From the Editor's Desk

My October column in Mechanical Engineering magazine.

It sounds like a classic example of the tail wagging the dog—and if it is, that’s just fine—but now that GM is making money, as profits hit $6.2 billion last year and the company has $32 billion in cash, many American manufacturers can exhale a deep sigh of relief knowing that it is possible to return to profitability.

It may not be quite yet the time to rejoice in the growth of reverse globalization, but the U.S. might be starting to reclaim some of its turf. The fact is that some manufacturers do tend to prefer their supply chains close to market instead of a world away. Plus, as logistical costs increase, the cost differential of doing business outside borders is lessening. Going offshore is not just about paying workers less; considerations such as the costs of things like electricity, taxes, land, and the increase of indirect supply chain costs are part of the equation on whether to manufacture in the U.S. or outside of it. Additionally, some countries restrict foreign access to government contracts, making the incentive to go international less attractive.

With these factors in mind, some economists believe the U.S. could supplant China as the manufacturing hub of the world by 2022.

Our story of GM’s resurgence, written by Alan Brown, is a case study on how one large American iconic company has pulled itself from the brink of extinction and turned its fortunes. In some ways, it’s a feel-good story about American perspicacity. It is also a story about the willingness to work hard, despite setbacks, during a time that seemed desperate.

Ten years ago last month, New Yorkers along with all Americans and most of the world were shocked over the terrorist attacks that brought down the World Trade Center and crippled New York City. Ten years after all seemed bleak, the city—still bearing a heavy heart over the thousands of people who perished—has rebounded. While doing so, New Yorkers have demonstrated the resilience of the human spirit.

Successful entrepreneurs are innovators who push the envelope and do things differently.

By thinking differently about how to solve today’s grand energy challenges, we can change the future.

To read full article, visit www.asme.org or http://bit.ly/nb57Ru

I don’t want to remember 9/11. Why would anyone? It was one of the worst days this country has witnessed in modern history.

Many of us have tried to put that day behind us and move on. Some of us are still in therapy trying to move forward, without looking back. But for the past few days 9/11 has been inescapable. The media hounds us with tributes, and remembrances of the soot-soiled swarms of people running away from the befallen Twin Towers—running for their lives.

What’s so special about 10 years, anyway? What makes the 10th anniversary any more special than the 8^th, or the 9^th, or the 12^th?

Every day we live with a heavy heart because of the powerless lives lost that day. Every day we realize the equality of the human being. It didn’t matter whether it was the waiter working Windows on the World that perished, or the power broker, master of the universe, he was waiting on. At the end of the day, at the end of 9/11, they were both just helpless human beings, as they were the day they were born.

Everyone wants me to remember 9/11, as if I have ever forgotten it.

I was in Houston at a conference learning about the latest advances in sensors and instrumentation. My son, then 7, was back home in New York with my ex-wife, who worked at Tower Two.

It wasn’t until 6 in the afternoon that I found out my son was OK, and that my ex was too. It turns out our babysitter was late and Kathy made it to her building just as it was collapsing, right before her eyes. My kid was OK too, though who knows what long-lasting impact that day may have on him, or, for that matter, on the rest of us.

My colleagues and I didn’t get home until days later. One of them took the first bus out. He arrived back even after I did. I’ve kept the ticket to a baseball game I was scheduled to go to that day. It reads: Enron Field, Houston Astros vs. San Francisco Giants, Tuesday, September 11, 2001. My how things have changed.

Spectacularly, the people of Houston, the same as others throughout the country, lined the city’s streets to donate blood. The coming together on 9/11 was a byproduct of the crime that the terrorists couldn’t have foreseen.

As tributes to those who died on 9/11, some fire engines in New York remain inscribed with the words, “We will never forget.” I see them all the time. I don’t want to remember 9/11, but how can I ever forget?

If you’d like to share your thoughts, I invite you to do so.

My June column in Mechanical Engineering magazine:

The morning after U.S. President Barack Obama announced the death of Osama bin Laden, stock markets rose significantly. It was only temporary: Nothing had changed in the world’s economic fundamentals to justify the spike. Rather, it was, as some market strategists call it, a “euphoric bounce”—a simple case of human reaction to an event, reflexively leading to investor confidence. As both investors and non-investors have learned the hard way, financial markets are volatile, with bulls and bears roaming the economic landscape seemingly on their own volition.

Not as capricious as economic markets, but equally vulnerable, are global supply chains which are subject to unforeseen world events that impact the flow of goods. The latest such example is the catastrophe that struck Japan in March, but there have been other natural upheavals and complex-system failures in recent years that also have jeopardized the distribution of raw materials and finished products.

