-
I'm going to talk a little bit about
-
strategy and its relationship with technology.
-
We tend to think of business strategy
-
as being a rather abstract body
-
of essentially economic thought,
-
perhaps rather timeless.
-
I'm going to argue that in fact,
-
business strategy has always been premised
-
on assumptions about technology,
-
that those assumptions are changing,
-
and in fact changing quite dramatically,
-
and that therefore what that will drive us to
-
is a different concept of what we mean
-
by business strategy.
-
Let me start, if I may,
-
with a little bit of history.
-
The idea of strategy in business
-
owes its origins to two intellectual giants,
-
Bruce Henderson, the founder of BCG,
-
and Michael Porter, professor
at the Harvard Business School.
-
Henderson's central idea was what you might call
-
the Napoleonic idea of concentrating mass
-
against weakness, of overwhelming the enemy.
-
What Henderson recognized was that,
-
in the business world,
-
there are many phenomena which are characterized
-
by what economists would call increasing returns,
-
of scale, of experience.
-
The more you do of something,
-
disproportionately the better you get.
-
And therefore he found a logic for investing
-
in such kinds of overwhelming mass
-
in order to achieve competitive advantage.
-
And that was the first introduction
-
of essentially a military concept of strategy
-
into the business world.
-
Porter agreed with that premise,
-
but he qualified it.
-
He pointed out, correctly, that that's all very well,
-
but businesses actually have multiple steps to them.
-
They have different components,
-
and each of those components might be driven
-
by a different kind of strategy.
-
A company or a business
might actually be advantaged
-
in some activities but disadvantaged in others.
-
He formed the concept of the value chain,
-
essentially the sequence of steps with which
-
a, shall we say, raw material, becomes component,
-
becomes assembled into a finished product,
-
and then is distributed, for example,
-
and he argued that advantage accrued
-
to each of those components,
-
and that the advantage of the whole
-
was in some sense the sum or the average
-
of that of its parts.
-
And this idea of the value chain was predicated
-
on the recognition that
-
what holds a business together is transaction costs,
-
that in essence you need to coordinate,
-
organizations are more efficient at coordination
-
than markets, very often,
-
and therefore the nature and role and boundaries
-
of the cooperation are defined by transaction costs.
-
It was on those two ideas,
-
Henderson's idea of increasing returns
-
to scale and experience,
-
and Porter's idea of the value chain,
-
encompassing heterogenous elements,
-
that the whole edifice of business strategy
-
was subsequently erected.
-
Now what I'm going to argue is
-
that those premises are in fact being invalidated.
-
First of all, let's think about transaction costs.
-
There are really two components
to transaction costs.
-
One is about processing information,
and the other is about communication.
-
These are the economics of
processing and communicating
-
as they have evolved over a long period of time.
-
As we all know from so many contexts,
-
they have been radically transformed
-
since the days when Porter and Henderson
-
first formulated their theories.
-
In particular, since the mid-'90s,
-
communications costs have actually been falling
-
even faster than transaction costs,
-
which is why communication, the internet,
-
has exploded in such a dramatic fashion.
-
Now those falling transaction costs
-
have profound consequences,
-
because of transaction costs are the glue
-
that hold value chains together, and they are falling,
-
there is less to economize on.
-
There is less need for vertically
integrated organization,
-
and value chains at least can break up.
-
They needn't necessarily, but they can.
-
In particular, it then becomes possible for
-
a competitor in one business
-
to use their position in one step of the value chain
-
in order to penetrate or attack
-
or disintermediate the competitor in another.
-
That is not just an abstract proposition.
-
There are many very specific stories
-
of how that actually happened.
-
A poster child example was
the encyclopedia business.
-
The encyclopedia business
-
in the days of leatherbound books
-
was basically a distribution business.
-
Most of the cost was the
commissions of the salesmen.
-
The CD-ROM and then the internet came along,
-
new technologies made the distribution of knowledge
-
many orders of magnitude cheaper,
-
and the encyclopedia industry collapsed.
-
It's now, of course, a very familiar story.
-
This in fact more generally was the story
-
of the first generation of the internet economy.
-
It was about falling transaction costs
-
breaking up value chains
-
and therefore allowing disintermediation,
-
or what we call deconstruction.
-
One of the questions I was occasionally asked was,
-
well, what's going to replace the encyclopedia
-
when Britannica no longer has a business model?
-
And it was a while before
the answer became manifest.
-
Now, of course, we know
what it is: it's the Wikipedia.
-
Now what's special about the
Wikipedia is not its distribution.
-
What's special about the Wikipedia
is the way it's produced.
-
The Wikipedia, of course, is an encyclopedia
-
created by its users.
-
And this in fact defines what you might call
-
the second decade of the internet economy,
-
the decade in which the internet as a noun
-
became the internet as a verb.
-
It became a set of conversations,
-
the era in which user-generated
content and social networks
-
became the dominant phenomenon.
-
Now what that really meant
-
in terms of the Porter-Henderson framework
-
was the collapse of certain
kinds of economies of scale.
-
It turned out that the tens of thousands
-
of autonomous individuals writing an encyclopedia
-
could do just as good a job,
-
and certainly a much cheaper job,
-
than professionals in a hierarchical organization.
-
So basically what was happening was that one layer
-
of this value chain was becoming fragmented,
-
as individuals could take over
-
where organizations were no longer needed.
-
But there's another question
that obviously this graph poses,
-
which is, okay, well we've
gone through two decades:
-
does anything distinguish the third?
-
And what I'm going to argue is that indeed
-
something does distinguish the third,
-
and it maps exactly on to the kind of
-
Porter-Henderson logic that
we've been talking about.
-
And that is, about data.
-
If we go back to around 2000,
-
a lot of people were talking
about the information revolution,
-
and it was indeed true that the world's stock of data
-
was growing, indeed growing quite fast.
-
but it was still at that point overwhelmingly analogue.
-
We go forward to 2007,
-
not only had the world's stock of data exploded,
-
but there'd been this massive substitution
-
of digital for analogue.
-
And more important even than that,
-
if you look more carefully at this graph,
-
what you will observe is that about a half
-
of that digital data
-
is information that has an IP address.
-
It's on a server or it's on a PC.
-
But having an IP address means that it
-
can be connected to any other data
-
that has an IP address.
-
It means that it becomes possible
-
to put together half of the world's knowledge
-
in order to see patterns,
-
an entirely new thing.
-
If we run the numbers forward to today,
-
it probably looks something like this.
-
We're not really sure.
-
If we run the numbers forward to 2020,
-
we of course have an exact number, courtesy of IDC.
-
It's curious that the future is so much
more predictable than the present.
-
And what it implies is a hundredfold multiplication
-
in the stock of information that is connected
-
via an IP address.
-
Now if the number of connections that we can make
-
is proportional to the number of pairs of data points,
-
a hundredfold multiplication in the quantity of data
-
is a ten thousandfold multiplication
-
in the number of patterns
-
that we can see in that data,
-
this just in the last 10 or 11 years.
-
This I would submit is a sea change,
-
a profound change in the economics
-
of the world that we live in.
-
Now what does that imply in terms of business?
-
Well, I got a hint of this some years ago.
-
Back in around 2003 or so,
-
I was doing some consulting for the Pentagon,
-
for august institutions on the subject
-
of network-centric warfare,
-
and in that context I met a
gentleman called Jeff Jonas,
-
a brilliant engineer who had made his fortune
-
designing the security systems in Las Vegas.
-
Jeff said to me, "Next time
you're in Las Vegas, Philip,
-
why don't you stop by and I'll take you on the tour.
-
You can meet Nora. Nora will show you a good time."
-
N.O.R.A. was not his girlfriend.
-
N.O.R.A. is the Non-Obvious
Relational Awareness system,
-
a realtime fraud control system developed by Jeff
-
which supports all of the casinos in Las Vegas.
-
We were in the security room
-
of the Bellagio Hotel in Las Vegas,
-
and on the monitor I saw this happen.
-
A woman was playing Blackjack against the dealer.
-
There was nobody else at the table.
-
She was winning too much.
-
They know how likely that is, and this wasn't likely.
-
So the first thing they did was
they use facial recognition,
-
see if she's staying at the hotel. She wasn't.
-
Then they can kind of run the cameras backwards,
-
tracing her movements back through the hotel
-
to the parking garage, where they found her car.
-
They could then run N.O.R.A.
to find who owned the car.
-
The car was owned by Hertz Las Vegas.
-
Within a second or so, N.O.R.A. pulled down
-
the Hertz Las Vegas application.
-
Now they knew who the woman was.
-
Where was she staying?
-
Well, they pooled the data across the hotels.
-
It turned out she was staying
in a hotel across the street.
-
Had she gambled in that hotel? No.
-
Very strange behavior, staying in one hotel,
-
gambling in another.
-
Then came the really interesting thing.
-
N.O.R.A. looked for a connection
-
between the woman and the dealer,
-
because a very high fraction of fraud in Las Vegas
-
is committed when the staff are actually
-
in illicit collaboration with customers.
-
It turned out, what N.O.R.A. did was to look through
-
6,000 databases, public and private,
-
some owned by the Bellagio,
-
some by other hotels,
-
some police records, and so on.
-
It turned out that 10 years earlier,
-
this woman's brother had
been the dealer's roommate.
-
And it took N.O.R.A. six
seconds to work that fact out.
-
It cost the woman and the dealer six years.
-
This was N.O.R.A. in action.
-
It's what today of course we would call Big Data,
-
long before the term had been formulated.
-
Now notice some very interesting things about this,
-
most of all the fact that N.O.R.A.
-
runs as a cooperative across the entire of the strip.
-
These casinos, which are otherwise
-
competing aggressively with each other
-
actually collaborate when it comes to the management of their security systems.
-
They pool data into a common database
-
that is run essentially as a co-op
-
for this specific purpose.
-
Why? Because the scale of N.O.R.A.,
-
what N.O.R.A. is trying to do,
-
blows past the scale
-
that even a very large casino
can possibly do for itself.
-
The value chain is not big enough
-
to accommodate the economies of scale
-
that are inherent in this particular activity.
-
And that principle, I would suggest,
-
is actually a fundamental and pervasive one.
-
In essence, what happens is that because
-
of these colossal economies of scale in data,
-
what used to be value chains that ran separately
-
are compelled, in order to
achieve those economies of scale,
-
to create some kind of common utility,
-
some common resource, a co-op,
-
a pool, a vault of data within which
-
those insights can be gathered.
-
Now N.O.R.A. is a relatively trivial example
-
in the sense that if N.O.R.A. failed,
-
it wouldn't exactly be the end of civilization.
-
But consider something vastly more important,
-
where the logic in fact is exactly the same,
-
the logic of health care.
-
The first human genome,
-
that of James Watson,
-
was mapped as the culmination of the
Human Genome Project in the year 2000,
-
and it took about 200 million dollars
-
and about 10 years of work to map
-
just one person's genomic makeup.
-
Since then, the costs of mapping
the genome have come down.
-
In fact, they've come down in recent years
-
very dramatically indeed,
-
to the point where the cost is
now below a thousand dollars,
-
and it's confidently predicted that by the year 2015
-
it will be below a hundred dollars,
-
a five or six order of magnitude drop
-
in the cost of genomic mapping
-
in just a 15-year period,
-
an extraordinary phenomenon.
-
Now, in the days when mapping a genome
-
cost millions, or even tens of thousands,
-
it was basically a research enterprise.
-
Scientists would gather some representative people,
-
and they would see patterns, and they would try
-
and make generalizations about
human nature and disease
-
from the abstract patterns they find
-
from these particular selected individuals.
-
But when the genome can be
mapped for a hundred bucks,
-
99 dollars while you wait,
-
then what happens is, it becomes retail.
-
It becomes above all clinical.
