What's Next? Take One

The end of every year brings 1) a retrospective of accomplishments and failures in the current year; and 2) a look ahead to expected developments in the coming year and the longer-term future. Herewith is my review of the past year and prognostication for the coming year.

The movement against global warming reached critical mass:

Going back to the early 1970s, issues of ecology have been discussed, debated, and slowly evolving. Anyone remember Silent Spring by Rachel Carson (1962)? How about The Population Bomb by Paul Ehrlich (1968)? These books had a profound impact on me, but concern about the environment has been slow to develop. Indeed, the current administration discounts much of the concern even today. However, over the last year, it would appear that a critical mass has been reached where individuals, institutions, and governments now understand the dire consequences and have taken steps to remediate the damage already done. Whether it will be too little, too late remains to be seen. However, from Al Gore's Nobel Peace Prize to the accords signed in Bali, action appears to be gaining strength.

Central to the environmental discussion is carbon emissions. Combustion, whether coal in a power plant, gasoline in an automobile engine, or propane gas in our bar-b-que grills, they all generate carbon emissions into the atmosphere. When released, they combine with the free oxygen in the atmosphere to form carbon dioxide (CO2). It's great for dry ice, but bad for global warming. The reason is that increased CO2 in the atmosphere creates a barrier much like the glass in a greenhouse. The result is the same as a greenhouse, increased warming. Therefore, global warming is all about CO2.

Today, the passions around reducing carbon emissions take many forms. First is a movement to make it no worse than it is today. These are the people pushing "carbon credits." Since countries are in the process of committing to limiting carbon emissions, their approach is to continue doing what they have always done, but trade their "excess" carbon emissions to a country that emits carbon at a rate less than they are allowed by treaty. These are usually underdeveloped nations where there are high levels of agriculture and free forests. The deal is that developed, carbon spewing countries will pay money to underdeveloped countries in exchange for their excess carbon credits. The approach is doomed over the long-term as underdeveloped countries become developed and need their carbon credits for themselves. The rich countries keep spewing carbon, only the they feel better about it because they can point to the offsets they have bought at the expense of some underdeveloped country. Unfortunately, this seems to be the U.S.'s approach.

A second approach is to recapture the CO2--remove it from the atmosphere. On paper, this sounds good. The problems are 1) how do you recapture it; and 2) what do you do with it? Recapturing CO2 takes energy. Most likely, that energy consumption emits carbon. Recapturing CO2 is like creating an infinite block of dry ice. It takes up room. Therefore, one solution is to bury it. Evidently, there is plenty of room for excess CO2 dry ice blocks underneath the numerous trash landfills, but above the buried spent nuclear fuel that is also being buried. Does anyone else see a problem with this?

A third approach is being investigated at Sandia National Laboratories. This one is to break down CO2 into carbon monoxide (CO) and oxygen. In turn, the CO could be reprocessed into burnable fuels, thus emitting the CO2 back into the atmosphere. Nowhere in the discussion is it mentioned how much energy will be needed to break down the CO2, but something tells me that it will involve more CO2 than will be reprocessed.

The fourth approach is evidently the least attractive--decrease CO2 emissions. This one does not require more energy. This one does not require reprocessing CO2. This one does not take the lazy path of buying off poor countries in exchange for their carbon credits. All that is required is simply don't emit CO2 in the first place. So committed are we to petroleum, internal combustion engines, coal-fired power plants, and industrial-age manufacturing processes, the U.S. evidently sees this as the least attractive option. Who knows, if we play our cards right, all our manufacturing will move overseas and we will once again become an agrarian economy. The only problem is no one will need our excess carbon credits.

Peak Oil versus Peak Demand

I was listening to the Diane Rehm Show (NPR) this morning and there was a discussion about whether the energy industry has reached "peak oil,"--the point at which oil production peaks, subsequently leveling off, and then declining. While I did not have the time to listen to the whole discussion, the debate seemed to revolve around when oil production would peak. The years mentioned ranged from 2012 to 2030. However, I would propose that the argument is misguided. Debating when peak oil production will occur is a little like being in a leaky boat and debating when the volume of water coming into the boat will peak. It becomes irrelevant when one considers that the boat is adding people into the boat faster than water is being bailed from the boat; at some point the boat is going to sink, regardless of whether the boat has reached peak water intake. If people are coming on board faster than water is being bailed, the boat is going to sink. Indeed, if the water leak is fixed and people keep coming on board, the boat is going to sink.

