Creative Destruction – Page 30

Job Hopping May Aid Technological Experimentation

When employees jump from company to company, they take their knowledge with them. ”The innovation from one firm will tend to bleed over into other firms,” Professor Rebitzer explained. For a given company, ”it’s hard to capture the returns on your innovation,” he went on. ”From an economics perspective, that should hamper innovation.”

He found a possible answer to the puzzle in the work of two management scholars, Carliss Y. Baldwin and Kim B. Clark. In their book ”Design Rules: The Power of Modularity” (MIT Press, 2000), they argued that when there is a lot of technological uncertainty, the fastest way to find the best solution is to permit lots of independent experiments. That requires modular designs rather than tightly integrated systems.

”By having a lot of modular experimenters, you can take the best, which will be a lot better than the average,” Professor Rebitzer said. Employee mobility may encourage productive innovation, as people quickly move to whichever company comes up with the best new technology.

. . .

To Professor Rebitzer’s surprise (though not his co-authors’), it turns out that Silicon Valley employees really do move around more often than other people. The researchers looked at job changes by male college graduates from 1994 to 2001. During that period, an average of 2.41 percent of respondents changed jobs in any given month.

But, they write, ”living in Silicon Valley increases the rate of employer-to-employer job change by 0.8 percentage point.”

”This effect is both statistically and behaviorally significant — suggesting employer-to-employer mobility rates are 40 percent higher than the sample average.”

For the full commentary, see:

VIRGINIA POSTREL. "ECONOMIC SCENE; In Silicon Valley, Job Hopping Contributes to Innovation." The New York Times (Thursday, December 1, 2005): C4.

A PDF of the paper by Rebitzer and colleagues is downloadable at: http://www.federalreserve.gov/Pubs/feds/2005/200511/200511abs.html

The book Postrel praises, is:

Source of book image: http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/customer-reviews/0262024667/104-2835260-2878345?redirect=true

Russians Try to Steal Rocker’s Vacuum Tube Factory

Mike Matthews holding one of the vacuum tubes produced in the Russian factory he owns. Source of photo: online version of the NYT article cited below.

(p. C1) SARATOV, Russia — Mike Matthews, a sound-effects designer and one-time promoter of Jimi Hendrix, bought an unusual Russian factory making vacuum tubes for guitar amplifiers. Now he has encountered a problem increasingly common here: someone is trying to steal his company.

Sharp-elbowed personalities in Russia’s business world are threatening this factory in a case that features accusations of bribery and dark hints of involvement by the agency that used to be the K.G.B.

Though similar to hundreds of such disputes across Russia, this one is resonating around the world, particularly in circles of musicians and fans of high-end audio equipment.

Russia is one of only three countries still making vacuum tubes for use in reproducing music, an aging technology that nonetheless "warms up" the sound of electronic music in audio equipment.

"It’s rock ‘n’ roll versus the mob," Mr. Matthews, 64, said in a telephone interview from New York, where he manages his business distributing the Russian vacuum tubes. "I will not give in to racketeers."

Yet the hostile takeover under way here is not strictly mob-related. It is a dispute peculiar to a country where property rights — whether for large oil companies, car dealerships or this midsize factory — seem always open to renegotiation. It provides a view of the wobbly understanding of ownership that still prevails.

. . .

(p. C4) If the tube factory dies, so will the future of a rock ‘n’ roll sound dating back half a century, the rich grumble of a guitar tube amplifier — think of Jimi Hendrix’s version of "The Star-Spangled Banner" — that musicians say cannot be replicated with modern technology.

"It’s nice and sweet and just pleasing sounding," Peter Stroud, the guitarist for Sheryl Crow, said in a telephone interview from Atlanta. "It’s a smooth, crunchy distortion that just sounds good. It just feels good to play on a tube amp."

He added: "It would be a catastrophe for the music industry if something happened to that plant."

For the full story, see:

ANDREW E. KRAMER. "From Russia, With Dread; American Faces a Truly Hostile Takeover Attempt at His Factory." The New York Times (Tuesday, May 16, 2006): C1 & C4.

The transistor disrupted the vacuum tube, a case that would usually be described as an episode of creative destruction. One secondary lesson from the story above is that there may be a previously unremarked symmetry to the process of disruption. A disruptive technology typically appeals only to a niche in the market, while the incumbent technology dominates the mainstream. But after the disruptive technology improves sufficiently to capture much of the mainstream market, maybe there often will remain a niche market that still prefers the older disruptive technology?

To use Danny DeVito’s example in "Other People’s Money," the car may have disrupted horse-and-buggies. But for some nostalgic "jobs" the horse-and-buggy may still be the better product, so there will likely remain some demand for buggy whips.

To the extent that this phenomenon is significant, it might serve to ease the labor market transition when one technology leapfrogs another.

A vacuum tube used in guitar amplifiers, that was produced in the factory that Mike Matthews owned. Source of photo: online version of the NYT article cited above.

Entrepreneur Risks His Money; Government Risks Yours

George B. Kaiser. Source of photo: http://www.forbes.com/finance/lists/10/2003/LIR.jhtml?passListId=10&passYear=2003&passListType=Person&uniqueId=OXNB&datatype=Person

(p. A1) In 2002, Kathleen Eisbrenner, then an executive at El Paso Corp., spent months trying in vain to find a buyer for the company’s novel technology for importing natural gas.

In February 2003, she left for a vacation in Cancun, convinced that El Paso would be forced to abandon the project. As she sat on the beach one afternoon, she got a call on her cellphone. A colleague had a message from an intermediary, who said he had an "interested buyer," identified only as a "Midwest billionaire."

"It’s Warren Buffett calling," she recalls telling her husband as they clinked pina colada glasses together in celebration. "I was absolutely sure."

But it wasn’t Mr. Buffett. It was another billionaire named George B. Kaiser.

. . .

(p. A6) . . . , Ms. Eisbrenner called Nicolas Saverys, the chief executive of Belgium-based Exmar NV. Exmar was building two of the new-style LNG vessels. Ms. Eisbrenner gushed that there was a wealthy buyer. Mr. Saverys was initially skeptical. He changed his mind in late February 2003 after meeting Mr. Kaiser in New York. "At last, I was talking to someone who was putting his own money at stake," he says.

Mr. Saverys sealed the relationship by presenting Mr. Kaiser with a box of pralines from Belgian chocolatier Pierre Marcolini at their second meeting. Mr. Kaiser, an avowed chocoholic, returned the favor a couple of weeks later in Tulsa, giving Mr. Saverys a box of candy made by Christine Joseph, a Tulsa chocolatier who also was born in Belgium.

Convinced that Energy Bridge could work, Mr. Kaiser agreed to take over the business, closing the deal last December. El Paso paid him $75 million; in return, he assumed a $120 million obligation to Exmar. El Paso also agreed to pay to install the underwater pipeline connection that carries the gas from the ship to existing pipelines in the Gulf of Mexico.

The bulk of the $660 million Mr. Kaiser invested went to modify three specially equipped tankers and to charter them for 20 years. If Energy Bridge opens on time in January, it will be at least two and a half years ahead of any new terminals being developed by other energy companies. In addition, civic leaders in Massachusetts and Rhode Island, eager to keep LNG terminals and tankers far from the mainland, are encouraging Mr. Kaiser to build an offshore tanker-based project along the Atlantic coast of the U.S.

Mr. Kaiser, who declined requests for an interview but answered some questions by e-mail, concedes he doesn’t like "taking a risk on an undemonstrated technology." But he says that the chance to import natural gas quickly was "such an obvious and alluring business opportunity" that he felt compelled to get Energy Bridge into operation. He’s betting that new LNG-export facilities expected to come online next year in Egypt, Trinidad and Nigeria will create enough extra supply to provide him with ample LNG.

. . .

He says he acquired Energy Bridge as a challenge. "I don’t gain much pleasure from personal expenditure or recognition," he wrote in an e-mail. "And any gains I make from the enterprise will accrue to charity. But I enjoy problem solving and I want to keep my brain active to forestall (or at least diminish) atrophy."

For the full story, see:

Russell Gold. "Liquid Assets: A Billionaire Takes a Gamble To Fix Natural-Gas Shortage; Mr. Kaiser Plans to Shift Processing Onto Tankers, Avoiding Terrorism Fears; A Deal Sealed With Sweets." The Wall Street Journal (Fri., July 23, 2004): A1 & A6.

