The Urban Strategista Blog

The problem with reducing anti-GMO sentiment to psychology

noreply@blogger.com (Anonymous) — Wed, 03 Jun 2015 19:30:00 +0000

After reviewing this article about The Psychology Of Why So Many People Are Anti-GMO, I had to share my thoughts. The more I research this topic and learn about it, the more my opinion evolves. I am a firm believer in the scientific method, scientific innovation, and progress. I consider myself a scientist, though a social one (I have mad skills in calculus and physics that got used a bit in my career as an architect, but I digress...) But we should not take accept all scientific discoveries as positive steps. What good is a boost in nutritional value if the chemicals used to grow the food cause cancer? I evaluate what I put in, on, and near my body with precaution, weighing the benefits and detriments. However, the precautionary principle is a great guideline, but lacks the specificity needed to make it practicable in all cases. I would like us to incentive innovation AND exercise precaution. Our current challenge is that the U.S. allows products to enter our markets, then wait until massive scale negative externalities occur to research the products' effects. Just look at trans fats (hydrogenated oils) which were under FDA review earlier this year for removal from the market (anyone have an update?). It took 40 years and a realization that the body can't break down the substance, clogging arteries and propelling heart disease to the #1 spot for killer of Americans, for the research and critical analysis to occur. When we think of products as part of a system or life-cycle, we continuously test and improve not only their economic value, but health and environmental safety, to both enhance user value and minimize externalities. Just because you can, doesn't mean that you should. And the reactionary approach puts too many lives and ecosystems at risk. We have to find balance between precaution and reaction in order to continue to innovate and protect the health and well-being of all life and ecosystems in our tiny, tiny world.

Thanks for bringing this to my attention, Joe!

Exactly what does "winning" mean in data-driven cities?

noreply@blogger.com (Anonymous) — Thu, 15 Jan 2015 12:50:00 +0000

Mayor Walsh of Boston did a great job laying out his priorities in Tuesday night's State of the City Address. The positive response to the speech reflects the rhetoric that propelled Mayor Walsh into office last year. Rather, I'm more concerned with the data-driven culture that he is building within the city's governance, which is mentioned in this January 6th Boston Globe article.

Cities and metros have had a difficult time gather, tracking, analyzing, and responding to data throughout their histories. Some cities have been more successful than others, though departmental silos oftentimes hinder information sharing that could lead to more comprehensive planning and decision making. Walsh's "Moneyball" approach (based on the book by Michael Lewis, now a motion picture with Brad Pitt), however, seems to put data and statistics above that of local knowledge. Relying on data to measure whether your city is "winning" or not really depends on your strategy. Does winning mean increasing luxury sector developments with "poor doors" for affordable residents (I won't go into the ridiculous thresholds for "affordability" in this post)? Increasing foreign investment and improving prospects for investors? Or is it improving quality of life for all city residents?

Data and local knowledge should work together as part of ongoing performance evaluation for metros. Only through a combination of quantitative measures of project and program success coupled with qualitative feedback systems and case studies can cities like Boston address quality of life. Cities are for people: not just rich people, investors, and consumers in the luxury market, but all people.

As Carolyn Steele points out in her book Hungry City, urban centers should bring together people from all walks of life. Inclusive quality of life cannot be reduced to statistics (though many are trying desperately to do so). Let's hope that Walsh's Moneyball approach to governance doesn't increase marginalization and exclusion like much of the urban revitalization driven by economics and data have done to date (aka gentrification). Moderate, low, and fixed income residents should count, too.

Free Post-Secondary Education Could Help Close the Skills Gap

noreply@blogger.com (Anonymous) — Tue, 13 Jan 2015 12:30:00 +0000

I'm excited to hear about the America's College Promise program. This country needs better access to affordable higher education. As it stands today, graduating students find themselves strapped with debt in the tens -- if not hundreds -- of thousands of dollars after completing a higher education program. High debt makes it difficult for young graduates to start families and purchase necessary goods and services.

Tennessee has a model program already in place, as the Brookings Institution describes in this pithy piece. And of course, Georgia residents can qualify for a HOPE Scholarship to attend any state institution of higher learning. In both programs, though, funding cuts could limit enrollment opportunities for many college hopefuls.

This movement toward making higher education more accessible promises a great way to build much-needed skills in new and returning students. However, a truly accessible economy also delivers low and middle skill jobs that provide living wages with benefits. America's workforce and economic development policies has traditionally glossed over the wage shortfalls that makes it difficult for those without an advanced education to meet basic needs. Is the President -- and our country -- ready to take steps that will make living wage jobs for all skill levels a policy priority?

Artwork by a third grade class. Photo by Tracy A. Corley

What’s Wrong With Current Approaches to Urban Sustainability

noreply@blogger.com (Anonymous) — Wed, 07 Jan 2015 19:51:00 +0000

[Originally posted Jul 10, 2014, 5:25 PM by Tracy A Corley]

Most cities approach sustainability in the wrong way. During a recent review of sustainability projects, I identified more than 220 district-scale projects in 115 cities across North America, ranging from less than half an acre to 1,150 acres. These projects provided a glimpse of the growing importance of sustainability to municipal business issues. An increasing number of cities use sustainability to protect natural resources, attract investment, and improve brand images. Sustainability represents the competitive advantage of the 21st century city.

Many cities, however, define sustainability in the wrong way. These definitions vary widely. Many equate sustainability with the “green” movement of the 1970s. Green just means “less damaging” than traditional practices, whereas real sustainability zeros out, if not regenerates, the capacity of municipal resources so that outcomes are equal to or greater than inputs. Others think of sustainability solely in relationship to the environment, but sustainability impacts more than just the health of the planet. Only a few correctly define sustainability in terms of John Elkington’s “triple bottom line.”^[i] This 1994 concept states that for all business enterprises, true sustainability includes a balance of three bottom-line measures: economic, social, and environmental factors. These three areas all must pencil out for a business to be sustainable. The same principle holds true for municipal corporations.

Even among those who got the definition right, many got the implementation wrong. Most examined available economic, social, and property development models or certification programs that addressed sustainability (I found more than 22) and picked one or more to apply to a disadvantaged district without considering the area’s existing assets and unique features. For those who did not consider an existing model, implementing sustainability devolved into a long, drawn-out exercise. One city found that after three years of planning, a model already existed that outlined the steps to address their key concerns. Whether or not they considered an existing model, many project leaders found themselves with a lot of planning and very little action. Those who managed to execute their plans often fell short of penciling out on all three bottom lines.

When describing the failures of sustainability approaches and efforts, many project participants blamed three barriers:

Changes in political leadership. Sustainability requires long-term commitment to complete projects and realize success. If project momentum wanes every two to four years (in accordance with election and funding cycles), then projects are often doomed to failure. In one city, the mayor initiated a district-scale project to address a variety of social, economic, and environmental issues. Four years later, however, a newly elected mayor abruptly defunded the nonprofit organization that organized the neighborhood redevelopment. I found similar situations with six other major projects.
Conflicting efforts. By focusing on individual systems or municipal silos, sustainability efforts in one focus area often undermine efforts in another. For example, one city revamped its zoning codes and comprehensive plans to accommodate more sustainable development. Though the comprehensive plan mandated the inclusion of more community gardens in vacant lots, it did not take into account the high levels of soil contamination. Without extensive soil remediation or creative gardening solutions, the city could inadvertently harm the health of its population. If the parks and recreation team, the urban lands commission, landowners, and community representatives had been part of the planning process, they could have identified this issue sooner and adjusted the comprehensive plan to address the reality.
Lack of community buy-in and support. City planners often have grand visions for how to redevelop their city, only to find that project abutters and local residents do not share that vision and stop projects in their tracks. Every city I reviewed had at least one story of a project delay or cancellation due to community derailment.

Of the 59 projects I reviewed in more detail, 12 (20.3 percent) were either on hold or in serious decline because of one or more of the issues listed above.

These might sound like different issues, but they all stem from the same source. Sustainability projects succeed when cities shift from individual systems management to big picture systems thinking. Instead of looking just at energy efficiency or job creation or housing or transit, cities with successful sustainable developments use big picture systems thinking to envision the ultimate goal and the plan the interconnected steps needed to achieve that broad goal.

I recommend that city leadership push for big picture systems thinking now. Even if the city is not considering a sustainable development or pursuing certification, now is the time to get different actors—the market, nonprofits, and civil society—and municipal staff used to working together to envision and implement the big picture.

Asking for big picture thinking from detailed oriented managers and technicians might seem like a tall order. Municipalities employ a wealth of internal subject matter experts who often don’t work together. This habit of working in silos brings about limited solutions to complex problems, resulting in projects that tackle the “low hanging fruit” instead of the underlying issues. Cities also contain extensive knowledge and expertise in its market (private sector), nonprofits, and civil society (communities) that often are not included in development. In the 21st century, successful sustainable cities bring ALL of these actors to the table to not just plan and initiate, but manage and govern sustainable development. Cities should take the lead on convening these actors and use its knowledge and authority to bring big picture systems thinking to everyday municipal operations.

