artdiamondblog.com – Page 252 – Art Diamond's web log

Open Offices Create “the Urgent Desire to Throttle One’s Neighbor”

John Tierney “at his cubicle with a wall of books.” Source of caption quote and photo: online version of John Tierney’s NYT article quoted and cited below.

(p. 18) The original rationale for the open-plan office, aside from saving space and money, was to foster communication among workers, the better to coax them to collaborate and innovate. But it turned out that too much communication sometimes had the opposite effect: a loss of privacy, plus the urgent desire to throttle one’s neighbor.

“Many studies show that people have shorter and more superficial conversations in open offices because they’re self-conscious about being overheard,” said Anne-Laure Fayard, a professor of management at the Polytechnic Institute of New York University who has studied open offices. . . .
Take Mr. Udeshi’s office, at the N.Y.U.-Poly business incubator, a SoHo loft with dozens of start-up companies housed in low cubicles. The entrepreneurs there say they sometimes get useful ideas from overheard conversations but also find themselves retreating to a bathroom or a broom closet for private chats. When they have to discuss a delicate matter with someone sitting next to them, they often use e-mail or instant messaging.
“You talk to more people in an open office, but I think you have fewer meaningful conversations,” said Jonathan McClelland, an energy consultant working in the loft. “You end up getting interrupted a lot by people’s random thoughts.”
. . .
Researchers at Finland’s Institute of Occupational Health have studied precisely how far those conversations carry and analyzed their effect on the unwilling listener: a decline of 5 percent to 10 percent on the performance of cognitive tasks requiring efficient use of short-term memory, like reading, writing and other forms of creative work.
“Noise is the most serious problem in the open-plan office, and speech is the most disturbing type of sound because it is directly understood in the brain’s working memory,” said Valtteri Hongisto, an acoustician at the institute. He found that workers were more satisfied and performed better at cognitive tasks when speech sounds were masked by a background noise of a gently burbling brook

.
For the full story, see:
JOHN TIERNEY. “From Cubicles, Cry for Quiet Pierces Office Buzz.” The New York Times, First Section (Sun., May 20, 2012): 1 & 18.
(Note: the online version of the article is dated May 19, 2012, and has the title “From Cubicles, Cry for Quiet Pierces Office Buzz.”)

In Wisconsin a Choice Between the Party of the Takers and the Party of the Payers

(p. A3) Craig Dedo, a computer consultant and Walker supporter, said the race boiled down to one question: Who runs Wisconsin? “The Democrats and the unions, who are the takers?” he asked, “or the Republicans, the party of the private sector and the people who pay the bills?”

For the full story, see:
MONICA DAVEY. “Recall Election Could Foretell November Vote.” The New York Times (Fri., June 1, 2012): A1 & A3.
(Note: the online version of the article is dated May 31, 2012.)

Entrepreneurs Should Seek Problems, Not Opportunities

“Jim McKelvey drew on experiences as a businessman and glassblower in his speech at Big Omaha 2012.” Source of caption and photo: online version of Macy Koch, “Jim McKelvey: “Just go ahead and build it”.” Silicon Prairie News. (Thursday May 10, 2012).

(p. 2D) The dynamics of the glass-blowing industry changed when a new, smaller version of the traditional glass-blowing furnace was developed. The economics of glass-blowing suddenly changed.

But as McKelvey’s glass-blowing skills grew and as he developed more products, including a patented glass water faucet, another barrier emerged: access to the financial system.
At one point, McKelvey was about to sell one of his faucets. The customer wanted to pay with an American Express credit card, but McKelvey couldn’t accept it without the requisite hardware. The sale fell through.
McKelvey then had a problem he needed to solve: Why wasn’t there a way to accept payments on a smartphone?
So he teamed up with Jack Dorsey, a co-founder of Twitter who worked with McKelvey at Mira, to start Square, which allows users to accept payments through their phones.
It was an idea that tackled a problem, McKelvey said, suggesting to attendees: “Go out there and seek problems. Don’t look for opportunities.”

For the full story, see:
Ross Boettcher. “Traveling the Road to Innovation; A former ‘Quitter’ and Others Offer tips at the Big Omaha Conference.” Omaha World-Herald (Fri., May 11, 2012): 1D & 2D.
(Note: the online version of the article has the title “Many roads to innovation at Big Omaha.”)

