While to some it may seem as though
Friedman’s idea of the world being flat is revolutionary, I tend to think that
he is behind the times already.
Much of the technology that he discusses in chapter one is technology
that, at least for me, has been around for several years and is not that new in
2012. I think I will be looking at this book from quite a different viewpoint
than others considering I had not even graduated from college when it was first
published and had only one year remaining for my online Masters degree. I have had access to the Internet and
therefore global communication since I was in the seventh grade. It is normal
to me to be able to gather any sort of information I could want and any time I
want it. Friedman did bring up some good thoughts however when he discussed
technology’s impact on outsourcing.
I think the two most interesting
stories Friedman told about “outsourcing” dealt with JetBlue and McDonalds.
While the thought of having employees stay at home is not necessarily new, I think
the reasoning Neeleman (JetBlue founder) has for what he has coined
“homesourcing” is incredibly sound. By allowing women the opportunity to work
from home and still maintain their role of mother and wife adds one more
dimension to their life. The level of trust placed on these employees shows the
increased expectations the company places on them. The way Friedman wrote about
this company did make me question if there were men working for them at home as
well or just women? By providing higher productivity it also allows the company
to increase service in other sectors. The same is true for McDonalds.
The idea of the drive-thru call
center is ingenious. The fact that it cut down errors by two percent and
allowed one percent more to be put back into the company may not seem like
much, but when you think about the number of McDonalds restaurants in the
United States, you are really talking about billions of dollars and burgers
(the sign says so right?). After talking to the main workforce for McDonalds,
my high school students, they were amazed at this thought. Then the fact came
out of how difficult it really is to work drive-thru, something we as adults
would not really think as being tough.
They were totally in favor of this idea and technology. They said that
it would then free up the workers inside the restaurant to do other customer
servicing like cleaning and actually greeting/talking to the customers. What
better people to talk to about shaping expectations and perspectives in the
workplace then the workers right? Teenagers expect to see this technology in
businesses. They are also the ones more adept to using it. While it may astound some of us, it is
as stated before, “normal” to them.
Building off of this “normal” I
would like to refute Friedman’s idea of the world being flat and instead
challenge the thought of the world being a sphere again. Mathematically
speaking, no matter where you place yourself on a sphere you are in the middle
of something. Everyone has the availability of being in the middle. Both
Friedman and Florida (“The World is Spiky”) discuss the economic centers of the
world. Friedman however goes along with my thought that anyone can be a
productive member of society while Florida leans more towards the idea that to
bring about new ideas, you need nurturing from others in the same location.
While Florida has good points about the rural areas slowly decreasing in terms
of patents, Friedman takes a broader view of the economy. I think Friedman is
much closer to reality than Florida is.
Friedman shares the thought that we
are each in the middle. The technology that is available to connect people,
businesses, and governments is readily available. Everyday people are becoming
famous overnight, whether it be from their talent in singing, a tweet or blog
they posted about their school, or an application they created to make their
life easier. Social media is allowing people to be heard and educated without
having to be formally introduced or instructed. Employers are able to run an
entire company without having to meet their employees personally and can pass
along decisions via networking. Technology is there and I think we need to have
the expectation in every work place that it is to be utilized. The idea of
“there’s an app for that” really is true and has the capabilities of saving
companies and people time and money. Why, as a government, are we still
printing off one-hundred page laws to get passed instead of using our Ipads to
read, highlight, comment, collaborate, adjust, change, and present these new
laws? For those who think there is a huge shift that is about to happen, I have
news for you, it’s already happened and you are now playing catch-up.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteBusche, I like your remarks on this. Some things I would like to ask is this: does not competition drive innovation? And do not restraints, say of isolation, restrict innovation? Wont an increase in population bring an unmatched increase in resources. Sure, the internet and technology has increased the availability of these ideas but is it the same as "living" with these influences? Most things dont need the human interaction these days. We are constantly connected. Every morning we check our phones, facebooks, twitters and emails without fail. But the people around us still matter, even if they are present a bulk of the time. Wouldnt Florida's example of innovation occurring in concentrated locations justify the influence of that interaction? Just a thought. Great post by the way :)
ReplyDeleteWow, there are a lot of questions in that paragraph. I'm just going to focus on the socializing issue.
ReplyDeleteI did state in my post that it is possible for employers to run a company without meeting their employees, but I also stated that by doing some of the mundane tasks through outsourcing or a computer the companies are able to focus on more customer servicing. You will always want to meet and interact with others in order to bounce ideas off of each other and be successful, but that does not mean you have to. We have proof from our postings right here. There are plenty of very wealthy business people that do not have very good social skills.
