Google Insights for Search

Google recently released a new service called Google Insights for Search. (Click on the title of this blog post to be taken to the announcement on the Google Research blog). Once you go to the site (http://www.google.com/insights/search/#) it will subsequently show up as an application in your Google Account. There is a related .pdf written by Hal Varian and Hyunyong Choi that details how to use this new and interesting tool.

In the Draft Specification we have two modules that are somewhat related to this product. Both the Analytics & Statistics Module and the Performance Evaluation Module are user defined tools that allow detailed analysis of the data in People, Ideas & Objects. The data is the key attribute to these modules. With the People, Ideas & Objects Technical Vision expecting the data volumes to explode through IPv6, Java and Wireless access to the data in a known format. Data analysis tools like Analytics & Statistics and Performance Evaluation Modules will be the key to obtaining value from it. That is essentially what Google has done with the Google Trends data, published it through a known API and interface.

The purpose in allowing users to access formatted data is the key to the value in using the tools and understanding the data. How many firms have data scattered across many departments and on individuals machine? How much of this data is available through known and trusted access mechanisms? What tools are available for people to interpret and analyze the data. We have the opportunity to embed the R application into the Modules and other opportunities.

I highly recommend downloading the R application, the .pdf from Google on how to use Google Insight for Search and Google Trends data. Experimentation with this opportunity will provide you with the beginning of understanding the opportunities we will make available to our users. And please, join me here .

Technorati Tags: People's Google Data Algorithms Learning

Energy declines

Calgary's Herald newspaper has an article in Thursday's issue that supports the many initiatives inherent in this software development project. My actions have been to convince the industry that the need is great for the delivery of an ERP styled application such as People, Ideas & Objects. This began in February 2003 with a proposal that dealt with the two significant constraints of any software developer, code and customers. In September 2003 I then proposed a comprehensive research proposal. This proposal would test my hypothesis of an ERP system that identifies and supports the Joint Operating Committee; would provide the producers with a more innovative footing.

All well and good but it was at this time the producers turned against any idea of using the JOC. Or so I thought. Throughout the months of 2003 my proposals were steadily moving up the chain of command of the large intermediate producers. Reaching most of the CEO's in these firms was a reflection of the effort and the scope of the idea. Or so I thought. The one comment that in retrospect resonates with me is the comment that "we don't hire small research firm's." When none of the producers were interested in spending any money on this idea, I decided to conduct the research my self at my own cost.

In March 2004 I was informed that my thesis was complete and passed. I then set out to rewrite the document in commercial form. This was completed in May 2004 as the "Preliminary Research Report." Upon publishing this I was approached by some one in the industry who gave me two documents from Cambridge Energy Research Associates. These research documents were obviously on the same track as I was on in establishing the JOC as the key organizational construct. Their problem was it was well behind my completed work. I therefore won the right to the copyrights of these ideas. This also brought to mind the comments about "not using small research firms". I concluded this was a deliberate attempt to steal what was now mine. Understand the proposal I made in September 2003 was to conduct the research. The intellectual property was to be for the industry as they would be the ones that financed it. And since I financed it, the IP was mine.

Nonetheless it was around this point that I knew I was now an outsider to this industry. Any attempt to find work became useless and frustrated. Resigning myself to this fact I sought employment in other businesses and industries. And began writing this blog. After over 600 entries and 700,000 words I have been able to take the initial concept of using the JOC and detailed the research and results of the Draft Specification. An overall vision of what the oil and gas industry would look like and operate as by using the JOC.

I mention this bit of history as the basic need for People, Ideas & Objects was evident in the difficulties of finding and producing oil and gas. Finding energy was becoming substantially more difficult. Instead of developing these ideas and applications the industry chose to remove me and my ideas from the marketplace. Instead of doing anything constructive the industry has done nothing about their business but line their pockets with inappropriate levels of compensation.

That is a strong indictment of the brain trust of the Canadian oil and gas industry and particularly its management. And today we see the evidence that they are challenged by the difficulties in finding and producing oil and gas. From the Calgary Herald article.

Natural gas makes up two-thirds of all activity in the oilpatch and production has fallen almost 15 per cent over the past two years, taking the biggest contributor to the government’s revenue stream down with it. From a peak of about 14 billion cubic feet a day in 2001, Alberta’s gas production has steadily slid to a little more than 12 billion cubic feet at present. That figure is widely expected to fall as much as a billion cubic feet a day in 2009 as a result of spending cutbacks by big producers such as EnCana Corp. and Canadian Natural Resources Ltd., which are the two biggest drillers in the province.

