by Adam Hartung | Jun 23, 2011 | Defend & Extend, In the Swamp, In the Whirlpool, Lifecycle, Lock-in, Web/Tech
Will Cisco be like Apple and go on to continued greatness? Or will it be more like Sun Microsystems? The answer isn’t clear yet, but the negatives are looking a lot clearer than the positives.
Cisco grew like the internet – because it supplied a lot of the internet’s infrastructure. Most of those wi-fi connections, wired and wireless, were supplied by the highly talented team at Cisco. And yet today, revenues for internet routers, switches and company services for networks account for 90% of Cisco’s sales — and its non-cash value (see chart at Trefis.com.) The problem is that those markets aren’t growing like they used to, and some are shrinking, as companies are increasingly switching to common carrier services to access cloud-based services supporting corporate needs. Just like cloud-based IT architectures put risk on Microsoft PC usage, they create similar risks for private network suppliers. Even corporations, the (in)famous “enterprise” customers for Cisco, are finding they can create security and reliability by giving up proprietary networks.
The market capitalization for Cisco has plunged some 40% the last year, and over 55% since peaking in late 2007. Those who support investing in Cisco think like the SeekingAlpha.com headline “3 Reasons Why Cisco is Oversold.” They cite a huge cash hoard (some 25% of market cap) and Cisco’s dominance in its historical “core” product markets. They hope that a revived economy will create an uptick in infrastructure spending by corporations and public entities. Or big buying in emerging countries.
Detractors become vitriolic about the company’s lost valuation, blaming Chairman/CEO John Chambers in articles like the SeekingAlpha.com “Cisco, Either Chambers Goes or I Go.” Their arguments are less about product miscues, and more intensely claiming the CEO misdirected funds into bad consumer market opportunities (Flip phone,) undeveloped new projects like virtual conferencing and an overly complicated organization structure.
What Cisco really needs is more new products in growth markets. Places where demand is growing, and the company can flourish like it did in the hey-day halcyon growth days of the internet. That was why CEO Chambers implemented a market-focused organization structure – complete with multi-layered committees – in an effort to seek out growth opportunities and fund them. Only, the organization lacked the permission and resource commitment to really allow developing most new markets and was overly complex in the resource allocation process. Instead of moving rapidly to identify and develop growth, the organization stalled in endless discussions. A couple of months ago the new org was gutted in a “refocusing” effort (typical reaction: BusinessInsider.com “Cisco’s Crazy Management Structure Wasn’t Working, So Chambers is Changing It“.)
But, if the previously more open organization couldn’t find permission to identify, fund and develop new markets, how will a “more focused” organization do so? Focus isn’t going to make companies (or households) buy more switches and routers. Or buy more network consulting services. The market has shifted, so as people move to smartphones and tablets, and cloud-based apps they access over common networks, how will an organization focused on old customers and products prove more successful? While the old organization may have been problematic, is abandoning a market-focused organization going to be an improvement? Sounds like a set-up for future layoffs.
In the drive for new products Cisco bought a very successful business in the Flip camera two years ago, which according to MediaPost.com had 26% market share. But, “Flip Camera: Dream Becomes a Nightmare” details the story of how Cisco was too late. The market quickly was shifting from digital cameras to smart phones – and sales stagnated. Cisco didn’t learn much about consumer products, or smart phones or how to launch new products outside its “core” from the experience, choosing to shut the business down and withdraw the product this spring (“Cisco Kills the Flip Camera“.) Ouch!
Clearly, Flip was a financially unsuccessful venture. But that could be forgiven if Cisco learned from the experience so it could move, like Apple, toward launching something really good (like Apple did with iPods.) But we don’t hear of any organizational learning from Flip, just failure.
And that’s too bad, because Cisco’s virtual conferencing could have great promise. Most of us now hate to travel (thanks TSA and all that great airline service!) And most corporate controllers hate to pay for business travel. The trends all point toward more and more virtual conferencing. For everything from one-on-one meetings to multi-site meetings to industry conferences for learning. This is a BIG trend, that will go well beyond a simple WebEx. Someone is going to make money with this – taking Skype to an entirely new level of performance. But given how badly Cisco managed Flip, and the new “refocusing” effort, it’s hard to see how that winner will be Cisco.
