Platt Perspective on Business and Technology

China, the United States and the world, and the challenge of an emerging global COVID-19 coronavirus pandemic – 49

Posted in Uncategorized by Timothy Platt on July 25, 2020

This is my 54th posting to specifically address the COVID-19 pandemic that we now face and that by now has found its way into essentially every nation on Earth, and into every facet of our lives. And it is also the 49th installment to this specific series on that.

I usually begin these installments with recent daily updates as to where we are now with this pandemic globally, citing data sourced from the World Health Organization. But I decided to break with that pattern for this posting, and with a goal of stepping back from the here-and-now of this challenge to take a longer term and a more widely considered contextualizing perspective of it.

I have written on a number of occasions about factors and circumstances, and of decisions and actions that have each in their own way contributed to creating this pandemic for its scale of crisis impact. The virus in that is a mechanism, and it is human behavior that has allowed and even in effect encouraged and enabled its pandemic spread and its expansive reach. So I would write here of the COVID-19 pandemic as both a medical and public health crisis, but also as a sociological one as well, though the term cultural anthropological might apply here too.

Why have so many of us become infected with this virus and so quickly? That number in effect makes the others that I keep citing here inevitable, as a by now largely predictable percentage of those infected:

• Become contagious but asymptomatic,
• Become more mildly symptomatically ill, or seriously or critically ill from it,
• Recover from it or die from it,
• And recover but with what are likely to be long term complications or disabilities from having had this disease.

That numerically large last category of all COVID-19 infection cases is still just coming into focus, even as the official number of cases as a whole has now come uncomfortably close to 16,000,000, and with that essentially certainly still only offering a significant underestimation of the actual number of those who have actually contracted this disease. Underreporting and even intentional refusal to report from some nations still persists and for a variety of reasons. All of these numbers are bad and tragically so and all will keep getting worse.

I begin this posting by referring back to a posting and a topic of consideration that I have returned to on a number of occasions now, that I first wrote about in this blog in early 2016 in the run-up to the Republican Party national convention of that year, in the United States: Thinking Through the Words We Use in Our Political Monologs.

I wrote there of how a combination of partisanship, and of systematic breakdowns in our willingness and even our ability to communicate with each other, has led to a breakdown in meaning, as differing political factions have reframed and effectively redefined the basic terms that their opponents there use to represent themselves, making them into pejoratives. Together, we have broken our basic political vocabulary as a whole, as we have traditionally used it when communicating with each other.

That started with the denigration of opposition labels. But that quickly and perhaps inevitably lead to a fundamental destruction of our own labels too: our own basic words as would be needed to even begin to express our political identities. And when we cannot effectively communicate with each other across the barriers of our differences, how could we possibly come to see any possible points of agreement or similarity across them?

• What do words like conservative, liberal and progressive even mean now and certainly when they are used by opposing political voices? They all contained within them a positive value and message. But what do they mean now and what messages do they convey as they are variously used?

But is it not just that we have collectively destroyed the meaning of the words that we have traditionally used to describe ourselves for our beliefs and values, and the words that were similarly used by members of opposing political parties and perspectives. It is that it has become so automatic for essentially all of us to see anyone who would differ from us on anything, as being different from us on everything. And it has become all too easy and automatic to see any who would differ from us on matters of factual judgment or opinion as being evil and not just wrong. We have demonized our differences and as a result we can no longer even really begin to discuss them, let alone our points of at least possible agreement. And we find ourselves speaking past each other, and bitterly so, and not with each other. There is no basis remaining in our polity for finding a common ground with that, or for seeking out mutually acceptable and mutually beneficial solutions to our shared problems – and even when they arrive as a pandemic: a veritable force of nature that infects and spreads and that is immune to any influence from our partisanship or our recriminations, or our attempts to reframe reality as being acceptable to us or as being “fake news.”

Think of COVID-19 and the SARS-CoV-2 virus that causes it as representing an at least seeming ultimate reality check on our partisan hubris, that we think that we can bend reality to suit our divisive wills. And I write this in general terms because it does not matter that one political party and its extremists started this and certainly in the United States; all sides and factions are too quick to follow this path now.

