Understanding the True Cost of Paper to a Company

I recently worked on an engagement to support a major Canadian institution in understanding the true enterprise-wide cost of paper and I can say with certainty that most organizations truly misunderstand the impact that paper has on the bottom line.

More often than not, the financial benefits of paper reduction initiatives are calculated only by accounting for the savings related to the cost of paper that is no longer purchased. And that’s understandable because that’s the cost most procurement managers see. But this approach leaves a substantial amount of hidden savings related to the reduction of that paper – those incurred in its management, which range from $0.21 to $0.45 per sheet – on the table yet plain out-of-sight, much like how the narrow tip of an iceberg that sticks out of the water unintentionally obscures the true magnitude of the threat (or opportunity, in this case). This misunderstanding then manifests itself in relegating paper reduction initiatives to low-priority projects that do not warrant the limited time and resources of busy executives.

And let’s face it – paper just isn’t all that glamorous. The environmental and sustainability policies of companies aren’t often top-of-mind for consumers in making the purchasing decision. They want innovative and tailored products, and this is where the focus of executives has traditionally been. But along the ever-continuing journey to trim excess, paper has increasingly found itself in the spotlight, driven by technological advances that reduce its need, the impetus to reduce cost and, to a lesser extent, the desire of companies to be seen as more environmentally conscious because their customers demand that they be.

Calculating the cost of paper management is inherently challenging. It’s easy to quantify the savings from purchasing less paper, but understanding how paper moves through the enterprise’s value chain and calculating how much one can actually save by eliminating the need to photocopy, distribute, store, retrieve, eliminate processed paper is another thing altogether.

The Paper Lifecycle

The first step in understanding the true cost of paper begins with understanding the Paper Lifecycle.

The Paper Lifecycle, as we have defined it, has six components:

It’s important to conceptually recognize that the costs associated with paper do not end when the paper is purchased from the vendor and shipped to the office. In fact, we have discovered through rigorous analysis and research that the cost of the paper itself accounts for only a fraction of its fully loaded cost. Rather, it is the expenses related to the processes that paper is put through once it has reached the office where the majority of its costs are incurred.

But we have to be pragmatic as not all paper can be removed, nor is paper reduction not without its challenges. For one, not all paper is easily reducible. Some – such as marketing collateral – may support critical business objectives in markets where digital remains the secondary communication choice of target segments. It’s also worth noting that potential savings – even if quantifiable – may not be realizable nor deposited back into the cost centers of individual business units, and so the incentive for most managers to care is simply lacking. Many organizations also lack the appropriate configuration management and digitization systems to make paper reduction meaningfully occur, and adopting new practices inherently takes time and requires the careful management of change. But these obstacles shouldn’t by themselves wholly dissuade. The reality remains that substantial benefits are nevertheless captured within the parameters of the enterprise, and thus the senior leadership team of an organization would be well-served to understand how paper impacts their company’s cost structure. 

To understand how your company can better estimate the true cost of paper to your organization, contact us.

2014 World Cup Round Robin Pool Tool

Every two years when the Euro Championships or World Cup roll around my company, like many, sets up an office pool to facilitate some friendly competition between colleagues. This year I was entrusted with setting up the whole thing.

I started by looking online for an easy-to-use Excel tool that didn't require participants to predict the score of each game but couldn't find one that was relatively simplistic. So I decided to build one and share it.

Overview: Participants predict the outcome of each of the 48 World Cup Group Stage games in their own Excel-workbook. The World Cup Pool Aggregation tool then automatically and quickly aggregates the entries and provides an automatically generated leaderboard that can be refreshed at any time when new results are entered.

Location: http://tinyurl.com/oxphy5a

Max Entries: 90 (if you intend to use the tool for more participants, let me know)

How to use the 2014 World Cup Pool Tool:

1. Send a copy of the World Cup Predictions Template workbook to all pool participants. Have them complete their picks for all 48 round robin games (note: copy and distribute the Predictions Template; it doesn't matter what the workbooks are named)
2. Create a folder (i.e. on your desktop) to store all of the files. Make note of the folder's URL
3. Within the World Cup Pool Aggregation workbook, open and edit the 'Refresh_Standings' macro (this can be done through the Developer tab in Excel)
4. Change the FilePath$ and ChDrive values to reflect the location of the folder where you intend to store all of the entries (the macro will run on network drives provided the appropriate permissions are in place)
5. Place all Predictions workbooks and the Aggregation workbook into the same folder specified in the FilePath$ link (do not place any other types of files in this folder)
6. On the Results sheet of the World Cup Pool Aggregation workbook, enter the results of the World Cup games as they happen
7. On the Leaderboard sheet of the World Cup Pool Aggregation workbook, click the refresh button on the top-right of the chart to refresh your pool's standings.

You'll notice that as you input the results of the actual games that the leaderboard will change.

If you have any questions, comments or feedback, please leave a message below.

Thanks and enjoy!

Fukushima is a Global Problem

It seems to me that if more people knew exactly how bad the Fukushima crisis really is, and just how high is the likelihood that it will affect all of us - rich, poor, young and old - that maybe they'd do something about it. Maybe they'd lobby their governments to force the Japanese into doing the right thing - letting international experts come in and actually determine how significant the radiation leakage problem is, and what they can do about it. It's clear to me and others that Tepco and Japan are unable to handle the problem by themselves, and that's not some admonishment of their capabilities - this is truly an unprecedented problem of potentially global proportions. This is why so many in the world lobby against nuclear power – because of its disadvantages. When things go bad, they go reeeaaallly bad. 

World-renowned environmentalist David Suzuki recently implied that if another magnitude 7 or higher quake hits the coast of Japan (and he believes that it’s a virtual certainty that one will in the next few years) the radiation that will leak into the ocean would render the entire west coast of North American uninhabitable. 

Uninhabitable.  Let that sink in for a second.

