Top 30 Innovations of the last 30 years

edit Tweet This!

In this fascinating article, a roundup of the most important innovations of the last 30 years is presented.  I was struck by the article’s opening premise - that if one were sitting around in 1979 and thinking about what innovations would change our lives, we would not have been able to anticipate many that were on the list (compiled by the Wharton School in conjunction with National Public Radio).  It is truly remarkable how many of the innovations that we take completely for granted today simply didn’t exist - and it’s hard to imagine a world without them.  Here’s their list:

1.Internet, broadband, WWW (browser and html)
2.PC/laptop computers
3.Mobile phones
4.E-mail
5.DNA testing and sequencing/Human genome mapping
6.Magnetic Resonance Imaging (MRI)
7.Microprocessors
8.Fiber optics
9.Office software (spreadsheets, word processors)
10.Non-invasive laser/robotic surgery (laparoscopy)
11.Open source software and services (e.g., Linux, Wikipedia)
12.Light emitting diodes
13.Liquid crystal display (LCD)
14.GPS systems
15.Online shopping/ecommerce/auctions (e.g., eBay)
16.Media file compression (jpeg, mpeg, mp3)
17.Microfinance
18.Photovoltaic Solar Energy
19.Large scale wind turbines
20.Social networking via the Internet
21.Graphic user interface (GUI)
22.Digital photography/videography
23.RFID and applications (e.g., EZ Pass)
24.Genetically modified plants
25.Bio fuels
26.Bar codes and scanners
27.ATMs
28.Stents
29.SRAM flash memory
30.Anti retroviral treatment for AIDS

A few things strike me about the list.  Firstly, that companies at the leading edge of some of these innovations became huge drivers of growth and economic development (think Intel or Microsoft or Google), while companies that are displaced in value by these innovations disappeared (think IBM Selectric Typewriters or Polaroid).  Not that that is such an unusual observation - what is harder to grasp is just how unpredictable these innovations are.  Even Intel didn’t grasp the significance of its microprocessor innovation and had to repurchase the license for it from the company it invented it for.

A second and perhaps more interesting observation is that huge swaths of people do not live in the same technological world that those benefitting from these innovations do.  Take the many elderly people who can’t relate to a mobile phone, let alone a personal computer.  It’s as if they have been cut off from the evolutionary flow of things.  Or consider people without a lot of resources—when you are worrying about getting food on the table, messing about with Twitter is probably not a priority.  Should this concern us? 

Share this article: Digg this post on digg.com  Bookmark to del.icio.us  Search Technorati for links to this post  Stumble This

Taxes, the structure of incentives, and why I’m worried about the plan for health reform funding

edit Tweet This!

When I was a Ph.D. student studying entrepreneurship, one of the most influential articles I read was by economist William J. Baumol.  Entitled “Entrepreneurship: Productive, Unproductive and Destructive”, it basically suggested that a nation gets the type of entrepreneurship it rewards.  Countries that reward productivity-enhancing risk-taking richly encourage those with entrepreneurial inclinations to pursue those activities.  Countries, in contrast, that reward other kinds of activities, such as politicking, status-seeking through religion or study, or worst of all, counterproductive activities like drug dealing and other forms of corruption--tend to encourage those with entrepreneurial talents to pursue those sorts of activities, to the detriment of more productive entrepreneurship. 

Baumol’s observation haunts me as I peruse the extensive coverage of the frantically rushed efforts to overhaul 17% of the nation’s economy in one fell swoop in the form of a major change in how medical care is allocated and paid for.  Without examining the merits of the health aspects of the plan, I wish to express grave concern with this wholesale and ill-considered redistributive move.  Perhaps without intending to (or more likely, without having ever given it a thought), the plan currently being sped along by the House Democrats is going to fundamentally alter what Baumol called the ‘structure of incentives’ that shape how entrepreneurs allocate their energies. 

Let’s start with the basics:  Under the House plan, medical care would be paid for by a surtax on those families with household income above $350,000 in 2011, a surtax which can go to as high as 5.4%, in addition to the tax increases already scheduled to kick in in 2011.  Further, the plan would impose mandatory health insurance coverage for employees on all businesses with more than 25 of them, or a fine of 8% of payroll.  Employers with more than $400,000 in payroll would basically have to pay at least 25% above salary to hire an additional person.  Research suggests that a great many Americans with incomes above $350,000 are entrepreneurs and small business owners - in many cases, they operate sub-chapter S corporations in which profits are cashed out at the end of each year and taxed at the individual rate.  That money, which looks like discretionary income to headline-hungry politicians, is often plowed back into the business.  It’s not going for luxuries - in many cases, it’s going for working capital, inventory, marketing, and other unglamorous business necessities. 

So what does Baumol’s theory tell us is likely to happen?  Well, the first predictable consequence is that an awful lot of entrepreneurial energy is going to be spent, not productively, but unproductively, as small business people and those falling into the higher-tax categories spend their time not producing new innovations but figuring out how not to fall into the maws of increased tax and regulatory burdens.  Following right on that as a predictable consequence is that those who are able to do so will do business in such a way that they don’t fall into the higher-taxed categories.  Rather than pay individual rates, small businesses will incorporate and pay the lower 35% corporate rate.  Further, get ready for the new conglomerates - thousands of businesses employing exactly 24.5 people, all interconnectedly doing business with one another rather than falling foul of the over 25 employee stricture.  And with small business growth having led us out of most recessions in the past, get ready for this sector to add jobs far more slowly and with far greater caution than it had previously - a big blow to an economy that desperately needs a vibrant and growing small business sector. 

At a more macro level, a huge body of research points to the same conclusion (remarkably, for academic research).  The effects of higher individual taxes on rates of entrepreneurship are without an exception, negative.  It is well accepted, and has been for decades, that the desire to have a vibrant entrepreneurial economy is at odds with the desire to operate a welfare state, due in large part to the way in which welfare states allocate resources – when the upside to undertaking the risks of entrepreneurship decrease, while the downside of not doing much at all are limited, it becomes hard to justify making the effort.  If it is possible to live quite a comfortable life without too much bother, why take on the long hours, the worry and the headaches of small business ownership?  You don’t need to take my word for this – the following excerpt is from an academic study, looking at the structure of incentives for entrepreneurship in Sweden, probably the worlds’ best known welfare state.  Here is what the author concludes:

Sweden, allegedly the most extensive of all welfare states, is the object of the empirical analysis. It is shown how key welfare state institutions tend to reduce economic incentives both for opportunity-based and necessity entrepreneurship. Both aggregate economic performance and data on firm growth and direct measures of entrepreneurial activity are broadly consistent with the identified structure of payoffs. A number of measures can be implemented to strengthen entrepreneurial incentives within extensive welfare states, but the fact still remains that an entrepreneurial culture and a welfare state are very remotely related. As a result, the respective cultures are unlikely to be promoted by a similar set of institutions (Magnus, 2005, p. 437).

So here is the really chilling part about the proposed tax hikes.  The Wall Street Journal on July 17 ("A Reckless Congress” page A14), citing research by the OECD and the Heritage Foundation found that the top average US tax rate (combined state federal marginal tax rate) would hit 52% should the Obama budget and House health-care plan become law.  In some states, such as New York and New Jersey, the rate would be 56.92% and 57.07%, respectively.  What’s the marginal tax rate in Sweden? 56.44%. 

All this and the US taxpayer would not enjoy the benefits of a true welfare state - excellent, inexpensive, state-funded universities, ample unemployment benefits, child assistance benefits and, yes, government funded universal health care. 

Those of us, myself included, who believe that it is entrepreneurship that drives economic vibrancy should be doing everything in our power to persuade the stewards of our country’s well-being to stop this train wreck in the making.  Or perhaps the Journal editorial writers said it best:

The world is looking on, agog, and wondering why the United States seems intent on jumping off this cliff.

REFERENCES:

Baumol, W. J. 1990. Entrepreneurship:  Productive, Unproductive, and Destructive. Journal of Political Economy, 98(5): 893-921.

Magnus, H. 2005. Entrepreneurship: a weak link in the welfare state? Industrial and Corporate Change, 14(3): 437.

Share this article: Digg this post on digg.com  Bookmark to del.icio.us  Search Technorati for links to this post  Stumble This

This disruption thing is harder than it looks

edit Tweet This!

In a recent Wall Street Journal article, writer Kimberly Chou reviewed the fates of several contenders to be disruptive technologies in the industries in which they were introduced.  .  Among these are the flip videorecorder, the “peek” phone and various forms of internet enabled devices.  What they have in common is that they are all trying to carve out a niche in markets that were established at much higher price points.

As the article makes clear, it’s not as easy as it looks.  To be truly disruptive, along the lines of Clayton Christensen’s definition of the term, a device would have to introduce a new dimension of competition, or offer a radically different price, making usage affordable for previous non-users or otherwise appealing to customers who weren’t attracted before.  Unfortunately, the Peek phone is finding that established rivals may be dropping prices so quickly that its would-be niche of customers willing to trade off more advanced functionality for a cheaper price may be a lot smaller than it initially thought.  All of which goes to illustrate one of the principles of disruption—the offer has to be dramatically, not just incrementally, different along several important dimensions to disrupt an industry.  Just price, or simplified features, isn’t going to do it. 

Share this article: Digg this post on digg.com  Bookmark to del.icio.us  Search Technorati for links to this post  Stumble This

A fast growing tech company from an unlikely place

edit Tweet This!

This week, I gave a keynote speech at the first innovation summit sponsored by TechColumbus, a membership and funding organization for entrepreneurs in the central Ohio area.  It was a great event - two keynotes (one of which I gave) and a bunch of workshops on three different tracks relevant to innovation.

One of the more interesting companies I ran across is Manta, one of the worlds’ fastest-growing Internet sites.  Manta provides detailed information on literally millions of small businesses - information that (I can tell you from personal experience) is devilishly tricky to get.  WIth innovative technology to keep costs down and a largely advertising supported business model, it looks to me as though the company is going to give many rivals - Dun & Bradstreet, Hoovers and others, a real run for their money.  Check out the web site - it is a fascinating operation.  From Westerville, Ohio - who would have thought it!

Share this article: Digg this post on digg.com  Bookmark to del.icio.us  Search Technorati for links to this post  Stumble This

Strategy + Innovation features Rita on learning from failure

edit Tweet This!

Renee Callahan, editor of Strategy & Innovation, a newsletter published by the consulting firm Innosight has featured an interview with me in their current edition.  . 

Share this article: Digg this post on digg.com  Bookmark to del.icio.us  Search Technorati for links to this post  Stumble This

Page 1 of 7 pages  1 2 3 >  Last »