the cold universe

Requirement: Negotiators, not Fighters in our Government

2012-01-26T12:50:00.000-08:00

The President’s request that Congress treat each other morelike brothers in arms misses the root cause of the divisiveness within thatgoverning body: The electorate (aka: You and Me). We’re the source of the division. But why? Because we elect firebrands that“fight for us” in Washington. How do youexpect these people to find common ground when they are expected to “fight forwhat is right”? I propose that wechallenge the candidates to improve their rhetoric on the campaign trail andsay “I’ll be a better negotiator for you than the other guy and get more done foryou!” We need a national voice around the effectiveness of the Power ofPersuasion within our representative democracy and against the simple-minded,short-sighted rhetoric that suckers too many of us into sending incompetent andcalcified representatives to execute the challenges of governing a complexsociety and economy.

2010-01-12T20:44:00.000-08:00

Scaling Solar in California, at The Commonwealth Club
Jan 12, 2010

************Notes taken during the panel session ************
Climate One has a podcast.

Renewables are at 13 to 14 % this year, but were supposed to be 20% by now.

Financing, Transmission, Government-Speed (lack thereof) all held it back.

ESolar announced a 2000 Mw facility in Mongolia. They will deploy that faster than in CA.

PGE, at 14% renewables now. Contracted for over 20% by 2013.

All levels of govt need to work together to make this happen.

90% of solar are on the rooftop. Solar on ground, $3per watt. 15-20 cent Kwh range.

Land use: 1-20 Megawatts is a mid range facility. Need 150 central plants. There are no technology barriers.

3000 Mw rooftop goal by 2017.
Mostly a landuse and regulatory challenge. We're more cautious now.

PGE: not just one technology. Large part is thermal. 20-30 mw PV. 250 mw by contract. Cannot bet on just one tech.

PGE: distributed power as a majority of Kwh's is far out in the future. Centralized is pref in short term.

Only some of the central plants will ever be built. 9 to 1 wind over solar. Big installations, many resource barriers. More than most.

Natural resource defence council, READY report. Analyzed many options to help move this through. Many environmental groups resist. They even fight each other. Local Sierra clubs resist regional club.
We even sign the agreements and still nothing happens. We need constant pressure. BLM needs to be engaged to get access to the land and they are slow.

PGE: if this is considered a public priority, we need oversight to ensure progress. Governor has been a leader on this. Focused on projects that could get stimulus funds that have govt in the way and prioritize the effort on them.

Dirt must be turned by the end of the year to get funds. We got a lot done with govt prioritization.

We need a lead agency in CA. Much of govt is designed to go slow. This provides time to fight it. We need to prioritize projects thru govt to make them happen

Financing is avail, but not for those that lose $. The bureaucracy needs to come down.

Meaningful price: change the cost of fossil fuel energy. There will probably be a switch to natural gas as an interim solution.

Federal influence required? Much of the cost issue is scale.
RPS: renewable portfolio standard.
PGE: need fed support. Very powerful. Needed to have a federal system to make that happen.

The PV mfg center has moved to China. We lost that. CA even has added a salestax to mfg equip that lowers incentive.

Jobs. PUC: PV mfg jobs here will (?). Opportunity for entire supply chain here.

50 to 1 difference of local economy impact when invested in non-fossil fuel projects. 700k job potential.

Smart grid.
Renewables into the grid before it's a problem? Wind is not coincident with demand, need storage. Southern Edison resells extra renewable energy at night very cheap. Not ideal.

CA rates are higher than elsewhere, but climate is warmer. Total bill is typically lower. Heat spikes push the rates higher. Tiered rates implemented. 18m smart meters to be implemented. PGE another 3M.

PGE: energy efficiency is still needed. Power of information.

Storage,
Natural gas could buffer the variability in the meanwhile, so storage should not be the limiter.

PUC: CA has already done a lot of carbon sequestration research. Instead of sending the poor oil to the mid east to burn, much carbon can be removed prior to distribution. We have the IP here.

Storage is not required in thje short term. Water pumping is the easiest. Battery tech is far from ready for the grid.

China recognizes the serious problem. There is a sense of urgency amongst the young. Their govt is helping them. They shut down factories in bad air times, not air conditioners. Different drivers there. 10X qty of new engineers than here. We need to work cooperatively with them.

Nuclear.
PUC: CA has not allowed any new nuclear, and limited expansion. 1GW plant is several B$. hard to finance. 2 nuke plants. We will not see new ones for a while.
PGE: realize the CA nuke limitations. The existing plants are critical to keeping our emissions in check.

2009-09-14T15:19:00.000-07:00

How We Build Ideas Together

The recent healthcare debate is a painful reminder of how incapable we are, as a society and culture, to methodically debate a topic and improve our overall understanding of the issue. We cannot frame a problem, state unassailable facts, outline the interactions and influences, and propose strawmans for discussion. But, we can get angry. That seems to be our only strength.

As an observer of the debate, I typically end up with more questions than clarifications of the model. BTW, that's what it is: a model. Healthcare is a variety of proposals of a system that is defined by a model that the Congress is supposed to articulate for the President to approve for law. This is highly complex and interdependent. But, instead our society believes that we can focus on single components of the model as evidence of the value of the entire model.