That would mean that people living in cities like Los Angeles, San Francisco, Vancouver, and San Diego would be exposed to such sufficiently high levels of radiation that they would be wise to find somewhere new to live unless they want to expose themselves and their children to decades of radiation. (Unfortunately, nuclear isotopes don't just naturally dissipate. Caesium-137, for instance, has a half-life of 28 years, meaning that it would take over a century for it to be reduced to about 10% of its original levels in a person. And that’s only assuming more radiation exposure doesn’t occur.)

What's really surprised me about this is the tepid response from the mainstream media. I can't understand why the world isn't taking Japan and Tepco to task about a total lack of transparency on a crisis that truly has the power to affect all of us. The Japanese need help but they're not asking for it. This is a real problem.

I come across more articles every day questioning whether Fukushima radiation is already hitting California, which this interesting-but-scary simulation model seems to support. Scores of dead birds are washing up on the west coast of North America, Blue Fin tuna caught off the US are exhibiting high levels of radiation, and there are reports of seals and polar bears exhibiting unnatural hair loss. And this could be just the beginning as with every passing day more radiation leaks into the ocean and ultimately ends up in our bodies by virtue of our consumption of contaminated food.

This is honestly scary stuff because there’s no miracle cure. They’re so out of ideals that they’re freezing the ground! I mean, come on. Would you resort to that if everything was ‘under control’? I suspect the real extent of this problem is being concealed.

So what do we do? For starters I think it’s absolutely critical that we don’t consume any seafood from the Pacific, and ideally any vegetation or meat from the west coast. But with free trade being what it is, we don’t get a chance to consume much of what we grow here, anyway, so we’re kind of screwed.

---

If you want to learn more, I recommend watching this.

Corporate Subsidies lead to Theft

Help me understand something. Corporate subsidies are supposed to create jobs, correct? What I'm about to share is a really simple example and I'm using rough figures but I'll attempt to explain using a back-of-the-envelope calculation how corporate subsidies really just amount to theft of our hard-earned dollars. 

I've read somewhere that we're taxed an average of $5,000 a year to support corporations. Assuming the average national wage is $50,000, the cumulative corporate subsidies of 10 individuals should create a new $50,000 job, thereby leading to job growth of 10% a year. Assuming the Canadian job market has 20M jobs, that translates in to 2M new jobs a year. However, we know that what's actually being created is only a fraction of that and that many of these jobs are part-time and thus pay significantly less than the average wage. 

(According to the article below, 34,300 jobs were created in August 2012, which 'blew past expectations'. However, on a normalized basis, we'd expect job growth of roughly 160,000 EVERY month given the logic expressed above.)

So, given that 2M new jobs are definitely not being created in the Canadian economy every year, whose pockets are the rest of my tax dollars lining and why aren't these thieves in jail??

http://business.financialpost.com/2012/09/07/canadas-jobs-growth-blows-past-expectations/

A Guy Far Away From Home

I've always been particularly sensitive about homelessness and poverty. I'm not sure what it is - perhaps it has to do with growing up in a very working class household. Money was very tight growing up and while fortunately we were never homeless, there were periods in my childhood growing up where we weren't very far from it.

I won't pretend to be the good Samaritan that tries to help even most homeless people I come across. In fact, I'm ashamed to say that I, like most people, often look the other way when faced with someone in need on the street. But from time to time I get the urge to find out a bit more about someone's circumstances, and that happened today.

I met a young man in his 30s sitting outside Davisville subway station earlier this afternoon. I saw him on the way to the gym and decided I would speak with him upon my return if he was still sitting there; fortunately he was. He was seated next to a sign that read, 'Please spare change so that I can get home.' I asked him where home was and he replied, 'Sudbury', a city of 70,000 about 4 hours north of Toronto. I didn't ask how he ended up so far away from home but that's immaterial, anyway.

I was tempted to take him to the Greyhound station to buy him a ticket despite the fact that I'm not in a position to freely spend $200. But I felt deep inside that I couldn't just do nothing. (Years ago I had come across a very similar situation with another young guy at Yorkdale Mall and I still regret to this day not approaching him to at least satiate my own curiosity.) I only had $20 in my wallet so I decided I'd get him some food and give him the change - about $10. I know it's nothing, and that he's only marginally closer to getting to his goal, but at least I feel a little better.

I feel a bit out of sorts about the whole thing. I feel partly guilty, feeling that I helped him out of some sense of self-righteousness, fully aware that what I offered him was insignificant, yet at the same time I feel some satisfaction in knowing I didn't just walk away this time. I'd like to do this sort of thing more often, and hope that many more others do the same.

I'm 31 and I still don't know what I want do when I grow up. But I know that few things effect me on an emotional level like poverty, and little else gives me more satisfaction than in helping someone in this sort of situation. Maybe I'm starting to discover my calling in life.

US Olympic Media Bias on Display

Check out how biased the US media is: an article on CNN about the unfairness of biased judging in these Olympics and not a single mention of the US team being the beneficiary of extremely questionable calls against Canada. This is either very poorly researched or more evidence that the US media displays significant bias in its reporting. Or both.  

http://news.blogs.cnn.com/2012/08/08/when-olympic-athletes-succeed-but-judges-fail/?hpt=hp_c1

Harper Sells Out Canadian Wheat

Prime Minister Harper light the fire that while consume the Canadian Prarie wheat and barley industry today when he ended the Canadian Wheat Board's monopoly on the western grain industry. The agency, formed in the midst of the Great Depression to stimulate the Canadian agricultural sector and, ultimately, create jobs, had been in existance since its inception in 1935. While keeping multinational interests at bay meant slightly higher prices that were passed along the value chain to consumers, the Wheat Board stimulated the local economy in the Praries, providing reliable employment in parts of the country that particularly needed it given the dearth of manufacturing alternatives as employment for workers. What's being framed by the Conservative administration's Agriculture Minister as a boon for Prarie farmers is quite frankly the opposite - this move in effect devastates Canadian farmers that now have to price their wares on an open market in direct competition with global companies that have a million times the scale. Let's be clear: this isn't really about improving offerings for consumers since grain is a commodity. Rather, it's about our govenment pandering to American corporate interests. In the United States, Monsanto controls virtually the entire food production cycle and, by extension, the farmers that produce the grain. Anyone that doubts the future in which Canadian farmers are at the complete mercy of large multinational companies ought to ask Midwest farmers (or watch Food Inc.) how deregulation worked out for them. It didn't, and neither will this. It's not meant to.

