A Scientific Approach in Entrepreneurship and Strategy

Thinking like a scientist. This may not be new, especially for scientists. And not so much for entrepreneurs who subscribe to Eric Ries’ Lean Startup method1. But it was a hot topic at the recent Academy of Management (AOM) conference.2

I’m a scientist who has lived in the business world for decades. So, I’m excited to see the scientific method embraced at a business-centred conference. The AOM is an organization of business scholars, or people who study business. However, like every business school I’ve been part of, AOM aims to share knowledge with the practicing community.

First observation: Transparent Logic. The term immediately resonated – I knew exactly what it meant and why it was important in entrepreneurship. Transparent logic is part of a model for teaching social entrepreneurship3 and requires a clear link between the proposed activities and the social problem a venture is tackling. For example, providing water purification devices will decrease the incidence of dysentery, leading to fewer hours of lost labour and therefore people earning a better wage, however, it needs to be clear how people who need the device will get them and continue to use them. For many scientists, cause and effect is utopia. Transparent logic in a social venture seeks this holy grail of cause and effect.

At a session on entrepreneurial strategy4, we heard it was less about SWOT analysis and more about observation leading to hypothesis generation. An entrepreneur sees an unsolved problem and hypothesizes they can solve it with a certain product. The term causal logic came up, followed rapidly by notions of testing. Establishing value, after recognizing opportunities, can have its roots in the scientific method. The entrepreneurial process is scientific.

In the same session, a trial to evaluate the impact of the scientific method on startups was presented. Entrepreneurs were randomized into two groups. One was mentored traditionally – entrepreneurs were guided in business methods, product development and organizational development. The other group was tutored in a scientific method, using hypothesis generation, controlled testing and analytical methods to learn from test outcomes. Those using the scientific method pivoted more frequently, acquired and activated more customers and had more revenue generation. From this: the scientific method works for entrepreneurs.

On to a plenary session on strategy.5 There, too, causal identification was presented as a frontier in strategy research. My head started to spin with so many scientific references. I was brought back to objectivity, reminded that physics with its fundamental, timeless certainties such as gravity, was more reliable for test outcomes. The fundamental forces that shape business shift more often. However, like evolution of species, changes in strategic theme occur in leaps and bounds, rather than continuously. An example is the upheaval in retail, with the onset of online shopping. A discrete change in how we shop. It left survivors (Amazon) and the less fortunate (Sears Canada).

The hotness of the scientific method in business strategy looks to me like the mid-point stage on the S-curve6 of adoption of new things (technology, products, buzz-words, sports teams). Following this trajectory, soon it won’t be the new thing, but the common thing.

When I ventured out of the lab many years ago to join an investment bank, I was a foreigner. Welcomed, but in a world of people who thought in different ways. They had vision. Visions of logical explanations. Maybe it’s me that’s catching up, learning that shrewd entrepreneurs see value where other’s don’t.

The scientific method can make sense and compelling arguments out of ideas. It makes it easy to answer hard questions about why you think this new idea you have will make a great business. A great tool for any entrepreneurial business strategist.

——–

1http://theleanstartup.com

2This is a huge conference, attended by thousands of faculty members from business schools all over the world. With two days of symposia, plenary sessions and papers, each with 7 time slots, and an average of 15 sessions to choose from per time slot, this means there are (15) 14 = 2.9 x 1016 different individual selections of talks to attend. Or maybe it should be 15! which is only 1.3x 1012 I’m not exactly sure how to calculate the number of different permutations of the program but any way you do, the number is really big. So my experience may not be typical.

6Not surprisingly, the S curve is S shaped.

In the beginning, a handful people embrace a new thing. The adventurers, the risk-takers, perhaps those in the field who understand the new thing better than most. This is the first stage, the flattish bottom to the S curve.

Then word starts to get around. The new thing is good. It does exciting things. It’s better than the old thing. People jump on board, start adopting the new thing like it’s the best thing since the last new thing. This is the part of the curve that swings up so rapidly that if it was an airplane, everyone on board would pass out.

As time goes on, people remain excited about the new thing, but many people have the new thing, so the adoption curve starts to lessen its assent – the plateauing phase of the vertical rise.

Finally, just about everyone who will ever want the new thing, which isn’t so new any more, has it. The S curve flattens. No additional adoption because everyone loves and appreciates the new thing.

Please follow and like us:

Are you having a Meaningful Relationship with a Brand?

Two things happened to me at about the same time, so they must be related. Right?