Then, many of us focus on the character (or the interpretation thereof) of the players involved as evidence of the validity of the proposal. If the character of the person was a critical factor in the definition of a valid proposal, DNA would not be an accepted fact.

This is a sad characteristic of our society's inability to effectively govern itself: when we cannot make sense out of the issue we over-simplify the model order to have an opinion. Having an opinion is more important than improving our understanding of the proposal.

2009-03-04T23:45:00.000-08:00

7 Ways to Fund a Startup

I'm finally making sense out of all the paths an entrepreneur can take to funding his startup. There are probably more, but this is a much better list than any startup consultant, investor or friend has given to me: http://snurl.com/d4pmk

2009-03-04T15:56:00.000-08:00

Business Intelligence for the Rest of Us

The Prius has an interesting display that few other cars have. It's called an multi-functional display (MDF). It tells you what your gas mileage is at any given moment, and displays an average MPG over 5-minute increments. You can see how your driving style (i.e. lead-foot) and the terrain (i.e. hills) changes your gas mileage - on a real-time basis. Almost instant feedback. This display of information has fostered a community of Ultramilers - people who can coax 110 MPG from their Prius. You really know when you are wasting gas in real-time.

I was running up and down a hill last week (a very big hill), and I thought of that display and how it might relate to my body as I exercised. What were my electrolytes doing? I assume they matter. What was my glucose level looking like? That's my gasoline, right? Was this average, or was I trending in a bad direction? Was I really loosing weight, or just making myself sore (which I still am, dang-it!). I wanted an MDF for my body's operations. I wanted relevant, real-time FEEDBACK.

Trying to keep my mind off of the pain, I started thinking about feedback. If I had perfect, relevant feedback on my body, I might be able to optimize my workout. I'd be able to achieve exactly what I needed, and know if I'm not working hard enough, or correctly enough to reach those goals. Exactly what are those goals? Right now it's my weight. But that's because I can measure that. I can't easily measure all of the other metrics that lead up to weightloss. That requires equipment I don't have, and probably will not be functional in the context I'll need it (i.e. running up and down that hill). But, feedback is what will help me optimize that situation.

Business look to metrics for feedback. Typically, it's called Business Intelligence. It's a feedback loop on how well the business is doing. In my consulting, I recommend that you connect your metrics to any number of 4 objectives: 1) Revenue increase, 2) Cost Reduction, 3) Future Revenue Increase and 4) Future Cost Reduction. The latter two are typically called "Strategy", as in "we are not going to get a return on that project immediately, but it's supporting the company's Strategy." Every metric should have a story that ties back to one of these four objectives - otherwise it's a "discovery" metric - which means you don't know what value it brings to the table, but it may cause you to ask questions that later impact the business. I've seen big projects justified on "discovery" metrics, which should not be justified for very long.

But, what else is Business Intelligence and Feedback? Does it have to be a fancy MDF or a Business Objects application? I get feedback from my bathroom mirror in the morning (usually very negative, requiring significant improvement). My tougue provides feedback on the state of my cereal's milk. Software on my computer provides visual feedback on how many colleagues are logged in to communicate with. These are direct metrics. Useful and obvious. It's the indirect ones that cause us to be sloppy and to build ideologies and illogical opinions.

A person's house provides an interesting and impactful example of the benefits of feedback. When you pay your heating bill, you are engaging the summary-metric for your home's energy efficiency. If the bill goes up, you may think "was it colder last month, or do I have a problem with the house?" If there is a significant rise, you might look around for an open window or a faulty heater, or an improperly set thermostat. Then, you wait until next month for the reaction (aka: the Utility Bill). The cause-effect thread is: 'Opened Window' --> 'cold air in' --> 'thermostat clicks on' --> 'heater turns on' --> 'oil/gas is used' --> 'Utility bill goes up'. But, which window was it? How many dollars flew out the window in the form of heat?

Because we get a coarse feedback on these metrics, we don't really know how to take action. If your hair is in disarray in the morning, your mirror provides immediate feedback on your efforts to comb it down. If we knew how many of our dollars each window, door, attic, garage, wall, floor, basement, etc was sending out into the great outdoors, we'd probably take action immediately. If you were asked to place a $20 on each window and it disappeared each month, you'd probably get pretty angry at the condition of that window and take action. Unfortunately, that's what's happening in many homes today because of the lack of feedback. Consider how well you brush your teeth each day. The feedback is usually under the drill in the dentist's chair - after it's too late to take corrective measures.

Consider the new Stimuluous Package just passed by Congress. Money is going into these programs and an impact is anticipated. We'll start measuring GPD and keep our eyes on home prices and the Dow. What does that feedback thread look like? How many steps must it take before we see positive movement on those indicators? How many other factors are going to cloud the data before it reaches those indicators?

We should be proposing numerous indicators at key points along that thread. Job creation on a per-project basis is one. Then there's $'s/new-job created; Speed of job creation after funding; Seond-order economy on a per-project basis (i.e. local restaurants see an increase); Change in local consumer sentiment after a project starts in their town; local home sales and prices; etc, etc. We need a dashboard on how this is progressing. When we see a failure in the thread, we can take targeted action.

