jueves, abril 26, 2012

Dominican@: vota por el que más facilite la transición hacia un sistema político eficaz

Resumen: Sugiero que para votar de forma inteligente, no nos quedemos en elegir, por ejemplo, el menos malo de entre todos los candidatos. El artículo explica los argumentos para que pensemos cuidadosamente cuál sería el mejor candidato para que los dominicanos podamos cambiar el sistema político en medio de la Tercera Revolución Industrial. En vez de una decisión simplista, enlacemos con esa otra decisión que mejor se adecua a la compleja situación que tenemos por delante.

Actualización del 2 de abril, 2012: La pregunta del millón de pesos es ¿cómo les avisamos de esta alternativa a los ciudadanos que estaban dispuestos a votar por Dr. Ninguno? Para ofrecer su respuesta lea en acento.com el artículo "Vota por el que más facilite la transición hacia un sistema eficaz." Dicho artculo es el resultado de intercambios adicionales en Linkedin, de recibir un valioso comentario por email y de un “tweet” muy sorpresivo que introdujo al Dr. Ninguno.

José Antonio Vanderhorst Silverio, Ph.D.
Consultor Sistémico
Miembro de la Academia de Ciencias de la República Dominicana
Miembro Vitalicio Senior del Instituto de Ingenieros Eléctricos y Electrónicos
26 de abril, 2012


Cuando los arquitectos de sistemas ven que la solución a un problema es muy difícil, aumentan el alcance del problema y muchas veces el problema se simplifica. La mayoría de los dominicanos sabemos que la elección por sí sola de ningún candidato va a resolver nuestros problemas. Es por eso que sugiero que votemos con un alcance electoral más amplio.

Por lo que nos han estado vendiendo con las encuestas, supongo que la mayoría se hace la misma pregunta, que se planteó en el Grupo de Linkedin The Dominican Connection (algo así como La Conexión Dominicana),  "¿Qué candidato cree usted que sería más capaz de arreglar la economía dominicana como presidente, Hipólito Mejía y Danilo Medina?"

Al leer muchos comentarios interesantes en esa discusión, decidí escribir parte de lo que ha venido pasando por mi mente en este proceso electoral. Creo que la discusión sugiere una simple decisión a la pregunta misma, como un debate que podría terminar obviamente, a los males menores de dos o más opciones como la más popular. También creo que una decisión simple de los votantes no se corresponde con la compleja situación que se está viviendo en el país y en el mundo.

Pero, ¿estaremos preparados para cambiar la discusión de un debate a un diálogo generativo? La diferencia entre el debate y el diálogo generativo es que en el primero se trata de aprender del pasado, mientras que en el segundo se trata de aprender del futuro emergente. Este segundo enfoque no es tan ampliamente extendido y practicado como el primero. En este caso los votantes se enfrentarán con al menos dos decisiones enlazadas.

Voy a tratar de ilustrar la diferencia. Muchos de los movimientos independientes de la década de 1800, que siguió el ejemplo de la revolución francesa y la americana, tuvieron la oportunidad de debatir y aprender del pasado. Para aprender del futuro emergente, lo que necesitamos, por ejemplo, es entender que esos países estaban pasando de la dependencia hacia la independencia.

Desde que la globalización surgió, hemos estado en un largo proceso de cambio desde la independencia a la interdependencia. Sin embargo, la mayoría de las constituciones están siendo impulsadas por la independencia en un mundo interdependiente. Por ejemplo, la Constitución Dominicana de 2010 todavía se basa en la separación de poderes.

Como el proceso actual se mueve desde la independencia a la interdependencia, sin embargo, no hay buenos ejemplos a seguir. De hecho, uno de los países desarrollados, como Grecia, Italia, España, Portugal, podría dar el ejemplo a seguir. Es ahora que ellos están luchando, mientras que otros, como Haití y República Dominicana, hemos estado luchando la mayor parte del tiempo con la revolución anterior. Estos últimos usaron el debate para aprender sobre el pasado, pero algo que funciono bien en otro entorno político, no ha funcionado aquí todavía. Una vez pasada las elecciones, es muy probable que sea mucho mejor saltar etapa en algunos aspectos del nuevo sistema político, como ha pasado, por ejemplo, de las redes telefónicas alámbricas a las inalambricas.

Afirmo, que el final de la depresión y la aparición de un nuevo orden político, económico y social ya está por llegar. Con él, un nuevo sistema político está a punto de emerger, como sucedió en Francia y los Estados Unidos. Mi tesis es apoyada por muchos años de trabajo sistémico como parte del esfuerzo en lo que llamo el Grupo Millennium Hipaniola, en que sugiero "una propuesta para contribuir a la transformación de la República Dominicana y Haití en países desarrollados durante este siglo.".

El punto de inflexión puede verse en la revista The Economist, que esta semana tiene un reportaje con varios artículos que explica que ya estamos viviendo en La Tercera Revolución Industrial. También afirmo que en mis prácticas identifiqué que las instituciones multilaterales deben ser objeto de grandes cambios (tal vez hasta ser reemplazadas) para poder detener el status quo de la Segunda Revolución Industrial, que ellas protegen.

El concepto de interdependencia está íntimamente asociado con el punto de vista de sistema. Desde un punto de vista no sistémico, la corrupción es fácilmente trasladada a funcionarios corruptos. Sin embargo, bajo un enfoque sistémico somos capaces de escribir de la corrupción sistémica, como algo mucho peor que lo que ocurre al nivel individual de los funcionarios corruptos. En este sentido, hay que preguntarse si, o no, los gobiernos de los países, y también los organismos multilaterales, participan en los males actuales producidos de forma interdependiente por la corrupción sistémica, como podría ser inducido por el sistema de cabildeo para impedir el progreso. Eso es ampliar el alcance para poder ver el conjunto.

Esta es mi conjetura sobre el sistema político que surgirá en el mundo: un sistema político eficaz es aquel en que los subsistemas ejecutivo, legislativo y judicial son interdependientes y se refuerzan mutuamente para ofrecer el mayor bienestar social. Supongo que debe ser la base para lo que creo es una cuestión mucho mejor a votar en las próximas elecciones.

