"Democratizing Innovation"

Professor Eric Von Hippel of MIT

There are two free books that help provide an understanding of how People, Ideas & Objects software development project will proceed. And most importantly the role of the Users and Developers involved. The first book is the above titled and can be downloaded from here. The second book "The Future of Ideas" is also down-loadable, and written by Professor Lawrence Lessig of Stanford University.

Professor von Hippel's book documents the means to attain the innovation that we seek. In Chapter 1 he provides a summary of the entire book. This summary provides coverage of the points that I want to make, so lets begin.

Chapter 1

Professor von Hippel starts off with framing the context in which he sees innovation occurring. Defining both User centred innovation vs manufacturer centric innovation. For the purposes of this blog entry, von Hippel's focus on the use of "manufacturers" is consistent with our understanding of oil and gas user based innovation.

Users that innovate can develop exactly what they want, rather than relying on manufacturers to act as their (often very imperfect) agents. Moreover, individual users do not have to develop everything they need on their own: they can benefit from innovations developed and freely shared by others. p. 1

This software development project is global in scope, use of the Joint Operating Committee is the cultural norm throughout the industry. The People, Ideas & Objects project is conceived in the open source model and will provide the Users, developers, and producers with innovations developed elsewhere. I believe this is possible and Professor von Hippel indicates how this is happening.

At the same time, the ongoing shift of product-development activities from manufacturers to users is painful and difficult for many manufacturers. Open, distributed innovation is "attacking" a major structure of the social division of labor. Many firms and industries must make fundamental changes to long-held business models in order to adapt. p. 2

This very point was addressed in my original thesis. Anthony Giddens is currently more famous as an adviser to British Prime Minister Tony Blair, however, in 1984 he published "The Constitution of Society" which introduces his structuration theory. Structuration suggests that people, organizations and society progress at the same rate, any imbalance in one would lead to failure in the others. I had suggested that the energy industries use of the hierarchical organizational model had exceeded its useful life, and indeed was inhibiting both people and society. I think that we are beginning to see and understand the failures that the energy bureaucracies are having on society. Moving to the industry standard Joint Operating Committee is the fundamental change that is necessary to avoid these failures. How these changes are implemented is through a clean break from the old business model.

Innovation user and innovation manufacturer are the two general "functional" relationships between innovator and innovation. p. 3

We need these two types of innovations. One is the systems, developed by its users, that support the innovative energy industry, and in turn support the innovations that need to take place in the earth sciences and engineering disciplines. Professor Giovanni Dosi shows that science is influenced by innovations which in turn leads to new sciences and new innovations. Consumers and producers of innovations may be more a reflection about a point in time rather then an individuals role in the long term. Software systems need to adapt to changes like these. This is what I am setting out to provide to this user community.

In figure 1.1, the increased concentration of innovations towards the right indicates that the likelihood of innovating is higher for users having higher lead user index values. The rise in average innovation attractiveness as one moves from left to right indicates that innovations developed by lead users tend to be more commercially attractive. (Innovation attractiveness is the sum of the novelty of the innovation and the expected future generality of market demand.) p. 4

Who these innovation leaders are is unknown at this time. But as this project continues to achieve mind-share in the energy sector, I think we will begin to soon find out.

Mass manufacturers tend to follow a strategy of developing products that are designed to meet the needs of a large market segment well enough to induce purchase from and capture significant profits from a large number of customer. When users' needs are heterogeneous, this strategy of "a few sizes fit all" will leave many users somewhat dissatisfied with the commercial products on offer and probably will leave some users seriously dissatisfied. p. 5

A drive that I am attempting to lead away from the generic industry software solutions of IBM, SAP and Oracle. The energy industry is too unique to share any similarities to other industries.

The social efficiency of a system in which individual innovations are developed by individual users is increased if users somehow diffuse what they have developed to others. p. 9

Encapsulating the value of today's collaborative Information Technologies.

When we say that an innovator freely reveals information about a product or service it has developed, we mean that all intellectual property rights to that information are voluntarily given up by the innovator, and all interested parties are given access to it - the information becomes a public good. p. 9

This is how the second book "The Future of Ideas" written by Professor Lessig's comes into play. If everyone is only concerned about the access rights to their own ideas this entire community will be eventually reduced to a place where only Lawyers will be happy. The licensing model for this project simply enables the free and unencumbered access to the ideas and intellectual property contained within this project. This is derived through myself granting Users and Developers free access to all of the intellectual property. In turn each User and Developer assigns the rights in their ideas and innovations back to the copyright holder enabling immediate re-distribution of the idea. This is necessary to maintain the free access for all concerned, and, that I have a strong position to assess the energy producers for the appropriate financial resources necessary to pay the Developers and Users to do this work.