“”Go out there and seek problems. Don’t look for opportunities.” Jim McKelvey, co-founder of Square.” Source of caption and photo: online version of the Omaha World-Herald article quoted and cited above.

In Antitrust, as in Medicine, First Do No Harm

(p. 94) Western Union’s lawyers carne up with a dusty old New York Stale law, dated 1905, that said no one could buy more than 10 percent of a telegraph company chartered in that state without the approval of Albany lawmakers. Hard to believe, but it was right there in black and white and there was no possibility of getting the New York State legislature to understand why it was vital to build digital highways.
Talk about unintended consequences!
(p. 95) Originally, the law was written to stop Western Union from monopolizing the telegram business, but the law backfired and was used by the monopolist for its own protection.

Source:
Wyly, Sam. 1,000 Dollars and an Idea: Entrepreneur to Billionaire. New York: Newmarket Press, 2008.

Lucasfilm Will Build Somewhere “That Sees Us as a Creative Asset, Not as an Evil Empire”

“Lucas Valley in Marin County, Calif., where residents’ objections led George Lucas to abandon a bid to expand operations at a new site near Skywalker Ranch.” Source of caption and photo: online version of the NYT article quoted and cited below.

(p. A13) SAN RAFAEL, Calif. — In 1978, a year after “Star Wars” was released, George Lucas began building his movie production company far from Hollywood, in the quiet hills and valley of Marin County here just north of San Francisco. Starting with Skywalker Ranch, the various pieces of Lucasfilm came together over the decades behind the large trees on his 6,100-acre property, invisible from the single two-lane road that snakes through the area.

And even as his fame grew, Mr. Lucas earned his neighbors’ respect through his discretion. Marin, one of America’s richest counties, liked it that way.
But after spending years and millions of dollars, Mr. Lucas abruptly canceled plans recently for the third, and most likely last, major expansion, citing community opposition. An emotional statement posted online said Lucasfilm would build instead in a place “that sees us as a creative asset, not as an evil empire.”
If the announcement took Marin by surprise, it was nothing compared with what came next. Mr. Lucas said he would sell the land to a developer to bring “low income housing” here.
. . .
Whatever Mr. Lucas’s intentions, his announcement has unsettled a county whose famously liberal politics often sits uncomfortably with the issue of low-cost housing and where battles have been fought over such construction before. His proposal has pitted neighbor against neighbor, who, after failed peacemaking efforts over local artisanal cheese and wine, traded accusations in the local newspaper.
The staunchest opponents of Lucasfilm’s expansion are now being accused of driving away the filmmaker and opening the door to a low-income housing development. That has created an atmosphere that one opponent, who asked not to be identified, saying she feared for her safety, described as “sheer terror” and likened to “Syria.”
Carl Fricke, a board member of the Lucas Valley Estates Homeowners Association, which represents houses nearest to the Lucas property, said: “We got letters saying, ‘You guys are going to get what you deserve. You’re going to bring drug dealers, all this crime and lowlife in here.’ “

For the full story, see:
NORIMITSU ONISHI. “A Pyrrhic Victory for Foes of a New Lucasfilm Project; In Lieu of digital Studio, Plan for Low-Income Homes.” The New York Times (Tues., May 22, 2012): A13 & A19.
(Note: ellipsis added.)
(Note: the online version of the story is dated May 21, 2012 and has the title “Lucas and Rich Neighbors Agree to Disagree: Part II.”)

“Mr. Lucas said Marin needs affordable housing. A resident called his plan “class warfare.”” Source of caption and photo: online version of the NYT article quoted and cited above.

Tax Hikes Punish Hard Work and Reduce Incentives to Invest

(p. A15) The supply-sider has a different view from both the Keynesian and the budget balancer. Fundamentally, supply-side advocates focus on the harmful effects of tax increases. Raising tax rates hurts the economy directly because tax hikes reduce incentives to invest and because they punish hard work. As such, tax increases slow growth. But budget cuts work in the right direction by making lower tax revenues sustainable. If spending exceeds revenues, then the government must borrow and this commits future governments to raising taxes in order to service the debt.
. . .
On the tax side, there is strong evidence that supports the supply-siders. Christina Romer, President Obama’s first chairwoman of the President’s Council of Economic Advisers, and David Romer document the strong unfavorable effect of increasing tax rates on economic growth (American Economic Review, 2010). They report that an increase in taxes of 1% of gross domestic product lowers GDP by almost 3%. The evidence on government spending also suggests that high spending means lower growth.
For example, Swedish economists Andreas Bergh and Magnus Henrekson (Journal of Economic Surveys 2011) survey a large literature and conclude that an increase in government size by 10 percentage points of GDP is associated with a half to one percentage point lower annual growth rate.

