Just as it takes a unique character of person to make a home here in the Last Frontier, those of us who have turned a spade in this soil know that it takes a certain kind of plant as well. They need to thrive (or at least manage) with thin and often acidic soils, a short growing season and unpredictable frosts. Perennials need a hearty tap and a diligent steward to survive the extreme over-wintering. Add to these difficulties the great regional climatic variation, and it is no wonder that so many Outsiders still express a mix of disbelief and awe when I tell them about gardening in Alaska. 

(more…)

“Reducing this nation’s dependence on foreign oil” is nearly as common a political platitude as my other favorites “crossing the aisle” and “fighting the war on terror.” But the politics of energy are of particular interest to me, not surprisingly because of their relationship to food. This column, however, is neither about eating local nor farming practices that can eliminate chemical fertilizers as strategies for reducing the oil addiction (at least not explicitly). Instead, I want to spend some time speaking out against the most popular oil alternative: ethanol. (more…)

The first time I witnessed somebody lose their job because of software I wrote was difficult. Was I innovating to make things better, or just to make them cheaper? Were my lines of code replacing processes, or people? It certainly wasn’t the first time that a new technology had replaced jobs. Still it made me question what my role as a technologist really was.

Most business professionals will tell you that you can’t keep growing if you don’t streamline. You see this regularly: large companies go through cycles of layoffs because they’ve become too bloated. Streamlining refocuses their attention and almost always initiates new growth. Innovation requires a similar adjustment, whether the innovation is a new marketing strategy or a new corporate intranet.

The point is that after the company adjusts to the new environment it is better prepared for growth. 50 jobs may have been lost in the process, but at least 50 more will be added as the company expands upon the savings of running a tighter ship. Innovation doesn’t always replace jobs. Often it will turn something menial into something more enjoyable and offers new skills to the worker.

None of this is true however with outsourcing. Outsourcing is not innovation, it’s shopping around for a better price for your materials. Just about everybody in the Bush administration has been championing a host of false benefits. John Kerry’s site has a good summary here. Bush made the vague claim in a signed statement that “..When a good or service is produced more cheaply abroad, it makes more sense to import it than make or provide it domestically.” Granted, outsourcing can positively effect your bottom line and leave you with more money to grow. But if nothing other than your financial statements have changed, any growth you achieve will be short-lived and unstable.

Alan Greenspan tried to bring these two ideas together. He suggested that the competition outsourcing creates can itself spark innovation. Indeed competition motivates companies to innovate: i.e. manufacturing a smaller cell phone or deploying a clearer cellular network technology. The competition he speaks of is competition between products and services in a market, not between workers. No amount of innovation is going to change whether or not Americans are paid a fairer wage than Indians or Malaysians.

A recent survey by the Earth Institute at Columbia University confirmed that the motivation is still actual cost savings. Have you called your bank or ISP lately? Earthlink and Citibank certainly didn’t send their callcenters overseas because India offers higher quality services. The jobs went there because they cost less.

The same study offers legitimate reasons for outsourcing, like supplementing a deficit in specialized labor. If there aren’t enough skilled radiologists in America go look elsewhere. That’s not outsourcing it’s seeking the most qualified candidates. I’d argue that customer service too is a specialized skillset - it requires that you can relate to the person you are servicing - and there are plenty of unemployed people in America capable of relating to your customers.

Last week President Bush set forth a mandate of sorts for the healthcare community to cooperatively develop a centralized electronic health records database. He also suggested that Medicare, as the largest healthcare consumer in America, should lead this effort. Cynicism and partisan politics aside, when this happens it will be a good thing. But you can’t give much credit to a person standing at the sea shore telling you that the tide is about to start coming in. Ask any technologist and they’ll agree that we all see this coming. It is part of the intended evolution of technology to replace paper filing systems.

As it was with the Internet. Everybody knew computers would eventually revolutionize worldwide communications. Networks and modems got faster and more secure, universities started connecting their networks to share information, several types of electronic mail were created, even the military was in on the action with ARPANET. Now we have the World Wide Web — something we all saw coming but had no idea what it would look like when it got here.

My real problem here is the pressure of the imposed 10 year timeline. With the Internet we could have never set out to create what we have. The beauty of the system is that it evolved through natural selection: some technologies worked and got stronger, some didn’t and faded away. Years ago the realestate industry tried to revolutionize their MLS system hoping to transform the old phonebook-style registry into to nationwide searchable database. They forced a solution rather than letting one grow with technology and are only now catching up with other similar systems like Autotrader.com and Rent.com

A centralized medical records system will be the Internet of healthcare. As such issues like ease of use, accessibility and cost of entry will be paramount to its success. Trying to build such a thing in one fell swoop will result either in a severely limited system that is too reliant on old thinking or an overbaked ‘cutting edge’ system that is so complicated it gets in its own way.

A collaborative called ‘Connecting for Health’ published some good ideas:

Creating a loose technical framework: “a non-proprietary network of networks to support the rapid acceleration of electronic connectivity that will enable the flow of information to support patient care.”Addressing financial barriers: “The development of financial and other incentives and related processes to promote improvements in healthcare quality through the adoption of clinical applications and information exchange based on standards. ” Engaging the American public: “Informing the public with a consistent set of messages to be used by government, healthcare, and consumer leaders to promote the benefits of electronic connectivity and to encourage patients and consumers to access their own health information. ”
These are identical to concepts that were critical to the development and proliferation of the Internet. They all rely on careful introspection and patients. While I admire this administration’s attempt to support such an initiative, their contribution is more likely to be that of a bull in a china shop. If they really want to help they should start by establishing grants to fund private and institutional research that can investigate and develop these new technologies. In the long run something far better than we can imagine today will emerge.