May

26

Incremental improvements .. meh

Filed Under entrepreneurship, innovation, product management, startup, things to remind myself | Leave a Comment

As far as innovation goes, I prefer major disruptive innovations over incremental improvements (not to say the latter does not have it place, it does). As a keen observer of human behavior, I’m interested in understanding in general why people do they things they do, with a focus on human interaction with technology–such as factors that affect the adoption rates of new technology.

I long discovered (the painful way) during my time as an academic in computer science that just because one builds something super well, that by no means guarantee that “they will come”. In fact, my favourite quote then became, “So what if it doesn’t do anything? It was made with our new Triple Shielded Core Blowfish Encrypted Reduced Internal Resistance 26 Level On-Die Cache 512 1024bit Registers Supercharged Iso Bifurcated Krypton Gate Metal Oxide Semiconductor process …” (souped up version from something similar I read from a UNIX fortune cookie, but I digress).

Thus, I found this blog post by Andrew McAfee, a HBS faculty to be quite interesting. I’m going to summarize the key takeaways, although I highly recommend you read the original post.

Changing the status quo is extremely difficult and often leaders get “carried out on their shields” (from an awesome and inspiring Carly Fiorina talk about change and leadership at Stanford, that I’ve quoted her before here). Let’s examine one of the traits of the status quo:

We are loss averse. A $50 loss looms larger than a $50 gain. Loss aversion is virtually universal across people and contexts, and is not much affected by how much wealth one already has. Ample research has demonstrated that people find that a prospective loss of $x is about two to three times as painful as a prospective gain of $x is pleasurable.

A bird in hand is worth two in the bush. Makes sense, it takes a non-status quo person with a vision or be hungry enough to be prepared to lose $50 for the upshot of potentially gaining another $50. The willingness to feel fear and keep going forward distinguishes the living from the merely breathing :)

.. behavioral economist Richard Thaler has called the “endowment effect:” We value items in our possession more than prospective items that could be in our possession, especially if the prospective item is a proposed substitute.

If you’re introducing a mere replacement of an equal product, it’d better be .. uhh, just realize that you’re fighting an uphill against change. Make sure you have incentives for people to change.

As if all this weren’t enough, Gourville also highlights that the people developing new products are very dissimilar from the products’ prospective consumers. You don’t go work for TiVo (to use his example) if you don’t ‘get’ the potential of digital video recorders and think they’re a really good idea. And after working for the company for a while, having TiVo becomes part of your endowment; you think of things in comparison to TiVo, instead of in comparison to a VCR. Both of these factors make it harder for developers to see things as their target customers do.

Many techies suffer from this, falling in love with their own creation and failing to see that it could perhaps actually be fundamentally, how should I put this gently, a completely useless product. If it’s not solving a real person’s pain point that he/she is willing to pay for a solution, then monetization may be a challenge. Doesn’t matter how snappy the UI is, or the fact that you’ve just spent a month shaving off 10 CPU cycles on the algorithm that calculates the number of molecules in a can of soda, I highly doubt anyone would pay you to compute out the exact number of modules in a can of Mountain Dew just before they pop the can. I’m sure the algorithm is still very cool, though!

There are three classes of people: those who see, those who see when they are shown, those who do not see
–Leonardo da Vinci

As an innovator, train yourself to see the things that you cannot see. Ok, so that’s admittedly difficult, so at least try to see the things that other people see that you don’t see.

This last point is one of the reasons why I strongly believe that techies should actually get out there (at least occasionally) to go talk to real human beings, such as the paying customers. Be aware of your own inherent bias and need to protect your “baby” (the product), but don’t forget that you are also creating value for someone else.

The bottom line is: if you’re developing something new, you’ll have an easier time if the benefits of the product surpasses the existing solution by (at least) a factor of 10.

May

11

iPhone apps for healthcare technology — plus some robots

Filed Under changing the world, healthcare technology, innovation, mobile, regular reads, technology | Leave a Comment

Cell phones, mobile phones, hand phones, whatever they are called, wherever they are in the world–can change the world! We already see it help drive economic development in microfinance, and now, we’re making strides with healthcare technology, another field I’m interested in because I love seeing technology change lives. The convergence of sophisticated UX-centric mobile devices, Internet/Web 2.0, Software as a Service, cloud computing — not to be missed!

From the article:

Despite all the advances in medical diagnostics, two-thirds of the world’s population has no access to imaging technologies. Worse, about half of the imaging equipment sent to developing countries goes unused because local technicians aren’t trained to operate it or lack spare parts, according to the World Health Organization. But thanks to the proliferation of cellular and other wireless networks, researchers are stepping up efforts to deliver crucial medical services from afar. “You go through India, anywhere, in the middle of the road, there’s someone with a cell phone. A friend calls me from the jungles of Costa Rica,” says Rubinsky. “I can see so many applications in which the cell phone becomes an integral part of a medical device. A cell phone can cut the cost of almost every [diagnostic] device.”

We have the $10Mil fbFund for Facebook apps, $100Mil iFund for iPhone apps, $10Mil for Google Android apps, and the to be announced $150Mil Blackberry apps fund — will we see a fund to drive healthcare technology apps?

With the iPhone spurring more handset makers to introduce similarly robust devices, the U.S. market for medical cell-phone software is expanding rapidly. Sales of phone applications for medical professionals are expected to rise from $111.8 million last year to $276 million in 2011, according to consultancy Ambient Insight.

On the “heavier” tech side, we’re definitely making huge strides in having robots that can now operate on people.

Consider this: Suppose there are only 10 surgeons in the world that specialize in this really complicated brain disease, affected by not that many people, but the number of victims dying from it is significant enough (say, 5,000 deaths a year worldwide). There’s only so many surgeons to go around, and with that many victims around the world, even if these surgeons worked themselves to death to save the world, they can’t possibly help everybody with just two hands and only 24 hours in a day. Seriously, it takes almost a day to just travel halfway across the world, and that’s just a one-way.

The solution: remote surgery. In terms of supply and demand, the supply is scarce (the Ph.Ds in this very narrow field) and the demand far exceeds the supply, and the number of victims is probably going to grow at a rate faster than the rate Ph.Ds in this field can be minted. Technology here serves to increase supply, that is, not by letting universities churn out more doctors (although that would work too), but rather by increasing the “utilization rate” of the existing doctors by allowing them to perform their work anywhere at anytime, by saving on travel time and expense. Even if we had an infinite amount of money to spend on the fastest jets, nobody can buy more than 24 hours in a day. 10 hours on a jet spent traveling is 10 hours that could be spent operating on a patient.

“If you are looking at the future, it’s hard to envision a hospital not offering robotics,” said Robert Glenning, chief financial officer at the Hackensack University Medical Center in New Jersey

Technology, changing lives and making the world a better place–I love it!

May

1

Innovation lessons from Pixar

Filed Under changing the world, entrepreneurship, failure, fear, google, innovation, people i like, perseverance, things to remind myself | Leave a Comment

The McKinsey Quarterly has a really interesting piece on innovation at Pixar–the company who brought you Toy Story, Finding Nemo, and Ratatouille. Keep in mind that Pixar was purchased by the Walt Disney Company from Steve Jobs, the turn around artist and saviour of Apple (Apple Computer, who brought you the iPod), whose company in turn have Eric Schmidt (the CEO of a small little company despised by the behemoth Microsoft) on their board of directors.

Google and Apple are both well known for being innovators in their respective core markets, and suffice to say that they both share some innovation DNA from the top–and Pixar, through its relationship with Steve Jobs would probably have benefited from some of the common DNA between the two. Here are some of the highlights of this article, in which Oscar-winning director Brad Bird was asked about how he managed innovation.

The first step in achieving the impossible is believing that the impossible can be achieved. There was a point during the making of The Incredibles where we had a company meeting. We have them about twice a year, and anybody can bring up concerns. Somebody raised their hand and said, “Is The Incredibles too ambitious?” Ed Catmull said, “I don’t know” and looked over at me. I just said, “No! If there’s one studio that needs to be doing stuff that is ‘too ambitious,’ it’s this one. You guys have had nothing but success. What do you do with it? You don’t play it safe—you do something that scares you, that’s at the edge of your capabilities, where you might fail. That’s what gets you up in the morning.”

Read more

Mar

10

Inveneo: The battle against information poverty

Filed Under changing the world, entrepreneurship, innovation, passion, startup, technology | Leave a Comment


While most of us in the well developed parts of the world battle attention poverty (I’ve come to peace with the fact that I will *never* be able to keep up with all of my RSS feeds!), we forget that this is actually a luxurious problem to have. Many in the underdeveloped world face the opposite problem: information poverty–the lack of access to information, which in turn means lack of access to knowledge and education, which really feeds back into the cycle of financial poverty.

As more people hop on the internet bandwagon in the developed world at rates that dwarf technology adoption in the poor countries, this will obviously further increase the gap between the rich and the poor–which we all know is a not a good thing. If you are unable to find food to eat or medicine for your baby, would you consider violence and theft? Decision making under those circumstances are difficult. The poor becomes an easy target for people with bad intentions; can you imagine someone walking up to you with a gun and saying, “Fight for me, and I’ll give you food.”

This digital divide is not a newly discovered problem, and is actually one of the initiatives of the World Economic Forum. I’m passionate about technology because I believe it’s an enabler for a better quality of life. I’m excited that I’m not the only one who thinks so, and there is a real startup with real products with that same vision (imagine that!).

Inveneo says it well in their mission page:

Information and Communication Technologies (ICT) can:

  • help save lives (rural healthcare and relief)
  • provide better economic opportunities (agriculture, market access)
  • help enforce human rights (monitoring/reporting)
  • offer a better future for children (education)

Read more

Mar

7

Towards a greener computer–but what does that really do?

Filed Under cleantech, did you know, geeky, hardware, ideas, innovation, technology, things to ponder about | Leave a Comment

MSI announced that the company has recently invented the world’s first powerless air cooler for computer motherboards. For those new to computer hardware, as we ignore Moore’s Law and advance computer technologies by making them faster and store more data, cramming more and more transistors into a piece of silicon, the heat generated by all these components start becoming a non-negligible problem–as anyone managing a data center with hundreds of computers will identify with.

There are many ways to cool the insides of a computer, but the most common is through the use of heatsinks and fan’s. Computer hardware junkies prefer a more advanced hack: liquid cooling, a more quiet and efficient (and l33t) way of dissipating heat from their overclocked CPU’s. This invention by MSI makes the fan inside your computer power-free, thus less power drawn from the computer power supply.

The basic idea employed here is one derived from the Stirling Engine. MSI’s invention captures the heat from the component, whose energy is then converted to push the fan blades around, which in turn cools the heatsink.

From their press release:

The “Air Power Cooler” transfers the chipset heat into air momentum, when the air becomes hot, the air will expand then push the fan to rotate and In doing so cooling the heatsink immediately. After the air moves from the bottom to top of the piston, the air will become heavy to push the up piston down. The better air piston design can transfer over 70% heat power and transfer to air power, that’s great efficiency transfer from Stirling engine theory. In a comparison with solar power the transfer rate is only around 20~30% requiring more surface and as a result cost.

I think the claim of besting solar power is interesting, but would like to see some independent tester verify that statement (just for my assurance that this isn’t the typical corporate PR mudslinging nonsense).

This actually reminds me of Tesla Motors’ regenerative braking system. Energy from deceleration is captured and stored for later use in acceleration. Genius!

In a battery-powered electric vehicle, regenerative braking (also called regen) is the conversion of the vehicle’s kinetic energy into chemical energy stored in the battery, where it can be used later to drive the vehicle. It is braking because it also serves to slow the vehicle. It is regenerative because the energy is recaptured in the battery where it can be used again.

Tesla Motors is an interesting electric car startup in Silicon Valley headed up by Elon Musk (of PayPal fame), who also started SpaceX and SolarCity (I’m an admirer!).

But I digress.
Read more

Feb

23

Separation of body and mind

Filed Under geeky, innovation, technology | Leave a Comment

No, I’m not referring to some zen-ish meditation. Check this out.

This is why I love technology. If I recall correctly, humans are the only living things that know how to augment our own capability with tools. And we’ve just taken it to a whole new level by separating our body from our conscious mind. Look at how fast the robot can quickly scan the left corridor and then the right corridor at the T-junction. It’s almost as if the operator is there in person, quickly turning his head from left to right (which he is, just remotely!)

Note to self: perfect cubicle toy for corporate drones.

Feb

21

Don’t be afraid of the machines!

Filed Under automation, changing the world, geeky, ideas, innovation, technology | Leave a Comment

A BINARY STEP COUNTER?! OH MY! This is *amazing*, you have to see it. This reminds me of a rudimentary transistor, and how we keep cramming more and more of them into a piece of silicon we call a microprocessor, on top of which we have this thing called a computer, on top of which we have this thing called web two dot oh, … and ..

