Does the concept of commoditization and de-commoditization pique your interest? How do companies like IBM adapt and thrive in a commoditized industry? Are you keen to understand how brands like Levi's once dominated the market? Then dive into this enlightening exploration of how businesses can pivot to capture significant profits in an ever-evolving market landscape. Also, discover the intriguing role of venture capital and corporate capital in shaping a business's trajectory.

The Innovator's Solution: Creating and Sustaining Successful Growth

Financial markets constantly pressure executives to pursue rapid growth, but achieving this without risking the company is a tough balancing act. This book explores how businesses can create new growth sustainably and profitably. 

Evidence shows that once a company's core business matures, finding new growth platforms becomes highly risky. Only about one in ten companies manage to sustain growth that translates into above-average shareholder returns over several years. The pursuit of growth often leads to failures, as seen in AT&T's disastrous investments in the 1980s and 1990s.

For instance, after the breakup of its local telephony services in 1984, AT&T tried to expand into computers and wireless services with huge investments that ultimately failed, destroying billions in shareholder value. Similarly, Cabot Corporation's attempt to diversify into advanced materials in the 1980s ended in losses and a plummeting stock price, forcing the company to refocus on its core business.

The challenge is that even growing companies face relentless pressure from investors, who build expected growth rates into stock prices. To boost share prices and offer returns above the market average, companies must exceed these growth expectations. This pressure makes it difficult for executives to deliver consistent growth, as failing to meet growth targets can result in significant stock price drops and investor backlash.

A remarkable study, "Stall Points," found that only 5% of large companies managed to sustain a real growth rate above 6% over decades. Once growth stalls, reigniting it is nearly impossible, with most companies losing substantial market value.

So, why is achieving and sustaining growth so hard? It’s not just about having better managers or avoiding risks. Many corporate executives take significant risks, but still fail to sustain growth. The belief that creating new-growth businesses is inherently unpredictable is also challenged. The venture capital industry's structure, which expects most investments to fail while a few succeed, reflects this belief.

However, innovation can be made more predictable by understanding the forces that influence managers' decisions. For instance, middle managers play a crucial role in shaping new ideas into business plans. They often prefer proposals with credible data on market potential, leading to innovations that resemble past successes rather than truly disruptive ideas.

An example from the toy industry illustrates this: while a major toy company struggled to find exciting new products, the Big Idea Group (BIG) successfully developed new toys by sourcing ideas from various individuals and refining them into marketable products. This success stemmed from a different process of shaping ideas compared to the major toy company.

The understanding of processes and an accurate categorization of circumstances are important for building solid management theories. This approach can increase the predictability of successful innovation. For example, understanding the causal mechanisms behind successful flight allowed aviation to become predictable, despite initial failures.

In short, the book aims to help managers make better decisions about creating new-growth businesses by providing well-researched theories. It addresses key questions like how to beat competitors, what products to develop, which customers to target, and the best organizational structures for new ventures. By understanding and managing the forces that shape innovation, executives can improve their chances of building successful new-growth businesses.

Can Businesses Learn from AT&T's Mistakes to Achieve Sustainable Growth?

How can we outsmart our toughest competitors? This question has puzzled managers for ages. Many believe bigger companies with more resources will always win. Yet, history shows otherwise. Often, smaller entrants with fewer resources triumph by using disruptive strategies.

The idea of "disruption" first gained traction in the book "The Innovator’s Dilemma," which categorizes innovation into sustaining and disruptive. Sustaining innovations improve products for existing customers, where incumbents usually win. Disruptive innovations, however, create simpler, more accessible products for new or underserved markets, often leading to the downfall of established companies.

Consider the classic example of steel minimills. In the 1960s, minimills began producing low-quality steel cheaply. Their first market was rebar, a low-margin product that integrated mills were happy to abandon. As minimills improved, they moved up-market, eventually driving integrated mills out of more profitable segments like structural beams and sheet steel. The minimills’ relentless upward march is a textbook case of disruption leading to industry transformation.

Another significant example is the retail industry. Discount retailers like Wal-Mart and Kmart disrupted full-service department stores by offering lower prices on familiar items. Full-service stores, unable to compete with the lower margins, shifted to selling higher-margin products, leaving the low end to the discounters. Yet, as discounters moved up-market, they too faced new low-end disruptors.

