by Adam Hartung | Apr 15, 2009 | Books, Current Affairs, Disruptions, General, Leadership, Web/Tech
I was delighted recently to find a weekly blog named www.IsSurvivor.com. Bob Lewis writes in a clear and frank tone about what he often sees as not working correctly – especially in the world of information management. I would recommend this blog to everyone because his advice applies to all aspects of business – not just IT.
And I was delighted to recently read his book "Keep the Joint Running: A Manifesto for 21Century Information Technology." Despite the book's tagline, this is a book for everyone in business – not just IT people. As the author reminds readers over and again, IT is a really important, and integrated, part of the modern business. You can't consider it a stand-alone silo or you'll have really big problems. And I find myself thinking the same is true for all functions. The book is a great read as well. Not pompous (although the author has a mountain of experience to draw upon), very matter-of-fact, and incisive when cutting into multiple myths that detract from performance of functional groups as well as the corporation overall.
One thing all readers should love is the book's focus on getting work out the door. Mr. Lewis points out, with great examples, that if you aren't competent you can't be strategic. I was reminded of so many people I've worked with over the years who lacked prodigiously in competence yet seemed to maintain their positions by taking "the strategic view." Far too often we see in consulting firms the partner that's good at relationships, but couldn't actually do the work if his life depended upon it. In the end, when those without competency are in charge, problems happen. A simple rule – like the many Mr. Lewis gives us – that we so often ignore.
Business, and IT even moreso, are very new fields of academia. Unlike math, English, botany or geology, we've been studying business only a short time. Yet, the die-hard followers of early theories are surprising. Given the lack of any labs to test these theories, and the very visible number of failures these theories incur, the willingness to turn an idea into dogma (in incredibly short time) and then remain tied to that dogma should intrigue all investors and business leaders. Mr. Lewis shows himself a great Disruptor as he wastes no time taking an axe to many dogmas, exposing them as myths, as he works his way through the sea of bad approaches he finds functional heads utilizing. Best practices, process optimization, workforce optimization, applying metrics regardless of experience or ties to goals, development methodologies and documentation practices are just a few of the dogma he successfully analyzes, finds wanting, and discards in favor of better approaches that don't find enough use. (Read the book to get the magic answers.)
I spent my own time in IT working for vendor companies, as a CIO, and for several years as a partner in the giant IT services firm Computer Sciences Corporation. Item by item I found Mr. Lewis spot-on with his assessment of most IT firms, and IT practitioners. Not that folks can't get it right – but that for the most part their assumptions about what would work are so misguided that they have no hope of success. Only by rethinking the approach can the business do better. Which, after all, is the goal of all functional groups – to improve the sales and profits of the company.
But like I said earlier, I recommend Mr. Lewis's blog, and his book, for every CEO, executive, manager or front-line employee who works with IT – so that means everyone. His ideas will help improve the performance of any organization and its functions – not just IT. And for IT folks it offers a world of insight to why things in the past were often so hard, and how they can be much better going forward. You'll gain good insight for doing better planning, using Disruptions effectively instead of following outdated practices that simply don't work, and finding White Space where you can rapidly improve the success of your organization. His recommendations make sense, and you'll find them incredibly practical for improving performance today
by Adam Hartung | Apr 14, 2009 | Books, Current Affairs, Disruptions, General, In the Rapids, Innovation, Leadership, Lifecycle
Last week I blogged about how Segway and GM were taking all the wrong steps in launching the PUMA. Today let me explain why Amazon is the mirror image – doing the launch of Kindle correctly. Kindle is the new "electronic book" from Amazon which allows people to download whole books, or parts of books, onto a very small, light and thin device where they can read the material, notate it and even convert it to audio. Even Marketwatch.com is bullish in its overview of the product "Amazon's Kindle, e-books are future of reading."
Firstly, Amazon recognized it had a Disruptive innovation and didn't pretend this was a small variation on printed material. Perhaps "over the top" a bit with the PR, Mr. Bezos called Kindle the biggest revolution in reading since Gutenberg invented the printing press. This bold claim causes people to realize that Kindle is something very different than anything prior. Which it is. Kindle is not like reading on a PC, nor is it like reading a book, nor is it like reading a magazine or newspaper (should you download those). It's different, and it requires buyers change their habits. By highlighting the uniqueness of the product Amazon doesn't undersell the fact that users really do have to change to enjoy the product.
