Pls Read the “No Asshole Rule”

April 24, 2007

This is a great book. The No Asshole Rule: Building a Civilized Workplace and Surviving On That Isn’t I like how he points out that we’ve all been one, that it is contagious, that it lowers performance, and that it is unacceptable.

A tip to Guy Kawasaki’s blog for posting some key points of Bob Suttons’ book,

Also at tip to my friend Bill for reminding to buy this book. I got it at audible.


Canuck Fever Strikes!

April 24, 2007

It’s hockey all the time during the playoffs. The kids at our local school have been workin hard πŸ˜‰

Here is their latest Canuck Fan Video


Mapping the 90’s PMCS into Moore’s “Managing Innovation in Growth Markets”

April 24, 2007

I’m banging away at Geoffrey Moore’s Dealing with Darwin. I’ve got thru the definitions section – Part 1: Foundational Models. One thing I really like about Moore’s books is that his models provide consistent language that can be used to discuss complex issues.

His discussion of “Innovation” is consistent with his previous “life cycle” philosophies. This book introduces four Innovation zones; Product Leadership, Customer Intimacy, Operational Excellence, and Category Renewal; each with four sub-classes, that span the life cycle of a market.

This book also introduces two “yin & yang” business architectures, Complex Systems and Volume Operations. I’m going to leave this alone in this post.

In the beginning phase (ie “Growth Markets” ) its all about Product Leadership. The following table illustrates the 4 strategies he introduces in this first Innovation Zone.

New Product Existing Product
New Market Disruptive Innovation Application Innovation
Existing Market Product Innovation Platform Innovation

Example: Applying the model to PMCS-Sierra (PMCS) from ’99 to ’00

Having lived through the 90’s growth markets with PMC-Sierra (PMCS) I find that this classification model provides an excellent means to describe the innovation strategies used in that success story. Note that PMCS fits into the “Complex Systems” Business Architecture.

1. Disruptive Innovation

PMCS never really started in the New Product / New Market position. It was an ASIC/ASSP design center focussed on telecom applications. This was very a rough time because the telecom box/system vendors all had captive ASIC design centers. This was like selling snow to Eskimo’s 😦

If there was an innovation here it was the development of the “Fabless Comm-Semi” business model. To focus on developing products instead of selling design services.

2. Application Innovation to the Rescue.

Then along came “private data networks” (Frame Relay & ATM Switches) and the “Internet” (Routers w/ loads of interfaces for telco WAN and LAN). The box vendors in this space were not the incumbents and they all needed telecom interfaces for their products to connect to the telco transport networks. These interfaces needed to inter-operate and were not a significant differentiator of the switch, or router. Using Moore’s definitions PMCS applied “Application Innovation” to this market. PMCS took its telecom expertise and applied it to interface chips for FR/ATM Switches and Routers. PMCS also did a spectacular thing in developing a user group around this topic (the Saturn Group). This enabled astounding customer intimacy and forced PMCS to develop open inter-chip interface standards. The first chip interface standards would become the basis for theATM Forum UTOPIA specification.

3. Gain Market Share with Product Innovation

In the next phase PMCS micro-segmented the market to provide a large suite of telecom interface chips specifically for WAN switches and Routers. To execute on this PMCS expanded its suite of open interface standards which became ATM Forum UTOPIA specs Level 2, 3, and 4 and OIF SPI 3 and SPI 4 specifications. A by-product of these standards is that they allowed PMCS to acquire companies (like IgT) to complete it’s product line.

PMCS did maintain some proprietary interface specifications. These are controversial and it is not clear if this was a good or bad strategy. I vote for bad.

At this time PMCS also began winning designs in the pure telecom market. It finally had enough experience to provide a few truly “world class” telecom products. But the majority of the success was in helping new world data equipment leverage the telco transport backbones.