Sustainable cities need the market to enable implementation of development. The market constantly innovates and is best suited to adapt to community needs. For example, developers across the country are creating more micro-apartments^[ii] to fill the need of growing single-person households (23.7 percent of the population in the 2010 U.S. Census). This demographic includes an increasingly mobile population in search of opportunities, low-income people in need of affordable accommodations, and older people in transition from single family homes. Many of these populations seek homes that provide more services and access to support than can be provided in traditional suburban residential communities. The market sees this and would like to create developments, services, and products to meet diversifying market needs. The city should facilitate these market developments and provide rules and legislation that include the flexibility to innovate.

Sustainable cities leverage nonprofits to fill the gaps that the market won’t touch due to fiscal viability. Nonprofits serve on the front lines, delivering services and meeting the unprofitable needs of disadvantaged and underrepresented populations. If these needs go unmet, cities ultimately pay the price through escalating social services demands, unemployment, crime rates, and other degenerative costs. For example, nonprofits offer job training programs. When these programs are aligned with the workforce opportunities within districts and leverage the resources available through local educational institutions, municipal dollars that support the nonprofit stay within the community to create local jobs and opportunities. In addition, the training participants transfer more quickly into living wage jobs since the nonprofit is working directly with local employers and the city’s economic development team to ensure that they are training the right folks for the right jobs. Integrating the advantages of nonprofits into municipal processes further makes the city economically, environmentally, and socially sustainable.

Civil society brings local knowledge to sustainability issues, without which, city departments operate within a vacuum. Local citizens provide on-the-ground insights that provide empirical quantitative and qualitative data that the city’s staff can use in its assessment of issues. Civil society also can reveal issues that aren’t being addressed and show successes that might not pop up in traditional surveys or focus group. By being a part of the planning process, they ensure that projects don’t get derailed after millions of dollars have been invested. For example, Seattle’s monorail project was voted into being by local citizens. Despite ten years of planning and purchasing property to build the line, citizens were not part of the ongoing discussions and did not understand how debt servicing worked. Local leaders—acting in the best interests of their constituents—were outraged at the costs. The referendum process put the monorail project to another public vote, which resulted in its dismantling^[iii]. Actions like these can be avoided by including civil society in regular conversations with the city. They can help build buy in for projects that address critical issues and identify unforeseen community pitfalls that might hinder a project’s success. Integrating civil society into municipal processes builds trust and social capital that will support ongoing maintenance and governance of sustainability issues for decades to come.

As the convener of these key actors, the city sets policies and aligns municipal resources to meet wide-reaching goals. Cities build competitive advantage by serving as a convener and catalyst for creating self-sustaining developments while helping other actors navigate local, state, and federal policies. This moves the role of the city from manager of resources to driver of systems thinking.

Portland, Oregon moved consciousness within the city from the parcel-level planning to big picture systems thinking by elevating project awareness and achieving small successes to improve acceptance of cross-departmental collaboration. A leading city official reported that the efforts led to an unprecedented level of openness and iterative thinking by departments, which made successful urban revitalizations like the Pearl District^[iv] come to life without relying on a sustainability model or framework. The leadership shifted development from city planning departments to district actors—the market, nonprofits, and civil society—that drove innovation in everything from small community projects to large-scale developments. The city shifted its role from central planner to central convener: it now focuses its efforts on providing policies, assisting with policy navigation, and aggregating resources for district-led initiatives. The city provides a platform along which to help the neighborhood align with city goals. This frees the city from management-heavy activities while improving the outcomes from projects. Neighborhoods, as a result, are more actively engaged in resolving their own issues, including creating jobs and finding funding sources for projects. The next step for Portland is to formalize this role to continue participation by the market, nonprofits, and civil society. Legislating joint accountability for project and program success makes triple bottom line sustainability work for Portland.

To shift the way cities approach and think about sustainability, they should:

Identify priority issues and focus areas, and then require three- to five-year strategic plans to address issues and outline how teams will collaborate to meet goals.
Build a collaborative program that engages city staff and actors to evaluate the different sustainability frameworks and determine which one best fits their unique situations and addresses their focus areas.
Engage action groups that collaboratively advise on the issues that confront the different districts and neighborhoods around the city so that nonprofits, businesses, and residents can bring their unique knowledge and expertise to city governance and leadership.
Formalize representation and leadership in neighborhoods and special districts to make doing business with the city a regular part of day-to-day activities. Make it their charge to promote resolution of issues while keeping new development from pricing tenants out of their homes. This will require everyone to get creative about how to introduce new development without forcing existing residents and tenants out of an area.
Insist that project outcomes support themselves in terms of financial, environmental, and social needs. Self-sustainability should be present at all levels of city governance.
Enact changes through rules and laws so that sustainability becomes an integral part of the municipal process and ensures ongoing governance of project and program goals.

Albert Einstein once said, “No problem can be solved from the same level of consciousness that created it.” To move cities away from degenerative systems that require increasing amounts of inputs just to maintain them, city leadership needs to shift its consciousness about sustainability from individual systems management to big picture systems thinking. Cities survive through good governance and shrewd management. Cities grow and thrive thanks to successful coordination and collaboration with all who live, work, play, and learn within its borders. Only through triple bottom line metrics and convening market, nonprofit, and civil society actors can municipal approaches to sustainability be truly sustainable^[v].

[i] See http://www.sustainability.com/ or http://www.johnelkington.com/ for more information
[ii] More about micro-apartments movement can be found in the following USA Today article:http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2013/07/30/tiny-apartments-apodments-catch-on-us-cities/2580179/
[iii] This brief editorial discusses aftermath of the monorail dismantling:http://www.seattlepi.com/local/opinion/article/Seattle-Monorail-Close-the-books-1199354.php
[iv] http://explorethepearl.com/
[v] For a more detailed discussion on shifting mindsets about sustainability, please see Bill Reed’s paper “Shifting Our Mental Model—‘Sustainability’ to Regeneration” athttp://www.integrativedesign.net/images/ShiftingOurMentalModel.pdf

This post is also available on Northeastern University's RE:Connect blog. The views, conclusions, and opinions expressed in this article do not reflect the views of Northeastern University or any of its affiliates or assigns.

Beyond Labeling, the U.S. Needs Transparency Now for GE Food

noreply@blogger.com (Anonymous) — Wed, 07 Jan 2015 19:49:00 +0000

[Originally posted Jul 10, 2014, 4:56 PM by Tracy A Corley]

Genetically engineered (GE) food promised to feed the world. Unfortunately the world refuses to buy it. In April 2014, China banned imports of U.S. corn, reportedly due to fears of GE food contamination. A few weeks later, Russia proposed bans on GE imports and stalled GE crop cultivation, joining the EU, Japan, and more than 60 others in limits and bans.

Many Americans don’t want GE foods either. Most at least they want them labeled — 87% according to a 2008 CBS News/New York Times poll. Unfortunately, more than 80% of processed foods contain GE ingredients. With market saturation like that, Americans have little to no choice but to eat GE food. Even organically-grown crops carry risk of unknown contamination.

The U.S. needs transparency through both labeling and pre-market research of GE food now. In spite of calls for transparency in the U.S. and abroad, the agrotech industry continues to pour millions into fighting transparency efforts. More than 26 states have legislation under consideration, not including city and county ordinances. Vermont was the first state to enact a statewide ban.

U.S. policy hinders transparency just as much as the agrotech industry. The 1986 Coordinated Framework divides responsibility for GE regulation between the FDA, USDA, and EPA. This disjointed regulatory framework resulted in failure after failure, which, in 1999, the public and scientists highlighted in FDA hearings. In response, the FDA issued Pre-market Notification and Labeling Guidelines in 2001 — just as George W. Bush moved in to the Oval Office. The rule, if enacted, would have reversed the FDA’s 1992 policy position that classified GE foods as “substantively equivalent” to regular food and required more pre-market review. To date, the agrotech industry possesses full discretion over market entry decisions and conducts its own research, which it can choose not to disclose.

These regulatory and transparency failures make us and our communities sick. The CDC and other scientists have proven that GE food introduces new allergen sources, more toxins, and increased antibiotics resistance. Healthcare providers cannot keep pace with new risks, particularly since healthcare innovations require more rigorous testing than food innovations. Scientists have shown that GE food sickens the environment through monoculture farming techniques and growing pesticide use, which pollute ecosystems and kill beneficial insects like honeybees and Monarch butterflies. The threat grows as pests continue to develop resistance to Roundup™ and other pesticides.

But most immediately, GE food sickens our economy. Not only have the costs of patented seeds, specialized equipment, and highly skilled labor put family farms financially at risk, but China’s ban alone cost the corn industry an estimated $2.9 billion. To put that into perspective, in 2010, corn exports totaled $11.1 billion at today’s corn prices. Blows like this threaten jobs and businesses across our food system, from truck drivers to neighborhood bakeries.

To avoid a food system and economic disaster, the U.S. needs to bring transparency to GE foods through a national food policy council and the advancement of House Resolution 1699 and Senate bill 809.

A presidentially-appointed national food policy council would foster transparency by coordinating research, labeling, and reporting. By shifting power from three disjointed agencies who cannot even agree on a common definition for genetic engineering, this independent decision-making body can coordinate with federal agencies, scientists, state and local food policy councils, interest groups, and non-governmental organizations. The council would assess multiple food system issues, set the food policy agenda, and craft policy alternatives for improving transparency — much like state and regional food policy councils and the international commission Codex Alimentarius.