The invisible bubble that served as a protective barrierfor the livelihoods of thousands of families in the Praries is no more. What a shame. This is a sad day.

RIM's Big Decision

RIM's got a great balance sheet. Any Financial Analyst will concur. But it's in trouble. At this point, I don't believe there's reasonable foresight that developers will return to BlackBerry OS. This spells catastrophe for their ability to innovate where it now matters - through apps. Their products certainly pioneered mobile telecommunications, but they have been surpassed. They are so far behind the game now in North America that the most pertinent question is whether they believe with extremely high certainty that they can quickly and cheaply obtain a leading market position in developing economies. Because if the answer is no, it doesn't matter if the book value of RIM's assets are worth $40 a share. The market may not agree. 

Why the US Unemployment Rate is Here to Stay

If you look at the historical unemployment rate in the United States, you will observe two things:

1. The current unemployment rate of 9.1% is not unprecedented. The early 80s, for instance, marked a period in which over 10% of Americans were without work; and
2. The unemployment rate oscillates up and down, and has historically retreated after periods in which it was high.

These facts mitigate the concerns of some who worry that the current high unemployment rate is the new norm. They correctly point out that historically as some domestic sectors have matured and stabilized (i.e. manufacturing) that others (the services and knowledge-based industries, for instance) have taken their place as people have adapted to the changes in demand within the labour market through training and education. And while this is true, I would argue that the interplay of demographic trends and increasing global interconnectedness suggests that not only is there a high likelihood that the current unemployment rate is the new norm, but that it has the potential to grow much higher before it retreats. Let me explain.

One of the key drivers of globalization has been the increasing interconnectedness of previously disparate economies through trade of products and labour. This has enabled large multinational corporations to lower their manufacturing costs, which they have by-and-large passed on to consumers in the form of more affordable goods. These savings have spurred innovation and granted us the comfortable lifestyle we possess that has made us the envy of the developing world. But it has also had a profoundly negative side effect if you're an American living in the Rust Belt or Midwest: it has meant the outsourcing of hundreds of thousands (if not millions) of manufacturing jobs to lower tax, cheaper jurisdictions from areas whose residents do not possess significant other skills or trades that they can monetize to maintain their quality of lives. This consequence would not be as significant if it was the only variable at play here. As the numbers will tell you, people have adapted to such changes in the past so the question is why can't they now? The answer lies in changing demographics.

The median age of Americans is higher today than it has ever been, and this is primarily attributed to the fact that Americans are having less children than in decades of past due to a number of reasons outside the scope of this entry. What this means, however, is that people are older, and, generally speaking, the older you are the less likely you are to possess the opportunity, time or aptitude to seek training in a different field or to return to school. (There are obviously other factors at play as well, which I don't mean to make light of such as: the higher cost of goods and services; the higher cost of post-secondary education; the fact that as one ages, the costs of maintaining their health increases, which reduces disposable income set aside for education or training; family pressures that preclude adults from taking time away from the labour market to upgrade their skills; and so on.) That residents in areas where there has been a flight of industry do not possess the aggregate skills to attract service or knowledge-based companies has further compounded the problem, and led to the problematic proposition in which people are out of work not because they voluntarily abstain from participation but because their skills do not match the demands of the labour market, a phenomenon otherwise known as Structural Unemployment. Call me a cynic but I do not foresee how this problem is going to be addressed through policy in the short or long term. The US government is not in a position to provide subsidies to incentivise companies to set up shop in Ohio, for instance, and the local populace does not possess the means or opportunities to attain employment in other sectors. Social Assistance is not a viable option for a heavily indebted government. Moreover, as globalization and competitive forces increase we can reasonably expect more blue collar jobs to leave advanced economies such as that of the US or Canada with no reprieve in sight. 

In short, we have a problem in which people want to work but do not have the skills required to do so, and there's very little that government can do about it.

Please share your thoughts.

Leaf GM Brian Burke Could Do More to Help Franchise

October 3rd, 2011 - In two days my beloved Toronto Maple Leafs drop the puck on home ice for the start of the 2010-2011 season, and like many fans in Leafs Nation I am anxious to see if this is the year the Leafs get over the hump to join the Eastern Conference playoffs again. By any measure, it's been a brutal stretch that has seen the famed club set all-time lows for consecutive seasons without a playoff berth in its history. The point is particularly pronounced for me as I was in attendance at the last playoff game the Leafs played when Jeremy Roenick scored on a 2-on-1 break in OT to silence the 20,000+ crowd that was on its feet at the Air Canada Centre from the moment the Leafs scored 2 in the final 10 minutes of the 3rd period to send the game into Overtime.

The stretch of futility for the Leafs is even more startling from a statistics perspective. Consider this: all else being equal, if the chances of getting into the post season are 1/2 (15 teams in the East, 8 make it to the Post-Season), and there are only two outcomes (getting in or not), the Leafs have matched the least likely negative outcome in missing the NHL's second season all 6 years since the lockout. The odds of doing so are about 1.5% (1/64), which is what the Toronto Maple Leafs have done. The only other team to have missed the Playoffs since the lockout is the Florida Panthers, and even they made it to the Stanley Cup Final in 1996.

If there's a hint of light at the end of the tunnel it's that virtually all prognosticators will agree that the Leafs are headed in the right direction. And if you disagree, surely you'd concede that just like betting 'red' at Roulette will eventually mean you win (or lose), the Leafs can't continue on the path of one statistical anomaly to another, can they?! This stretch of futility cannot surely continue in perpetuity, can it!? Which brings me to the reason I wrote this entry.