El cambio de objetivo va desde la simple decisión de elegir a un Presidente hacia otra que apunta a una decisión enlazada que haga espacio suficiente para introducir un sistema político eficaz.

martes, abril 24, 2012

La Educación Para la Prosperidad Requiere Hacer Camino al Andar

Segunda actualización. En la relación #China-#RepDom, ¿harán los Caminantes #GlobalDebout un Camino con Corazón para Garatas y Precarios? Para empezar, sugiero que es imprescindible leer esta nota en su totalidad para reconocer como los Garatas siguen un Camino sin Corazón que hace que los Precarios vayan como el cangrejo en su precriedad, sin reconocer la gran importancia de promover a los pocos Caminantes pueden dejar de hacer Caminos sin Corazón, para hacer Caminos con Corazón al andar.

Aquí actualizo a grandes rasgos el guion que se basó inicialmente en la Visión Compartida de Futuro del Grupo Millennium Hispaniola, para informar que ha llegado el momento de transformar la educación, dando seguimiento a lo que ya sabemos sobre el sector eléctrico y la globalización. Es así como podemos dejar en el pasado las tácticas obsoletas de corto plazo sin hacer camino al andar. para saltar a una estrategia de largo plazo hacia un Camino con Corazón.

Puedo decirles que cuando logré preparar la estrategia para el sector eléctrico hice la conjetura de que no se trataba solo de una gran oleada tecnológica de la civilización industrial, sino la primera gran oleada de lo que acuñe como la civilización sistémica. En ese sentido, como la civilización sistémica hace necesario el cambio de una estrategia nacional a una global, el antecedente en Twitter de esta actualización es la narrativa ¿Podrá el 3er debate electoral de #Mexico saltar con el #MCGA del #TLCAN y de #DRCAFTA al #NOCAU? que viene del Blog de Medium que es donde vengo convirtiendo lo que hacemos la tuitosfera. 


Momentáneamente dejo ese blog para actualizar esta nota, al integrar varias notas de este, mi viejo Blog GMH, no solo para justificar los cambios de dos de las tres clases de personas, sino principalmente para dar a conocer el siguiente intercambio de tuits, que se explican por sí mismos, acompañados de imágenes legibles sin tener que saltar a Twitter para leerlas.






Conforme a lo indicado arriba, empiezo a integrar con la nota Zombis, turistas y caminantes del 2017, tomando en cuenta el comentario que hice horas después de publicar el texto inicial en el 2012 que dice: 
… quiero aplatanar a los Zombies y Turistas. ¿Qué les parece Desrumbaos, en vez de Zombies, por aquello de que no tienen rumbo, por falta de educación? ¿Qué les parece Garatas, por aquello de Martín Garata, en vez de Turistas? 
Como se puede ver debajo de ese comentario nadie opinó sobre “Desrumbaos.” Por eso ahora sugiero que la palabra adecuada es Precarios, asimilando la que sugirió Guy Standing en su libro “El precariado. Una nueva clase social,” publicado en 2014. 

Aunque Standing no incluye a los pobres en su definición, con el fin de mantener solo tres clases, que para nuestros fines corresponden a las grandes masas de población en un sola clase, que se beneficiarán al recibir una propuesta en la segunda etapa que no están esperando, pero les encantará, como resultado del esfuerzo de un grupo selecto de Caminantes #GlobalDebout de todo el mundo en la primera etapa. La relación de la República Dominicana con China podría ser en etos momentos la primera oportundad. 

Finalmente, aunque el cambio de Turista por Garatas trae una idea local, en un mundo donde Turista es una expresión global, creo que se le da a los turistas una connotación que no le corresponde. Sugiero que el personaje hipotético Martín Garata. qque le gusstan los mangos bajitos, puede servir mejor la función, que aparece en los versos de Juan Antonio Alix, en la nota Si Queremos Controlar los Mangos Bajitos, Tenemos que Trepar la Mata Hasta los Cogollitos.

Primera actualización. ¿Podrá México hacer el camino al andar en el Objetivo de Desarrollo Sustentable (#ODS4 #SDG4) de la Educación de Calidad en la civilización sistémica? Los dominicanos debemos admitir que han pasado casi cinco años y no hemos hecho camino al andar con el Pacto Educativo que desoyó el planteamiento sugerido en el texto inicial de esta nota.
Lo que sí hemos hecho es desarrollar el camino al andar del pensamiento del Objetivo de Desarrollo Sustentable (#ODS7 #SDG7) de la Energía Asequible y Limpia. Cobra entonces mucho sentido, el tuit siguiente que lleva una imagen con el título "El #FinDeLaImpunidad de la democracia representativa anti-sistémica es global."

Dicho tuit sugiere que los Estados concentren su atención en el Objetivo de Desarrollo Sustentable más anti-sistémico, que indudablemente es la educación en México y la Energía en República Dominicana. La oportunidad es que México puede hacer camino al andar en Educación siguiendo el camino que República Dominicana ya ha hecho en Energía. Lo que sigue refleja los avances más importantes que hemos hecho y los que no hemos hecho.

Hemos descubierto que no puede haber una revolución industrial. Por eso, las metas retadoras que se esperaban del Segundo Congreso Industrial no se han logrado, porque como anticipamos no eran razonables. Hemos descubierto también que no se trata solamente de una revolución tecnológica, con precedentes de como 50 años, sino de una revolución de la información cuyo precedente es de 500 años que sustenta la llegada de una nueva civilzación, que hemos venido llamado la civilización sistemica.

La preocupación sobre que "se queda aparentemente muy cercana al corto plazo, cuando la educación es eminentemente una tarea de largo plazo," ha sido confirmada con creces con el cambio del desarrollo del sendero industrial al sendero sistémico, donde "El Decálogo del Caminante" sugiere la necesidad de que la educación aumente significamente el porcentaje de Caminantes, a expensas de los Zombies y los Turistas. 

Hemos descubierto que los Caminantes necesitan aprovechar el Gran Cambio informatico para desarrollar su actitud científica orientada a la acción que les permitirá acercarse al Tercer Grado de Claridad, que es el que minimiza las consecuencias inintencionadas en el futuro, que son las que superan la creciente incertidumbre de la Globalización Oscura que como mucho se aproxima al Segundo Grado de Claridad. 

Esas consecuencias inintenciadas por parte de los Turistas (por ejemplo, los políticos), que nos han traído la debacle de Odebrecht, permite justificar la disminución de oportunidades con el cambio de los incentivos de gobierno para esos Turistas con la migración de la democracia representativa del Estado a la democracia directa del mercado sistémico que sería impulsada por los Caminantes. El cambio de dichos incentivos impactarán también a la significativa reducción de los Zombies diseñando un sistema adecuado para sustituir el presente anti-sistema de educación. Es importante destacar, que en dicho sistema el sentimiento estético y la acción ética se elevarán al mismo nivel del pensamiento lógico.

