Green Manufacturing? Tech Can Help.
Are You Using Analytics as Building Blocks?

China Technology Innovation Comes of Age
Software and copyright registrations in China now top 2,200 per day -- up 47% over the government’s prior five-year plan -- and patent applications thus far in 2015 are running 21% ahead of last year. Invention is back in vogue here, and the entrepreneurial energy driving this economy is China’s own.
Despite the global impact of the recent recession, Chinese innovation is quickly beginning to reshape the landscape, and the State Intellectual Property Office doesn’t shy away from showing off new stats on Chinese creative growth.
But what does innovation in the “new China” really mean, especially for American firms?
While there is healthy skepticism about official data releases, there is a constellation of reasons for China’s rising star, beginning with demographic factors that will challenge the United States and other Western nations when it comes to competition in a tech-driven future. Consider the dramatic shift in education and more specifically in science, technology, engineering, and math degrees. Back in 1999, fewer than 1 million Chinese students obtained a university degree of any kind, but by 2014 the number had grown to 7 million. On this measure, China bypassed the United States in 2004, which is concerning but not surprising given China’s scale. A more eye-opening and alarming fact is that China awards 31%of its degrees to engineering students while America awards just 5% of its degrees to such students.
By any measure, that is a tremendous surge of talent being unleashed into the Chinese economy, particularly in R&D, and it’s just one of the reasons why American corporations need to reassess their ability to compete, their views of China’s potential, and their strategies for innovation.
Many companies continue to underestimate the strength and capability of Chinese competitors and dismiss their prospects because of dated assumptions about Chinese culture, Chinese governance, Chinese ethics or some combination thereof. Far too many American business leaders continue to echo the bravado of American exceptionalism that U.S. Vice President Joe Biden voiced last year, when he praised America’s GDP powerhouse, research universities, and advances in energy technologies, and added: “But I challenge you, name me one innovative project, one innovative change, one innovative product that has come out of China.”
Rhetoric aside, there are plenty. For example, Xiaomi, which has commandeered one-sixth of the market for smartphones in China in less than five years to become the market leader, is now going global and gaining traction in a wide range of additional high tech applications.
Western businesses can’t afford to ignore Chinese ingenuity."
Well-known firms like Tencent, Baidu, and Alibaba are recognized as innovators in communications, search, and e-commerce. Others include Haier in appliances and ZTE in network gear. All have distinctive stories of how innovation gave rise to the company or helped the company attack a new market.
Chinese creativity has been, at best, an oxymoron in the eyes of innovative Western firms, because the rigidity and centralized economic structure of five-year plans and the philosophies that support them don’t have a reputation for cultivating a culture of design -- at least not as most American and multinational executives understand. The reality is that firms like Tencent, the creator of WeChat, are delivering the kind of design quality and user experience that rivals American products in rapid fashion. In just five years, WeChat has attracted more than 500 million users -- an achievement on par with Western success stories like Apple, Facebook, and Uber.
Tales of innovation are spreading rapidly, creating a new entrepreneurial class that will soon rival that of Silicon Valley in number if not in longevity. It’s true that more formal Chinese culture doesn’t align with individualism and the maverick nature of many American entrepreneurs, but assumptions about Chinese creativity on the basis of culture are largely rooted in antiquated assumptions.
Western businesses can’t afford to ignore Chinese ingenuity. In the quest to ensure competitiveness, some American firms are now revamping their own R&D efforts in order to better leverage emerging Chinese creativity in their organizations and processes -- a trend that most experts feel will grow as China’s raw talent matures.
American Companies Rethink China Innovation Strategy
Yet, there is some truth in how cultural influences constrain the Chinese entrepreneurial space. In June, Foreign Policy translated and reprinted a Chinese blog author (registration required) who underscores why creative culture is such an advantage for American firms.
“We lack an environment conducive to creativity. Innovation is not something that a single person can accomplish by just closing the door and thinking hard,” said the author. “But Chinese are not good at using lively debate to turn a spark of originality into a developed idea, and Chinese companies aren’t skilled at using cooperation and competition, or 'coopetition,' to innovate.”
