How Juan de la Cruz lapses into “pwede na ‘yan”

Or why in the old days we had to break-in new cars. Let’s hold that thought for a moment.

This writer in recent postings talked about Dr. Bernard Roth of the Stanford University d.school and his book, “The Achievement Habit.” [And it is an exposition of “Design Thinking.”] He was drawn to Roth’s expertise in “experiential teaching” as well as his story as a student. In his junior year at a local college in New York he was almost placed on probation. Perhaps a carryover from his lazy days in high school . . .  and the rest as they say is history.

Dr. Roth is a “professor of engineering and the academic director of the d.school, a leading expert in kinematics, the science of motion, a pioneer in robotics, and the prime developer of the concept of the Creative Workshop.” His formal education is in the natural science yet became an expert in the social science, particularly motivation and creativity – given his realization that life is about problem-solving. And he has chosen to continue his life work beyond the mandatory retirement at Stanford.

But back to Juan de la Cruz. How did our instincts of “pwede na ‘yan” come into being? If we were a new car in the old days, did we go through the requisite “break-in” process? Why the reference?

When the writer first arrived in Eastern Europe 13 years ago, he was awed by their creativity and took the “break-in” process for granted. Until they realized that creativity – and product development – and problem-solving are both art and science. And in response they established an in-house school with the writer that has become an exercise in “experiential teaching,” meaning, participants learn by doing.

For example, from understanding Maslow’s hierarchy of needs [in “design thinking” lingo it means truly being able to empathize what people’s needs are or in the Philippine setting, why is Juan de la Cruz poor?] they are able to create a product and articulate its reason for being and confidently communicate and market and sell it to the world [not just to overseas Filipinos in the case of Philippine enterprises which reveals our inward-looking bias, restricts our playing field and undermines efforts to develop visionary and strategic leadership]. And in the process the group generates thinking models that reinforce their sense of purpose and values – like to be the best in the business. It also means tossing hierarchy and embracing an egalitarian ethos where the best ideas rule, not rank and privilege.

The outcome? From marketing products in their one small country, they've reached 50 countries, and counting. And from a “cottage industry” they have become a global player, still far from a Fortune 500 but that’s in their crosshairs. In short, they measure themselves against the world’s best and brightest no less.

And then consider: “Pwede na ‘yan” undermines our capacity as a people – or in machine lingo – it undercuts our “rated capacity.” Instead of doing 100 KPH we’ve become accustomed to doing a much reduced speed. In other words, is CCT the need of Juan de la Cruz or is it to slay tyranny?

The writer is in town for their – husband and wife – yearly homecoming. But interrupted at the frontend to be in Singapore before the week is over to join his Eastern European friends based in the city-state for a few weeks.

And in that brief period, spent mostly to recover from jetlag, he and the wife would hear how “pwede na ‘yan” continues to rule Juan de la Cruz. For example, where in the world – friends who shared the story would exclaim – can people not get their driver’s license and car license plates when due and paid for? And whoever is responsible in government gets away with it – “pwede na ‘yan”?

Watching some of the campaign ads on TV, it appears populism remains the preferred message because it’s a proven winner? In short, we’re at home – wittingly or not – to perpetuate a vicious cycle? Surprisingly, even our best thinkers believe palliative measures are the answer to the woes of Juan de la Cruz? Do we accept operating at less than our rated capacity?

In other words, are we accepting that the Thais, Malaysians, Taiwanese, Singaporeans if not Vietnamese and Cambodians are better than Juan de la Cruz? Not for a moment would we accept that we’re inferior! But we have to step up to the plate. We can’t just make “pa-pogi”!

Whatever outstanding qualities we credit ourselves don't stand scrutiny beyond our borders because we are the poster boy of the 1-% non-inclusive economy? The evidence? Our competitiveness rankings remain pathetic despite the slew of credit rating upgrades. 

Why? We have to mean it when we say that we are in pursuit of nation-building. And it doesn’t mean perpetuating political patronage and shutting out FDIs and technology. The fact that we starve in both is the outcome of tyranny? Yet we celebrate oligarchy like we need a hole in the head? Because we’re one with the elite class?

In the meantime, we rationalize our way of life extremely confident that we are guided by logic? Yet as Roth would explain in his book, logic is overrated. And the writer would interpret that to mean the distinction between linear thinking and lateral thinking, the latter being a tool in creativity and problem-solving.

It is also the staple of “experiential teaching.” If life is about meaning, then education and undertakings in general must be about meaning as well?

But to us Pinoys meaning means our faith? As the Jesuits would say, “Jesus is in everything.” That would translate to . . . even in our secular endeavors. But then again, why can’t we get our driver’s license timely or get the basics right – like a reliable public transportation system or electricity for that matter?

