Orion Security LSP

I recently ended my tenure at a small GPS Fleet Management & Tracking Technology company and accepted an exciting opportunity to become VP of Sales at another one. The industry is populated with a lot of very small players, few with much market share or name recognition. At the same time, the concept of "GPS tracking" is becoming mainstream in all walks of life -- vehicles and other assets, loved ones, employees, pets, to name a few. However, the space I have been focused on has primarily involved vehicle fleets.

In m first month with my new organization, Orion Security LSP, I have learned a great deal about the obstacles I faced in the industry prior to being here. Many potential customers said to me that they had a hard time seeing the return on investment concept. The reason is, most providers have some sort of web-based user interface (some good, some not so good) where the customer can log on and see their vehicles and some basic associated location information. They can also obtain a variety of canned reports that they must "pull" from the available data. What often results is a busy manager becoming overwhelmed with piles of data that don't mean that much to him or her and an overwhelming feeling that obtaining it and trying to understand it can become another full time job. They therefore tend to shy away from the project and the technology becomes nothing more than an occasional "we can see where our vehicles are". It is no wonder that in those cases the business owner/manager looks at the hardware and monthly service costs and questions the value proposition.

The reason I came to Orion is because they take a completely different approach. They spend a lot of time up front gathering information from the client -- what are their issues/problems that they hope to solve?, what do they expect the information to provide to them?, what is the most efficient way to deliver useable information to the appropriate people?, etc. Orion then goes to work developing custom tailored reporting solutions that are prepared FOR the client that are "pushed" across to them in a seamless manner so they can operationalize them into the running of their daily business. This drives maximum ROI in terms of cost savings, incremental revenue from increase productivity, and reduced risk from driver compliance programs. It is not unusual to see $200-$300 in cost reduction per vehicle per month and dramatic increases in revenue per vehicle per month from the routing optimization efforts.

The bottom line is that clients already have their plates full in this economy just running their own businesses -- they don't need another job running their GPS technology systems. Orion solves that issue every time.

Retail sales

Spend or Save?

Last week it was announced that retail sales dropped 5.1% in July, sending yet another mixed message on the economy. All indications are that the recession has ended, but it is clear that the rebuild may be very slow.

Two-thirds of U.S. economic activity are derived from consumer spending. I do not see how that can continue in the wake of layoffs, declining home values, and all of the other negative economic news of the last year. A shift is going to need to happen, and one would assume that the massive amount of governement spending going on will accomplish that.

But it raises a question. During the easy-credit-fed economic boom of the previous 8 years, experts expressed concern that the U.S. savings rate was among the lowest of the industrialized nations. So which is it? If we are supposed to be better savers, how can it be that we also need to be spenders to drive the economy? U.S. Government seems to be speaking out of both sides of its collective mouth when it preaches need for increased savings while at the same time issuing checks to everyone and asking us to go buy TV's, cars, appliances, home improvements, etc.

If we do a better job of saving, who is going to do the spending?

Jobs

The latest expert advice from economists and government leaders states that we have seen the bottom of the recession and predictions for very modest growth in the 3rd quarter seems to be the popular predication. However, the outlook for jobs is not nearly as encouraging. In fact, many experts predict that job losses will continue to mount even as recovery builds. The belief is that businesses will not begin to hire again until steady growth is proven over months and maybe even years.

The total job losses during this downturn have eroded 100% of the job creation from the last boom period. Which leads one to ask, what did all these people do that have lost their jobs and how exactly is business supposed to function effectively without them. Did we really have a system so bloated with non-essential functions that they could all be let go and business as usual continues?

It makes sense that there is less emphasis on organization structure, job descriptions, and operational efficiency when times are good. The company is making money, new job reqs are approved because the budget allows it, and "nice to have" positions are filled. But wouldn't we be better off disciplining our business selves to run more efficiently during prosperous times, so that the bloodletting need not be so severe when times turn downward? I can't believe that all of these excess jobs that have been shed are non-essential. Maybe we'll see when companies have trouble growing again once conditions improve.

Pope Benedict for Treasury Secretary

I'll admit I've never been an overly religious individual. So my knowledge of the views of religious leadership on the topic of the global economy have been quite limited. But after reading a recent NY Times article, "Pope Urges Forming New World Economic Order to Work for the 'Common Good'", I might have to nominate Benedict XVI for Treasury Secretary.

The Pope criticized the current economic system and urged world financiers to "rediscover the genuinely ethical foundation of their activity". He went on to state that "once profit becomes the exclusive goal, if it is produced by improper means and without the common good as its ultimate end, it risks destroying wealth and creating poverty." If Benny had said this last summer he might have been viewed as a prophet.

