Bob Metcalfe doesn't know every hall and doorway in PARC today, but he makes a great tour guide if you're traveling back in time (figuratively) to the days when Ethernet was first invented.
We recently talked with Metcalfe at PARC about those earlier days and, maybe more importantly, about the future of innovation. Watch the video below as we discuss what role a place like PARC has today, and what the old Xerox Palo Alto Research Center could have done differently.
Informationweek.com run-of-site player, used to publish article embedded videos via DCT. The same ads will be served on this player regardless of embed location.
And here's our shorter video about the 40th anniversary of Ethernet:
brookseven, User Rank: Light Sabre 3/7/2013 | 4:16:41 PM
re: PARC's Past & Future, With Bob Metcalfe Craig,
I see lots of basic research being done....not in communications as that seems to be a solved problem (see Drew Lanza's comment from a few years back). -áFor example, SDN to me is just the modern version of AIN. -á
Go look at Energy or Health and there is LOTS of research. -áNow inside a business, that kind of long term thing looks cheaper to buy than it does to invest in (which is what we pay executives to do theoretically - make good investment decisions).
re: PARC's Past & Future, With Bob Metcalfe -áI have to admit, I wonder about that too. I like the idea that there would be people doing foundational basic research working towards goals that could be decades out. But modern business doesn't seem to have a place for that kind of work.
Remus N, User Rank: Light Beer 3/7/2013 | 12:09:06 AM
re: PARC's Past & Future, With Bob Metcalfe -áWith the risk of falling into the "lamenting Bell Labs" camp, I do think that there is a gap both in funding requirements as well as in time horizon which is not very well covered today by the universities/VCs combination. More specific, VCs prefer technologies which are up to 5 years to money - so fairly mature - while universities need to have advanced enough research programs to get published which for some technologies could mean 10-15 years out or even longer to maturity. In terms of funding, I think there is a gap above the 1 million a year program (a fairly generous university grant) if this needs to be sustained over an extended period - several years (i.e. universities have the time horizon though not the funding level while VCs have the funding though can't afford the time horizon). Best examples of fields affected are those with a combination of relatively long cycles and significant capital requirements - bio/gene therapy related, clean tech (except software) and realistically almost anything hardware.-á Can some government/private partnerships work on this ?
re: PARC's Past & Future, With Bob Metcalfe How should basic research get done in the modern world?-á Metcalfe is saying it needs to spring from universities (or PARC-like facilities) that graduate their ideas, so to speak, into startup companies. That motion into the real world is arguably what PARC was missing.
Certainly that's not the only model. Is it the best one?
A CSP's digital transformation involves so much more than technology. Crucial – and often most challenging – is the cultural transformation that goes along with it. As Sigma's Chief Technology Officer, Catherine Michel has extensive experience with technology as she leads the company's entire product portfolio and strategy. But she's also no stranger to merging technology and culture, having taken a company — Tribold — from inception to acquisition (by Sigma in 2013), and she continues to advise service providers on how to drive their own transformations. This impressive female leader and vocal advocate for other women in the industry will join Women in Comms for a live radio show to discuss all things digital transformation, including the cultural transformation that goes along with it.