I have a bone to pick with Leafs GM, Brian Burke. It seems to me that Burke is more interested in pandering to some egalitarian cause than in ensuring the Leafs use every means at their disposal to give themselves the best chance at the Post Season. Many readers are familiar with Burke's insistence that he will not use front-loaded contracts to attract stars to Toronto. Burke believes that the contracts recently signed by Richards with the Rangers, and Kovalchuk with the Devils amount to cap circumvention, and he certainly has a point. But Burke is losing focus on the bigger question: "so what?!" If other teams are structuring Free Agent deals in this manner and the league is signing off on them, then clearly the contracts are within the rules even if they violate the spirit with which the Collective Bargaining Agreement was negotiated in 2005. Need I remind Burke that he is first and foremost an employee of the Toronto Maple Leafs and his primary objective ought to be to use any and all means at his disposal to improve the on-ice product? If he decides to forego a free agent because he feels the price is too high or the player is not an ideal fit, I'm comfortable with that. Burke was, afterall, brought on board to make those kinds of decisions and, at the end of the day, his record will speak for itself. But I'm not comfortable with Burke declaring that the Leafs will not sign these sorts of contracts even when the Leafs have plenty of cap room and a fit makes sense with the organization. Burke: you're a NHL General Manager and not NHL Commissioner. Do your job: improve the Leafs however way you can. To say that you will not use front-loaded contracts to improve the team is like me saying I wont increase the number of hours I will work if my goal is to increase my income.

Now, onto this season. I'm generally a optimistic fan and anyone that knows me knows how much I love the Leafs. Every year for the last 6 I've hoped and prayed that this would be the year my team would play meaningful games in April and May. But my normal enthusiasm is tempered by a bit of pragmatism this time around. I'm not sure the Leafs have done enough to sufficiently improve to unseat one of the incumbents in the Eastern Conference. I don't see Tim Connolly playing even half of the season (he's already injured with an 'Upper Body Injury') and Reimer has not looked good so far in the pre-season. At this point the only real bright spots are Kuleimin and Grabovski, whom I believe will continue to mature and excel. I see 65+ point seasons for both of them. Grabovski, in particular, has looked amazing and if he surpasses the 70 point total I may actually consider naming my first born Mikhail. Of course, his middle name will be something easily pronounceable so that he's not bullied all his childhood and adolescent years.

Go Leafs Go.

Another Accident, An Unexpected Response

Earlier today, a bullet train collided with another in the Eastern Chinese city of Wenzhou, killing 40 and leaving over 200 injured. The spectacular crash catapulted 4 cars into a viaduct and 2 others off the track, leaving many including myself wondering how only 40 lives were lost. The official Communist Party explanation is that a lightning strike caused an outage, which caused track equipment to malfunction, ultimately causing the crash. That's the official story, anyway. But Chinese aren't buying it.

Unfortunately, accidents involving mass transportation vehicles happen dozens of times a year across the globe, and they cost many lives. With 1 in 6 people in the world and beset by aging infrastructure in many lower tier cities, these sorts of incidences are quite common in China. The difference, however, between those events and this is an unprecedented, in Chinese terms, development: the increasingly interconnected Chinese are not buying the nonsensical version of events Beijing is selling, and they're demanding answers unlike ever before.

In a country where few locals know of what happened in 1989 at Tian'anmen Square, and those that witnessed and lived to tell the tale likely seldom did so for fear of repraisal, this sort of rebelliousness is truly remarkable. Ruled by an autocratic government that tightly controls all forms of media, the Internet is increasingly posing a problem for Chinese authorities as they hopelessly try to stem and form the tide of public opinion as they have always done. The ruling party in Beijing would be well served to learn from the lessons of the 'Arab Spring': the Internet has changed the world; and the establishment's media is no longer the authority on what's happening. That role now rests with The People.

China Security & Surveillance Technology Inc. (CSST) an Excellent Buy Option

I'll admit that I didn't know much about investing before doing my MBA at Ivey. In fact, the entire concept on equity and debt markets was as foreign to me as Spanish, and if I ever planned to invest my money I would have, like many of you, had a fund manager do the work for me.

All that's changed thanks to some vigorous personal research and quality instruction. Equipped with a solid understanding of capital markets, I've begun doing my own analysis using a mixture of fundamental and technical analyses to find bargains in the stock market. China Security & Surveillance Technology Inc. (CSST) is a company that's been on my radar since mid-April when the stock price was in the mid $7s, and after seeing it drop to $4.50 last week I finally decided it was time to invest.

In my opinion the stock provides excellent value and growth for the following reasons:

• It's currently selling at .6/1 market/book value ratio despite having very low debt and solid cash flow. I believe it is being unfairly punished by investors weary of China's impending economic slowdown and the European debt crisis. While China's exports may be hurt as a result of reduced demand for Chinese goods due to the slower-than-anticipated global recovery, CSST's business is focused wholly within China's borders where the inevitable boost in domestic consumption via consumer spending as the country's economy develops positions CSST well to continue rapid growth.
  
• 45% (and growing) of its business is in government contracts, a relatively stable form of cash flows. And don't forget: the Chinese government has oodles of cash.
  
• The stock is near its 52-week low ($4.09) and was trading at $7.50 on April 25th, just over a month ago. Did the company somehow lose 45% of its intrinsic value since then? Virtually impossible.
  
• The company recently signed a slew of new contracts, the revenue of which is to be recognized over the next couple of years. These cash flows will undoubtedly substantially boost the company's market capitalization.
  
• As a small cap stock it is less likely to have significant analyst coverage by major financial institutions, increasing the likelihood it may be mis (under) priced.
  
• Its first quarter revenue growth was 24.7% higher compared to that of Q1 2009.

While I'll admit I haven't looked at their books very closely I'm fairly confident that CSST will render a healthy 50% profit within the next 6 months if not more unless the global economy relapses into recession. If nothing else this stock appears to have reached a support point and has nowhere to go but up. If you have some money to invest, I suggest giving China Security & Surveillance Technology Inc. serious consideration.

Price War Brewing in Luxury Automotive Sector

A price war is underway in the Canadian auto sector as market leaders Mercedes and BMW seek to capitalize on post-recession consumer spending by offering deep discounts even as industry experts question whether these companies can sustain profitability in this highly competitive marketplace. The two incumbents aggressive battle for market share may play into the hands of VW's luxury brand, Audi, whose business is booming as consumers flock to its quality line of automobiles. Audi's been largely successful in drawing in leads with its value proposition of offering quality cars at luxury prices, thereby maintaining significantly better profit margins than its larger competitors. With Mercedes and BMW battling it out for the title of leader, Audi may be well positioned to continue to gain ground as it loads its war chest with resources that will surely be put to good use when BMW and Mercedes begin to falter.

