Shadows over Afghanistan – Unmanned System, October 2009

I wrote this article (which you can download), based on my experience leading the Army’s first RQ-7 “Shadow” platoon in Afghanistan. I think it has overall aged pretty well.

Particularly the idea that robotic aviation allows support to be pushed closer to the units needing aerial support is a still a valid one. Low level coordination seems to be one the principal advantages that Western forces have over adversaries in the current conflicts.

I did not foresee the rise of the one-way-attack drone and the idea that there is now a continuum between munitions and drones. I still believe there maybe valid organizational reasons to keep reconnaissance assets in separate units from strike units — even if they closely coordinate as discussed in the article.

Stop Deluding Yourself! [How to Use Artifacts to Test Buyer Progress in a Sales Process]

It is 5p before the board meeting, do you **know** what stage your deals are at?

Surprisingly, (or perhaps not) when I inspect start-up pipelines, I often see deals staged based on rep feel or other loose and subjective criteria. If your deals are staged like this, you do not know where your deals are. Subjective deal criteria are useless because sales people and founders are delusional optimists–we have to be. Where do you think we put deal stage? I guarantee it isn’t where the client is…

Advancing deals because of nice words and good feelings or even rep activities leads to forecasting errors and also to failure to invest in deals with problematic champions which can turn out to be great. Forecasting errors are the root cause of a lot of start-up pain. Forecasting is really hard and it is especially if you put garbage as your root data.

Despite everyone in the selling profession trying to have an internal locus of control over deals, the fact is that deals close when the buyer wants them to close, not when the seller does. In our sales process we are trying to tailor our activities to the thing that we need to do get the buyer to the next stage of their buying journey. You can read a bunch of books about this, but to summarize the ones I’ve read, you can mostly understand the buyer journey for your product, deal size, and industry by fumbling through a few deals. It is important to be mindful of how early customers differ from repeatable ones. You will get a sense of what the buyer needs to move forward from trying it a few times–or even getting coaching from your more tolerant customer. Your activities need to respond to where the buyer is, and deal stage movement should signal that you’ve tested where the buyer is and are correspondingly adjusting your activities to suit.

I suggest using artifacts at each stage to test where the buyer is. Artifacts as I use the term in this post are: documents or records, which are inspectable by both the client and seller management, and which have both the seller’s and client’s participation or assent — this could be as simple as an accepted calendar invite all the way up to a custom-negotiated, fully-executed, joint-venture agreement or other similarly complex contract.

Artifacts are first and foremost a way to test with the client if you are where you think you are. I’m going to show you a somewhat generic sales process below, but the basic idea of it is that no matter how you feel about the deal, there is a sequence the buyer has to go through and artifacts test and can even help the buyer arrive at each stage of their buying journey. A sales consultant I greatly respect talks about the sales process as walking through a ship and closing each hatch behind you. The idea is to definitively close each compartment one at a time. Ideally, you get a written receipt that you’ve closed that section and that the customer agrees that section is completed.

Below I’m going to show what is close to the most basic enterprise sales process and how artifacts enhance that process. Your process should be different. Perhaps you are on the low ticket size of enterprise sales and you can skip stakeholder objections as the champion and sponsor are the only meaningful sponsors (I saw this agriculture a lot) or perhaps something else is different in your sales process.

Below is the generic enterprise sales process that I’m going to talk through in detail with artifacts. When I set-up CRMs I often name the stages just like the below to help everyone keep in mind what we’re doing now on the deal and what comes next just by looking at the board view most CRMs have.

Deal Stage Outline: [Activity -> Artifact]

  1. Warming -> Meeting
  2. Excite -> NDA
  3. Champion -> Deck
  4. Sponsor -> Acknowledgement
  5. Objections -> Implementation Plan
  6. Contracting -> Close

Out of scope of this post is anything that happens upstream with marketing, leads, or prospecting; or downstream around close for implementation. Though you should know that sales engineering and implementation teams can be incredible at producing artifacts–some of the best as they really paint the picture to stakeholders all the things that need to happen.

Stage 1 : Warming -> Meeting

if you don’t have scheduled meetings, you’ve got nothing…

Obviously, this is for enterprise sales of scale and complexity not for product led growth. But if you have a product the requires internal assent and implementation, and you can’t get a meeting you are nowhere.

What you and the buyer are doing at this stage: The activity here is to warm the prospect up to a meeting with the deal champion. If you’re getting a bunch of hot inbound leads, maybe you’re only accepting leads that are already here. If you’re meeting suitable prospects at a conference and determining that you want to work on them after the conference, there might be work to do.

The big mistake here is failing to practice sales myopia — meaning just get the client to do the next thing. Don’t sell them the product. Your job here is not to close, it is get them to the meeting. That’s it. You probably don’t want to get them to the meeting under completely false pretenses and with a closed mind — we’re selling valuable solutions not timeshares — but you don’t need to take them further in outreach than it would be worth a quick conversation.

The artifact and how to inspect it: The artifact here is really simple, it is an accepted calendar invite and a follow-up e-mail confirming the discussion points in the call. The “A grade” here is if the seller establishes custody of the deal by getting the buyer to agree to do homework and setting a fixed time to check on the homework, so in addition to the calendar invite and

A lot of times, they are going to agree something to the effect of, ‘Yes, I’m a real prospect, I’m interested, let’s start working on doing something… Oh you mean the next step in our process is already started on this meeting and it gives you a natural idea about really light piece of homework that I can do to advance the deal? Oh wow, how did you think of that? Did you sell this before?” And you can start to see how artifacts naturally move the deal along.

One part that’s hard to inspect at this stage, is that you really shouldn’t move to stage two until unless you think you’ve met the champion. There is no definitive rule for a champion, with practice in your context you should get the hang of it looking at a combination of title, background, how they talk, and who their boss is. If you don’t think you’ve met the champion, that’s okay, you may have met a guide. Guides can see the promise of your solution but are for whatever reason unable to champion, but are often well connected in the organization. Use the meeting to try to meet others in the organization until you meet your champion.

Stage 2: Excite -> NDA

if they won’t sign an NDA, they aren’t going to sign anything else…

What you and the buyer are doing at this stage: You are trying to get the prospect excited enough to commit to exploring what commercial opportunity exists. The prospect is trying to decide if they even want to invest the effort to truly evaluate your offering. I don’t have a universal prescription — this is the art part of sales here. Depending on the product, industry, and the audience you might establish a great rapport, tell success stories, ask Socratic questions, show slick videos, offer advice, share compelling data that you’ve gathered, tease info under NDA, do something I’ve left out, or use a combination of the above. You want to get the point where your prospective champion says, “Yeah it is likely that you could help us, but for you to really scope helping us, we’d need to share proprietary information” — I’ve suggested this with success in a “Many of other clients…” kind of way when it feels like we are there but the prospect champion won’t say it.

The artifact and how to inspect it: A mutual NDA signed by both parties is one of my favorite artifacts because it is so easy, can be fast, and you learn so much while still pretty early in the process. While an attorney I am related to once said, “NDAs have more value as toilet paper than as legal agreements,” they are incredibly useful as sales artifacts because they confirm the intent of both parties to behave in a genteel and respectful fashion in regards to the discussion while preserving certain IP rights. You also learn a ton as the seller: “will they sign anything?” if so, “how fast?” and “is their legal department a bunch of #)*$*&%Rs?” etc. etc. Also, despite the near non-enforceability of NDAs, there is something about having signatures next to each other on the page that give everyone involved a sense that ‘Okay, there’s an agreement, were working on something, not just talking’ — like everyone at least needs show up to the meeting to say ‘no, not right now’ you can’t just blow this off. In the negative, if the prospect won’t sign an NDA, they won’t sign your contract with non-disclosure clauses in it, and they maybe signaling that they’re talking to you to steal your IP and waste your time.

Here is an Example NDA – that I really like because it is complete and fits on one page.

Stage 3: Champion -> Deck

The heart of the sale

Here is where you document what has the champion excited for their organization and turn a prospective champion into an actual champion

What you and the buyer are doing: Ideally, you are listening and asking great questions that are informed by your unique insights and the prospective champion is selling themselves and dropping the prospective label. If possible, you want to promise to solve detailed objections later, though you may have handle some now in order to get permission to proceed. After listening to the champion you want to write down what you heard and present it back to get co-authorship.

The artifact and how to inspect it: The outcome of this stage is a co-authored deck that can be used with or without you to gain executive sponsorship. Even if you came in through a top down motion, your now-not-prospective champion will have to get permission from the relevant executive to proceed to a real buying process.