Innovation by users tends to be widely distributed rather than concentrated among just a very few very innovative users. As a result, it is important for user-innovators to find ways to combine and leverage their efforts. Users achieve this by engaging in many forms of cooperation. Direct, informal user to user cooperation (assisting others to innovate, answering questions, and so on) is common. Organized cooperation is also common, with users joining together in networks and communities that provide useful structure and tools for their interactions and for the distribution of innovations. Innovation communities can increase the speed and effectiveness with which users and also manufacturers can develop and test and diffuse their innovation. They also can greatly increase the ease with which innovators can build larger systems from inter-linkable modules created by community participants. pp. 10 - 11

I think that this is by far the best method in which this community should be built and achieve what is possible in this time and place. I would challenge anyone to suggest a more effective means of this communities innovations, and avoid the following.

Intellectual property law was intended to increase the amount of innovation investment. Instead, it now appears that there are economies of scope in both patenting and copyright that allow firms to use these forms of intellectual property law in ways that are directly opposed to the intent of policy makers and to the public welfare. p. 12

This discussion is the method that Open Source projects have used in the technology environment. Not all open source projects fall within this category, only what I perceive as the commercially successful ones.

User's ability to innovate is improving radically and rapidly as a result of the steadily improving quality of computer software and hardware, improved access to easy to use tools and components for innovation, and access to a steadily richer innovation commons. Today, user firms and even individual hobbyists have access to sophisticated programming tools for software and sophisticated CAD design tools for hardware and electronic. These information based tools can be run on a personal computer, and they are rapidly coming down in price. As a consequence, innovation by users will continue to grow even if the degree of heterogeneity of need and willingness to invest in obtaining a precisely right product remains constant. p.13

and

I conclude this introductory chapter by reemphasizing that user innovation, free revealing and user innovation communities will flourish under many but not all conditions. What we know about manufacturer - centered innovation is still valid; however, lead user centered innovation patterns are increasingly important, and they present major new opportunities and challenges for us all. p. 17

Thank you Professor von Hippel for noting these key points and the free access to these important concepts in your book. If we miss this opportunity it will not be as a result of a lack of access to the intellectual property.

Professor Lessig has a unique understanding of some of the legal implications of the Internet. I recommend reading his book as a companion to Professor von Hippel's book. Lessig's book provides an understanding of many of the issues and opportunities around intellectual property. I think that the most effective way in which these ideas can be populated and built upon are addressed in Professor Lessig's book, and implemented in People, Ideas & Objects.

Technorati Tags: People's, Copyright, Open-Source, MIT,

MIT Energy Council on MIT Video

I am extremely disappointed with the direction of MIT's Energy Council. MIT President Susan Hockfield made a video update; you can view the video here. I originally wrote about what I thought about their focus and direction here. It now appears they have lost that focus and hence are lost on the real issues. Talking more about the concern for CO2 and alternative energies are blind, dark bunny trails for those that don't understand the real point. Coal, oil and gas make up the majority of the sources of energy and will continue to do so. The ability to meet market demand for energy is not sustainable and a world class leadership from the likes of MIT would have made the journey a little easier. It is now clear, in this almost incoherent one and a half hour presentation, nothing of material value is being done on energy issues at MIT.

Technorati Tags: Genesys, Video, MIT, Team-Failures

Jeffrey Immelt on MIT Video

Jeffrey Immelt is the current Chairman of General Electric. His video presentation is at the MIT Energy Conference. This is a very good video and I would encourage anyone to watch it for the unique perspective and insight that Immelt has. Click on the title for the url to the video.

Speaking about the difficulties in the energy field, Immelt noted that "market signals don't fit the time horizons", and I have to agree that is certainly the case. The three-months time frame that the capital markets operate within is not enough time for the energy industry to do anything. And the decades long lead times for satisfying the demand for energy are two areas where this disconnect happens. With such long lead times necessary to achieve anything in oil and gas, the markets always seem at odds.