(Note: ellipses added.)

Precariousness: In France it is Sought and it is Feared

Coombs and VanderHam on the April 3, 2006 extreme ski run, in which they both died. Source of caption information, and of photo: online version of the first NYT article cited below.

Some seem to seek risk:

(p. A1) ”La Grave goes from tranquil to frightening and mad, and it’s so exhilarating to be in those moods,” Mrs. Coombs said in a telephone interview last week. Her husband, she said, ”never found anything more perfect.”

Last month, Mr. Coombs slipped off a cliff and fell 490 feet to his death. He was 48. He was trying to rescue Chad VanderHam, his 31-year-old protégé and skiing partner from the United States. Mr. VanderHam had gone over the same cliff moments earlier. He also died.

Their accident, during a recreational outing, has focused attention on extreme skiing and on this remote destination, high in the Alps about 50 miles east of Grenoble.

For the full story, see:

NATHANIEL VINTON. "Skiing Beyond Safety’s Edge Once Too Often." The New York Times (Wednesday, May 17, 2006): A1 & C23.

Others seem to fear risk:

PARIS, April 8 – Standing amid the chaos of the protests here this week, Omar Sylla, 22, tried to explain why the French are so angry about what seems to many people like such a small thing: the French government’s attempt to loosen labor laws a bit by allowing employers the right to fire young workers without cause during a trial period on the job.

Even after President Jacques Chirac promised to shorten the period to one year from two, the protests continued, and French students and unions have vowed to keep demonstrating until the law is repealed.

”We need less precariousness, not more,” said Mr. Sylla, the son of immigrants from Ivory Coast, who still lives with his parents in a government-subsidized apartment in a working-class suburb of Paris.

Mr. Sylla said he had searched for years for a job before finding work about a month ago as a baggage handler at Charles de Gaulle International Airport. Even then, he said, he only got the job because his sister works at the airport and pulled strings on his behalf.

For the full story, see:

CRAIG S. SMITH. "French Unrest Reflects Old Faith in Quasi-Socialist Ideals." The New York Times, Section 1 (Sunday, April 9, 2006): 8.

Economists have long puzzled at how the same person can both buy insurance and gamble in a casino. The first seems an act of risk-aversion, and the second of risk-seeking. (Milton Friedman, and others, have tried to explain the paradox.)

But I am puzzled by something else. When risks are taken, why are they so often taken in arenas such as rioting in the streets, or extreme skiing, where they achieve no noble purpose? Whatever risks one is going to take, why not take them in the arena of innovation and entrepreneurship, where the potential benefits to the innovator and to human progress, are huge?

Container Ships Revolutionized Shipment of Goods

Source of book image: http://www.pupress.princeton.edu/titles/8131.html

Virginia Postrel’s periodic column in the New York Times over the past six years, was a beacon of optimism, clarity and fresh insights on how the economy works. The excerpt below is from her last column. Presumably she is moving on to other worthy challenges, but her column in the Times will be missed.

”Low transport costs help make it economically sensible for a factory in China to produce Barbie dolls with Japanese hair, Taiwanese plastics and American colorants, and ship them off to eager girls all over the world,” writes Marc Levinson in the new book ”The Box: How the Shipping Container Made the World Smaller and the World Economy Bigger” (Princeton University Press).

For consumers, this results in lower prices and more variety. ”People now just take it for granted that they have access to an enormous selection of goods from all over the world,” Mr. Levinson said in an interview. That selection, he said, ”was made possible by this technological change.”

. . .

The idea of containerization was simple: to move trailer-size loads of goods seamlessly among trucks, trains and ships, without breaking bulk. But turning that idea into real-life business practice required many additional innovations.

New equipment, from dockside cranes to the containers themselves, had to be developed. Carriers and shippers had to settle on standard container sizes. Ports had to strengthen their wharves, create connections to rail lines and highways, build places to store containers and strike new deals with their unions.

Along the way, even the most foresighted people made mistakes and lost millions. Malcom McLean himself bought fast fuel-guzzling ships right before the 1973 oil crisis and slow, economical ships just as fuel prices turned down. ”Almost everybody who was concerned with containerization in any way at some point got the story wrong,” Mr. Levinson said.