Introduced in April 2013, S. 809 and H.R. 1699 already address the concerns in the 1999 FDA proposed rule. Unfortunately, these “Right to Know” acts go head-to-head with the Right to Free Markets in the U.S. economy. Sen. Boxer and Rep. DeFazio should rename these bills, update them with commerce considerations, and push them out of committee to confront Rep. Pompeo’s Safe and Accurate Food Labeling Act (H.R. 4432). Authored by the anti-transparency Grocery Manufacturers Association (GMA) and known by critics as the Denying Americans the Right to Know (DARK) Act, this bill preempts state and local laws, makes mandatory labeling laws illegal, and places discretion in the hands of the FDA secretary. The two pro-transparency bills would move forward faster if grassroots advocates would organize under a single organization — like the opposition did under the GMA — and mobilize the healthcare industry and state governments, who currently shoulder the costs for GE food damages through hospital readmissions, environmental cleanups, and economic development efforts.

To truly feed the world, Americans must get out of the dark. Ask your congressmen and women to support the President in forming a national food policy council and to pass H.R. 1699 and S. 809. Together, we can make GE foods safer and more accepted, domestically and abroad, through transparency.

This post is also available on Northeastern University's Consortium on Food Systems Sustainability, Health, and Equity blog. The views, conclusions, and opinions expressed in this article do not reflect the views of Northeastern University or any of its affiliates or assigns.

Is the Dead Sea about to become the Dead Salt Flats?

noreply@blogger.com (Anonymous) — Sat, 27 Oct 2012 23:39:00 +0000

Hi, everyone. It's been a while since I've posted a blog. I've been around, just retooling my communications channels as I prepare for the next step in my career. Expect this blog to feature more urban and economic development information in the upcoming years.

I haven't been idle since my last post. I've been doing a lot of research and reading. I recently finished reading The End of Growth by Richard Heinberg. I must admit that I am a skeptic when it comes to most things I read and hear, and every new tome about our current global economic crisis causes me to squint my eyes and purse my lips. However, I found The End of Growth a fascinating look at how the foundations of our economic models are about to change, resulting from the finite natural resources that have fueled the aggressive growth we've experienced since the industrial age. The book included a couple of points at which I pursed my lips with renewed vigor, but overall, it raised my eyebrows, made me question existing assumptions, and commanded more research.

As a result of the finite resources assertion, I have been keeping my eyes open for information to support or debunk this. Today's Seattle Times article (originally published by Bloomberg News) about the dramatic drop in the level of the Dead Sea over the past 12 months highlights the concerns about limited resources. The report states that the inland sea dropped a record 4.9 feet in the past 12 month due to industry use and evaporation. One source attributes half the drop to use by Israel Chemicals and Jordan's Arab Potash Co.

Is our demand for synthetic fertilizers are so great that it requires depleting the purportedly restorative waters of the Dead Sea? According to some of the research that I've done, the industrial farming infrastructure (particularly in the U.S.) relies heavily on chemical fertilizers derived from natural resources like the potash in the Dead Sea. I find this ironic, since we are dumping so much human and agricultural waste (i.e. natural fertilizer) into our waterways and oceans. I am finding reports about small, yet innovative, efforts to turn human and agricultural waste in local communities into energy and fertilizer (check out the September 21st and October 22nd post on my Facebook page). Why is this not being done on a larger scale?

I still believe in what I like to call the Star Trek philosophy: Everything gets reused and recycled. When you're trapped on a star ship a few light years from home, every subatomic particle counts. The processing of human, animal, and agricultural waste mimics natural processes. The world -- not just the U.S. -- should consider investing in large-scale industrial processing that turns organic waste material into soil that can feed our crops and be used retain natural grasslands and forests -- which thereby eliminates topsoil erosion. Instead, we're using taxpayer money to protect the bonuses of bank and insurance executives.

That's my two cents about The End of Growth and the latest report of water levels in the Dead Sea. I would like to see The End of Waste sometime before the end of my lifetime. What more can we be doing to reclaim waste resources and ensure that natural resources with multiple economic and human uses don't get stripped down or die out? How can ensure that the Dead Sea doesn't turn into the "Dead Salt Flats"?

Get The End of Growth in print or for your Kindle.

Already read it? Get the supplemental update from June 6, 2012.

Change your attitude by switching hands

noreply@blogger.com (Anonymous) — Tue, 10 Jul 2012 20:06:00 +0000

Before I completed my undergraduate studies at Clemson University, I met the wife of one of my professors, who ran a design studio. After seeing the great work they were doing, I decided to ask her for a job. "We don't have any jobs available," she said. That didn't stop me though.

After weeks of gentle harassment, the woman finally relented and brought me on to do graphic design, design production, and sales. My first day, I settled into my computer workstation and noticed that the mouse was located on the left side of the keyboard. I, as a right-hander, made a motion to move the mouse to the right side of the keyboard.

"No," she said. "We use the mouse on the left side in this office."

I tried to convince her that I would be more effective if the mouse were on the right side of the keyboard. My new boss, whom I'd worn down to a nub to get this part-time job during my senior year, looked at me grimly and said, "You'll figure it out. Either that, or you're fired."

She walked quietly out of the room. Flabbergasted, and faced with my first deadline, I got a crash course in improving my dexterity with my left hand. By the end of the day, I was just as adept with my left hand as with my right. To this day, I still use the mouse with my left hand and write with my right. In fact, when I am faced with drawing on a computer, I'm much more proficient with my left hand.

One of my first employers forced me to look at the world differently and use the other half of my brain. In Dr. David Casasanto's article on Psychology Today, he shows how our handedness influences our emotions, motivations, and experiences. Unlike cognitive functions, emotional functions can switch between hemispheres, depending on which hand dominates. That means that a simple action like switching the mouse to the other side of the computer can influence how you feel about the task at hand, and even shape your motivation to complete it.

The link between brain activity and motor function lies at the heart of therapies like EMDR (Eye Movement Desensitization and Reprocessing). How you literally see can impact the way you figuratively see. The act of introducing motor functions to aid in mental processes can shape our behavior and how we perceive interactions with things and other people. For example, Casasanto stated in an interview with Psychology Today writer Katherine Schreiber that "one in four studies found that a job candidate who appears on the dominant side of an evaluator is judged in a more positive light than a candidate who appears on the evaluator's nondominant side." Something this simple contains huge implications on how we think and act.

So next time you find yourself dreading a task, judging someone harshly, or are trying to stop a bad habit, switch hands. It could add more balance to your decision making and help you achieve much more positive outcome.

Change is in the air! You can help by telling me about your water heater!

noreply@blogger.com (Anonymous) — Wed, 07 Sep 2011 04:52:00 +0000

Image by McBeth via Flickr

Hi everyone,
There is a lot of change happening in our world. That's why I have made a personal change to spark systemic change. In a new role as chief innovation agent and president at Verinnovation, I have the privilege of working with companies, organizations and communities to bring better understanding of human behavior and its impact on change and innovation. We do this through information services and research.

We are now conducting a study about water heaters. If you have a few minutes, can you share information about your water heater? Pretty please?

Why water heaters? Well, we want to understand energy use and how to reduce home operating costs. We learned that water heaters use more energy than your fridge, dishwasher, clothes washer, and dryer -- combined! Who would have thought that an appliance that we stick in the back corner of our garages would be the second largest cost on our home energy bills?

So please take our survey. Your information could help us change water heaters from a back room energy vampire into a low cost, high performance money saver.

To learn more about Verinnovation, visit our web site at www.verinnovation.com. You can also find us on these social platforms:

Twitter: @e2liveworkplay

Special opps on Facebook at www.facebook.com/Verinnovation

On LinkedIn: www.linkedin.com/company/verinnovation-inc-

Join the conversation at our online Wisdom XChange
forumsignup.verinnovation.com

Why can't Starbucks customers read?

noreply@blogger.com (Anonymous) — Thu, 21 Jul 2011 00:31:00 +0000

I don't drink a lot of coffee, but I visit a lot of Starbucks coffee shops. It's a great "third place" to meet colleagues especially now that they have free WiFi.

In recent months, I have noticed their new compost and recycle bins. This two-part design is very hip (see photo) but as you can see, it doesn't work. Every time I peer into one of these bins, the contents of the recycle side match the contents of the compost side.

Not all disposable items at Starbucks are both recyclable and compostable. In fact, each color-coded side of the bin includes a list of acceptable items in a fun script font. Does this mean that Starbucks customers cannot read?

For a food service chain whose design was based on the favorite haunts of European writers and artists, I hardly think this is the case. Instead we have what Stanford Psychologist Lee Ross calls a Fundamental Attribute Error. The problem with the people isn't about the attributes of the people (i.e. illiteracy) but rather the situation.

In this situation, a patron has completed her tall soy mocha (no whip) and would like to dispose of her cup and lid. But are both pieces recyclable? Are either compostable?

In a few milliseconds, the customer is going to decide on the next course of action. If she has the time and inclination, she will stop and read the instructions. Most likely though, she's in a hurry or distracted by processing the conversation she just left. The reading of instructions distracts her flow. Instead of interrupting her thoughts, she clicks the cup with lid attached into one of the bins so she can hop the bus to her next appointment.

Does this make her a bad person? Indeed not. So how could Starbucks avoid the purchase of pricey bifurcate bins that their staff has to sort through at the end of the day?

