> Digital Equipment corp, when run by Ken Olsen and Gordon Bell, was very good
> at new innovation. But the internal divisions started competing with each
> other. Disk drives were only profitable when coupled with expensive
> mini-computers. The semiconductor group making a uVax was at odds with the
> more main frame style mini-computer division. Then they replaced Ken with
> hatchet man Bob Palmer and broke up the company.
I've read a couple of books about DEC, and it was a case-study in a
business class I took. A business writer friend of mine was a close
friend of Palmer and described to me some of the antics within the
company that just created extreme tensions, backbiting, duplication of
efforts, and an overall unsustainable business model. And most
surprisingly, he drove the chief technology innovators out the door
where they found welcoming arms at places like Microsoft. Honestly, I
don't think Palmer understood what it meant to be a company that does
"development engineering" for future products ten years into the
future. He demanded results "now" or he deemed the project irrelevant.
The sad thing was in the early 1990's the Internet hadn't hit yet, and
the computer industry was still a business-to-business thing. Another
year or two, and a refocus would have been a game-changer.
The sad thing is that DEC was poised to "win the world". It was so
close to becoming THE dominant player, but they squandered it. I don't
think any other company was in a position to capitalize on the brave
new world of "The Internet" quite like DEC was. Once the synergy is
gone, it's gone forever. And then Compaq completely destroyed what was
left. The brain-drain was mind-boggling. The few that remained did
provide good direction and leadership to a new generation of engineers
and they produce some very relevant products, but lack any form of
industry dominance.
> And so it goes. Even great countries and civilizations change and decline,
> often when they become overly self-important or self-confident.
I enjoy businesses that have the attitude of "not knowing what they
want to be when they grow up." It's when they do that transition from
startup/scrappy to established/protection, bad things happen. Roots
grow deep into the soil and that tree can't be moved. When conditions
change, that tree either has to adapt or it dies. Instead of
constantly looking for new things to conquer, they start to look
inward. When a company stops growing the "top-line" and instead is
focused on the "bottom-line" by overmilking the skinny cow, its place
of relevance is over. Countries are also the same way. A growing
empire is one that might be overspending the treasury, but finds
purpose in the action. Once the empire is no longer growing or
conquering, it is focused on itself and squabbles break out, factions
form, and worse of all, the cost of maintaining the empire is too
great without acquisition of fresh resources. I think one reason why
the USA has so much political disunity right now is the fact that
there isn't some alien race from Planet X that is trying to destroy us
with giant laserbeams.
> The I Ching Oracle speaks: Change is inevitable.
> So my advice: Delight in GAS while you can.
If you resist temptation, you never know if the opportunity will ever
come by again.
AG (no acquisitions remaining in 2020) Schnozz
--
_________________________________________________________________
Options: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/listinfo/olympus
Archives: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/private/olympus/
Themed Olympus Photo Exhibition: http://www.tope.nl/
|