Ok, both were about customer service. One was kinda theoretical, the other a real-life experience.

Theory and real life intersecting? There’s always a fundamental interconnectedness.

Here’s what I experienced:

#1. I’m reading the book: ‘If you are in a Dogfight, become a Cat!’ by Leonard Sherman. A great read about business strategy. Page 155 presented me with: “87% of consumers would like to experience a more meaningful relationship with their favourite brand.”

Due to circumstances beyond my control, I didn’t read any further until much later, so I was left to ponder what the heck that meant. I have favourite brands: Apple, Tim Hortons, Lululemon. I can’t fathom how I would develop a more meaningful relationship with them1.

I have relationships with people. We interact in ways that express our mutual affection for, and concern about, each other, and have common goals, interests, and values. How does that translate into something I would do or feel with a brand? If I used the product in the way it was intended and it worked out well, I’d be happy. I can sip my coffee, lean back and enjoy how fabulous it tastes, but that isn’t the same as confiding my fears about funding my retirement with a friend who understands the situation in exactly the same way I do. I don’t get the relationship part. Perhaps I am part of the other 13%.

#2. While still mulling this over, I dropped into a fast food restaurant for some fries and a burger. It was chaos. A special kind of Canadian chaos, with 20 people eagerly anticipating that their order would be delivered next, while bobbing and jostling to stay out of each other’s way but failing because it wasn’t clear where to wait.

We’ve learned to wait in line, confident in the concept that each of us will be served when it is our turn. Most of the time, this is accepted to be in the order we arrived. But that isn’t how it works currently in this food emporium, because there are least four ways to place your order, or perhaps have a meaningful relationship with this brand. Food can be ordered via: drive thru, ordering kiosk, talking to a human the old fashion way, mobile ordering, and using a food delivery service like UberEats or Skip the Dishes.

Experience #2 was distinctly weird. It felt like there was choice but we were all waiting for the same thing (the restaurant’s fare). I didn’t want choice in how I ordered, I wanted the most efficient way to get my food. I was hungry. I parked rather than go through the drive thru to avoid the long line of cars. I ordered at the kiosk because I thought it would be quicker (I can’t explain why I thought it would be quicker – perhaps a belief that is technology is more efficient than humans). Had I know how long I’d have to wait, I might have paid the fee to have the food delivered.

The experience wasn’t meaningful, it was like picking a line at many places -grocery store, customs at the airport, toll booth. You pick the slow one. We all pick the slow one. And that doesn’t suggest to me that the brand has the same goals as I do. The brand appears to be trying to be everything to everyone, despite delivering the same options and product to all customers, regardless of how they order. It’s like a gloss of customization smeared over mass production. Mass production isn’t so bad, as long that’s what you’re looking for, like a tank of gas, reinforced concrete in the hockey arena where your kids play little league or enough data to stream all the sports, teenage drama series of choice and pilates videos desired by a family of five simultaneously.

When I got my order, I returned the straw and stack of napkins packed into the bag before I left. That was an opportunity to made a connection with the brand for me – minimizing both plastic and paper waste – things I value, along with the occasional feed of french fries.

The interconnection: I later learned there are many ways for customers to have a meaningful relationship with a brand. The right one depends on the brand, or relates to the customer’s expectations. Companies must understand what the customer wants, rather than offer a bunch of options and hope that provides mass customization. Find out which is most important to customers – choosing how to input their order, being treated fairly, or getting their food quickly. Then develop ways to deliver.

Old fashion values still rule. A devoted customer has a great relationship with the brand, even if they would never describe it that way. They’d say ‘I like the everything about X’, as you might say about someone you had a meaningful relationship with.

1 If asked ‘what do I want from my favourite brands?’ I’d say, more great stuff. The best functional, easy to use, attractive technology, the same coffee and donuts, and athletic gear that looks great on, is stylish and good to exercise in.

Please follow and like us:

Barriers to Innovation

My last post was an optimistic ode to the endless innovation currently possible, due to the state of technology, entrepreneurship and related support systems. But that doesn’t mean it’s easy. Today, I want to discuss some sobering limitations that thwart the introduction and uptake of new things.

Several broad categories of barriers to innovation spring to mind:

  • regulation
  • fitting into existing infrastructure
  • consumer habits
  • figuring out who is going to pay
  • short term vs long term thinking
  • benefit twice removed

To illustrate these, I’ll discuss barriers in a couple of hypothetical situations where delivering a solution seems easy.