La Educación Para la Prosperidad Requiere Hacer Camino al Andar

“Caminante son tus huellas El camino nada más;
caminante no hay camino se hace camino al andar.”
Antonio Machado

Como se describe en el reportaje de la revista The Economist, sobre La Tercera Revolución Industrial, (enlace añadido el 14 de mayo, 2012) que contiene varios artículos, el mundo que nos ha tocado vivir está en los albores de grandes oportunidades. Sin embargo, necesitamos estar conscientes de cuales son esas oportunidades lo más pronto posible.

En ese sentido, sugiero que contrastemos lo que aparece en el artículo El Segundo Congreso Industrial, en que el economista Roberto Despradel expresa que “El sector se planteó unas metas retadoras, pero alcanzables para los próximos cinco años: lograr incrementar las exportaciones de US$8,500 millones a US$20 mil millones, crear  200 mil nuevas fuentes de trabajo, aumentar el número de industrias de  7,000 a 10 mil, e incrementar de 200 a 500 las empresas que exportan más de un millón de dólares anuales.”

Mi humilde preocupación es que esas metas son fruto de un consenso en vez de lo que aparece en la larga nota Cambiemos el Modelo Económico con Una Actitud Científica Orientada a la Acción. En ese sentido, por ejemplo, la creación de 200 mil nuevas fuentes de trabajo no parece razonable de acuerdo a lo que entendí del Economíst, que lamentablemente ha salido a relucir justo después que terminara el referido congreso.

Argumento, muy respetuosamente, que el reportaje del Economist se acerca mucho más a la Visión Compartida de Futuro del Grupo Millennium Hispaniola, que elaboramos con la colaboración de destacadas personalidades a finales del año 2009. Dicha visión se inicia con:

De acuerdo a la Dra. Carlota Pérez, las grandes oleadas tecnológicas NO SOLO AGREGAN nuevas industrias, como las de las información y las telecomunicaciones.
TAMBIÉN PRODUCEN:

• El rejuvenecimiento de todas las industrias pre-existentes
• Un cambio significativo en la conducta social
• Un cambio radical en los patrones de inversión
• Profundos cambios institucionales

Conforme a la visión compartida del GMH podemos empezar con una estrategia orientada al mercado global, centrada en el rejuvenecimiento de la educación, la electricidad y la salud, desplegando el potencial de las tecnologías de información y telecomunicaciones a esos sectores. Con ello se pretende un cambio radical en la cultura de dichos sectores, con una recomposición institucional que facilite la inversión productiva a largo plazo local y extranjera que los transforme en nuestras principales marcas-país.

Mirando más allá de cinco años, la lucha por el 4% para la Educación puede tener un efecto muy positivo para dotar a la gente de oportunidades de superación en ese nuevo mundo. Sin embargo, sigo preocupado también, por lo que sugerí hace un año en esa larga nota que se queda aparentemente muy cercana al corto plazo, cuando la educación es eminentemente una tarea de largo plazo:

Un examen de la campaña “4% del PIB ¿Para qué?” revela lo poco ambicioso que es el movimiento “4% Para Una Educación Digna,” al basarse en creencias obsoletas que se contentan con soluciones del pasado:

• Contratar más maestras y maestros, ya que hacen falta alrededor de 58,000.
• Construir 10,000 nuevas escuelas y rehabilitar 12,000 aulas actualmente en mal estado.
• Dotar los centros educativos de agua potable, instalaciones sanitarias, bibliotecas, áreas deportivas y recreativas.
• Fortalecer la formación de docentes y el pago de salarios dignos.
• Suministrar los recursos didácticos, material gastable, mobiliario y equipos necesarios.
• Proveer un adecuado desayuno escolar.
• Incorporar a 632,000 niñas, niños y adolescentes que están fuera del sistema educativo.

Ligando la cita de Machado, que resulta obvia, con lo que digo a seguidas, creo haber encontrado una forma simple de transmitir el mensaje de que podemos hacer para dar el mejor uso a los fondos asignados a la educación. En un mundo que para ayudar a desarrollar el país y su gente creo que puede ayudar lo que sugiere en su muy oportuno libro, “Decálogo del Caminante,” el escritor y ex-ministro de trabajo de España, Manuel Pimentel.

Debo admitir que solamente escuché la entrevista que le hicieron Juanjo y Marta en el programa Para Todos la 2 del canal rtve del 23 de abril del 2012. No obstante, ese hecho no me impide desarrollar mi conjetura. Basta conocer que, de forma muy apropiada, Pimentel clasifica la población en Zombies, Turistas y Caminantes, con 60%, 35% y 5%, respectivamente. Me parece que nuestros porcentajes tienen más Zombies, más Turistas y menos Caminantes, pero sugiero más adelante que para cambiarlos vamos a necesitar mucho más que educación.

Entre varias cualidades, Pimentel dice que los Zombies son aquellas personas que no tienen metas, ni ideales. Siguen a la mayoría y se mueven por instintos muy básicos. Él dice que uno mismo nunca se ve como un Zombie, pero que estos tienen una vocación muy tenaz a serlo y que lamentablemente ese porcentaje está creciendo. En cuanto a los Turistas, el los describe simplemente como gente más inquieta que le gusta lucir y presumir. Parece que hace falta que vía la educación surja un cambio de valores.

Siendo evidentemente los protagonistas de su libro, los Caminantes tiene una noción más trascendente del camino; son capaces de verse desde fuera; plantean no solamente el cómo, sino sobre todo el para qué y el porqué. Creo que Machado podría decir que los Caminantes son los que con su andar hacen las huellas del camino al desarrollo.

Creo también que el filosofo americano Charles Sanders Peirce le agregaría que para poder realizar ese desarrollo, los Caminantes necesitan emplear simultáneamente el pensamiento lógico, el sentimiento estético y la acción ética. En sentido amplio, los Caminantes son personas con una actitud científica orientada a la acción, como se explica en la larga nota ya mencionada de la cual extraemos lo siguiente:

¿Qué envuelve una actitud científica para la acción? La vieja creencia de que “…el pasado es la base del futuro…” es obsoleta, porque supone que las lecciones para avanzar sólo vienen del pasado para afectar el presente, basándose en las lógicas de la inducción y la deducción. Pierce, el padre de la semiótica moderna, descubrió la abducción o lógica de la sorpresa que supone lecciones para avanzar que vienen del futuro para modificar el presente, por medio de una actitud científica para la acción.

