Who does a company, with explosive growth, founded and built by old folks in their forties and fifties all with extensive executive management experience, turn to when moving to the next level?

The company hasn’t disclosed exact revenue figures, but it says it grew new annual recurring revenue by more than 50% in 2014, and claims more than 2,500 companies, including Coca Cola, Toyota, and AAA use its software. It’s raised $100 million in funding from investors like Salesforce, Norwest Venture Partners, and Bessemer Venture Partners. 

The company is Adaptive Insights and the guy is Tom Bogan, an even older guy, with even more experience.

A guy who is (gasp) 63 years old.

Gasp, because according to a recent study, old people shouldn’t even go out in public.

When a large sample of Facebook groups created by 20- to 29-year-olds was examined by a team based at the Yale School of Public Health, three-quarters of the groups were found to denigrate old people. More than a third advocated banning old people from public activities like shopping.

Of course, one assumes that the ‘old people’ to which they refer aren’t their relatives.

(I’d like to hear them on the subject 10, 20, 30 and 40 years from now.)

There is enormous value in having ‘been there/done that’ through multiple economic cycles, cultural change, globalization and technology evolution/revolution.

But to take advantage of it you need to be comfortable enough in your own skin to admit you need to learn — like Mark Zukerberg and Larry Page.

Image credit: Adaptive Insights

I always look forward to attending events produced by AlwaysOn. They do an exceptional job bringing together high-profile players appropriate for the conference subject, entrepreneurs, service providers and other interested parties.  The Silicon Valley Innovation Summit 2014 I attended last week was no different, but the devil was in the details.

Those both present and presenting were recognized tech movers and shakers—well worth listening to—the networking was excellent and I made some stealth contacts I’m not at liberty to discuss.

Subject matter centered on mobile any/everything, Big Data, SaaS, subscriber, consumer and investment globalization, which left me a bit disappointed even though big data is Quarrio’s ’thing’.

There was no mention of the tech I’m hearing/reading about daily, i.e., artificial intelligence, nanotechnology, synthetic biology, etc., and the combination of these technologies with mobile and big data.

We all know that this kind of focus and talk follows the money, so I am left with a question.

Are the ideas being funded yesterday’s instead of tomorrow’s?

KG Charles-Harris is CEO of Quarrio and a frequent contributor to MAPping Company Success.

This article was originally published as The Cost of Being Comfortable on Technorati.

I read an interesting article from a Forbes advisor called A Young World is No Place for Old Corporations; in a nutshell it talks about nostalgia for “what the WSJ calls America’s  ‘Midcentury Moment’, those post war  “golden years of the 1940’s, ‘50s and early ‘60s?” The boom years when Americans forged the world’s new super power, as those in Europe diminished.“

It goes on to say, “During this time US companies became dominant corporations on a world stage, strongly influencing how business was conducted all over the world.

Fast forward to 2011, America now competes in a fierce global market against young and dynamic economies.”

It lauds the dynamic spark that drove the US economy; a common theme, but one I get tired of seeing.

Tired because it only tells only the upside of the story and ignores so much.

I am neither an economist nor an historian, but here is my view of the same history.

• European industry didn’t diminish, it was crippled by WWII.
• The US became dominant because we were the only country in a position to produce as opposed to spending our efforts and money to rebuild.

In other words, in comparison to the material and psychological devastation experienced by the rest of the world what the US suffered was more like a serious inconvenience.

But not too inconvenient, since we kept on producing and selling.

War’s end left us in the cat-bird seat—not rebuilding, just retooling to sell what the rest of the world needed to rebuild.

A lack of competition breeds arrogance, sloppy practices and fat—fat management and fat labor; it is easy to succeed in a world with little-to-no competition.

When countries no longer needed us because they produced their own we were surprised; when they went beyond and more efficiently produced what we produced and innovated where we had not bothered we were shocked.

When comfortable, we humans seem to believe that some version of what is will always be; it isn’t that we don’t believe in change, but we seem blind to radical change.

We are taken by surprise when it happens and long instead for whatever version of the “good old days” brings us back to our (false) comfort zone.

Flickr image credit: Bruce Turner

I have some great links to add to those I gave you last Saturday.

