Subscribe to EDN

He who goes first loses

February 6, 2009

Chess moveEarlier we had guest blog entries from Lauro Rizzatti of EVE and Chi-Ping Hsu of Cadence on whether innovation occurs in small or large companies. I’ve always maintained that the problem is a different one. I think it is clear that the engineering groups of large companies are capable of creating leading edge technology. Look at any franchise product like Design Compiler, Virtuoso or Verilog simulation and see how it has advanced over many generations spread over a decade or more in ways that involve large amounts of innovation.

Where large companies have a problem is that they are very poor at introducing new products into their channels. They have large efficient sales organizations but those organizations are geared up to closing deals with customers for products that the customer already knows it wants. Unfortunately, when a brand new product is introduced, there is an attitude among the salespeople that “he who goes first loses.” But just as the Luddites really were right that automatic looms would put them out of business, the first person in a large company to sell a new product really does lose. There will be problems with the product that will tie up their application engineering resources for months, and potentially a large multi-million dollar deal will be held hostage to problems in a single copy of a hundred-thousand dollar tool. Better simply not to sell the product until enough other sales have been made for it to be mature. But with every salesperson taking this attitude, no sales occur.

This can extend even to products that are acquired. When Cadence purchased Ambit’s synthesis product line, it was obviously very strategic for Cadence salespeople to sell it aggressively. If they were successful, it would start to cut off money flowing to Synopsys and even if they were less successful, they would force Synopsys to circle the wagons to protect its Design Compiler franchise and so have less effort available to put into threatening Cadence’s huge place and route franchise. But Cadence salespeople would not. They had big quotas at big semiconductor companies to close, and their focus was to let Synopsys have synthesis and try and close a deal to supply everything else. Selling synthesis against Synopsys required extra effort and the payback of a few experimental licenses would not move the needle on their quota.

Another product from my time at Cadence was called Heck (at least internally, I forget what unmemorable name it got given externally). It was a formal verification tool built on some technology developed at Cadence Berkeley Labs. To tell the truth, I’ve no idea whether it was any good or not, but since the salespeople refused to try and sell it we never found out. In the end Cadence acquired Verplex and the Conformal product line that customers were already starting to adopt.

Very few products have been successfully introduced by large EDA companies (once they have become large). By successful I mean built up into $100M per year businesses. And by product I mean a genuinely new product line, not a new version of an existing product. The only one I can think of is Calibre. This was developed over the years inside Mentor and somehow survived being canceled for almost a decade before coming to dominate physical verification. Cadence helped by making a huge misstep. They tried to protect their Dracula franchise by making their hierarchical DRC Vampire require incompatible rule decks. Mentor had no such qualms and as a result the obvious upgrade path from Dracula was to Calibre not Vampire.

Synopsys made PrimeTime a big success, but the story is complicated by the fact that they acquired Viewlogic and with it Motive, the market leader in static timing. They then shut down Motive and transferred all its customers to PrimeTime. But undeniably they did manage to get their salesforce to sell it.

So I think that it is not so much that large EDA companies are incapable of innovation. They do it all the time. But their salesforces are reluctant to sell any product for which there is not already strong market pull. Marketing in EDA is unable to create that demand either, which is a different story.

However, startups are different. The salesforce will sell new products because the salesforce typically has precisely one product to sell, and it is new. They are not really the same sort of salesperson either. Startup salespeople are more like hunters whereas large company salespeople are farmers. It seems to take that combination of single mindedness in the salesforce and an entire company whose success depends on getting those initial customers to adopt the product. Once customers start to clamor for the product, it is the moment for a large EDA company to acquire the startup and the huge machine of their salesforce can drive the bookings number up very rapidly.

 

Posted by Paul McLellan on February 6, 2009 | Comments (4)

February 8, 2009
In response to: He who goes first loses
EDAExec commented:

A good EDA salesperson knows the culture of IC designers ... their number one issue is to avoid risk at all cost. Risk averse design engineers therefore make selling a new product first untenable for the "farmers" of the Big EDA guys. The "hunters" of the startups have no choice as Paul points out ... and usually have paychecks/commissions that are a fraction of those of the Big EDA vendors sales folks.


February 7, 2009
In response to: He who goes first loses
Alain Raynaud commented:

Excellent article, good insight. A refreshing read. I wish there were more smart comments like these, maybe newspapers and magazines wouldn't be dying then.


February 7, 2009
In response to: He who goes first loses
DM commented:

Obviously the incentives given to the sales force are wrong. If it is strategic to sell the new product, then the sales force should be incented to do it. Failure to do so is the result of bad management, not company size.


February 6, 2009
In response to: He who goes first loses
Maestro commented:

Paul: very good points. I wanted to add another point as why new (disruptive) homegrown technology haven't succeeded in larger companies (some of this info is first hand, but to protect the innocent, names are withheld). Disruptive technology, when it works, has the potential of altogether replacing the incumbent product (from the same company). As a result, the jobs of the engineering managers in charge of the incumbent product are endangered by a smaller team of engineers, and that's the engineering managers in charge of incumbent products start sabotaging and playing the "resource game" with the new team. And of course, the leadership in larger companies aren't disciplined enough to fund the disruptive technology/product in expense of hurting their cash cow team.

POST A COMMENT
Display Name
captcha

Before submitting this form, please type the characters displayed above. Note the letters are case sensitive:

Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
About EDN   |   Site Map   |   Contact Us   |   Subscription   |   RSS
© 2012 UBM Electronics. All rights reserved.
Use of this Web site is subject to its Terms of Use | Privacy Policy

Please visit these other UBM Canon sites

UBM Canon | Design News | Test & Measurement World | Packaging Digest | EDN | Qmed | Pharmalive | Appliance Magazine | Plastics Today | Powder Bulk Solids | Canon Trade Shows