Chinese culture is one of proliferation ( 300 ways to cook a dead pig ! and these days hundreds of experiments to develop processes instead of using theory or simulation ) rather than profundity through their long history they never managed to think it through to develop a concise alphabet ( or a cosmology / religion / ideology of their own, thus having to chase after Buddhism from India and later Communism from Russia ) !
Confucianism and conformism ( and thus the widespread acceptance of regimentation by the Communist Party ) go hand in hand. There is no room there for straight talk that is a pre-requisite for innovation. But what the Chinese do have in spades is their strength in numbers, playing Possum when it suits them ( a Miss Saigon style deviousness ) and the ability of the CCP to marshal these illiberal qualities for political & business negotiations to gain an unfair advantage.
It is these traditional attributes of the Chinese and not any sudden outburst of innovativeness that are most real and what we need to be wary of. Its not yet too late to learn from our experience in dealing with China for the last quarter century and make course corrections.
For as they say " Fool me once the shame is on you - fool me twice the shame is on me ".
One needs to take these reports on China only with a huge 'heap' of salt ! Most likely these are bought and paid for by Companies trying to curry favor with China - and mislead / lure US and Western Co.s to xfer even their R&D to China.
It is also no coincidence that the KPMG Exec quoted by Peter is named Tudor Aw, a dead giveaway that he is a Chinaman from either Hong Kong or Singapore, where they affect monikers derived from the heritage of their British Colonial Masters in the pathetic hope of having a shot at instant respectability ! These pseudo - westernized "overseas" Chinese act as pilot fish & touts for the MainLand Chinese.
As to the substance of the "report", since the early 1990s Consulting Co.s of KPMG's ilk have been misleading Western Co.s to invest in China that has turned into a one way haemorrhage of competitiveness & capacity and destroyed once leading US companies like Motorola.
And before the Mainland Chinese themsleves get too carried away with more chest thumping about their potential for innovation, let us just point out that their Space Capsules etc. look surprisingly similar to Soviet spacecrafts of Souyz vintage. The Chinese used their sweatshops to make money from the West and then used that loot to buy starving Russian scientists on the cheap. All this for legitimizing the rule by the CCP ( Communist Party of China ) as well as cheap bragging rights for their rising middle classes.
The same goes for the accomplishmnets of millions of Chinese grad students now ensconced in US academia and industry thanks to the influence of their patrons in Wall St.
Typical consultancy rubbish. If KPMG can name me one current innovator in China I will give them a $1m. Size or quantity does not equal innovation. Not sure that any "innovation" has come out of Asia in 50 years (engineering incrementalism is not innovation). Innovation is about mindset and creativity. These are not strong suits of asian society or educational system. Get off the China bandwagon and remember the Japanese bandwagon....
Understood, thanks. I also contacted KPMG directly. Since Taiwan wasn't mentioned, wasn't sure if it was completely ignored, or considered part of China. Either way, some "innovators" in Taiwan may not like it. :)
This topic seems to have got you excited, almost angry.
Your writing has a certain poetic quality but the words you create and obscure references make it very dense and probably hard for someone not familiar with the United Kingdom to understand.
selling software sillies simply by asking for awareness of filed fundamentals as bonafides and of course only getting blank banalities, stuff that got this someone sacked for refusing to remove it as repeatedly demanded by academic apparatchiks asserting needless stressing of benched bums recruited for fees not skills.
And that was mid90s, leaving me blackballed at fifty with no way back despite endorsements of grandee gurus, CamUni topdogs indeed in Lighthill and Batchelor and Crighton as DAMTPosaurus Rex of their generation - google to be awestruck. Irony then that just last week we had league leading Russell Redbricks squealing notmeguv in response to accusations of favouring overseas premium feepayers by selective easing of entry standards, big differentials indeed meaning double standards in skills just as I'd encountered, moreover with dissatisfied cash clients endangering revenues by badmouthing their institutions for failing to deliver the degrees they'd been told to expect! All part and parcel of the problem that's plonked us in the proverbial reported here, now well on the way to hell in a handcart! @NEALETHOMASnet
KPMG as ever effecting no useful utility merely moneymaking from illusory insight that's merely historical hogwash
Said as someone who saw the stupidity of EConomic EUtrophication from late 90s FP4 that cost 10x more per accredited output as peered paper or published patent than contemporary DTI counterparts that in turn cost 10x more than traditional Brit PhDs with only alphas allowed as men and mentors.
Said as someone who floored politico panellists at the Lisbon Agenda for their Millennial Mission to catchup US RTD productivity by 2010, simply by selfevident assertion that more of the same ineffectualities will only strengthen the shortfalls signifying moreover the madness of Brussellian Bureauggery that's now extinguished EUroland with its ERDF granted leveraging of unrepayable indebtedness.
Said as someone who argued against KPMG's leadership of WM RDA cronied with Bliarownian Bonkernmics kowtowers hellbent on postindustrial financial frippery that not only killed our employable economy but at long last seen to be corrupt collusion as selfevident sensibility to all educated honest johns screwed by these scamengers.
Said as someone who won four DTI SMARTees as national #1 indeed at that time with a campus company created for defconX subsea superstealth gizmogames and done a decade before these things became fashionably faddish academic accoutrements after Bliarownian derisking with publicly pursed slushsidies asserted essential as assistance for an enterprise economy.
Said as someone who was last redbrick faculty teaching field theorems to hons engrg finalists, stuff that'd been sixties freshers fodder, stuff that guaranteed bestofbunch clamoured to stay on for PhDs despite ludicrously lucred lures from cityspivvery, those lads now near to treetopping around global corporate makers (not meddlers nor manipulators) pleased as punch for confidence given them to boo the goosing of MBAed snakeoilers .. continued
UK produced Alan Turing, Sir Tim Berners-Lee and Sir Jonathon Ive (stylist for Apple products) but we have no major computer computers or Internet companies.
The European disease is the ability to engage in innovative academic science and engineering, and even innovate at the industrial level, but seemingly unable to transform that innovation into economic advantage
What are the engineering and design challenges in creating successful IoT devices? These devices are usually small, resource-constrained electronics designed to sense, collect, send, and/or interpret data. Some of the devices need to be smart enough to act upon data in real time, 24/7. Are the design challenges the same as with embedded systems, but with a little developer- and IT-skills added in? What do engineers need to know? Rick Merritt talks with two experts about the tools and best options for designing IoT devices in 2016. Specifically the guests will discuss sensors, security, and lessons from IoT deployments.