Now, coming from a high school atmosphere, I most definitely think that human interaction and social skills are necessities that teenagers are not getting enough of. I walk through the halls and students are texting each other even though they are right next to each other. I receive papers with answers of “IDK” and paragraphs with “BTW” thrown in the middle. Yes, it is great that we have all of this technology, but by no means am I saying that we don’t need socializing with people face-to-face.
Was my comment removed? Any way to retrieve it?
ReplyDeleteI have no idea what happened. I have the actual response in my email however. I can post it for you if you want. :o)
DeleteThat's one way to beat the system! Feel free to repost it for me then... from now on, I am keeping copies! Glad that I didn't offend you! I started thinking I said something horrible, haha!
DeleteHere was Uszaki1's original post:
DeleteGreetings A Bushe,
I still have a couple of pages to read with regards to Friedman’s first chapter, but I am started off the reading in almost the same fashion. At first, I thought all of the technology being discussed was already outdated. Friedman, himself, comments on how rapid the movement is and his need to put out the 2.0 and 3.0 versions… who knows how far along in the works his latest 4.0 edition is at the moment.
I was also impressed by the JetBlue business conduct and the story of McDonald’s drive-thru’s, as examples of “outsourcing” and “insourcing.” To begin, I found your comment about the working fathers at home to be an interesting one. I tried to find something in regards to JetBlue and their commitment to “stay at home dad’s,” but I was unable to find anything, especially in light of the negative news surrounding the pilot that had a mental breakdown aboard one of the recent flights. I did find something that seems to echo the words of Daniel Pink, in which he was claiming that in this new generation of workers, people tend to care less about money and are more concerned with overall happiness. How does this apply to “stay at home dad’s” and JetBlue opportunities?
In a study conducted by Boston College’s Center for Work and Family, it was found that “53% of fathers would consider not working outside the home if this option were financially feasible, leading us to infer that the role of ‘stay at home dad’ is becoming more acceptable” (2011, p.2). It’s a short abstract that can be found on the Boston College website links - http://www.bc.edu/content/dam/files/centers/cwf/pdf/Fatherhood%20Release_2011%20FINAL.pdf, but an interesting one nonetheless. If JetBlue wants to recover with some good public relations, maybe these opportunities should be further advertised. It seems that the maternal and paternal roles have been redefined and are no longer as structured, with working fathers not feeling the pressure to be these “breadwinners.” Me, personally, I think I would find myself in the 53% as well. It’s something that I struggle with everyday.
As far as the McDonald’s drive-thru story, I just wonder how long it will be until the middleman is cut out from even these operations. My wife and I both have an iPhone 4S and we use the “Siri” function. With voice recognition on the rise, how long will it be before these operations become more automated and the need for an actual person to take an order is put to the wayside? It’s amazing how accurate some of the voice recognition software is at this point. Needless to say, on my 45-minute commutes home, I am now able to voice emails to people over my Bluetooth. Since I am in a sector of education where I see constant rotation of employee (i.e. coaches), I can see where the need to make drive-thru’s more stable would be something that is constantly embraced. McDonald’s vision 1) if we can keep someone at home and retain them as an employee, in an industry that probably has a high turnover rate, we can save money not only on the other end of employees doing customer related tasks and other job responsibilities, but how much money would we be saving in training for the same job over and over again? 2) At some point, even the people that are working from home are going to search and find other “work from home” employment – should we be looking to the future and developing a product or piece of software that will last even longer than an employees stay… what if we could eliminate even the training of people at home and altogether? That’s the devil’s advocate in me… the other part of me says, how many people are now able to stay at home and develop this new software or how many new customer service branches will now be created in regards to something new like this? The future seems endless with possibilities…
Thanks for the re-post!
DeleteYour observations are good, and it’s interesting to hear the perspective of someone younger. I think about my own children, now adults (youngest 21), and the fact that they grew up so differently with technology that I certainly didn’t have. I’m 49, and can remember getting a Texas Instruments calculator, led, for Christmas one year. It cost $50.00, and had only a few basic functions. Clearly the world has changed.
ReplyDeleteI wanted to touch on your comments, regarding McDonalds and JetBlue. I agree the concepts being utilized, by allowing employees to function from home and/or other countries sounds great, and I certainly see how there may be benefits. But from someone who has actually done some of this, I will say that it sounds really good, as long as technology works and isn’t an issue, and you have employees who can truly perform in that type of environment (home). In our company, we have experienced many difficulties when becoming too dependent on technology, whether it is equipment or the Internet itself. Bandwidth and the availability of high speed, continuous Internet connections are paramount to allowing this type of “flattening” or outsourcing. What happens when the technology fails?
