|A Periodic Newsletter on
Breakthroughs in Strategic Foresight
August 30, 2020
Prof. William Halal
Redesigning Capitalism - Final Results
The Coming Collaborative/Democratic Enterprise
Do not despair over the dismal state of the world today. The collective intelligence of 36 people who have participated in this study expect a new model of Democratic Enterprise to enter the business mainstream over the next several years with a highly positive societal impact. It could prove to be the beginning of a new American Renaissance.
Here's a quick summary of the proposition being studied, more fully described at the end of this blog. The coronavirus pandemic, economic depression, the threat of climate change and other crises signal that business must go beyond making money to "internalize" these societal problems -- or the world faces disaster. Building on the Business Roundtable announcement and other background data, this study forecasts the likelihood that the mainstream of business in modern nations will serve the interests of all stakeholders over the next several years.
This study started in our blog of August 1 when Redesigning Capitalism was rated as having greatest interest among 14 different topics. The blog of August 15 drew on comments from 12 contributors to flesh out our background analysis, and it also called for estimates of Probability and Societal Impact.
We are now pleased to present results from 24 of this blog's readers below:
These results are striking. A sample of 24 is more than sufficient to reach sound conclusions, especially considering the sophisticated people who contributed, many of whom are TechCast Experts:
Margarite Abe, Jonathan Kolber, Jose Cordeiro, Peter King, Jess Garretson, Jacques Malan, Dale Deacon, Dennis Bushnell, Peter Bishop, Nicolas Cordes , Aharon Hauptman, Julio Milan, Andrew Micone, Linda Smith, Amy Fletcher, Fadi Bayoud, Lew Miller, Xin Wu Lin, Owen Davies, Tom Tao, Jerry Glenn, Carlos Scheel, Chris Garlick. We are grateful.
It is hard to imagine a more positive outcome. When considering the “mode” (highest number of responses), our contributors estimate a 70% probability that “the mainstream of business in industrialized nations (30% adoption level) shifts to collaboration with workers, customers, governments, environmentalists and other stakeholders over the next several years.” On Societal Impact, they rate “the impact this would have on society as a whole” at +7 on a scale running from -10 (Catastrophic) to +10 (Excellent). Using averages would drop these numbers a bit.
This impressive data, along with comments that follow, make a strong case for expecting an historic transformation of business consciousness over the next few years. The number of corporations involving stakeholders in major policy decisions is likely to grow from today’s small leading edge into the mainstream of business, both in the US and industrialized nations abroad. There remains confusion and doubts, as noted in the comments that follow. But if business leaders can seize the opportunities for transformative change, the economic world could enter a bold new economic era that solves major social problems as well as producing financial gains. It is even reasonable to think this would constitute a revolution in thought on political economy. In time, we may stop thinking in terms of “capitalism” altogether and embrace the emerging form of “democratic enterprise.”
Leaders in business, government and other institutions should start to seriously plan this transformation by engaging stakeholders, devising metrics to evaluate stakeholder contributions and benefits and collaborating to resolve strategic problems that add value to be shared by the entire enterprise.
TechCast is thinking of starting an Executive Webinar to help business leaders adapt to this revolutionary change. We welcome any suggestions and help in planning this venture.
The Spectrum of Opinion
Here are comments spread along a spectrum from Optimistic at the top, Neutral in the middle, and Pessimistic at the bottom.
OPTIMISTIC END OF SPECTRUM
“Major societal and environmental problems require massive collaboration and consideration of various stakeholders' needs and opinions. In a highly interconnected (or hyperconnected) world this is essential, and business corporations will probably realize the potential benefits of such an approach.”
“The economic, political, and legislative systems are still tipped in favor of capitalism and will remain difficult to overturn despite the best efforts of reformers… however, there will be a strong core of progressive companies making the change to a more collaborative model, demonstrating the value proposition of this type of change…there will be a significant amount of "hot" money looking for new value propositions.
“The key impact would be to begin to reduce inequality in society and to appropriately recognise the value of labor. The spin off benefits in terms of improved social wellbeing, reduced sources of conflict, improved health and security would be enormous and unprecedented in modern history.”
This will be accelerated by the pandemic and … companies will be more distributed in nature and the work force will come together for specific projects or engagements. Operations and routine tasks will be automated. This will gain more efficiency and will allow many to enter and leave the workforce as required.
As the boomers and traditionalists leave the workforce and the pandemic continues to drive a distributed workforce, the workforce will never return to pre-2020 levels because the autonomy will drive a more collaborative workforce with consumers demanding more input.
