.

Technology and Skilled Workers -Which Is The Chicken and Which Is The Egg?

In a recent Philadelphia Reserve Business Review there was an article about a supply-side vs. demand-side issue that interested me. The question posed was: “Is technology raising demand for skills or are skills raising demand for technology?” In other words, is business change requiring more highly skilled workers or is the more highly skilled workforce creating the demand?

The article describes why the force behind technology adoption may really be the workforce’s need for more skilled counterparts. In the conclusion it states, “The spread of new technologies responds to the rising skills of the workforce, rather than being an independent force affecting the demand for skills.”

The implications on organizations with an aging workforce are important. If this argument is true, the innovation and demands of the replacement workers will likely spur complacent organizations forward in unintended ways. As personnel turnover takes place, the entire organization will be affected so organizations should be able to plan for this.

Core Values, Innovation and An Effect of Outsourcing

Over the weekend I had a chance to review a piece in CIO Insight magazine about Geoffrey Moore's view on innovation and corporations. The article summarizes some of the concepts from his book: Dealing with Darwin: How Great Companies Innovate at Every Phase of Their Evolution.

The article states that there are three types of managers:

• inventors
• deployers
• optimizers

All companies need the diversity of all three types to remain viable, but based on the technology adoption profile of the company, the roles and the mix could be quite different in my opinion. I'm sure in his many books, Moore has covered this topic. It seems to me that the deployers within the early adapter companies would be viewed as inventors by the laggard companies.

This kind of differentiation would effect individual departments within an entity. For instance a chief technologist for a company may be focused on invention within the company’s core area and yet lag behind the market in IT or some other area.

I wonder how many organizations actively decide their areas of focus and how many passively let it fall out of day-to-day activities or even have it gyrate around based on the people who are filling in the various roles.

Companies that perform outsourcing (or even companies that purchase outsourcing) need to be very aware of one area: When an individual joins a new organization the changes in his role needs to be actively addressed. He’s probably like most people, and until told otherwise, he will try to be successful in his previous role, based on the values of his previous employer. His role as innovator, deployer or optimizer will change based on the outsourced functions, possibly without him realizing it.

For the individual who remained with the company undergoing outsourcing, it's likely his role has shifted significantly as well. The reason outsourcing took place is that functions were not "core" or the needed resources were unavailable. So some of the functions he valued (but the corporation viewed as a sideline) may be gone or now be his prime responsibility.

Sony's Robotic Store

I saw this blog entry about a way to distribute technology devices, and it made me wonder about the relationship among variability, personalization and simplicity.

This solution leverages the snack food distribution model for commodity technology devices. You can't get much simpler than that! It bypasses the personal service model with an approach aimed at people who know what they want - who don't want the hassle of dealing with sales folks.

Unless there are a bunch of these within an area though, it does make me wonder who refills them. That could be as expensive as having a sales support staff. The question that remains for me is: Are the products that cheap or the glass that thick?

The Mobile Phone In 2015

I saw this article about a Central St Martins College of Art and Design study of what a mobile phone will look like in 2015.

From my perspective, they missed the point of form follows function: The simple mobile phone transfers voice. By 2015, I hope that such a rudimentary function will be separate but supported by my Personal Area Network needs and that "the phone" will be embedded in me personally - even if it is just in my ear canal. I hope people won’t be able to "see it" at all. The only thing that keeps that from happening today is the power needs of the device.

If they were to expand their analysis into all the computing needs required for my mobile telecommunications and technology needs, it would require a different set of design issues and constraints. I did a blog entry in this space awhile back. Although I think that solution was limited by what we can produce today, some of the thoughts on separation of function and specialization will likely be true in 2015 as well.

Effective Re-Use - Using SOA to Preserve and modernize your IT Investment

It has become apparent to me that the approach to re-use in the past has been somewhat flawed, primarily because the asset's value and place in the enterprise has not assessed.

