I subscribe to the school of thought that mindstate while In Flow is real and significant, so it is easy for me to believe this anecdote/quote. Mindstate scaled up to multi-year or even multi-decade research efforts likely also exists, and would matter across the entire team and not just individuals. If this is true, then breaking off activity mid-effort and restarting must exact a steep price in re-connecting, no matter how strenuously we try to mothball the effort.

One follow-up question I'd like to see asked: how did the leadership at say, Xerox PARC and Bell Labs decide relatively consistently how to pick and choose which efforts to consistently fund? What markers were they looking for, what process did they use, or what were their thought processes? How did they decide to pull the plug on specific lines of inquiry (surely they didn't always pick all winning hands, so to speak)?

I think having a fountain of money is certainly a good thing, but other companies today enjoy consistent funding and they're nothing like Bell Labs.

For example, Verizon and Comcast. Both rake in vast sums, but where is the fundamental research and contributions?? It appears that mostly gets folded into boring vertical business initiatives.

I suspect a key difference is that the old Bell Labs wasn't beholden to excessive Professional Project Management running the show and making sure everyone has their nose to the grindstone at all times.

An interesting take on that:

http://www.slate.com/blogs/moneybox/2012/07/24/xerox_parc_an...