Why I believe AAPL will crumble ...

Earlier this year, at the height of Apple fever, I made a bet that Apple will be in Chapter 11 by the end of 2017. I thought I'd explain my reasoning because it's not what most people would suspect.

First, the problem with Apple in my view was Jobs. Whilst Steve Jobs was outstanding at creative leadership, that is only part of the battle for creating a sustainable company. An exclusive focus on creative leadership always leads to failure as the genesis of new activities (i.e. innovation) might be high worth but it's unstable and uncertain.

The problem for Apple started in my view from a major strategic blunder - it didn't open source iOS, it didn't feel it needed to, it was building the entire stack. By not doing so it enabled Android to thrive. Apple gave oxygen to the formation of a competitive ecosystem of hardware providers to develop around Google's new weapon (and Google had every reason to do this because of the threat that IOS exposed to Google's value chain of data).

As that ecosystem develops, Apple will find itself in a stand alone innovation game against it. The pressure will build for ever more outstanding and exciting breakthroughs in technology which Apple has delivered with the iPad. Unfortunately, this pressure will continue and such breakthroughs by their very nature (chaotic) are uncertain and every company in this position before has failed.

Take Commodore and the Commodore64 which was vastly more influential than the iPad. The C64 transformed a world where computers were rooms owned by huge corporations into personal computers. In terms of consumerization, the C64 was dramatic.

Commodore and Apple both tried to lead this new world through constant innovation but were hammered by the more commodity based ecosystem approach of "IBM PC compatible". Commodore died and Apple barely survived but unfortunately it seems to have failed to learn that lesson.

So once again, we find ourselves in a world where Apple is pushed into the high risk stand alone innovation game against a growing, more commodity focused, ecosystem. That ecosystem will enable rapid innovation of higher order systems, it will outstrip Apple once again and I suspect that Cook (the new Apple CEO) knows this.

The only viable defence against such an ecosystem play is to build a bigger ecosystem (which is tough as a stand-alone) or to buy up the supply chain and use patents to slow your competitors. The latter Apple has done but such moves only slow the change, they don't stop it.

It can give you breathing space though to find that next breakthrough or to work out how to build a bigger ecosystem. However, the problem is often expectation i.e. your customer expect that breakthrough continuously.

I've not listened to Apple's latest press release but if its lacks any breakthroughs and dazzling tech (which I strongly suspect) then markets and fans will slowly turn against Cook and cry "bring Jobs back". Markets always do this, they always want more of the past.

Into this current fray, Amazon will certainly push with its normal approach of commoditising an industry and building an ecosystem around itself. If Google and the greater ecosystem around Android have been waiting for this moment, then they'll shortly strike at Apple - a flood of patent attacks.

Apple will start to turn inwards and the market pressure on Cook will intensify. They'll go from looking for that next breakthrough to needing it. Culture will start to change, it may start to buckle.

Apple's core business will be undermined by the commodity players whose technology will rapidly catch up and overtake, assuming Google can get them to work in a common interest. Soon Android devices will be everywhere. If Apple's patent and supply chain protection measures fail, if a concerted patent attack against Apple is successful then this will happen sooner.

At this point, with margins under pressure, markets under attack, the gloss peeling off the Apple logo and the culture starting to decline then the markets will go after Cook - "it was his fault" they'll say. Of course it wasn't Cook's fault, Jobs made the blunder with an excessive focus on creative leadership creating a high margin but unsustainable business.

Cook might pull out a miracle and maybe they've got some tech they've been keeping back in preparation to dazzle. Maybe he'll help Apple create that sustainable company which balances both innovation and commodity by dealing with the constant flow between them.

I doubt it, markets never think that hard nor give that much time. Cook is more likely to end up as the next Leo Apotheker ... and as for Apple well it didn't learn the lesson first time around, I don't suspect Google and Amazon will let it have a third go.

That's my view, that's my reasoning and that's why I made my prediction. Of course, the prediction assumed Jobs would still be the CEO and maybe Cook can change things by correcting those errors. Should be interesting to find out.

-- Update 13th February 2014

One of the key parts of the above scenario depended upon an aggressive share buyback in order to sustain market value / perception. I was expecting this to be around $100 billion. It turns out that buyback is much less than I anticipated (around $54 billion in the last two years) though Icahn was pushing for closer to $90 billion. This cutting back on the buyback is a fabulous move and gives AAPL a lot more breathing room. Cook is doing an excellent job.

