BC v. Silicon Valley, Pt. I
It’s hard to believe but we’ve been living in Silicon Valley for year. It’s been interesting living in the center of the Technology Universe, and now that I’ve had a bit of exposure to the environment, I think I’ve started to figure out a bit about what makes this place tick. Given my previous internship with the Premier’s Technology Council studying how to make British Columbia a leading technology development centre, I thought it would be useful to compare and contrast Silicon Valley with British Columbia. In particular, I want to see if I can identify the gaps and shortcomings that British Columbia must overcome if it is to be successful in its bid for technology development stardom. I’m going to write up some thoughts on the topic over the next couple weeks. Comments welcome from both BC and Silicon Valley techies.
The Benefits of Population Density
The first thing that struck me about Silicon Valley was that just about everyone was exactly like me. I didn’t have to explain new-fangled technology in conversation to non-techies I encountered – in fact, I’m not even sure such a label can be applied to anyone in the area. People on the street that you might mistake for a refugee from a sixties commune can be overheard casually discussing network routing optimization problems and how to hack commodity consumer electronics goods in order to transform them from lifeless husks into pure, uncut geek street-cred. It’s mind-boggling.
Linus Pauling once said “The best way to have a good idea is to have lots of ideas.” If I could narrow Silicon Valley’s success to one factor, it would have to be this: lots of smart people packed into a contained space. It’s entrepreneurship by Brownian motion – if enough smart people vibrate around Silicon Valley, eventually enough of them will collide and something interesting will happen. And the process is doubly efficient as no one has to waste their time giving background introductions on the technological underpinnings of their idea. It’s a recipe for building cutting-edge companies fast and seeing what works: shake, stir, and strain pure intellectual gold.
Of course, not everyone succeeds and therefore not everyone stays. The circadian cycles of Silicon Valley’s booms and busts leaves the area with the feeling of a transient population. When I first arrived, people always laughed when I used the term “native Californians” – no such creature seems to exist, apparently – everyone here is from somewhere else. However, that’s not to say that the population of the area varies significantly – looking at the California Department of Finance population statistics, the population doesn’t vary as much as you’d expect. In fact, the population is downright steady, especially when you consider the number of people who lost their jobs in the post-dot-com blowout.
That said, I believe part of Silicon Valley’s success is attributable to its machine-like ability to separate the entrepreneurial wheat from the chaff. In some ways, it resembles a casino: people scuttle in, deposit their dreams, and if their dreams don’t pay off, scuttle back to wherever they came from. After all, there’s no way in hell you’re going to be able to afford to live here and afford a home unless you hit a home run (hence Mountain View, the town I live in, is 55% rentals). That kind of churn cleans out the cruft, refreshes the talent pool regularly, and keeps the fresh ideas coming to replenish the pool to form the basis of the next run up the innovation curve.
To summarize, it would appear the first two rules for duplicating Silicon Valley’s success are:
- Get talented people: Create conditions to attract lots of talented people – such as lots of talented people. (Chicken? Egg? You decide!)
- Create conditions that reward the good, or punish the bad: Either one, it doesn’t matter which, as long as the end result is a growing population of talented people who have good ideas and know how to execute on them. The rest you can do without.
Next time: Hot Geek Action!
Just out of curiosity, why does the Premier’s Tech. Council talk about making British Columbia a leading tech centre, as opposed to Vancouver? or maybe the Lower Mainland? Try as I might, I just can’t picture Hundred Mile House as a bustling nexus of technological innovation.
An astute observation, Andrew. Making BC a leading tech centre isn’t just about making all of BC a centre for the development of technology, it’s also about enabling the use of technology throughout the province. For example, the PTC reports have also focused on the use of tech to enable e-learning, e-health, and e-government in BC.
That said, you are right that making BC a leading tech development centre is still the, uhm, central motivation to the PTC’s work, and that it is unlikely that all of BC, especially the rural areas, will be able to participate equally. I can only guess that the focus on the potential benefit to BC as a whole is an essential part of the government’s focus on “the heartlands” and central to their ability to get re-elected and get the job done.
Brendon, you are right — you need things to “NASE,” and Silicon Valley has the right conditions and concentrations of nerds for this to happen.
What I observe is that Vancouver lacks forums to openly share ideas. Such forums, where people from orthogonal or even competing companies come together and discuss similar technical problems, are more common in the valley than in Vancouver.
I have heard stories of meetings where someone presents a problem they are trying to solve at work and others in the technical community help solve it. With IP theft such a big worry these days, forums such as these seem to be less common than before, but paradoxically they could help jumpstart a local technology industry.
Brendon, I’m curious as to your thoughts on lifestyle differences. Vancouver has a large outdoors-focused population. Many people are busy doing the Grouse Grind, running the sea wall, rock climbing, playing an ultimate double header, playing beach volleyball, and snowboarding at any one of the 7 skihills within a 2.5 hour drive. Those activities don’t leave a lot of space for technological pursuits.
My guess is that Vancouver and to a lesser extent the rest of BC would be more of a high tech superpower if there wasn’t as much cool stuff to do, leaving more time for geeks to mingle and ferment.
Clearly the same activities are accessible from Silicon Valley, but are they as accessible? Does the same culture exist?
r.
Bingo Ryan! You’ve hit one of the major themes that I’m hoping to cover over the next couple posts: culture. This is key to Silicon Valley’s success. But alas, I don’t want to go too far down that road here…stay tuned for more on that.
With respect to outdoor activities: yes, there’s a fair amount of outdoor stuff here, and people seem pretty engaged in them, although I do think it’s safe to say the per-capita participation in these activities is probably lower that in BC. On the other hand, it’s sunny most of the year – maybe that makes up for it (same amount of activity spread over more of the year?).
I was actually quite surprised by the rural nature of Silicon Valley – once you get south of 280, it’s all grassland and hillsides until the coast. If you take a drive out through Woodside on a weekend, there’s zillions of bicyclists, as well as roving gangs of accountants posing as Harley-Davidson/Kawasaki Ninja enthusiasts. There’s a lot of sailing in the bay, and there’s a decent ultimate scene, though nowhere near as well-organized as in Vancouver.
As for skiing, well, you really can’t compare. I think I ruptured something when I first arrived when someone pointed out excitedly that Tahoe is a mere three hour drive away. I swear, as I was holding the laughter in, I’m certain I heard something pop.
That said, people are kind of workaholics here, which probably factors into its record of success, though I’m not certain it’s a beneficial as you might think. After all, there’s only so much the human body can do in a day before it loses the ability to focus.