I would imagine each company has to perform a cost benefit analysis, to see if the unique outsourcing concepts will work for them. If errors are truly reduced and costs are lowered, even if the equipment fails 1% of the time, if may be an acceptable business risk.
In regard to your “sphere” comments… you sound like a math guy. I do like the concept though, and agree that anyone can actually participate in the global economy, using the right technological tools, if they choose too, and in essence, it’s very possible to view things from that approach. I believe how close someone is to center, would depend on many factors. In our industry, (and Friedman mentions something about this), remote x-ray readings can and do occur outside the country. However, I’d place that ability at the fringe of our healthcare industry, given the limitations physicians currently appreciate, when located outside the United States. The United States through CMS (Medicare), has imposed strict criteria for at least the Medicare population of patients, and prevents payments for out of country services. My point with that is, the market will often determine whether or not a certain industry is allowed to or has the need to create a “Spike”, or the industry itself is “flat” by it’s very nature. Perhaps the word “commodity” is appropriate.
Appreciate the cost benefit comments. Interestingly, we are trying to hire an instructional designer and an instructional technologist to work with me assisting faculty here at VCU, and quite a few applicants are assuming they can continue living in another state and do all their work via the web. I am as connected as the next person, but most of the work I do starts first with building relationships with my faculty clients...and that is more difficult to do virtually. Having said that, I follow 600 some people and Twitter and over a thousand follow me, so it is possible to build virtual relationships. But they take time to build and most faculty do not have that type of time to invest.
DeleteBut am I being a dinosaur. In building my team, should I move away from bodies residing in Richmond?
Britt,
DeleteI tend to agree with you. I find a very strong value in technology for maintaining relationships. For me, the value of social networking is in the ability to have quick check-ins on those with which I have already built a relationship and understanding. We have the shared experiences and discussions to allow a trust in one another. While I can certainly use Facebook to check on how a friend from HS is doing, Facebook can't replace the hours upon hours we spent building that relationship through an assortment of activities. I think that this may become even more true in a work environment. As a manager of a reasonably large organization on our campus, I can't imagine how those who work with me would be able to trust me, or I them, if we were unable to spend time together and enhance the relationship. This becomes even more true when you are asking others to change. I may be mistaken, but my experience with some faculty is that change is not always accepted easily. So, in times when I have been presenting change, I rely even more on the ability to enhance our personal connection to achieve the necessary buy in to implement that change.
Just my two cents...but I don't think you're a dinosaur. And, if you are, then I likely am as well.
Very good job BuschED. I am grateful you deal first hand with high school students as it sounds like you have a good pulse of their normal tech life and are able and willing to expand their thinking to a much more global mindset. I guess I am a little confused as to why you would refute Friedman's flat world theory then shift back to the sphere paradigm, not withstanding the "everyone is in the middle of somewhere" philosophy. I think Friedman's main point in describing a flat world has everything to do simply with the world wide web being so accessible and affordable that it's brought even the most remote individuals from developing nations onto the same playing field as business executives trans-globing the world making billion dollar deals or academia elite locked up in their room hiding behind the world of their thoughts and the world itself (internet) all being able to contribute and effect the lives of others. That being said, I really feel grateful that it is individuals like yourself that are willing to ram full speed ahead and make full use of the current technology, knowing full well that, yes, even a single posting on the web can change not only one but many, many peoples lives (I'm thinking for the better). Now, I'd like to see you, or perhaps one of your students, follow through with your final question:
ReplyDelete"Why, as a government, are we still printing off one-hundred page laws to get passed instead of using our Ipads to read, highlight, comment, collaborate, adjust, change, and present these new laws?"
May I suggest the title of this endeavor: Global Manifesto. It's got a nice ring to it. Just checked and the domain name globalmanifesto.net is available (sorry, .com is already taken)!
-Fr. Kevin G.
Maybe refute was a strong word. Perhaps it's not that I refute his viewpoint, but feel it would fit better to say the world truly is a sphere rather than flat. While technology is leveling the playing field a bit, I would agree with Florida more and say that innovation has a great deal to do with what resources are available. The better the technology, the better the opportunity to do great things. Which would again create a spiky technological world. I'm sure my students would be all for convincing the government to end the paper waste. I will have to bring it up to them and see what they say.
DeleteThis comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
ReplyDeleteNice post BuschED! I enjoyed reading your thoughts and comments. I like your comparison of the two authors. I would agree with enjineered.net that Friedman is referring to the accessibility of networks/technology for everyone around the globe. I agree with your point that in some ways – the whole idea is behind the times. However, on the other hand, I would say that while we have made significant advances, I truly believe we are way off from where we will continue to move in the future. Advancements in all fields continue to make work more efficient and effective. I will speak for my own district. As of today, we are using more data than we have in the past 6 years since I started working there. Most of that data comes from systems that were not available before. I think that the advancements in technology will continue to give us all better decision-making opportunities. I also believe there will continue to be a number of disruptive technologies that will cause many of us to change the way we live our lives on a daily basis.