I suggest pictures. Studies show that pictures of appropriate items bridge the fuzziness between user friendly and idiot proof. Instead of engaging left brain processes to shift gears and read text, pictures of acceptable items posted above each receptacle would allow the consumer to instantly id the appropriate place for her refuse. Or, since each is color-coded, Starbucks could add a dot or star or other color matching tag printed on each item. That way, the eye only has to match the colors to make an instant connection.

The problem with people is that they are busy. Like Starbucks, you can make little changes to encourage big behavior changes. And some day, I'll know automatically what to recycle and what to compost when I visit Starbucks.

Robert Reich Delivers The Truth about the Economy... in Two Minutes

noreply@blogger.com (Anonymous) — Thu, 23 Jun 2011 00:33:00 +0000

With all the political posturing and dodginof real solutions about our economy coming from D.C., this video short brings to light the drastic measures that are needed to pull us out of economic freefall. As professionals, I hope you can leverage this information in your decision making and strategic planning.

Making Harsh Decisions Brought Starbucks Back from the Brink of Disaster

noreply@blogger.com (Anonymous) — Mon, 11 Apr 2011 21:08:00 +0000

On 7 April 2011, I attended a lunch event at which Howard Schultz (CEO of Starbucks Coffee Company) discussed his new book, Onward: How Starbucks Fought for Its Life Without Losing Its Soul. For those of you who don't recall, Starbucks found itself with an identity crisis in 2007. It's passion for coffee and customer experience had gotten lost behind a subconcious appeasement of Wall Street. By focusing on P/E ratios and stock price, Starbucks was losing its soul.

Schultz had stepped down from the helm of the company, but he still served as chairman of the board. "I should have been paying attention," he said when commenting on the company losing its way. Schultz re-took the helm and worked hard to steer the company back in the right direction. That meant making tough decisions. Starbucks retooled its business model to focus heavily on the customer experience. In fact, the company spent $7 million to close all of its North American stores for a day to retrain its employees. The move drew harsh criticism and sank their share price to an all time low of just above $6. They closed store locations and laid off employees for the first time in its history. This was hard-hitting for Schultz, who grew up in the projects in Brooklyn. He watched his father take a major blow to his career when he lost his job, worker's comp, and health insurance. He did not want to do the same to his own employees, but found he was faced with no choice. Making these tough decisions saved Starbucks and put them on a path to recovery.

Making tough choices can be painful and emotional. Many of the company leaders and entrepreneurs who read this blog don't have to turn a battleship the size of Starbucks. But making significant changes in times of challenge and struggle require significant investment. Your entire team has to be on board. And if they aren't, then it's time to get rid of them. Schultz knew that with the changes they were making, they needed people who not only had the skills and shared the company values, but also believed in the change. Nine of 11 of its leadership did not, and as a result, they are no longer with the company. It's only when leaders can make tough decisions like these in times of challenge that good companies can grow to become truly great -- and in a case like Starbucks, recapture its former glory.

Mr. Schultz also made it clear that in today's marketplace, principles and values matter the most. If companies "wash" their marketing with green or social claims that aren't true, consumers will go elsewhere and not purchase from you. Tracy A. Corley & Associates works with company to capture their vision, mission, values, and position so that they have a clear framework for articulating and communicating their souls. I asked Mr Schultz how growing companies could do a better job of creating consistency in their cultures. He was direct in stating that human resources must have a seat at the big table (ie. not just be relegated to subordinate role in the organization), otherwise the message would not be embedded throughout the culture.

If you have experienced a setback like Starbucks in recent years and would like to recapture your market position while retaining your soul, it's not too late. Though painful and emotional, I can turn your ship around and help you make the tough decisions like the ones that brought Starbucks back from the brink of disaster. Call me at 206.782.4040 to capture your strategic framework, create a strategic plan, map your business model, and assess your organization for efficiency and growth.

Information on how to capture the values and principles that drive your organization can also be found in my book, The Strategy String: An Organizational Primer for Tying Strategy to Performance.

When Leaders Fail to Mentor, They Fail to Lead

noreply@blogger.com (Anonymous) — Wed, 30 Mar 2011 04:16:00 +0000

Last week, I had the honor of attending a presentation by Jack Smalley. Jack did a great job of breaking down the top 10 qualities of a great leader. At the top of his list was Mentorship.

Mentorship is one of those things that business leaders forget about if they get caught up in the roles and accountability of leading an organization, large and small. Sometimes, they use the mantra "do as I say, not as I do," forgetting that what they do is what will lead their organization into success or failure. Additionally, effective leaders take time out of what they do to spend quality time with their charges.

I know that as a leader, I have failed dramatically with my mentorship role in the past. Specifically, I recall one key employee. She was wickedly smart, bringing a wealth of knowledge to our organization. And what she did not know, she knew how to find it quickly. Unfortunately, I as a leader did not take the time to mentor her on the differences between knowledge and wisdom. Wisdom combines knowledge and experience with the judgement to know when and how to use the information you have. So my superstar employee was a great asset in her knowledge, a bit low in experience, and definitely did not have the judgement to know when to speak up and when to shut up. As a result of her foot-in-mouth disease, I found myself repairing relationships and putting out smoldering brush fires from where she scorched important relationships.

Image via Wikipedia

The marketing firm that handled Chrysler's social media found this out, too. Their Twitter snafu dropped the f-bomb to its followers. Many Baby Boomer leaders are enamored with the generation of Millennials and their tech prowess. They forget, however, to teach discretion and the repercussions of actions made both in the workplace and at home. Facebook and Twitter, like all information on the internet, is forever. Top organizations need people who not only know how to work the technology but also how and when to use discretion with all those technology tools. This is not to hamper the activities of our young workers, but a call for executives and managers to step up and make mentorship a number one priority of their leadership development.

Have you been serving as an effective mentor recently? Ask you team for their feedback, and make it a regular part of your schedule to be engaged and active with each member your team.The difference between the knowledge and wisdom can make a huge difference is the success of your organization.

Many thanks to Michael Lee of Express Employment services for hosting the event.

So how can lead as a mentor?
First, tell me your story. We then decide together what resources, like training and executive coaching, will sharpen the leadership skills of you and your management team. We can also improve your mentoring program. Don't wait until your employees have a major malfunction and destroy relationships. Call me today at 206-782-4040 or connect on Skype at tracy.corley.

Could Shortsighted Futurists Cripple Our Economy?

noreply@blogger.com (Anonymous) — Wed, 09 Feb 2011 22:44:00 +0000

The new year is in full swing and everyone is full of hope. I read the articles and see that everyone is making their new year's predictions on when the economy will return to "pre-2007 levels."

What these shortsighted futurists fail to realize is that the economic standards of 2007 no longer apply. For decades, our economic models and measures of prosperity used derivatives of industrial age standards. The Great Reset of 2008-2009 brought all those antiquated philosophies face to face with modern economic realities. The upswing in economic prosperity we're experiencing today requires new paradigms on how we measure, analyze, and monitor growth to deliver a true picture of prosperity and growth.

Few - if any - have written concrete rules on what the economy of the future will look like. Some have speculated, like William Knoke in his groundbreaking 1997 guide to the twenty-first century, Bold New World. Furthermore, Erik Brynjolfsson and Adam Saunders give us a clear look at the disruption that information technology brought to economic models in their book Wired for Innovation. These top economic thinkers from MIT examine official measures of the value and productivity of technology and suggest alternatives that better measure this economic contribution. Their explorations for the real sources of value apply not only to information technology, but other intangible inputs that drive nearly 85% of our nation's businesses, including intellectual property, services, and research and development.

To get a true sense of when we will see 2007-like prosperity return to the U.S. economy, we need to rethink our current measures, like the output of goods, retail sales, and credit card spending. True measures of gross domestic product, productivity, and prosperity will come when we are able to quantify intangible assets and integrate them into everyday practices. This means that small business lending will systematically include intangible assets in its risk assessments; service-based business valuations will be more in line with their goods-producing counterparts; information goods will take on the real value they deserve; and we will no longer rely on consumerism and debt as the driving factors for measuring consumer confidence.

According to Brynjolfsson and Saunders, information technology created the lion's share of the resurgence in productivity in the U.S. since 1995. It's time for our economic models to better measure the value that IT and other intangible assets bring to prosperity, productivity, and quality of life. Wired for Innovation delivers a first step at outlining how we can now measure, analyze, and manage the intangible assets of an information-based, mentisfacturing economy. Let's hope that our economic and government institutions catch on before the opportunity to leverage the Great Reset has passed.

What does this mean for you?
Our national economic policies have not caught up with the economic reality. That doesn't mean you have to sit around and wait for them to catch on. I've been working with a number of small business, mid-market, and nonprofit organizations who realize that they don't want to be at the mercy of misaligned economic policies. They hired me to solidify strategic plans, build strategic foundations, and map effective business models. Our process includes a gap analysis that exposes the holes in all critical area of your business model, including key partnerships, key activities, customer segments, cost centers, and revenue streams.

I invite you to take action now to optimize your products and services so that you don't get left behind by using old business models in a new economy. Call me at 206-782-4040 to schedule an initial consultation.

Take the plunge with your Strategy String

noreply@blogger.com (Anonymous) — Tue, 07 Dec 2010 22:00:00 +0000

Happy holidays, everyone! As we bustle about getting last minute gifts and attending the myriad of get-togethers, many entrepreneurs, business leaders, and managers find themselves consumed with year end planning.

