The Red Sox, My Cat Floyd, Sun, And The IT Business

Last night I crossed another one off my "list" of things to do prior to exiting this world – I went to my first World Series game. As a tortured Boston sports fan for life, I must first remind all of you that until about 5 years ago, if you remove the Larry Bird era, being a Boston sports fan has been like being Charlie Brown thinking that this time Lucy won't pull the ball away. I was 9 in 1975 and woke up the house when Pudge Fiske hit that homerun, only to lose game 7. I was 22 in 1986 when Bill Buckner permanently implanted a fatalistic outlook in my DNA. I was 39 when Grady Little left Pedro in one inning too long in Game 7 against the Yankees – while sitting on frozen peas post my vasectomy. Talk about a bad day. I went to the Patriots games with my dad in the worst stadium built post Roman empire, only to watch abysmal teams lose in abysmal ways. I went to the Bruins playoff game that ended at 2:30 AM in the Garden on a goal by Edmonton. I know the heartbreak of psoriasis.

So excuse me for using this forum to bask in the wonderment of the other side – kicking butt and taking names. Most have heard my Tom Brady (father of one of my children) stories. The Pats became the best professional sports franchise in the U.S. out of nowhere – even though they had a thousand year history of pathetic failure on and off the field. The Sox have broken more hearts in New England than Frank Sinatra, JFK, and Ben Affleck combined. But not anymore. 2004 was crazy. 2007 is expected.

Because you were successful once does not mean you will be again. Because you failed once, does not have to mean are destined to fail forever. The difference is simple – change the game. Whether IT or sports, it's the same deal. The Yankee's will always outspend you. IBM will always outspend you. Do you want to be the Florida Marlins or the Cleveland Indians? One team stinks and the other came a game away from beating the king. They didn't win it all (thankfully), but they got on stage and played the game. They are a contender – and that means something economically, emotionally, and psychologically.

Dan Warmenhoven, a Dutchman, in Holland, got me thinking about sports parallels to the IT business – or business in general. His contention is that East coast companies represent old school monolithic business which is destined to fail. West coast companies, he contends, have adapted to current market conditions which require nimble decision making at the point of attack – empowering the people at the street to make decisions in real time. It's a good argument – certainly the DEC's, Prime's, Wang's, etc. are classic examples of top run businesses that kept all decision making in the boardroom and then pushed orders down the ranks. They got crushed by those who could react to changing requirements at the speed of "now".

In U.S. Football, we have an exact parallel. Vince Lombardi and the Green Bay Packers were the model of success. Vince made every decision, and then chose players who could execute on those decisions better than everyone else. There was no thinking. Vince did the thinking. That monolithic approach won Green Bay a whole bunch of championships and admiration. Like IT, it also brought copy cats. The reason that model was not ultimately sustainable is because there is always someone who can spend more money than you – who can buy better talent. Someone will be faster than you are. Someone will be smarter. It wasn't until Bill Walsh and the West Coast Offense that things changed. San Francisco didn't try to outspend the competition. They changed the game.

In the West Coast Offense, the "management" doesn't make every decision. They provide guidance and direction – but decisions are made in the moment, by the people who need to execute them – in this case the players. In the monolithic system, the play is the play – each player has exactly one thing they have to do for each play. There is no thinking, no ad libbing. Execute properly and thinks are ok. Screw it up and bad things happen. In the West Coast offense everyone knows the "situation". If it's 3^rd down and 8, everyone knows the 6 plays that may be called. When you get to the line of scrimmage, everyone see's what's happening. The field general (Quarterback) can change things on the fly based on conditions in front of him. Each player looks at their mission, and has options based on what is presented to them. It's far more complex, requires incredible trust, and has many more opportunities to fail – but if everyone understands the goal and is prepared to do their part to achieve it, amazing things happen. San Fran changed the game – took the prize – and everyone else followed. The Pats did it next – 20 years later – faced with even tougher challenges designed to create equality – and everyone follows.

So with no disrespect intended to the great cities of Green Bay and San Francisco, they are examples of both innovators who changed the game and reaped the rewards, and of those who refused to then adapt to current conditions and have suffered ever since. It's not easy to think about change when you are winning – but those who win and sustain do just that. Apple isn't the same company it was 5 years ago, which wasn't the same company 10 years ago, etc. I love Network Appliance, but wonder if they are the 49ers. They changed the game and reaped the rewards but sooner or later the game will change again. Will it be changed by them, or someone else? It's hard to change when you are successful. It is counterintuitive to humans to do something different when what you have been doing is still working.