In the view of the blogger, the cultural and political influences that transform, that turn the tech startup scene into discoveries that create value and change lives, are Western strengths, not China’s. But the author also addresses the legitimacy of all those patent applications, which many American analysts question for their quality, their rigor -- and often enough, their provenance. The author hits head-on the flawed research and the questionable discoveries, as well as China’s reputation for absorbing the ideas of others.
The intellectual property rights problem can’t be overlooked, and legal recourse and other remedies for infringement remain woefully inadequate. But many managers of Western multinationals too readily discount recent structural improvements in Chinese patent law, which are worth understanding and which can lead to more informed research and development strategies.
Staying aware of key local developments on standard-setting is also valuable, because it can signal early policy changes in government-led reform efforts. Engagement of this kind, while demanding extraordinary patience, can contribute to incremental changes in one’s innovation approach vis-à-vis Chinese firms -- and deliver long-term profitability and value.
American technology companies who shifted away from using joint ventures in China, preferring the independence of wholly-owned entities that allow better intellectual property protection, are now starting to shift back, recognizing that special-purpose alliances can play an important role.
The next Steve Jobs won’t come from China. But he’ll need China if he expects to build a global company."— Yuquan Wang, founding partner of Haiyin Capital
Going it alone seemed logical at first, but it turned into “applied protectionism” because it limited access to the market knowledge best derived through the kind of relationships that local partner-companies so readily obtain, but which elude multinationals. Even as some companies taper their China strategy, others are moving to embrace China even more ambitiously, looking for the mutually beneficial win-win that Chinese can offer despite less-than-perfect market conditions.
“The next Steve Jobs won’t come from China,” says Yuquan Wang, founding partner of Haiyin Capital, in a July China Business Review interview. “But he’ll need China if he expects to build a global company. Our idea is to find those companies in the U.S. and help them use China to achieve explosive growth.”
That’s an observation worth noting for its clarity, and the Chinese surely do. Global products and services are being emulated by Chinese firms, and importantly, not just copied, but improved.
Chinese venture capitalists are constantly on the hunt for concepts that work elsewhere in the world but have not yet been introduced to China. When these concepts are launched, they are first adapted for the China market and then, very rapidly, turned into better versions of the original. Some will no doubt go around the world again -- this time, as Chinese exports.
China does not just emulate, however -- it now invents. Somewhat ironically, China’s role as the world’s factory floor has directly contributed to its renewed ability to innovate. Chinese production is no longer focused on low-end products alone -- it now entails sophisticated products requiring precision manufacturing and equally detailed processes.
As Chinese suppliers and managers learned the value of process innovation -- and offered foreign firms cost, scale and other production advantages -- the Chinese closed the gap between R&D, product development, and production. Examples in semiconductors, automobile components, and electronics underscore the angst for American companies, who helped to refine this advantage, which they initially claimed for their own China operations, and which is now circulating among domestic Chinese companies.
In the future, China’s ability to compete will be based on its products of its own design, invented in China by Chinese engineers. The Chinese government is using some of the same techniques the West has long employed to spur this transformation. But China is not the West, and its officials are not only investing in incubators, they are also repurposing entire cities for specific industries and commanding state-owned Chinese companies to help Chinese innovators succeed. This massive push could well accelerate China’s emergence as a technology innovator on a global scale. Rather than ignore the change or deny the threat, American companies should acknowledge the surge in talent and figure out how to incorporate and leverage the creative skills of the next-generation China into their own businesses.
Tom Manning, an affiliate partner at Waterstone Management Group, is a global operating executive with extensive experience developing, leading and directing technology-based businesses. Located in Asia for seventeen years prior to returning to Chicago in 2012, he brings a unique perspective to Waterstone clients across a wide range of issues that include corporate strategy, business model design, and growth in emerging markets such as China. Tom’s past roles include CEO of Ernst & Young Consulting Asia, CEO of Capgemini Asia, senior partner with Bain & Company, and CEO of Cerberus Asia Operations and Advisory Limited (Beijing). He speaks Mandarin and has served on the boards of directors of seven publicly-listed companies, including five Chinese companies, as well as numerous private-equity-backed high-tech companies in Asia.

The COVID-19 pandemic is causing not just manufacturers, but entire nations, to reevaluate global supply chains.
French President Emmanuel Macron—a champion of globalization—says supply chains will “need to become more French.” Germany’s health minister Jens Spahn wants to minimize “one-sided dependencies in order to win back national sovereignty.”
Japan has moved first; its national bank is allocating billions of dollars to assist its domestic manufacturers in reshoring production from China. Subsidies will cover relocation expenses and investments in labor-saving automation (including robots). Australia and South Korea are also contemplating reshoring.
Similar ideas are percolating in the United States. “We would like to bring supply chains home,” says White House economic adviser Larry Kudlow. America needs to “bring home its manufacturing capabilities and supply chains for essential medicines,” says Peter Navarro, President Trump’s top manufacturing adviser. In Congress, Senator Tom Cotton (R-Arkansas) has introduced legislation to re-shore pharmaceutical supply chains; 80% of active drug ingredients are produced in India and China.
Should nations reshore everything? No—there are reasons for international trade, which has raised living standards and lifted more than a billion people out of poverty since 1990, according to the World Bank.
Well then, how about reshoring some things—those critical to national security? Probably a good idea—if we can correctly foresee which goods and supply chains will be critical in the future. A further complication: the next supply shock could occur anywhere and may or may not be a pandemic.
A safer bet is to invest in resilience—a manufacturing sector that can adjust in real time to emerging global threats by shifting the location of production while minimizing any loss in capacity or product quality. Importantly, we know how to increase resilience.
First and foremost, management matters. A recent article in Harvard Business Review lays out a three-step plan for manufacturing executives: map out your suppliers (including those far up the supply chain), conduct a vulnerability analysis, and develop contingency plans considering both the costs and benefits.
Technology also matters. Think smart manufacturing, or Industry 4.0—the digitalization of the production process across the value chain, coupled with data analytics to allow for real-time decisions. Practitioners have a first-mover advantage, which equates to resilience from a supply or demand shock.
Smart manufacturing relies on a suite of technologies (5G, blockchain, sensor technology, augmented reality, digital twins, etc.), and firms employing these technologies are stepping up during the current crisis. For example, artificial intelligence (AI) and machine learning, including deep learning, is being used to efficiently identify potential drug treatments and vaccines. The UK company Benevolent AI used machine learning to identify existing drugs (such as Eli Lilly’s rheumatoid arthritis drug, baricitinib) that might be effective in treating COVID-19 patients, allowing for expedited human trials.
Another important technology is 3D printing, which many manufacturers are using to quickly meet a surge in demand for face shields (Boeing), ventilator valves (Isinnova), testing swabs (Formlabs), and personal protective gear (Ford). 3D printing offers considerable geographic flexibility.
Robots are also being employed. Siemens invented an automated, disinfecting robot to replace human cleaning crews in hospitals grappling with an influx of infected patients. And demand for industrial robots is likely to accelerate as manufacturers reduce labor costs in a recessionary environment. In China, some municipalities (e.g., Xiangcheng) have announced more generous government subsidies for factory automation available to firms just as the nation experienced a “flattening” of its pandemic curve.
Greater resilience, however, comes at a price. And in the current pandemic-fueled recession, manufacturers are not likely to invest for long-term resilience when facing short-term existential threats.
This is where government can and should step up. Apart from injecting funds to keep the economy afloat, U.S. policymakers are actively seeking ideas to promote growth—especially in the manufacturing sector, which enjoys bipartisan support. Especially favored by economists during downturns are expansionary fiscal policy (that is, cutting taxes and increasing government spending) and removing unnecessary barriers to market entry (that is, cutting red tape).