Consider the challenges to providing real-time transit information. This was inspired by a comment I overheard: “in X,Y and Z city, you know exactly when the next bus will arrive; why can’t we have that here?”

Why indeed?

The technology exists to track a vehicle, create algorithms to integrate the traffic flow, rate of bus progress, passenger demand and weather conditions to estimate and adjust time of arrival for buses and trains. Multiple options exists for providing this information to transit customers, such as pixel boards at stops, a downloadable app or text message service. The information is useful to customers to plan their commutes and use their time wisely. Providing real time updates enhances the customer experience, because it’s more satisfying knowing that your bus will arrive in 14 minutes than not knowing and having it appear after you have fretted and peered into the traffic for 6 (much longer) minutes. Happier customers are repeat customers. So, there’s value to be shared between provider and customer.

Why can’t they have it everywhere?

I can think of a bunch of (hypothetical) reasons.

1. Perhaps the current fleet of vehicles aren’t GPS enabled. Perhaps there is no way of announcing the information at the stops, since all that currently exists are metal signs. (infrastructure issues)

2. The bus drivers union may object to such a system because it tracks driver performance in an unfair way. Or the legal team could be concerned about liability of promising something not under the control of the transit authority. (regulations)

3. How will the new infrastructure be paid for? Through fare increases, increased bank loans, or decreased dividends to shareholders? Although the value can be seen, is it enough to make people reach into their pockets? (who will pay?)

4. The cost to implement this new system will have to be paid long before rider retention can be proven. (short term vs. long term thinking).

To illustrate the other two barriers, I’ll use plastic utensils, especially straws. Much has been made of the earth- and ocean-clogging features of these implements of consumption lately. We need an alternative. Why do we use straws to consume beverages? (This is customer habit.) Innovations that replace the straw must overcome habit. And why do we have plastic utensils, food containers and other disposable, polluting conveniences? Because they are convenient. Eating your meal and cleaning up afterwards are things you will enjoy right now. Pollution of the oceans may only come to your attention years later. And you’re not sure how plastic in the waters effects the environment. It’s difficult to understand the vastness of the consequences of disposables in the sea when you put a single straw in your bubble tea. (benefit twice removed)

Yes, there can be significant barriers to implementing a genius idea that is good for people, business and society as a whole.

And yet, the answer is innovation. Business innovation. Get around the regulations or change them. Show stakeholders short and long term benefits. If there is value in an innovation, someone will be willing to pay. People only cling to their habits if they don’t see the benefit of changing.

Innovation is possible, if you understand the barriers and come up with ways to get over, under or around them.

Please follow and like us:

Oh, to be an expert. Or not to be an expert.

I went to a talk about marketing1, heard a great story about business strategy2, and learned about The Trouble with Experts, a documentary3  that examines the current ‘Expert’ phenomena. As a big fan of the fundamental interconnectedness of things, the talk inspired me to ramble around the topic of experts while mixing in business strategy and other things.

We’re steeped in information: long posts, short posts, vlogs, interviews, testimonials, opinions – individual, journalistic, shared and trending-, spewing forth every second of every day and night. To add to the confusion, ironically by trying to clarify it, is a preponderance expert opinion about every news story. How does one get membership in this exclusive expert club, garnering the right to earning big bucks just by expressing an opinion?

I’d like to disagree and then agree with The Trouble with Experts on its analysis of various expert groups, including wine tasters, economists, and management consultants.

As told in The Trouble with Experts, studies have been done to test the ability of the wine tasters to distinguish disguised wines and economists to predict the economic future. The wine experts weren’t able to tell expensive from cheap wine when the bottles were switched, and the predictions of economists weren’t often right. In my opinion, although soundly executed, the studies didn’t do justice to the professionals. Wine tasters likely know many things about wine. Like most of us, they are human, and swayed by their expectations, in this case created by the label of a renowned vineyard on the bottle. Economists are trained to analyze and recognize economic trends, patterns that have occurred historically, which we all know are no guarantee of future performance.

The next group the documentary took to task was management consultants, which hit close enough to my home to make me uncomfortable. An interviewee suggested there is no data to suggest business strategists make good recommendations. Funny thing about business strategy: it often boils down to a simple recommendation (for example, produce original media content, or expand into a European market rather than a US one), which sounds like someone came up it in a moment’s thought.

Choosing a strategic direction is a prediction of sorts, but a prediction based on many facts, such as the economic environment, fluctuations in consumer demand, technological advances and competitive landscape. These are all real, quantifiable, and of critical importance for managing any business.

