StumbleUpon | JayDeragon's blog posts

http://JayDeragon.stumbleupon.com/review/34414672/

Wed, 15 Jul 2009 03:26:47 -0700

Industry, government and every institution runs on a “system” established by the minds and hearts of the “people” within the system.
The system is based on past experience and usually copies the “system” of others in similar markets.� However, every “system” is being pushed to change in order to adapt to the disruptive nature of changes happening globally.
A system cannot change itself.� Any changes made to a system, are by definition, part of that system.� The drive to change may come from outside but the resistance to change always comes from inside.
Everyone who wants to move the system to improve.� However a major disruption is needed to break it from its current cycle, tearing it away from the attraction of its old state until it is captured by a new state.� This usually occurs because of an outside force.� A system cannot change itself and if the eco-system is being disrupted by the activity of outside forces that don’t fit the mindsets and hearts of the internal forces then the disruption is rejected and discounted.� To break away from an old system and adopt a new system requires recognition of the need to change, knowledge to make the change and leaders to lead the change.
New knowledge comes from outside the system.� Knowledge required to make drastic changes comes from those who are not part of the old system.�� If new knowledge can only come from out side the system then to acquire the needed knowledge means you have to go to those who think and reside outside your system.
Where And What Is Outside Your “System of Thinking”?
New knowledge can be seen as an act of creativity, complexity suggests that creativity is an emergent� property of a complex adaptive system. Creativity flourishes in what is called the “shadow system“. Shadow systems occur outside the exiting system and is essentially centered around the fringes of conversational exchanges from other than those within the center of an “existing system“.��
Shadow systems act in a dynamic state flipping from stability to chaos and back – complexity.� Sound familiar? No, then just take sometime and examine the emerging market of conversations fueled by “social media”.� It doesn’t make sense to many because it is a “shadow system” emerging and pushing against all old systems of beliefs.
Most existing knowledge has come from within an old system SO any new knowledge outside of the “system”� is rejected because it doesn’t fit the mental models that the old system believes is true. The importance of “shadow systems” is that it breeds innovation.� Innovation is the exploitation of creativity.� Creativity drives new knowledge.� New knowledge comes from outside the legitimate system and is more likely found within the “shadow system”.
It is called the “shadow system” because it isn’t evident to most rather only to a few. Believers in the old system can’t comprehend the values of the “shadow system” because the complexity doesn’t neatly fit into the understandings, values and metrics created by the existing system.� The market of conversations fueled by social media simply do not fit into understandings, values and metrics of traditional mindsets and models. Traditional mindsets and models want to measure social media in terms of revenue. The “shadow system” understands the values and metrics of conversational currency fueled by the rate of interest and change. The more interest in the “shadow system” the greater the rate of change. Have you noticed how fast all markets are adopting social media?
What used to take decades or even centuries to create “systemic change” is now being perpetuated by the increased rate of interest. The rate of interest is an indicator of just how attractive the “shadow system” is to those wishing to replace the old system. Interest fuels rates of change and the rate of change is overtaking the existing system.� Don’t believe it? Stop and think about the things that have changed within the last six months and the speed (rate) at which these things have changed.
The “shadow system” will eventually replace the old system. History shows that “shadow systems” end up replacing old system and become the new system.

What say you?

http://JayDeragon.stumbleupon.com/review/21392466/

Sat, 17 May 2008 05:53:20 -0700

When you do a search for "Social Media Consultants" on Google it produces close to six million page references. It is ironic that on the front page none of the big name consulting firms show up rather they are buried within the six million references.

Given that main stream media and brands are moving quickly to the social web many have and will continue to stumble through their initiatives and many will make critical and costly mistakes.

Subsequently the market for consulting practices that have a deep understanding and experience in providing Socialutions to businesses is likely to flourish in the not to distant future.

Who Will Firms Seek Advice From?

As major corporations begin to buy up network operators, social media agencies and a host of primary application developers they will likely seek the advice of those they acquire for the purposes of integrating that which was acquired into their primary propositions. The premise is the firms being acquired have the experience with "social technologies and user dynamics" so they know more than we do and thus lets follow their advice. An assumption that could prove to be costly and strategically flawed.