This gets me to Floyd. Floyd is a 10 pound cat who thinks he's an 80 pound Doberman. My dog, Abby, is a 45 pound hamster. Abby is the super nice, shy, wonder dog who is content to just sit around and be loved every now and then. She's not interested in changing the game. Floyd, on the other hand, is all about swinging for the fences. He's the Dustin Pedroia of cats. He's the Tom Mendoza of cats. Both of those guys are 5 foot nothing, but act 6 foot 5. Floyd has no claws, has been neutered, and is supposed to be a house cat. Instead he waits for a moment of weakness, such as when I come in with groceries, and bolts to the great outdoors whenever he can. It doesn't enter his mind that he is effectively defenseless – that a squirrel would probably mop the floor with him. He will leave for hours or days, coming back when he wants too (typically with a present such as a dead mouse or bird). He doesn't care about my game, he plays his own.

Game changing companies act like that. I don't mean they are arrogant, furry, or necessarily short (though I do find comfort in those under 6 feet tall who kick butt in this business for some strange reason) – but they all have the common trait of forging a new path instead of following the old one. How many companies do we all know that have a better gizmo than the guy who is winning? A zillion. What good does it do? Not much – it's very, very hard to beat someone at their own game.

Game changers have detractors. We love an underdog until they become leaders, then we hate them. It goes with the territory. Look at the Patriots – are you kidding me with all this garf? They re-wrote the book on how the business and the game itself are played, might be the most dominating example of perfection in execution thus far, and all anyone who is on the losing end of the new reality can do is try to diminish their achievement. You hear the same kind of stuff about Google. You will hear it about VMware. Game changers who win tend to win big. Who doesn't know a search player with better stuff than Google? Who hasn't heard a reference to the mainframe when talking about VMware? Who cares? Game over – until the game changes again.

This gets me to Sun. Sun changed the game once. They indirectly killed giants, created wealth, and forever changed the world. They did it with hippy ethics. They were the free loving student protesters who toppled the war machine, man. They also created huge wealth. They are still hippies. They give stuff away. They are nice. Their problem is that they refuse to adapt to the realities of a business world that isn't about free love and sleeping in Volkswagen vans. It's about money. Jonathan Schwartz, CEO and chief Sun hippy, blogs brilliantly in the perfect example of what I speak. He spends a lot of time talking about how Sun is defending the homeless and the helpless. He makes "free software" sound like a battle cry against injustice. He says that he does not want to litigate about 34 times. He actually does a good job of making a parallel to Sun of old – noting that when Linux came on the scene there were those at Sun who wanted to sue. Instead, he says, "we joined the free software community and innovated". If you are a Sun stockholder, aren't ya thinking that suing might have had a greater return? Dan Bricklin still has a huge following as the inventor of VisiCalc – the first spreadsheet – but no money. Craig has the pleasure of knowing he invented the most widely used list on the planet, but no money.

What I don't like about Sun is the whole hippy free love thing. Don't get me wrong, I find myself becoming more liberal with age, I care about the environment, I worry about having a national debt that my kids' kids will suffer with, etc. I dig the principals of business liberalism, if they can be combined with practical capitalistic realities. Apple has it. Sun had it.

I hate the entire legal system. I don't like elitist games controlled by elitist players. I'm an entrepreneur. I don't like anyone having to spend time and money on lawsuits – but I understand it. So while I have zero idea if any of it is merited, I respect the fact that Netapp sued Sun because it feels Sun effectively stole and gives away Netapp's intellectual property. If it turns out to be true, then Sun should get knocked in the head. If it turns out to be false, I don't blame Netapp for taking the offensive as clearly it could have dramatic capitalistic negative ramifications – and Netapp is in business to make money, not to save the Bolivian horned toad. In the same blog, Mr. Schwartz tells us that while they didn't want to litigate, they have decided to counter sue Netapp. That alone is not reason to rejoice – but I now see a small glimmer of hope.

"we are requesting a permanent injunction to remove all of their filer products from the market." That, my friends, is awesome. It might be a ridiculous request, it might get tossed out immediately – but it might not. That is game changing. That shows me that while he spent the first 80% of the message showing how Sun will remain the tree-hugging IT equivalent of Greenpeace, they will also try to put Netapp out of business. That's what Floyd would do. Swing for the fences Jonathan – you might strike out, but at least it will be a memorable at bat. Pedroia hit a monster home run in his first at bat last night – changed the game completely. If a judge grants the injunction, Netapp is out of business. Talk about a game changing event…….