And what happened to “Give to Caesar the things that are Caesar’s and to God which are God’s”? In other words, we can’t simply invoke faith – or simply pray – when it comes to nation-building? Nation-building is a responsibility that we in fact take for granted when we allow “crab mentality” to rule – and worse, when we tolerate a culture of impunity?

As the Greek philosophers would explain man’s inherent greatness, it is about a sense of purpose and values. But “Pinoy abilidad” has tossed idealism – because we see politics and corruption as universal? Except that we missed the imperative of “net worth” – that our accountants taught us – which is simply the net of our assets minus our liabilities. More to the point, our assets have been decimated – reflected in our being underdeveloped, poverty-stricken and the regional laggard?

Beyond missing the import of net worth is our failure to leverage the opportunity presented by benchmarking. That is, instead of rationalizing the weaknesses we share with other nations, we have to turn the table, pick and choose best practices and embrace them to attain competitive advantage. That would characterize winners – while rationalizing weaknesses would confine losers to the cellar.

For example, MSMEs in most countries are not equipped for global competition. Their worldview is defined by smallness that informs their sense of purpose and values. We are what we think we are. In the case of Juan de la Cruz, we think parochial, paternalistic, hierarchical, political patronage and oligarchy. In other words, we are what we are. Ergo: without government support if not political patronage we see ourselves unable to compete.

Government has its role and indeed ours has been a failure for decades – from infrastructure development to industrial development, the common denominator being good governance . . . that we’re missing in spades.

And the smallness of our worldview plus the absence of good governance equals the perfect storm we constantly suffer. Thus Rizal would conclude, our ills are ours to own.

Theologians would even be more profound. “Jesus Christ became what we are that we might become what he himself is.” “For he was made man that we might be made God.” That’s from Fr. Richard Rohr’s daily meditations, quoting St. Irenaeus and St. Athanasius respectively.

But why do we see ourselves inferior? That “pwede na ‘yan” is our best shot?

We have major concerns in the West Philippine Sea, but at the same time we see ourselves inferior to the Americans? That we would lose our sovereignty because they are the most powerful nation on earth, and must not let them on our soil? Did the Japanese or the Germans or even the Brits lose their sovereignty because the US clobbered them and in the case of the UK begged the Americans to come to their rescue because all of Europe was at risk?

Have we counted how many countries currently host US military bases? Because they recognize hegemony as akin to a designated driver? Or are we that beautiful that America would want us to be a US state? But we can’t even attract FDIs? Are we America’s Donbass or is America Russia?

We are equal to everyone and anyone. But why don’t we see it the way the Creator made us to be? Is it because as Rizal perceived it, we have tyrants in the making – consistent with our hierarchical system and structure? The evidence? (a) Our culture of impunity; and (b) Our oligarchic economy thrives because of who we are – willing participants?

In a country where we made a mockery of the rule of law – turning it into a culture of impunity – we cherish that the debate is about law not wisdom? No different from the days of the scribes and Pharisees? “Our ills we owe to ourselves alone, so let us blame no one . . .” [Rizal]

“As a major component for the education and reorientation of our people, mainstream media – their reporters, writers, photographers, columnists and editors – have an obligation to this country . . .” [Era of documented irrelevance: Mainstream media, critics and protesters, Homobono A. Adaza, The Manila Times, 25th Nov 2015]

“Development [is informed by a people’s] worldview, cognitive capacity, values, moral development, self-identity, spirituality, and leadership . . .” [Frederic Laloux, Reinventing organizations, Nelson Parker, 2014]

Stuck in the status quo

“METRO Manila’s traffic crisis did not arrive like a thief in the night. It has been predicted by several studies—stretching back to the 1980s . . . Very few of the things needed to avoid the crisis got implemented in the past two decades. While cities in other parts of the world managed to follow the “ideal trend” by investing in their transport infrastructures on time, if not ahead of needs, Metro Manila procrastinated.” [Easing Metro Manila traffic congestion, Rene S. Santiago, Philippine Daily Inquirer, 10th Jan 2016]

“Having talent and good ideas is only part of the equation. The next step – the harder step – is the doing, taking the responsibility for designing success . . .” [Introduction, The achievement habit: stop wishing, start doing, and take command of your life, Bernard Roth, Harper Business, 2015]

“‘We are all capable of reinvention,’ says Dr. Roth, a founder of the Hasso Plattner Institute of Design at Stanford and author of the book, ‘The Achievement Habit.’“ [‘Design Thinking’ for a Better You, Tara Parker-Pope, The New York Times, 4th Jan 2016]

But important to note: “Once we are aware of a problem, we tend to plunge ahead in search of a solution, yet we'd do better to first reconsider the question. Reframing problems can lead to better solutions. Mental health professionals also use reframing; it is a powerful therapeutic technique. The basic idea behind reframing is to introduce a change of perspective into your thinking.” [Roth, op. cit.]