Then there is the scenario where a major brand wants to start their own "Socialutions" initiative without the cost of acquiring either a platform operator or a social media agency or application provider. So they seek guidance from both within their organization and outside their organization. But who will they turn to? How will they determine whether those they turn to have both the experience and understanding required to successfully guide them to success? Given that the entire "social space" is relatively new how does a firm determine whether a outside resource is qualified to effectively help them achieve their objectives?

Both of these scenarios illustrate the emerging challenges for executives contemplating their organizational strategies aimed at capitalizing on the shifts created by advanced social computing trends. The challenges are critical for public firms who are constantly under the scrutiny of the analyst, the shareholders and the markets. Leadership of any organization is expected to make sound decisions and effective use of capital to create improved returns. What makes these decisions even more intense is the very transparency of the web and how word of mouth spreads at the click of a mouse from one to one to millions. The end user of any "social proposition" is only six degrees away from the entire population of the planet and their opinions spread in web time which is faster than fast.

Who Has The Knowledge Required for Success?

Finding consultants who have knowledge about Socialutions can be easy but finding the right knowledge can be extremely difficult. The difference is significant because in a space that is dynamic and changing daily getting the wrong advice and doing the wrong things can cost more than the money a firms spends chasing the opportunities. The technology, practice and solutions that exist today are not tomorrows benchmarks. Tomorrows solutions lie within the systemic ebb and flow of social interacting processes that create user satisfaction and community praise.

Find someone or a firm that understands the last statement and you found the knowledge required to survive. Find someone or some firm that can transfer that knowledge into your culture, your systems, your strategies and enable you to produce results that exceed expectations and you've found someone who can insure your success longterm.

A good consultant helps you change the game by transferring the knowledge required to play the game successfully. If a consultant accomplishes these objectives then they leave but they can become friends for life. More, much more on this to come...

What say you

http://JayDeragon.stumbleupon.com/review/17850389/

Sat, 23 Feb 2008 14:58:06 -0800

Prior to the Industrial Revolution the task of selling was relatively simple. All firms had to do was meet the growing demand of consumers buying new things.
It was very common for one person to perform all tasks of the business. The proprietor was focused on producing and meeting orders; selling, marketing, and accounting were regarded as secondary because the market demand was abundant.
The Industrial Revolution brought about organizational changes to businesses. Industries were now producing mass quantities of millions of different products. Because buyers could not absorb all the products, an increase in sales coverage was needed to relieve the excess created by large factories.
The emergence of sales divisions within corporations solved many logistical problems and increased the quantity of potential customers. However, sales representatives generally had very little feedback within the company and were viewed as contracted help. They were paid strictly on a commission basis, so they had very little loyalty to either the firm for which they worked or the customers to whom they sold the products. As long as the proper allotments of products were being shipped and the sales representatives were meeting pre-determined quotas, firms generally took very little notice of what consumers wanted. These practices remained unchanged until the early 1980s when “quality” became the modern management mantra of the day.
The economic expansion of the1990s led to a flurry of development in all business sectors. Advances in technology, especially in the information sector, have increased competition between firms and heightened the awareness of the average prospect and customer. Increased access to information has forced sales representatives to change their methods.
Sales techniques have changed over time to meet the ever increasing demands from informed customers. It has become imperative in today’s business environment to gain the trust of prospects and customers by first focusing on building relationships based on common affinities and objectives.
Advances in Technology: The Changing Role of Relationships
Today, relationship “connections” enabled by the social web has created business transparency were anything and everything about a firms relationship with its market, its employees and its customers can easily be discovered at the click of a mouse. Increasingly, as consumers gain more access to others and information about the products they use, firms have been forced to “come clean”, in a sense, about their promises for performance and customer service.
In a relationship-based environment, the critical factors necessary to make a sale are trust and confidence - which take time to build. Trust and confidence are attributes driven by the quality of the relationship and performance on promises made by the marketing hype of your products and services.
If your product or service doesn’t perform as promised the only thing that can keep the customer engaged is a relationship. You don’t sell relationships you build and earn them. The best kind of sale comes from existing customers either buying more or referring someone else to your business. This process is the result of relationships satisfied with their relationship with you.
The social web enables anyone to “connect” to everyone and the depth of those relationships vary. However, everyone is a customer of someone and as customers we are either satisfied and brag about out experiences or we can complain, one to one to millions.
People aren’t for sale (although many act as if they are) and neither are their relationships. Businesses sell products and services by building relationships. The quality of your relationships can significantly impact your sales. That is why we call it The Relationship Economy.
What say you?

http://JayDeragon.stumbleupon.com/review/13596095/

Sat, 20 Oct 2007 06:17:56 -0700

Two long standing media brands, Fortune and The Economist, had articles run in the same month with two different viewpoints relative to the growth, impact and valuations of social networks.
�
In particular both BIG brand publications site comparisons of Facebook vs. Google and both take dueling views of the space and the current rise in valuations of social networks.�

The Fortune article titled Why Google Fears Facebook� states “By even the highest valuation, Google is still more than 15 times the size of Facebook. With a market capitalization of $190 billion, Google could eat the social network for lunch, and yet it’s Facebook that’s got the Web giant running scared. Google understands that it needs to grab a foothold in social networking, but Facebook, frustratingly, isn’t for sale. And given its ad ambitions, Mark Zuckerburg’s Facebook reminds one of a pre-IPO Google, circa 2003.�

Google’s Facebook war is about more than just talent: “The stakes here are about as high as they get in the Internet business,” he says, adding that this war is the most significant since Microsoft challenged and beat Netscape for control of the Web browser. Social networking represents the future of the Internet–and that’s where the next great Internet fortune resides, he says.�� Read the whole story…�

The October edition of The Economist writes “There’s less to Facebook and other social networks than meets the eye”� The writer specifically suggest that the social graph feature and functions of social networks�does not justify an over hyped value.�
The Economist articles says� “This suggests that the future of social networking will not be one big social graph but instead myriad small communities on the internet to replicate the millions that exist offline. No single company, therefore, can capture the social graph.”��

“Ning, a fast-growing company with offices directly across the street from Facebook in Palo Alto, is built around this idea. It lets users build their own social networks for each circle of friends.”�

“So are Facebook and its graph really worth many billions?� From an advertiser’s point of view, says Rishad Tobaccowala, the boss of Denuo, the new-media unit of Publicis Groupe, an advertising company, Facebook is so far anything but the new Google. The search giant does have traditional network effects in its advertising system, he says: it aggregates advertisers and sends them to potential customers who have expressed specific intentions by typing search queries. But Facebook has only “large crowds who are communicating without expressing specific interests”, says Mr Tobaccowala. On Google, advertisements are valued; on Facebook they are an annoyance that users ignore.”�

“But that possibility hardly justifies the sorts of valuations bandied around for Facebook and other social networks. Such valuations, indeed, may reflect a misunderstanding of the social graph. For bigger companies such as Google, the graph is simply the web of links among its many users. It can be used to make existing services more useful. But Google increasingly views such utilities as “features, not products,” says Sergey Brin, its co-founder. Facebook, like many hot start-ups in Silicon Valley, has some fantastic features, but maybe not much ” Read the whole story…..�

Systemically speaking the economist article appears to miss the emergence of economic opportunities that lie beneath the surface of any social networking platform.� The article references Google’s attitude towards Facebook as ” a misunderstanding of the social graph” which doesn’t justify the valuations given to the likes of Facebook.� The Fortune article addresses not only the growth of Facebook’s users and it’s valuation but the fact that talent from Google seems to be migrating to Facebook and thus a reference to a “war” between the old and new web giants.
So which article provides the best perspective?�

One may be inclined to suggest that since the Fortune article appeared first The Economist was lead to follow

http://JayDeragon.stumbleupon.com/review/13482639/

Tue, 16 Oct 2007 03:20:18 -0700

In late September Facebook, with an expected $150 million in 2007 sales, sought new investment based on a stunning $10 billion-plus valuation.�

A few days later, a financial opinion Web site, 24/7 Wall St., speculated that TechCrunch, a blog that grosses about $200,000 a month, might fetch $100 million or more from an acquirer such as CNET Networks (

http://JayDeragon.stumbleupon.com/review/13455346/

Mon, 15 Oct 2007 03:23:16 -0700

How large is our virtual world?
�
These are more than 750 billion documents on the Web, mostly in the “invisible web”, or deep web.
A 2002 survey of 2,024 million web pages determined that by far the most web content was in English: 56.4%; next were pages in German (7.7%), French (5.6%), and Japanese (4.9%).
A more recent study, which used web searches in 75 different languages to sample the Web, determined that there were over 11.5 billion web pages in the publicly indexable web as of the end of January 2005.
How large is our physical world?