From TED. Watch his commercial here:

Feb

20

Disruptive technology

Filed Under innovation, marketing, product management, technology | Leave a Comment

Summary of Wikipedia’s entry on Disruptive Technology:

  • Disruptive technology/innovation is a technological innovation/product/service that uses a “disruptive” strategy, rather than a “sustaining” strategy (incremental improvement)
  • Can be classified into low-end and new-market
  • New-market disruption aims at non-consumption/untapped market; targets customers who have needs that were previously unserved by existing incumbents.
  • Low-end disruption aims at mainstream customers with needs not met/underserved/overserved by existing solutions. Low-end disruption targets customers who do not need the full performance valued by customers at the high-end of the market
  • Disruptive technology can dominate market by filling a role that older technology cannot fill or by displacing incumbents by means of successively moving up-market through performance improvements (e.g. digital photography)
  • Low-end disruption occurs when the rate at which products improve exceeds the rate at which customers can adopt the new performance. Therefore, at some point the performance of the product overshoots the needs of certain customer segments. At this point, a disruptive technology may enter the market and provide a product which has lower performance than the incumbent but which exceeds the requirements of certain segments, thereby gaining a foothold in the market.

Feb

13

A simple solution to a difficult challenge

Filed Under changing the world, did you know, ideas, innovation, poverty | Leave a Comment

A simple solution that impact the lives of others by solving a seemingly difficult problem!

From the blog of Guy Kawasaki.

Feb

9

Randy Komisar

Filed Under business, career, changing the world, innovation, mentoring, passion, people i like, quotes, self improvement, stanford, startup, things to ponder about, things to remind myself, values | Leave a Comment

Randy Komisar, when asked in an interview about how he would ever make his mark at VC firm like Kleiner Perkins Caufield & Byers when they have a track record of investment home runs like Google says,

It’s a high bar, there’s no question about it. But I don’t feel competitive against that. I mean I think that the goal for me is to help create great talent in great companies, and what I’m hoping that in the process, they create wealth and opportunities for others. That being said, trying to measure up against something like Google as an investment return, that would just make you anxious. I don’t feel very competitive with that. I just hope that I continue to do good work and contribute.

I think that’s great advice. It’s so easy to fall into the trap of benchmarking yourself against a rare one time astronomical success. It only makes you more anxious and cloud your judgement in decision making, spinning you into an uncontrolled perpetual fall downwards. The negative energy just feeds back into the system and snowballs.

I think I have fell into that trap of focusing on the wrong thing. I think the reason why I fell for that is because I am very competitive. It’s only natural that when I see someone doing better than me, that I only want to do even better–to win. I’m not a life-is-a-zero-sum game guy, but I am competitive.

I think the other reason is because sometimes I care too much about what other people think of me. And it is so easy for external parties to view you from the outside and say, “Why can’t he accomplish this feat? Someone else has already done it, and therefore it’s possible. If he can’t do it, then he must be a loser”. It’s easy to benchmark others against the best. Not so funny when others benchmark you the same way.

That’s exactly what happened in that interview. The interviewer asked Randy a question that same line of external judgement: “how do you think you are going to beat the record?” In my opinion, Randy’s answer was perfect, “Look, I know it’s difficult, but I don’t ask myself that every time I go to work, or in every investment decision I mae. I focus on what’s important really here: contributing, creating wealth and opportunities to the best I can” I think I would have bombed that test. I would have said something that displays my naivete like, “oh, that’s nothing–I’ll beat it.” Sounds Dilbert-ish.

Towards the end of the interview, Randy was asked what his recommendation was for people who starting out and looking for a profession. The interviewer asked if he would recommend his own career trajectory he took, for instance. Randy says,

You should question authority, question convention, question other people’s expectations. We live in a day and time when all things are possible for people who have the raw intelligence, energy, and dedication to reinvent things. And that includes reinventing themselves. The shame of it is when smart people conform to conventional expectations and miss out on the opportunities to live a creative life. Within that confine, almost anything can be a great profession and can be a good and purposeful life’s work. But first and foremost, it’s gotta be important to you.

Randy Komisar one of the mentors at the Stanford Technology Ventures Program.

Feb

3

Steve Jurvetson: Failure is the magic sauce

Filed Under business, changing the world, failure, fear, innovation, people i like, perseverance, quotes, things to remind myself | Leave a Comment

Failure is the magic sauce in entrepreneurship, it’s the magic sauce in innovation.

In the venture business, we look at thousands of business plans every month. The majority of them will fail, the majority of them will go out of business, but its the few that succeed that really change the world.