Secondly, the product isn't being run through some high volume distribution that will struggle with the uniqueness and potentially low initial volumes. Amazon isn't trying to sell the product today at Best Buy or Wal-Mart, which would demand instant volume in the millions supported by huge ad spending. Something which would not only be expensive, but probably would not meet those retail expectations. Instead, Amazon is selling the product itself and closely monitoring volumes.
Thirdly, Amazon isn't pushing Kindle as a product for everybody. At least not yet. Amazon isn't offering Kindle for $20, losing a huge amount of money, and saying everyone needs one – which would likely lead to many people buying a Kindle, deciding its not for them, and then throwing it away to wait a very long time before a repurchase – with lots of negative comments. Instead, Amazon prices Kindle at $359 and targets the product at early users who will really benefit. Like the heavy volume book reader. This allows Amazon to build a base of initial users who will use the product and provide feedback to Amazon about how to modify the product to make it even more valuable. Amazon can cycle through the learning experience with users to adapt and develop the product for a future mass market.
Fourthly, the Kindle doesn't come with 30 options to test. It has just a few. This allows Amazon to learn what works. And add functionality in a way that tests the product. Amazon can add features, but it can also drop them.
Will Kindle be the next MP3 device. Probably. How long will it take? Probably not as long as people think. Because Amazon is introducing this innovation correctly. Publishers, authors, book readers and other application users are all learning together. And while traditional paper publishers (from books to newspapers) are waiting to see, Amazon is preparing its new products to "jump the curve" on these old publishers. It's not hard to imagine in 3 or 4 years how authors might go straight to Amazon with their writing, for publication as a Kindle-only product. This would be incredibly cheap, and open the market for many more authors (books or periodicals) than have access today. Since the cost of reading drops precipitiously (due to no paper) the pricing of these new books and periodicals may well be a few dollars, or even less than a dollar. Thus exploding the market for books the way the internet has exploded the market for short-form blog writers.
Even in a recession, people look for new solutions. But capturing those new customers takes careful understanding of how to reach them. You can't act like Segway and dump a strange new product onto users with mass distribution and a PR highlight reel. You have to recognize that Disruptive innovations take better planning. You have to find early customers who will enter White Space with you to test new products, and provide feedback so you both can learn. You have to be honest about your Disruptive approach, and use it to figure out what the big value is – not guess. And you have to be willing to take a few months (or years) to get it right before declaring your readiness for mass market techniques.
Amazon did this when it launched on-line book selling. It didn't sell all books initially, it mostly sold things not on retailers shelves. It didn't sell to everyone, just those looking for certain books. And it learned what people wanted, as well as how to supply, on its journey to Disrupt book retailling – later about all retailing – and build itself in to the model for on-line mass retail. Following that same approach is serving Amazon well, and portends very good things for Kindle's success.
by Adam Hartung | Apr 9, 2009 | Current Affairs, Defend & Extend, In the Whirlpool, Leadership, Lifecycle, Lock-in, Web/Tech
$193billion dollars. An amount that seems only viable for governments to discuss. But that is how much the value of Sun Microsystems declined in less than one decade (see chart here). At the height of its dominance as a supplier to telecom companies in the 1990s Sun was worth over $200billion. Recently IBM made an offer at just under $8billion. But Sun has rejected the IBM bid, which was more than double its recent market value, and Sun is now worth only about 60% of the bid. An amazing loss of value for a company that never paid a dividend. And the failure can be tied to a single problem.
Forbes magazine is having a field day with the leadership at Sun these days. "Sun May Be Pulling a Yahoo!" the magazine exclamed on Monday when Sun said it was turning down the IBM offer. The similarity is that both companies turned down values at above market price, but both probably won't receive offers from anyone else. The difference, however, is that Yahoo! has a chance to compete with Google, and Microsoft would have suffocated those chances. Sun, on the other hand, won't survive and the only way investors will get any value is if Sun agrees to the buyout.
Reinforcing the thinking that Sun won't make it on its own, Forbes today led with "Sun's Six Biggest Mistakes" which decries recent (last 4 years) tactical failings of the company. But in truth, Sun was destined to fail 8 years ago – as I argued clearly in my book Create Marketplace Disruption (buy a copy from my blog or at Amazon.com.) The company never overcame Lock-in to its initial Success Formula, and when its market shifted in 2000 the company went into a nosedive from which no tactical changes could save it.
Scott McNealy was the patriarch of Sun Microsystems. Son of an auto executive, he had a love for "big iron" as he called the large, robust American cars of the 50s, 60s and 70s. And when he started Sun Microsystems he imbued it with an identity for "big iron." Mr. McNealy wasn't interested in creating a software company, he wanted to sell hardware – like the days when computing was all about big mainframe machines. His might be smaller and cheaper than mainframes, but the identity of Sun was clearly tied to selling boxes that were powerful, and expensive.