The start of 2011 is looming. Many organizations have faced immense challenges in the past three years that are shuttering doors and sending hardworking employees into the streets. Yet, some organizations are thriving. How can you beat the odds and make 2011 your best year yet?

Go deep with your Strategy String. When times are uncertain, logic tells us to hold back and play it safe. But setting strategy today requires amping up your competitive edge (as well as being nimble and vigilant, regardless of your organization's size). That means setting aside your fear and telling your story with increased fervor.

For example, Sarah Lateiner of Arizona changed directions when launching her small business. Instead of doing the logical thing and sticking with her educational path of becoming a lawyer, she used a personal experience to launch 180 Automotive, an auto mechanic shop. Instead of competing solely on being another "me-too" service provider, she uses her shop to educate and empower women to take care of their vehicles. The result is a strategic advantage that shapes a deeply-defined Strategy String. With educating and empowering women, her vision, mission, and values clearly show through in everyday actions, and her positioning sharply delivers a competitive edge that no one else can touch. Watch her story.

So take the plunge when crafting your Strategy String: don't hold back. Bring the core of your organization and its passion to the forefront. Use the Strategy String to continuously tell the story to your employees, your vendors, your customers -- all of your stakeholders. If you can substitute someone else's products and services into your vision and mission and it still makes sense, then your Strategy String lacks the depth to highlight your competitive advantage. You can survive without depth, but it's hard to swim when your knees keep bumping the bottom of the lake. Without taking the plunge, your purpose, people, and profits will always be wading in the shallows.

FOR YOUR CONSIDERATION
Does your Strategy String have the depth needed to showcase your competitive advantage? Do all of your stakeholders know about it? If your strategy is missing depth and keeping you from thriving in 2011, call me to schedule a planning session: 206-782-4040.

Order the Strategy String today! They make a great gift for your entire team and your clients. Call me for discount information on orders of 12 or more. 206-782-4040

Keep Eager Beavers from Damming Productivity

noreply@blogger.com (Anonymous) — Thu, 04 Nov 2010 06:25:00 +0000

Image via Wikipedia

Great new team member
or a potential source
of terror and rabies?

Talent reigns supreme in an economy that has shifted from goods-dominated to service-based. Organizations need enthusiastic, bright people with great ideas and the ability to communicate those ideas effectively. But if you're not careful, these bright-eyed, bushy tailed talents can turn into rabid nightmares for your bottom line. [Okay, beavers don't have bushy tails, but let's move on.]

How? New employees can get antsy. Our culture delivers instant gratification in so many ways: instant messages, on demand entertainment, personalized learning experiences, customized jeans. New recruits wonder, "Why can't I get instant results at work? I have a great idea that could save this place thousands/millions of dollars. And I've only been here a few weeks; why doesn't everyone else see it?"

Eager beavers bring fresh energy and ideas that at first glance, could generate thousands, if not millions, of dollars in increased productivity, new opportunities, and cost savings. Leadership, however, must be thoughtful before implementing new ideas. Balancing great ideas with due diligence and proper governance can be a challenge for any growing organization or one that is undergoing a significant change. Eager beavers often don't realize that building a dam at one location might improve the resources and depth of one line of business, but can dry out systems and revenue sources downstream. Each idea should be evaluated for effectiveness in the organization as a whole. And, more importantly, those ideas - and the talent - must fit with your Strategy String and organizational culture. So how do you keep eager beavers from damming the flow of productivity without stifling their creativity?

Start with a trial period. All new people, including those who have been promoted or moved into new roles, should be given a trial period in which to demonstrate consistent performance. Trial periods also give new team members time to learn and understand culture, stakeholders, and direction. On his first day, make it clear how long the trial period lasts. Define what happens at the end of the trial: what if the employee cannot meet expectations? What additional responsibilities does he gain with successful completion of the trial period? Set a time frame that allows for the eager beaver to learn the needs of his position and that allows the manager to see if he can meet expectations and fit with the culture. The greater the role that person will take on in the organization, the longer the trial period. The last thing you want is a team member who doesn't play well in the swimming hole with others and constantly misjudges the depth of the stream.
Set clear, realistic expectations. When on-boarding any new team member, establish minimum expectations for him to meet. If these expectations differ in any way from the job description used to recruit him, point out those differences. If expectations can change over time, point out how they will change and how they will impact his career. Managers should also be asking if the minimum expectations are realistic for one person to take on. If you set the bar too high, you guarantee that your talent will fail. Don't let good beavers spend all their time swimming upstream: they can get tired and drown if they don't find another organization's stream first.
Measure performance each day. Can the eager beaver meet expectations and meet them consistently? Effective performance by anyone in your organization (new or old, eager or resigned) is measured by how well they consistently meet expectations each day. Exceeding expectations is inappropriate if employees fail to meet minimum expectations. Document how well the eager beaver meets minimum expectations, and ask her to document her performance as well. Check in at least every two weeks with her to compare notes on performance. Are expectations being met 100% of the time? If not, should her responsibilities be revised? Or does she lack the capacity to meet the baseline expectations needed for the role? Beavers who cannot swim should not be in the stream.
Link great ideas to your Strategy String. Ideas are only great if they have the ability to relate. A Strategy String ties culture, stakeholders, and direction to performance. Eager beavers should be able to demonstrate an understanding of culture, stakeholders, and direction so that they generate ideas that are meaningful to your organization. Without this understanding, ideas are created in a void, without understanding of stakeholder concerns and market forces. Eager beavers and their supervisors can waste a lot of time living in the land of possibilities while real opportunities pass them by. Don't let eager beavers divert you into shallow streams and sewer pipes.
Translate great ideas to performance-driven actions. When the eager beaver demonstrates that she can consistently meet minimum expectations and link ideas to your Strategy String, reward her with the opportunity to put those ideas into action. If she has a great idea for a new injection molding process and can keep up with minimum expectations, accommodate her by making the talent, space, funding, and other resources available to pursue the concept. Set a deadline by which she should present the results and demonstrate how the new idea will deliver long-term positive return on investment. If the candidate can translate the idea into sustainable, performance-driven actions, let her manage or lead the idea. If not, ask that the idea is not pursued further, and encourage her to come up with more great ideas to test in the future. Don't let eager beavers get discouraged: promote creativity and innovation.

Eager beavers and the dazzle of instant gratification can dam the flow of productivity and performance for the core products and services they have been hired to support. If they can show consistently, over time, that they can meet minimum expectations, show measurable performance each day, link new ideas to the Strategy String, and transform those ideas into sustainable, performance-driven actions, trust these energetic sources of talent to be creative and innovative in thoughtful, meaningful, responsive ways that support your initiatives for change and growth.

If you need help getting your eager beavers to demonstrate Vision Driven Results for your organization, give me a call at 206-782-4040 x104.

Manual High School's Strategy String Puts Students at the Head of the Class

noreply@blogger.com (Anonymous) — Thu, 14 Oct 2010 05:48:00 +0000

As Rob Stein completed his third year as principal of Manual High School in Denver, Colorado, he knew that he had done what he set out to do. Stein managed to perform a turnaround that would make turnaround consultants jealous. In just three years, Stein converted a failing inner city high school into the third highest performer in the Denver Public School system.

So how did he do it? Stein interlaced Manual High School with a Strategy String.

Manual High School had been shut down due to poor performance. In an impoverished neighborhood where more than 70% of its students qualifying for free lunches, Manual boasted the lowest test scores in the entire state of Colorado and was stricken by low attendance and sky-high drop out rates. By organizational standards, the school had given up on its customers (the students) and allowed poor performance to close its doors.

In August 2007, Manual reopened as an Innovation School (a public school that thinks and acts a bit differently). This experimental school clenched a vision that committed the management team and staff to do “whatever it takes to ensure that students stay in school and are prepared for success in college, career and in life.” They then transformed that vision into an actionable strategy.

They began by scrapping the strategic plan. "Strategic plans are never fruitful," said Stein. The long-term strategic planning process of old turns into a massive "to-do list for lower level people" that disconnects from performance results. Instead, Stein and his team of volunteers worked collaboratively to answer, "Who do we want to be?" Through this collaborative process, they created a mission statement and Core Principles to support the vision of doing everything needed to keep kids in school. They linked the Core Principles to performance by creating Core Practices that state clearly how Manual's day to day operations would address performance and drop out rates.

For example, all teachers use daily learning goals to communicate and act on daily agendas. Daily learning goals and other consistent practices ensure that students get bell-to-bell learning and no time is wasted. "You will never see a teacher sitting behind [his] desk," said Stein. At Manual, day to day performance demands interaction. When teachers and students are required to provide evidence that they are reaching incremental and long term goals, there is no time for dilly-dally.

With regulations and reporting required by school districts, success measures require a mind-numbing amount of communication for the team at Manual. But constant, open communication with all stakeholders -- students, teachers, administrators, district leaders, and school management -- breaks through the hierarchy and keeps the Strategy String at Manual High School tightly woven to ensure that each student has a chance at a prosperous future. Students are the number one stakeholder at Manual, and its daily practices constantly remind you of that. Without open communication and participation by everyone involved in doing what it takes to ensure student success (including the students), stakeholders disengage and lose sight of the commitment that they signed on for at the school's relaunch. The same is true of businesses, nonprofits, and other organizations.