ReplyDeleteI also thought about your comment about McDonalds now being able to better focus more on service, cleanliness, etc. Friedman discusses this idea throughout the selection as well. While I would agree that this is where the money should be spent, I would be hesitant to think that the owners are actually doing this – as opposed to using this as a simple cost savings mechanism in their bottom-line. Absolutely, one percent can make a significant difference when you think of an organization like McDonalds with 3000 plus locations.
I too really like this post, BushED. What I like about it is that you present a very different perspective than my own, much of which is probably accounted for by our age difference. I am 45 years old and remember when my college campus of 3,000 students opened its first computer lab complete with 25 IBM PS2's and one laser printer!! Sometimes I wonder how we ever did what we did. In my post I talked about today's generation being "natives" to technology. You are clearly a native and I am definitely an "immigrant." I very much look forward to learning from your perspective. One very puristic thought I hold to, however, is that even in this flat world of digital communication and the efficiency it creates and opportunities for economic growth, expanded networks, etc. we need to remember that relationship skills, communication skills, ethical leadership and a "value-added" approach will always separate great from good. Some will argue that technology innovation is the answer to economic growth and I don't disagree with that at all. What I do believe, however, is that technology use in business absent of relationships, mission, cause and purpose is limited. I don't see technology vs. personal touch as an either-or, but rather, a both-and. And I definitely agree with your final comments that the "huge shift" you refer to has definitely already happened. I am looking forward to trying to catch up with it!!
ReplyDeleteI'll check your post out ... but my first computer class involved punch cards and a computer the size of a small apartment. That said, at a young 62, I consider myself a digital native and not an immigrant. I have never thought that age had anything to do with Prensky's terms ... but rather attitude and comfort level.
DeleteAs the first to post, you have become the class comment magnet! You have risen to the task and given an excellent post for commenting. Nice job commenting back as well. An interesting conversation unfolded here!
ReplyDeleteExcellent points made in your original post. The one that struck a cord was the fact that we're constantly playing catch up (with respect to technology). This very notion is critical for organizations in that you have to be proactive promoting technology as an integral part of processes and procedures. In my Human Resources Management course, we talk about existing generational differences and utilizing those differences to educate cross-departmentally. This should very much be the case with technology and making sure that all employees embrace technology as a tool (not necessarily a way of life).
ReplyDeleteNice post, BuschEd!
ReplyDeleteYour idea that technology is present and needs to be utilized in the workplace resonates strongly with me. I agree that it is here and we cannot run from it. As an extension of that, I would like to add the classroom to that is well. As a fellow educator, this remains an enigma to some of my colleagues. Others are embracing it wholeheartedly. Challenges remain as how to teach students to use cell phones and tablets effectively as a learning tool. Currently, I allow the use of both in the classroom at certain times. I have seen tablets greatly aid students with learning disabilities in terms of note taking and organizational skills. At an instant, we can have answers to things we are discussing. I think that this is fantastic. For the most part, the students seem to have a mature outlook and respect the rules for devices in the room. I do worry because not all students have access to smart phones or tablets with networking capabilities. But, I am often able to pair them up with another student that has one and that tends to even things out. Personally, I feel that as a teacher and administrator if I don’t embrace technology in the classroom, then I am failing my students.
Also, I agree you and HoosierInTheBuckeyeState. We are always in the process of catching up with learning how to use technology, and ethics is even farther behind. I remember the first students to have MP3 players. It was not the high school students, but our middle schoolers. The high schoolers were behind them by about a year or two. Though, social networking seemed to catch on really fast, particularly Facebook. I remember adjuncting at a local college and Myspace was the craze, but Facebook seemed to displace it rather quickly. Schools are still learning and implementing rules regarding the proper usage of social networking. I must admit we are always playing catch up, I think the same might be said for companies as well. I don’t find this too discouraging; it seems to be part of the nature of humans to slowly embrace things that are different. It is only sad when such things are not embraced at all.
Cheers!
I am in the same spot you are with the technology in the classroom. We are in the process of becoming a one-to-one school either this next year or the year after. The interesting thing to me about this is the fact that we are doing this with Ipads and not even the normal computers. I will be curious to see how many teachers use this technology to their advantage and how many complain about having to adapt. It is very nice to be able to have the students look up a question and get immediate answers in class. As Einstein said, "Never memorize something that you can look up." Now, being a math teacher, I'm not completely for that, but it definitely helps at times.
Delete