For example, because we have persistent poverty we assume that social programs are nirvana – even when the billions spent on CCT haven’t made a dent? [Recall Einstein? See below.]

Wittingly or not we nurture a vicious cycle – not a virtuous one – when we applaud populist appeals like those that Binay makes – and, in fairness, others too. As though we have billions more to even step up CCT?

The big picture. Given how extensive poverty is, indeed we must keep body and soul (of Juan de la Cruz) together. That’s a given. Then comes the challenge. The taxes that fund CCT must come from somewhere, principally our economic output of goods and services. [A lesson not lost to this writer’s Eastern European friends – rather belatedly when their daily rations of basic commodities, including bread, came to a halt. That indeed there’s no free lunch. “I was a little boy and with my playmates we thought we weren't going to let our families go without bread. We had to hassle our way to the front of the line but to no avail; there was not enough bread for our neighborhood,” the writer’s former assistant would recall every now and again.]

In the case of the Philippines, we have yet to bring the imperative of industrial development into our consciousness – if we are to raise our average income (above underdeveloped levels.) And which our neighbors did and practically wiped out poverty. But it's not as profound a lesson as Eastern Europeans learned that we Pinoys are still stuck in the status quo?

A year ago the writer attended two economic briefings in Makati conducted by two of our premier universities. Both briefings gave the sense that there’s reason to be positive. (Yet as we now know from the Great Recession, financial models and the like no matter how smart-sounding still need risk assessment; and a decade prior even the ones developed by two Nobel Prize winners would bring financial ruin.) And so the comments the writer made in the open forum would have sounded off-base? The reality is this blog (began in 2009 after being egged by friends and relations given our state of affairs) has sounded out of left field?

This blog consistently talks about: (a) our version of the Dutch disease, that is, OFW remittances and the BPO industry comprise our principal income streams and made us a consumption economy instead of an investment-driven and an industrialized economy; and (b) the prognosis of the international institutions that even at 7% annual GDP growth it will take us a generation to attain developed-nation status.

Recall Einstein’s “I just stay at a problem longer than most” and “to keep doing the same thing over and over isn't the way to seek a different outcome”? While we recognized the downsides of OFW remittances given their social costs on families, we haven’t had the must debate re industrial development. For example, this administration has been silent about Arangkada Philippines – the 7 industry winners proposed by the JFC. And as a nation we have succumbed to groupthink that the silence is deafening? Which is to say we suffer from our own Dutch disease.

What will impel Juan de la Cruz to pursue a “new economy” – or economic model – for PH? With due respect to the CB, numbers alone don’t comprise strong economic fundamentals. Of course they are to the less than 1% of our enterprises! And why we say that we need an “inclusive economy.”

The writer’s old MNC company knows strong economic fundamentals full well; and 33 years ago it was expected of him to make the company a preferred employer in the Philippines and lo and behold they were recognized the employer of the year. As he indicated before, such events are par for the course and not to brag about. Because in a universe of less than 1% it’s a gimme. It’s about the odds or why Warren Buffett makes big investment decisions on the back of an envelope.

And a converse to that is the odds of the next president fixing the infrastructure challenge of Metro Manila – which is nil. Yet do we feel as though we’re going through an advent-like period and why politics consumes our lives while industrialization, much less economic development, is not what the national conversation is about?

Inclusive in the case of PH is a structural challenge otherwise it’s motherhood. More to the point, CCT is a stopgap – or what Rizal called “palliative” as distinguished from “radical remedy.”

But of course we only like good news and, not surprisingly, are stuck in the status quo? Not that long ago this writer also had a bias for good news. Until his late Jesuit friend bent his ear (and their Friday group) about reality. And it still took him time to appreciate the message – that we Pinoys tended to be unreal – i.e., “plastik” (his word)?

Consider: “The National Economic and Development Authority, with the help of the Japan International Cooperation Agency, crafted a Roadmap for Transport Infrastructure that would banish traffic congestion by 2030. A bold plan, indeed, as it also implies effective management of urban land use and expansion to Regions 3 and 4.  [Santiago, op. cit.]

“It is a tall (if not impossible) order. Its key strategy is to shift travel demand to railways—from the current 6-percent to 37-percent modal share of the trip markets. To do that, more than 160 km of new rail lines will have to be built, aside from additional urban expressways three times more than what we now have.

“Although adopted officially as a joint game plan for the Department of Public Works and Highways, Department of Transportation and Communications, and MMDA, the prognosis for its realization is bleak.

