viernes, octubre 02, 2015

Can we agree with the Second Curve, while not with Handy?

Tenth update. Help #GlobalDebout entrepreneurs at the Bottom of the Pyramid 'Be discovery driven.' Dear Whitney, thanks for accepting our (mine and the valuable citizens that retweet @gmh_upsa posts that are intended to be quality collaborations, as described by Roberto Verganti in his Harvard Business Review online article Quantity versus quality in collaborations) comment as an insight that's also aligned with your suggestion to "Be discovery driven." Please "sign me up." This is a follow up to the "Second update. Can #USA2016 be reframed to fit reality required by #GlobalDebout?" of the post Can #GlobalDebaut international call concentrate on an Ashoka like solid framework change?

After reading the post Corporate Innovation Through Daring Personal Disruption, where Marcella Bremer reviews your book "Disrupt Yourself," I am now starting to take a second look relative to the first look mentioned in the introduction about the Second Curve done at the higher systems architecting scope of leaping from the industrial civilization 'S Curve' 'Comfort Zone,' which is good for some people of developed countries that took their share and also the share of developing countries, into what we suggest is the systemic civilization 'S Curve' 'Where The Magic Happens' with opportunities for entrepreneurs the world over that are able to go into 'Hypergrowth.' The first look, of the above mentioned post on the Second Curve, can be seen in detail below to have followed a 'Be discovery driven' process, which is summarized with its:
First update. As Handy is right on about privatization, Do we need deregulation?

Second update. If First Curve restructuring increases inequality, Would Second Curve restructuring decrease it?

Third update. Early harvest 2015 Lima Annual Meetings: Electricity Pact strategy of trajectory.

Fourth update. Will positive signals on wellbeing and growth come from organization?

Fifth update. ¿Evitará cosecha temprana en Pacto Electrico que el 1% sea más rico que el 99%? (Will early harvest in Pacto Electrico avoid that the 1% get richer than the 99%?).

Six update.  ¿Cómo podría el Pacto Electrico atraer emprendedores que salten a la Segunda Curva para crear riqueza mundial? (How would the Pacto Electrico attract entrepreneurs that leap to the Second Curve to create world growth?)

Seventh update. As the UK energy market remains on the 1st Curve, Pacto Eléctrico should leapfrog us to the 2nd Curve.

Eigth update. Tres reglas de liderázgo para el Pacto Eléctrico cuando cada aspecto de negocio está a punto de cambiar (Three leadership rules for Pacto Electrico when every aspect of business is about to change.)

Ninth update. Countries must leap into Hagel's electoral strategy of trajectory on Handy's curve of systemic civilization.

Ninth update. Countries must leap into Hagel's electoral strategy of trajectory on Handy's curve of systemic civilization. This quality collaboration complements, mutually reinforces itself with and thus enlarges itself into being an integral part of the posts The Systemic Civilization is reconfirmed by curating John Hagel's post The Dark Side of Technology (which has no updates) and Elections in USA, Germany, Spain, DR are under unstable equilibrium, as they were in Argentina, Brazil, Venezuela, Spain, which at the moment has the following updates:

First update. What voters are not expecting but will love: a minimalist State that drives direct democracy systemic markets.

Second update. Whichever party embraces a Systemic Energy Policy Act strategy will probably win the 2016 election.

Third update. Global voters need that Talent govern with #DD_SM deregulation rather than Money.
That second post, its updates and Hagel's video have led us to discover that global society has lost 20 years on the industrial civilization curve as a result of satanizing deregulation, which means we need to santify as soon as possible deregulation to start to co-create the systemic civilization that help voters love direct democracy systemic markets, starting with the example of a Systemic Energy Policy Act, which is driven by the kind of talent rather than money that Hagel mentions.

