We must empower a more diversified economy in 2016


Austin Christmas Hat 1

Those of us growing up in the 1960s and 1970s experienced tumultuous times that had some similarities to the last decade. Among many other contributions from our generation—which include both positive and negative influences—were some great artists, one of whom Bob Dylan is featured in a massive IBM ad campaign. Dylan’s poetry is timeless and quite relevant today:

The post WW2 era we grew up in provided the best economic conditions the world has ever known. The baby boom population explosion, of which I am at the tail end of, combined with vast sequential gains in productivity to create the ‘miracles’ of economies in the U.S., Japan, Germany, and China among others, or so it seemed.

Although a few credible experts have warned all along that the world’s trajectory wasn’t sustainable, and perhaps most of us intuitively realized same, the financial crisis contained a potential silver lining in revealing the stark naked truth: much of that ‘success’ in the post war era came at the direct expense of the future, and the bills are coming due.

Although woefully deficient in ethics with poor visibility of systemic risk—even in cases where desire for prevention existed, master politicians and financial engineers in both the public and private sector have masked structural problems in the economy for decades—from the public and each other, by employing ever-more complex short-term remedies in a misguided game of musical chairs.

Unfortunately, the resolution of the financial crisis has consisted primarily of the very same type of financial engineering—it’s the only hammers central banks have in their toolbox. While central bankers are justified in pointing fingers at political and fiscal malfeasance, it’s up to humble citizens like me to hold up a mirror and suggest that they take a look to see that such malfeasance would not be possible if not empowered by monetary policy.

One certainty is that the super majority of consolidated malfeasance in much of the world has been transferred to the balance sheets of central banks and national debt at direct cost to billions of people, many of whom followed the rules, not least those who saved all their lives just as their public institutions recommended.  Those savings have been taxed for nearly a decade now by monetary policy rather than a democratic process; by devaluation of currency, record low (or negative) interest rates, inflation from asset bubbles such as commodities and housing, and the need for hundreds of millions to tap their principal for survival. Also certain is that regardless of whether or which stimulus measures were necessary, one outcome has been a dangerous expansion of the wealth gap now at record level in the modern era.

It’s very important to better understand that the previous wealth gap peak in the 1920s was partially causal to the Great Depression and WW2, among other earlier great revolutions and loss of life. Today’s billionaires seem to understand the moral hazard and potential for backlash, which is presumably one of the reasons for the philanthropic pledges. A nice gesture that will hopefully do much good, philanthropy is not an alternative for economic diversification, though can help if targeted for that purpose.

The financial crisis represents precisely how corrosive moral hazard is realized at dangerous levels that can reach critical mass, which could be triggered by unforeseen events.  Moral hazard is a psychological phenomenon, which occurs from regulatory, governance and policy failures that then combine with the ensuing economic weakness to cause the next crisis.  In this case the trigger was regulatory failure followed by heavy-handed resolution that caused massive collateral damage, further harming innocent citizens worldwide. In such cases where the non-virtuous (aka vicious) cycle is not interrupted by a moral realignment, typically through accountability by the justice system, strong credible governance, and adoption of new systems that punishes crimes and rewards beneficial behavior, then civilizations can and do rapidly decline.

In hindsight from a high level view, from a hopefully wiser former business consultant who has studied related phenomenon for decades now, it appears that we enjoyed a long period of one-off exploitations of planet and people combined with ever-increasing public debt and corruption supporting promises by politicians and institutions that were far beyond their means to deliver.

The bad news is that the combination of public debt and future liabilities tragically promised by politicians—and now expected—some portion of which is necessary to survive in the high cost modern economy caused by these policies, can’t possibly be paid by the current economy.

The good news is that not all of that massive spend on R&D over decades has gone to waste, and we now have much more accountable systems that can indeed prevent the super majority of future crises, if only we can muster the courage to adopt them. We are also seeing dramatic improvements in systems that have the capacity for exponential productivity growth over time, which is the only method in our current economic system to cover national debt, unfunded liabilities, and the needs of a quickly aging global population, given the immense future needs in healthcare, environment and economics.

So my plan for 2016 is to tap the exponentially decreased cost and performance improvement in computing hardware and algorithmics to extend our networked artificial intelligence system to the mid-market, NGOs, and governments to provide them with a world class system unavailable to anyone at any cost until very recently. My hope is that our Kyield OS will help even the playing field and lead to a more dynamic and robust economy of the type that is only possible with healthy balance of diversification. Soon thereafter we plan to do the same directly for small business and individuals.

