Category Archives: Technology

Healthcare is undoubtedly one of the most complex and nuanced industries there is, especially in the U.S. So, it is no surprise that the relationship between physicians and pharma is complicated at best.

It is a partnership that has been litigated, regulated and scrutinized beyond imagination. Yet, despite all this, it remains an essential part of the health delivery dynamic.

Even with its codependencies, the pharma-to-physician relationship is showing signs of weakness. According to research from Accenture, only 64% of the meetings healthcare professionals (HCPs) had with pharma sales reps prior to COVID-19 were held in person.

During the pandemic, those numbers have plunged to 35%, with nearly half of the HCPs reporting that this would continue for the foreseeable future.

One of the contributing factors for this strained relationship is that physicians just dont have time in their day to meet with pharma reps. According to a study published in the Annals of Family Medicine, for every hour spent with a patient, physicians spend at least two hours working on EMRs.

This added clinical work is responsible for work-life imbalance and has contributed to a higher-than-normal attrition rate (> 50%). First-year medical doctors spend three times as many hours updating EMRs than they spend on patient care.

In addition, doctors are under stain in keeping up with all the medical knowledge thats now available to them. It is estimated that medical knowledge now doubles every 73 days. In 1950, the doubling of medical knowledge was 50 years; in 1980, 7 years; and in 2010, 3.5 years.

Adding to this, the worlds top medical journals in aggregate publish roughly 7,200 articles each month. To evaluate all this information, it would take a physician more than 620 hours per month. There literally isnt enough time in the day.

This is not to say that COVID-19 has not had a devastating impact on the traditional pharma-to-physician relationship, but full disclosure regarding the situation can help put the current decline in face-to-face interactions into perspective.

According to double board-certified physician Dr. Mandira Mehra, there are several factors that are playing into the trend.

There are a lot of different reasons for why physicians and their staff are limiting sales visits, said Dr. Mehra. For some hospitals, its part of their policy, even before COVID-19. But from a doctors standpoint, communication with pharma reps has become inefficient. Although an integral part of our work, the process of accessing or contacting reps can be frustrating.

Efficiency is the key takeaway here. Physicians and their staff dont have much time for unplanned visits. And getting time on the book can be near impossible.

Physicians have way more on their plates today than they did even five years ago, added Dr. Mehra. With increased patient loads, added responsibilities and more administrative tasks to tackle, there isnt time for much else.

There is hope for the struggling relationship, however, because innovative companies like P360, Veeva Systems and IQVIA are working hard to make it more streamlined and efficient, less abrasive and more secure. And physicians can play an important role in deciding what systems pharma uses.

Here are some of the leading options:

When we first started exploring the dynamic between healthcare professionals and pharma, we knew that technology could provide a much-needed solution, said P360 CEO Anupam Nandwana.

The hard part was deciding what that solution should look like. It had to be flexible, and we knew that it had to be based on the physicians point of view, and not pharmas. Thats really what guided our development of the ZING communication module.

Late last year, as the FDA authorized the first at-home coronavirus test, P360 introduced a solution of its own the ZING communication module. According to Nandwana, ZING is a multimodal communication platform that enables pharmaceutical reps and healthcare professionals to exchange compliant, two-way unified messaging.

"There are no apps for end-users to download, and there are no subscriptions for them to deal with. To the healthcare professional, the solution is seen as nothing different than their normal method for receiving texts."

According to Campaign Monitor's marketing research, text message open rates areas high as 98%, compared with just 20% for email. This makes text-messaging a great alternative to in-office visits. Not only do text messages get read, they also arent as disruptive to physicians as in-person visits, phone calls and emails can be.

According to Nandwana, messages through ZING can be automatedas well. For example, if a physician needs a coupon, all they have to do is text their rep the name of a product and the word coupon.

Veeva Systems, another leading PharmaTech company, has answered the call with a technology solution of its own. In October of last year, Veeva Systems revealed MyVeeva For Doctors. MyVeeva For Doctors is a mobile app for physicians that enables them to find and communicate with sales reps, medical science liaisons (MSLs) and other life science professionals.

Veeva has a strong track record when it comes to developing innovative solutions for the life sciences industry. From both the pharma and HCP perspective, a downloadable app checks off a lot of boxes.

As HCPs continue to incorporate mobile devices into their daily routines, the case for pharma-related apps makes a lot of sense, said industry analyst Brian Fitzgerald. Not only do mobile apps enable pharmaceutical companies to more easily connect with HCPs, they also help with brand-building as well.

IQVIA is taking a far different approach to how they are helping pharma connect with physicians. The company believes that targeting stakeholders with the right message at the right time dramatically improves engagement. Its model is based on an Orchestrated Customer Engagement approach that includes content-targeting and a mix of engagement options, including web chat, video calling and more. Some refer to this as a sales funnel.

Veeva Systems has a similar model with their Veeva CRM Engage Meeting product.

Although robust, the funnel approach to HCP engagement hinges on web traffic and online visits, Fitzgerald said. If physicians dont have time for in-person meetings or phone calls, they definitely dont have time to navigate through sophisticated online funnel processes.

Although industry trends are still laying the foundation for a new normal in pharma-to-physician relations, one thing is clear: Pharma needs to make the relationship as streamlined and easy as possible. Busy physician schedules are increasing on-demand and off-hour engagements. And this need that has been accelerated by COVID-19. Regulations and the pandemic have forced physicians and pharma sales teams to embrace new, mostly digital approaches.

Some of these approaches have been highly effective, as both pharma and physicians are becoming adept at utilizing new technologies to engage. However, there is still a learning curve for all. But pharmaceutical companies that put physicians and their staff first will ultimately win.

Pharma is a key ally in the advancement of lifesaving treatments and therapies, and that will not change for the foreseeable future, Dr. Mehra said. But we need to find a better way to work together, because in the end it will only help the patient. I believe technology holds the key for whats next.

As pharma reps work to reengage, theyll need to develop a clearer understanding of when to utilize virtual engagement and when in-person meetings are more appropriate.

Physicians should help guide pharma as to which technologies and which communication channels are the best fit. Virtual interactions provide physicians the flexibility to meet on-demand, or at a time that works best with their schedules. However, virtual engagement provides fewer opportunities for formal and informal collaboration.

There is a lot to consider when it comes to this complex relationship. Its an intricate dance that is sure to continue.

About the author

Jay T. Ripton is a freelance healthcare, technologyand biomedicine writer out ofScottsdale. He loves to write to inform, educate and provoke minds. Follow him on twitter via@JTRipton.

View post:

Contributed: Technology is helping physicians and pharma to better coexist - Mobihealth News

Asia Defense|Security

The namesake of the famous prize believed that more destructive weapons would make war unthinkable. Few people believe that anymore but we have new delusions to contend with.

This week, the Nobel Prizes are being announced. The Nobel Prizes, generally considered to be among the most prestigious international awards in the fields of science, literature, and peace, are named for Swedish industrialist Alfred Nobel, who made a number of important advancements in martial technology, including dynamite and smokeless gunpowder. Toward the end of his life, Nobel expressed the view that his efforts had been directed at making war so horrifying that the world would come together and ban it.

More than a century later, not only does war remain unbanned, but the way that martial technologies impact our imagination has fundamentally changed.

Nobel was not alone in his aspirations to end war by creating machines so powerful they would make it unthinkably brutal. Hiram Maxim, the inventor of the worlds first practical single-barrel machine gun, held similar views, only to see them proved horrifically wrong on the killing fields of World War I. And after the advent of nuclear weapons, influential physicists and political scientists advanced different elements of an argument that the unimaginable destruction wrought by nuclear weapons would make war obsolete, or at least marginalize it. War, as it does, transformed conventional wars grew rarer while irregular wars did not but did not disappear.

Other types of particularly brutal weapons chemical and biological agents, for example ended up hived off into their own category of shame rather than rendering war unthinkable. After the abundant use of chemical weapons in World War I, subsequent conflicts they have been largely (though not entirely) used as a weapon of terror or extermination against civilians though this also reflects the degree to which military forces can be successfully hardened against such attacks.

Today, it seems as though the aspiration of weaponeering our way out of armed conflict has been left behind. Novel weapons and categories of weapons are being developed at a rapid clip, and yet there are few claims that tomorrows arms will make tomorrows wars too costly to consider.

Enjoying this article? Click here to subscribe for full access. Just $5 a month.

Have we simply become more cynical about the characteristics of technology? That seems unlikely, given the continuing strain of techno-optimism embedded in Western discourses about societal progress (notwithstanding the actual impacts of novel technologies, which are more mixed).

Instead, something about the character of new weapons has changed. The advantages conferred by dynamite and the machine gun and nuclear weapons were of scale: a Maxim gun could generate more firepower than a platoon of riflemen; an artillery piece firing explosive shells could do far more damage than one firing solid shot; a single nuclear weapon could devastate a city. There is little to be gained by making more destructive weapons at this point modern nuclear weapons, for example, are considerably less powerful in terms of sheer explosive force than their predecessors, because they can be delivered with enough accuracy to achieve their objectives at a lower force factor.

Get briefed on the story of the week, and developing stories to watch across the Asia-Pacific.

As a result and to oversimplify somewhat modern military technological advancement tends to be focused on increasing speed and accuracy rather than sheer destructive power. Whereas it was possible to imagine ever-more destructive weapons causing such outcry as to end war inaccurate, as it turns out, but possible a faster, more precise weapon seems to push the imagination in other directions.