In the same way, whether the oil industry has reached peak oil production is irrelevant: The "peak" point that is important to understand is when demand exceeds production. Once that point is reached (for world oil production, it has already been reached), what is important to understand is the "oil gap."

The oil gap is the difference between oil production and oil demand. As the gap increases, oil prices increase (price is determined by supply and demand). At some point, the price reaches a point were substitute energy sources become price competitive. This is the environment we are in today.

Therefore, the question becomes not when oil production peaks, nor when oil demand exceeds oil production. Rather the important question is when demand drives oil prices to the "tipping point" where alternative energy sources become cost competitive. At that point, those organizations developing alternative energy sources, particularly renewable or sustainable energy sources, become competitively advantaged in the market. Therefore, the debate should not be when oil production will peak, but when alternative sources become advantaged. At that point, those organizations that have been investing in alternative energy sources will be the hot stocks for the near-term future. The next Googles are out there ready to take off.

Closer to the Edge

Edge computing is all about moving computing capability to a variety of devices enabling users to perform a variety of activities when and where they need it. Most often, edge computing is interpreted to mean mobile devices, but it could just as easily be your refrigerator, your television, your entertainment system, your mobile phone, or the various systems in your automobile.

Much of edge computing is already in place, it is just not obvious. For example, the Tivo used to track, schedule, record, and playback television programming is nothing more than a media center computer that has been programmed to record broadcast programming. In this context, the AppleTV is nothing more than an alternative programming computer tied to the television. The Slingbox is another programming device that captures video and streams that video to a variety of devices--from your TV to your computer, to your mobile phone. In these examples, the device is a server providing services to edge devices.

Another is the OnStar system in your automobile. Through this system, your car's performance can be tracked, your doors unlocked, or automatic alerts can be sent to a centralized monitoring center. X10 and similar technology provides monitoring of your house, enabling you to remotely turn on and off lights, set alarms, and control edge devices such as a television or appliance. In these example, the device is a monitoring and control unit providing manipulation and control over remote devices.

All of this edge technology is available now. Add to this the ability to view television programming on mobile phones (VCast, SprintTV, MobiTV, YouTube, and the increasing number of streaming videos available on Web sites); the ability to listen to audio programming through tools such as iRadio and streaming sites on broadcast Web sites; and the increasing number of sites that enable word processing, spreadsheet manipulation, and presentation development (Google Apps is a primary example). All of these are providing expanded access to computing by any device that can access those sites and capabilities.

As a result, computing is no longer limited to the desktop or the laptop computer. Today, browsing the Web can be accomplished on your phone and your game console. Word processing can be accomplished on any device that accesses the Web. Is the computer dead? Not by a long shot. However, its central importance in information management is being reduced as processing is delivered through the Web and access and control devices become more incorporated into edge devices. We are moving closer to the edge.

Top Tech Strategies for 2008

The title is from an article in ComputerWorld by Paul Thibodeau recapping Gartner, Inc.'s key strategies that will be driving IT over the next year. (Refer to the PCWorld Web-site, http://www.pcworld.com/businesscenter/article/138327/top_tech_strategies_for_2008.html). Although not that far in the future, the strategies are worth noting here:

Green IT: The issue of energy efficiency and improved energy utilization will become a driving strategic issue for IT. As Thibodeau notes, if IT does not address it, governmental regulators will. Aside from these threats, increasing energy costs and access to adequate energy sources will increasingly become an organizational issue, not just impacting IT. Those organizations that address this issue early obtain a significant competitive advantage because while energy costs are currently variable, the trend is that those costs will continue to increase at an ever increasing rate.

Unified Communications: Simply put, running everything down the same pipe. Once information is converted to digital, a bit does not know whether it is a voice bit, video bit, image bit, or data bit. As a result, communication convergence enables capabilities such as email read through an audio device, phone messages to be available through an email system, and similar simplification of communication interchanges. The result is better communication, improved information transfer, and improved interaction among organizational entities and customers.