-- Update 17th January 2015

Cook still continues to perform an outstanding job. There's the usual grumbles about the "lack of innovation" along with certain investors demanding a "larger cash buy back" but Cook has played a strong game, focusing more on the growth of the ecosystem, using supply chains effectively ... it's all good. Really impressive and adds many years to that company.

-- Update 30th April 2016

Cook has been truly remarkable. Apple is in a stable and strong position. Obviously some investors are unhappy about not getting big share buybacks or the lack of stellar growth but since they are just interested in a quick buck who cares. Well done Cook. Exceptional.

Why proprietary software is mathematically more evil than open source

As we all know, proprietary software costs time (t) and money (m). Hence,

Proprietary Software = m.t

However, we also know that time is money. Hence,

Proprietary Software = m^2

However money is the root of all evil. Hence,

m = (Evil)^1/2

By substitution we can show that,

Proprietary Software=((Evil)^1/2)^2 = Evil

Ok, so proprietary software is evil but is this more evil than open source? Since open source only costs time, it is therefore obvious that:-

Evilness of Proprietary Software = (Evilness of open source)^2

As a function of cost, then :-

Evilness of Proprietary Software per $= (Evilness of open source)^2/0

i.e.

Evilness of Proprietary Software per $= (Evilness of open source).infinity

If we hypothesise that open source isn't evil then :-

Evilness of Proprietary Software per $=0.infinity = 1

In other words, proprietary software is infinitely more evil than open source and even if open source isn't evil then proprietary software still absolutely is.

Next posts include ... Mathematical proof of why patent lawyers suck your soul dry and why clothing concepts in a cloak of mathematics doesn't make them right.

Culture eats strategy ... where's the data?

I find irksome the management mantra that is commonly spouted of "Culture eats strategy for breakfast" because no-one ever seems to be able to justify the statement with data. I thought I'll pen a few thoughts on this.

An organisation consists of a mass of people, activities and practices combined with reserves of physical, financial, human and social capital. It's the interaction of the former three which impacts the latter either positively or negatively.

Culture results from the interaction of people with social (e.g beliefs, values, reputation) and human (e.g. skills, knowledge, myths) capital. In much the same way, the business itself can be described through the interaction of people, activities and practices with various forms of capital.

Strategy, is simply a plan of action, an intention and an aim e.g. it's the act of trying to achieve a particular goal or result. Either something has a strategy or we leave it to chance, randomness and accident.

We often talk about product strategy, marketing strategy, business strategy and organisational strategy but equally (if not in many cases more) important is cultural strategy. If you don't aim or plan to develop a particular culture, you'll end up with something by accident and that is not necessarily a good thing.

In recent years, the creation, building, "gaming" and planning of culture has become an increasingly more visible topic. Few have highlighted this trend as much as Zappos and Tony Hseih's work on delivering happiness. Be under no doubts, you can plan to build a specific culture.

Once a culture has formed it can certainly impact what business, product and marketing strategies you can effectively deploy in much the same way that past product strategies often impact future product strategies through inertia such as concerns over cannibalisation etc. In some cases, a future product strategy may require you to plan a new culture by spinning-off a group from the main corporate body.

As a rule of thumb your future strategies are impacted by today's strategies.

Whilst I can see some modicum of merit in bland arguments such as culture trumps products in certain industries, the culture eats strategy argument appears entirely misguided because you can plan to create or change a culture. Your strategy might require you to create a new group, to focus on happiness or to game the system - it doesn't have to be random or accidental.

To cut a long story short, the "Culture eats strategy" statement hypothesises that :-

unplanned, random and accidental [lacking strategy] culture eats for breakfast having a plan, intention or aim [for culture].

... I'm sorry I don't buy that, especially unless backed up by considerable amounts of data to counter examples such as Netflix and Zappos which show the opposite.

The counter hypothesis is that having a strategy for culture, organisation, business, product, marketing etc is better than not having one i.e. strategy eats all for breakfast, lunch and tea. In other words having a plan of action, aim or intention to achieve a goal is better than relying on randomness, accident and fate to do the same.

Now, the counter hypothesis would appear to be an obvious truth which is dangerous in itself. So, I'll start the process of collecting data and let's find out whether the "Culture eats Strategy" brigade have a leg to stand on. I doubt they do but then I might be pleasantly surprised.