It is a classic tale of trial and error, and of creative destruction.

For the full commentary, see:

Virginia Postrel. "ECONOMIC SCENE; The Container That Changed the World." The New York Times (Thursday, March 23, 2006): C3.

The full reference to Levinson’s book is:

Levinson, Marc. The Box: How the Shipping Container Made the World Smaller and the World Economy Bigger. Princeton University Press, 2006.

R. Glenn Hubbard Coins a Phrase: “Nondestructive Creation”

In much of the press speculation right before Bush named the replacement for Alan Greenspan as head of the Fed, three names were usually mentioned as frontrunners: Ben Bernanke, Martin Feldstein, and R. Glenn Hubbard. Based on various speeches and writings, I had reason to believe that Feldstein and Hubbard understood and appreciated the importance of Schumpeter’s process of creative detruction. So I hoped that Bush would pick either Feldstein or Hubbard. Alas, I have found no evidence that Bernanke has ever mentioned creative destruction (but maybe I just haven’t dug hard enough).

In the passage below, Hubbard suggests that much job creation, occurs through nondestructive creation, rather than through creative desruction. An interesting claim, that may be true. But I doubt it. Some evidence would be nice.

Much of the current policy discussion of the ups and downs of the labor market harkens back to entrepreneurship as "creative destruction." This conception has fueled policy anxiety over job loss and global competition. But so much of productivity-enhancing entrepreneurship is really about "nondestructive creation," in which new products and ideas generate growth.

There are policy lessons, too, in the observation that it is not simply opportunity (e.g., IT) but the seizing of opportunity (e.g., new types of firms or business practices) that enhances productivity. Competition can promote entrepreneurial innovation in a way that raises productivity growth: Foreign competition has long been a source of productivity-enhancing innovation. In the domestic economy, policy can enhance or limit competition by its stance toward new business formation and employment. The U.S. has enviably low regulatory costs of business formation, while, by contrast, entry restrictions limit business formation in a number of other competitor countries. Labor market policy matters, too: Recent OECD research finds a strong negative correlation between a country’s technology growth-rate and the strength of its employment protection laws.

. . .

Over the past quarter-century, average U.S. labor productivity has risen by two-thirds. This enormous increase in workers’ ability to produce has not come at the expense of jobs. The 40 million new jobs created over the same period reveal the secret of an entrepreneurial economy: Successfully seizing business opportunities can raise living standards and employment. For this reason, entrepreneurship–the motor that drives the labor market–must be a focus of study in business education and policy making.

For the full commentary, see:

R. Glenn Hubbard. "’Nondestructive Creation’." The Wall Street Journal (Wednesday, September 7, 2005): A16.

P.S. Mark Wohar alerted me to an amusing music video, satarizing Hubbard’s possible ambitions to become chair of the Fed. I later saw the video receive publicity on CNBC’s Power Lunch program, where the video’s student-creators at the Columbia Business School were feted. The video may be found at: http://www0.gsb.columbia.edu/everybreath/

Leapfrog Competition in Video Game Machines

Source of book image: http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/customer-reviews/0385479492/ref=cm_cr_dp_2_1/104-0758544-2447945?%5Fencoding=UTF8&customer-reviews.sort%5Fby=-SubmissionDate&n=283155

Co-opetition is a readable book with some plausible discussion of interesting cases. The central message is that business is not always a zero-sum game (in contrast, say, to competitive sports). One implication is that the firm’s complementary relationships with other firms, may deserve as much attention as its competitive relationships.

One qualitfication: I think the book too much emphasizes game theory as the sine qua non source of the book’s insights. About the only game theory you really need to understand 99% of the book’s analysis is the concept of the "zero-sum game."

In a couple of places, the book discusses "leapfrog" competiton in the video game industry:

(p. 102) By mid-1995 the price of the 3DO machine was down to $400 (with $150 worth of software thrown in). Cumulative sales passed half a million. Progress, surely, but as of early 1996, 3DO’s future remains uncertain. It no longer has the 32-bit game to itself. Sega is shipping its 32-bit Saturn machine at $400. Sony has launched its 32-bit PlayStation at $300. Looking to leapfrog them all is Nintendo, whose 64-bit Ultra machine is due out in April 1996 at a price under $250.

