1 The Seattle Innovation Symposium/Series A Program of Research on Creating New Billion Dollar...

1

The Seattle Innovation Symposium/Series

A Program of Research on Creating New Billion Dollar IT-based Businesses in the 21st Century

Presentation by Mark Cotteleer (Marquette University)andRichard L. Nolan (University of Washington and Harvard Business School)

2

Agenda for Today’s Session

A Multi-disciplined University/Enterprise issue

Results of Field Research and Internet2 Ad Hoc Business Innovation Working Group – Dick Nolan

The Next Step: Broaden the Research Community to a Multi-disciplined group – The Seattle Innovation Symposium – Mark Cotteleer – What it is– How it will work– When: September 13 and 14, 2004– Contact: [email protected]

3

Nolan/Austin Harvard Business School Internet1 Research 2002

How was Internet1 developed?

How did business almost totally miss it until 1995?

4

1960 1975 1980 1995 2010

Org

an

iza

tio

na

l Le

arn

ing

DP Era

Micro Era

Network Era

Stages Theory: Three Eras of IT Growth

2005

5

1960 1980 19952010

Org

an

iza

tio

na

l Le

arn

ing

DP Era Micro Era Network Era

Stages Theory: ARPA/Internet

2005

1962 Packet SwitchingLicklider-MIT

Kleinrock-MIT/UCLABaran – RandDavies-UK

1966 ARPALicklider-MITLarry Roberts

1973 InternetVint CerfBob Kahn

Bob Metcalf

1982 TCP/IP1971 email Tomlinson- BBN

1991 WWWTim Berns-Lee

1995 Netscape .comAndreeson/Clark

6

ARPA-1958

MIT

Lincoln LabsHarvard

J.C.R.LickliderPhD in 1942, U ofRochester in Psychology

Harvard Psych/Accoustic Lab

J.C.R.Licklider-1942George MillerLeo BerenekStanley Stevens

MIT Rad Lab

MIT Accoustics Lab1949LickliderMillerBerenek

Stanford

U. Utah

UCLA

SDC

Bell Labs

Shockley TransistorLab

Fairchild-1957

Intel-1968

William Shockley-Invented transistor

William Shockley Gordon Moore

William Shockley Gordon Moore Andy Grove

Wesley ClarkIvan SutherlandLarry RobertsLen KleinrockJCR Licklider 10/13/67Robert KahnJohn McCarthyMarvin Minsky

1st Dir-Jack Ruina1stIPTO Dir-Licklider 1962-64Ivan Sutherland 1964Bob TaylorLarry RobertsBob KahnJerry Elkind

Licklider’s List:MIT-timesharingCarnegie-Simon, Newall, PerlisBerkeley – timesharing (SDC)Rand-packet switchingStanford –AISRI-Doug EngelbartUCLA

Wash U.

Wes Clark

KleinrockCerfCrokerPosh

CarnegieSimonNewallPerlis

EvansSutherlandKayBob Taylor

Evans andSutherland CompanyGraphics

Licklider- “Man-MachineSymbiosis” Jan 13, 1960

U. CA Irvine

RandPaul Baran-Packet-switching

Natl. Physics Lab-UK

Donald DaviesPacket-switching

IBM

Licklider1964-67

Bolt, Berenek &Newman

Frank HeartDave WaldenBob KahnRay Tomlinson

Vannevar Bush

Bush-”As We May Think” Atlantic Monthly 1945

First CS Program 1965Dec 9, 1968FJCCARPA’sWoodstockEnglebart U. Illinois

CS Grad MeetingSpon by ARPAVint CerfAlan DayPatrick WinstonJohn WarnockDanny CohenBob Blazer

IMP#1

IMP#3

Stanford Research Inst.

Doug Engelbart-mouse-windows

Engelbart – “AugmentingHuman Intellect” 1962

IMP#2

IMP#4

Berkeley

By 1971 ARPA is funding 30University sites hooked to ARPANET

Birthing of the Internet – Decade of the 60’s © Richard Nolan and Robert Austin, 2003.

