Death or rebirth? - theory of 'oscillating universe' compared with trend toward distributed processing - Forum - Column

The theory of the oscillating universe goes like this: What we once thought was The Big Bang was more likely A Big Bang. Measurements of background cosmic radiation suggest that our universe explodes, expands, then contracts to the point of exploding again. Hence, the oscillation.

In each explosion, all the dice are rolled. What we think of as the natural order of things is up for grabs in each cycle or oscillation; anything is possible. Each cycle from explosion to implosion is the ligfe of a universe, not of the universe. Within a single universe, natural laws apply; across universes, they are reinvented.

This theory, recounted by physicist Stephen Hawking in his book, A Brief History of Time (Bantam Books, Toronto and New York City, 1988), could describe the computer industry. If so, the industry must embrace a new guide for survival.

Although it is not novel for software and hardware products to experience continuous enhancement and modification -- some might even say quantum change -- this is more akin to the life cycle of one universe. An example is the migration from stodgy character-based interfaces to flashy graphical ones.

But the transition across universes -- between oscillations -- is more like the Dawn of Distributed Processing eclipsing the Age of Centralized Computing. We are talking about a completely new marketplace with all of the implied upheaval in who buys what and why.

To survive across cycles of technology, a computer company must do more than simply reinvent the technology. It must reinvent itself.

Companies must be careful not to confuse reinventing with reorganizing and restructuring. They are different ideas. Both have a prior reference; that is, the organization or structure that previously existed. To reorganize is to modify what is there; to reinvent is to start from scratch.

To truly reinvent, a company must prepare itself to sacrifice the present for the future. It must be ready to accept the death of what exists, and embrace the explosion of what is possible. Unfortunately, many companies become so successful that they begin to believe in their own immortality; they see the universe as ever-expanding. Instead of seeking rebirth, they fear death.

This view warps strategic decision-making. The present constrains the possibilities of future universes. After all, who would obsolete their own cash cow and the veritable behemoth built around it? I will give you three letters that did not, and now the mainframe market is fading into history along with its profits.

The terrible truth is that, like nature, our industry has no mercy. Survival is not an event; it is a process. The question is not whether a company and its products will die, only how and when. A company that commits constructive suicide has a better chance of surviving, phoenix-like, than if someone else wields the knife.

Two examples come to mind. In the mainframe arena, pundits gave Unisys up for dead. Unisys literally imploded, slashing staff to less than half and reducing data centers at the same rate. Yet the company is expanding again at a brisk rate, having reinvented itself and its products.

In the PC world, Compaq, the early icon of premium portables, shed its founder and mindset to compete in the universe of low-cost providers. It cannibalized its high-end product line with a new low end, sacrificing margins but gaining volume. Again, the company's emergence shows that what looms as the end may, in fact, be a new beginning.

Change, of course, is not its own reward. And differnt is not always better. However, we cannot be prisoners of our own success. Institutions that have formed the foundations of our industry are crumbling around us. There must be lessons we can learn. Surely we must question the meaning of these events. Is it death...or rebirth?

COPYRIGHT 1993 Wiesner Publications, Inc.
COPYRIGHT 2004 Gale Group