One Article and One Blog Posting about Rainwater Catchment

On June 28, 2009, The New York Times featured a front-page article entitled “It’s Now Legal to Catch a Raindrop in Colorado” by Kirk Johnson on rainwater catchment out West where water rights is a hotly contested issue, especially with increasing water scarcity in many areas. Also, the “Green” section of The New York Times online edition has a blog posting dated June 29, 2009 entitled “The Legalities of Rainwater Harvesting” by Leora Broydo Vestel on the same subject.

Indeed, we are blessed with big lakes, but climate change will not leave OH, MI, and PA unaffected. While we may have a decided advantage in the moment compared to those residing elsewhere, the adoption of effective water management practices assures that advantage is sustained. Such action is a combination of innovation in the development and application of related technology AND innovation in administrative structures so that “ownership” and responsibility-taking for sound ecological and economic water management decisions occur in a healthy way at local levels throughout the region, not solely at the state and national levels.

Achieving this balance is one of the unspoken, but key points in the articles. Our tri-state region can set the standard for both the technical and administrative aspects of sustainable water management practices. Demonstrating how to do that would bring us well-deserved recognition and provide us with a much-needed shot in the arm during these tough economic times Hey, why not?!

Originally posted to Local Food Systems by Steve Bosserman on Monday, June 29, 2009 16:55

Food Systems, Economies, and Ecosystems

What We Are Doing

Over the past three months several of us have made presentations to various groups providing an overview about the recently awarded USDA-SCRI grant proposal and our general strategy for the ensuing program. Our primary purpose is to facilitate the continuing development of local and regional food systems as a viable and sustainable counterbalance to the predominate global food system. Ideally, local and regional food systems work seamlessly with the global food system to form a total food system that provides the overall advantages of price, variety, and quality while contributing to community health, vitality, and well-being.

Local and regional food systems, together with renewable energy and distributed manufacturing, are an integral part of local and regional economies. The interdependence of these three features prominently in the design of our strategy. While the mission of our USDA-SCRI initiative is focused on food systems, when seen in the bigger picture these systems become a platform by which local and regional economies are established, strengthened, and grown. Building local and regional economies is our broader agenda.

A local or regional economy is shaped by the social, political, cultural, and geographic context and conditions in which it exists. Such an economy is defined by complex webs of interwoven interrelationships and behavior patterns. Because of this characteristic, our understanding of them is benefited by adopting an ecological perspective or seeing them as part of ecosystems.

There are several types of ecosystems: natural, human, urban, etc. Each of them is characterized by several factors such as participants, source – sink dynamics and flow, and landscape patterns. Using these factors to inform an ecosystem health index and provide insight on how well an ecosystem is functioning is of particular interest.

Such an index is especially helpful when determining which course of action among several alternatives achieves the imperative at hand with the least amount of collateral damage and unintended consequences or side-effects. An obvious instance is with agriculture because of its pervasiveness and the degree of environmental impact its practice has on a local, regional, and global scale. Under the aegis of the USDA-SCRI grant there will be ample opportunities to apply the metrics of agroecosystem health in helping local and regional food systems become more efficient, effective, and less disruptive counterparts to the global food system.

The Business Ecosystem

Adopting an ecosystems view is also helpful within a business context. In the mid-1990’s, Jim Moore observed the dynamics of natural ecosystems and noted the similarities they have with those in a business setting. He coined the term business ecosystem to label the dense webs of interrelationships among suppliers, service providers, customers, competitors, communities within a social, political, and economic environment in which any given business starts, survives, and is sustained.

Moore’s “business ecosystems” thinking has led to a unique and powerful understanding about business strategy and in so doing significantly expanded the business development repertoire. It has also encouraged the growth of small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs) in several areas. Perhaps the greatest experimentation with this approach has been Europe where the European Commission (EC) linked Moore’s concept business ecosystems concept with Information and Communications Technology (ICT) to form digital business ecosystems. The primary purpose at the outset was to establish networks of connectivity among participants in SME ecosystems in order to stop the decline in the numbers of SMEs in several European countries. Early results show this strategy is successful as indicated by a reversal in the decline of SMEs complemented by signs of an increase in their numbers across the Continent.

Business Ecosystems in the Context of the USDA-SCRI Grant

Fundamentally, the strategy underscoring the USDA-SCRI grant proposal is the digital business ecosystems approach applied to local and regional food systems. The graphic below illustrates the flow dynamics among ecosystem participants in the interconnected regions across the upper-Midwest and mid-Atlantic states:

Social network facilitation, as part of the ICT backbone for the project, catalyzes regional networks and convenes leaders within them to prompt the formation of business ecosystems.

Business ecosystem particants conduct research, deliver education and training, and launch pilot projects directed toward building local food systems within given regions.

Local food systems development links with complementary efforts in renewable energy and distributed manufacturing systems to drive relocalization. This heightens participation at local levels which increases the experience base among players and drives changes in the formulae for land use practices, inclusion, workforce development, and government collaboration. The net effect is that the rules are rewritten so they facilitate the rise of functional and sustained local and regional economies.

Healthy, vibrant, adaptive, and innovative local and regional economies offer a constructive counterbalance to the global economy; they become attractors for new business start-ups and the expansion of existing businesses. Glocalization results as fully-functioning local and regional economies mitigate the downsides of the global economy and position the total economy for sustainable growth. Successful glocalization feeds larger regional networks of players and leadership of business ecosystems providing the wherewithal to fuel additional research, education, and pilot projects. This closed-loop cycling generates AND reinvests resources within the same local and regional economies which relieves the dependency on outside funding, like the USDA-SCRI grant, to spur local and regional economic sustainability and vitality.

A Broader Vision

The bottom line is that with thriving, interconnected business ecosytems, local and regional economies capable of maintaining themselves while spurring business growth and community well-being will result. Although the USDA-SCRI grant is directed toward social networks and local food systems, these are milestones along the path to a broader claim. Our vision is of capable local and regional economies operating in concert with the global economy to provide people with the means to enjoy a reasonable quality of life in communities assured of survival and sustainability. For us, this is the ultimate goal of the grant proposal. Thanks in advance for your participation over the next three years to make the vision a reality!