The only way that we can prevail over a crisis like this pandemic and without paying the maximum cost for that of simply letting it run its course among us, is if we can come to acknowledge at least one shared truth:

• A fundamental need for societal stability and a fundamental need for open communications and a willingness to find common grounds and with a shared consensus in addressing widely shared problems.

We need to acknowledge and both publically and to others, and to ourselves that our divisiveness is as much a problem for us as this virus is, and that that in fact empowers this virus in its pandemic spread. And if we fail to achieve that, we risk losing a lot more than we see right now in this. The openness and ability and willingness to actually come together in search of a common ground, is a fundamental requirement for our democracy itself, and its survival.

I write a lot in this series, of the role that president Trump is playing in thwarting any national response to this pandemic, with his failure to lead and to actually act presidential there, and with that significantly contributing to our national failure to contain this disease. And his polarizing, divisiveness and his capitalizing on our political divides, and our inability to talk with each other have simply added to this crisis as it is playing out in the United States. But as I have already noted in this series, president Trump is a symptom here, even if a very consequential one, and not a cause. The challenges that I write of here are much more deep-set and they will not end with the end of his presidency – and even if he is overwhelmingly defeated in the November, 2020 US presidential election. These challenges will not end even if Trump’s political party: the Republican Party as he has rebuilt it into his own cult of personality, loses power and in both houses of Congress and by large margins and in many and even most currently Republican led statehouses where they face elections this year too.

• This may look to be a problem from the top, facing and influencing downwards but the real challenge that we face here is now grassroots in nature and a consequence of the collective turning away from democratic openness and connectedness by the many.

We see ourselves surrounded by economic and social injustice and inequality and in a context where global warming and environmental degradation go way too much unchecked, and certainly where governmental action in the United States as led from the top in Washington, DC is concerned. We are facing overall economic crises and healthcare and public health crises that are all but exploding out in scale around us. And we are still paralyzed in being able to come together to address these challenges. And that failure in our even collectively acknowledging the specifics that we face, has become our true existential crisis, in and of itself.

COVID-19 can be seen as representing a lens that is focusing a sharp light on deep underlying problems that have been developing for years now. We see that disease and its pandemic spread as the problem but it is in fact just a symptom of what we now face. The underlying problem that exacerbates that crisis and so much more, is what we should really be worried about – and not just because of how it has politicized even our basic tools for limiting this disease with that including more widespread use of even the most basic disease containment tools available to us such as the use of personally protective equipment and social distancing.

I end this posting with a metaphor. Imagine that you are trapped in a burning building with people who you do not particularly like and who do not particularly like you. But the building is burning down around you all and this is your collective home and the only one that any of you have. What should you individually seek to do there? What should they seek to do? And what collectively can you all at least attempt doing together in response to this crisis? How can you best act to save your shared home out of all of this and even your collective lives?

Our house really in on fire now and we really are in it while it burns around us. How can we come together and save it, ourselves, and each other? And what costs will we all pay if we cannot come together to do this?

I am going to continue this series in a next installment in a few days, where I will return to citing and sharing daily World Health Organization data, among other things. Meanwhile, you can find this and my earlier COVID-19 related postings to this series at Macroeconomics and Business 2 and its Page 3 continuation, as postings 365 and following.

Nonprofits as businesses: more effectively connecting mission and vision, strategy and operations 6

Posted in nonprofits, Uncategorized by Timothy Platt on June 11, 2020

This is my 6th installment to a series that I am offering here as a more detailed continuation to a stand-alone posting that I first wrote and posted in 2010 as Nonprofits and Blue Ocean Strategies (see Nonprofits and Social Networking, postings 42 and following for Parts 1-5 of this series.)

I focused on finding, and strategically and operationally developing an effective blend of:

• Best of breed current best practices and
• Potential game changing insights that would offer particular value to your nonprofit

in Part 5, and simply note that both can offer significant and even game changing value to such an enterprise and in both their more routine operational systems and in where they would specifically promote and advance mission and vision goals that are in place.

