Volt! Volt! Volt!
Electric cars have been springing up here and there the last few years but none have received as much publicity as the GM Volt. One of my newsfeeds deals with electric cars and whenever there’s a Volt press release I get the equivalent of newsfeed spam - ‘Volt! Volt! Volt! Volt!’ Not nearly as much attention given to the Tesla Roadster, which actually exists.
I suppose it’s newsworthy that GM has taken the lead amongst the major car manufacturers in the plug-in hybrid electric vehicle (PHEV) market, and that they seem committed to actually producing something. Now, I doubt that this particular car will be built. But the concept will lead to something practical. Here’s what I think of their concept thus far:
- The electric-only range is 40 miles, and the gasoline-assisted range is over 600 miles. The former is a sweet spot for local driving - you hardly ever need to gas up if you can run on electric only going to work, the store, etc. The latter is a sweet spot for distance driving. In other words, GM hit the mark in the functionality department. It would be better with an electric-only range of 80 miles but beggars can’t be choosers.
- An electric-only range of 40 miles or more will rewrite the concept of ‘city driving fuel economy.’ As people learn the benefits of local electric-only driving, we’ll see real-world fuel economies in the 200-300 MPG range.
- They need to stop worrying about batteries, unless they are concerned more about cornering the market on advanced battery tech. Right now nanotech-enhanced lithium batteries are here and will experience economy of scale cost reduction the next few years.
- I am still frustrated having to wait until 2010 for a viable PHEV - I hope someone else gets their act together earlier. Toyota could EASILY produce a PHEV version of the Prius - just modify the control system and make the battery bigger.
Trip Report - Visit to the Institute for Systems Biology
This one sort of goes along with my post on synthetic biology.
A few weeks ago I accompanied two of my scientist colleagues on a trip to the Institute for Systems Biology in Seattle. We’re developing a concept for a new laboratory and wanted to get some ideas. One of my colleagues has a professional relationship with an ISB co-founder, Leroy Hood. You may recognize the name - Dr. Hood is the godfather of DNA sequencing. The ISB focuses on several bioscience/biotech areas: predictive/preventative/personalized medicine, immunity, systems biology of disease, model organisms, technology development, and computational biology, with an occasional foray into areas like bio-energy.
We met with some of the engineers and architects responsible for the lab fit-out, and took a tour of the facility (you can take a virtual tour yourself). It was, in a word, amazing. Not so much for what we saw, but for what we DIDN’T see.
We didn’t see territorialism, or turf battles, or professionally-aligned fiefdoms. ISB is a cross-disciplinary collaborative organization. Everything about it - from the way the professionals interact to the facility layout itself - challenges the fundamental assumptions of a research organization.
The most obvious departure from the norm was the seamless integration of labs, offices, and meeting spaces. Labs were truly open - no scientist or group ‘owned’ a lab, the lab areas were as open as the office cubicles. The lab and offices were layed out to encourage ‘collisions’ - the architecture forced interaction and discussion. Meeting areas, especially smaller ones, were plentiful. As we toured from floor to floor, the entire facility practically screamed ‘highly collaborative environment!’
And cross-disciplinary collaboration is what ISB is all about. Focusing on the relatively young field of systems biology (which sprung from the results of the Human Genome Project), ISB integrates biologists, mathematicians, computer scientists, and physicists in a highly collaborative fashion, maximizing unique perspectives and thinking in the problem solving process.
ISB is the best illustration of the reversing assumptions tool that I have encountered.
- Assumption - scientists work with scientists in their common discipline. Reversed - scientists collaborate with professionals from diverse, unrelated fields.
- Assumption - scientists control labs designated for their team. Reversed - laboratories are unassigned, opened for all to use.
- Assumption - innovations in biology are the result of research performed primarily by biologists. Reversed - novel, breakthrough innovations in systems biology are the result of the cross-disciplinary collaborative approach.
How do you create an organization like this from scratch? It helps to have highly creative thinkers like Dr. Hood and his colleagues in charge. But another striking thing we noticed about the organization - the vast majority of scientists were young, 10 years or less out of school. We got the feeling that the scientists were ‘trained’ to collaborate and innovate ‘the ISB way’ from day one.
The visit to the ISB shifted my thinking on how a research organization should operate, and how to optimize the organization and facility structure to maximize the potential for breakthrough innovation.
Sphere: Related Content