Aligning Core Practices with stakeholder needs also meant decentralizing decision making and putting more responsibility into the hands of the principal and management team. Like an entrepreneur, Stein was allowed to negotiate many of Manual's contracts to focus school functions on the needs of its students. For example, weekly access to psychotherapists and counselors often work in affluent, suburban schools. Not so much in intercity schools. If a student is dealing with a problem at home and has to wait a week for support, they are more likely to disengage or drop out than wait for that support. By providing regular resources like counseling services on site each day, the school was able to immediately address student cultural, emotional and social needs and quickly re-focus them on learning. That's not common in public schools. But with efficient management and the ability to negotiate services independent of school district mandates, Manual was able to shape a school that met the unique needs of its at-risk student population.

At the end of the 2009-2010 school year, Manual claimed the title of the 3rd highest performer in the Denver Public School district. This year, Manual will celebrate its first graduating class since the relaunch. By creating a responsive strategy that emphasizes daily check-ins with Core Principles and adherence to Core Practices, Manual High School possesses a Strategy String that will allow it to course correct for any changes to the needs of its teachers and students. Now that Rob Stein has turned over the reigns, I hope that the new principal can keep the string from unraveling. With Manual's collaborative, responsive method for connecting strategy to performance, if the ends start to fray, students, teachers, and community will do whatever is needed to keep its kids in school.

Check out the new movie about our education system:

Waiting for "Superman"

Great information resources for improving our country's education systems

Why clean tech is like a newer model smartphone

noreply@blogger.com (Anonymous) — Wed, 15 Sep 2010 21:37:00 +0000

In a recent business conversation, I was asked to share my thoughts on what the future of the clean tech industry looks like. The question: are there specific clean tec sectors that our region should focus on developing for the future?

Traditional business practices and economic development focus on key industry sectors to nurture and grow for regional prosperity. Businesses were encouraged to choose a niche and keep their heads down.

Unfortunately, the clean tech sector cannot be segemented as simply as other industries.The information age is changing how we look at industry clusters and what we choose to nurture. The economic development of clean technology should be approached less like an industry cluster and more like a technology development. A cell phone is a great example.

My new Droid X is a master of operations and technology. It combines all of my social networks, email accounts, contact lists, productivity tools, and news resources with an internet browser, navigation system, text messaging, and a host of custom applications. Oh, yeah, there's also a phone.

If a person were putting together a wish list, I couldn't ask for much more. But when it comes to my cell phone, it's not a solo effort of Motorola or of Verizon Wireless. To create and deliver services for Droid X requires dozens companies, working together to create a complete experience. Clean technology promises a similar model.

The clean tech industry aims to reshape the experience of how we use technology and energy in our world. Like Droid's impact on communications, clean tech requires dozens companies working together, each collaborating with its expertise to create a complete experience for global citizens.

What is it going to take to develop a robust regional clean tech industry?

Start by asking, What experience would we like to deliver to the global economy? Would you like to lead the world in creating and supporting closed loop systems for waste management? If so, develop a broad-reaching vision that is inclusive of multiple industry clusters.
You've defined the vision, take a look at your current economic landscape. Does your region currently host organizations that already deliver solutions related to that vision? The organizations do not have to be directly tied to the vision (for example, a waste management company). If a nonprofit organization delivers outreach and education to community sectors, they would qualify as one that could assist with future outreach related to your vision.
Align existing organizations. As small businesses and support agencies grow, they need the support of enterprises, governments, and educational institutions. As enterprises, governments, and educational institutions strive to remain relevant, they need the input and support of small businesses and support agencies. Bring these players together to start and further conversations that promote growth and long-term development.
Establish policies and legislation that reward growth and encourage collaboration. A business must make it easy for customers to buy their goods and services, or else customers will go elsewhere. The same is true of economic ecosystems. Regional policies, rules, and regulations will determine how easy or challenging it will be for enterprises, small businesses, and nonprofit organizations to do form, grow, compete, and collaborate. Reach out to your customers -- the impacted organizations -- so that they can help inform and shape clean tech policies.
Invest in your vision. I know that this can be a difficult conversation in a tough economy, but regional leaders and influencers should be ready to put dollars on the table to support a clean technology strategy.The investors include governments, private industries, and institutions. They should work together with private investment interests, federal programs, and state/local governments and institutions to map a financial plan, determine ROI measures, and build a fund (or group of funds) that would support long-term returns and investments.

Focusing on the experience instead of the industry subsectors allows your economic development plan to be vision-driven instead of action oriented. The Droid X makes for a seamless communications experience between my many blogs, Twitter accounts, email accounts, CRM systems, social networks, and other web-based systems. Making clean technology and clean energy accessible and applicable to your region requires creating a seamless, integrated experience for your target audience. It will employ thoughtfulness and a true assessment of your region's resources. A sustainable clean tech strategy encourages collaboration instead of industry segmentation to exceed local needs for export and long-term revenue growth.

Join us for Focus On: Tying Strategy to Performance on October 19th

noreply@blogger.com (Anonymous) — Wed, 15 Sep 2010 20:28:00 +0000

Strategy as we knew it in the 20th century is dead. Even the Wall Street Journal reported in early 2010 that organizations must change they way they think about strategy and use strategic direction to drive performance from all stakeholders. So what does strategy look like today and how can you use it to drive performance?

Strategist, author, and entrepreneur Tracy A. Corley shows you in our October 19th Focus On: Tying Strategy to Performance. She delivers practical ways for nonprofits, small businesses, and corporate teams to create responsive strategies that improve communications, drive performance, and deliver results. Register today at www.seattlechamber.com/events.

Tracy’s new book, The Strategy String, will be available for purchase. Pre-purchase your copy on Amazon.com today.

McKinstry Uses a Strategy String to Outpace the Construction Industry

noreply@blogger.com (Anonymous) — Thu, 05 Aug 2010 05:51:00 +0000

Image by djwudi via Flickr

Who would have thought that an HVAC supplier in the sleepy city of Seattle, Wash., would lead the nation in facilities management services and environmentally responsible policies?

The team at McKinstry surely didn’t have that in mind when they launched in 1960. But they knew that two things would keep them relevant to the future of the building industry: holistic thinking and relationships.

“The greatest efficiencies in a building come not from how its built, but how it’s operated,” states David Allen, Executive VP of McKinstry. They found that by focusing just on the construction phase, they were leaving the clients without the resources and support to ensure ongoing efficiencies and maximization of resources. But to live up to their positioning of “for the life of your building” means moving to a relationship-based client engagement in a traditionally transaction-based industry.

“Focusing on relationships means that you grow slower,” says Ash Awad, VP of Energy and Facility Solutions. Of course, you wouldn’t notice that from the exceptional rate of growth McKinstry has seen, even with the economic downturn. With revenues in excess of $400 million in 2008, expect to see this company’s revenues hit $1 billion in the next few years.

And how are they doing this? McKinstry’s Strategy String focuses on their people. “We have exceptional people here,” says Awad. “We focus on their needs, and the needs of our clients.” The leadership at McKinstry knows that if you want to attract and retain the best in talent and clients, you always have to give the best of yourself.

In McKinstry’s Strategy String, the vision and mission combine with people-centric values and positioning based on a holistic approach to building construction and management to create the foundation (see their vision, mission, and values at http://www.mckinstry.com/about). Services include construction, energy, facilities management, and consulting. To ensure performance, their internal teams work together to deliver on these areas and guarantee returns on every project. “If we don’t deliver on the ROI savings that we promised, we cut our clients a check for the difference,” says Allen. “We haven’t cut a check yet.”

McKinstry’s people-centric Strategy String allows its team members to step forward with ideas and develop innovative new programs and services for its clients. As a result, McKinstry serves as an industry thought leader, influencing policy and direction for a number of local, state, and federal entities around the country. Their values help people see beyond the day-to-day services and think about the impact that their programs will have on people around the world in the future. That’s why they have such a strong thought leadership team on the issues of environmental impact, energy policy, and clean energy job creation.

McKinstry’s commitment to its core belief in collaboration and people weaves a seamless fabric of communication between strategists, integrators, and implementers. Though the traditional enterprise areas of accountability exist, all leaders and upper managers are accessible to everyone else in the organization. This accessibility results in a deep sense of trust between leaders, managers, and workers. And when problems need solving, they pull together the best people -- regardless of title -- to work together as colleagues to find a solution. Titles more represent a person’s expertise and passion than their “level” within the organization.

McKinstry gets it. That’s why they have been repeatedly awarded as one of Washington’s and Idaho’s Best Places to Work. With the Strategy String tying together all areas of its organization, from the reception desk to the engineering lab to the fabrication shop floor, McKinstry leads the construction and facilities management industry in innovation and performance.

Read more about McKinstry’s Core Beliefs http://www.mckinstry.com/core-beliefs

Order your copy of The Strategy String at Amazon.com.

Kill the hourly wage

noreply@blogger.com (Anonymous) — Wed, 14 Jul 2010 21:22:00 +0000

In a previous post, I discussed why CEO compensation should be in the millions. However, the article did not address the disparity between executive and worker pay. Well, here's how to bridge and narrow the gap: kill the hourly wage.

