Corrections or additions?

This article was prepared for the November 27, 2002 edition of U.S. 1 Newspaper. All rights reserved.

Between the Lines

Buy that flat screen television now? Or wait till the

prices come down? Give that special someone a digital camera now?

Or wait for the next version? Doug Dixon, a technology leader at Sarnoff

Corporation, offers insights on what’s in store for digital gadget

shoppers this year on page 43.

Meanwhile a company on Phillips Boulevard in Ewing is working to create

spectacular flat panel monitors for the next generation of cell-phones,

PDAs, and televisions. Using technology developed in part at Princeton

University, Universal Display Corporation is a pioneer in FOLEDs,

flexible organic light emitting devices (U.S. 1, February 25, 1998).

Think of wall-size TV screens, featherweight PDAs that you wear on

your wrist, and electronic newspapers that roll up and can be refreshed

daily. FOLEDs are lighter weight, have thinner profiles, are made

of rugged construction, and create innumerable new product possibilities.

News organizations are turning to UDC to make forecasts for the future.

On November 12, UDC was featured on the CBS Evening News with Dan

Rather, as "the plastic fantastic flexible future of TV."

Earlier this fall UDC was featured in Newsweek and Time. In an article

called "Papa’s Got a Brand-New Bag," Newsweek presented the

briefcase of the future as a portable, impact-resistant office. UDC’s

contribution to this was its pen that has a roll-out display screen.

Time magazine featured the UDC pen as one of the "10 Top Technologies

for You and the Planet."

Another Princeton company is making less positive headlines. On November

23 the New York Times printed a front page story on salaries and bonuses

paid at Educational Testing Service after Kurt Landgraf became CEO.

Landgraf has said that absolutely nothing would be a secret at ETS,

and indeed at least two newspapers — the Wilmington News Journal

and U.S. 1 Newspaper — had published information on salaries and

bonuses paid to top executives (U.S.1, November 13, 2002). In the

fiscal year ending June 30, 2001, Landgraf received $431,000 for 11

months (he started in July) plus a bonus of $366,000, and seven employees

earned more than $150,000 in one-time payments.

Landgraf had defended his compensation policies to U.S. 1, saying

"I need highly motivated, well compensated, highly productive

employees. Exactly the same that Bristol-Myers Squibb needs. Not-for-profit

is a section of the IRS code, not an operating style." To the

New York Times he pointed out that because ETS doesn’t have tools

like stock options, it can attract the right people with incentive

pay and other cash payments.

The tension between "not-for-profit" and "for-profit"

organizations has particular resonance in this issue. In Preview,

on page 26, writer Elaine Strauss interviews members of Orpheus, the

chamber music group that functions without a leader — they all

pitch in to provide group leadership. So successful has Orpheus been

with this model that the group gives management consulting lessons

in film, television, and print. The for-profit companies are looking

to this not-for-profit musical group for management wisdom. As Kurt

Landgraf says, the term "not-for-profit" does not necessarily

describe an operating style.


Previous Story


Corrections or additions?


This page is published by PrincetonInfo.com

— the web site for U.S. 1 Newspaper in Princeton, New Jersey.

Facebook Comments