I’ve spent the last two days at the Xerox research centre in Grenoble, France, looking at some of the work their scientists are doing. And last month, I visited the Microsoft Research Labs in Cambridge. There was a significant difference between the two, and not just because they are working in different fields. Xerox, whilst it drives forward with pure research, seems to have its focus well and truly on commercialisation and partnerships with industry. Microsoft, by contrast, seemed way more academic, and in fact, made it quite clear that they (as in the research arm) didn’t do industry partnerships to any great degree.
From an innovation perspective, the track record of Xerox is very, very clear. They dreamed up the first windows based interface, the first mouse, created Ethernet, built the first laser printer, and have spun off a range of companies the likes of which include Adobe and Documentum. Microsoft’s innovations have also been startling, if less visible. But Microsoft has constrained its technology transfer so that you don’t necessarily see all the hard research that is under the hood. For example, the face tracking based on who is speaking in RoundTable, or the automatic image correction features one sees in some of the imaging products.
From a computer science perspective, the minds at Microsoft are doing very, very significant research, and I can’t tell you how impressed we were when we visited. But all that effort hasn’t, to date, translated into anything that is industry-game changing. At least, not compared with the long history of Xerox.
Banking is a game where everything is undifferentiated to a surprising degree. You can’t really do much that really makes you stand out, and even when you do, it is copied quickly. That is why getting our hands on technologies (or processes, or cultural changes) which haven’t yet seen the light of day are one of the opportunities we are pursuing. You can imagine the market advantage if we find something that is truly unique, even if it requires some effort to make it all work in the real world.
My own view is that corporate research facilities, staffed with all those bright people with doctorates, don’t necessarily see how their fundamental research can translate into good business for the customers of their company. And why should they? They are scientists, not bankers. Their interest, and skill, is in solving hard problems.
Bankers, on the other hand, do not go out of their way to solve hard problems. Hard problems are the ones that we’d prefer to avoid. They lead us to “bleeding-edge” pain, and require skills that are probably beyond what we have in-house. When you get a hard problem, we tend to say its too hard, and focus instead on incrementalism.
Perhaps this one of the reasons that innovation in most of the financial services sector moves forward at the slow, almost glacial pace it presently does.
My point with all of this is that corporate research facilities are a storehouse of solutions to hard problems, and the hard problems are usually going to be a source of differentiation, and probably one with a quite high barrier to entry. If we were to help Xerox or Microsoft, (or anyone else for that matter) commercialise something that they might not have focussed on otherwise, we would have an advantage that we might be able to reinforce with intellectual property and other protections.
Typical hard problems? Recognising faces in a crowd. Mining data for which there aren’t any existing relationships across systems. Getting to the posterior risk density of a portfolio of trades more regularly than overnight. Determining the concentration risk of a basket of loans in an unrelated corporate portfolio… it is a list that seems to be never ending. And one that grows ever time some researcher finds the answer to another hard problem.
Hard problems in banking can be addressed by some of the most current research thinking, if only the researchers are in touch with banks. It is an untapped opportunity that we are just itching to exploit.