He also spoke of the "notion that energy is free". This notion that he speaks of is, I think, is the same concept that makes people expect they have the right to energy. I hope that we can continue to experience these rights and entitlements; however, I think that our future holds occasional energy outages and increased costs.

Immelt noted from his personal experience in traveling to India that demand for energy from China and India would not stop growing. In satisfying the needs for energy he states, "This is the time that technology and innovation can have a value". He felt that coal, natural gas and oil were going to be as important as they ever have been. And noted his turbines where operating at 65% efficiency, and indicated that reducing consumption was an area where much innovation and savings would occur.

He finished his presentation with two of what he calls "Immelts".

If you want to do something, you have to do something.

and

You want it bad, you get it bad.

Technorati Tags: Genesys, MIT, Video, Energy, Environment

Hydrogen isn't it.

That is of course just one man's opinion. Thankfully the scientific community has taken up President's Bush's challenge on alternative energy sources. This video is also a continuation of the MIT Energy Research Council announced earlier and is a part of the excellent series on the challenges of energy.

The problems are derived from the energy security point of view. This video provides an understanding of the challenges that are faced in using hydrogen as an alternative energy source. This Professor stands out as being one of the recognized leaders in physics and electronic engineering and has a great delivery. As with many of the videos presenters, she identifies the problems that we face in terms of the global energy challenge from her own particular point of view. The growth in populations that are increasing their standard of living, China and India to name a few, are where the demand is increasing. Professor Dresselhaus mentions that this demand is not linear. Noting also that the U.S. consumption does not change necessarily with respect to the GDP increases.

As we are aware, the higher quality fossil fuels, are mostly located in the difficult areas of the globe. The use of coal by the U.S. and China are probably going to continue and may increase as demand for energy increases and the supply becomes more constrained. It is also projected that fossil fuels will supply 30% of the energy in the future, down from 80%, however I find that to be a surprising reduction. Some interesting points in the discussion include hydrogen provides twice the "power" of gas.

Professor Dresselhaus talk is mostly on working with hydrogen, and particularly the storage challenge it provides, and how Nano Structures provide a fresh look at these hydrogen issues. What is required in order to use hydrogen is a variety of catalysts to produce it, to store it and then to use it. The Nano Structures change the properties of catalysts. This provide three benefits during the catalysts phase. They increase the volume of hydrogen storage, they reduce the storage temperature requirements, and "borazene" gets trapped. Professor Dresselhaus also notes that gold is a catalyst in nano application even though gold is not normally a catalyst for hydrogen. She also draws a parallel to the benefits that Moore's law has provided in terms of computer processing capability. This she notes is this scope of benefit that is necessary to solve the worlds demand for energy in the future.

Hydrogen is a transmission agent of energy that were inspired by fuel cells. The use of hydrogen today is specific to its application and the U.S. produces 9 million Tonnes per year. The source of this hydrogen is from hydrocarbons and therefore limits its upward growth opportunities. What is needed is to extract the hydrogen from water which requires a catalyst and hence is very costly and difficult to do, particularly at what would be expected as commercial volumes.

Many of the areas that progress is beginning to be made seem to be more on the energy demand side of the equation. Light can be provided for half of the energy demands by using LED's and Photonics. The demand side is the area where most of the scientific advances are of benefit at this point in time. Professor Dresselhaus stresses again that the most critical issue here is the storage of hydrogen, noting that Hydrogen needs five times the storage size of gasoline. Hydrogen molecules are separated quite far apart. What is needed is a Nano particle as a binding agent to reduce the storage requirements. One binding agent Ammonia was shown to be benign and inert as a storage medium.

One can clearly see the issues that storage of hydrogen makes. The costs of these materials, the energy they consume themselves and their safety has prioritized the science community to focus on these first and foremost. One opportunity Professor Dresselhaus notes is the recent discovery in sunlight conversion multiples. Soon the output of solar cell could increase from its current 12 -13% efficiency, and with nano technologies, this can be brought up to a 30% efficiency. Professor Dresselhaus noted that an ideal application of solar may be in the production and storage of Hydrogen, this would reduce the hydrocarbon footprint of production. And a surprising comment that all of these scientific findings have been discovered since the Presidents 2003 announcement of a new energy initiative.

Technorati Tags: Genesys, MIT-Video, Science, Alternatives

Ray Kurzweil, always a worthwhile speaker.