Hourly wages worked well for a manufacturing economy. They allowed organizations to break productivity into easily measurable units. To measure productivity in a manufacturing economy, organizations simple divide input into output to get a quantitative figure. When wages can be broken into hours, hourly input dollars could be divided into hourly output product values to get hourly productivity per worker.

The measure of success in a mentisfacturing economy distorts this formula. You see, when service-centered economies and organizations take a look at input, the speed of the flow of ideas doesn't require hours to bring about multi-million dollar results. Some of the most cost saving measures an organization can take can be conceived in minutes.

For example, a client was in the process of shuttering its business thanks to the 2007 mortgage defaults. During a conversation about how best to fold the company, I asked the leadership to stop the process. They had invested millions in developing technology, systems, processes, and people to deliver their organization's services. They did not have to close their doors, no matter what analysts said. With a bit of creative thinking, I suggested, they could re-purpose those investments and assets to launch new services and recover their losses.

That two-minute bit of advice combined with a four-hour strategy session led to a business plan revamp and relaunch -- and more than $50 million in investment.

What would advice like that be worth to your organization?

Charging by the hour for ideas that are backed by years of experience, personal knowledge, problem solving skills, and collaboration is ridiculous in a mentisfacturing economy. When more organizations are making things with their minds instead of their hands, the time to put together products and services is exponentially reduced. Service industries continue to grow while contributions of goods-based industries to our national GDP are falling. So how do you compensate an employee, vendor, or consultant who takes 3 minutes to explain an idea that brings your organization $50 million in investment and $100 million in revenue over the next two years?

I recommend killing the hourly fee/wage and replacing it with a base salary or flat fee for services. For internal compensation, handsomely reward your employees with a variable value-based compensation model that shares a percentage of the savings or revenue based on the contributions they make to the organization. For example, if your receptionist answers the phone from 9am to 5pm, provide him with a base salary to cover the basic skills and time needed to greet customers and direct calls to the appropriate extension. But if that receptionist happens to handle a customer complaint and prevents a $400,000 per year customer from taking their business elsewhere, provide that person with a 5% customer value bonus ($20,000).

I know it might sound outrageous at first glance -- receptionists don't receive $20,000 bonuses! But the only way to fill the wage gap is to shift compensation models from time-based to value-based. That process will take time for some organizations. For others, their enterprises are small enough to make compensation changes more quickly. The mentisfacturing economy requires that we reward people for the value they bring to organizations, not the time they put in at their desks.

For another example, one small business could not figure out why its bookkeeper wasn't producing results. The bookkeeper was on site for eight hours, two days a week. When the owner asked to see financial reports, the reports were little changed, if any, from week to week. After some discreet observation, the owner discovered that the bookkeeper often ran into difficult bookkeeping questions. Instead of actively pursuing answers, the bookkeeper sat quietly or sent text messages friends and family until time was up, filled out her timesheet, then left. Legally, the owner was obligated to pay the $55 hourly rate for the time spent on site though no results were produced. The hourly wage model rewarded an incompetent hire and sapped valuable financial resources from other areas of the organization. If the fee for service were value-based, the bookkeeper would have been compelled to produce results or would not have been compensated for the time wasted by both the company and the consultant.

You, too, can shift your compensation model from manufacturing to mentisfacturing. However, our public policies and labor laws need a lesson in intellectual value in the mentisfacturing economy. But your organization can make incremental changes that comply with current labor laws. Implement meaningful performance reward programs that provide compensation for goals reached, savings realized, and revenue generated. These rewards can be based on individuals, teams, departments -- or all of the above.

Base rewards on instant bottom line results for each employee's personal concerns. Cash bonuses mean more money for Junior's college fund and to pay outstanding bills. Additional vacation time means more time with the family and to spend time pursuing personal interests. Do not use "vapor pay" like stock options, futures, and programs that require being vested or could go away if they lose their jobs or the economy tanks. Long-term compensation models defeat the purpose of rewarding every day performance results.

In a mentisfacturing economy, the people, their ideas, and the results they bring override the importance of butts in seats. Just like executives.

Product failures are communications failures

noreply@blogger.com (Anonymous) — Wed, 07 Jul 2010 21:31:00 +0000

When the customer is the last one to be consulted, product development is doomed to fail. Just ask Microsoft. I'm not 100% tapped into their market research process when they design new products, but it seems like the 48-day market lifespan of the mis-aligned Kin device forgot product development 101: Respond to the needs of your customers.

Nancy Xiao did a great job weighing the pros and cons of the Kin in her TechFlash report. As a representative of the product's key demographic, she states some rather obvious points in her breakdown. Why were such obvious smart phone features overlooked -- like a calendar, instant messaging, and an easy to use phone?

Successful product development results from successful communication. Products and services are ways that organizations say to its target audiences, "We speak your language, and our offerings directly translate your priorities and concerns into a response that you can understand." When products flop, it's because of a miscommunication. Either the priorities and concerns of the customer were missed, or the response to those priorities and concerns are translated into the wrong language.

When communications go awry, it's because one or more of the participants in the discussion are hyper-focused on their own priorities and concerns while neglecting those of their audience. This is true in flopped presentations, workplace conflicts, parent-child confrontations, lost sales opportunities, and disrupted friendships. I see this all the time during coaching sessions, assessments, marketing and sales planning, and even product development. Good communication requires taking the time to really get to know the audience and their motivations.

It is the responsibility of the leading entity (the organization, the manager, the parent, each of the friends, each spouse) to take the time to go below the surface and really understand what is going on. When a teenager inevitably screams, "I hate you!" to a parent, the statement is rarely true. That's surface speak for "You don't understand me, haven't taken the time to understand me, and are constantly dismissing my priorities and concerns, so I no longer trust you and refuse to open up to you unless you start regaining my trust in your ability to be an open, honest, and fair parent." It's just that most teens don't yet have the sophistication to express exactly what they want to say [the same could be said for many adults].

Organizations, like parents, must employ patience and take the time to get to know the priorities and concerns of all stakeholders, not just customers. That means spending more time reading between the lines instead of just responding to the results of focus groups and surveys. It means getting out of the lab environment and into the places where your stakeholders live, work, and play every day.

By focusing product development on the REAL priorities and concerns of your customers, you can avoid costly go-to-market demises that rip holes into the financial fabric of a growing organization. Not all organizations can afford to spend billions to develop a product, test it in the marketplace, then pull product product support and production like some enterprises. By treating product development like a conversation, you can avoid marketplace missteps and develop thoughtful offerings that respond in a way that is loud and clear.

FOR YOUR CONSIDERATION
Is your organization leading responsive conversations? Are your actions meeting the needs of your customers, employees, and other stakeholders? If it seems that you and key stakeholders are speaking different languages, call me to help you translate and prepare a clear response: 206-782-4040 x104.

Never say never about the future

noreply@blogger.com (Anonymous) — Mon, 28 Jun 2010 22:38:00 +0000

Not so long ago, in a client strategy session, the management team expressed great concern about the lack of diversity in revenue sources. The CEO asked the management team why they were so worried. Their organization offers a highly specialized service and, in the past, faced little to no competition. In spite of market bumps during the past 25+ years, their revenue has remained consistent or with modest growth. "We have nothing to worry about," said the CEO.

The management team did not agree. Neither did I. For the first time in its history, the organization faces newly-formed competitors and real threats to funding sources.

If we take away one lesson from recent history, it should be that none of us have 100% certainty regarding the outcomes of the new economy. Futurists like William Knoke can reveal growth and development patterns -- even predict behavioral and cultural shifts thanks to disruptive forces in our economy (see Knoke's eye-opening book, Bold New World: The Essential Road Map to the Twenty-First Century). But our world is changing at a rapid pace and many of the old models for every industry are either irrelevant or unraveling. The sub-prime mortgage industry collapsed in part because even the most informed financial institutions believed that American homeowner mortgage defaults would top, at most, approximately 6%. The number of subprime mortgages in default stood at 25% by end of 2008 (roughly 14% of all mortgages). With another wave of adjustable rate mortgages about to adjust to higher rates, losses will continue to rise (a few industry fast facts).

Old models, paradigms, and data are not as reliable as they used to be. So what is a growing organization to do? Where can you turn to develop long-term strategies for growth?

Growth-focused organizations never say never. They always expect the best but plan for the worst. Growth-focused organizations need leaders who can put ego and routine aside and expand their visions beyond industry norms and established best practices. Their employees must be ready to learn new things to keep pace with changes in how the company lives up to its vision and fulfills its mission. And the strategic plan doesn't rivet the organization to specific actions during the next five to ten years: it establishes foundations and guidelines that allow for flexible, rapid launches of new innovations, revised systems, and more effective processes.

Never say never. Always be ready with rapid response for oil rig explosions, exceptional loan default rates, changes in immigration policies, or shifts in consumer attitudes about genetically modified foods. As business leaders, your experience is valuable, but serves better as a launching pad rather than a definitive approach and strict path for the organizational roadmap. If you never say never, you can be prepared to take on anything that might shake up the way you do business.

For your consideration
Does your strategic plan allow you to never say never? Or does it contain maxims that could box you in if the economic realities break out of historical patterns? If you're unsure, call me to schedule an assessment: 206-782-4040

BP's and other CEOs should be compensated in the millions

noreply@blogger.com (Anonymous) — Mon, 21 Jun 2010 22:32:00 +0000

The gulf coast oil rig explosion and BP's slow response to the spill has brought many conversations about CEO compensation in recent months. Suddenly, every major CEO of for public, private, and nonprofit organizations have found themselves under the microscope. People all over are asking: should CEOs be paid millions for running organizations?