Strata Conference

The O'Reilly Strata Conference NYC has now finished and I have to say it was a blast. The standard of speakers, corridor chat and the general environment was exceptionally high. If you're interested in speaking, they've already opened up the request for proposals for the Feb'12 event, so get writing.

There was something magical about the event in NYC created by a convergence of people, technology and ideas. I haven't seen a conference with this much buzz and excitement since ETech. You can guess that I was truly impressed, it was O'Reilly at its finest and that's a tall order given the very high standard of their conferences. If you missed the conference, then you can find many videos from the event on the O'Reilly channel.

I was also fortunate enough to be asked to speak, the video of my talk is below. In my session I covered commoditisation, innovation and the role of big data by examining some of my new research into the evolution of organisations. As per normal, the title of the talk is my usual Situation Normal, Everything Must Change and the talk itself is different from any other previous example i.e. the title applies to the talk itself.

By the way, if you have enjoyed my talks and you're interested in helping out with my research then please take 20 minutes to complete my online survey, as that would be really appreciated.

OSCON 2010: "Situation Normal, Everything Must Change"

Prisoner of T5 ...

On average, I find myself on a plane at least twenty times in a year. There's a lot I dislike about flying. In no particular order my pet dislikes are: flying coach, British Airways and airport queues at customs (especially NYC & SFO where it is particularly abysmal).

I don't suffer from jet lag (I use the starvation trick when needed) and I generally find airport security pretty quick and responsive. Though I'm a smoker, I've always gone outside the building to smoke, so the movement of airports to non-smoking has been no skin of my nose.

Well, that was until today.

I arrived early at Heathrow Terminal 5 (an airport I rarely use as it's mainly BA), sat down for a quick bite to eat and then decided to go out for a smoke - obviously you can't smoke in the airport.

So I went to security who said I had to be escorted through. Kidding? I have been through every one of the world's busiest airports plus a whole host of smaller airports and I've never once needed to be escorted from departures to outside the airport. I was then told by security that I had to get permission from the British Airways customer support person - damn.

Being incredibly polite I asked the lady from BA whether I could be escorted outside to have a cigarette. "No" was the reply because there was less than three hours until my flight.

So, let us be clear ... I'm currently a "captive" inside T5 departures lounge unable to leave until I get on my flight? I'm held against my will, a prisoner of BA!!! I feel a protest song coming on ...

"Free, Free, Free Simon Wardley ..."

Joking aside, my dislike of British Airways has hit an all time low.

[Addition]

Well, it's BA so what do you think happened. Yes, my flight has been delayed close to departure by just under two hours. Still not allowed out to have a smoke - a cruel and unusual punishment.

Next phase of research ...

Many years ago, I produced the ubiquity vs certainty curve to describe the process of how business activities evolve. It took 4,084 data points to create the curve and more details about this topic can be found here.

Currently, I'm researching into how organisations evolve. After conducting a number of general and then specific interviews (creating a thousand data points), I've been able to create models of evolution which hopefully I'll be using in future presentations.

However, I need to collect more data to test the models and either verify or falsify them and hence I've put a general survey online : [Link to Survey]

The presentations that I give at various conferences are based upon this process of hypothesis and testing, so if you have ever found my work useful (such as my various talks at OSCON on cloud computing, see below) then I would be very grateful if you could take 10-20 mins to complete it.

Depending upon the results and validity of the models, I'm aiming to give a number of talks next year on how organisations evolve combined with techniques to exploit this. Naturally, I'll be blogging about the findings as well and the survey does allow you to provide an email in case you'd like a copy of the overall results.

[Link to Survey]

Thanks

Simon Wardley

OSCON 2010: "Situation Normal, Everything Must Change"

The battle that wasn't ...

Chris Boos wrote an interesting post about a debate that @samj and I were having on twitter regarding APIs in the cloud space. I thought I'd leave my comment here as a general view on the subject.

A couple of things to point out. Twitter is not the best tool in the world to determine the exact context of a discussion because those listening aren't generally privy to the history of the discussion. Hence in this case, it may not be clear that Sam Johnston and I are in absolute agreement on the importance of open source and efforts like OpenStack in this world.

Any difference between us is on the necessity of reverse engineering APIs and co-opting as the main short term tactical play. The long term we're both totally in agreement on - open standards, open formats and open source are critical.