Otherwise, we're just hoping that we closed the right window - or maybe we should have been looking for a gas leak instead? They both have the same ultimate indicator, but one of them can bring the house down if you are not specifically tracking it.

2009-03-01T21:13:00.000-08:00

Two Thresholds in Human Nature

The Economist magazine recently presented an analysis of the world's middle class. Apparently a majority of the population is now middle class. Maybe not by US standards as we define them, but sufficiently wealthy to cause them to cross a critical threshold in their attitudes and priorities. The newly middle classed person is interested in the future of their children, their greater spiritual fulfillment through their vocation, and they have gained enough emotional traction that they can begin to aspire to an even more comfortable and fulfilling existence. The poor do not think like this, probably because they are investing too many emotional and mental cycles in survival. Who could be bothered with wanting a bigger house if your food supply is in jeopardy?

Once these people cross that first threshold, they will use these spare cycles to fight against any threat that would pull them back down into their subsistence lifestyle. They have tasted the good life and they are not going back. Those that have built a sufficient buffer against this threat will continue acting as middle class consumers. Those who believe that threshold is uncomfortably close will change their buying habits considerably. The second threshold is where they aspire to transcend, but the first threshold is the very real, hungry lion at the door.

Americans have had a long history of relative wealth and wellbeing. But, information is plentiful of what can occur when the worst happens. The Great Depression, while experienced by few consumers, is still an iconic threat. Stories of failed states and repressed masses queuing in lines to receive their portion of rice are readily available on the nightly news broadcasts, newspapers and online. Recent stories of foreclosures and layoffs are now shifting the perceived location of that threshold to where it is uncomfortably close.

This is probably the only reason why extended unemployment benefits and improvements in the availability of healthcare will improve the chances of escaping this recession. People must begin to feel comfortable with spending again. If they do not get beyond that second threshold, they will not spend. They will hoard. I do not have the metrics on what percentage of the population is under this second threshold, but if it approaches 33%, fully 25% of our economy will dry up. If Americans can be made to feel as though there is a safety net that they can rely upon, we may see the return of this economy - but not before that time.

2009-02-08T09:32:00.000-08:00

Politics is Primitive
I continually experience the impact of a certain person's thought processes. If I wasn't interested in how she thinks, I'd have gone crazy years ago. This person is a huge influence in my life, and her statements and interactions with the other people in my life influence their dynamics with me. Because she is intolerant to disagreement, arguing with her is a poor approach to the issue. In order to work with her and live with her I need to understand how she goes about her though processes; how does she think?

This is how her thought processes work:
1. Worry about a group of things until you get a list of ideas
2. Look for confirming evidence that any of those ideas is potentially correct
3. Refine the story around the confirming evidence to validate the idea

For example:
1. I think I have cancer
2. Someone I know likes apples and he got cancer, and someone on TV said that apples are not as healthy as we all thought
3. Eating apples must cause cancer and I've eaten apples all of my life, therefore I'm certain that I have cancer

This is how wild animals refined their routines and developed instincts. Over time, some of these worries turned out to be true. To color the story: those chimpanzees avoided getting eaten, and therefore were potentially our evolutionary ancestors. We didn't evolve from the ones that didn't worry about everything.

Listening to the House and Senate partisans debate the details and themes of the stimulus package brings to the surface the depth of analysis being used by these parties. Bold, broad statements are continually being made about details: "Kennedy and Regan cut taxes, so that's the way we need to go..." "That bush shook last week and a tiger jumped out and ate Sally. We'd better run next time that happens." Even our 'leaders' are instinctual and heuristic in their analysis to this critical process. Do they question the deeper effects that occurred during those eras that are applicable today? Do they know if that causation is applicable to that effect? Do they question their ignorance? Where is the curiosity on the details, and subsequently the model of the economy that this huge expense is supposed to positively impact? Who is outlining the model that should be used to frame the debate? Who is outlining the scale of impact to job creation and retention of each component of the stimulus, and the probability of it coming to pass? Who is modeling the present propensity of the consumer to spent each incremental dollar they net from a payroll tax break? If they get that dollar, will they really buy something, or just bank it until they cross a comfort-threshold on their savings and assets?

Until we recognize how we think and how others around us think, we are doomed to our instincts, heuristics and foolish conclusions. What works in convincing the public to vote for a candidate does not translate to the process of analyzing an economic program. Rhetoric alone will not stimulate an economy, and ideologies and philosophies have no place in what can be called the economic sciences.

2009-02-02T17:46:00.000-08:00

The Painful Truth About Our Economy
There has been a lot of talk about stimulating the economy. But, as my economics professor once told me, the best the government (or Fed) can do is provide a soft landing instead of crashing through the "real growth curve" and into a deeper recession than is necessary. This implies a key factor that is not getting enough air time: We don't value this 'stuff'.

We don't value the services.
We don't value the new products.
We don't value the extra products on the shelves.
We don't value the incremental person in the company doesn't move the needle.