Sugiero que la clasificación de Pimentel refleja muy bien la población que se necesita educar y puede ser un elemento clave para iniciar una transformación hacia el desarrollo con una actitud científica orientada a la acción. Simultáneamente, es necesario usar esa actitud para crear el ambiente propicio para lograr el mayor rendimiento de la inversión en educación, para lo cual es imprescindiblemente necesario un cambio en el sistema de gobierno.

El cambio de sistema de gobierno debe empezar por reducir significativamente los incentivos que tienen los Turistas, especialmente, por ejemplo,  los políticos cuyo objetivo es lograr un puesto en la administración pública. Esa para mi es la principal fuente de la corrupción sistémica que vive el país. Todos los Turistas se nutren de una economía de consumo a la que los Caminantes que contribuyen al desarrollo en ocasiones no pueden acceder. Los estudiantes necesitan conocer y emular el ejemplo de los mejores Caminantes.

Para que una economía sea sostenible, es necesario que exista un equilibrio entre Caminantes y Turistas. Un desequilibrio explica el gran consumo de los Turistas de bienes innecesarios impulsados, entiendo que más que todo es resultado de la ignorancia o la falta de educación. El argumento que esgrimo es el de impulsar la inteligencia espiritual de la gente, para que equilibren el consumo de bienes materiales con el consumo de servicios culturales de parte de los Turistas. Yo sé que es fácil decirlo, pero muy difícil aplicarlo.

Usando la analogía que puso de moda el consultor a la competitividad sistémica Villarreal, en vez de comportarse como los Caminantes, que se ponen en formación como los gansos, muchos Turistas se comportan como cangrejos en una cubeta para halar a los caminantes hacia el fondo del recipiente. Para desarrollar el país es necesario cambiar el sistema de gobierno de forma que se reconozca el esfuerzo de los Caminantes. Si entiendo bien, un propósito de la educación no menos importante sería reducir la gran masa de Zombies que tenemos en el país, para que tengan oportunidades para desarrollarse.

domingo, abril 22, 2012

How Utilities that Become Tech Companies Might Develop Business Model Innovations

In the article From volume to value: Why utilities MUST change their business model (and one way to get started), Jesse Berst introduces an approach that goes from one end of a continuum, to the other, going through three roles that he calls infrastructure on one extreme, intermediary somewhere in the middle, and innovator in the opposite end.

He clarifies that “The volume-to-value continuum is a metaphor. In the real world, of course, the boundaries between these roles will blur; other new roles will appear. The three roles are not mutually exclusive. It is quite possible to imagine a utility that innovates one or two services, while also acting as an intermediary for several more, while also maintaining its traditional infrastructure role.”

Next is a hyperlinked version that merges the comments “Continuum Versus Discrete Smart Grid Evolution” and “The Second Generation Retailer is Just a Tech Company“ that I posted under Jesse’s article.

Hi Jesse,

Thank you for repeating this interesting continuum approach, which I respect a lot. Next, I will contrast it with the EWPC-AF discrete approach that emerged through me. A lot of the though behind the continuum also applies to the discrete approach.

I wonder if the business concept “stuck in the middle” would apply, leading to the traditional low cost and high value, either/or discrete polarization.

This is how the power industry whole gets split in two highly cohesive subsystems that are lightly coupled among them:

1) A low cost wires-only T&D (Smart) Grid regulated utility. This is critical, but it no longer owns the retail customer interface.

2) A high value innovative Enterprise (Smart) Market “Second Generation Retailer” tech company. This is where business model innovations are expected on the customer interface.

That's what has been emerging through me as the EWPC-AF, which I said a year ago may be renamed as the Value Added Electricity Architecture Framework (VAE-AF).

3) Utilities should not be forbidden of trying the intermediary role as a transition tactic, but I suspect it is a losing “stuck in the middle” strategy in the long run.

Next is a list of this year EWPC post entries, most recent first, after about half a year of inactivity.

jueves, abril 19, 2012

Should Smart Grid Startups Depend Mostly on Utilities Executives Challenges?

Summary: To meet challenges faced by utility executives, smart grid startups are trapped by utilities as their only customer via a power industry architecture that was designed in the “Integrated Energy and Communication Systems Architecture (IECSA) project, circa 2003.” To avoid traps like those, an IEEE Systemic Code of Ethics has been suggested. The article is supported by 10 references.

I am very impressed with Eamonn McCormick’s Linkedin profile as an Enterprise Architecture consultant. On the contrary, no one should expect that I am an Enterprise Architect. I am certainly not. I recently discovered that I should call myself “Socio-Technical Electric Power Industry System Designer,” which in part differentiates me, for example, from Enterprise Architects.

In fact, the design work that has emerged through me [1], since 1996, is about the electric power industry as a whole and is calling for restructuring that will give rise to, for example, what I define as Second Generation Retailers – 2GRs [2] that will need the service of Enterprise Architects to develop competitive business model innovations [3].

I am also very impressed with the article [4], also written by Chi Lee, that Eamonn McCormick used to start the discussion “A Mission Oriented Smart Grid Architecture – Is it possible?” I just had the insight, that without any loss of generality, I can borrow the introduction of their article, as the status quo solution, while respecting their mission oriented smart grid architecture concept.

The argument given in several Greentechgrid ( www.greentechmedia.com ) articles to support that insight, is synthesized by then, as they write that the "… Smart grid spending has hit the doldrums. With stimulus money accounted for, utilities are working hard to manage their existing deployments and aren’t eager to start new projects. In the meantime, VCs are coming to terms with the fact that utilities are slow to adapt new technologies and subject to all kinds of reversals from customers and regulators. Home energy management, the smart grid segment that garnered a majority of VC cash back in 2008 or so, has yet to take off at all.”

In addition, Lee and McCormick ask and immediately respond themselves: “What does all this mean? One thing that this means is that the "bubble" days of Smart Grid is coming to an end and the "burden" of Smart Grid is going to fall back on the IT departments. Silicon Valley has failed to create a "silver bullet" and IT departments needs to seriously evaluate how they are going to address the long term Smart Grid challenge.”

As a result, they jumped to the question “Can IT departments create a mission oriented smart grid architecture?” Being professionals, they also wrote “[o]f course there are other major hurdles for Smart Grid but these challenges in particular cannot be easily addressed by our traditional IT architectures.”