We can see this in our cultural products. The first Iron Man film contained a two-minute sequence that neatly summed up the entire fantasy of technologically empowered, righteous warfare. As a besuited Tony Stark arrives in the midst of an Afghan village being overrun by Taliban surrogates, his AI instantly categorizes the people in sight as either hostile or civilian, and his shoulder-mounted antipersonnel guns wreck the former while leaving the latter utterly untouched. And when, a dozen films later, the Avengers are called to account for their collateral damage, the numbers of civilian casualties listed from their actions are laughably low.

Needless to say, this representation of exceptionally high accuracy and nearly zero tolerance for collateral damage is a fantasy. In the real Afghanistan, highly sophisticated coalition intelligence assets and airpower were brought to bear on civilian targets again and again, including in the wars very final act.

And yet the fantasy persists. Instead of making war so terrible it can never be considered, we are now led to believe that technology will make war so fast and precise that we wont even to borrow the words of Dr. Strangeloves General Buck Turgidson get our hair mussed. Yet in reality, our wars continue to result in a huge expenditure of blood and treasure and little in the way of intended political progress.

Our view of technologys impact on war may have moved on from Nobels, but it is still a long way from accurate.

The rest is here:

Alfred Nobel, Technology, and the End of War - The Diplomat

Three decades ago, American cars were technologically primitive by todays standards. Airbags were not mandatory until 1991. Today, the advances have come so far that people anticipate having safe, self-driving cars by the end of the decade.

The auto industry faces two challenges as technology systems become more complex. One is that drivers find them so complicated that they do not use them. The other is that the technology requires components that are not always available. A semiconductor chip shortage, which includes those often used in auto electronics systems, has severely limited what manufacturers can build. This has hurt manufacturer earnings and has driven car supplies down and car prices up.

J.D. Power, probably the most widely respected car research firm in America, has just released its 2021 U.S. Tech Experience Index. It divides car technology into these four measures: convenience; emerging automation; energy and sustainability; and infotainment and connectivity. The study involved 110,827 people with new 2021 model vehicles after they had been owned for 90 days.

Speaking about the use of these new technologies, Kristin Kolodge, executive director of human machine interface at J.D. Power, pointed out: New-vehicle prices are at an all-time high, partly as a result of an increased level of content. This is fine if owners are getting value for their money, but some features seem like a waste to many owners.Non-users of new technologies said they do not need the features. In other words, buyers are paying for features they feel are useless.

Cars in the study were divided into two groups: mass-market and premium cars. J.D. Power ranked each car brand on a 1,000-point scale. Across both categories, the worst-ranked brand was Mitsubishi at 373. This was much worse than the second-worst brand, which was Mini at 424. The brand with the best rankings was Genesis, the luxury brand of Hyundai, with a rating of 634, much better than the second best, Cadillac at 551.

Source: J.D. Power

Click here to read about the fastest-selling car in America.

Get Our Free Investment Newsletter

Read more:

This Is the American Car With the Worst Technology - 24/7 Wall St.

AMERICUS, Ga. (WRBL) Georgia Governor Brian Kemp announced the solar technologies company NanoPV plans to invest more than $36 million in opening a manufacturing and distribution facility in Sumter County, creating over 500 jobs.

According to the companys website, the New Jersey Based NanoPV has over 20 years of experience in solar cell technologies, panel manufacturing and system integration.

President and CEO of NanoPV Dr. Anna Selvan John said hes proud to expand business to Sumter County.

We thank the State of Georgia, Governor Kemp, the Sumter County community, Quick Start, and the economic development authority. Currently, the project pipeline of NanoPV, with the capacity of more than 2.5GWsolarsystem projects nationally and internationally, ensures further expansion of our manufacturing capacity rapidly, said John.

In a press release from the Governors Office released on Thursday Oct. 7, Georgia Gov. Brian Kemp said NanoPV Solars investment in Americus is a testament to Georgias thriving solar environment.

Over 500 new, good-paying jobs will leverage the unique assets of Sumter County and south Georgia and help lead to generational growth across the entire region, said Kemp.

Executive Director of the Sumter County Development Authority Rusty Warner is thrilled about the new business coming to town.

I knew this county was the best fit for NanoPV Solar because the governments here appreciate this particular business genre and work together to overcome obstacles. In addition, this is the perfect time to begin as a solar manufacturer within the countrys currentgreenclimate. We expect NanoPV to position to lead the United States in this rapidly growing industry, said Warner.

The company will operate in an existing 56,000 square-foot-facility, located on Martin Marietta Drive in Americus in the Ted Baldwin Business and Technology Park.

The rest is here:

Solar technology company coming to Sumter County, creating over 500 jobs - WRBL

GRAND BLANC, Mich.--(BUSINESS WIRE)--CNXMotion has been recognized as a 2021 Automotive News PACEpilot Innovation to Watch for its innovative Brake-to-Steer technology which provides an additional layer of vehicle safety and redundancy by using the electronic brake system to safely steer the vehicle while simultaneously controlling its speed.

CNXMotions technology offers a cost-effective way for automakers to achieve safety needs by leveraging the vehicles existing systems, enhancing the steering safety net, said Greg Katch, General Manager, CNXMotion.

In a fully autonomous vehicle without a physical steering wheel present, Brake-to-Steer can be used as a redundancy strategy to facilitate a safe pull-over if the primary and/or secondary steering systems were unavailable. The function would take over lateral control of the vehicle by selectively applying brake commands to individual wheels while maintaining speed through powertrain control.

Brake-to-Steer can also be used as another layer of redundancy in a Steer-by-Wire system by taking the drivers input through the steering wheel position and maintaining the lateral control of the vehicle in a similar method described in the fully autonomous use case.

Benefits of Brake-to-Steer

- Cost: The Brake-to-Steer technology leverages the vehicles existing braking, steering, and propulsion systems. Depending on the vehicles architecture, the function itself could also reside on an existing controller, eliminating the cost of any additional hardware.- Flexibility: Not only can the function exist within the existing hardware architecture, Brake-to-Steer can also be used to provide an additional layer of vehicle safety and redundancy on vehicles with Steer-by-Wire all the way to fully automated vehicles without the presence of a steering wheel.- Safety: The cost and flexible Brake-to-Steer technology provides for an early adaptation redundant safety layer that otherwise may not be available to those vehicles in the market today.

CNXMotion is honored to be recognized as a 2021 PACEpilot Innovation to Watch. For more information about CNXMotions award-winning technology, visit http://www.cnxmotion.com.

About the 2021 Automotive News PACEpilot ProgramAutomotive News honored 10 emerging innovations from global suppliers to small startups with the 2021 Automotive News PACEpilot program. For complete details of the Automotive News PACEpilot program and this years Innovations to Watch, visit http://www.autonews.com/pace.

CNXMotion would like to congratulate partners, Continental and Nexteer Automotive. Continental was a 2021 PACEpilot finalist for its Trailer Hitch Assist technology and a 2021 PACE finalist for its Curved Plastic Lens Display. Nexteer was recognized as a 2021 PACEpilot Innovation to Watch for its Steer-by-Wire with Stowable Steering Column.

ABOUT CNXMOTIONCNXMotion was established as a 50/50 joint venture between Continental and Nexteer Automotive in 2017 to innovate motion control solutions for advanced applications and accelerate R&D activities for the parent companies. CNXMotion employs about 30 people in its state-of-the-art facility located in Grand Blanc, Michigan.

CNXMotion focuses on R&D activities, including rapid evaluation, design and prototyping. Capitalizing on Continental and Nexteers history of innovation and leadership in advanced braking and steering respectively, the joint venture combines global resources and expertise to deliver advanced motion control systems solutions for the challenges in a quickly evolving mobility landscape. http://www.cnxmotion.com

ABOUT CONTINENTALContinental develops pioneering technologies and services for sustainable and connected mobility of people and their goods. Founded in 1871, the technology company offers safe, efficient, intelligent, and affordable solutions for vehicles, machines, traffic and transportation. In 2020, Continental generated sales of 37.7 billion and currently employs around 193,000 people in 58 countries and markets. In 2021, the company celebrates its 150th anniversary.

To learn more visit http://www.continental.com.

ABOUT NEXTEERNexteer Automotive (HK 1316), a global leader in intuitive motion control, is a multi-billion-dollar global steering and driveline business delivering electric and hydraulic power steering systems, steering columns, driveline systems, as well as advanced driver assistance systems (ADAS) and automated driving enabling technologies for original equipment manufacturers (OEMs). The company has 27 manufacturing plants, four technical and software centers and 13 customer service centers strategically located in North and South America, Europe, Asia and Africa. The company serves more than 60 customers in every major region of the world including BMW, Ford, GM, Stellantis, Toyota and VW, as well as automakers in India and China.

To learn more visit, http://www.nexteer.com.

See the original post:

CNXMotion Named 2021 Automotive News PACEpilot Innovation to Watch for Brake-to-Steer Technology - Business Wire

The Metals Technology Initiative (MTI), an anti-corruption collective action initiative for the metals technology industry, recently launched a new website making its guidance on gifts and hospitality and third-party due diligence freely accessible.

Established in 2014, the MTI was codeveloped by four companies: Italy-based Danieli and Tenova; Germany-based SMS Group; and U.K.-based Primetals Technologies. Senior compliance managers from these companies meet three times per year to exchange best practices in anti-corruption compliance and fair competition.

Gifts and hospitality: The guidance provides a comprehensive list of criteria that must be met when considering the provision of gifts or business hospitality; examples of scenarios that expose companies to increased risks and, thus, require stricter rules; and what those stricter rules should be. Escalating levels of approvals should be required as the risk from the provision/receipt of gifts and hospitality increases, the guidance states.

