Rapid information flow, Mother Nature & accelerated change

Edward Erickson - Fmr. Global Head of Cisco's Supply Chain Risk Management, Safety, Security & BCP / Founder Supply Chain Risk Leadership Council, Currently VP, Intrapoint

Edward Erickson – Fmr. Global Head of Cisco’s Supply Chain Risk Mgmt., Safety, Security & BCP, Currently VP, Intrapoint

Forum Host Bill Raisch:  Edward, Cisco is essentially a wide web of interrelationships and operations across an extensive global footprint.  You had responsibility for risk in the supply chain, which if I recall correctly runs into the thousands of suppliers, as well as responsibility for security, safety and business continuity for Cisco.  That’s a lot of moving pieces and functions.  You’re now working on an enterprise resilience platform at Intrapoint.

What do you see the most important disruptors facing global corporations, markets and/or wider society?  

Edward Erickson:

Rapid and / or incorrect information flow i.e. stock market recently, highlights the need to be prepared as you are tried in the public with no time to formulate

Mother nature – seems as volatility is accelerating in combination with interdependencies – low cost regions more susceptible

Accelerated rate of change, both in tech and customer preference, highlights need for forward thinking and agility built into capabilities and mindsets.

Bill Raisch:  What do you see as potential impacts of these disruptors?

Edward Erickson:

  • Brand reputation
  • Market share loss

Bill Raisch:      What strategies would you suggest to address these disruptor – to either mitigate negative impacts and/or to capitalize on potential opportunities?

Edward Erickson: 

  • Develop all hazard plans that can be adapted and invoked through imbedded processes and accelerated and replicated with technology
  • Develop a process for assessing and addressing risks on the horizon – must companies do the former, not the later
  • Diversification

 

Posted by Bill Raisch, Host – Global Disruptors Forum

Continuing natural disasters with widening impacts

Corp. & Govt. Security Executive; Fmr. VP & Global Security Head - Thomson Reuters

Corp. & Govt. Security Executive; Fmr. VP & Global Security Head – Thomson Reuters

Forum Host Bill Raisch:  Ed, you’ve had responsibility for security in a wide range of environments from the US military to major Fortune 500 firms including Thompson Reuters, CIT Group and Pfizer.

What do you see as one of the most important disruptors facing global corporations, markets and/or wider society?

Ed Levy:  Natural Disasters – will continue to happen on a global scale; very little to mitigate or divert the occurrence; no direct targeting; wide area impact…businesses, homes, people, all sectors of the infrastructure, etc. 

Bill Raisch:  What are the potential impacts of this disruptor?

Ed Levy:  Long term and financial impacts from response, consequence management, business impact, reputational, and human toll.

Bill Raisch:  What strategies would you suggest to address this disruptor – to either mitigate negative impacts and/or to capitalize on potential opportunities?

Ed Levy:

  • Realistic risk management program to address potential consequences.
  • Sustainable and dedicated emergency response and crisis management programs within the government and private sectors.
  • Functional business resiliency/continuity and disaster recovery capabilities.

Changing energy supply dynamics will dramatically impact not only US but reverberate globally.

Fmr. Critical Infrastructure Protection Director of Public-Private Partnership, US Dept. of Homeland Security

Fmr. Critical Infrastructure Protection Director of Public-Private Partnership, US Dept. of Homeland Security

Forum Host Bill Raisch:  Jim, you’ve served both in the U.S. Department of Energy and the U.S. Department of Homeland Security with a special focus on the public-private interface.

What do you see as one of the most important disruptors facing global corporations, markets and/or wider society?

Jim Caverly:  The changing dynamics of energy supply and pricing due to the boom in natural gas supply resulting from fracking.  In its early stages the disruptions are principally US domestic, as fracking expands internationally it has the potential to disrupt both individual foreign markets and the entire international marketplace.

Bill Raisch:       What are the potential impacts of this energy disruptor?

Jim Caverly: 

The US becomes a net exporter of energy – something no energy analyst would have credibly predicted over much of the past 50+ years – US LNG import terminals are converted to export terminals.

Natural  gas will be the energy hallmark of the 21st century just as oil was for the 20th – post Fukishima nuclear revitalization is delayed.

As the Green House Gas preferenced fuel, natural gas will place significant stabilizing to downward pressure on both coal and oil prices.

Geo-strategic dependencies change as new producible (frackable) reserves of natural gas come on line, especially in Europe, reducing the demand/value of natural gas from Russia, Iran, and other producers.

Long term decreases and stability in US natural gas prices revitalize domestic energy intensive industries such as chemical manufacturing as investment and production return to the US.

Significant increases in use of natural gas use will impact the production of Green House Gases as well as the growth in demand for and use of coal and oil – further complicating the climate change debate/policies.

Bill Raisch:   What strategies would you suggest to address this energy supply disruptor – to either mitigate negative impacts and/or to capitalize on potential opportunities?

Jim Caverly:  Many to most of the impacts on or in the US domestic market are already identified and factor into strategic planning – one key will be to anticipate and recognize these impacts in foreign venues as fracking penetrates overseas.

One that I’m still toying with is potential impacts and rifts from the difference between the US approach to natural resources and China’s approach to them.  US thinking and policy from the mid 70’s, principally driven by oil considerations, has been to increase the resource, i.e. drill and produce more, and to assure free and equal access wherever it is in the world.  China’s philosophy has been to acquire and control the resource and the means of production, i.e. buy up/into the resource, invest in its production to supply their domestic demand.  What happens when/if China begins to restrict access to these resources to meet its domestic needs versus letting the resource go to the highest bidder on the international market?

Posted by Bill Raisch, Host – Global Disruptors Forum

 

Natural / Environmental

We welcome insights on Natural / Environmental Disruptions included but not limited to the following key areas:

  • Extreme Weather & Climate Change
  • Food and Water Scarcity
  • Solar-Based Disruptions / Geomagnetic Storms / Space Weather
  • Increasing Impact of Natural Hazards: Earthquakes, Tsunamis, Volcanic Eruptions…