“The capacity to implement is the main obstacle, rather than money. Short-term projects like expansion of Light Rail Transit (LRT) 1, LRT 2, Metro Rail Transit (MRT) 3 and Philippine National Railways commuter are already delayed by three to five years. Road projects are buffeted by right-of-way issues and prevalence of NIMBYs (not-in-my-backyard) resistance.

“Besides, if all the projects are constructed in order to meet the 2030 deadline, massive traffic disruptions across the metropolis will occur.”

If people, commerce, trade and industry can’t be accommodated given our infrastructure deficiencies – and broader structural failings – we can’t be a new or an industrialized economy. Sadly as it stands today, “inclusive economy” is but an empty slogan! Worse, we’re perpetuating the status quo and our ecosystem, comprised of parochialism, paternalism, hierarchy, political patronage and oligarchy. In denial or not, the reality is poverty comes with it despite CCT!

“As a major component for the education and reorientation of our people, mainstream media – their reporters, writers, photographers, columnists and editors – have an obligation to this country . . .” [Era of documented irrelevance: Mainstream media, critics and protesters, Homobono A. Adaza, The Manila Times, 25th Nov 2015]

“Development [is informed by a people’s] worldview, cognitive capacity, values, moral development, self-identity, spirituality, and leadership . . .” [Frederic Laloux, Reinventing organizations, Nelson Parker, 2014]

Connecting the dots: how Steve Jobs defined creativity

“No industrialization without steel industry,” Efren L. Danao, The Manila Times, 1st Jan 2016. “Ka Oca’s well-publicized laments took place more than 25 years ago but nothing has been done through all those years.

“Rolly Narciso said that the Department of Trade and Industry under the incumbent administration has included it among the 30 sectoral roadmaps it has developed in the last three years. He added, however, that significant action on these roadmaps may have to await the arrival of the next president.”

How does the above article square with this one? “Government mulls more perks for investors – DTI,” Richmond S. Mercurio, Philippine Star, 11th Jan 2016. “Secretary Adrian Cristobal Jr. said incentivizing certain industries would help ensure the revitalization of the country’s manufacturing sector.”

“The government is looking to provide more incentives for investors through programs focused on certain industries that will sustain the revival of the country’s manufacturing sector.

“Trade and Industry Secretary Adrian Cristobal Jr. said the agency is currently exploring three to five industries in which the government could provide needed boost for further development and growth.”

And here is another article. “Rizal’s prophecies fulfilled,” Oscar P. Lagman, Jr., Business World, 28th Dec 2015. “Rizal . . . wrote: ‘We said, and we repeat it once more, and will always repeat it, all reforms of a palliative nature are not only ineffective but are even harmful when the Government is beset with ills that need radical remedy.’”

Connecting the dots seems obvious, and Jobs would take it as his definition of creativity. Yet given that we are beset with ills that need radical remedy, could it be that we take connecting the dots for granted? And should we consider “reframing how we look at the world and deal with issues”?

“Reframing a problem is essentially to change a point of view. At the d.school [Stanford University] we've had several instances where reframing led to spectacular results . . . Once we are aware of a problem, we tend to plunge ahead in search of a solution, yet we'd do better to first reconsider the question. Reframing problems can lead to better solutions. Mental health professionals also use reframing; it is a powerful therapeutic technique. The basic idea behind reframing is to introduce a change of perspective into your thinking." [Chapter 3, The achievement habit, Bernard Roth, Harper Business, 2015]

In the meantime, while we have yet to prioritize 30, if not 50, industry roadmaps . . . we would turn around and say “Government mulls more perks for investors”? “We have some ideas on what these could be, but we will make that announcement in due time. These are going through the process of consultations . . .”

Is that how we risk opening the flood gates – to political patronage?

For example, people would recall that President Ramos insisted that his cabinet must only endorse recommendations that went through “completed staff work.” In other words, not half-baked?

The bottom line: We need a well-conceived industrialization policy and program, not ad hoc efforts. Where are we? Where do we want to be? How do we get there?

We are nowhere near where we want to be, a developed economy, meaning an industrialized not an oligarchic economy. But we can't break-ground on 30 industries.

Prioritize. Pareto. Nation-building. Not crab mentality.

If we visualized PH as an industrialized economy, what could its characteristics be?

For example: What competitive products are associated with PH; How do we generate the requisite levels of investment to sustain them and from where; What technology gives us competitive advantage and from where; What and how current is the product architecture of each one and does it translate to an innovation platform; What people, competency and development needs do we nurture and how; What supply chain network do we pull together and how; Where or which markets are we a major player and how do we develop them?