With the competition expected to climax by year's end, if you've got the excess equity to blow (considering vehicles are anything but wise investments) on a ride that seemed out of your budget up until now, 2010 may be a great year to purchase that new car.

Read more here.

Provocative: Bill Maher on Islam

Bill Maher recently likened Islam today to Christianity in its Dark Ages, arguing that on the basis of chronology the religion is going through a development and maturation phase that's characterized by extremism, much like witch hunts of the Pre-Renaissance Era. Provocative. What do you think?

The Importance of Organizational Culture

Professor Gerard Seijts of the Richard Ivey School of Business teaches his students that organizational culture is often a significant indicator of success in the business world. Companies that lack progressive, action-driven operational philosophies are those that more often than not fail to adapt appropriately to changes in the business environment by allowing profitable opportunities to pass them by as they become imobalized by indiferrance and apathy. It was not until only recently that I experienced first hand what professor Seijts was speaking of.

I recently completed a consulting contract for an establishment in the hospitality industry in Toronto. It was there that I encountered many of the institutional barriers I had learned about at Ivey. Despite my best efforts to foster real change within the work environment at the firm, however, I was ultimately unsuccessful in trying to convince the establishment's managers that cultural change ought to be a top priority. While my inability to bring about this transformation ultimately ended in failure, I had the opportunity to experience much of what I learned in class.

The firm - a successful staple of Toronto's Entertainment District for the better part of 15 years - had not been generating enough revenue the last 6 months to cover its fixed expenses: the classic business problem. To increase revenue the firm would need to bring in more patrons, yet do so without any substantial marketing budget. After careful analysis, I recommended to management that in the absence of a marketing budget that we maximize the operational efficiency of the firm by reducing spoilage and optimizing the restaurant's offerings using menu engineering. The analysis, based on historical sales, customer feedback, and profitability analyses, produced some very clear results that would have, in my opinion, substantially contributed to the firm's bottom line by reducing food waste and allowing the firm to better leverage economies of scale to attain better raw material costs. Customers would surely have been happier too, which would have made word-of-mouth advertising a free and useful ally. Despite making a compelling case backed with significant analytic analysis, however, the idea was put on the back-burner because management felt the costs of designing and printing new menus to be too prohibitive. The goal was, they claimed, not to reduce costs, or incur expenses to bring in possible revenue, but to bring in more revenue without explicitly requiring a marketing budget. Additionally, incurring small expenses only made sense if it could be known, without doubt, the exact revenue to be expected. Naturally, there are no guarantees in business and I refused to make promises about specifics, confident that I was performing my job by informing management as to the range of possibilities.

Frustrated, I thought back to Professor Seijt's course on Leadership. I felt very confident in the quality of work I had completed and in my recommendations. Yet, I could not, despite my best efforts, implore management to put those plans into action. While in hindsight I view my inability to persuade the firm's management team as a bit of a failure, I am highly cognizant that such organizational issues persist within companies in all sorts of industries, and are, quite often, a prime symptom of future success or failure. While before Ivey and this recent experience I had been less inclined to consider organizational culture as an important factor in evaluating future employment opportunities, I am now much more cognizant of how this qualitative element of business structure can make the difference between a progressive organization that takes calculated risks and achieves business success, and one that may inadvertently allow profitable initiatives pass by and it continues to operate under archaic business philosophies.

Is Iran on the Brink of History?

June 17, 2009 - For the past week the world has witnessed some of the worst social unrest in Iran in three decades. Reminiscent of 1979 when student-led demonstrations called for the ouster of the US-backed Shah, Iran’s urban centres are again battlefields on which young Iranians risk their lives to fight against perceived injustice and oppression. Millions of young, progressive-minded Iranians who desire simple freedoms you and I take for granted and whom yearn for better relations with the West march through city streets in unison hoping that their voices will be heard and their votes (finally) be counted. In speaking out against what appears to be one of the greatest cases of electoral fraud in human history, some brave souls have paid the ultimate price. People are not surprised that incumbent President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad won re-election – the President, in fact, is hugely popular among the working class, many of whom have benefited from his populist policies – it’s the 2:1 margin by which he won that’s startling them. How could this be? The unanimous consensus before the election was that a record voter turnout would favour Ahmadinejad’s opponent, Mir-Hussein Mousavi, whose campaign sought to reinvigorate millions of disenfranchised, unemployed youth loitering in Iran’s streets into believing that better times lay ahead.

The reality is that the outcome of this election would have changed very little irrespective of who had won. As the world’s only theocratic state, Iran’s unelected 12-member Guardian Council has final say on all state matters, rendering the President’s role largely symbolic. And, despite the tremendous show of support for Ahmadinejad’s rival, Mousavi isn’t exactly Iran’s Barack Obama. He is a product of the Iranian revolution; he served as the country’s Prime Minister in the 80s when the newly declared Islamic Republic was still forging its identity. By many accounts, he personally sent to death hundreds of political opponents. No, Mousavi would not bring about any substantial change to Iran not only because he is powerless, but because doing so would be to challenge the very system that brought him all his success. I can’t see Mousavi living with that sort of cognitive dissonance.

So what happened?

It appears to me that the Guardian Council made the most rudimentary of election tampering errors – if you’re going to defraud millions of their vote, make sure the results at least slightly mirror the polls! Though I believe that the same protesters now on the streets would have nevertheless been disappointed had Ahmadinejad won in a closer contest, I doubt that the magnitude of their anger would equal that we’re witnessing today. It’s not so much that Iranians cannot believe that Mousavi lost, it’s that they genuinely feel cheated by the religious institution that none of them have dared to question up until now. So what happens now – will this latest revolution bring about the social and political change the world yearns for? The parallels between 2009 and 1979 are outstanding... are we, again, on the brink of history?