Cisco’s not yet a Sun Microsystems, so locked-in to old products it cannot do anything else and unable to grow at all. It’s not yet a Dell or Microsoft that’s missed the market shifts and is trying to spend too much money, too late on weak products against well funded, fast growing and profitable competitors.
But, the signs don’t look good. There’s no discussion about what Cisco sees itself doing new and differently in 5 years. We don’t see Cisco offering leading edge products like it did 15 years ago in its old “core” market. It’s historical market is not growing like it once did, and new competitors are changing the market entirely. The layered organization was an effort to attack old sacred cows, and limit the power of old status quo police, but now the new “focused” re-organization is reversing those efforts to find new markets for growth. “Focus” rarely goes hand-in-hand with successful innovation. We cannot find an obvious group of people focusing on new markets, with permission and resources to bring out the “next big thing” that could drive a doubling of revenues by 2017.
Unlike RIMM, the game isn’t over for CSCO. It’s markets still have some longevity. But the organization has been failing at doing the kind of new things, bringing out the new innovations, that would make it a good investment. Until management shows it knows how to find new markets and launch disruptive innovations, CSCO is not a place to invest. Don’t expect a fat dividend, and don’t expect revisiting old growth rates any time soon.
There are likely to be some good, and bad quarters. Cost management, and occasional big orders, combined with manipulating the timing of revenues and costs will allow for management to say “things are all better.” But there will be miscues and problems, and blaming of competitors and weak economic conditions in the bad quarters. Defend and extend management does not work when markets shift. Sideways is not moving forward. It’s more like treading water in the ocean – not a good strategy for rescue. Overall, I wouldn’t be optimistic.
by Adam Hartung | Jan 27, 2011 | Current Affairs, Innovation, Leadership, Lock-in, Science, Web/Tech
Summary:
- The President has called for more innovation in America
- But American business management doesn’t know how to be innovative
- Business leaders focus on efficiency, not innovation
- America has no inherent advantage in innovation
- To increase innovation we need a change in incentives, to favor innovation over efficiency and traditional brick-and-mortar investments
- We need to highlight leaders that have demonstrated the ability to create jobs in the information economy, not the “old guard” just because they run big, but floundering, companies
It was good to hear the U.S. President call for more innovation in his State of the Union address this week. And it sounded like he wants most of that to come from business, rather than government. But I’m reminded the President is a lawyer and politician. As a businessman, well, let’s say he’s a bit naive. Most businesses don’t have a clue how to be innovative, as Forbes pointed out in November, 2009 in “Why the Pursuit of Innovation Usually Fails.”
Businesses by and large are not designed to be innovative. Modern management theory, going back to the days of Frederick Taylor, has been dominated by efficiency. For the last decade businesses have reacted to global competitive forces by seeking additional efficiency. Thus the offshoring movement for information technology and manufacturing eliminated millions of American jobs driving unemployment to double digits, and undermines new job creation keeping unemployment stubbornly high.
It is not surprising business leaders avoid innovation, when the august Wall Street Journal headlines on January 20 “In Race to Market, It Pays to Be Latecomer.” Citing a number of innovator failures, including automobiles, browsers and small computers, the journal concludes that it is smarter business to not innovate. Rather leaders should wait, let someone else innovate and then hope they can take the idea and make something of it down the road. Not a ringing pledge for how good management supports the innovation agenda!
The professors cited in the Journal article take a fairly common point of view. Because innovators fail, don’t be one. Lower your risk, come in later, hope you can catch the market at a future time. It’s easy to see in hindsight how innovators fail, so why take the risk? Keep your eyes on being efficient – and innovation is anything but efficient! Because most businesspeople don’t understand how to manage innovation, don’t try.
As discussed in my last blog, about Sara Lee, executives, managers and investors have come to believe that cost cutting, and striving for more efficiency, is the solution for most business problems. According to the Washington Post, “Immelt To Head New Advisory Board on Job Creation.” The President appointed the GE Chairman to this highly visible position, yet Mr. Immelt has spent most of the last decade shrinking GE, and pushing jobs offshore, rather than growing the company – especially domestically. Gone are several GE businesses created in the 1990s – including the recent spin out of NBC to Comcast. It’s ironic that the President would appoint someone who has overseen downsizings and offshoring to this position, instead of someone who has demonstrated the ability to create jobs over the last decade.
As one can easily imagine, efficiency is not the handmaiden of innovation. To the contrary, as we build organizations the desire for efficiency and “professional management” impedes innovation. According to Portfolio.com in “Can Google Be Entrepreneurial” even Google, a leading technology company with such exciting new products as Android and Chrome, has replaced its CEO Eric Schmidt with founder Larry Page in order to more effectively manage innovation. The contention is that the 55 year old professional manager Schmidt created innovation barriers. If a company as young and successful as Google struggles to innovate, one can only imagine the difficulties at traditional, aged American businesses!
While many will trumpet America’s leadership in all business categories, Forbes‘ Fred Allen is correct to challenge our thinking in “The Myth of American Superiority at Innovation.” For decades America’s “Myth of Efficiency” has pushed organizations to streamline, cutting anything that is not totally necessary to do what it historically did better, faster or cheaper. Innovation inside businesses was designed to improve existing processes, usually cutting cost and jobs, not create new markets with high growth that creates jobs and economic growth. Most executives would 10x rather see a plan to cut costs saving “hard dollars” in the supply chain, or sales and marketing, than something involving new product introduction into new markets where they have to deal with “unknowns.” Where our superiority in innovation originates, if at all, is unclear.
Lawyers are not historically known for their creativity. Hours spent studying precedent doesn’t often free the mind to “think outside the box.” Business folks have their own “precedent managers” – internal experts who set themselves up intentionally to block experimentation and innovation in the name of lowering risk, being conservative and carefully managing the core business. To innovate most organizations will be forced to “Fire the Status Quo Police” as I called for last September here in Forbes. But that isn’t easy.
America can be very innovative. Just look at the leadership America exerts in all things “social media” – from Facebook to Groupon! And look at how adroitly Apple has turned around by moving beyond its roots in personal computing to success in music (iPod and iTunes), mobile telephony and data (iPhone) and mobile computing (iPad). Netflix has used a couple of rounds of innovation to unseat old leader Blockbuster! But Apple and Netflix are still the rarities – innovators amongst the hoards of myopic organizations still focused on optimization. Look no further than the problems Microsoft – a tech company – has had balancing its desire to maintain PC domination while ineffectively attempting to market innovation.
What America needs is less bully pulpit, and more action if you really want innovation Mr. President:
- Increase tax credits for R&D
- Increase tax deductions and credits for new product launches by expanding the definition of what constitutes R&D in the tax code
- Implement penalties on offshore outsourcing to discourage the efficiency focus and the chronic push to low-cost global resources
- Lower capital gains taxes to encourage wealth creation through new business creation
- Manage the deficit by implementing VAT (value added taxes) which add cost to supply chain transactions, thus lowering the value of “efficiency” moves
- Make it much easier for foreign graduate students in America to receive their green cards so we can keep them here and quit exporting some of the brightest innovators we develop to foreign countries
- Create more tax incentives for investing in high tech – from nanotech to biotech to infotech – and quit wasting money trying to favor investments in manufacturing. Provide accelerated or double deductions for buying lab equipment, and stretch out deductions for brick-and-mortar spending. Better yet, quit spending so much on road construction and simply give credits to people who buy lab equipment and other innovation tools.
- Propose regulations on executive compensation so leaders aren’t encouraged to undertake short-term cost cutting measures merely to prop up short-term profits at the expense of long-term viability
- Quit putting “old guard” leaders who have seen their companies do poorly in highly placed positions. Reach out to those who really understand the information economy to fill such positions – like Eric Schmidt from Google, or John Chambers at Cisco Systems.
- Reform the FDA so new bio-engineered solutions do not follow regulations based on 50 year old pharma technology and instead streamline go-to-market processes for new innovations
- Quit spending so much money on border fences, DEA crack-downs on marijuana users and giant defense projects. Put the money into grants for universities and entrepreneurs to create and implement innovation.