And you have to be prepared for that, as an entrepreneur, that on average, you’re going to fail. And not to take that too deeply, to realize that that’s okay, and luckily at least in America, there’s a culture that welcomes that; that says its okay to fail, especially in an entrepreneurial endeavor.

Embracing failure and failing early enough are positive aspirational goals. As venture capitalists, we often argue that we should often fail early enough to learn about new industries and learn to do what we do.

From an interview with Steve Jurvetson

Jan

28

Unbundling production from delivery can change the world

Filed Under business, changing the world, did you know, innovation, mobile, product management | Leave a Comment

From this article from the McKinsey Quarterly,

Technology helps companies to utilize fixed assets more efficiently by disaggregating monolithic systems into reusable components, measuring and metering the use of each, and billing for that use in ever-smaller increments cost effectively. Amazon.com, for example, has expanded its business model to let other retailers use its logistics and distribution services. It also gives independent software developers opportunities to buy processing power on its IT infrastructure so that they don’t have to buy their own.

Interesting, but that (Amazon Web Services) seem like an obvious application since IT assets are consumed remotely/virtually, i.e. one isn’t actually physical interacting with it. Does unbundling apply outside of the virtual world too?

Unbundling works in the physical world too. Today you can buy fractional time on a jet, in a high-end sports car, or even for designer handbags. Unbundling is attractive from the supply side because it lets asset-intensive businesses—factories, warehouses, truck fleets, office buildings, data centers, networks, and so on—raise their utilization rates and therefore their returns on invested capital. On the demand side, unbundling offers access to resources and assets that might otherwise require a large fixed investment or significant scale to achieve competitive marginal costs. For companies and entrepreneurs seeking capacity (or variable additional capacity), unbundling makes it possible to gain access to assets quickly, to scale up businesses yet keep their balance sheets asset light, and to use attractive consumption and contracting models that are easier on their income statements.

Read more

Jan

26

Entrepreneurship Week 2008

Filed Under changing the world, ideas, innovation, people i like, stanford, startup, things to ponder about | Leave a Comment

At Stanford, nonetheless. Best youtube clip I have seen all week :) The star-studded cast in this short video clip includes the likes of, Tina Seelig, Ann Winblad, Steve Jurvetson, Randy Komisar, Guy Kawasaki, and many more. I had the opportunity of meeting Ann Winblad from Hummer Winblad Ventures. She’s so nice, knowledgeable, and totally driven. I like her.

I love this quote from Tina Seelig: “Entrepreneurship is an extreme sport. You gotta get out and do it!” Maybe that’s why I have a thing for this! :D Tina’s voice sounds familiar to me although I’ve never met her. That’s because her talk at STVP is one of my favourite that I listen to over and over from time to time. Tina is awesome, I hope to meet her in person one day.

Nov

7

Be foolish enough to try make your dreams come true

Filed Under changing the world, innovation, passion, people i like, perseverance, quotes, stanford, startup, things to remind myself | 2 Comments

An entrepreneur is someone who dares to dream the dreams and is foolish enough to try to make those dreams come true. Innovative bottom up methods will solve problems that now seem intractable- from energy to poverty to disease. Science and technology, powered by the fuel of entrepreneurial energy, are the largest multipliers of resources we have to solve our many social problems.

– Vinod Khosla, founding CEO of Sun Microsystems, former partner at Kleiner, Perkins, Caufield & Byers, partner at Khosla Ventures

An interview of Vinod, from iinovate. I found this podcast by accident from browsing the iTunes store after purchasing my new iPod nano. I’m impressed by it, and I love having access to the audio and video podcasts on the go. It’s like having a small TV on demand wherever I go. Do watch the video clip below, and visit iinovate

Here are some of my notes that to me are the key takeaways:
Read more

Sep

12

Ray Kurzweil’s TED talk

Filed Under changing the world, innovation, passion, people i like, technology | Leave a Comment

I’m somewhat familiar with the name Ray Kurzweil and his works in artificial intelligence, and today I can finally associate a face with that name. Below is a vid clip of a talk he gave at TED. Little things like that makes me truly believe in technology, which I have a passion for. If you have 23 mins to spare, and you somewhat like technology — then you will like this:

Aug

26

Holding a program in your head

Filed Under engineering, hacks, ideas, innovation, project management, self improvement, stanford, startup, things to ponder about | Leave a Comment

Here’s some good advice from Paul Graham writes about good practices that any good programmer can relate to.