Originally posted to Local Food Systems by Steve Bosserman on December 27, 2008 17:04

Don’t Mix Apples and Oranges When Designing a Local Food System

On Monday, 24 November 2008, I attended a Poultry Processing Working Group meeting convened by Megan Schoenfelt at the Ohio Agricultural Research and Development Center (OARDC) in Wooster, OH with a video link to the main campus for The Ohio State University in Columbus, OH. Over 20 interested individuals and key representatives from various agencies, institutions, and businesses gave thoughtful consideration to the feasibility of designing, developing, manufacturing, operating, and maintaining mobile poultry processing units, e.g., slaughterhouse or abattoir, in support of small to medium sized poultry production enterprises throughout Ohio. At the conclusion, commitments were made by several to develop plans further, put them into action, and move the concept forward. Megan’s minutes will provide you with an excellent overview of the session.

Although the meeting achieved its objectives and assured progress to goals, one topic that surfaced frequently during the session concerned the design criteria for local food systems versus those for a global food system. The difficulty arises when elements of a global food system are mixed into the specification for a local / regional food system. The two systems have unique organizing principles. The business model / value proposition for one is fundamentally different than the other. For this reason, comparing the two haphazardly or indiscriminately blending elements from both into a hybrid is the equivalent of mixing apples and oranges — doing so puts subsequent plans at risk for unsuccessful implementation.

So what are the main characteristics of a global food system versus a local food system?

Characteristics of a Global Food System

Below is a diagram that illustrates the flow of food from production to consumption in a global food system. Key points include the following:

Producers have a narrow portfolio often consisting of a near monoculture of crops, e.g., corn and soybeans, animals for meat, e.g., cattle and hogs, or dairy and poultry. Their objective is to produce as much as possible of one item for the least unit cost.
Aggregators and distributors span significant geographic distances in support of the overall system as it relentlessly pursues lowest cost labor, easiest access to natural resources, and highest performance of technology wherever that may be in the world. Their objective is to optimize transportation payloads from one value-add stage to another.
Value-add processors and packagers make major investments in capital equipment and facilities to increase capacity and automate operations. Their objective is to appropriate technological innovation that facilitates economies of scale in their operations, amortizes investments across high volume runs, provides consumers with an array of choices within discrete product groups and reduces dependency on human labor.

To quickly summarize, global food systems prompt producers to focus on growing / raising a limited portfolio, logistics and distribution become big ticket items due to the global reach of the system, and value-add processors centralize their operations to command as much margin as possible.

Characteristics of a Local Food System

The diagram below depicts the flow of food from production to consumption in a local food system. The main elements include the following:

Producers have a diverse portfolio of crops grown and animals raised. Many of the entries in such a portfolio are indigenous, have mixed use applications, and are interspersed / intercropped. The objective is to optimize the portfolio to include as wide a selection of offerings as possible and effectively leverage assets. This combination provides a hedge to protect revenue and cap costs despite unexpected swings in supply and demand for particular products or failures due to unexpected conditions.
Food processing, preparation, and retail occur within a contained geographic space – 1-100 mile radius – so that as food is produced it travels a short distance for just-in-time delivery to the next step in the value chain. The objective is to place the sale of fresh food in close proximity to food preparation and processing so that quality, taste, freshness, ripeness, and appearance are maximized and waste and spoilage are minimized. What doesn’t get sold as retail or is used in preparation moves immediately to value-add processing. This type of highly-integrated stacking of functions assures the highest return on investment of time and resources.
The dynamics of a local / regional market create a situation where the community or cluster of communities participating in the local / regional food system impart a “brand” on the food produced, processed, prepared, and sold within it while consumers enjoy a wide variety of locally-produced foodstuffs. The objective is to draw upon the virtues of economies of scope, leverage brand recognition within the community, and establish sufficient market participation due to ample selection to drive the emergence of a local economy. And as widespread participation persists, the local economy is sustained and the community is stabilized.

As a recap, local food systems encourage participants to diversify their portfolios, leverage investments, take advantage of integrated food processing, preparation, and retail operations within a 10 – 100 mile radius, and utilize economies of scope to lay the groundwork for local economies to be established.

Beware Mixing Global and Local Food Systems

As is obvious by their definitions, the differences in organizing principles and business models between global and local food systems are significant. While both certainly can and must co-exist within the total food system, an indiscriminate mix of one with the other almost always disadvantages the local food system. In many instances it will prevent such a system from forming or becoming sustainable.

So, what about that mobile poultry processing unit? How would a local food system work with poultry?

Diversify the production portfolio by including as many different kinds of domesticated birds, waterfowl, game birds, and exotic / specialty species as possible distributed across a wide range of small-scale producers.
Keep the processing unit in close proximity to clusters of food retail, preparation, and value-add processing facilities to assure quality, timeliness, variety, and price advantages in local markets.
Develop a strong brand identity in the local / regional market for the complete package of locally produced, processed, and prepared poultry products which obviously includes the mobile poultry processing unit.

Of course, attempting to operate as a global food system would be fraught with danger. Three actions to avoid:

Limit producers’ portfolios to one of two kinds of birds. Worse yet, consolidate the number of producers into one or two large-scale producers.
Distance the mobile poultry processing unit from the producers or those in downstream food preparation and value-add processing.
Target consumer markets that are far afield from the point of production and processing so that local branding is difficult. Worse yet is to limit the range of product offerings so severely that sustainability is at risk due to lack of market exposure and penetration.

While this example of sorting through local and global food systems characteristics concerns poultry operations, it applies to all other food products. Perhaps you will find this checklist a useful guide when developing such food systems.

Originally posted to Local Food Systems by Steve Bosserman on Saturday, November 29, 2008 09:59

Business Development in the Ohio Local Food Systems Collaborative

This is the first in a series of postings to the Ohio Local Food Systems Collaborative (OLFSC) about starting and sustaining a business in local food systems. These postings have several not so ordinary characteristics:

They are about real business opportunities in real neighborhoods
The process of developing these opportunities and the resulting content are shared openly on the OLFSC website
They invite OLFSC readers to comment, critique, and challenge assumptions and extrapolations posted in order to make the outcome better for all
They encourage OLFSC readers to generate ideas and develop plans for businesses they eventually setup in their local areas

Before heading into the business opportunities, clarification of business concepts and terminology is in order…

A Firm Foundation and Ongoing Adaptation

The purpose of any business is to deliver value to the customer. The primary objective of a business is to make profit. In terms of value, this means the amount the customer pays for value delivered (revenue) surpasses the amount invested by the business to provide that value (capital and operating expenses). The ultimate goal of a business is sustainability over the long-term. Again, from a value standpoint, a business is sustained when a sufficient percentage of the profit is reinvested to continue to develop and deliver what is deemed of value by customers so that they continue to pay for it.