Sadly we’re nowhere near that characterization – that is shared in many respects by innovative and competitive enterprises and developed and industrialized economies?

The world is not going to play by our rules nor our timelines! The evidence?

“$599.7 million in foreign portfolio investment withdrawn in 2015,” Dow Jones, Manila Bulletin, 14th Jan 2016. ” Foreign portfolio investments in the Philippines in 2015 showed a net outflow of $599.7 million, nearly double the $310.2-million net outflow posted in 2014, as investors continued to take profit on local stocks and other securities in anticipation of an increase in US interest rates and worries over the prospects for China’s economy, the central bank said Thursday.”

“The disappointing report on Tuesday that Philippine exports had contracted for the eighth month was just another stanza in what seems to be shaping up as an entire symphony of economic pain in a year that is barely two weeks old.” [Ben D. Kritz, How bad can it be (?), The Manila Times, 13th Jan 2016]

Let’s look at another country, Italy. “Mezza: As other peripheral economies take off, Italy’s is just so-so,” The Economist, 9th Jan 2016.

“Traditionally . . . it has been surging exports that have pulled Italy out of recessions. Despite a weak euro, export growth this time has been disappointing. That is due in part to the slowdown in emerging markets and the mediocre performance of German industry, which absorbs more than a sixth of Italy’s exports. But it is also consistent with low competitiveness. On that score, Italy’s performance since the euro crisis has been unimpressive when compared with that of other former porkers.

“So far, the government’s main response has been to insert tax breaks in the budget for 2016, aimed at encouraging corporate investment.

“Luigi Zingales, an Italian economist at Chicago’s Booth business school, notes that slow growth plagued Italy long before the euro crisis. He fears the latest slowdown may show how little the economy has responded to the challenges it faced when it joined the euro and lost the ability to boost exports by devaluing its currency. ‘When I go to a young entrepreneurs’ group in America, I meet young entrepreneurs,’ he says. ‘In Italy, I primarily meet trust-fund kids who are there thanks to their parents, not their accomplishments. We need a change of mentality.’”

In other words, low competitiveness cannot be offset by tax breaks – even those “aimed at encouraging corporate investment.” And in the case of Italy, anecdotally, their young entrepreneurs perhaps need a change in mentality, especially the trust-fund kids. Not really new? There is a body of knowledge that says third-generation enterprises have a good chance of fading away.

But back to PH. Are we between a rock and a hard place?

“Industry group gives Aquino the benefit of the doubt on energy policy,” Ben Kritz, Rough Trade, Manila Times, 11th Jan 2016.

“[An] . . . energy policy [must be] an integral part of an overall policy of industrial development—and the only way that can ever get off the ground, as Aquino has been pointedly told more times than anyone can count, is to lower energy costs. Of course, given that he has only six more months in office, there is probably little hope that he will give the matter any more attention than he plans to direct toward climate change mitigation.”

Translation: We are neither here nor there in our energy policy . . . and neither here nor there in industrial development.

“Our ills we owe to ourselves alone, so let us blame no one . . . while we see our countrymen in private life ashamed within themselves, hear the voice of conscience roar in rebellion and protest, yet in public life keep silence or even echo the words of him who abuses them in order to mock the abused; while we see them wrap themselves up in their egotism and with a forced smile praise the most iniquitous actions, begging with their eyes a portion of the booty—why grant them liberty? With Spain or without Spain they would always be the same, and perhaps worse! Why independence, if the slaves of today will be the tyrants of tomorrow? And that they will be such is not to be doubted, for he who submits to tyranny loves it.” [We are ruled by Rizal’s ‘tyrants of tomorrow,’ Editorial, The Manila Times, 29th Dec 2015]

“As a major component for the education and reorientation of our people, mainstream media – their reporters, writers, photographers, columnists and editors – have an obligation to this country . . .” [Era of documented irrelevance: Mainstream media, critics and protesters, Homobono A. Adaza, The Manila Times, 25th Nov 2015]

“Development [is informed by a people’s] worldview, cognitive capacity, values, moral development, self-identity, spirituality, and leadership . . .” [Frederic Laloux, Reinventing organizations, Nelson Parker, 2014]

“Reforms of a palliative nature . . .”

“[A]re not only ineffective but are even harmful when the Government is beset with ills that need radical remedy.” Wittingly or not we created an ecosystem that seems to perpetuate our state of affairs, and so it’s time to call on Rizal – who made the distinction – once again?

