Tag: innovation

Why governments fail in building Silicon Valleys

Can governments build entrepreneurial hubs?

Don’t Give the Arnon Kohavis Your Money warns Sarah Lacy in her cautionary tale of what happens when an economic messiah comes to town promising to create the next Silicon Valley.

“Hopefully this story finds a way to circulate out to the wider audience of government officials and old money elites who have good intentions of wanting to make their city a beacon for entrepreneurship.” Writes Sarah. “Hopefully it reaches them before they get bamboozled into giving the wrong people money to make it happen.”

Bamboozled Bureaucrats

For 19 months I was one of those government officials and saw those good intentions up close while developing what became the Digital Sydney project, that bamboozlement is real and a lot of money does go to the wrong people.

Sarah’s points are well made, Silicon Valley wasn’t built quickly with its roots based in the 1930s electronic industry and the 1960s developments in semiconductors – all underpinned by massive US defence spending from World War II onwards.

In many ways Silicon Valley was a happy and prosperous accident where various economic, political and technological forces came together without any planning. Neither the Californian or US Governments decreed they would make the region an entrepreneurial hotbed and sent out legions of public servants armed with subsidies and incentives to build a global business centre.

This is the mistake governments – and a lot of entrepreneurs or business leaders – make when they talk about “building the next Silicon Valley”; they assume that tax free zones, incentive schemes and subsidies are going to attract the investors and inventors necessary to build the next entrepreneurial hotspot.

For governments, the results are discouraging; usually ending in failed incubators and accelerator programs all conceived by public servants who, with the best will in the world, don’t have the skills, incentives or decades long timelines to make these schemes work.

New England’s failure

At worst, we end up with the corporate welfare model that sees governments and communities exploited like the tragic story of New London, Connecticut, where the local government spent $160 million and cleared an entire suburb for drug company Pfizer to establish their research headquarters, which they closed a few years later and left a waste dump behind.

While the New London story is one of the worst examples, this sort of corporate welfare is the standard role for most government economic agencies. The department I worked for gave subsidies to supermarket chains to open distribution centres and stores that they were going to build anyway.

One of the notable things with development agencies and the provincial politicians who oversee them is how they are easy victims for the economic messiah – it could be a pharmaceutical giant like in New London, a property developer promising Sydney will become a financial hub or a US venture capital guru flying in and promising Santiago will be the next San Francisco.

The truth is there are no short cuts; building a technology centre like Silicon Valley, a financial hub like London or a manufacturing cluster like Italy’s Leather Triangle take decades, some luck and little intervention by government agencies or outside messiahs.

Silicon Valley and most other successful industry centres are the result of a happy intersection of economics and history. The best governments can do is create the stable financial, tax and legal frameworks that let inventors, innovators and entrepreneurs build new industries.

All government support isn’t bad as well thought out, long term programs that help new businesses and technologies grow being the very effective – we should keep in mind though taht Silicon Valley couldn’t have happened without massive US military and space program spending.

Like a parent with a baby, the best governments can do is create the right environment and hope for the best. Interfering rarely works well.

Similar posts:

Pretty shells and shiny toys

Are we obsessing on the wrong things in technology?

“I was like a boy playing on the sea-shore, and diverting myself now and then finding a smoother pebble or a prettier shell than ordinary, whilst the great ocean of truth lay all undiscovered before me.” – Isaac Newton

“We live in a bubble, and I don’t mean a tech bubble or a valuation bubble. I mean a bubble as in our own little world,” – Eric Shmidt

Newton’s famous quote is one of the things that jumps out on reading the opening of Jeff Jarvis’ Private Parts, is how we live in an era of pretty shells that catch our attention and obsess some of us.

While we play with those pretty shells, we ignore much of what is happening around us. Those glittering social media and cloud computing tools are fun to play with, but what do they really mean?

The winners from the early stages of the industrial revolution were people like Josian Wedgwood and Robert Stephenson who saw how to apply the inventions of the time to create new products and markets, later they were followed by people like Thomas Edison, Andrew Carnegie and Henry Ford who developed the industries of the 20th Century.

Right now, we’re making shiny trinkets out of our technology tools, Business Week’s It’s Always Sunny in Silicon Valley makes this case well and Eric Schmidt’s bubble quotation above comes from that.

We see lots of applications for finding coffee roasters, sharing music files and plugging into the social media platform of the day; all of which are the concerns of middle class white people trying to maintain last century’s consumer society.

Somehow we’re missing the bigger picture, but gee those sea shells are pretty.

Similar posts:

The business of denial

Denying market realities is rarely a good business move

Denial is a powerful sedative, it allows us to trundle dozily along a well worn patch oblivious to the reality our comfortable world has changed.

Last week’s claim that youth is fed up with the iPhone by Nokia’s Niels Munksgaard – who has the wonderful title of Director of Portfolio, Product Marketing & Sales – is a great example of how far and how long denial can continue while there’s still money to pay executive bonuses.