Over the past four years, the Manufacturing Policy Initiative (MPI) at Indiana University has identified several dozen policy proposals to improve the competitiveness and resilience of U.S. manufacturing. Here then are six not-so-new proposals that merit newfound attention given the current economic situation:
Enact a Broad Investment Tax Credit. The 2017 tax reform law allows businesses to immediately deduct the full cost of investments in short-life assets, such as machinery and equipment, through year 2023. This should be coupled with an investment tax credit (ITC) to let manufacturers deduct a percentage of investment costs from their taxes. Such credits are in addition to normal allowances for depreciation. Specifically, Congress should enact a broad ITC providing a 25% credit on all capital expenditures made above 75% of a base amount, as first recommended by the Information Technology and Innovation Foundation (ITIF) in 2013.
Invest in collaborative R&D. Although the United States invests a great deal in basic research and development (R&D) and this is a catalyst for innovation, too many U.S. inventions are manufactured overseas. Even the most R&D intensive manufacturers preferentially invest only when a product is close to commercialization, where the likelihood of a positive return is greatest. Closing the technological “valley of death”—the gap between basic R&D and commercialization—requires governmental support to leverage private sector funding. This is the premise behind the Manufacturing USA (MUSA) program—a collaborative effort among government, industry, and academia on pre-commercial R&D for advanced technologies. The United States has 15 MUSA institutes—each focusing on a particular advanced technology (e.g., robotics). China is creating 40 by 2025. It is time to catch up.
Boost productivity of small business. The Manufacturing Extension Partnership (MEP) is a federal program operated by the states, whose purpose is to boost the productivity of small and medium enterprises (SMEs) through consultation and sharing of best practices. Multiple academic studies show a significant positive return to this program. Because 75% of all U.S. manufacturers employ fewer than 20 people, MEP can reach, in theory, all but the largest firms. However, funding for the MEP program, which stands at $128 million, has not kept pace with inflation. Congress should at least double it.
Invest in skills training. For years, manufacturers have complained of a skills gap—they cannot recruit workers with needed skills, especially production workers that make up more than 50% of all U.S. manufacturing workers. Complicating the problem is the movement toward Industry 4.0, with its emphasis on digital skills. ITIF recommends that Congress create a grant program enabling advanced manufacturing education at community colleges that states could use for the acquisition of equipment, faculty recruitment, etc., and couple this with a more generous federal tax deduction for employer-provided education assistance.
Secure the defense industrial base. A 2018 report from the Department of Defense illustrated the fragility of its domestic supply chain due to many factors, including an over-reliance on foreign nations, some of which are strategic competitors (e.g., China has a near-monopoly on the processing of rare earth metals). More than 200 recommendations were made to address the problem, and these should be fully funded and implemented. A resilient defense supply chain can serve as a model for improving the entire manufacturing supply chain.
Develop a national plan for smart manufacturing. The federal government undertakes many activities to lay the groundwork for smart manufacturing: setting technical standards, creating voluntary guidelines for cybersecurity and privacy protection, regulating AI, negotiating digital trade provisions in free trade agreements, etc. These activities, however, are not coordinated with an eye toward moving the domestic manufacturing sector toward Industry 4.0, as is the case for other countries like China (Made in China 2025) and Germany (Industrie 4.0). A U.S. national plan is needed to do just this, and led by a Senate-confirmed official with authority to implement the plan.
These proposals, if adopted, would improve the resiliency of U.S. manufacturing while also promoting short-term economic growth. No doubt there are plenty of other reasonable proposals worthy of consideration during this trying time (e.g., a federal grant program to spur re-shoring and foreign direct investment). Critics will argue that such proposals run counter to free and efficient markets. Others, however, worry about the perils of inaction—a deep and prolonged recession could decimate domestic manufacturing capabilities for decades.
The opportunity cost of doing nothing is truly substantial: across the entire economy, no other sector contributes more to productivity growth (38%), international trade (60%), or private sector R&D (70%). Ensuring a resilient U.S. manufacturing sector is well worth the investment.
Keith B. Belton is director of the Manufacturing Policy Initiative at Indiana University in Bloomington, Indiana.