In regard to deregulation by co-creation, the second update brings out the important shift of social networks use from personal instruments to business instruments, when it refers to the 2008 book “the new age of innovation,” where Prahalad and Krishnan suggested what I understand is a new normal synthesis based on two principles that beg for deregulation as we jump tron the curve of Fordism into the curve what I coined as Jobsism in this Grupo Millennium Hispaniola Blog:
N=1 (Firms have to learn to focus on one consumer and her experience at a time…) and

R=G (All firms will access resources from a wide variety of other big and small firms – a global ecosystem.)
The above mentioned satanizing of deregulation was done by violating the warnings given, for example, by the late M.I.T. researcher Fred C. Schweppe and his team in the book “Spot Pricing of Electricity (Kluwer, 1988)” that said: "We believe the deregulation which considers only the supply side of the supply-demand equation is dangerous and could have very negative results." Most countries have now the opportunity of santifying deregulation to leapfrog the anti-systemic energy policy in place by crony capitalism and big governments.

Clearly indeed, this also help explains why current elections are under unstable equilibrium all over the world, just because they are being done under a strategy of terrain of the industrial civilization, which is operating in its overshoot region where decreasing returns are the worst. Yesterday, I lost one follower because he expected that I must support his cause which I just realized as this key insight emerged that he is under a strategy of terrain. In his final direct message he wrote:
Lo que pretendes es dar un salto cuantico y compararte con paises desarrollados, this is Dominican not disneyland, abre los ojos, pon los pies en la tierra que hay que gatear, caminar, correr y luego volar
Which is translated as:
What you want is a quantum leap and compare us with developed countries, this is Dominican not disneyland, open your eyes, put your feet on the ground to be crawling, walking, running and then flying.
Instead of using Cartesian thinking, where cause and effect are close in time and space, by using systemic thinking, where cause and effect, are not close in time, in space, or both, I realized that I can not follow his cause which is under a strategy of terrain, where elections are limited to the above mentioned worst decreasing return conditions.Only by changing to the curve under a strategy of trajectory of the systemic civilization will enable the great opportunities for voters that they are not expecting to be crawling, walking, running and then flying under increasing returns.

In fact, entrepreneurs from the Dominican Republic already started innovations to craw, walk and run to enable battery inverters and emergency generators stating in the 1990s on the retail side of our power sector leading to an ecosystem that show we are able to leapfrog old technology. Such ecosystem was repressed by introducing a General Electricity Law pushed by the international community led by crony capitalism that satanized deregulation.

This blending of John Hagel's strategy of trajectory and Charles Handy second curve, that "we agree with" here, brings a very important insight to support the shift from the curve of the industrial civilization to the curve of the systemic civilization. Under the section From diminishing returns to increasing returns of his blog post Anticipating the Next Wave of Experience Design, Hagel wrote:
What is the full potential here? By taking experience design to the next level, we may for the first time have the opportunity to shift diminishing returns performance curves into increasing returns performance curves.

What does this mean? Think of the well-known experience curve, developed and popularized by Boston Consulting Group.  Over the years, they have demonstrated that it applies to an awesome array of industries, ranging from semiconductors to Japanese beer and toilet paper.  It is a remarkably accurate description of operating performance improvement in many industries.  But it is a diminishing returns curve – the more experience an industry accumulates, the longer and harder people have to work to get the next increment of performance improvement.  Perhaps this helps to explain the increasing stress most of us are experiencing.

What if there were an alternative? What if we could turn this diminishing returns curve on its side and unleash an increasing returns curve, one where the more people who join in, the faster everyone would learn? What would that require?
Eigth update. Tres reglas de liderázgo para el Pacto Eléctrico cuando cada aspecto de negocio está a punto de cambiar. Estas son las reglas de liderazgo que llevan a la 2da Curva que sugiero se sustentan en la nota más reciente ¿Ayudará el BID a que el Pacto Eléctrico haga lo que nunca se ha hecho en el mundo? 

1) Tim Cook CEO de Apple: articular un propósito elevado. Para el Pacto Eléctrico de clase mundial se trata de máximo bienestar social,  en oposición a la privatización de las ganancias por parte de la democracia representativa y la socialización de las pérdidas a la población..

2) Brian Chesky CEO de Airbnb: no lidere por consenso en una crisis. Es por eso que hay que apoyar la petición al presidente del Consejo Económico y Social, monseñor Agripino Núñez Collado en vez seguir como si nada estuviese pasando en el mundo, para que desestimemos "la CUARTA FASE-CONCRECIÓN DE LA PROPUESTA CONSENSUADA DE PACTO NACIONAL PARA LA REFORMA DEL SECTOR ELÉCTRICO estipulada por la Metodología General," como informó el CES el 27 de octubre de 2015, para "ACREDITACIÓN DE TITULAR Y SUPLENTE Hasta el 03 Nov 2015 5pm."