The presentation that inspired this post reminded me how real business strategy is, with a real life example: Most drug stores sold cigarettes a few decades ago, until legislation put a stop to it. That presented a certain large drug store chain with the challenge of deciding which of its remaining products to enhance to serve a regular stream of customers that weren’t looking to get their prescriptions filled. The solution, to highlight cosmetics, was genius. Understanding the full impact of taking away tobacco sales on the drugstore’s business required expertise. The focus on cosmetics was never guaranteed to work. But it apparently has. The expert who suggested it is a hero even though it was a prediction. But a prediction based on analysis of industry characteristics, consumer demand, what the competition offers, combined with knowing what the organization could do.

What’s realistic to expect of an expert? Very few humans can predict the future, regardless of their area of expertise. Those trained in a field will recognize patterns, flavours, or trends sooner than the general public, and are able to understand and explain events in their field. However, experts are often asked to gaze into the hazy future and conjure the outcome of current events.

Most of us who claim expertise do so because we understand an area through decades of work and study. Voicing an opinion about something, like the effectiveness of vaccines or the function of air filtration systems, does not require expertise. However, explaining how infectious disease is limited by vaccination or the parameters that govern air flow and particulate removal, does. Reading controlled studies about vaccine trials or the physics of airflow through ducts doesn’t provide a license to predict the future, but does provide a unique grasp on the subject matter.

The Trouble with Experts ends by exploring the most curious aspect of the Expert phenomena: training to become an expert. Modern experts can be created by a perverse version of natural selection. Popular media promotes the most personable, show-worthy individual to speak on a subject. Becoming this sort of expert requires only passion, poise and an unshakable attitude that you are right, about something, like life on Venus, the nutritional value of donuts, or the horse that will win the Kentucky Derby.

This is what we’ve come to. He or she who shouts loudest, with greatest emotion, is right. They may have a deep understanding of their field, or they many not. That isn’t the criteria. It’s sounding credible.

Let’s put the expert back in expertise. Being an expert means a person understands, not that they can predict the future. We’re all entitled to our opinions. The critical thing is to differentiate between expertise and opinion. All of us, listeners and pontificators alike, can make it better. It’s about promoting the truth. Not trending.

And on that note, here are a few sites where I’m experting:

1. As reviewer of business pitches for OCE and Ministry of Economic Development and Growth’s young entrepreneurs

2. As a mentor for entrepreneurs at The Community Innovation Lab

3. As an entrepreneur, in the Core21 community of entrepreneurs (in the video)

1This was part of a new series, called UP! Practical Sales Talks, from the BACD , aimed at inspiring local business people to do better business. If you’re in the neighbourhood, I’d highly recommend it.

2The presentation I attended, from Shawn Palmer, Director of Sales and Marketing, Classic Gourmet Coffee, hit most topics I teach in my business strategy cases, serving as a brilliant reminder of how real business strategy is. More about this later in the post.

3I want to call it a docu-pinion, to reflect a piece with the documentary style of investigative journalism and a conclusion that might be found in an opinion piece. I’m probably insulting someone here, but I think the point of the piece was the question of how experts are defined, which if applied to the documentary, could mean that many of the interviewees in the piece who provided their expertise could be questioned, and therefore the commentary provided was, at best, opinion. I’m slightly dizzy thinking about it.

Please follow and like us:

Abandoning Science Fiction. Embracing Science Fiction.

Traditionally, science fiction imagined the impacts of emerging technology decades and centuries into the future, suggesting fanciful, outrageous possibilities. These were generally ignored as figments of, well, science fiction.

No more. Lots of people are paying attention to science fiction. We can’t dismiss the potential of technology as surreal anymore. It’s real, as real as your online medical history, or app-controlled crockpot.

Science fiction has snuck into, and taken a starring role in, mainstream entertainment: Starwars, Game of Thrones, Dr. Who, and countless other movies and TV shows. Best books of 2016 include science fiction and fantasy titles. While some might debate the purity of this popular scifi, a heightened awareness of technology permeates popular culture, perhaps as a collective intuition of the urgency to understand what’s coming.

In classic titles like 1984 (information technology), Brave New World (human engineering), and Blade Runner (artificial intelligence), science fiction explored the frontiers of advancing technology. The time has past for the implications of emerging technologies be left to the philosophers in their ivory towers or visionaries in their chrome think tanks. Jaw-dropping new technology barrels towards us like a runaway locomotive, and threatens to overwhelm us like deer in the headlights.

