
- Will Florida be soon deeply affected as well?
- Will a hurricane stir up the oil even further?
- Will the oil flow around the Florida Keys and wash up on the Eastern seaboard?
- When will it end?
- Will BP pay?



Hats off to Grist's David Roberts for putting together a thought-provoking line of thinking in Why Bill Gates is wrong. And no, he's not talking about Bing.
At the core, Roberts challenges the hubris of viewing all society's problems through the lens of innovation. That is, he says that Gates is fundamentally off mark when he sees the solution to our environmental crisis as primarily technical. Innovate our way out of this mess, says Gates. Not so fast, says Roberts.
Innovation ≠ technology, is what Roberts states, and he's right. Here's how he describes the sustainable city of the future:
Everything is linked up in a smart, integrated communications, power, and transportation network. The city "knows" which roads are congested and which parking spots are free. It can communicate to individuals what combination of walking, transit, and individual vehicles will get them where they're going fastest. Vehicles are small, electric, modular, and--via sensors, GPS, and broadband wireless--intelligent, so they can pilot and park themselves. They can be charged by parking-integrated stations or even electromagnetic coils embedded in curbs, and since they're interchangeable and easily customizable, they can be public goods (like today's car-sharing services), easily swapped out and thus continuously in use. The city uses the vehicles' batteries as distributed energy storage, along with other storage options including pumped hydro integrated into the sewer system. Rooftops, parking lots, and other marginal lands are covered with solar panels; small-scale wind turbines are perched on bridges and towers; cogeneration systems are attached to every industrial facility. Through smart design and sensing, every building and neighborhood maximizes efficiency. The city senses power demand, knows where power is being produced and stored, and continuously balances supply and demand.
So what's holding this vision up? By a wide margin, says Roberts, the biggest barriers to creating such bright green cities are social.
I agree. It's not technology - all of the technology needed already exists - but political will that is holding us back; remember Copenhagen?
Roberts describes the social innovations that need to take place:
Building a city that behaves like an integrated organism means developing a holistic, long-term plan that will coordinate multiple agencies and levels of government. Big, long-term thinking is not exactly an American strong suit these days. Also--and this is a underappreciated problem--cities are cripplingly dependent on the financial largesse of state and federal authorities. They have very little autonomy to borrow money and invest in their own futures.
There are all kinds of collective action and first-mover problems: Who puts the charging stations in if there aren't electric cars on the road yet, and vice versa? Who pays for a smart grid before distributed generation is in place, and vice versa? How can public infrastructure and private market development be coordinated?
Many of the investments involve high upfront costs that are paid back slowly over time. New financing models will be needed both for private individuals and companies and for cities themselves.
Changes in the way individuals live, work, communicate, and travel must be introduced in a way that maintains social cohesion and political support for further changes. That requires research in social psychology and other behavioral disciplines (sorely lacking in much policymaking). How these things are introduced matters just as much as what they are.
OK. So, let's ask again, what's the holdup? Why can't we address the challenges - both socio-political and technical? The answer: the structure of our democracy is damaged. When lobbyists have taken over every aspect of the debate, and the Supreme Court seconds this type of behavior, it doesn't take a genius to see that "the future" doesn't stand a chance.
The "inconvenient truth" has once again been buried. And to say that technology and innovation will take care of it is a huge mistake, one that might even cost us a lot in our near future.
As much as I respect Bill Gates's exceptional achievements there is always something fundamental missing for me to feel fully engaged when i hear his highly analytical presentations at TED. Always very seductive intellectually, extremely well analyzed and thought out, very well documented, supported by a wealth of data and facts, with solutions to complex issues made simple to understand ... but has human complex evolution ever been sorted out by analysis alone?
If you have not already read "The Big Shift Index" report from The Deloitte
Center for the Edge led by John Hagel III, John Seely
Brown, and Lang Davison you should do so immediately.
This first release of the Shift Index reveals a startling fact: the return on assets (ROA) for U.S. firms has steadily fallen to almost one-quarter of 1965 levels; at the same time, the researchers found modest improvements in labor productivity.
Grim news, indeed. The report also finds:
- The ROA performance gap between winners and losers has increased over time, with the "winners" barely maintaining previous performance levels, while the losers experience rapid deterioration in performance.
- The "topple rate," at which big companies lose their leadership positions, has more than doubled, suggesting that "winners" have increasingly precarious positions.
- U.S. competitive intensity has more than doubled during the last 40 years.
- While the performance of U.S. firms is deteriorating, the benefits of productivity improvements appear to be captured in part by creative talent, which is experiencing greater growth in total compensation. Customers also appear to be gaining and using power as reflected in increasing customer disloyalty.
- The exponentially advancing price/performance capability of computing, storage, and bandwidth is driving an adoption rate for our new "digital infrastructure" that is two to five times faster than previous infrastructures, such as electricity and telephone networks.
The Shift
Index consists of three indices: Foundation, Flow, and
Impact, and 25 metrics that together quantify the stock, pace, and
implications of the shift. The index enables analysts to
anticipate changes, identify bottlenecks, and guide strategy.
Not everyone, of course, will choose to monitor the same metrics or assign them
the same weights. Thus, the Shift Index is less a single measure and
more an informational platform that will give rise to a diversity of models
and, a stronger collective sense about the pace and nature of change,
constraints and opportunities within that system. As constraints
fall away and opportunities increase, old configurations become unstable
and new structures emerge.
A number of
key ideas in the report resonated with our observations at The Human Company:
- the importance of creativity and innovation in ROA
- information "flows" over information "stocks"
- passion as a driver for higher productivity
- more and more discriminating consumers
- consistently declining return on assets
- increasing rate at which big companies lose their leadership positions
- rising executive turnover tied to increasing performance pressures
However, I was surprised to find one element missing in their measurement model.
What's missing? Sustainability and its impact on the economy.
Sustainability
is the business imperative for our time. From global-warming to competition for natural
resources, sustainability must necessarily sit at the core of any sound
business strategy. The sooner businesses understand this the better.
Organizations will have no choice but to
follow government regulations and anticipate consumers reactions and merciless
communication via ever more powerful social networks aiming at securing a
healthy future.
More importantly employers who align their businesses to create a more sustainable world will also attract, retain and empower more and better employees. Sustainability challenges have become so pressing that they not only affect us at a rational and emotional level but they also threaten our survival instincts. And as such they are bound to impact employee productivity, loyalty, and creativity. Meaning is the underpinning and decisive factor of human efficiency. How could a corporation careless of its employees' and employees' children future ever encounter long term success in a flat world?
In order to maintain competitivity, growth and profitability
organizations will have to build sustainable blueprints for the future. Take a look at Adam Werbach's latest book: Strategy
for Sustainability.
The Deloitte report is an example of a brilliant work conceived in an
intellectual tradition largely limited to our analytical minds. Yes, they do mention creativity and talent and yes, they talk about information flows, but I wish they had mentioned sustainability. A quick glance at the Intuitive Compass™ shows us that Deloitte overlooked the South West Quadrant. Regrettably, this is often the case with our business thinking.

Going forward, we cannot leave out the importance of our reptilian brain in its relentless ability to impact every second of our lives and its superior intelligence to sustain our species and hence help us make the best business decisions for a sustainable future (1).
Here's looking forward to the the 2010 Shift Index; I hope to see a section on sustainability and a study on the decisive intangible dimensions of value creation which intuitive intelligence is designed to help us reckon with.
(1) In 2004 MIT School of Science Picower Insititute for Learning and Memory has shown that the basal ganglia which are parts of our reptilian brain are involved in our most sophisticated decision processes (Nature, Feb 24 2005)