In my previous SOA article, I stated that, at least to me, this explains the failure of past initiatives, simply because they could not address the high level business functionality. The reason being is that these initiatives tried to drive re-use from a programming paradigm rather than from a business perspective. Although there are initiatives underway to provide a management framework , these will fail as well if they do not address the value of the asset to the business and its cost to support and maintain.

In the graphic (below) I have attempted to show how artefacts might be categorized in terms of applicability to the enterprise:

• Level 1 - relevant to the coder or developer
• Level 2 - relevant within the Project Domain
• Level 3 - relevant to the Business and Enterprise

These categories highlight what we should already know, and that is that code level re-use is not applicable at the enterprise level. It will fail simply because the value proposition is just not there, and the cost to maintain is disproportionate because it is difficult to manage and maintain and most importantly, the artefact cannot be expressed in business terms. Level 3 is effectively the Application, Business Architectures, etc. within TOGAF.

So if you now argue that for a large organization, it would still be good to share this bit of code, then think of this. That bit of code is probably already in an application somewhere in the enterprise and another instance of it is just going to increase your complexity, why not just reuse the service or component where it was originally used - or at least think of it in these terms and you will begin to see the method of solving the problem.

To me, this diagram clearly demonstrates the benefit of unlocking the value of our existing applications, and where those artefacts should be managed within the enterprise. For example, Level 3 artefacts should be managed within a enterprise governance framework. SOA Services are a key aretefacts that are managed at this level.

The method of unlocking the existing IT value is through a modernization strategy. To me, SOA offers the opportunity to first decouple the essential and business defined services (to help reduce the complexity) and secondly to begin the integration of the services to extend the functionality and value of those services (agility).

SOA should therefore be a key consideration of any modernization strategy, and its position on the chart reflects this.

Kim Stevenson's Blog

Kim (the infrastructure delivery leader for EDS) has started up her own blog entitled "The Goal." She has been talking about doing this for a while, and I am glad to see she pulled the trigger.

Shift From Supply Side To Demand Side

One of the things I've mentioned in this blog before is the shift from supply side to demand side, using personalization to make the right information available to the individual. Some people talk about this as taking advantage of the long tail.

This article talks about Wal-Mart’s efforts in this space. Living in McKinney, Texas, I can see these efforts first hand. In McKinney we have Wal-Mart’s pilot "green" store that generates power via wind. In Plano, we have its "high-end" store, which is aimed at higher income individuals.

Organizations are now beginning to tackle enhancing their ability to tailor the environment to meet the needs of their customers, before the customers even realize the need. When that is accomplished, we'll see more loyal customers who buy more - whether they need it or not. This will be one of the major retailing activities of this decade.

There is a case study for sale on Harvard Business Online entitled Tanpin Kanri: Retail Practice at Seven-Eleven Japan that covers 7-Eleven’s activities in this space as well.

SOA as an Architectural Style

Lord Kenneth Clark, the famous English peer who wrote and presented the watershed BBC TV documentary "Civilisation," reflected that, “Architectural style cannot take root unless it satisfies some need of the time.” Of course he was referring to structures and buildings but this resonates with what we know of the IT industry as well. We all know that architectural styles have come and gone and been displaced because technology has enabled different approaches.

We have learned the hard way that this mixture of styles has caused the mess most IT shops have today. It seems absurd when you think about it and indeed, it would almost be tantamount to mixing say Romanesque, Gothic and Renaissance architectures with connecting bridges, halls and corridors for traffic to pass between - such a thing would not only be unrecognisable as conveying any style or grand design, but it would be torn down as being grotesque. But this is what we have done in the IT industry to a large extent - we have built accidental architectures that have focused on architecture from an application perspective, not an enterprise or integration perspective.

There are various views on the benefits and differences between monolithic, layered and n-tier architectures but how does SOA fit into the picture?