We feel bad about the loss of jobs (and I feel that pretty hard in my family today, right now), but the economy is terribly overbuilt. We have extended our investment in businesses of all types on the assumption that this particular business will win out over that other one. But, they both can't win. Or, all 450 of them can't win. Retail is overbuilt by a factor of 10. The inherent demand of the consumer market cannot support it. Therefore, the retailers are collapsing. We cannot forever continue to purchase more houses at this rate. Therefore, the housing market is collapsing - regardless of the banks' inefficiencies and lack of trust with each other.

We need to recognize that we cannot restart the economy until we hit the bottom. We need the reset in order to determine where the value remains in our society and its economy. We cannot continue to do the same thing.

The prospect of the future revenues we were banking on are becoming less ambiguous. The data is in. No questions remain about what those revenues look like. There's no value to anticipate. The future is now, it has arrived, and it is bleak.

The government can only soften the landing. We cannot hit that growth-curve floor with any velocity and not avoid many more months to recover than is necessary. But, we have quite a ways to go until we hit that floor. We can sustain ourselves on much less than where we are presently. Until we start seeing fewer cars on the lot, fewer shirts on the hangers, fewer boxes of cereal on the shelves, we're probably overbuilt.

So, were is the value-appreciation located? Look for the poor. Look for those that aspire to minimize the pain of their condition. The average American family makes $48K. That's about 20X some of the poorest families on earth. We are relatively comfortable. The biggest delta of value appreciation is elsewhere, and probably in the developing countries. Fortunately, they are plentiful. Unfortunately, they are often repressed and unable to generate enough value themselves to participate in the economy.

China was on an upswing to bring their masses into that category. Maybe they crossed a threshold and enough of them will begin to become resourceful and spawn a new generation of entrepreneurs to sustain their growth internally instead of having the US shovel money at them? They might then want to purchase our goods and services someday. Maybe enough of India has been developed to enable them to segue more of their people into the middle class and generate more demand for the fundamentals of a modern lifestyle? More Cisco routers for those households? If those societies have crossed that tipping point of per-capita revenue-generation, then we are now merely at a short respite before the world economy really takes off. Those societies will spiral up as long as their governments can get out of their way.

But, the next boom will not be taking off in the US anytime soon. Maybe we'll figure out how to capitalize on that overseas value creation, but if we're relying upon our own society to suddenly regain its appetite, we're kidding ourselves. We need to build for everyone else. That's the future. Not here.
Post Note 2/23: The Economist magazine apparently thinks the same way I do:

2009-01-19T10:24:00.000-08:00

The Gift He Left Us
Today is the last full day of George Bush's presidency. The international newspapers are full of condemnation and scant praise. Regardless of your opinion of the man and his administration and how history will judge him, you cannot disagree that it has attracted a significantly higher-than-expected level of strong opinion than what might have been anticipated in yr 2000.

I'm not going to judge the man or his decisions in this post. What I believe needs to be called out is the gift of Example that he provided to us and our culture. The Presidency is one of the most public examples of decision making Results in our times. We all look to a person, a single person, for a decision to complex questions. Guidance and leadership are the outcome. Although, we are rarely exposed to the process of the decision-making itself. The logic, heuristics, ideologies and emotions that factor into a decision are what make this office a profoundly human manifestation. We evolved from animals with a fundamental desire to not get killed, and suddenly we developed a rational mind. Once Galileo saw the moons of Jupiter through his telescope, the facade of our instinctual decision-processes and interpretation of our perceptions began their long, slow crumble. The US Presidency has become one of the most powerful archetypes that humanity can consider when assessing the progress of that crumbling facade.

We are also "middlings". We live short lives. We have limited perceptions. We need to simplify our reality in order to function. Therefore, we also need high contrasts to perceive the conditions we were once in, and presently are. The transition of a US Presidency provides the opportunity for that contrast for humanity to learn. We will be able to comprehend the change that happens. Our 'boiled frog' status might be perceived - on a culturual level. This may be the lasting gift that George W. Bush provides to our country, our culture, and to humanity - that contrast of mind between the ideologues and rationalists and the impact it has on us as a society. As with any moment in time, there must be another side to the unit, the concept and story. Barak Obama will have to provide that second bookend, that contrasting example to lead us to a better understanding of our own humanity's potential to supercede our reactive, instinctual beings and leverage our rational capabilities. We may finally bring down that scholastic edifice established by Aristotle once and for all, and start a truely new age of humanity.

2009-01-15T10:18:00.000-08:00

Sage or Sloppy Thinker?
This is a continuation of my prior post regarding the way people think. The two categories: Ideologue and Rationalist, are still probably too coarse and I hope to make greater sense out of this over time.

I recently heard an ancient passage about the wisdom of sages. Who were these sages? Who are they today? And, how did/do they think? They provide a conclusion, an answer to an issue or question. But, how did they work their way through to that conclusion?

Given how poorly understood was the rational approach to problem solving in the "days of old", I suspect that these sages were ideologues. Therefore, their insights and advise were based on a primitive understanding of the nature of the physical universe and the abstract sciences such as psychology and sociology. They were often doctrine-based. This scares me.

2009-01-07T09:10:00.000-08:00

The Way We Think
I'm challenged to articulate a recent insight, so I'll start writing it here and hope that it improves over time. The topic is the process by which people work through their decision-making. Economists assume that people are rational. But, there is too much evidence to the contrary; although economists will probably maintain that it is due to insufficient or incorrect data.

I think there is something much more at work here.

I'm an engineer, designer and consultant to companies, institutions and individuals (including myself). I'm expected to add a rational mind to the mix when I'm engaged in a project. But, not all of my clients will walk down the same rational road. Many are prone to leaps, utilizing intuition, ideologies and rules of thumb. Their success in past matters reinforces their trust in their methodology. But, I'll maintain that it is not a methodology, but the foundation of how their minds work. There is no amount of explaining that will walk them down a rational pathway. They want answers, because answers (to them) are available and merely need to be selected. In my mind, answers are created after the question is properly defined. They often do not exist when you are trying to ask the question.

At this time I can attempt to throw these thinking processes into two categories: Ideologues & Rationalists. Neither are perfect or always correct. There may be more nuanced definitions, but these are the coarse definitions that I can grasp at this time.

I still respect the Ideologues, primarily due to my adolescent fascination with Carlos Casteneda. In his stories, he models the universe into three categories: The Known, the Unknown, and the Unknowlable. From a Rationalists perspective, I view the Ideologues as not respecting the Unknown category nor its boundaries on either side. But, unlike the cold-minded scientist, I do respect that there are things that will remain in the Unknowable category and that those influences are non-trivial in our universe. Nonetheless, I do not respect the sanctity of that category and thus believe that we need to work tirelessly to push the boundary of the Unknown further back (i.e. scientific discovery) and by doing so we better define the questions that assist us in improving our understanding of what might be the boundary of the Unknowable. I believe that this is a profoundly Human desire and any constraints to that pursuit by religious or secular ideologues is an anti-human, primitive (e.g. Brain stem) action. We default to that position due to our carnal foundation, but we are endowed with rational capabilities that enable us to explore far beyond those idealisms.

Maybe there is a third category? The Rationalogue. A hybrid. A respect for the rules of thumb that are not understood, but work; and a respect for a rational methodology.

2008-12-22T13:28:00.000-08:00

The Speed of Money

If the US economy, at $14.3T/yr, was to be represented by stacking $1-bills together (on the paper-thickness way), it would be moving at a rate of 116.21 mph.

The average US family makes about $47,025/yr ($128.84/day on average). Or, about 0.58 inches of dollars per day.

If you make $100K / yr, you are making 1.23 inches per day. After taxes, only about 0.84 inches.

Someone that nets $1M after taxes stacks 12.3 inches each day.

The US Government has $2.521T in annual receipts (it runs a deficit, so the outgoing budget is $2.931T). If these $1-bills were stacked, they would be traveling at 20.44 MPH. Picture a horizontal, rectangular stack of dollar bills shooting up the steps of the Capitol building in DC going over 20 MPH, 24 hours per day, 365 days.

2008-07-16T14:44:00.000-07:00

Corporate Explosions
I just listened to an interesting podcast on the topic of disruptive concepts (http://itc.conversationsnetwork.org/shows/detail3443.html). It was all nice and academic, and interestingly historical, and yet profound. The area that I was most interested was
the historical foundations of the corporation. I also remembered my biz-law class where the rationale for corporations was describe as a means to protect the investors' assets from the failure of the company itself. But, nowhere in the fundamental structure of the corporation does it say you need to have employees - or even consistency in your workforce.

I've also been checking out the web technology called Stickam (http://www.stickam.com). It allows you to stream multiple people's webcams in groups. Typically there is one primary broadcaster that attracts the participants. Today it is highly populated with teenagers socializing. But, this technology removes one of the key constraints to what keeps companies together in their present format: the need to collaborate.

After consulting for Cisco for years, I've come to recognize the facility of remote teams if you have the proper communications medium. After attempting to do a virtual startup, I eventually determined that the virtual team environment is typically glued by the financial incentive as an employee. It's hard to do. People feel isolated. People need to have more spontaneous interactions throughout their day. People are not optimal workers when their output is constrained to regimented meetings. But, if they feel as though they are participating in a virtual space, interacting with real people on a real-time basis, the "team" concept will begin to gel.

I'll describe the scenario: Seven team members all sit down infront of their computer and webcam. They are located in seven different timezones. They are all working on a project together. Each has multiple screens on their desk. One is dedicated to the video stream. Everyone sees everyone's image and everyone's audio is streaming to a decent audio system within each office. There is one manager who has the largest video box on the screen. Conversation is fluid throughout the day. When people leave their desk, others notice. When people return, conversations start. When someone overhears a relevant topic, they join in. Mics go on mute when the phone rings and during conference calls. Everyone is able to do spontaneous WebEx sessions to view documents, websites, or video's of a whiteboard.