“If your time to you is worth savin’
you better start swimmin’, or you’ll sink like a stone
For the times they are a-changin’”
– Bob Dylan

Discover Kyield on the voyage to CALO (continuously adaptive learning organization)


tidal pool

A tidal pool ecosystem in Half-Moon Bay, CA.

For those involved with the art, science, and mechanics of organizational management, the 1990s was an exciting if humbling decade. The decade was ushered in with new thinking from Peter Senge in The Fifth Discipline, which introduced The Learning Organization to many. The concept sounded absolutely refreshing to those in the trenches—who could disagree with such logic?

I was deeply engaged at the time in a series of turn-arounds in mid-market companies. The particular business case offered for consideration was a union shop that was bankrupt from the day it opened nearly a decade earlier, and had never made a payment on many millions of dollars of debt.

The new owner had acquired the operating company out of bankruptcy with assumptions that were based on experiences that did not apply to the subject or market. Due to a low discounted acquisition value, the buyers had little to lose if the company continued to underperform, but a great deal to gain if the company could be brought up to a competitive market position.

Long-story short, it was a very challenging yearlong engagement during which time we surpassed everyone’s short-term expectations by a significant degree, including my own. Before I share what went wrong, let’s review a few things we did right:

  • The subject called for and we received an unusual level of authority from owners, which required exceptional levels of mutual trust, and a great deal of credibility.

  • We put together a strong team with a mix of experience relevant to the specific case. Each could recognize the opportunity, and even though under-resourced, we were able to create one of the industry’s top performances that year.

  • We were able to gain the trust and support of the union—which enjoyed a double-digit increase in membership, with most members experiencing significant increases in compensation.

  • Though never union members, senior management to include the owners had personal experience with labor, which was demonstrated alongside workers at critical times and helped gain their support (we walked the talk).

  • The few remaining core customers were so desperate for improved product and service that a modest upgrade and competency improved sales as well as the reputation, from which new and larger customers were gained.

  • The communities involved were relieved to see a well-managed company emerge from years of bankruptcy, churn of management, and under-investment, so we gained support of regional governments (important in this case), which also enjoyed increased tax receipts.

  • The pricing of products and services were well below market, so after modest investment with competent management, I was able to raise prices significantly while increasing sales volume, resulting in a substantial, growing profit.

  • We were able to double the value of the company in one year based on cash flow and future orders, which dramatically improved the position of the parent company, allowing refinancing at more attractive rates.

Now allow me to share why I consider this engagement (with others in this era) to be among my greatest mistakes.

Failure to learn, adapt, and seize the more important opportunity

Many of us wrongly assumed that the parent company would learn from the experience and use the success as a platform to seize other opportunities, which would have required a change in the structure, type, and talent of the company.

Despite considerable coaching combined with all that accompanies short-term financial success, the parent company did not learn the most valuable lessons from this intense experience, so they were not able to adapt to rapidly changing markets. Motivation and desire also clearly contributed, so after a final attempt to convince the parent company owners to transform into a competitive model, we moved on after contract.

My final report to owners and lenders concluded that the company had probably hit a ceiling, recommending that they either embrace the transformation strategy or sell the company. We could take them no further in current form. Just one example of why—a colleague who was a key team member had received a far superior offer from a great company in a location he and his family preferred.

The client’s response was way below market at a tiny fraction of what the operations specialist had created for the client. The decision on my colleague was surprising, as he was one of the pillars, so it confirmed the ceiling for me. The owners were left with a rising star in a subsidiary that kept shining for a short period, during which time likely created profits far exceeding investment, but then began to fade. Unlike the other holdings of the parent company, this subsidiary required intensive, sophisticated, and experienced management.

A decade later I read where the subject had fallen back to a similar performance level to when the parent company acquired it. It gives me no pleasure to share that hindsight has demonstrated the period of our engagement to be the peak of the parent company’s 50-year history. We worked very hard to provide the opportunity for an enduring success.

While we enjoyed deep mutual respect with the parent company, which appeared adaptive in this acquisition and others we brought to them, they weren’t willing to transform their organization. They were opportunistic on a one-off basis, which is best suited for the flipping model, not for an enduring business. Even then technology played a big role through IBM mainframes, inventory management, and transactions over networks. Today of course most companies are facing more dramatic change in an environment that is far more talent and technology dependent.

The learning organization struggles in the 1990s

A few years and dozens of assignments later we had established a tech lab and incubator to explore and test opportunities due to Internet commercialization, which catapulted the economy with significant g-force into the network era. By the mid-1990s a few operational consultants had become critical of the apparent naiveté with the learning organization theory, which like knowledge management had a philosophy that many could embrace, but in practice found difficult to achieve given real-world constraints, including legal and physical, not just cultural or soft issues.

A few researchers pointed out that it was difficult to find actual cases of learning organizations (Kerka 1995). In papers, textbooks, and Ph.D. theses I was invited to review, the same few cases and papers were cited relentlessly, often comparing apples to oranges. One example was a study published by Finger and Brand in 1999, which found that systems needed to be non-threatening. That may have been the case for their subject at the Swiss Postal Service, but would be unrealistic where threats are among few constants, increasingly to include government and academia. Peter Senge apparently took notice of the criticism, reflected in the subtitle of his book The Dance of Change (1999); “The Challenges of Sustaining Momentum in Learning Organizations”.

By the end of the 1990s I had become vocal on the primitive state of systems and tools that could achieve the goals of the learning organization, and more importantly adapt in a sufficient time frame. My perspective was one from operating a live knowledge systems lab that was building, operating, and testing learning networks, which included daily forums that discussed hundreds of real-world cases in real-time over several years. Many were complaining about poor technology and lack of much needed innovation, yet few were focused on improvement from within organizations that would allow innovation to make it to market.

Some researchers have since suggested that in order to achieve the learning organization, it was first necessary for knowledge workers to abandon self-interest, while others claimed that ‘collective accountability’ is the key. In updating myself on this research recently, it sometimes seemed as if organizational management consultants and researchers were attempting to project a vision over actual evidence, denying the historical importance of technology for survival of our species, as well as mathematics, physics, and economics. Consider the message to an AI programmer or pharma scientist today coming from a tenured professor or government employee with life-long security on ‘the need to abandon self-interest’. This has been tested continuously in competitive markets and simply isn’t credible. The evidence is overwhelmingly polar to such advice.

Current state of the CALO

We may have been experiencing devolution and evolution concurrently, yet humans kept working to overcome problems, representing all major disciplines. My company Kyield is among them.

Significant progress has been made across and between all disciplines, including with understanding and engineering the dynamical components of modern organizations.

The network economy

No question that the structure of an organization greatly influences the ability to adapt even if having learned lessons well, including legal, tax, reporting, incentives, physical, and virtual. The network economy has altered the very foundational structure many organizations operate on top of.

While each structure needs to be very carefully crafted, the structural changes vary from the rare ‘no change is needed’ to increasingly common ‘bold change required to survive’. Though it need not be so, it is increasingly more efficient to disrupt and displace than to change from within.

Globalization

While we are experiencing a repatriation and regionalization trend, globalization radically changed the way organizations learn and how they must adapt. Several billion more people are driving the network economy than in 1990, with a significant portion moving from extreme poverty to the middle class.

The global financial crisis (GFC)

Suffice to say for this purpose that the GFC has altered the global operating and regulatory landscape for many businesses and governments—in some cases radically, and is still quite fluid. Currency swings in response to unprecedented monetary policies are the most recent example of this chaotic process, though only one of many organizations must navigate. If the regulatory agencies were CALOs, much of the pain would be mitigated.

Machine learning (ML)

Although quite early in commercialization and most cases still confidential, ML combined with cognitive computing and AI assisted augmentation is rapidly improving. Deep learning is an effective means of achieving a CALO in a pure network environment that interacts with customers such as search and social networking, though is being adopted widely now.

One of the largest continuous learning projects is Orion by UPS, which was kind enough to share some detail in public. Orion provides an excellent case for many to consider as it overlaps the physical world with advanced networks and large numbers of employees worldwide. Unlike Google or Facebook that began as virtual companies running on computer networks, UPS represents a large transformation of the type most organizations need to consider. In the case of UPS of course, they have massive logistical operations with very high volume of semi-automated and automated data management.

Having developed deeply tailored use case scenarios for each sector in Kyield’s customer pipeline, numbering in the dozens, I can offer a few words of advice in public.