Everything about the company's development linked to this identity (see the book for details). The company strategy was tied to being a leader in selling hardware systems. First powerful desktop systems but increasingly powerful network servers. Iron that would replace mainframes and extend computing power to challenge supercomputers. All tactics, from R&D to manufacturing and sales tied to this Identity. And because the products were good, and met a market need in the 80s and 90s, this Success Formula flourished and reinforced the Identity.
A lot of new products came out of Sun Microsystems. They were an early leader in RISC chips to drive faster processing. And faster memory schemes and disk array technology. These reinforced the sale of hardware systems. The company also extended the capabilities of Unix software, but of course you could only buy this enhanced system if you bought one of their computers. Sun even invented Java, a major advancement for internet applications. But then they gave away this software because it didn't reinforce the sale of their hardware. Sun felt that if everyone used Java it would generally grow internet ue, which would grow server demand, which would help them sell more server hardware – so don't even bother trying to build a software sales capability. That did not reinforce the Identity, so it wasn't part of the Success Formula. Everything leadership and the company did was focused on its core – Defending and Extending the sales of Unix Workstations and Servers. It's hedgehog concept was to be the world's best at this, and it was. Sun intended to Defend & Extend that Identity and its Success Formula at all costs.
But then the market shifted. The telecom companies over-invested in infrastructure, and their demand for Sun hardware fell dramatically. Workstations based on PC technology caught up with Sun hardware for many applications, rendering the Sun workstations overpriced. Makers of PC servers developed advancements making their servers faster, and considerably cheaper, meaning Sun servers weren't required or were overpriced for company applications. Within 2 years, the market had shifted away from needing all those Sun boxes, causing Sun sales and market value to collapse.
Sun made one mistake. It never addressed the potential for a market shift that could obsolete its Success Formula. Sun never challenged its Identity. Sun leaders never developed scenarios that envisioned solutions other than an extended Sun leadership position. They only looked at competitors they met originally (such as DEC and SGI) and when they beat those competitors leadership quit obsessing about new comers, causing them to miss the shift to lower price platforms. Although Scott McNealy was an outrageous sort of character, he created lots of disturbance in Sun without creating any Disruption. People felt the heat of his presence, but there was no tolerance for anyone who would shed light on market changes (especially after Ed Zander was installed as COO). Nobody challenged the Success Formula. Nobody in leadership was allowed to consider Sun doing something different – like selling software profitably. And thus, there was no White Space in Sun. No place to with permission to do new things, and no resources to do anything but promote "big iron."
When any company remains tied to its Identity and its Lock-in failure will eventually happen. Markets shift. Then, all the tactical efforts in the world are insufficient. It takes a new Success Formula – maybe even an entirely new identity. Like Virgin becoming an airline rather than a record company. Or Singer a defense contractor rather than a sewing machine company. Or maybe something as simple as GE becoming something besides a light bulb and electric generation company – getting into locomotives and jet engines. The one big mistake made by Sun can be made by anyone. To remain Locked-in too long and let market shifts destroy your value.
by Adam Hartung | Apr 7, 2009 | Current Affairs, Defend & Extend, General, In the Whirlpool, Innovation, Leadership, Lock-in, Science
"GM, Segway unveil Puma urban vehicle" headlines Marketwatch.com. The Puma is an enlarged Segway that can hold 2 people in a sitting position. Both companies are hoping this promotion will create excitement for the not-yet-released product, thus generating a more positive opinion of both companies and establish early demand. Unfortunately, the product isn't anything at all like the iPod and the comparison is way off the mark.
The iPod when released with the iTunes was a disruptive innovation which allowed customers to completely change how they acquired, maintained and managed their access to music. Instead of purchasing entire CDs, people could acquire one song at a time. You no longer needed special media readers, because the tunes could be heard on any MP3 device. And your access was immediate, from the download, without going to a store or waiting for physical delivery. People that had not been music collectors could become collectors far cheaper, and acquire only exactly what they wanted, and listen to the music in their own designed order, or choose random delivery. The source of music changed, the acquisition process changed, the collection management changed, the storage of a collection changed – it changed just about everything about how you acquired and interacted with music. It was not a sustaining innovation, it was disruptive, and it commercialized a movement which had already achieved high interest via Napster. The iPod/iTunes business put Apple into the lead in an industry long dominated by other companies (such as Sony) by bringing in new users and building a loyal following.