However, saying YES to that question is nothing less that a thinking trap in which, for example, many IEEE members might fall, while thinking that they are fully satisfying the IEEE Code of Ethics. To avoid such a major hurdle trap, I have suggested an IEEE Systemic Code of Ethics [5]. Since the status quo has not come forward, I am very happy to be able to debunk their current smart grid development, without needing their direct response [6].

In hindsight, it now seems very simple to show where the trap is. Hitting the hyperlink “utilities are slow to adapt new technologies,” in their article’s webpage [4], I found the article "Guest Post: Smart Grid, Dumb Investor? Investing in the smart grid is difficult and riddled with potholes. Why? [7],” by Richard MacKellar, Managing Director at Chrysalix Energy Venture Capital.” MacKellar gave many important reasons why, but only one of them is sufficient enough to explain why Venture Capitalists are not investing: "...we prefer smart grid plays where electric utilities are not the only customer. A customer? Yes, but the only customer? No."

Utilities as the only customer to startups is where the thinking trap lies: the power industry architecture was designed as “Integrated Energy and Communication Systems Architecture (IECSA) project, circa 2003,” to meet the challenges faced by utility executives [8,9,10]. No wonder VCs find that it “… is difficult and riddled with potholes...” We need 2GRs startups that will develop business models without the interference of utilities, where a mission oriented 2GR architecture might be able to participate in an architecture competition.

References:

[2] Second Generation Retailers, July 17, 2007, GMH Blog
[3] The Sixth Disruptive Technology, September 30, 2007, EWPC Blog.
[4] Market Solution to Our Energy Needs, Chi Lee and Eamonn McCormick, April 15, 2012, Renewablesplus Blog.

[10] Why Customers Will Be "Mad as Hell" With the Current Smart Grid, April 17, 2012, EWPC Blog.

martes, abril 17, 2012

Why Customers Will Be "Mad as Hell" With the Current Smart Grid

John Egan, President, Egan Energy Communications, Inc, wrote on 3.29.12, the timely EnergyPulse.net article "Utility Customers are 'Mad as Hell' -- Can Utilities Find a Path to Peace? Based on what happened to regulated railroads, my conjecture is that such a question leaves very likely an empty space. That's why I suggest to increase the solution's scope.

Rewriting said question, by changing utilities with railroads, it reads "Railroad Customers are "Mad as Hell" -- Can Railroads Find a Path to Peace?" Each of us knows that cars, trucks, airplanes, customers didn’t find a path to peace from railroads. They found peace from suppliers of transportation solutions in the open market and the provision of new infrastructures that facilitated travel without the intervention of railroads executives.

This post aims to further support the EWPC post Why and How the Status Quo Should Respond to Criticism on Current Smart Grid Developments, by highlighting a missed opportunity to correct the huge architecting flaw introduced in the Energy Policy Act of 1992. That specific criticism about the new power industry infrastructure, also known as the Smart Grid, can be found in the article Should the Smart Grid be a Technological Project to Address a Challenge Faced by Utility Executives?

Just as I rewrote the above question, paraphrasing a quote in that article as a challenge to railroad executives, would say that:
… the interstate highway system project, circa 1930, where under the title “THE NEED FOR AN INDUSTRY ARCHITECTURE,” … it is written that “There is a two-part answer to the question, “Why it is necessary to develop an industry architecture?’ First, it must be understood that the challenge facing railroad executives is keeping the trains running while also enhancing the value of services to consumer… The second, and more powerful argument, is that the only way to address the challenge railroad executives face is to go back to basics, understand why the current system doesn’t perform as needed, and then to design the highway system from the ground up.”



domingo, abril 15, 2012

How Active IEEE Members Might be Prepared to Embody the Change that Needs to Happen for Advancing Technology for Humanity.

Summary: Following Gandhi’s wisdom, this thread is intended as a semaphore for all IEEE members to contribute in Advancing Technology for Humanity.

How Active IEEE Members Might be Prepared to Embody the Change that Needs to Happen for Advancing Technology for Humanity.


By José Antonio Vanderhorst Silverio, Ph.D.
Systemic Consultant: Electricity
Socio-Technical Electric Power Industry System Designer
IEEE Life Senior Member
April 15, 2012

“Be the change you want to see in the world”
-- Mahatma Gandhi

This thread is intended as a semaphore for “Discussions Leaders” to drive other threads into “Still Active Discussion” designed as a mean to an end. In this sense, all the threads mentioned below are meant to the final end or purpose of Advancing Technology for Humanity. It is proposed that the adoption of an IEEE Systemic Code of Ethics might insure that all IEEE Members will be prepared to embody the change that needs to happen for that purpose.

For example, the thread “What You Might Do as a Discussion Leader When an Old Linkedin Discussion Shows Up as a ‘New Discussion,’ [1]” that includes ‘… my humble thesis of a practical theory on how discussions (or any other social network conversations) might go viral,’ is meant to instruct and also to act as a semaphore for driving to the thread “First Draft: Let’s Emulate Uno Lamm’s Accomplishments Through Imagination and Truth [2].”

It is clear that the meaning of “Discussions Leaders” can be thought to be limited to a group moderator or those of us that start discussions. However, I want to clarify that what I intended to mean was about any IEEE member who is prepared to follow Gandhi’s quote in any thread by being the change they “… want to see in the world.”

As the discussion “Does the IEEE Code of Ethics Fully Supports Advancing Technology For Humanity? [3,4,5]” seem to have been sufficiently debated, but under a process of significant distortion, I suggested that “Discussion Leaders” should drive over into the “First Draft…” thread that shows a more complete and rich context, which “… mixes the battle for the IEEE Systemic Code of Ethics into the war for the Value Added Electricity Architecture Framework (VAE-AF).”

Even though the thread “A Guess About Preventing World Economy Collapse by 2030 [6],” was interfered right at the start, I hope IEEE members may still act as “Discussions Leaders” to help in Advancing Technology for Humanity. One approach that might help drive this thread into an interesting “Still Active Discussion” is in the recent EWPC post “Why and How the Status Quo Should Respond to Criticism on Current Smart Grid Developments [7]” that was prepared by selecting a section of the “First Draft” thread.

I now think that still an even better approach to the “A Guess…” thread might result from the recent comments in the IEEE Smart Grid Group. Instead of the above affirmation, maybe the question “Will that 2030 Collapse be the Result of IEEE Movers and Shakers that didn’t follow a Systemic Code of Ethics?” will help them be ready to respond to that criticism.

This GMH Blog article is posted simultaneously to the IEEE Smart Grid Group, The Official IEEE Group, the IEEE SSIT Group, the IEEE Senior Members Group and the IEEE Spectrum Group.

[1] What You Might Do as a Discussion Leader When an Old Linkedin Discussion Shows Up as a “New Discussion,” April 13, 2012, GMH Blog.
[2] First Draft: Let’s Emulate Uno Lamm’s Accomplishments Through Imagination and Truth, April 11, 2012, GMH Blog.
[3] Does the IEEE Code of Ethics Fully Supports Advancing Technology For Humanity?, IEEE Smart Grid Group of Linkedin.
[4] Does the IEEE Code of Ethics Fully Supports Advancing Technology For Humanity?, IEEE SSIT Group of Linkedin.
[5] Does the IEEE Code of Ethics Fully Supports Advancing Technology For Humanity?, IEEE Spectrum Group of Linkedin.
[6] A Guess About Preventing World Economy Collapse by 2030, IEEE Smart Grid Group of Linkedin.
[7] Why and How the Status Quo Should Respond to Criticism on Current Smart Grid Developments, April 13, 2012, EWPC Blog.


viernes, abril 13, 2012

What You Might Do as a Discussion Leader When an Old Linkedin Discussion Shows Up as a “New Discussion.”

This is my humble thesis of a practical theory on how discussions (or any other social network conversations) might go viral. Influenced by the great American scientific philosopher Charles Sanders Peirce, whose recognition came almost a century later [1], I suggest that the process is not simply...

By José Antonio Vanderhorst Silverio, Ph.D.
Systemic Consultant: Electricity
Socio-Technical Electric Power Industry System Designer
IEEE Life Senior Member
April 13, 2012

When an old discussion shows up as a “New Discussion” in an e-mail notification of Linkedin, it is likely that it may have been filtered in order no to show as a “Still Active Discussion” with a few lead words that might make a big difference to capture your attention away from the information overload. My counterintuitive suggestion to discussion leaders is to be well aware that someone may not want you to consider an important issue for you that might be becoming viral with your timely help.

This is my humble thesis of a practical theory on how discussions (or any other social network conversations) might go viral. Influenced by the great American scientific philosopher Charles Sanders Peirce, whose recognition came almost a century later [1], I suggest that the process is not simply logical, but also ethical and esthetical. I understand that it has to do not just with the logical thinking, but with the esthetical sentiments that trigger an ethical decision. Influenced now by Malcolm Gladwell, I also understand that, to reach “The Tipping Point” in order to go viral, only a few leaders in the community need to be convinced, the rest will be convinced directly or indirectly by their leaders.

Such has been the case, once again, of the discussion “Does the IEEE Code of Ethics Fully Supports Advancing Technology For Humanity? [2, 3, 4]” that for example, today, unlike two other “Still Active Discussions” in which I participated that did show up and unlike many days before, this time did not show up consistently in any of the 5 concurrent IEEE groups as a “Still Active Discussion.” Since this now is a much larger Linkedin issue that has repeatedly happened, this discussion is now beyond the public IEEE groups. Next is a compressed version of the “Still Active Discussion” comment that showed up as a “New Discussion.” To see the whole comment, please go the actual discussion [2].

Călin Radu Vilt wrote: “Excellent discussion! Congratulations to all of You and specially to Mr. Jose Antonio Vanderhorst-Silverio for the initiative of the subject !...” This was 19 days ago… My response was: “Thank you very much Călin for writing “Excellent discussion! Congratulations… In a normal polite way I should stop at that, but then we won’t learn anything else.”

In my case didn't agree and took exception on "In principle this kind of discussion underline the difference between engineers and doctors! Doctors sworn and engineers are not doing it. From here I think start the problem with code of ethics." I suggest that in my case the difference is for an engineer or doctor to become what the article of the discussion “First Draft: Let’s Emulate Uno Lamm’s Accomplishments Through Imagination and Truth [5]” describes. This new discussion mixes the battle for the IEEE Systemic Code of Ethics into the war for the Value Added Electricity Architecture Framework.

This comment was posted on the IEEE Smart Grid Group.

I suggest that you please leave this discussion and go to the IEEE Group discussion “First Draft: Let’s Emulate Uno Lamm’s Accomplishments Through Imagination and Truth” in this same public group by hitting the corresponding link:

http://bit.ly/GMH095 for the IEEE Smart Grid Group

http://bit.ly/GMH097 for the IEEE SSIT Group

http://bit.ly/GMH096 for the IEEE Spectrum Group

In the case of private groups: The Official IEEE Group and the IEEE Senior Group, search for the discussion to go there.

References:
[1] How to Cross the Thin Line from Arrogance to Leadership, June 19, 2010, GMH Blog.
[2] Does the IEEE Code of Ethics Fully Supports Advancing Technology For Humanity?, IEEE Smart Grid Group of Linkedin.
[3] Does the IEEE Code of Ethics Fully Supports Advancing Technology For Humanity?, IEEE SSIT Group of Linkedin.
[4] Does the IEEE Code of Ethics Fully Supports Advancing Technology For Humanity?, IEEE Spectrum Group of Linkedin.
[5] First Draft: Let’s Emulate Uno Lamm’s Accomplishments Through Imagination and Truth, April 11, 2012, GMH Blog.


miércoles, abril 11, 2012

First Draft: Let’s Emulate Uno Lamm’s Accomplishments Through Imagination and Truth

Summary: After introducing Uno Lamm as a role model on imagination and truth for Advancing Technology for Humanity, there are parallel sections on: 1) After two old stories, a third has been emerging; 2) The Contexts; 3) The Battles; 4) The Status Quo Should Respond to Criticism on Current Smart Grid Developments; 5) The status quo is dead. Long live the status quo. This is supported by 23 references.

First Draft: Let’s Emulate Uno Lamm’s Accomplishments Through Imagination and Truth

José Antonio Vanderhorst-Silverio, Ph.D.
Systemic Consultant: Electricity
IEEE Life Senior Member
April 11, 2012.

I understand that we need to consider as very important the Power Engineering Society “Uno Lamm High Voltage Direct Current Award,” which promotes the concept “Engineering – Accomplishment Through Imagination and Truth.” There is no doubt that the innovation space created by Dr. Lamm’s example has enabled great accomplishments for IEEE members.

