Connect with us

Innovation

Be Deliberately Disruptive to Achieve Growth

Use disruption theory to shape ideas and strategy, and identify or create new opportunities.

Monique Verduyn

Published

on

061

Companies today need to have a clear vision about how they are going to be conspicuously different from their competitors. In an extremely competitive environment, ‘me too’ strategies are unlikely to be forgiven. Unless businesses offer something different to different groups of customers, they are likely to be swallowed up by the competition.

In his new hard-hitting book, The Innovator’s Manifesto, Michael Raynor, co-author with Clayton Christensen of the bestseller, The Innovator’s Solution, argues that disruption theory, which explains how fringe ideas come to redefine entire markets, is not only a useful idea — it stands alone in actually predicting future success.

How disruptive thinking started

In Christensen’s two books, The Innovator’s Dilemma and The Innovator’s Solution, he posited two different kinds of business innovations:

  • Sustaining innovations are those that bring better products to an existing market. Most sustaining innovations are simple, incremental, year-to-year improvements. A useful analogy for a sustaining innovation is the quarter-turn-of-the-screw. With sustaining innovations, the odds overwhelmingly favour the incumbents.
  • A disruptive innovation “brings to market a product not as good as the products in the current market, and so it cannot be sold to the mainstream customers. But it is simple and it is more affordable.” Disruptive innovations take root in a small niche of the market but eventually reach the mainstream. “I call that a disruptive innovation,” Christensen said, “not because it’s a breakthrough from a technological sense, but instead of sustaining the trajectory of improvement that has been established in a market, it disrupts it and redefines it by bringing to the market something that is simpler.”

A manifesto for growth

Whether you’re an investor, an entrepreneur, or a manager, you live with the unavoidable paradox that although you believe passionately in whatever specific undertaking you are committed to today, you understand that of the many initiatives you may undertake or be involved in, most will fail to be breakthrough winners.

Raynor’s The Innovator’s Manifesto contains new research showing how disruption theory is unique in its ability to help managers predict the success or failure of a company or product. He explains why disruption theory is so powerful — and provides the roadmap managers need — to use disruption theory to shape new products and ventures in their own industries in ways that make ultimate success possible.

So what do you do if you are not able to reliably pick or create successful innovations? Raynor suggests the following three-stage approach as state of the art in innovation management:

1. Variation

Start with lots of ideas

Ideas are brought to life by activities such as innovation competitions and teams that focus on developing great new ideas. It’s an approach taken by companies like Google which gives people some unstructured time to pursue projects that they are passionate about. Google believes that when you give smart people space to innovate, you unleash the power of imagination, ideas and connectivity to change the world. Despite its size, Google still maintains a start-up culture. Its work is project-based and its commitment to innovation depends on everyone being comfortable sharing ideas and opinions. Googlers have the opportunity to develop 20% Projects, where they take 20% of their work time to work on projects that they’re personally passionate about. One such project led to the development of Gmail.

The implicit belief is that since we cannot know in advance what the characteristics of a successful idea are, we have to get as many ideas as we can from as many diverse sources as we can.

2. Selection

Try out as many of your ideas as you can in the marketplace to see what works

We need some way of sorting the wheat from the chaff, and since we can’t rely on our judgement we try out as many concepts as possible in the market. We create ‘lean start-ups’ in the hope of ‘failing fast’ so we can ‘iterate’ toward a winning formula. Those concepts that meet with early approval from the market are the ones we deem likeliest to succeed.

Innovation usually results from trial-and-error experimentation and sometimes occurs incidentally where researchers produce something other than what they intended.

3. Retention

Stick with the successes and abandon the failures

In the hope that those products early adopters embrace have long-run potential, we commit to those and abandon the rest. As we scale up, we must live with the uncertainty that as we cope with the demands of growth, we can adapt effectively.

What this proves

According to Raynor, the apparent waste of this extravagant approach to innovation need no longer be meekly accepted. New evidence shows that disruption theory can materially and significantly improve predictive accuracy when creating or picking successful new businesses. The core of Raynor’s case for the predictive power of disruption theory is a study of Intel’s New Business Initiatives (NBI) group, whose job it is to investigate opportunities far afield from the company’s current operations. In this study, disruption theory proves to be a better predictor of new venture success and failure than other theories.