Business Process Management (BPM): While Thibodeau describes this as not being technology, I would disagree. BPM is a technology issue. It represents the development of common communication standards, common technology interfaces, and common transaction types that enable multiple departments within an organization and multiple organizations to efficiently and effectively trade information. In turn, this ability will reduce cycle time between transaction initiation and transaction fulfillment. The result will be increased responsiveness, improved accuracy, reduced rework, reduced cost, and increased competitiveness. It also offers the opportunity for an organization to more closely couple with their customers, thus effectively increasing customer loyalty.

Metadata Management: The vast majority of information an organization needs to effectively operate and position for the future exists today in the organization's various IT repositories. Unfortunately, the ability to find, retrieve, relate, join, consolidate, analyze, and use that various information is problematic at best. Increasingly, competitive advantage is being obtained by organizations that can effectively use this various data. It requires extensive understanding of what data are available, creating common definitions of data types and data usage, and providing integrated retrieval capabilities. The good news is that most companies are behind in this area. The bad news is that those to first achieve this ability will enjoy significant competitive advantage in terms of reduced response to market time, increased organizational flexibility, and the ability to effectively integrate customers directly into the infrastructure via Business Process Management technologies discussed earlier.

Virtualization: Utilization is the key here. Whenever you have a dedicated anything, if it is not being used at optimal capacity, there is waste. Anytime you have physical devices that operate at less than optimal capacity, you experience this problem. The solution is to work with "virtual" devices--servers, communication circuits, and display devices. By virtualizing the device, the ability to scale the device is increased so that utilization remains high. The result is that one large device can serve multiple uses and can adjust to meet peak demands from various users without the need to augment overall capacity. This provides cost savings (you use what you buy), responsiveness (you have what you need when you need it), and increased manageability (working with logical devices is simpler than working with physical devices). As an aside not addressed by Gartner, the ability to virtualize certain devices provides improved customer satisfaction. For example, the iPhone is a virtualized device (it is in fact a network connected computer) that provides phone access, Internet access, video access, and information access--morphing as the need arises.

Mashups: Mashups are the embodiment of what John Naisbett called "mass customization." Mashups provide the ability for the end-user to combine a variety of Internet information into new information views that meet a particular need. The objective is that the mashup is easy to accomplish and that various data sources provide the ability to be "mashed." In turn, the ease with which a particular organization provides their data in a format that can easily be used in a mashup determines how many customers will actually access and use that information. Once a customer has a mashup they like, they will be reluctant to change. The result is that if you are not first in, you may be excluded for a long time.

The Web Platform: Closely aligned with virtualization, this strategic development defines the move from local, dedicated applications to virtualized, Web-based applications that are effectively network-centric. As mentioned in the article, this strategy describes the shift from owned hardware and software devices to the Internet "cloud" computing, storage, and networking environment. Probably the most interesting thing about this development is that it is not new. It has been a trend that started in the late 1990s but has continued to gain momentum ever since. It will continue to do so for the foreseeable future.

Computing Fabric: Gartner treats this development as something new that is in the early stages of development. In actuality, it has been in development and has been rolling out for more two decades. Back in the mid-1980s, AT&T (the original one) developed a concept called the "Closely-coupled Computing Ensemble" (C3E). It basically consisted of a high-speed bus with various computing resources attached--compute, storage, math processors, graphics processors, and input/output devices. Sitting on top of this ensemble was an operating system supervisor that directed work to available resources. The result was maximum utilization, reduced bottlenecks, and improved throughput. But the computing fabric has been around for decades. Storage-area networks, network-attached storage, specialized servers (such as print servers), grid computing, on-demand computing, Web-based applications, and cloud computing are all examples of the deployment of a computing fabric. The point is that this is not a future development, but rather a rapidly accelerating trend.

Real-World Web: Similar to my thoughts on ”Computing Fabric,” the real-world Web is all about how the computing, access tools, and the network are increasingly being used. As with Mashups, end-users are increasingly finding increased value in Internet services, the overwhelming majority being provided through the Web. Retail sales have been long established, dating back to text-based services such as Prodigy in the 1980s. Today, that simple service has developed into the highly sophisticated retail/distribution/warehousing/fulfillment/logistics ecosystems such as Amazon.com. What I believe Gartner is getting at here is that these ecosystems will continue to multiply and though Mashups, continue to evolve into ever sophisticated combinations that will provide more, valued information and services to the end-user. As an example, I can now tie retail services such as Circuit City to Google Maps and Weather Channel forecasts to obtain a specific product, ensure that it is in-stock, gain the best price, find the closest location, obtain the best route (with fewest delays and construction), and determine the weather along that route—all from a consolidated Web page. The result is better service, reduced seek time, maximized value, increased customer satisfaction, and the establishment of a customer loyalty chain (if it worked this time, it will likely work the next, thus eliminating competition). The real-world Web is not about looking for things; it is all about finding things and solving real-world problems.

