by Adam Hartung | Apr 13, 2010 | Defend & Extend, In the Swamp, Leadership, Lock-in, Music, Web/Tech
"Microsoft's Dismal Future" is the title of my most recent column on Forbes.com. In it I compare Microsoft with such formerly great, but now struggling, companies as Xerox and Kodak. Looking at all the Lock-in at Microsoft, Balmer's complete unwillingness to Disrupt traditional Lock-ins, and the total lack of White Space for new market projects – Microsoft is a very likely candidate to follow Silicon Graphics. Sun Microsystems, DEC and a host of other formerly great technology companies into the history books. And it could well happen in less than a decade. Don't forget, in 2000 Sun was worth $200billion – and now the company no longer exists!
If I gave you $1,000 and told you keeping it required you invest it all in Microsoft or Apple, which would you pick? For followers of this blog, there can be only one answer – it has to be Apple. While Microsoft has a great past, it has not been using White Space to exploit technology developments in new markets. All go-to-market projects have been around Defending & Extending the traditional PC market. With products like Vista, OS 7 and now Office 10. But reality is that all of us are using PCs a lot less these days. Increasingly we use smart mobile devices to get out work done – eschewing even the laptop – much less the desktop machine. Increasingly we are happy with PDF files and HTML text – not needing elaborate Excel Spreadsheets, or Word documents or flashy Powerpoint files.
Meanwhile Apple is a major participant in the new markets being developed! It's iPhone is a leader in smartphones, where its mere 5% market share has allowed the company to sell 2 billion downloaded applications in the first 18 months! And although digital music is becoming the norm as CDs disappear, iTunes maintains a very healthy 70% market share of digital music downloads. And Apple is moving forward into digital publishing with the iPad launch, as well as hundreds of new applications for low-cost but highly functional tablets (a market Microsoft pioneered but exited.)
Many people invest by looking in the rear view mirror. But Microsoft increasingly looks like a "has been" story. Looking out the windshield, it's hard to place Microsoft on the future horizon. Give the Forbes article a read and let me know what you think!
by Adam Hartung | Apr 5, 2010 | Books, Current Affairs, Defend & Extend, In the Swamp, Lifecycle, Weblogs
Do you read more today, or less than you did 10 years ago? For most of us, the answer is more. Our ever present access to email and texting means we watch less TV, and pick up more from reading. Of course, we read a lot less paper than we used to – books are falling more out of favor every year – and the plight of newspapers and magazines is rocky. For traditional book publishers like Random House, Pearson, et.al. as well as periodical publishers like Tribune Corporation or News Corp. there is a lot of concern about survivability. But it's not because we're reading less. It's because the market has shifted, and people are reading differently.
What should a publisher focus upon? Words. Content. A recent Harvard Business School web discussion "HBS Cases: iPads, Kindles, and the Close of a chapter in Book Publishing" highlights that the role of a publisher is to find really good stuff that people want to read. The author, former CEO of Random House, points out that a publisher's job is to edit content into the format which makes it easiest to understand and digest. A good publisher aids us in our seeking knowledge, or enjoyment. But most publishers have completely lost sight of that goal, instead focusing on printing. Books, magazines and newspapers. Keep the presses busy, and the old supply chain filled.
In the business lifecycle we start with the Wellspring of ideas. When something catches hold, we enter the Rapids of growth. That's great, because growth is a fun place to be. But when markets start shifting then things go flat. We think slowness is our fault, so we work harder at what we've always done – but the cause is a market shift so the hard work makes little difference. We drift into the Swamp, where we are so overwhelmed with all the problems from no to negative growth that we forget what our original purpose was (we get so busy fighting alligators and killing mosquitoes that we forget the mission was to drain the swamp!) Eventually resources are depleted and we slide into the Whirlpool of failure.
Publishers are now in the Swamp. Cutting costs, focusing on "big deals" (like bidding wars to publish a book by a celebrity like Sarah Palin), and spending all kinds of time dealing with the supply chain. As the HBS article explains, while iPad and Kindle represent an opportunity for incremental growth – and new revenue – by feeding people content when they want it where they want it and how they want it – the publishers are in a pitched battle to slow electronic publishing. The publishers are trying to Defend & Extend their old process of printing, and distributing, paper. They want to defend their old Success Formula. And in doing so, they've completely lost sight of the opportunity digital publishing offers!