7

MIT

Lincoln Labs

Harvard

MIT Rad Lab

Stanford

U. Utah

SDC

Intel-1968 William Shockley Gordon Moore Andy Grove

developed computer on chip (Intel 4004)

JCR Licklider Marvin Minsky

Xerox Parc

Wash U.

Wes Clark

UCLAKleinrockCerfCrockerPosh

CarnegieSimonNewallPerlis

Dave EvansSutherlandAlan KayBob Taylor

Evans andSutherland CompanyGraphics

UCAL Irvine

RandPaul BaranPacket switching

Natl. Physics Lab-UK

Donald DaviesPacket switching

Bolt, Branek &Newman

Frank HeartDave WaldenBob KahnRay TomlinsonJerome ElkindSevero Ornstein

U. Illinois

Stanford Research Inst.Doug EngelbartBill English(+ 12 others)

By 1971 ARPA is funding 30University sites hooked to ARPANET

Creating the Networked PC – Decade of the 70’s

Xerox

George Pake DirectorJerry EklindBob TaylorGary StarkweatherSevero OrnsteinAlan KayBob MetcalfeDavid BoggsEd McCreightBill EnglishCharles GeschkleJohn WarnockDan IngallsButler Lampson Chuck ThackerPeter Deusch Ed FialaRichard ShoupJim MitchellCharles SimonyiAlto finished in 1973; Star soldFor $18,000 in 1980.

BCCBulter LampsonCharlesThackerPeter DeutschEd FialaRichard ShoupJim Mitchell

BerkeleyDave EvansCharles Simonyi

John McCarthy Jim Clark

DARPA

Gary StarkweatherBob Metcalfe

Hobbiest PC Development

MITS – 1968Ed RobertsPaul AllenAltair 8800Jan. ‘75 computerSold for $397“Bill Gates”consultant

Naval PostGraduate Sch.

Gary Kildall

Digital Research1976

Gary KildalldevelopedCP/M

Computerland1975Bill Milliard

IMS-1973Bill MilliardTodd Fischer

Developed theIMSAI 8080

Apple -1976Steve JobsSteve WozniakDevelopedApple II-1977$1300

Tandy -1977

TRS80 launchedAug. ’77 soldFor $399

Traf-O-Data –1972Bill GatesPaul Allen

Commodore –1977PET computer

Oracle -1977Larry EllisonEd CotesBob MinerOracle Rel DB

IMSAI-1976Bill Milliard

1979 IMSAIGoes bankrupt

Microsoft1975Bill GatesPaul AllenBASIC

Bob Kahn –19721973 paper of Cerf/KahnIntroduced data grams,And gateways (TCP)Larry Roberst leavesIn 1973

Telenet-1973

Larry Roberts-sub of BBN toMarket privatePacket switching

Licklider replacesLarry Roberts in 1973 at DARPA

Defense CommunicationAgency

In 1975, DCA takes over management of ARPANET; BBN contracts for operationof ARPANET

© Richard Nolan and Robert Austin, 2003.

8

Nolan/Austin Internet1 Research

Could it happen again?Is it happening now?What can be done?

9

Internet2 AdHoc Business Innovation Group

Marv Adams, Ford Motor Company

Robert Aiken, Cisco

Jill Arnold, Internet2

Robert Austin, Harvard Business School

Gary Bachula, Internet2

Mark Cotteleer, Marquette University

David Croson, Temple University

Tom DeMarco, Atlantic Systems Guild

Steve Hall, Thomson

Ted Hanss, Internet2

John Henderson, Boston University

John King, University of Michigan

David Koenig, Citigroup

Alan Murray, Novell

Richard Nolan, Harvard Business School and University of Washington

Michael Norwich, CS First Boston

Jose Royo, Ascent Media

George Westerman, MIT

Charles Yun, Internet2

Michael Zisman, IBM

Jonathan Zittrain, Harvard Law School

10

Internet2 AdHoc Business Innovation Group

Deliverable: – Harvard Business School Working Paper - “On

Identifying and Tracking the Next “Killer App”

Key Conclusions– Will be a grouping of technologies enabling a new,

important “capability”– Legacy Industrial age management principles and

practices seriously inhibit emergence of next business “killer-app”

