Monday, April 6, 2009

Why do executives seem to be risk averse when it comes to innovations?

Most successful executives are inherently not risk averse. They understand the need to invest in order to reap a return.

The key is that proponents of a new invention and potential innovation do not approach the executives with a sufficient business plan that reflects the value of the innovation to the customer, the impact on new and existing markets, the internal and external costs and the impacts on future revenue streams.

Unfortunately, answering these questions about a future innovation is extremely difficult unless the invention has been founded in a innovation process that starts with market recognition and then moves into invention, productization, marketing and innovation. The process today is all too often completely backwards and is driven by existing customer feedback.

The key is to follow a clearly defined invention/innovation process that starts with recognizing a target market and attaching resources based on potential and not based on random results from existing management processes.

David Croslin
President, Innovate the Future, Inc.
david@innovatethefuture.com
www.innovatethefuture.com

Radical innovation - should we do it or not?

Part of the problem with innovation today is the broad definitions that are being applied to the words involved. In reality, most people mean an 'invention process' followed by marketing that creates an innovation.

In this case, 'radical innovation' means innovating a new product or a new market, whereas incremental innovation would be adding innovations to an existing product/market. Radical innovation is often referred to as 'disruptive' innovation because the innovation disrupts existing products and markets.

All companies follow a similar lifecycle that eventually leads to:

1) Commoditized products
2) Destructive incremental innovations
3) Internal instead of external innovations (costs versus revenues)

ALL companies must do disruptive ('radical') innovation if they want to continue to succeed. Utilizing targeted innovation techniques it is possible to deliver disruptive innovations in far less time than the standard 3 to 7 years. This standard, multi-year time frame is a reflection of the normal randomness of most innovation processes. Targeted innovation, the process patented by Innovate the Future, Inc., eliminates the randomness and allows a clear analysis of market potential, revenue potential and minimization of risk. Delivery of innovations to market can occur in weeks instead of years.

David Croslin
President, Innovate the Future, Inc.
david@innovatethefuture.com
www.innovatethefuture.com
www.davidcroslin.com

Is the state of innovation in the US in deep trouble?

Innovation is not a resource that can be depleted like oil or coal. The U.S. still has the potential to be an innovation powerhouse. People are looking at a broad set of problems in their lives and are assuming that innovations of some type are needed to save the day.

There are several problems that are driving the apparent dirth of new innovations:

1) All current innovation techniques have an underlying assumption that innovation (and by inference, invention) is a random process. The concepts of expanding the number of innovators, driving management teams to recognize innovations and forcing executives to take more risk are a reflection of this randomness. More innovators=more random events. Better innovation management=recognizing unexpected events. Risk taking executives=taking a chance on an unplanned innovation that might succeed.

2) As companies age the shift is from external innovation to internal innovation. To create new markets and expand revenues companies must create external innovations. Companies instead focus on internal innovations to reduce costs.

3) With an unsure financial market there are fewer startups and fewer risk takers that are driving disruptive innovations. Countries like China, that, until recently, have huge incoming funds to invest appear to be far more innovative than the U.S. because there are more startups and companies that are driving external innovations rather than internal innovations.
 
To address these problems, companies need to:

1) Drive targeted invention, targeted marketing and targeted innovation. Eliminate the randomness.

2) Recognize the need for both internal and external innovations. Ford Motor company did. GM did not.

3) Understand that following the right innovation approach it is not necessary to spend huge sums of money to be a creative, market disrupting company.

David Croslin
President, Innovate the Future, Inc.
david@innovatethefuture.com
www.innovatethefuture.com
www.davidcroslin.com

Is Disruptive Innovation Largely a Random Process?

Innovation should be more targetable than it is today.

All of the 'innovation processes' proposed today by innovation consultants, except those used by Innovate the Future, seek to:

1) Increase the frequency of random creativity by 'empowering employees'
2) Increase the odds of 'catching' a random innovation by changing management style
3) Telling executives to take more risk with potential innovations

All of these merely wrap the current randomness of discovery and innovation. They don't actually drive targeted innovation.

The book The Innovation Equation by Jacqueline Byrd proposes the equation:

Innovation = Creativity * Risk Taking

This is a perfect reflection of the pure randomness of innovation today. Increase the number of people randomly creating and increase taking risks and you will eventually find a viable innovation from random events.

Innovate the Future's patented Targeted Innovation process does not require more people, a change in management or an increase in risk taking. It is driven by targeting your market, creating targeted inventions and deploying targeted innovations. Deployment can occur in weeks or months, not years.