Unfortunately, increasing the size of a product that has not yet demonstrated customer efficacy, economic viability or developed a strong following and trying to sell it through an existing distribution system that has long been decried as uneconomic and displeasing to customers is not an iPod experience. And that is what this GM/Segway announcement is trying to do.
Despite all the publicity when it was first announced, the Segway has not developed a strong following. After 7 years of intense marketing, and lots of looks, Segway has sold only 60,000 units globally – a fraction of competitive product such as bicycles, motorized scooters, motorcycles and mass transit. Segway has not "jumped into the lead" in any segment of transportation. It has yet to develop a single dominant application, or a loyal group of followers. The product achieves a smattering of sales, but the vast majority of observers simply say "why?" and comment on the high price. Segway has never come close to achieving the goals of its inventor or its investors.
This product announcement gives us more of the same from Segway. It's the same product, just bigger. We are given precious little information about why someone would own one, other than it supposedly travels 35 miles on $.35 of electricity. But how fast it goes, how long to recharge, how comfortable the ride, whether it can carry anything with you, how it behaves in foul weather, why you should choose it over a Nano from Tata or another small car, or a motorscooter or motorcycle — these are all open items not addressed.
And worse, the product isn't being launched in White Space to answer these questions and build a market. Instead, the announcement says it will be sold through GM dealers. This simply ignores answering why any GM dealer would ever want to sell the thing – given its likely price point, margin, use – why would a dealer want to sell Puma/Segways instead of more expensive, capable and higher margin cars?
Great White Space projects are created by looking into the future and identifying scenarios where this project – its use – can be a BIG winner that will attract large volumes of customers. Second, it addresses competitive lock-ins and creates advantages that don't currently exist and otherwise would not exist. Thirdly, it Disrupts the marketplace as a game changer by bringing in new users that otherwise are out of the market. And fourth it has permission to try anything and everything in the market to create a new Success Formula to which the company can migrate for rapid growth.
This project does none of that. It's use is as unclear as the original Segway, and the scenario in which this would ever be anything other than a novelty for perfect weather inner-city upscale locations is totally unclear. This product captures all the current Lock-ins of the companies involved – trying to Defend & Extend one's technology base and the other's distribution system – rather than build anything new. The product appears simply to be inferior in almost all regards to competitive products, with no description of why it is a game changer to other forms of transportation. And the project is starting with most important decisions pre-announced – rather than permission to try new things. And there is absolutely no statement of how this project will be resourced or funded – by two companies that are both in terrible financial shape.
The iPod and iTunes are brands that turned around Apple. They are role models for how to use Disruptive innovation to resurrect a troubled company. It's really unfortunate to see such wonderful brand names abused by two poorly performing companies without a clue of how to manage innovation. The biggest value of this announcement is it shows just how poorly managed Segway has been – given that it's partnering with a company that is destined to be the biggest bankruptcy ever in history, and known for its inability to understand customer needs and respond effectively.
by Adam Hartung | Mar 31, 2009 | Current Affairs, Defend & Extend, Disruptions, In the Whirlpool, Leadership, Quotes
Readers of this blog know I've been very pessimistic about the future of GM for well over 2 years. And I've long extolled the need to change top management. I'm passing along some quotes from Professor Rosabeth Moss Kanter at the Harvard Business School in "Why Rick Wagoner Had to Go" at Harvard Business School publishing's web site.
"It was only a matter of time before GM's Rick Wagoner would have to go, and the board with him. I am surprised he lasted this long, a fact that also shows weakness on the board side…. In this tough economic environmnet, if you wait too long to envision and implement transformational changes you are out of the game. That holds for every industry under attack because of obsolete business models, including newspapers and big pharma…. New leaders at the top can bring a novel perspective, unburdened by the need to justify strategies of the past, and not stuck in a narrow way of thinking…. Companies finding themselves in a downward spiral need fresh views, not just redoubled efforts to do the same thing while waiting for the recession to end….. Now is the time for every company to do what GM failed to do fast enough and imaginatively enough: rethink everything. What…. takes you into the future, and what is just legacy, continued out of sentiment?"
Thanks Professor Kantor, I agree completely. GM was stuck Defending & Extending its old Success Formula, and as a result performance deteriorated to the point of failure. And it's not just GM. As the good professor points out, media companies that remain tied to newspapes have the same problem. Today the Sun Times Group, publisher of the Chicago Sun Times declared bankruptcy ("Sun Times Files for Bankruptcy" Marketwatch.com). There is no longer a major newspaper in Chicago that is not bankrupt. And this blog has covered how big pharma has stayed too long at the trough of old inventions, missing the move to biologics.