What is of value to the customer (idea generation)? How does one deliver that value profitably and in a sustainable manner (business planning)? These are the primary questions addressed at the outset of an entrepreneurial effort. Idea generation and business planning combine vision of a preferred future with a framework for action that brings that vision into reality. These two, working in concert with one another, provide the firm foundation upon which all successful businesses are launched.

Delivery of demonstrated value to the customer requires taking action according to the business plan (business plan execution). Of course, changes in conditions and unforeseen circumstances during the delivery cycle warrant a certain degree of flexibility in executing the plan as it is put into play (adaptation). The capacity to sense and respond, learn and adapt is the hallmark of a business that survives start-up and embarks on sustainability.

The main points outlined above equate to key steps in establishing a successful business:

Generate ideas
Develop a business plan
Execute the plan
Adapt plan to “lessons learned” during execution

These four link vision with problem-solving to deliver demonstrated value to the customer. Because of the significance of the dialectic between vision and problem-solving in business success, future postings in this series will delve more deeply into the working relationship between the two. And in keeping with the commitment made in the opening statement of this posting, the focus of the upcoming OLFSC postings will be “real business opportunities in real neighborhoods”.

Originally posted to Local Food Systems by Steve Bosserman on Wednesday, May 28, 2008 10:30

Mobile Slaughterhouses (Abattoirs) as a Solution to Meet the Demand for Blessed Meats in Central Ohio?

Recently, I have had several conversations about local foods with refugee-immigrants from a wide range of African nations who are currently living in the central Ohio area. Whether from the Horn of Africa in the east to Nigeria, Ghana, and Cameroon in the west, they show a keen interest in locally produced, processed, and prepared foods, especially those that come from or are closely akin to what they had available in their native lands. No where is this interest more evident than in “blessed meats” such as “halal” and “kidus” as evidenced in an article by Sherri Williams entitled, “Growing Immigrant Communities Seek Blessed Meat” published in the November 19, 2004 edition of the The Columbus Dispatch.

Over the past four years since this article was written, production output of blessed meats has increased in the Columbus area. However, market demand for locally produced and processed meats continues to exceed supply. This suggests a wide range of business opportunities in response. For the purpose of this posting those opportunities are centered on the construction, operation, and maintenance of mobile slaughterhouses (abattoirs) that are licensable by the USDA.

======================

Excerpts below from an article in the January 10, 2008 issue of Sheep and Goat Notes published by the Kentucky Sheep and Goat Development Office entitled, “Sheep Farmers Feeding Rising Appetite for Lamb” by Gail Martineau for The Columbus Dispatch offer more details on the current situation:

Katherine Harrison Haley, manager of Blystone Farms…said her business has boomed since the farm’s slaughterhouse opened in 2004. On average, the company slaughters 50 to 75 animals a week to meet the demand for lamb in central Ohio, particularly among the growing Muslim population.

Joe Blystone, owner of the Blystone Farms, said he sells meat to Columbus’ Somali immigrants, who visit the farm, choose an animal and wait for it to be processed in the slaughterhouse.

“We knew we had a market even before we started,” Blystone said. Harrison Haley said the flavor of hair sheep is similar to that of their African relatives.

Blystone Farms also adheres to Islamic slaughtering practices, which call for the animal to suffer as little as possible.

“We do employ two butchers who are Muslim,” Harrison Haley said. “The kill is done in a very quick and humane manner.”

Osama Saleh, a Muslim and owner of two local Mediterranean markets that carry sheep meat, said he thinks the flavor of locally produced lamb is much better than that of imported meat. “I’ve tasted the Australian and New Zealand meat, and it tastes like it was in the freezer,” Saleh said.

He also said he hopes to get a piece of the growing market. “I wish I had extra cash to open a slaughterhouse,” Saleh said.

======================

The answer may be a mobile slaughterhouse. A Chowhound blog posting by Jason Krause on October 31, 2006 entitled, “I’ll Pay You to Kill My Steer: It’s Not So Easy for Small Farmers to Get Their Animals Slaughtered,” focuses on the disappearance of smaller meat processing facilities:

According to the Food Safety and Inspection Service (FSIS), the number of federally inspected meat-processing plants fell by about 200 between 2001 and 2005. About half that disappeared were very small plants, or businesses with ten or fewer employees and no more than $2.5 million in annual sales. The smaller guys simply couldn’t compete due to labor costs and stringent new food safety regulations. At the same time, big slaughterhouses consolidated into just 366 giant centers across the country. Small ranchers often are far from these centers. Besides having too few animals for large slaughterhouses to care about, sometimes the animals themselves present a nuisance.

Mr. Krause goes onto offer a solution put into play in Washington State:

A group of farmers in Washington state has developed a novel solution: a mobile slaughterhouse. Pulled by a diesel truck, the refrigerated car is equipped to kill and process everything from birds to cows. It’s USDA approved and can meet small farmers at their doorsteps. It can handle only five to nine steers a day, but its small size is seen as a virtue by its farmer customers.

The farmers built their mobile slaughterhouse after trying to build a permanent one in the area and getting shut down by their neighbors.

On the outside, it looks like a large horse trailer. Inside, it has three sections for processing, refrigeration, and storage. One person can run the whole operation, and farmers pay $75 per animal. The carcasses are then taken to a facility where they’re cut into portions. Farmer Bruce Dunlop, who helped spearhead the cooperative of Washington farmers that built the slaughterhouse, says it cost about $150,000, versus the $400,000 he says a small permanent facility would have cost to build.

After three and a half years of operation, the cooperative now works with about 45 farms in a four-county, hundred-mile area. The mobile slaughterhouse is available all year, but June to December is the busiest time. “It’s a tiny percentage of what the big slaughterhouses do, but for small and medium-sized farms, it’s significant,” says Dunlop. “It’s not a get-rich-quick operation for anybody, but there is enough demand for locally grown meat to keep it going.”

======================

This same solution is being implemented in Vermont as indicated in an article by Peter Hirschfeld in the January 14, 2008 issue of the Vermont Press Bureau entitled, “Mobile Slaughterhouse Coming to Vermont,” which is copied below for your convenience:

MONTPELIER – A mobile slaughterhouse will likely be on the move in Vermont by spring, allowing small Vermont poultry farmers to reap increased profits in new retail markets.

The 32-foot trailer, with a killing room, scalding pot and processing area, will offer small and mid-size farmers the state inspection credentials needed to sell their birds in local cooperatives and grocery stores.

