Film Industry

used by many as a model for New Economy market models because it uses Project Based Organization Models (and deals with private Capital Market that way, too).

• Though Nov'2004 Fortune article on Pixar argued that for animation it made more sense to have a permanent team/company.

• And Polly Le Barre, being interviewed by Guy Kawasaki noted More than a few business pundits have modeled the corporation of the future on the Hollywood model of work: an AdHoc collection of actors, producers, and technicians coming together around a script and financing and then disbanding when the film is finished. The problem with that model is that it allows for maximum flexibility and minimum loyalty. What's more, it's usually just when the film wraps that the people involved really figure out how to work together. Turn that model on its head and you get Pixar's version of the right way to make movies: a tight-knit company of long-term collaborators who stick together, learn from one another, and strive to improve with every production.

• Mar'2011: Nova Spivack is applying this to an Incubator model. The key difference is that in the Hollywood-inspired production model I’m testing, I often start earlier in the process – before there is a concept, company, product, CEO or even a team. Many incubators and accelerators start later in the process. Here’s how it works. My associates and I source candidate ideas both from our own stream of inventions, as well as from people in our network, and from other innovators we find or who find us. Next we “option” the best ideas with joint R&D agreements and/or with initial prototype funding to test them out. We then filter these prototypes and choose the best ones to produce... A key to this process is really in understanding the new role of a Produc Er in the venture world. It’s not exactly the same as the role of an angel or VC, or an EIR, or even a typical “superhero CEO.” It’s a new role that connects them all together... Another key is having a model that is designed to attract excellent producers and talent to team up with. To do that, I’m working with a structure that gives my partners a better opportunity than they can find anywhere else.

  • Gregory Rader takes this model further to handle the end of the SmallCo Life Cycle. Relevant to Virtual Company thinking? The rapid evolution of networked information technology has revealed opportunities for alternative organizational forms (to the infinite-life Corporation). The Start Up movement is one response... At the far opposite end of the spectrum is the market for freely provided Cognitive Surplus... A new option is emerging between these two extremes – the Studio Production model... I want to propose that the studio’s method of concluding projects should not ignored so easily... Should 'sequels' be assumed or should they require an active reconstitution of a project team?
    • This other Rader note makes similar points, with even more of a Built To Flip mentality. These entrepreneurs don't want to be empire builders. They don't want to take on the hassle inherent in chasing successive rounds of financing and building a massive organization. They intentionally stay small, outsourcing non-core capabilities to service oriented providers rather than taking on headcount. If entrepreneurial activity is to take on a larger role in the future of work, the growth will come from this sort of activity. It is a very small minority of people who possess the right mix of borderline personality traits necessary to build a facebook, apple or amazon. There are far more people who possess innovative potential but lack such grandiose ambitions. These "common" entrepreneurs will see little appeal in the trials and tribulations endured by a Jobs or Zuckerberg.