Subtitles section Play video
-
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 --
-
scale, 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 a 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 if 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 commission to 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 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, 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 analog.
-
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 analog.
-
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 I.P. address.
-
It's on a server or it's on a P.C.
-
But having an I.P. address means that it
-
can be connected to any other data
-
that has an I.P. address.
-
It means 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 I.P. 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.
-
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 1,000 dollars,
-
and it's confidently predicted that by the year 2015
-
it will be below 100 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 100 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 now 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
-
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.