Ray Kurzweil is back on MIT Video. I wrote about Mr. Kurzweil on his last video performance at MIT. A very entertaining video and I highly recommend everyone go and view it.

Mr Kurzweil is the author of the Best Selling book "The Singularity is Near" as well as many others. Mr. Kurzweil debates with Professor David Gelernter of Yale the when, if, what and how of computer processing, and will it attain the level of human intelligence. A debate that provides new information regarding the capabilities and the definition of artificial intelligence.

Mr. Kurzweil suggest that the benchmark processing power of machines will emulate the human mind around 2029. He is careful not to suggest that this means a machine takes on a level of consciousness, but has attained the same level of performance of the human mind. If I understood him correctly, machines are providing an enhancement to human intelligence today, and that is what he means when he talks about artificial intelligence, an augmentation of capabilities for the human mind, with 2029 machines being produced with human like levels of performance.

Kurzweil's position is a reasonable point of view about when and how machines will achieve human like intelligence. Professor Gelernter wants the Turing test to be the ultimate test of human like performance and seems to insist on machines attaining levels of human consciousness. Something that he insists, rightly, will probably never happen.

The reference to 2029 by Kurzweil depends on the logarithmic and exponential growth in information, knowledge and processing power. He noted that knowledge was now doubling each year, with acceleration from the point where we are at now, what will be required in 2029 seems impossible, however, the acceleration is driven exponentially and logarithmically, whereas people think of the future only from the point of view of their historical experience, or as Kurzweil puts it linearly.

To me the debate is somewhat of limited value, Professor Gelernter appears not to be debating something he believes and hence his arguments fall somewhat flat.

The second video of this MIT series is very interesting particularly from the historical point of view. Professor Jack Copeland of the University of Canterbury, New Zealand. His discussion of the Turing Test and how Alan Turing solved the German Enigma machine in World War II. He continues on documenting interesting points of Turing's life and the impact that his Turing has had on the computer industry. A very worthwhile set of videos that provide very interesting views of the past and future of the computing industry.

Technorati Tags: Genesys, MIT, Video, Interests, Capabilities, Ideas

Growing pains - transitioning to a sustainable energy economy.

This excellent video is part of the MIT Museum Soap Box series sponsored by the MIT Energy Research Council. I wrote about the first installment of this presentation here, and this video goes off in two completely different directions. These new directions provide prescient discussion on key issues of the day. At one hour and thirty five minutes it is a worthwhile review. This presentation is primarily with Professor John B. Heywood who is the Director of the Sloan Automotive Laboratory and Co-Director, Lab for 21st Century Energy, and Professor Stephen Ansolabehere. John Durant, Director of the MIT Museum is the moderator of this presentation.

The introduction provides the standard fare comment that greenhouse gas emissions is the major issue of today. My opinion regarding green house gases is based more on the inability to grasp how humans could be responsible for the alleged damage. Raised during the time when the risks of the ice age was returning, I place as much weight on the frantic calls to reduce green house gases at any cost, as I do on the ice age returning. If you aggregated and assigned a square meter to each and every human on the face of the earth they would fill an area of approximately 50 square miles. Green house gases from this concentration of people is a bit of a stretch for me. However, this video has changed my opinion on the whole global warning issue.

Professor Heywood starts with the desire to change the title of the topic to "Making our energy use less unsustainable." Noting the discussion of the previous MIT energy related video was how much energy is produced today, and how the alternatives to coal, oil and gas pale in comparison to our current demands. Unsustainable for two reasons. The scale of our energy use, and the way we use energy is very efficient. The problem is the scale and growth in our demand shows a further unsustainability of our energy use. Dr. Heywood notes three areas that may provide value in approaching these problems.

• "Conserve needs to be a good word"
• "Improve mainstream technology to reduce demand."
• "Finding new ways to produce and consume energy."

All these points seem to be a reasonable approaches to the problem. Professor Heywood then notes that new technology will not "save us". Commenting that technology will have a role but that it is a false wish and a hope to expect that technology will provide a magic bullet. Growth is making the energy problem more difficult each day. Growth being the growth in demand, growth from economic activity, growth from population and industrialization.