My mission is to make science and technology accessible. In 2004, I took up writing scifi to help people understand science, both how it worked and its potential outcomes. By mid 2015, it seemed to me the field of scifi had undergone a tectonic shift. Currently popular stories seems less to hypothesize the impacts and ethics of emerging technologies than to explore human nature. All good, but not my fundamental driving force.

I took another path, focused on another passion – using business strategy to turn scientific developments into useful products for people1. Ironically, this is now a better place to achieve my goal to bring science to people. We are poised on the edge of many technological advances with the potential to change life as we know it, probably sometime next week, or year. Definitely now-ish.

At one of my recent business meetings, the light, closing banter considered whether bitcoin would become a solid currency. Bitcoin, or entirely digital currency, is an attractive concept, as a global, non-political, apparently secure2 and completely portable form of money. Many commentators expect it to disrupt banking as we know it. Not science fiction. Business.

I credit the book (from the business section of the bookstore) ‘Industries of the Future’ by Alec Ross3 with coalescing my thoughts about science fiction. In this book, the list of emerging technologies was no surprise and included self driving cars, the Internet of Things, big data and the associated privacy or lack thereof, genetic profiles, and cyberwarfare. Ross’ genius is coupling the astonishing capability of the technology with current uses and impacts.

Technology is becoming mainstream faster than it can become science fiction.

Today you can place your order as you walk towards your favourite coffee shop, pay for it before you open the door and whizz by the barista as you grab the cuppa with your name on it. Tomorrow, someone could hack your fridge to steal your identity or you might never find another job once your genetic profile has been uploaded into Monster.

No more is 19844 fiction. Fifty years ago, although horrified by the notion of being monitored constantly, we stood back and debated whether it would ever really happen. No more debate – the capacity exists. Now. Most of us are fortunate that such intel is not used against us. It’s only used to sell us things.

Issac Asimov wrote about robots5. While countless manufacturing jobs have been lost to automation, the real question is: how far it will go? Will robots replace teachers, lawyers, doctors, or spouses? This is about more than lost jobs, it’s about what it is to be human.

GATTACA6 (1997) was a movie about a young man who wanted to be an astronaut, but it wasn’t in his DNA, literally. The movie’s premise is that people’s occupations are determined by genetic profiling. In GATTACA, our hero fakes his genetic makeup to live his dream. Genetic profiling is close enough to reality that the Canadian government is working on genetic privacy legislation, while businesses that provide health insurance want to use genetic information to determine policy premiums.

Cory Doctorow, in Down and Out in the Magic Kingdom7, wrote about a system called Whuffie. The basic concept was that a score like karma, based on how many good things you did and how many people liked you, followed you around and determined your fate. How different is this from celebrity influencers on social media, who might have a more pervasive impact on medical products that knowledgeable medical professionals?

Countless scifi stories show people being identified by their fingerprints or retinal scan. How close is this to reality? Ask Bionym, a Canadian company that authenticates identity by heartbeat8.

Artificial intelligence is coming. In the classic scifi tale, 2001 Space Odyssey,9 an evil computer took over a spaceship because a human tried to shut it down. Watson, IBM’s super computer, knows more about medical advances10 than any of our physicians possibly could, and it won on Jeopardy!11 Meanwhile, Google can predict pancreatic cancer more efficiently than medical tests12, and Twitter can divine which movies will be hits before the box office opens to sell the first ticket to a showing13.

Business brings us new technology, whether we are ready or not. Realizing the potential consequences can’t be left to science fiction. We need to understand all the ethical, secondary and broader environment effects in real time, when the technology is in its infancy or sooner. Simultaneously, science fiction has moved on to deal with some of the most challenging social issues this world currently faces.

To understand technology, I abandon science fiction for business, but I embrace science fiction for wisdom to understand people.

——–

1I consider this the fundamental interconnectedness of all things, and of course credit Douglas Adams with bestowing on me an understanding of the universe.

2The experts claim that digital currencies are unhackable, but that just sounds to me like a giant invitational to hackers.

4The book by George Orwell, written in 1949.

Please follow and like us:

Competitive Advantage or Competitive Advantage? Biology and Business.

As a scientist who specializes in business strategy, competitive advantage means two things to me: how to succeed in business and how biological species evolve. I’m enjoying the irony that the goal of capitalist pursuits might be mistaken for a fundamental, back-to-nature, biological process.