To get to this co-authored value deck, you write down everything you heard.

  • Background – how the deal came to be, who is involved
  • Discussion points – in the clients words what are we trying to do
  • Vendor description – customized to say the relevant qualifications to this buyer
  • Vendor Perspective & proof points – You chance to articulate how your unique proposition answers the concerns / discussion points of the buyer
  • Next steps – Probably leave blank [Hmmm… I wonder if we could ask some questions that might allow the buyer to come up with next steps which are the next steps in this process?]
  • Anything else cool you think your champion might want to share

These decks should not look like trash but they shouldn’t look too polished either. Companies usually don’t use designers for internal decks–we’re trying to make this look like the champion’s work even though we’re going to do as much of it as we can. Also, when you present to the champion the first time, you don’t want deck to be too correct. Close enough that the champion is going to vibe with it, but also off the mark enough that they will ask you to make a bunch of changes. These changes are critical the achievement of co-authorship.

At the end of the day if you have a deck, in the champion’s hands, where the champion is saying, “Yes, this represents what I think about your solution and we’ll go win internal allies, especially a sponsor,” then you have completed this stage. As always, depending on what blows your receive later you may have to come back to prior stage, but now you have a written artifact to fall back on and ask what changed or what is wrong to evaluate subsequent steps.

Stage 4: Sponsor -> Acknowledgement

It should be downhill from this stage, even if 2/3rds of the work still remains

Your champion needs top cover from the internal politics of the organization. You need to get it for them and get it in a way

What you and the buyer are doing: You are taking the co-authored deck to whomever sponsors this kind of purchase at an executive level.

The artifact and how to inspect it: This artifact is fuzzier than many of the others. The A+ version of this is an e-mail from the sponsor, which thanks you for co-presenting with your champion to the singular executive sponsor and promises to fire anyone who gets in the way of completion and implementation. That happens to me about 1-2% of the time.

The other 98%+ of the time, you as the seller need to help your champion navigate the internal politics. Can’t be at the sponsorship meeting? Help them prepare and write deliverables for them. The sponsorship entity is committee? You and the champion are meeting 1:1 with committee members in advance, handling objections outside the committee meeting, and counting votes. Executive sponsor bought-in during the meeting, but no follow-up? Then you are sending a thank you note confirming and thanking them for everything they said in the meeting. This essentially invites them to disagree with you, otherwise you can come back to them and ask for sponsor intervention if things get stuck later.

If your champion says you have sponsorship, but you have no written artifact confirming it, be very careful… you almost certainly do not. Your champion is probably confused not actively trying to deceive you. It would be useful to try to test your status with the champion’s permission with a thank you note to the executive sponsor.

Stage 5: Objections -> Implementation Plan

Getting complete clarity on both sides…

This stage is often incredibly frustrating for sales people. It kind of feels like the sale is made and you’re waiting to get a contract. I would encourage you to think of this differently, you’ve made the sale to some of the key stakeholders but not all of the stakeholders. This is the stage where you get total clarity on the deal. It is also the most customized by product and industry.

What you and the buyer are doing: At this point you have, executive sponsorship acknowledged in writing and champion who is armed with written materials that explain at a high level why your offering is great for the organization–and pointedly left out is how your solution will get your champion promoted. Now is the time where you have to get really clear on how this great initiative that you share with your champion will actually be a success. Depending on your product you will have different stakeholders and objectors. If you can anticipate what will happen at this stage, you can often overcome objectors by seeming really professional and having a canned–but also customizable — “implementation plan” or other package of deliverables for this stage.

The artifact and how to inspect it: I’m calling this document an implementation plan, but it might have a different name in your vertical. To give you an inductive flavor, here are some examples of the key points in some different verticals that I’ve sold in:

  • In remote sensing data: This document contains a really complete specification of collection operations, data quality and definitions, an API integration plan/timeline, and a plan for commercial rollout of derivative products.
  • In security automation: There is a small section on how procedures and staffing will change–honestly not much more than the ROI section of champion deck. Then there is a ton of information on a per building basis about which building systems the product will integrate with who the integrator(s) will be, how they will be managed, which teams and systems have which security certifications, and how all the systems will or will not talk to each other.
  • In Electronics Design Software: There is huge emphasis on how the design and quality assurance process. There is probably a high level mapping of big changes enabled by automation–is the organization going to shift design work or reviews around in some major way– and then there is an almost feature by feature mapping of how will individual contributors accomplish specific designs that are of interest. Probably a few other things like integration, training, and support get covered.
  • In Robotics and Vehicle Automation: The big emphasis is on the project plan: the requirements for staffing and delivery both on the technology provider and OEM side. Key things to cover are how the OEM team can take action on their own and what happens and who pays when inevitably the 3rd party hardware vendor fails to deliver on time.