A very attractive insight on an issue of the IEEE Power Engineering Review, published more than 30 years ago [1], started to change my life for the better. Showing “A New PES Award” in the issue’s cover, you can also find in it the above engineering concept. Inside that issue is the story “Renaissance Man: Uno Lamm, ASEA’s ‘Retired’ Electrotechnical Director, Leads a Remarkably Active and Inquisitive Life.”

The insight in that story that really altered my life was his example “… there’s the opportunity to work on ideas quite outside one’s owned special field of expertise. I can then enjoy the enthusiasm built on partial ignorance which, as you know, is greater and fuller than any other enthusiasm.”

Since then, in Dr. Lamm I found a role model, my hero [2, 3]. I know that’s what I been enjoying since then as I internalized that quote. In my experience, many of the initial partial ignorance create open loops that get closed later on as they are triggered via our reticular activating system. As I have been trying to do, I suggest we need other IEEE members to select IEEE medal recipients, like Dr. Lamm, as their hero in order to increase the innovation space for still other IEEE members in the quest for Advancing Technology for Humanity.

Surprisingly, I didn’t grasp it until a few days ago, after more than 30 years ago, which he was able to say that because he was already retired. I guess that story was replaced in my subconscious by the careers profile story “Uno Lamm: Inventor and Activist [4],” by Katherine Wollard, which I just found out had only the first part of that quote.

After two old stories, a third has been emerging

With those two stories we have meaningful instances for IEEE Members to emulate in Advancing Technology for Humanity, which necessarily involves, like I found out, acting ethically in order to face a strong status quo that is blocking the way of Advancing Technology for Humanity. Wollard says that “[h]is last and most ambitious project was the Pacific HVDC Intertie, bringing electricity from Bonneville, Ore. to Long Angeles, Calif.”

As many people know, my most ambitious project is not a physical one like that of HVDC technology. It has become a socio-technical system architecting one, which I believe fits nicely to enable Advancing (Electric Retail Markets) Technology for (Customers) Humanity [5, 6]. It is a paradigm shift that opens a big innovation space for IEEE members to make “accomplishment through imagination and truth” on the retail side of the global power industry. Although what has emerged through me is still being named, for practical reasons, as the Electricity Without Price Control Architecture Framework (EWPC-AF) [7], I understand that it is better coined as the Value Added Electricity Architecture Framework (VAE-AF) [8].

The Contexts

Wollard writes about the Pacific Intertie project that Lamm lead introducing High Voltage Direct Current (HVDC). She says that “[t]he idea of the Intertie had been around since the public-work project days of the 1930s, when it was first proposed the Pacific Northwest’s huge surpluses of hydroelectricity be channeled down to the burgeoning cities of southern California. But the project run into heavy opposition and was eventually scrapped. In 1961, spurred by a steady rise for electricity in California, President John F. Kennedy reopened the battle. Kennedy wanted a big public project, using the new HVDC technology developed in Sweden. Private utilities wanted to own the Intertie and use it for ac transmission.”

The idea of restructuring the global power industry started in the 1980s. As with many huge projects, their high level system architecture is emergent. IEEE members lost their leadership influence, as economists, financiers, and politicians took over the industry. By misunderstanding the systemic implications of interconnected power, those leaders introduced a huge architecting flaw at the industry level [9, 10, 11], in which the new regulatory environment damaged the new global deregulation system that had an unstable architecture.

For example, the highly visible wicked or systemic crisis in the California jurisdiction at the beginning of the century sent a very bad and strong signal that not only stopped progress, but also helped to introduce counter reforms, at many other regulatory jurisdictions all over the world [5]. After that debacle, restructuring also "run into heavy opposition." As the urgency is shown in this document, high level leadership is sorely needed [12, 13, 14].

One essential element that I believe will help in developing an unprecedented system of hierarchical systemic architectures is the proposal of an IEEE Systemic Code of Ethics that resulted from the discussion “Does the IEEE Code of Ethics Fully Supports Advancing Technology For Humanity?” That proposal is running in The Official IEEE Group and the IEEE Senior Members Group, which are private Linkedin groups; and the IEEE Smart Grid Group [15], the SSIT Group [16] and the IEEE Spectrum Group [17], which are public Linkedin groups.

The Battles

According to Wollard, in 1962, “Lamm arranged a licensing agreement that gave the General Electric Co. access to ASEA’s HVDC technology. Once the two companies were allies, Lamm said, they pull out all the stops in influencing opinion on the Intertie. Lamm took on his opponent with equanimity, good humor, and an unassailable marshalling of facts.”

The “Renaissance Man” story adds that “As befits a widely educated man who is observant, articulate and outspoken on a broad range of issues, Dr. Lamm has not failed to attract his own share of criticism. That this has not visibly irritated him over the years is probably due to the fact that he is concerned with issues, not personalities. His targets are imprecise thinking, questionable logic an uncritical acceptance of political propaganda. In the course of his running battle to promote orderly processes of thinking in a frequently disordered world, he has not hesitated to cross swords (or at least exchange typewriter fusillades) with a prime minister, a Nobel laureate, a best-selling critic of capitalism and a host of other who, he often feels, are debasing modern communications.”

It seems that taking well in consideration the wide differences in accomplishments, I guess I have been living a remarkably similar life, while fighting the ongoing war of the EAV-AF. In the recent battle active in three of the five IEEE Groups of Linkedin fronts, I am trying hard to have a good ally, like, for example, the President and CEO of the IEEE, Gordon W. Day, who has proposed to make A Flatter World [18] by using the IEEE motto “Advancing Technology for Humanity.” In the discussion of the proposal of an IEEE Systemic Code of Ethics, so far, only the public IEEE SSIT Group is a front that has been a friendly environment to the idea, while it seems that The Official IEEE Group and the IEEE Smart Grid Group seem to have been unfriendly to it.

After each new round of intense discussion was faced with “an unassailable marshalling of facts,” every time there seems to be growing support for that IEEE Systemic Code of Ethics, discussions are either eliminated or shifted to new discussion on Linkedin’s email notification system on the unfriendly groups. For example, on March 27, as the idea was picking up, a discussion was deleted in the IEEE Smart Grid Group and shifted from a Still Active Discussions to a New Discussion in The Official IEEE Group that reduced visibility. From there on, any time a Still Active Discussions on the Code of Ethics in The Official IEEE Group was systematically shifted to New Discussions. On the IEEE Smart Grid Group some were deleted, while the others were shifted until April 5. Today, April 11, however, there’s some hope as the situation was reversed with the Code of Ethics discussion showing as a Still Active Discussions in The Official IEEE Group, but shifted to New Discussion on the IEEE Smart Grid Group.