Call me the pessimist, but I doubt it.

The difference between the clerics who control Iran today and Reza Shah 30 years ago is that today’s leaders are far more entrenched, better prepared and willing to utilize force to maintain their stranglehold on power. Not only do the mullahs have the backing of a significant number of Iranians who are deeply religious, they more importantly control the military apparatuses that keep them in power, and remain fiercely loyal to their rule. As long as the Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps and Baseej Militia – forces virtually immune to prosecution – remain the vessels by which the Guardian Council does its bidding, very little will change in Iran. As I write headlines are being made around the world by the Guardian Council’s leader Ali Khameini who declared earlier today that tomorrow’s protests would be met with bloodshed.

I don’t mean to underestimate or demean the resolve of my compatriots. I sincerely wish they could attain the freedoms they seek. But I’m also a realist. The mullahs who rule Iran will do anything to stay in power. The last time the world witnessed unarmed civilians rallying en masse against an autocratic, militant regime, thousands of innocent individuals lost their lives on a balmy evening in Beijing. Could Tehran’s Azadi Square be next? The world prays not.

Long live Iran.

Reflecting on China

While I had never had the opportunity to visit China prior to the China Study Trip, I felt relatively prepared for what I might encounter on the basis of having remained relatively informed of the country’s social, economical, and political happenings over the last decade. Although I anticipated some differences in the manner in which these three factors facilitated life in China in comparison to Canada, I felt confident that my experiences would closely mirror my pre-conceived notions concerning the dynamics of living and working in the People’s Republic of China. While most of my hunches – for instance, that as China’s prosperity grows that its youth will begin to increasingly identify with Western cultural values – were correct, there was one key observation that significantly deviated from my expectations.

Based on what I had learned over the years about the Communist Party’s role in governing the social, economic, cultural, and political landscape of China, I had anticipated that politics would constitute a much more pervasive and relevant element of life for Chinese than I encountered. Here in the West, China has for the most part been framed as a society in which embracement of, and membership in, the Communist Party remain key determinants of personal and professional success, yet I found very little evidence in my interactions to suggest that politics facilitates anything but a passive, subtle impact on the lives of this country’s citizens, serving, instead, primarily to engender national pride and unity and to provide clear and rigid guidelines for what is considered appropriate and desirable behaviour. Aside from the large presence of the army in Tian’anmen Square and the odd sight of pairs of soldiers standing erect by Beijing’s main highways as we traveled through the city, there was little that would signify to the uninformed tourist that the PRC is anything but a democratic state. I learned through engaging Chinese youth that China today is not all that different from Canada in many regards, particularly with respect to the youth’s embracement of Western, and more specifically European, pop culture. Alcohol is widely available, nightclubs in Beijing and Shanghai rival those of Tokyo and Seoul in setting and atmosphere, and the Chinese are becoming increasingly materialistic and less idealistic as their wealth increases. The student-led riots of the late 1980s that culminated with the massacre at Tian’anmen Square are a distant memory, and far less socially relevant today than I had suspected they might be. While I initially had difficulty deciphering why the Chinese had distanced themselves from their recent past, by the end of the trip I had realized that the Chinese are united in their optimism for the future, and believe that dwelling on past injustices would bring more harm than good, particularly since the consensus among many of whom I spoke with is that the country is on the right path, and that change must occur slowly enough so as not to upset the social fabric of Chinese society that has been so carefully woven and altered under the ubiquitous eye of the government.

Here I come, China!

In five short days I will fulfill a life long dream. I will depart Canada for two weeks to visit one of most exotic and mysterious countries on earth: the People’s Republic of China. My trip to the World’s most populous country is not one of leisure. Rather, it is part of the Richard Ivey School of Business’ China Study Project – an optional elective designed to give students a first-hand look at the emerging superpower that is this culturally rich and fascinating nation.

Despite roots and traditions that span five millennia, China’s ascendance on the global stage is a recent development. While it is the country that gave the world the compass, printing press, and gunpowder, it remained largely unknown for the greater part of the 20th century. It was not until the late 1970s that things began to change in China. Progressive minds helped spawn a series of economic and political reforms that gradually opened her borders. As foreign investment injected vital capital into the economy, millions of Chinese were able to slowly escape abject rural poverty, and eventually lead rise to what is now the world’s largest middle class. While China’s rise to economic superstar seems to fall at odds with its communist system of governance, I’m not entirely sure that the perceived contradiction is of concern to those in power; China’s leaders are undoubtedly cognizant of this dichotomy. It appears on basis of their inaction, then, that they are simply satisfied to endure as long as economic prosperity continues. While not formally acknowledged, China appears to be, for all intensive purposes, a quasi-capitalist nation, governed by many of the same free market principles that govern the United States. Examining how the political contrarieties of being outwardly capitalist yet inwardly communist is managed on a daily basis by business leaders and citizens is an experience I eagerly anticipate.

Further, I’m also interested in seeing whether my own observations, which will unfortunately be limited in scope, corroborate the independent media’s bleak assessment of China’s human rights record. I look forward to a getting a glimpse of the exciting, fast-paced lifestyle of the young urban professional, and seeing Tiananmen Square, the Great Wall of China, and having my picture taken by Shanghai’s Skyline (pictured above). Most importantly, I cannot wait to see Hong Kong!

Until I return, huí tóu jiàn!

Kaizen in London - A CSR Initiative

It was a warm September afternoon as I drove home after a long day of classes. My mind was wandering as I thought about the practical implications of what I had just learned in Professor Wilson’s Decision Making with Analytics class. He had used a simple milk carton exercise to highlight how the application of analytics could solve basic inventory problems such as how much milk to stock, based on historical demand, so that the seller could optimize her use of shelf space while simultaneously maximizing profitability. As I continued down Western Road, I began to wonder how many of the small, single entity businesses around me employed any sort of management science techniques in determining their product mix. Were any of their inventory replenishment processes based in scientific methodology, or did the owners simply employ a more rudimentary, back-of-the-envelope approach? I wasn’t sure, but the more my synapses fired, the more convinced I became that analytic techniques could have profound adaptations for all sorts of businesses, be they large multinational corporations or your standard convenience stores. Surely, large MNCs such as Starbucks would have a contingent of analysts dedicated to the systemic analysis of data, but what about small mom-and-pop shops… would they have the requisite know-how to improve the ability of their businesses to compete in the increasingly competitive landscape? Some probably would, but most likely would not.

