So I think one of the design flaws in organizations is it's very difficult to get new things started. It's very difficult for them to get the time, to get the resources to get new stuff. In many organizations there are allocational rigidities that make it hard to move even small amounts of time and money behind new ideas. So, year after year, the big legacy projects and initiatives continue to get funded, while a lot of the new things go begging. And, in a sense, you could argue that one of the reasons that companies so often miss the future, is that they over invest in what is at the expense of what could be. And clearly, at the top of a company, it's possible for a CEO or a board to shift resources, to go out and make a big acquisition, do a big deal. But, often, the problem is three or levels down where somebody has an interesting idea they want to run an experiment with a new ad campaign, they have a idea for a new product, they'd like to prototype, a new business they'd like to get talking about. They have a very hard time getting even some, a small amount of their own time. A few, tens of thousands or a few thousands of dollars of OPEX or CAPEX to go run an experiment and get something started. So, if that's the flaw, the flaw is, you know, difficult to get capital behind new ideas, one of the solutions would be to create something that's like, like, like an angel a set of angel investors inside of the organization, where people have multiple sources of capital. You know, if you think about how Silicon Valley works if you're an entrepreneur in Silicon Valley, there are literally hundreds of angel investors you can go to. Dozens of these C firms you can go to to get some funding to get your idea started. In most companies there's actually a monopsony, that means one buyer a monopoly one seller also need one buyer. There's one buyer for new ideas, and that's up the chain of command. And, if your boss doesn't like that idea, doesn't fit with his or her short term priorities, the the idea just dies there. One kind of an analogy that you can see around how we might fix this problem, you look at some of the new peer to peer banks online. In the U.K. you have Zopa, in the US, I think it's called Prosper. But where a lender comes in and says, I have this much money to lend, I'd like to lend it over, let's say a year, 24 months. The lender sets the interest rate and then borrowers come and say I need to buy borrow this much money. Here's what I'd be willing to pay in terms of an interest rate. The software brings those people together you know, creates a market, and you have borrowing and lending without any, you know, literal bankers involved. As I thought about it, I said there's an interesting analogy there. What if, what if you said to anybody in a large company that has some sort of a reasonably sized discretionary budget. Somebody has a budget of more than you know, $100, $200,000 a year in a big company. That's a lot of people. What if you said to each one of those folks you can take 1% or 2%, 3% of your budget every year. And you can invest that in any project across the company that you think is interesting. And on the flip side, people who have ideas, they can go online. They can develop a prospectus, they can do a little bit of a road show, maybe a virtual one online, talk about their idea. And then people from across the company have the choice of funding that or not funding that. Those angel investors could come together, form syndicates to invest in bigger ideas. Those who seem to have a great track record of investing in winning ideas, maybe next year, you give them 5% of their budget to do it. But the problem is, in most companies, the resource allocation process, and that's a problem right there in that word allocation, it really is like the Soviet Union. Ideas fight their way painfully up through the hierarchy. Somebody at the top in all their wisdom says, that's a good idea, that's a bad idea. I, I think it's much better to create a market here with multiple sources of experimental capital. People have multiple places to go to get funding for their idea, and no longer can one executive or a few executives, their prejudices, their biases, their short term priorities drive out ideas that might be interesting but don't fit with their particular view of what the company needs to be doing right now. So that's the design flaw difficult to get experimental capital. The fix is to create some kind of an internal market that bring people with resources, people with ideas together, and where people have multiple places to go to get their new ideas funded.
