Re: Making CSP into a success

["Stephen Maudsley" <stephen.maudsley@xxxxxxxxx>]

----- Original Message -----
From: "M_Boosten" <mboosten@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
To: <java-threads@xxxxxxxxx>; <occam-com@xxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Friday, 29 September, 2000 12:23 AM
Subject: Making CSP into a success


> "To every one in particular,"
>
> I would like to start a discussion on a HOT topic, however:
>
> * I realize that this mail can be seen as very critical,
>   it is just meant to make you think about whether there
>   is some truth in my remarks...
> * This mail presents a very black & white view,
>   the truth is always somewhere inbetween
> * This mail is not addresses to anyone in particular
> * I think with CSP, you actually have got an top-quality topic, as
>   a industrialist with an acadamic heart, I predict a near
>   future industrial breakthrough...
>
> The following needs to be done to make a success of the CSP-based
> initiatives:
> 1. Acadamics should realize that they are acadamics.
>    You are an acadamic if you match the following pattern:
>    1. Your are (mainly) interested in research.
>    2. You are performing research.
>    3. You are happy with your situation.
>    4. You do not have a strong drive to either earn lots of
>       money, nor to get into a politically powerful position.
>    NOTE: I think Acadamics build the far future: it is a beautiful
>          profession.  If you are a true acadamic, you have got
>          something to be very proud of.
> 2. The professional task of an acadamic is as follows:
>    (1) Investigate interesting topics, for each topic:
>    (2) Define the use of that topic.
>    (3) Define the limitations of that topic, decompose the topic
>        into sub-topics, and repeat (1) for each individual sub-topic.
>    (4) Think of practical usages of that topic.
>    (5) Provide practical proof of the usage of the topic
>        in a laboratory-like situation.
>    (6) Cooperate with industry to take full advantage within
>        the practical requirement boundaries of industry.
> 3. Acadamics should be aware not to:
>    1. Forget (2)
>    2. Be very clear about (3), try not to investigate too many ideas
>       at once
>    3. To not go too far in (4)
>    4. To realize that their practical uses (5) is typically
>       laboratory-like, and not directly suitable for
>       industry (6).
>    In general, acadamic do investigate interesting topics very
>    well, after they have started to like their own ideas, and grown
>    into them, they think they can change the world with a laboratory rat.
>    Note that by extracting an industrial problem, and solving that
>    very problem, a LOT OF respect and understanding can be gained.
> 4. Acadamics should realize the industrialists (generally people who
>    are eager for both success and money) will pick up their ideas
>    if they produce (1) readable, well-understandable papers, that (2)
>    solve real-life problems, and (3) show which problems will not be
>    solved, and which category of techniques complements the new ideas.
>    For serious industry, money is peanuts compared to a practically
>    useable idea.
> 5. Real acadamics (those strongly matching the pattern) are unsuitable
>    to become industrialists.  However, they should realize that by
>    focussing on "4.", and succeeding, they have proven (1) to really
>    have a good idea, and (2) to be a true and respectable acadamic.
>
> Example:
> - Realize that Occam at the moment is a laboratory rat, one with a
>   very nice character, but a very ugly one.
> - Do not try to put make-up on the ugly rat... (forget the syntax
nonsence)
> - Identify its limitations.
> - Tell the world the rat is very ugly, but the a good character is
>   much more important.
> - Tell the world that the baby rats can be pretty, if only a beautiful
>   mother rat would pass by.
>
> If you are an acadamic, I invite you to think of at least 3 other
> occasions in which you made the mistakes mentioned in "3."...
>
> (please read this again)
> * I realize that this mail can be seen as very critical,
>   it is just meant to make you think about whether there
>   is some truth in my remarks...
> * This mail presents a very black & white view,
>   the truth is always somewhere inbetween
> * This mail is not addresses to anyone in particular
> * I think you actually have got an top-quality topic, as
>   a industrialist with an acadamic heart, I predict a near
>   future industrial breakthrough...
>
> I'm sure the industrialists can provide plenty of very
> serious practical problem for which a neat solution is
> needed.  I definitely know I can come up with one, or
> or more.  Also industrialists at CPA2000 have...
>
> What does EVERY ONE think...?

- research is a process not a person specification
- most of the successful technology startups in recent years have NOT
followed a strict rulebase as you specify but have had very fuzzy edges
between research and development
- state of the art product development often has large areas of "lack of
knowledge" and so product developers have to incorporate research processes
into their activities
- successful businesses usually revolve around a small number of individuals
who are distinctive in their personality
- successful academic ideas usually revolve around a small number of
individuals who are distinctive in their personality