Things are bad. "All 50 states in recession for first time since the 1970s" is one of two Marketwatch.com headlines, "Global Economy to Shrink in 2009, World Bank Says." The downturn is expected to be 1.7% globally, a disaster for small and emerging economies. This is killing global trade (down 6.1%) and whipsawing countries like Russia – moving from growth last year of over 6% to a decline this year of over 4%! This is the stuff that has led to revolutions!
The only way out of this situation is for organizations to listen to the good professor, and not try to do more of the same. Markets have shifted – permanently. Management actions that are designed to weather short-term downturns, mostly by cost-cutting and conserving resources, don't work when markets shift. Instead, businesses have to develop new Success Formulas that get them out of the Whirlpool's spiral and into the Rapids of Growth. To do this requires planning based upon future senarios, not what worked before. Obsessing about competitors globally to develop new solutions. Not fearing, but rather embracing Disruptions that allow for trying new things in White Space where you have permission and resources to really develop new solutions. These 4 steps can turn around any organization – if you don't wait too long.
by Adam Hartung | Mar 30, 2009 | Current Affairs, Defend & Extend, General, In the Rapids, In the Whirlpool, Leadership, Quotes, Television
"This is the future of media. Whether in print, over the air or online — the delivery mechanism isn't as important as the unique, rich nature of the content provided." That's what the Tribune Corporation's COO, Randy Michaels, said in "Tribune Merges Conn. paper, stations" as reported on Crain's ChicagoBusiness.com. After filing bankruptcy, and seeing both newspaper subscribers and advertisers hacked away dramatically, Tribune is merging together all operations – newspaper and 2 TV stations – in Hartford, CT. They are cutting costs again.
We can hope Mr. Michaels means what he says, but excuse me if I'm doubtful. Despite the rapid acceleration of on-line news readership, and the fact that in most major markets Tribune has one or more TV stations as well as a newspaper, Tribune has never consolidated it's news operations or its advertising sales force. This is sort of remarkable. Going back at least 5 years, it made sense when gathering the news, or talking to an advertiser, to discuss how you could maximize his value for ad money spent. That meant a sharp company would have laid out programs showing how they could give advertisers access to eyeballs from all sources. But instead, at Tribune each station had its own salesforce, each newspaper, and each on-line edition of the newspaper. There was little effort to give the customer a good value for his spend – and no effort to discuss how he could transfer dollars between media to be a big winner. Even though Tribune was an early investor in the internet, it has not learned from its investment and migrated to a new Success Formula.
At a time when advertisers are unclear about how to justify their spending, a sharp media company would be explaining how many eyeballs in are in each format, the demographic profiles and the cost to reach those eyeballs. A company that really is "media independent" would have a big advantage over one trying to sell only the legacy products, because it isn't learning from the marketplace how to offer the best product at the best price and make a profit.
And Tribune had better move quickly. Arianna Huffington has announced the launch of the "Huffington Post Investigative Fund," as announced on the website HuffingtonPost.com. This is her effort to create a pool of investigative journalists for on-line sites who will do the kind of work we historically expected newspapers to do. She is throwing in $1.75million, and asking others to put up additional money. Thus giving this White Space project not only permission to figure out a "new age" model for investigative reporting, but hopefully the resources with which to experiment and learn. Whether this project will succeed or not is unclear, but that it is intended to make on-line news (and her website) more powerful and successful is clear. With each step like this, and this one she took all over the airwaves Monday discussing on multiple television stations, the case against quality of on-line news declines – and increases the on-line competition for eyeballs with television, radio and newspaper formats.
What we'd like to see is an announcement that the Tribune project in Hartford is a White Space project intended to figure out the Success Formula for future media. As we come ever closer to the "Max Headroom" world, depicted in the 1980s of a future where there is 24×7 news around all of us all the time, what no one knows for sure is how the profit model will work. Those who experiment first, and learn the fastest, will be in a strong position to be the leader.