Our difference in views on short term tactical plays hardly constitutes a battle but is merely debate. As for being a "giant", whilst that is very flattering it doesn't coincide with my view of the world. Nevertheless, it was an excellent post by Chris and much appreciated.

Comment --

Just to clarify my view - as it currently stands any company can reverse engineer an API for reasons of interoperability. Hence when trying to make a market of providers in the IaaS space with semantic interoperability between providers, I strongly support adoption where there is clearly a dominant API.

It should be noted that such a market can have multiple open source and proprietary implementations around the API. However, running code through an open source effort is necessary to form a market place without a single (or consortium of) vendor(s) being able to force a tax on that market. In other words, providers need to have an operational means of implementing the service and compete in the market without a necessity to purchase software licenses (a tax on competition). They may choose to buy software to do so but a free market is one unencumbered by such forced taxation.

This is why I do no support MSFT Azure's effort, despite the provision of open standards because there exist no open source implementation.

This is why I did not support Google's AppEngine, despite the provision of an SDK as there existed no fully operational open source means of implementing the service.

This is why I strongly support open source efforts which reverse engineer the dominant API for reasons of interoperability e.g. open stack, eucalyptus etc.

It is also why I strongly support open source efforts which attempt to create the dominant standard in a fledgling market, such as CloudFoundry in the PaaS arena.

Once the marketplace of alternative providers is large enough and it has the dominant ecosystem then the open source effort in effect becomes the defacto standard for implementation and the API in that market. If necessary, due to abuse of position by the original provider, then the API can be differentiated away from the original provider including providing an entirely new API where applicable.

I don't find attempts to differentiate on API in a utility world where one API is clearly dominant meaningful. Of course if an open source effort (such as openstack) creates a large enough ecosystem then it is in effect the dominant and can do as it pleases.

I find re-inventing the wheel by creating an API by committee and attempting to get the market to adopt as a wasted effort when a market has in principle chosen.

I do find the way to standardise is through creating the largest ecosystem and in such cases both reverse engineering the dominant API for reasons of interoperability combined with provision of open source running code is necessary.

Co-opt rather than compete is the order of the day in this world.

The abuse of innovation.

Innovation is a term which is widely abused and this abuse prevents us from seeing patterns in how business activities evolve.

It is difficult to see what changes when everything is called an innovation in the same manner that it's difficult to see the difference between commodification (assignment of economic value) vs commoditisation (shift from imperfect to perfect undifferentiated competition) because of the catch-all nature of the term commodification (i.e. it's used to mean both).

Take for example the utility provision of computing infrastructure (as per Amazon) - is it an innovation?

When it comes to computing infrastructure, the innovation of modern computing probably started with the Z3 in 1941. This act of innovation created an entirely new class of activity - computing infrastructure - which has evolved over time through various stages with custom built examples (LEO etc), products (IBM 650 and onwards) and eventually led to commodity and utility provision. For reference, the full cycle is innovation, custom built, product (with rental services) and commodity (with utility services).

Two things should be noted, firstly that the pathway of evolution is common for activities (and knowledge) though it's not a time based sequence. Secondly, the innovation of the Z3 created a new class of activity rather than evolved an existing class (as with the first phone, the first radio, the first ...)

When it comes to the shift from products to utility, this simply represents an evolution of an activity and not the creation of a new form i.e. infrastructure existed before Amazon. However, it is perfectly true to say that this evolution enables (through creative destruction) and accelerates (through componentisation) the innovation of higher order systems i.e. as infrastructure has evolved we've seen an explosion of innovation in big data, mash-ups etc. This is perfectly normal as commoditisation (the common term used to describe this evolution) creates a cycle with innovation.

So, we have a difference between innovation of a new activity and evolution of an existing activity - both of which we unfortunately call innovation.

To complicate matters there's also the consumer and provider perspective. Whilst electricity is a commodity provided through utility services to consumers, behind the interface (the plug) has been a world of innovation of novel activities (wind farms, solar power, geothermal etc) aiming to create some form of operational advantage. However, it is worth noting that this provider innovation doesn't suddenly turn a consumer commodity into an innovation.

Finally we have terms like sustaining and disruptive innovation. As an activity evolves, in many cases changes to the activity (such as feature differentiation in the product stage) are sustaining and occasionally they are disruptive.

When an activity evolves across a boundary i.e. shifts from products to utility services (as with cloud) then this shift is generally disruptive because the incumbents have huge inertia to the change caused by their past success in the previous stage of evolution (i.e. product or rental vendors).