I always assumed there was a direct conflict between capitalism and religion. Taking care of the poor and the needy certainly seemed to be the farthest left one can get, and maximizing wealth and profits leaned far right. But I think the Pope was on to something, which has been proven over the last 9 months as we have seen the results of an unchecked system run amok.

Not enough regulation, too many fat cats motivated by short term goals, an abandonment of sound business decision making led by mitigation of risk, and here we stand with hundreds of thousands of people struggling and damaged financially, mentally, and spiritually.

It can't be what a Pope would want to see from an economic system. And it shouldn't be what world business leaders want to see either. I hope the lesson has been learned.

Job Specialization

I am amazed at how this economy has amplified job specialization. For those that have managed to survive their careers undamaged at this point in this difficult economy, you had better hope you like what you do. It has always been puzzling to me how executives, senior managers, and middle managers can change direction with their careers or transition into other industries. Competition for open spots has definitely gravitated more over the years to specialization, and the generalist has seemed to fade further into the background.

However, now with so many people looking for work, the supply and demand equation has made it a huge employers market. I have seen some job postings lately that are almost humorous in the nitty gritty requirements that are listed. Recruiters often come across like "if you haven't done this exact job for someone else please don't apply". And the fact is, no matter how specific the requirements are, in most cases they find the person they are looking for.

But what about the talent that is out there that has the ability to adapt and ramp up quickly with accelerated learning curves? What about people that can bring a fresh perspective into a company and a role instead of Mr. "This is how we've always done it in the business"? Maybe how we've always done it is part of the explanation for why things aren't going to swell lately.

I would like to think there is still value in a generalist approach. Someone who has good analytical skills, is a good communicator, understands the consultative role of selling, can develop and lead people, and can bring a fresh business development approach to a company has to have value, even if they haven't sold this exact product category in this specific industry for a minimum of this many years and achieved this percentage of this sized market.

In fact, I would wager that some of those folks are even more valuable.

Bankruptcy as a "mulligan"

I've never pretended that I have a deep understanding of how corporate bankruptcy really works. But after seeing what has been happening of late -- two of the big three automotive manufacturers, plus going through it with my own employer -- I've come to question the purpose, the fairness, and the ramifications of the process.

In golf they call it a "mulligan". That's when you hit a tee shot you don't particularly care for and just decide to hit another one that you will like better. Don't count the bad one against your score that you are ultimately judged on, just pretend like it never happened. There seems to be similarities in the Chapter 11 reorganization bankruptcy process. Don't worry if you have made bad decisions, engaged in contractual obligations that have not turned out well, or lacked the vision to invest for the future. Just press the "11" button, flush it away, and start with a clean slate.

With the automakers, it seems like they had to turn to the courts to get them to do what they were unable to do for years regarding unfavorable union contracts. The courts get to be the bad cop? In the meantime, how many little suppliers end up recouping pennies on the dollar of their receivable balances, thus jeopardizing their own future. What about people like the man who lost his wife and mother of his kids in a horrific accident where she burned to death after the gas tank exploded? The product liability lawsuit?.... sorry, dismissed with a bankruptcy filing. Pretty heartless mulligan.

I always assumed that the word "bankruptcy" had dire consequences. Once filed, the company would have trouble securing funding, keeping paying customers, acquiring new ones. But what I have seen lately makes me wonder if the downside to filing is anywhere near as dire. When you hear that automakers might emerge after only a month or two as a newer, leaner organization built for success, or when my employer plans for a quick turnaround into a bigger, better, stronger, faster, organization, it makes you wonder why more folks don't jump on the old Mulligan train rather than have to make all those difficult and unpleasant decisions.

"10 big banks given approval to return $68 billion in bailout money"

Those words appeared in a recent L.A. Times business section article. I believe the world has gone mad. Maybe next is the announcement that the sun will no longer rise, that gravity no longer exists, or that death and taxes have ceased to be a certainty in life.

How ludicrous does it sound that a lending institution must obtain approval to repay a governement loan? The article also points out that many of the banks felt they were "forced" to take the money by former Treasury Secretary Paulson. So which was it -- banks were on the brink of failure due to an overwhelming amount of poorly underwritten loans, or they didn't need the money? The average person who does not have in-depth knowledge of the financial markets must have more fear and mistrust than ever with the inconsistencies that brought about this crisis and the explanations since.

Just months ago there was widespread panic that paralyzed the credit markets. Now the very moves that were made to ease that panic are being viewed in hindsight as "we didn't really need it". Yet at the same time the article says that three of the largest banks still are not healthy enough to pay the money back.

So what is the truth? Did these institutions really need the money to avoid collapse, or was the whole thing a symbolic gesture to build confidence and avoid panic? Or is it more the case that the lenders don't like the stipulations that go with the loans regarding executive pay caps and restrictions on dividend payments. I would tend to lean toward the latter.