Archive for October, 2005

The Changing Nature of Work

Sunday, October 30th, 2005

by Dean Whittaker

It used to be that people moved to areas where work was available. The growth of industry and commerce has prompted great human migrations in this nation’s past.

But in this country and around the world, the nature of work is changing.  No longer do people move to work, but rather work moves to people.  Jobs are not leaving this country. The work done in those jobs is. The performance of work takes place where there are pools of talent to do it.

So, what does this movement of work rather than people mean to economic development?  Nowadays, our real challenge is to attract a pool of talented workers to our geographic area and keep them there. To create work, and thereby wealth, we will need to connect people, things, and ideas in new and different ways.

This new value chain requires two types of work: physical work done by hand and/or machine that transforms raw material into a finished product, and mental work where thoughts and ideas are developed, communicated, and exchanged.

Strangely enough, this makes the knowledge inventory of an area as important, if not more important, than the inventory of available sites and buildings. The knowledge base of the place becomes the differentiating factor in site selection if you want to get knowledge work done. What is the knowledge base of your place?

Globalization means work can be performed anywhere.  Jobs are no longer so connected to places but to the people capable of doing them. The issue is not outsourcing or off-shoring, but sourcing.  Where work gets sourced is determined by talent pools, not geography or even infrastructure. Talent pools attract work.  Knowledge work gets done where there are pools of knowledge workers. The new question is what will it take to attract, keep and enhance a pool of knowledge workers?  What draws talented people? According to Jim Ware and Charlie Grantham, transportation, communication, and education do. To learn more about their thinking, check out their article located at:

http://www.thefutureofwork.net/assets/FOW_and_Economic_Development.pdf .

Websites of interest:

www.thefutureofwork.net – a community of IT, HR, and facility professionals discussing the future of work.

www. nextgenerationconsulting.com – contains a weblog discussion on how to attract and keep the next generation of workers.

Engaging Your Audience

Sunday, October 30th, 2005

by Megan Jewell

I have always been intrigued by how a person can captivate an audience. You go to a play and are enthralled by the actors on the stage. They have a way of drawing you into their world. You see a dance concert, and you are taken to a different place as the story is told through movement. Isn’t it amazing that even if we don’t necessarily enjoy what is taking place, we can’t help but watch? What is it about those people who have the ability to paralyze us? Do they have a special gift, a super power that only a select few receive? Absolutely not!

Carmine Gallo is a California-based corporate-presentation coach and a former Emmy- award-winning TV journalist. He touches on how to give a captivating “No-Yawn” Speech. His focus in a Business Week article is on trade shows and how to grab the audience while competing with numerous booths and vendors trying to sell their business. The tips can be used for grabbing the attention of companies as well. As Gallo mentions in the article, “The benefits of speaking at a trade show are numerous, especially for small-business owners…it helps raise the visibility of the speaker as a thoughtful leader in his or her particular industry and position the company as important in its market.”

Below are some quick and helpful tips to charm your audience:

  • Grab listeners from the start. Audiences tend to remember the first and last things you say.
  • Show enthusiasm, passion and energy. Many people lose their enthusiasm when speaking to audiences. Sometimes it is nerves, but many fear that they will look “over the top” or that they are showing “too much” passion. By being passionate you excite your audience.
  • Lose the notes. This does not mean you can never glance at notes. Keep in mind that reading and glancing are two different things. Great speakers have mastery over their notes, and use them only as a reminder to jog their memories.
  • Tell, don’t sell. Speakers are chosen for a reason. The committee chooses people whom they believe will offer information that their attendees will find new, useful, and instructive. Great speakers refer to their company or community once and only once.

What’s the point? You may ask. You can gain a great return on your investment from positioning yourself and your company as an expert in the field. If the audience has genuine interest, they’ll approach you afterward, or visit your website.

  • Be animated in voice and gesture. Don’t stand behind a podium. Walk, gesture, and vary your vocal delivery. You can stage your presence. Larry Ellison, CEO of Oracle, is a great example. He stops to emphasize a point. He walks across the stage, addressing different parts of the room. He will walk faster or slower at times. It makes his speech much more interesting for the audience to watch.

A last piece of advice is “Teach the audience something it didn’t know before. If you do, you’ll leave a lasting impression.”

Take these tips when you pitch to a company at your next trade show, or when you are taking a prospective client through your town. Know that you are teaching your audience something new. Familiarize them with your area and share your confidence that their company and your community will be a great fit.

Source: Gallo, Carmine. “Secrets of No-Yawn Speeches”. www.businessweek.com. © 2005

Freshwater Resources – Tapped Out?

Sunday, October 30th, 2005

by Tammy Hart

Over 70 percent of the earth’s surface is covered by water; however, 97.5 percent of that is salt water, leaving only 2.5 percent available as freshwater.

