"Giants invariably descend into suckiness" (parte XV)

Parte I, parte II, parte III, parte IV, parte V, parte VI, parte VII, parte VIII, parte IX, parte X, parte XI, parte XII, parte XIII e parte XIV.

“By the end of the twentieth century P&G had scaled up to a behemoth, offering more than three hundred brands and raking in yearly revenue of $37 billion. P&G was one of the world’s corporate superpowers.
.
In 2016 analyst firm CB Insights published a graphic showing all the ways unscaled companies were attacking P&G. [Moi ici: Por que não gostamos de ser tratados como plancton] It looks like a swarm of bees taking down a bear. In that rendering P&G no longer appears to be a monolithic scaled-up company that has built up powerful defenses against upstarts; instead, it is depicted as a series of individual products, each vulnerable to small, unscaled, agile, AI-driven, product-focused, entrepreneurial companies.
...
CBI called the overall phenomenon the “unbundling of P&G.” It is as clear an indication as any of what big corporations face in an era that favors economies of unscale over economies of scale. Small unscaled companies can challenge every piece of a big company, often with products or services more perfectly targeted to a certain kind of buyer—products that can win against mass-appeal offerings. If unscaled competitors can lure away enough customers, economies of scale will work against the incumbents as fewer units move through expensive, large-scale factories and distribution systems—a cost burden not borne by unscaled companies.
...
Over the past hundred years, as the era of scale unfolded, small companies of course continued to exist, and many prospered even as they stayed small. Small business was the US economy’s underlying strength throughout the scaling age. In 2010, according to the US Census, the nation had about 30 million small businesses and only 18,500 companies that employed more than five hundred people.
However, in an era when economies of scale usually prevailed, when a scaled-up company competed directly against a small business, the small business usually lost. Just think of all the small-town Main Street retailers Walmart bulldozed over the past twenty-five years.
.
We will see the big-beats-small dynamic reverse as we unscale. Over the next ten to twenty years companies that relied on scale as a competitive advantage will increasingly find themselves defanged. They will be at a disadvantage against focused unscaled businesses. Large corporations won’t disappear, just as small business didn’t disappear in the last era. But the big companies that don’t change their model will see their businesses erode, and some of today’s giants will fall. [Moi ici: Nada podem fazer contra a suckiness, têm de a abandonar]”

Excerto de: Taneja, Hemant, Maney, Kevin. “Unscaled”.

Mongo na saúde

“Over the past four or five decades carbohydrate-heavy diets—pushed by mass-market production and mass marketing of cereals and drinks laced with high-fructose corn syrup—created an epidemic of obesity and, ultimately, diabetes. The medical profession lumped most people with diabetes into one of two categories of the disease—type 1 is genetic and type 2 is diet related—and prescribed a standard treatment. It was a classic mass-market medicine approach. So the healthcare industry scaled up to meet demand. It built diabetes centers and more hospitals and ran every patient, assembly-line style, through the same tests the few times a year they’d be able to visit an endocrinologist, whose schedule was packed. Yet for patients, sugar levels in between appointments can change, rising and falling to dangerous levels, and the disease can progress, adding more costs and more visits to bigger hospitals. People suffering from diabetes end up costing the healthcare system $300 billion a year in the United States alone. (It’s only going to get worse globally: within a decade China will likely have more people with diabetes than the entire US population.) “The scaled approach can’t keep up with the growing number of people with the condition, and it fails to give people with diabetes what they really want: a healthy life.
.
In reality every person who has diabetes suffers from it differently, and the best way to treat it is different for everybody.
...
“Personalized AI-driven care can reduce the amount Americans spend caring for diabetes by as much as $100 billion just by keeping more people with diabetes well more of the time. Unscaled solutions can change the game and reduce healthcare costs by keeping people well. The nation can save money while at the same time making citizens healthier, happier, and more productive.”

Por cá, fala-se muito de Indústria 4.0, mas continuam a construir hospitais-monumento ou hospitais-cidade. Recordar os hospitais-cidade, as escolas-cidade e as máquinas-monumento.

Trecho retirado de "Unscaled: How A.I. and a New Generation of Upstarts are Creating the Economy of the Future"

A erosão do poder da escala ou, o susto para alguns

Mais um texto que vem ao encontro da narrativa deste blogue, "Bigger is Not Necessarily Better in Our Information-Rich Digital Economy":

"The mass production of standardized products is a defining hallmark of the 20th century industrial economy, bringing high productivity and low costs to a wide variety of products, - from household appliances to cars.
...
“Chains took advantage of that data deficit.
...
Not surprisingly, things are now changing in our information-rich digital economy.  “Information technology is eroding the power of large-scale mass production.  We’re instead moving toward a world of massive numbers of small producers offering unique stuff - and of consumers who reject mass-produced stuff.  The Internet, software, 3D printing, social networks, cloud computing and other technologies are making this economically feasible - in fact, desirable.”
...
“A series of breakthrough technologies and new business models are destroying the old rule that bigger is better,” he wrote.  “By exploiting the vast (but cheap) audience afforded by the Internet, and taking advantage of a host of modular services, small becomes the new big.  The global business environment is decomposing into smaller yet more profitable markets, so businesses can no longer rely on scaling up to compete, but must instead embrace a new economies of unscale.”
.
While a few leading edge companies are able to keep up, the vast majority of traditional firms are lagging behind.  They are not able to embrace these disruptive technologies and innovations at anywhere the same speeds.  These companies are working harder than ever, trying to achieve greater efficiencies and predictability.  They keep trying to fit new technologies and practices into outdated business models.  They are holding on to strategies that worked well in the relatively stable business environments of the industrial economy, but fall short in our fast changing digital economy, where new products, business models and competitors keep emerging from all corners of the worlds.
Everyone talks about the need to become more flexible and agile, but many companies have trouble doing so.  The Deloitte study cites a number of strategy and financial barriers uncovered in their research.  But in the end, they suspect that “a more fundamental force may be at work: the historical value accorded to efficiency and controllability by businesses accustomed to a less changeable, less transparent world. . . Simply put, there is a growing mismatch between the old frameworks and practices that many companies use and the structures and capabilities required to be successful in a rapidly changing environment.  Legacy corporate practices are holding businesses back from fully participating in new opportunities.”
“These new economies of unscale will be good for job growth, because they open up thousands of new market niches for exploitation,” writes Taneja.  “By buying specialized services, in customized form and at modest cost, companies can create unique products, find buyers from across the world, and secure profits."

Será que a tríade fica assustada com isto?