Unfortunately, the Tribune announcement does not look like White Space. The Tribune leadership has still not Disrupted its grip on the old Success Formula. The project in Hartford looks more like a cost-saving effort, trying to defend the old newspaper, than a learning proposition. The project seems to lack the permission to do whatever is necessary to succeed (like perhaps stop printing), and it has no resources coming its way with which to experiment as it keeps trying to maintain all 3 of the legacy business units. Rather than a learning environment, this looks more like an effort to save 3 troubled businesses by cost saving - a Defend practice that doesn't work when markets shift and new competitors are trying all kinds of new things.
by Adam Hartung | Mar 29, 2009 | Current Affairs, Disruptions, General, Innovation, Leadership, Openness, Web/Tech
"Management is not a science, like physics, with immutable laws and testable theories. Instead, management, at its best, is an intelligent response to outside forces, often disruptive ones." So says Steve Lohr in " How Crisis shapes the Corporate Model" in The New York Times Saturday.
For years, many people thought of management as being all about execution. How to build plants, make things, sell those things and finance the operations of building and making stuff. In fact, whole books were written on execution, with the basis that strategy was pretty much unimportant. If you could execute well, what's the need for strategy?
But the last year has shown everyone that the world is a dynamic place. GM missed many changes, and now is barely alive. Despite a focus on execution, the CEO Rick Wagoner has been forced to step down by the administration if GM is to get more bailout money (see "GM's Wagoner Will Step Down" WSJ.com March 29) When you get behind, a "re-invention gap" emerges where the competition keeps going with the market further and further into the future, while you are left behind struggling to sell, grow and make money as you focus on execution. The longer you keep focusing on execution, the bigger the gap gets. Depending on size and competition, eventually you end up completely out of step with the market and unable to compete. Like GM.
The pressure to change with market needs is high everywhere, from banks to manufacturers to newspapers. From General Electric to Sara Lee to Sun Microsystems to The Tribune Corporation, companies that can't adapt to changes have seen their valuation hammered. And the companies we like today are those demonstrating they can adapt to market needs – like Google, Apple, RIM and Virgin. These companies are today investing in launching new products, investing in growth, rather than just trying to cut cost and execute on old business practices while waiting for the return of "better times."
Globalization is now hitting everyone. No industry, and no player in any industry, can ignore the impact of global competition in the way they compete. Today, we can wire together businesses from various service providers, with precious little investment, and reach customers quite profitably while maintaining enormous flexibility. Just ask Nike if you want to know how to "do it."
Focus, hard work, diligence – these have been the mantra for many business leaders. It makes us feel good to think that if we work hard, if we keep our eye on execution, we can succeed. But as readers of this blog have known for 4 years, those admirable qualities do not correlate to success (as academics and journalists have been pointing out when arguing with Jim Collins and his spurrious mathematical exercises). To be successful requires adaptability. You have to constantly scan the horizon for market shifts and emerging competitors that are ready to disrupt markets. And be ready to change everything you do, not just part of it, if you want to compete in the markets as they shift.
The companies, and executives, that will fail as a result of these tumultuous times has not been determined. You can keep from being one of the downtrodden if your focus remains on identifying future market needs and adapting to new competitors through White Space where you can develop new solutions. It's very possible to succeed going forward, if you're adaptive. Or you can end up like Mr. Wagoner and the management team at GM.
PS – The New York Times Company had better start reading its own material and undergo same radical adaptation of its own, or it may not survive to be a media player very soon. To steal from an old saying, it's about time that cobbler started checking his own family's shoes.
by Adam Hartung | Mar 28, 2009 | Current Affairs, In the Whirlpool, Leadership, Lifecycle, Quotes, Web/Tech, Weblogs
"If you don't read the newspaper you are uninformed. If you do read the newspaper you are misinformed." — Mark Twain
"All I know is what I read in the newspaper. That makes me the most ignorant man alive." —- Will Rogers
What both these great writers understood was that when you get most of your news from one source, you get only what that source chooses to tell you, and only a single interpretation of the news. Since newspapers began there has been controversy about bias in news reporting. Many famous newspapers were considered "conservative" or "liberal" based upon the political opinions of the owners. The reality is that when a newspaper reporter tells you a story, what you read – down to the word choices - is affected by the opinions and feelings of the author, as well as those of the editor and perhaps even the publisher.
The great breakthrough of the internet is you aren't restricted to a single (or possibly) two sources. You can find articles about anything from a political speech to an automobile accident published by 5, 10 maybe hundreds or thousands of sources. And for many news items the internet provides you not only multiple opportunities to read how the "facts" are told, but you can find multiple articles that interpret those facts. This plethora of coverage means that internet readers have the opportunity to be as selective, or as broad, as they choose. And it means that the ability of publishers to "control the direction" of a story is dramatically diminished. Readers, by looking across multiple sources, can determine as a group which "facts" they find accurate, and which "interpretation" they find most genuine. Because of the internet, news coverage is "democratized" in a way that has never before been possible.