3) Howard Schultz CEO de Starbucks: en la edad de las redes sociales la moneda del liderazgo es la transparencia. Eso es lo que respalda la transformación del sector con la apertura a la innovación del mercado minorista, que es donde está disponible el mayor apalancamiento sistémico, como sugerí al BID en el 2009.

Esas reglas de liderazgo aparecen en la illustration que hizo Eric Scott Pfeiffer para el artículo Why every aspect of your business is about to change (porqué cada aspecto de tu negocio está a punto de cambiar), escrito por Geoff Colvin para la revista Fortune. Mientras el consenso sigue el Fordismo de la 1ra Curva que carece del liderazgo necesario, la petición al CES se inspira en el Jobsismo que sugieren esas tres reglas de liderazgo.

Un beneficio inmediado que resulta de saltar a la 2da Curva es que puede servir para disolver con Jobsismo el debate del presupuesto. Según Colvin, "el trabajo, la información y el dinero se mueven fácil, barata y casi instantáneamente, es lo que se necesita para que las empresas del sector y que sugiero se corresponde para que puedan saltar a la 2da Curva.

Sacando del contexto de lo que Colvin destaca, en su artículo que es de lectura obligatoria, tenemos que "La tendencia es especialmente alarmante para los líderes establecidos de la categoría, hasta si cambian a nuevos modelos de negocio de baja fricción, todavía su empresa podría terminar más pequeña y menos rentable de lo que era. Esto se debe a que "algúnas empresas tecnologícas y habilitadas tecnologícamente destruyen más valor para los titulares del que crean para sí mismos, y muchas ganancias se las lleva la competencia en la forma de excedente del consumidor", dice el Instituto Global McKinsey. Por ejemplo, el servicio de Skype de Microsoft produjo unos $ 2 mil millones en 2013, sin embargo, McKinsey calcula que en ese año Skype transfirió $ 37 mil millones de las empresas de telecomunicaciones de la vieja guardia a los consumidores dándoles llamadas gratis o de bajo costo.

Seventh update. As the UK energy market remains on the 1st Curve, Pacto Eléctrico should leapfrog us to the 2nd Curve. The main opportunity to leapfrog to the 2nd Curve is the reduction of the spot price in a complete and well functioning market, as local retail customer have been even facing infinite prices that service interruptions involve. In fact, poor customers have already invested to be able to respond to said interruptions and are already experienced in the Dominican Republic and are thus well ahead of those of the United Kingdom and elsewhere.

It is clear that in the report of the Economists Intelligent Unit (EIU) for Funglode, about the future of the electricity sector, the purpose of maximum social welfare, which is what a strategy of trajectory must consider in order to have a successful Electricity Pact is ignored. In the presentation, John Heath suggested that we should follow best practices of incomplete unstable markets that don't function well around the world, which can be infered as a strategy of terrain that won't lead to a successful Electricty Pact.

After the presentation, Celso Marranzini talked about the importance of the customer, Francisco Mendez continue to defend the original capitalization that introduced an unstable system and both Mendez and Rafael Velazco contradicted Heath suggestion against centralized renewable projects, but at a higher level, Leonel Fernandez had an interesting mixed feeling, like Heath, that believe erroneously that the future was a continuation of the past.

Fernández thought our electricity problem placed us behind as a 20th Century issue, by thinking electricty as electrification. As the future is not a continuation of the past, we have the opportunity to leapfrog the UK by developing a 21st Century electricity market with Second Generation Retailers, as described, for example, in the post How Utilities that Become Tech Companies Might Develop Business Model Innovations.

As it is easy to see, the UK regulator Ofgem, "launched the Retail Market Review in late 2010 due to concerns that the energy market was not working effectively for consumers," and the result was a reform programme with overall objective "to make the retail energy market simpler, clearer and fairer for consumers." However, on 26 June 2014 Ofgem made a reference to the Competition and Markets Authority (CMA) for an investigation into the energy market in Great Britain.