In my mind I have to ask why has the Segway not caught on? The ability to travel 20 km at up to 20 km / hour for the cost of a little under $1.00 in electricity is an obvious solution to the problem. When given a hammer, a child will hammer at everything in sight. Why does everything have to be solved through the auto industry? Is the car necessary for all that we do, or could there be alternative means to get around? I sometimes think that the world should have invented the Segway before they developed the car. Nonetheless the device is fast and efficient and is cheaper then transit, it must be one of those acceptance issues.

Professor Stephen Ansolabehere begins his commentary and notes that the existing known global coal reserves provide energy for 300 to 3000 years. Coal can also be the worst in terms in CO2 emissions. We have this as the issue in which the abundance of coal is a cost of pollution that is not taxed. What Dr. Ansolabehere means by this is that the cost to produce one unit of energy values coal at $1 per unit, nuclear at $2 per unit, and solar is at $5 per unit. A carbon tax would deal with raising the coal costs to be uncompetitive to solar so that investment in solar can be made to reduce the reliance on coal. This makes sense to me. It does not make sense to attach a carbon tax to the oil and gas industry. These products are less damaging then coal and the reserve life does not last nearly as long. (50 years by most estimates). Oil and gas would also benefit in its development in the same manner as solar would with a carbon tax.

Professor Ansolabehere then notes the scale at which the public is willing to pay for a carbon like tax. Noting that the average home heating bill in the U.S. is $100 per month. He states that his tracking the U.S. attitude to solve global warming is assessed at $14 / month a number of years ago, and currently this has been raised to $21 as global warming has become the number one concern. There is a very clear disconnect with people on how serious the issue of the global warming issue is. Yes my grammar is correct, in order that a carbon tax effect a change to the alternatives would require the costs of the average home heating bill to skyrocket by several hundred dollars. What the global warming issue needs is more people that don't want it in their back yards.

I am also concerned that this may lead to a carbon tax be assessed on the oil and gas producers. This is a critical time for oil and gas as we bridge the easy and cheap production of the 20th century with the costly and difficult 21st century. An assessment on the industry will only slow down the research, exploration and development. Not a choice that anyone wants to truly consider. As I believe any assessment can not be on the producer level. The competitive advantages of a country are dependent on the low costs of energy. The tax should be at the consumer level, which indirectly reduces energy demand.

So how has this video changed my opinion? I would now support a carbon tax on coal users to the point where research and development, and use of alternatives could be done profitably. If people are willing to pay extra to heat their home, and coal is the devil in these details, they must be the solution. To tax the oil and gas industry as the Canadian government is now suspected to be doing as early as March will have no effect on the reduction of green house gas emissions, but will have a remarkable effect in making our energy problems worse.

Technorati Tags: Genesys, MIT, Video

MIT Museum Soap Box

The title of this entry will take you to a video from MIT's Museum "Soap Box" series. The two speakers, Professor Daniel Nocera, and Professor Angela Belcher focus the viewer’s attention on the energy challenges facing society. I highly recommend reviewing the video, the hour and a half is time well spent.

I believe that energy is one of the commodities that people fail to understand the significance of. Professor Nocera documents how the "alleged" alternatives are woefully inadequate to replace the energy produced by the oil, gas and coal industries. His analysis is accurate as he adds up the implications of each alternatives energy capability and capacity.

There are those that subscribe to the peak oil theory. There are those that say the world has adequate supplies for a long period of time. I fall on the peak oil side, based on my thirty years experience in the industry with the caveat that I am unable to discern what good reserves look like. I am not a geologist. Nonetheless both of these camps say that we are very close to having used up half of the known worlds reserves. This is the point that the peak oil theorists explain that deliver-ability will begin to decline and be irretrievably lost. This based on their projections scheduled to occur in 2012. I suspect 2012 will also be the point in time that the innovative oil and gas producer will be in highest demand. This last point is my justification for ensuring that we organize ourselves to meet those needs.

I would also assert during this transition to higher energy prices have been as a result of the short-term deliver-ability problems. Oil and gas has been in a holding and survival strategy since 1986. The producers are unable to ramp up production as quickly as they are now producing it, making for a short-term crisis that will approximate the crisis that we will see in 50 years.

In consideration of the date of 2012, the world has precious little time, around 50 years (2057) to come up with the alternatives that will fill the demands that Professor Nocera documents so well.

Technorati Tags: Genesys, MIT-Video, Innovation, Energy

MIT President Emeritus on MIT Video

Dr. Charles M. Vest provides an interesting discussion regarding the teaching and developmental challenges that the engineering disciplines will go through in the next 14 years.

