Category Archives: business modeling

Shaping the Economy

Concentrations of power can shape the world around around them. How is the question.

For example, market power, those with it can shape their markets.  While, small players skitter looking for niches and opportunities; big players can shape their niche.    In all cases firms question the vitality of their complements.  The innovator decides measures risk of each new technology. Large firms can control the health of their complements, for them it becomes actionable. In extreme cases they can make their own weather.

Two classic examples. Microsoft successfully killed Netscape by cutting off their air supply. Of course getting caught was a mistake but on the whole it may still have been worth the cost. Microsoft blew it when they made their hardware complement into a commodity. When your relationship with a supplier is perfectly commoditized then they have no loyalty to you. Commodity hardware enabled Linux.

Powerful market powers do shape the world, that’s the key point. Nobody is immune. Open source giants – e.g. Wikipedia, Mozilla, FSF, ASF, Sourceforge, etc. etc. – are not immune to this syndrome. Nor are large standards bodies like Oasis, the IETF, or the W3. What, presumably differentiates these classes of actors in how they answer the question: given the power now what?

Each class of actors legitimizes their actions in different ways. The discussion of legitimacy if both an internal one and one had with audiences outside the organization. While those dialogs are rarely in perfect alignment, over time they have to be kept consistent.

The process of solving the problem, the problem of how to deal with market power, includes at least three aspects: values, governance, and execution. These also must be consistent over time.

This question can not be avoided. Concentration, and hence power, happens.

Foreclosure Tracking

The RealtyTrac web site shows real estate foreclosure data for the US. It’s thought provoking to look at places your familiar with thru this somewhat specialized lens. What you want to do here is get to their maps quickly. To do that you:

  • enter a zipcode
  • select a house at random
  • on that house’s abbreviated listing page click on the interactive map button

Then browse around the neighborhood you’ve selected. When you want to look at another neighborhood, start over. Be sure to take a look at good and bad neighborhoods, places your friends and relatives live, and at places you’ve lived over the years. I really hadn’t appreciated how there some seemingly pleasant neighborhoods where it appears that one out of 20 homes are owned by the bank.

Value of the Irrational

One of the two books about business to which I return often is Strategy Safari by Mintzberg et. al. It is a delightful tour through the jungle of approaches to strategic management people have suggested over the decades. In spite of it’s cheerful and concise nature I find I can’t casually read this book. I need to stew for a week or two on each section before deciding I’m done with it. At the same time I prefer to skitter about in the book so I can let one framework fight it out with another while I watch in amusement.

Back in the 1970s and 80s I spent some time associated with the knowledge engineering crowd. That community labored to build a class of software systems, expert systems, that could perform as well as an expert in this or that narrow technical domain. For example let’s say you had a huge expensive chemical plant. In that plant you’d find a guy, call him Joe, and Joe knew how to start it up. It would take a few days to get the thing running and Joe was the guy who knew how to do it. Did I mention? Joe is retiring next year. In the knowledge engineering crowd approach to this problem was to see if you could extract from Joe, via observation, interviews, what ever, a codification of his knowledge. In the AI/expert systems branch of knowledge systems the idea was to code it up software. The unit for such encoding was rule; i.e. Given that the pump in the basement of building 7 is making that funny noise it sometimes makes delay starting the boiler in until the noise stops.

This turns out to be much harder than it looks. Which we probably knew going into it, since back in the 70s it became common to observe that it took experts about a decade to become competent. That if you modeled the scale of their rule set you can then say that they learned a new rule at the rate of about one or two a day over that decade. It is unlikely you can pull the rules back out of Joe’s head much faster than that. Joe can’t just rattle off his rule set as if you were down loading some file. For Joe these rules are intuitive. I like to say they are compiled in. He doesn’t think thru why the boiler’s start up should be delayed, and in fact he may not even be able to tell you that he’s waiting or the pump to stop making the funny noise. At least he can’t tell you without a effortless moment of introspection.

I was reminded of all that as I read the delightful chapter on the “culture school” of strategic management. The culture school had a few years of popularity when the Japanese cars caught the attention of the B-school crowd. Any number of them up and ran off to Japan and for many of them it was the first time they had seen a radically different culture, i.e. Japanese culture. So a favorite theory what the strategic magic Toyota had that GM didn’t was culture.

