The other morning I was stuck in snow and wind for thirty minutes as a small crowd of us waited for a late bus. Yuck: why not stick GPS on the bus and pump data to a web site so cell phones, wireless laptops, and other devices could tell where the bus was?

As I live only two minutes away, if I knew where the bus was I should be able to walk to the stop and never wait more than a few minutes. Nice idea.

As I suspected, this is more than an idea and is starting to be a big deal. A Seattle system was getting 2.4 million hits per month back in 2001: Now they're putting up electronic signs with arrival times. See: http://www.govtech.net/magazine/story.php?id=5458&issue=8:2001

How many extra rides per year might it take to pay for the systems upgrade (for Seattle the entire signaling system costs about as much as it costs to run a single bus)? And what environmental and energy benefit would society gain for rides switched from cars to buses? I'm not sure, but I'd be interested in finding out.

Then I was pointed to the Traveline.org site in the UK:  http://www.traveline.org.uk

This service offers multi-modal trip planners integrating all types of public transport: buses, the underground, trains, ferries (and even walking, showing whether you need to go up or down steps or if escalators are available). Tell it where you want to go and when you want to start and it will offer optional routes including transfer times and directions, total time for the trip, and pricing (when available).

The idea is to reduce uncertainty, perhaps especially for trips that haven't been taken before. This should reduce at least somewhat a barrier that keeps people away from public transit.

To give you a taste of what's available in the UK (Seattle is working on multi-modal also), here's a notional trip I planned from the Maharaja Tandoori Restaurant in Piccadilly Square to Oxford (I understand there's a university there): http://www.3ecompass.net/content/Journey_Planner_route_details.pdf

Building and operating such a cross-boundary service is probably easier in a society like the UK with its heavy reliance on public transport and a unified government able to pull the institutional stakeholders together.

Still, it looks like an interesting XB example to me. Anyone know how it was financed?

I'll try to find out and report it back at our March workshop on financing cross-boundary innovations. Come join us to work these issues: http://www.3ecompass.net/public/governance_and_finance/

As they say in the UK: Cheers,

Jerry

Thirteen years ago, Vint Cerf joined us at a Harvard workshop as the NREN (National Research and Education Network) was debating opening up to commercial users. He had big ideas then, and has some more big ideas today. 

Zach Tumin of the Financial Services Technology Consortium sent me this link to a recent ComputerWorld interview with Vint: http://www.gcn.com/25_2/interview/38005-1.html

A provocative Cert[ification]: "I believe that 99 percent of the Internet's applications have yet to be invented."

I think he's probably right. Comparing the Internet and world-wide-web to the roll-out of electricity, the second 15 years of the process -- those we're heading into now -- should be the ones with the biggest long-term applications and social impacts. This should be particularly true for governments, as they're generally slow-out-of-the-box.

Check out what Vint thinks. More importantly: What do you see as the biggies just over the horizon?

 In our cross-boundary age, how should we finance innovations requiring cooperation across multiple organizations?

 Markets can be relied on if the risks are low and the value created is private. Value then gets captured through trades facilitated by money and competitive pricing.  The growth of the PC industry in this way created huge reforms involving multiple institutions.

 Financing gets harder, however, when the risks grow large and the value isn't readily captured by the innovator. Most of the early funds for canals, trains, air travel, and computer networking were not raised through internal investments by individual firms. Risk-absorbing financiers and governments had a big role to play.

 That's a basic principle: Big risks typically require some form of collective action. When the risks are large, the community may be the only unit big enough to absorb them. Thus government becomes a logical entity to support the early work required to reduce the risks for those that come later. That's an essential rationale for government funding of fundamental R&D. A similar logic applies for strategically essential investments like those of DARPA. (We should all remember where the work that generated TCP/IP came from.) Most large organizations fund strategic R&D as an organizational overhead, NOT by expecting their operating units to do it ("in addition to your other duties").

 In this context, why not support early investments in cross-boundary networking through funds allocated from a level high enough to absorb the risks and capture the benefits? But what governments are organized financially for this? When the federal Quicksilver projects identified cross-boundary projects, funding was described to me as not even the tip of the federal funding iceberg, but rather as merely a snowball on the tip of the tip.

 Granted, some state and local governments have created funds for cross-boundary initiatives. Minnesota established a technology R&D fund under Governor Perpich, but it was disbanded once Perpich left office. I can find other fledgling examples, but nothing that seems like a movement.  

 What do you see out there? How can we get traction on this problem? Where are the cross-boundary development funds? We'd love to hear about what's working.

 We will be exploring these, and related ideas, at our upcoming workshop on the "Leadership and Politics of Cross-Boundary Reform: Governance and Finance of IT-Driven Initiatives." To check out the agenda, and learn how to register, please visit: http://www.3ecompass.net/public/governance_and_finance/

Harvard is rightfully proud of its leadership in developing case studies as the core for professional education - beginning roughly a century ago with the Law and Business Schools, and later with the Kennedy School, Medical School, and others.

Compared to traditional lectures, teaching cases are engaging. Students have to analyze and work with each other, not simply listen. Cases explore real problems facing real people.

Using the web, we're now offering a new kind of case in a series of contests. In these contests, leaders describe what they are doing about a problem and then ask contest participants for advice about what to do next.

The student submitting the best response will win $1,000.

The practitioner submitting the best response will win a scholarship to an upcoming executive education workshop -- worth roughly $2,000.

This could be a good fit for you -- or your staff. In our first case, Michigan Governor Jennifer Granholm and CIO Teri Takai present their work in shaping a statewide economic development program.

The case itself is engaging. Thinking about the Michigan problem might also shed light on how your own jurisdiction might address similar problems. Finally, you or a student or staff member might be a winner, with your ideas presented and acknowledged on the web and at the March 8-9 workshop.

Here's the case: http://www.3eproject.org/micase

And here's the March workshop: HERE

I hope we hear from you. Feel free to write me back with any questions you might have.

But, please note the January 15 deadline. Tick, tick, tick…

Best,

Jerry