Included are four real-life case scenarios of both acceptable and unacceptable practices. There is also a section on approvals procedures, whether compliance officers use a scorecard approach, an internal approvals process, or a multi-step process termed the traffic lights approach.

Third-party due diligence: The MTIs third-party guidance addresses only due diligence for the onboarding stage, to ensure that only reputable and suitably qualified third parties are used by MTI member companies, the organization states.

The guidance identifies several risk indicators under each of the following scenarios: how the third party was selected; how it is compensated; how it is structured; and whether a lack of business rationale exists for using the third party.

In conducting due diligence, issues might be identified that present risks that could range from prohibited conditions to minor risks, the guidance states. Thus, the MTI has created a classified risk-based system, included within the guidance, for the identification and management of risk factors, in which red means the relationship is prohibited, yellow represents high risk, and blue represents medium risk.

A yellow card in itself does not necessarily mean that the relationship cannot proceed but it will need to be addressed appropriately, the MTI states. Where a yellow card cannot be satisfactorily resolved, the company will need to consider whether to terminate the process.

More here:

Metals Technology Initiative issues new anti-corruption resources - Compliance Week

DUBLIN--(BUSINESS WIRE)--The "Samarium Global Market Insights 2021, Analysis and Forecast to 2026, by Manufacturers, Regions, Technology, Application, Product Type" report has been added to ResearchAndMarkets.com's offering.

This report describes the global market size of Samarium from 2016 to 2020 and its CAGR from 2016 to 2020, and also forecasts its market size to the end of 2026 and its CAGR from 2021 to 2026.

For the geography segment, regional supply, demand, major players, price is presented from 2016 to 2026.

This report covers the following regions:

The key countries for each region are also included such as the United States, China, Japan, India, Korea, ASEAN, Germany, France, UK, Italy, Spain, CIS, and Brazil etc.

Companies Covered:

For the competitor segment, the report includes global key players of Samarium as well as some small players.

The information for each competitor includes:

Applications Segment:

Types Segment:

Key Topics Covered:

Chapter 1 Executive Summary

Chapter 2 Abbreviation and Acronyms

Chapter 3 Preface

3.1 Research Scope

3.2 Research Sources

3.2.1 Data Sources

3.2.2 Assumptions

3.3 Research Method

Chapter 4 Market Landscape

4.1 Market Overview

4.2 Classification/Types

4.3 Application/End Users

Chapter 5 Market Trend Analysis

5.1 Introduction

5.2 Drivers

5.3 Restraints

5.4 Opportunities

5.5 Threats

Chapter 6 Industry Chain Analysis

6.1 Upstream/Suppliers Analysis

6.2 Samarium Analysis

6.2.1 Technology Analysis

6.2.2 Cost Analysis

6.2.3 Market Channel Analysis

6.3 Downstream Buyers/End Users

Chapter 7 Latest Market Dynamics

7.1 Latest News

7.2 Merger and Acquisition

7.3 Planned/Future Project

7.4 Policy Dynamics

Chapter 8 Trading Analysis

8.1 Export of Samarium by Region

8.2 Import of Samarium by Region

8.3 Balance of Trade

Chapter 9 Historical and Forecast Samarium Market in North America (2016-2026)

Chapter 10 Historical and Forecast Samarium Market in South America (2016-2026)

Chapter 11 Historical and Forecast Samarium Market in Asia & Pacific (2016-2026)

Chapter 12 Historical and Forecast Samarium Market in Europe (2016-2026)

Chapter 13 Historical and Forecast Samarium Market in MEA (2016-2026)

Chapter 14 Summary For Global Samarium Market (2016-2021)

14.1 Samarium Market Size

14.2 Samarium Demand by End Use

14.3 Competition by Players/Suppliers

14.4 Type Segmentation and Price

Chapter 15 Global Samarium Market Forecast (2021-2026)

15.1 Samarium Market Size Forecast

15.2 Samarium Demand Forecast

15.3 Competition by Players/Suppliers

15.4 Type Segmentation and Price Forecast

Chapter 16 Analysis of Global Key Vendors

For more information about this report visit https://www.researchandmarkets.com/r/ointmc

Originally posted here:

Worldwide Samarium Industry to 2026 - by Manufacturers, Regions, Technology, Application and Product Type - ResearchAndMarkets.com - Business Wire

In this episode of the Southern Fried Podcast, Rex sits down with Brent Birch, executive director of the Little Rock Technology Park, to discuss ways the Technology Park is fostering growth in Little Rock and Central Arkansas. The two old friends also chat about the upcoming duck season and what conservation steps to allow the sport to continue to thrive in Arkansas.

Rex Nelson: Hi, everybody and welcome to another edition of the Southern Fried podcast. I'm Rex Nelson of the Arkansas Democrat-Gazette. And thank you for joining us yet again for this Democrat-Gazette production as we bring in some of the most interesting folks in Arkansas see, I'm putting the pressure on you already. Brent, you got to be interesting this morning. Old friend Brent Birch, Little Rock Technology Park director, is my guest this morning. Thanks for joining us.

Brent Birch: Yeah, Rex, good to see you again. And thanks for having me on.

Rex Nelson: Yeah, absolutely. All right, we're gonna go on two levels, today. We're gonna spend about half the show on your vocation, which is the Technology Park and then we're going to spend about half the show on your avocation, which is duck hunting. Because we've got a season coming up, and you're one of the state's experts on that. Have written a book about the Grand Prairie, edit the Greenhead magazine, I could go on and on. So we'll start technology and then we'll transition into hunting if you're good with that.

Brent Birch: Perfect.

Rex Nelson: Good. Good. For those that might not be familiar. I am, I've written a lot about it through the years as you know, but those that might not be familiar, tell me a little bit about the tech park, its history, how it got to be here in Little Rock and where it is in Little Rock.

Brent Birch: Yeah, it's got a long story, as far as how it was kind of created, took a long time to get to actually being an entity that people can actually touch and feel so to speak. It came about mainly because of the generation of research and commercialization of research coming off of UAMS and UALR's campuses. And Little Rock was trying to capture that, those companies were being birthed out of the research side of things on those campuses and retain them versus them leaving to go to Dallas or St. Louis or Nashville or other area regional competitors that had research and lab space. Because once they commercialize they've got to move off of a campus and be a business and stand up on their own. So that was the original generation of this. It took a long time to get there finally through countless volunteer hours by the late Dickson Flake. And then of course, our current chamber president Jay Chesshir, were kind of the two that really drove that project to get to where it did and and got some legislation passed that created the, it was a Research Park Authority act that allowed you to stand up an entity like this. They also worked really hard to get the City of Little Rock behind it, UAMS and UALR sponsors and then Arkansas Children's Hospital was a kind of a quasi sponsor. So those entities helped really keep pushing it along and then finally got to a point where the board was formed. And then I came on board a few years even after the board was formed, they did spend a lot of time researching where it should be and that's what a lot of people remember about this project.

Rex Nelson: Right, a lot of stories generated in this newspaper about where that location should be.

Brent Birch: Yeah, and that caused some controversy early on when they were wanting to possibly bolt it on to the UALR campus or the UAMS campus especially on the UALR side. Because everybody knows that that campus is pretty much landlocked where it is. And so it would have caused some differences in what people thought should be done with the area around there. And that forced the board to step back and that's probably the best thing that ever happened. Because it allowed them to adjust the priorities of maybe where this should be and they looked at several properties all up and down 630 either side of it but settled on downtown and that was truly a blessing. Because that's, downtown is where it needs to be and should be.

Rex Nelson: Well our offices here at the Democrat-Gazette are of course just a block away from you. we're taping downtown. I work downtown, so I'm a fan of downtown. but you said it's where it should be. elaborate on that a little bit. Why should this be in downtown Little Rock?

Brent Birch: Yeah. Well, one downtown needs it, needs that vibrancy. you know, especially with the government exodus from downtown which is frankly it's it's it's hard to downtown market

Rex Nelson: It has. Especially as state government has moved more and more to the old alltel complex down in Riverdale.

Brent Birch: That's right. So the rest of what you've got downtown is banks and law firms and so the energy of the tech Park and the tenants that are within it changes the dynamic. and you can talk to Chris Tanner at Samantha's. That's a big reason he puts Samantha's where it is on the corner of third and main or fourth and main sorry, on the 300 block. He wanted to be close to the energy that the tech Park has created and you think about taking, you know, one of the buildings we own we still lease to the department of education, even though they won't be there that much longer. And then the two buildings we renovated one of them that was empty, had been empty since Stephens had moved to Center Street into the big skyscraper. We took a building down that had been vacant even prior to that that they were in which is the original Stephens headquarters and then renovated a building that Richard Mays owned that had, you know, had limited stuff done to it. so brought some truly some life back to the 400 block which like I said, I think has influenced what has happened in the 300 block with restaurants

Rex Nelson: I agree and again, as I said my office of course walking distance. but the 300 block that is a block you and I remember as recently as a decade ago, that was pretty desolate it now has six restaurants on that one block. three on one side and three on the other side.

Brent Birch: Yeah, it's pretty interesting. My first job out of college I went to work for the Worthen banking corporation, which was the holding company. at the time, you know Worthen was blowing and going, they had just bought union, if people remember that. that is right when I started. and so I worked in the building that Samantha's is in I worked on the seventh floor of that building

Rex Nelson: I'll be.

Brent Birch: They called it the WAC building, the Worthen Administration Center. And you know, there was nothing there. There was the News Mart was around the corner, you know, a couple other little things there. But it was pretty dark, dingy, block, and now it is a totally different scene. So yeah, I have memories back to the mid 90s of what that used to be and where it is now it's night and day.

Rex Nelson: Same here. I came to work in this building the first time in December of 1981. So go back and even before and watch that decline. And now the revitalization. And I have to agree with you. The tech Park has played a role in that. And I know you have been real pleased with your occupancy rates as you filled up before the pandemic. talk about how that occurred. And then how the pandemic has maybe affected you over the last year and a half

Brent Birch: The occupancy rate was completely full and had been for probably 10-11 months pre-pandemic. Now, people would leave but as soon as they would leave, there was a waiting list built in.

Rex Nelson: Somebody new would come in.

Brent Birch: Would come in. And we are limited in this space of the building that we're you know, the current phase one building to where we started looking at phase two even. But we, it definitely justified the project that there was a need in the Central Arkansas community for the technology focused companies, entrepreneurs, workers in that industry that needed a kind of a hub to operate out of. and so that that phase one building definitely justified that. then we started looking Okay, with this building full, we've got to start looking forward to phase two. And so we went through the whole process of even designing and getting costs back on a on a building that we were going to put in the parking lot between the phase one building and KATV's building. the old, the original Worthen Bank building

Rex Nelson: Right.

Brent Birch: Where the Center Theater used to be. So we went through that whole process, were geared up ready to go with that and start raising the funds to do that. And then the pandemic hit. And so we obviously put the brakes on that. But then we also suffered some vacancy, some Exodus by tenants naturally, that weren't either comfortable with coming to the office weren't able to afford the rent, because their business had slowed. But we also had a strong contingency of people that hung on to their space and didn't want to let it go. Because once this was over, they didn't, they didn't want to give up what they had.

Rex Nelson: Right.

Brent Birch: They didn't want to mess with changing even something as simple as mailing addresses during all this. So they hung on to their space. So we were still able to keep a core group as tenants. And there was a solid group that kept coming despite, you know, everything going on during the height of all this. And so that allowed us to keep operationally strong through this. And now we're on the other side of it, where we've almost filled the space back up again. And we've shifted gears on what we're going to do phase two, it's not a it's not a done deal. But you know, the odds are, we're going to go in and now that we've learned that the department of education is going to move out of the building here right across the street, on the corner of Capitol and Main. We'll go in and renovate that building. And that'll likely be our phase two.

Rex Nelson: So you will just move down the street down Main Street.

Brent Birch: Yeah, which is a natural progression for us to keep this continuous kind of campus built. But we'll do the space differently.

Rex Nelson: Yeah.

Brent Birch: Like I said, That's not a done deal. The board has not formally approved that. But that's the direction we're moving. We're working with the architect on figuring out how much that's going to cost and things like that. So they may not be a natural fit. We don't want to leave that building unoccupied. Because when the department of ed moves out, we want to be able to backfill them with with our tenant,

Rex Nelson: Realizing that there can be curveballs in life. And I'm using the analogy on purpose since you're an old baseball pitcher. But there could be curveballs, none of us saw the pandemic coming, of course. but putting that aside, give me kind of your best guess on where you see the technology park, maybe two years from now, five years from now, even 10 years from now.

Brent Birch: Yeah, and that's interesting, because as everybody knows, technology changes very rapidly. There's probably a technology bubbling up out there that we don't even know about yet. because we've seen some kind of come and go Since we opened that building in 2017, and the whole Bitcoin and all of those, those kind of cryptocurrencies. there was a couple of companies have come and gone in our space because of that. So there's something out there that we don't know about. But in two years, I would hope we've secured kind of an anchor tenant. just a little bit bigger tech company, or a satellite office of a large tech company that wants a little rock presence. I hope we've secured an anchor tenant to kind of build around that could almost serve as an upstream and maybe there in the tech Park and maybe there are cherry picking companies that are bubbling up in there to kind of absorbed them into their their world. because that's, that's really worked well with the FinTech accelerator. You've seen some of the large banks come in and kind of cherry pick technologies and absorb those back up into their underneath their banking umbrella. But as we all know, technology in banking is an everyday thing now. And I would hope that we're there. And then with the five year plan, I hope we've seen some, some exits, notable exits, by some companies, we've had some good ones, some good success stories. Apptegy

Rex Nelson: I was just thinking of that one, yeah.

Brent Birch: was an early one that he started in our space when we were on Markham, while the current phase one building was being renovated. And it was just him and then all of a sudden it was him in three or four people and then it was him in six or seven people. and in that space, we didn't have room to accommodate him, and the tech Park as it stands today wasn't available. So he had to move out. And within a year he had like 100 employees and now he's already moved again and is now kind of down where you know, that old Cajun's Wharf.

Rex Nelson: Right

Brent Birch: And he's got like over 200 employees.

Rex Nelson: Wow.

Brent Birch: So and that stuff a lot people don't hear about. but he's built this entire platform around communication and marketing within schools and sells his product across the country. and we've had a couple other good ones. Alleviant Health was another one that was in the telemedicine space that can justify them being in our building. They've exited now. I don't know how many square feet in where the old Kmart used to be where that gastroenterology clinic is. they've got a pretty good sized chunk of space in there.

Rex Nelson: On Rodney Parham, yeah.

Brent Birch: More than we could provide them in our current building. And there's been a couple more we've had some companies get sold. We had a company in there that was formerly Sumotext and then it was imimobile. They sold the to, to Cisco, which is a large technology providers. So there's been some really nice success stories. So we want to keep generating more of those. But what we like to see is one of those companies bubble up and get so big, similar to Apptegy they move out of here and the but they stay in Little Rock

Rex Nelson: They stay here. Yeah, makes sense. That makes sense. Well, good luck going forward. I think it's great for Little Rock. I think it's great for downtown. love having you around the corner and keep me in touch. I'll keep writing a lot in the future, because I'm really sold on what you're trying to do and think it's a real important part of where this city goes going forward. Alright, I'm gonna make that transition now. As you know, I contact you sometimes when I'm doing a duck hunting column, which we've got Bryan Hendricks, great outdoor editor here at the Democrat-Gazette. And he does the actual hunting stories and ammunition and guns and the nitty gritty and my columns are more culture and history. and duck hunting is just part of the cultural fabric of Arkansas, which is why I write about it a lot. It is part of our culture has its own unique culture, rich history. Talk a little bit first of all about your personal history how you grew up, and that being part of your winters growing up,

Brent Birch: I was lucky enough to tag along with my dad. He worked at the original Twin City Bank and they had a lodge that Frank Lyon's family owned. They owned Twin City Bank at the time, they owned a John Deere dealership, they owned the Coca Cola bottler. and they had a lodge which was Frank Lyon Jr's club prior to him buying Wingmead.

Rex Nelson: Wingmead, which is the most famous of the Arkansas clubs I'd have to say

Brent Birch: No question. But he when he bought Wingmead, he transitioned the the Crockett's Bluff lodge to a corporate club so the companies that he owned they they split the days and that's what I tell customers and so I got to tag along with my dad

Rex Nelson: On TCB days.

Brent Birch: That's right, yeah on TCB days I'd get to go down there and while he entertained clients and everything else, I got to run around with the guides and of course get to hunt. you know, every time we went down there and and it's a cool historic place too. It's on the national historic register. A really neat place hunting the, you know, the old oxbow lakes or the White River bottoms. That was my introduction to it. And obviously now 46 years later, I still light up with it.

Rex Nelson: Well, like I said, you write about it a lot. First of all, talk about greenhead magazine. Then I want to get into your Grand Prairie book a little bit, but talk about the magazine that you do every year.

Brent Birch: Yeah, that was, my previous job, before the tech park I was the chief information officer at Arkansas Business Publishing Group. and we kind of came up with the concept there were a couple of other duck hunters in the company at the time that nobody was really writing about Arkansas duck hunting. Just Arkansas, not trying to be anything to everybody. really focused, narrowly focused on Arkansas. and given we're the duck capital of the world, we felt there would be a justification for national advertising in there enough local advertising and then obviously plenty of editorial content to write about. so we launched it and you know, now it's 11 years later its annual magazine that comes out 11 years later we're still doing it

Rex Nelson: And even though you left that job you kept doing magazine.

Brent Birch: That's right, I'm still editor. pretty much have my hands in all except the sales side I don't know I'll refer them companies that I run across or people I run across that would be interested but I don't handle any of the sales piece but the editorial side of things kind of direct all that kind of come up with the concepts of the stories. and I usually write two or three a year. mostly either written about conservation, or things going on in that world or some of the historical pieces. Those are the two I like to write about the most

Rex Nelson: Now I mentioned that I was going to talk about the book. As you know, because I've written about it a lot, my mother's from Des Arc on the Grand Prairie. I used to spend large parts of my summers at my grandparents house and Des Ark and the holidays. I have a real place in my family roots in my heart for it. you did a book on that region of the state and again, it wasn't just hunting. I mean that cutting was kind of the theme but you expanded that into the whole culture, history of the region, famous restaurants, on and on. talk a little bit about that and why you kind of expanded it into more than just a "here's where you go duck hunting" book.