It is important to remember that it was during this past two years that record activity in the field was taking place. More money was spent then in any prior period, and a 15% decline is the result? If doing all that activity lead to a significant decline in production what will doing nothing bring?

Herring was poring over numbers that showed only seven per cent of available rigs were drilling in Alberta.

Now granted some of that activity is attributable to road bans. But nonetheless budget cuts have been deep and systemic through out the producers involved in Alberta. In order to resolve this the solution that is suggested is;

The only way to increase production is to punch more wells to offset declines, said Don Herring, president of the Canadian Association of Oilwell Drilling Contractors.

The only way? Doing more of the same thing, expecting different results reflects a mental disability, not a solution.

Its time for the independent actions of people who are concerned about the effects of these irresponsible, selfish and criminal people. The CEO's of the major Canadian independent firms who were party to the discussion of using the JOC should be held accountable for their actions. The opportunity to do otherwise has passed, the damage is done and they are responsible. The road these producers are heading is towards their ultimate decline. Based on their performance in the province of Alberta, they will be out of business fairly soon. Please join me here.

Technorati Tags: People's Call-to-Action Energy Management Failure

That's a five minute misconduct.

Using a hockey analogy to reflect the opposing team is indulging in inappropriate or unfair play. It's also an analogy that will be intimately understood by Sun Microsystems Chairman Scott McNeally. I'm speaking of the actions of IBM in this proposed acquisition of Sun.

Lets go back to the Microsofts offer to purchase Yahoo. I thought Microsoft never wanted to purchase Yahoo, but they certainly were not happy with having to deal with both Google and Yahoo in the critical and valuable search business. Microsoft's acquisition of Yahoo has similar anti-trust issues to what IBM would be presented with in purchasing Sun. In fact it is the management of Sun that are contending that IBM stick to the acquisition in a potentially difficult anti-trust review. This may be a key point that helps Sun in the very near future and adds fuel to my hypothesis of IBM's dirty tricks. 

If Microsoft could have eliminated Yahoo from the marketplace without spending any money, would that not be a worthwhile action to take? For IBM to walk away from Sun after reducing the offer and peaking at what Sun has under the covers, IBM quickly learned more then they otherwise would have in normal operations. Key contracts, technologies, strategies and tactics of Sun were possibly made available as a result of the offer. Walking away after this peek, after they have the goods, after they make a revised less valuable offer shows that Sun may have some big nasty skeletons in its closet. It also does not speak well of Sun's management in deferring the opportunity to fulfill their shareholders potential on a short term basis. Which introduces a conflict and concern that otherwise is unnecessary and is certainly destructive. This is why IBM needs to be assessed this penalty.

Sun is having a difficult time. They have technologies that few fully understand or appreciate. In a world where value is attributed to those with coherent sound bites, Sun looses a lot of people beyond Java. Sun also has a number of technologies that are unique and far more valuable then the sum of their parts. And that is what IBM is after. Like Microsoft wanting Yahoo's market share for search, IBM wants desperately needs Sun's technologies. 

After the introduction of the personal computer, IBM blew it, big blue time. Under Lou Gerstner, austere management and a lot of luck the firm was able to recover. But what is it that they own now? Services in the form of corporate services to companies. Few if any actual technologies, certainly not a coherent story that can be told. I ask what are the benefits of services to companies? If I buy some IBM services, how do I know that you have provided that excellent quality of services that you claim? And if they are of such high regard, why am I being asked to sign another contract? Selling services without any products is not a long term viable strategy to making money, in my opinion. 

So IBM has now put Sun into play. What ever damage that is done to Sun is of net benefit to IBM. I'm not a fan of this tactic, and I find it oddly coincidental that it's only played out by those with anti-trust difficulties. We'll see how this one plays out, but IBM should be penalized not only five minutes, but a game misconduct and a 10 game suspension. 

Technorati Tags: People's Sun Strategy

Project P.U.M.A.