Most architects in the IT industry would argue that SOA in many respects is the first architecture that truly can be called an Enterprise Architecture as it based on a paradigm of loosely coupled integration. This of course does not make it a loose connection of objects lying around the network, but a true evolution of what attributes we now know make sense in an architecture - this has been learned over the past 40 years. What of course makes sense to us now is the loose coupling of independent units or work that have a granularity that reflects true business functionality. This functionality is called a service within SOA and should be a formally defined and contracted service reflecting the appropriate QoS. (This is where the OO paradigm failed as it could not address the high level business functionality and so tried to drive re-use from a programming paradigm rather than a business - as such re-use was doomed - but that will be the subject of another blog).

Now whilst a layered architecture can be viewed as an integration architecture, it is predominately a local integration model and thus should be seen as an Application Architecture as such, where as SOA addresses the Enterprise integration model and therefore I would argue is a true enterprise architecture style.

So why isn’t a N tier application architecture equivalent to an A3 and SOA architecture? N-Tier has application elements that are tightly coupled, dependent and focused on achieving levels of scalability, fault tolerance or security that can lead to complex integration problems (figure 1).

N-Layer is more about how components of applications are logically grouped. Layers are loosely coupled and organised in highly cohesive areas that reduce the impact of change and help improve maintainability and agility of the architecture.

Although these are useful abstractions for the construction of services, or indeed applications, they are not enterprise architectures.

We have also learned from bitter experience that connectivity between systems quickly becomes an N*N problem that can be exceedingly complex if built on a sea of non standard middleware - so we now know that open standards has provided the route for us to begin understanding the solution to the enterprise integration problem. And we also know that point to point connections create a major problem and that Message Oriented Middleware that supports loose coupled systems is the way forward; so there we have it.

Now using this new found wealth of knowledge, we should be able to draw a quadrant diagram (figure 1 that positions our recent architectures). So a networked SOA basically extends the layer concept to allow self contained services to be integrated (using messaging) to form applications without impacting the integrity of the layer concept.

So the future should allow us to design to the Architecture Style of the time, but the architect should always be able to recognise this style and how to integrate new design or applications into it as he would use a building blueprint that conforms to that style. If we take that architecture view, we then see the integration problem very clearly and will not continue to build accidental architectures in the future. Of course enterprise governance must play a role in constraining those who wish to compromise the style, and better still if the architects and business leaders form and run the governance group. SOA offers this opportunity as an enterprise architecture.

Lastly, SOA not only can address the legacy of today, but can help bridge the "needs gap" that has existed between business and IT.

BPM/S and SOA Integration - Classification of Services Is the Key

The greatest obstacles standing in the way of achieving the expectations of a service-oriented architecture (SOA) will be a poor understanding of how to integrate SOA with the business process models and the appropriate granularity the services should have. Both are somewhat related, but it is the latter I am now clearly seeing as posing the biggest threat. If you look at the "Effective Domains of Re-Use diagram" it is clear that the benefit to the business of SOA will only be realised if the service's granularity matches the business need.

As Business Process Management (BPM) and Systems (BPMS) will need to be closely coupled with SOA services, there is a great deal of benefit in making sure the services are effectively organised and classified. A further factor to consider is that it is very likely we will see in the future a tighter integration of BPMN (Business Process Markup Notation), BPML (Business Process Modeling Language), BPEL4WS (Business Process Execution Language for Web Services) and UML (Unified Modeling Language). So whilst there will be a difference in notation based on the role of the actor in the enterprise, the implementation will be seamlessly choreographed and totally interoperable within the enterprise, greatly speeding the provisioning process. Figure 1 is an idealist representation of the vision and shows how coupling BPM, SOA and constraint-based development can reduce the inefficiencies embedded in our current delivery models. We have a long way to go before we can achieve this, but we can at least agree now that there needs to be a strong correlation between the architecture and the business process models as a start.

A good classification scheme will greatly help. Although the fundamental principles of the SOA will provide some insulation to bad practice, there is still a risk that a poorly implemented SOA will drive the business processes as they did in the past. If that occurs we will be back to where we started!

