Ed,

Im working my way through your posted HumptyDumptyY2K chapters and sorting through the thread commentary here to catch up to the discussion.

In the meantime, I have a real time challenge that requires a group think, and is related to your forums post-Y2K intent.

BRIEF BACKGROUND:

In Silicon Valley there is a one-day conference that will be held for CEOs and Key Executives, at the end of March 2000, on the general topic of Business Sustainability.

Business sustainability from the CEO perspective, looks at ways corporations and businesses (specifically private industry) can be motivated to become better, environmentally-participatory community partners, while at the same time increasing long-term profitability, competitive advantage and economic sustainability in addition to advancing technology through the dynamics of continuous improvement. A phrase often used is: One mans waste, is another mans raw material. Exploring new (win-win) ways to revamp old processes is one arena of endeavor. Key descriptive words often include terms such as: renewable energy, sustainable development, ecological architecture, green business and sustainable technology.

CEO keynote speakers typically highlight actual case-studies of how they became the driver to encourage a top-down awareness and implementation of sustainability practices within their organizations. They discuss what worked and what didnt.

UPCOMING CONFERENCE CHALLENGE IN A POST-Y2K CONTEXT:

The dates been set and the location booked. The membership, speakers and attendees--which include some very heavy hitters in Silicon Valley and nationally--also represent a good cross-section of private industry sectors. Participants in the groups 1999 conference, are aware of the general 2000 conference focus. Without a long explanation of how I got there, in a board meeting on Friday, I suggested that one of the key sessions/panels should be related to Y2K Recovery (not sure thats the appropriate term... any ideas on a better one?)

My suggestion sparked the debate on how bad do you think its going to be? That IS the question, isnt it? (BTW, the word on the silicon street, is that most LARGE organizations here expect, and are contingency planning for, intermittent blackouts and brownouts of unknown, but not long, duration in January. So power issues may color their perspectives by the March time-frame. In addition, their main economic concerns appear to vector in on longer -term pacific rim supply chain delays and/or disruptions. Then there are the domestic vendor and infrastructure issues and... no one knows!)

At any rate, the board liked the idea, and now the puzzling question is... What should the post-Y2K panel focus be? Within a business sustainability context?

The challenge to you Ed, the posters here (and also in the Time Bomb 2000 Forum ) is the panel topic needs to be set and described within the next couple days, so speakers can be arranged and preliminary information can be sent out and uploaded (soon) on the web-site.

So, based upon the above, and how you think Y2Ks all going to unravel (or not) please try this exercise:

Place yourself at the end of March 2000 and ask: What, at THAT time, would be most compelling to learn about, and discuss (post-Y2K), if I was a CEO responsible for my corporations continuity? What events might trigger me to reconsider how I do business? How our energy back-up systems should be more renewable? And WHAT... would be important?

Thanks, in advance, for your thoughtful comments,

Diane

-- Diane J. Squire (sacredspaces@yahoo.com), August 29, 1999

Answers

I;m just a lightweight, and I'm sure that others will have far deeper and intellectual answers, but here's a few ideas that might trigger some thoughts.

1. If the conferemce takes place as schedules, then obviously we are in a level 6 or less level of crisis. The airlines are still flying, and the economy is still robust enough for CEOs to go off to conferences.

2. Suggested topic:"Re-evaluaing the profit paradigm during times of national or global economic crisis"

a. One discussion question could be - " If I lay off all of my employees in order to balance the books, who will type up the reports showing how well I did?" [ A lightweight title for a discussion on downward loyalty,and whether or not a company has a responsibility to try and retain as many of its employees as possible during a global depression} 2.

-- Richard Ruffin (exalt2u@earthlink.net), August 29, 1999.

How To Best Take Advantage of Post-Y2K Opportunities

(There will be many failed businesses and open niches)

How To Ensure Self-Reliancy Within Corporate Infrastructure

(Obviously biz will have a new-found interest in back-up fuel cell units, water purification, vendor versatility, etc. on-site and in-place)

Re-Examining JIT Inventory Practices

Bringing Production and Manufacturing Back Home

Regaining Control of the Business Process From Start To Finish

(Those businesses who control and supply their product on-site from beginning to end will have huge advantages)

The Pitfalls of Dependency and How Not To Drop There Again

[ lots more ideas but that's the froth on the top of the cranium ;^]

-- Ashton & Leska in Cascadia (allaha@earthlink.net), August 29, 1999.

They certainly have a lot of optimistic faith that they'll all be able to get to a meeting at the end of March 2000!

-- Ashton & Leska in Cascadia (allaha@earthlink.net), August 29, 1999.

Richard,

Yes, if is the operative word.

Somehow I suspect the world will run the gambit of a 1 to 10--even within the same city/county--and all around the world, as well. In this context a global, or even local average may not be the appropriate Y2K impact assessment scale. Recovery will most likely be dependent on the local conditions and resources, not to mention intangibles like persistence and determination.

Re-evaluating the global impact of local recovery, may be a flip of the flop way of looking at the issue.

Ashton & Leska,

Thanks... responded on TBY2K.

Diane

-- Diane J. Squire (sacredspaces@yahoo.com), August 30, 1999.

It seems to me that "if business wants it, they get it" in this country, because the politicians are beholding to them. If business, apart from the energy industry, would see that dependency on fossil fuels and a non-renewable-sourced power grid made up a huge achilles heel in their operations and profitability, would they get on the renewable energy bandwagon?

In the early 70's, the renewable energy industries were still in a period of gestation, as Americans woke up to the harsh realities of fossil fuel dependence, for every facet of our lives. For a year or two, one could even get a tax deduction (or credit?) for installing residential or business equipment which was powered by a renewable energy source. A few home builders even tried to work this angle, to attract more buyers for their products. Problem was, not alot of contractors knew how to install these products correctly, and getting them serviced could be a nightmare. The industry was so young, that there weren't yet enough consumers of the products to make specialization in them profitable. There was movement, but it did not reach critical mass before oil became readily available again. People went back to old habits, and the gestation of that industry's development essentially came to an end.

The only habit that changed significantly for the longterm, was the habit of buying big, gas-guzzling autos. At just the right moment, the Japanese auto industry offered what Americans wanted, but which Detroit refused to offer: cars that could get you where you wanted to go comfortable, for alot less money in fuel and repairs. We know now that Detroit almost didn't pull through that exercise of arrogance. Japan got to the marketplace first with the products that consumers wanted, and they did it with reliable, affordable, and well-made productsbecause it was easy and that made Detroit look "out of touch".

The visionary company that first gets to market with an affordable, reliable, and well-made auto/truck that runs on clean, renewable energy is going to rule the next new wave of the transportation industry. My bet is that company will not be an American one. Lee Iacocca would have stayed in the industry, if he could have made anyone there listen to his ideas on this subject.

I see this same stubborn determination to protect their infrastructure investments, driving the utilities and energy industries of the world today. Y2K possibilites (and realities by March 2000 ?) have made a lasting impression on my understanding of how totally "wired to the grid" my survival is, as well as the survival of almost every institution and economy in the deveoped world. If businesses and individuals want to improve their control over their survival, they need to be less beholding to this power grid and transportation infrastructure. Inevitably, these industries will require increasingly larger "feedings" of dwindling, non-renewable resources, to meet the demands of growing populations and development. That paradigm will become increasingly costly to maintain, and eventually will be abandoned in favor of a paradigm that is sustainable.

The sun bathes all of the earth's faces, and could power all of our pursuits, if we ever find the commitment to develop the technology to do so. It could create a tidal wave of invention and applications capable of harnessing renewable sources of energy in non-polluting processes. The change from non-renewable driven to renewable driven economies would be gradual, with supplemental relationships between the two for awhile. But as R&D made breakthroughs in design and materials, more business and individual users would be able to utilize the technology. It would become the "new way of powering our lives", much as computers have become the new way we empower our lives in work and creativity.

It is such a no-brainer; who would NOT choose a similarly priced product that "powered itself" and performed as well, or better, than it's electricity- dependent counterpart? If the products do the job, are affordable, and receive installation and service support, THEY will be the tools of the future, and all the world will want them.

Will American business be leading this parade, or lurking on the sidewalk conspiring to sabotage or derail it somehow? Unfortunately, I think that our economic future is primarily being shaped by business and industry leaders who rarely look beyond their annual bonuses. They are not interested in creating a legacy that future generations will be able to sustain; in many cases, they are creating a legacy that future generations may find difficult to even survive.

-- Kristi (KsaintA@aol.com), August 30, 1999.

Oops! Neighbor had an emergency, so I didn't proofread... second to last paragraph should read "fossil-fuel driven counterpart" rather than "electricity-driven counterpart".

There are a few more, but I think you can get my gist without itemizing them...

Thanks for asking for our input, Diane. This subject of renewable, independently controlled access has really been on my mind lately, re trying to provide power to cope through Y2K's potential outages.

Regards,

Kristi

-- Kristi (KsaintA@aol.com), August 30, 1999.

I'm not much of an expert in anything-- as someone once described the situation, I have a smattering of ignorance. But the past 17 months have made one thing clear to me, probably to many of y'all -- but it bears repeating, especially in milieu of corporate heirarchy.

In many large business firms (if not most!) a disconnect verging on catastrophic seems to separate the various levels of management and operations. I have the feeling that this disconnect, however defined, is seriously debilitating, if not crippling, Y2K remediation work in many instances. Others could describe this with more clarity, I think. In any serious consideration of 'recovery,' or restructuring, this aspect of the corporate structure should be given a very high priority. Its negative impact affects all aspects of the corporate world.

-- Tom Carey (tomcarey@mindspring.com), August 30, 1999.

Thanks for your input, as it turns out, the next planning meeting is in two weeks, so I'll have more time to do "research" on business sustainability.

There does seem to be the disconnect going on, but I also think if Y2K doesn't kill us, it will wake businesses up to becoming more self- reliant, and yet local community committed.

We'll see. The links I'm researching are ALL applicable to Ed's HumptyDumptyY2K world.

Will post the "goodies" as they cross my path.

Diane

-- Diane J. Squire (sacredspaces@yahoo.com), September 01, 1999.

Diane,

I thought the long list of potential topics by Ashton & Leska was very good, as was your emphasis on the power grid. Another area to look at would be the economy -- or, more particularly, the possibility that we might be in the midst of a global recession (if not depression), in addition to experiencing a variety of different infrastructure disruptions in the U.S. and abroad.

What would CEO's be interested in discussing if, for example, sales (both domestic and international) were down, they were having to lay off people, benefits were being cut, new infusions of capital were very hard to come by, and they were having production/supply/distribution problems?

And if, on top of that, the stock market had taken a BIG hit, their own company's stock was down, their personal portfolio was down, and the value of employee stock options was down?

IF that was the context in which the conference was being held, what would a discussion of business sustainability have to offer them?

I don't know the answer to that question but it might be something to ponder. I would think that any discussion topic that provided possible solutions to their immediately pressing concerns would be of considerable interest to the participants.

Good luck and please keep us posted. (As a renewable resource _and_ Y2K consultant in the Bay Area I might even want to attend myself.)

dhg

-- dhg (dhgold@pacbell.net), September 02, 1999.

diane, they may want to discuss problems with japan. i am very concerned about how japan's y2k and other problems will impact us. for material on this, check out 2 reports on gary north's page, both of them having to do with karl feilder's recent press release where he says the japanese government only found out the middle of august, 2 weeks ago, that pcs as well as mainframes have problems. the 1 st report is under the Government category and is dated august 30, and the second one is under banking and is dated sept 2.

-- jocelyne slough (jonslough@tln.net), September 02, 1999.