Car ban: the sharing economy trapped in China dilemma
Original title: “sharing” economic depression-China dilemma: dripping from the car ban to start
Drop shuttle shortly after launch in August 14, Shanghai Municipal traffic Bureau announced: drop car is black, trading is illegal, then on 26th to seizing the 12 drops of special trains, 5 car drivers are administrative fines of 10,000 yuan, the remaining 7 vehicles are still under investigation. This matter involves social innovation, where it is worth digging. See Yang Miao, an article entitled “Why can’t Shanghai, Ma? Because of the traffic official of the jerk, “Although there is some truth, but it is not mentioned in some places, so write an article to read from a more macro perspective, this matter.
Three stories shared and exclusive
The first story is about cloud computing. Cloud computing in recent years become a hot word, present AWS is the most successful abroad, but such software giant Microsoft watched himself to fall behind, is very worried, playing catch-up, CEO Nader pulled from Microsoft’s move, Microsoft internal cloud is likely to have been mentioned at the location high above the Windows. There are many kinds of cloud computing, but the bottom is actually from exclusive to shared. Everyone wants to buy their own servers, results a high vacancy rate, peak is not enough, that if someone can provide a virtual server, you can dynamically expand and cost advantages, why not use it? So sharing is one of the most important drivers of cloud computing, the main stumbling block is the security, if the cost advantage cannot be hedged the security concerns of businesses or individuals that this model does not come.
Second story comes from a book. Recently the third industrial revolution of jieli·milifujin, author of a new book called the zero marginal cost society, the book’s subtitle is “a new era of networking, cooperation and win-win.” book went to great length to explain an economic model based on sharing, which shared 12th chapter refers to the logistics. Logistics in the shared section, the author points out the shared root cause of more efficiently than proprietary:
Most of the car’s load factor is low, United States 60%, many places are only about 10%.
Manufacturers, wholesalers, distributors often store merchandise in place is far from the end.
Logistics efficiency and cause dealers to stop delivery.
Product transportation and had to detour routes. (Note: this should be about the 2nd)
Lack of common standards and protocols, resulting in logistics enterprise resources cannot be shared, improving efficiency.
Authors think should be switched to the current mode share mode delivery should be distributed, such as:
The first near the Center, the driver delivered the goods, and pull up the other trailers of goods returned; the second driver will ship the goods to send to the line on the next Center, ports, railway yards, and so on.
This obviously also easier to measure in economic gains (delivery times can be reduced by half in the example authors), but to reach this goal, we must first solve the problem of sharing among the various logistics companies, if not shared warehouse and distribution center, then this desire no better is always only in one party of water.
Last story is the car drops things. Abstract car drops with the logistics, the cloud is similar to the situation. From the car’s perspective, it is clear that there are various peaks, and in order to avoid wasting taxi is bound to cannot be configured according to the peak, so reality must have been more used car without a car. From the perspective of vehicle there must be a lot of capacity by vacant. Punch through both of which must be an appropriate way of sharing, shared access standards, but is a matter of details. If the warehouse logistics’s logistics shared resistance might come from inside the company, share on that car from the Shanghai traffic authority action, it appears very much resistance from regulatory levels, as for more specific causes, such as laws, awareness, benefit structure, this article does not relate.
From exclusive to shared is actually a mode of transition, all three respectively embody the three sources of obstacles: from either the transformation of the subject needs to be done, such as logistics companies after either from transition economies need to deal with customers, for example, companies may be reluctant to use cloud services may come from either regulatory levels. More reality involved in the infrastructure (energy, transport, etc) from greater regulatory levels of resistance can be. From solution difficulty view, from customer of resistance most simple, because as long as proceeds enough big, customer will do reason select; from enterprise of slightly difficult, because this needs is good of cooperation spirit, always believes white knowing long by sword of compared to cooperation (like: Baidu and 360, charm family and millet of cooperation apparently will difficult), last a most difficult, because this will involved many non-commercial of and people related of complex factors (like: drops drops car this class things of solution).
I once wrote an article called ‘ in the Woods in the dark looking for the light of civilization to explore the difficulties of inter-firm cooperation, not repeat them here, this article focuses on the last such difficulties.
Social innovation dilemma
In this book the innovator’s dilemma framework can be used to analyse social innovation of thought, the main thrust of the book is not complicated, it says:
When a company is very powerful in a time such as Kodak film camera, it would have formed around this powerful synergy of values, processes, resources, and this way is like a shell, shell things constantly being strengthened, let outside things are on hold and abandoned. When the film camera is Kodak’s main source of profits, when it is difficult to make a digital camera, because it is new, it is certainly risking, struggle, and initially low profit does not make much, normal person who would do such a thing? So act as a market failure is often Pan Keli bear stand up tease blown disaster sole Qiang Mo generation such as ∑ porcelain oval buck conformity with minced wild is worth neigh enemy margin threshold Mu sole star gamma stretch rubber Satay ash falls up Chun tu Shan dioxins one fine-Mo disaster an ancient pot Bell AO
Drops can also be placed in the framework of this special train this above around the old way (rental) have formed a joint approach values, processes, resources, and this cooperation could benefit distribution, employment, stability, politically correct, legal and so on. If you allow sharing of this new approach, it will definitely break the original pattern, while political risks in taking new things to go wrong. There is more trouble than innovation, in enterprises where the Kodak is not doing, Canon will do, but here in the social innovation, the Government does not do, you won’t be able to go over. In order to break the dilemma of social innovation only in two ways, either illegal (including walking on the edge), or count on enlightened regulatory levels. Since things like that in fact a number of reform, two of the most typical are Xiaogang village work and fool seeds, one that affects the fundamental land system in the countryside, an influence on the rise of township enterprises, makes the two things that really profoundly affected our lives today, but basically in the “offense” and open on the top floor, with the completion of the two.
Social innovation is concerned, to try to break the dilemma, does not explicitly prohibited by law place more attempts to encourage civil, followed by regulatory levels using the Internet to quickly gather feedback and establishing appropriate monitoring mechanisms, while not suitable for quickly killing, this causes the already weak innovation is rapidly dying, losing the future.
If the stagnation of social innovation and how’s that going?
If reform is the key point of social change, then most likely facilitated by the Internet ushered in the second point.
Certainly a lot of the benefits of development and other technologies for the Internet, such as making life easier for us to buy cheaper, service provider, Twitter app will let us communicate with people, but there is one key point was very closely associated with the social innovation, handled properly will let technology turn bad. The point is the problem of employment, basic trends of our times is fewer people deal with big business. Let us not forget the app worth 50 billion dollars but only used by hundreds of people, of course, if the detailed comparison of Tencent and single output value in angang, which became more pronounced. Much leverage over the Internet was super high, fewer people will be able to meet the needs of a lot of people.
Large-scale manufacturing enterprises (such as steel) is very easy to absorb personnel employment, but as the level of automation increases, most of them were eliminated from their jobs down (on this point, the zero marginal cost society in detailed lists of the United States figures).
Although it is impossible to accurately calculate the exact numbers, but in automation and high leverage under the impetus of these two forces must be unable to afford the existing social structure of employment should be determined by so many people. While this change is by the Internet and technology to speed up, so a key question is what the rest of us what to do?
This requires the progressive social innovation. Social innovation needs to be gradual, otherwise it is revolutionary.
From exclusive to shared may not be able to solve this problem, but logically only one commonly associated with other people, share resources and provide personalized services may solve this problem, or at least, that is one idea. So my personal opinion is drops car innovations like this not only should not be banned, but should be encouraged, of course, to be incorporated into the specific legal framework the following.
Concluding remarks
In front of the tide of technology we never retreat, unless a nuclear war sort of thing leads to ruin, otherwise I believe that technological development will only push us forward, and technology development would reconstitution relationships, this time purely Conservative, seeing new things on a stick and killed, did not actually have, in the long term, this could lead to bigger problems. Assuming a regulatory role better suited to face in a gesture of embrace such changes, the only trouble is present in order to form a positive feedback loop, businesses and thinking seems to be no shortage, but no top-down liberal thing is bound to get stuck somewhere.
Author of subscription number: zuomoshi (figure)