11

Broadening our Internet2 AdHoc Business Innovation Group to a Multi-disciplined Network

Austin/Nolan/Lazowska/Eisenberg 2004The Idea of the Seattle Innovation Symposium/Series

12

Lessons from the “Tire Tracks Diagram”: The IT Innovation Ecosystem from earlier research

13

Identifies 19 $1 billion (or larger) information technology-based innovationsIllustrates flows within and between innovationsIdentifies (a subset of) innovation contributorsEmphasizes the interrelationships between economic sectors in the development of major innovation– University Research (federal funding)– Industry Research (industry or federal funding)– Product Introduction $1B markets

Lessons from the “Tire Tracks Diagram”: The IT Innovation Ecosystem

14

Shows “Skip-jumping” between innovations streams is important and not well understood

15

Boston: MIT, HarvardResearch Triangle Park: Duke, UNC, NC StateAustin: University of TexasSo. California: UCSD, UCLA, CaltechNo. California: Stanford, Berkeley, UCSFPuget Sound region: University of Washington

One critical ingredient is always there where there is high-tech innovation and success: Top universities

16

Established companies generally don’t capitalize on innovationsThe culprit is good management (and shareholder behavior), not bad management

Responsible Managers Often Make Rational Decisions that Impede Innovation.

17

Traditional view

Fundamental research

Applied research

18

A more modern, 21st Century view:

Concern with science/fundamentals

Co

nce

rn w

ith

use

EdisonPasteur; much of biomedical and engineering research

Bohr

19

Relevant Research comes from many sources that coalesce into vibrant networks: Seattle’s Puget Sound Region

20

What Does This All Mean for today?

Continuing IT innovation will continue to provide opportunities for firms to raise productivity

Back to the basics – understand and leverage the role of IT in key business processes/ core capabilities

Investments in IT capital must be complemented with corresponding investments in organizational capital.

© 2004 Vijay Gurbaxani, All rights reserved

21

Creators (scientist) and Stewards (managers)

Who makes innovation happen and emerge into new billion dollar segments?

22

How hard it is:Bob Taylor, ARPA, Xerox PARC

“People tell me ‘The Internet happened very fast.’ They’re crazy. It took forever!”

“[In 1967] I went to Bell Labs and I said, ‘we’re going to have this experimental interactive network, and I want you guys to be a node on it. I want you to participate in development of it, so you will know what it’s all about, and you can embrace it into AT&T when the time comes.’ Bell Labs said, ‘We’re not interested. Packet switching won’t work.’ Flat out…

“I go to IBM and say ‘I’d like [you] to be a node on this network we’re starting, so that you can experiment with this technology along with us.’ IBM said, ‘Our computers can already talk to each other. We’re not interested.’”

“Suppose IBM and AT&T had said ‘You bet’…suppose Xerox in 1975 has...a successful product focus…AT&T, IBM, and Xerox--three of the strongest, largest, and most powerful companies of those times, all actively involved in the development of this technology…we’d have been there a lot sooner.”

23

We think we are smarter than we are: The Problem of Too-Literal Extrapolation

What will we do with a lot more processing power? We’ll run out of transactions to process...– Widespread, but understandable, imaginative shortfall– Ken Olson (1977): “There is no reason for any individual to have a

computer in their home.

Very difficult to break free of current (1960-70s) context– Computers are for complex computations, mundane transactions– Processing is a scarce resource, ought to be shared (timesharing)

24

Actual Trajectory Was Not Obvious

Some did, however, see it– Vannevar Bush, 1945, “As We May Think” describes hypertext,

http://www.theatlantic.com/unbound/flashbks/computer/bushf.htm

– JCR Licklider, 1960, “Man-Machine Symbiosis,” http://memex.org/licklider.pdf

– Licklider and Bob Taylor, 1968, “The Computer as a Communication Device,” http://memex.org/licklider.pdf

– Bob Engelbart, 1968, Fall Joint Computer Conference, Convention Center in San Francisco

25

Engelbart Demo, December 9, 1968

Streaming video of this demo on line at http://sloan.stanford.edu/mousesite/1968Demo.html

90-minute live demonstration of an online system Engelbart and colleagues had worked on since 1962.