  1. Avoid distractions. Distractions are bad for many types of work, but especially bad for programming, because programmers tend to operate at the limit of the detail they can handle.

    The danger of a distraction depends not on how long it is, but on how much it scrambles your brain. A programmer can leave the office and go and get a sandwich without losing the code in his head. But the wrong kind of interruption can wipe your brain in 30 seconds.

    Oddly enough, scheduled distractions may be worse than unscheduled ones. If you know you have a meeting in an hour, you don’t even start working on something hard.
  2. Work in long stretches. Since there’s a fixed cost each time you start working on a program, it’s more efficient to work in a few long sessions than many short ones. There will of course come a point where you get stupid because you’re tired. This varies from person to person. I’ve heard of people hacking for 36 hours straight, but the most I’ve ever been able to manage is about 18, and I work best in chunks of no more than 12.

    The optimum is not the limit you can physically endure. There’s an advantage as well as a cost of breaking up a project. Sometimes when you return to a problem after a rest, you find your unconscious mind has left an answer waiting for you.
  3. Use succinct languages. More powerful programming languages make programs shorter. And programmers seem to think of programs at least partially in the language they’re using to write them. The more succinct the language, the shorter the program, and the easier it is to load and keep in your head.

    You can magnify the effect of a powerful language by using a style called bottom-up programming, where you write programs in multiple layers, the lower ones acting as programming languages for those above. If you do this right, you only have to keep the topmost layer in your head.
  4. Keep rewriting your program. Rewriting a program often yields a cleaner design. But it would have advantages even if it didn’t: you have to understand a program completely to rewrite it, so there is no better way to get one loaded into your head.
  5. Write rereadable code. All programmers know it’s good to write readable code. But you yourself are the most important reader. Especially in the beginning; a prototype is a conversation with yourself. And when writing for yourself you have different priorities. If you’re writing for other people, you may not want to make code too dense. Some parts of a program may be easiest to to read if you spread things out, like an introductory textbook. Whereas if you’re writing code to make it easy to reload into your head, it may be best to go for brevity.
  6. Work in small groups. When you manipulate a program in your head, your vision tends to stop at the edge of the code you own. Other parts you don’t understand as well, and more importantly, can’t take liberties with. So the smaller the number of programmers, the more completely a project can mutate. If there’s just one programmer, as there often is at first, you can do all-encompassing redesigns.
  7. Don’t have multiple people editing the same piece of code. You never understand other people’s code as well as your own. No matter how thoroughly you’ve read it, you’ve only read it, not written it. So if a piece of code is written by multiple authors, none of them understand it as well as a single author would.

    And of course you can’t safely redesign something other people are working on. It’s not just that you’d have to ask permission. You don’t even let yourself think of such things. Redesigning code with several authors is like changing laws; redesigning code you alone control is like seeing the other interpretation of an ambiguous image.

    If you want to put several people to work on a project, divide it into components and give each to one person.
  8. Start small. A program gets easier to hold in your head as you become familiar with it. You can start to treat parts as black boxes once you feel confident you’ve fully explored them. But when you first start working on a project, you’re forced to see everything. If you start with too big a problem, you may never quite be able to encompass it. So if you need to write a big, complex program, the best way to begin may not be to write a spec for it, but to write a prototype that solves a subset of the problem. Whatever the advantages of planning, they’re often outweighed by the advantages of being able to keep a program in your head.

Disclosure: Paul Graham runs the Y Combinator Startup School held annually at Stanford, so he does have a vested interest in helping startups succeed.

Now that I’ve got that upfront disclosure out of the way, I want to include Paul’s two observations which I agree with, simply because I feel what he says is true.

On why single solo great programmers are productive and get great products out the door,

It’s striking how often programmers manage to hit all eight points by accident. Someone has an idea for a new project, but because it’s not officially sanctioned, he has to do it in off hours—which turn out to be more productive because there are no distractions. Driven by his enthusiasm for the new project he works on it for many hours at a stretch. Because it’s initially just an experiment, instead of a “production” language he uses a mere “scripting” language—which is in fact far more powerful.

He completely rewrites the program several times; that wouldn’t be justifiable for an official project, but this is a labor of love and he wants it to be perfect. And since no one is going to see it except him, he omits any comments except the note-to-self variety. He works in a small group perforce, because he either hasn’t told anyone else about the idea yet, or it seems so unpromising that no one else is allowed to work on it. Even if there is a group, they couldn’t have multiple people editing the same code, because it changes too fast for that to be possible. And the project starts small because the idea is small at first; he just has some cool hack he wants to try out.

