Evolution or Revolution in 2011

Every other newspaper story in 2010 seems to include a reference to how this next generation of Americans will have it worse than their parents for the first time in well, ever.  I have been there among the alarmists trying to get people to worry more about the balance of trade, the state of our educational system, corruption in Washington, and others issues.  Change does not come easily to humans and we all know that the bigger the problem, the more likely we are to change our behavior.  This creates bad news inflation to inspire change.  We hear it all day every day from just about every interest group.

I have to wonder:  Does it work?  Do people really change their behavior from fear of bad things happening?  There is some evidence that people do.  There are many waterways in the US that have recovered from terrible pollution, we all recycle, and after suffering heart attacks - eating and exercise habits change.  It could be said credibly then, that people's behaviors can evolve.

Alternatively, people often do new things.  Electricity, railroads, the Panama canal, the car, the plane, the space race, the computer, the Internet, and the cellular phone came to us as new things.  New things that humans adopted vigorously.  These were revolutionary new things.

When talking with founders of start up companies or the people that finance them, the common belief is that new things get adopted if they are ten times better or ten times cheaper than the thing being displaced.  The new thing gets adopted, the old thing dies, Schumpeter is proven right, and change happens.  Revolution brings about much more change than evolution.

Could 2011 be the year where some of this revolution happens and we regain the hope that our kids will be better off than we are?  Here are a few areas to watch:

1. Innovation Engine:  Innovation happens because the innovators have confidence that they will preserve the value of what they create.  Many companies are built round the patent and copyright systems, but many more have captured the value of their innovation without those constructs.  Neither Google or Facebook are protected by patents or copyrights.  This structural IP protection scheme will fuel an explosion of innovation -- limited only by the ability of people to think freely.
2. Leap Frog:  The idea that an emerging nation can leap frog the developed nations by rapid deployment of new technologies is a myth.  A village with no telephone landlines and just cell phones has acquired communications capabilities much faster than anyone had dreamed, but can anyone really argue that they have leap frogged over and ahead of a town that has had landlines for 100 years and has cell phones too? This phenomenon will create markets for products from the developed nations.  The first will be healthcare, the second will be education, and right after that -- anything that conveys status.
3. Work Redefined: Soon we will be re-allocating all of the time we used to spend as computer operators to other productive activities.  This could represent a dramatic change in productivity.  Here is a post on the subject from November 30.

I hope that 2011 is the year that the revolution takes hold.  I hold out less hope for the evolution part.  Either way it will be quite interesting to watch these things play out.

How Much to Pay the Guy Driving

It is interesting how humans adapt to systems and even more interesting when you consider that humans created the systems.  The idea I outline here has a remarkable parallel in Jaron Lanier’s thoughts about how people react to computers.   It also may translate into thoughts about how much we pay CEOs.

Years ago in sailboat racing there was the International Offshore Rule.  The IOR rule was, like all of the rating rules before and hence, intended to be a fair way to handicap boats that were different so they could race against each other.  And racing rules like the IOR go through a predictable cycle just like businesses and cause people who think they are rational to do the most irrational things.  I submit that the phases for sailboat rating rules are invention, adoption, popularity, optimization, insanity, and retirement; and bear a fair amount of similarity to business cycles.

1. Invention happens about the same time the prior rule is in the insanity phase and one person wakes up one day and says that the current way of doing things is crazy and there has to be a better way.
2. Adoption is when that one person comes up with a better way and convinces others to follow.  Of course a better rating rule is no good to one person because the whole idea is to race against other people and without others – there is no point.
3. Popularity comes about when enough people defect from the old rule to the new rule (in sailing this is usually a process of getting your boat measured so you can get the new rating number, and then switching to sail in races governed by the new rule instead of the old one).
4. Optimization happens as the stakes get higher.  Now that a lot of people are sailing under the new rule and their natural competitiveness causes them to make changes to their boats to improve their ratings.  The funny thing about this is often the changes make the boats slower or more difficult to handle but the rating benefit more than offsets the performance handicap.  That is right, racing sailboat owners voluntarily make their boats slower in order to be more competitive. 
5. Insanity comes at the extreme end of this cycle when people spend hundreds of thousands of dollars to have new boats build with extraordinary shortcomings that could only be induced by the rating rule itself.  Strangely, and presumably for the same reasons that Jr. High boys find the outcome of flushing bleach down the toilet an irresistible attraction, this insanity phase can last for some time.  Eventually though the seeds are sown for next rating rule and usually by someone we usually brand as a geek.
6. Retirement of the old rule happens as the new rule gets to the popularity phase.

Followers of Schumpeter would call this a healthy market and a productive use of resources in the pursuit of higher performance.  And they could be right.  The most insane of the boats under the old rule really cannot convert to the new rule and get sold to outlying markets where the old rule has not yet run its course.  Depending on how insane the insanity was there is a reasonable counterargument that the resources invested at the end of the cycle do not produce anything useful – excepting maybe creating a fertile environment for the new rule.

During the insane period of the IOR era the custom built boats had a distinct hollow section in the shape of their hulls where the measurements were taken that sucked the boat down into the water - so the boats were very squirrelly sailing downwind when it was windy.  This hollow section and other elements of the rule induced the designers to put up massive amounts of sail area downwind with oversized spinnakers.  So here you are going downwind in heavy wind with these giant sails pulling the boat forward while the back of the boat is getting sucked into the water by the hollow section and the combination would induce a death dance of wild rolls from one side to the other - and yes you can put the mast of a 15 ton racing sailboat into the water rather decisively.

There were only a few people on the planet that had the right combination of skill and bravado to drive one of these boats downwind in a breeze.  You had to steer very aggressively and often times at the end of a roll, right before you could wipe out, the rudder would start to lose its effectiveness and the best thing to do was just let go, watch the wheel spin wildly and then decisively grab the wheel to reestablish flow over the rudder and send you down the next wave – if you were lucky.  It was quite a thrill and even with the reverence in the business for accomplished downwind IOR helmsmen, most people were quite glad not to be driving. The strange thing is that the properly designed boats with clean lines needed less sail area, stepped up on a plane going downwind in a breeze, and actually got more stable.  And they could be driven by mere mortals and with very little drama. So, who should get paid more, that crazy guy in the IOR boat driving like a madman while everyone else holds on for dear life, or the guy in the properly designed boat with almost no visible effort and the hearts of his crew beating hard because of the thrill and not the terror? 

Bear in mind that when the IOR boat wipes out the race is pretty much over, and some big checks are going to have to be written to sail makers and the boatyard.  And the boat not designed to the IOR rule?  It would actually be going considerably faster through the water. This is why we pay CEOs so much these days – let’s hope someone invents a new rule soon and makes their skills obsolete.