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:
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.
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.
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:
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.
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.
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.
A Short Cut For Corporates To Digital Innovation: Start-ups
Charlie Stewart, co-founder and CEO of Rogerwilco shares his advice for turning to start-ups for solutions.
If there is one anathema in corporate culture, it is failure. With profit to be made and share prices to increase, failure is simply not an option. And yet, when listening to stories about success in the digital space, failure is there to put one on the right path to success. The phrase ‘Fail fast, Fail often’ is often bandied about, and innovation can be seen as a constant process of iteration, test and failure, repeating this until a well refined service or product is on the table.
Many corporates are waking up to the uncomfortable fact that at a structural level, the type of innovation required to grow in today’s digital landscape, is out of their reach, at least when trying to come up with it internally. So what to do? Charlie Stewart, co-founder and CEO of Rogerwilco shares his advice for turning to start-ups for solutions.
1. The start-up solution
Corporates comfortable in the digital space – Apple, Alphabet, Facebook and Amazon – have been buying startups for years, and now companies are realising that when it comes to Blockchain, artificial intelligence and machine learning, they need to turn elsewhere. And they are. Matt Garratt, Vice President of Salesforce Ventures noted that of the roughly 1500 tech acquisitions Stateside in 2016, half of them were bought by non-tech companies, showing that buying a start-up is a quick way to acquire new technologies, skills or patents.
But purchasing a company with a fully developed product can be an expensive and often risky play. Instead we are beginning to see a trend where corporates are framing agile startups as solution providers, offering them seed funding to come up with answers to digital headaches.
In the US, defence contractor Lockheed Martin has turned its investment strategy around, focusing on young startups instead of more mature companies. In the region of $20 million was ploughed into startups in 2017, helping Lockheed Martin to get a slice of the pie in fast moving spaces such as cybersecurity, autonomous vehicles and nanotechnology.
2. Outsourcing the problem
For corporates turning to start-ups, there are two benefits. Firstly, by doing so companies are casting their net a bit wider, with not only more eyeballs on the problems but, importantly, without the restraints of the corporate boardroom. There is more out-of-the-box thinking involved, no internal politics to worry about and far less of a threat of somebody’s career being jeopardised.
Secondly, if a start-up comes up with a solution, investing in the fledgling company can be cheaper than purchasing one with an established solution. If a buy-out is on the cards, it is less risky too since the due diligence process has been worked through and cultural challenges have been ironed out.
But not all start-ups actually want a buy-out. Some rather prefer access to market and skills transfer, especially around the commercial side of business. Yes, they do need investment, so companies can provide them with a proof of concept to take their idea forward, or potentially a more structured form of investment in their business.
3. Cape Town: the start-up hub of Africa
Locally, Cape Town can be seen as the tech start-up hub of Africa, and is certainly a good place for corporates to start sniffing around for that digital innovation golden ticket. Events such as last year’s AfricArena conference proved that Cape Town can be a fruitful hunting ground. 80 start-ups from across Africa attended the inaugural event, and were tasked to find solutions to problems provided by corporates beforehand. Air France, for example, was looking for innovative mobile solutions, the City of Cape Town wanted to see how technology can be used to improve the tourism industry, while RCS asked for a loyalty programme to match a new credit programme.
By all accounts the event was a major success, connecting start-ups with corporates and investors, both attending the event and dialing in. The winner of Air France’s challenge, mobile payment solution provider WeCashUp, received multiple offers of investment and the project has moved on to the proof-of-concept phase.
4. The start-up lifeboat
Many companies need to face up to the fact that the current corporate structure they are working within does not allow for the type of innovation required to adapt to, never mind thrive, in a digital world. South African companies were perhaps sheltered from the digital tsunami that has eviscerated the analogue business world, but the wave has hit our shores. If it is innovation that is needed, it is time to turn to agile startups, far better adapted to a sink-or-swim digital environment, to come up with the solutions.
R&D: Compulsory Homework For Your Business
Why Research & Development are critical to your company’s future.
It’s one thing to develop a technology that everybody wants. It’s a completely different thing launching it, if the legislation or environment aren’t encouraging. Often, the result is companies who have grand ideas and little influence, and this is why it’s essential that you carry out in-depth Research and Development (R&D).
Defining market research
Market research is the gathering and analysis of information, so that organisations can better understand the market, environment, and demand for a new product.
The purpose of this data is to:
- Understand and advise on existing and upcoming business plans
- Develop new products and innovations
- Forecast new developments that could disrupt the industry.