Population:6,602,224,175 (July 2007 est.)

Age structure:0-14 years: 27.4% (male 931,551,498/female 875,646,416)

15-64 years: 65.1% (male 2,174,605,518/female 2,124,494,703)

65 years and over: 7.5% (male 217,451,123/female 278,474,917) (2007 est.)

Median age:total: 28 years

male: 27.4 years

female: 28.7 years (2007 est.)
Our physical world has progressed through technology which enabled individuals, organizations, institutions and governments to “connect”. Our ability to connect has become the imperative for a global community with common interest. The medium of social networking has over 500 million people using it as an extension of their personal and professional lives and growth rates beyond previous web adoption rates.
The Connection Imperative
As communications technology evolves, so do communications networks. In fact the pace of this evolution, the rate at which new network practices reach broad adoption, has been constantly accelerating, as shown in Table 1:
Table 1: The pace of network evolution
With each new network comes new capabilities—more information to share, in richer formats, over more channels, with more parties, at greater speeds. As might be expected from the pace of innovation shown in Table 1, the next evolutionary step is already upon us: the rise of social networks.
When E.M. Forster wrote “Only Connect” those famous words, who knew quite how willing we’d be to follow his direction? As of March 2007, more than 1.1 billion (nearly 17 percent) of the total 6.5 billion humans spread over the globe were connected via the Internet.3 In North America, nearly 70 percent of the population is connected, more than half through high-speed, broadband connections.
This relatively new global Internet connection offers inexpensive support for audio, video, or textual communication. It has opened up new networks where far-away strangers can become close friends, where families and friends can share common experiences though far apart, and where colleagues can work on teams with people they’ve never seen.
And these days, it’s all about connections. More Americans have used the Internet to reach out to an online group than have used it to read news, search for health guidance, or buy something, according to a Pew Internet & American Life Report.
The Entrepreneurs Are Coming
A rapidly growing group of software entrepreneurs has emerged to take advantage of this drive to connect us, creating applications designed to enrich our business and personal relationships. According to Christopher Carfi of Cerado5, when properly applied to online social networks and virtual communities, here are some of what these new technologies enable organizations to do:
�Increase customer satisfaction via a better CRM focus that includes an authentic human face.
Allow customers to connect with experts with deep knowledge in areas of interest.
Empower their employees to find experts within their own organization.
Ease post-acquisition integration by eliminating inevitable “us versus them” feelings.
Provide the “whole product”to fully meet a customer’s needs.
Understand and visualize real communication paths within an organization.
�Extend the shelf life of conferences with an online network of attendees.
�Share knowledge with user-desired “demand pull” technologies such as RSS.
Pull together the “all-star team” ideal for this customer.
Differentiate the service with the brand of “you.”
Different people use different services for different purposes. For example, college kids connect at Facebook; post college 20-somethings find dates on Friendster or Xanga, to name only two of many services. The self-expressive types emote at LiveJournal. The career-minded build online reputations at LinkedIn.
Even video games now have social networking features. Sony unveiled its new online social network for the PlayStation3 console at the Game Devel

http://JayDeragon.stumbleupon.com/review/12646959/

Sat, 15 Sep 2007 09:20:42 -0700

There is an opportunity for the global community of users/consumers/prosumers/citizens, consumer brands, corporations, non-governmental organizations and governments to play a critical role in forging this new carbon neutral economy, The Relationship Economy.
The word “Relationship” is defined as connection or association; the condition of being related. The word “Economy” is defined as the study of resource allocation, distribution and consumption; of capital and investment; and of management of the factors of individual production.� We will define the term “capital” for this purpose as that which we give or take that creates numerous forms of value.
The convergence of technology that accelerates the power of relationships and facilitates explosive communications, peer to peer and to entire communities, is revolutionary to say the least. Link to Your World is releasing its first research report which examines the factors which are influencing the emergence of The Relationship Economy.
The report defines the collective meaning of The Relationship Economy as: the people and things we are connected with in our personal networks who or that distribute or consume our capital, which in turn influences our individual production outputs. The report analyzes twenty factors that are influencing an emerging economy based on the sum of factors driving massive and significant changes to the way everyone will work, play, and live.
This emergence will have an especially profound effect on businesses and individuals. �While individual factors are self-evident, the collective factors, taken as a whole, are the basis for individual conclusions for strategic opportunities to be gained from the new economy. The report provides very specific and targeted summary and recommended solutions for each industry constituent affected by The Relationship Economy. It provides action plans relative to individual objectives. Further, the report provides the knowledge, tools and skills necessary for improved comprehension of the strategic issues required to succeed in The Relationship Economy and to provide the context of actions that enable success.
To review the content of this soon to be released report click on the image in this post.� We hope you’ll find our research both useful and beneficial.
If you’d like to become a distrbutor of this research please contact us at http://linktoyourworld.com
What say you?