On why large software companies sometimes don’t realize that they work against these good practices for programmers,

Even more striking are the number of officially sanctioned projects that manage to do all eight things wrong. In fact, if you look at the way software gets written in most organizations, it’s almost as if they were deliberately trying to do things wrong. In a sense, they are. One of the defining qualities of organizations since there have been such a thing is to treat individuals as interchangeable parts. This works well for more parallelizable tasks, like fighting wars. For most of history a well-drilled army of professional soldiers could be counted on to beat an army of individual warriors, no matter how valorous. But having ideas is not very parallelizable. And that’s what programs are: ideas.

It’s not merely true that organizations dislike the idea of depending on individual genius, it’s a tautology. It’s part of the definition of an organization not to. Of our current concept of an organization, at least.

He then concludes,

Perhaps the optimal solution is for big companies not even to try to develop ideas in house, but simply to buy them. But regardless of what the solution turns out to be, the first step is to realize there’s a problem. There is a contradiction in the very phrase “software company.” The two words are pulling in opposite directions. Any good programmer in a large organization is going to be at odds with it, because organizations are designed to prevent what programmers strive for.

There is some truth to that. Established software companies have their own marketing departments. However, they sometimes tap outside marketing firms for help in their programs. Some things are just better when produced outside of the company. Are ideas and rapid-prototype software development one of them?

Aug

25

Value creation by opportunity cost

Filed Under business, ideas, innovation, startup, strategy, technology, things to ponder about | Leave a Comment

I was thinking about Tivo earlier. While it’s no rocket science product, it certain has become a common standard in households in the US now. In fact, Tivo has achieved the status of Google in the sense that people now use it as a verb. How many times have you heard, “I tivo’d that show”, “I will tivo that movie tonight”, “wanna come over, I have that game tivo’d”?

Anyway, I just thought it was interesting to note that one of the ways Tivo creates value for its users, is by reducing/eliminating the opportunity cost for its users. Opportunity cost or economic cost, is the cost of something in terms of an opportunity forgone (and the benefits which could be received from that opportunity), or the most valuable forgone alternative (or highest-valued option forgone), i.e. the second best alternative.

For instance, if there were two shows on two different channels that will show at the exact same time. If you only had one TV, you must pick only 1 show to watch. Even if you had 2 TV’s, you can’t really watch both at the same time. So in the pre-Tivo and DVR days, you would pick the show you liked better. The opportunity cost for viewers would be that other show that they unfortunately could not watch. Tivo fixed that. And good for them, because this is a pain that customers were willing to pay in order to get rid of. Just as a contrast, there are plenty of problems that aren’t painful enough such that customers aren’t willing to pay for a solution.

I like problem solving, and am on the lookout for interesting ways to create value. This is one way, so from now on, I will keep my eyes peeled for opportunity cost problems that can be solved.

Aug

20

Data suggests: More swings at the bat == higher success rate

Filed Under did you know, innovation, regular reads, self improvement, strategy, things to ponder about | Leave a Comment

Wow, I just read this great post by Marc Andreessen — finding empiric data (true to Marissa Mayer’s what-does-the-data-suggest style) to answer the flame-brewing question that has been circling: “Are older or younger people better at entrepreneurship?” I do no justice by just skimming here, so please read the entire post for the full effect.

For the impatient: In summary, the valuable lesson learned here from Dr. Simonton’s research is that:

  1. Generally, productivity — output — rises rapidly from the start of a career to a peak and then declines gradually until retirement.
  2. This peak in productivity varies by field, from the late 20s to the early 50s, for reasons that are field-specific.
  3. Precocity, longevity, and output rate are linked. “Those who are precocious also tend to display longevity, and both precocity and longevity are positively associated with high output rates per age unit.” High producers produce highly, systematically, over time.
  4. The odds of a hit versus a miss do not increase over time. The periods of one’s career with the most hits will also have the most misses. So maximizing quantity — taking more swings at the bat — is much higher payoff than trying to improve one’s batting average.
  5. Intelligence, at least as measured by metrics such as IQ, is largely irrelevant.

Jul

6

How long can you ride the wave of a single good idea?