Newspapers provided a method of informing the public for a very, very long time. But they have an internal weakness they cannot overcome – the printing means that only one version of a story is told and it can only be economically told once per day. The distribution method makes newspapers an "event" that occurs at "deadline", and the cost is high enough that there's only enough advertising to support the printing and distribution of one newspapers in most markets. When you get down to the printing – the "paper" in "newspaper" – it has limits that create a weakness.
The internet is disruptive because it overcomes the limitations of printing. It is available 24×7 not just to read, but to be updated and current with the latest information. A person anywhere can read input from multiple sources. The internet makes up-to-the-minute news coverage of everything available to people in rural, remote locations as quickly as it does those "on the scene", thus opening an interest in world or very local events to everyone on the planet, regardless of location. And this means this "no cost distribution" (not no cost of fact acquistion, or interpretation, or writing – just distribution) allows the internet to do what economist Joseph Schumpeter called "creatively destroy" the old value in newspapers.
Those who bemoan the loss of newspapers need to spend more time on the internet. There are so many sources for so much news that we are today the best informed society in the history of mankind. The financial problems at newspaper publishing have not diminished the quantity or quality of news coverage. Those are higher than ever. And the businesses that jump into this market, by developing networks to access the most/best news and interpretation at the lowest cost – while delivering it in a format that is easy for readers to find and absorb – will be successful. And it will be harder than ever for those trying to create the news (such as politicians and political pundits) to decry "bias" in a world where all opinions are available to everyone.
by Adam Hartung | Mar 26, 2009 | Current Affairs, Defend & Extend, In the Swamp, Innovation, Leadership, Quotes
Clayton Christensen is a Harvard Business School professor who first described in detail how "disruptive" innovations shift markets, allowing upstart competitors to overtake existing companies that appear invulnerable. I just found a 4 minute video clip "Clay Christensen's Advice for Jamie Dimon" at BigThink.com. In this clip the famous professor tells the story about how the big "banks" allowed themselves to be overtaken by "non-banks" – and then he offers advice on what the big banks should do (Jamie Dimon is the Chairman and CEO of J.P.MorganChase, and an HBS alumni.)
Dr. Christensen lays out succinctly how banks relied on loan officers to find good loan candidates, and make good loans. But increasingly, borrowers were classified by a computer program, not by loan officers. Once the qualification process was turned into a computer-based Q&A, anybody with money could get into the lending business – whether for credit cards, or car loans, or mortgages, or small business loans, or commercial loans. Losing control of each of these lower-end markets, the bankers had to bid up their willingness to take on more risk to remain in business while also chasing fewer and fewer high-quality borrowers. The result was greater risk being taken by banks to compete with non-banks (like GMAC, GE Credit, Discover Card, etc.) What should they do? Dr. Christensen says go buy an Indian or Chinese phone company!!!
Hand it to Dr. Christensen to make the quick and cogent case for how Lock-in by the banks got them into so much trouble. By trying to do more of the same in the face of a radically shifting market (people going to non-banks for loans and to make deposits), they found themselves taking on considerably more risk than they originally intended. Rather than finding businesses with good rates of return, they kept taking on slightly more risk in the business they knew. They favored "the devil you know" over the "the devil you don't know." In reality, they were taking on considerably more risk than if they had diversified into other businesses that were on far less shaky ground than unbacked mortgages.
This is Strategic Bias. We all like to remain "close to core" when investing resources. So we keep taking on more and more risk to remain in our "core" — and for little reason other than it's the market and business we know. Because we know the business, we convince ourselves it's not as risky as doing something else. In truth, markets determine risk – not us. Because we assess risk from our personal perspective, we keep convincing ourselves to do more of what we've done — even when the marketplace makes the risk of doing what we've done incredibly risky —- like happened to Citbank, Bank of America and a host of other banks.
And in great form, the professor offers a solution almost nobody would consider. His argument is that (1) these banks need to go where demand is great, go to new and growing markets, not old markets, and loan demand cannot be greater than in emerging markets. (2) To succeed in the future (not the past) banks have to learn to compete in emerging markets because of growth and because so many winning competitors are already there, and (3) you want to enter businesses that are growing, not what necessarily your traditional business or what you are used to doing. He points out that the traditional "banking" infrastructure is nascent in emerging markets, and well may not develop as it did in the western world. But everyone in these places has phones, so phones are becoming the tool for transactions and the handling of money. When people start doing everything on their phone (remember the rapidly escalating capabilities of phones – like the iPhone and Pre) it may well be that the "phone company" becomes more of a bank than a bank!!