"Personal Urban Mobility & Accessibility" from GM and Segway. What have they done to my Segway? I have frequently pointed to the need to stop hurling 4,000 pounds down the highway at 60 miles per hour. As one solution to the many energy demand issues. We can't afford to be spending so much energy so inefficiently. If you believe in global warming, then you should also get behind this type of transportation. Using it to replace the car in your daily commute. And relegating the car to one or two days per week.

There is a large amount of talk in the blogs about PUMA. Segway have a blog that I subscribe too and they had three announcements today. You can read these here, here and here. Another one of the better sources of information is Fast Company. During the announcement Larry Burns, GM's VP of R & D says it well.

It'll be one-quarter the cost per mile, he told journalists. This is a vehicle that runs on electricity made from a wide range of sources, and because it's so small, it's efficient--it's approaching 150- or 200-gallon [tank] efficiency.

Note he doesn't call it a car. Those that have issue with the looks, I suggest it looks like any of GM's products. Me I'll buy a Segway as soon as all the insane city councils make it legal for them to be driven on streets and sidewalks. Also the TED Conference highlighted archive video's of Dean Kamen, who invented the Segway, and Larry Burns talking about his ideas in the car business. 

Technorati Tags: People's Energy Summary

"From Bubble to Depression?"

Professor Vernon Smith is a Nobel Laureate with an article in today's Wall Street Journal. His analysis rely' on the qualitative, and this article doesn't disappoint. Two comments that stand out, and that show the economic situation we are in is unique and historical. Relating the current experience to the great depression, he writes.

Had the mounting difficulties of the banks and the final collapse of the banking system in the "Bank Holiday" in March 1933 been caused by contraction of the money supply, as Milton Friedman and Anna Schwartz argued, then the massive injections of liquidity over the past 18 months should have averted the collapse of the financial market during this current crisis.

and

The causes of the Great Depression need more study, but the claims that losses on stock-market speculation and a monetary contraction caused the decline of the banking system both seem inadequate. It appears that both the Great Depression and the current crisis had their origins in excessive consumer debt -- especially mortgage debt -- that was transmitted into the financial sector during a sharp downturn.

The cause and remedy of the great depression is a topic that I am not satisfied that we have discovered the answer too. There are too many variables and actions that occurred over a decade of experimentation, trial and error. Professor Carlota Perez is someone that I have written about extensively on this blog. Her long wave economic analysis' and theories resonate with me. Suggesting that the old economy is no longer capable of meeting the demands of society. And that new technologies have matured and are readily available to take the weight of the "old" work horses.

I include the bureaucratic method of organization as one of the innovative technologies of the past century. Alfred Sloan, then CEO of GM used it to great effect in establishing the firm in its hey day. That technology can't provide the speed and innovativeness that is necessary for our current and future societal and individual needs. It is a form of economic organization that does not provide any further value, and I would suggest is the reason that much of the value in today's economy is being incinerated. 

Using the Joint Operating Committee provides a strong understanding of how better to organize the energy industry. Inherent in that understanding is the use of the Information Technologies that are readily available, and Professor Perez suggests are ready and able to begin to provide the value in society. Now is the time that change is being demanded of our economic ways and means. I would suggest that the economy will only commence the building of value again when we build the systems to support the innovative and speed capable oil and gas producer. 

In a related note, Shell was downgraded to neutral by Merrill Lynch due to "the groups [lack of an] ability to grow production". Just as BP and Chevron were downgraded yesterday, Shell could probably use a new method of organization, and capability based software developer, please join me here. 

Technorati Tags: People's Perez Economics Change

Professor James Hamilton on energy.

Professor James Hamilton writes the popular and often cited weblog www.econombrowser.com. (Click on the title to download this paper.) I have highlighted many of his writing in the left hand column of this blog, his writing is clear, comprehensive and based on fact. Through the Brookings Institute he has published a paper entitled "Causes and Consequences of the Oil Shock 2007 - 2008". The abstract to this paper reads;

This paper explores similarities and differences between the run-up of oil prices in 2007-08 and earlier oil price shocks, looking at what caused the price increase and what effects it had on the economy. Whereas historical oil price shocks were primarily caused by physical disruptions of supply, the price run-up of 2007-08 was caused by strong demand confronting stagnating world production. Although the causes were different, the consequences for the economy appear to have been very similar to those observed in earlier episodes, with significant effects on overall consumption spending and purchases of domestic automobiles in particular. In the absence of those declines, it is unlikely that we would have characterized the period 2007:Q4 to 2008:Q3 as one of economic recession for the U.S. The experience of 2007-08 should thus be added to the list of recessions to which oil prices appear to have made a material contribution.

I recommend people download and review the comprehensive nature of this paper. This is an individual who, with tenure at the University of San Diego, and an impressive global following has nothing to gain or lose by saying what is said. This is the first paper that I have seen that confirms the concern that all should have with respect to our energy demands.

We see the political leadership continue down the road to energy alternatives. I would expect these moves will be short lived as the reality of their stupidity begins to show. If they are truly concerned about the CO2 that oil and gas production and consumption produce. What will their move to electric cars with lead acid or lithium batteries recharged by electricity generated by coal do. A little rational thinking from alarmist politicians would show them the demise of the landfill and the far more polluting coal. 

The solution to these problems does not involve a car. To move away from internal combustion engines to electrical can never happen. The costs would be formidable. Transportation should have a priority on the oil and gas resources. People, should begin skipping the 9 to 5 commute, and keep short trips to the Segway. People, Ideas & Objects are a big part of how these problems can be approached.

A key finding of Professor Hamilton's includes:

The most important principle for understanding short-run changes in the price of oil is the fact that income rather than price is the key determinant of the quantity demanded. p. 1

In a related item Bloomburg is reporting that many of the difficulties the major producers are having in increasing their production profiles. It sounds to me they need a new more innovative organizational construct supported by a capability based software developer. Please join me here.

Technorati Tags: People's Hamilton Energy Research Economics

Energies difficulties

There are a number of articles pointing to what I feel is the big problem that we face. The energy problems that we were dealing with last year seem somewhat distant. It appears there is a general consensus that the high energy prices were a result of market manipulation. Nothing could be further from the truth. Energy issues are being forgotten and obscured by our current economic condition.

It's therefore pleasing to see that many organizations are discussing what I feel is the big problem that we face. McKinsey Global Institute have published a series of articles about energy and do a good job in laying down the basics of the problems. Their articles are part of a series "Averting the next energy crisis: the demand challenge".

The same message is being articulated by Daniel Yergin and his Cambridge Energy Research Associates. Suggesting there is a destruction in our capabilities in terms of energy production. Although I consider CERA's projections to be far too optimistic. Even they are suggesting a loss of up to 7.6 million barrels of oil per day will be lost as a result of the decline in capital spending. Matthew Simmons of Simmons Consulting captures the point in the following article .

The global financial crisis and collapse in the oil market have stalled vital investment in oil exploration and production and are likely soon to lead to a sharp spike in prices, an energy consultant and financier says.

The economic conditions continue to deteriorate and will do so for some time. The Economist is stating that "Trade is Collapsing Everywhere" showing the unique size and scope of the problem. Expecting that the economy will be able to be stimulated back to its previously un-sustainable level, is wrong. We need to be focused on the issues that we can solve. The energy problem being the most important.

We need to start the process of building this software to support the Joint Operating Committee. Without first organizing ourselves to take on the challenge of supplying the market demand for energy, we will fail. Our organizations have proven beyond reason to be incapable of meeting the challenge we face. Does anyone believe SAP and the bureaucracy will enable our organizations to do the job? When we look at this situation form a long term perspective we see what our priorities are. Please join me here.

Technorati Tags: People's Economics Developments Yergin Simmons

The rise of virtual service grids.

I found this article on the dzone.com web log, click on the title of this entry to be taken to the article. It is a reprint or summary of a book about Service Oriented Architectures (SOA). It has an interesting point of view regarding the changes that are occurring due to what they call the "virtual service grid technology". The conclusion states;

The changes brought by virtual service grid technology will likely transform the information industry in ways that are difficult to fathom from our present day vantage point. We are essentially at an inflection point defined by two forces: the transition from an up front investment model for IT requiring large capital outlays to a pay-as-you-go model. Market elasticity dictates that when price points go down, demand increases, partly due to pent-up needs, but perhaps more so because new entrants enter the field who could not afford to play before. This means increasing participation by the members of the "long tail" of cloud computing: small businesses, emerging markets and even individuals coming up with a great idea.

Second, the acceleration of the time it takes to build an application by orders of magnitude means the evolutionary process gets accelerated by the same rate. The evolutionary refinement of hundreds of generations taking place in the same time it took to develop a traditional application is mind boggling. (See also 1 , 2)

I try to stay away from getting too involved in the technical attributes of People, Ideas & Objects. Other then the Technical Vision, I prefer to stick to the business reasons to be developing the applications modules.