I say yes. It's takes a talented, unique individual to meet the core qualities of a top leader:

Top leaders make tough decisions. They know that authoritative does not mean authoritarian. They allow their teams to do their jobs, but know when to stop the wheel-spinning and make some final decisions to keep the ship (organization) moving forward.
Top leaders perform admirably under extreme pressure. This doesn't mean that they are flawless when times get tough. But they remain sensitive to the priorities and concerns of their stakeholders (employees, customers, investors, partners, and society) and keep their needs in mind while working diligently to confront threats and tough issues.
Top leaders are responsive and responsible. They don't spin their wheels or defer blame. They know that the buck stops with them. They don't have to state it, because all of their stakeholders can see it in their actions. They take quick action and focus on the tasks needed to get results.
Top leaders imbue every action with integrity. Their actions align with their words. They are open and transparent when they can be. When being transparent could threaten the results they need, they state that loud and clear. They don't lie or tell half truths to appease their stakeholders. They act as if they are being watched at all times, because they are.

Not many people can do all four of these things at the same time. That's why CEOs and other top leaders should be make millions of dollars. Finding one person who can sensitively make tough decisions, perform admirably under pressure, be responsive and responsible, and act with integrity requires a strong character and high-performance mindset. These folks make the personal sacrifices necessary to keep the organization on course and out of danger in good times and bad.

The question everyone should be asking is, "Is this organization getting its money worth for what it's paying its CEO?"

In the case of Tony Hayward, CEO of BP, the answer is no.

I cannot claim that all of the media sources I have checked are without bias, but Tony's own words sum it up. On May 31, 2010, he stated in an interview, "I would like my life back." I hate to tell you Tony, but in times of crisis, the crisis is your life. That's why you were paid the big bucks when there were no global crises to face. Until the families who lost loved ones in the explosion have been consoled, until the flow of oil into the gulf is zero, and until the sheen on the water, the underwater oil plumes, and the goo in the marshes are non-existent, this is your life.

A CEO and other top leaders cannot foresee every crisis. But they should be prepared to make tough decisions, perform under pressure, be responsive and responsible, and act with integrity. If I were Tony Hayward, I would have locked my leadership team and top consultants in a room with a four-day deadline to evaluate and exhaust all the pros and cons every possible solution to containment and cleanup. We would eat ramen noodles and nap on cots in between strategy sessions until the decisions we made were bringing long term results with a solid positive outcome. No one would grumble, because all of the top leaders on my team would know that is what is expected of them when times get tough. They would know that we're in this together and none of us would rest until solutions were found. Why? That's what top leaders would do. And that's why my top leaders and I would expect to be making millions of dollars in compensation each year. If we could not do that, well, then, we should step down or be fired.

For Your Consideration:
Do you have the right people in the right positions? Do you have leaders working in other roles of your organizations, waiting for their chance to show your stuff? Would you like to find out? We can help you identify the right people for the right roles in your organization. Just ask me how: 206-782-4040.

Thirteen ways Washington State can help small businesses

noreply@blogger.com (Anonymous) — Wed, 16 Jun 2010 21:04:00 +0000

To continue our conversation about how to grow small businesses and create jobs in the US, below are a list of topics that were important to the participants in our February 9th, 2010 Council for Small Business meeting. Many thanks to Karen Pemerl of the Washington State Department of Commerce for compiling these notes. I have edited them to elaborate on the content of the conversation.

Workforce development
Do more skills matching in jobs. Many states have resources for employees. In Washington, WorkSource uses keywords to help employers find candidates. The system uses a weighted approach and other creative methods will help employers link up with well qualified employees. Since WorkSource has a direct link to unemployed individuals in the state, it has one of the most comprehensive resources available to employees.

Recognition
Recognize new small businesses. Theresa Chambers of RecognitionWorks suggests that the state shows pride in small businesses by promoting them to increase name recognition. One option is a directory with new business name, the NAICS code plus a small amount of information that allows for self-directed search (more extensive than the current licensing database now available).

Encourage match-making between small and large businesses. Enterprise businesses can be some of the best customers for small and emerging businesses. They often buy goods and services locally. Match-making would encourage more local purchases and help the small businesses stay afloat while helping large businesses find the sub-contractors they need to fill gaps left behind by downsizing, reorganizing, and rapid market changes.

Help small businesses tell their story. In addition to the directory, the state could highlight small businesses through existing communications channels so they get increased exposure to potential customers.

Regulation
Eliminate excessive regulations. Regulation is putting small businesses out of business. Reduce regulation at all levels of government (see my previous post.)

Streamline licensing and permitting process. I discussed this in my previous post. One of the attendees revealed that as a licensed home health care provider and business owner who recently relocated to Washington state, she was informed that it would take 3 to 6 months to obtain license. That's three to six months of not being able to generate income while waiting for a license for a small business owner.

Money Matters
Support economies of scale. Software costs can be crippling for small business owners. The state could help small businesses get lower costs on software, products and services through group purchasing programs. The Greater Seattle Chamber offers similar programs on services like health insurance and 401(k) programs.

SBA loan options are dwindling. Many SBA loans that were previously available are not available today. Help small businesses by restoring loans similar to what was available in the past.

Be the bank. North Dakota has its own bank to increase lending to small businesses. Washington state is considering the option. It would allow for more fiscal flexibility in the long-run and provide a resource for small business lending programs.

Hold banks accountable. Many voiced that the state should make it easier to get funding through banks. Some even advocated that Washington should force banks to lend to qualified small business owners. We acknowledged that changing federal guidelines are making it difficult for some banks to loosen purse strings, though new federal funding will soon be available.

State Contracting
Make state contracts competitive. One recommendation is to create dollar limits on state contracts so small businesses can compete. It's easier for a small business to respond to a $5 million, five-year contract than it is to respond to a $50 million lump contract.

Respect the creative ideas of small businesses. In one state contracting example, a business owner had submitted innovative process for job skill matching. The state chose a different vendor, but used his idea to build a job skill matching process that wasn’t nearly as successful as it could have been with his additional knowledge and resources.

Establish a buy local priority. The state could create a model and incentives for state organizations and private enterprises to buy goods and services locally.

Ways to Help Build Small Business Viability in Our Communities

noreply@blogger.com (Anonymous) — Tue, 08 Jun 2010 23:24:00 +0000

Last year at this time, we were discussing access to capital as the number one barrier to success for small businesses. Since then, it seems that small businesses have grown used to the lack of capital resources from traditional financial services institutions and have gotten creative in finding ways to finance growth and development.

Access to capital still leaves a gaping hole in success for many organizations large and small. But as I connect with more and more small businesses, the top barriers to adding staff members and growing market capacity include:

Patents. For many organizations, the process of getting a patent on their secret sauce can take years (the current average is 22 months), whereas the window of opportunity for their launch might not be as long. For companies whose main clients are beyond our national borders, the lack of international trademark and patent regulations can put a damper on success and introduce a reluctance to launch in countries where proprietary information might not be protected. Our government should work harder to streamline the patent approval process here at home. In addition, our global leaders should work together to put into place standards to recognize patent filings in home countries and to enforce laws against infringement.
Policies. Bureaucratic processes provide a slow and deliberate process for making changes in public policy and legislation. These processes are designed protect people from sudden changes in the opinions of new leadership and hotheaded activists. However, these processes were created in an era during which horses were more common than cars and the US Patent and Trademark Office claimed that nothing new could be invented. The pace of change has accelerated with the dawn of a new, information-based economy in our country. Our policies have to keep pace, or innovative new companies will face a lot of little hurdles that add up to big dollars when attempting to fill market demands. Economic and trade policy makers need mechanisms that will allow them to be responsive to worldwide market changes. The result will be policies that keep relative pace with the marketplace, instead of a five to ten year lag in policy updates.
Permits. See Patents and Policies above. Many of the same challenges that stall patent approvals and policy changes also hold up the permitting process. In the recent economic downturn, one property developer saw its previously approved financing completely disappear just as a few of its buildings were completing construction. Not long after they put the construction process on hold in an effort to secure new financing, their permits expired. To renew the permits required starting from scratch -- new master use permits, construction permits, project filing fees - the works. In light of the economic circumstances and developer outcry, local building authorities created a permit extension, giving developers more time to secure financing. We need more responsiveness like this from our permitting institutions to keep business moving forward.
Prospects. This is the same challenge that small businesses were having a year ago: where are the customers? Last year, customers were reluctant to buy. This year, however, that has changed: more customers are opening their purses, but hungry enterprise organizations are swooping in with extra-low-pricing and extras that small and medium businesses cannot afford due to smaller staffs and limited resources. The mantra of the 1990's that "there's plenty of business for everyone" has gone silent. To help our local small businesses, we have to realize that shopping local isn't just for grocery stores any more. The nation is picking up on supporting local small businesses by contracting and shopping for goods and services within their own regions. Big organizations should not be overlooked, but healthy local communities come from small and medium businesses in our local economies.

Addressing these four areas will help our small and medium businesses go to market more quickly with their offerings, create more jobs, and pump more tax dollars into our local communities.

How do you propose we increase demand and create more jobs for small and medium businesses?