To act ethically, I believe that IEEE members need for the status quo to become visible in order to respond all the criticism accumulated (see next section). I have the most respectful attitude with all of Linkedin’s Group Managers, because only with good relationship with them we will go forward. However, being “concerned with issues, not personalities,” as Dr. Lamm was, it is also important to state, that the current system so pressures managers to act in unintended ways, which seem to be ethical at the moment, but only in non-systemic ways.

In what seem to be another unfriendly act to the proposed IEEE Systemic Code of Ethics and the VAE-AF, for example, one discussion [19] was identified two times by a manager of the IEEE Smart Grid Group as one that didn’t belong to their group. In response, a manager of the IEEE SSIT Group wrote” In one of the other forums you mentioned the moderator did decide that anything out of the mainstream of the topic didn't belong. And yes, from the impact of technology point of view, that narrow scoping could be a problem.” In contrast to the Code of Ethics discussion, this one was included as a Still Active Discussions today.

The Status Quo Should Respond to Criticism on Current Smart Grid Developments

Wollard recalls that “[m]eanwhile, California’s private companies have began claiming that HVDC was impractical for the Intertie, and hired a consulting firm to ferret out flaws in the ASEA plan. The showdown came at the Winter General Meeting in New York in early 1963. The consultants read their report, and Lamm spoke in rebuttal, pointing out that the consultant had not even visited existing HVDC installations. She again adds “’to what is common practice in meetings like this’ Lamm says ‘the authors refuse to stand up to answer the criticism, even when the chairman ask them directly.’ The audience of engineers shifted to Lamm’s position.” Is there any doubt on whether that audience acted ethically?

Ever since 2005, when I first wrote “An Alternative Business Case to Demand Response [20],” as can be seen in most of the references, I have uncovered several flaws in the industry architecture but have not been given yet a fair trial by the status quo on what has emerged since then as the EAV-AF. It is clear that the status quo continues to “refuse to stand up to answer the criticism” all this time.

In particular in March 2011, for example, while playing on the highly advertized IEEE Spectrum 2025 Smart Grid Game, the obsolete, fragmented, and socially exclusive, Investor Owned Utilities Architecture Framework and its highly complex incremental extensions status quo scenario was defeated by the emergent, inclusive, holistic, simple, and minimalist, EWPC-AF scenario. As that result was not what the status quo expected, I understand they ordered to shut down the web site so that the game’s winner could not exercise valuable bragging rights [21] to tell humanity of the need for change in the industry architecture.

The status quo is dead. Long live the status quo.

Wollard’s story continues with “Lamm’s admiration with for the United States and his people crops up frequently in his conversations, and was strengthened by his work on the Intertie. He relates how several power company executives – who have been those most opposed to the project - visited Sweden with their wives once the issue was decided.” As a result of the visit, Lamm recalled “[a]mong Americans, when the heat of combat is over, and a decision has been reached, all the bitterness disappears, and people work hard to bring the final decision to fruition in the best possible way.” I have also been expecting that kind of mutual behavior [22].

Showing how the HVDC project was advancing HVDC for LA, Wollard’s story says that: “It was estimated that the people of Los Angeles saved $600,000 a day when Columbia River power began flowing south. Lamm had seen a similar result on Gotland Island, when, after the installation of the HVDC link, rates were halved. ‘For us, the engineers’ he says ‘this information is a source of real joy.” In contrast, Americans are paying an extra half dollar on average on top of the utility bill [23]

Wollard adds once again that “… proud of the safe records of ASEA built [nuclear] reactors, Lamm said he raised strenuous criticism of one government designed plant, which ASEA found ‘inherently unsafe.’ Eventually, construction was halted. His action against the plant, and similar instances throughout his professional life, illustrate what Martensson calls Lamm’s ‘basic honesty – it’s part of his character: he is honest and he’s proud of it.”

References

[1] IEEE Power Engineering Review, October 1981, Volume PER-1, Number 10.
[2] The Sixth Disruptive Technology, September 30, 2007, EWPC Blog.
[3] Uno Lamm is a Leader Role Model, October 29, 2007, EWPC Blog.
[4] “Uno Lamm: Inventor and Activist,” by Katherine Wollard, published in the IEEE Spectrum of March 1988.
[5] The BIG California LIE, September 18, 2007.
[6] The Electric Power Industry is Missing a Vibrant Retail Market, December 22, 2009, EWPC Blog.
[7] The Electricity Without Price Control Architecture Framework (EWPC-AF), November 30, 2009, EWPC Blog.
[8] Desconectemos el Presupuesto del Sector Eléctrico, May 20, 2011, Acento.com
[9] Why the Smart Grid World Forum Requires Learning About T&D Transportation Ultraquality, September 29, 2010, EWPC Blog.
[10] Three Smart Grid Predictions for Initiating the Global Power Industry Transformation, July 21, 2010.
[11] A Predictable Environment for VCs Smart Grid Investments, May 6, 2011. EWPC Blog
[12] Leadership Answers What to do First, April 16, 2008, EWPC Blog.
[13] States that Implement a Heterogeneous Grid are Poised to be the Winners, December 13, 2009, EWPC Blog
[14] Which Country Will Take the Leadership of a Global Vision for Advancing Grids for Customers?, September 9, 2010, EWPC Blog.
[15] Does the IEEE Code of Ethics Fully Supports Advancing Technology For Humanity?, IEEE Smart Grid Group of Linkedin.
[16] Does the IEEE Code of Ethics Fully Supports Advancing Technology For Humanity?, IEEE SSIT Group of Linkedin.
[17] Does the IEEE Code of Ethics Fully Supports Advancing Technology For Humanity?, IEEE Spectrum Group of Linkedin.
[18] GORDON DAY, A Flatter World: It’s time to address the challenges of universal access to technology, 5 March 2012, President’s Column, the IEEE news source - the institute.
[19] A Guess About Preventing World Economy Collapse by 2030, IEEE Smart Grid Group of Linkedin.
[20] An Alternative Business Case for Demand Response, November 3, 2005, EnergyPulse.net
[21] How to Cross the Thin Line from Arrogance to Leadership, June 19, 2010, GMH Blog.
[22] Let EWPC Come to Fruition, November 7, 2007, GMH Blog.
[23] Just as Pogo, IOUs Found the Enemy, January 26, 2009, GMH Blog.