What if we could help them as part of a corporate social responsibility initiative? Ivey students could leverage the tools they had learned and developed to provide free consultative services to solve small business problems for individual businesses. Not only would students have the opportunity to attain practical experience – particularly useful for those with no business experience on their resumes – but they could more importantly contribute to incrementally improving the businesses, and quality of life, for those who permanently reside in a city that is a temporary home for most of us. This proposal, which is currently being considered by Ivey’s CSR group – Ivey Connects – could potentially prove to be among the most ambitious and practical CSR initiatives run by the student body of any Canadian B-School; one certainly befitting of Canada’s most prestigious business academy. Stay tuned!

Israel in Lose-Lose Situation?

It's January 5th, 2008, and it's been about a week now since Israel started its latest military offensive in the Palestinian territory of Gaza. After weeks of sitting idly by as Qassam rockets, originating in the Gaza Strip, littered the Israeli countryside, putting 20% of Israel's 7.3 million inhabitants at risk, it felt the time to act was now: Hamas, the democratically-elected government of Gaza that has been designated a terrorist organization by some states, had to be pounded into submission so that these attacks would stop for good.

In choosing to attack Hamas, I posit that Israel has placed itself between a rock and a hard place. It’s likely that its current mission is inclined to fail not only because eliminating a permeable, determined foe is difficult, but because the military operation will also further distance these concerned parties from forging a long-lasting, meaningful peace settlement.

The reality is that Israel is truly in a lose-lose situation.

Regardless of where your biases lie, envision this situation: you are the head of state of a country whose citizens are being periodically attacked by a hostile neighbour. You know any military action you take will be intensely criticized by the global community because your response will appear to be disproportionate, yet you also cannot afford to sit by idly and do nothing to prevent these attacks from continuing, particularly when their heads of state are enamored with your destruction. You know failure - the status quo - is not an option; you have a responsibility to protect your citizens. So, you attack. And you aim to hit them hard because even if you don't wipe them out, at least you will have significantly diminished their capabilities.

But there's a catch. Some of your bombs miss and hit targets you didn’t intend to hit. Targets like children, which Gaza is overflowing with (70% of Gaza’s 1.4M inhabitants are under the age of 18 – it is among the youngest countries in the world, as it traditionally has been). These tragedies occur in war because sadly, like us, our technology is imperfect. This collateral damage, however, has significant negative ramifications for the future and potential of a peace accord between these long-time enemies.

I loathe to think what growing up in Gaza is like. I imagine that doing so all your life in the midst of a war with what you consider to be a hostile occupier, engender in you a hate that strengthens with each piercing F16 missile. You become morally consumed by your struggle, and slowly susceptible to propaganda. You might enlist. Maybe one day you will even find yourself strapped in a crowded square in Tel Aviv. What brought you here? At least in some part your historically reinforced disdain for your enemy.

And so the cycle of conflict continues, sustaining momentum through a basic, predisposed human instinct - violence. Both countries simultaneously play the part of hero and villain, as the war continues, as it likely will for decades.

This latest Gazan excursion is only one in a litany of others that litter the pages of history, and Hamas’ attacks – rocket or otherwise – number in the thousands. Casualties continue to mount on both sides as war with a despised and misunderstood enemy becomes your way of life, and perhaps the only thing you live for. Peace cannot be made when people feel that sort of vengence. By attacking and/or defending itself – whichever you believe, Israel is inadvertently developing a future generation of traumatized, new, enemies.

(The purpose of this entry was strictly to comment on Israel’s current military excursion into Gaza. It was not meant to address the validity of longstanding assertions and disagreements.)

http://www.cnn.com/2009/WORLD/meast/01/04/gaza.humanitarian/index.html

Presidential Pardon - Constitutional?

On November 24th, 2008, President Bush granted 14 pardons - particularly customary for an out-going President - bringing to total 171 pardons and 8 commutations he has granted since he took office in 2000.

This isn't a knock on President Bush. I simply wish to question the constitutionality of the law that allows a man - any man - to reverse the course of justice, usurping the People's moral authority and judgement because his preferences take precedence over the harm caused to the criminal's victims. That none where murderers is irrelevant. 

My guess is that there are no statutes to formally prevent a President from granting pardons or commutations of sentences. But I think there outta be, don't you?

Canadian Olympic Athletes Should Be Ashamed!

I'm probably not the only one that's disappointed by the poor results our athletes have been getting in Beijing, but none of us can say we're entirely surprised. Before the Olympics began Canada had only been projected to win 12-15 medals, and even with the disappointment of not having reached the podium yet as we enter the 5th day of competition, we're still on track to finish with about 10-12 medals, which isn't a disaster. And still, we know that the Canadian Olympic Committee has placed its focus on 2010 in Vancouver with the Own the Podium program, inspired by the ambitious goal of having Canada finish atop the medal standings in the Winter Olympics on home soil. After all, it was only 20 years ago in Calgary when what must have been a first in Olympic history happened (though don't quote me on this) when a host country failed to win a single gold during an entire competition. Surely the COC knows that that wont happen again, but is nevertheless intent on making amends. Something about that sounds refreshingly un-Canadian, and musical to the ears.

No, our ineptitude in the pool, on the water, and in the ring isn't what bothers me. (Speaking of the ring, in 1996 Canada won 4 medals in boxing in Atlanta. In this Olympics, their entire team consisted of ONE athlete who was humiliated 22-2 in his first round match. Absolutely shameful. Wake up, COC!) It's the absolute lack of competitive spirit, and the ambivalent attitudes of 'olympians' who seem more satisfied with getting to The Show and settling for personal bests that irritates me. Time after time over the course of these five days I've seen Elliot Freidman of CBC interview olympian after olympian who shrug their shoulders with apathy, all the while smiling while making excuses for poor performances. (Although, kudos to most of them for actually trying, unlike Brent Hayden, our most accomplished swimmer who pulled out of the 100IM when his time was 3rd fastest in the heats to race the 4x100 Freestyle relay that Canada had NO business thinking it had a shot medaling in). That's what annoys me.

