3M: Six Sigma vs Innovation

Innovation is the lifeblood of Silicon Valley. Technological and business model disruptions drive the cycle of category, company, and wealth creation.

Innovation often leads to high growth and growth often demands the introduction of processes to ensure quality and scale.

There is, however, an obvious tension between innovation and process, between standardization and disruption. How does a company best manage that tension and avoid the extremes of creative anarchy vs bureaucratic and rigid process?

Companies that optimize for scale often begin to look like eBay - a monolithic app that is always up but still looks the same five years later. While companies that optimize for creativity, like Handspring, stumble with quality and return issues.

BusinessWeek recently profiled the impact of process, via Six Sigma, on innovation in an article on 3M. In 2000, 3M hired Jim McNerney from GE and introduced a total quality management initiative designed to lower costs and drive efficiencies. The company cut 8,000 jobs, operating margins grew from 17 to 23%, and thousands of Six Sigma black belts were trained and turned loose on the company. The short term gains proved popular with Wall St, however, longer term cracks began to appear.

Historically, 3M prided itself of delivering 1/3 of its sales from products introduced over the last five years. Under the Six Sigma regime, however, the ratio of revenue from new products fell to 1/4 and the company lost its creative edge.

The article notes, "while process excellence demands precision, consistency, and repetition, innovation calls for variation, failure, and serendipity."

At Hummer Winblad, we believe that founders are the key creative sparks that drive innovation and vision.

A business school framework defines three classes of company: operational excellence, customer intimacy, and product leadership. VC-backed companies typically succeed via a focus on either customer intimacy or product leadership. Senior executive hires that seek to optimize operational excellence too early in the company's development tend to lead to frustrated engineers and a rigidity that eliminates the chance to innovate. The absence of innovation in a company with few customers or product offerings is an almost certain predictor of failure.

Ideally, our founder-CEOs add a wrapper of operational excellence to their core focus on product leadership and innovation. Rather than move founders to CTO roles and bring in "grey" hair CEOs to drive process-led execution, we would rather see the founder as CEO, infusing the culture and product with their passion and creativity while learning the "tools" of the management trade.

Process, moreover, can be brought in at the VP level to compliment innovation and to help institute best practices that help with visibility and predictability while working to avoid hindering creativity and a culture of trial and iteration.

In summary, it is hard to balance innovation and process, however, in early stage companies innovation is a prerequisite to success. Accordingly, it is often very dangerous to move company founders to staff roles and to hire senior executives with operational depth but little emotional or intrinsic connection to the product market and problem.

Just as it is hard to Six Sigma your way to innovation, it is hard to execute your way to disruption.

Does Geography Matter?

In a world of high-speed data and voice networks, web-enabled applications, and a global talent pool, does geography matter?

Will technology break down traditional industry clusters and distribute innovation, wealth, and opportunity across an increasingly flat world?

As an investor and resident in the Valley, it is an important question.

Should company founders leverage the benefits of operating in a high-tech cluster and pay the cost premium of doing business here, or should they leverage the benefits of enabling technologies and remain in lower cost geographies?

The work of Michael Porter helps think through the issues. In his HBR article, "Clusters and the New Economics of Competition," he lays out a convincing argument for the long-term viability of clusters.

He defines clusters as,

"geographic concentrations of interconnected companies and institutions in a particular field. Clusters encompass an array of linked industries and other entities important to competition. They include, for example, suppliers of specialized inputs such as components, machinery, and services, and providers of specialized infrastructure."

His core thesis is that advantage in the global economy lies increasingly in local things - knowledge, relationships, and motivation.

Traditionally, competition centered on input-cost advantages - natural and human resources. Today, however, competition rests more on the productive use of inputs, which requires continual innovation. He writes, "modern competition depends on productivity, not on access to inputs or the scale of individual enterprises."

He defines the following characteristics of a cluster that accelerate productivity:

• sourcing of information, technology, talent
• coordinating with related companies
• measuring and motivating improvement
• better access to employees and suppliers
• access to institutions and public goods (venture firms, lawyers, universities)
  
• complimentarities
  
• co-optition, cluster promote both competition and cooperation
  

Clusters also directly support new business formation. Porter argues that working in a cluster allows individuals to more easily identify gaps in the current market offerings, enables efficient access to talent, institutions, partners, etc, and a home-grown exit market (ie established members of the cluster are the likely acquirer).

The most important insight for me is that the modern economy competes on innovation and that operating within a cluster shortens the cycle time to identifying, resourcing, and realizing areas of need and opportunity.

The genesis for this post was a conversation I had with two founders, currently based in Atlanta, about the merits of moving to the Bay Area to start their company. Michael Porter's thoughtful analysis helps me better understand why the Bay Area "cost premium" is well worth it. Market cap is a function of innovation and growth, and innovation is a function of access to ideas, talent, and supporting resources that eliminate frictions and catalyze connections and progress.

Ironically, in an increasingly globalized economy the Valley is gaining not waning in prominence. Boston is now the home to one large public tech company, EMC, and the valley takes close to 40% of total US VC, with CA taking well over 50%.

The key to our magic innovation machine is not to let government policy limit the free flow of talent, energy, and ideas into the cluster. It is incumbent on all beneficiaries of the Bay Area cluster to promote truly free labor markets that serve to fuel our unique productivity and innovation.

Limiting H-1Bs: Economic Suicide

In a prior post, H1-B Aliens and the Myth of Free Labor Markets, I wrote,:

"In my daily meetings with founding teams and start-ups, there is not a single company that does not have an emigre as a key member. The contribution of Indian, Chinese, Russian, Bulgarian and other nationals to our economy is beyond question and a vital source of our success. From professors, to engineers, senior managers, company founders, and venture capitalists, our current success and prosperity is very positively influenced by our ability to attract the best and brightest to work and study in our country.Unfortunately, America, while often a champion of free trade, is not a practioner of free labor markets. While technology talent is perhaps the most important input in Silicon Valley's decades of innovation, the US government artificially caps and limits the number of ambitious immigrants to our economy ."

This week's Economist includes an article titled Deportation Order.

Since 2003, the US government has reduced the number of H1-B visas by 66%; from 195,000 in 2003 to a measley 65,000 this year. Within hours of the application deadline, 150,000 applicants submitted visa requests; a frightening 85,000 on-time applicants lost out to a random number generator that selected the lucky winners.

The article quotes the Harvard Crimson commenting that "many of the foreigners in its class of 2007 have received their deportation orders."

The valley's position as the leading cluster for technology innonvation is contingent on the seamless flow of ideas, capital, and talent. Artifical limits on the ability to source talent will have profound downstream consequences, reducing the quality of innovation, wealth creation, and utility.

If you feel so moved, please reach out to your Congressperson and Senators; for how to contact your House representative click here; for your senator click here. Ask them to eliminate ariticial limits that are keeping the next Sergey Brin's of the world from joining us.