by Adam Hartung | Nov 1, 2009 | Current Affairs, Defend & Extend, Leadership
Jim Collins has decided to start telling people how to manage innovation. In "How Might We Emphasize Cost Effective Evaluation Tools" at the Good.is Blog Collins lays out his prescription for managing innovation. And it's pure Collins, because he's a lot more interested in focus than results. In fact, he is more concerned that before attempting innovation companies put in place a review process to rapidly cut off funds for innovations that go awry than figuring out how to behave differently.
Jim Collins has decided to tell people how to innovate. Only his first recommendations don't sound anything like the road to innovation. His five rules are timely, efficient, focused, sharable and actionable. There's no mention of getting market input, or figuring out how to behave differently. In Collins' world if you are efficient, mindful of the clock, focused and committed to extending your past Success Formula he's sure profits will evolve.
His passion for evaluation is paramount. He loves to talk about being efficient in innovation, prototyping toward some goal that is pre-set. Being "efficient" about the exercise drives his discussion – as if markets are efficient, or understanding how to make money in a shifted future marketplace is an efficient process. And he is obsessed with being vigilant. Collins is fearful that people will waste money on their innovation exercises. Efficiency, ala Taylor and scientific management, is a dogma Collins cannot escape. He wants his followers to be efficient, pre-planned, and obsessed about making sure money is not wasted from this escapade into innovation.
Jim Collins' prescription for success is one of the biggest snake oil
sales in business history. His book sales, and speaker fees,
demonstrate what a big PR budget from an aggressive publisher can
accomplish with content that sounds like "common sense." Jim Collins'
"great" companies are anything but. Just run the list and you'll find
he loved companies like Circuit City, Fannie Mae, Wells Fargo and
Phillip Morris. Companies that failed at innovation and ended up
smaller and less profitable (or gone completely.)
Today's economy has shifted. While Collins and Hamel spent years looking backward to see what worked in the 1970s, 80s and 90s those analyses are of no value today. We aren't in an industrial economy any longer where building economies of scale or entry barriers works. Being good at something is the mantra Collins lives upon, but when the market can shift in months, weeks or days to something entirely different being good at something that's obsolete does not create high rates of return.
Collins is so afraid that companies will over-invest in something new he would rather kill an innovation than possibly spend too much. His obsession with efficiency indicates an approach that is bankrupt intellectually, and has demonstrated it cannot produce better returns. It sounds so good to be very focused, to be fearful of pouring good money after bad. But reality is that businesses regularly accomplish just that – making bad investments – by trying to defend & extend a business that is no longer competitive.
Only participating in changing markets creates high returns. No business, not even huge companies like GM, Chrysler or Sun Microsystems, can "direct" a market. There are no entry barriers in a globally connected digital economy. If companies aren't willing to abandon their BHAGs (Big Hairy Audacious Goals) in favor of creating new solutions they simply are made obsolete. Nobody's "hedgehog concept" will save them when the market shifts and previous sources of value are simply no longer valuable (just ask newspaper publishers, who never imagined that customers would move so fast to the web instead of waiting for their daily paper.)
Almost 100 years ago a little known economist named Schumpeter said that value was created by introducing new solutions. His work demonstrated that pursuing optimization led to lower rates of return, not higher. As a result, he concluded that those who are flexible to market shifts – bringing new solutions to market rapidly – end up the big winners. As we look at companies today, comparing Google, Apple, Cisco and Nike to GM, Kraft, Sara Lee and AT&T we can see that Schumpeter had it right.
The gurus of business management helped us all realize how you could make improvements via optimization. Peters told us to seek out excellence, Hamel and Prahalad encouraged us to understand our core capabilities and leverage them. Collins drummed into us that we should focus. And most recently, a New Yorker editor with no business training or experience at all, Malcolm Gladwell, has admonished us to practice, practice, practice. Yet, when we really look at performance we see that these practices make organizations more brittle, and subject to competitive attacks from those who would change the markets.