(p. 114) Could a challenger hope to breach Nintendo’s virtuous circle? Not once the circle had got rolling. Forget about alternatives–TV, books, sports. From a kid’s perspective, there were no good alternatives to a video game. The only real threat came from alternative video game systems. Here, software was key, as always. With a huge library of Nintendo titles to choose from, why would anyone buy another machine? Perhaps a challenger could take successful Nintendo games over to its platform and then offer its own library. But the exclusivity clause killed that option. No game could be taken to another platform for a two-year period, by which time the game was passe. A challenger would have had to start from scratch. While large profits and shortages normally invite entry, the virtuous circle made competing in Nintendo’s game hopeless. The only hope was to leapfrog Nintendo with a new technology; that’s what Sega ultimately did, as we’ll see in the Scope chapter.

Source:

Brandenburger, Adam M., and Barry J. Nalebuff. Co-Opetition; a Revolution Mindset That Combines Competition and Cooperation; the Game Theory Strategy That’s Changing the Game of Business, 1st ed. Currency, 1996.

Hunter-Gatherers Prefer Civilization

Source of photo: online version of NYT article cited below.

(p. A13) The newly arrived Nukak do not provide much detail about why they left. They just say that "the Green Nukak," a possible reference to Marxist guerrillas, who wear camouflage, told them to leave.

"The Green Nukak said we could not keep walking in the jungle, or else there would be problems," explained Va-di, another Nukak man, whose words were translated from Nukak by Belisario. "The Green Nukak told us to go where it is safe."

. . .

In Aguabonita, the scene on a recent day was full of commotion and laughter. Naked children tugged at the shirts of two foreign journalists, offering big smiles and hugs. The men quickly welcomed the visitors into a makeshift shelter, where they laughed at some of the questions and, it seemed, wholly innocently at their own odd predicament.

Are they sad? "No!" cried a Nukak named Pia-pe, to howls of laughter. In fact, the Nukak said they could not be happier. Used to long marches in search of food, they are amazed that strangers would bring them sustenance — free.

What do they like most? "Pots, pants, shoes, caps," said Mau-ro, a young man who went to a shelter to speak to two visitors.

Ma-be added, "Rice, sugar, oil, flour." Others said they loved skillets. Also high on the list were eggs and onions, matches and soap and certain other of life’s necessities.

"I like the women very much," Pia-pe said, to raucous laughs.

One young Nukak mother, Bachanede, breast-feeding her infant as she talked, said she was happy just to stay still. "When you walk in the jungle," she said, "your feet hurt a lot."

The men still go into the jungle, searching for monkeys, a delicacy the Nukak cannot seem to live without. Monkeys are grilled, dismembered and boiled, then eaten piece by piece. The women still spend their time carefully weaving intricate wristbands and hammocks, using threads from palm leaves.

All live in shelters now, enjoy constant medical attention and, on weekends, stroll into town to take in the sights. "Nukak life is hard in the jungle," Dr. Maldonado said. "You wake up thinking about food and you go hunt, you go search for nuts. So when they see us they think their food problems are over."

That is not to say the Nukak do not have plans.

Ma-be explained that the idea is to grow plantains and yucca and take the crops to town. "We can exchange it for money," he said, "and exchange the money for other things." But first they need to learn how to cultivate crops. The Nukak say they would like their children to go to school. They also say they do not want to lose traditions, like hunting or speaking their language. "We do want to join the white family," Pia-pe said, speaking of Colombian society, "but we do not want to forget words of the Nukak."

For the full story, see:

JUAN FORERO. "Leaving the Wild, and Rather Liking the Change." The New York Times (Thurs., May 11, 2006): A1 & A13.

(Note: ellipsis added.)

Will Google Leapfrog Microsoft?

Microsoft co-founder Bill Gates and Google CEO Eric Schmidt. Source of photo: online version of NYT article quoted and cited below.

The Microsoft-Google rivalry is shaping up as a titanic corporate clash for the ages.

It may not turn out that way. Markets and corporate fortunes routinely defy prediction. But it sure looks as if the two companies are on a collision course, as the realms of desktop computing and Internet services and software overlap more and more.