Filed Under business, innovation, people i like, regular reads, things to ponder about, things to remind myself | Leave a Comment

Ever since Shai Agassi left SAP AG (where he was in the running to be co-CEO), he has started a blog describing the many interesting things he is doing, to change the world. His posts are well thought out, requires research, due-diligence, careful observation, and just plain good-old business acumen. Shai is a technical guy (has a BS in computer science from Technion, a reputable educational institution in Israel), so he understands inherent intricacies of technical systems, yet he also has the ability to see the “big picture”, and knows what it takes to run a sustainable big tech company. Those two skills of his that I admire and hope to achieve.

Today, I just read a blog post of his, in his discussion of growth through innovation. He says,

[On Singapore’s leadership success, that comes from treating the island state as a large company] To a certain (much larger) degree, China applied the same model to create modern China over the last few years. Where most countries need one good idea every 5-10 years and can ride the wave of that idea for a generation, China needs to create one of those big ideas pretty much every 5-10 months at their scale. So what is the next big idea – because if you are a small country, like Israel or Singapore, you just can’t wait for the wave to hit the shore, you have to start paddling before the wave comes.

I’m musing over the similarities of running a big country vs. small country with running a big corporation vs. a small startup. If a startup can be built around a single good idea (and then ride that wave for say 5 years), it’s not too far fetched to say that a corporation 10X the size of the startup would have trouble competing in the marketplace if it was also churning out only 1 good idea every 5 years. I guess that’s why huge corporations churn out patents at the rate of a few per day? I remember Carly Fiorina using the number of patents filed by HP as one of the metrics to measure HP’s rate of innovation.

At any rate, reading this post by Shai just reminds me the importance of not falling into complacency. One good idea will only last so long, and in order to sustain a business, you better start thinking of your next good idea before the wave of the current good idea dies out. If you’re a big company, you will probably need a pipeline of good ideas. The process of building this pipeline should be formalized, with each idea vetted and tested out for soundness. In a startup, you can afford to be more ad-hoc and probably just yell over to the guy on the other side of your wall to bounce ideas, but in a big company, your “next-door” co-worker may be in Israel, Beijing, Dublin, or Paris (mine are) — I tried yelling really hard but apparently not hard enough. You can try but I wouldn’t recommend it.

So a question I would pose to my readers is, regardless of what type of business you are in, what is that next idea that you will come up with that will be the basis of that next wave, that your company can ride on for the next 5-10 years?

Shai is a good problem solver. He works by looking at the larger problem, and then breaking them up into smaller pieces, and solving those first. Then summing up those solutions to solve the bigger problem. That sounds a lot like the divide-and-conquer algorithm CS geeks learn.

Shai’s original blog post on this is here.

Apr

29

Why limit your own thinking?

Filed Under goal setting, google, innovation, passion, people i like, quotes, self improvement, startup, things to ponder about, things to remind myself | 1 Comment

Paul Buchheit brings up a very valid point about visionary super-achievers, that when it comes to possibilities–it’s not about belief but disbelief.

If you think about it, a vision is by definition, something that is a little farther ahead than the current state of things. It wouldn’t be a vision if it was already achieved, would it? By the same token, if a vision is too far fetched, would we label the person championing it as a psychopath who doesn’t understand reality?

I think the important lesson to be learned here is that when imagining the world of possibilities, as long as you ground yourself in reality, do not fear society disbelieving you. Let’s look at the opposite case: If everyone absolutely believes your vision in its entirety — wouldn’t that just really indicate that your vision isn’t really that visionary after all? At the very minimum, a vision would require a small leap of faith. Leap of faith equals risk, and we all know risk is proportional to reward.

Holding back when imagining the world of possibilities while in search for a solution to a problem is counter-productive, you’re just fighting this internal battle — and the only person that really loses is yourself. I have felt like that at times, and now when I notice myself running in such loops, I quickly disengage from such irrational fears.

In his presentation at Startup School 2007, Paul reminded us that when someone tells you, “That’s impossible” it should be translated as “According to my very limed experience and narrow understanding of reality, that’s very unlikely.” Everyone continuously builds a different set of experiences in their respective lives, and therefore everyone’s understanding of reality is fundamentally different.

Reality is larger than we can possibly comprehend. Are you certain of something? If so, is it possible that you aren’t seeing the big picture? Perhaps you would change your mind if your understanding were a little broader. Maybe invention is a simple matter of observing what has always existed, and change happens when you notice parts of your self that were there all along.

I met Paul last year at Stanford. Paul is Google employee #23, and among other things, creator of Gmail, and the “Don’t be evil” motto.

Maybe big ideas are only impractical for those who lack vision and imagination.

Next Page →