Canada’s beleaguered Research In Motion, manufacturers of the Blackberry phone, showed the same delusions when they released their Playbook tablet computer with the declaration Amateur Hour Is Over.

The only amateur hour was in the hubristic minds of RIM’s marketing team.

While profits keep flowing big organisation can afford delusions – Google can indulge their social media fantasies while the Adwords rivers of gold continue to flow ever faster and Microsoft can continue to indulge their delusions while their Windows and Office products remain immensely profitable.

Microsoft’s “droidrage” campaign, designed to embarrass Google’s Android mobile phone platform, is part of that delusion; for Microsoft’s campaign to work they have to prove there is a widespread Android malware problem, show their system isn’t prone to the same flaws and – most importantly – have enough product on the market to sell to those disillusioned Google customers.

Such a negative campaign has many fallacies – it assumes there are widespread security problems in Android, that Microsoft will pick up disaffected Google customers and there are enough Microsoft based products to grab those sales.

Probably Microsoft’s biggest problem is the assumption that customers actually care about that stuff – for years Windows dominated its market despite being riddled with computer with security holes and malware.

Microsoft succeeded because their competition was delusional; the best example being WordPerfect claiming graphic systems like Windows were a fad at a time when an inferior Microsoft Word was gobbling up their markets.

By the time WordPerfect realised their error and released a truly dreadful WordPerfect for Windows it was all too late, like a stagecoach company realising the motorcar is here to stay.

The problem for businesses in denial is that reality eventually does bite; plenty of people in the newspaper industry believed their advertising based model was secure and profitable – indeed many of the cosseted managers in that sector still believe it is – which now leaves them struggling in a changed world they thought they could ignore.

Denial among incumbents is a great opportunity for newer, more flexible players; for years mobile phone and tablet computer manufacturers were in denial about the usuability of their product – Apple proved them wrong and now commands the most profitable chunks of those markets.

Being the village blacksmith or a buggy whip maker was a good business to be in at the beginning of the 20th Century. Thirty years later those block boys and saddlemakers who hadn’t made the jump found themselves out of work.

It’s going to be interesting to see will be this century’s buggy whip manufacturers.

Similar posts:

Failing our customers fast

Does fail fast mean we get ahead of our customers?

The New York Times suggests the new Amazon Kindle Fire could be the Edsel of electronic devices, Twitter’s new interface is met with dislike and accounting software company MYOB’s latest update receives a universal thumbs down.

At a time when software tools, online publishing platforms and contract manufacturing mean we can get products quickly to market, it’s easy to get ahead of our customers and even our own quality control.

Having the ability to get a something new out at low cost has given rise to the “fail fast” philosophy.

While “failing fast” is changing the way industries work while giving rise to a whole new breed of innovations and entrepreneurs, we want to make sure we don’t fail our customers too badly or too often.

Similar posts:

Microsoft’s lost decade

Ten years ago Windows XP was released by an untouchable Microsoft. What happened next is a lesson for all businesses.

Amid the discussion of Steve Jobs standing down as Apple CEO last week, a quiet milestone was passed. Ten years ago last Wednesday, Microsoft released to manufacturers their latest operating system, Windows XP.

Windows XP turned out to be the most successful computer operating system ever and probably marked the peak of the personal computer era.

The glitz and glamour of the Windows XP launch showed the power of Microsoft at the time – their products dominated the desktop markets, Apple were crawling their way back to profitability and relevance with the iMac while mobile phones were barely capable of sending anything more than SMS messages.

In 2001 the business model of Microsoft was built upon the perpetual upgrade cycle, as computers were expected to last three to five years which would then be replaced by new systems requiring an updated operating system with the latest office software.

Ensuring maximum revenue from the upgrade cycle, Microsoft encouraged retailers to sell XP systems with bundled software locked to the individual computer, these “deals” made sure users would have to buy new programs when the existing machines were replaced.

The three year upgrade coupled with the need to buy new software every time made Microsoft’s model seemingly unstoppable in 2001, but problems were already developing for this strategy.

A major part of breaking the “upgrade every few years” mentality was the late running of Longhorn, Windows XP’s successor, which was released as Vista three years behind schedule and the product’s poor quality meant customers were reluctant to upgrade.

Unfortunately the market rejection of Vista and the wait for the next version of Windows saw the rise of reliable and affordable cloud based services, that ran on web browsers which made the need to upgrade less pressing. Today many people are quite happily running seven and eight year old computers that meet their needs adequately.

It would be foolish to write Microsoft completely as their revenue is still strong and in the past they have seen off major threats like Netscape and the web in 1995 and the rise of cheap Linux based netbooks in 2007. Google’s takeover of Motorola and HP’s abandonment of WebOS may open new opportunities for Microsoft on tablets and mobile phones.

For businesses, the immediate lesson is to look closely at upgrading options however for managers and owners there’s a much bigger lesson when looking at how Microsoft lost its way in the last decade despite a seemingly untouchable and lucrative business model.

Similar posts: