Research conducted by the blog UberCEO.com looked at Fortune’s 2009 list of the top 100 CEOs to determine how many were using Facebook, Twitter, LinkedIn, Wikipedia, or had a blog — and found they were mostly absent from the rapidly growing social media community.
The study found only two CEOs had Twitter accounts and 81 percent of CEOs did not have a personal Facebook page.
Only 13 CEOs had profiles on the professional networking site LinkedIn. Three CEOs stood out with more than 80 connections but they were all from technology companies — Michael Dell from computer maker Dell Inc., Gregory Spierkel from technology products distributor Ingram Micro Inc., and John Chambers from Cisco Systems Ltd.
…Not one Fortune 100 CEO had a blog. (my emphasis)
“It’s shocking that the top CEOs can appear to be so disconnected from the way their own customers are communicating. They’re giving the impression that they’re disconnected, disengaged and disinterested,” said Sharon Barclay, editor at UberCEO.com who runs executive PR firm Blue Trumpet Group.
The important thing isn’t whether they are blogging or not – it’s not for everyone – or that Facebook is critical for their job or their company. The important thing is that no knowledge – and (too) often outright hostility – to social media, the real-time web, etc. means that their understanding of the world in which they operate is frighteningly lacking. This has been a problem for time eternal for leaders of large organisations and is not specific to the advent of social media per se, but I would suggest that this time it is even more unfortunate than usual. One the speed of change and the deep structural paradigm shift that our society and economies are experiencing is more profound than normal ‘linear’ change. Secondly, their ability to ‘do something about it’ is real. In the past, I would of had much more sympathy for the corporate or political leader who said – “ok fair enough I’m a bit out of touch up here in my ivory citadel but what can I do about it”. Today that doesn’t wash. Or to a much much lesser extent.
So why are these leaders seemingly so ignorant and on the face of it disdainful of this new paradigm? Partly I’m sure it’s because they are really busy and have a never ending call on their attention: the urgent pushes out the important. This happens to all of us. More disappointingly – and here I can only speculate, I don’t know any of these 100 CEOs – I suspect that for many it is driven by fear. Not fear in a cowardly sense, but fear of looking dumb. Most people are afraid of this, and I’m sure toiling under the spotlight associated with running a Fortune 100 company only exacerbates this. These smart, ambitious, driven men and women must feel some annoyance after having spent 20 or 30 years climbing the corporate ladder to reach the pinnacle, only to find the rules of the game changed.
Here’s a suggestion. The Boards’ of these companies should ask there CEO’s to take a 1-2 month sabbatical to immerse themselves in the 21st web, preferably supported by a mentor or coach. When they came back they still might not blog. Or tweet. Or have a Facebook page. And that might be ok. But I’m certain they would have a much better understanding of why they don’t and what tools they might actually want to adopt. But most importantly they would have a better understanding of the world in which their company operates. First hand knowledge; not “Oh yeah my kid was telling me about that and tried to get me signed up. Damn teenagers!”
According to the June 22 letter, the review identified “valuation concerns” where “appraisal documentation is missing or incomplete,” or where property-assessment methods were “insufficient/lacking.”
Other missing information included employment confirmations, phone numbers, credit reports and rent verification, the letter said. The review also found “income calculation errors.”
Another fine example of six sigma in banking. Imagine if Dow and Dupont ran their chemical plants like this. Holy crap. Or Boeing built planes this way. Yikes. But then again, in those industries lives are at stake. Banking. [shrug] Just money. Ok a few billion hundred billion. But still, it’s not like anyone died. Sheesh.
Hmmm. In 2002 – yes 2002, seven years ago(!) – I wrote:
In a recent speech, Jack Welch, the former chairman of General Electric, made exactly this point: “…[if] you put six sigma in an investment bank, they would all gag!” In case you think he was just engaging in some gratuitous banker bashing, consider this: six sigma quality means havingfewer than 3.4 defects or errors per million operations in a service process. That is 99.99966% perfection.
Contrast this benchmark with the assurance once made to me — by a senior syndicate manager of one of the largest and most respected global bond underwriters — that it was perfectly normal and necessary to expect and reserve for 5%-10% errors in the allocation of a jumbo multi-tranche bond deal! Assuming an average of 200 individual orders (including splits) on a typical new issue, to reach six sigma quality levels you would need to have fewer than four errors over 5000 issues!
