BNET Insight

Big Think

Game-changing ideas from new business books and other sources of inspiration.

The End of Silicon Valley

August 31st, 2008 @ 8:41 pm

1 Comment

Categories: Strategy

Tags: Silicon Valley, Innovation, Soviet Union, Leadership, Entrepreneurship, Strategy, Management, Michael Fitzgerald

Is the party over in Silicon Valley? Judy Estrin, a serial entrepreneur, investor and former chief technology officer at Cisco apparently thinks it is, in a book coming out Tuesday, “Closing the Innovation Gap.”

She tells the Bits blog at the New York Times in Does Silicon Valley Face an Innovation Crisis? that innovation is flagging in Silicon Valley, and the U.S. more broadly, because, as the blogger sums it up, “Cisco and other fast-growing big companies started acquiring start-ups with innovative technologies instead of developing new ideas internally. Entrepreneurs began founding companies with the goal of selling to a big tech company, and venture investors encouraged that.”

You might argue that big tech companies are supposed to buy good ideas from outside; that’s one of the methods that Clay Christensen recommends in “The Innovator’s Dilemma,” to help them with their blind spots.

But she says that innovators are developing ideas so that they can be purchased, rather than aiming for genuine breakthroughs.

“In some ways, we have the problem that it looks like innovation is flourishing, but too much of it is short-term, incremental innovation,” she said.

I’ve interviewed Estrin a couple of times and she’s no Cassandra — she’s sharp, well-connected and has a great ability to see things in context. Yet as a journalist I see more novel ideas than I can write about, and many of them seem to have potential for sweeping scope. Perhaps they are merely exceptions to the norm in the Valley and elsewhere. It is also true that Silicon Valley firms suffer from an overhang problem — they have more money than they really can invest effectively right now, especially with the stock market and merger activity in the doldrums.

I also see many Silicon Valley firms are taking big risks, pushing money to energy and green investments, things that do not fit the traditional Silicon Valley model, and lack a track record. It’s hard to say that’s not trying to build the foundation for the next generation of investors.

Maybe what she’s really seeing is a push for economies of scale, finding things that look big, rather than diseconomies of scale. There’s a compelling discussion of diseconomies of scale on the Management by Baseball blog, which comes at the topic by examining how the countries that have split off from the former Soviet Union did at the Olympics. In fact, the former Soviet Union would’ve crushed the rest of the world, and was far more dominant than when the Soviet Union existed. The reason? Well, diseconomies of scale from being smaller created more opportunities, more competition, more room for new ideas to be tried out.

I won’t know if she goes in this direction until I read her book. Her main success in the Valley was pre-Internet bubble, and it may be that her areas of expertise are dominated by Soviet-style market monoliths (Microsoft, Google, Cisco), and she is missing emerging areas of tech innovation.

This will be a book worth reading.

UPDATE: The NY Times expanded its article on Estrin.

Know of a good business read you'd like to share with your fellow BNET readers?

 
Reply to Story

BNET TalkbackShare your ideas and expertise on this topic

Subscribe to this discussion via Email or RSS

  •  
    1

    Michael Fitzgerald

    09/12/08 | Report as spam

    RE: The End of Silicon Valley

    Re: Your interesting take on Silicon Valley & Judy Estrin's views

    There's another challenge in the Estrin view, though it may *indirectly* support her.

    When the finance infrastructure (venture, investment funds, etc.), which are essentially janitorial (support services) start running the show, the overall business system suffers/works ineffectively. The finance teams Estrin refers to are looking for technologies that work for their existing way of investing and biases (first to market cult; many losers+a few big winners protocol; etc.).

    They are structured for their own convenience, not maximum overall results. They are not looking for a $1MM investment that nets $5MM in three years, or a thousand such deals. They are not looking (generally) for a $5MMM investment that nets $10MMM in five years. You already know what they are looking for, because their protocols push them to specific size/shape deals that fit in a range they already know.

    So what happens when the blockbuster (that is, benefit/cost) gains to be made are outside of the very specific scale and structure their blinders allow them to see? Well, those prospective blockbusters either get funded by alternative, non-market means (Governments, Gates Fdn, et.al.) or not at all.

    The renewable energy field is one of the areas where the Diseconomies of Scale have been a barrier to deployment forever, at least since 1974 when I started working at the U.S. Senate on policy and programs. The technology is there, and has changed very very little in the last 31 years (outside of photovoltaics, but even there, the price/performance ratios are roughly the same). BUT THE PEAK EFFECTIVENESS OF MOST OF THESE TECHNOLOGIES ONLY HAPPENS IN DECENTRALIZED SETTINGS, smaller installations close to consumption.

    You probably already know, for example, that ~2/3rds of all electricity generated is waste, "transmission loss". So the vast photovoltaic arrays in the desert that deliver juice to cities 75+ miles away are doomed/constrained to lose more juice than gets delivered. The same $ investment on individual neighborhood arrays or individual house arrays deliver more juice for less complexity & the same money, high *system* returns. But from the Sand Hill Dudes' view, the latter is complicated, because how do they make it fit their protocol. Wind generation has roughly the same factors.

    Like Arpanet, the best 75% of Alternative/renewable energy projects/ideas are generally nothing that fits the protocol. Instead of getting things moving three decades ago, the finance guys waited for subsidies or set-asides that would make these endeavors fit their narrow protocols. They don't *want* to change protocols (??well, who does if they don't have to?) so they instead "complain" that there aren't great mega-deals out there (I'm not sure they're complaining...just sitting on their hands, probably).

    The scale they are willing to work in is "diseconomic", their structures too rigid for them to morph to meet the inconvenient structures of these high-growth potential areas. To break the impasse, I suspect, it will take the government creating borrowing/buying alternatives to traditional market structures (as they did w/Arpanet, the fledgling airline industry, the fledgling auto industry, and so on). As inconceivable as it seems in the current bi-partisan political commitment against such a thing, it's more conceivable than the Sand Hill Dudes changing their protocols.

    Sometimes The Diseconomies of Scale lead to a proliferation of effective small-scale solutions; when captialism is flushed out of the system by the finance guys, it can lead to a dysfunctional systemic paralysis.

    Cheers,
    Jeff Angus
    Management by Baseball
    [this was emailed to me by Jeff, who said it would be okay to post]

Please add your comment:

  1. You are currently: a Guest |
  2.  

Basic HTML tags that work in comments are: bold (<b></b>), italic (<i></i>), underline (<u></u>), and hyperlink (<a href></a)

advertisement
Top Rated
    advertisement
    • Click Here
    • Click Here
    • Click Here
    advertisement