I think these people can all be contractors that are assembled on a per-project basis. They don't have to live near the corporate headquarters. They come and they go. They have a certain set of skills that they bring to the team. The onboarding is fluid as well as off boarding. There are plenty of contracting firms to provide W2 arrangements, so companies are not exposed to litigation risks. As long at the team can create a spontaneous culture and be productive without having to co-locate, this model will break down one of the key reasons why companies are structured they way they are.

2008-07-09T17:56:00.000-07:00

How much is a Trillion dollars?

The Iraq war is estimated to eventually cost the US $1,000,000,000,000. Most people have no idea of the scale of a trillion. Few comprehend any difference between 1,000 and 10,000. It's all just big numbers.

I decided to make some measurements of the scale of $1T. Here are the dimensions of a single US dollar:
2.6" x 6.125"x 0.0045"

If you stack 1T dollars together, on the 0.0045" side (like in your wallet), it would extend for 71,023 miles. The earth's mean circumference is only 24,881 miles. that means a $1T would encircle the earth 2.85 times!

If you carpeted Bagdad with dollar bills, you would be able to do it 13 more times before you ran out of money. It would carpet 2% of Iraq!

On a financial level, if we handed out dollars to each Iraqi citizen before the war in exchange for rising up against Saddam, we could have given each person $33,333. Given that the average Iraqi citizen makes $2900/year, that would be 11.5 years of income! We could have enabled the entire Iraqi population to retire until almost 2014!

And nobody would have died.

2008-05-29T08:55:00.000-07:00

Consider the Presidential Pardon....

I believe the concept is sound. But, a significant loophole was made evident through the Scooter Libby pardon. Being a member of the executive branch, Libby did the bidding of the vice president. Richard Armitage (en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Armitage) was the actual "leaker", but didn't face criminal charges. Regardless of the actual leadership behind his decision to leak the information, any member of the Executive Branch has the pre-destined potential to avoid any consequences of their actions due to the power of the Presidential Pardon. Is this an acceptable, broad-stroke option for a country operated by the rule of law?

Take this to an extreme (that we might see in totalitarian regimes): The president orders that someone be killed. No record of the order is made. Operatives carry out the murder. One of the operatives is caught. During the trial no evidence is found or presented about the president's order, and the operative knows that he will not go to jail, so he is forthcoming about his personal motives. After the news subsides, the president 'takes pity' on his operative and provides a pardon. Ergo, the Law is circumvented.

I propose that the option of a Presidential Pardon be excluded from anyone operating within the Executive Branch. It's a risk you take when working for the President.

"Currently, the only way to change the pardon power is by constitutional amendment, though history has shown that the scope of the power can be modified by the courts (as in the acceptance doctrine)." (http://www.usconstitution.net/consttop_pard.html)

We have a horrible loophole in our Constitution that should be filled quickly. We need an amendment to the Constitution to limit the Executive Branch's ability to self-pardon and thus circumvent the law.

Aug.5th, 2008. New development: http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0808/12308.html

2007-12-13T22:08:00.000-08:00

Groups
It seems that just about everything I do eventually gets back to a group. I'm always organizing a group of people; a group of objects; a group of processes; a group of phases; a group of requirements that is eventually called a specification; a group of words that try to define something that doesn't have a decent, single word to call its own.

I just spent 3 months trying to group a bunch of processes together for a large healthcare insurer. Assembling the correct group was critical. Defining the boundaries across each group was also critical. Within the groups were smaller groups. Within those smaller groups were even smaller ones. Then there are the meta-groups that hold them all together.

People tend to be sloppy about the group definitions. Then, they look at you like you are too academic. But, in the end, your project gets shut down because there is too much ambiguity across the groups. Someday I'll understand what "academic" means outside of the reality I'm expected to corral into groups.

In the meanwhile I'll continue to define my groups. It's the only atomic pattern that makes sense to me.

2007-09-11T23:45:00.000-07:00

The Ambiguity of Making Claims
In identity management, a portion of a user's digital identity record is a claim (or claims) the user makes that describes them or asserts their right to gain some sort of access. Most establish these claims in the form of a definitive variable (i.e. Yes/No, A/B, 0/1, etc). I believe that this definitive approach is the core cause of many access control management problems, and thus a significant amount of fraud.

A claim is typically transient. It changes over time. People loose the right to access something. People get greater access rights as their reputation or job responsibilities change. It's a moving target. Therefore, all claims should include a reference to the process used to generated it. It should also have a time/date stamp. In this manner the recipient of that claim could view the claim (variable), assess the process to verify if it has been pre-approved, and optionally review the time/date if the assessment process requires it. In this manner the intent of the Claim variable is more directly associated with the end result of the access control (i.e. Write/Read, Allow/Deny, etc).

2007-09-08T17:42:00.000-07:00

Songs by Animals?

I'd rather not decide that humans are "above" the "animals" just because some book says so. I've spent a lot of time thinking through what makes us truly different and if it would be possible for some other branch of species to evolve into having the rational capabilities that humans have.

The one thing that I'd expect an animal to have is the ability to put together a structured song. One that can be learned and passed down. A simple warble doesn't cut it. Do animals have that ability? Where is the evidence?