4. Rake in the Cash with Platform Innovation.

PMCS’s deep customer relationships, and its successful track record in developing open inter-chip interface specifications, allowed it to enter adjacent chip markets. PMCS developed full “reference” sub-systems around these open chip interface standards. Specifically, PMC developed ATM cell processors, PPP/FR processors, DSL Access Muxes, SONET/SDH processors, Switch Fabrics, Embedded MIPS CPUs, and more, that could be connected to its vast suite of Physical Layer Interface chips. The scope of the platform developments in the late ’90’s was enormous. The revenues and profits were awesome ❗

Note that there was also tremendous investment in new non-telco oriented technologies in the late ’90’s. For example, VoIP (Malleable), Ethernet chips (organic), and IP processors (organic & Switch-On). Most were very expensive developments deploying platform innovation strategies, the lengthy downturn made it difficult for these projects to survive 😦

Wrapping Up

Interesting how Moore’s classifications provide a clear means of describing PMCS’s trajectory from ’88 to 2000. I previously said that “we became successful by taking our hard earned telecom expertise and applying it to the “switch and router” market”. This model allows for a more detailed description of the different innovation strategies PMCS used to remain an industry leader for almost a decade. Cool 😎


OECD Updates Broadband Statistics Today

April 24, 2007

OECD updated BB stats today.

OECD Broadband Statistics to December 2006: “Over the past year, the number of broadband subscribers in the OECD increased 26% from 157 million in December 2005 to 197 million in December 2006. This growth increased broadband penetration rates in the OECD from 13.5 in December 2005 to 16.9 subscriptions per 100 inhabitants one year later.”(Via OECD – ICT.)

Here are some snippets.

  • Japan leads the OECD in fibre connections directly to the home with 7.9 million fibre-to-the-home subscribers in December 2006. Fibre subscribers alone in Japan outnumber total broadband subscribers in 23 of the 30 OECD countries.
  • The breakdown of broadband technologies in December 2006 is as follows:
    • DSL : 62%
    • Cable modem : 29%
    • FTTH/FTTB : 7% ( this is a new category for OECD )
    • Other (e.g. satellite, fixed wireless, powerline communication) : 2%

light blogging recently

April 23, 2007

I’ve been a tad lax on blogging lately. But I’ve kept up my delicious tags. They are in the right hand column of this blog or you can go directly to blog’s delicious tags

πŸ’‘ I recently procured Geoffrey Moore’s Dealing with Darwin and am hoping to post wrt/ Comm Semi space in the near future


Today’s BCE & Private Equity News

April 18, 2007

Mark Evan’s post Still Don’t Get BCE LBO resonates with me.

The bottom line is that “wireless” is the only new technology where telco’s still own the experience. It is still a vertical market and telco’s know how to make money there. But in all the new area’s they are more likely to be “experience enablers” providing infrastructure for application networks like – Google, MSN, Skype, Joost, etc. The telco’s haven’t yet figured out how to be “experience enablers”. Thus they are in a gap between a dying old model and an unknown new model. The Telco 2.0 blog covers this trend very well.

I’ve read all the articles in the Globe & Mail today and they all say something like the Private Equity guys think they can do a better job managing this business. I say good luck πŸ˜‰ Many telco’s are on a path to become the next DEC Computer 😦


Good Points on “Presenting & .ppt” from Seth’s Blog

April 17, 2007

Presentations are never easy. Preparing is tough. Who is the audience? What do I want from this meeting? What does the audience want? There is so much content that “weeding” is difficult. There is tendency to focus on “content” and then I forget about “what I want”. Aargh.

How does one do it? I just came across a detailed post by Seth Godin describing “how to .ppt”. (Seth’s Blog: Really Bad Powerpoint) It is a must read for us technical types who “just have to fit in all the details”. Here are some highlights.

  • Communication is the transfer of emotion.
  • Champions must sell—to internal audiences and to the outside world.
  • Bullets are for the NRA

The home run is easy to describe: You put up a slide. It triggers an emotional reaction in the audience. They sit up and want to know what you’re going to say that fits in with that image. Then, if you do it right, every time they think of what you said, they’ll see the image (and vice versa).

Of course the answer is that one has to do a lot more than the “content of slides” … but you knew that already πŸ˜›