This conclusion was confirmed in a follow-up study in which MBA students were given business plans drawn from venture capitalist pitch decks and asked to use different theories to predict what happened to the companies. Over 500 MBA students from Harvard, MIT, and Ivey Business School in London and Toronto analysed a portfolio of 48 business proposals funded by Intel Corporation. After just one hour of instruction in disruption theory, 50% were more likely to pick businesses that survived in a business plan competition. Once again, disruption theory proved to be the best predictor of future success.

These results imply that it is possible to identify successful new businesses at the earliest stages of development. And the consequences for how we manage effective innovation programmes can be profound, says Raynor. Instead of ‘variation-selection-retention’ – a framework designed to compensate for our ignorance – we can now build upon our improved understanding with an entirely new paradigm.

If we can identify the predictors of disruption, he maintains, we can find and create those circumstances,
and therefore increase our likeliness of success.

The framework he suggests is three-pronged: Focus, Shape, and Persist. Focus on the disruptive ideas, shape them, and then stick with them. That’s how to ensure a greater likelihood of success:

1. Focus

Go where the money isn’t

Innovations consistent with the prescriptions of disruption theory are systematically more successful than those that aren’t. Consequently, we can focus our efforts on those markets and technologies that target un-served or over-served segments with greater confidence than ever before.

2. Shape

Seek ‘creative creation’

Rather than trying to find out what works by seeking to minimise the cost of failure, we can now build business models that conform to meaningful patterns of success. Specifically, by serving profitable segments that incumbents deem inconsequential, new businesses can create a valuable foothold. Then, by building their businesses around ‘enabling technologies’ – elements of their business model that allow performance to improve over time – entrants can move from that foothold to positions of mainstream dominance.

3. Persist

Don’t fail fast, learn fast

Disruption improves predictive accuracy, but we’re still a long way from 100%. What this means is that although we can more confidently commit to specific markets, technologies, and strategies, there is still a lot to learn. Learning, however, demands persistence: the willingness to stick with something despite early setbacks. And that persistence need no longer be the product of blind faith, but can instead be based on solid empirical evidence.

Most theories of innovation base their prescriptions for action on explanations of the past. Disruption is perhaps the only theory of innovation to have been tested for predictive power using a portfolio of actual businesses. And the results suggest that a revolution in how innovation is managed is upon us.

Raynor offers many examples of disruptive innovation – innovations that took root in a small niche of the market but eventually reached the mainstream and dominated them:

  • The Internet was a disruptive innovation to newspapers.
  • Toyota was a disruptive innovator with its Toyota Production System of lean manufacturing and process improvement.
  • Southwest Airlines was a disruptor with its low cost carrier strategy.

Monique Verduyn is a freelance writer. She has more than 12 years’ experience in writing for the corporate, SME, IT and entertainment sectors, and has interviewed many of South Africa’s most prominent business leaders and thinkers. Find her on Google+.

Innovation

The Art Of Pivoting: How To Know If The Time Is Right

Keep the vision, change the strategy to serve the market according to what they really need.

Jordan Stephanou

Published

on

yotube-pivot

The word “pivoting” has become as over-used as the phrase “disruptive innovation”, but much like innovation, businesses have been pivoting for many decades (if not centuries) before the word became an everyday verb. You only need to look at Twitter, which started as a podcasting business, or Nintendo, which started by selling vacuums, or even Youtube, which was supposed to be a dating site for some inspiration.

These businesses may have all changed their product, service, or even target market in a major way, but they survived and have been thriving ever since. They kept their vision of achieving successful sustainable businesses, despite a change in strategy. And that, my friends, is pivoting: Keep the vision, change the strategy to serve the market according to what they really need.

Ask the right questions to your market: Are you solving a problem?

If you haven’t done user testing, user interviews, focus groups, or called anywhere between 10 and 50 of your highest value possible clients, you might want to take a step back and get that done to define if you actually have a problem to solve.

Many founders start by speaking to a handful of family members, and a handful of friends about their business idea, and are met with unbridled excitement and encouragement that you would expect of people in your life who unconditionally love you.

The reality is, these people have to live with you everyday – they don’t want to risk offending you and shattering your dreams. They basically have to tell you that your idea is great. Get tangible proof from real-world customers or clients that they see the problem you see, and that the problem is as big as you think it is.

Set your vision

eric-ries-of-lean-startup

What are you really trying to achieve in your business? In other words, what is your “why”? If you set this in a very clear one liner, you will quickly realise that there are many ways to achieve that vision, if you are able to take emotion out of the equation.

This will take you away from the detail to the big picture. For example, a vision along the lines of “To save people time” could be achieved in hundreds of different ways, and your current offering could be tweaked to increase your market size and save people much more time than your current offering, even if it wasn’t that idea you initially got so excited to tell your dog and three cats about.

