Aug 08, 2008, post by Randall
Definitely outshining the Olympian brouhaha, today we gathered to celebrate the birthday of hitherto little known Flavius Octavius. We were honoured to have a reading by the eminent historian and raconteur, Peter Scott, who narrated a gripping saga, reflecting his very latest research. An excerpt of that esteemed work by Herr Doctor Professor Scott follows:
Flavius Octavius
Born 641
Cardinal 662
“anti-pope” 669 in Oc, France
Died 721
well known for his bulls, which had many issues
father was an ocarina maker and player
mother, an occultist (also took in laundry)At the time of his papacy there were several antipopes - challengers to the papal authority in Rome - besides Octavius of Oc, there were Sardonicus of Avignon, Herbivorus of Seville and Randy of Burnham on Crouch.
Octavius’ deeds are the stuff of legend.
He is venerated in Oc today as the patron saint of stray cattle. It is said that his bulls often escaped from their enclosure.
On one famous occasion, when a most large and ferocious bull was terrorising the honest citizens of Oc, the saintly Octavius, still in his ceremonial robes, caused his bearers to lower the palanquin in which he was riding. He produced an ocarina from a concealed pocket and, fearlessly facing the raging bull, played an air of such melodic sweetness that the bull became totally incensed. After the merest, most cursory pawing of the earth, it charged the courageous cleric, who turned and fled, His only escape route was down a very narrow alley and Octavius was not a thin, ascetic pope. In fact, he was a substantially built pope (the expression ‘enbonpoint’ comes to mind). However, although he became tightly wedged at the narrowest point of the alley, he continued to play his ocarina. (There is scholarly disagreement concerning whether this was a sign of his courage or the result of all the wind being forced out of his lungs by his confinement.) The bull, his enthusiasm for goring portly popes no wit diminished, pursued Octavius until he too, became wedged. Thanks to a subtle discrepancy in their respective girths, the bull was brought to a halt within snorting distance of the pontiff.
This stalemate was maintained until the pope’s own Corsican Guards were able free each of the wedged, although to do so, they had to wait for the better part of five days until, first the bull, and then the pope had lost sufficient avoirdupois to allow for the careful application of ropes and wedges.
On the eighth of August every year, Oquians re-enact this famous legend with the famous ‘Spectacle du Taureau.’ Be the weather cool or hot, young and old alike don heavily padded suits under clerical robes and parade at noon in the streets, all playing the well-rehearsed ‘Melodie du taureau‘ on their ocarinas. At an unspecified moment a bull is released, and, like the Bulls of Palmplona, it pursues the crowd. But do not be alarmed, gentle listeners, this bull has been so well fattened that it can barely manage a slow, swaying trot.
The same bull makes a second appearance in the town later that evening garnished with Dijon mustard, flavoured with garlic and various ‘herbes de Provence’ and accompanied with Oc’s special edition red wine, ‘Ruelle Entroite du Pape’.
I hope that this little historical excursion has not intruded upon your enjoyment of tonight’s celebration, and that you will be truly edified by the shining example of courage of Pope Flavius Octavius of Oc, who, on this day, 1300 years ago, triumphed in a tight spot.
Now, everyone please exchange the traditional Oquian greeting, Merde des Taureaux!”
Peter Scott, Elora, 8 August, 2008
Sphere: Related Content
Jun 28, 2008, post by Randall
Successful entrepreneurs must push themselves to develop a set of, often seemingly contradictory, business and life skills. We’ve already talked about fearless passion and not drinking your own bathwater.
Today, we’ll expand on a skill that is becoming ever more important in these times of rapid technological, social and business evolution — the need to embrace change. In my own life, it has been a personal hallmark, so much so that without major new challenges and course corrections, my life satisfaction drops precipitously. Therefore, seeing Guy Kawasaki’s recent interview with Ariane de Bonvoisin called Change is Good reminded me to add change into my personal Entrepeurial Toolkit as skill #3.
For me personally, it is wonderfully affirming that, what I used to consider a pathological need for change, is in fact highly adaptive for the future world. Ariane’s book defines ideal entrepreneurs as “chance optimists”, who believe change is mostly good. Furthermore, those who have a strong believe in the positive power of change can flex their “change muscle” to overcome adverse emotions, or “change demons.” I think you get the picture, but it is certainly well worth reading, if only to re-affirm how important change has become to building lasting value.
The notion that change is cool has long been a hallmark of the culture of Silicon Valley, and most technology startups. Entrepreneurial founders are naturally aggressively impatient, pursuing change with an ADHD-like intensity. In fact, one influential business school commentator, who will remain nameless, suggested that the management style favoured in the Silicon Valley, which is so tuned to rapid growth and a challenging environment, would totally fall apart in the more repetitive world of “traditional” business. The truth is that the technology startups of the 1980’s and 1990’s were almost certainly belwethers heralding the morphing of our economy into one that is largely knowledge-based. I’m really not so sure that a business built on repetition and “continuous improvement” (which, sadly, is often more like “death by a thousand cuts”) has much of a future. But, what is unquestionably true is that the change-intensive technology startup culture is miles apart from traditional businesses whose historical rate of change was measured in decades, not weeks or months.
In a world full of change, do maturity and learned experience continue to have value? Absolutely. Serial entrepreneurs learn to “replay a tape” of past successes, and even more importantly, to 
avoid pitfalls that have bedevilled them in the past. However, replaying the tape is much more complicated as the pace of change accelerates. A good analogy is that you are replaying the tape as the format transitions through 8-Track, to Cassette, 
CD and now to MP3s in Flash memory, while the music genre morphed from Disco to Punk to Rap. Notwithstanding this, there are still enduring universal truths about making great music that transcend format or genre. The same is true for entrepreneurs building great businesses.
I mention this because I still have people ask me to talk about experiences in developing “go to market” strategies from 10 or even 15 years ago. While there are some valuable object lessons there, the approaches today (as we’ve discussed in other blog posts) are totally different. That being said, I feel that those earlier experiences have helped me to navigate this current change-infused world. Alas, my early world of physically shrinkwrapped software, sold through mail order distributors like Programmer’s Paradise and advertised in physical magazine ads, that built MKS in the 1980’s is largely history. The 1990’s saw most software sold via ecommerce on the web. Millenial startups leverage vast social networking platforms (Facebook, Twitter, etc.) and mobile distribution models. Like the tape analogy, each iteration of the market is pushing the envelope and, yet, each borrows heavily from existing playbooks as well.
Furthermore, even technology startups can get into a rut of repetition. As an entrepreneur, it is critical to have a network of intelligence that helps you navigate your ever changing business landscape.
If you want to learn from first hand from Ariane de Bonvoisin on the subject of “Taking Charge of Change”, or even ask your own questions, sign up for her 21 August, 2008 Calliflower call by clicking here.
In summary, embrace change by being both a “change optimist” yourself and encouraging it in your team. My strong belief is that it will enhance your ultimate success as an entrepreneur, and also increase your personal satisfaction during your personal journey to success, however you define it.
Sphere: Related Content
May 13, 2008, post by Randall
In today’s knowledge-based economy, much discussion centres around the importance of clustering. For example, in financial services, cities like New York, London and Toronto have all benefited at the expense of smaller rivals (eg. Philadelphia, Paris and Montreal or Vancouver). Likewise, as entrepreneurial technology startups have spread around the world, the Silicon Valley remains a magnet and model for that magic blend of people, ideas and capital aspiring to create the next Microsoft or Google. Furthermore, in spite of the world-flattening ascendency of information technology over the last decade, in some ways, the forces of such clustering seems to have increased.
Being domiciled in Canada, and having built transatlantic technology companies over the years, led me to ponder Chris Anderson’s recent endorsement of distributed workface in which he “builds companies that are distributed because that’s where the best people are.”
So, what’s the stronger force: clustering or distributed teams? First, let’s dig a bit into history so we can follow this trend.
The 1980’s: Selling Software in a Pre-web World
In the late 1980’s, an otherwise bright, young MBA student advised MKS to conquer local markets (ie. Waterloo Region) before going national and only then to export markets. While this may have made sense in traditional industries, we had the good sense to ignore this faulty gem of wisdom. Instead, reckoning that a dollar spent marketing in the US would reach about 10 times the audience as one dollar spent in Canada, we rejected this advice and focused from day one on selling our first product (MKS Toolkit) into the US market. To provide some context to modern readers, in these pre-web times software companies put ads in the back of magazines with dealers with geeky names like Programmer’s Shop and Programmer’s Paradise, with a several month cycle from ad spend to results. It’s easy to forget that, in those days, software companies had a “manufacturing” group which duplicated diskettes and shrink-wrapped them in boxes with physical manuals. Our main tactic to overcome geography was to use a North America-wide toll free 800 number to mask our country of origin, at least for first customer contact.