One note here is that the ideal place to be here is to have explicit ROI, a strong plan with all details of implementation, and timeline to get through legal, close, and kickoff the project. Ideally, you will have quoted a rough order of magnitude price or some approximate formula, but still have a little wiggle room on implementation charges. Another thing to consider putting in here is also a change order and business review process. Very few complex deals with implementation services survive contact with reality perfectly, it is better to surface the idea that you’ll true up and adjust as needed and on a regular cadence.

Stage 6: Contracting -> Close

Now the sale is actually being completed!

This stage is exactly what you think it is… Though sometimes you can start its activities in parallel with the objections to implementation stage if you know that legal is going to be slow.

What you and the buyer are doing: If you are faced with an internal legal department, they have to prove that they are looking out for the company. My take is that they very rarely are in the sense that the cost in money and delay that they exact are rarely worth the contract “improvements” that they make. The implementation plan can do a lot to illustrate what the gain for the company is and the timeline on which legal review must take place is. This gives your champion a powerful tool to manage their own legal department. Ideally, you also have some room to raise the price during this period if timelines are shrinking or legal is getting nasty without blowing up your champion’s internal credibility. This further strengthens your champion’s hand to push for contract approval.

The artifact and how to inspect it: At base, this is a signed contract that you can live with according your own business and legal review. And congrats! If you got to the end here and got a signature, you’ve won a deal!!! Now the real work of delivery begins, but take a minute to celebrate.

Contact me for an example if you’re in robotics services, I have modular contract from TerrAvion that has been deployed elsewhere and even been arbitrated over.

The Biggest Way Visionaries Confuse Founders about Building a Sales Process

Visionaries are awesome! They make start-ups succeed and can be a start-up’s secret superpower, especially when the start-up delights (or gets promoted) their visionary adopters. The title of the post is not to say that you shouldn’t find visionaries–if you run a start-up you absolutely should–it is to warn you about where to start thinking about the customers that come next.

Visionaries are wired different. They want to be on the bleeding edge and they are willing to take the risk on an unproven product in order to be on the cutting edge of their field. Even early adopters, let alone mainstream customers, want to have high confidence that your product is going to work for them. Visionaries often don’t require approvals, they have the power to take action in their domain unilaterally–whether that’s because they are the owner/operator or because they are trusted implicitly. Usually visionaries meet the founder directly and make purchase decisions nearly unilaterally. They are usually also able to implicitly or explicitly translate your features into prospective value.

VisionariesEarly Adopters + Early Mainstream
Understand benefits from features aloneNeed benefits, value, and ROI to be explicit
Buy unilaterally or nearly soRequire approval and persuasion from at least an executive sponsor if not more stakeholders
Buy on the promise of the productRequire demonstration and guarantees
Interested in technical details and underlying innovationsWant social proof and case studies
Want to be on the cutting edgeWant their actual problem solved
differences between visionaries and early customers

Most start-ups need some visionaries their corner–some committed customers that are willing to put up with a product that is at best in development after providing a minimum quanta of value — and more realistically doesn’t work all the time. These customers provide the use and feedback and market validation that are often a start-up’s superpower in terms of creating the narrative that this company is going somewhere attracting the employees, investment, and follow-on customers that create a viable and growing business.

After you have a few of the visionaries in your corner, you’re going to want to get some early adopters. They are going to be quite different to sell to than visionaries, even though from a fundamental product needs perspective, they can often be quite close — though with a much higher product maturity expectation.