And I said at the end of Part 5 that I would take its discussion of these issues at least somewhat out of the abstract by offering and discussing a case study example of how that would and would not be done.

I have put some thought into which nonprofit I would turn to for this, from the ones that I have worked with and in some cases explicitly worked for. And I have decided to offer what amounts to a hybrid example, drawing pertinent details from two of them where together they might offer more wide-ranging, hopefully insightful value here.

• Both of those nonprofits seek to offer specific supportive value to particular, mission and vision-specific communities in need, with one focusing on education and the opportunities that can create for people who would otherwise be left out, and the other focusing on healthcare and specific at-risk and suffering communities.
• Both seek to be, and in a fundamental sense both are unique resources and certainly for the specific communities that they reach out to and actively support. So both are at least significantly blue ocean strategy and practice-driven in that sense.
• Both have been around long enough now, and both have garnered enough name recognition for what they seek to do and for what they in fact actually do, to be stable enterprises. (Or at least both were in this position, leading up to the start of the COVID-19 pandemic. I will turn from the narrative progression that I have been planning for here in this series, in a next installment to it, to address that challenges that such a disruptive negative can have on any nonprofit, expanding on what I began for that type of discussion with Some Thoughts on Maintaining Funding Support for Nonprofits Through Times of Widely Impactful Crisis.)

But returning to the narrative of this posting from that, both of these nonprofits market to carefully considered and carefully cultivated dual audiences: those who they would reach out to and help through effort to fulfill their respective missions and visions, and those who they would turn to for funding and other support in doing this.

“Other support” is particularly important there, where for example that means the educationally oriented example nonprofit that I write of here, reaching out to businesses that might hire the generally young adults who go through their training program, and who do not have a resume track record to market their employability from. This means developing and carrying through on that training program with the needs of those prospective employers in mind, and it means their offering follow-up support for new hires as they seek to find their way through the novelty of applying what they have just learned in a practical, hands-on business setting and where they do not have all that much prior workplace experience to begin with, of any sort – except perhaps as unskilled or minimally skilled, “disposable because easily replaceable” labor.

Similar dual and more, lines of focus can be found in the marketing and related outreach that the healthcare nonprofit that I cite here has to be engaged in. So both of the specific case nonprofits that I would fit into my hybrid example here, and for all of their other differences, follow the same basic needs and response pattern there. And they are not unique in that.

When I wrote of best of breed approaches in Part 5, and when starting this posting as well, I partitioned them into two buckets: one more oriented towards fulfilling basic business functions with excellence and the other oriented on what makes a nonprofit a functioning nonprofit per se and with a focus on what makes it a unique value creating resource that is worthy of community support for what they do. What I am adding here as I begin putting something of a face to that discussion (or rather parts of two faces to it) is a need to take off any blinders and take a 360 degree perspective on what is done and how. Or take a 720 spherical degree perspective if you want to challenge a flat plane circle perspective there, allowing for a richer, more multi-dimensional perspective in your strategy and planning and in your execution thereof.

Look to the constituencies who you have to reach out to, and think and plan in terms of how best to do so in a coordinated and mutually supportive and reinforcing way. And look for opportunities to make that mutually supportive and reinforcing go two-way. Look for opportunities to create synergies there.

• Who do you seek to help and support?
• Who do you need help from in making that possible and in its widest realistically achievable sense?
• How can you best bring them together with your nonprofit serving as the vital glue that binds and enables there?

I simplified my educational nonprofit side to this hybrid here, only focusing on two of what are in fact many stakeholder constituencies: stakeholder and potential stakeholder communities of importance there. Funding donor communities are obvious additional entries for them but so are businesses that provide used computers and other hardware resources that this nonprofit needs and on a steady ongoing basis. Simply limiting my math metaphor to 720 spherical degrees and pointing in all possible directions in a three dimensional spherical context is not enough.

• A big part of “blue ocean” there means looking in and acting in new and otherwise unconsidered and unaddressed directions.

For the healthcare nonprofit that I would cite here, that has meant actively reaching out to and supporting biomedical research and particularly as that reaches a tipping point of validated impact where it can begin to be translated from the lab in a direction of clinical use.