Disruption doesn’t guarantee success, but it increases the odds. For instance, companies like Canon disrupted the photocopier market by making affordable, easy-to-use machines for small offices, which were initially inferior but improved over time, eventually competing with high-end models.

To harness disruption, companies must mold their strategies to exploit these opportunities. New-market disruptions create new customer bases, while low-end disruptions cater to overserved customers with simpler, cheaper alternatives. Both strategies force incumbents to either retreat or face declining profits.

For instance, Xerox could disrupt HP’s ink-jet printer market by integrating printers into laptops, making printing more convenient for mobile users. Similarly, Hitachi could tap into the massive non-consumption of air conditioners in China by creating affordable, energy-efficient models for small apartments, and then expand globally.

Ultimately, disruption works because it leverages the incumbent’s strengths against them, creating a scenario where attacking from below is more effective than competing head-on. By understanding and applying these principles, businesses can strategically position themselves to beat even the most formidable competitors.

Unleashing David: Outsmarting Giants with Disruptive Innovation

Creating products that customers will eagerly buy is a constant challenge for companies. Despite the efforts of talented teams, most new product ventures fail. In fact, over 60% of new product development efforts are scrapped before reaching the market, and of those that do, 40% fail to become profitable. This high failure rate can be attributed to a fundamental misunderstanding of market segmentation.

Traditional market segmentation often focuses on product attributes or customer demographics, which can lead to targeting phantom markets. Instead, companies should consider what jobs customers are trying to get done in their lives. 

This "jobs-to-be-done" approach can better align products with customer needs. For example, a quick-service restaurant chain struggled to boost milkshake sales despite making various product improvements based on customer demographics. However, when researchers observed that many customers bought milkshakes to make their long, boring commutes more enjoyable, it became clear that the milkshake was hired to do a specific job. This insight led to product changes that catered directly to the job the milkshake was hired to do, like making it thicker to last longer during the commute.

Similarly, Sony's success in the mid-20th century was largely due to its founder, Akio Morita, who focused on what customers were trying to achieve in their lives. From the Walkman to the portable TV, Sony's products were designed to serve specific customer jobs, leading to massive success. However, when Morita stepped back, Sony shifted to a more attribute-based approach, resulting in fewer disruptive innovations.

The same principle applies to modern products like the BlackBerry. People hired it to be productive during small snippets of time, such as waiting in line or during boring meetings. This jobs-to-be-done perspective guided the development of features that helped customers be more productive, rather than just adding more attributes like a digital camera or CRM software, which didn't align with the primary job.

Companies often segment markets counterproductively due to a fear of focus, the demand for quantifiable opportunities, channel structures, and advertising strategies. Focusing on specific jobs might seem to limit market potential, but it actually helps in targeting real customer needs and avoiding undifferentiated, one-size-fits-all products.

Branding also plays a crucial role. Effective brands communicate the job they are hired to do, making it easier for customers to remember and choose the product when that job arises. For example, Marriott uses different sub-brands like Courtyard by Marriott and Fairfield Inn to serve different customer jobs, thereby enhancing the overall brand strength.

In short, successful product development hinges on understanding the jobs customers need done. By focusing on these jobs rather than product attributes or customer demographics, companies can create products that not only meet real needs but also stand out in the market.

Can Understanding Customers Revitalize Your Product Strategy Like Sony and BlackBerry?

To illustrate the power of disruptive innovation, let's look at three compelling case studies:

1. The Disruption of Vacuum Tubes by Transistors:
In 1947, scientists at Bell Labs invented the transistor, which initially couldn't compete with vacuum tubes in mainstream applications like radios and TVs. However, Sony used transistors to create products for nonconsumers, starting with a transistor hearing aid and then a pocket radio for teenagers who couldn't afford traditional radios. 

These products weren’t perfect, but they were good enough for people who had no alternatives. Over time, as transistors improved, Sony pulled customers from the vacuum tube market, leading to the decline of vacuum tube companies.

2. Angioplasty: A Heart-Stopping Disruption:
Before the 1980s, the only treatment for heart disease was invasive bypass surgery, leaving many patients untreated. Balloon angioplasty changed that, allowing cardiologists to treat partially clogged arteries with a simple, less expensive procedure. 