-
You go the doctor with a cold,
-
and if he or she hasn't done it already,
-
the first thing they do is map your genome,
-
at which point what they're doing
-
is not starting from some abstract knowledge
-
of genomic medicine
-
and trying to work out how it applies to you,
-
but they're starting from your particular genome.
-
Now think of the power of that.
-
Think of where that takes us
-
when we can combine genomic data
-
with clinical data
-
with data about drug interactions
-
with the kind of ambient data that devices
-
like our phone and medical sensors
-
will increasingly be collecting.
-
Think what happens when we collect all of that data
-
and we can put it together
-
and use precisely the N.O.R.A.-type techniques
-
in order to find patterns we wouldn't see before.
-
This, I would suggest, perhaps it will take a while,
-
but this will drive a revolution in medicine.
-
Fabulous, lots of people talk about this.
-
But there's one thing that
doesn't get much attention.
-
How is that model of colossal sharing
-
across all of those kinds of databases
-
compatible with the business models
-
of institutions and organizations and corporations
-
that are involved in this business today?
-
If your business is based on proprietary data,
-
if your competitive advantage
is defined by your data,
-
how on earth is that company or is that society
-
in fact going to achieve the value
-
that's implicit in the technology? They can't.
-
So essentially what's happening here,
-
and genomics is merely one example of this,
-
is that technology is driving
-
the natural scaling of the activity
-
beyond the institutional boundaries within which
-
we have been used to thinking about it,
-
and in particular beyond the institutional boundaries
-
in terms of which business strategy
-
as a discipline is formulated.
-
The basic story here is that what used to be
-
vertically integrated, oligopolistic competition
-
among essentially similar kinds of competitors
-
is evolving, by one means or another,
-
from a vertical structure to a horizontal one.
-
Why is that happening?
-
It's happening because
transaction costs are plummeting
-
and because scale is polarizing.
-
The plummeting of transaction costs
-
weakens the glue that holds value chains together,
-
and allows them to separate.
-
The polarization of scale economies
-
towards the very small, small is beautiful,
-
allows for scalable communities
-
to substitute for conventional corporate production.
-
The scaling in the opposite direction,
-
towards things like Big Data,
-
drive the structure of business
-
towards the creation of new kinds of institutions
-
that can achieve that scale.
-
But either way, the typically vertical structure
-
gets driven to becoming more horizontal.
-
The logic isn't just about Big Data.
-
If we were to look, for example,
-
at the telecommunications industry,
-
you can tell the same story about fiber optics.
-
If we look at the pharmaceutical industry,
-
or, for that matter, university research,
-
you can say exactly the same story
-
about so-called Big Science.
-
And in the opposite direction,
-
if we look, say, at the energy sector,
-
where all the talk is about how households
-
will be efficient producers of green energy
-
and efficient conservers of energy,
-
that is in fact the reverse phenomenon.
-
That is the fragmentation of scale
-
because the very small can substitute
-
for the traditional corporate scale.
-
Either way, what we are driven to
-
is this horizontalization of the structure of industries,
-
and that implies fundamental changes
-
in how we think about strategy.
-
It means, for example, that we need to think
-
about strategy as the curation
-
of these kinds of horizontal structure,
-
where things like business definition
-
and even industry definition
-
are actually the outcomes of strategy,
-
not something that the strategy presupposes.
-
It means, for example, we need to work out
-
how to accommodate collaboration
-
and competition simultaneously.
-
Think about the genome. Think about N.O.R.A.
-
We need to accommodate the very large
-
and the very small simultaneously.
-
And we need industry structures
-
that will accommodate very,
very different motivations,
-
from the amateur motivations
of people in communities
-
to maybe the social motivations
-
of infrastructure built by governments,
-
or for that matter cooperative institutions
-
built by companies that are otherwise competing,
-
because that is the only way
that they can get to scale.
-
These kinds of transformations
-
render the traditional premises of business strategy
-
obsolete.
-
They drive us into a completely new world.
-
They require us, whether we are
-
in the public sector or the private sector,
-
to think very fundamentally differently
-
about the structure of business,
-
and, at last, it make strategy interesting again.
-
Thank you.
-
(Applause)