…And therein lies the next major opportunity for capital markets bankers over the next decade: to use technology not only as an enabler of innovation (as has been the case over the past 15 years) but as a driver of industrial efficiencies.
The guys in IT thought it was an interesting take on things (with $ signs in their eyes) but the ‘business’ side, well, let’s just say it didn’t strike a chord. Banks were special. Bankers were (even more) special. All that re-engineering and total quality management and painful restructuring and shifting centres of power…all good for manufacturing and you know, “other” industries. The ones they advised and financed and funded LBOs of… but not banking. Banking is “different.” You wouldn’t understand…What. A load. Of. Crap.
Well now they are paying for it. We all are paying for it. Rivers didn’t catch on fire but the financial system was well and truly polluted. But there is a bright side. The bright side is that there has never been a better time to come in and build businesses in banking and financial services that have an engineering DNA, businesses that are natively adapted to an industrialized and digital way of doing business. Indeed some of the pioneers in this mold have already enjoyed tremendous success (Markit Group comes to mind.) Others are emerging. And the incumbents have never looked less frightening (even if, especially because, they are now too big to fail.)
Did you notice? If not perhaps I shouldn’t say anything. No harm, no foul.
But just in case you were wondering, yes, parkparadigm.com was down for almost two weeks. It started with a corrupted file server and then well things got complicated. But I have to give it to Jof and Benjie at Brainbakery; not only did they have my back, their calm professionalism saved this old man from a heart-attack in the wee hours of the morning on that fateful night. I owe them dinner and since they are charming company as well it will be my pleasure.
I always try to look for the silver lining, and in this case I think there are two. First, I now know more about how the plumbing of these here internets work – nothing like a crisis to help one climb a learning curve. And second, I now realize just how embedded this blog is in how I work, think and project my ideas into the wider world. That may sound obvious, and it’s more a question of degree, but had you asked me two weeks ago, I’m not sure I would have admitted or understood just how valuable this little patch of the metaverse has become for me.
And I hope you are still here, not having been put off forever by the temporary purgatory of a ‘server not found’.
In the spring of 2005 I wrote the “screenplay” for AmazonBay and we launched DrKW Revolution on July 1 2005 – I still have the t-shirt to prove it. So I must admit I had to laugh when my old colleague Stu pointed me to the Morgan Stanley Matrix I nearly fell off my chair laughing: it was deja vu all over again…
Don’t get me wrong, it looks pretty useful and I completely endorse the vision. In fact I sort of have to given that it is exactly in line with the vision we had for Digital Markets at DrKW over 5 years ago! (Although not quite as comprehensive as far as I can tell…) But what I love most is that in terms of look and feel – the hexagons, the music, the video (but I can re-assure you I didn’t wear a tie or speak from a teleprompter!) – it is Son of Revolution. Amazing. Actually feel quite proud that we at least left an impact, even if it didn’t happen to be at Dresdner Kleinwort.
I just spent a few minutes digging around on the wayback machine but unfortunately couldn’t find any good links. Really too bad because the Flash intro page was very cool and would have loved to be able to look at it side-by-side with MS Matrix. (Any current Dresdner folks would be great if you could dig this code out of the archives if it still exists!) Fortunately, I did have an old marketing card brochure hanging around:
I’d be lying if I didn’t admit that I can’t help but feel a little proud seeing some of my vision start to come to life, especially at such a blue chip conservative firm like Morgan Stanley, but I would also be lying if I said I didn’t feel like screaming ‘I told you so’ to all the senior executives at DrKW who refused to stick their necks out and support what I was trying to do. Let’s just say I’m not surprised at how it all ultimately turned out there. Karma. The good thing is that this bad feeling is way more than offset by remembering all the truly exceptional people I got to work with while I was at DrKW and the support I received from so many of them especially since it wasn’t necessarily politically correct to do so. It meant and still means a lot to me. Anyhow, it would be cool if Hishaam Mufti-Bey, the guy behind MS Matrix would add us as a little historical footnote on his About Us page, as I imagine it won’t be long until all the old DrKW links have disappeared; it’s important to remember!
Just one final point though. What the hell is it with traders and black Bloomberg-looking web design??? Every bloody website I see focused on institutional capital markets customers seems to use this look. Get over it! It was fantastic for Mike (and rooted in a real engineering problem by the way) but when other people copy them, well… it just makes you all look dumb. Hire a designer. Do something original. Your content and you customers deserve it.
“The future is already here – it is just unevenly distributed.”
- William Gibson, Author
Update: Thanks to Martina for finding a slide version of the website stills / product look and feel…as you can see MS Matrix looks even more like DrKW Revolution than I remembered!
Last summer I wrote a post highlighting the fact that the global financial system is a scale-free network. This in itself is not particularly insightful – although I wonder how many of the most senior executives, regulators and politicians understand this explicitly and more importantly use it as an intellectual framework on which to base their ideas on systemic risk management and regulation. This is important because understanding the mathematical underpinnings and topology of such networks is crucial if we ever hope to construct a system of monitoring and regulation that is robust and well adapted. I was reminded of this late last night as I was re-reading an article written in 2003 by Albert-Laszlo Barabasi and Eric Bonabeau published in Scientific American on scale-free networks where they (presciently) note that:
Understanding how companies, industries and economies are interlinked could help
researchers monitor and avoid cascading financial failures.
For anyone wanting an introduction to scale-free networks this paper is an excellent place to start but basically as a reminder (via John Robb):
A scale-free network is one that obeys a power law distribution in the number of connections between nodes on the network. Some few nodes exhibit extremely high connectivity (essentially scale-free) while the vast majority are relatively poorly connected. The reason that scale-free networks emerge, as opposed to evenly distributed random networks, is due to these factors: Rapid growth confers preference to early entrants. The longer a node has been in place the greater the number of links to it.
This in a nutshell is why some financial institutions are ‘too big to fail’, or (as we heard much chatter about when first Bear Stearns, then Lehman Brothers went down) more accurately, ‘too connected to fail’. Scale-free networks are extremely resilient to random failure but highly vulnerable to specific failure of the most important hubs (Barabasi and Bonabeau):
In general, scale-free networks display an amazing robustness against accidental failures, a property that is rooted in their inhomogeneous topology. The random removal of nodes will take out mainly the small ones because they are much more plentiful than hubs. And the elimination of small nodes will not disrupt the network topology significantly, because they contain few links compared with the hubs, which connect to nearly everything. But a reliance on hubs has a serious drawback: vulnerability to attacks.
…The Achilles’ heel of scale-free networks raises a compelling question: how many hubs are essential? Recent research suggests that, generally speaking, the simultaneous elimination of as few as 5-10% of all hubs can crash a system.
Hopefully readers will recognize in this why the failure of ‘hubs’ like Bear Stearns or Lehman Brothers was potentially so damaging, setting off a cascading epidemic throughout the financial system. It is also why the Madoff failure in and of itself was not at all systemically threatening, whereas LTCM was – the key difference being ‘connectedness’ not size per se. A further consideration – based on the application of diffusion theories used to predict the propagation of a contagion throughout a population – is that the critical threshold (for propagation of an ‘infection’) is effectively zero for a scale-free network. That is all ‘viruses’ no matter how weakly contagious, will spread and persist in the system. In other words it is mathematically impossible to eradicate such sources of failure from a scale-free network. More bluntly, any attempt to eradicate or prevent financial viruses, say for instance poorly conceived sub-prime mortgages, is an act of futility.
Why is this important? Because most financial regulation, is conceived and implemented with this objective as a founding principle and worse ignores the topology and structure of the network it is trying to protect. Not only does this vastly increase the probability that the regulatory framework will ultimately fail to achieve it’s goal, but it imposes severe additional costs on the system for no greater gain in stability or robustness. Current financial regulation distinguishes far too little between the different nodes in the network, the vast majority of which are of no consequence to the overall robustness of the system. Fifty percent of financial firms could probably fail without any risk of catastrophic systemic failure as long as none of those firms were important hubs. I’m exaggerating of course (but not as much as you think.) That is why for instance the EU’s recent draft legislation on alternative investment funds – with rules uniquely predicated on size and leverage – is so wrong-headed: it misses the point. Not completely, but this is mainly due to the fact that correlation between size and connectedness is not zero (all other things being equal, bigger firms are likely to be more connected.)