• This calls for really effective networking into the biomedical research community to even begin to know what might best be supported in that effort, and how and with what project-specific priorities.
• And this means risk taking where a project that is brought into translational research, clinical trials might not work out.
• But one of their efforts in this direction turned what was a death sentence diagnosis into a treatable condition that can be lived with and long-term now.

I m going to continue this discussion in a next series installment, as noted above, by addressing the COVID-19 challenge that nonprofits such as these two now face. Then after that I will consider short-term and long-term as strategic and operational benchmarks. Meanwhile, you can find this and related material at Nonprofits and Social Networking.

China, the United States and the world, and the challenge of an emerging global COVID-19 coronavirus pandemic – 13

Posted in macroeconomics, Uncategorized by Timothy Platt on April 13, 2020

This is my 14th posting to specifically address the COVID-19 pandemic that we now face and that by now has found its way into essentially every nation on Earth, and into every facet of our lives. And as usual for this emerging series, I begin by offering daily updates as sourced from the World Health Organization, as to how theCOVID-19 pandemic has been proceeding since my last such posting on this:

• April 11 at 02:23 GMT: 1,699,630 reported cases with 1,220,569 currently active, 479,061 now closed, and with 49,830 active in serious or critical condition (4 %), and 102,734 closed cases reported as deaths (21 %)
• April 12 at 00:28 GMT: 1,779,099 reported cases with 1,267,620 currently active, 511,479 now closed, and with 50,584 active in serious or critical condition (4 %), and 108,770 closed cases reported as deaths (21 %)
• April 13 at 01:25 GMT: 1,852,686 reported cases with 1,314,993 currently active, 537,693now closed, and with 50,758 active in serious or critical condition (4%), and 114,214 closed cases reported as deaths (21 %)

I offered Part 12 of this series with a goal of providinga sense of how raw epidemiological data such as the above is organized, analyzed and developed into descriptive and predictive disease progression models. Think of those models as organized summaries of sets of causally connected questions: scientifically posed hypotheses, and their possible answers as crucial issues are considered for their impact, such as:

• How long the SARS-CoV-2 virus can remain viable and infectious on a contaminated surface,
• How long people who are infected with COVID-19 are actively contagious during their pre-symptomatic incubation period,
• How long people are and will remain contagious and pose disease transmission risk who are asymptomatic and who will remain as such,
• And how many of these actively infected but uncounted people are out there, or at least statistically likely to be there and present in any given community.
• And to add to that list, consider the impact of social distancing and other containment efforts that might even be publically mandated, and that at the very least are strongly encouraged in many places, and how effectively they are being followed in actual practice by members of the general public.

And in the course of drafting that Part 12 note on this still actively developing event, I continued a discussion of uncertainty and of how it enters into every phase and aspect of this global challenge. Uncertainty and how that would be expected to arise for even the most causally significant factors involved here, leads to multiple epidemiological models, each distinguishable from all of the rest from how each would variously estimate possible values and value ranges for them. As an example of that, that has been repeatedly discussed in the news for its overriding importance, consider the impact of effective containment efforts through social distancing and related efforts as just touched upon above – and the model predicting consequences of achieving and maintain it, or of failing to do so.

In keeping with that, where are we now with all of this? I have primarily focused on the global in addressing this pandemic, with specific countries added into that narrative as they would help to clarify or expand upon that. But let’s consider one specific nation out of that global whole now: the nation that is currently facing at least the highest officially reported impact of all out of this. And yes, currently the United States is facing the greatest overall immediate impact of any nation on Earth from COVID-19, at least as reported by the World Health Organization, the United States Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, and similarly capable public health organizations. Where are we now, there?

• The world population is estimated to include some 7.8 billion people, as of March 2020.
• The United States population is currently estimated to include some 327 million people, or approximately 4.2% of that overall population total (with that expected to be more formally updated with the upcoming 2020 US census.)
• The current worldwide total of recorded COVID-19 cases now shows as 1,852,686 according to World Health Organization data, as of early April 13, GMT.
• The current United States total of recorded COVID-19 cases now shows as 560,425 according to World Health Organization data as of that same date and time, or 30 % of all cases.