Social Software: Humans are by nature social animals. That’s why we form groups, societies, cultures, organizations, and nations. Throughout the development of the computing/information age, there has been this concern that we humans are becoming increasingly isolated and non-social. Lost in these beliefs is the fact that people write emails much more often than they ever wrote letters; or the fact that almost everyone I see is talking on a cell phone, something not possible with a landline phone. Add to that the typical cell phone has a single rate regardless of location within a country (and increasingly often international access), and there is a strong argument that technology has made us more socially connected. What differentiates this technology-based social connection from social software is the difference between point-to-point communication and multi-point and collaborative communication—it re-establishes the social network so that communication, exchange, ideation, interests, recreation, and work can be shared, group experiences. This strategic development probably started with telephone party lines and has morphed through chain email letters to today’s online shared environments such as Google’s Docs and Spreadsheets, MySpace, and Facebook (not to mention these blog spaces).

Regardless of your view on these strategies or trends, they are developments that will directly impact how organizations perform work, reach customers, interact, inform, and compete in the future. From that viewpoint, organizations must look at them, determine how and when they should engage, and determine whether value lies in development, acquisition, or partnering to take full advantage of these developments.

Security Cameras

There is currently a lot of discussion on information and intelligence gathering related to anti-terrorist activities. It is a two-edged sword: How do you protect against terrorist attacks here in the U.S. and abroad while at the same time protecting individual rights and liberties? On the one hand, we pass Patriot Act laws knowing that they could be abused to invade the personal lives and liberties of completely innocent people. We are assured by the government that it will only be used for anti-terrorist activities. We subsequently find that not only terrorist suspects are tracked and eavesdropped upon, but also anyone with whom they have had contact. Using the six degrees of freedom theorem, that means it is very easy to justify eves-dropping on everyone in the world.

However you feel about the work of the NSA, warrant less eavesdropping, and domestic intelligence gathering, it is often difficult to relate it to our personal, day-to-day lives. Let's face it, hopefully the overwhelming number of us are law abiding citizens (of whatever country you are in) going about our daily lives, trying to make a living. Therefore, from a personal point of view, these programs are abstracts, far removed from what we do day-in and day-out. In addition to our "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness," there is a reasonable expectation of privacy--personal privacy; communications privacy, and geographic (locational) privacy. We just don't think that any of this Patriot Act stuff applies to us.

It was this train of thought that drew my attention to the subject of cameras. Specifically, a lot of money has been allocated by the Department of Homeland Security on camera systems for tracking traffic through urban and suburban areas. Add to that the increased use of red light traffic enforcement through camera systems. Also don't forget camera systems that record your vehicle as it passes through highway toll plazas. And finally, most organizations have camera systems that track entry and exit of individuals in the organization--whether that company is a local quick-stop market, a bank, a department store, a shopping mall, or a corporate campus, not to mention the ATM you use.

So, how private are our lives today? As one example, I counted the number of cameras that I pass by each day going to and coming from work. I travel almost exactly 6 miles to work, a total 12 miles round-trip. As it happens, I take a different route home because traffic patterns are different in the evening.

The result of the tally: going to work I pass 35 intersection cameras and 13 private cameras that seem to have a view of the streets. Coming home from work, I pass 38 intersection cameras and 9 private cameras that seem to have a view of the streets. That works out to:

• Going to work, 8 cameras per mile or 1 camera every 660 feet
• Coming home from work, 7.8 cameras per mile or 1 camera every 674 feet

Remember, these cameras view all traffic, not just terrorist suspects. They're watching 24/7. The odds of them actually capturing the image of a terrorist suspect is probably infinitesimally small. The odds of them catching me and my fellow innocent citizens is 100 percent.