Brent Birch: Yeah, that was an awesome project. just to be able to, I mean I've hunted on the Grand Prairie my entire life and learned so many things about people, places, things that I didn't didn't know about. and my hope is everybody that read the book did the same. Because, there's truly not another place on the planet that has the rich cultural history that the Grand Prairie has. and it got to be a point it was with Stephens Jr who came to me about writing the book. We had a mutual interest in the heritage and history of things and he called me to his office one day and he wanted to have lunch. and, you know, I didn't know at the time other than we were talking about duck hunting. and he brought it up: we need to do a book about this place about the history and the culture in the traditions of this area before some of these people start fading away. Plenty already have. and the timing was right to pull that off because I still, through the magazine and through my personal experiences, I had a lot of connections on the prairie.

Rex Nelson: Right.

Brent Birch: Well now after writing the book I have even more. but you know you talk to one person who's "you want to talk to so and so." and that network, you know, Arkansas I've said a few times, I've heard other people say it, too you know, it's a two phone call state. I may not have the governor's number but I can call you and you can probably get me the governor.

Rex Nelson: That's right, you can get to somebody in two calls, yeah.

Brent Birch: So the prairie definitely works that way. And so the access to be able to write about places that haven't been in any of these other books, and to talk about people that haven't been in any of these other books. because a lot of the previous books now, the duck hunter's Almanac was unbelievable. but it was the whole state and that covered everything. but it was still mainly duck hunting. Geared towards duck hunting.

Rex Nelson: Right, right.

Brent Birch: And then there's been a couple books come out of Memphis that are more about the clubs and I wanted to write about all the other cool stuff I know that goes on in that part of the world places to eat...

Rex Nelson: Making calls. You know, on and on. Yeah, yeah.

Brent Birch: All those pieces that truly identify the Grand Prairie as the epicenter of duck hunting. the timing, the reason I said the timing was right, I think part of it because of social media and some of the things that that is generated, I think we've gotten away from some of the traditions in respect of the long haul of the sport of waterfowling versus you know, how fast can we kill them? How fast can I get my picture with all my buddies up on social media? not really necessarily respecting what came before that's made the sport have the longevity it has despite trying to hunt a wild animal that lives somewhere else most of the year. you know, has babies somewhere else long ways away. spends its winter down here. It's not something that's around all the time like deer or you know some other animals that are hunted and harvested in Arkansas. so it's a part of it is a hope that maybe some younger generation reads that book and understands you know, this thing doesn't necessarily last forever. there's been some dips in duck season and we might be facing another one coming up.

Rex Nelson: Right.

Brent Birch: We've come off a couple, couple tough seasons and things don't sound great. We're probably kind of a little bit spoiled.

Rex Nelson: We are spoiled.

Brent Birch: Nobody's gonna feel sorry for us on our Mallard harvests if you talk to anybody in other state.

Rex Nelson: We're going to be the top mallard state even if we think it's an awful year

Brent Birch: That's right.

Rex Nelson: You know you have written about it, and I enjoy how you have covered it in Greenhead and elsewhere: You know duck hunters are no different than anybody else. you get into conspiracy theories and you try to come with one thing they're they're planting corn up in Missouri and Iowa and leaving the fields and flooding them, and that's holding all the ducks and yada yada yada. and in you have written extensively about just how complex this is and how hard it is to make those estimates on what kind of year it's going to be. there's no single one factor, is there? there's a whole bunch of factors that play into what kind of season you're gonna have

Brent Birch: Yeah, no. There is no question. and people want to simplify it down to these things.

Rex Nelson: They do

Brent Birch: You know, it's the weather doesn't get cold enough anymore. or it's you know, they're planting corn and leaving corn and there are heated ponds and things north of us and ducks never get here. Those are factors. but not the single driving factors. not even weather is the single driving factor. It's got so much more to do than that. and then I wrote what I felt turned out to be a really good piece in this current Greenhead about some of the factors that are driving it. and you add them all up and then yeah, if all those things happen that's why the seasons aren't very good. That's why we're not seeing the number of ducks .You know, one of those factors comes to play. This year, supposedly the breeding is poor. Dry. Super dry in Canada, super dry in the Dakotas. But if we get the right weather that pushes the ducks that's gonna make them here. Now whether we're gonna see him during daylight, that's another question. because we as hunters are putting a lot of pressure on the modern day mallard and that's driving them to be nocturnal. everybody's seen it. you know 30 minutes after shooting time the sky's full of ducks. but that's because the ducks have gotten smart. because the hunter has pressured the duck, you know, pushing it about as hard as we can push it. and that's something we can actually control. we can't control corn planting up north, definitely can't control the weather. Now you can control easing off on the duck. and this new trend in scouting. people ride in the woods all day in boats kicking ducks up, that's not good for the sport. It's not good for the longevity of keeping ducks in the area. You know, shooting these, I've seen these specklebelly goose hunts they're taking 20 and 30 guns in there. That's not good for the longevity that's a short, short narrow thinking about where we're going to be a couple years. so things like that hunters big thing for me is control what you can control. you can control whether you shoot a drake or a hen. This year we probably need to be shooting drakes.

Rex Nelson: I agree.

Brent Birch: Hens have had a tough, tough time on the prairie. because when it's dry predators have easier access to them. So if we want to see some rebound in population maybe we should let the mamas make it back to Canada and we get the right conditions up there. A drought, you know, not a drought but a really wet spring, we put enough mamas back on the prairie, that prairie, maybe we will see an explosion in population again. but if we just blindly go try to fill a limit and we we shoot hens, drakes, doesn't matter. You're taking those out of the equation. We might be looking at some some flatlining or some some downturns population wise.

Rex Nelson: Good point. One other issue I want to hit with you because it's been in the news a lot lately. Of course, one of the things that made Arkansas the duck-hunting capital of the world were our great public hunting lands that allowed people to come here from all over the country and literally around the world and hunt. And of those lands, it was really the green timber area that was flooded that made those most famous places like Bayou Meto Wildlife Management Area. the Arkansas Game and Fish Commission have really started at least in the last year taking a lot of legislators out taking a lot of people out. and have made very clear that we've got real problems with our hardwoods in those areas dying off. that the water staying on them too long. And it's not going to be cheap to remedy that and they're going to have to find new sources of income to do that. Talk a little bit about that situation.

Brent Birch: I was fortunate enough to go on two tours of Bayou Meto, one this spring and one in the early summer. and I have had extensive conversations with several commissioners that I know personally that I consider friends and then I've had lunch with Austin Booth our new Game and Fish director, and I've had lots of conversations with him about it. The damage is real. This isn't the game of fish trying to, a lot of people have the opinion that they're favoring private land hunters, now. that's not the case. I've seen it with my own eyes, those woods are in trouble. Hurricane is really in trouble.

Rex Nelson: Yeah, they're stressed aren't they?

Brent Birch: In bad shape. but you know we were going in there I can't remember the exact timing but the amount of water that was still being held in Bayou Meto in the early summer was really disturbing and they can't get it off.

Rex Nelson: Right, and those oaks should be on dry land by that point of the year.

Brent Birch: That's right. now they've got a, I'm fully convinced they have a great plan in place and that's gonna, some hunting is going to suffer because of it. And I'm interested, I mean me personally, I'm interested. I along with some partners on a farm just north of upper Vallier, just north of Halowell. Well that part is that's going to be part that's going to be probably dry most of the season unless we get some kind of huge rain based on this new flooding schedule that they're going to use. And how's that going to impact the ducks? I mean, are we still going to get ducks were those ducks on go that we're going to upper Vallier into Hallowell? Where are they going to go now? it's going to be interesting. but it's a make or break deal, a decision, a hard decision they had to make to do that, and some hunters are going to be impacted. but there was not going to be any hunting, if they didn't make a change.

Rex Nelson: Right.

Brent Birch: Now, they still have got to find money to redo some of the water control structures to make it act more natural. They didn't know what they didn't know back when they did them. And now, just like everything else, we figured out better ways to do things and get smarter about things as time goes by. And they did some things wrong. and they'll, the Game and Fish is the first to admit it. But now they've got a plan in place that's going to remedy a lot of that and they had to make that decision now even for Bayou Meto to have a chance. Hurricane is probably past having a chance. It's gonna have to be a rebuild deal and they've identified some ways to do that. But Bayou Meto has still got a chance to hang in there and be okay. but if those changes weren't made, and those decisions, those tough, tough decisions, weren't made, we're looking at Bayou Meto not being anything remotely close to what we all knew, have known for all this time.

Rex Nelson: Yeah. And again, talk about a part of our Arkansas culture. So bottom line for hunters, especially those who hunt public lands, there's gonna have to be short term sacrifice short term being over several seasons probably in order to ensure long term survival.

Brent Birch: That's exactly right. That's exactly right. And that's the way they gotta look at it. and I get it. you know, not being a public land hunter I can definitely feel for the situation. but you can't take what you're gonna miss out on this season for something if we didn't make the change you miss you miss out on forever, and your children and grandchildren may miss out forever. because those things aren't easy to get back. You can't grow, you can't go plant 100 foot tall red oaks. they don't exist. And so to see the damage that we saw this summer going in there, you think about that, if the if all this went untouched and it just continued to go the route I was going, I mean, you're gonna be you'd be looking at a big dead stick reservoir.

Rex Nelson: Yeah.

Brent Birch: I don't think anybody wants that.

Rex Nelson: No, not at all. Well, we're only about a month away. So we're close enough. I can say you have a good season. Brent, thank you for joining us today.

Brent Birch: I appreciate you having me.

Rex Nelson: I really enjoyed the discussion, interesting combination. We do technology and cutting today. I enjoyed that. We'll have you back some time. If you don't mind.

Brent Birch: Yeah, We can always throw, next time we can throw Razorback baseball in there.

Rex Nelson: Absolutely. Maybe get you back in the spring, that's a good idea. That's a good idea. Thank you for joining us for another edition of the Southern Fried podcast. I'm Rex Nelson of the Arkansas Democrat-Gazette. We'll see you next time.

Here is the original post:

Rex Nelson's Southern Fried Podcast: Technology and duck hunting with Brent Birch - Arkansas Online

Good policy choices and actions will make the difference in steering technological change towards economic recovery and development outcomes that leave no one behind.

Without key enabling and supportive government policies, the real benefits of new and frontier technology will remain locked away.

This was the message from science, technology and innovation (STI) ministers and experts who spoke at UNCTADs 15th quadrennial conference (UNCTAD15) on why policy is crucial to ensuring new technologies and data are harnessed in ways that boost economic recovery, reduce inequality and foster sustainable development.

Panellists of the conferences fourth ministerial round-table discussion held on 7 October outlined actions that governments, development partners and civil society actors can take to harness the true potential of technologies such as artificial intelligence, robotics, drones and gene editing, while minimizing their potential harms.

The impact of technology on the quality of economic, social and environmental outcomes is not deterministic, said UNCTAD Deputy Secretary-General Isabelle Durant, who opened the discussion.

The trajectory of technological change can be influenced by policy choices, and sometimes by the absence of any informed choice, Ms. Durant said, adding that governments had a key role in shaping the impacts of frontier technologies.

She related how cutting-edge technologies had on one hand enabled the development of COVID-19 vaccines at an unprecedented rate, but on the other hand, we see appalling inequality in access to these same vaccines.

She urged the international community to note that while everyone in the world is affected by technological change, not all countries and social groups can make their voices heard and have their interests considered when the course of technological change is decided.

Ms. Durant said UNCTADs two flagship publications released this year, the Digital Economy Report and the Technology and Innovation Report, offered strong, evidence-based messages to policymakers on how to craft inclusive responses to the issues raised by rapid technological change.

Developing countries cant afford to miss the current technological revolution as they had missed others in the past, said Douglas Letsholathebe, Botswanas minister of tertiary education, research, science and technology.

He said the failure to catch previous technological waves had contributed to the existing inequalities between developed and developing countries.

Mr. Letsholathebe urged developing countries to better harness frontier technologies by raising their productive capacities and boosting structural economic transformation, while addressing social and environmental challenges.

What we need is the widespread upgrading of science, technology and innovation capacity across the developing world that will promote global development and benefit all of mankind, he said.

Becoming ready requires active policy design and implementation, he added, calling for stronger policy efforts at the national level in developing countries to build research and development, technological and innovation capacity.

In the process of digital transformation, digital readiness is a pre-requisite to maximize the benefits of the digital economy, said Pan Sorasak, Cambodias minister of commerce.

Mr. Pan said an eTrade readiness assessment conducted in Cambodia in 2017, UNCTADs first evaluation of a countrys e-commerce ecosystem, had been critical in helping the country boost its digital readiness and harness new technologies.

He outlined various policies, laws and regulations designed by his government to steer the impacts of technological change towards shared prosperity, sustainability and sustainable development.

They include measures governing e-commerce activities, promoting the development of e-commerce ecosystem, and addressing potential risks related to data protection, cyber security, cybercrime, consumer protection and competition.

The Dominican Republics minister of higher education, science and technology, Franklin Garcia Fermin, underlined the importance of building digital skills to keep pace with rapid technological change.

He said the pandemic had accelerated digitalization, making it necessary to think and rethink everything related to education and digital skills to guarantee sustainable development and social prosperity.

Mr. Fermin called for more international collaboration to bridge digital divides (including the gender gap), reduce technological gaps between countries, tackle ethical questions and develop normative frameworks to guide a fair, transparent and accountable development of frontier technologies.

UNCTAD eTrade for Women advocate Clarisse Iribagiza from Rwanda urged stakeholders to tackle hurdles that hinder small and medium-size digital businesses, especially those owned by women, from growing.

These include limited access to growth capital for early-stage and women-led digital businesses. For example, she said $3 billion in funding had been raised in 2021 by over 500 African digital entrepreneurs, but only 6% had gone to women-led businesses.

Ms. Iribagiza highlighted the need to bridge the digital skills gap and make the business environment less risky for digital entrepreneurs.

She also called for more investment in demand-driven capacity-building programmes that target women digital entrepreneurs, such as UNCTADs e-Trade for Women masterclasses, co-designed with women entrepreneurs to meet their needs such as building networks and engaging with role models.

Watch the UNCTAD15 Ministerial Roundtable IV

See original here:

UNCTAD15: Policies are critical to harnessing frontier technologies for good - UNCTAD

BRIAN KENNY: 5G, the 5th generation network, its been touted as a real game changer. TechCrunch says that with the leap to 5G networks, we can start to completely reshape entire industries. We can rethink how we run our cities and manage critical national infrastructures. 5G will deliver data 40 times faster than the current maximum speeds. That means machines can communicate instantly without any human intervention and do things on our behalf and for our benefit without our engagement. Exciting, right? And also a little scary because along with all the promise of the 5G network comes the same peril of network security thats always existed with the internet. And the more we come to rely on it, the more vulnerable we are. Today on Cold Call, weve invited professor Meg Rithmire and case protagonist Keith Krach to discuss the case entitled, The Clean Network and the Future of Global Technology Competition. Im your host, Brian Kenny, and youre listening to Cold Call on the HBR Presents Network.

BRIAN KENNY: Meg Rithmire studies the comparative political economy of development, with a focus on China and Asia, and she is the author of Land Bargains and Chinese Capitalism. Keith Krach is the former Under Secretary of State for Economic Growth, Energy and the Environment, and he has a long and distinguished career as an entrepreneur and business leader, including as the chairman, president, and CEO of DocuSign and he holds an MBA from Harvard Business School. I could go on and on and on, but I wont because we have a great conversation to get to. Thank you both for joining me today.

KEITH KRACH: Thanks so much for having us.

MEG RITHMIRE: Great.

BRIAN KENNY: Keith, we love having the protagonist in on the conversation because you experienced it, you lived it. So were really going to be interested in hearing your perspective and insights on how all of this unfolded. Meg, its a great case and its ripped from the headlines, so I think people will be really interested in hearing your take on why you decided to write this case and how it relates to what you do as a scholar. Lets just dive in. Before we get started, Meg, Id like to ask you to tell us what would your cold call be when you step into the classroom to start this discussion?

MEG RITHMIRE: Well, theres only one question to ask in this case, which is: Evaluate the Clean Network initiative. So was this a good idea? How did it go? In terms of cold calls, its an interesting one because the studentsthey have very different perspectives, some based on where theyre from. Even among American students and among Chinese students, theres very different perspectives on this.

BRIAN KENNY: Yep. Youve been studying China for many years. Why did you think that this was an important story to tell, an important case to write?

MEG RITHMIRE: Well, my research over the last several years has really been about Chinas industrial policy, Chinas science and technology policy. As you said, I am a specialist on China. My first book was on property rights in China. Now my research is much more about Chinas role in the world and other countries reactions to China and what it means for global capitalism. So I wrote this case for the course that I teach in the second year of the HBS MBA program, which is called, Managing International Trade and Investment. Its usually firm-based cases that look at the politics and macroeconomics of globalization. So when Im teaching my students about globalization and the rules that govern their business environments, the relationship between the U.S. and China is huge in structuring business environments, not only in the United States and in China, but in every country across the globe. You read this case and you realize, Gosh, what must it be like to be the CEO of a telecom company in Spain and have the Under Secretary of State from the United States calling you up and telling you, This is the kind of business decision you should and should not make, or we strongly encourage you to do this. This is not the typical mode of doing business, of doing diplomacy, but I think the case and the scenario of Chinese firms in the world and American political reactions to those Chinese firmsits heralding a new era for how globalization works and how states are interacting with firms. And clearly, this is high drama. And for our students theyre sitting in this classroom doing their MBA, like Keith did a few decades ago. Then, Keith goes on to run a few companies and then, finds himself in the middle of a geopolitical firestorm, where hes using both politics and a business background to think about a problem of extreme importance. You cant get more dramatic than that. So as a case, its perfect to talk about U.S., China, to talk about what role businesses have, business leaders have. Its an opportunity I could not turn down.

BRIAN KENNY: Im waiting for the Netflix series, I know thats going to come out soon. Keith, were going to find out from you directly in a couple of minutes what making those calls was like and what the reaction you got was. But before we go there, Meg, let me just ask you to set the stage a little bit more for us by talking about Chinas investment strategy and their manufacturing strategy in the U.S., and how that relates to the case.

MEG RITHMIRE: I started at the school ten years ago. China was a destination for foreign direct investors from manufacturers. It was a low value add, labor arbitrage role in global supply chains. Now the China that we have in 2020, which is when the case is really set, is a technological behemoth that is seeking to become even more capacious in its technology than it has been over the last 15 years. So that transformation has everything to do with The Clean Network. The global financial crisis revealed to Chinas leaders how much they depended on foreign demand, on exports. Later, other kinds of episodes revealed how much they depend on foreign technology. So here, are the Snowden revelations are really important. So frequently, I start talks on things like this by saying, Theres a national security agency inserted a backdoor into a companys technology for a foreign country and actually, its Cisco and the NSA. When China learned that, they got incredibly scared that were depending on semiconductors from abroad, were depending on mainframe computers that are existing in the United States and elsewhere. So they adopted a drive to domesticate that technology, called Made in China 2025. China has had state-owned enterprises for a long time, but Made in China 2025 and this new industrial policy is about sending state money from the Chinese government to firms of all kinds, no matter who owns them. Its very difficult, now you look at any company in the Chinese economy, and if theyre in any sector thats important to the futureAI, semiconductors, electric vehicles, batteries, anything like thatyoure going to find some element of state ownership in that firm. That presents this tremendous political challenge to the rest of the world, which is how do we think about where the Chinese state ends and firms begin? That kind of political problem is one that, I think, Keith and his team were dealing with. And then, we saw huge rise and then fall of Chinese high-tech investments in the United States. So this idea that what they should do with this funding is, in part, it takes forever to build your own semiconductor. Theres this law about it. I wont go into it. But its very difficult just to develop all this technology yourself, and so the idea was, Well, we should go out and acquire companies in the world, whether in Israel or Korea, Taiwan, the United States, that have this know-how. It took a few years for people in the United States and in Korea and Taiwan and Israel to say, Gosh, what is happening here? Were nervous about this. Were nervous about these investments. So then you start to see a bunch of policies, like the overhaul of the Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States, those kinds of things, which are limiting Chinese investment in the United States. But then you come to, what do you do then, about the presence of Chinese firms in other countriescountries that we trade intelligence with, countries that we work in? That is the problem, really, that is at issue in this case.

BRIAN KENNY: That means it gets very complicated very quickly. Keith, let me turn to you. So Ive got to ask, what were your responsibilities at State, did you know what you were getting into, I guess, is part of the question?

KEITH KRACH: Well, I originally came to Washington because of what I had seen in China in terms of DocuSign, when I was running DocuSign. Id been going there since 1981, but this time it was different. I went on a listening tour to see if we should enter the market. And I could see how much Dictator Xi really amped up aggression, I could see their economic aggression. I saw their drone swarm strategy. Everybody was telling me to download Tencent every 30 minutes. And all I knew is the guys with the best technology win the war, so I went out to Washington. I got asked to serve. And I had experienced intellectual property theft from the Chinese when I was the CEO of Ariba. I had seen what happens when we build manufacturing plants over there when I was VP at General Motors and those kinds of things. I can actually see what the weapons of mass production have done, back where I grew up in Ohio, where my dad had a five-person machine shop abd I was welding in there at age 12. So I knew I would get this mission and I was responsible for running United States economic diplomacy. One of the questions they asked me in my Senate confirmation hearing is what would be my China strategy. And I said, My China strategy would basically be three things and it would harness U.S.s biggest competitive advantage. Number one, rally our allies and our partners. Number two, leverage the resources and innovation of the private sector. And then number three, amplify the moral high ground of democratic values. So when I came in, I was given the mission to develop an operationalized global economic security strategy to drive economic growth, maximize national security, and combat China Inc.s economic aggression.

BRIAN KENNY: One of the first things you did was a listening tour. So the climate at the time that you stepped into this between China and the United States, this is during the Trump Administration, things were tense already because we were looking at trade wars and other things like that. You stepped into a hornets nest, I guess, is what Im saying. And you went on this listening tour. What were the things that you heard and the insights that you brought back from that?

KEITH KRACH: I had probably about 60 bilateral meetings with foreign ministers, economic ministers, finance ministers, and it almost seemed like all countries were terrified of China. Nobody wanted to use the word China or Huawei. The big aha, I think, came when I asked about the relationship with China and they said, Well, theyre really important trading partners to us, but then itd be like theyd look both directions and lean in and say, But we dont trust them.

BRIAN KENNY: Yep.

KEITH KRACH: And this happened over and over again. Thats really why I told my team, Look, were going to make our strategic positioning all about trust. You do business with people you trust, you partner with people you trust, you buy from people you trust. Its the basis of every relationship. That was something that when you look at our objectives of The Clean Network, this applies to all areas of economic competition with China.

BRIAN KENNY: So lets go back just for a second because, Meg, I want to ask you about this climate question as well. It was during this period of time, and weve mentioned Huawei a couple of times, and ZTE is written about it in the case, theyre central characters in this case. The Canadian authorities had picked up the CFO of Huawei and she was being held on charges. Shes the daughter of the founder of Huawei. Things are really amping up at this time. This is, maybe, some of the drama you were alluding to. How is all that playing out in the background here?

MEG RITHMIRE: Well, I have to say my personal connection to this is I was on a train from Shanghai to Beijing when Huawei was blacklisted, was put on the entity list. And I was on a plane to arrive to Shanghai the week before when the trade talks fell apart. So there is this general feeling, especially in China and among some around the world, that the trade stuffall of this is the United States just targeting China. All of this is politicized. Its making an enemy of China. My views on China are quite nuanced, but my strong view is that the trade conflict and whats going on with Huawei are very different issues. The trade conflict is about these long-standing business practices that China has had that other countries have also been frustrated with and these things. Whereas, this issue of what do you do about Chinese high-tech firms? What do you do about possible government involvement with technologies that are what we might call dual use or omni use, that could be used for intelligence purposes? Thats a very different set of issues. Its hard because the relationship between these two countries, that theyre two, clearly, of the largest economies in the world, theyre very important countries. And so we tend to see all of these things as tied up together, but theyre actually quite different in some ways. The reality is with the detention of Meng Wanzhou, the CFO of Huawei who you mentionedthat was Department of Justice indictment based on Huawei and which ZTE had also violated the sanctions against Iran. If you read the indictment there, its clear that they did, in fact, violate the sanctions against Iran. So thats not about Huaweis business practices. Thats not about its links to this and that intelligence network in China. Its about violation of sanctions, and evidence is there on that. The blacklisting of Huawei though, thats a different issue altogether. So its important, I think, to disentangle some of this. But certainly the climate between the U.S. and China has deteriorated significantly. I would say, importantly, that trend predated the election of Donald Trump. Barack Obama was the first president who actually used CFIUS [The Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States] to block a Chinese tech acquisition. So that was happening in 2016 and early 2017 before Donald Trump took office.

BRIAN KENNY: Yeah. Great point.

KEITH KRACH: And I might add, by the time we got these authorities, it was clear that the Chinese Communist Party had a master plan to control 5G communications. This is just not about the next generation of smartphone; this is about controlling power grids, utility systems, sewage systems, manufacturing processes, all communications around the world. It looked like Huawei was unstoppable. They announced 91 deals, 47 in Europe. They looked like they were going to run the table. It was a desperate situation. The previous U.S. attempts had failed and Im quoted in the case that what was going on is, and the U.S. was banging the table and saying, Dont buy Huawei. So I come in from the private sector, from Silicon Valley, and I go, Thats the craziest thing I heard of because where I come from, you dont even mention the competitors name. And then, we did something that, to me, was second nature, but in a government, it was unprecedented. I said, Why dont we treat these countries and these telcos like a customer, and the customer is never wrong. By the way, we should have a value proposition. That was a key part of the strategy, no doubt about it. The other thing that Ive learned in Silicon Valley is that everybody wants to go with a leader in a rapidly-changing market. Huawei was the clear leader at the time. And leadership in a rapidly-changing market is not defined by size. Its defined by momentum. So the object of the game was to reverse Huaweis momentum and give it back to the Western firms. As Meg said, this is a precursor for Chinas economic aggression. This is textbook casestealing intellectual property, government subsidies in not only research, but in financing. So this was an important precedent that was being set. This was a national security issue.

BRIAN KENNY: Lets talk about your strategy for reversing the momentum. How did you start to go about doing that?

KEITH KRACH: The Clean Network was part of our global economic security strategy. We had three basic pillars. The first is to turbo charge U.S. economic competitiveness and innovation, and youre seeing the result of some of that nowfor example, with the United States Innovation Competitive Act, that $250 billion to invest in research. The second one is safeguard Americas assets, and not just intellectual property, but also, our financial systems, healthcare, education systems. Then the third one was to build a network of trusted partners. So The Clean Network is an alliance of democracies of like-minded countries, companies, and civil society that operates by a set of trust principles for all areas of economic collaboration. Those are things like transparency, reciprocity, respect for rule of law, respect for property of all kinds, respect for sovereignty and nation, respect for human rights, respect for the planet. What China Inc. had been doing is theyve been taking those democratic principles that we honor and they do not, and theyve been using it against us. What we did is, in essence, we took those very trust principles that theyve been using against us, we flipped them on their back. We used it against them because theyd been using it for their strategic advantage. So, basically, we weaponized the very principles that protect our freedoms.

BRIAN KENNY: How did you do this? What are these calls like? Youre setting up meetings. Who are you meeting with, and what are the conversations? Whats the tenor of the conversations because Meg pointed out before this is a really unusual way to conduct diplomacy?

KEITH KRACH: So we had a three-prong strategy and that was with countries and with telcos and with clean companies. Calling on CEOs of foreign companies, what I found is kind of an unconventional approach in the government sector, but for our team, it was natural. So we called on them, and then, obviously, a lot of prime ministers, a lot of economic ministers, when we go to the different countries. Then with the CEOs, the clean companies, these were the end users and important companies in these countries and for these telcos, and that came into play very strategically in our seven value propositions. So heres how it would typically go, Were going to put Huawei in. Were going to put them on the edge, not the core. Theyre really inexpensive. And what Id say is, I go, First of all, 5G is a system, so if you have them on the edge, theyre in the core. The second thing is, so theyre charging you money, well, if theyre charging you money, youre getting ripped off because in a lot of countries and for a lot of telcos, theyre giving it away for free. They want the data. And let me tell you about this National Intelligence Act, which Ill be honest with you, I didnt even know existed when I was back being a CEO. And that is that any company, a state owner or otherwise, any person has to turn over any information, proprietary technology, intellectual property, or data upon request to the Communist Party, the VLA, or the government, which is basically one in the same, or you suffer the consequences.

BRIAN KENNY: Mm-hmm.

KEITH KRACH: And the question comes down to one question and one question only. Who do you trust? That was the thesis, and that resonated big time.

BRIAN KENNY: So Meg, this is hard ball, unlike has been played with China before, I guess, is my question?

MEG RITHMIRE: Well, its a couple of things that are different from before. I just want to reiterate or emphasize what Keith said, this National Intelligence Law. So it was a part of a suite of laws that China has passed since 2013so cybersecurity law, national security laws, etc, which are, they do have such a vague phrasing and such wide jurisdiction for the party state and it made a huge difference. In a place like the UK, which had a technical solution to the Huawei issueso they established this Huawei Oversight Center where they were looking at the source code from the company. So, basically, the issue being you cant put in a back door because we have our technical experts sitting, observing your code in the UK for the equipment that Huawei was deploying. But then, once you have this law in China, and we dont know how its implemented because when the Chinese security agencies implement the law, were not going to hear about it. Its not going to be on the front page, so we dont know.

BRIAN KENNY: Right.

MEG RITHMIRE: And it changed the minds of a lot of countries. So one thing I do in class, which is a really fun thing to do, which is, I say to the students, If you are Huawei, how would you feel about this law? They say, Gosh, I would hate it. Because, of course then, all of this work weve done for years, trying to figure out who really owns Huawei? Who does Huawei really answer to? Well, it doesnt matter anymore if you have a law like this in China. And Ive heard a lot of people from a lot of different parts of the Chinese tech sector, etc., say they hate these laws because it makes it impossible for them to persuade foreign countries that theyre really operating commercially and wont have to hand over their data. Legally they do, so it makes a huge difference. But yes, this is unprecedented. So there are a number of things about whats going on here. The idea that the United States would be devoting incredible diplomatic resources to a global campaign against a single company is really unprecedented. I think it shows you how global capitalism is changing with the entry of China. This model that is new to us is changing the way that business is done. And one thing thats significant here is that this was an attempt at multilateral negotiation. It was diplomatic. It wasnt about getting in peoples faces or at least not primarily about that. And the other thing thats interesting about it is that not only do you have Under Secretary Krach asking you, Choose one firm over a Chinese firm, but choose a European firm. So there are no American 5G end-to-endtheres just no company that can do this in the United States. So I would love to hear Keith talk a little bit about that as well. What is it like to advocate for European companies when you are the Under Secretary of State for the U.S.? So whats the view for U.S. competitiveness because I think thats quite interesting.

KEITH KRACH: So if you look at the objectives, we had three objectives for The Clean Network. I think this is really, really an important point because it wasnt just about 5G. It wasnt just about Huawei. The first objective was to really prove that China Inc. is beatable by defeating of the CCPs master plan to dominate 5G. So The Clean Network represented the first government-led initiative that actually defeated China Inc., and a very important one, and that is dominate 5G, which is the backbone for their surveillance state. Theres no question that they are tied to the Chinese Communist Party. But theres a second part to that objective one, and that is to open up the playing field and enable U.S. entrance and other countries entrance to the market because they had been subsidized in Huawei so much that the pricing umbrella was so low that it didnt make sense for the big tech players to jump in the market or the innovators to go. So we had to neutralize them, lift the pricing umbrella, so these guys could earn a profit. Indeed that happened, and now Microsoft is coming in, Dell, Cisco, all these innovators. The second objective was to deliver an enduring model for competing with China, Inc., measured by meeting ten essential factors. Theres a chart on that in the case study on those ten. We clicked them all off. But its things like executability, its things like repeatability, its things like affordability. The final objective was to provide a head start on building a strategic platform that could be leveraged in all other sectors of economic competition. After a few months, we announced clean apps, clean cable, clean carrier, clean cloud. And we also had programs going, in terms of clean infrastructure with, clean financing, which was the BlueDot initiative, which now is the B3W, which the G7 nations have accepted. We have clean minerals with clean energy. So it was a model going forward. I think one of the important points out there is that with this being the only successful government-led initiative that really has proven tangible results, this is a great model going forward.

BRIAN KENNY: Yeah. Well, Meg, let me ask you this. Obviously, this didnt come without criticism. So Im wondering what did the critics have to say about this, and is there validity to some of the criticisms?

MEG RITHMIRE: Well, they say many, many things. So let me say a few of the prominent criticisms. So one is, and you heard Keith just talking about its an alliance of democracies, etc. So one criticism is, and one student did say in class, Well, why is Vietnam a member? Whats Krach doing in the UAE? These are not democracies? Which leads you to think, Okay. Well, should this be about democracies or should this be pretty hard, cold, realpolitik? Dont accept China. We clearly share intelligence with countries that are not democracies Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, etc. Do we want those countries using Huawei or do we want them not using Huawei? So one criticism the students have is, Its nice to hear someone talk about values, etc., but please give me a break. The United States does not really care that much about those values in other countries. Another is, The United States is just weaponizing its critical hub. So if you think about how sanctions work and what does it mean to blacklist a company, put it on the entity list, which is that were basically saying, and like we did with Huawei and ZTE and Iran, If you have any U.S. business, then youre exposed to U.S. law and that our sanctions are applied extra territorially. Any country that violates the U.S. sanctions, even if they have nothing to do with the United States, if they have other business in the United States, then theyre vulnerable. So a lot of what some criticism is, is like, Look, this is the United States bullying countries to take a side in a fight thats between U.S. and China has nothing to do with me. So my best response is, If I think U.S. value chains in semiconductors or in other things are going to be weaponized in this fight, I should disintermediate the United States. So you find interesting companies that are saying, Great. Now I have to have a supply chain that is compliant with Chinas views and a supply chain thats compliant with the U.S. views. Its going to be more expensive and its going to be frustrating to me. So what impact does it have on the United States? Im not saying I agree or disagree with these different kinds of criticisms, but there are things that have been said. One criticism that came from China, which was, This has no stability. We know that U.S. administrations change every four to eight years. This Clean Network thing was really successful in a year, getting 60 something countriesKeith can tell you the numbersto sign on, but whos to say that theyll stay signed on for the next two years? This isnt NATO. Its not a treaty, right? Its just a soft agreement. And thats what made it fast and effective, but its also what makes the commitment shallow. Those are the main criticisms that come up in class and in discussions of it.

KEITH KRACH: But the one thing, I think, thats really important is that this is democracy versus authoritarianism. And if you look at those trust principlesrespect for rule of law, respect for sovereignty of nation, respect for human rights, respect for the planetthese were the key things it was based on. Another criticism was that China couldnt join The Clean Network. By the way, that was not true at all because the trust tenets of The Clean Network explicitly state, The goal is to include all countries and organizations as participants. The countries that currently do not abide by the trust principles will be excluded from Clean Network membership until they reformed the problematic practices and laws. So no nation is excluded forever, and The Clean Network doesnt require a country to choose between a partnership with the U.S. or any other nation. And I think that was really important. We got 60 countries, representing two-thirds of the worlds global GDP, 200 telcos, a host of clean companiesfrom Oracle, HP, Fujitsu, Siemens, NEC, companies like thaton The Clean Network. At the end of the day, and I think this was an aha for the class, was it puts China in a catch-22 because they either live by these principles and change their practices, or theyre going to get excluded from potentially 80 percent of the markettheir choice. The important thing in this type of economic statecraft is to maintain the moral high ground. In other words, its your choice and its based on these trust principles.

BRIAN KENNY: Yeah. A lot of hard work, but obviously a lot of great progress as a result. This has been a fascinating conversation. Meg, I want to give you the last word as the case author. If theres one thing you want people to remember about this case, what would it be?

MEG RITHMIRE: So my answer is that were all becoming a little bit Chinese in a way. China as a model for political economy, for economic development, and for the way that the state relates to the economy is different than anything we have seen in modern capitalism. The responses that companies and countries have to that are going to vary. But I think were going to find that every country and every company adopt some of what China does in order to counter it. So in the United States, for now, were now having huge investments in our own industrial policy, something that would have been unthinkable 20 years ago, have government investments in semiconductors? This is not what the United States government typically does. I want people to learn from the case that there are so many tools that companies and governments are going to use to address what is the perceived threat from China, and business leaders have got to pay attention to those tools, how effective they are, and how theyre changing the competitive landscape. Basically, what happens in China is super important for what happens in the rest of the world, and the case really illustrates that, I think, in stark colors.

BRIAN KENNY: On that note, Meg Rithmire, Keith Krach, thank you so much for joining me. Its been great having this conversation with you.

MEG RITHMIRE: Thanks so much.

KEITH KRACH: Great. Thanks so much.

BRIAN KENNY: Were excited to be celebrating the 100-year anniversary of the case method at Harvard Business School. Its a year-long celebration, kicking off this month alongside our new academic year. If you want more on the history of the case method, visit our website: http://www.hbs.edu/casemethod100.

BRIAN KENNY: Cold Call is a great way to get a taste of the case method, after all each episode features a business case and its faculty author. You might also like our other podcasts: After Hours, Climate Rising, Skydeck, and Managing the Future of Work. Find them on Apple Podcasts or wherever you listen. Thanks again for joining us. Im your host, Brian Kenny, and youve been listening to Cold Call, an official podcast of Harvard Business School, brought to you by the HBR Presents network.

Go here to see the original:

How the Clean Network Changed the Future of Global Technology Competition - Harvard Business Review