2007-09-02T13:51:00.000-07:00

Our Missing Word
My friends and family have heard me rant about this topic for years, yet its relevance and impact never decreases in my mind. It strikes at the core of language and how we comprehend and modify our reality. This is because we, as humanity, have evolved through communication and the community it has facilitated. Our primary means of communication is via words, and they have been extremely effective devices. It would be hard to image our civilization evolving to this advanced state without words.

Words are also full of risk. Even in context words can be misconstrued. My favorite example is "The Fish is ready to eat". Are you cooking it? Feeding it? Could "The Fish" be a hungry Abe Vigoda? (who is actually still alive as of today). Even context didn't give these words adequate definition.

My rant is this: There is no recursive articulation in modern language of the transition point whereby a concept can adequately deserve to be labeled with its definition-word. More simply stated: There is no Word in our language that describes when something deserves its label. How many car-parts must I assemble before you would call it a "Car"? There is a point-of-transition that is a critical point for the very function of Words. On one side of the transition point the word does not apply, and on the other it does apply. Some have suggested "Conception" as an adequate word, but I believe that it is presently too loaded with societal baggage to adequately address this gap.

Because this transition point is not labeled, it is not discussed. As far back as Aristotle we have discussed the "essence" of an object - which pre-supposes that the nature of the object (or concept) existed prior to its label. But, without discussing and arguing about the nature of this transition point, we are continually ignorant of the word itself, and therefore the concept we intend to label with that word. How can you begin to have a rational discussion on any topic without comprehending the limits of the labels you use? Will there be misunderstandings?

I believe that our language needs to wake up and recognize that it is inadequate, in its present state, to address our complex societal and pan-environmental issues. We need to respect the limitations of our language, point at the weaknesses, and arm ourselves with a healthy skepticism so that we engage in fewer wars, fewer religious battles, fewer divorces, and that we begin to re-build our language on a more sound foundation. We may even learn to communicate.

2007-08-24T08:23:00.001-07:00

The Ever Changing Impact of Risk
Businesses or products have a lengthy lifecycle that spans a variety of risk levels. While sitting in a Starbucks 7 years ago, after having just experience my first startup RIF (of which I was a victim), I was trying to get my head around why do people ever take ANY risk. It became clear to me that it was highly dependent upon where the project was along its lifecycle.

Given that I was in a cafe, the "idea on a napkin" seemed an appropriate subject to consider. If I drew an idea on that napkin, then decided that it was a useless idea, there was close to 100% probability that that idea was going to fail. I might re-engage that project at a later date, but it would start from that napkin-level before it progressed. So, I knew that the risk of failure of that concept, at that point in its lifecycle, was 100%.

Once I decided to pursue that concept, it migrated out of that "Preliminary Analysis" phase and into a "Preliminary Project Development" phase. This is where I reached out to the world and retrieved information and empirical feedback to determine whether or not I should proceed. This is an interesting phase because I would have to be lowering the project's risk in order for me to choose to proceed. If the concept's risk level was not reducing at a rate sufficient for my comfort-level, then I would abandon it. For instance, I might find that someone else was already doing it and they were well-funded. Or, I might try to build the idea and might find that it really doesn't work as I thought, or that I'd have to invest too much time and capital to make any further determination on the project's risk.

So, what was happening if I chose to continue working on the concept? The risk was being reduced! Therefore, I was proceeding to work on the concept because I was reducing the concept's risk at a rate that I was comfortable with. Could I identify that level? Was it the same for everyone? I decided that it was not the same for everyone, and that that risk-level at that point in the project's lifecycle was significant.

Proceeding, that risk level had better continue to be reduced as I learned more about the concept, developed prototypes, got feedback, invested capital, built a team, lined up potential customers. As I approached the "Advanced Project Development", I was thinking about launching the project into the "Market", which means that I was going to put at risk all of my investment in capital and time and reputation. Therefore, I needed to reduce the risk to a degree sufficient for me to be comfortable crossing that threshold.

Once I enter the market, I need to be comfortable with an increase of risk because I'll be getting more information. If I choose to continue promoting and developing the concept, I must have reduced the risk back down to at least the same level as the maximum level for me to choose to enter the market. Otherwise I'll have gathered enough information to determine that the project will probably fail and I should work on something else.

The result of all this caffeine and thinking was this graph:

The gray area is the acceptable risk area for a "Live" project. If the project is above that gray area at any specific point in its development cycle, it will be abandoned. It cannot ever be below the gray area because there are always unavoidable risks in any project over time - and no project can ever be at a 0% risk level during its entire lifecycle.

The person that has the ability to kill the project must make go-no-go decisions along the project's timeline. That person's risk profile (the upper line on this graph) may be different from another person's risk profile. That is the reason why some people (or companies) continue to develop projects while others abandon them. That is the reason why certain people will join a startup at the later stages, but not be a "founder". It depends upon how well that concept's risk has been reducing over its lifecycle - which is influenced by the fundamental nature of the concept, the team executing the project (including its extended network that is willing to assist), and the conditions of the market or greater environment (think "dot com bubble burst").

