During his 17 years at IBM, Ho received 36 U.S. patents for his inventions, and won the IBM invention award 12 times. After taking leave to lecture for a semester at Stanford University and another semester at National Taiwan University, where he has the Far Eastern Visiting Professor in 1974-1975, Ho decided to take on new responsibilities. He left IBM in May 1975 and returned to the Republic of Chin a to become vice-chairman of the National Science Council. He has since then devoted himself to the development of domestic high-tech industries.
In August 1984, Ho was appointed to his current position as president of the Institute of information Industry. Recently, Ho graciously set aside time in a hectic schedule to talk with FCR Staff writer Tseng Li-ling about the Institute's mission and goals. Excerpts follow:
FCR: What have been the primary goals of the Institute since you took over as president three and a half years ago?
Ho: My colleagues and I are carrying out the overall mission given to the Institute by the government, which is to help raise the technological level of the ROC's information industry. Our goal is to bridge the gap that exists between our capabilities and those of the U.S., Japan, and other developed countries in Western Europe.
Our long-term goal is set on developing the software industry in parallel with the advancements being made elsewhere in computer hardware and related areas of information development. This approach will give us the capabilities of being able to 'give and take' in an effective manner.
The Institute has actively engaged itself in cultivating the domestic information industry. This can be seen in two important measures: by aiding the government's own computerization, and by promoting the concept of 'software invaluableness'—which is a synonym for 'intellectual property rights.' These are absolutely vital to the development of our information industry.
FCR: What are the most urgent missions now faced by the Institute?
Ho: On top of the agenda I would place the development of effective countermeasures to overcome the bottle-necks which the industry is most likely to encounter. The rapid appreciation of the NT dollar has resulted in a pervasive depression for many domestic enterprises. Gradually, these marginal enterprises will lose their competitiveness. At this juncture, the Institute should help expand and accelerate the internal market as an outlet for information products in line with governmental policies. By so doing, the domestic market can be strengthened and the structure of these marginal enterprises will be induced to change and improve their efficiency, quality, productivity, and competitiveness.
A second key item is to emphasize the importance of software. It is commonly acknowledged that profits in the software industry are increasing more rapidly than the average profitability of the entire information industry. Therefore, we should standardize software development as soon as possible, and at the same time establish concrete measures for developing both the software market and the industry itself.
FCR: Are there any other major long-term goals for the Institute?
Ho: The Institute will concern itself with areas that give the domestic industry problems, yet are absolutely indispensable to their success. In particular, we will work in the areas of standardization issues, intellectual property rights, and supplementing traditional schooling with computer training. We will also continue our consultation activities with the government as it integrates computerization, and we will work to further raise the technological levels of the domestic industry through R&D. All of these tasks are currently beyond the resources and abilities of individual enterprises, so it is the role of the Institute to help in their accomplishment.
FCR: What are the strengths and weaknesses of the Institute's existing system?
Ho: The Institute adopted the form of a corporate body when it was established eight years ago at the instigation of K.T. Li, who was then Minister Without Portfolio and is now honorary chairman of the Institute. Even though the research and business environments at that time were markedly different from today, and although the ROC's information industry was just starting, it was already clear that a corporate body form could best facilitate the development of the local information industry. The Institute is in fact half governmental and half private in form.
However, the other side of the coin is that this structure at times complicates and slows down the smooth transfer of R&D achievements to the private sector.
But I should emphasize the distinct advantages this structure gives the Institute; it greatly facilitates long-term projects. R&D is considered to be more important than immediate profits, and this pattern of operation is one of the Institute's greatest strengths. The Institute is not aiming at becoming the second Hsinchu Industrial Park (located south of Taipei). Instead, we see the Institute following the teaching and research pattern of the Industrial Technology Research Institute. This direction seems much more desirable.
FCR: What additional roles do you see the Institute playing in the development of the ROC's information industry?
Ho: The Institute will undertake more tasks in the area of national, long-range planning. This is something that private businesses are not able to do as well. We have seen that Japan is already known for this approach, while the U.S has achieved less in this area. Since the sizes of most of our domestic enterprises are in the small to middle range, they don't have the great financial or personnel power found in U.S. companies for this sort of undertaking. The privately-funded Hsinchu Industrial Park is backed up by the ROC government for the same reasons. Therefore, the Institute's quasi-private form serves as a needed bridge between private enterprises and the government, and it will continue with its personnel training, introduction of new technology, marketing intelligence, and assisting with such activities as 'Information Month.' All of these activities will help the ROC become a leader in the information field.
The Institute works on the principle of avoiding conflicts of interest with the private sector. Although we consult with the government in its long-range planning, our semi-independent status helps us to assist both public and private sectors in selecting products, testing, and so on. Some people may argue that these jobs could be better handled by private businesses, but there is a counter-argument. Often when private enterprises work on a project, their experience does not transfer to the field at large; and sometimes even their own individual experiences are forgotten when a project is completed. This makes it very difficult to accumulate experience for future endeavors. Right now the Institute is more qualified in this, and we expect to see smooth transfers of ideas, methods, and technology to the private sector as our software industry establishes itself.
FCR: What are your expectations for the ROC's information industry?
Ho: Our information industry should enjoy a bright future, although there are sure to be bottlenecks. An article last July in Business Week reported that some mega computer firms in the U.S., such as IBM, Digital Equipment and Unisys, predicted that their revenues by 1992 will come half from hardware sales and half from software services. The profit from hardware is expected to account for 5 to 15 percent, which will be a hard gain given the tough competition in the present market, and a profit 15 to 25 percent from software. In the near future, hardware products will be in less demand than supply, so it will be left to software producers to diversify and support hardware developments. Anyone can see that software products command a huge potential in the market.
In addition, the information industry provides important related functions among various other product fields. For example, information technology can be applied to everything from camera and hospital technology to large-scale commercial and national defense developments. All these areas tie in with one another through the information industry. For these reasons, I foresee a robust future for the development of the information industry worldwide, and I see the ROC playing an important role in it.
However, there are several bottle-necks that must be addressed domestically. The most serious concern difficulties with concepts and markets. Chinese society has always revered knowledge, yet the conjunction between knowledge and profit has not been very well conceived. We must pay our absolute respect to intellectual property rights and reinforce them with legal restrictions and other forms of protection.
It has also been a common practice for local businessmen to slash their prices drastically in order to raise their sale figures. This is a highly undesirable act in the long term, and is equivalent to 'killing the hen in order to get the eggs.' To rectify this unhealthy phenomenon, we must establish a proper order in production and marketing. The government has a role in this, and it can help guide the small and middle sized domestic enterprises in their business development. More attention also needs to be given to marketing, including software, information systems, and sales of all information products at home and abroad. If these challenges are met, I am sure the domestic information industry will have a very bright future.