However wouldn’t it make much more sense if the regulatory framework focused explicitly on the root cause of systemic vulnerability rather than accidentally or obliquely? Before any agitated readers get too excited, I realize that what I have outlined has been grasped (belatedly) to some extent by the regulators, bankers and politicians and has started to shape the discussion on the reformation of financial regulation, especially in the US where it seems increasingly likely that the new regulatory proposals will be much more concerned with the effective systemic impact of a market participant rather than their legal or organizational structure. The recognition that the fact that an organization is a bank or insurance company or hedge fund or whatever is less important than the exact types of activities it undertakes and its connectedness to the rest of the system is obviously a welcome development but it doesn’t go far enough.
Wouldn’t it make much more sense to build a set of rules that explicitly addresses the vulnerabilities of a scale free network and as such focuses disproportion attention and resources on protecting the hubs from attack or failure. The beauty is that the digital global financial system of the 21st century and advances in the science of networks actually now allows us to do this: we can empirically and quantitatively observe, measure and manage the ‘connectedness’ of institutions. Forget the rating agencies, companies like Bonabeau’s IcoSystems and others could help the regulators create, maintain and monitor network ‘maps’ and score each market participant in terms of their connectivity. This should be the defining core metric of financial regulation and mirroring the power law distribution of the underlying network, financial regulation should focus its attention and resources in geometrically increasing fashion.
This would have a number of (self-reinforcing) beneficial effects:
It would impose (geometrically) increasing costs on institutions as they grow in complexity and systemic connectedness creating a natural optimal equilibrium that balances the benefits (to the institution) of such growth against the external costs it imposes on the system. It effectively puts a price on the negative externalities and avoids the tragedy of the commons without needing to dictate to firms how big or complex they are allowed to become (which is doomed to failure due to the law of unintended consequences and the problems of quantum thresholds (ie clustering just below the threshold.) I doubt very much that a firm like Citigroup would have come into being under such a regime.
The size of a financial institution would not be a driver and so simple, relatively unconnected firms could operate with a very light regulatory touch. This would allow the system to naturally exploit economies of scale that don’t give rise to incremental systemic risk.
Innovation would be allowed to flourish without anyone – regulators, executives, politicians, super-intelligent alien forces – needing to decide which innovations were toxic and which were beneficial. As long as the key players in the system were vaccinated against these viruses and protected against mutations, you could let Darwinian evolution progress more or less unimpeded in the long tail of systemically unimportant firms. Indeed by allowing an increased rate of failure in the overall network, you would be able to more quickly and less painfully identify dangerous risks as they emerge in the network.
Resource allocation for regulators becomes much easier and more transparent. The amount of regulation and regulatory attention each firm would receive would become directly proportional to their systemic importance.
We can’t prevent dangerous risks from developing in the financial system but we can work with the grain of the underlying structure to mitigate the systemic danger instead of against it, or at best ignoring it. The robustness of scale-free networks to accidental failure has many advantages in that it allows our financial system to operate very efficiently and robustly most of the time. And by explicitly recognizing the mechanisms by which catastrophic failure can occur in our approach to regulation we will be much less likely to suffer such failures in the future and the costs of regulation will be appropriately borne within the system creating a virtuous circle that drives the system to self-organize into the optimal configuration of complexity and connectedness.
If you know Tim Geithner or Charlie McCreevy or Lord Turner, please send them this link. Hopefully it’s not too late!
And if you are looking for the perfect Father’s Day gift for the financial regulator or Senate Banking Committee member in the family, you could do worse than Bonabeau’s book Swarm Intelligence: From Natural to Artificial Systems.
The always interesting Bill St. Arnaud pointed me in the direction of this interesting speech by Jeremy Rifkin who talks about the convergence of a quantum advance in communication and energy technologies leading to a “third industrial revolution”. Clearly talk of the “smart grid” is not new and we may actually be well on our way to the “peak of inflated expectations” but this does not take away from the much much bigger picture that this convergence will be fundamentally transformational:
The same design principles and smart technologies that made possible the internet, and vast distributed global communication networks, will be used to reconfigure the world’s power grids so that people can produce renewable energy and share it peer-to-peer, just like they now produce and share information, creating a new, decentralized form of energy use. We need to envision a future in which millions of individual players can collect, produce and store locally generated renewable energy in their homes, offices, factories, and vehicles, and share their power generation with each other across a Europe-wide intelligent intergri
And although it is probably too early for us, I am extremely optimistic about the very exciting investment opportunities I see coming down the pipe because of this revolution. No we aren’t planning to add to or change the investment focus of Nauiokas Park to green tech or clean energy. What I am alluding to is the opportunities that will emerge to create new markets, market structures and participants when the world’s energy becomes a truly networked, digital commodity. Imagine a world (not so many years away) where tools like Google PowerMeter are as widely adopted as Google Search or Skype. And distributed micro-generation (solar, wind, micro-generators, etc.) and micro-storage. All connected, all digitized. Generating vast amounts of data and transactions. And you’ve got yourself a market. Sure, I here you say, energy markets already exist and by the way are pretty big. No big deal here, move along. Well, it’s not perfect but I would suggest comparing the financial markets of the 1970s to the financial markets of today, to get a sense of the quanta of change we should expect in energy markets – with the concomitant risks and opportunities this will present. And I suspect it will all happen a bit more quickly: one decade instead of three(?)
I know it’s not the done thing, but despite all the doom and gloom I can’t help but to get more optimistic every day about all the truly exciting opportunities that are bubbling up in harmony with the new industrial and economic paradigm that is dawning. (Which is not to disagree with the doom and gloom – for those people, companies and industries stuck in the old paradigm there isn’t much to cheer about, and it must be especially galling for those who were leaders in this old world order.)
I then had the good fortune to see her speak again at TED Global in 2007, this time in Arusha, Tanzania.
And although there are many differences between Nauiokas Park and the Acumen Fund, I think it is fair to say that in shaping our vision for our firm, and even in planting the initial ideas as to the relevance of bringing a fresh approach to the business of investing in ideas and people, Acumen and Jacqueline have been an inspiration to Amy and I. And so it was great to see her get an excellent and well-deserved write up in the Economist recently. One passage in particular resonated with me as I sincerely hope one day as much can be said of Nauiokas Park in terms of having an impact that goes far beyond our capital resources and reflects a success in building an ideal and a community around the change we are trying to catalyze:
Her firm runs highly coveted fellowship and mentoring schemes, and its alumni are spreading its ideas throughout the development field. The firm’s influence in poor countries is also bigger than it first appears. By leveraging Acumen’s funds to obtain other financing, recipients are able to magnify their impact. Even more important, perhaps, is the firm’s catalytic role in sparking entrepreneurship in developing countries. Acumen devotes much time and money to training local managers, rotating experts from the developed world through its recipient firms and disseminating successful ideas.
In case anyone on Wall Street or Westminster is interested, this is what a leader looks like. We need more people like her in our Board and State rooms.
We can make our world smarter.
Intelligence can be infused into how we manufacture and sell… move goods, people and money…
The world is ready for a smarter planet.
Find out how to build it together.
If you would rather avoid wading through the inevitable corporate speak on IBM’s website, a good place to find out about what they are doing and how they are thinking is this recent article “IBM’s Grand Plan to Save the Planet” from Fortune:
In the parlance of the information technology industry, these situations all represent “dumb network” problems. The term sounds pejorative, but it simply means that we don’t truly understand commuter traffic or electricity flow or the inner workings of the cacao genome, and as a result our highways, utility grids, and cash crops are not managed as effectively as they could be.
The good news is that we now have the technology to convert these analog distribution systems into multidirectional “smart” networks. Readily available sensor technologies like RFID chips and digital video can track movements in granular detail. Cheap data storage, powerful analytics software, and abundant computing capacity give us the ability to warehouse and make sense of all that information. With the knowledge we’re gaining, we can remake our world in a more efficient way…
…So Palmisano is encouraging his employees to think even bigger, to scout out any dumb network that can be made smarter. Because, as any self-respecting capitalist knows, in great pain lies dormant profit. “We are looking at huge problems that couldn’t be solved before. We can solve congestion and pollution. We can make the grids more efficient,” he says. “And quite honestly, it creates a big business opportunity.”
By now, you probably understand why this resonated with me; there is significant congruence with the themes explored here and that underpin the foundations of out investment thesis at Nauiokas Park. In particular applying the amazingly powerful computing technologies that exist today to make sense of highly complex systems and networks, and of course to analyze and extract meaning from enormous and growing data sets. (Of course it’s also nice that they seem to have been inspired by our logo when designing their icon for ‘Smarter Money’!) On their website, IBM describes the opportunity they see for Smarter Money for a Smarter Planet:
Money, in other words, has been reduced to zeros and ones. It’s intangible, invisible. It’s information. Which is central both to the problem we face and to its solution.
Without question, the replacement of physical money with electronic money — and the spectrum of financial innovations that have accompanied it — have helped the world’s economy grow and prosper. But our technical and management systems haven’t kept pace. They couldn’t provide warning signals of risk concentrations, over-leveraging or underpricing. Banks could repackage risk and sell it, but they couldn’t value an individual loan in order to unwind the debt when needed. However, the same digitisation that has helped create this challenge is starting to provide the means to solve it. Intelligence is being infused into the way the world works, including our financial systems.
We’re all aware of advances like online banking, but the transformation happening underneath is far more profound.
Unprecedented computing power and advanced analytics can turn oceans of ones and zeros into insights, in realtime. Which means we could potentially have a more transparent, predictable and intelligent financial system for a smarter planet.
While it is very exciting to see a giant like IBM get behind such an intelligent and forward thinking strategy, I must admit I was a little disappointed not to find more substance on the Smarter Planet websites. It’s not that I suspect this is just a nice marketing campaign, rather that the communications department needs to work a bit harder to plug in to the projects and ideas IBM is working on in the trenches so to speak to make this vision a reality. And I think they could do more to engage a wider community through their Smarter Planet Blog and/or other social communication tools. Again as it is now it seems a bit sterile and very much a one-way broadcast, as opposed to a two-way dialog. Indeed one of the things I’ve tried to do – both through this blog and with our company – is to help to build a community of people interested in debating and shaping the future of financial services and markets. I think we have had some success, however I have nothing like the reach or resources of a giant like IBM and so it would be fantastic if they were to join the conversation and amplify it far beyond our modest community.
The Fortune article concludes:
Leadership positions, as the company knows all too well, come and go. But with luck, the tone of “Smarter planet” will remain. The message – that technology can be deployed to greater ends than creating the next fetishized cellphone – is bigger than any single company. And so, too, is Palmisano’s epiphany. He deftly led IBM out of the dotcom doldrums. Perhaps more important, he has revealed a model for monetizing scientific research in a way that benefits humanity.
Sure, not everyone can afford $6 billion a year for R&D. But real innovation rarely comes from big, rich companies. With luck, IBM’s ad campaign, coupled with its blowout 2008, will call scientists and entrepreneurs to arms. They’ll see our archaic global shipping infrastructure, a dilapidated educational system, disappearing honeybees, the fraud on Wall Street, and think, I know how to fix that. And I can make a killing doing it.
![Reblog this post [with Zemanta]](http://img.zemanta.com/reblog_c.png?x-id=d8c5706e-8417-408a-a91e-b05987719cc9)
When I read this story on 
pops into my head…
Well now they are paying for it. We all are paying for it. ![Reblog this post [with Zemanta]](http://img.zemanta.com/reblog_c.png?x-id=5a146aa2-03b8-4e06-8804-34b683c960f2)
![Reblog this post [with Zemanta]](http://img.zemanta.com/reblog_c.png?x-id=b21c0510-de31-4fea-9846-ed5dcc85d0f0)
.![Reblog this post [with Zemanta]](http://img.zemanta.com/reblog_c.png?x-id=a4272783-c639-411b-8dc0-46ec738ffc57)
![Reblog this post [with Zemanta]](http://img.zemanta.com/reblog_c.png?x-id=5e6a58eb-cbd2-4c6a-98e4-5b80c55b7380)
)![Reblog this post [with Zemanta]](http://img.zemanta.com/reblog_c.png?x-id=b13eaef4-25d1-4177-84c6-4cd402017f50)
By now, you probably understand why this resonated with me; there is significant congruence with the themes explored here and that underpin the foundations of out investment thesis at ![Reblog this post [with Zemanta]](http://img.zemanta.com/reblog_c.png?x-id=854c3cc5-9621-4020-a308-66b6d1ecc635)