The result is that things are now worse, as Ofgem writes on "Response to the CMA’s Provisional Findings and Notice of Possible Remedies," that "as part of the package of retail market remedies, the CMA proposes to remove the ‘simpler choices’ rules introduced by Ofgem as part of the Retail Market Review." The fact is that the UK is still running on the 1st Curve with 1st Generation Retailers that are unable to develop business model innovations.

I believe that the main reason can be seen under the item "Industry governance and the regulatory framework," of the above mentioned Response to the CMA, that forces the process onto a strategy of terrain that has Adversed Effects on Competition (AEC), like we have on the Electricity Pact that needs to be changed to strategy of trajectory for us to leapfrog the UK by jumping to the 2nd Curve.
We strongly agree with the CMA’s conclusion that the current code governance regime, including the limited incentives that incumbent players have to promote and deliver change that could benefit consumers, gives rise to an AEC. We believe there are changes to the industry governance regime that can address these issues, building on the options you set out in your notice of possible remedies. A reformed set of institutions would be central to ensuring that the regulatory regime is able to respond to the innovation and change the industry is going to see in the coming years. We look forward to discussing these changes with you in more detail
In particular, the CMA wrote in the document Energy market investigation, Summary of provisional findings report:
Our central concern is that the limited ability of Ofgem to influence development and implementation processes might cause certain changes that are in consumers’ interest not to be delivered in a timely and efficient way. Consumer detriment is likely to be particularly acute where a change is needed to achieve policy objectives or to support competition and innovation (eg Project Nexus, which facilitates the development of tariffs that rely on smart meters).
Six update.  ¿Cómo podría el Pacto Electrico atraer emprendedores que salten a la Segunda Curva para crear riqueza mundial? Luego de acudir a esta nota con sus cinco actualizaciones para elaborar la primera actualización "Saltemos con el Pacto Eléctrico a la 2da Curva mundial, ahora que China frenó la 1ra," de la nota ¿Podrán Latinoamérica y el Caribe brincar fábricas con cadenas de valor que reduzcan la pobreza y la desigualdad?, regreso para tomar en cuenta dos entrevistas claves que son de escucha obligatoria para los que tienen la pasión para convertirse en emprendedores que agregan riqueza en vez de sustraerla como sucede actualmente, una que ofrece el qué y otra el cómo, en concordancia con el extenso trasfondo que ha sido clavado en la cuenta @gmh_upsa de Twitter.

El qué ofrece a los emprendedores las grandes oportunidades que tienen por delante para crear riqueza si se cambia el sistema que sustrae actualmente la misma, al explicarlo claramente vía la entrevista que le hizo Patricia Solano a Rosa Cañete de Oxfam. Eso ocurrió en ocasión del lanzamiento del informe sobre desigualdad en Latinoamérica y el Caribe, ofreciendo una fuerte crítica a la concentración de riqueza extrema que está llevando a la clase media y a los pobres de Latinoamérica y el Caribe hacia la 2da Edad Media.

Debo aclarar que hay una diferencia entre Oxfam y lo que se viene sugiriendo en el fondo y el trasfondo que es sobre los mercados y que ha generado un gran desequilibrio en la relación de la gente con el Estado que ha crecido excesivamente, al tiempo que la institución del mercado  ha sido satanizada, que es donde participarían los emprendedores para ofrecer innovaciones que crean riqueza. Dado que se trata del hallazgo más importante del mercado eléctrico sobresaliente, esa también es, por ejemplo, precisamente la diferencia con Charles Handy que impulsó esta nota y no menos importante con el Papa Francisco. Sin embargo, todo luce indicar que los situa quedándose en la Primera Curva sin hacer las transformaciones profundas que se necesitan en el mundo de hoy

Ahora bien, contrario a los intereses creados de la democracia representativa, hay una gran ventaja para superar esa diferencia a favor de los emprendedores: no hay necesidad de debatir como sucede con la estrategia de terreno actual tan pronto estemos de acuerdo en que el Pacto Eléctrico debe tener el propósito del máximo bienestar social. Es así como podemos unir nuestros esfuerzos en un diálogo generativo que se ampare en una estrategia de trayectoria, como se ha venido reclamando para cambiar el rumbo de las grandes mayorías del mundo hacia la primera Edad Dorada de la civilización sistémica. Luego y solo luego habrá que definir la transición hacia el futuro de aquellas actividades que corresponden al Estado.

Dicho eso, el cómo se desarrolla en la entrevista que le hizo Marian Funicane a Handy, que dicho sea de paso brinda ejemplos que apoyan el concepto de Jobsismo con el que Steve Jobs saltaba a la Segunda Curva. Si se pensara que no hay condiciones en el servicio eléctrico como para dar el salto de conjunto podría no tener mucho sentido. Lo que si tiene sentido y mucho es habilitar con el Pacto Eléctrico la creación de riqueza a los emprendedores a título individual, que serían aquellos que están creciendo y reconocen que necesitan dar el salto a la Segunda Curva para lograr algo valioso en su vida que sirva de apoyo y ejemplo a la sociedad antes de que sea tarde.

Con referencia diálogo generativo, adelanto que estamos de acuerdo en decir no la privatización. La diferencia está en la lógica de mercado sobresliente que se imprima a la desregulación. He sugerido una desregulación que desconecta el presupuesto del sector eléctrico y por eso no afecta los ingresos del Estado. Al mimo tiempo, dicha desregulación amortigua los vaivenes de los mercados con capacidad instalada en la gente. Es decir que el marco regulatorio concentrará su atención en una transformación profunda que servirá de ejemplo a otros países y sectores.

Fifth update. ¿Evitará cosecha temprana en Pacto Electrico que el 1% sea más rico que el 99%? Juan Alberto Fuentes Knight, Presidente de Oxfam Internacional, ofreció una noticia buena y otra mala. La buena puede resumirse con lo que el Dr. Kim expresó. La mala es que en el futuro el 1% más rico tendrá más riqueza que el 99% de la población en América Latina.

Para enfrentar decididamente esa situación se sugiere, como una de las medidas que Patricia Janiot identificó al inicio del evento, la cosecha temprana que aparece en la tercera actualización de esta nota. Como sustento, a seguidas aparece una tradución de la síntesis de la cuarta actualización:
¿Vendrán las señales positivas en el bienestar y el crecimiento de la organización? Este es un resumen del evento en vivo 2015 Lima Banco Mundial: Desigualdad, Oportunidad y Prosperidad. Mientras el Dr. Kim, el Presidente del Banco Mundial, está en lo ciertto en que "las inversiones en salud y educación tienen un impacto directo en el bienestar y el crecimiento," sabemos que son el resultado de la redistribución de la riqueza que conducen a las señales negativas mientras le roban a los pobres por falta de organización. A medida que hacemos el caso de pasar de transiciones estructurales con capital financiero a corto plazo  a veces bajo las privatizaciones a transformaciones estructurales con capital productivo a largo plazo para ser capaz de crear riqueza significativa, la organización traerá señales positivas sobre el bienestar y el crecimiento.
Fourth update. Will positive signals on wellbeing and growth come from organization? This is a summary of the 2015 Lima World Bank Live event: Inequality, Opportunity and Prosperity. While Dr. Kim, the President of the World Bank, is right in that "investments in health and education have a direct impact on wellbeing and growth," we know that they are the result of wealth redistribution that lead to negative signals while stealing from the poor for lack of organization. As we make the case to shift from short run financial capital structural transitions sometimes under privatizations to long run production capital structural transformations to be able to create significant wealth, organization will bring positive signals on wellbeing and growth.

In support of the early harvest described on the third update, the tweets interchanges that follow are organized starting with the most recent to support the above synthesis.

Third update. Early harvest 2015 Lima Annual Meetings: Electricity Pact strategy of trajectory. While the World Bank Group (WBG) President Jim Yong Kim is promising shared prosperity, the strategy he mentioned in his article Rumbo a Lima, in April 2015, is unable to do so because it lacks the transformation of the system required to change to a culture of institutional innovation. The strategy can be inferred from a translation of a sentence in his article that says:

This program seeks to find ways to improve opportunities for the poorest people in Peru, and the countries of middle income in general, through a series of economic, social and cultural discussions and direct interaction with citizens relative to the economic development of Latin America.
It is unable to do so, because with the objective of Shared Prosperity the WBG "seeks to find ways," that keep Latin America in the First Curve. That First Curve is the same strategy of terrain being used in the Electricity Pact of the Dominican Republic. One early harvest for Latin America of this week meeting in Peru would be to suggest a change to the strategy of trajectory in said Electricity Pact.

To explain what's involved, I will repeat once again the quote of Henry Ford, “If I had asked people what they wanted, they would have said faster horses.” As it is impossible "to find ways to improve opportunities," on better horses to make a car, it is impossible "to find ways to improve opportunities," on the First Curve to go to the Second Curve.

The difference between the transition metaphor that keeps us in the First Curve and the transformation metaphor that enable a big shift to the Second Curve was explained in the post Conclusive evidence: transformative deregulation is the key to electric service innovation. In order to change to the Second Curve, it seems that the WBG and President Kim might need help. In that regard, please take a look to the post Why global Middle-Class Indignados should unite to demand strategies of trajectory.

Second update. If First Curve restructuring increases inequality, Would Second Curve restructuring decrease it? The introduction of the World Bank press release Governments Should Focus on Shared Prosperity to Address Inequality—World Bank Group President, says: "WASHINGTON, October 1, 2015—World Bank Group President Jim Yong Kim today called on governments looking to address growing inequality to work on boosting “shared prosperity,” with a strong focus on improving the lives of the bottom 40 percent of populations in developing countries."

Repeating what is said in the initial text, "I suggest that 'great' is a way to define the 'second curve,'” I then also suggest that "shared prosperity," would decrease inequality if it is based on great restructuring. That is in accordance to what the press release says:
“A focus on GDP growth is simplistic,” said Kim. “We reject ‘trickle-down’ approaches that assume any undifferentiated growth permeates and fortifies the soil and everything starts to bloom even for the poor.  We need to find an economic growth model that’s inclusive, that lifts up the poorest citizens rather than maintains those at the top.”
One example of such a great restructuring model already found out is already available, but waiting for support. It emerged as the Valued Added Electricty Architecture Framework, which is introduced in the initial text as the Electricty Without Price Controls Architecture Framework. Next in the first update it recalls the finding that: "In order to sucessfully innovate, we need to introduce competive deregulation that emerges from transformation without privatization, as privatization leads to soaring inequality."

First update. As Handy is right on about privatization, Do we need deregulation? This is an ajustment that probably took on only one of the 16 essays written by Charles Handy in his book, which I must read to learn a lot from him and maybe update, where Fordism needs to be replaced by Jobsism, like in the first story, as suggested in the post From Electricity under Jobsism to a Golden Age. Of course that's the Golden Age of my friend Carlota Pérez, mentioned by Richard Straub in his PDF, while her insights are hidden many times inside this blog.

It seems that we have a lot more agreements than disagreements. While Handy is an established concept maker, I am just trying hard since about 1992 to become one. That's why I feel guilty of being unfair, by jumping to the conclusion "while not with Handy."

So, I went back to Stern's book review to select an important agreement on "We also get this on the legacy of privatisation: 'The sale of public utilities in Britain has usually resulted in bigger subsidies paid by government, higher prices for consumers and, one assumes, comfortable profits for the suppliers.'," to recall the next story.

In the process of writing the post Conclusive evidence: transformative deregulation is the key to electric service innovation, just a week ago, I learned that grosso modo UK led privatization killed USA led deregulation as follows:
It was because a transformation scenario was not available or developed before deregulation, that we now have an excessive amount of regulations that block any opportunity to deregulate and innovate as statu quo interest came in control of the electric power sector. In fact, the incentives provided by the transformation are so large, that they might not need to be financial at all, as the customer becomes the industry center stage. 
This is where the electricty pact of the Dominican Republic can apply the great opportunity to set up the country as the world leader in electricty innovation. In order to sucessfully innovate, we need to introduce competive deregulation that emerges from transformation without privatization, as privatization leads to soaring inequality. Earlier convincing evidence on the need for leadership can be seen in the 2008 post Leadership Answers What to do First.
Can we agree with the Second Curve, while not with Handy?

This story started when I was strongly attracted by a tweet to the article The End of Expertise, by Bill Fischer. In it Fischer says that commoditization of experts’ Credibility and Reliability was "... leaving Intimacy and Self-Orientation as the two remaining variables that are independent of algorithmic thinking and ubiquitous availability. They must be exactly what Richard Straub, President and founder of the Peter Drucker Society Europe, had in mind when we he observed:

Being human is consciously to bring judgment, intuition, creativity, empathy and values into play. In business, it is the domain of entrepreneurial thinking and innovation, of weighing decisions, of collaboration and trust – qualities that are utterly different from the machine logic of networked sensors and processors.
Then Fischer continued:
Not surprisingly, because they are so nuanced, these are also exactly the topics that are most difficult to master through a reliance upon a traditional business education. While most business schools offer coursework in entrepreneurship and innovation, there is considerable doubt as to what exactly these subjects mean and how best to convey such learning. Judgment and intuition are even more difficult to define, yet are probably even more important. When Straub suggests that “management is in need of a second curve that sets a new positive path away from the diminishing returns of the first” he is undoubtedly correct, but what might that second curve look like and how to prepare for it?
Somehow, I found myself being pictured as someone who not only believes strongly in the end of expertise, but that has been practicing his own second curve, as can be seen, for example, in this Grupo Millennium Hispaniola Blog posts and on the tweets being continuously pinned on the Twitter account @gmh_upsa.

The aim is to socialize those posts intended as quality as opposed to typical quantity collaborations trying to introduce generative dialogues instead of debates. So the importance of the initial attraction was right on as I believe to have been practicing on the understanding that industrial civilization knowledge is being rapidly replaced by fluid knowledge on what I have been documenting as the systemic civilization.

In fact, I strongly believe that I was already riding on such second curve, for example, as I started in 2012 a Petition for approval to form an IEEE Subsection in the Dominican Republic. An extract of the business plan on that petition, included here as a picture, was planned to follow Jim Collins’ book “Good to Great” to develop a great IEEE Section.

In that sense I suggest that “great” is a way to define the “second curve.” Although this is an afterthought to support the suggestion, Collins’ book has praise given by Peter Drucker which says:
This carefully researched and well written book disproves most of the current management hype – from the cult of the superhuman CEO to the cult of IT to the acquisitions and merger mania. It will not enable mediocrity to become competence. But it should enable competence to become excellence.
As the petition was approved, I became the interim chair of the first subsection at the end of 2012. However, I was unable to receive the needed support because as I found out after many tries that IEEE managers are no ready yet to believe in the end of expertize. As I continue to be a member of the IEEE, I hope that IEEE managers might learn something from what Richard Straub refers to his article Management’s Second Curve "...on the choices made by 'society’s leadership group’, as Drucker referred to managers."

This story now shifts to the next obvious step, which was to look at review of Charles Handy’s book “The Second Curve.” Here is a sharp contradiction to one of the key findings in what I have been doing by applying Jim Collins’ insights. The contradiction was found on a Handy’s quote in the book review Why you should have several careers instead of one, by Stefan Stern, which says:
'Second Curve thinking would accept that markets are useful, even essential, but that they need careful regulation and tight rules; that they do not work in all situations... that an unquestioning belief in the power of the market to organise our lives is dangerous; and, crucially, that the value of much of life cannot and should not be expressed in financial terms.' 
The best example shows up in the post Great electric service, which responds a comment posted under the article Energy: The smart-grid solution, by Massoud Amin, published online in Nature on 10 July 2013, in which Dr. Amin “…outlines how the United States should make its electricity infrastructure self-healing to avoid massive power failures.”

Systemic civilization “great” (in Collins' sense) markets, that result from an institutional innovation based on the post Great electric service will concentrate on what John Hagel calls ‘scalable learning’ to perform, better and better as time goes on, under the minimalist government regulation as described, for example, in the post A complete and fully functional electricity restructuring proposal. However, Handy suggestion was for “good” (also in Collins' sense) for old industrial civilization markets, which were before in “need careful regulation and tight rules” and which might have misled Amin to concentrate on what John Hagel calls ‘scalable efficiency.’