Attended by about 1,000 computer professionals.

Public debut of the computer mouse along with demonstrations of:

HypertextObject AddressingDynamic File LinkingShared-screen collaboration involving two persons at different sites communicating over a network with audio and video interface.

26

The critical role of the creators, but fundamentally, they “march to a different drummer”

Alan Kay: “The world is run by C-pluses. ARPA aimed at A-plus-plus; no one asked the A-plus-pluses what they were going to do…Business would rather control mediocre people than be out of control with talented people”Bob Taylor: “We didn’t want to make it commercially viable because we were good people…I hate business. That’s why I never started a company…I wouldn’t want to do it for a day…for 35 years, including now, I never worked with anyone who I didn’t want to work with…the people I did work with were really good. Lots of IQ points. They weren’t just good, they were really good.”Bob Engelbart: “’what if I can maximize the value of my career and help humankind?’ …you have to have a crusade….

27

Creators and Stewards

Creators– Governing impulse: Realize the vision at all costs– Seeks the grand vision, all of it, no compromises– No concept of break-even, does not know or care where it is– Value creator

28

Creators and Stewards

Creators– Governing impulse: Realize the vision at all costs– Seeks the grand vision, all of it, no compromises– No concept of break-even, does not know or care where it is– Value creator

Stewards– Governing impulse: Law of diminishing returns– Seeks products that are “good enough” but not better– Going beyond break-even is wasteful– Value harvester

29

Stewards and Creators: A History of Discord

[Thorstein Veblen, The Theory of Business Enterprise (1904)] … Identifies a powerful conflict...between the engineers and scientists -- professionals of great skill and productive potential – and the profit-oriented businessmen.The businessmen, for good or ill, keep the talents and tendencies of the scientists and engineers under control and suppress them as necessary in order to maintain prices and maximize profits. From this view of the business firm, in turn, comes an obvious conclusion: somehow release those who are technically and imaginatively proficient from the restraints imposed by the business system and there will be unprecedented productivity and wealth in the economy.

From J. K. Galbraith’s Economics in Perspective: A Critical History

30

Propositions and Questions for Research

It is difficult to overcome our “present paradigms”.– Are there things we can do to shed the limitations

on our vision?

The steward/creator difference in world views will likely continue– Are there ways of working that can help us

overcome differences?

31

The Seattle Innovation Symposium

September 13 and 14, 2005University of Washington Law School – Seattle

100 Research Faculty, PhD Students, & Corporate [email protected]

32


Objective:

Begin developing a collaborative understanding among researchers and firms…

about the process of developing important IT innovations…

leading to a billion dollar product sectors.

[email protected]

33


Day 1: Grounding, Lessons Learned from Experience, and Key Insights– Plenary Sessions

• IT Innovation Investments, Process, and Results.• Insights from Internet1 Pioneers: Those that have done it before.• From Interesting Ideas to Billion Dollar Industries: Those that have

done it recently.

– Moderated Panel Discussions• Participants form panel, react to plenary speakers

– Preliminary Analytic Framework

[email protected]

34


How can we know where everything is, all the time?

How can we see further/deeper/in greater detail?

How can we structure a question and bring greater resources to bear on answering it?

Creators Ask/Answer Questions(for example)

[email protected]

35


Identification

Location• Time• Place

State• Appearance• Sound• Smell• Feel• Taste

Connection• Speed• Reliability• Latency• Ubiquity• Security

Technology Attributes

Situational Awareness

Resource Sharing

Visualization

CapabilitiesArmy

After Next

Grid Computing

Medical Imaging

Application

36


Situational Awareness & “The Army After Next” – Reducing the Logistics Burden for the Army After Next: Doing More with Less (1999), www.nap.edu

Develop/Deliver Accurate Information– Friendly & Enemy Locations– Maps of Local Terrain– Processed Intelligence

• Opposing Forces• Weapons• Activities

[email protected]

37


Source: Reducing the Logistics Burden for the Army After Next: Doing More with Less (1999)Commission on Engineering and Technical Systems (CETS)

38


Relevant Enabling Technologies– Electronic and photonic devices– Integrated circuits– Communications Hardware– Information Transmission Algorithms– Software– Complex System and Network Design,

Integration, and Management


39


Minimize weight and volume of logistical burden

“Insert a right-size force with the right suite of weapons and equipment at the right place

and time.”