We know today that innovation leads to higher rates of return than optimization of old strategies. But few recognize that innovation must be tied to market inputs. We build organizations that are designed to execute what we did last year – not move toward what is needed next year. This can be changed. But first, we have to eliminate the innovation killers — and that includes Jim Collins.
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 24, 2009 | Current Affairs, Defend & Extend, In the Swamp, In the Whirlpool, Leadership, Weblogs
"Senator proposes nonprofit status for newspapers" was the headline at Marketwatch.com today. Senator Benjami Cardin, a democrate from Maryland, has proposed allowing newspapers to convert to 501(c)(3) status so their subscription and advertising revenue woujld be tax exempt, while contributions to run the papers would be tax deductible. This would allow some newspapers to stay afloat.
Let me share with you a response I received from a fellow reader of this blog:
"I watched Chris Mathews and had the same feeling. As they spoke I had visions of chiefs of Bethlehem, U.S. Steel, etc. sitting around a table in the 60s going 'continuous casting, those Japanese, that's not going anywhere.'
How can they say investigative reporting is going to be dead – there are a million reporters out there working for passion and curiosity. As a matter of fact, if I was going to be paid for a year to chase a story, seems to me a strong incentive to create a story when there really wasn't one.
I loved the way they were holding the paper and saying how people will miss the periphery articles. People will be limited to their feeds and be exposed to the rest of what's going on. I look at it as if I read an article in a newspaper that is just one take of the situation. With the internet I can drill down to get additional information and opinions. Plus get immediate commentary from experts."
Lots of people are getting "subsidy happy" these days. Money to banks, money to car companies, money to newspapers. What we must realize is that these short-term subsidies should be targeted at stopping a worse calamity. Nothing more. Sort of trading off company subsidies against even higher costs for unemployment, uninsured health care, and the costs of letting companies fail short-term. The reality is that none of these subsidized companies are sustainable as they are. The market has shifted, and their Success Formulas no longer produce positive results. They will burn up the subsidy money, as we've already seen happen at GM, and soon ask for more.
When markets shift, new competitors emerge to thrive. Provided we don't get in their way by propping up bad competitors too long with subsidies. In banking, we saw the unregulated institutions on a global scale start doing all sorts of financial services. While some of these are reverting back to regulated banks in the U.S. today so they can receive subsidies, globally we have seen the emergence of immense banks that are outside U.S. regulation. These institutions can borrow and lend globally, and are creating a new approach to financial services. We can't prop up an uncompetitive Citigroup against giant global banks making profits offshore. Likewise, globalization of manufacturing now means that good, low cost cars can be produced in Korea, China and India – making rates of return on higher cost labor in the USA, Germany and Japan harder to obtain. Additionally, many of these offshore competitors (in particular Japanese and Korean) have demonstrated they can deliver proifts on far lower volumes, thus requiring faster launch cycles and more niche products to succeed. GM lacks the manufacturing cost structure (in short-term line costs as well as labor) and the new product introduction processes to survive against these competitors. In newspapers consolidating the reporting into a daily made sense when you needed vast and costly infrastructure to print and deliver the news – no longer requirements in a web-enabled news marketplace.
Economists can make strong arguments for subsidies to help short-term dislocations. Such as helping companies in New Orleans to get back up and running due to a hurricane. That is a short-term problem not related to a market shift. But arguments for subsidies offered during market shifts are strictly "public policy" efforts trading off one policy cost for another. They cannot "save" a business. The company and its employees must use the subsidy to change their Success Formula as fast as possible, so they can compete with some product in some market where they can grow — without need for a subsidy
TARP and its other stimulus products are intended to keep some air in some parts of the boat so it doesn't sink entirely. But they aren't fixing the ship. That requires new competitors emerge that are attuned to current market needs, and have Success Formulas that produce profits based upon future markets. As the economist Schumpeter said 70 years ago, we rely upon these new entrepreneurs to give us the creative new solutions that create growth in the wake of the destruction of old businesses unable to keep up with shifting markets. Let's hope we don't spend all our money trying to keep the old battleship afloat, because we'll need some to help the newer, faster, more agile competitors grow with solutions that meet current and future needs.