http://JayDeragon.stumbleupon.com/review/12504343/

Mon, 10 Sep 2007 05:46:09 -0700

Interdependence Factors
Author: Jay Deragon

09 10th, 2007

�

The key to maintaining a community of any sort and for any length of time is interdependence. There are several different kinds of interdependence and�methods of creating it. But without interdependence a community is no more than a social club, and� prone to falling apart from a lack of interaction and member satisfaction.
One of the strongest forms of interdependence is customer interdependence. Customer interdependence is defined as a group of people who create a social network due to an affinity of a particular product or service.
The affinity is usually created by a common set of experiences, expectations and desires for change.� These commonalities are an effective means of speaking with one voice to any particular issue. There are numerous examples within business and industries which demonstrate the power of the customers united voices.
The supplier who listens most and responds to customer input�gains the customers loyalty and subsequently their business.
The form of interdependence that has the potential to be the strongest is Need Interdependence. In this form, the need interdependence is created by the members of the community needing each other to obtain something they need. The greater the need, the greater the interdependence becomes.
If the community members need each other to obtain the collective objectives, it will become a strong force for change. This form of interdependence is most easily created by self-sufficient exchanges. In other words, all of the needs of the members of the community are all defined from beginning to end by the community itself.
The emergence of the adult population into social networking platforms is creating a much higher expectation for required changes than before their participation. �Most adults with any business experience have higher expectations for performance than the younger generations who have historically been the primary users of social networking platforms.� Thus the bar of expectations for utility and efficiency from social networking platforms�is being raised quickly as more and more adults both adopt the medium and spend time learning how to use it effectively.� Now enter commercial businesses and the media to this mix.�
The landscape of expectations for performance from social networking platforms is accelerating on a daily basis. Just look at how many groups within Facebook have been formed which are centered on enabling users, adults, to express their desires for change in networking platform performance and design.� Our last count showed in excess of 70 and growing.
IBM, Google and Microsoft to name a few have all recently released B2B social networks aimed at fulfilling the need for designing efficient and effective networking platforms for numerous business markets.� What does all this mean?
As the social networking market matures its future will be driven by customer expectations unmet but required for the medium to be a useful utility of economic gain for both individuals and businesses alike.
We all have interdependence on technological means.� We use technology in most everything we do on a daily basis whether personal or professional.� Social networking platforms are providing the means to accomplish and reach more in less time.� However, the current structure of the “social networking system” is fragmented, disconnected and frustrating for most.
The market makers will address our frustrations, hear our issues and enable us as individuals and as “communities” to do more with less.�Once this is accomplished our interdependences will drive the next level of performance expectations,� given the state and pace of technological advancements our world is about to more abundant and satisfying.� Stay tuned and stay connected.
What say you?

http://JayDeragon.stumbleupon.com/review/11668398/

Wed, 08 Aug 2007 03:29:56 -0700

The noise and actions that lead to convergence is heating up fast. Just consider the last thirty days of announcements: Google, Facebook, Linkedin, MSN, IBM and others ( I can hardly keep up anymore).�

Soon it won’t matter which existing network “you” think is better rather value will be created by how you manage “your network“. As more and more closed systems open, it begins to interact more directly with other existing systems, and therefore acquires all the value of those systems.Soon we will all be overwhelmed with an abundance of value proposition in which you’ll need to decide how and what to use in “your” network to meet your personal and professional aims.�

You will soon become your own aggregator of networks, of relationships, of information, of knowledge and last but not least…of VALUE.Technology provides the means, relationships provide the value. The Relationship Economy is now, not when, being built by individuals who learn how to maximize the value of relationships by optimizing technology. We’ll need to forget what we’ve been using and think “how” to adapt to the convergence of means which enables us to maximize value.�

We need to ReThink our methods and ReShape the means so we can individually and collectively capture the most value.Here are seven things to consider and help you start thinking and planning for “your” network:.

