Category: Uncategorized

This vacation I had a chance to watch some TV, in addition to spending time with the family, reading some books on wine and music, etc.

The most eye opening thing that I saw over vacation was some TV show on human chimerism, with at least two cases where people did *not* have any visible/physical signs of the genetic condition, but where they had two full sets of DNA in their bodies.

The term, "chimerism", comes from Greek mythology and refers to a multi-headed creature combining serpent, goat, and lion physiology (picture).

Now in human chimerism, there can be very visible markers. For example, in some reports of human chimerism (which is very rare as I understand things), people have documented checkerboard skin patterns on the chest where there is essentially a line going down the middle of the body, and where alternating squares (perhaps one inch by one inch blocks) of skin have light and dark pigmentation. To a casual observer, the checkerboard pattern may look perfectly square. In other reported cases, the person has adopted both male and female DNA. Again with a line going down the middle of the body from the head to the belly button, one half of the body may have male organs versus female. Surgery may be required to adjust the person to reconstruct the person as one sex or the other.

What blows my mind, however, is the case where the person looks and feels perfectly normal. As in turns out, it is believed that these people came to being by the fusing of two fully fertilized eggs as with Siamese twins, but because the cells did not split (say by day 4 of conception – don’t quote me on the specifics here since I’m doing off the top of my head), the embryo started to develop as one single baby with two *full* sets of DNA. Based on genetic, surgical, chemical, etc. research, it is believed that in these subset of cases that I am talking about, that while the person’s body consists of two full sets of DNA, any given organ may predominantly develop with one full set of DNA or the other (e.g., liver could have one full set of DNA from one egg, but the skin could have the full set of DNA from the other egg).

The cases caught on the TV show kind of blew my mind in terms of implications and how assumptions can be challenged. To make a long story short, two female chimeras from totally separate walks of life where shown to not have direct genetic connections to at least one of their children (by birth and eliminating possibilities of surrogate motherhood). One of the women was trying to prove that her kids were genetically hers, but DNA testing failed. Subsequent and more elaborate DNA testing showed that her kids adopted the DNA of some crazy combination of her father and her brother (this was after a court ordered that the birth of her forthcoming child be witnessed and have a forensic lab person collect blood, DNA material, etc. during childbirth – a DNA match between her and her child was negative).

DNA has often been used in courts of law to substantiate heinous crimes or to vindicate wrongly accused. DNA has often been thought of as having a one-to-one mapping with a person. Now the cardinality of the relationship may be challenged. (Note: to put some of this in perspective, however, the TV show stated that there may only be 40-60 cases [don’t quote me on number] of chimerism reported in the world, regardless of whether condition is physically visible)

Not a normal post by me by any means. But these are things that make me go …. hmmm. When I feel my (stereotypical) female traits coming through, well this discovery gives me moment to pause.

Update (2/21/06): See comments below on Siamese twins. It is likely that my reference to Siamese twins is incorrect.

Virginia Postrel has a very nice new article that describes some theories supporting how job hopping may positively contribute to innovation. She cites the case of comparing Silicon Valley to Route 128 as I did in an earlier post (but where I cited the scenario in the context of venture capital and employee-friendy laws in California over Boston as a key explanatory variable on differences in amount of venture money).

There’s a paragraph in her writeup that triggered another thought. Here’s the paragraph:

When employees jump from company to company, they take their knowledge
with them. "The innovation from one firm will tend to bleed over into
other firms," Professor Rebitzer explained. For a given company, "it’s
hard to capture the returns on your innovation," he went on. "From an
economics perspective, that should hamper innovation."

I don’t necessarily agree (or disagree) with Professor Rebitzer here. Just because an employee (a supplier) can take their knowledge over to another firm does not mean from an economics perspective that innovation should be hampered. I offer another hypothesis (which is not supported by any data) – that employees in Silicon Valley look at their employers as a market. That net-net employees will choose to work for firms that have better business models and can appropriate the returns of good ideas. Perhaps because of better business models (or better hype), such companies have better future free cash flows and can pay better. Thus, the good ideas that come out of innovation will naturally travel to where the market of employers can best put it to use. This does not necessarily mean that innovation will be diluted across firms as suggested above.

But back to those Silicon Valley people, are they just not loyal to their employers if they are hopping around so much? Maybe time just moves faster in Silicon Valley … 😉

Comments from a recent reader have made me think a little bit more about how I post as a management consultant. I suppose that these are some of the factors that I consider (a bit of a work in progress although some things are just plain legal requirements without flexibility):