40


Identification

Location• Time• Place

State• Appearance• Sound• Smell• Feel• Taste

Connection• Speed• Reliability• Latency• Ubiquity• Security

Technology Attributes

Situational Awareness

Resource Sharing

Visualization

CapabilitiesArmy

After Next

Grid Computing

Medical Imaging

Application

How do we propose to think about capabilities, applications, and billion dollar industries?

Potential?

Recipients?

Obstacles?

Enablers?

Economic Value($1 billion industries?)

41


Day 2: Searching and Scenario Analysis“The most remarkable technological innovations occur when small

teams of people are free to explore the outer limits of their imaginations”

– Eric Schmidt, Chairman and CEO, Google, in Artful Making, 2004.

[email protected]

42


Day 2: Searching and Scenario Analysis– 100 Participants

• Divided into five teams (20 participants each)– Divided into five squads (four participants each)

ParticipantPool(100)

Team A(20)

Team B(20)

Team C(20)

Team D(20)

Squad 1

Squad 2Squad 3

Squad 4

Squad 5

Squad 6

Squad 7Squad 8

Squad 9

Squad 10

Squad 11

Squad 12Squad 13

Squad 14

Squad 15

Squad 16

Squad 17Squad 18

Squad 19

Squad 20

Team E(20)

Squad 21

Squad 22Squad 23

Squad 24

Squad 25

4 per squad

4 per squad

4 per squad

4 per squad

4 per squad

[email protected]

43


Squad 1

Squad 2Squad 3

Squad 4

Squad 5

Squad 6

Squad 7Squad 8

Squad 9

Squad 10

Squad 11

Squad 12Squad 13

Squad 14

Squad 15

Squad 16

Squad 17Squad 18

Squad 19

Squad 20

Squad 21

Squad 22Squad 23

Squad 24

Squad 25

Squads analyze capabilities for business applicability.

Day 2: Searching and Scenario Analysis– Squads Analyze Attributes and Capabilities– Teams Synthesize and Conceptualize Business

Applications– Symposium cross-pollinates teams’ efforts

[email protected]

44


Team A

Team B

Team C

Team D

Team E

Squad 1

Squad 2Squad 3

Squad 4

Squad 5

Squad 6

Squad 7Squad 8

Squad 9

Squad 10

Squad 11

Squad 12Squad 13

Squad 14

Squad 15

Squad 16

Squad 17Squad 18

Squad 19

Squad 20

Squad 21

Squad 22Squad 23

Squad 24

Squad 25

Teams debrief, synthesize, and integrate squad findings.



[email protected]

45




SymposiumConvocation

Team A

Team B

Team C

Team D

Team E

Squad 1

Squad 2Squad 3

Squad 4

Squad 5

Squad 6

Squad 7Squad 8

Squad 9

Squad 10

Squad 11

Squad 12Squad 13

Squad 14

Squad 15

Squad 16

Squad 17Squad 18

Squad 19

Squad 20

Squad 21

Squad 22Squad 23

Squad 24

Squad 25

Conference convocation hears, synthesizes team [email protected]

46



Team A

Team B

Team C

Team D

Team E

Squad 1

Squad 2Squad 3

Squad 4

Squad 5

Squad 6

Squad 7Squad 8

Squad 9

Squad 10

Squad 11

Squad 12Squad 13

Squad 14

Squad 15

Squad 16

Squad 17Squad 18

Squad 19

Squad 20

Squad 21

Squad 22Squad 23

Squad 24

Squad 25

Team A

Team B

Team C

Team D

Team E

Teams select business application targets.



[email protected]

47



Team A

Team B

Team C

Team D

Team E

Squad 1

Squad 2Squad 3

Squad 4

Squad 5

Squad 6

Squad 7Squad 8

Squad 9

Squad 10

Squad 11

Squad 12Squad 13

Squad 14

Squad 15

Squad 16

Squad 17Squad 18

Squad 19

Squad 20

Squad 21

Squad 22Squad 23

Squad 24

Squad 25

Team A

Team B

Team C

Team D

Team E

Squad 1

Squad 2Squad 3

Squad 4

Squad 5

Squad 6

Squad 7Squad 8

Squad 9

Squad 10

Squad 11

Squad 12Squad 13

Squad 14

Squad 15

Squad 16

Squad 17Squad 18

Squad 19

Squad 20

Squad 21

Squad 22Squad 23

Squad 24

Squad 25

Squads analyze (SWOT) specific business application.



[email protected]

48



Team A

Team B

Team C

Team D

Team E

Squad 1

Squad 2Squad 3

Squad 4

Squad 5

Squad 6

Squad 7Squad 8

Squad 9

Squad 10

Squad 11

Squad 12Squad 13

Squad 14

Squad 15

Squad 16

Squad 17Squad 18

Squad 19

Squad 20

Squad 21

Squad 22Squad 23

Squad 24

Squad 25

Team A

Team B

Team C

Team D

Team E

Team A

Team B

Team C

Team D

Team E

Squad 1

Squad 2Squad 3

Squad 4

Squad 5

Squad 6

Squad 7Squad 8

Squad 9

Squad 10

Squad 11

Squad 12Squad 13

Squad 14

Squad 15

Squad 16

Squad 17Squad 18

Squad 19

Squad 20

Squad 21

Squad 22Squad 23

Squad 24

Squad 25

Teams debrief, synthesize, and integrate squad findings.



[email protected]

49



Team A

Team B

Team C

Team D

Team E

Squad 1

Squad 2Squad 3

Squad 4

Squad 5

Squad 6

Squad 7Squad 8

Squad 9

Squad 10

Squad 11

Squad 12Squad 13

Squad 14

Squad 15

Squad 16

Squad 17Squad 18

Squad 19

Squad 20

Squad 21

Squad 22Squad 23

Squad 24

Squad 25

Team A

Team B

Team C

Team D

Team E


Team A

Team B

Team C

Team D

Team E

Squad 1

Squad 2Squad 3

Squad 4

Squad 5

Squad 6

Squad 7Squad 8

Squad 9

Squad 10

Squad 11

Squad 12Squad 13

Squad 14

Squad 15

Squad 16

Squad 17Squad 18

Squad 19

Squad 20

Squad 21

Squad 22Squad 23

Squad 24

Squad 25

Conference convocation hears, synthesizes team reports.



[email protected]

50



Team A

Team B

Team C

Team D

Team E

Squad 1

Squad 2Squad 3

Squad 4

Squad 5

Squad 6

Squad 7Squad 8

Squad 9

Squad 10

Squad 11

Squad 12Squad 13

Squad 14

Squad 15

Squad 16

Squad 17Squad 18

Squad 19

Squad 20

Squad 21

Squad 22Squad 23

Squad 24

Squad 25

Team A

Team B

Team C

Team D

Team E


Team A

Team B

Team C

Team D

Team E

Squad 1

Squad 2Squad 3

Squad 4

Squad 5

Squad 6

Squad 7Squad 8

Squad 9

Squad 10

Squad 11

Squad 12Squad 13

Squad 14

Squad 15

Squad 16

Squad 17Squad 18

Squad 19

Squad 20

Squad 21

Squad 22Squad 23

Squad 24

Squad 25

Doctoral Student Consortium Develops Proceedings Plan and Preliminary Research Agenda.



[email protected]

51


Where do we go from here?– Identifying Participant Candidates– Confirm Participation– Assemble in Seattle in September

Nominate Candidates (faculty, doctoral students, firms)– Email: [email protected]

Date post:	16-Jan-2016
Category:	Documents
Upload:	posy-may
View:	212 times
Download:	0 times

1 The Seattle Innovation Symposium/Series A Program of Research on Creating New Billion Dollar...

Documents