Although early angioplasties had high failure rates, they opened up a new market by treating patients who previously had no options. As the technology improved, more patients could be treated.

3. Solar Versus Conventional Electrical Energy:
Solar energy has struggled to compete with conventional electricity in developed markets due to high costs and reliability issues. However, targeting the two billion people without access to electricity offers a different perspective. For these nonconsumers, solar energy could provide basic needs like lighting, and the technology could be developed more cost-effectively for these simpler applications.

These case studies reveal a consistent pattern in new-market disruptions: targeting nonconsumers who have unmet needs and creating simpler, more affordable solutions. This approach often involves developing new distribution channels that align with the disruptive nature of the product.

For example, Sony bypassed traditional appliance stores, which relied on vacuum tube replacements for profits, and instead sold through discount retailers. This strategy allowed Sony to harness the disruptive potential of these new channels, which had no vested interest in maintaining the status quo.

To leverage disruptive innovation successfully, managers must identify customers who are eager for new solutions and can be easily delighted with simpler products. The challenge is to frame these opportunities correctly within organizations, securing resources by presenting them as threats initially and then shifting focus to the growth potential.

In short, the key to unlocking new growth markets lies in understanding nonconsumption and crafting strategies that turn these overlooked opportunities into thriving businesses. By learning from past disruptions and carefully managing internal processes, companies can position themselves to capture and sustain new growth.

Unlocking Growth: Lessons from Sony, Angioplasty, and Solar Energy Disruptions

When starting a new venture, determining what to do internally versus what to outsource is crucial. The decision isn't always straightforward, as seen with IBM's outsourcing misstep in the 1980s. Initially, IBM outsourced microprocessors to Intel and the operating system to Microsoft, thinking it would focus on its core strengths. This move inadvertently enabled Intel and Microsoft to dominate the industry.

This brings us to the importance of product architecture—whether to adopt a proprietary or modular approach. A product’s architecture defines how its components interact. Proprietary, interdependent architectures often perform better but require integration across the value chain. On the other hand, modular architectures, although flexible, may compromise performance but allow for outsourcing and specialization.

Historically, companies like IBM, Ford, and RCA thrived with proprietary architectures when their products weren't good enough. They integrated vertically to control all critical components. However, as products evolve and exceed customer needs, the market shifts towards modularization. This shift allows non-integrated companies to compete effectively by specializing in components and assembling them.

A classic example is the computer industry. IBM initially dominated with integrated systems but had to adopt modular designs to stay competitive. This opened the door for non-integrated companies to thrive. Similarly, Apple’s early advantage with integrated designs in personal computers faded as modular systems like IBM’s took over.

Sometimes, industries cycle back to integration. For example, in the 1990s, Microsoft re-integrated software to meet new customer demands, outpacing non-integrated rivals. Similarly, Japan's NTT DoCoMo succeeded in the wireless Internet market with a more integrated approach, managing interfaces more effectively than its non-integrated Western counterparts.

In essence, companies need to align their strategies with their competitive circumstances. When functionality is inadequate, integration and proprietary architectures hold the advantage. As products overshoot customer needs, modularity and specialization become key. This dynamic requires companies to be flexible, sometimes shifting from integrated to modular structures, and back, to stay ahead.

Did IBM's Outsourcing Strategy in the 1980s Unintentionally Empower Intel and Microsoft?

Commoditization is a daunting challenge many companies face, where their once-innovative products become indistinguishable commodities. This phenomenon isn't just a theoretical concern; it's a reality grounded in history. Take, for instance, the disk drive industry. In 1992, one-gigabyte drives sold with a 60 percent gross margin. Fast forward, and companies struggled for a mere 15 percent margin on drives 60 times better. These marvels of engineering became mere commodities. So, is there hope?

Research highlights a fascinating reciprocal process: wherever commoditization occurs in a value chain, de-commoditization happens somewhere else. This dynamic shift means opportunities arise where the performance is not yet good enough, allowing companies to capture significant profits.

Consider Wayne Gretzky's famous advice about "skating to where the puck will be." Successful companies must anticipate where value will shift in their industry. For example, IBM, once a titan in the integrated mainframe market, saw a shift. As the market evolved, IBM astutely repositioned itself, selling high-value components to competitors and focusing on consulting and systems integration. This strategic flexibility allowed IBM to thrive amid the commoditization of its previous core offerings.

The cycle of commoditization follows predictable steps: a company develops a proprietary product, overshoots market needs, leading to modular architectures and industry disintegration, making differentiation challenging. Eventually, profits erode as competition intensifies. Yet, where commoditization sweeps in, opportunities for de-commoditization emerge.

Take the steel minimills. Initially, they thrived by undercutting integrated mills. But once they dominated the rebar market, profits plummeted as they competed with equally low-cost minimills. The solution? Move up-market rapidly, continually innovating in performance-defining components to stay ahead.

Brand value follows a similar shift. IBM once commanded premium prices through its unmatched service. Yet, as computer reliability improved, the branding power migrated to Intel and Microsoft, whose components became the new critical differentiators. In the auto industry, a similar transformation looms. As mainstream car functionality overshoots consumer needs, value shifts to subsystem suppliers. The power to cultivate valuable brands and capture profits migrates from automakers to these crucial component makers.

To thrive, companies must remain vigilant, identify these shifts, and adapt. Look at the apparel industry: brands like Levi's once dominated, but now, the channel's convenience and speed—think Abercrombie & Fitch, and Gap—drive value. 

In essence, the secret lies in understanding and anticipating these cycles. Commoditization and de-commoditization are two sides of the same coin, continuously at play in every industry. The opportunity for growth and profitability exists for those who can pivot to where the value will emerge next.

Skate to Success: Wayne Gretzky's Insight on Thriving Amid Commoditization

Innovations often fail not due to technological flaws or market unreadiness but because they're led by managers or units lacking the right capabilities. Let's explore how to select the right teams and structures for driving disruptive growth, using the RPV (Resources, Processes, and Values) framework.

Resources include personnel, technology, and relationships. Processes are the methods of transforming resources into products or services. Values guide prioritization decisions. A classic pitfall is choosing managers based on "right-stuff" attributes like "good communicator" or "results-oriented" rather than their relevant experiences.

Consider Pandesic, a joint venture between Intel and SAP, aimed at small businesses with ERP software. Despite experienced leadership, it failed spectacularly, burning over $100 million. The managers, skilled at running large operations, lacked the experience to navigate the unique challenges of a disruptive start-up.

Processes are designed for specific tasks and become inefficient when misapplied. For instance, traditional budgeting and planning processes can hinder innovation. Values evolve with a company's growth, often making it difficult for large firms to prioritize small, emerging markets. This explains why industry leaders excel at sustaining innovations but struggle with disruptive ones.

To foster disruptive innovation, companies must set up autonomous units with their own processes and values. For example, Charles Schwab's online brokerage succeeded because it was a separate entity with a different cost structure. Conversely, Bank One’s WingspanBank.com failed by being an autonomous unit when online banking was a sustaining technology for retail banks.

The RPV framework helps in deciding whether to integrate new initiatives within existing structures or create separate units. For example, Woolworth's Woolco failed because it was integrated, aligning its profit model with the parent company’s, which was unsuitable for the discount retail market.

In essence, successful innovation requires matching the right people, processes, and values to the task, often necessitating different organizational structures for sustaining versus disruptive innovations.

Why Did Intel and SAP’s $100 Million Venture Fail Despite Top Leadership?

When it comes to creating a winning strategy, simply knowing its importance isn't enough—understanding the process behind it is key. Let's explore the dual nature of strategy development: deliberate and emergent processes.

The deliberate strategy-making process is analytical and data-driven, often initiated and implemented top-down. It’s ideal when the strategy encompasses all necessary details and is clear to everyone involved. Conversely, the emergent strategy bubbles up from within the organization, shaped by the day-to-day decisions of middle managers and staff—think Sam Walton’s humble decision to expand Walmart in small towns rather than big cities, which evolved into a game-changing strategy.

Resource allocation is the heart of strategy implementation. It filters which initiatives get funded and which don’t, ultimately defining the company’s actual strategy. Intel’s transformation from a memory chip company to a microprocessor giant is a prime example. This shift wasn’t a top-down decision but emerged organically through resource allocation favoring high-margin microprocessors over commoditized memory chips.

Strategies rarely follow a straight line from formulation to execution. Research shows that over 90% of successful businesses end up with a different strategy than originally planned. Successful entrepreneurs are those who can pivot and adapt their strategies based on real-world feedback. This means knowing when to rely on emergent strategies to discover what works and when to switch to a deliberate approach to scale effectively.

Discovery-driven planning can accelerate the emergent strategy process. Instead of making assumptions and then tweaking them to fit desired financial projections, this method flips the order: start with the financial goals, identify the critical assumptions that need to hold true, and then test these assumptions rigorously.

Effective strategy management requires a nuanced understanding of when to adopt deliberate versus emergent processes. For instance, companies often falter by sticking too rigidly to deliberate strategies in uncertain markets, as seen with Prodigy Communications, which failed to capitalize on the emergent popularity of email.

In contrast, Palm's ability to pivot from an operating system provider to a personal organizer manufacturer showcases the power of embracing emergent strategy processes. Executives must continuously manage this balance, adapting their approach as the business and market conditions evolve.

Ultimately, managing strategy development effectively involves three key actions: controlling the initial cost structure to prioritize disruptive opportunities, accelerating the emergence of viable strategies through discovery-driven planning, and ensuring the appropriate mix of deliberate and emergent processes for different business contexts. This delicate balancing act is crucial for driving innovation and sustaining growth.

Mastering Strategy: Lessons from Walmart, Intel, and Palm

Does it matter whose money funds your business? The type of capital you accept can heavily influence your business decisions and trajectory. Venture capital and corporate capital each have their unique pros and cons. Venture capital can drive disruptive businesses, but corporate executives must ensure their funding expectations align with long-term success strategies.

The best money for a nascent business is patient for growth but impatient for profit. When investors expect early profits, managers are forced to validate their business model quickly, ensuring they create real value for customers. On the other hand, capital that is impatient for growth but patient for profit can doom a venture, as it pressures managers to achieve rapid, often unsustainable expansion.

Good money can turn bad, leading businesses down a death spiral:
1. Success: A company finds a winning strategy, focuses on it, and neglects new-growth opportunities.
2. Growth Gap: To exceed investor expectations, companies must find new disruptive businesses.
3. Impatience for Growth: Investment criteria change, prioritizing rapid growth over realistic, sustainable strategies.
4. Tolerating Losses: Competing in established markets becomes expensive, leading to mounting losses.
5. Retrenchment: To recover, companies cut new ventures, focusing back on core businesses, repeating the cycle.

Investing for growth is challenging. Companies must launch new-growth businesses while their core is still healthy. Dividing business units helps maintain focus on smaller, disruptive opportunities. Expecting early profitability accelerates the emergent strategy process and protects ventures during tough times.

Case Studies:
- Honda: Limited funds forced Honda to pivot to selling their 50cc Super Cubs, creating a new market segment and leading to success.
- Johnson & Johnson: Acquiring disruptive businesses kept their Medical Devices & Diagnostics division growing significantly compared to their consumer products.

Venture capital can turn bad, too. When venture firms have too much money, they invest heavily in early-stage companies, demanding rapid growth, which often leads to failures. Successful firms, like Bain Capital, adapt their strategies as their circumstances change, shifting from early-stage to later-stage investments.

The key takeaway is to be patient for growth but not for profit. Early profitability ensures continuous support from investors and management, vital for long-term success. Ventures allowed to defer profitability often never achieve it.

Is Your Business Funded by Good Money or Bad Money?

Senior executives in companies face a challenging balancing act, especially when it comes to fostering new growth. They must decide how to allocate their time and energy effectively across various business initiatives. A key part of this involves distinguishing between sustaining innovations, which improve existing products, and disruptive innovations, which create new markets.

Executives like Gordon Lankton of Nypro have shown the importance of standing at the intersection of these two types of innovations. Lankton created a system to surface and evaluate process innovations across Nypro’s global plants, which allowed the company to maintain uniform yet evolving manufacturing capabilities. However, when faced with the need for a new disruptive business, Nypro struggled. Despite seeing the market shift towards smaller, high-precision parts, the company’s established processes couldn’t adapt, missing out on a major growth opportunity.

This example underscores the necessity for senior executives to guide disruptive innovations personally. These leaders need to recognize when traditional processes fail to support new ventures and be willing to break from established practices. The story of Nypro’s Novaplast machine illustrates this point. While Lankton identified a significant market shift, the company's ingrained processes steered the innovation towards existing high-volume, high-precision markets, rather than the new, low-volume opportunities it was intended for.

A study of successful companies reveals that founder-led firms often excel at launching new disruptive businesses. Founders like Charles Schwab and Sam Walton have the unique vision and authority to push through disruptive changes. Meanwhile, professional managers in diversified firms like GE or IBM can also succeed by leveraging established processes for managing new businesses.

Creating a sustainable growth engine involves several steps. First, companies must invest in new ventures while still growing, ensuring these ventures have time to develop without immediate pressure. Second, appointing a senior executive to oversee these ventures is crucial. This leader needs to understand when to use existing processes and when to create new ones.

Next, companies should establish a dedicated team to shape disruptive ideas into viable business plans. This team must understand the nuances of disruptive innovation and apply consistent criteria to evaluate potential ventures. Finally, training employees to identify and support disruptive ideas can significantly enhance the company's innovation pipeline.

In essence, senior executives play a pivotal role in balancing sustaining and disruptive innovations. By personally guiding new growth initiatives and fostering a culture that supports disruption, they can create a predictable path to sustained, profitable growth.

Balancing Innovation: Lessons from Gordon Lankton and Nypro’s Growth Journey

Financial markets often push executives towards rapid growth, but maintaining this growth without jeopardizing the company is challenging. Sustainable, profitable growth is difficult to achieve, especially once a core business matures. Only a minority of companies manage to sustain growth that consistently offers above-average shareholder returns for extended periods. The pressure to meet growth expectations can lead to significant stock price drops if targets are missed.

Innovations can be made more predictable by understanding the forces influencing managerial decisions. Middle managers prefer proposals with credible data, often leading to incremental rather than disruptive innovations. Building solid management theories based on understanding processes and categorizing circumstances can improve the predictability of successful innovation.

Disruption is a powerful strategy that smaller entrants can use to beat larger incumbents. Disruptive innovations create simpler, more accessible products for new or underserved markets, often leading to the downfall of established companies. Companies must mold their strategies to exploit these opportunities, leveraging disruption to compete effectively.

Understanding customer needs through the "jobs-to-be-done" approach can lead to more successful product development. Rather than targeting demographics, companies should focus on what customers are trying to achieve in their lives. Effective branding communicates the job a product is meant to do, helping customers remember and choose it when needed.

Targeting the right customers is crucial for new products. Nonconsumers with unmet needs can be a fertile ground for new-market disruptions. Developing new distribution channels aligned with the disruptive nature of the product can also be beneficial.

Deciding what to do internally versus what to outsource is crucial. The product's architecture—proprietary or modular—determines this. Integration and proprietary architectures are advantageous when products aren't good enough, but as they evolve, modularity and specialization become key.

Commoditization can erode profits, but opportunities for de-commoditization arise where performance is not yet good enough. Companies must anticipate where value will shift and adapt accordingly. Successful innovation often requires matching the right people, processes, and values to the task, sometimes necessitating different organizational structures.

Effective strategy development involves balancing deliberate and emergent processes. Resource allocation drives strategy implementation, and successful companies can pivot and adapt based on real-world feedback. Discovery-driven planning accelerates the emergent strategy process.

The type of capital funding a business can influence its trajectory. The best money is patient for growth but impatient for profit, ensuring early profitability and sustainable growth. Managing the growth dilemma involves investing in new-growth businesses while the core is healthy and maintaining focus on smaller, disruptive opportunities.

Senior executives play a crucial role in fostering new growth. They must guide disruptive innovations personally, recognizing when to break from traditional processes. Investing in new ventures, appointing a dedicated executive for these ventures, and training employees to support disruptive ideas can create a sustainable growth engine.

Home

Trending Books

News & Mags

Relax

Curated

Collections

Key Ideas & Notes

Insights

Highlights & Bookmarks

Listening History

Key Ideas

#1