Mr. President,, don’t expect traditional business to do what it has not done for over a decade. If you want innovation, take actions that will create innovation. American business can do it, but it will take more than asking for it. it will take a change in incentives and management.
by Adam Hartung | Dec 28, 2009 | Current Affairs, In the Rapids, Innovation, Leadership
I was intrigued when I read on the Harvard Business Review web site “Do we celebrate the wrong CEOs?” The article quickly pointed out that many of the best known CEOs – and often named as most respected – didn’t come close to making the list of the top 100 best performing CEOs. Some of those on Barron’s list of top 30 most respected that did not make the cut as best performing include Immelt of GE, Dimon of JPMorganChase, Palmesano of IBM and Tillerson of ExxonMobil. It did seem striking that often business people admire those who are at the top of organizations, regardless of their performance.
I was delighted when HBR put out the full article “The Best Performing CEOs in the World.” And it is indeed an academic exercise of great value. The authors looked at CEOs who came into their jobs either just before 2000, or during the decade, and the results they obtained for shareholders. There were 1,999 leaders who fit the timeframe. As has held true for a long time in the marketplace, the top 100 accounted for the vast majority of wealth creation – meaning if you were invested with them you captured most of the decade’s return – while the bulk of CEOs added little value and a great chunk created negative returns. (It does beg the question – why do Boards of Directors keep on CEOs who destroy shareholder value – like Barnes of Sara Lee, for example? It would seem something is demonstrably wrong when CEOs remain in their jobs, usually with multi-million dollar compensation packages, when year after year performance is so bad.)
The list of “Top 50 CEOs” is available on the HBR website. This group created 32% average gains every year! They created over $48.2B of value for investors. Comparatively, the bottom 50 had negative 20% annual returns, and lost over $18.3B. As an investor, or employee, it is much, much better to be with the top 5% than to be anywhere else on the list. However, only 5 of the top best performers were on the list of top 50 highest paid — demonstrating again that CEO pay is not really tied to performance (and perhaps at least part of the explanation for why business leaders are less admired now than the previous decade.)
Consistent among the top 50 was the ability to adapt. Especially the top 10. Steve Jobs of Apple was #1, a leader and company I’ve blogged about several times. As readers know, Apple went from a niche producer of PCs to a leader in several markets completely unrelated to PCs under Mr. Jobs leadership. His ability to keep moving his company back into the growth Rapids by rejecting “focus on the core” and instead using White Space to develop new products for growth markets has been a model well worth following. And in which to be invested.
Similarly, the leaders of Cisco, Amazon, eBay and Google have been listed here largely due to their willingness to keep moving into new markets. Cisco was profiled in my book Create Marketplace Disruption for its model of Disruption that keeps the company constantly opening White Space. Amazon went from an obscure promoter of non-inventoried books to the leader in changing how books are sold, to the premier on-line retailer of all kinds of products, to the leader in digitizing books and periodicals with its Kindle launch. eBay has to be given credit for doing much more than creating a garage sale – they are now the leader in independent retailing with eBay stores. And their growth of PayPal is on the vanguard of changing how we spend money – eliminating checks and making digital transactions commonplace. Of course Google has moved from a search engine to a leader in advertising (displacing Yahoo!) as well as offering enterprise software (such as Google Wave), cloud applications to displace the desktop applications, and emerging into the mobile data/telephony marketplace with Android. All of these company leaders were willing to Disrupt their company’s “core” in order to use White Space that kept the company constantly moving into new markets and GROWTH.
We can see the same behavior among other leaders in the top 10 not previously profiled here. Samsung has moved from a second rate radio/TV manufacturer to a leader in multiple electronics marketplaces and the premier company in rapid product development and innovation implementation. Gilead Sciences is a biopharmaceutical company that has returned almost 2,000% to investors – while the leaders of Merck and Pfizer have taken their companies the opposite direction. By taking on market challenges with new approaches Gilead has used flexibility and adaptation to dramatically outperform companies with much greater resources — but an unwillingness to overcome their Lock-ins.