1. Confidentiality agreements – As do many other employed people, I have to abide by these as signed with former employers and clients. It is not unusual for the survivability of confidentiality clauses to last more than five years or even indefinitely.
2. Client name confidentiality – For some management consulting firms, confidentiality is strict enough that you cannot even mention the names of client companies you work for, let alone what type of work you are doing from them. Many consulting firms also have prohibited trading lists for its management consultants (i.e., you cannot trade in the stocks of client companies because you often have inside information as a management consultant).
3. Sensitive current project – Cases where client may be aware of consultant’s blog and may contrue everything on blog to be about them when I don’t want them to ("you’re so vain, I bet you think this song is about you …"). May stay away from certain subjects, disguise people, places, and company, plus delay from blogging for many months or even years.
4. Casual conversations with people not familiar with either blogs or me – This is to respect people’s privacy. I don’t think all bloggers follow this process, but I try to get someone’s permission to use information in a blog before using it. Even after getting permission, I may use references (like people’s titles) as a shortcut to set the business context (e.g., GM’s have profit and loss responsibility, VP’s don’t generally have profit and loss but have oversight over functional area). Using titles to guesstimate/gauge span of control, purchase authority, etc. is a bit of a black art though as someone may need to take additional context from the size of company (e.g., start-up versus Fortune 100), industry company is in, and geography (e.g., I frequently have to clarify titles when working with my German contacts).
5. Information embargoed at request of provider until a specific date – I try to honor these even if I am not required to.
6. If none of the above items govern the situation, then when in doubt as to whether one should be specific or less-specific in a business context – either don’t blog about or disguise it very well using some of the things I’ve mentioned above.

Carlos Velez has put together a series of posts on the mistakes that entrepreneurs make when seeking capital. Here they are:

1. Mistake #1 – Not writing a check
2. Mistake #2 – VC is the only path
3. Mistake #3 – Taking your time
4. Mistake #4 – Learn how to swim before jumping into the pool
5. Mistake #5 – Not seeking professional help

People should contact Carlos (per his post here) if they want to get a PDF of the article. Also if you resonate with #2 at all (which you should), you should also see the post at the Entrepreneurial Mind, "There Is Life Beyond Venture Capital".

Update (11/17/05): Carlos has a very nice follow-up post here that sheds more light on #5 with some specific examples in the drug discovery space.

Update (11/17/05): Texas Venture Capital Blog  has a post here where some  entrepreneurs come clean and admit to making some the exact mistakes that Carlos mentions.

In formulating new products and/or doing sales and business development, it is very easy to get caught up in jargon, frameworks, etc. that make a company’s offering sound sophisticated, but in the end, cloud the issue about why someone should purchase any product at all, not to mention your company’s product. Ed Sim, as motivated by a post by Mike Neven, posts about spinning one’s wheels in a sales process in the enterprise software space (I think the general direction of these implications go beyond just sales in enterprise software):

Interestingly enough, over the last year a trend I have been seeing is
the "do nothing" trend from enterprise customers.  We find out that the
potential customer has budget, we are selected as the winner, and then
they do nothing.

Thus, while a very large percentage of proposed projects meet all technical, functional, business, and investment criteria for a client, many projects do not move forward.

Mike Neven suggests mastering three soft factors in the sales process that drive the subjective decision-making process of purchasers:

1. Fear of Being Left Behind
2. Board Room Pressure
3. The Squeaky Wheel

Annecdotally, I have not seen as many cases of #3 as the other areas as this requires sophisticated timing to know when and where the squeaky wheel in the organization is at. I have used #2 tactics in startup situations, but I have found this harder to do in larger companies as the distance between the product group and account gets wider. #1 is a good one, but sometimes the market structure and industry analyst coverage may not work to one’s favor. I would suggest an addition to Mike’s list – if one can (as a supplier) show up to the bid opportunity and demonstrate credibility that one can actually get the job done (as opposed to blowing smoke) or solve an even bigger problem for the client (a variation of chinning up), this can be a winning factor. I have used this tactic in a number of competitive deals (i.e., one or more competitors at the table) and led the winning bid. I might frame this tactic as a "Don’t Miss This One/Specific-Fit Opportunity".

When my daugther started to learn how to write words (as opposed to just letters), some of the first things she scratched out were the letters, "Kn I hv a Gnod". I had no idea what it meant when I read it, but I later found out from my wife that my daughter was very intrinsically motivated to write it. It turns out that she wrote it during the holiday season, and the inscription was a question, "Can I have an egg nog?" (a popular holiday drink in the States). Totally remarkable I thought.

Figuring out what motivates someone is probably one of the most important things I have learned in business, but this knowledge is not something that is taught explicitly in any of the schooling I have ever been through. It was never explictly taught in any job I’ve been in before either.

Whether it be designing the sales compensation plan for a sales executive, coaching a subordinate that works for you, determining whether to hire someone, or developing a relationship with a sales prospect that does not know you very well, figuring out what makes other people tick is crucial (not to mention that it is important to reflect on what makes you tick too).

I get a kick out of the fact that Topix.net picked up on one of my posts about Dave Weckl (one of my favorite drummers) and has put my item as one of the top news items on him. These are trench-level signs that news and blog content (for better for worse) are getting mixed together.

Pandemic flu thing. Not sure what to do yet, but it is on my list. This thing is probably going to influence the equivalent of the home bomb shelter of the Cold War era.

Update (11/13/05): Scientific American article/cover story here.