I spent a day in Toronto last week and met with about
60 of our engineers, sales people, managers and marketing folks
who work for Sun's software division. This was my second fiscal
new year kick-off, having completed a similar event in Boston
last week. I came home in a great mood, despite (a) the flight
being an hour late (b) zero wireless service in the hotel
or Pearson airport and (c) forgetting to eat dinner.
Why the happiness without sustenance, carbon, silicon or ether based?
Quite simply, people are excited again. A bit cautious,
a bit wary, but under the surface there's something brewing. I think
happiness comes from relaxation - not just the personal type, but
the corporate kind. We've relaxed some of the priority setting
and organizational constraints that made us confused. Nothing
like clarity of mission to energize you. Charles Garfield, author of "Peak
Performers," described working on the Apollo 11 engineering team pretty
succinctly -- they'd go outside, look at the moon, say "We're going
there," then get back to work. Clarity is a winner.
Constraint #1: Make Money vs Grow. The first three words
of the 11-word Schwartz Koan are "Make Money" and "Grow". These
are great things to do if you're a public company. They're just really
hard to do at the same time -- when you're focusing on returning to
profitability, you prioritize spending, make painful cuts, and trim
where you can. It is, in some cases, anti-growth, because growth
requires investment. Once you figure out how to make money, you
can spend some of it on growth. So the first big, hairy constraint
out of the way is that our company figured out how to be profitable,
and set goals this year for growth.
Constraint #2: Distributions vs Revenue Products.
I've argued that the big change in software economics is
the
separation of distribution and compensation in the software
world. Open source projects give us distributions; adding value provides
compensation. In the last few weeks, we've organized software at
Sun to deliver bits in these models -- Java Enterprise System and its
Suites that are sold as products, as well as the large-bore distributions
of open source projects like OpenSolaris,
GlassFish, an implementation
of an application server, and most recently, the OpenSSO code for extending
and integrating our identity management stack. We're geared up to both
distribute code as well as generate revenue from value-add represented in
our code, whether it's a software product or a service. Distributions
and products are co-dependent; there's no hierarchy or relative merit
to one or the other. We have metrics for determining value -- we
can count dollars, or users, or contributors, or downloads, or even
metadata like
OpenSolaris tagged items showing up in Technorati.
Constraint #3: Acquisition vs Strategy. Sun has
received some deserved criticism for acquisitions that didn't always
run according to the desired playbook. I'll argue that many,
of those acquisitions were the result of trying to
acquire a strategy, rather than having a strategy and acquiring
the elements for its execution. We had no x86 or x64 strategy
several years ago, but acquired Cobalt. Today we have a network
systems strategy focused on assembling systems (and adding value
through that assembly, something we've been doing for more than
two decades). Acquired Kealia, got Andy Bechtolsheim back to
execute on the strategy. We have a Microsoft interoperability
strategy, needed to fill in some remote display pieces - Tarantella.
We have a services-oriented architecture strategy, but needed
tools to make it viable - SeeBeyond. The jigsaw puzzle solves
when you buy the missing pieces, compared to buying pieces and
then wondering what the puzzle was supposed to look like.
So where's the moon? It's not one huge bright target, but
billions of smaller ones -- cell phones, PDAs, sensors, embedded
computing devices, game consoles, PCs, desktops, and servers,
a veritable
Oort clout of networked
people and things orbiting the Sun. Those users and devices are going to consume,
and create, and share data. We're going there.