And what to do? “‘We are all capable of reinvention,’ says Dr. Roth, a founder of the Hasso Plattner Institute of Design at Stanford and author of the book, ‘The Achievement Habit.’“ [‘Design Thinking’ for a Better You, Tara Parker-Pope, The New York Times, 4th Jan 2016]

But that means being transformed. “Having talent and good ideas is only part of the equation. The next step – the harder step – is thedoing, taking the responsibility for designing success . . .” [Introduction, The achievement habit: stop wishing, start doing, and take command of your life, Bernard Roth, Harper Business, 2015]

“In the words of Dr. Roth, design thinking helped me ‘get unstuck’ . . . To get started, design thinkers focus on five steps, but the first two are the most important. Step 1 is to ‘empathize’ — learn what the real issues are that need to be solved. Next, ‘define the problem’ — a surprisingly tough task. The third step is to ‘ideate’ — brainstorm, make lists, write down ideas and generate possible solutions. Step 4 is to build a prototype or create a plan. The final step is to test the idea and seek feedback from others.” [Parker-Pope, op. cit.]

“Design thinking is normally applied by people who are trying to create a new product or solve a social problem or meet a consumer need.

“‘Design thinking on the highest level is a way of reframing the way you look at the world and deal with issues, and the main thing is this idea of empathy,’ Dr. Roth says. ‘If you have tried something and it hasn’t worked, then you’re working on the wrong problem.’

“Bernard Roth, a prominent Stanford engineering professor, says that design thinking can help everyone form the kind of lifelong habits that solve problems, achieve goals and help make our lives better.”

How did we define the problem of Juan de la Cruz? That it is one of poverty? Yet we haven’t made a dent despite the billions spent on CCT? Did we in fact fail to “empathize” with Juan de la Cruz and incorrectly defined the problem? In our hierarchical system and structure the ones lowest in the totem pole must be the problem? While those higher up are supreme?

Consider: Even a Silicon Valley company (Evernote) valued at $1 billion fell into the trap – of running around like a headless chicken.

“Evernote had spread itself too thin, and there was no core experience. Though Evernote did, in fact, continue to push out new features and products, they never managed to fix the underlying problem.” [Evernote’s 5% problem offers a cautionary lesson to tech companies,Chris O'Brien, venturebeat.com, 5th Jan 2016]

“Last year, Libin stepped down as CEO and became a venture capitalist; Evernote cut 18 percent of its workforce; and new CEO Chris O’Neill promised to turn things around and bring focus to the company by winnowing that long list of features and services.

“The Silicon Valley mentality fosters a desire to continue building and iterating because if you don’t, you could get lapped by some new competitor who comes along and outflanks you. And sometimes engineers and product developers just get overly enamored with themselves and their ideas and lose sight of the bigger picture.

“Sitting here now, it’s hard to see how Evernote reinvents itself and ever regains that same momentum that justified a $1 billion valuation.

“If you lose sight of the core experience . . . you likely won’t find the road back out.”

Disclosure: The Evernote story was brought to the attention of this writer by a young Bulgarian brand manager who has been working on a new brand that they expect to market in several countries. “I’ve been thinking about this topic, the reason to exist, meeting with our marketing and R&D team. And I worry that we’re biting more than we can chew, coming up with a slew of product claims to the point of being undisciplined. You’ve always stressed the North Star to give us direction. Here’s a shortlist of value propositions that we came up with to put us back on track – any thoughts?”

And that applies as well to the public sector? “Gov. Andrew M. Cuomo continued laying out his vision for a modernized, statewide transportation network . . . During a news conference at Madison Square Garden in Manhattan, Mr. Cuomo called on New Yorkers to ‘think big’ as they did in the past, with equal measures of ambition and audacity.

“‘What happens tomorrow depends on what we do today,’ Mr. Cuomo said. ‘Let’s be as bold and ambitious as our forefathers before us.’” [Cuomo Lays Out Renovation Plan for Penn Station and Farley Post Office, Charles V. Bagli and Emma G. Fitzsimmons, The New York Times, 6th Jan 2016]

But The New York Times, Stanford University, Evernote, The State of New York . . . they’re not Philippine examples?

As a Filipino educator shared with this writer, we Pinoys would first want to know if an idea has worked in the Philippines. It’s too bad so sad, a reflection of our inward-looking bias – and why innovation and competitiveness isn’t associated with Juan de la Cruz?

“How does a company become big—fast, beginning the second decade of the 21st century? Three things. One, have a vision. Two, that vision must be about creating value for customers and your other businesses. Three and probably, the most important, execution must be brilliant, though not necessarily flawless.” [When vision and execution pay off, Tony Lopez, Virtual Reality, The Standard, 8th Jan 2016]

“I looked at the performance of the largest Philippines corporations in sales or revenues in 2014. Then, I looked back at their sales/revenues in 2010.    

“It was the year the Philippines’ major conglomerates and largest corporations redefined their goals and envisioned themselves to become even larger, more profitable, and more relevant, locally and globally, and to provide greater value to their shareholders by diversifying and reaching new scale and breadth.

“San Miguel Corp., for instance, wanted to be the first to reach the P1-trillion mark in sales . . . Between 2010 and 2014, SMC more than tripled its revenues from P246 billion to P788.47 billion, up 220 percent . . . Nobody comes close.”

In other words, SMC is an exception? And given over 99% of our enterprises are MSMEs, indeed we’re far from becoming an industrialized economy? Which means to say if we wait for Philippine models before we espouse state-of-the-art thinking, we would continue to lag our neighbors?

“As a major component for the education and reorientation of our people, mainstream media – their reporters, writers, photographers, columnists and editors – have an obligation to this country . . .” [Era of documented irrelevance: Mainstream media, critics and protesters, Homobono A. Adaza, The Manila Times, 25th Nov 2015]

“Development [is informed by a people’s] worldview, cognitive capacity, values, moral development, self-identity, spirituality, and leadership . . .” [Frederic Laloux, Reinventing organizations, Nelson Parker, 2014]

Running around like a headless chicken

What we don’t know won’t hurt us? Or is it what we refuse to know won’t hurt us? Unfortunately, our reality is our generation is toast! In other words, it won’t be until the next generation that we can expect to see a new PH. But that assumes we start putting the requisite building blocks of a new economy in place today. Otherwise we consign the next generation to the same plight.

The evidence? Imagine how long it will take to make Metro Manila navigable by land. And that’s just the tip of the iceberg – our infrastructure dilemma is much grimmer. “PH lags efficiency in SEA mass transport system,” Elinando B. Cinco, Manila Bulletin, 7th Jan 2016. “[T]he Philippines only provides its riding public a 16.9-km Metro Rail Transit with a maximum design capacity of 350,000 passengers.” The comparative figures are ugly and would perhaps explain why we’d rather be in denial mode?

Read the NEDA secretary’s more recent peep into the future and they read 2040 – and they’re loaded with caveats. But that is not new. The international institutions have long raised the point, that even at 7% growth it will take us a generation to approximate developed-nation status.

Indeed we have a problem – big time! And fundamental in problem-solving is the rigor demanded by problem-definition. In "Design Thinking" (an innovation and problem-solving model), which the blog has discussed, defining a problem presupposes “empathy” – but in our case it may mirror the “split-level” Christianity thesis of Fr. Bulatao?

For example, we've long defined our challenge as poverty which could very well be coming from our instincts of paternalism. But implicit in paternalism is hierarchy which at the highest levels is political patronage and oligarchy. The evidence? CCT is not the answer when PH suffers from structural underdevelopment, and why we’re looking – not years but – a generation.

How did our neighbors overcome poverty? Economic development – which to them, first and foremost, meant begging the West for money and technology! And that’s not new. Lee Kuan Yew and Mahathir Mohamad told us about it as they did Deng Xiaoping. The difference being Deng followed suit and we didn't. [But today China is faced with a new challenge – the ‘economic cycle’ – and they’re not shy to tap US expertise anew. And it’s a small world as PH taps into the AIIB. And we shouldn’t be shy to tap outside expertise, ever?]

Did we think that our neighbors were naïve? It takes a curious and an inquisitive mind – in other words the naiveté displayed by kids like Gates, Jobs and Zuckerberg – to discover and innovate! Precisely why this blog was inspired by a bunch of young and naïve ex-socialists who had no heritage nor the skillset demanded by a free-enterprise system. Are we too smart for our own good?

We can’t imagine that we must reinvent ourselves . . . because . . . we lord it over Juan de la Cruz? A little – even lots – of knowledge is dangerous?

In the beginning this writer’s Eastern European friends expected him to provide the rules – must be a carryover from their communist past – and were angry (their word) . . . until they realized that it is all about a sense of purpose and principles and values. And that they must come from the team in an egalitarian ethos.

But then again, that is how we Pinoys define naiveté?

Yet over a century ago Rizal would distinguish the palliative from the radical remedy – meaning, “pwede na ‘yan” will not cut it? That “palliatives are even harmful when the government is beset with ills that need radical remedy.” And that rings true to this day!

Where is our worldview coming from? “Pinoy kasi” or “family first”? In other words, our default problem-definition appears to be dictated by our “culture” – aka our ecosystem: parochialism, paternalism, hierarchy, political patronage and oligarchy – and “family” – aka subordinating community and the common good? But when we indulge our inward-looking instincts we aren't truly problem-solving? For instance, should we or shouldn't we define our challenge as nation-building?