But what is culture? It’s unlikely that GM could have been saved by introducing underwear vending machines; but would moving all their suppliers into a dense single city have helped? Culture is like expert knowledge, decompiling it is very hard. If you stop a member of a culture in the midst of some activity and demand “so, why do you do that?” What is the functional value of sleeping on the train? Standing up?

I was delighted by the answer they suggest in Strategy Safari, i.e. that Culture is exactly that which you can’t explain; i.e. it is the expert knowledge which you haven’t codified and made rational. Which of course makes it a bit difficult to manage. If your faced with a competitor who’s advantage over you is cultural the challenge is convert culture into codified knowledge. That’s hard, like getting Joe to mention that thing about the funny noise. Machine that changed the world is a good attempt at that for the Toyota example.
Strategic Safari has a nice framing of why culture is valuable. Firms have unique resources; e.g. capital, location, skills, property, talent. Some of these unique resources are particularly unique because their competitors can’t imitate them; e.g. these resources are valuable, hard to substitute for, and rare. When Steve Job’s brings a few other CEOs on stage during his MacWorld keynotes he is signaling just that: Apple has Steve and as you can see these other guys ain’t Steve. Microsoft has HotMail, but competitors like Google and Yahoo are able to, over time, imitate it and build a substitue.

Knowledge resources are particularly easy to imitate, but only if you can codify it. The harder a company’s knowledge assets are to codify, aka cultural, the more likely they can actually provide a strategic advantage. A valuable culture will be hard to codify. They also have nice five step recipe for how to kill a culture (useful when faced with a dysfunctional culture):

  1. Manage the Bottom Line, no actions that can’t rationally explain their benefits.
  2. Plan every action, avoid spontaneity and thus learning.
  3. Move managers around preventing domain expertise from displacing their managerial skills.
  4. Always objective, aka portfolio management.
  5. Always use recipes with five steps.

Discussing with a friend how culture is the asset you can’t rationalized he mused that it sounds like the problem many super heroes have e.g. that their super power is accessible only via some irrational pathway. We chortled at the idea of a fantastic four of strategic marketing. The Johnny Storm of PR; the Incredible Hulk of closing; Mr. Fantastic of discriminatory pricing; and the Invisible Woman of customer support.

Upsell Joy

RazrI bought a new cell phone with a year’s contract. It’s a cute phone. We like it.

The phone goes for about $200 on eBay, and after all the rebates are said and done I’ll have spend minus $50 dollars. The service is $480/year. So one way to look at is they paid me $250 to lock in $480 in revenue; e.g. to clear $230. That’s of course not quite right because Amazon, who sold me the phone, got a kickback, they certainly paid a few bucks for the phone and then of course there is a bit of cost to complete the phone calls.
It’s a perfectly nice phone, but it has a very slippery keyboard.

But now that I have this phone it is a study in modern telecom up-selling. The user interface is a rats nest of buttons and menus; and many of these offer you the chance to spend more money. There are at least three dozen places in the UI where you can spend a few more dollars. Here’s a short list of just a few of the stupid ways they try to get me to spend another few bucks:

  • Sign up for crippled web service (i.e. WAP). $6/month
  • Send an SMS.
  • Send a photo.
  • Call information for a phone #.
  • Get a weather report.
  • Get a sport’s score.
  • Horiscope

Just what you’d expect in an abusive locked in relationship, it’s obnoxious. It is far too easy it is for an unsuspecting phone user to randomly poke buttons and spend money. Twice already I’ve thought: “Damn, if I’d poked the button one over I’d have spent money.” I think the slippery keyboard design was intentional.

Darwin and Platform Tyranny

“Tyranny consists of the desire of universal power beyond its scope.”

One of the nice things about having a blog is that you can spit out those damn brainstorms before they do too much damage to your equilibrium or worse or are extinguished by your daily life.

I’d not noted before that the evolved animal is like a software platform.

One of the curious facts about software platforms is that they aren’t good for anything. You have to pile an application on to the platform before it solves real problem. That is a useful right first approximation. Of course platforms are good for something, they are good for solving some space of problems. They allow you to build things.

There is a gap between a platform and a problem solution. In platform system design, where we don’t solve problems we just design more platforms, we think of these as layers.

For example the end-to-end principle suggests that the layers should be thin, so that the lower layers are windowed down to a kernel of necessary function and no more. In business theory where platforms go by other names like toolkits, standards, rule sets, and are observed in numerous guises such as major commodities on supply chain, we know that a platform creates an options space of further commercial activity. There is always a lot of competitive to and fro about who gets to capture that value. Suppliers often covet value created down stream from them in the supply chain. That’s no different than how platform vendors often fold high value innovations back into their platform offering. A move that is contrary to the end-to-end principle but is quite rational in a commercial mindset. When we complain about a supplier, say Microsoft, overreaching, say by bundling the web browser with the operating system, we call that monopoly; but as the quote above suggests it’s a kind of tyranny.

Reading and thinking about “Breakdown of Will” has been triggering some very surprising connections to all that. Animals are wired to manage their attention in a way that is at odds what we believe to be the optimal way to manage the attention of a rational man. There is a gap between the platform, i.e. the animal, and the problem to be solved, i.e. to be a rational man. It is into this gap that we humans pour our clever rationalizing schemes. Applications on the platform.

So that was my brainstorm. What triggered it was some stuff at the beginning of a book from the anthropology library about trying to explain religion. The introduction was working it’s way through the necessary dross and was talking about Darwinian explanations for religion. My reaction was “The platform can only tell you so much about the applications that run on it.” Darwinian ideas are a major supplier in the explaination of animal systems, but there is a tendency for people to let these ideas overreach their natural scope. You see a similar overreaching by the ideas that come of economics. At this point in my thinking about the ideas in “Breakdown of Will” I’m more inclined to put religion in the application layer as part of our struggle to create useful solutions atop the worse is better legacy platform.

The New Supply Chain, same as the Old Supply Chain

Chris Anderson’s new book on the Long Tail is finally out. I got a review copy and sooner or later I’ll get around to picking apart my thoughts in some organized manner.

The idea in the book is simple; that there are bottlenecks in traditional supply chains, e.g. shelf space in the record store or movie theaters in your town this friday night. These bottlenecks shape what gets sold. I like his provocative idea that if you eliminated these bottlenecks then something he referes to as the true shape of demand would be revealed.

So this is a book about the shape of markets, where by shape we mean the distribution of market share across the set of products moving thru the market. It is refreshing to see that kind of thinking about markets appearing in a book targeted at the air plane business class reading demographic. And further more it’s delightful to see the discussion focus immediately on the issue of where the bottlenecks are; and how they shape the slope and edges of the power-law curves.

It drives me crazy that he appears to be willfully blind to how market players strive continously to create, own, and defend these bottlenecks. While he is enthusiastic in celebrate the freedom created when older bottlenecks are swept away he is entirely silent about the concern that the new bottlenecks might be more or less troublesome than the old ones.

Here, just to take one example, is a nice article in Fortune about how Google holds the fate of so many businesses carelessly in it’s hands now. The elephant doesn’t even notice when it steps on the ants. But actually it’s worse than that. In these Long Tail markets the giants aren’t elephants, they are ant eaters.

The Devil’s Long Tail

In this day and age you really can’t hope to achieve scale with deep relationships, you need broad light relationships that create vast probablistic oportunities for sucess. I’m glad to see that Neil Gaiman and Terry Pratchett know this:

Fourteenth-century minds, the lot of them. Spending years picking away at one soul. Admittedly it was craftsmanship, but you had to think differently these days. Not big, but wide. With five billion people in the world you couldn’t pick the buggers off one by one anymore; you had to spread your effort. But demons like Ligur and Hastur wouldn’t understand. They’d never have thought up Welsh-language television, for example. Or value-added tax. Or Manchester.

He’d been particularly proud of Manchester.

Middlemen

This pretty well sums it up:

In days past, these professional courtesies were almost necessary in building a strong agent/client relationship. Those days are long gone. At one time, it was a loving and trusting relationship built on mutual respect. But as with most modern relationships, the agent/client, once sacred bond, has been destroyed by the Internet.

I like to say that the intermediary must love both sides; that gets harder to sustain in a hurricane of disintermediation. Craig’s list and eBay don’t sport much relationship. Amazon’s model of your buying habits is the best you’re likely to get along those lines.