We value nature with an instinctive appreciation that it sustains us. But that isn’t quite right. All of earth’s creatures are part of a massively interwoven dynamic equilibrium. Birds eat fruit and poop out the seeds at a distant location, broadening the plant’s horizons. Carpenter ants chew up decaying wood, hastening it’s transition into compost allowing new vegetation can grow. Humans exhale carbon dioxide, feeding the growth of flowers, from which bees collect pollen and make honey – food for bears. I could go on about who eats who, excretes what, or creates habitats where. Nature isn’t there to support us, we are part of it.

Like capitalism, nature isn’t pretty all the time, as any feast by seagulls, crows or other carrion fowl devouring road kill demonstrates. Less attractive still are the squished rabbits, skunks and squirrels decomposing by the action of insects and bacteria. All natural, with the smell to prove it.

Natural selection, the survival of those within a species with a competitive advantage, is even less attractive. It leaves behind those less capable of dealing with changes in the environment. Just like business. If a business comes along with a better way of providing music to people (eg. iTunes), other forms of music delivery (tapes, records or CDs) die.

Competitive advantage in a business only works because it’s fulfilling needs. Sounds humanitarian, doesn’t it? Cars displaced horses and buggies was because they got people where they want to go, faster, and more comfortably. Lives were saved because the sick got faster medical care. A hundred years ago, Ford had a competitive advantage because they invented a way to make affordable, convenient transportation. Today, business models like Uber and Zipcar have a competitive advantage because they provide what people want (getting from here to there) faster and cheaper. Uber provides spontaneous, on-demand transportation. Zipcar replaces the need for car ownership, without taking away access to the car.

Successful businesses thrive because they sell something people want. Individuals in a species survive because they are better able to adapt to changes in the environment. A central premise in strategic management is that a business’s ability to sustain competitive advantage depends on how it adapts to changes in its environment. Similarly, the members of a species that survive, and repopulate the species, are those best able to adapt to the environment.

It’s harder to see examples of biological selection because they happen on a longer time frame than it takes Netflix to make Blockbuster’s video rental irrelevant.

In biology, we can observe a trait becoming more prevalent. For example, some humans, but not all1, are able to digest milk after toddlerhood, which relates to the cultivation of cows and production of milk, cheese and recently, ice cream2. It’s easy to imagine that thousands of years ago, people who were able to metabolize milk products would have a survival advantage in harsh times, as would their children. If we continue dairy farming, in a few millennia maybe all people will be able to digest milk as adults.

My favourite example of visible evolution and survival of the fittest is the moths3 whose dominant colour evolved from white-ish to grey-ish as the trees they rested on became soot-covered from the industrial revolution. Before industrialization, the dominant moth colour was light and there were few dark ones. Birds had a harder time spotting the light-coloured ones, so they were less likely to be eaten when they rested on trees with light-coloured trucks. As the trunks darkened, grey moths had the camouflage advantage, survived, and now represent the majority of the population.

The difference between evolving businesses and evolving species is active decision making. The phrase ‘survival of the fittest’ conjures up visions of death matches in Thunderdome4 where opponents rely on their smarts and resources to outwit their competition. This is kinda true in business. But not even slightly what happens in biology.

Strategic management dictates providing a superior product compared to competitors, whether it’s cheaper, has more features, safer, or more durable. Although it sounds contradictory, in biology, survival of the fittest tends to be an accidental thing. Businesses plan to outdo the competition, which Walmart appears to be doing in grocery retailing5. On the other hand, bacteria that are resistant to common antibiotics are becoming more prevalent. This isn’t because the bacteria have formed a consortium to determine defence tactics against humans. Those that aren’t resistant are killed off. It’s a simple accident of genetics. Those that have genes that confer drug resistance survive. They are the fittest in the environment that bacteria now inhabit.

Businesses can manoeuvre, change their strategy, hire new people, create different distribution and supply partnerships. Species, faced with a new force in their environment, must do the best with the genetics they have. Perhaps some day we will engineer ourselves in real time, becoming more business-like in our approach to natural selection. Would that be a bad thing, if we were fulfilling our needs?

———

1http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/news/070401_lactose

2Ice cream also required the invention of the refridgeration, which caused the demise of the ice industry.

3for details, see Wikipedia: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peppered_moth_evolution

4in case my cultural references are a bit dated, Thunderdome was glorified in MadMax 3, where combatants did anything and everything to win against their opponents https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mad_Max_Beyond_Thunderdome

5http://www.cbc.ca/news/business/walmart-grocery-store-1.3717480

Please follow and like us: