At Issue

I have caution tape and a barricade in my cube. Now if only I knew more about mutiny; I suppose that it would be more of a coup …

By David Mantey, Editor, PD&D

I was reading up on the latest forms of non-violent protest in the workplace and stumbled across an interesting new concept that shows how a disgruntled workforce can react after it reaches its breaking point. While the fad seems to accomplish little more than a criminal misdemeanor charge with a possible felony escalation, I suppose it is better choice than some workers have made in the past. 

The new fad sweeping the French countryside is “boss-napping.” Essentially, instead of picketing, the staff stages a sit-in that blocks the boss’ door and refuses to allow the executive to clock out for a fine evening with the family.

Sure, it’s kidnapping, but it seems like the execs understand where the employees are coming from, and given the lifeboat status of the latest kidnapping victim to come across the wire, it can be worse than a hastily prepared meal and fake promises.

The employees become upset after Bossman stands up in front of the crowd and delivers some pretty life-altering news (layoffs, benefit cuts, bankruptcy, et cetera). The problem is that HR didn’t take the same precautions they did when prepping the fire escape routes, and Bossman is left 30 meters from the door with a mosh pit of angry piranhas waiting for him to dip his toes into the lake.

Until the AP ran the article, the barricade I’d acquired from a recent police auction was simply another random odd act by an editor-type on the other side of the office. After the story made its rounds through the cube aisles, I suddenly had an “attitude problem,” and my Bossman had me remove the blue and white eyesore because of code violations. Luckily, he didn’t see the nine rolls of caution tape I have stashed behind my past-issue archive (insert maniacal laugh).

Of course, kidnapping is no laughing matter, but these recent current events overseas are just a sample of what could be yet to come - here’s to hoping the protests at least remain non-violent. It seems like a rash decision. These workers can’t honestly believe they’ll save their jobs by threatening an exec. If anything, they’re making themselves more expendable.

I’m sure that if a company rebounds financially, the first people they’ll call back are the individuals who sacked the boss’ office and fed him animal crackers while they negotiated a new deal. Points for creativity I suppose, but this seems more like a plotline for The Office. What ever happened to the power of the strongly worded letter? Write the local paper, your congressman/woman. Write to me. You know the media; controversy is big business in the written-word world.  

And it’s not that I was looking into best practices in workplace protest. Not that you need to check the key capture log or my Google search history. It was for the column, only for the column. I’m not disgruntled. In this economy? You have to be kidding. Now, big happy smile and a wave to all those on the branches on top of me in the PD&D family tree.

What's your take? Send comments to david.mantey@advantagemedia.com

New lows in innovation with "Baby Shaker"

By David Mantey, Editor, PD&D

I have my moments with inappropriate humor. Every once and awhile, I find it fun to wash away the etiquette chalk lines and make the others at the table squirm.

When I stumble across something that forces me to make the shift of discomfort in my frayed desk chair, I’m always impressed by the depths some will sink to in order to make a buck – and I simply have to forward the link to the others in my cube farm with similar sensibilities.

Now I’m all for the latest application or game to burn through a few minutes of break time, but “Baby Shaker” just isn’t something I’m in the market for.

According to the report, the 99-cent iPhone game let a player quiet a virtual crying infant by shaking the device. Was it as hard to read that sentence as it was to write it? It just felt unnatural. So what was that programmer thinking as he was snickering along through his latest million-dollar idea. What’s worse? If Apple hadn’t taken down the app, everyone at Sikalosoft could be considering early retirement.

I’m constantly impressed when press and curiosity line undeserving pockets — even if the game had players see how long they could stand a crying baby and then shake the phone to stop the wailing.

Not that everyone doesn’t deserve a shot at the American Dream – as it continues to change – I’m just going to pass on the free ride aboard Sikalosoft’s new company yacht aptly named “The Baby Shaker.” C’mon Sika, you remind me of a friend that I always have to introduce as book smart, not social smart.

With the advent, and huge success, of Grand Theft Auto, I’m surprised the app came down - so much for the App Store offering equal opportunity. I’m sure it’s still readily available with a bit of combing through search engines.

Apple removed the program on Wednesday, but critics needed a Thursday soapbox so they screamed for an apology … from Apple. Yeah, punish the company that offers any programmer the ability to be creative, share their vision with others and make a buck.

How easy were those pleas for a quick rendition of “I’m sorry, so sorry” quashed when Apple Spokeswoman Natalie Kerris called the game “deeply offensive” and Sikalosoft hid behind no comment? 

I’m shocked that I’m still capable of being shocked. This is the point at which I was going to suggest other potentially offensive games, but decided against it. Feel free to share in this ridiculousness.

What's your take? Send comments to david.mantey@advantagemedia.com

Conservative consciousness has spread to product design and overall innovation

By Jeff Reinke, Editorial Director, PD&D

Desperate times call for desperate measures, or at least that’s what we keep hearing from the political and economic powers that are in our country. This has led to billions of dollars being infused into struggling economic and manufacturing institutions, as well as a more conservative overall thought process that can be seen dominating multiple aspects of every day life, and I’m not just talking about spending and investing trends. The bad news is that this conservative consciousness seems to have also spread to product design and overall innovation.

Caution: Please read the entire column before responding.

Gone are the days of perfecting light sabers for slicing the thanksgiving turkey, or any other cutting, dicing or deforestation efforts for that matter. Rather, we’re left with technological focuses on things like micro-fuel cells and plug-in hybrid vehicles. Okay, I get it, we’ll save energy, reduce dependence on foreign oil, possibly create more jobs and maybe even salvage the current energy grid. To quote Bill Lumbergh from Office Space, “Yeah, that’ll be great”.

Sorry, but those types of developments are just not very exciting, and way too practical to generate any sincere enthusiasm or maintain the attention of the American majority. The bottom line is that solving problems and creating a better living environment makes sense, but that quickly becomes old and uninterested news to those of us raised on the notion of personal spacecraft and robotic personal assistants.

Sure, the headlines have been dominated by the need to green the automotive industry and develop power supplies that help save energy, but what if we took those dollars and made RoboCop a reality?

Okay, hopefully you’ve kept your fingers off the keyboard long enough to let me admit that sarcasm doesn’t always translate well to the written word. My real point is that one of the more positive elements we can extract from the current economic decline is that there has been greater attention paid to those technologies which can impact multiple levels of our society. It’s refreshing to see politicians and influencers discussing financial responsibility, new energy sources, as well as the related usage patterns, in greater context than campaign grandstanding.

It feels to me that there are sincere efforts underway to improve the operational dynamics of plug-in hybrid vehicles, and it’s impossible to review any news source without seeing some reference to the issues surrounding our national energy grid, or the work being done to correct it. The majority of these answers come from designing and integrating products that address macro issues on the micro level in positively affecting the simple things we do each day.

Right now the U.S. is an easy target for international criticism and scrutiny. Much of it is deserved, but it’s also re-assuring to know that we’re up to the task of improving our status on a number of levels. We live and operate in a market that is cyclical and self-recovering, rewarding decisions that generate positive results. With all the work being done in the areas of alternative energy, lithium-on batteries and other related initiatives, those positive results, and their economic benefits will come.

Then we can get back to developing that blue light saber I need for simultaneously grilling my cheese sandwich and heating my office – the efficiency gains continue.

What’s your take? Send comments to jeff.reinke@advantagemedia.com

It is time to focus on what it takes to grow a stable economy

By Michael Collins, Author of Saving American Manufacturing 

The U.S. economy, once the envy of all countries in the world, is now a huge debt culture that may sink into oblivion. For the last 20 years we have been a nation of drug addicts and the drug has been credit.

In 1950 manufacturing was 30 percent of GDP and finance was 10 percent. By 2005 finance was 20 percent and manufacturing 12 percent; and finance made four times the profit of the manufacturing sector. Instead of making money from making products, the trend became making money from money.

The nation abandoned manufacturing and put its faith in finance. Between 1987 and 2007 the credit market debt roughly quadrupled from $11 trillion to $48 trillion. This growth was fostered by de-regulation, increased marketing, political lobbying and propaganda.

Achieving this increase in debt and profits required deliberate policies. Beginning in 1994, we allowed China to undervalue its currency. Coupled with the export subsidies and a policy that ignored the trade deficit, it helped low cost imports flood the country, which consumers could buy with their credit cards.

The idea behind low cost imports was that they would fuel our consumption economy and bring strong GDP growth. The assumption was that the average consumer would be better off because they could buy more low-cost, imported goods with their wages. The biggest loser during this time was the manufacturing sector of the economy. These policies not only led to huge indebtedness and an ongoing financial crisis, but they also led to a policy of de-industrialization.

The countries who export to us gain by having huge economic surpluses. By strengthening their industries and undermining U.S. industries, they have enhanced their power in the world. They sacrifice some domestic consumption in the short term but gain tremendously in long term growth. In contrast, the United States gains domestic consumption in the short term and suffers deindustrialization.

The second problem has become visible to the middle class. In the last five years there has been a stagnation of median family incomes at a time when health costs and personal debt are skyrocketing.

We had full employment in 2006, at the same time millions of manufacturing workers were displaced by trade deficits. Most people found new jobs but they were service jobs at lower wages. This means wage stagnation and a growing inequality of incomes.

When you look at this over the long haul from 1978 to 2005, the average wage of all workers in private industry only rose 1.3 percent over inflation. Consumers did gain from buying cheaper imports, but these gains did not offset declining wages and incurred debt.

The supply side economists in the last administration said there was nothing wrong with going into debt, and they sold the long held Reagan era belief that tax cuts would lead to growth and reward the middle class through the trickle down theory. They were also free market proponents and did a good job of deregulating many industries and keeping the government out of the business of business.

Perhaps this could have been a good argument if the nation and its workers would have gained something in return. But, instead, these policies resulted in stagnant wages, deindustrialization, a crumbling infrastructure, a rise in income inequality and the lowest consumer saving rate since the great depression.

I can’t offer solutions to the many problems of failing banks, foreclosed mortgages and the enormity of the debt, but I can say we need to get back to fiscal responsibility, savings, and balancing budgets. Most importantly we need a policy that counters the policy of deindustrialization. Creating a strong and growing manufacturing base is key.

Solving the manufacturing crisis comes at the same time we must find solutions to the financial crisis. This means saving the banking system and preventing a worldwide depression; regulating the system so greedy financiers can’t do it again, emphasize savings; and getting the nation off the drug of debt.

We need to create wealth through manufacturing, mining and agriculture rather then making money from money. A strong manufacturing base is the foundation of the economy, not the financial sector. Sometimes I feel that I am repeating myself in trying to make a case for manufacturing, but here are just some of the reasons to consider:

Secondary jobs – Manufacturing stimulates employment in other sectors at a greater pace than other industries. On the average, 8 jobs in the manufacturing sector creates 6 jobs in other sectors of the economy.

R and D –Many experts feel that the U.S. is simply not doing enough in R & D and we are falling into an “innovation gap”. If the U.S. is going to have a chance for continued economic growth based on innovation and new products, it will be extremely important to increase R & D. Manufacturers perform about 60 percent of all R & D in the U.S.  

Reducing the Trade Deficit- Manufacturing contributes more than 62 percent of American export earnings. If we are to have a chance at balancing the trade deficit, the manufacturing sector must grow. The U.S cannot rely on service exports to take up the gap. 

Manufacturing supports state economies – In terms of tax receipts manufacturers are huge contributors to the state revenue budgets. The bureau of Economic Analysis shows that during the last 10 years, manufacturing corporations have paid 30-34 percent of all corporate tax payments for state and local taxes, social security and payroll taxes, excise taxes, import and tariff duties, environmental taxes and license taxes. In light of the current crisis in state budgets, states cannot afford to lose any more manufacturing.

High skilled jobs- We need training programs that create high skilled workers in all industries. Jobs like machinists, mold-makers, tool and die makers and fabricators are the backbone of manufacturing.

Manufacturing supports other sectors – 80 percent of all goods hauled by trucks and 80 percent of all goods hauled by railroads are manufactured goods. The utility, energy and communications industries as well as all of the OEMs that supply them equipment are connected to manufacturing

We have had our 20-year experiment with cutting taxes, deregulation, promoting deficits, sub prime loans, hedge funds and credit cards. It has resulted in an economy that is in danger, loss of manufacturing and declining living standards for almost all workers. I hope that the financial crisis has woken the nation from its debt stupor. Perhaps now we can get back to focus on what it takes to grow a stable economy.  It is time to get back to savings, balanced budgets and making stuff.

Michael Collins is the author of Saving American Manufacturing. His website is www.mpcmgt.com

Are social networks getting out of hand with celebrities jumping on board?

He and Sean Combs – aka, P Diddy – were discussing how they used Twitter not to feed into their narcissistic egotistical celebrityness, but to make changes in this world by sharing what they deem to be important information. They continued to say that the social networking site shouldn’t be looked at as a platform for celebrities like themselves, but as one for ordinary Joe Schmoes to have a voice in this world and a chance to make a difference.

Then why isn’t a Joe Schmoe promoting the microblog on Larry King, instead of the Punk’d TV host? Furthermore, what gains have been produced knowing that Oprah joined the Tweeting society?   

While social networking sites do offer benefits; especially for businesses promoting new merchandise and materials, and families and friends reconnecting; do celebrities really need to tweet to self-promote their attempts of “changing the world?”

Diddy claimed Tweeting helps him get connected with his fans and provide information that expresses the true him. Knock on their doors then, and have a cup coffee. Invite them to your residence and discuss your personal life face to face. Call them on the phone.

PD&D uses Twitter to promote recent articles, new articles and industry news throughout the industry that might be unaware of the publication. Other business and entrepreneurs use it with similar intentions; to promote business and services in keeping people informed.

I’m on Facebook to catch up with friends and family. I don’t latch on to celebrities and catch up on their attempts at clearing misinformation, or to see what “good things” they are doing in the world. If they want to make that big of a difference, how about donating some of the millions of dollars they make?

The promotion of Kutcher’s one millionth follower didn’t make any difference in the world. Maybe to some fanatics it is important to know that they can tweet him and be twatted in return. But his appearance on Larry King only exalted Twitter, and made it appear that celebrities can’t get enough recognition in front of cameras.

Twitter can be a great social networking site allowing for genuine connections and promotions for small businesses. However, Kutcher’s TV appearance made it seem that celebrities are abusing the site to promote their own agendas and initiatives, and that’s exactly what was shown on Larry King. Kutcher and Diddy never discussed what changes they were trying to make, they only discussed their “Twitter DNA,” how many followers they had, and passed t-shirts around with their twitter addresses.

While I myself am a microblogger, I am not racing at the chance to follow any major celebrity that may have a Twitter or Facebook account. They have enough recognition, and don’t need any more attention to boost their egos. If they want to make changes, go make them, don’t tweet about making them.      

What’s your take? E-mail comments to meaghan.ziemba@advantagemedia.com

"Gone are the days where countries were their own islands, with the type of economic freedom to initiate far-reaching change on a local level."

By Anna Wells, Editor, IMPO

I'd be happy to promote an across the board agenda of "Buy American" if the results were as simple and positive as they are often made out to be: if only we just put our money in our own backyards, America's financial straits would be corrected. It's just a matter of more money here, right? If only it were that easy...

In the days before the World Trade Organization, America's obligation to its own production was different and, frankly, more practical. Unfortunately, the shape of today's global economy has made this a far more complex discussion.

According to a recent article in the NY Times: "The pattern of manufacturing and trade ominously recalls how the financial crisis of 1929 grew into the Great Depression: tightening credit and consumer fear reduced demand for manufactured goods in one country after another, creating a downward spiral that reduced global trade."

Global trade is at the heart of this discussion-whether we like it or not. Gone are the days where countries were their own islands, with the type of economic freedom to initiate far-reaching change on a local level. I'm not saying that grassroots efforts are no longer viable, simply that concerns over the recent "buy American" language -and it's potential to alienate foreign relationships due to its "protectionist" angle-are valid and scary.

It seems naïve to suggest we can save America via this tactic-as if it were a lone ship in vacant waters. Global trade has changed this metaphor to a group of boats all daisy-chained together, in a body of water that progressively diminishes in size.

More and more we see these groups imploring us to put our change in Uncle Sam's pocketbooks, but I'd warn that this is an oversimplification of a larger problem-it's like rehabbing a broken arm when you're, in fact, in a full body cast: it doesn't necessarily hurt, but it's not exactly going to get you walking again.

Conversely, there are plenty of American companies that give you good reason to purchase their products. My point is, it's important to make educated and informed choices in purchasing. I own a foreign car that happens to be produced on domestic soil. This type of partnership, to me, embodies the burgeoning body of today's global arena. America's economic stability will not come with a method of default domestic purchasing. Right now, the problem is less about where we spend, but that we spend to begin with.

What's your take? Email anna.wells@advantagemedia.com

Click here to read Editorial Director Jeff Reinke's take on buying American

Some products need to stay in the past, but others should be greeted with open arms

Classic car designs are also coming out of retirement and finding their place among younger generations; like the great 70 style Ford Mustang.

While some designers and consumers may disagree with the idea of bringing back the classics – which in some instances I agree; for example, the ridiculous idea of Casablanca being remade into a modern day movie – I welcome updated designs with open arms.

My most recent excitement is for Polaroid’s new PoGo digital camera.

Growing up in a family of six, my mom kept track of our most embarrassing moments through film. Every holiday, birthday, and important firsts are laid out in dozens of photo albums, most of which were captured by the classic Polaroid camera.

We loved setting ourselves up in silly poises and waiting for the picture to take shape right in front of our eyes. My sister Melissa and I would create comical shake-up dances to get the picture to show up faster – learning much later that this was actually a bad thing.

Needless to say, when I first heard about the PoGo, I called all my siblings to tell them that Polaroid has returned – and yes, I will be purchasing one as soon as I see it on one of my shopping ventures.

With an LCD screen, internal memory, and built-in editing tools, an instant photo can be printed in less than 60 seconds – unfortunately there’s no shaking involved. Pictures are smudge proof, water-resistant and tear-proof, and can be viewed and changed before printing. What’s more, the option of saving the picture on the internal memory makes this updated classic even more exciting.

I understand and agree that some classic products need to stay in the past. Reproducing them or updating them can take away from their legacy, hinders creativity, and cheat customers out of fresh and new innovations. However, updating some of them, like the Polaroid and the classical red wagon, brings great traditions to younger generations. I love sharing my childhood memories with my daughter, and I enjoy seeing the excitement she has when she beats me at games I played when I was young.

Besides, it’s great to keep the kid in us alive, so why not stick to the classics?

What is your take? E-mail comments to meaghan.ziemba@advantagemedia.com    

A degree doesn't guarantee the basic skills needed to get a job

"Whether it is high school, community college or a 4- year college, the emphasis needs to be on weaving more skill sets into education curriculums to provide a shot at better paying jobs."

By Mike Collings, Author, Saving American Manufacturing

For the last 20 years the government mantra has been, "Get a college education and you will get ahead."

Shop classes that used to be in every grade school and high school were replaced by computer labs to prepare the "new knowledge workers" for the future.

But the big question is - will kids coming out of high school or college have the basic skills to get a job?

In manufacturing we have gone from a time when there were plenty of jobs that only required a high school degree and some on-the-job training, to an era of automation and sophistication requiring a variety of high skill sets. In the service industries the people making the good wages are the people with professional degrees or very specialized training.

As the economy has changed to one that requires higher skills, more technical knowledge and specialized training, the education system has not changed very much. I want to make a case that a general degree from a 4-year college is often no better then a high school degree in terms of getting a job.

If you go online and locate the National Center for Education Statistics website, you will find The Digest Of Educational Statistics; 2007.Table 261. It lists all Bachelors degrees issued in the year 2005-2006 by discipline or category.

There were 1,485,252 degrees awarded in 2005/06. When I added up the various degree categories, I found that 50-60 percent (890,000) of the degrees were in the general category, and did not include enough specific skills to be termed a professional degree that could command a well paid job. I include business degrees in the general category because I don't think they offer enough practical skills to get a good job in business.

My bias comes from not only interviewing candidates with this degree but from talking to hundreds of waiters and waitresses in my travels who have business degrees and can't seem to find a good job.

A good example is Graham McConnell, who graduated from a private college in 2006 with a major in business. His first job out of college was making $7.50 an hour at Hollywood Video until he finally was hired by a clockmaker as an internet marketing assistant for $31,000 per year. His current debt load is $24,000. (Willamette Week Fleeced, May 28, 2008)

Josh Seeds has a Masters degree in Environmental Science from Washington State University and is 31 years old. After 3 low paying jobs, he was hired by the Oregon Department of Environmental Quality as a water quality analyst at $45,000 per year. His debt to pay off is $111,000, which he doesn't expect to pay until 2043. By the time he pays off his student loans he expects to be 67 and eligible for Medicare and Social Security. (Willamette Week Fleeced, May 28, 2008)

The problem of finding a family wage job is not limited to general college degree students:

• For the 2007/08 year there were over 3.3 million high school graduates.
• Another 25 percent either dropped out of high school or didn't graduate on time.
• In 2005/06 approximately 713,066 students graduated from community colleges. Of this group 314,000 had technical/professional degrees.
• In 2005/06 over 1.4 million students graduated with Bachelors degrees from a 4- year college. Of this group 40 percent had professional or technical degrees. 60 percent were academic or general degrees.

So the big question is; what will the dropouts, high school graduates and the general degree holders do to find a good paying job in the changing economy?

In the last 35 years the art of working with your hands has been downplayed and replaced by the "go to college at any cost" movement. In contrary, Dusty Heming, a 35-year-old electrician in Portland says he earns $34 per hour working on renewable energy projects.

Electricians, plumbers, pipefitters, masons, maintenance technicians, machinists and fabricators who go through apprentice programs can make more then $30 per hour, and the demand for these types of workers will exceed supply by 5 percent in 2012.

I think this makes a strong case for bringing back shop classes, particularly for those who learn by doing and not through books. The 2-year vocational associates degree is the most preferred education by most manufacturers. However, community colleges need to create more industry-specific programs and state legislatures have to change funding formulas that limit the number of technical and vocational degrees.

In manufacturing there is already a shortage of skilled workers and it will get worse as 10 million baby boomer employees retire by 2020. The training programs for manufacturing skilled workers are simply not adequate to train 10 million workers.

Colleges need to look at their general degree categories and enhance them in providing a better chance at a higher paying job. They should also consider giving students' credit for taking technical elective courses, even if they are taught in a different institution or community college.

I think it would also help to increase the cost of general classes and lower the cost of technical classes. The big dark secret is that transitioning to a service economy will create jobs, but not at a high enough level of pay.

On the first page of The Work Of Nations, Robert Reich says, "Each nation's political task will be to cope with the centrifugal forces of the global economy which tear at the ties binding most citizens together - bestowing even greater wealth on the most skilled and insightful, while consigning the less skilled to a declining standard of living."

The operating word here is skills. Whether it is high school, community college or a 4- year college, the emphasis needs to be on weaving more skill sets into education curriculums to provide a shot at better paying jobs.

Mike Collins is the author of Saving American Manufacturing. his website is www.mpcmgt.com

"As I walked the show in San Jose a freebie-free five pounds lighter, it was encouraging to meet with so many enthusiastic exhibitors."

We still have shows. We still have exhibitors. We seem to have more press hounds than ever. Now, if we could just find a few more feet to pound through the aisles.

By David Mantey, Editor, PD&D

The show floor at the Embedded Systems Conference in San Jose, CA, wasn't as packed as I expected, but it sounded like the exhibitors were expecting an exponentially worse scenario, so it was considered a success when the qualified came dressed in business casual to battle a robot in a game of air hockey in some new-age update to Kasparov vs. X3D Fritz, or continued working on their dexterity with five sessions of Guitar Hero, which along with Wii Sports and console giveaways, has become a show staple.

Anytime I'm prepping the gear for a cross-country flight and leaving a note for the TSA inspector on top of my suitcase, I run through the scenarios that I know I will stumble upon as I walk through the show. The hired models that attempt to lure you into a free massage at a booth, the same models who spend the second half of their day working to get you to fill out a survey, attend a session, or acquire a bouncy ball that sings, dances, flashes and, most importantly, bounces - for the kids.

A few years ago, when I started attending shows, I was a sucker for a free T-shirt and a photo op between Elvis and Marilyn Monroe cutouts - or souvenir pics with the aforementioned hired help. Every piece of schwag was for a cousin, niece or, if it had cube-permanence potential, I'd make up a kid to have the novelty find its way into my satchel. I was lucky enough to have twins once, because one foam airplane wasn't enough.

I was happy to grow out of this phase. The first time I moved into a new home, and realized I was huffing two boxes dedicated to stress relievers and novelty pens, it was easy to add the grocery-store cardboard to the truck bed headed to St. Vincent de Paul's, and declare a personal declaration against anything but flash drives and business cards.

As I walked the show in San Jose a freebie-free five pounds lighter, it was encouraging to meet with so many enthusiastic exhibitors who were hammering through this recession with new products and a strong belief in their company's perseverance. I walked off the plane and into the show - with a quick stop in the facilities to make sure everything was tucked, cuffed, cleansed and combed - and the first thing that I noticed was that companies are getting more creative.

It's one thing to hold a contest to promote "going green" using the company's development kits to encourage saving energy in electrical, water, natural gas or fuel consumption, and eliminating or monitoring air pollution. It's another to force yourself into a dollhouse craft store in order to build an iDigi city that runs off your wireless development kits.

Digi International did more than announce a green design contest to promote sustainable applications; someone went to the hobby shop and built a fire station that ran on a wireless mesh network, programmed a miniature solar farm for maximum efficiency and operated a model rail system. The models were an interesting departure from pamphlets and PowerPoint, and Senior VP of R&D and CTO Joel Young's enthusiastic booth tour proved that the company was serious about the contest and excited to see the participants' ideas - it isn't a quick PR grab to snag a little keyword searchability on industry sites.

Time-to-market concerns were also top of mind as internal engineering staffs continue to shrink with project timeline demands. Engineers are subverting project management and using third parties to finish on time. It may be nothing new (as I asked around) it seemed like an age-old practice that has been rising in popularity with the downturn.

Given the slimming time constraints, engineers are outsourcing parts of the development to third-party vendors, using their personal credit card to fit the bill and reimbursing themselves on future expense reports. I found it interesting that employees find vendors that are not on the company's "approved list."

However, the under-the-table deals build relationships and these suppliers/vendors find themselves on the company's approved list on the next fiscal. I suppose that it all boils down to the "I don't care how you do it, just get it done right and get it done now" mindset.

What's your take? Send comments to david.mantey@advantagemedia.com.

"The misery may not have been so entertaining if the kid wasn't taking her bumper dolly experience out on the thinning discs in my old man back."

Planes, trains & the little kid who incessantly cried, whined & kicked the back of my seat 

By David Mantey, Editor, PD&D

Pardon me as I slowly transform into a 75-year-old man. I'm not yet at the point when I'd stand up in a theater and accost some pre-teen while he texts during Watchmen, but I come closer to an airplane outburst with every mile that inches me closer to platinum flier status.

A child's safety is important. Designing products that keep children safer is something I'm onboard with. Designing a car seat that is fit for an airplane and places the toddler in optimal kicking position? No thanks, keep the kid on your lap, let him run through the aisles, let him spend the entire flight in the bathroom enthralled with the wonders of blue flushing fluid, just don't strap him into a seat that places him three inches closer to the back of my seat and high enough to find the sweet spot in the small of my back.

Luckily, I was on a two-and-a-half-hour flight and not headed anywhere that would require a currency exchange.

A key feature on the child seat was the plastic dolly that it snapped into, so the kid could be wheeled around the airport like a carry-on with a head cold. I'm sure it looked like a great concept on the white board, but shrinking cabin space led to a wheelbase that couldn't make it down the aisle.

Think of the passenger with too many carry-ons. They have the over-the-shoulder bag to hold additional, but smaller over-the-shoulder/waist/ankle/wrist/neck bags as well as some snack foods, three bottles of vitamin-enhanced dragonfruit-flavored water and mini bottles of aromatic moisturizer. Behind them, they're proudly pulling the oversized carry-on that they insist fits in the overhead compartment on the regional liner despite the repeated stern warnings from the gentle soul on the back end of a 10-hour shift behind a customer service kiosk.

To the poor women working said station in Denver, I feel for you even though I did little to help other than murmur and raise my eyebrows in feigned I-feel-your-pain support as you repeatedly said, "Ma'am, don't worry, we'll bring it to you in the terminal. It will not go through baggage claim."

This person, brimming with pride after winning a match of wits, comes strolling down the jet bridge, says Hello to the flight attendant with a snarky wave and smack - the wheels on the daisy-covered bag smoke the knees of Mr. 1B First Class and fails to fit down the aisle.

The person turns in utter disbelief, thinking that Mr. 1B has slid his foot into the aisle in a ploy to sabotage the preflight experience, preventing the wheels from working their circular magic. As the person turns, the bag for bags empties, I chuckle and bend over to help offer some order to the boarding melee, hoping for a Vitamin Water reward.

Wait, that spiraled out of control. This is all hypothetical, yeah, hypothetical.

Anyway, watching a baby onboard a plastic dolly that doesn't fit down the aisle is almost as fun as watching the 3T try and fit the star shape into the square hole in the Shape-O.         

The misery may not have been so entertaining if the kid hadn't taken her bumper dolly experience out on the thinning discs in my old-man back, but between her kicking, screaming and spitting - and her mother's energy focused on apologizing rather than resolving the tantrum - I'm taking the passive-aggressive route. I will be no Baby Onboard martyr.

I can't wait for an old friend to post this to Facebook.com and further define my ol' coot status.     

What's your take? Send comments to david.mantey@advantagemedia.com.

Bad attitudes toward energy conservation demonstrate the need for wider spread education of it

By Jeff Reinke, Editorial Director, PD&D

"I'll question the extent of global warming-like impacts, but I'm not going to root against the polar bear trying to swim between ice chunks."

Before getting to the inspiration of this column, I feel compelled to place a hand over my politically conservative heart and admit a couple of things:

• I've cut down more trees than I've hugged.
• While I admire the technological and economical benefits electric cars represent, my preferences say they still can't compete with the adrenaline and performance an oversized gas engine inspires.
• The only real contributions I've made to environmental causes have been in helping to control the populations of deer, pheasant and grouse, as well as several fish species.
• Although I do believe in land preservation and the prevention of urban sprawl, if it comes down to an owl vs. a lumber company, I'll pour the unleaded gas in the chainsaw.
• Even though my vehicle can use flex fuel, I don't buy it because it lowers my MPG. I have to fill up more often, so the lower price ends up being a wash.
• I'm not a member of the Sierra Club, the Green Party or any other environmentally responsible organization. Although after these series of admissions my mug may very well be placed on one or more of their bulletin (dart) boards.

I won't say I'm proud of all these things, but nonetheless they're all true. I make these admissions not to be some beacon of light for the environmentally insensitive, but to establish a track record that has neither made a Native American shed a tear or helped a California Condor build its nest. However, a recent post from before this past Saturday's Earth Hour event inspired even someone as ecologically uninspired as I to get pretty fired up.

You see, although I might not seek out environmentally conscious activities and causes, or work like many of you to help improve the energy efficiency of products being used every day, I'm not opposed to these types of activities. I'll question the extent of global warming-like impacts, but I'm not going to root against the polar bear trying to swim between ice chunks.

That's because at the end of the day I can recognize that doing things to conserve energy, reduce pollution and improve the integration of easily renewable resources has very little to do with supporting causes or yielding to scientific theories. They simply make our world better. So why deliberately work in the opposite direction?

Yet, that's exactly what Bob Gerenser of New Hope, PA decided to do last Saturday. While my daughters and I watched the Disney Channel in somewhat darker conditions than normal, Mr. Gerenser went the extra mile to protest his disbelief in the principles of global warming by actually purchasing extra lighting for his business to be run during this length of time. He additionally encouraged others to waste as much electricity as possible for this hour block.

Good call Mr. Gerenser! Way to stick it to all those who jumped on the sinking ship of global unity. You are a light house in the storm when it comes to ignoring problems and refusing to recognize past mistakes. The only flaw in your behavior is that by putting the spotlight on your actions, you actually helped bring greater attention to your opposition. Maybe on the eve before Earth Day you can organize a Clark Griswald-like Christmas light display on the moon with a big ole' middle finger pointing down at the entire global population.

Attitudes like those of Mr. Gerenser help to illustrate the need for wider spread education and integration of energy-conserving initiatives. You face it every day in the products you design and improve. The work that's been done in the areas of bio-fuels, lithium ion batteries and more efficient lighting options have shown that the answers are out there, and should be eagerly anticipated as they are embedded into our next generation of vehicles, entertainment devices and other products ranging from traffic lights to telephones.

While the light bulb may not have gone on for many who still refuse to acknowledge the challenges updating the national energy grid and developing new power sources represent, those like Bob Gerenser help show how important it will be to address. These issues don't revolve around what it takes to survive in our world today, but in ensuring my daughters can play in the dark with their kids because they want to, not because they lack the option.

But I do need to show appreciation to Mr. Gerenser for one thing — I think I will hit the E85 pump tonight. Thanks for shining some light on the matter.

If everyone did their own thing the world would be chaos

"In my experience, the most unhappy people are the ones who clearly fit in one category, but for various reasons believe they need to be in the other one (entitlement, more money, more prestige, family pressures). My message is do what you enjoy. Life is too short for the alternative."

Some people are not cut out to be entrepreneurs. This is a good thing, or the business world would be chaos, with everyone trying to do their own thing. So what about you? How do you know if you should be running your own company, or concentrating on that queue of work that someone else has built for you?

Now is the time to put aside your fantasies, and take a hard look at who you really are. If you recognize yourself in many of these quotes, you WILL NOT be happy as an entrepreneur:

1. "I like my life structured with clear decisions." Entrepreneurs do not function well in structured organizations and do not like someone having authority over them. Most believe they can do the job better than anyone else and will strive for maximum responsibility and accountability.

2. "Handling problems causes me stress and pressure." Entrepreneurs are comfortable in stress situations, and are challenged rather than discouraged by setbacks. They may actually be uncomfortable when things are going well, and are not troubled by ambiguity and uncertainty because they are used to solving problems.

3. "My job is fun when everyone knows and does their job." The best entrepreneurs enjoy the challenge of an undefined role, and enjoy the learning process as much as success. It's even better when they can inspire and energize others to do things that have never been done before.

4. "I like to put my mistakes behind me and never think about them again." Entrepreneurs accept things as they are and deal with them accordingly. They are quick to learn from their failures. They may or may not be idealistic, but they are seldom unrealistic. They want to know the status of a given situation at all times.

5. "Balance and family are necessary in my life." Entrepreneurs may devote a disproportionate time to the business. During tough business periods, they will concentrate their energies on business operations, and may stay on the job for extended periods of time. Even at home or at social events, the business is always top of mind.

6. "It didn't get done today, but there's always tomorrow." Entrepreneurs have a never-ending sense of urgency to develop their ideas. Inactivity makes them impatient, tense, and uneasy. They have drive and high energy levels, they are achievement-oriented, and they are tireless in the pursuit of their goals.

7. "That's not my job." Successful entrepreneurs can comprehend complex situations that may include planning, making strategic decisions, and working on multiple business ideas simultaneously. They are farsighted and aware of important details, and they will continuously review all possibilities to achieve their business objectives.

8. "I love to get awards for my efforts." Entrepreneurs find satisfaction in symbols of success that are external to themselves. They like the business they have built to be praised, but they are often embarrassed by praise directed at them personally.

9. "I get frustrated when things don't work." Entrepreneurs have a "never, never, never quit" attitude. They are self-confident when they are in control of what they're doing and working alone. Most are at their best in the face of adversity, since they thrive on their own self-confidence.

10. "Risk and uncertainty cause me to lose too much sleep." Some of the best entrepreneurs talk about the highs they get from taking a big risk, and the euphoria they feel when they beat the odds. They live for these feelings.

If you are an employee, and you recognize your boss in the quotes, you probably are not a happy employee. If you recognize your CEO or business founder in the quotes, then your business is probably failing. That's how important it is for the right people to be in the right category.

In my experience, the most unhappy people are the ones who clearly fit in one category, but for various reasons believe they need to be in the other one (entitlement, more money, more prestige, family pressures). My message is do what you enjoy. Life is too short for the alternative.

Marty Zwilling is CEO & Founder of Startup Professionals, Inc.; Managing Partner of Southwest Software Ventures & and Consulting; Advisory Board Member for RelGuard, Re:Think, MiraLinx, BoomerJobs, Procure Networks, Twin Cypress Group, and Healthcents.

Which option is better for consumers during a time of economic crisis and global warming?

By Meaghan Ziemba, Associate Editor, PD&D

"I personally get nervous when my cell phone displays one bar of battery power; how stressed I would be driving with the same image being displayed on my dash?"

In a recent article, Tesla Motors announced its release of the electric Model S Family Sedan that can travel 300 miles per charge and "can be recharged from any 120, 240 or 480V outlet, with the latter taking only 45 minutes." Other companies, such as Honda, Toyota, Chrysler, ZENN and several more have joined the trend of electric transportation, creating original designs of battery operated automobiles.