The second sales season at TerrAvion we could not figure out why some organizations closed and some did not that apparently looked very similar and had the same enthusiasm from the head of viticulture (our target champion). We were tripped up by learning that the sales process of early adopters looks like a mainstream sales process in the sense that early adopters often have stakeholders in a way that visionaries do not. We discovered that at early adopter prospects, our champion — the person that drives our deal, had to explain their spend to an executive sponsor. This was a big learning because all our visionary prospects the champion just said yes apparently without consulting anyone else after we explained our innovation. Further, even if the prospective champions at early adopters were quite effective at re-articulating our product benefit back to us, they were ineffective at articulating this their boss in greater than 90% of cases. We learned by looking backwards that where we had approached the executive sponsor first, made our case to them, and gotten a warm intro to our champion–essentially all of our deals closed.

This is not to say that all sales should use a top down sales motion. Your market may–and probably will–vary, but you should expect that the process for early adopters is different and involves more stakeholders than visionary sales and that while visionaries can help you build your product and get reference for success, they probably don’t help you learn to sell to other prospects. They may actually train you on bad habits of talking about features, selling in fluid conversation instead of through a process with structured documentation shared with the client, and not paying attention to all the necessary stakeholders. You should expect to have to map stakeholders and executive sponsorship in the deal. You should expect to draft “customized” materials for your client to help them make a decision with stakeholder involvement. You should expect to have to provide references and social proof. You should expect to demonstrate value in the sales process, not just promise of value.

The takeaway advice here is that you should definitely cultivate your visionaries–and even turn them into evangelists if you can. That said, as you depart from them as sales targets, you should plan to re-evaluate your sales motion. Most B2B start-ups that I’ve been at have somewhere on the order of 2-10 visionary clients — after that you start to need to follow a disciplined sales process. It is okay to not to have it all in place as you start trying things, but don’t over index on the sales learnings from the visionary customers. Good luck and let me know if I can help!

Also, if this was helpful, check back soon for a post on how to build that structured sales process.

The first time the champion asks about price, it isn’t about price

In most enterprise deals I’ve been a part of there are two conversations about price. One can easily slow or lose the sale by failing to distinguish the conversations.

The first time you are likely to get asked about price is relatively early on in the deal, usually after the deal champion has gotten excited and interested about the deal. It often sounds like, “So how much is this going to cost?” And usually there is a degree of rapport with the champion that was just established so that you as the seller want to be direct. The problem is that the champion isn’t actually asking you what the price is.

The champion is usually really asking is: “Are you a qualified vendor and which procurement process do I need to use?” They aren’t actually looking for a price, though that’s great if you want to give it to them. If you tell them <$100 they might just put it on the credit card right then and there; and if you tell them more than the divisional budget, they are going to walk. Ideally if you can guide them to understand that you’ll be in their budget, and whether they have to use their light or heavy approval approval process, they are likely to be accepting of doing the work to procure your solution at some semblance of a reasonable price for you as the vendor.

If you can answer the question by giving the champion enough information to put you in the right process you don’t actually have to answer the question of “how much does this cost.” In fact, a vague answer here can help advance a good deal and help the buyer by pivoting to the scoping conversation and the levers to pull to create maximum value for the buyer. If you can get the buyer to have that conversation you have an excellent shot at getting a perfectly scoped deal in front of the executive sponsor and procurement.

The second time (although it may come up a few times in a fashion similar to the first time) that you will discuss price, it is about price. Hopefully, the second time is after you have executive sign-off that the solution you are presenting is correctly scoped, needed now, you are the preferred vendor, the ROI of your solution over alternatives including doing nothing is quantifiable with proprietary data of the buyer, and in the budget that you’ve learned. If you’ve gotten to this point with the buyer, it is as good a position as you’ll ever be in to present lucrative pricing as a win / win partnership and solid investment for the buyer–ideally because it is true. And if you have to discount, ideally it is because it actually is in your interest as the seller.

Good luck bringing your innovation to the world!

What sales and marketing software should I pick for my start-up?

I’ve been asked a few times recently for my opinion about CRMs (Customer Relationship Management systems: sales and marketing software) recently, so I thought I’d write down my thoughts.

Bottom line, what sales and marketing stack should I pick for my start-up? HubSpot.

I recently ran a selection at my current org (growth stage B2B start-up) with Insightly, Zoho, and HubSpot as the finalists. We ended up going with HubSpot because it integrated with other tools that the others did not, it has a sophistication in the Marketing + CRM + Support integration (a more fundamental sharing of information and database integration), and was more prepared for the scale we are aiming for in the next 24 months. Having marketing and support ticketing integrated with the CRM is really powerful, especially for a start-up.

All three are good, modern SaaS choices that should work to a high degree of scale. Success will mostly be determined by how you use and implement, rather than what tool you pick. That said, there is a reason why must start-ups pick HubSpot, it is kind of like picking QuickBooks for accounting, you are far more likely to find people who understand the tool and far more likely that your other (or future) tools integrate well with it.

Zoho or Insightly or some other system seems like it will be a lot cheaper, is the price difference worth it?

First, price differences are likely posturing. If you say want to go with HubSpot or Insightly you should share with your sales rep what annual number takes the cake; ask for a YC/start-up/end of year/etc. discount. The marginal cost to serve your org for any of these companies is near zero, they will negotiate on price—whatever they tell you. In fact they signal this by offering a free tier to get started that has most of the features–just not a few key ones to do material amounts of revenue. Finally, if well executed this is the software that your customer facing team will live in and it will be integrated with your product (e.g. help chat) it is worth it pay a few percent more to get the right thing to help your company grow.

We’re all hackers, we can hack together a Zapier thing or get Salesforce running, why not do one of those?

Many start-ups pick Salesforce, this is generally aping large companies in a bad way—unless you have the resources for customization, you’re buying enterprise grade that is unlikely to work ‘out of the box.’ I would also note that my current organization was switching from Salesforce + Pardot + spreadsheet ticketing which was a failed implementation for a variety of reasons but mostly related to common ones that cause Salesforce implementations to fail–it is too complicated and crufty for the sales team to manage without a bunch of support. And I cannot tell you how many failed start-up Salesforce CRM implementations I’ve seen. To be clarify, I haven’t personally seen a successful Salesforce implementation at a company with less than $100M ARR. I’ve heard about start-ups hiring a hot sales executive who really knows Salesforce inside and out starting on Salesforce–but to me at least someone who wants to start on Salesforce while you’re still implementing and small–to me it call into question whether that executive knows what they are getting into at a start-up more than it endorses Salesforce.

My current organization and past organizations I’ve been in are not fans of Zapier integrations as they are often too fragile to be maintained by business people, which is ultimately where integrations and data sharing between customer facing IT systems need to sit. Your sales team is not a bunch of hackers, they are bunch of social engineers. Don’t make them hack. Zapier is fine later if you discover some critical business process is downloading, re-formatting, and re-uploading data to some other system, but it isn’t a good design starting place.

Final Thoughts

The key to early stage sales is to discover a “growth motion” that works. That is a combination of marketing activities, sales process, and an offering to clients that works. The tricky thing is that this can change as you grow for example distribution can be catastrophically dangerous for deal number one, but distribution might be what makes a company. More mundanely, the degree of social proof required goes up as you march from visionary to mainstream buyers, but the availability of said proof does too–you need to understand what’s working, what’s not, where things are going off the rails, etc. CRMs are powerful tools, but like any tool, the wielder is more important than the tool. Go get yourself HubSpot and good luck growing your start-up!

Flag

Example Start-up Procedures Guide / Operating Handbook free to copy

My former start-up, TerrAvion, integrated many disciplines, not just of engineering, but of business and operations as well. We ran into a bunch of problems where software engineers, marketers, operators, technicians, pilots, salespeople, and finance professionals just didn’t have a shared set of expectations about vocabulary, reasonable processes, or what the other groups would do.

To overcome this friction, we wrote an operating handbook that I think is useful in two ways. Most obviously, employees can look and see how things are supposed to work; less obviously, the exercise of putting this together forces management to be on the same page have standardized vocabulary and goals.

I wouldn’t recommend anyone using TerrAvion’s handbook without thinking about whether decisions TerrAvion made are right for your start-up, but if you need an example inspiration, a thing to start from, or just something to copy to get going, enjoy!

Direct Green House Gas Emissions Accounting

I am trying to understand the state of green house gas accounting and understand what implementing the standards looks like. My first look was not promising. I’ll walk through some examples where it seems like the methodologies below don’t work.

I took a look at the SASB accounting standards for GHG and on first inspection they seem to be totally lacking in anything like a complete general ledger for carbon.  The document SASB references for how to do carbon accounting to standard is at the World Resource Institute’s Green House Gas Protcol which was co-developed by the World Business Council for Sustainable Development.  All the sustainability standards approach GHG as just a part of a disclosure/risk mitigation framework and are really financial reporting not, actual “direct” GHG accounting.

If these standards represent the state of the industry, they have very developed attribution / recognition protocols–perhaps too developed–but they haven’t figured out how to keep a general ledger.  I understand the difficulty, one side of the balance sheet is by a public commons, but I’m starting to ponder if there’s a way technology can help monitor that…
Maybe that’s my fundamental point here… carbon deserves its own “general ledger” and there are going to be problems–like the ones I’ve seen in agriculture–that won’t get solved until we have something like a general ledger and people know how to use it.

Waking Back-up

I remain interested in the same problems of building automation businesses and scaling them. I have much more to say on this, but for now I just wanted to wake the blog back-up.

Also, in this remote sensing journey, I got an itch I can’t quite scratch about green house gas emissions reporting. My basic take is that this system doesn’t really exist yet, is broken, or is green washing. I’m starting to learn about the standard and accounting methods and will report back.

Drones Grow-Up

Our industry has been growing up!  We should be glad that the authorities are finally starting to prosecute people on the basis of illegal drone flights.  We have finally arrived.  Our industry is now important enough that the authorities are taking action to remove bad operators from our ranks.

There have been two recent high-profile prosecutions of small unmanned systems operators.  First, Raphael Pirker of Team Black Sheep got at $10,000 fine from the FAA that he is vigorously contesting.  You can see the video that got him in trouble below.

http://www.suasnews.com/2013/10/25619/the-1st-faa-prosecution-of-a-civilian-drone-uav-we-are-change/

Then, the NYPD charged the drone pilot in Manhattan who crashed his drone with reckless endangerment.  He also made a video of his face before the drone took off.

Drone Arrest

http://abclocal.go.com/wabc/story?section=news/investigators&id=9292217

Both these incidents are are clearly inappropriate flights, well outside of FAA guidelines for hobbyists and rules for aircraft.  The authorities are doing their job in prosecuting and it is going to improve the industry.  We’ve had a “grey area” in aerial robotics for too long.  Yes, we need better rules and FAA rule making for UAS cannot come soon enough.  In the meantime though, our dislike of the current regulatory structure is not enough for us to substitute our judgement for the FAA’s.  In neither case, is the prosecution talking about destroying the life of the operator.  We are talking about fines and a misdemeanor charge.

These seem like appropriate punishments to remind everyone that there are rules about where we can fly and how.  Much, much more airspace will be open to robotic craft, eventually.  In the meantime, we as an industry have to address the concerns of the non-participating community.  They did not consent to have a quad-copter or any other aircraft falling on their heads.  The manned aviation community has built-up an elaborate system to persuaded the public that they can have some certainty of not killing people, particularly on the ground.

One of the points that is sometimes lost on the robotics community is how well our current regulatory structure actually works.  Most of the economic gains from aviation are being captured.  Commercial flights are cheap and safe–there have been two commercial fatalities in the last four years and it is cheaper in real terms than almost ever before.  All this success in commercial aviation has not precluded general aviation and RC hobbyists from pursing their interests.

We are certainly missing some gains from unmanned aircraft, but the largest applications for civilian use of drones remain undiscovered.  Technology spreads based on benefits, regaldless of the law.  If hobbyist style drones provided tangible benefits that had been discovered they would already be as widespread as, say, illegal file-sharing.  And on movie sets, quad-copters now common, but the movie helicopter shot market is not all that large at any price.  If this analysis is correct, since testing continues on drones of all classes, the FAA’s lethargic pace on the new rules has not had as much adverse impact as many in our industry like to imagine.

Given the only hypothetical benefit and the very real danger of unregulated drone flights it seems imprudent of authorities to let the industry go with no enforcement.  Non-enforcement discourages entry by law-abiding players and erodes the integrity of all firms involved in the industry.  If this is ever going to be more than a few guys out tinkering with electronic toys, the industry will have to show it is responsible enough to operate over people’s heads.  This is not going to happen if we resist and tolerate a disregard for regulation.  Many industries have used regulation to expand their reach, by necessity, the aerial robotic market will be one of them.

Is there an open-source / closed-source dichotomy in robotics?

Is there an open-source / closed-source dichotomy in robotics?

I just put up a new piece over at Robohub discussing how open-source and closed-source can live harmoniously in robotics–because all robots are services.