Who knows if Clayton is right about the Indian phone company? But his point that you have to consider competitors you never thought about before is spot on. When markets shift they don't return to old ways. It's all about the future, and banking has changed, so don't expect it to return to old methods. Secondly, you have to be willing to Disrupt old Lock-ins about your business. If the "loaning" of money is now automated, banking becomes about transaction management – not making loans. You have to consider entirely different ways of competing, and that means Disrupting your Lock-ins so you can consider new ways of competing. Thirdly, you don't just sit and wait to see what happens. Get out there and participate! Open White Space projects in which you experiment and LEARN what works. You can't develop a new Success Formula by thinking about it, you have to DO IT in the marketplace.
Big American banks have tilted on the edge of failure. More will likely fail – although we don't yet know which the regulators will put under or keep afloat. What we can be sure of is that the market conditions that put them on the edge will not revert. To be successful in the future these organizations have to change. Probably radically so. So if they want to use the TARP money effectively, they had better take action quickly to begin experimenting in new markets with new solutions.
Gotta hand it to Professor Clayton Christensen, he's made a huge improvement in the way we think about innovation and strategy the last few years. His ideas on banking are well worth consideration by the CEOs trying to bring their shareholders, employees and customers back from brink.
by Adam Hartung | Mar 25, 2009 | Current Affairs, Disruptions, General, Innovation, Leadership, Web/Tech
Forbes Magazine reviewed the new car from Tata Motors in "Nano Lives Up To The Hype." Although we've known Tata Motors was designing and preparing this low-end car for a couple of years, most people were ignoring it. But now it's here, and according to Forbes the $2,000 car exceeds expectations. It's not a golf cart on wheels, it's "a proper car." And it's about to go on sale in India.
So the world's largest car company, General Motors, is on the edge of bankruptcy – only able to stay out via the largesse of loans from the U.S. government. Their sales are down 40%. And at the same time, from far away in a country well known for poor roads, emerges a new competitor ready to sell cars at 1/5 the price of any car sold in America – or the rest of the western world. Do you suppose the executives at GM or staying awake worrying about the Nano, or do you think they are ignoring this car altogether while trying to figure out how to sell more Chevy's?
Admittedly, the Nano comes from the fringe of competition. People don't think of manufacturing when they think of India, they think of IT. And they sure don't think of cars. Powered rickshaws maybe. And the car itself weighs only about 1,350 pounds – half what any other car weighs. It's really designed for performance up to about 40 miles per hour, and it's not a great performer on the way to reaching the top speed of 65. Although loaded with interior room, it has no back access – not even a fuel hatch. It would be very easy to ignore. It's easy to say this may be the next Yugo. But, this one seems a lot more like the original Honda Civic in 1973. Bare bones vehicle from a foreign country that's cheap, but otherwise "not up to American standards?" Or is it a bare bones car from a new competitor with a strong desire to learn, improve and eat into the share of current competitors?
Any car executive who's smart is paying a lot of attention to the Nano. Firstly, it demonstrates making a car at an unheard of price. For much of the world, this offers people their first chance at an automobile of any kind. So it brings in new users who would otherwise be left out. It's price, alone, shows that in a global economy, auto production is headed toward lower prices due to lower world-wide cost. If this vehicle is satisfactory to westerners, or can be made satisfactory over the next few years, it may never again be possible to pay American labor rates for producing automobiles. For basic transportation, American labor may be too expensive.
Additionally, the Nano went from idea to car in about 3 years. No 5 or 6 year cycle, like American car companies desire. Tata has demonstrated it can design and manufacture a car in about half the time of the existing auto companies. So the cycle time is shortened even more. And that this car can be profitable at volumes a fraction of the American production runs shows that markets need not be enormous – and old notions about tooling and other fixed costs of production may be things of the past.
Nano demonstrates why we HAVE to obsess about competitors. Including "fringe" competitors. Because these new competitors are figuring out how to do things differently. They are shooting for future markets, not past markets (like India, China, eastern Europe, South America, Africa). They are developing new Success Formulas that have different requirements, possibly obsoleting the old Success Formulas. It's so easy if you're selling books to say "no one will buy books on the web" when you see the early interface and business model for Amazon – rather than think where this new competitor will be in a couple of years. If you're selling land-line phone service it's easy to deride the quality of early cell phones, and project they will never move beyond niche users. But smart competitors know that when a new product is introduced by a fringe competitor, it's best to pay really, really close attention. You may need to be more like that competitor than you realize in a great big hurry.