“The plan right now is to have it operational by spring time,” said Anson Tebbetts, deputy secretary for the Agency of Agriculture.

The Legislature approved funding for the approximately $80,000 slaughterhouse last year. The move is part of a larger plan to augment agricultural infrastructure in the state and capitalize on the ever-growing “Buy Local” movement.

For most farmers, trucking live poultry to the nearest USDA facility in southern Vermont is cost prohibitive, rendering their uninspected birds illegal for sale in cooperatives and other retail outlets. The mobile slaughterhouse, which officials say will process up to 200 birds a day, will offer the state-inspection stickers that have thus far kept small farmers out of nearby food stores.

“The key part is inspection, so it opens up every market you can imagine,” Tebbetts said. “(Poultry) could be sold at schools, restaurants, hospitals, back to the state government. That’s sort of where we’re heading with this.”

Neither the Agency of Agriculture nor Rural Vermont, an advocacy group that lobbies on behalf of the state farmers, tracks the number of small poultry farmers in Vermont.

“I don’t think there’s a clear understanding of how many folks are out there that might take advantage of this,” Tebbetts said. “The initial plan is to run 8,000 birds through the unit in the first year, but we really don’t know how many folks are out there.” The availability of the new slaughterhouse may compel new farmers to enter the wholesale and retail bird market and allow existing farmers to expand their flocks, Tebbetts said. John Clark operates Applecheek Farm in Hyde Park. He and his wife raise free-range boilers, stewing hens and heritage turkeys on their McFarlane Road operation. Clark benefited from a key agriculture bill passed last year that allows poultry farmers with up to 1,000 birds to sell their meat at farmers markets and restaurants. He said the mobile slaughterhouse will further expand the opportunities. “In my situation, it’ll be really helpful because I’ll be able to sell in more markets and not be limited by the 1,000-bird limit,” Clark said.

“Right now you can’t sell to a co-op unless you bring it to a USDA facility, which is really limiting for small-scale farmers.”

The mobile slaughterhouse will be leased, sold or rented to an independent operator who will have to offer services at an “affordable” cost, though details are still sketchy. Tebbetts said the state may fund the construction of more mobile units as demand warrants. The mobile slaughterhouse may well provide federal inspection as well, allowing Vermont farmers to sell in national chains like Whole Foods Market, which, according to Tebbetts, has already expressed interest in sourcing whole birds from Vermont. The mobile slaughterhouse will on occasion travel to fairs and field days around the state, where farmers will be able to bring their birds for slaughter on the premises.

A push is now under way to offer similar services for red-meat farmers seeking similar accommodations for their hogs, lamb, goat and beef, though mobile facilities for those products cost about double the poultry unit.

“It’s part of the whole strategy,” Tebbetts said. “We’ve worked on promotion and marketing, but we also have to keep an eye on infrastructure needs and give farmers another option, another convenience, to potentially grow their markets.”

======================

Rebecca Ransom writes an article in the March 01, 2007 edition of the Litchfield County Times entitled, “Where Flowers and Beef Meet-a Slaughterhouse?”

LITCHFIELD-Eliot Wadsworth has an idea that might help slow the erosion of working farmland in the region, provide a valuable resource for those raising animals for the marketplace and help meet the growing demand for local meat products.

======================

Ken Simon, in his article posted on the Working the Land website entitled, “Is a Mobile Slaughterhouse Coming to Connecticut? Cutting-Edge Process Could Benefit State Farmers and Consumers,” refers to goals set out by the Washington State farmers who spearheaded the mobile slaughterhouse in their area as applicable in Connecticut:

A MOBILE SLAUGHTERHOUSE WILL …

Become less dependent on imported food.
Support a stronger local food system with a quality, safe and healthy product.
Help small and limited-resource producers to gain revenues and profits.
Make local food production a vital part of the food economy.
Create a direct link between consumers and Farmers
Increase opportunities for organic and naturally raised beef.

======================

Jane Morrigan posted a two-part article for the Organic Agriculture Centre of Canada wherein she describes the pros and cons of mobile abattoirs.¹

Part 1 is entitled, “Will Mobile Abattoirs Help Small-Scale Livestock Farmers?”

Part 2 is entitled, “Mobile Abattoirs: Benefits and Challenges”

Her conclusions, while in a Canadian context, relate well to circumstances in Ohio:

The success or failure of a Canadian prototype of a mobile abattoir will be watched with interest by small-scale producers, ranchers in remote locations, game farm operators, and government agencies alike. Benefits must outweigh the cost of meeting stringent new food-safety standards. The success of such a venture will integrate producer/consumer demand, cooperation among stakeholders, entrepreneurship, innovation, political will and a supportive bureaucracy.

This is a great opportunity for government regulators and niche marketers of value-added meat products to develop a new model of cooperation and innovation. Training, licensing and monitoring of abattoir operators, internet-assisted inspection technologies and proactive practices such as BSE-testing every carcass could be incorporated into the model. A state-of-the-art, multi-species, multi-use mobile abattoir that is federally inspected offers the most flexible service to producers. At the same time, it ensures more uniformly applied sanitation standards to on-farm killing than exists today in Canada. In addition, it offers the most humane method of commercial slaughter.

Originally posted to Local Food Systems by Steve Bosserman on Sunday, April 13, 2008

See also Jane Morrigan, Mobile abattoirs may help small-scale livestock farmers – Organic Matters, The Western Producer, January 27, 2005 ↩

Giving It Away, Making Money

The burgeoning “Internet Economy” is redefining operational assumptions and models for all organizations within the public and private sectors. This is particularly evident as free access to information increases and the clash between open source and proprietary development of software intensifies. But the transformation underway does not stop in the realm of bits and bytes; it is spilling into the traditional mainstays of agriculture and all types of industry and threatens to alter our most basic tenets of how to market, value, and receive compensation for our creativity, collaboration, and contribution. This posting explores some of the novel approaches underway in response to these changes and set the stage for viable business models in the near future.

The long tail of the Internet provides opportunities for individuals to post information, knowledge, experience, and insight from one location and reach potential audiences almost anywhere else in the world at any time. Countless millions of individuals, businesses, and organizations of all types use websites, wikis, blogs, etc. to do just that. Collectively, the number of intelligent insights and innovative ideas posted every minute is sufficient to change the world many times over.

Despite the countless, remarkable observations and viable solutions presented, it is difficult for all but a narrow slice of contributors to make a living from doing so via Internet media. Unless there is a subscription fee to the site, the content of postings is free to read. In many instances, incorporating or reproducing that content elsewhere only requires acknowledgement of the original contributor / author to do so.

