In 1965, Intel cofounder Gordon Moore published a remarkably prescient paper which observed that the number of transistors on an integrated circuit was doubling every two years and predicted that this pace would lead to computers becoming embedded in homes, cars and communication systems.
That simple idea, known today as Moore’s Law, has helped power the digital revolution. As computing performance has become exponentially cheaper and more robust, we have been able to do a lot more with it. Even a basic smartphone today is more powerful than the supercomputers of past generations.
Yet the law has been fraying for years and experts predict that it will soon reach its limits. However, I spoke to Bernie Meyerson, IBM’s Chief Innovation Officer, and he feels strongly that the end of Moore’s Law doesn’t mean the end of progress. Not by a long shot. What we’ll see though is a shift in emphasis from the microchip to the system as a whole.
In David and Goliath, bestselling author Malcolm Gladwell explains how small upstarts often have surprising advantages over larger, more powerful opponents. “Giants are not what we think they are,” he writes, “and that often makes us fail to appreciate less conventional strategies that may be superior.”
That’s certainly true in business. Large enterprises must serve the present. Things are expected of them. They have to keep customers, employees and other stakeholders happy. These obligations often weigh them down and make them vulnerable to disruptive innovation.
Yet that shouldn’t blind us to the fact that startups make for such enticing stories precisely because they are so unlikely. Most fail. And when they succeed, they become Goliaths themselves and face the same challenges as incumbents do. So instead of glorifying startups, perhaps we should take a closer look at what it takes to stay on top once you get there.
After a terrorist attack, we demand increased vigilance because we perceive an increased threat. Yet TheWashington Post reports that we’re not only more likely to die of more mundane causes, like a bee sting or even getting hit by lightning, but even those remote odds are on a downward trend.
Cognitive scientists call this availability bias. Terrorism makes for a compelling news story. There is agency, a back-story and political ramifications that get reported on heavily. That makes the danger seem more clear and present, so we feel more compelled to act on it. Sqeaky wheels, in effect, get the grease.
Availability bias is more than a simple academic curiosity. It encourages us to react swiftly to tragic events, but ignore slow moving trends that will have a far greater impact. Today, aging, decreased poverty and automation are, at first glance, positive trends—and they are— but they are also starting to create problems that we haven’t even begun to think seriously about.
I recently got a call from my mother asking me to help her watch House of Cards on Netflix. She was frustrated and complained, “I keep pressing the thing and nothing happens!” It was hard to get her to understand I had no idea what thing she was pressing or what was supposed to happen when she did.
I’m still not exactly sure what the problem was, but getting her to understand that the buttons on her remote had little to do with the TV in her bedroom and everything to do with giving instructions to servers in faraway places seemed to help. Before long, her frustration with technology turned to fascination with the political machinations of Frank Underwood.
Many businesses have the same problem as my mother. As technology advances, its function evolves and those that are unable to shift their mental models find themselves unable to compete. This is especially true of digital technology, where every generation sees a new crop players emerge while old titans falter. Only a rare few are able to cross the chasm.
The media business used to be fairly simple. It operated on linear model, consisting of content, distribution and audience, with a small priesthood of publishers, producers and programing executives making editorial decisions for the rest of us. Stars were created by the choices they made.
The Internet blew that model apart. Today it is obvious—even trite—to say that anyone, anywhere can get their voice heard. Platforms like YouTube, Flipboard and Pandora offer a cacophony of voices—from major media companies to journeyman professionals and hopeful amateurs.
For the most part, the removal of the distribution choke-point has been a good thing, but it also comes with a built-in problem. Increase the supply of anything and prices will fall, which makes it harder for creators to finance their work. Now, a number of new business models are rising up to fill the void and it’s changing what we read, watch and listen to.
I recently watched a documentary about Kobe Bryant, the NBA legend. Kobe grew up in my hometown, so I was aware of his superstar status earlier than most people. At his high school games, he looked like a man playing with boys. No one was surprised when he was drafted by the NBA in the first round, at the age of 17.
We expect genius to always look like that. When we see someone of extreme accomplishment, it is almost inconceivable that their special gifts weren’t always apparent, but they usually aren’t. To take just one famous example, Albert Einstein wasn’t even made a full professor until 1911, six full years after his miracle year.
The problem is that true genius defies convention and it is by conventional standards that we ordinarily define achievement. When someone who comes along with a completely new paradigm, it usually looks like nonsense and tends to be ignored. Yet some people have the ability to recognize brilliance in an idiotic guise and that is itself a special kind of genius.
The Hillary Clinton email scandal has seemingly everything that can bring down a presidential candidacy. There are national security issues at stake, an FBI investigation and the fact that a cabinet official chose to use a private email rather than an authorized government address, something her staff was discouraged from doing.
The issue is, of course, highly partisan. Democrats insist she did nothing wrong, while Republicans say that she will be indicted on criminal charges (although the FBI doesn’t). Muddying the water further is the fact that her Republican predecessors, Colin Powell and Condoleezza Rice, had similar email issues.
What makes it all even more confusing is that there are technological issues that very few political reporters fully grasp, so even objective journalists often give skewed impressions of the facts. That’s a real problem. We’re increasingly living in a world where there is a requisite amount of technical knowledge needed to make moral judgments about many issues we face.
Last month, IBM announced that it lead the list of companies receiving US patents for the 23rd consecutive year. IBM’s patent leadership is extreme. It not only consistently tops the list, but outpaces the number two company, Samsung, by 50%. That’s pretty impressive.
IBM’s commitment to research goes back a long way, dating to when its legendary CEO, Thomas Watson established the Research division in the depths of the Great Depression. And, while other great labs, such as Xerox PARC and Bell Labs have long since fallen into obscurity, IBM has redoubled its efforts.
Yet there is a notoriously poor connection between patents and corporate performance. Samsung, Canon and Sony, who also consistently perform well on the patent ranking, have fallen on hard times. Apple, on the other hand, which never makes the list, has dominated tech over the past decade. So is IBM a model for others to follow or a cautionary tale?
Marketing used to be pretty simple. To promote your brand, you used mass media to reach large audiences and create widespread awareness about your product or service. If you crafted a powerful message, the approach could work wonders. Most of the great brands of the 20th century were built that way.
Yet marketing in a digital economy is different. Not only have audiences fragmented, necessitating a more targeted approach, but digital activity is tracked. So even if you are successful in building awareness and creating action, your rivals can retarget those consumers with competing offers.
That’s why many have turned to content. Rather than paying to be sandwiched within ad breaks and between editorial pages, brands can communicate directly with consumers. Unfortunately, the result is often a longer form version of the same old ads. Marketers need to change their approach. Here are four questions that will help you create a viable strategy.
Most people found the General Motors ignition switch scandal appalling. Not only did the defect result in over 100 deaths, but it turned out that fixing the problem would have cost less than a dollar per car. For many, it was a horrible indictment of corporate greed. Profits, it seemed, were valued more than human lives.
Yet look a little closer and it becomes clear that that the real problem wasn’t callousness, but mismanagement. The defect in the ignition system was, in fact, relatively minor. The real problem was that it caused airbags not to deploy. Each subsystem was performing to standard, but the interaction between them that resulted in disaster.
Sadly, most organizations today are run much like GM. All too often, we optimize isolated metrics, but fail to see the whole system. Today, we have to deal with a level of complexity unimaginable a generation ago and we need to think in terms of ecosystems rather than linear value chains. We need to focus less on metrics and more on a shared sense of mission.
Or install manually
Copy and paste the following Google tag code onto every page of your website, immediately after the element. Don’t add more than one Google tag to each page.
, bestselling author 
