You have a fair point, but keep in mind that there are many organizations (aka mini-companies) within a big company like Intel. In that sense the “copy exactly” mentality is not necessarily a tool to “learn” how to do things from other “companies” (in this case, organizations) but rather it provides a “framework” that’s “known to work well” for new “companies” (e.g. new think tanks within Intel) to bootstrap and therefore bypass some of the learning process that comes with a starting a company (in a very specific industry, be it IT, theatre, hardware vending, etc).

Wouldn’t that be a different kind of copying though? That copying is part of the overall design of their company, rather than an attempt to copy the exact design of other companies.

Depends. Look at Intel. Intel has built a 50y old business with ~100,000 employees based on the principle “Copy Exactly, Copy Everywhere”. The company strives to duplicate even the subtlest of manufacturing variables, from the color of a worker’s gloves to the type of fluorescent lights in the building. Employees from around the world spend more than a year at a development lab in Oregon learning their small piece of the new recipe so they can bring it back to their home factory… Whole campuses & plants are replicated across the globe.

But I admit. There’s a difference here. Intel has only implemented “copy exactly” in the 80s, most probably to deal with its increasing size, global footprint, and growing number of employees.

Small companies are in a totally different boat. You hit the nail on the head. Small companies need to innovate by being creative and by being agile to the specific needs of their employees, their customers, and their immediate environment.

And those things, let’s be honest, can’t be copied.

[...] 26 2011: Please also read the addendum to this post: Two Years Later, Thoughts on Funding Theater This entry was written by Chris, posted on at 11:34 am, filed under Business, Design, Somebody [...]

Just as actors can act in front of an audience in a barn or even an open field Programers can program where there’s electricity and bring their product to market online even if they have to drive down the mountain to get to internet access. They might even program better under those conditions. If they can reach their customer base the software works the same way whether it was written in Billings, Montana or Seattle, Washington, on Oahu or anchored out in the Florida Keys

People measure success in different ways, to assume cash is king demeans human effort and dignity. If you provide a service or product monetizing it is important in that money will allow you to continue to do the work that you do. But after a point managing transactions will stop you or slow you down from doing the thing that rocks your boat. The product suffers and service falters if you don’t make the transition.

The long and short of it is that if you succeed too well in an area that sidetracks you from your goals you can either shift goals or stay true to your intentions.

I vote for staying true.
another Chris

I think if we begin thinking directly about these problems, as you have here, we can come up with solutions. It may be that part of the reason there is such variability in quality is precisely because so much market pressure is taken off of theaters by their nonprofit status.

You point out that there is a problem with theater precisely because it is an experience, and how do you market that. Well, consider what Richard Florida has said about how people are increasingly interested in experiences — it might help if that aspect were in fact emphasized more, as well as the fact that each performance is unique. Those could in fact be selling points.

Thanks for the additional thoughts.

Still, you’re assuming I want to make the kind of company you’re describing.

If I wanted to make a blockbuster movie, I agree, I should move to Hollywood. But that’s not what I’m trying to do.

Meanwhile, for the kind of thing I *do* want to make, my costs are lower and my competition is less in Baltimore. To start my company, I didn’t need anything you listed. I didn’t need a lawyer, I didn’t need engineers, I didn’t need a designer, I didn’t need a production schedule, I didn’t need office space, I didn’t need advertising, and I didn’t need any extra money.

Again, I’m not saying it’s bad when companies do need those things to start, I’m just saying mine didn’t need them. So to start my company, I’m pretty sure that inexpensive Baltimore was a good place to be.

Now that my company is growing, and I do need some of those things, I’m having no trouble finding them. I have lawyers who specialize in software companies, and access to amazing local designers & superb local engineers. I don’t need dozens of them, and the ones I need are not getting bombarded by offers from a thousand companies that can pay three times what I can afford. There is also cheap (but still awesome) office space.

I’m not trying to establish a large company overnight. I’m trying to establish a small or medium-sized company over the long term. The challenges in doing that are different from the challenges for a “scalable startup”. Cities outside of San Francisco can offer some advantages for those kinds of companies.