Three names not on the list are worth noting. Jack Welch was a great Disruptor and advocate of White Space (again, profiled in my book). But his work was in the 1990s. His replacement (Mr. Immelt) has fared considerably more poorly – as have investors – as the rate of Disruption and White Space has fallen off a proverbial cliff. Even though much of what made GE great is still in place, the willingness to Defend & Extend, as happened in financial services, has increased under Mr. Immelt to the detriment of investors.
Bill Gates and Warren Buffett are now good friends, and also not on the list. Firstly, they created their investor fortunes in previous decades as well. But in their cases, they remained as leaders who moved into the D&E world. Microsoft has become totally Locked-in to its Gates-era Success Formula, and under Steve Ballmer the company has done nothing for investors, employees — or even customers. And Berkshire Hathaway has spent the last decade providing very little return to shareholders, despite all the great press for Mr. Buffett and his success in previous eras. Each year Mr. Buffett tells investors that what worked for him in previous years doesn’t work any more, and they should not expect previous high rates of return. And he keeps proving himself right. Until both Microsoft and Berkshire Hathaway undertake significant Disruptions and implement considerably more White Space we should not expect much for investors.
This has been a tough decade for far too many investors and employees. As we end the year, the list of television programs bemoaning how badly the decade has gone is long. Show after show laments the poor performance of the stock market, as well as employers. We end the year with official unemployment north of 10%, and unofficial unemployment some say near 20%. But what this HBR report us is that it is possible to have a good decade. We need leaders who are willing to look to the future for their planning (not the past), obsess about competitors to discover market shifts, be willing to Disrupt old Success Formulas by attacking Lock-in, and using White Space to keep the company in the growth Rapids. When businesses overcome old notions of “best practice” that keeps them trying to Defend & Extend then business performs marvelously well. It’s just too bad so few leaders and companies are willing to follow The Phoenix Principle.
by Adam Hartung | Nov 29, 2009 | Current Affairs, Disruptions, In the Rapids, Leadership, Openness, Web/Tech
Cisco is an admirable company. In the high tech world, few survive half as long as Cisco. Even fewer maintain growth and profitability. Cisco's willingness to obsolete its own products has been a stated objective which has helped the company keep on top of new technologies and products, growing to $36B. It's Disruptive when you are compelled to obsolete your own products. Most companies make the mistake of trying to sell products too long, trying to extend profitability by selling the product while winding down development. They fear launching new products which might "cannibalize" an existing product. As a result, competitors leapfrog their products and by the company admits things are obsolete it's too late – and the business is in deep trouble.
Now Cisco is working to keep growing by utilizing a Disruptive organization model. Headlined "Cisco's Extreme Ambition" has BusinessWeek overviewing the distribution of decision-making power to 48 different councils. Instead of a traditional hierarchy, the councils can make decisions about products themselves, thus shortening the decision process and the time to get new products to market or make acquisitions.
Cisco competes in at least 30 markets. Staying on the leading edge in that many businesses requires rethinking how to organize. Especially when you know it is critical to keep Disrupting your organization to bring forward new products which can keep you competitive. By distributing decision-making this organizational model overcomes traditional Lock-ins that could slow down Cisco
- Now strategy can be developed for the markets, built on multiple scenarios (perhaps even competing scenarios), overcoming monolithic strategy processes that are too confining and do too much option narrowing
- Hiring, including executives, won't require everybody look alike. Different kinds of people allows for alternative thinking and different sorts of decision processes – as well as different decisions
- The structure can form to the market needs – rather than being dictated from an insider perspective. By organizing to the market need each council is more likely to keep close to emerging needs
- Investments are made at a lower level, reducing the "big bang" investments that Lock-in organizations to monolithic technologies or products
- Internal experts don't gain too much power, which often limits the technologies and markets pursued.
Maintaining its willingness to remain Disruptive is critical to the ongoing success of Cisco. This new organization model is allowing Cisco to enter the lower margin server business, for example, which would be (and has been) escewed by a more centralized decision making. By focusing the organization on markets, Cisco can keep finding new ways to compete — and set new metrics for measuring itself market-by-market. And Cisco can more quickly and easily set up White Space projects to continue pursuing new market opportunities. All it has to do is add another council!