Microsoft, of course, is the reigning powerhouse of computing and Google is the muscular Internet challenger. On each side, the battalions are arrayed: executives, engineers, marketers, lawyers and lobbyists. The spending and competition are escalating daily. For each, it seems, the other passes what Andrew S. Grove, a founder and former chairman of Intel, calls the "silver bullet test" of strategic competition. "If you had one bullet, who would you shoot with it?"

How the Microsoft-Google confrontation plays out could shape the future of competition in computing and how people use information technology.

Do the pitched corporate battles of the past shed any light on how this one might turn out?

Business historians and management experts say the experience in two of the defining industries of the 20th century, mass-market retailing and automobiles, may well be instructive. The winners certainly scored higher in the generic virtues of business management: innovation, execution and leadership.

But perhaps even more significant, those who came out on top, judging from history, had two more specific attributes. They were the companies, according to business historians, that proved able to adapt to change instead of being prisoners of past success. And in their glory days, these corporate champions were magnets for the best and brightest people.

For the full story, see:

STEVE LOHR. "And in This Corner . . . Microsoft and Google Grapple for Supremacy as Stakes Escalate." The New York Times (Weds., May 10, 2006): C1 & C14.

Source of graphic: online version of NYT article quoted and cited above.

Static Versus Dynamic Pictures

Schumpeter distinguished the static picture of capitalism in the textbook model, with the dynamic reality captured in the process of creative destruction. Apparently Ronald Reagan also understood that a dynamic view is better than a static snapshot. Michael Deaver recounts:

(p. 75) . . . I told him that I noticed his aversion to sitting for photo shoots. He looked at me surprised. "That’s funny, in all these years, nobody’s ever noticed that." I asked him to elaborate. "Well, you can never recover from a still shot."

Reagan was most comfortable with moving film, he went on to say. He truly believed the television camera was a friend, a device that would separate the real from the phony. Still cameras could always be used to make a candidate look like a fool. When he explained this to me in the (p. 76) late 1960s, he said, "You know how I sometimes touch my nose before I make a point? Well, a still shot would show me picking my nose, while a live shot would show me making my point."

Source:

Deaver, Michael K. A Different Drummer: My Thirty Years with Ronald Reagan. Reprint ed. Harper Paperbacks, 2003.

Successful Mutual Fund Expert Claims Capitalism is Revitalized by Creative Destruction

SAN FRANCISCO — One morning in November 2003, 15 Dodge & Cox senior managers gathered in a conference room here to decide an issue brewing for years: Was it time to close the flagship Dodge & Cox Stock Fund to new investors?

For months, senior managers had stood in the hallways and gathered in glass-paned offices, questioning what long had been a point of pride in the mutual-fund world: huge sums of money pouring in for investment. It became "a water-cooler kind of issue," recalls Kenneth Olivier, the firm’s president.

. . .

Dodge also faces some other issues: In December, longtime Chief Investment Officer John Gunn became chief executive, and a new president and executive vice president were named. Another CEO switch could occur when Mr. Gunn turns 65 in 2008. That would be a relatively large amount of turnover for a firm that has had only five CEOs in its history.

. . .

. . . , Mr. Gunn often speaks at mutual-fund forums and investor conferences. The ruffled-hair Mr. Gunn resembles a college professor, wearing gray pants with yellow pinstripes, a light orange shirt and a yellow tie with zebras one recent day. His feet on a chair, he quoted 20th century Austrian economist Joseph Schumpeter when talking about media stocks, noting "capitalism is revitalized by waves of creative destruction." Ancient Asian artifacts, like a pink stone statue from a 14th-century tomb, adorn the office.

As for the flagship fund’s future, Mr. Pohl said as he and Mr. Gunn sat at a conference-room table, "the fact that we have outperformed" since closing to new investors, "I think is proof" that the decision was made at the right time.

"So far," Mr. Gunn added, half-jokingly.

For the full story, see:

DIYA GULLAPALLI. "When Mutual Funds Don’t Want Your Cash Dodge & Cox Says No To Many New Customers; Angst at the Water Cooler." The Wall Street Journal (Mon., May 1, 2006): R1 & R?.

(Note: ellipses added.)

Source of graphic: online version of WSJ article cited above.