According to the United Nations, 31 countries are now facing water scarcity and 1 billion people lack access to clean drinking water. Water consumption is doubling every 20 years; simultaneously, water sources are continually being polluted, exhausted, and diverted by corporate interests ranging from industrial agriculture and manufacturing to electricity production and mining.

Companies are looking at ways of mass-transporting bulk water by diversion and super-tanker. Some companies are trying to develop technology to load huge sealed bags of fresh water that can be towed across the ocean for sale.

With treaties such as the North American Free Trade Agreement in place, the U.S. government has the authority to give up control over domestic water supplies in exchange for money. With privatization of water, the public can lose rights to information about the water quality in their community. For example, in 1998 the water supply of Sydney , Australia , was found to have high levels of parasites; however, the public was not informed of the problem immediately upon discovery because it was considered confidential information. Another case occurred in 1999 in Ontario , where the Canadian federal government implemented the “Common Sense” Revolution, which included massive cuts to the environment budget, the privatization of water-testing labs, the deregulation of water-protection infrastructure, and massive lay-offs of trained water-testing experts. The Revolution was designed to save $5.8 billion, reduce provincial income taxes by 30% and wipe out the deficit. In 2000 after the policy was put into place, at least 7 people from the community of Walkerton , Ontario , died from drinking the water. Though the private testing company knew the water was contaminated with E. Coli, it failed to report the information to authorities, since the data was confidential intellectual property belonging to the client only.

Over the past ten years, three corporations have started to take control of water supplies. A report by the Centers International Consortium of Investigative Journals shows that these companies have expanded into nearly every region in the world. Although private companies currently only run about five percent of the world’s waterworks, experts warn that if current trends persist, by the year 2025 approximately seventy-five to eight-five percent of the freshwater supply will be privately owned, and the demand for fresh water will increase by approximately fifty-six percent more than what is currently available.

Advocates of privatized water-supply systems contend that governments are not able to fund water utilities; therefore private sector funds are needed to support them. Large funding corporations such as the World Bank and International Monetary Fund Co. have made possible the rapid growth of the privatization of the world’s water service and the increased price of water for millions.

www.socialwatch.org

www.globalpolicy.com

www.sunstar.com

www.freshwater.net

Sunday, October 30th, 2005

by Joel Burgess

London-based Economist Intelligence Unit (EIU), as part of the Worldwide Cost of Living Survey, recently released a Livability Ranking assessing the living conditions in 127 cities from around the world. Cities were ranked in nearly 40 individual indicators grouped into five categories: stability, healthcare, culture and environment, education, and infrastructure.

Each indicator is given a rating between one and five; one meaning no impact and five meaning extremely challenging. These scores are then weighted to produce an index where 0% means the city is exceptional and 100% means it is intolerable. At 20% problems begin to present themselves and at 50% severe restrictions on lifestyle exist.

So where is the best place to live?

Hint 1: The survey quotes [that] the overwhelming majority of cities in the top livability range are based in Western Europe and North America.”

Hint 2: In particular, cities in Australia, Austria, Canada, and Switzerland are the most ideal destinations thanks to a widespread availability of goods and services, low personal risk and an effective infrastructure.

Hint 3: Think Molson and maple leaves.

That’s right, our brother to the north is quoted the most livable destination in the world, citing low crime, little threat from instability or terrorism, and a highly developed infrastructure.

So which city in Canada scored the highest?

Vancouver

Toronto

Calgary

The Best

10. Calgary, Canada
9. Toronto, Canada
8. Zurich, Switzerland
7. Sydney, Australia
6. Adelaide, Australia
5. Perth, Australia
4. Geneva, Switzerland
3. Vienna, Austria
2. Melbourne, Australia
1. Vancouver, Canada (1%)

The Worst

10. Tehran, Iran
9. Douala, Cameroon
8. Harare, Zimbabwe
7. Abidjan, Ivory Coast
6. Phnom Penh, Cambodia
5. Lagos, Nigeria
4. Karachi, Pakistan
3. Dhaka, Bangladesh
2. Algiers, Algeria
1. Port Moresby, Papa New Guinea (66%)

So what about cities in the red, white and blue?

USA cities are still among the world’s most livable; however, our crime rates and a greater threat of terror put our cities lower in the ranking. Cleveland and Pittsburgh had the highest scores (7%).

For the complete report, visit www.eiu.com and click on Press Releases in the left column.

Stay tuned for next month’s article to find out how Whittaker Associate’s new weighted index, Predictive Model, can help you identify and rank your ideal prospects.

Sources:

www.eiu.com
www.cnn.com

Hurricane Katrina…

Sunday, October 30th, 2005

by Cory Koch

Insurance companies are now estimating the damages from hurricane Katrina at near twenty-five-billion dollars. The economic effect, though, will be much greater than that due to the loss of revenue while things are being rebuilt. Also, we need to consider the loss of jobs from the companies that won’t be rebuilding. Believe it or not, some companies didn’t have insurance. The Financial Times estimates that the “total economic losses” are close to $100 billion.