So the pattern we have is :-

1. Innovation of a genuinely new activity which is distinct from the evolution it enables.
2. Evolution of an activity to custom-built, product (rental) to commodity (utility services). This process is commonly called commoditisation.
3. Sustaining changes dominating within domains (i.e. product)
4. Disruptive changes dominating between domains causing a discontinuity with the past (i.e. product to utility services)
5. Enablement and acceleration of the innovation of higher order systems through commoditisation of lower order subsystems (i.e. creative destruction and componentisation)
6. A difference between consumer and provider perspective.

Now, the problem with the abuse of the term innovation is we end up with :-

1. Breakthrough Innovation
2. Feature, Product and Service Innovation
3. Sustaining Innovation
4. Disruptive Innovation
5. Loads of Innovation (paradigm shift etc)
6. It's my product, of course it's an Innovation ...

We normally shorten this to Innovation, Innovation, Innovation, Innovation, Innovation and Innovation.

Or in other words Innovation.

You have no hope with spotting the pattern under such circumstances and it's no wonder that people get confused with this subject. This has severe impacts on management practices but that's a post for another day.

As for Amazon's EC2, it represents an evolution of an existing activity which is disruptive, will enable breakthrough innovation of higher order systems and for the provider has probably involved a mix of different types of innovative pursuits in operations.

I hate to give up on words, however "innovation" has become so widely abused as to be meaningless. For the future I'm tempted to use the word "Genesis" to describe the creation of a new activity and to put "innovation" in my book of pointless words along with "Cloud" etc.

Hosting Con Keynote

I was very fortunate to be asked to give the opening keynote at Hosting Con 2011 covering commoditisation, business evolution, leadership and what the various tactical plays in the cloud computing space mean to hosting companies. The audience was fantastic, I had a great time and despite using excessive numbers of slides, no-one was hurt in the process.

Continuing on the theme from my OSCON tutorial, I've uploaded a summary set of slides which are highly condensed but give a taster to what we covered.

Alas, there's no video and as per usual I'm six years into writing my book and around 30% of the way there. The subject matter keeps on giving me more areas of interest to explore, so don't hold your breath for me to finish any time soon.

Summary of Hosting Con 2011 keynote

View more presentations from swardley

OSCON Tutorial

I gave a three hour tutorial at OSCON on innovation, commoditisation, business evolution, organisation, leadership and various tactical plays in the cloud computing space. The talk was a blast, I really enjoyed it and judging by the feedback it hit some home runs with many of the audience.

However, the presentation is 1,041 slides long and so - I'm not uploading that or creating a video. Instead I've made a summary presentation which covers the main points.

Be warned, it's highly condensed.

Situation Normal Everything Must Change

View more presentations from swardley.

Is Microsoft's biggest enemy … Microsoft?

Last year at OSCON, I examined mechanisms by which a company could use technology evolution to disrupt an existing player with minimal fear of retaliation. To quote myself :-

"it's the incumbents existing model which will protect you"

This year at OSCON, I'll be giving a three hour tutorial which will explore the entire subject of organisational warfare in far more detail. To give a taster of what is to come, I thought I'd expand upon some of the reasonings behind the above statement.

Anyone who has been following my public presentations over the last seven years or has been exposed to my exploration of this subject over the last decade+ will be well versed in much of this practice. For those uninitiated in this field, I'll start with some basics.

All business activities evolve through a common lifecycle and Cloud Computing is simply an example of this. Unfortunately, whilst we know how things will change, we cannot say when. The pattern of evolution is independent of time which is why the lifecycle graphs that I use have no time axis. But then they could never have a time axis, the future is an information barrier we cannot see past.

Fortunately, there are also barriers to the process of evolution and these give us a sense of when things will happen. In order for an activity to evolve from the domain of products to that of utility services then the following four factors are required - concept, suitability, technology and change in attitude. These factors are our "clue" that change will happen.

So we can predict how things will change, just not when - at least not with any great accuracy.

As any business activity evolves along its lifecycle its characteristics change from more chaotic (e.g. appearance of constantly changing, highly uncertain) to more linear (e.g. appearance of being defined, predictable, measurable). Using this change of characteristics we can develop organisational models which cope with evolution. An example of this is the Innovate-Leverage-Commoditise (ILC) pattern which can be found with many cloud companies.