For the full commentary, see:
EDWARD P. LAZEAR. “OPINION; Three Views of the ‘Fiscal Cliff’; It’s the tax increases we have to fear. Spending cuts won’t hurt the economy.” The Wall Street Journal (Mon., May 21, 2012): A15.
(Note: ellipsis added.)
(Note: the online version of the commentary is dated May 20, 2012 and has the title “OPINION; Edward Lazear: Three Views of the ‘Fiscal Cliff’; It’s the tax increases we have to fear. Spending cuts won’t hurt the economy.”)

The Romer and Romer paper mentioned is:
Romer, Christina D., and David H. Romer. “The Macroeconomic Effects of Tax Changes: Estimates Based on a New Measure of Fiscal Shocks.” American Economic Review 100, no. 3 (June 2010): 763-801.

The Bergh and Henrekson paper mentioned is:
Bergh, Andreas, and Magnus Henrekson. “Government Size and Growth: A Survey and Interpretation of the Evidence.” Journal of Economic Surveys 25, no. 5 (Dec. 2011): 872-97.

“Innovation” Should Be Reserved for Electricity, Printing Press, Telephone and iPhone

Source of graphic: online version of the WSJ article quoted and cited below.

(p. B1) “Most companies say they’re innovative in the hope they can somehow con investors into thinking there is growth when there isn’t,” says Clayton Christensen, a professor at Harvard Business School and the author of the 1997 book, “The Innovator’s Dilemma.”
. . .
Scott Berkun, the author of the 2007 book “The Myths of Innovation,” which warns about the dilution of the word, says that what most people call an innovation is usually just a “very good product.”
He prefers to reserve the word for civilization-changing inventions like electricity, the printing press and the telephone–and, more recently, perhaps the iPhone.
. . .
Mr. Berkun tracks innovation’s popularity as a buzzword back to the 1990s, amid the dot-com bubble and the release of James M. Utterback’s “Mastering the Dynamics of Innovation” and Mr. Christensen’s “Dilemma.”
. . .
(p. B8) Mr. Christensen classifies innovations into three types: efficiency innovations, which produce the same product more cheaply, such as automating credit checks; sustaining innovations, which turn good products into better ones, such as the hybrid car; and disruptive innovations, which transform expensive, complex products into affordable, simple ones, such as the shift from mainframe to personal computers.
A company’s biggest potential for growth lies in disruptive innovation, he says, noting that the other types could just as well be called ordinary progress and normally don’t create more jobs or business.
But the disruptive innovations can take five to eight years to bear fruit, he says, so companies lose patience.
It is far easier, he adds, for companies to just say they’re innovating. “Everybody’s innovating, because any change is innovation.”

For the full story, see:
LESLIE KWOH. “You Call That Innovation? Companies Love to Say They Innovate, but the Term Has Begun to Lose Meaning.” The Wall Street Journal (Weds., May 23, 2012): B1 & B8.
(Note: ellipses added.)

“I Can’t Explain Strategy at the Same Time that I’m Inventing It”

(p. 75) I felt deceived. I felt betrayed. Their 51 percent control could be like working for IBM or Honeywell again. I felt a threat to the most important value I was seeking: independence. I had to ask myself “Do I say no? Or do I say yes and accept their contract, even though it isn’t what we shook hands on and it makes me uncomfortable?” “This was a major difficulty for me. The 51 percent issue is at the very core of what every entrepreneur is trying to do: control his own destiny.
We were talking about my company. I dreamed it up. I put it together and I was going to run it. I was not going to hand it over to some committee of lawyers and accountants. But neither could I let anger get hold of me.
I knew that “those whom the gods would destroy, they first make angry.” That said, not getting angry does not mean not being firm. So I firmly told Jerry, “I want to run this company. I don’t have time to sit around and explain to your staff what I’m doing. No offense, but they don’t know beans about what I’m (p. 76) trying to do, and neither do you, for that matter. I’ve got to be able to run this business. I can’t explain strategy at the same time that I’m inventing it.”

