This paper provides evidence for what some might consider an obvious conclusion, but there is always value in documenting evidence, better yet, generating it.

This paper provides evidence for what some might consider an obvious conclusion, but there is always value in documenting evidence, better yet, generating it. The paper says established sectors are easier to predict than radical ones, just as progress is easier to measure in established sciences, as opposed to where paradigms may shift. And when faced with a paradigm shifting value proposition, no one really knows what to make of it until the rubber hits the road and the model is tested in the market. But once established, even a paradigm shifter becomes a crowded R&D sector, no? The iterations are faster, but consumer web and enterprise software do seem more crowded. Search, social networks, and web technology plays also come to mind. What I didn't find the paper mention were how open source and the lack of IP monopolization as an option could be a factor, and also how the entrepreneurs themselves stacked up in comparison. For me personally, it would suck if "the entrepreneurs didn't really matter" (the conclusion asserts better human capital gravitates towards the ventures with greater potential, but doesn't say anything about any influences they actually have).