Under these circumstances it is difficult to receive payment for the work itself. Instead, payment is made based on what else readers do in and around the material they are reading: how many embedded links they check in the posting, how many advertisers around the periphery of the posting do they visit, how many RSS feeds and email notifications to they elect to receive, to name a few.

Such are the metrics and dynamics of the “Internet economy”. In a October 22, 2007 PC World article by Len Rust entitled, “Web 2.0 Revives Internet Economy” states,

Revenue from the large range of content and services available from the Internet is rapidly increasing globally; travel, gambling, adult content, music and health services are particularly popular, and social networking services are flourishing. It is estimated that by 2010 more than US$2 billion will be spent on social network advertising in the US alone.

Information is power for those who have it when others don’t. When information is free, it is a great equalizer. This equalizing feature is changing the business models of corporations that made their fortunes from a portfolio of proprietary offerings, as suggested in the article, “Facing Free Software, Microsoft Looks to Yahoo“, by Matt Richtel in the February 9, 2008 edition of The New York Times:

Nearly a quarter-century ago, the mantra “information wants to be free” heralded an era in which news, entertainment and personal communications would flow at no charge over the Internet.
Now comes a new rallying cry: software wants to be free. Or, as the tech insiders say, it wants to be “zero dollar.”
A growing number of consumers are paying just that – nothing. This is the Internet’s latest phase: people using freely distributed applications, from e-mail and word processing programs to spreadsheets, games and financial management tools. They run on distant, massive and shared data centers, and users of the services pay with their attention to ads, not cash.

Such widespread distribution of free software—in many instances accompanied with open source code, as well (see essay entitled, “What is Open Source” in the first chapter of Open Source for the Enterprise by Dan Woods, a book featured on Tim O’Reilly’s website, Oreilly.com) —raises a basic question: where is money made in such an environment?

The sequence of diagrams that follow seeks to address this troublesome detail beginning with the first one below which plots options for ownership of software and availability of source code on axes of free versus paid and open versus closed.

The central dichotomy is from the bottom-left, where both the software and source code are given away, to the upper-right, where there is a charge for a software license and the source code is not available as depicted in the next diagram below:

Public sector / non-profit institutions are represented in the lower-left quadrant where the deliverable and how to make it are given away. The private sector / for-profit businesses of all types dominate the upper-right quadrant where the deliverable is sold and the intellectual property (IP) that defines its design and production method is tightly held. Within the very different realities at either end of this diagonal dichotomy, traditional administrative and business models have enjoyed a distinct separation of function, role, and design. However, the advent of the Internet economy has facilitated a steady migration and blending between the ends, opening the two adjacent quadrants for development of new administrative and business models.

As the Internet economy becomes more established, it is affecting all types of organizations. This is illustrated in the diagram below by the addition of a “Portfolio (What) – Practices (How) – Assets (With What)” triangle circumscribing the diagonal arrow. This triangle is positioned to emphasize that the WHAT and HOW of an organization are fluid on price and openness, but the investment in what it takes to do the WHAT and HOW must be exceeded by sales revenue, if a for-profit business, or matched by gifts and volunteer efforts if a non-profit entity. The consequence of not doing so is cessation of operation.

Looking specifically at a business that goes beyond software and source code to the design and manufacturing of tools, machines, and equipment systems, let’s consider something simple like a machine to mold compressed earth blocks (CEB). Advanced Earthen Construction Technologies, Inc. (AECT) offers several CEB machine models; the “Impact 2001A Series” can be towed, is hydraulically operated, powered by a 7 HP diesel engine, has the capacity to make approximately 300 blocks / hr . It is protected by U.S. patent, manufactured in Texas and can be shipped anywhere. Price for near-new is approximately $28,000. This is clearly in the upper-right quadrant. AECT’s goal is to set the price and control the IP such that their investment in assets (people, facilities, equipment, and operations) is covered and they are profitable over the long run.

An alternative is going to Marcin Jakubowski’s Factor E Farm project “the most important social experiment in the world” to emerge out of the Internet economy in the opinion of Michel Bauwens in this P2P Foundation posting. Marcin is working in parallel on a multitude of collaborative projects that when complete will provide a portfolio of products and services useful as a “civilization starter kit” for those who are committed to building a basic and robust infrastructure for a “Global Village“economy. One of these projects is a CEB machine formerly named “The Liberator“. Marcin estimates,

Parts for The Liberator as detailed below are approximately $1000. The machine will cost an estimated $3-5K, depending on manufacturing abilities.

Open source design is one of the main reasons why Marcin’s CEB machine is less expensive. As he states,

Here are the capitalization requirements for fabrication capacity. The Cost column reflects the price structure if off-the-shelf tools and materials – and proprietary development procedures – are utilized. This cost is conservative, as intellectual property costs are probably higher than the $10k that was specified. The alternative route, or the Open Source Cost, is that which utilizes open source know-how and is built on a land-based facility. The open source option means that certain equipment may be fabricated readily from available components when a design and bill of materials is available.

Obviously, Marcin has and continues to invest considerable personal resources into his “Factor E Farm”. What is the business model through which he makes money, or does he give it all away and ask for contributions?

In a Global Villages Yahoo! Group posting, Marcin explains it as follows:

…how do we get the work funded? The collaborative microfunding is perhaps the right idea. The Core Teams develop technical details. Then we fund prototypes, optimization, and the building of optimal production facilities. Why should low product cost be feasible? Because we have a lean operation with little overhead, and if funded, we have low-cost production capacity that can match even slave goods and mass production. The new economic age is here. We are not talking of many hundreds of thousands of capitalization requirements for similar enterprise. We are talking of open-source-fed production facilities that will cost on the order of $10k to build. There is cascading cost reduction, for example as we use our CEB to build the facility, or the solar turbine to power it.
As such, ‘capitalization costs’ are ‘zero’- fundraising covers the cost. So far, we’ve operated 100% on voluntary contributions. R&D costs are zero – they are distributed collaboratively. All the costs are zero zero zero, outside of materials and labor. We capture the value of labor – but even if we charge $100/hour for the CEB – with optimized fabrication time predicted to be 20 hours per machine – that is still $3500 for a machine – factor 8 lower than the competition, as you can check for yourself. That $100/hour is very well worth it – if it’s not being dissipated in wasteful production ergonomics and wasteful product design. Moreover, all proceeds are used to fund further open product development.

