The Kaiser exception
Observation I've made too often: New gadgets are rarely new. Most are either variations of present gadgets or long-standing old dreams that suddenly become possible. Why possible? New materials. The last truly new invention was around 1908. Everything since then is materials.

Material advancement leads to gadget advancement.

By numerical economics, you'd think a material maker would try to develop gadgets to use the material. Best way to expand your sales!

Nope, it ALMOST never happens that way. Makers of materials almost never spawn or produce gadgets that are enabled by the material.

Cotton growers didn't turn into clothing makers.

Lumbermills didn't turn into housebuilders.

Coal mines didn't turn into electric power companies.

Steelmakers didn't turn into carmakers.

Tungsten miners didn't build light bulbs or vacuum tubes.

Glassmakers (silicon) didn't make transistors.

= = = = =

There are some complex or parallel situations. Ford developed its own iron and wood supplies. Edison (GE) started with appliances, then became a major producer of electricity to help sell more appliances. In both cases the gadgets came first.

= = = = =

By far the most common pattern is old gadget makers turning into new gadget makers.

Carriage builders became (or were absorbed into) auto makers.

Light bulb makers specialized into vacuum tubes.

Tube makers who specialized in miniature tubes moved directly into transistors.

= = = = =

One giant exception to the rule.

Henry Kaiser broke the rule FOUR TIMES and succeeded each time.

Started with a gravel pit here in Spokane.

From gravel he expanded to concrete.

From concrete he expanded into building dams with concrete.

From the power generated by the dams he developed an aluminum industry.

From aluminum into ships.

Each of these is a switch from a material to a thing that uses the material.

He pulled the usual old-gadget to new-gadget switch only once: Ships to cars.

= = = = =

Conclusion: For everyone but Henry Kaiser, skill overrules simple economics. The skills of mining or growing don't translate into the skills of manufacturing.

Labels: skill-estate

  ¶ 9:23 AM