“I am just a dreamer who has been dreaming dreams for our country. But I am not the Man of La Mancha who dreams of impossible dreams. A number of people of this country whom I have known for some time – Doy Laurel and Ninoy Aquino – who loved listening to the song “The Impossible Dream,” died without realizing their dreams. Since I have never heard them defining their dreams in terms of a vision for the country, their defined programs to render reality their vision, consistent with the perception of others on them, I supposed that their dream was to become president.” [A national agenda for the national leader, Homobono A. Adaza, The Manila Times, 1st Jan 2016]

Have we been running around like a headless chicken? We’ve gone from microfinance to “financial inclusion” to joining the China-led Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank, for example? But have we in fact rigorously defined our problem?

“PPP projects still anemic in 2015,” Chino Leyco, Manila Bulletin, 3rd Jan 2016. “Out of the 55 public-private partnership (PPP) projects under the Aquino administration, the government only awarded 10 projects since 2010, dragging down programs aimed at improving the country’s lacking infrastructure.

“Costings more than P1.14 trillion, the 55 PPP projects could have been a huge boost to the country’s slowing economy if all were fully awarded or implemented, as promised, by President Benigno S. Aquino III.”

Nation building is not finance per se be it microfinance or financial inclusion or the AIIB.

It is a vision; the attainment of which is driven by strategic leadership. And if we are to progress from an oligarchic economy to an industrialized economy, we need to rigorously define its elements and pursue them in an integrated fashion. That means attaining the higher order which presupposes an egalitarian ethos – not to be confused with “crab mentality”.

“Philippine government must be more aggressive in boosting the local agriculture and manufacturing sectors and in ramping up infrastructure spending, as increased focus on these sectors is key to sustaining the country’s robust economic growth story.” [Gov’t urged to step up efforts to boost agri, manufacturing, Amy R. Remo, Philippine Daily Inquirer, 5th Jan 2016]

“Bodo Goerlich, president of the German-Philippine Chamber of Commerce and Industry Inc. (GPCCI), said in an interview that proper infrastructure was one of the key factors that would attract German investors into doing business in the Philippines.

“Faster improvements in roads, harbors, airports and communication infrastructure will almost immediately yield benefits to the Philippine economy . . . According to Goerlich, the next administration must also pave the way for more foreign investments in the manufacturing industry given its huge potential.

“Separately, John D. Forbes, senior adviser at the American Chamber of Commerce of the Philippines (AmCham), cited the lack of investments in the local agricultural and mining sectors and noted the need for the government to roll out and complete infrastructure projects that would provide new and additional access roads, especially skyways, and railways in the National Capital Region.”

“No industrialization without steel industry,” Efren L. Danao, The Manila Times, 1st Jan 2016. “Ka Oca’s well-publicized laments took place more than 25 years ago but nothing has been done through all those years.”

“Rolly Narciso said that the Department of Trade and Industry under the incumbent administration has included it among the 30 sectoral roadmaps it has developed in the last three years. He added, however, that significant action on these roadmaps may have to await the arrival of the next president.”

30 sectoral roadmaps? And we were looking at 50 or so? And there was in fact a series of press releases to announce them to all and sundry?

Prioritize. Prioritize. Prioritize.

The JFC provided us with a straw man with its 7 industry winners but how do we wrap our head around 7 as opposed to 30 or 50 industries? Pareto isn’t in our consciousness while “crab mentality” is; and, not surprisingly, strategic thinking and leadership escapes us?

“Filipino farmers need support to compete in Asean,” Anna Leah E. Gonzales, The Standard, 1st Jan 2016. “Filipino farmers need government support to prepare for the influx of duty-free commodities, as the Asean Economic Community came into force on Dec. 31, Agriculture Secretary Proceso Alcala said Friday.”

That is a classic statement non-statement aka as platitudes? Was this the same person people were unhappy about notwithstanding the different agribusiness roadmaps the department sent out to the press? But in our culture of impunity, who cares?

“Alcala made the statement in the context of the Asean Economic Community, which was formally launched at the end of 2015 . . . Alcala said targeted interventions should be made in order to enhance the capacity of Filipino farmers to compete and to expand their engagement in agribusiness opportunities.”

We shall continue to run like a headless chicken until we undo many of our instincts. “Culture” and “family” can’t be our license to take the Philippines down the abyss. Nor is KKK!

“As a major component for the education and reorientation of our people, mainstream media – their reporters, writers, photographers, columnists and editors – have an obligation to this country . . .” [Era of documented irrelevance: Mainstream media, critics and protesters, Homobono A. Adaza, The Manila Times, 25th Nov 2015]

“Development [is informed by a people’s] worldview, cognitive capacity, values, moral development, self-identity, spirituality, and leadership . . .” [Frederic Laloux, Reinventing organizations, Nelson Parker, 2014]