And that brings us to the diagram below which adds a boundary of “common value” in the foreground and another boundary for “differentiated value” in the background.

Marcin’s model illustrates how to strike the critical balance between giving it away and making money. As he mentions, the R&D costs for the CEB machine are zero because they are distributed collaboratively and the results are open source and freely accessible for all. This is anchoring against the “common value” boundary. Setting the price for the machine at $3700 covers the cost of materials and fabrication and if set at $5000 it generates a reasonable profit that can be reinvested or used as further compensation. When compared to $25000 for a competitive model from AECT, this clearly bumps up into the “differentiated value” boundary.

Marcin envisions using the Internet to widely disseminate information about the CEB machine, take orders, expand operations, offer training, initiate “open franchises”, distribute manufacturing capacity, and prompt further “localization“. These represent ways to play in the space between the boundaries where some activities are done for nothing and others garner compensation. It is that agility to remain pliable in the intervening space that IS the sound business model to stay on track. This is a lesson suitable for any business to consider.

Originally posted to New Media Explorer by Steve Bosserman on Saturday, February 9, 2008

Greenhouses That Change the World

Richard (Rick) Nelson is the inventor of SolaRoof, a novel approach to greenhouse design and function that integrates a unique covering, heating / cooling system, and infrastructure / framework. It will revolutionize the greenhouse industry. More than that, once the materials are certified for use in human habitation, it will be disruptive to the housing and building industry as well. So what is SolaRoof, anyway, and why does it carry such potential to change the world? Let’s find out.

Revolutionary Technology:

The greenhouse construction is unlike any other. Rather than a single layer of covering or glazing there are two. Each layer is a laminate of woven fiber mesh sandwiched in between two sheets of transparent plastic material. The laminated layers are sealed against the top and bottom of the roof and wall frames to create air-tight spaces. This combination by itself offers hardly any insulating value. However, fill the space with bubbles—yes, bubbles—and the equation becomes totally different!

The distance between the two layers varies depending on the desired amount of insulating value. Each inch is roughly equivalent to an R-factor of 1. A distance of a little over a yard yields an R-factor of nearly 40. That is almost unheard of in traditional construction techniques. And given the transparency of the two layers of covering, over 80% of the photosynthesis-catalyzing sunlight reaches the inside of the greenhouse.

In the (now defunct) SolaRoof webpage: Green Buildings for Urban Agriculture and Solar Living, two illustrations show how the process works from one extreme season to the next. Quite ingenius!

Here is a picture of a greenhouse unit as its side is being filled with bubbles:

And here is what it looks like when the cavity is completely full:

Unbounded Architectural Form:

While the technology is intriguing, it is only part of the picture when determining the disruptive value of SolaRoof. Another feature is that the shape of the structure is no longer confined to a standard box or cube that characterizes many homes, buildings, or greenhouses. It can be made to fit into an infinite array of shapes, sizes, and configurations. One of Rick’s collaborators, Harvey Rayner, who is the founder of Solar Bubble Build, describes the possibilities of the SolaRoof medium as follows:

Architecture has been a long-held passion for me, but my unwillingness to engage in academic study has kept me from pursuing any real investigation into this field. Now, having started this project initially as a practical solution to expanding my wife’s rare herb growing business, I have become engrossed in the process of designing, building and developing this technology.
Increasingly, I am viewing this work as an inroad towards one day creating pure and functional architectural forms. For me, this new breed of building gets right to the heart of how form can follow function. I believe with this technology as a starting point, unique structures can be derived which reflect the beauty of the inner workings of this truly sustainable building solution.

Several examples of Harvey’s designs are featured on Bluegreen Future Buildings.

Open Source for Everyone:

While Rick has spent over thirty years developing and refining the technologies associated with SolaRoof materials and applications, the bulk or his output is non-proprietary and open source. Anyone is welcome to join the SolaRoof Yahoo! Group (restricted) wherein there are member information exchanges, articles about SolaRoof, photos, and diagrams–all is free for the taking. Rick sums it up quite well in his introduction to the SolaRoof group:

You are welcome to join this open source collaboration where we are developing and sharing DIY(Do It Yourself) know-how for building transparent solar structures. To enhance our collaborative development of the SolaRoof methods we now are building a knowledge base where everyone can contribute to building the SolaRoofWiKi. SolaRoof structures may include but are not limited to greenhouses, sunspaces, roof gardens, residential spaces… The goal of our discussion is how to use the sun’s energy to grow food, cool and heat spaces efficiently, rather than rely on fossil fuels and power grids. Our technology includes the use of bubbles to shade and insulate glazing systems, together with liquid solar collection and thermal mass storage, although any related discussions are welcome!

SolaRoof Saves World:

This bold pronouncement was found on hi-trust.tv (now defunct), one of Chris Macrae’s video experiments. Chris, knowledge management and branding expert, offered the following endorsement of the power and potential of SolaRoof:

Rick has also been using what I amateurishly call photosynthesis agriculture and architecture innovations for over 20 years. I have known him for about 4 years in my capacity of hosting radical innovation meetings round London. I suggest a triple-wishing game – you mention a region or peoples in the world where sustainability that matters most to you, and Rick answers with what is doable now, what is developing, and what is his biggest collaboration wish for the region.
Perhaps we can make more videos if people decide this is one of the world’s great unknown practices worthy of a bit more open source weaving. (see Chris Macrae and Rick Nelson on YouTube)
Equally, if anyone knows someone else with inventions that empower every community to the other side of sustainability fuels (water, food, energy) crises, please see if they will join in. I would like to publish a small leaflet on the 5 most radically open guides to how peoples everywhere could collaborate around human sustainability if we take up the challenge and agree urgency is so great that we don’t need any marginal solutions; we need radical experiments…

And in a posting on crisisclimate.tv (now defunct), Chris describes the ramifications for SolaRoof as the underpinnings for a new business enterprise, Life Synthesis LLP, that aspires to the following:

…to shelter residential communities within SolaRoof systems. This includes replacing conventional resource and energy intensive climate control systems with new and dynamic structures that capture and use solar energy by bringing daylight and plants into buildings. These ecologically designed, low cost SolaRoof structures use energy capture, storage, and cooling methods to incorporate plants, water and water based liquids, creating an integrated ecosystem within the building itself. SolaRoof is both accessible and affordable to those living in poverty, but at the same time desirable to the affluent.

The Ball Is in Your Court

And that becomes an open invitation for any and all to take the opportunity afforded by this concept and apply it so that it makes a positive difference for the people directly involved, the community, the planet. Well worth the time and effort required to take up the challenge and do the right thing!