  1. While all public cases should be considered, remember that few are shared in public for good reason. Few if any companies have the business model, need, resources, or capacity of Google or UPS, which is why they can share the information.

  2. Rare is the case when enormous custom projects should be copied. The craftwork of planning and design is substantially about taking available lessons, combining with technology, systems, and talent in a carefully tailored manner for the client.

  3. Regardless of whether a large custom project, completely outsourced, or anything in-between, board level supervision is necessary to avoid switching dependencies from one vendor or internal department to another. I see this occurring with new silos popping up in open source models, data science, statistics, and algorithms. The goal for most should be to reduce dependencies, which is nontrivial when dealing with high-level intellectual capital embedded in advanced technology, particularly given talent wars, level of contracting in these functional roles, and churn.

  4. Since few will be able to develop and maintain competitive custom systems, the goal should be to seek an optimal, adaptive balance between the benefits of custom tailored software systems (Orion or Google), with the efficiency of write once and adopt at scale in software development. This is one of several areas where Kyield can really make the difference on the level of ROI realized. Our continuously adaptive data management system (patented) is automatically tailored to each entity with semi-automated functions restricted to regulatory and security parameters at the corporate and unit level, with the option for individual knowledge workers to plan projects and goals.

  5. Plan from inception to expand the system to the entire organization, ecosystem, and Internet of Entities. Otherwise, the organization will be physically restricted from achieving much of the value any such system can offer, particularly in risk management. One of the biggest errors I see being made, including in some of the most sophisticated tech companies, is approaching advanced analytics as ‘only’ a departmental project. Of course it is wise to take the low hanging fruit through use of pre-existing department budgets where authority and ROI are simple, but it is a classic mistake for CIOs and IT to consider such projects strategic, with very rare exception such as for a strategic project.

  6. Optimize relationship management. Just one example is when our adaptive data management is combined with advanced ML algorithms that include predictive capabilities, which among other functions weighs counter party risk. A similar algorithm can be run for identifying business opportunities.

Concluding thoughts

While it is more challenging to achieve buy-in for organization-wide systems, it is physically impossible to achieve critical use cases otherwise, some of which have already proven to be very serious, and can be fatal. Moreover, very few distributed organizations can become a CALO without a holistic system design across the organization’s networks, particularly in the age of distributed network computing.

If this isn’t sufficient motivation to engage, consider that learning algorithms are very likely (or soon will be) improving the intelligence quotient and operational efficiency of your chief competitors at an extremely rapid rate. Lastly, if the subject organization or entire industry is apathetic and slow to change, it is increasingly likely that highly sophisticated, well-financed disrupters are maturing plans to deploy this type of technology to displace the subject, if not the entire industry.

Bottom line: Move towards CALO rapidly or deal with the consequences. 

Mark Montgomery is founder and CEO of http://www.kyield.com, which offers an advanced distributed operating system and related services centered around Montgomery’s AI systems invention.

Transparency in IT: Why we published the Kyield Enterprise investment guide and price list.


Image

After considerable thought and discussion, we decided to publish an investment guide (pictured above) for Kyield Enterprise that includes product descriptions, a price list, and a table of benefits. This was not a decision that was as easy as it may appear, so I wanted to share some thoughts on the macro challenges of price transparency and interoperability relative to the decision making process. While we’ve been debating this for some time, more experience with our still new system has helped refine our internal process, which influenced timing. Boris Evelson at Forrester Research also deserves credit for consistently bringing this issue out in the open (see my comments), as have other industry analysts. 

The challenge for customers in enterprise software and IT is establishing an accurate estimate of the total cost of ownership (TCO), which is necessary to forecast the overall return on investment (ROI); not a trivial task, requiring as much accurate information as possible. We assist by working collaboratively with customer teams to develop a deeply tailored scenario, which represents a considerable commitment and time investment.

Everyone involved with enterprise systems and networks must deal with a complex cauldron of components that are different in each organization, often including a mix of custom code, legacy software, unsupported open source software (OSS), outdated proprietary software, poorly structured data for current needs, BYOD, and of course massive amounts of unstructured data, among other issues, such as whether appropriate hardware and supported software need to be expanded for a system install. Some have reasonably argued that estimating TCO can best be achieved by privately quoted projects on a case by case basis only after an assessment of the enterprise mix, which of course should be done, but that doesn’t prevent transparency, the lack of which invites abuses across the industry.

Many companies and organizations have cited lack of functional IT systems and interoperability for bankruptcy, while others have won large law suits for being misled by consultants and vendors (usually settled subject to a gag order–not much transparency in those cases). In recent years we’ve observed multi-billion USD projects cancelled due to cost overruns that never resulted in a functional unified system, so entire massive projects were abandoned prior to delivering the first penny towards an ROI (DoD & state healthcare sites among others). While it is true that customer organizations are sometimes their worst enemies in decision making and procurement, it’s also true that the industry has had a very serious problem that hasn’t been resolved due to conflicting interests, sales quotas, growth mandates, and pressure from investors in both public and private equity.

While the lack of interoperability and related complexity have caused strong demand for IT staff, system integrators, consultants, agile developers, and data scientists, resulting in extremely large well-compensated ecosystems, the situation has also corrupted relationships and models. The result is a toxic stew that has contributed to many of the largest problems facing society and the global economy, such as poor outcomes in R&D, stagnant productivity, and failure to prevent systemic crises. This is why some of us have worked towards interoperable standards and systems since the commercialization of the Internet and Web.

In order for any interconnected system to function properly—and achieve sustainable economics, it’s critically important to have a threaded plug and play architecture. I’ve long argued that to meet the enormous current and future needs of our planet, the information revolution must adopt independent standards similar to plumbing, electricity, and transportation during the industrial revolution. This is finally occurring now, led by regulated industries, but lobbyists, entrenched incumbents, and many other conflicted parties are fully engaged at every step of the process. While the impact any single company can have on such a large systemic challenge may be minor in the near-term, unless having dominant market share of course, we can have a big impact in crafting better system design and working collectively with others to improve upon the macro situation, which is what we’ve attempted to achieve with Kyield all along.

Now I’d like to drill down a bit into some of the specific challenges in pricing from the board governance perspective in large organizations, which is our core customer. As the service and integration sector has grown along with open source, the actual cost of software licenses, subscriptions, or IP has become less of the overall problem, especially given increased support for data standards and wide deployment of APIs. It isn’t clear to me that this is sufficiently understood by many boards.

For example, while open source (OSS) and commoditization has had a very positive impact in driving down consumer prices, enterprise costs have increased dramatically overall, in part due to market power of incumbents and lock-in, but also due to the unhealthy relationship in services, which range between 1x to 10x the cost of the software alone. So while the cost of software licensing is certainly important, many are not focused on the most important issue—impact of system design on TCO, and most importantly—what ROI can be reasonably expected?

CEOs, boards, CIOs, and CFOs need to be acutely aware that OSS and low cost computing only truly becomes a powerful driver of ROI for organizations with the ability to differentiate and create a sustainable competitive advantage, which is precisely what we’ve pursued throughout the Kyield voyage. In order to achieve the best of both worlds—low cost commoditization and sustainable advantage—and realize the potential of the technology investment, it frankly requires the brains of the system running on top of the tech stack to be designed in a very specific manner, with interoperability essential, and functionality determining ROI. It’s probably not surprising that I think the optimal system looks a lot like Kyield Enterprise, which was driven by evidenced-based R&D. Kyield Enterprise can in some scenarios make the difference between success and failure. It’s possible in some sectors to provide a positive ROI for the entire IT budget for a century, upon preventing just one major crisis, accelerating the discovery of a single blockbuster drug, expediting innovation, or assisting in an important invention.

In conclusion, while I’m pleased to contribute to industry price transparency, and believe it’s probably good for our business to do so—despite the risks, I also plead with thought leaders, journalists, analysts, CIOs, and boards to keep one eye on the component details and the other eye on the broader impact of IT architecture on the needs of each entity in customer organizations relative to the global economy.

Mark Montgomery

Key patent issued


My key patent for Kyield was issued today by the USPTO as scheduled earlier this month.

Title: Modular system for optimizing knowledge yield in the digital workplace

Abstract: A networked computer system, architecture, and method are provided for optimizing human and intellectual capital in the digital workplace environment.

To view our press release go here

To view the actual patent  go here

I will post an article when time allows on the importance of this technology and IP, and perhaps one on the experience with the patent system. Thanks, MM

New Semantic Health Care Platform


Kyield Unveils New Semantic Health Care Platform

Read the release at Business Wire or the diabetes use case scenario

Kyield AWSE

Diabetes and the American Healthcare System


I am pleased to share our just completed healthcare use case scenario in story telling format.

