Friedman’s The World is Flat describes a triple convergence as how the ten flatteners (fall of the Berlin Wall, the rise of the PC, Netscape, work flow, outsourcing, offshoring, uploading, insourcing, supply-chaining, and in-forming) have come together to make the world a little easier, and efficient. Since this convergence, the world will never return to be the same. The first convergence describes how the ten flatteners collaborated to create work flow efficiencies. Since many did not understand or have knowledge of how these efficiencies would benefit them, they had to learn how to operate this new technology. This is the second convergence. The third convergence describes that 3 billion people suddenly were able to collaborate to the outside world due to the falling of the Berlin Wall. With these new players collaborating, new processes and habits are developed.
Through these convergences, businesses can operate at a more horizontal level than from a vertical aspect. Bosses no longer have to ask their secretaries to research, search, and find. They have the tools to operate simple tasks that before, would be pushed to secretaries or other personnel.
In the story of India and Indiana, Friedman depicts how the state of Indiana outsourced an upgrade for their division of unemployment to India. After the public found out about the outsourced project, many protested to keep the work in the states. Thus, the project would cost more taxpayer dollars. I think both India and Indiana were exploited. India had already started on the large task of updating the system; they trained professionals, sent them to Indiana, and had begun the process of gathering data. India would hire subcontractors from the United States to accomplish some of the work and also save the state of Indiana eight million dollars. Indiana cancelled the contract with India, paid India almost one million, and contracted with many companies inside the United States to accomplish the upgrade.
One ironic thing that happens more often than not is that the state of Indiana’s unemployment division outsourced the upgrade project outside the United States. Again, the unemployment office sent work outside the United States. That does not make much sense. Instead of creating jobs and decrease the unemployment rate, the work was sent outside. Yes, some work was to be contracted to companies inside the United States; but after outsourcing to an outside firm, Indiana had no control what was to take place. A downfall for Indiana is that the project cost much more than what was quoted by India, thus costing taxpayers more resources. This situation is known as a catch-22. Since the state decided to cancel the contract with India, and contract with companies inside the United States, the state ended up paying India for the work that was done, then spend more time and resources on contractors; thus costs increase dramatically. To me, both were exploited.
According to the government website www.stopfakes.gov, intellectual property consists of “any innovation, commercial or artistic, or any unique name, symbol, logo or design used commercially.” As the world becomes flatter, protecting intellectual property is becoming more difficult and harder to keep as one’s property. When information, tasks, or projects are sent outside the United States, the information sent can be taken, used, manufactured, and distributed. The entities outside the United States do not fall under U.S. jurisdiction and can do anything with the information sent to them. For this reason, it is not a good idea to send all outsourcing material to one vendor. That outside vendor can take all the sensitive material, copy, manufacture, and distribute the product; and in most cases, cheaper, quicker, and with equal quality.
The reading this week (pages 200-259) was very interesting. Many good points were brought up including why preserve some boundaries in the flat world. Reasons why some boundaries still remain are because people want some information to be private. Some don’t want all of their secrets to be disclosed, because if their system is better than their competition’s system. Their competition could possibly adopt a similar system, which could be detrimental to the success of the company.
No comments:
Post a Comment