“Progress comes slowly, as we have seen with civil rights and environmental issues… Eventually, the results for society should be excellent — a reduction in income inequality, improvement in education for all people, more opportunities for career growth and income advancement.
Most of us came from either immigrant or slave origins and had the opportunity under even rapacious capitalism to achieve a better education and standard of living than our parents or grandparents…We have lost some of this drive in recent years as our society has become more stratified. Your new model of capitalism should change that, fostering innovation, equality and a healthier climate for all Americans.”
“… this will be an evolution vs revolution, a bottom up shift where momentum will hit a tipping point… major shifts coming to fruition, and the social impact will be very apparent as a result.”
Capitalism is a double-edged sword. One edge cuts through the impossibility of centralized planning to achieve efficient distribution of goods and allocation of resources organically. The other side reduces any consideration other than maximizing profit, and that inevitably leads to the concentration of wealth in the hands of the few. A middle-path is needed that keeps the best aspects of an economic system that works while avoiding failed methods like state-enforced economic redistribution… the collaborative enterprise is the only path forward…The wisdom of all stakeholders, combined, properly harnessed, can find new opportunities, create new markets, and avoid catastrophic risks and societal upheavals.
There are so many powerful cons out there, especially the wolves of wall street and their partners in governments. Also, the mainstream and layman are not very well cultivated to help. They are consumed by consumptionism…Maybe we need to have some heavy-weight media platforms and use social media to be more aggressive in spreading our mission to collaborative and shared "capitalism". And honestly, I am not sure if "collaborative and shared" can be adjectives to "capitalism".
It will be overwhelming good, not only for society but also for our planet and our future generations. It would be a new world order.
Market forces will be diminished notably. The Covid pandemic has shown that external factors have much more influence on the economic behavior of a consumer than the financial issues.
I would say that more than democratic enterprise, the enterprise will become more conscious and sensitive of external factors such as environment and social issues. I would call it, a "collective conscious enterprise" capable to identify the environmental and social signals, and build entrepreneurial structures based on new responses to these new needs.
The Covid has shown that we can live with less, with less luxury, with more simple things, and more functional and durable products. Therefore, the industry must innovate to produce less, produce for long live cycles, with fewer resources, for a consumer that is more conscious of what he buys, and then all of us can balance the economic growth with the environmental damage and the social gap.
We must break paradigms; this pandemic will destroy old common business trends. We will have a reset, toward a constructive and more natural capitalism, with a “systems view of growth”, that includes simultaneously, an environmental regeneration, a social inclusion and reduction of the socio-economic gap, and a conscious and more collaborative economy, all engaged in a systemic vision.
NEUTRAL MIDDLE OF THE SPECTRUM
“If it is undeniable that something is in progress evolving toward a corporate responsibility mission … consumer sentiment evolving, urgency and increasing pressure for climate actions … economic crisis… lack of political courage for the transformation of the financial and tax system… slow infrastructure renovation process of industrialized nations…
I tend to prefer and believe in a society without too much difference between rich and poor. I would welcome a society that would valorize education, creativity, smaller scale companies with a more cooperative form of management and ownership… but I obviously recognize the loss of innovation and cost advantages it provides to bring material benefits.
I believe we can do better with a more responsible way to do business… but capitalism is hard to beat…so it is a question of balance… assuming our culture changes in parallel to the business … what we believe is good or bad will change, and we might end-up juggling the overall evolution more favorably.”
“… relatively easy to reach, as some larger sectors (e.g. tech) represent low hanging fruit. Many of them are already collaborating with stakeholders to some extent, but only on a voluntary basis. .. the hard part is going to be specific industries (e.g. resource extraction) or countries with particularly levels of pollution/greenhouse gas emissions… if we don’t succeed with decarbonizing the global economy in time, we are headed to a baseline of -10 by 2100.
“Profit-maximising activities are restrained by cultural norms and regulation. There is a cultural debate underway of free-market ideology vs. statism (China), socialism (EU), environmentalism, etc…. cultural change is slow-moving (not radical).
For the few of us that are keeping our heads above water during these tumultuous times, change is probably a scary prospect. We might even be tempted to seek out confirmation that change itself is our biggest threat… But clinging to vestiges of the past prevents us from embracing the present. And at present, around the world, we’re dealing with a litany of economic, political, and ideological threats to stability in society.