So we can predict what will happen and though we can't predict precisely when, we can design an organisation around evolution.

There are two tactical plays that I'd like to discuss which can be used in such an environment. The first is around creative leadership, think Steve Jobs' Apple. The other is around disruptive leadership for which the best example would probably be Amazon.

Amazon is a company which rarely seems to create a new activity but instead specialises in commoditising activities and disrupting existing players. Infrastructure existed before EC2, book distributors existed before Amazon.com and the paperback existed well before the kindle. Amazon is extremely good at the disruption game.

To illustrate this disruption play further, figure 1 provides a rough tactical map of Salesforce. Whilst the incumbents are firmly entrenched in the product world for provision of CRM (& sales automation), Salesforce has commoditised this activity through provision of a standardised service. It also appears to be operating an ILC pattern i.e. core services around which a growing ecosystem is used to encourage innovation and identify new successful patterns which are then subsequently commoditised to core services - hence innovate, leverage and commoditise. This model is little different from Amazon's play in the infrastructure space.

Figure 1 - Tactical Map of Salesforce (click on image for higher resolution)

On closer inspection, Salesforce seems to be doing more than just commoditisation with an ILC pattern, as can be clearly seen from Radian's 6 acquisition. They also seem to be operating a tower and moat strategy, i.e. creating a tower of revenue (the service) around which is built a moat devoid of differential value with high barriers to entry. When their competitors finally wake up and realise that the future world of CRM is in this service space, they'll discover a new player dominating this space who has not only removed many of the opportunities to differentiate (e.g. social CRM, mobile CRM) but built a large ecosystem that creates high rates of new innovation. This should be a fairly fatal combination.

But, how is Salesforce able to get away with this? Why was it that Amazon and not a hosting company created this future world of infrastructure provision? The answer would appear to be … inertia.

The existing players in the CRM world are stifled by their very own success in the product world. This past success creates an inertia barrier to change. Whilst the causes of the inertia barrier can be traced back to the early stages of a companies formation, by the time a company is of a reasonable size it is often embedded in the organisation, culture and reinforced by external financial markets. Figure 2 provides an overview of this.

Figure 2 - Causes of Inertia (click on image for higher resolution)

So, back to the question about Microsoft. Whilst Microsoft is now making some strong moves into the service world, the problem for MSFT is this space is being even more aggressively commoditised through open plays. Whether it's VMware's necessary play into open source platform with CloudFoundry or the Openstack attempt to out-commoditise Amazon's out-commoditising of the existing industry.

Both efforts attempt to exploit the natural end state for ubiquitous and well defined IT activities i.e. good enough components provided through a marketplace of providers based upon common open source reference models. Both efforts will seek to create higher order revenue streams such as assurance, exchange, marketplaces and brokers alongside the normal business of being a service provider. 

Whilst MSFT has made much of a fanfare about its recent moves into the cloud, it was a probably a significant internal battle for MSFT just to make the change from products to services. However, this new world is likely to be rapidly commoditised to marketplaces based around open source and hence the real question becomes whether MSFT will be able to make the further change necessary to survive in that world?

Microsoft's future business should be intertwined with open source in the domain of utility services. Unfortunately, the last group of people who are usually willing to accept such a change are those who have built careers in the previous domain e.g. products. The bad news for Microsoft is that group probably includes a large chunk of its own organisation. Hence Microsoft itself is probably its own greatest threat to future survival.

Or as the great Bill Gates once noted:-

"Success is a lousy teacher."

That's one of those basic lessons which often gets forgotten in business. In this world of competition, there are two fronts to fight on. The external front includes those competitors who attempt to either gain a creative leadership position or to disrupt your existing model. The other front is internal and against your own past success.

Which is why in my latest research I've been looking into the web 2.0 world to see if we can't find techniques, strategies and methods for managing IT and the business more effectively in a continually changing world. Of course, I already know that there exists significant competitive advantage in organisational design and the application of cybernetic management as was demonstrated through my successes, failures and experimentation with Fotango during '01-'07. The real question for me is how widespread have equivalent practices become and who is pushing the envelope with culture, organisation, ecosystems and a complex adaptive approach?

-- Update 25 August 2013

Some two and bit years later, the New York Times has published an article on "Needed at Microsoft: A Catch-Up Artist".  The article talks about how “Microsoft does have a financial problem, and it’s been the fear of losing those massive profits from Windows and Office” i.e. inertia and goes on to propose they need a catch-up artist. 