In my case, it helped that I had my first software startup experience in the US while building Coherent. This gave me direct operating experience in the Silicon Valley from the beginning. While importing that model of company development back to Waterloo probably wasn’t a 100% fit, it did serve to shape our biases in company structure to a very large degree.
The 1990’s: The Israeli Model
As the 1990’s unfolded, better IT systems, lower cost telephony and the emergence of the internet, web (and its precursors such as AOL), created an environment that was ideal for what I call the “Israeli Model” of technology company formation. In this model, R&D and “back office” functions resided in Israel, while much of the sales, marketing and business development (ie. the storefront of the company) was in the US - typically in the Silicon Valley. Companies like Aladdin, Checkpoint Software and Mercury Interactive all are good examples from the 1990’s.
Why did this model make sense? Israel is a small country with a tiny home market, having a population of just over 7 million. At the same time, it is a rich country (22nd in GDP per capita) with extremely high educational standards and a military establishment that was pushing the boundaries of research into many IT-related disciplines. Thus, Israel was an ideal cluster of brainpower and ideas to create new technology startups. However, the market was elsewhere. Between Tel Aviv and San Francisco there is an inconvenient, and inescapable, 10 hour timezone difference and up to 20 hours of flying time. To help overcome this a bi-modal company structure evolved, often with half of the staff (the back end) in Israel and the other half (the front end) in the USA. It’s a time tested model that has proven remarkably resilient.
As a result, despite its apparent disadvantageous geographic location, today Israel is second only to America in the number of NASDAQ-listed companies, and the Economist says that “the country attracts twice the number of venture-capital (VC) investments as the whole of Europe”.
It may seem odd, given how close Canada is to the US, to suggest that the same model made sense for Canadian companies as well. However, especially in the 1990’s, these key business drivers were essential to MKS or any other Canadian technology company with global aspirations:
- corporate image: many Americans like to buy local, so having a strong (front end) presence in the US will definitely improve both the sales, and even investment and valuation, prospects of the company.
- senior talent: sales and marketing executives with expertise in the software industry were effectively nonexistent in Canada. MKS source both its VP Sales and VP Marketing from the US. It was a great choice that allowed us to access top talent from major competitors. Furthermore, these executives provided mentorship, by acting as role models for the Canadian-based employees.
This was a virtuous circle, in which better US image helped to increase company value, attract ever better talent and ultimately should provide long term exit options.
Why not split the R&D organization as well? Notwithstanding our adoption of the Israeli Model, MKS resisted moving to multiple development locations until the very late 1990’s. Ironically, being a company that sells software to manage multi-site development, the state of the art in telecommunications and software adoption was still too primitive in those days and face to face communications continued to be critical. However, as the internet and bandwidth continued to develop and once MKS embarked on a series of acquisitions across the US, we did invest heavily in the new, IP-based room conferencing systems to knit geographically dispersed teams. It remains clear that until very recently, a single location for development has been preferable, particularly in the formative, early stages of product innovation.
Best Practices Today
Today, we live in a business world that routinely accepts offshoring, virtualized management, distributed teams, etc. Tools like Basecamp, Enterprise Wikis, iotum’s rich conferencing, and even instant messaging for real time back channel, all make distributed innovation sessions (aka meetings) much more practical. What is most interesting is the fact that video plays only a very small part in all of this.
After years of evolving startup playbooks, we may be finding the right balance between the more traditional “Israeli Model” and the fully decentralized team as espoused by Chris Anderson. At Coreworx (Software Innovation), we moved the company to Waterloo largely to gain synergies, at a critical early stage, in what was then a 20 person team. So, there are clearly some benefits that remain from people interacting face to face and always will be. The most creative and innovative processes may well work best only when conducted in person. Further more, with the rise of mobile nomadism, less and less work seems to be conducted in the traditional office setting.
That being said, each year we seem to be able to achieve more by ignoring geography and building around the best talent. Conversely, I have a feeling that the convivial, chalkboard-centric environment at Waterloo’s Perimeter Institute may well be crucial to the breakthroughs in fundamental physics that institution will undoubtedly generate. What is your take on the necessity of clustering talent?
Sphere: Related Content
