Re: AIKR Value Chain

The "framework" is now available in StratML format at 
https://stratml.us/drybridge/index.htm#KVC

Owen

On 9/2/2020 10:02 AM, carl mattocks wrote:
>
> Confirming that the AI KR value chain will be the focus of our next 
> meeting on September 15 (invite to be sent separately).
> In addition to ITIF's model (see below),  as a use-case please review 
> The knowledge-value chain: A conceptual framework for knowledge 
> translation in health (Bulletin of the World Health Organisation ). In 
> particular, please peruse fig1.    The mission, vision, goals and 
> strategies of a public health organization or social enterprise drive 
> the knowledge-value chain. The higher the knowledge performance 
> related to dyadic capabilities, the higher the value generated (Fig. 1).
>
> https://www.researchgate.net/publication/6869769_The_knowledge-value_chain_A_conceptual_framework_for_knowledge_translation_in_health 
>
>
> have a great weekend
>
> Carl Mattocks
> co-chair AIKRCG
>
> It was a pleasure to clarify
>
>
> On Tue, Sep 1, 2020 at 4:30 PM Owen Ambur <Owen.Ambur@verizon.net 
> <mailto:Owen.Ambur@verizon.net>> wrote:
>
>     Carl, at the end of our televideo conference earlier today you
>     indicated intent to focus on the value chain at our next meeting
>     on September 15.  So I thought you might like to see this
>     objective in ITIF's model for long-term U.S./Western
>     revitalization (in competition with China):
>
>         Objective 3.5: Mindset
>         <https://stratml.us/carmel/iso/4PM4LTRwStyle.xml#_1ae3e5ae-ec8a-11ea-b213-32ff0183ea00>
>         - Develop a *value chain* mindset
>
>     Other Information:  Too often, U.S. companies have focused on the
>     top-down delivery and consumption of the end product, with
>     insufficient focus on the full industry value chain—from raw
>     materials to components, subsystems, logistics, and related
>     ecosystems. China has taken much more of a bottom-up approach, and
>     history shows that it’s easier to move up a value chain than down
>     one. Having visibility across the entire value chain is critical
>     strategically, but many companies still fall well short of this
>     goal, and most government agencies have relatively little
>     industry-specific value chain knowledge or data, with many
>     outdated data-collection and reporting processes. In this sense, a
>     thorough modernization and expansion of the federal economics and
>     business statistics system is long overdue.
>
>     Among the implicit purposes of the StratML standard is to enable
>     value chains to built organically from the bottom up (as well as
>     the middle out), on a worldwide scale.
>
>     AI is referenced in the following objectives in ITIF's "model":
>
>         Objective 2.3: Advancement
>         <https://stratml.us/carmel/iso/4PM4LTRwStyle.xml#_1ae3d87a-ec8a-11ea-b213-32ff0183ea00>
>         - Be an advanced user
>
>     Other Information: Pursue advanced technology usage. You don’t
>     have to be the biggest to be the best, and being a leader in
>     advanced technology usage is an excellent way to stay independent.
>     If Western businesses stay ahead in applying technology within
>     their respective industries, it will be difficult for China to
>     expand its success beyond physical traded goods. However, as
>     Chinese firms are investing heavily in AI and automation,
>     supported by Chinese governments with extremely generous tax and
>     grant programs, Western nations must do the same, in part by
>     ensuring tax, spending, and regulatory policies, as well political
>     rhetoric, favor such investments. As of now, they do not in most
>     Western nations, particularly as there is now widespread fear and
>     condemnation of advanced technology use, such as facial
>     recognition, *AI*, and robotics.
>
>         Objective 3.1: Tech
>         <https://stratml.us/carmel/iso/4PM4LTRwStyle.xml#_1ae3df3c-ec8a-11ea-b213-32ff0183ea00>
>         - Make tech a national priority
>
>     Other Information: Prioritize technology leadership. The United
>     States may or may not need a formal organization such as SEMATECH,
>     but systematically assuring that U.S. companies, universities,
>     government agencies, and defense companies are doing the necessary
>     R&D in critical areas such as *AI*, robotics, space, biotech, new
>     materials, cybersecurity, semiconductors, et al. remains a top
>     priority—with bipartisan support and expected legislation.
>     Although such coordination is complex and long term in nature, it
>     is of high symbolic and actual importance, and has a track record
>     of success. The United States has already taken modest steps
>     recently in this direction with its Manufacturing USA Network.
>
>         Objective 4.2: IT Usage
>         <https://stratml.us/carmel/iso/4PM4LTRwStyle.xml#_1ae3ec3e-ec8a-11ea-b213-32ff0183ea00>
>         - Be a world-class IT user
>
>     Other Information:  Government policymakers often ask Leading Edge
>     Forum (LEF) and Information Technology and Information Foundation
>     (ITIF) what they can do to better support the technology industry,
>     and of course there is much discussion about education,
>     infrastructure, standards, R&D, and similarly important pursuits.
>     But what is usually missing is the importance of government using
>     technology effectively to meet its own needs. The best of example
>     of this is the Internet. The U.S. government didn’t set out to
>     build a national public infrastructure. (If it had, it would
>     probably have worked with AT&T to develop something like the
>     French Minitel system.) Instead, the U.S. Department of Defense
>     set out to meet its own needs for a highly resilient computer
>     network capability. The technologies behind that effort quickly
>     became the foundation of today’s Internet. There are many areas
>     wherein governments could help their domestic technology
>     industries by better meeting their own needs in, for example,
>     individual identity, authentication, cybersecurity, smart cities,
>     satellite communication, geo-positioning, autonomous systems,
>     health IT, fintech, *AI*, clean energy, and many other areas.
>
>         Objective 4.3: Talent
>         <https://stratml.us/carmel/iso/4PM4LTRwStyle.xml#_1ae3ede2-ec8a-11ea-b213-32ff0183ea00>
>         - Remain a talent magnet
>
>     Other Information:  In advanced fields such as *AI*, robotics,
>     autonomous vehicles, and quantum computing, a relatively small
>     group of people do most of the pioneering work. Where do these
>     folks—and their families—want to live? Although China spends
>     lavishly to attract talent and provide world class resources, most
>     technology experts are still wary of moving there. Additionally,
>     many highly skilled people would prefer to live in an
>     English-speaking nation, as English is often either their first or
>     second language. This is a huge natural advantage for the United
>     States, United Kingdom, Canada, Australia, New Zealand, and,
>     increasingly, India. It needs to be nurtured and leveraged.
>     Helping spread tech hubs to a few more places across America would
>     make that strategy easier.
>
>     Paola, Taiwan is prominently referenced the model (plan).
>
>     Owen
>