There is much more to be discussed about this concept, as well as the compensation anyone might reasonably expect for participating. The lower graph starts to capture the logic behind why someone would accept equity vs payment for working on a concept. Again, it depends upon the point along the project's lifecycle, and the upside potential of the eventual payout. A small idea would require more cash compensation, whereas a big idea would attract a greater amount of interest in equity so as to benefit from that greater upside. This is useful for a person who is deciding how much equity vs salary to ask for in compensation from a startup.

2007-08-18T14:48:00.000-07:00

Patriotic?
In all the discourse regarding the Iraq war, why has no pundit addressed the assumption people make about equating "patriotic" with "America" and - a long-shot - to "democracy". Reference.com states "A patriot is someone who feels patriotism, support for their country." Iranians have patriots. Syrians have patriots. Chinese have patriots. North Koreans have patriots. None of these countries can be considered free democracies and none hold the fundamental values that underlie the nature of the American experiment.

I'll venture to guess that those who assume that by being an American you are, by default, a supporter of the values of America. Ann-Marie Slaughter's book "The Idea that is America" seems to adequately define the criteria for being an "American" in spirit, let alone in citizenship. The values she articulates include liberty, democracy, equality, tolerance, faith, justice, and humility. Few other countries could say that they espouse these values, and few Americans realize that these values are not what they believe. I would be surprised if someone could effectively argue that the Bush administration supports tolerance of ideas outside of their own. I believe that the same would be true for Humility. How many Christian fundamentalists that wrap themselves in the US flag are tolerant of Muslims, Mormons and Atheists? How many "ass-kicking" hawks in government would voice, during a debate, that America needs more humility on the international stage?

We need to stop equating "Patriotic" with American values. We could say "Patriotically American" but we should also spend more time talking about being an American. I submit that we need substantially more discourse amongst the population. And, we also need more training on debating and critical thinking. Our population's general lack of ability in this fundamental skill puts at risk the foundation of democracy. If people cannot defend their position, they will attack based on dogma. If people use that means to determine their positions, they will not benefit from others' opinions. If people cannot develop their own positions and conclusions through this discourse, how can a populous choose to elect an optimal leader? Democracy requires an informed populous, not "patriots".

2007-08-09T10:00:00.000-07:00

The Problem with External Administrators

Too many identity management consultants will design systems that utilize external administrators. It is a simple solution to a very difficult problem. It looks good on paper, but based on my experience (as well as presentations I've seen from Boeing, GE and Cisco) trading partners (customers, channel and vendors) don't want any more responsibility for managing their employees' relationship with YOUR company. These are NOT small, inconsequential vendors - and yet they cannot get customers to administrate their own employees for them! What hope is there for the rest of the market? Whatever it is better not include administrators. Mike Neuenschwander of the Burton Group mentioned in his presentation at Catalyst 2007: "I submit: If adding users requires more admins, it's broke." Amen!

The other annoying thing about admins is that they are also employees - and thus turn over at a 20% annual rate. Darn humans! In my experience, if you assign one person to manually onboard/provision administrators (contact company, ask who could be an administrator, contact him/her, convince him/her to do it, execute provisioning of their account), you will eventually top out on how many admins can be provisioned. Why? Because those admins turn-over (quit, are fired, change roles, etc), the provisioning-person you have hired will eventually spend just as much time re-provisioning existing external admins as adding new companies to the external admin process. Eventually they will spend all of their time maintaining the existing group of companies that have administrators. Then you need to hire another person to onboard new companies. The magic number is about 1200 people, or less than 1000 companies (usually there are, on average, more than one admin per customer). Companies with many 1000's of customers should not be considering external administrators as the primary means of managing access controls for externally-facing systems.

Admins are nice, but they are human. Humans, in this role, would never pass a software QA. :-)

2007-08-07T11:34:00.000-07:00

Reality vs Data for Claims
Software designers and developers need to have a very clean virtual environment to function. All data must be normalized, rational, and relevant in order for any downstream process to occur successfully. But, software is often developed for the purpose of influencing and organizing something in non-virtual reality. I do not believe enough discussion has addressed this issue from its most pure perspective. The discipline of identity management is one of the first technological disciplines that is forcing designers and developers to address the horizon between the reality and binary worlds.

Digital Identities are interpretations of a person's (or device's) attributes in such a configuration that independent systems (such as a software system) can successfully utilize the discrete information. For instance, if a person types in an accurate password that is associated with his account, the software system he is interacting with will successfully allow him to pass. Additional attributes (sometimes called "Claims") are then utilized for fine-grain functions. If a user has the reality-based ability to edit an account, their digital identity has a virtually-based claim that allows the software to enable "write" functionality. This is a discrete attribute and does not have any ambiguity in its virtual environment.

The challenge for this industry lies in the interface between the two worlds. In effect, analog must be interpreted to digital, and it must also be kept current in order for it to remain true.

The following, I believe, are a few "truths" relevant to this topic:

1) Transitions of attribute veracity are ambiguous in reality
2) Binary-based software is intolerant of ambiguous variables
3) The acceptability of a claim is correlated to the acceptable range of tolerance the receiving party has defined for a decision process
4) Models are, by definition, more simple than the reality they describe
5) A digital identity is a data model of a user