????是否可以說，我們有信心用科技拯救人類？

????技術已經有了。最有可能出現問題的是管理層在應對變化時行動遲緩，一直試圖遵循陳舊的工作方式。還沒有足夠多的高管團隊知道如何去實現它。

????它需要什么樣的新型管理思維？

????首先是，必須計算資源生產率。目前，幾乎沒有哪家公司能夠很好地執行這一管理措施。大多數CEO會告訴你他們的資本回報，或員工人均產出，但幾乎沒有人能告訴你資源生產率。

????然后呢？

????如果你是一名CEO，你應該問問自己的下屬：我應該如何將資源生產率每年提高5%至10%？這是一個很高的標準。過去20年，我們每年才能提高1%的資源生產率，而勞動生產率的提高幅度卻超過3%。必須從整個業務系統的角度進行思考，找出提高資源生產率的有效方法。可以問這樣的問題：如何將一款產品的重量和成本減少80%至90%？如何從供應鏈中去掉大宗商品價格與可用性風險？是否有機會將設備使用率提高兩倍，進而減少80%的水資源消耗或40%的能源消耗？

????你認為資源革命將幫助美國創造收入豐厚的工作，但歷史老師教導我們，科技與效率會毀掉工作崗位。

????每一次這種巨大的經濟轉型都會讓一些人丟掉工作，但工業革命帶來的生產率的提高，從長期來看將增加就業，提高工資水平。

????目前，在美國存在一種非常有趣的自相矛盾的情況。一方面，許多增長迅速的就業領域沒有足夠的工人，因為求職者不具備操作精密設備所需要的數據密集型的藍領技能。而另一方面，許多更為傳統的工業崗位卻在消失。這就是一場競賽。要看創造新工作的速度和毀滅工作的速度，哪一個更快。

????Isn't this putting a lot of faith in technology to save us?

????The technology is there today. The biggest thing that can go wrong is that management is slow to react to the kinds of change we're seeing and keeps trying to do things the old way. Not enough executive teams know how to pull this off.

????What kind of new management mindset is need?

????It starts with the idea that you have to measure your resource productivity. It's a management measure that almost no company does well today. Most CEOs can tell you about their return on capital employed or output per employee, but almost none of them can tell you about resource productivity.

????Then what?

????If you're the CEO you should be asking your folks, How do I improve resource productivity 5 t0 10% each year? That's a high bar. For the last 20 years we've improved resource productivity only 1% a year compared to more than 3% for labor productivity. You have to think across your business system and figure out dramatic ways to increase your resource productivity. Ask questions such as, How do you take 80% to 90% of weight and cost out of a product, how do you take commodity price and availability risk out of the supply chain, where are there opportunities to double equipment utilization or cut water use by 80% or cut energy use by 40%?

????You argue that the resource revolution will help create decent-paying American jobs, but history teaches us that technology and efficiency can destroy jobs.

????Every time we have this kind of major economic transition, a group of people will lose their jobs, but the increase in productivity that comes with an industrial revolution will in the long term foster job and wage growth.

????What we have in America today is this very interesting paradox. We have a number of fast-growing job categories where you can't find enough workers because the candidates don't have the data-intensive blue collar skills required to operate today's sophisticated equipment. At the same time, some more traditional industrial jobs are disappearing. It's a race. Can we create new jobs faster than we destroy them?