Source:
Wyly, Sam. 1,000 Dollars and an Idea: Entrepreneur to Billionaire. New York: Newmarket Press, 2008.

Proof of Concept: “A Determined Entrepreneur Can Start a Rocket Company from Scratch”

‘The Falcon 9 rocket seen in a time-exposure photograph during liftoff.” Source of caption and photo: online version of the NYT article quoted and cited below.

(p. A13) CAPE CANAVERAL, Fla. — He does not have the name recognition of some other space entrepreneurs, people like Richard Branson, the founder of the Virgin empire, or Paul Allen of Microsoft fame, or Jeff Bezos, the Amazon.com billionaire.

That will probably change if things keep going his way. Elon Musk, a computer prodigy and serial entrepreneur whose ambitions include solving the world’s energy needs and colonizing the solar system, was the man of the hour — or of 3:44 a.m. Tuesday, Eastern time — when the rocket ship built by his company, SpaceX, lifted off gracefully in a nighttime launching and arced off in a streak of light amid loud applause.
. . .
If all goes as planned, his unmanned Dragon capsule, lifted into orbit by his Falcon 9 rocket, will berth at the International Space Station on Friday bearing a modest cargo: 162 meal packets (45 of them low-sodium), a laptop computer, a change of clothes for the station astronauts and 15 student experiments.
Far more important than the supplies is the proof of concept. Mr. Musk is trying to show the world that a determined entrepreneur can start a rocket company from scratch and, a decade later, end up doing a job that has until now been the exclusive province of federal governments.
. . .
Just four years ago, SpaceX went through a near-death experience. The first three launchings of the company’s small Falcon 1 rocket failed. One more failure, Mr. Musk said, and he would have run out of money. As he went through a divorce from his first wife, with whom he has five sons, he had to borrow money from friends.
The fourth launching succeeded. Late in 2008, NASA awarded SpaceX the cargo contract. The first two Falcon 9 launchings, in 2010, also succeeded.
Early Tuesday morning, the success streak continued. As the countdown clock hit zero, the engines remained ignited. Less than 10 minutes later, the Dragon was in orbit. It then aced several other early tasks like the deployment of solar arrays and navigational sensors and the testing of GPS equipment.
“Anything could have gone wrong,” Mr. Musk said. “And everything went right, fortunately.”

For the full story, see:
KENNETH CHANG. “Big Day for Entrepreneur Who Promises More.” The New York Times (Weds., May 23, 2012): A13.
(Note: ellipses added.)
(Note: the online version of the story is dated May 22, 2012, and has the title “Big Day for a Space Entrepreneur Promising More.”)

“Elon Musk.” Source of caption and photo: online version of the NYT article quoted and cited above.

Private Equity Firms Increase Efficiency and Create as Many Jobs as They Destroy

(p. A23) Forty years ago, corporate America was bloated, sluggish and losing ground to competitors in Japan and beyond. But then something astonishing happened. Financiers, private equity firms and bare-knuckled corporate executives initiated a series of reforms and transformations.
The process was brutal and involved streamlining and layoffs. But, at the end of it, American businesses emerged leaner, quicker and more efficient.
. . .
As Reihan Salam noted in a fair-minded review of the literature in National Review, in any industry there is an astonishing difference in the productivity levels of leading companies and the lagging companies. Private equity firms like Bain acquire bad companies and often replace management, compel executives to own more stock in their own company and reform company operations.
Most of the time they succeed. Research from around the world clearly confirms that companies that have been acquired by private equity firms are more productive than comparable firms.
This process involves a great deal of churn and creative destruction. It does not, on net, lead to fewer jobs. A giant study by economists from the University of Chicago, Harvard, the University of Maryland and the Census Bureau found that when private equity firms acquire a company, jobs are lost in old operations. Jobs are created in new, promising operations. The overall effect on employment is modest.

For the full commentary, see:
DAVID BROOKS. “How Change Happens.” The New York Times (Tues., May 22, 2012): A23.
(Note: ellipsis added.)
(Note: the online version of the commentary is dated May 21, 2012.)

The “giant study by economists” mentioned by Brooks is:
Davis, Steven J., John C. Haltiwanger, Ron S. Jarmin, Josh Lerner, and Javier Miranda. “Private Equity and Employment.” National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc, NBER Working Papers: # 17399, Sept. 2011.