This kind of insight helps business leaders to be educated on factors that can impact their businesses, ensuring robust, up-to-date bases for their decision-making.
The reason you need R&D
The success of a new product depends heavily on its impact on people’s needs. If it doesn’t add sufficient value, it’s not worth the investment. Because of this, your innovations must be in line with the legislative, economic, political, technological, environmental, and social requirements of the people you hope to sell them to.
How R&D has evolved
R&D ensures that your organisation stays viable and sustainable. You can approach it through organic growth, innovation, or a mix of the two.
However, in this new era of the Fourth Industrial Revolution and the Internet of Things, we’re seeing some significant changes to R&D spending. Because these days, people aren’t alone in their connection to the Internet – machines are there too.
In the future, the success of a product is likely to be determined by its ability to connect to the Internet; without that, it will become obsolete. Smart devices will also create new challenges for organisations, as they’ll require entirely new skills and approaches to business, if they are to grow and evolve.
Innovating through R&D
Innovation is not just supported by R&D; it’s also enhanced by it. It’s also affected by:
- Understanding consumer needs
- Your ability to innovate sustainably
- R&D partnerships that allow you to collaborate with others, so you can share the risks and costs of innovation, and speed up the various processes.
An open approach to R&D
One approach to R&D collaboration is through open innovation, where an organisation partners with another party. An initiative like this works well for technological advances, globalisation, and changes to comms technology.
A closed approach to R&D
The more traditional closed approach to R&D is where one company funds and contains the R&D initiatives. And it can be successful too, as long as the initiating company has well-defined and measurable input, throughput, and output.
R&D in an investment company
Sometimes the subsidiaries in a holding company experience poor communication, resulting in divided direction and unhealthy competition. Because R&D can be expensive and resource-heavy, an organisation-wide strategy must be implemented.
Then, when all stakeholders understand the potential ROI and the operational process involved in R&D, healthy competition and an educated understanding of customer needs can be maintained. This is, of course, the ‘win-win’.
R&D is essential to making relevant, strategic, and educated business decisions. And in our global economy, it’s a competitive advantage you can’t afford not to have.
3 Strategies To Implement A Culture Of Innovation In Your Business (Without Blowing Billions)
Learn to think differently, encourage your team to do the same, and innovative disruption could become a part of your company’s DNA.
You’re seeing it everywhere. Disruptive innovation is becoming the new norm, and you’re concerned that your business is merely going through the motions, missing opportunities.
How can you join the Elon Musks of the world, without the corresponding bulging budget?
It turns out that many of the techniques of today’s top innovators don’t require vast outlay. They’re simply about different ways of thinking.
Here are three strategies for enhancing the culture of innovation in your organisation without blowing billions.
1Use ‘Ignorance as strategy’
You’ve encountered the aphorism, ‘To a man with a hammer, everything looks like a nail.’ Similarly, to a banker, the only imaginable approach to banking is ‘the way banking has always been done’. When bankers try to think of innovative new ways of banking, they invariably think of greater complexity.
Along came PayPal
In the April 2016 edition of Harvard Business Review, Reid Hoffman, one of the founders of PayPal, said, ‘All the banking people knew the rules. That prevented them from trying anything that looked remotely like PayPal.’
PayPal was not invented by a bank, just as Uber was not invented by a taxi driver.
To make use of ‘ignorance as strategy,’ try this. Gather a group of strategic thinkers and set the rule: ‘The old way of doing it has been outlawed. How else might we serve the same need?’
Or: ‘We are now our competitors. We have half the budget, but our hearts and souls are invested in one purpose: To topple the original company. We can’t do it the way they do it. So how could we go about it?’
Or: ‘The company has burnt to the ground. We’ve lost everything. We need to keep serving our customers but we need a new, cheap, fast way to do it right now that doesn’t rely on any equipment or systems we used before. What have you got?’
2Use commander’s intent
Imagine: You’re a military commander. You need to move a convoy of trucks through a dangerous canyon. Your intelligence tells you that there is a sniper on one of the escarpments.
There are two ways you could issue an instruction to a soldier:
The first way: ‘Go take out that sniper.’
That’s very clear, and very good. But there’s something surprisingly important missing from it. The ‘why’ is not overtly stated, and for that reason, the mission could actually fail.
Let’s try it again the second way: ‘Go take out that sniper because we need to ensure safe passage through the canyon for our convoy.’
That may sound like a ridiculously obvious addition. Here is why it’s not: In a real, dynamic scenario, things change constantly.