Another article from McKinsey shines a spotlight on managers’ need to “master the disciplines of uncertainty,” because it isn’t going away any time soon.

The market may have torpedoed you and me, but it’s done far less damage to the corner office. “Compensation for top executives at many of the nation’s largest publicly traded firms was essentially unchanged last year, even as the stock market plummeted.” Why are we not surprised?

What has changed? An article in the WSJ Online tells us that COO positions are going the way of the dodo bird because CEOs want to be closer to the action and more involved in day-to-day operations. But Jay Galbraith says, “One unspoken reason COOs’ numbers may be falling may be simple fear. As the pressure on CEOs heats up, at least a few simply don’t want such an obvious successor in place.” Again, why are we not surprised?

Economics is one of the few business area that make my eyes glaze over; not from boredom, but from an inability to understand it—believe me I’ve tried. Last week I said that How Did Economists Get It So Wrong? is a must read to understanding what happened to the global economy. For those who wish to dig deeper, two new books on the oft-maligned John Maynard Keynes were reviewed in Business Week (they do understand economics:). “John Maynard Keynes ought to be named Man of the Year. Governments around the world have successfully, if messily, resurrected many of his insights from the 1930s to thwart economic collapse. Foremost is his idea that easy money and government spending can rescue an economy in free fall—with credit frozen, businesses panicked, and consumers paralyzed.” I’m sure this won’t be popular with the free market crowd.

Enjoy!

Your comments—priceless

Don’t miss a post, subscribe via RSS or EMAIL

Monday Slacker Manager wrote that people quit managers, not companies; I took that further in my Tuesday post saying that

• Adequate managers manage employees.
• Good managers manage people.
• Great managers manage persons.

Marvin commented that this also applied to families, saying, “It was a great reminder that people don’t leave families, they leave the leaders of that family. … Adequate husbands/fathers have a wife and kids, Good husbands/fathers provide for their wife and kids, Great husbands/fathers learn the individual needs of their wife and kids and serve them accordingly.”

I know from Marvin’s site that he is coming from a Christian perspective and I respect that.

However, I’m not willing to assume that the male is the ‘leader’ in a marriage—nor do I think the woman is (no offense to any same-sex couples reading this) and I certainly hope that the kids aren’t.

I think marriages should be partnerships, with both contributing to the vision and each leading within his/her strengths and supporting the other as appropriate—and I don’t mean this in the traditional sense.

Next, I’m not completely comfortable with the paraphrasing.

Having a wife and kids is possible for any male with $20 bucks for the license (it’s probably gone up) and active sperm and those two things certainly don’t make them adequate in my mind.

The ‘good’ ones provide what? Food, shelter and safety or more intangible things, such as love, respect and acceptance.

There’s nothing wrong with the definition of ‘great’ as long as it includes unconditional love, unconditional respect and unconditional acceptance for life choices—barring those that are illegal—that may not agree with others in the family.

I also think that ‘great’ is more than serving individual needs in kids; sometimes their needs shouldn’t be served or they will come to expect that. Serving is also about standing back and letting the kid make mistakes starting at a very young age. No parent serves their child by smoothing every kink, filling every pothole and easing every difficulty on the road to adulthood.

Serving is about being sure that kids are exposed to and learn to deal with the real world, one that doesn’t always live up to expectations or work the way one wants.

My own opinion is that this can’t happen if the child is raised in a homogenous environment spending their time with like-minded people. I also think it’s unfair to the kid, because eventually they’ll have to function in the real world, which is messy, diverse and often uncooperative.

This is as true whether it’s the Latino kids living in the Mission District of San Francisco being able to do everything in Spanish except school or the home-schooled kid whose entire world and contact revolves around their family and church.

Homogeny is crippling when it comes to producing adults who can move in a diverse, multicultural, multi-thought, multi-everything global economy.

OK, rant over.

Your comments—priceless

Don’t miss a post, subscribe via RSS or EMAIL

Image credit: pasotraspaso on flickr

Economic pundits, eagerly searching for signs of the recovery, are grasping at almost anything. “The rate of decline has slowed.” “Unemployment has stabilized.” “The cardboard box index has bottomed out.” And the shape of the recession and recovery has been predicted to be a V,  W,  L, or even a double-bounce W.

I think they’re all wrong.

The old economy will never come back.