When I wrote the above post in July 2011, these concepts and how to play them had been well established for many years (I personally had used the inertia of competitors as an advantage in Fotango in 2005 and Canonical in 2008).  Inertia is of course, highly problematic if a change is unpredictable (e.g. a change in value networks such as cable versus hydraulic excavators) and this will often lead to what is called "Disruptive Innovation".  However, corporate inertia is more than solvable if you are aware that a highly predictable and inevitable change is going to hit you. 

What I've subsequently discovered is that most companies don't seem to be aware of highly predictable changes and are often disrupted by things which shouldn't disrupt them. Yes, these changes get lumbered under the term "Disruptive Innovation" but in reality they are a class of highly predictable changes which were defendable against.  Cloud computing is an example of this.

Being disrupted by cloud (something which was predicted back in 1966) and was screaming loud in terms of weak signals in the early to mid 2000s is pretty shocking.  This is an issue beyond inertia (and denial) and it is better described as corporate blindness. 

From my experience, corporate blindness is fairly rife. The impact can be reduced through mapping of a landscape or other mechanisms to improve situational awareness especially when combined with some understanding of economic play.  Whilst I like the NYT article, in today's competitive landscape just being aware of inertia and that your own success inhibits your future survival isn't going to enable you to compete against some of the tough players out there.

Oh, and don't get me started on OpenStack.

-- Update 12th February 2015

Microsoft seems to be really turning the corner, they've increasingly adopted a more open route and seem to be overcoming inertia. This is fabulous to see. They've a top notch CEO in Satya Nadella.

Tim Cook has done a tremendous job with Apple, rebalancing it to a more ecosystem focused future. Truly exceptional CEO in my book and up there with Jeff Bezos.

Oh, and don't get me started on OpenStack. What a wasted opportunity.

Responsibility

I'm traveling on a research trip in the U.S. and whilst my topic is one of organisation and the impact of change, I cannot help but notice the current "confusion of responsibility" that appears to be occurring in the mainsteam media.

All business activities evolve and all organisations are in a constant competitive struggle. One of the impacts of this change is that previously successful models are often replaced, for example the current shift from software products to software services. Unfortunately, organisations who have built around the previous model often face internal barriers which create an internal inertia to making the change necessary for future survival. Without this inertia, external disruption would not occur and today's giants of industry would generally be tomorrow's giants of industry.

Disruption is simply a consequence of management failure, it is the responsibility of management to ensure the organisation not only survives and competes today but also tomorrow. However, management doesn't operate in a vacuum and the inertia is often exacerbated by the actions of the financial markets i.e. it becomes difficult to change a successful model even though that model has a limited lifespan precisely because the financial markets are short term and see only short term value.

The pressure that the financial markets create is immense for any large organisation and ultimately those financial markets share a heavy burden of responsibility for failures caused by the pressure they exert. However, the short term view of the markets is such that this is not seen as their responsibility and long term failure is solely put down to management.

Unfortunately, the financial markets are very adept at blaming others for what is ultimately their fault. The current economic crisis caused by irresponsible lending, a merry go-round of debt re-capitalisation and excessive exposure are all the responsibility of the financial markets. Whilst you can point fingers at consumers, that's like saying a toddler shouldn't have eaten the candy you gave it and blaming the government is like blaming a parent for not providing some rule to govern your irresponsible choice.

The financial markets are entirely responsible for the economic crisis. They're equally responsible for many company failures through short-term attitude. They're also responsible for acting in a dishonorable manner when it comes to the Fed Bank - through the exploitation of quantitative easing for financial gain to the using of Fed money to recapitalize rather than increase lending.

The U.S. Gov and Public should realise that the Financial markets act on a short term basis without consideration of the long term consequences. They act with the persona of an adolescent, always blaming others, threatening to run away, demanding less rules and pointing to a lack of rules as a reason for their own reckless behaviour. They discount the long term to a frightening degree.

Short of grounding the child (the fiscal equivalent of nationalisation), the Gov should understand that the financial markets are an offspring of society and despite the threats they have to operate within its rules. Those rules should and can be gamed to encourage more longer term responsible behaviour.

The financial markets won't magically learn responsibility, that behaviour has to be taught and encouraged. Left alone, they'll just get upto the same old tricks.