Nations that have exhibited more effective and comprehensive reporting on the incidence of COVID-19 within their borders, tend to show correspondingly higher numbers of cases, higher numbers of active cases and higher numbers of fatalities from COVID-19, than are reported from nations that face greater barriers and limitations in their morbidity and mortality reporting efforts. That can for all intent and purpose be considered a truism and one that has been continuously supported by available data, and from when organizations such as the World Health Organization first began collecting, organizing and sharing it. It, and the above data and calculations also suggest at least an order of magnitude guesstimation as to what at least will happen in nations such as India when this disease really takes off there – if that is they can achieve at least as effective a disease containment as the United States has.

Remember, my comments as offered here in earlier installments of this series as to how this pandemic will most likely proceed, and how any predictions that I have made there depend upon the effectiveness of the disease exposure and transmission containment efforts achieved. And remember my discussion there of the endemic structural challenges that India and I add Brazil and other nations face for that. I have discussed their predicaments, as well as making note of the parallel predicaments faced by way too many other nations now, in this series. And I simply refer you back to that earlier narrative for further clarification as to how realistic you might expect that the above “as effective as,” back-of-the-envelope epidemiologically grounded prediction might prove itself to be.

We are nowhere near the end of this crisis; we are almost certainly closer to its beginning still. But with that noted, I turn from that line of discussion to offer a few thoughts as to where we might be headed as this pandemic does finally approach an end and as we find ourselves looking back at it. And I begin addressing that by looking back to the past, and to history coming out of the 1918 flu pandemic and its consequential aftermath. And in keeping with this series, I begin with the issues of containment, and of efforts to stop disease transmission and disease spread through that.

An effective vaccination against the SARS-CoV-2 virus that causes COVID-19 will be developed and it will become available and widely so. But that is likely to take another year or more at the very least and certainly if it is to be tested for safety, let alone efficacy before general release to the public as a whole. The same, albeit with shorted wait times, will most likely apply for effective medicinal treatments that go beyond symptomatic relief for what they can accomplish, and that actually act upon the virus and its life cycle and directly so. Right now, containment: a tool and approach that has offered value for all epidemics and pandemics up to now and throughout history, is the one and only reliable resource that we can bring to bear for this. And more specifically we know where it has been used and even at least roughly how effectively it has been and in some detail, for our most recent global pandemic before this one: that 1918 flu pandemic. We know something of the more precise, quantifiable details for that event and at a level of detail that would offer specific value for when planning ahead now.

• What was the impact of containment, and of contact limiting isolation efforts that went into it, in that earlier historical example, and both for their more immediate public health impact, and longer-term as nations and as regions within them sought to recover from this, and economically too?

I begin addressing that by offering a few particularly relevant references, that I have to add mirror very closely, some of the key points of discussion and concern that we face today in our current COVID-19 context. And the first of them is:

The Effect of Public Health Measures on the 1918 Influenza Pandemic in U.S. Cities (as found in the US Proceedings of the National Academy of Science.)

Highlighting some of this research paper’s key findings here: cities that more actively sought to contain the spread of that pandemic and that maintained their effort to do so for longer, were much more likely to only face one wave of this disease and correspondingly lower mortality rates from it. Those that did not, tended to see second wave resurgences of that flu strain, and correspondingly higher infection rates and correspondingly higher mortality rates from that as well, and with longer-term immediate and ongoing turmoil and societal disruption as a consequence.

And to highlight a point of for-comparison detail from 1918 as raised in the above reference work that addresses an issue that has become crucially important in understanding COVID-19 in the United States now:

• There are also meaningful statistical correlations in that earlier data coming out of that flu pandemic, as far as the quality of healthcare and the levels of health risk are concerned, comparing morbidity and mortality data from 1917 (pre-pandemic) to 1918 (early but already significantly pandemic) for wealthier and poorer communities.
• People living in underserved communities now, show higher rates of COVID-19 complications and higher mortality rates from that now; their 1918 counterparts showed the exact same patterns for their pandemic disease.
• For all of the very real advances that have taken place and certainly in technologically advanced nations such as the United States in the fields of medical science and clinical practice, those fundamental gaps in our overall healthcare systems still prevail.