Originally posted to New Media Explorer by Steve Bosserman on Tuesday, October 9, 2007

Cycles of Communication and Collaboration

Recently, several of us were going over the litany of new terms for communication and collaboration “tools” that were less than 10 years old: blogs, mashups, crowdsourcing, webinars, podcasts, etc. just to name a few. It became obvious as we discussed it further than many of us in the conversation were relatively clueless when it came to defining what each is, what it does, how it works, and what were the benefits. As in most instances where there are too many dots and no clear picture in mind to connect them; a framework would be helpful.

The quadrants and circular arrow in the diagram below illustrate a progressive path of organized social interactions. It starts with the blog: the primary virtual means by which an individual, almost any individual who has access to the Internet, announces to the world – here is who I am, what I think, and what I care about. It is a powerful statement of independent thought, self-awareness, and clarity of purpose that any blogger makes simply by posting a message.

When individuals put themselves out there, they are likely to be “discovered” by others who share common principles, interests, and affinities. One of the most likely places to be “found” is in a social network. In these far-ranging open communities individuals extend their connectivity, learn more about themselves and each other, strengthen their affiliations, and become more intentional about doing certain activities together rather than individually.

At this stage, groups engaging in some sort of purposeful collective effort benefit by having collaboration spaces for more efficient and effective teamwork. Here they can work openly among themselves to give projects definition, open their assumptions for testing and scrutiny to those beyond their team boundaries, and adapt the projects to what is learned for more successful and acceptable results.

Of course, such results warrant wider exposure in global networks. News releases are presented to a broader audience for further sponsorship, investment, or utilization–and feedback. Learning and adaptation are triggered on a broader scale. Quickly we know if what we are doing is having the intended result; do others believe in it as we do; what other steps can we take to increase the viability, and sustainability of our offering.

This is where the cycle returns full circle to the blog where further commentary and endorsement (or not) about the news release is made in the context of what is important to the blogger—and the cycle starts anew. Of course, beginning the next round means starting at a different place and time, having more experience, and making additional discoveries between rounds. These are multiple cycles that radiate out in a spiral model approach.

So how do the tools we have available fit into this communication and collaboration cycle? A few are highlighted in the picture below.

There are many nuances and subtleties to each stage of the cycle; and there are certainly MANY more examples of software and system tools that can be included. However, this should give you a feel for how the overall process functions.

Here’s an example for your consideration:

In 2001, Roger Beck, a teacher at Worthington Kilbourne High School in Worthington, Ohio, initiated a program called Building Academic Skills and Experiences (B.A.S.E.). B.A.S.E. integrates twelfth grade English, Government / Economics, and Technology Education. In 2004, this program was linked with Habitat for Humanity in a housing construction project called Home B.A.S.E. In his most recent blog postings, Mr. Beck outlines progress on the current 2006 – 2007 Home B.A.S.E. project – a LEED-certified home – that is now drawing to a close.

One of those groups whose members are very supportive of Roger and his team is a local Worthington social network named, Sustainable Worthington. An announcement to their members stated the following:

WKHS Home B.A.S.E. LEED house pilot project, 258 N. 21st Street, Columbus, OH, Saturday, September 22, 2007, 2:00 p.m.: Roger Beck, the teacher who developed this excellent program, will give us a tour of this amazing house, which offers green solutions to an amazing array of issues facing every homeowner. For a preview, go to where you will see great photos and an archive of the weekly project updates. Come to be educated and inspired!

When Mr. Beck and others initiated their most recent project last year, they sought volunteers in a number of collaborative spaces. This one, the Columbus Chapter of the Construction Specifics Institute, heralded the following headline:

COLUMBUS CSI CHAPTER INVITES YOU TO TAKE PART IN GIVING A HAND UP: Do a good deed, network with fellow CSI members and be part of building a pilot LEED home!

The attraction of volunteers to this project was based on past successes such as the one that ended in 2006 which was described in the news release¹ following a public meeting for Green Energy Ohio in May 2006. It includes a link to a blog dedicated to the project.

The tour is today; I am participating. That will result in another blog posting – stay tuned…

Originally posted to New Media Explorer by Steve Bosserman on Saturday, September 22, 2007

News release is no longer available online ↩

What Is an “Integrated Solution”?

A colleague of mine called the other day and wanted to know how I would answer the question, “What is an ‘integrated solution’?” It seemed that he was entertaining this concept with others in senior management and he was struggling to find an answer that didn’t sound like gobbledygook or pure philosophy and offered nothing pragmatic. In typical management fashion, he needed an answer right away. And, it would be particularly helpful if it could be condensed into a 10-second sound bite that anyone could comprehend. Of course, pressing all that knowledge and insight into a 10-second statement is quite a challenge; one that launched us into a 30-minute animated conversation. Here’s the 10-second version:

An integrated solution:

Targets what a specific customer’s organization – business, not-for-profit, government agency, etc. – is providing (portfolio), the manner in which it does that (model), and the context in which it operates
Appeals to the combination of values considered most important by an individual customer
Provides a package of products, services, and technologies that function more effectively as a whole than the sum of the individual elements that comprise it

So, what is so difficult about that?

While this definition of an integrated solution makes intuitive sense, it challenges management’s conventional wisdom. Here are some reasons:

First, organizations do not really know their individual customers: what each is doing, why they are doing it, or the realities that drive them to do what they do the way they do.

The result: generalizations are made about customer buying patterns, marketing and advertising campaigns based on those generalizations are developed and launched, and products and services are developed and delivered that respond to the aggregated assumptions about customer buying behaviors. However, they don’t really get behind the behaviors to understand the specific dynamics about what the individual customer is doing, why, and how. Instead, the organization strives to stay competitive solely on features and price. To improve their bottom lines, they focus on making what they offer more attractive, cranking up sales / delivery volumes, and reducing operating / product costs.

To lump customers together into various segmentation schemes creates a psychological distance between the provider and the customer and keeps the customer in the position of having to define and acquire the integrated solution.

Second, organizations do not know how to measure the value of what they provide with metrics other than money.

