9654467111 Call Girls In Katwaria Sarai Short 1500 Night 6000
April 25 speaking 2
1. Are you a sprinter who can run the 100 in a flash or are you a long-distance
runner with your eye on pacing yourself? If you are slow to leave the block or
never enter the race, you will not survive.
Let the Race Begin
Are you up to the challenge?
Only you can decide!
IMF: The head of the International Monetary Fund Christine Lagarde warned today that leading nations need to embrace bold policy steps to accelerate a still-modest and fragile global economic recovery. The world still struggles to emerge from the 2008 financial crisis, economies are under threat from tensions involving Ukraine and Russia to inaction in countries that should be driving growth.
The European Central Bank, for example, should consider lowering interest rates further and using unconventional policies to support growth and fight inflation.
WORLD BANK
"The performance of advanced economies is gaining momentum, which will support stronger growth in developing countries.Even battered Europe is on the mend, Eurostat reported on Tuesday that factories in the eurozone ramped up output in November after two months of decline. Industrial production rose 1.8% from October.The Federal Reserve's slow retrenchment of its economic stimulus campaign - which served to push down interest rates the world over could be a risk BUT
"Whatever negative effect the taper might have there will be an offset by stronger growth in high-income countries," Andrew Burns, the lead author of the report, said in an interview. "It's not a doom-and-gloom scenario."
He noted that markets responded calmly when the Fed announced its decision late last year to begin cutting its asset purchases, by an increment of $10 billion, from $85 billion a month.
Most believe that slower growth might be healthier and more stable, driven by improving economic fundamentals rather than cheap money and financial bubbles.
5
Turning the corner. CFOS are more positive about the US global economies than they have been heading into any year since the onset of economic recession in 2008. Once again the US economy rated highest, at 53 out of 100, representing a 4-point improvement over the start of 2013, and 9 points higher than 2012. This upward trend mirrors steady improvement in housing, stocks, employment, sales and other key US economic indicators. The global economy reading also rose 5 points year over year, from 45 to 50 and has gained 7 points since 2012.
CHARTER FINANCIAL ANALYST HAS OVER 100K members world wide.
In short, we are here to lead, support, and
connect all those who want to create a
better investment industry.
Abenomics refers to the economic policies advocated by Shinzō Abe since the December 2012 general election, which elected Abe to his second term as Prime Minister of Japan. Abenomics is based upon "three arrows" of fiscal stimulus, monetary easing and structural reforms.[1] The Economist characterized the program as a "mix of reflation, government spending and a growth strategy designed to jolt the economy out of suspended animation that has gripped it for more than two decades."[2]
• North American economies are top growth by 72% of CFOs – well ahead of China (39%) and Europe (25%). All sectors are above 55% for North America except for Technology at 43%.
• Industry-specific demand is a substantial growth aid for 61% of companies, driven mostly by positive sentiment in Manufacturing and Energy/Resources. Technology and Services
CFOs are the most likely to name this factor a top impediment.
• Industry dynamics are a positive factor for 48% of CFOs overall and a negative factor for 20%. Manufacturing and Technology CFOs are the most positive, and
Healthcare/Pharma is the most negative.
• Technology advancements and capital availability are substantial aids for about 40% of companies. Retail/Wholesale is the anomaly with little boost from either of these factors.
Impediments center heavily on government policy:
• Industry-specific regulation is the top impediment, cited by 45% of CFOs. Financial Services CFOs (54%), Healthcare/Pharma (67%), and Services (63%) are most likely to name this factor an impediment.
• Government spending/budget policy is a substantial impediment for 40% of CFOs overall and for 67% of those in Healthcare/Pharma.
• Talent costs are a substantial impediment for 40% of CFOs, especially for those in Healthcare/Pharma and T/M/E.
IT IS THE CONSENSUS THAT RESTORING TRUST HAS TO BE THE TOP GOAL.
SHOW FCW MAGAZINE ARTICLE ********
We should include middle market companies too.
Middle market companies are increasingly exploring different paths to growth, from creating deeper relationships with existing customers to entering new markets that have great potential. Why now? Economic optimism is the highest it’s been in our annual survey since 2008. Most companies are expecting to increase sales in 2014, while also expanding or maintaining the size of their workforce. In addition, companies continue to actively pursue opportunities to buy, sell and expand globally
SHOW FORTUNE MAGAZINE JAPAN ARTICLE.
Play BNY VIDEO
Globally, members cite improved regulation and oversight of global systemic risks as the most important action needed in 2014 to build investor trust and market integrity. For their local markets, members say better enforcement of existing laws and stronger corporate governance standards are the steps needed to improve market integrity.
Globally, MOST CFOS have Concerns about geopolitical instability and its implications for global growth have surged, according to McKinsey’s latest survey on economic conditions. 70% of all respondents cite geopolitical tensions as a risk to growth in the global economy over the next year, up from 27 percent in December, as the recent turmoil in Ukraine and Russia has left executives across Europe divided.
On average, executives remain optimistic about conditions in both their home countries and the global economy, though sluggish demand still tops their list of domestic concerns. Among non-eurozone respondents in Europe, however, economic expectations have taken a turn for the worse. They cite geopolitical issues most often as a risk to their countries’ domestic growth. Relative to their peers in the eurozone, they are much more negative about current conditions at home and in the world economy—and more pessimistic about economic prospects in the months ahead.
SHOW BLOOMBERG FREEZE YOUR EGGS GLOBAL ECONOMICS
Threats to domestic growth differ for developed and emerging markets.
So why IS demand low? Executives are divided over the causes. Respondents in emerging markets are nearly 9 times as likely as those in developed markets to cite high inflation, while much larger shares in developed markets attribute low demand to deteriorating household finances and postponed consumption.
SHOW FCW MAGAZINE ARTICLE DOOMED TO DYSFUNCTION
As in December, emerging-market executives are more worried about asset bubbles. They cite these more often as an overall risk to growth and are twice as likely as developed-market executives to say that over the next six months, asset bubbles will pose a significant threat to growth at home.
3 primary economic concerns remain top-of-mind for CFOs in 2014, which they have cited in varying order for the past 3 years.
HEALTHCARE COSTS at 67%.
EFFECTIVENESS OF US GOVERNEMTN (62%) a very close 2nd. SHOW AGAIN FCW ARTICLE DOOMED TO DYSFUNCTION
BUDGET DEFICIT (57%) not too far behind.
2/3s of all US companies express concerns about the potential impact healthcare costs will have on the economy in 2014, up significantly from 62% in 2013 and 60% in 2012.
Most CFOs report that their labor costs mill rise to cover the costs of the Affordable Care Act. On Average companies are expecting their labor costs to increase 7.4%
EMPLOYEES WILL PAY MORE
Increasing how much employees pay for healthcare is the number-one way that most company's (77%) plan to offset their escalating labor costs; followed by cutting spending in other areas (75%). Many companies are also planning to implement preventative healthcare programs (71%) and raise prices on their products and services (63%). There are some notable differences between how large and small companies intend to offset their rising labor costs. Large companies with sales between $500M and $2B are significantly more likely than small companies ($25M-$75M) to implement preventative healthcare programs (87% vs. 64%) and to make changes in their Retirement Plan Services (39% vs. 18%). Small companies, in contrast, are more likely than large corporations to be planning to raise prices to offset these costs (65% vs. 52%)
Nine out of 10 U.S. companies are maintaining or increasing the size of their workforce in 2014. Nearly half (47%) are hiring additional full-time employees, 43% will hold current staffing levels and 7% anticipate layoffs. In addition, 8% of companies plan to shift some full-time workers to part-time status and 5% will replace some full-time workers with contractors.
Qualified workers in demand The two most cited reasons for outsourcing work to contract employees are a lack of available qualified workers (39%) and uncertainty about escalating healthcare/insurance costs (27%).
Counting on employees Despite the projected rise in labor costs, 62% of companies do not plan to outsource work to contract employees in 2014. Among businesses that do plan to outsource work to contractors, most say that it will be about the same amount as in 2013.
IT WILL BE A MISTAKE IF YOU DON’T BUILD IN FAST PACE STRATEGY TO KEEP UP WITH CUSTOMER DEMANDS
Companies still mostly focused on growth, but there are signs of rising conservatism and defensiveness:
• Executing still over planning: The cross-industry bias shifted toward planning last quarter, but that trend reversed this quarter. Technology and Healthcare/Pharma indicate the highest focus on
refining/adapting strategy, but both still favor execution on the whole.
• Offense over defense, but defensiveness increasing: Companies still indicate a bias toward “pursuing opportunity” over “limiting risk,” but the margin declined notably and the proportion of those focused
on “contracting/ rationalizing” rose. Energy/Resources is again biased toward limiting risk and is among the most focused on contracting/rationalizing (along with Technology).
• Equal focus on cost and revenue: After three quarters of a strong revenue bias, there is now a roughly equal focus on revenue and cost. Only Energy/Resources (higher cost focus) and Services (higher revenue focus) deviate substantially from the average.
• New offerings over current offerings: The bias is again slightly toward new offerings, led by Technology and Healthcare/Pharma.
• Current geographies over new geographies: The bias is still substantially toward current geographies. Services is about evenly focused on current and new geographies; the other sectors are firmly focused on current geographies.
• Organic growth over inorganic growth: The bias is still toward organic growth. Healthcare/Pharma and Retail/Wholesale are the most oriented toward M&A.
• Direct-cost reduction over indirect-cost reduction: T/M/E again leans the most toward direct-cost reduction; Retail/Wholesale is biased toward indirect costs.
• Investing cash over returning it: Companies are biased toward investing cash in operations over raising dividends or buying back shares. Financial Services shows the highest focus on returning
cash, but is still focused primarily on investing it.
Collaboration with customers. 94% US companies intend to implement one or more Collaborative growth strategies in 2014 led by selling current customers more existing products and services (82%). Cultivating new customers or markets is the second most popular plan (77%), followed by introduction of new products or services (59%) and acquiring another company (25%)
PLANS are to get closer to customers and understand their needs and what other products and services they would like to have that might be an expansion of other products and services already being offered.
SHOW CIO MAGAZINE ARTICLE IT’S HERE THE AGE OF THE CUSTOMER.
SHOW BLOOMBERG ARTICLE COMPANIES INDUSTRIES PICK UP YOUR ADD IS CALLING.
Starting in familiar territory. EXTEND PRODUCTS AND SERVICES
While 64% companies who are pursuing growth strategies in 2014 say the growth will be all domestic, 1 in 5 predict mostly domestic growth with some international expansion. Of the remaining US companies 15% believer that growth will either be geographically balanced or entirely overseas.
Extending Product Lines
Half of the companies that plan to grow by launching new products and services say their offering will extend an existing product or service line, and 42% report that the new offering will represent both an extension and diversification of their current products and services. Only 7% will be introducing an entirely new product or service.
Acquiring the competition
Among those companies planning to make and acquisition in 2014. 85% expect to buy a competitor, while 28% will acquire a supplier and 18% a distributor. This correlates to the focus on growth strategies that enable doing more business with current customers, winning new customers and introducing new products and services.
INVESTING IN RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT
72% of CFOs report that their 2014 R&D expenses will be about the same as they were in 2013, 19% are forecasting year over year increases and 8% are cutting their company's R&D levels.
The average finance organization makes substantial contributions in seven areas; the strongest contributions are around strategy support, and the weakest are around sales and marketing. THIS HAS TO CHANGE.
Key elements are possible partnerships with others or acquisitions to round out product offerings
• Scope of support: CFOs in Services and Manufacturing indicate broader average reach at 9 areas, while Financial Services and Retail/Wholesale are narrower at 6. All organizations contribute
substantially in at least one of the areas of business strategy, acquisitions/divestitures, shared services costs, or working capital; 60% contribute to all four of these areas, with Financial Services
CFOs highest at 83%.
• Strategy contributions: Eighty-five percent of finance organizations contribute substantially to business strategy support (only Technology and TME are below 75%), and 66% contribute to
competitive strategy. Only 5% of organizations do not contribute to either area of strategy development. More than 83% of organizations contribute to acquisitions and divestitures
bottom-line contributions: Eighty-seven percent of CFOs say their finance organizations make a substantial contribution to shared services cost management. Eighty percent of those that
support production also contribute to PP&E support. The Services sector contributes the most to service delivery and sourcing.
• Balance sheet contributions: Ninety percent of CFOs say their finance organizations contribute to balance sheet management. Eighty-six percent contribute to working capital management, and
63% percent contribute to PP&E support. Organizations in Financial
Services contribute the least in both areas.
Bottom-line contributions: Eighty-seven percent of CFOs say
their finance organizations make a substantial contribution to
shared services cost management. Eighty percent of those that
support production also contribute to PP&E support. The Services
sector contributes the most to service delivery and sourcing.
So why is this slide important? It shows what indicators are typically being monitored by the bulk of the CFOs in the market. SINCE the competition for hiring talent will be fierce in 2014, you might want to rethink increasing your knowledge around your internal customer satisfaction with an eye on affective collaboration within and between all groups of the company. Your roll in how collaboration within the company affects the overall performance can be crucial to your survival in the years to come.
About one-third of performance measures are business-level,
and the remaining two thirds are specific to finance:
• Cost is the most prevalent: About half of all CFOs named cost
as one of their top metrics (total costs, total headcount, costs as
a percent of revenue, etc.).
• Fundamental reporting is the foundation: The timeliness and
quality of financial reporting and the close process are among
the most-mentioned measures at 27% and 21%, respectively.
• Business support is the core: Business support metrics were
mentioned more than any other single category, led by internal
client satisfaction scores, achievement of plans/budgets, and
forecast accuracy (at 24%, 22%, and 21%, respectively).
• Bottom-line business performance is a factor: About one-
third of all metrics were organization-wide metrics, led by
compliance, cash flows, and income statement performance.
Companies also struggle to measure the impact of skill sets and training on business performance: 50 percent of respondents say their companies keep track of direct feedback, and at best 30 percent use any other kind of metric. In addition, a third of respondents don’t know the return on their companies’ training investment. Because companies don’t know the impact of the quality of skills and training, they appear to set their agendas using different measures, including prioritizing by employee role, which may not actually result in the most impact to the bottom line.
Executives at companies where training is reported to be least effective, for example, are more likely to invest in training for the leadership team and least likely to spend on the front line—despite this group’s more immediate impact on operations. In contrast, effective companies invest the most in training the front line (Exhibit 4).
In addition, although resistance to change is often viewed as a barrier to building new capabilities, almost as many respondents to this survey identified a lack of resources and an unclear vision as barriers (Exhibit 5)
Here is what we have found: If we put a COLLABORATIVE LEADER to interact with teams who have people also with a collaborative mindset. We get High performance.
If the leader is NOT a collaborative individual, it doesn’t really matter who else might be collaborative in the team. The team still a low performing unit.
By mapping collaborative performance, we can determine how to put high performing teams together.
What companies need in a collaborative age is the ability to map and analyze the value created (or destroyed) deep within employee networks. Sophisticated network analysis approaches have emerged from the academic world during the past two decades. But they have tended to focus more on individual than organizational effectiveness and on communications, work flows, and the exchange of resources rather than on the value those interactions create.4 To make these tools more useful, executives must reorient them toward the revenue and productivity benefits that collaborative interactions generate, the costs such interactions impose, and opportunities to improve connectivity at the points that create the greatest economic value.
Are you stuck in the mud?
Are employees disengaged?
How do you reignite passion amongst workers?
CEOs know they must spark cross-functional, and even cross-organizational collaboration, capturing and leveraging diverse cultural and generational experiences and perspectives in order to maintain their competitive edge and improve productivity.
So why is it companies seem to be handcuffed in stasis, unable to break out and innovate in the manner they seek?
Much of the inertia comes from the very structure of the organization itself; its hierarchy. Several years ago I wrote in my book, “How we structure the organization is a reflection of how we perceive function, and once established, how we function is highly influenced by our structure.” Hierarchical structure is ideal for creating economies of scale and wringing out variability of processes (think Six Sigma) in pursuit of quality through standardization. But it comes at a price. Hierarchies also introduce layer upon layer of barriers to communication and cooperation resulting in silos of thought and the defense of symbolic, if only imaginary, turf. Years of downsizing and cost cutting has exacerbated these barriers as associates keep their heads down and dig in their heels with their peers and direct reports.
Hierarchies have been the dominant structure for so long it may seem this form of organization structure is the de facto, natural form of large organizations. This hasn’t always been the case. In fact, a recent discovery of what is quite likely one of the first corporate Org Charts, created by an executive for the New York and Erie Railroad, circa 1855, shows an entirely different perspective. Instead of the top-down pyramid of hierarchical structure, we see a bottom up organization that resembles a tree. The board of directors are represented at the roots and executive management moves up into the trunk while line managers branch out along the various front lines of the railroad. This places leadership at the base and reflects a perspective of senior leadership’s role in nurturing and providing strength for the growth of the corporation, empowering front line management with the authority to make immediate decisions in real-time. This was no small issue when trains ran in two directions on the same tracks. Any miscommunication, in the age of the telegraph, would result in horrific, head-on collisions. Not good for the paying customers or the shareholders, to say the least.
We cannot ignore the daily demands of running a company, which traditional hierarchies and managerial processes can still do very well. What they do not do well is identify the most important hazards and opportunities early enough, formulate creative strategic initiatives nimbly enough, and implement them fast enough. The existing structures and processes that together form an organization’s operating system need an additional element to address the challenges produced by mounting complexity and rapid change. The strategy system has its roots in familiar structures, practices, and thinking. Many start-ups, for example, are organized more as networks than as hierarchies, because they need to be nimble and creative in order to grab opportunities. Even in mature organizations, informal networks of change agents frequently operate under the hierarchical radar. What I am describing also echoes much of the most interesting management thinking of the past few decades—from Michael Porter’s wake-up call that organizations need to pay attention to strategy much more explicitly and frequently, to Clayton Christensen’s insights about how poorly traditionally organized companies handle the technological discontinuities inherent in a faster-moving world, to recent work by the Nobel laureate Daniel Kahneman (Thinking, Fast and Slow, 2011) describing the brain as two coordinated systems, one more emotional and one more rational. Realizing one cannot toss out the baby with the bath water, Professor Kotter recommends creating a concurrent, open network to reside alongside the hierarchy. One comprised of volunteers and guided by a coalition of cross-functional leaders. Strategic initiatives are spun out into the network to be acted upon and associates are asked to participate. This not only sidesteps hierarchical barriers, it provides fertile soil for Next Gen leaders to emerge. Leaders that influence and inspire through their ideas and actions. Leaders that can arise from any corner of the organization.
Open networks are those with “structural diversity”; where the people you know are not all connected to each other. Leaders with open networks are more likely to hear new information from disparate sources, be able to merge dissimilar ideas in a new creative thread and be able to capitalize on possible unseen opportunities. They tend to perform better, are promoted more rapidly, enjoy greater career mobility, and adapt to change more effectively (Burt, 1992; Cross, Thomas, & Light, 2008).
Adding the last 2 bullets to the advantages of open networks.
Leaders who build deep, quality relationships with others are able to exchange information, resources, and skills with people from different backgrounds. These deep relationships provide valuable perspective and resources, including social support and camaraderie in the workplace. These leaders usually are 4 times more affective.
Maintaining this type of network requires different actions by leaders at different points in their career. New people will be added to the network; others will be disconnected.
Creating relational value
The powerful results of identifying and replicating high-performing networks represent only a small part of the potential of network analysis. It's also possible to promote specific interactions that help generate revenue and boost productivity. Targeted action is dramatically more effective than promoting connectivity indiscriminately, which typically burdens already-overloaded employees and yields network diseconomies. A more informed network perspective helps companies to identify the few critical points where improved connectivity creates economic value by cutting through business unit and functional silos, physical distance, organizational hierarchies, and a scarcity of expertise.
Generating revenue
A network view often uncovers "hidden" people whose contribution to cross-selling or closing deals is far greater than individually focused performance metrics might imply. It can also suggest where to replicate collaborative behavior, when to draw in valuable experts from the network's fringe, and how to eliminate obstacles to collaborative sales efforts—obstacles that include time, skills, personalities, incentives, and ignorance of which colleagues have expertise. The experiences of a global technology company and a consulting firm illustrate how these issues play out in practice.
Improving cross-selling. A leading technology company used network analysis during an effort to become more responsive to customers and marketplace shifts. The analysis not only helped the company's leaders find out where collaboration generated revenue but also proved useful for reframing the roles of key players in the network.
The company, for example, broke out collaborative contributions by bands of revenue and learned that the most and least valuable interactions (those generating more than $2,000,000 and less than $250,000, respectively) invariably involved different people. What's more, a network perspective helped the company identify which colleagues knew about one other's expertise but didn't draw on it. (Exhibit 2 shows how many people said they were acquainted but saw no possibility of collaborating in a sales effort.) In our experience this very real but usually invisible barrier to cross-selling and account penetration is common in organizations.
the need to add infrastructure to the architecture. Our open network partner, Democrasoft®, brings innovative, content collaboration and knowledge sharing technology to this organizational design. It opens up the network for transparent communication, eliminating the dependency on emails for content sharing (knowledge workers spend an average of 81 days per year reading, writing, and searching for information on endless email threads), and capturing tacit knowledge for the support of Big Data and the application of predictive analytics. In effect, it represents both the telegraph wires and railroad tracks of the New Economy. It also enables senior executives to see collaboration in real-time. The structure enables open discussions that tag Great Ideas™ to their initiators, enabling entirely new incentives to be adopted and leveraged to drive desirable, collaborative behaviors. The platform can also reach outside of the brick and mortar to engage customers and ideas from beyond the walls of the organization. All while maintaining the day-to-day efficiencies of the established hierarchy.
Organizations that adopt this innovative, cost effective approach and supporting technology can quickly sidestep the organizational barriers to communication and collaboration while sparking engagement (especially with Gen-X and Gen-Y), authentic inclusion of diverse ideas, and the significant productivity gains necessary to stay competitive in the New Economy.
Here is a list of possible collaborate technology tools.
Confused about how crowdfunding, maker movement and sharing fit into the larger Collaborative Economy? This diagram puts all of these trends into one diagram so you can see how the crowd is getting what they need from each other –rather than buying from traditional corporations. If you want to learn more, find out why more than 40,000 people have viewed the the full report “Sharing is the new buying” for the complete work
. First, on the far left, there are five distinct families categories by goods, services, space, transportation, and money. People created, funded, or shared across these major families. For the most part, this accordantly represents the physical world. It’s assumed each of these five families are dependent on the first phase, social media.
Eleven unique class breakdown more specific use cases, the second to left column indicates specific use cases of company types in this vast market. For example, within services, we broke down professional services vs personal services, as we see two district phyla of company types.
Next, thousands of individual species have emerged, respected Lisa Gansky is tracking a whopping 9000+ startups in this space, ranging from around the globe. The startups we selected are just examples, one that we felt would best be understood by the audience but are not limited to the thousands not represented.
Here are the current numbers on those who are participating in the collaborative economy and a little more about who they are.
Chief Catalyst at Crowd Companies, Jeremiah Owyang he has uncovered three distinct types of people who participate in the collaborative economy:
Re-sharers: Those who buy and/or sell pre-owned goods online (for example, on Craigslist or eBay), but have not yet ventured into other kinds of sharing.
Neo-sharers: People who use the newer generation of sharing sites and apps, like Etsy, TaskRabbit, Uber, Airbnb and KickStarter.
Age is the explanation for most—though not all—of the modest attitudinal, behavioral and lifestyle differences between neo-sharers, re-sharers and non-sharers:
• Generational differences correlate with American neo-sharers’ income and political differences, as well as the greater likelihood that they have kids at home.
• Neo-sharers are even more likely to be married, educated, home-owning and politically aware than their age would lead us to expect.
• Age is even more strongly linked to the higher levels of online activity among neo-sharers.
Affluent people are more likely to be neo-sharers. While up to 25% of the general population in each country are neo-sharers, among Americans with incomes over $100,000, 35% are neo-sharers; among Canadians with incomes over $100,000, 32% are neo-sharers; among Britons with incomes over £60,000, 35% are
neo-sharers. And while only 8% of American non-sharers have incomes over $100,000, among neo-sharers, 14% earn that much each year.
Non-sharers: People who have yet to engage in the collaborative economy, although many of these non-sharers intend to try sharing services (in particular, re-sharing sites like eBay) in the next twelve months.
PLAY DISRUPTIVE VIDEO
Business leaders should keep their organizational strategies updated in the face of continually evolving technologies, ensure that their organizations continueto look ahead, and use technologies to improve internal performance. Disruptive technologies can change the game for businesses, creating entirely new products and services, as well as shifting pools of value between producers or from producers to consumers. Organizations will often need to use business-model innovations to capture some of that value. Leaders need to plan for a range of scenarios, abandoning assumptions about where competition and risk could come from, and not be afraid to look beyond long-established models. Organizations will also need to keep their employees’ skills up-to-date and balance the potential benefits of emerging technologies with the risks they sometimes pose.