I also maintain that the future earnings of anyone working will be generated through the ownership or access to Intellectual Property (IP). The entirety of the IP of People, Ideas & Objects is available to the Community of Independent Service Providers through a license. Those that will be successful in the Community of Independent Service Providers will be able to use the IP in combination with their unique service offering. Providing a hybrid styled source of revenue for their firm.

The second point in this articles conclusion is something that has not yet been proven, but will be soon. Standing on the shoulders of giants has been a term in academia that reflects the ideas are built on the history of many ideas up to that point. The same concept is about to be realized with respect to the ability to build off of the extensive infrastructure of the Java Programming Environment. Many of the difficult and complex attributes of systems development have been standardized and developed.

With reasonable royalty payments to Sun for the use of Java, a development project with the scope of People, Ideas & Objects accesses many of the components that will make the majority of the process management and functionality from Sun's various software products. With out being too specific this substantially eliminates the time necessary to develop systems. Today the real key to the quality of these systems is the end users involvement. Please join me here.

technorati tags: People's CISP Vision Java User

Martin Feldstein and Simon Johnson on MIT Video

MIT has released a video of Professor Martin Feldstein and Simon Johnson from February 11, 2009.  (Click on the title of this entry.) Feldstein is the former and long time president of the National Bureau of Economic Research where he was responsible for defining the time frame of when a recession occurred. He is also a Professor at Harvard and a frequent speaker in many of the conferences and forums where ideas, problems and solutions are discussed. Simon Johnson is an MIT Professor and former Chief Economist at the International Monetary Fund. He is also an author of an excellent blog that can be sourced here.

They are of course discussing the current global economy and what can be done. Both are quite pessimistic, and rightly so. The solutions that are discussed are very complex and of questionable value. We are well within the point that the cumulative of the stimulus should have worked, yet are constantly bombarded by an additional trillion here or there. We therefore are very close to the point in time where the majority of the people will realize that not only have the bureaucracies in business failed, but their government has failed as well. 

I have stated here many times that these economic events are part of the long term economic cycle. Based on the Shumpeteerian creative destruction, and specifically Professor Carlota Perez. Her analysis is based on her research of the last 300 years. I highly recommend reviewing the Perez label on this blog to understand the natural process of the old moving out of the picture and the new, in this case Information Technology, pulling the weight of the economy. 

All seems to be going to plan, exactly as Professor Perez stated in 2005. Providing the best reason of all for getting involved in People, Ideas & Objects, so please join me here . 

Technorati Tags: People's Economics MIT Video Perez

IBM's advertisements

Many of the newspapers have been sporting a series of ads from IBM. The first of these is "A mandate for change is a mandate for smart." You know that a trend is well ingrained when the large suppliers are on board. With their recent announcement to purchase Sun Microsystems and being on the same song page that we are, there may be hope for their future.

They not only are on the same page, but they also get it, comments like this are the appropriate mindset for the economic conditions and times that we find ourselves. 

Right now - today - leaders of businesses and governments everywhere have a unique opportunity to transform the way the world works. 

The means that IBM suggests this is possible is;

First, the world is becoming instrumented. Imagine, if you can, almost a billion transistors for every human being. Sensors are being embedded everywhere: in cars, appliances, cameras, roads, pipelines... even in medicine and livestock.

Limiting the People, Ideas & Objects application to a technical perspective we see IBM's comments are consistent with our technical vision . 

Second the world is becoming interconnected. Like people, systems and objects can now "speak" to each other, producing oceans of data.

A further extension of our technical vision in which we note the crush of data will begin with the introduction of IPv6. I also like the comment about people, systems and objects and the similarity to our People, Ideas & Objects name. 

Third, all of those instrumented and interconnected things are becoming intelligent. They are being linked to powerful new back-end systems that can process all that data, and to advanced analytics capable of turning it into real insight, in real time. 

At times I find it as difficult to figure out if IBM is selling something or talking about something in the future. I think I should cordially welcome them to the vapor-ware market. There comment that they want you to join them in building a smarter planet. Welcome to the party IBM, pull up a chair and start pulling some weight if your serious. 

Technorati Tags: People's Vision Sun Trends