We selected diabetes mellitus (type 2) as a scenario to demonstrate the value of the Kyield platform to healthcare. Given the very high cost of healthcare in the U.S. currently with an unsustainable economic trajectory, it’s essential that costs be driven lower while improving care. Diabetes type 2 has direct costs exceeding $200 billion annually in the U.S. alone, the majority of which is entirely preventable.

The most obvious method to overcome this significant challenge is with far more intelligent HIT systems. It is not surprising that the legislation appears to be perfectly matched for the Kyield PaaS– nor is it entirely accidental as our mission aligns well with the needs in healthcare; an R&D process that began more than a decade ago.

This was a challenging scenario to develop and write due to the complexity of the disease, large body of regulations, incomplete standards, and varying interests between the partners in the ecosystem.  A bit of extra personal motivation for me was that my father died a few years ago from complications from diabetes, which was diagnosed shortly after my brother died of ALS. Ever since the shocking phone call from my brother informing me of his “death sentence” in the summer of 1997, I have followed ALS research; among the most complex and brutal diseases.

Diabetes type 2 is also complex, but unlike ALS and many other diseases, diabetes type 2 is largely preventable with a relatively modest change in behavior and lifestyle– modest indeed particularly compared to the later stage affects of the disease in absence of prevention, which we highlight in this use case. It’s difficult to understand after watching my father’s disease progress for a decade why anyone would not want to prevent diabetes– it literally destroys the human body.

I hope you find the case interesting and valuable. I am confident that if followed in a similar path as outlined in this scenario, the platform will contribute to significantly more effective prevention and healthcare delivery at a lower cost.

Diabetes Use Case Scenario (PDF)

Mark Montgomery

Toyota’s failure to act on the dots


It seems that every few weeks we hear of another major series of tragedies leading to a crisis that could have been substantially mitigated, if not entirely prevented. Among the most disturbing to discover, and most costly, are those involving safety issues that either threaten or cause loss of life.

Often has been the case during the past decade when the organization involved has been a government agency, but this quarter Toyota wins the prize for failure to act on the digital dots in the enterprise (in fairness Toyota should share the prize with NHTSA—also the front runners for the annual prize—it’s still early in the year).

In the case of  Toyota, we may never know how many digital red flags existed within the enterprise network, but the clear pattern in other cases suggests that the probabilities are high that warnings were common within communications, documents, and web servers indexed by enterprise search engines. Similar to previous events, these problems were known for years by the corporation and the agencies charged with regulation, yet they collectively failed to prevent loss of life, resulting in personal tragedy for a few and far reaching economic destruction in one of the world’s premier corporations.

While growing too fast may have contributed to this problem, it was organizational system design that allowed it to become one of the worst crises in the company’s history, and a serious threat to the future. Toyota has done a good job with innovation in product design compared to most of its competitors, but failed in adopting innovation in organizational management that would sustain their success.

When will leaders of the largest organizations finally understand that failing to invest in how organizations function is often the most expensive mistake executives will ever make? Given the size and impact of industry leaders, combined with the systemic nature of the global economy, these types of failures are unacceptable to growing numbers of communities, companies, and consumers.

An article in the WSJ sums it up well with this quote:

Liu Jiaxiang, a Toyota dealer in Shenzhen, said sales at his stores in southern China have been “steady” since late January. “What keeps me awake at night is a possible long-term erosion of customer confidence in the Toyota brand” because of the recall problem, he said.

Denial is a powerful force in humans, particularly when combined with peer pressure, social herding, politics, bureaucracy, contradictory information, and sheer inertia that seems unstoppable at times. It’s also true that cultures of invincibility have a consistent track record of experiencing crisis and decline soon thereafter.

Mr. Toyoda, if this post finds you, I invite your team to revisit our publications and jointly explore how our holistic semantic enterprise platform could have reduced or prevented this series of recalls. Even if  Toyota had deployed Kyield when your domain first appeared in our Web logs, we almost certainly could have contained this event to a multi-million dollar product defect issue, rather than the multi-billion dollar corporate crisis that it has become.

Mark Montgomery
Founder & CEO – Kyield
Web: http://www.kyield.com
Blog: https://kyield.wordpress.com
email: markm@kyield.com
Twitter: @kyield