SweetSpot

Umair Haque has written a poignant essay titled “An Open Challenge to Silicon Valley“. His main concern is that Silicon Valley is throwing money after incremental improvements under the guise of being ‘revolutionary.’ He calls out these self-proclaimed techno-leaders as sheep in wolves’ clothing, who are too busy partying to pursue strategically radical ideas.

I love essays like these! They purposely bait you, and if they are well written (a little spice is a must), the argument is sound, and they are passionate, as this one is, you can’t put the related thoughts aside. Umair is sounding an alarm bell about lost opportunities to benefit the common good, and I only have respect for his thoughts and critiques.

However, innovation no longer happens with a lightning strike in a laboratory. This idea of aiming for revolutionary ideas is sexy, but empty. What is revolutionary often takes years of incremental improvements and won’t be embraced immediately (the automobile comes to mind). Of course there are exceptions, but generally speaking, thinking big is not the same as delivering big. This has been shown again and again; the graphical user interface was in development for multiple decades before Apple Computers picked it up, and the Internet existed for almost 40 years before the web pushed it into the limelight. Umair’s essay brings up many thoughts of my own — too many to list here at this time, but here are two very different examples from the diabetes world that come to mind:

• iSense is a local Portland, OR company that set out over ten years ago to create a continually running long-term glucose sensor. When I first heard about it way back in the beginning, I was giddy with excitement: a 30-minute appointment to implant the tiny device under your skin, pace-maker like longevity, and continually sending back information to a wristwatch? That is worthy of the over-used ‘revolutionary’ label! Yet as they enter the last phase of trials, they are looking at a competitive marketplace with three similar devices already on the market. To be able to deliver in the face of technical and scientific limitations, iSense has had to scale back the scope. I had the opportunity to visit their labs a few months ago, and what I saw is still an incredibly exciting device with the potential to provide real benefits to people with diabetes. The iSense provides a solid foundation on which to move into artificial pancreas technology. It is a first-generation product with a bright future, but it is entering a marketplace where it will no longer be considered revolutionary.
• Amy Tenderich wrote a well-received piece last year imploring companies to make a drastic departure from the current M.O. when creating and designing diabetes equipment. I would argue that design advancements can indeed be a radical step forward in this space. For example, there is no reason why testing your blood sugar levels should take at least 12 steps every time you do it. This year she has followed up with a much more pragmatic call-to-arms by hosting a design contest to help push the process along. I enjoyed her open letter last year, but I think the design contest is where progress can be made. Yet the scope has had to be scaled back drastically, which will lead to more incremental advances rather than an aggressive break with the current trends.

Only with the advantage of hindsight will we know what is revolutionary. Just as we now look upon Apple and the Internet as being revolutionary, perhaps we will look back at what companies like iSense or individuals like Amy are working on and see how they helped us leap forward.

Meanwhile, take a look at what is happening outside of the parties, the VC realm, and perhaps even Silicon Valley. In the margins that don’t make the news or the seminars at Harvard Business School we’ll find the companies that Umair is looking for.

———-

I highly recommend reading Paul Grams excellent essay The Power of the Marginal.