There are many proposed classification schemes. One approach here is to think of classification in terms of Context, Durable Effect and Exposure covering contracts and interfaces. I don't think this an approach we should begin with, as it relies too heavily on abstract concepts. My view is that an initial classification scheme must address services in a way that support the business functionality whilst being aligned to the architecture in such a manner that ensures agility and reusability are maintained, i.e."N-Layer is more about how components of applications are logically grouped. Layers are loosely coupled and organised in highly cohesive areas that reduce the impact of change and help improve maintainability and agility of the architecture".

Taking this approach and adopting some recognised service definitions, we can align these to one possible view of a layered architecture, for example:

Enterprise Interaction and Service Invocation: User or application front ends, batch processes, testing services, public enterprise services. Essential characteristic is that services or front ends in this level invoke and use services in the other layers as clients.

Process Centric Services: Business information services, business process services, provide the natural interface to enterprise BPM systems. Essential characteristic is that these services are able to maintain process state and can function as SOA clients and server services.

Intermediary services: Provide facades, adapters, gateways, functionality adding services (integration and aggregation of basic services), invoke policy, etc. Essential characteristic is that these services do not maintain process state (i.e. they are stateless).

Core, Basic or Point Services: These are data and application logic centric. Essential characteristic is that they are foundational services and should only perform as SOA servers, the services can be exposed by existing applications and deal with vertically oriented entities.

Formally naming the layers and further characterising the services that live in these layers will improve governance and communications (between business and IT), and greatly reduce the risk of implementing a bad SOA. Importantly it now also allows you to begin thinking of projects as services or contract based – thus taking a huge step forward in reducing project risk and speed to market.

Follow-up pictures for the UTD nanotech visit

I had some people ask about the nano fiber arrays and what they looked like from my previous entry.

Here you go... One for scale:

and one to show them being pulled off the block:

Mobile Technology Needs Batteries

I spend a fair amount of my time looking at mobile technologies of all sorts. Most have a common limitation - batteries. Mobile technologies seem forever tied to battery technology, a technology that appears to be exempt from Moore’s Law. So, while miniaturization helps us out with the battery situation, in the sense that chip miniaturization seems to decrease power consumption, the capacity of modern batteries (expressed as energy density) appears to be near the upper limit. The problem with traditional batteries is that their size isn’t shrinking as fast as the components that they power.

Hydrogen fuel cells are currently in vogue as the answer to mobile technology power problems, particularly on the transportation front but also for battery replacement. With greater energy density (current proposed production models are at 2 to 1 over lithium ion batteries) and rapid recharge, these battery replacements should do well. Emptying and refilling versus recharging seems an equitable trade, but it will take some getting used to. I can’t help but wonder what it would be like to “recharge” the really, really tiny ones.

I recently received a Web link from an associate that addresses the battery problem by using an old technology in a new way. By combining the concept of the capacitor with the magic of nanotubes, we may have a whole new approach.

I Hear Rumors That Our Education Institutions Are In Trouble

Pundits tell me that unless we change things, our youth will not have a chance in the flat world. I have a couple of youthful data points, two grandchildren. Given a grandfather's natural bias, Grace Ann and Luke are two remarkable windows into the future. Grace Ann, at the age of three, demonstrated disdain for my wife's super-sized mega-pixel monitor and powerful chip, that simply had a dial-up Internet connection. She understood that my small-screen notebook computer with a high-speed DSL connection offered greater real power. 'The power of connections.'

My five year-old grandson, Luke, and I completed assembling a LEGO® Excavator toy designed for eight-year-olds and older - proving that 5 and 65 do average to be a little greater than 8.

We completed the building project, and without taking a breath, he said, “Now that we've built it, let's put a motor on it and write a program to make it move.” I have to repeat, “... let's put a motor on it and write a program to make it move.”

I’ll give away the punch line now – “Today’s youth are demanding a superior education system.” Let’s trace the few months that preceded Luke’s matter-of-fact declaration of robotics programming intent:

April, Week 1 - I attended a lecture where Tufts University professor Chris Rogers outlined an educational program called ROBOLAB he developed with LEGO to teach elementary school students to program robots and learn the linkage to engineering, science and math. Professor Rogers gave me the LEGO education connection.