The result: assumptions are made about price, return, cost, and profit that are predicated on a narrowly defined value equation. In other words, the value proposition does not include key factors that drive customers to make buying decisions. Certainly no customer intentionally chooses a portfolio of deliverables and operational model that loses money. At the same time, though, customers are increasingly interested in the impact their operations have on factors such as the environment, safety and security, and quality of life as indicated by the following metrics: What percentage of energy consumed to produce and deliver is green? How far away from the point of use was something produced? Can what is produced be tracked and traced from inception to delivery? How much carbon is emitted versus sequestered in producing it? How much total time does a customer spend to define an integrated solution, bring it together, implement it, and follow-up to see that it functions as intended? What is the balance between a customer’s investments in the operation compared to other of life’s interests?

To focus solely on money misses the point of differentiation that distinguishes an integrated solution: its capacity to answer to multiple drivers within a unique customer’s evaluative framework.

Third, organizations measure their success on providing profitable standalone products and services rather than combinations of products and services that can be easily integrated.

The result: the sale of the products and services becomes the prime objective and additional features and functions are thrown in as incentives to sweeten the pot, beat what the competition is offering, and win the deal. In other words, option packages default to bundling techniques rather than giving the customer the best deal for the price based on improvements in the customer’s business operation. Furthermore, there is often an even greater difficulty in putting combinations together that cross from one brand to another. To connect solution elements from two or more brands, the customer must purchase ancillary parts, components, and modules both in hardware and software. In many instances the customer must purchase an entire system from one brand in order for it to function within a more comprehensive solution even though several elements that comprise the system are still functional. This makes it challenging for the customer to leverage investments in assets.

To assume that customers will always be drawn to purchase a product or service based on its reputation, capability, and price alone is a questionable strategy: technology advances and integration increases; integrated solutions become easier and more commonplace; they become the new baseline from which one enters or stays in a market.

But how long will this take? What if an organization is already doing quite well with standalone products and services? How can the incremental add of selling a solution ever equal the advantage that comes from simply selling more products or services?

Hold an iPhone. Think back ten years. How many pieces of electronic gadgetry would you have to carry to equal what the iPhone can do – if such functionality was even possible? Think past all the things it can’t do or do as well as you like and fast forward five years into the future. What will be the degree of integration you can anticipate then? It’s hard to imagine but one thing you can count on – there will be more integration and in different ways than you thought!

Increasingly, customers have more choices. That is a good thing – Commons to a point. Unfortunately, the customer is left having to sort through countless combinations and possibilities to come up with the best-suited solution alternatives. As technology continues to get smaller, faster, stronger, more embedded, more intelligent, and more integrated, each customer will expect choices to be measured according to their full value as effective integrated solutions. The successful organization of the future is one that establishes its reputation as a trusted provider of integrated solutions. In effect, it will earn the right to be the integrator for the customer. Does this mean that organizations will have to change the way they relate to customers? By all means! To have this distinction saves it from “commodity hell” and positions it for a sustainable future. Integrated solutions: it’s the future that is fast upon us! And that’s the 1-second version!

Originally posted to New Media Explorer by Steve Bosserman on Sunday, July 15, 2007

Thoughts about Value-Add

Value-add dominates our economic scorecard. It is relatively easy to calculate in a manufacturing setting where value is added through material transformation at each step as a product moves from raw material to finished goods. Customers monetize this value by the purchase of products they anticipate will add value to their processes. Value-add also pertains to certain services, like financial and legal, that require a certified, licensed, or bonded provider that possesses or delivers specialized skills or knowledge. The consequence for not utilizing these services is the customer assumes risk.

The concept of value-add also plays a role in information technology and data services. Here, though, the meaning is vague. What value can be assigned to having data or to having data in a usable format? This instance of value is intangible and determined by the receiver of the message. Nowhere is intangible nature of value-add more evident that in marketing strategies and advertising campaigns. Information that induces a user to pay for a product or service has value only to the producer. Value-add for the customer or client occurs at the next step — the point of utilization.

So much for the traditional view of value-add. Here is where the current issues of globalization – localization come into play. A robust business strategy can entertain and exercise both sides!

On the globalization side, value-added products are produced and services provided far from their points of utilization and consumption. Success is driven by appropriate economies of scale. This situation will continue for many years to come as customers and clients exploit lower cost alternatives. On the localization side, value-added products and services are produced in close proximity to their points of utilization. Success here is driven by economies of scope. This situation enables products and services to be integrated into specific applications or solutions that are tailored for highly localized contexts.

How, though, does one put a value-add strategy in place? Re-enter data and information. Essentially, a successful strategy is a contextually relevant plan of action, conceived through the knowledgeable (and hopefully, wise!) interpretation of data and information, and executed by a skillful tactician. No matter how similar or unalike the challenges, relevant data and information are the common denominator.

Assuming everyone has access to the same data and information, there is no value-add. With universal access to the same data and information, there is a significant benefit. The rates increase in the discovery of new knowledge, application of knowledge already learned, and transfer of experience with applied knowledge from one place to another. In other words, accessibility to data and information makes the global human system of knowledge generation and utilization more effective, efficient, and expansive.

Since data and information carry no particular value unless one does not have access to them, they form a unique type of “commons“. Anyone may contribute to the pool of data and information, all benefit, and the quality of what is available is not diminished or compromised by the number of users. In fact, the quality and variety increases with more participants as evidenced by Wikipedia.

This “commons” approach is a cornerstone in “open source” philosophy wherein volunteers contribute entries and edits and the content is free to use. Originating in the realm of software development and usage, open source applies to any instance where people collaborate in the development, sustainability, and scalability of a system whereby end-users freely pull what they need from the system and respond to their unique circumstances. Participants increase the working knowledge about the system as they act locally and provide feedback to designers / developers so they improve the system’s robustness, range, and ease of use.

A comprehensive business strategy judiciously positions an “open source” / “free knowledge” dimension on the globalization and localization continuum. What to share in open forums, what to hold as proprietary and reserve for limited audiences, how much to contribute in the development and sustenance of open source endeavors, how much to invest in products, services, and technologies for satisfactory returns, where to standardize products, services, and technologies for economies of scale, where to proliferate economies of scope solutions within localized contexts – these are the kinds of questions about openness, standardization, and uniqueness that drive effective business strategies for all organization types.

Technology gets smaller, faster, stronger, more embedded, more integrated, and more intelligent. Localization increases. The value-add equation is redefined and a greater significance is placed on unique solutions. Addressing the above questions helps organizations adapt within their ever-changing operational landscapes. The implication being that organizations network and collaborate more broadly to energize, inspire, and focus their subject matter experts where it counts most – learning what customers and clients need in their business and social contexts and responding with value-added alternatives. Isn’t that “business as usual”?

Originally posted to New Media Explorer by Steve Bosserman on Thursday, July 12, 2007