At around the 35 minute point, Dr. Vest states their is a parallel to the current issues the energy industry faces, with the issues the auto industry faced in the 1970's. An interesting and accurate analogy.

During the Q and A Dr. Vest makes the point that at a diner with Secretary Rice, regarding the changes at the State Department, Newt Gingrich made it very clear, we have something that was built for a different era, that science and technology in industry have to re-organize to meet the challenges of today.

Technorati Tags: MIT-Video, MIT, Engineering, Innovation

Metcalfe's declaration of the Massachusetts Enertech Cluster

Dr. Robert Metcalfe is a major force in the technology world. He is the inventor of Ethernet which is the basic underlying infrastructure of the Internet. Based on Ethernet, Metcalfe founded 3Com which was an integral part of the building of the Internet. A man of great ideas, and a man who has the ability to make those ideas operate in the real world.

Dr. Metcalfe has been affiliated with MIT through out the years, and works with Polaris Partnerships, a venture capital firm he owns, and has recently guest blogged on VCMike's Blog, a silicon valley early stage venture capitalist. Click on the title of this entry to review Metcalfe's ideas.

Metcalfe's ideas are that the greater Boston area holds 10 first class research universities and over 100 universities in total. This is the place that he proposes to house the "Massachusetts Enertech Cluster"(MEC). He proposes the MEC to be modeled on the Silicon Valley Cluster, the area of MEC's focus will be on innovation in oil and gas, and I can not agree with him more.

Metcalfe's interest from a venture capital perspective are listed in this blog entry and include: Ember, Scicortex, and Greenfuel.

"Ember is a networking company that delivers tiny radio semiconductors and protocol software. Ember’s aim is to network all the world’s embedded micro-controllers, of which, according to IDC (another Massachusetts company) there will be 10 billion new ones shipped next year. Ember’s go-to-market focus is home and building control. And what do you think the principal benefits of home and building control are? By wirelessly controlling lights, heating, ventilation, and air conditioning, many of Ember’s early customers are conserving energy. By wirelessly reading meters, many of Ember’s early customers better measure the energy they are saving"

"SiCortex is a computer systems company, so why is it an example of Massachusetts enertech? First, SiCortex has just launched open-source software Linux superclusters that improve by factors of 10 delivered computational performance per dollar, per foot, and, yes, per watt. Because they each consume two factors of 10 fewer watts than the PC microprocessors on our desks, SiCortex fits six 64-bit microprocessors on a chip and therefore 5,832 in a single cabinet, cooled by air, saving energy on running the computers and even more on cooling them. That’s enertech. And second, SiCortex is enertech because its superclusters are designed for high-performance computing applications, prominent among which are seismic data analysis for oil exploration, climate modeling, fluid dynamics, reactor simulations, quantum chromo dynamics — enertech. No wonder the lead in SiCortex’s recent $21M venture financing was Chevron."

"GreenFuel is now working with huge electric power plants in the Arizona desert to scale up its enertech. GreenFuel pipes CO2-laden flue gases through algae slurries circulating in solar bioreactors. GreenFuel algae use photosynthesis in enertech greenhouses to remove greenhouse gases (CO2 and NOx) from the flue gases before release into the atmosphere. And then, get this, the rapidly thickening algal slurry is harvested several times per day to produce lipids, starches, and proteins for extraction into substantial quantities of, respectively, biodiesel, ethanol, and feed. GreenFuel algae-solar bioreactors do require acreage, water, and electricity, but junk land, dirty water, and single-digit percentages of parasitic power. GreenFuel treats CO2 as a valuable plant food and, rather than try to sequester it expensively, GreenFuel recycles CO2, cleaning the atmosphere while producing cheap and clean energy"

Out of these I would particularly like to point out the business of Ember. Building the network for all the worlds embedded network microcontrollers. Metcalfe defines the market as being 10 billion devices that will be shipped in 2007. IPv6 will provide the unique addressing of each of these devices, wirelessly. This is exactly the reason why IPv6 and WiMax reside in my Technical Vision.

This is evidence to me we are entering a world where things are changing quickly. Companies that continue to hold on to old ways of business risk everything. Now is the time for change.

Technorati Tags: MEC, Innovation, Metcalfe, Change