April, Week 2 – One evening Grace Ann, Luke and Gramps (that’s me) surfed the Web for a picture of ROBOLAB and LEGO education lab kits that include the LabView programming language, LEGO small portable robotics computer, an assortment of LEGO parts with motors and sensors, and lab experiments used to teach robotics. Grace Ann said to me “I think you should order a robot kit for your birthday.” So I did.

April and May, Every Other Week - We get together while babysitting to read or listen to the prepared robotics lesson, build the experimental robotics device, add the motors and sensors, write a program, solve programming problems and watch the robot move.

Luke’s statement was not a stretch for a young man who has been building robots and writing programs for all of two months.

We have living proof in my 60 short years that the education construction toy has progressed from the 20th century Erector Set® to 21st century programmable LEGO Mindstorms™ robots.

We don’t have to worry about the future of education. Today’s youth will demand a superior local education system or they will go to any Internet institution that can satisfy their needs. All we have to do as the adults is make sure the local school systems and Internet institutions are capable of living up to our children's expanding expectations.

Jack Welch On Corporate Values

I attended a FranklinCovey business seminar the other day and the keynote speaker was Jack Welch. One of the areas he talked quite a bit about was an organization's value system.

He was candid in his views. He thinks ethics are a waste of space in a corporate value statement. His view is that if you are not ethical you shouldn't be in business so why waste the space of a succinct value statement that you want everyone to remember when it should be ubiquitous.

Areas he thought important to include in a corporate value statement were:

• Candor - Everyone should know where he stands and be able to express his perspective (appropriately) for the organization to function effectively.
• Borderlessness - People need to work together and have visibility into what is going on in order to address the corporate needs. We asked him what would have the greatest impact on the offshore movement and he said it was networking (virtual communities). Companies have many resources they do not draw upon today (retirees, vendors, clients, other interested parties) that could do (and want to do) many of the higher level functions that are starting to move offshore. If you read this blog much, you know my perspective is that it will be automated workflow (taking people out of normal operations), but I understand this perspective as well.

He also mentioned later in his discussion how innovation is everyone's role to play. It is not the function of the elite, but in order to take advantage of it, new types of technical and business support structures will be required.

• Speed - He said he has rarely heard a company say they wished they had gone slower implementing an initiative. I've mentioned a few times in this blog the fact that change is taking place more rapidly and organizations need to set themselves up for continuous change.
• Hate bureaucracy - This was an unusual perspective (at least in my mind) for a large conglomerate CEO to have. His view is that bureaucracy normally crops up and that we need to hack away at it continuously just to keep it in check. It's a job for everyone, all the time.

Windows Vista Is In the Air and On the Net

Sure, its release is at least six months away, but as Microsoft Operating System replacements go, six months is a relatively short time. Now that CNET has published its Quick Guide for Windows Vista, we can all get a better feel for the ups and downs of the MS Windows evolution. CNET's article is loaded with information and links so if you are not already conversant on the subject, here’s your opportunity to change that.

For the more adventuresome, the article contains a link to the Vista beta download page   (beta 2). Just keep in mind that as a beta version it is a great tool for exploration but a bad idea for production, even in the home.

The Balance Between Risk and Reliability

I've been on vacation for a little over a week and that has kept me from blogging much recently.

I am taking on the role of lead technologist for the relationship between Kraft and EDS that was announced in April. This should keep me busy. I mentioned awhile back that EDS’ relationship with clients is based on trust, so it's unlikely there will be any direct blogging about this role since that would be a breach of that trust.

I do come across some interesting issues though that cause me to think. One of those is the dichotomy between reliability and risk (cost savings?) faced by most IT organizations.