And I close out my discussion of this reference work by sharing a quotation from it, and a question that it raises at least in my mind, given our current crisis and its emerging issues:

• “The interest of this study is far from just historical; policy makers around the world are considering how nonpharmaceutical public health measures can be used to contain or mitigate a future pandemic.”
• What have we learned from that? And to be as explicitly clear in what I mean with that question, let me rephrase it. What have we learned as far as actual enacted public health policy and practice are concerned, and as far as a need for proactive remediation are concerned, that such enacted policy and practice would call for?

And with that I turn to at least briefly and preliminarily consider the economics of a pandemic such as we are now facing. Or to be more specific here, I turn here to at least preliminarily consider the possible, and even likely economic impact of the measures that we take as we seek to limit and control this pandemic.

I begin with a basic, organizing report on the economics of a global pandemic per se, as prepared and written well before our current healthcare crisis when the 1918 flu pandemic was the one working model, case study example that we were limited to, and certainly where detailed data was available for understanding it in anything like a currently applicable manner. And I also offer a link to a report prepared for the US Homeland Security Council, as first published in May 2006 that sets the stage for understanding that macroeconomics-oriented report and its basic then-held assumptions.

The Macroeconomic Costs of a Global Influenza Pandemic, and
National Strategy for Pandemic Influenza.

Pandemics obviously have tremendous impact on businesses and even entire industries, and marketplaces at all levels and on entire economies. But what holds the greatest potential for creating long-term lasting damage: a pandemic itself or failures in how it is addressed and even when those remediative efforts taken would seem to be specifically damage-limiting to economies and certainly in any shorter term, immediate-needs context?

Let’s consider the economics of our current COVID-19 reality as a here-and-now and still emerging challenge, and with data from the United States as a source of working data for that.

Jobless Claims Surpass 16 Million; Aid Package Stalls in Senate (nota bene, the next day that number was revised upwards to “at least 16,780,000” Americans losing their jobs from lay-offs or furloughs and all within just 21 days.)
• And Survey: 1 in 4 Americans Has Lost Job or Income to Coronavirus.

A seemingly endless flood of businesses have been shuttered in the United States in an effort to contain the COVID-19 pandemic there, and with a goal of flattening the curve so as to limit the numbers of deaths that will result from it. Looking beyond the impact that this has created, and that it is still creating for individuals and for businesses, the overall national economy of the United States as a whole has just suffered a blow that dwarfs anything experienced there, at least since the worst of the Great Depression. And that blow continues to fall and with no clear end in sight.

• But what should national governments encourage, promote or even mandate as necessary in response to this type of challenge and with an active goal of addressing both shorter-term, immediate crisis response needs, and longer-term recovery and redevelopment needs as well?

I offer two references that might point at least partly in that direction, there focusing primarily on those second half requirements as cited in that question:

Pandemic Shutdowns Actually Helped Economic Growth in 1918 Flu and
Pandemics Depress the Economy, Public Health Interventions Do Not: Evidence from the 1918 Flu.

I am going to continue this discussion in a next series installment where I will delve into the issues that I have just pointed towards with those references and with my lead-in to offering them. Then I will build from there to assay some calculated and hopefully reasoned guesses as to what will come next, and certainly as the United States and I add the world as a whole really begins to recover from this pandemic.

And I end this posting with a simple sounding truism when stated in the abstract, that will nevertheless will prove to be maddeningly difficult to actually determine and implement in practice: timing is everything.

Meanwhile, you can find my earlier COVID-19 related postings at Macroeconomics and Business 2, as postings 365 and following.

Tolerance and openness under stress – some thoughts on 9-11

Posted in Uncategorized by Timothy Platt on September 11, 2010

Platt Perspective is a business and technology oriented blog and I focus on that in my postings. But much of what I write of involves social networking and community, and best practices for connecting to create and share mutual value.