If an individual is educated, is experienced in the creation of works, and is embedded in a community of like-minded creators, they’ll be equipped to manufacture value in the modern economy. Aside from enabling and empowering our societies, we need to focus on creating value for the jobs of today, rather than for the jobs of yesterday. For the ever-growing precariat, there is little to lose.
Trauma can foster growth. We are confronted with the fierce urgency of now. In this unfolding conundrum of life and history, there “is” such a thing as being too late. This is no time for apathy or complacency. This is a time for vigorous and positive action.”
In Europe, I think a robust assessment of probability is in order. The USA is moving in this direction as well, albeit from a different starting point…. While the societal impact will be positive, I believe the key uncertainty has to do with the issue of sincere consultation v. virtue signaling. In other words, if companies genuinely connect with diverse and grassroots communities… then the new model will produce better outcomes. However, if what is considered "stakeholder interests" is driven by professional interest/activist groups and elites from within the government, Hollywood, academia, and the like … then there is a real danger that "stakeholder capitalism" produces further cynicism and dis-engagement.
I also think that genuine community consultation requires quite a lot of dedication, time, and skill. I remain skeptical that many corporations and/or elites genuinely understand this fact. Simply following the Twitter herd in its daily outrage is not consultation.
Each country has a different degree of development and the communities are very diverse. The top powers in the world (China, US and Russia) are now led by populist governments, with communist, socialist and capitalist orientations, which causes them to have a negative approach to individual progress and well-being.
Educational and technical differences will be one of the big issues to
be resolved. Another point is to achieve a solid international awareness towards the
protection of health to the improvement of income distribution by
attacking poverty and a structure of peace and harmony.
Xin Wu Lin:
Each corp. will move forward by considering different stakeholders' benefits and interests and not only in favor of stockholders or investors. Some major behaviors which may hurt human beings and the earth will be slow down and even disappear. However, to advocate and promote this kind of business, governments should gradually set up new regulations, like compliance, CSR, then encourage publicizing those information of good businesses' performance to attract good investors.
On the other hand, China and the other emerging countries are trying to catch up. Especially in China, companies that support the communist party are increasing very quickly. Also, the government in emerging countries will pursue some other different objectives, they will not accept the new capitalism very quickly.
PESSIMISTIC END OF SPECTRUM
Eventually the probability goes up, but that would take a reversal of more than 40 years where shareholders/owners were the only interests that corporations had. I believe it take much longer to switch than just a couple of years
My thoughts on this issue can probably fill a book (or a dustbin).
No matter how idyllic and beautiful the idea, I don’t think it is possible to run a company like a democracy and remain competitive over a prolonged period. Not unless your competitors play by the same rules. And even if they do, a really, really good CEO gets paid huge bucks to bend the rules a little.
So, what do you do to play nice? Get rid of the CEO? Retrench top management? Run the organization by committee? I’ll give the implosion less than 5 years.
I think it is highly likely that the evolution of capitalism is going to be intrinsically linked with the future of work. We will continually bump our heads on an “ideal solution” and eventually land on one that may look nothing like the one we are imagining right now
In the short term, some investors will pull back and take a “look & see” approach. So, while some companies will fall over each other to virtue signal, the real money will stay passive.
Medium Term, some compromises will prevail, and most companies will adopt … supply and customer + environmental [changes]. Serious capital will endorse only once they see their investments as safe.
Long Term, after a significant (positive) impact on the environment (through customer pressure), a confused look from government, a warm & fuzzy feeling from suppliers, much love from customers and a resounding “meh” from investors, “workers” will be only marginally better off.
And we will have this very same discussion again…...
I'm glad to see so many TechCast people so optimistic about Democracy and Capitalism, but I really cannot join this chorus. I just do not see any strong good signs over the next 20-30 years. I see several powerful forces against both institutions of Democracy and Capitalism, not only in the USA, but across the world. We just are not doing so well with our crises, and many opportunists, some quite powerful countries and large corporations, gladly are finding ways of undermining both institutions.
I think Futurists might do better than trying to predict the future, by instead working up some kind of "business plan" to compete against these destructive powerful forces, e.g., articulating each threat and exploring counter-measures? Of course, this assumes there would be agreement that there are such imposing threats, which likely is not the case given the propensity to see light at the end of this tunnel, instead of being occupied fighting vicious threats which now may be considered mere nuisances. Rather, I see new technologies, considered as hopes just a decade or so ago, being used against these institutions.
If enough people survive to get off this Earth, without first transforming our present culture, I see fiefdoms instead of homesteads being created on new worlds, and then we would have learned nothing from Democracy and Capitalism.