To paraphrase Eric Ries of Lean Startup, pivoting is simply a change in strategy, not a change in vision.

How do I know when to pivot?

If you’re going through difficult times in the business, I would recommend going back to the most important people in your business – your clients / customers. Get their thoughts and opinions on what’s working; what’s not working; is your offering solving their problem adequately; what would they like more of, etc.

Finding out how to improve your offering from your existing client base will almost certainly not only help you retain your existing client base, but also grow a new client base by helping you solve the problem more effectively. This process can also reveal if your clients see something in your product that you didn’t – ie.to help you pivot. You will find out what your target market really wants and what your product could be if you weren’t so attached.

This requires extreme open-mindedness, and willingness to implement your learnings, even if what your market wants isn’t as “sexy” as your initial offering. On the flip side, if you can keep improving your current offering without changing direction, and if you still have cashflow and clients in the pipeline, it may not be necessary to pivot yet.

Pivoting is often necessary when the current offering reaches a glass ceiling, it’s impossible to close sales, and when cashflow becomes a problem. However, if you realise that your offering is so far removed from what your customers want that you would have to change your strategy and your vision – that, my friends, could be the time to quit and apply the learnings to the next venture. The key lesson from that eventuality is to do more extensive product-market fit research in the beginning next time, and make sure your product is meeting an actual market need.

What if things were different?

I have an experiment for you to apply within your own business. Remember, open-mindedness is essential to break through the glass ceiling:

  • What if you kept the exact same product / service, but changed your target market? What would the new target market be?
  • What if you changed your product / service, but kept the same target market? What would your new offering be?
  • What if you kept the exact same product / service and the exact same target market, but pursued that market in other cities or countries? If your market were the whole of Africa / North America / Europe etc, would that make a difference? Is it feasible? What would have to happen for it to be feasible?
  • What if you changed your business to a social business? Would partnerships with NGOs open new opportunities in the market?
  • What about the impact you could have and the exposure this could bring to your business?

I highly recommend creating a “what if” business model canvas or pitch deck based on this alternate reality for each of the questions above. This could be a fun activity to do with the team on a weekend away over multiple cups of warm coffee. Good luck, and remember, there is no shame in adapting your business to provide people with what they really need.

Continue Reading

Innovation

An Innovative Culture Absolutely Requires This Unique Capability

What you need is a ‘chaos pilot’ on board at your company. If you don’t have one, think about adding one.

Peter Gasca

Published

on

Innovative Culture

In my line of work, I have the privilege of mentoring and working with start-up entrepreneurs who often offer unique and remarkable ideas that, in my opinion, have the potential for significant commercial impact.

Unfortunately, many of these ideas end up in the dust heap of forgotten businesses that never get traction.

Why do so many great ideas fail? The reality is that many promising new ideas are derived from products or services or systems that have yet to be considered. They are disruptive in nature and typically exist only in the abstract.

Dealing with these ideas therefore demands a unique set of skills that differ from general management capabilities typically associated with running a company.

In a recent article at Harvard.com, Nathan Furr, assistant professor of strategy at INSEAD and coauthor of Leading Transformation: How to Take Charge of Your Company’s Future, explained that a critical, and often missing, element for innovative teams is the capacity to function in the abstract. Furr referred to this capacity as negative capability.

To understand the concept, consider what Robert French of the Bristol Business School has called “positive” capabilities. These skills, as they pertain to new ideas, have been connected with successful general managers, because they can:

  • Understand the complexities of new ideas
  • Understand and manage the process by which new ideas are executed
  • Understand and manage the necessary roles within an organisation or team needed to execute on new ideas.

Related: Rapelang Rabana’s Innovation Formula – 3 Key Ingredients To Innovate

These characteristics are typically technical skills that involve structure and discipline. They are valuable for managing any company, especially one operating in a business environment requiring constant innovation. Such innovation is needed to iterate new and bold ideas, but these skills alone are not enough.

The reason is that, to stay ahead and execute on a regular basis, new ideas, especially disruptive ones, often take a team and the entire organisation into unchartered territory where there exists no precedent, historical structure or “road map” to guide them. In these cases, positive capabilities based on structure fall short of execution.

As French explained, this type of change “always arouses anxiety and uncertainty,” and teams that are unprepared tend to move toward avoidance tactics – defaulting to known structures, which then lead to the collapse of the new project.

