Here is how the logic works; they are large and successful because they beat everyone else to become the market leaders in their category. So, by definition, they must be smarter and better than everyone else.

The fallacy of this thinking, however, is that the company they were when they were small is seldom the company they are when they are the market leader. Many of the people who helped them to innovate have left and the internal politics won’t easily allow new ideas and people to flourish at the expense of the status quo.

And, as long as the large successful company continues to be large and successful, it isn’t going to do anything to dramatically different — it doesn’t want to negatively affect its current position. So, the company is driven internally and externally to keep doing what has made it successful.

It’s only when a large successful company begins to falter that it is compelled to do something different. Change its management team. Change its products. Change its markets. Change its business model.

So, until we see large companies such as Microsoft, Oracle, SAP, etc. really stumble, I don’t think we’re going to see a shift in their current methodologies. It’s too risky for them.

So far I have found no large companies interested in even trying to execute a spin in in order to try to spark innovation. Until something goes horribly wrong with the top line of their companies, the current management teams will not be motivated to do anything but what they are currently doing.

So…as I told my kids when they were growing up, get great grades in math and science because that will get you your first job. However, really pay attention in your Organizational Behavior class because if you learn to understand the psychology of people and groups, that will define your career.

Perhaps enterprise software should follow a similar model to outsource the innovation aspect of their business as consumer businesses. For example, development of new foods, fragrances, toys, etc. are often outsourced by big businesses to specialized boutique firms.

Why not create a startup that focuses on innovation outsourcing? My idea is to create a company that concentrates on creating new product innovations and then hands them over to larger firms to market, sell, and support them. This creates a clear separation where the innovators can be 100% on what they do well, and follow agile methodologies to deliver products quickly.

It also avoids the struggle of VCs to have to evolve the team from startup into mature global business. The company would be able to grow while maintaining a focus on innovation. So, there is less need to scale, add global sales and follow the sun support, add consulting etc. Instead, scaling would be to add more specialist innovators focusing on other niches.

Would love to hear your views on this concept.

Best regards,
John DesJardins

In addition, the “exit strategy” did not promote a long term technology vision.

Starting in 2004, companies started taking integration more seriously by wrapping SOA around the notion. However, many enterprises were already established with a smorgasbord of software applications. One for payroll, accounting, hr, back office, etc.

As an IT consultant, I see so many silo departments and applications. IT and Management struggle to glue all the information together into meaningful data to make meaningful decisions.

Mergers, acquisitions and start-ups all put the actual technology on the back-burner. When companies merge or make an acquisition, how often does the diversity of the IT systems come up? Strong companies who focus on innovation like Apple are rare. I believe their core believe in creating something cool, is there reward and the money that comes as a result of the coolness factor is an added bonus.

Creating something cool seem irrelevant to VCs. VCs want to know how they’re going to get their money back. Which is a valid concern, hence the paradox. The pressure to give the VC back their money in a projected time frame, versus the freedom to create something really unique and COOL.

Earlier in June I read that Microsoft is now saying software is dead. Wow, really?

Just a little rant . . .

and the search has been quite disappointing.. SAP, ORCL and IBM it is.. seems as exciting to work there as the government of india railways..

any pointers ?