Now that is a lot of money! Actually, if you stacked 100 billion one-dollar bills on top of each other, the stack would be about 5000 miles tall. Can you believe that, because I can’t even imagine…

So, will this $100 billion loss affect our economy? Will it stimulate the economy after it all has been replaced? Or will it slow down the economy because of the loss in jobs? These are questions that may be difficult to answer because it will actually do all of the above. The question then becomes what is the remaining effect?

Let’s start first with the individual effects. The first and most obvious effect is the destruction of property. Any time you create anything, like a home or building, you increase the overall wealth of the world. An example of this would be when you build a house. You start out with some raw land worth $1000 per acre. You add $49,000 worth of materials and $50,000 worth of labor, creating a house worth $150,000.

Where did the extra $50,000 come from? You created it by combining labor and materials, making the world $100,000 richer because the labor didn’t exist before you built the house.

So what happens if it is wiped of the map? The world would now be a $150,000 poorer. This house was worth a $150,000 on someone’s balance sheet and now it’s not. This is the effect of wars and natural disasters. This leads us to the next question. The house was insured, wasn’t it? Well, yes it was, but the money to rebuild it still has to come from somewhere, and the insurance companies have to pay for it, so their balance sheets then go down. Before the disaster, the insurance company had $150,000 on their balance sheet and someone owned a $150,000 house. After the hurricane, there will only be one or the other, and in this case the insurance company is the one with the financial loss.

Is wealth then restored when the new house is built? Well, as in the above example, the net gain was $50,000, while the net loss, after the disaster, was $150,000. The reason I say the gain is $50,000 rather than $100,000 is because the labor to rebuild the destroyed house would have been used elsewhere. So in the end, if it hadn’t been destroyed, there would have been two houses rather than just the one property. So we are now still down $100,000, but is better than the initial $150,000. Just imagine now the devastation of $25 billion in properties…

Back to hurricane Katrina and those jobs lost because of the companies that won’t be reopening. It is quite possible that situation will balance itself out with all the new work that has become available with the rebuilding underway. So the employment rate should remain about the same, but the construction trade will benefit while factory workers suffer. The factory workers who can work in the construction trade will do okay, but those who can’t might suffer.

What will result from the destruction of factories? This is a problem. A factory is different from a house because it produces things. A factory is like a machine that creates wealth. Imagine a factory cranking out the houses in our example above. Each product is worth more than the sum of its parts, so it is creating wealth. While time is spent rebuilding the factory, these factories are not producing products. So, the downtime is lost production and less total wealth for the world.

But what if the new factory is more modern and efficient and can produce more products than the old factory? In that case, in the long run the world is better off, although it suffers in the short run. If modernization occurs, New Orleans could be cleaner, safer, more productive and efficient, and in the long run, wealthier. It will, though, suffer in the short run.

In the same way, if the City of New Orleans was smart, it would order that all new high- rise buildings be built with mandatory garages on the first two levels and be able to withstand flooding, so future flooding would be limited to washing the cars away. This could result in a stronger downtown with more usable land area. The whole city has an opportunity to return as a completely modern, rebuilt city.

Finally, what about the disruption in oil distribution and production? The Gulf is responsible for approximately 30% of US oil production and distribution. Shortages cause gas prices to skyrocket, in turn increasing costs both to construction and to the consumers throughout the country.  This would be another factor affecting our costs, pushed up through the economy.

Our Federal Reserve System might need to increase our cash flow to ease the transition period, but then will have to clamp down on the money supply to prevent inflation. So we could see an initial lowering of interest rates, followed by an increase several months later.

Fun Stuff

Sunday, October 30th, 2005

On Thinking…

“We can’t solve problems by using the same kind of thinking we used when we created them.”

- Albert Einstein

“One of our biggest challenges is that we tend to think linearly in a cyclical world.”

- Dean Whittaker

www.seatguru.com – Tire of the cramped airline seat that doesn’t recline? You can find the best seat on the type of aircraft on which you will be traveling at this site. Also, you will know which seats to avoid.

www.zoominfo.com – Are you meeting someone new? This site provides a biography of the person based upon what is available on the internet. It is a great sales tool when meeting with a new client.

www.jibjab.com – This site offers liberal humor. Check out “Big Box Mart” – a satirical look at the Big Box Syndrome.

www.googleguide.com - For the geeks in the crowd, this site offers a how-to manual for using advanced features in Google.

http://googlemapsmania.blogspot.com/ – a weblog tracking the many new uses of maps.google.com. You can map you own information including demographic, site and building data using maps.google.com. Costar, the national leasing information company, is in discussions with Google to map their property information.