For that reason, it is critical to have members on the team who can handle uncertainty and unknown outcomes and also have the fortitude to pivot when necessary. These types of leaders are what Furr calls “chaos pilots.” To be an effective chaos pilot yourself, you need more than technical management skills. Here are the three other skill sets he lists:

1. Divergent thinking

To think divergently, Furr explains, individuals need to be able to synthesise a multitude of information and “uniquely connect new information, ideas, and concepts that are usually held far apart.” This skill requires the ability to stay constantly focused on a mission while constantly processing new information.

Leaders who operate as divergent thinkers often surround themselves with talented individuals who can handle the day-to-day operations; that capability frees up the leadership team to collaborate and collect valuable data.

2. Convergent action

According to Furr, great chaos pilots do more than just take in new information. They “execute on new ideas in order to create something tangible.” In other words, they synthesise all the information and leverage it to effectively execute on new ideas.

Far too often, entrepreneurs fall short here, getting consumed by FOMO (fear of missing out) and  failing to prioritise, or at least balance, output time with input time. Doing so creates an entrepreneur with a wealth of information, but ultimately provides very little value.

Related: AutoTrader South Africa’s George Mienie Knows Disruptive Innovation Is More Than Shifting Gears

3. Influential communication

Finally, thinking divergently and being able to “connect the dots” are great skills, but if a chaos pilot is unable to communicate new ideas effectively and, as Furr states, “inspire other leaders and decision-makers to believe, support, and act on a novel idea or opportunity,” the idea will stop short of execution, no matter how well synthesised.

Over the years, I have been a part of innovative teams (at times leading them) whose sole priority was developing new ideas for clients. I recall a few times leading those teams through a comprehensive mind-mapping process meant to spark new ideas. In these situations, we inevitably would stumble on a truly remarkable idea or two, but like our team, those ideas weren’t rooted in a stable and established process; sometimes they weren’t comparable to what we were already doing.

Our ideas would also sometimes get lost in the insecurities and anxiousness of the group and never even be presented.

Great management skills are clearly needed to lead a company and execute ongoing operations effectively, but to consistently generate and see great new ideas through to execution, it is critical to have an effective change manager – or chaos pilot – on your team. And while these skills cannot be taught, they can be learned and nurtured through experience and an environment that encourages and supports risk taking and failure.

This article was originally posted here on Entrepreneur.com.

Continue Reading

Innovation

How I Built A Company The Lean Way – By Using The Scientific Method

Starting a company is one of the most irrational acts you can do as a human being. That’s why employing hypotheses and experimentation is crucial.

Joe Kinsella

Published

on

building-blocks

In the past five years, the cloud management company I founded has grown from a one-person business into a global employer of over 300 people. Recently, VMware, the most important provider of infrastructure and technology in our industry, purchased us – an exciting milestone as we look to the future and continue to execute on our vision.

In spite of all the twists and turns I’ve experienced, there’s been one thing I did right in the early phases of building this business: Committing to continuous experimentation.

When I left my previous company, I had an idea of where I could bring the most value in the market, based on my previous experiences in cloud computing. But I’d also been inspired by Stephen Blank’s The Four Steps to the Epiphany and indirectly by the Lean Startup movement. As a result, I knew I would start my business from the top down: By devoting myself to a market (cloud management) and to the scientific method for entrepreneurship – dispassionately testing all assumptions and hypotheses, and following where they led.

So, where did I begin? And where do you begin? Here are the steps.

Develop your initial hypotheses

The process of entrepreneurship starts with a set of hypotheses to identify the product or service you will bring to your customers. A good hypothesis is that it answers critical questions regarding your initial business concept that can be proven only through experimentation.

I started my own journey by putting a poster on the wall and using sticky notes to capture the critical hypotheses I needed to test. Every two weeks, I selected a set of hypotheses and designed experiments to prove or disprove them.

En route, I thought about the ecommerce company Zappos – a supporter of the Lean Startup movement – and its initial hypothesis that people would buy shoes online. For the file-sharing company Dropbox, the hypothesis was that users needed a radically simplified way to share files. For the coffee retailer Starbucks, it was that Americans would embrace the Italian coffee culture.

Related: What You Need To Know About The Lean Start-up Model

design-an-experiment

Design an experiment

Next, choose a set of hypotheses to test, and design an experiment to test them. A good experiment should eliminate all ambiguity from the hypothesis to the answer. It should also prove or disprove the hypotheses with the least possible investment.