David Croslin
President, Innovate the Future, Inc.

www.innovatethefuture.com
www.davidcroslin.com


 

Tuesday, March 3, 2009

Disruptive Innovation - Why Steve Jobs IS Apple

Let’s face it: we all like to think that we work at innovative companies that are destined to conquer their current industry and eventually rule the world. But, the reality is far different.

If you have never read the breakthrough research on innovation by Dr. Clayton Christensen of Harvard Business School, then you need to stop reading this and come back after you have read his works. His book, The Innovator’s Dilemma, explains clearly why huge, highly successful companies who literally OWN their industry fail to continue to be successful.

Let’s look at a few examples:
  • Xerox – They created the world of copiers, they had the Palo Alto Research Center, they invented the GUI. What do you buy from them today? HP, Canon, Lexmark…they own the printers and copiers. Microsoft and Apple…they own the GUI.
  • Microsoft – They owned the search world. Heck, they had the only viable browser, they owned MSN, and their OS drove virtually every platform used to access the Internet. What happens? Two guys pop out of nowhere, and in a few years Google has stolen the brass ring.
  • Wang Labs – Dr. An Wang invented computer memory! They owned the foundations for the future of high speed processing and storage. Are they even still in business?
  • ATT – ATT was the largest company in the world. I am speaking of Ma Bell, the old ATT before the breakup. It had so much cash that it was stated that ‘ATT could never go broke’. Along came a disruptive force, MCI, and the giant collapsed. Today, ATT is big, but it owes most of that to its acquisition of Cingular. They bought their way out of innovation extinction.

Dr. Christensen states, “the logical, competent decisions of management that are critical to the success of their companies are also the reasons why they lose their positions of leadership.” (The Innovator’s Dilemma, 1997, Harvard Business School Press)

So, what does Dr. Christensen’s work have to do with Steve Jobs and his medical leave from Apple? Jobs was forced out of Apple in 1985 and the company proceeded down the road to near-destruction. He was begged to return in 1996, and has driven Apple into places no one would have ever guessed. The Iphone has now dominated the phone industry even at premium prices. Itunes is the number one music distributor. How much further away from building computers and developing an OS can you get? Now Jobs has taken a medical leave, the stock dropped 10% and the world is wondering if Apple will continue its string of successes.

In short, Jobs is an innovator. I know, I know: everyone has talked about how great an innovator he is. And I agree. But the difference between Jobs and many other innovators is that he is in a position as CEO to force the company to make risky decisions and investments.

When asked about creating the Mac, Jobs said “The people who are doing the work are the moving force behind the Macintosh. My job is to create a space for them, to clear out the rest of the organization and keep it at bay.” He clearly understands that risk is necessary and that you have to make decisions that are not always the best for the immediate bottom line.

When asked about creating products such as the Next computer, Jobs stated “You can’t just ask customers what they want and then try to give that to them. By the time you get it built, they’ll want something new.” He also said “Sometimes when you innovate, you make mistakes. It is best to admit them quickly, and get on with improving your other innovations.”

The key, though, is ‘disruptive innovation’. Jobs has created new technologies and new markets that completely knock the existing players out of the competition. This is what Dr. Christensen calls disruptive innovation. The giant killer of large corporations is the small guy rising out of nowhere with creative new products that disrupt the existing status quo.

The big, legacy players focus on keeping customers happy, continuing to sell existing products, enhancing existing product feature sets and mostly keeping investors happy all the time at all costs. Computers have become so powerful that the bulk of the machine is not used by the majority of consumers. Microsoft Windows has become so powerful that most of us have no knowledge of large portions of the software we use everyday. Corporations and consumers have no desire to upgrade to Vista until end of life threats start to make life difficult. Cell phones have so many unused features that it is estimated that the average consumer never uses 60% of those features. And yet, the enhancements keep coming.

Jobs is still back in the garage coming up with new, cool ideas everyday. I am sure he looks at other company’s products and knows -not just thinks, but KNOWS- how to destroy them with disruptive new ideas.

Are there other people that can innovate phenomenal product opportunities already working at Apple? Definitely! Will the executive team at Apple, without Jobs at the helm, have enough faith to gamble millions on disruptive innovations that may fail? Only time will tell.


David Croslin
InnovateTheFuture.com

Friday, February 27, 2009

Catch 22 - Why Large Service Providers Fail to Compete

We all have thought about it when watching one of those weird nature documentaries where one strange plant is completely dependent on some bizarre activity of a specific animal species and the animal needs the plant in order to survive. And you think “How could that happen? How did it get started?” Kind of like the Chicken or the Egg. Which came first?

Or a Catch-22. You should read the book Catch 22, by Joseph Heller. A character in the book, Milo Minderbinder, continuously creates Catch 22s for the other characters in the book.

You know how it goes. Your car is out of gas. You need to go buy gas. But, your car is out of gas. Or how you could prove that you are the best programmer in the world, if only someone would give you a job. But, you don’t have any experience, so no one will give you a job.

This type of Catch 22 is just as bad for large corporations as it is for you and me. The executives have to continuously make the company look better and better. Otherwise, they’ll get fired. But, the industry is changing, so they need to take risks in order to protect the company for the long term. But, taking risks costs money and they could fail. So, then they would lose their jobs. This keeps them from taking risks. Thus, the company that is the leader in the industry soon starts to fall behind the smaller, newer more nimble competitors. And then the company crashes and the executive gets fired. The perfect Catch 22.

The wireline telecom industry is a perfect example. Margins are shrinking. People are turning off their wireline services and switching to wireless. Union contracts keep expenses high. Investing in new infrastructure is risky and expensive. Delivering new services is difficult. And no one at the telcos seem to know what the ‘new’ services are anyway.

Service providers (including telcos and cable companies) find it almost impossible to innovate new services because they need the existing services to keep making money and keep them alive. Their infrastructures require that each new service be built from scratch. They focus again and again on how to keep what they have and expand slightly what they sell. That is why we have seen the triple play slowly become the quad play and then slowly become the quintuple play.

What is needed is a new player to come in and shake up the game. One that builds out a network infrastructure to meet the needs of an expanding market and allows easy convergence of new services no matter what those services are.

It will be a company that isn’t saddled with legacy expenses. Isn’t held back by old infrastructures. A company that understands the potentials of a multi-layer delivery of new, converged services based on high-speed transport that meshes with the lives of consumers not just their devices.

The legacy service providers won’t see it coming. They can’t afford to take the risk in order to compete. They can’t see how it could possibly work.

They don’t want to get fired.

David Croslin
InnovateTheFuture.com

Tuesday, February 24, 2009

The Ultimate Killer App - Lifestyle Convergence

What an interesting idea: “Calling on a Customer”. How about: “My sales territory”. Or: “Our regional reach”.

If these sound familiar to you, OK. If they sound right to you then stand up, turn toward the wall and bang your head soundly into the sheetrock until you are crying.

Why? Because, if you are still thinking in any way other than globally, you are missing out on your company’s true potential, and you SHOULD be crying.

People call it the Internet. It was originally called the ‘world wide web’. That’s what that little ‘www’ in the front of a website’s name means. But, now, even the ‘www’ is starting to be dropped. Because every site, unless it is blocked by a parent or government, is visible to EVERYONE in the entire world. We no longer need to distinguish it by using ‘www’.

I am sure you know who Stephen King, the author, is. One of the best selling authors of all time. He likes to experiment with new ways to deliver his personal content to his readers. He was one of the first with his own e-book. His own e-site. He does audio, movies and new video formats like for his story “N” (http://www.stephenking.com/n). He even has his stories now appear in comic books.

Can you guess who the largest seller is of Stephen King comic books in the world? Not Amazon. Not Barnes and Noble. It is my wife. From our home. While raising six children. She has sold in over 20 countries. She ships to soldiers in war zones. She has shipped to some places I had to look up in Wikipedia because I had no idea where they were.

My point is that she sells globally. She has a website (www.endworldcomics.com). She has never physically spoken to a single customer. They search. They find. They buy. They Pay. She ships. Nice!

The global customer is already here. Now.

The next generation of communications networks is coming, and they will have the speed and convergence needed to make service delivery transparent and to take full advantage of the global customer. It will converge lifestyles. A global suite of products will blend with individual lives. Forget about the triple play, the quad play and the quintuple play. I predict the coming of the ‘lifestyle play’.

The Lifestye Play can include any kind of services, not just communication services. Imagine: A person is traveling the world. As he travels he watches his digital content on any machine and any device. He reads e-books on his cell phone. Or maybe his cell phone reads to him through his bluetooth earpiece while sitting on a train watching the countryside fly by. In each new location he is presented with local ads for local products that fit his agenda, fit his personality, fit his lifestyle. If his train is late, his hotel reservation is changed. His tickets for the local concert are moved to a later time. Automatically. Because his service provider has a network that is integrated with his lifestyle. The network manages external influences like a concierge.
The service provider makes fees from the consumer for acting like a lifestyle firewall. The service provider also charges the advertisers. And the hotels. And the local vendors. And the content providers. Fees, fees and more fees.

Lifestyle convergence. I can’t wait. Cha-Ching.

David Croslin
InnovateTheFuture.com