Those along the supply chain—manufacturers and distributors, among others—are vulnerable to ruptures of the chain’s links because these breaks cannot be predicted. Yet there is a need to somehow manage the unknown vulnerabilities, since a failure to manage these risks and prevent disruptions can be disastrous.

We asked James B. Rice, Jr., the deputy director of the MIT Center for Transportation and Logistics and the director of the Integrated Supply Chain Management Program at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology in Cambridge, to give us his perspective. Rice managed manufacturing and distribution operations at Procter & Gamble before joining MIT so his essay, the subject of this month’s cover story, “Only as Strong as the Weakest Link,” is written by one who knows the subject both as a scholar and as a practitioner.

Rice argues that, “Companies need to consider creating action plans in order to manage the risks arising from the inevitable disruptions that significantly affect business operations and supply chains. Failure to do this could leave companies every bit as fragile as the supply chains they rely upon.”

Because the world has never been more integrated, a breakdown in one part of the world will affect another part, thousands of miles away.

A major reason the world has become so connected is the advent of wireless technologies that enable effective supply chains to function uninterrupted and communicate reliably, allowing real-time collaboration.

Even so, there are geographic regions where the supply chain, for various reasons, is not long enough to reach certain people, notably those in developing countries who live on only a couple of dollars a day. For them, the supply chain is limited to adjoining villages or often non-existent.

In these areas, the challenge is to develop locally based appropriate technologies. In the article, “Appropriate to the People,” Rolfe Leary, a volunteer at Compatible Technology International and a lecturer in bioscience engineering, provides an insightful first-person account of what it’s like on the ground.

There is congruence between the seemingly disparate supply chains that exist in so-called developed nations and those being created in developing nations. The challenge is to understand and respect the nuances of each in order to build stability in diverse markets and benefit local consumers.

My May column in Mechanical Engineering magazine:

A few weeks ago, Amy Smith of MIT’s D-Lab, challenged the chair of Ball State University’s architecture department to a corn-shelling contest. She won big.

The contest was rigged to prove a point. Mahesh Senagala, the architect, had to use his hands, while Smith used a tool made from an old tin can cut out into the shape of an O-ring with a rough interior surface that scraped off the kernels as the ear of corn was pushed through it. It took a couple of seconds for her to complete the task. Senagala, his hands stinging, did fine, but was no match for Smith.

The contraption appeared simple enough. But in developing countries where the staple food is corn, the corn-shelling tool is revolutionary. The corn is used for food, and the cobs, far from being agricultural waste, deliver a significant cooking fuel alternative that is less expensive and healthier than wood fuels. Burning charcoal made of corn cobs instead of wood also has the potential to reduce deforestation.

Because such inventions as the corn-sheller improve living conditions in poor areas, the prospect of creating new tools continues to inspire local innovators as well as engineers and designers around the world who are willing to share their know-how to help make these products most efficient. Innovators also want to help develop sustainable infrastructures, such as affordable housing in urban slums, and products like wheelchairs that withstand the rigors of local terrains (more on this in a moment).

Smith—who last year was named one of Time magazine’s 100 most influential people in the world for her determination to promote local innovation and technology creation—and Senagala were part of a group of thinkers meeting at a workshop sponsored by the National Science Foundation in conjunction with ASME, Ball State University, Engineering for Change, and IEEE. They gathered to examine how engineering and design advances can be adapted to support people living in what has been called the base of the pyramid (2.5 billion people living on less than $2.50 a day). Those participating, including Harvard- and Oxford-trained architects and leading engineers, identified ways in which research in this area—sometimes referred to as “extreme affordability,” a controversial term coined at Stanford University—can be legitimized. While this sort of research is common and lauded in some countries, in others, like the United States, research often focuses on breakthrough technologies on the grand scale. And while no one would dispute the need for this work, there is also a need to raise the profile of research focusing on designs for emerging markets.

Amos Winter, founder of MIT’s Mobility Lab, focuses on creating technologies for people with disabilities in developing countries. His most noteworthy invention is the Leveraged Freedom Chair, a wheelchair that is faster than traditional chairs and durable enough to navigate safely across multi-terrain environments. It is built locally with bicycle parts. Winter is passionate and makes a compelling case for the need for structured research in this area.

Because product development in the Third World faces diverse cultural, economic, and technical hurdles, it stands to reason that applied research in this space is worth pursuing in the United States so that we all understand the challenges and the rewards, and foremost, so that we all get it right.