While I am extremely attracted to the environmental friendliness an electric car offers to our planet, I am more comfortable with hydrogen fuel cars and the promise they offer to today's consumers.

Electric cars will always need to be recharged, and they will need a charging station to make that happen. Several cities have already installed or made plans of installation for electric charging stations, but that seems to be less cost effective than just replacing the existing fuel source and using the stations already built with supplied tanks and pumps.

For hydrogen fuel, the infrastructure already exists (considering a few possible adjustments that may need to occur to accommodate the fuel). For an electrical vehicle, outlets need to be placed not only at existing fueling stations that could be turned into charging stations, but at restaurants, schools, hospitals, and several other locations so consumers can charge their car while working, eating, visiting, etc.

Consumers would also need to purchase a new car to switch the battery/electric power. With hydrogen fuel, cars can easily be retrofitted to support the alternate gas. By replacing the fuel source, drivers could keep their cars and use the money they would spend on something else.

Electric cars that have come out and are expected to appear in the public, seem to have a higher listing price than current gasoline vehicles. Tesla has an "anticipated base price for the Model S at $49,900", while hydrogen can support cars listed at $20,000 or less.

Understanding that electric vehicles have no hazardous emissions, and new technology is being developed with lithium ion batteries, promising a 10 year lifespan; eventually the battery supply will die out and need to be replaced. Hydrogen is easily accessible and can be easily produced and replaced. And, it emits only water vapor.

The amount of time a driver is given on a single charge also makes me a skeptic. The Model S sedan promises 300 miles of travel. What if someone has more than 300 miles to travel to reach their destination, and they don't have time to wait 45 minutes for their car to charge? I personally get nervous when my cell phone displays one bar of battery power; how stressed I would be driving with the same image being displayed on my dash? The ride would be completely uncomfortable with most of my concentration being placed on that one little bar than the road. Not too safe.

And yes, the same anxiety may exist with an almost empty gas gauge, but more gas stations exist right now than recharging stations, and it just seems more time consuming to recharge a battery half way than to fill up a tank half way.

Extra resources would have to be put into waterproofing the stations as well. I would feel sorry for the person trying to plug in their car during a thunderstorm.

Hydrogen fuel puts me more at ease than electricity. Understanding that hydrogen is extremely flammable, some countries have already overcome this obstacle and power their transportation needs with the environmental friendly gas. Emissions are pure water vapor, cutting down on carbon dioxide being released into the already damaged atmosphere.

Several countries have already converted or made plans for conversion to hydrogen fuel cars and stations. The National Hydrogen Association's website provides a list of hydrogen friendly states and countries, demonstrating the growing popularity of the alternative fuel.

Hydrogen fuel and electric automobiles have their advantages as well as their disadvantages. However, we need to look at what option provides the more reliable solution to our current economic situation. What choice is more cost efficient and environmentally friendly? What option is more reasonable for the general population, and more affordable?

While there may be differing opinions, I stick in hydrogen's corner based off the existing gas stations that we have in our country, and the existing cars with engines that could already support the new fuel, or only need a few adjustments to support it. I also would not feel as anxious driving in a hydrogen automobile as I would an electric one. I would be able to stop as many times as I wanted without having to plug my vehicle into an outlet, that may not be easily available as a pump would be (refueling a car takes a few minutes compared to 45 minutes required to recharge an electrical one).

Companies should make sure a product is ready before mass producing it

By Jeff Reinke, Editorial Director, PD&D

Unfortunately I found my thoughts wondering last night as I watched the Milwaukee Brewers lose their fourth straight game. It’s bad enough that they’ve all come at home and that two were courtesy of the much-hated Cubs. However, the real issue is that the last two from the Reds show a significant design flaw in the composition of my beloved Beer-Makers. This missing link seems to run parallel to a key issue many in the design community can appreciate.

The first three games of this slide were frustrating to watch, but at least entertaining. Last night simply brought everything crashing into greater perspective. While they can hit with the best in major league baseball, right now the Crew lacks the right mix of consistency, talent and experience in both their starting and relief pitching. Basically, the design of this team looked for their strengths to overshadow weaknesses that the critics were quick to identify in season previews, but that the optimistic fans and organizational powers were equally eager to dismiss.

Although they’ve always played prominent roles, cost controls and time-to-market considerations are driving more and more product development decisions. The end result in many cases has been introducing a product before it was ready for mass consumption. In some cases, such as Amazon’s Kindle, the company was able to get away with early discretions in time to launch a second generation that meshed more accordingly with consumer demands. However, early versions of the Blackberry Storm demonstrate what ignoring key functionality factors can do to a promising brand.

While we all have to adhere to time and cost demands, at the end of the day there’s no sacrifice for overall quality and functionality. Granted, price points allow for some fluctuation when defining value, but the dangers associated with rolling out products that contain known faults in hopes that other capabilities will compensate for them is risky at best. Consumers are too well informed and more than happy to share shortcomings with anyone who cares to venture down Al Gore’s information superhighway.

Just as in baseball, increased competition has changed operating dynamics in every product realm. The difference is that while fans have short memories and are eager to re-apply their team’s colors at the first sign of a winning streak, we all know the stealth at which a negative product experience travels.

Every day is game day once a product hits the open market, and you don’t have the benefit of trades or free agency. The Brewers still have 154 opportunities to turn things around – you won’t. Here’s hoping your fans won’t have to wait until next season to see your best.

What's your take? Send comments to jeff.reinke@advantagemedia.com