This economic meltdown is much like a forest fire. After the fire burns itself out, the storm may be over, but the burn area is fundamentally changed. It does not “bounce back.” It starts at a different place.  Sometime in 2010, the economy will stabilize, but it will not “come back.” We will go forward from a fundamentally different position. This new starting point will reflect the impact of deep, long-term, global trends in the nature of work, the value of the dollar, and our relationship to our government. The current recession is a convenient marker to recognize these trends.

Work Is Changing

The nature of employment will continue to change. The United States will continue to shift to a “just-in-time,” service-based workforce. The manufacturing sector will continue its decline, from 29% of GDP in 1950 to 15% in 2000 (see analysis by Dr. Mankiw). It will drop below 10% by 2010. You can construct your own labor trend at indeed.com. ( This website is a fascinating example of the business of data, which we discussed in the last three posts.)

Many new service-sector workers will be involuntary. Growing unemployment and under-employment in the United States (which will exceed 15% this year) is driving many people into self-employment as service workers. An analysis of Japan’s Lost Decade by Tom Coyner, long-time resident of Japan and Korea, provides one instructive example of this phenomenon, and some associated risks.

These new service sector workers will be driven to a “do-it-yourself” model for almost everything. They will have to provide their own health care plan, retirement plan, office arrangement, and business planning. Many of these workers will be home-based, with little differentiation. The most common product/pricing model will be piecework, with unit pricing based on the alternative of being completely idle. Ironically, one result will be the re-integration of work and home life.

Entrepreneurship is Changing

Investment capital will no longer be available for any but the most solid businesses; and the vast majority of these newly-independent service workers do not have plans to build large businesses. As a result, the successful ones will exhibit four common, positive characteristics:

Local—In a global world, being present still counts. A local service provider who can show up in person has a distinct advantage. In addition, some services simply cannot be outsourced. When your car is broken or your roof leaks, you need a local service person. For locally-based services we may see an increase in a local, personal relationship with service providers.

Immediate—Without investment capital to fund long-term research and development, independent service-providers and small businesses must focus on services that provide immediate value. The “cash-to-cash” cycle must be less than one pay period. Fortunately, credit/debit cards and other immediate payment methods support this trend.

Information-based—Information will provide significant improvements in service quality and competitive differentiation. For instance, simply finding a customer is difficult and expensive. Irritating prospects with unnecessary and unwanted sales promotions is also costly. Successful service providers will use information to target customers on a “just-as-needed” basis.

Green—Setting aside the discussion of whether the earth is warming or whether green is good, government policies will reward green activities preferentially. Independent service providers will offer green services or enhance green aspects of their existing services.

Start-Ups Will Explode in Unlikely Niches

The availability of many talented people and the flexibility of independent service providers will fuel new start-ups. While these may not completely replace the loss of investment capital, they will certainly provide an alternative path of low-cost labor for new businesses. The change may be refreshing, for us individually, and for our economy.

This is perhaps the greatest unknown—how much will individual creativity and inspiration replace financial engineering.

I am hoping for a few delightful surprises ahead.

And then decide how to spend it.

Image credit: sxc.hu and flickr

The world it is a’changin’. When Richard Barrett joined MAPping Company Success last fall his first post was Tsunami of Changes for 2009.

Richard reads widely and when we were talking today he commented that he thinks the situation is even more complicated.

I asked what he meant and as I listened to him I realized that this was information that you could use when creating strategy.

Part of what Richard was saying was that “this time it’s different.” Part of this downturn is cyclical, with its scope extended to a global impact because the world has shrunk, but the balance is far more fundamental—more similar to the industrial revolution.

And it is that part of the current downturn that he’ll be exploring.

Richard is the first to say that he doesn’t have the answers; in fact, it’s difficult to formulate the correct questions (without which there can be no answers) without a radical shift in thinking.

He will be offering his evaluation of fundamental changes to how business is done, employees are managed, customers and markets are addressed, and even how investments are handled.

Join Richard as he explores the basic shifts he sees happening, shares his own struggle to reformulate some of his lifelong attitudes to fit the business world after this global tsunami withdraws.

Whether you agree with him or not, you don’t want to miss his Briefings and the opportunity to weigh in with your own thoughts.

Image credit: sxc.hu