Most IT operational organizations tend to be very risk averse with a perspective of "If it ain't broke don't fix it." On the other hand, changing the environment is about the only way we have to provide advantage to larger corporations. Somehow we seem to have forgotten the market’s requirement for change in our effort to remain comfortable with our reliability concerns.

My greatest fear in an IT organization is not “making the change” but understanding how the decision is made. Passive decision-making is a hot button of mine. An example of a passive decision is: “We’ve always done it that way.” Leaders need to educate their teams about the role of IT as an innovator for the organization as well as an operator. We need to understand our role in supporting new business models. We are the experts in information usage, and we need to develop our business understanding so the business model and the IT model support each other. We need to actively decide on ways to make and save money. All the folks in IT need to understand their role in continuously looking for innovative cost savings, high quality solutions as well as opportunities to provide strategic advantage, and become more active in performing analysis to provide the high-performance environment the parent organization needs to remain competitive.

The lack of change can be a higher risk to the corporation than the perfect operations within IT.

Hybrid Automobile Primer

After writing my last blog about automobile technology, I ran across this interactive article on CNET. It covers the basics for today’s hybrid automobile technology. It also contains some nice video presentations that are very well done. If you are interested in this topic, this article is worth a look.

Technology On The Road

There is so much going on in the high-tech arena these days that much advancement doesn’t even get noticed. Case in point, I give you the advancement of innovative digital technologies in automobiles.

We’ve seen considerable advancements in the automobile industry over the years, many of which we now take for granted. Some important examples include automatic transmissions, anti-lock brakes, fuel injection, seat belts, air bags, embedded computers and power everything. And this all happened during the last century.

Now that we are in the 21st century the character of these advancements have become more dependent on digital technologies and the infrastructure that supports them. A number of these innovations are boldly complex by 20th century standards. This complexity may initially serve to stall the marketability of some of these innovations, but as the technologies develop proven track records and low cost, demand and market share will grow. Ultimately many will become as ordinary as pneumatic tires are today.

Since the start of the 21st century the auto industry has seen the rapid adoption of GPS navigation, telematics, parking sensors, adaptive cruise control, Bluetooth, air cooled seats, electronic stability control, hybrids, satellite radio and much more. So it is not surprising we see even bolder innovation just around the corner.

I ran across just such an innovation while browsing the Web, specifically, the Toyota Intelligent Parking System. The implementation seems risk averse (requiring the driver’s foot to be touching the brake for it to operate), but it is a first step. This hands-free parking system has been available in Japan on the Toyota Prius since 2003. An even more sophisticated version will be available in the U.S. on the 2007 Lexus LS460 (see paragraph 8).

As if automated parking isn’t enough in this rapidly advancing industry, there will also soon be lane change warning systems, infrared imaging, collision avoidance systems, voice control systems, etc., all from assorted manufacturers. It won't just be gadgets and goodies either. Innovations in alternative fuels and fuel economy will soon begin to explode. "Cars that drive themselves" will be here sooner than we think. The actual time frame will be governed not entirely by technology but, to a great degree, by politics.

So the question isn't "When will cars exist that can drive themselves?" The question is, "When will we allow them?"

When It Is Indistinguishable From Magic

One of my team members sent me an e-mail yesterday with the subject line “Blog Worthy?” It contained only this link to an interesting story about cloaking devices and invisibility. I think it is “blog worthy” but not for the reasons that you may think.

My favorite Arthur C. Clarke quote, and he has quite a few that move me, is this one: “Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic.” I love how invisibility fits so well with this quote. Even though we appear to be a very long way from a commercial visual implementation, I can’t help but think about what such a technology, once fully developed, will mean to us. The potential uses and even greater potential for abuses boggle the mind.

Even with all the noise about invisibility out there, and it has been noisy for the last few years, progress is agonizingly slow. This may be a good thing because the trouble with magical technologies is that once everyone has them, they lose their magical spell. Knowing this, and with years of experience as a hopeless early adopter, I have learned that the wait may be more exciting than the prize. Still, when it does arrive, I’ll likely buy one anyway.