Look at athletes from countries where there is a sporting culture built on success and competitive spirit. I saw a Kazakh weightlifter earlier today who was shedding tears of sadness because she was out-lifted for the gold (and she wasn't even favoured to medal), while the Canadian lifter who finished 4th was ecstatic. While this one example may certainly have considerations that merit it an appropriate reaction where the Canadian is concerned, I find it awfully symptomatic of what is fundamentally wrong with our sporting culture - the majority of our athletes in Beijing don't seem to genuinely care that they don't medal, and rather, seem content to settle for merely making an appearance. They do not possess the competitive spirit that embodies the olympics or that of their competition, nor the swagger or confidence to state outright that their goal is to win the goal medal, rather than to just medal.

Come on Team Canada! It's not too late to salvage these games. I don't care if you come home with no medals, just wipe those stupid smirks off your faces and act like you give a shit! You are disappointing us not by posting embarrassingly poor results, but by being all too apathetically Canadian. I'm talking particularly to you, Brent Hayden!

Iraq War Creating Generation of Traumatized Youth

Meet Mustafa Karim.

Mustafa is a 4th grader in Iraq who now lives in a Shia refugee camp. This young boy's witnessed more violence and trauma in his short life than many of us will in our lifetimes. His father and uncle were murdered in front of him by Sunni death squads. His story is all too familiar nowadays in Iraq.

The US-led invasion of Iraq has had many tragic consequences, the orphaning and traumatizing of young kids like Mustafa among the greatest. His generation is being referred to as the 'lost' generation; one characterized by children with overwhelming psychological problems whose prognoses to lead normal lives are increasingly looking grim by the day, induced by the illegitimate war being waged by the Bush Administration.

How people who support the Republican agenda can look at stories like Mustafa's and still support the war baffle me. Where is the humanity? Imagine if Mustafa was your family member... how can so many stay steadfast in their support of this war when faced with overwhelming evidence that everything about the Administration's pretenses for war was one big lie is truly a paradox.

Please read this article when you have a chance. I realize that reading this material isn't pleasant and it makes you feel sad and powerless to stop it, but this is the reality of the world in which we live and the distress you might feel is the by-product of being informed.

Disfigured French Woman Commits Suicide - Debate on Euthanasia

Meet Chantal Sebire.

Chantal suffers from a rare, painful and incurable form of cancer that has resulted in the growth of massive tumours along her nasal passages and in between her eyes. Other than for the excruciating pain she's constantly in and her inability to breathe through her nose, she's otherwise healthy.

Sadly, Chantal died today, March 20th, 2008, two days after her final appeal to France's Supreme Court for assisted Euthanasia, or the medically supervised taking of ones life, was rejected. President Sarkozy of France turned down her personal appeal.

While the investigation is ongoing, it appears that Chantal committed suicide, possibly with some assistance. More will follow in the coming days.

This story, however, has sparked intense debate in France and abroad concerning the legitimacy of euthanasia as a form of mercy killing.

I think that those who vilify this woman and her desire to commit assisted suicide have no real understanding of what this woman's suffering was like, nor are their beliefs pragmatic or humane. That she could have committed suicide without medical supervision if she had wanted to but did not, is proof in my opinion that she struggled long and hard with this decision over the course of the 8 years that this disease slowly changed her life and appearance. She ultimately found her suffering to detrimentally impact her life above and beyond any sort of pleasure she got from experiencing her life and the love of her family. What a truly sad story.

While I believe that stringent limits should be placed on the practice of euthanasia to limit it exclusively to those instances where there is irrefutable evidence that a person wants to willingly end their life because their physical suffering is too much, I feel very strongly that it is a practice that can be humane in application and morally justifiable.

If you were this woman and in this sort of pain, would you want others to tell you what you could or could not do? If we are each held accountable for our own actions and our own welfare, we too should be able to die with dignity if we have the reasonable cognitive capability to arrive at that eventuality. She did. Sadly, the Supreme Court of France robbed her of a dignified death.

Shame on anyone who morally admonishes this woman for having taken her own life.

Rest in Peace Chantal.

An Act of Kindness or of Evil?

Meet Ashley.

She's a severely disabled 10-year old whose parents are embroiled in a controversy surrounding the ethical treatment of human beings.

At 4'5'', Ashley is taller than she'll ever be, not that it really matters. She has a severe form of cerebral palsy and thus cant walk nor talk. She's got the mental development of a 6-month old infant . Her life will sadly be wholly sedentary; her lighthearted moniker pillow angel, actually coined by her parents, alludes to that reality that she can never do anything other than lay on a pillow, or be carted around in a stroller or carried.

When she was 6, her parents in consultation with doctors decided to do what they thought was best for her. Ashley underwent a number of operations that would further dramatically alter her life from yours or mine. One operation involved the fusing of certain parts of her skeletal anatomy to prevent her from physically growing; another to remove her sexual organs (hysterectomy and breast removal); and she was placed on medications to keep her in a state of perpetual, childhood bliss.

They say they did the right thing; that their daughter will live a happier life. Maturing into an adulthood with all these disabilities would be too cruel, they contend.

Human rights activists disagree. To them, this amounts to man assuming the role of God, not all too different from the pre-natal destruction of life (abortion); or the voluntary submission of life, otherwise known as euthanasia. Her parent's decision has been referred to as "inhumane", "perverse", and "evil."

While I think this is a difficult moral issue, I can sympathize with the thoughts and feelings of her parents.This child lacks the mental capability to survive or think for herself, and so doesn't know what's best for her. I think it's important to remember that this certainly cant be easy for her parents and those of us who cannot relate to a situation akin to this have no basis on which to administer moral judgement. I would image that her parents love her and made that decision with her best interests at heart. It's so tough.