I wasn’t initially planning on posting about 9-11 and the anniversary of the terrorist attack of 2001 that brought the United States and many others into war on several fronts. My intention in this blog has never been to post political views. But at the risk of violating that goal I find myself writing of 9-11 here, and of the need for tolerance and openness as a counterpart to the closed minded violence we see in the news.

Too many of us are too quick to demonize those who differ from us, and so often for violating standards that we do not live up to either. We see differences as Other, and demonize Other, and in so doing undercut any moral standing we might claim for ourselves. And we reach out to do violence in the name of our religion or our creed or our politics and even when that action violates the basic tenants that we would claim to support. We become our own worst enemies and all we would strike out at become as if reflection of ourselves.

Before we look for flaws and error in others, perhaps we should look to our own beliefs, and most especially to how we show our true beliefs and opinions in the actions we take and the enacted priorities we live by. And we need to set aside the easy, fascicle stereotypes and look to individuals for who they are and what they do – and not simply to membership in larger groups.

I am an American and write this note thinking of some of the anti-Muslim sentiments that have come up in the news lately, highlighting the words and actions of bigots and the religiously intolerant. Too much like that is done on all sides and it gets too much publicity, drowning out efforts of good faith to bridge the gaps that divide us.

This is important for business and the marketplace but more than that it is vitally important for us as individuals and for our families, and for the communities we live in.

So if we would repudiate the terrorist impulse that made 9-11-2001 so painful for so many, it should be in denying the impulse to repudiate Other, and to reach out to accept our differences and our diversity. And that is my wish for this 9-11 and for all to come.

Tim Platt
September 11, 2010

An update on this blog – a link with the Four Groups blog

Posted in Uncategorized by Timothy Platt on November 1, 2009

I will have posted 68 times to this blog counting this note and the number of comments and replies to my postings has more or less stayed even with that. I really appreciate the feedback and interest expressed in those comments you have shared with me and I enjoy them as opportunities to share thoughts from you and to develop conversations.

The reason I decided to post this update was to make what I see as a very important announcement. I have just reciprocally shared links with another business blog that I have come to respect a great deal. Bruce Lewin and his business Four Groups offer insightful approaches to developing great teams that add real value to the organizations they work for. I invite you to take a look, both at the Four Groups web site and at their blog at, as I am sure you will find them a real source of insight and value too.

Upcoming on Platt Perspective

Posted in Uncategorized by Timothy Platt on October 22, 2009

I am only posting one real content item today with the most recent installment in my social networking and job search series. I have been busy in meetings and with my startup, among other things. I have not, however, forgotten that I posted I will be adding a Business and convergent technologies part 3 on virtual reality. That is a high priority for upcoming postings, as is a new segment on startups, with a focus on moving past ad hoc.

Upcoming postings – a quick planning preview for the weeks ahead

Posted in Uncategorized by Timothy Platt on October 16, 2009

As of today, I have planned out:

• Seven more specific installments in the social networking and job search series.
• The opening segments of a new series on business and convergent technologies.
• A couple of specific In the News analysis pieces,

I am planning on posting a piece on Twitter tomorrow, touching on best practices issues and how its use does and does not connect into and support business strategy and effective business marketing goals. I am also going to post that next job search strategy and tactics segment as cited at the end of part 5, below.

I will, of course, be posting daily. If you find this of interest please share the URL to the blog with your friends and colleagues, and certainly any who might be looking for new career opportunities or be involved in new businesses. And I look forward to your comments to these postings as I find them of real value and my intent here is to both share information and to develop a basis for discussion. Thanks, Tim Platt

… thoughts and experience shared on a range of business and technology issues.

Posted in Uncategorized by Timothy Platt on August 27, 2009

A wide range of colleagues have asked me to blog and for a long time now, and I have finally decided to take the step and do it.  I alternate between full time employment with single organizations and consulting, and have developed experience in a range of industries and in both the for-profit and nonprofit sectors.  I bring this, coupled with the fact that I am interested in everything to this blog and I am looking forward to sharing ideas through it. 


Timothy Platt, Ph.D.

%d bloggers like this: