Monday, May 24, 2010

Knowledge and Competitive Advantage: Development of Knowledge Centres

This book specifically focuses on three countries: UK, US and Germany. In order to make the user understand the context of observations, the writer explains the attitude towards education in these three countries and its corresponding effect on the dyes industry. But what were these attitudes?

In UK, where the first industrial revolution was led by inventors and tinkerers with no special education background, education on the whole was ignored in favour of practical experience. Except the centres of excellence at Oxford and Cambridge, not much attention was paid to education. This was especially true for synthetic organic chemistry, a crucial component for the development of the dyes industry. Even though London was plush with imperial capital, it found itself lagging behind Germany and US in this sector.

The US spent heavily on education, but with a very pragmatic outlook. Generally, only if research could prove directly and immediately beneficial was it encouraged. Engineering, management and other practical disciplines got a major boost and in turn contributed to the growth of US as an industrial superpower. US, however, largely ignored research for research's sake and consequently lagged behind in organic chemistry. Nevertheless, it researched production of base chemicals and its firms producing base chemicals were fairly competitive in the global arena.

Germany made research and knowledge the backbone of its industrial setup. Its strong knowledge economy and commitment to research helped it to produce figures like Hoffmann and Kekule in the field of organic chemistry. This, along with the fortuitous timing of the German patent law, helped Germans to dominate the global pharmaceuticals and synthetic dyes industries. Overall, students who wanted to study organic chemistry needed to know German and many travelled to Germany to obtain PhD in organic chemistry.

No comments: