Qualcomm and Intel: Why are industrial companies so bad at consumer products?

Qualcomm is trying to bring out consumer products, and failing — Flo TV, and more on the way. There’s nothing wrong with initiatives that fail, especially when you are as rich as QC, but they are making systematic errors. Intel got burned early in its history trying to do digital watches, and learned from the experience – it has never had a direct-to-consumer product since then, though it has done plenty of brand-marketing campaigns. Qualcomm seems intent on repeating its errors, without learning from them.

I asked a deep-thinking friend, Jim Cook, about this, and here’s his response. He is even more negative than I was!

Industrial companies are built on rationality, non-commodity consumer companies are built on empathy.  These epistemological predilections invade and bias the functioning of  the corporation – R&D needs to shift from cost/performance to fad and fancy, Finance needs to shift from predictable to volatile, Manufacturing has to shift from plans to whim response.  Unless you either separate them completely (resource allocation becomes the major problem, not to mention confusing capital markets), you’re destined to have internal destructive struggles.  One can point to Apple as a counter example, until one realizes that Apple, from its origins, has been a cult satisfier (no price performance in almost any of the Apple products) and without a cult leader (Jobs) will not compete successfully with real consumer companies.  Motorola tried to do both industrial and consumer, eventually split up and both will die in the next decade.

JAMA — Ensuring Integrity in Industry-Sponsored Research: Primum Non Nocere, Revisited, March 24/31, 2010, DeAngelis and Fontanarosa 303 12: 1196

The evidence on false conclusions from drug trials, and their publications, is mounting. I am forced to the conclusion that, most likely,

1) This has been going on for a long time; the big change is that it’s occasionally getting noticed now, and

2) The results of this over many years must be that  doctors are prescribing based on incorrect evidence. Specifically, lots of drugs are getting prescribed when they shouldn’t be.

According to the article by Nissen,1 the report of the Senate investigation,2 and published media accounts,8-9 the manufacturer of rosiglitazone exerted inappropriate influence during the conduct of a pivotal safety study of this drug, the RECORD Rosiglitazone Evaluated for Cardiac Outcomes and Regulation of Glycaemia in Diabetes clinical trial,10-11 which included undertaking nonprespecified unblinding of study data; attempting to undermine the authority and responsibilities of the study steering committee; expediting publication of an unscheduled interim analysis,10 specifically to counter2 the publication of a meta-analysis by Nissen and Wolski12 that suggested increased cardiovascular risk associated with rosiglitazone; having employees extensively involved in statistical analysis,11 and preparation of the manuscript10 reporting the results of the trial; and reportedly2 failing to fully acknowledge the significant cardiovascular risk associated with this drug.

via JAMA — Ensuring Integrity in Industry-Sponsored Research: Primum Non Nocere, Revisited, March 24/31, 2010, DeAngelis and Fontanarosa 303 12: 1196.

Airplane fires are still “craft” stage

I just presented some of my research on how flying went from Art to Science, at the INFORMS conference. (Very short paper  at http://escholarship.org/uc/item/2sj362h9. Long working paper is coming soon.)  My colleague Erica Fuchs related a recent experience that demonstrates how certain activities in flying are still at what I call the “Rules + Instruments” stage, which got started in the 1930s.

During a flight to Chicago, she noticed a “bad smell.” One of the other passengers was an off-duty airline pilot who also noticed it, and went rocketing up to the cockpit to tell the pilots.  The result: they landed immediately, at an unused airport near their flight path.  A mechanic flew in and found that one of the light ballasts had overheated, producing the smell. He replaced it, and they proceeded.

Ten years ago, this would  have been treated much less urgently. “Bad electrical smell” is not very specific. But a few recent tragedies have focused attention on the problem of fuselage fires. The sobering insights were that 1) we still don’t have good instruments for detecting or locating fires in some parts of an aircraft  – the human nose is still the best we have,  2) most burning smells are not serious problems, but when there really is a fire, sometimes the only effective countermeasure is to land; 3) every minute counts.

Pilots used to follow an elaborate checklist, attempting to diagnose and solve the problem in flight, but in a couple of cases that gave the fire time enough to take hold and destroy the aircraft. So on her flight, the procedure apparently was “when you can’t identify the source, land as fast as possible.” Does anyone know what the “official” checklists look like now, for this situation?

Official report of F/A-18 crash

On December 8, 2008 a Marine Corps jet crashed near my house, killing four civilians. The USMC did a thorough investigation and held a press conference about the results, complete with powerpoints. However, I was not able to find the actual report anywhere. I eventually filed a FOIA request, and got a redacted version of the report and all its attachments.

The crash fit a common pattern: a lot of small mistakes, by a variety of people, added up to a disaster. It was not just the pilot at fault, although he was certainly involved.

Because these reports were hard to get, and will be of interest to others, I’m putting them up on this site. If I can find a better (more relevant) repository, I’ll also post it there.

There is a lot of bureaucratic material in the reports. I will gradually post all of it. Questions are welcome – use the Comments section.

Continue reading

Language Log » Tracking a factoid to its lair

Our How Much Information? 2008 Consumer report continues to generate discussion. The comments that follow this blog entry in Language Log are quite interesting. I added my own comment – we’ll see how long it takes to go through their moderation process.

Matt Richtel, one of the leading current peddlers of the “technology is eating our brains” meme, is fond of this assertion:The average person today consumes almost three times as much information as what the typical person consumed in 1960, according to research at the University of California, San Diego.That version is the lead paragraph of the online site for his appearance on Fresh Air, “Digital Overload: Your Brain On Gadgets”, 8/24/2010. I was curious about what this sentence could mean, and more specifically, I wondered which UCSD researchers did the measurements, and what they they measured.

via Language Log » Tracking a factoid to its lair.

The Diminishment of Don Draper : Andrew McAfee’s Blog

Interesting post by Andy McAfee about what he refers to as the Oracular approach to decision making. (Andy took over the Entrepreneurship course I taught while on sabbatical at MIT a few years ago. By all accounts he did an (even) better job than me!)

The above lists of characteristics are focused on a single fictional character in the advertising industry, but in my experience they’re fairly common across business oracles and their decisions in many real-world settings as well. When I reflect on how I’ve seen strategy, marketing, planning, and product design decisions made at large organizations, I see a lot of the stuff listed above.To be sure, I also see business oracles gathering lots of data, commissioning studies, and sometimes even running experiments. But I often get the sense that the point of all this activity is to confirm the soundness of the oracle’s initial idea, rather than to test it a state of affairs captured elegantly by this New Yorker cartoon. Several people at last week’s workshop on business experimentation observed that it takes months for many companies to set up even a simple experiment today, and opined that this is because of the great care taken to ensure the outcome.

via The Diminishment of Don Draper : Andrew McAfee’s Blog.

I’m not going to try to summarize  his post here, but I would add that a good Oracle is called an expert. And expertise is real – and it’s necessary at the Craft end of the Craft-to-science spectrum.

Research faculty are retiring too slowly!

Late retirement is a paradoxical problem. In most of the economy, we want people to delay retirement, if only to keep a reasonable ratio of workers to retirees (which is needed for Social Security and for retirement financing in general). But at research universities, “new blood” is especially critical, and 70-year old faculty tie up slots for new hires.

Many workers yearn for retirement — the goodbye parties, the golf course, maybe even a gold watch. But Stanford University has the opposite problem: Nobody wants to leave.Hoping to create more space for young scholars, Stanford has revamped its generous “Retirement Incentive Program” — for the second time in a decade — to nudge more old-timers toward the door.”Our senior faculty are wonderful. I love them all,” Provost John Etchemendy said at a recent meeting of the Academic Senate, publicizing the plan. “But we’re getting fewer people into the faculty, and that’s because people are staying longer,” he said. “The faculty is aging.”

via Stanford University confronts the graying of academia – SiliconValley.com.

Perhaps a solution is in the article’s observation that foreign universities are hiring like mad, hence have very young faculties. Better for US would be to bring those students here; but if we can’t do that, I know some of my colleagues who are “retiring” abroad.