Background Information on Redesigning Capitalism
The financial crisis of 2000 and 2008 and the 2020 pandemic raised serious doubts about the failings of capitalism. These economic collapses, climate change, gross inequality and other threats making up the “Global MegaCrisis” have shattered confidence in what Francis Fukuyama proclaimed as “The End of History” – the fall of communism and the triumph of capitalism and democracy.
A variety of voices think this could become a “collapse of capitalism,” roughly like the “collapse of communism,” and caused by the same inability to adapt to a changing world. Nobel economist Joseph Stiglitz wrote, "The 2008 financial collapse may be to markets what the Berlin Wall was to Communism." Communism could not meet the complex demands of the Information Revolution, and now capitalism seems to be failing to adapt to the Global MegaCrisis.
In response, corporations are making the transition to a quasi-democratic form of business that focuses on forming collaborative partnerships with employees, customers, business partners, environmentalists and the public, as well as shareholders. The Business Roundtable’s announcement that firms should serve all stakeholders is truly historic. The New York Times called it a “watershed moment ... that raises questions about the very nature of capitalism.” If done well, this broader form of business could go beyond social responsibility for doing good to become a competitive advantage.
To put this in perspective, consider the three models in the figure below. The profit-centered model is traditional, while corporate social responsibility (CSR) has tried to shift the focus to stakeholders over the past decades, without much success. The problem is that CSR is usually considered philanthropy and often ignores the need for profitability, making it the mirror opposite of the profit model.
In contrast, the "corporate community", or "collaborative enterprise," model goes beyond CSR to form a more productive system that benefits all interests. The key lies in making stakeholders working partners, rather than recipients of benefits.
The fact is that the social interests in any business – workers, customers, partners and the public – are roughly similar to the role of investors. All these groups invest resources, incur costs and gain benefits, much like shareholders. Any enterprise is basically a socio-economic system composed of key stakeholders that perform crucial functions. Focusing on only one function distorts the performance of the entire system. It makes as much sense to think of capital as the only goal as it would to say the brain, heart or lungs are the most important part of the human body. From a more realistic systems view, the need is to integrate all these resources into a workable whole. That is precisely what any good executive must accomplish to build a viable enterprise. Here’s how Bonville Power harnessed the knowledge of its stakeholders:
“We used to treat outsiders (labor unions, the public, regulators) as a nuisance. After working with them, our adversaries helped us find creative solutions to intractable problems. Public involvement is a must for today’s managers. Conflict is unavoidable; the only choice is whether to dodge it or harness it.”
A democratic form of enterprise would spur cooperation throughout the social order, relieve government of burdensome oversight responsibility and reduce the risk of market volatility. Because business firms would be controlled by their stakeholders, they would "internalize" social impacts and reduce government regulations and bureaucracy. This would also reduce the risk of stock market drops, labor conflict, cutthroat competition, swings in consumer loyalty, unexpected regulatory change, and other disruptive factors.
These gains would come at the cost of overcoming the obstacles noted in the Cons below. Profit is an easily measured, traditional goal, so displacing it will meet resistance from many, primarily investors and Wall Street. A quasi-democratic organization can be messy, and it requires political skills that many business leaders lack.
The transition to stakeholder collaboration will be difficult, therefore, it may take years, and there will always be some firms that remain profit-centered. But the coming of collaborative enterprise is well underway even now, and it will transform economic systems.
It's important to note that stakeholder collaboration in business is a special case of the Third Principle in our earlier formulation of Global Consciousness:
Principle 3. Collaborate With Stakeholders to Better Serve Collective Interests.
This more powerful and universal statement can be applied to all institutions. For business, it means serving social interests as well as economic goals. In government, it would carry democracy to the grassroots and better serve towns, cities and nations. It could also resolve the present conflict in healthcare between multi-million dollar executive pay versus the welfare of patients and communities. Religious organizations, such as the Catholic Church, would then temper the hierarchical power of the priesthood with the influence of their members.
That's what makes this study of great value. This is a definitive analysis of the changing role of business, government and all other institutions.
PROS: EXEMPLARS Of THE NEW CAPITALISM
Progressive Business Is Going Democratic A robust leading edge of progressive business firms and practices have long thrived around the world: Johnson & Johnson, Nucor Steel, IKEA, the Mondragon in Spain, labor participation in Germany, self-management in France and Japanese corporations have practiced various forms of collaborative management for years. Studies by the consulting firm, McKinsey, conclude “shares of companies that connect effectively with all stakeholders outperform competitors by two percent per year on average.” Jack Welch, the former CEO of General Electric, acknowledged "Shareholder value is a result, not a strategy. Your main constituencies are your employees and customers."
Institutional Investors Laurence D. Fink, founder and CEO of BlackRock, which holds US$6 trillion in investments, told 1000 of the world’s largest corporations: “Society is demanding that companies… serve a social purpose… every company must not only deliver financial performance, but also show how it makes a positive contribution to society.” While Jana Partners and CalSTRS, the California retirement system, issued a similar declaration: “… we believe the long-term health of society, our economy, and the company itself, are inextricably linked.” Jeffrey Sonnenfeld, a senior associate dean at the Yale School of Management, said. “It is huge for an institutional investor to take this position across its portfolio.‘‘ He said he’s seen “nothing like it."
United Nations The UN Global Compact is an association of businesses committed to universally accepted principles in human rights, labor, environment, and anti-corruption. The association includes over 13,000 organizations from more than 145 countries currently.
Coop Movement The International Co-operative Alliance represents the global cooperative movement, with 284 organizations across 95 countries.
B Corporations This group of firms focuses on solving social and environmental problems. Unlike traditional businesses, they meet comprehensive and transparent standards of social and environmental performance, institutionalize stakeholder interests, and build a collective voice through a unifying brand. Amy Prosenjak, a B corporation owner, said "Everybody has to win."
Benefit Corporations The Benefit Corporation goes beyond the B corporation to make its status legal. California and another 26 American States recently enacted laws requiring Benefit Corporations to provide a "public benefit," be governed to serve all stakeholders, assess social and economic performance annually, and to operate transparently.
Business for Social Responsibility This global network of 250+ companies, thought leaders, and stakeholders shares best practices.
Business Culture These concepts are now practiced among progressive companies and taught at business schools. Recent surveys show that only five percent of CEOs now say they are “mainly focused on profits and not distracted by social goals.” Other surveys show that more than 80 percent favor stakeholder collaboration.
Fortune 500 Over 80% of Fortune 500 companies now publish Corporate Social Responsibility reports, covering issues like governance, community and partnerships. The editor of Fortune said: "an ever-growing group of business leaders ... are building efforts to address social problems ... Companies are moving beyond fuzzy notions like sustainability and corporate citizenship to making meaningful social impact central to how they compete."
Business Schools One of the most popular courses at the Harvard Business School is “Reimagining Capitalism.” Enrollment increased from 28 students when the course started seven years ago and now numbers 300 students each semester.
Public Attitudes A study by Deloitte finds that 60-80 percent of Millennials want to work for companies with a strong social purpose. A poll found that 51 percent of Americans age 18-29 do not support capitalism and only 42 percent think it is a good economic system.
CONS: OBSTACLES OPPOSING THE NEW CAPITALISM
The obstacles are enormous, of course. Change is hard, so bold leaders are needed to take on this difficult challenge.
Tradition Some countries have cultures that are committed to traditional forms of "capitalism" focused on profit and the rights of shareholders, and they are likely to resist the difficult changes that are involved.
Investor Rights Shareholders legally own a corporation, which tends to stress the central role of profit. In fact, shareholders can sue if not satisfied that management is doing everything within reason to maximize their profit. However, some corporations are learning to fight back and are in turn suing their shareholders.
Power of Wall Street The possibility of takeover has traditionally forced firms to focus on short-term gains to avoid losing capital as their stock drops under threat of being absorbed by another company. The collaborative enterprise offers the possibility of resolving this problem by having stock held by stakeholders who are interested in the long term.
Democracy is Messy Collaboration is more time-consuming and difficult than autocratic leadership, and it may fail. The intention may be good, and some firms may thrive, but there is a serious risk of wasted time, endless conflict, and rising costs with democratic processes.
New Generation of Leaders Needed Few present business leaders seem able to make this change. A new generation of executives less wedded to tradition may be required to spearhead the transition.
Requires Political Skill Forming working relationships is inherently a political act, so managers must adapt by developing political skills. This requires a more challenging form of "political" leadership and depends on stakeholders being receptive to partnering.
TechCast always encourages letters, comments and suggestions.
From Robert Savickas:
I wanted to respond last time, but forced myself to hold my peace. However, i would like to respond now, if it is not too late to provide feedback?
There is one crucial aspect that is missing from all the analysis. I elaborate below.
It all sounds beautiful, the joint decision making of all stakeholders, even the nature, etc. The crucial question is: what is the precise mechanism for correctly sharing the risk of the joint decisions?
As we know, the one who decides must bear the risk of the decision: i.e., he/she is the one who must make whole other parties if something goes wrong. Traditionally, the decisions have been concentrated in the hands of the CEO, and so was the responsibility. The tremendous risk that the CEO bears is a partial motivation for the high compensation.
Now, that the decision is so spread out across stakeholders, how will you measure precisely the amount of risk contributed by each decision maker and how exactly he/she will be responsible for it. Especially for such stakeholders as "nature and environment". How will they make other parties whole if something goes wrong due to their input into the decision?
Without precise risk sharing, decision sharing is doomed to fail, since the parties who are disproportionately held responsible, will simply not want to do it (unless they are appointed and protected by the central government == socialism).
The risk-sharing and benefit-sharing is what financial engineering is all about.
Unless you all address this with precise mechanisms for identification and sharing risk, this all is just a beautiful fantasy....
Hope you take no offense, i just sincerely share an objective assessment, as a colleague and somewhat a friend (i.e., i do not just make you feel good; thats easy).
Like everyone else, I like the spirit of it. The optimal design where everyone is better off, not just a select stakeholder, or two... That is wonderful, lovely, and humane. However, to paraphrase a well-known saying, the essence is in the operational details.
The essential question is: Can a wonderful idea be operationalized in practice? If not, then it just remains that---a wonderful idea, and nothing else. So, not "bogging down" and staying above those operational details feels good, but it will not help the credibility of an idea.
I say this because I grew up in an environment whose origins were in a violent grab of power by the worst groups and destruction of the best groups in a large country that was a neighbor of ours. Then they set out on a 70-year experiment to make their attractive fairy tales a reality. Some things were nice---like free medicine and education (even for those who hated learning did not want to learn anything)---but the fairy tale caused such misalignments of risks, rewards, incentives, and resources, that they ran their own ship aground. And the outcome could not be different; it was just a matter of time.
So, a commensurate division of benefits and risks, privileges and responsibilities, is a gory detail that should not never be abstracted from.
Cognis Group Cites TechCast on Redesigning Capitalism
JessGarretson, CEO of The Cognis Group, has partnered with TechCast on a variety of projects. Their August newsletter reprints our background information on Redesigning Capitalism.
TechCast Briefs Angel Investors
TechCast founder, William Halal, kicked off the annual meeting of the Angel Capital Association’s Virtual Summit May 12 with his keynote on The Technology Revolution. Among his many points, Bill outlined how AI is causing today’s move beyond knowledge to an Age of Consciousness, and that business is now altering corporate consciousness to include the interests of all stakeholders. Angel investors are concerned about the social impacts of their companies, so this news was well received, especially as Bill stressed this historic change could be a competitive advantage.
Click here for Bill's talk
TechCast at the Armed Forces Communication and Electronics Association
Halal also spoke at the annual AFCEA conference on the topic of AI, noting TechCast’s forecast that AI is expected to automate 30% of routine knowledge work about 2025 +3/-1 years and General AI is likely to arrive about 2040. Expanding on the same theme delivered at ACA, Bill explained how today’s shifting consciousness is likely to transform, not only business, but also government, the military and all other institutions.
We Invite Your Ideas
TechCast offers exciting new possibilities to use our unequaled talent and resources for creative projects. I invite you to send me your questions, fresh ideas, articles to publish, consulting work, research studies, or anything interesting on the tech revolution.
Email me at Halal@GWU.edu and I'll get back to you soon. Have your friends and colleagues sign up for this newsletter at www.BillHalal.com.
William E. Halal, PhD
The TechCast Project
George Washington University
Bill's Blog is published by:
The TechCast Project www.TechCastProject.com
Prof. William E. Halal, Founder
George Washington University
Prof. Halal can be reached at Halal@GWU.edu
The TechCast Project is an academic think tank that pools empirical background information and the knowledge of high-tech CEOs, scientists and engineers, academics, consultants, futurists and other experts worldwide to forecast breakthroughs in all fields. Over 20 years of leading the field, we have been cited by the US National Academies, won awards, been featured in the Washington Post and other media, and consulted by corporations and governments around the world. TechCast and its wide range of experts are available for consulting, speaking and training in all aspects of strategic foresight.
Elise Hughes, Editor
Copyright © 2020 The TechCast Project. All rights reserved.