1) Which networks do you want fed to your network? Which has your interest, value, the best collection of individuals and the content which match who you are? etc. etc.

2) Which networks represent your interest geographically, by industry and by topic? Which blogs represent the same categories of interest? etc. etc.

3) What will be the rules of your network? Standards for connections? RSS feeds in and out? etc. etc.

4) What image and brand do you want your network to project? Think hard and long on this one. Lots to consider as you build your value proposition to the global market.

5) What mediums do you want in your network? Video, audio, pictures, etc. What Network Channels will be available that interest you most both personally and professionally?

6) What do you specifically want to accomplish with your network? Start with this end in mind and build towards it. Again, lots to think about.

7) Your network is an economic factory. How do you produce quality and quantity effectively?��

The list can go on and on but this is a start for you to begin to Rethink your vision, mission strategy and tools for your network. Soon we’ll have a personal planning guide, materials, technology and access to experts who can help you plan your “Link to Your World“.Are you ready? What is your plan? How will you adapt? How will you “Link to Your World?”

When is Now: Shift Happens,�

What say you?

http://JayDeragon.stumbleupon.com/review/11652406/

Tue, 07 Aug 2007 13:20:22 -0700

The Perfect Storm Factors

Author: Jay Deragon

08 6th, 2007

�

Principles of Scientific Management (1911), he argued that companies should install precise procedures to maximize the efficiency of the work being done. His system became known as Taylorism, which dealt with people, machines, and processes that would speed up work.�

Do you�remember as a kid watching the legendary Bjorn Borg? �At the time Borg played�with a wooden racket, like everyone else. And he won a lot of major titles.� Then he retired.��A couple of years later he came back, but by then all the top tennis players were using more powerful rackets (metal, graphite, etc.).�

It wasn’t pretty what happened to Borg. Inferior players with better�rackets creamed him. He stayed loyal to his wooden racket never to win�another major tournament.�� Obviously, Borg knew the rules of tennis. He still had the same winning strokes. But the context and, consequently, the rules for winning changed. The more powerful rackets gave a competitive advantage to anyone who used them. Borg with his weaker wooden racket didn’t stand a chance. That’s why he was never successful��again.�

What Happens When You Change Before Everyone Else?�� Here’s the flip side of Bjorn Borg’s story. It’s a great way to illustrate the advantages you can gain over your best competitors by recognizing and leveraging the changes in your marketplace. If you’ve studied any business history at all, you’ve probably come across one of the very first “business gurus” of all time. His name was Fredrick Taylor. He is perhaps best described today as an “efficiency engineer” and a significant amount of his work laid the groundwork for the mass production methods used by Henry Ford.He studied many different methods of working in order to determine the best way to achieve maximum efficiency on the factory floors. Many of his ideas at the time were quite revolutionary. In fact, many are still widely practiced today. In his book,��

The reason I bring him up now though has nothing to do with his contribution to modern management whatsoever. You see, his story is the exact opposite of Bjorn Borg’s. Even though Taylor wasn’t the best player at the time. He won the US Tennis Open with the invention of a unique oversized racket. There were no standards regarding the size, shape, and design of tennis rackets back then. So Taylor designed himself a bigger racket that was big enough to make winning a lot easier but small enough that it wasn’t too noticeable by other players. His oversized racket made it easier for him to return tough shots his opponents thought were winners. The racket also gave him extra power turning his shots into rockets that were difficult to return.Even though Frederick wasn’t the greatest player, his new advantage proved too powerful when competing against the better players with weaker rackets. He ended up taking home the US Open title because of his unfair advantage. Leveraging everything you’ve got is your competitive advantage.�

The business opportunities arising from leveraging social networking technologies is creating a storm…..The Perfect Storm.

“The Perfect Storm” is this very unique combination of events that is currently creating significant momentum and will cut across all market segments.� The Perfect Storm is where all the necessary elements converge together and the dynamics create waves of change that many will not adjust to rather they will drown in thinking and processes of the past.� The Perfect Storm I am referring to is the emergence of the Relationship Economy.�

In a Perfect Storm the tide rises so fast that it doesn’t lift all boats rather many get destroyed because they aren’t fit to maneuver through the waves of change.� Others rise because they quickly learn to adapt to the environme