I was inspired at this stage by stories from entrepreneurs like Dropbox’s Drew Houston, Zappos founder Nick Swinmurn and Starbucks’s Howard Schultz. To prove his hypothesis, Houston didn’t invest in building yet another file-sharing app; he instead created a video that demonstrated the ease of use of his idea for Dropbox and how it could be a differentiator.

Similarly, Swinmurn didn’t choose to buy inventory for his new online shoe store, instead, he took pictures of shoes. He posted them on a website and purchased the shoes from the store only after receiving a customer order.

Schultz, meanwhile, chose to cram his early concept for delivering Italian coffee culture to American consumers into 300 square feet, inside another retail store.

Experiment and observe

My experiments ranged far and wide – from driving an advertising campaign, to creating an A/B test website, to performing customer interviews with large financial institutions, to delivering professional services.

For example, one of my sticky notes asserted simply that, “Cloud cost management is a feature and not a market.” The experiment I designed to prove or disprove this statement was built around helping five local businesses optimise their cloud costs.

As an early-stage entrepreneur, you have to be willing to conduct these sorts of tests to determine what works, what doesn’t and how you can identify real and durable problems in a market. You need to to take risks, to be willing to fail and understand that you’re always learning.

Dropbox’s own critical video experiment resulted in its beta user requests growing from 5,000 to 75,000 users, validating critical hypotheses without investing in a single line of code. Starbucks’s first store attracted 1,000 visitors per day to a location that had previously never seen more than 200. Zappos’s website resulted in actual sales of shoes, which were fulfilled with purchases – at list price – from a local store.

Related: Game-Changing Lessons From Lean Start-Up Founder Steve Blank

Discuss results with advisors

Before starting the company, I created my own informal board of advisors, who included a venture investor, two technology CEOs, a business development executive and a technology founder. All were dedicated to my success, with no strings attached.

I met with them for coffee throughout the experimentation process, and always discussed with them what I was learning. Having talented colleagues to provide feedback and advice frequently produced new insights.

Rinse and repeat

Once you secure answers to your first hypotheses, it’s time for you to go back to the drawing board and create new hypotheses, design another experiment and test it. A hypothesis without an experiment does no good. You gain the most knowledge when you’re testing the ideas you propose.

Start the business

I equate the start of my company to an experiment I called “the sale.” After several months of developing hypotheses and running experiments, I had a good sense of where I could add strong and durable value for customers in the market. But what I hadn’t tested was price.

I hypothesised that a prospective customer would need to be willing to spend $50,000 annually – roughly the average price required to sustain the business model – on my product, to support the inside sales-driven model I was projecting. So, I designed an experiment around cold calling a handful of prospective customers and trying to convince them to purchase my minimum viable product for $50,000 per year.

In the process of being rejected, I hoped to learn about the additional features these companies needed to justify purchasing a product at that price point.

As part of the exercise, I first spoke with the CFO of a fast-growing technology company. While the CFO understood the problem I was addressing, he had almost no input on features, and no interest in paying for a solution. But then he surprised me by asking for another call the next day with his vice president of engineering and members of his team.

The assembled team not only had deep knowledge in the area in which I had built my MVP, but had already built many of my features themselves.

By the end of the call, the vice president of engineering made the surprising statement: “Sure, we’ll buy.” When faced with the potential for a sale, the first instinct of every good engineer is to do exactly what you shouldn’t: keep talking. Instead, I proceeded to explain how the CFO was hadn’t been convinced the previous day, and that maybe the engineering VP should talk to him before agreeing to a purchase.

“Our CFO is in the room right now,” the VP said. “We’ll buy. Just send us the contract.”

As I hung up,  my excitement at having a first customer was tempered by the reality that I had no contract to send, nor a business entity under which to extend it. Since my experiment had been designed for failure, I hadn’t given much thought to what to do when confronted with success. Thus began my next challenge: Creating a business entity and onboarding a first customer – fast.

Reach a conclusion and communicate it with peers

Starting a company is one of the most irrational acts you can do as a human being. You are taking great personal and professional risk for an unknown outcome. While there is no foolproof way to manage this uncertainty, there is a way to minimise the risk: cContinuous experimentation in the presence of customers. My company exists as a direct result of a commitment to experimentation, a route you should seriously consider when you start down your own entrepreneurial path.

This article was originally posted here on Entrepreneur.com.

Continue Reading
Advertisement

SPOTLIGHT

Advertisement

Recent Posts

Follow Us

Entrepreneur-Newsletters
*
We respect your privacy. 
* indicates required.
Advertisement

Trending