Let’s say your soldier breaks off from the convoy and heads up into the mountains. Very quickly, three things go wrong:
- He can’t find the sniper
- Enemy forces start firing at him, making it difficult to look for the sniper
- His own weapon fails to fire so that he can’t shoot back.
If our soldier thinks only about the literal instruction — ‘shoot the sniper’ — he is now unable to carry it out. But if he bases his actions on the commander’s intention — ‘secure our convoy’ — other options open up to him.
He might draw their fire. He might set a bushfire. Or he might cause a commotion in a different canyon, disguising the movements of his convoy. He might, he might, he might… But only if he is absolutely clear on Commander’s Intent, and not working according to an explicit tasked item only.
Managers love to create detailed rules and procedures. But these can actually stifle innovation. Commander’s Intent is the life hack by which we get the upper hand again, freeing up leeway for creative potential.
3Instead of rules: Imaginative debate
Organisations accumulate rules over time. Problematically, rules can become a form of culture. And there is a better way.
When NASA faced two separate, well-known challenges, their culture at each stage was very different.
In 1970, Apollo 13 was two days into its mission when an explosion knocked out one of their oxygen tanks. The ensuing creative scramble to get the astronauts safely home is the stuff of legend. The creative trial and experimentation that went into rescuing them was formidable. New procedures were made up back on earth, then tested in the simulator, then relayed to the astronauts 200 000 miles away, almost in real-time.
Through this process of creative trial and experimentation, of collaborative inter-disciplinary debate, one by one the issues were resolved and the crew was brought home safely.
At this point in time, NASA’s culture was ruled by imaginative debate. It was an exploratory culture, an experimenting culture, a culture based on learning and evolution.
By contrast, at the time of the Columbia disaster of 2003, the culture of experimentation had given way to one of formalised rules, regimented procedures and rigid hierarchy. NASA had stopped being a learning organisation. It had become a bureaucracy instead.
As Columbia re-entered the earth’s atmosphere, a large piece of foam fell from the shuttle’s external tank and broke the wing of the spacecraft. The shuttle broke into pieces. NASA recovered 84 000 pieces from a debris field of over 2 000 square miles.
The investigation revealed some damning insights about the culture that led to the problem.
During a post-launch review, a group of engineers actually saw this foam dislodge from the rocket. They tried to pass on this information. NASA’s management, which by this stage liked to manage everything ‘by the rules’, had seen dislodged foam before, and, according to their institutionalised perceptions, deemed it to be unimportant.
The engineers tried to argue that it seemed like a lot more foam than usual. It was a qualitative argument, based on human insight and intelligence. But NASA was unable to listen. Dislodging foam was a known quantity, and the voices of dissenters went unheeded.
NASA by this stage was so bound in rules and procedures that, in important ways, it had ceased to be a learning, experimenting culture. And that made it incapable of hearing an idea, to its great detriment.
Imaginative debate allows situational awareness to pass up and down the chain of command. It promotes the opportunity to see innovation possibilities. It shows up problems that fall outside of the capacity of norms and guidelines.
The Israeli Defence Force uses an examination of these two cultures within NASA as a way of perpetuating a learning culture within its own organisation. In Start-Up Nation, Israeli air-force pilot Tal Keinan is quoted as saying that if NASA had stuck to their experimental culture, the way his own air force and military do, they would have identified and seriously debated the foam strikes at the daily debrief.
Debating everything isn’t tedious. It’s illuminating.
Putting rules in place of debate isn’t clarifying. It’s dulling.
Rigid rules enforced by unlearning authority are a recipe for real danger. The use of strenuous debate helps to overcome these blind spots.
Cultures of learning are far more idea-friendly than bureaucracies. And it costs nothing to become one. Merely a little willingness.
Snapshots8 years ago
Habari Media: Adrian Hewlett
Start-up Industry Specific5 months ago
How Do I Start A Transport Or Logistics Business?
Snapshots10 months ago
27 Of The Richest People In South Africa
Types of Businesses to Start9 months ago
11 Uniquely South African Business Ideas
Entrepreneur Profiles6 months ago
10 SA Entrepreneurs Who Built Their Businesses From Nothing
Types of Businesses to Start6 months ago
10 Business Ideas Ready To Launch!
Lessons Learnt2 years ago
6 Of The Most Profitable Small Businesses In South Africa
Types of Businesses to Start7 months ago
The 10 Best New-Age Business Ideas You Haven’t Heard About Yet