A paper published on the University of Missouri web site "What Happens When Newspapers Cut Back on Marketing Investments? An Empirical Analysis" is extremely enlightening. With ad spending down, in an effort to "save" the business, they are cutting editorial. Yet, this is creating a vicious cycle of decline (a Whirlpool is emerging.)
- Newsroom cuts are the most costly on revenue. More than cutting sales or distribution, cutting content led to the greatest loss. Duh! Of course. Readers are there for content – not for ads or distribution! Talk about forgetting your purpose.
- The bigger the cuts, the impact on revenues gets progressively worse! Remember what I said about creating a whirlpool? When you cut what people want, you hasten demise.
- Newsroom cuts are most costly on profit. Not only does revenue decline, but of all cost cuts the content cutting not only takes away readers – but quickly advertisers as well. Advertisers depend on content to draw people to their ads. Otherwise all you have is an ad tabloid – remember?
My book publisher is Pearson. Eighteen months ago I proposed that we take Create Marketplace Disruption and turn it into 16 short stand-alone mini-books. People could then buy just part of the book, as it suits their needs. Sell these for $1 or $2 each strictly as electronic downloads. That idea flew about as far as the famed dodo. Financial Times Press sells books I was reminded. No interest in this other wacky idea I proposed.
But I'm confident that for most of you, the idea of nice short readings – like say a blog – is a lot more appealing than digesting a 225 page book. People don't want less words, they just want things differently. That's why I do public speaking and workshops – because many of us don't want all the detail of the book and appreciate receiving the content in another format.
So, do you know what direction your market is headed? Are you moving forward to meet emerging needs and preferences? Or are you trying to defend & extend the way you've historically done business? For most publishers, the current direction spells disaster – failure. Learn from their mistakes, Disrupt your approach and find some White Space to learn how you can make money and grow!
by Adam Hartung | Mar 17, 2010 | Defend & Extend, In the Rapids, In the Swamp, Leadership, Lifecycle
You've probably read that 80% of new jobs are created in small business. Even if this is true, it creates a misconception. You'd think that we need to start lots of new companies. As BusinessWeek reported in "Looking for More High Growth Start-ups" 40% of new jobs are created by a mere 1% of start-ups. The really fast growers.
We like to think that all companies contribute job growth to the economy. But that is simply not true. In reality, the vast majority of businesses contribute no new jobs. In fact, they are reducing employment. Almost all of the job growth, in fact almost all of the economic growth, comes from a very small number of companies that account for almost all the real growth. These are the 10% of companies that are in the Rapids. All others are either looking for early growth, or trying to "hang on" to an outdated Success Formula and seeing their business slowly (or not so slowly) erode.
Most small businesses are in the Wellspring. Looking for some kind of growth. Most of these – literally 90% – never really figure out a Success Formula that drives growth, and they simply die off. The other big group of businesses are somewhere in the Flats or Swamp. Growth has left them, as market shifts have taken demand to other competitors. They are facing a Re-Invention Gap between what they do and what most customers really want. As a result, they produce no inflation-adjusted revenue growth, and no new jobs. Eventually, as the re-invention gap grows, they drift into the Swamp of declining returns. Eventually they become obsolete. Think about independent pharmacies, most insurance agents, small banks, bicycle shops – you get the idea.
So where do we get new jobs? From the companies that are in the Rapids. Think about the skkyrocketing employment at places like Boeing and airlines when aviation was a growth industry in the 1960s through the 1980s. And the growth in computer and IT jobs in the 1990s. Those businesses that participatd in the Rapids are participating in market shifts, and they are creating new revenues and jobs.
Today a good example is Google. While traditional companies are lamenting "a bad economy" Google is participating in the market shift, and thus creating revenue growth and new jobs. At PoynterOnline.com, in "Google Team Offers Lessons in Innovation, Project Management", we can read how the GMail team discussed at the recent South by Southwest Conference their approach to remaining in the Rapids. While other organizations are frozen in place, trying to Defend what they've always done, and thereby falling into the Swamp, Google keeps pushing forward with new solutions that help customers do new things — and thus create additional growth.
Apple, Amazon and Cisco are additional examples of organizations that are using Disruptions and White Space to keep their companies participating in market shifts. As a result, they've kept growing in 2008, 2009 and into 2010. They don't blame the economy, they keep innovating and taking new solutions to market. Thus they grow. Those companies that are blaming the economy are simply spending too much time trying to Defend & Extend their old Success Formula, and drifting into obsolescence.
Even big, entrenched companies can grow. The Wall Street Journal recently interviewed the CEO of Austalia's phone company, Telstra, in "If You Don't Deliver Numbers You Aren't Doing Your Job." He points out that as CEO his most important role is to keep the company growing. He could easily have gotten stuck thinking of his business as a traditional, land-line telco. But his role is to balance the management of an old Success Formula with implementing White Space which can evolve his company forward into a post-modern communications company with new technologies and new solutions. As a result, what could be thought of as a bureaucratic monopoly is much more successful, growing through its participation in market shifts.
Alternatively, we have AT&T, and its former leader Mr. Whitacre now ensconced at General Motors. The original AT&T almost went bankrupt before being acquired by what was Southwestern Bell – then renamed to AT&T. AT&T kept losing jobs by the tens of thousands – as did the regional Bell Companies. Mr. Whitacre, with his "caretaker" approach to the old Success Formula, simply kept buying up old pieces of the original AT&T and laying off more people. Today AT&T is a shell of what it was in the early 1980s when split apart. It is not an aggressive part of the market shift, nor is it growing like Telstra.
And Mr. Whitacre is now at GM. Another company that is deeply mired in the Swamp – and very unlikely to avoid the Whirlpool. GM is not leading in any market shifts, and as a result its sales are not growing – nor is its employment. Lacking participation in growing markets, GM will continue shedding revenues and jobs as it marches toward obsolescence.
Myths about lifecycles abound. The biggest is that if you stick to your core, you will keep growing. Somehow you will jump from one new product line to the next, and maintain growth. But it just doesn't happen. Focusing on your core causes you to drop out of growth as market shifts make you irrelevant – like Wang, Lanier, Digital Equipment, Silicon Graphics and Sun Microsystems. Growth slows, employment shrinks. To succeed you have to continuously participate in market shifts, to keep yourself in the Growth Rapids. And for our economy, we desperately need more leaders to refocus on creating Disruptions and White Space to grow – like Google – if we are to get the U.S. economy growing again.
by Adam Hartung | Mar 11, 2010 | Current Affairs, Defend & Extend, In the Swamp, In the Whirlpool, Leadership
I don't know the source of the phrase, but since a young boy I've heard "Nero fiddled while Rome burned." The phrase was used to describe a leader who was so out of touch he was unable to do the necessary things to save his city and the people in it. Lately, it seems like General Motors is ancient Rome.
"General Motors to launch the 'un-Dealership" is the Mediapost.com headline. Trying to leverage auto shows, GM is going to open minimally-branded brick-and-mortar locations in 3 or 4 cities where customers can test drive Chevrolet and other cars. The idea is that with less pressure from salespeople, customers will come use the internet cafe and hang out while occasionally test driving a car. Then they'll be fired up to go buy a GM product.
If that isn't fiddling…… well…… When will leaders admit GM is in seriously dire trouble? The company has lopped off complete product lines (Saturn, Hummer, Saab and Pontiac) and whacked away large numbers of dealers. Their cars are uninteresting, and losing market share to domestic (Ford) and foreign manufacturers. Design cycles are too long, products do not meet customer needs and competitors are zeroing in on GM customers. Product sales, and even dealerships, are being propped up using government subsidies. The best news in the GM business has been all the troubles Toyota is having.
During this malaise, the new GM Board agreed to appoint Ed Whitacre as the permanent CEO (see ABCnews.com article "GM Chairman Ed Whitacre Named Permanent CEO.") Great, just what GM needed. Another 70 year old white male as CEO who developed his business experience in the monopoly of the phone industry. Who's primary claim to fame was that after Judge Green tore AT&T apart to create competition he was able to put it back together – only after the marketplace for land-line phones had begun declining and without growth businesses like mobile data.
As the ABC article notes, Mr. Whitacre sees his role running GM as "a public service… I think this company is good for America. I think America needs this." Just the kind of enthusiasm we all like to hear from a turnaround CEO.
GM needs to get aggressive about change if it is going to survive in a flat auto business with global competitors. The company has no clear view of how it will be part of a different future, nor any keen insight to competitors. It is floundering to manage its historical products and distribution, with no insight as to how it will outmaneuver tough companies like Honda, Kia and Tata. It has not attacked its outdated product line, nor its design cycle, nor its approach to manufacturing. It has very little R&D, and is behind practically all competitors with innovations. A caretaker is NOT what GM needs.
I blogged months ago that GM needed a leader who was ready to change the company. Ready to adopt scenario planning, competitor obsession, Disruptions and White Space to drive industry change and give GM a fighting chance at competing in the future. It's going to take a lot more than 4 test drive centers with internet access and latte machines to make GM competitive. But given what the new Board did, putting Mr. Whitacre in the CEO role, the odds are between slim and none the right things will happen.
To survive you have to BEAT the competition. Read more about "The 10 ways to Beat the Competition" at BusinessInsider.com
by Adam Hartung | Mar 9, 2010 | Defend & Extend, In the Swamp, Leadership, Lifecycle, Lock-in
One of the worst impacts of Defend & Extend Management is the placement of a bullseye on your business. Take for example Microsoft. When everyone knows what software Microsoft is going to release, they start targeting it for hacking and otherwise spoiling. Likewise, competitors can predict Microsoft's moves and launch products that compete alternatively – such as Firefox and recently Chrome have done in Browsers. And has cloud computing using mobile devices. As leaders take actions to Defend & Extend the Success Formula the business becomes predictable, and much easier to attack.
And that's now a big problem for WalMart. Advertising Age is now discussing this problem at the world's largest retailer in "Stuck-in-middle Walmart Starts to Lose Share." As WalMart kept promoting, over and over and over, its message of "low price" (how many "rollback" ads did you see on television with images of falling price signs?) a single position was drummed home.
But while WalMart did this, smaller and more nimble competitors like Dollar General have actually been able to undercut WalMart on price – sucking away customers. Additionally, changes to improve margins in WalMart stores, and some redesigned stores, have caused prices to go up at WalMart making the company no longer the price leader! In several categories Target has beaten WalMart in professional pricing surveys! What happens when WalMart, with its concrete floors, limited merchandise and lowly paid employees is no longer the price leader?
Unfortunately, not everybody wants low price – especially all the time. And smart competitors like Target have been figuring out how to beat WalMart on specific items, while also offering a better shopping experience. While WalMart keeps trying to cut prices on the backs of vendors, thus not being the favorite customer of most, Target and others have been smarter about making deals which offered more win/win opportunities. They took specific aim at weaknesses in WalMart's strategy, and are now ruining WalMart's day by beating WalMart selectively while simultaneously offering more! WalMart made it possible by signaling its strategy and tactics so clearly. A result of Defend & Extend management.
WalMart would like to move away from being strictly low price. As the article details, the company has implemented a "project impact" intended to upgrade stores and make them more merchandise and experience competitive. However, this has raised prices and confused shoppers. If WalMart isn't "low price" what is it? Again, when management is all about Defend & Extend then customers aren't able to understand behavior that is different from doing more of what was always done.
WalMart's move to upgrade stores is laudable. But the company cannot implement a change through the traditional store operations. Phoenix Principle companies know that good new ideas cannot survive as part of the existing D&E business. Confused customers, unhappy and confused management and conflicts with historical metrics (like pricing and margin metrics) simply makes the new idea "out of step" with the Success Formula. And as Lock-ins (like "we are low price") are violated discomfort leads to resentment and a desire to get back to old ways of doing business. People start asking for a "return to the core of what made us great." For these reasons, "project impact" is not succeeding and has no real chance of succeeding.
WalMart is in trouble. It's growth has slowed as competitors are figuring out other ways to compete. Ways WalMart cannot follow. Competitors are picking apart the WalMart strategy, and siphoning off revenue and profit. Walmart is stuck in the Swamp, with no idea how to regain growth because the old approach has rapidly diminishing returns and the new approach is not viable in the organization.
To succeed, WalMart needs to apply The Phoenix Principle to "project impact." It must first develop its future scenario, and start spreading that message throughout WalMart and analysts. Otherwise, confusion will remain dominant. Secondly, WalMart must be honest with employees, customers, vendors and analysts about changing competition and how WalMart must change to remain competitive. It must talk less about WalMart and more about competitors and market shifts. Thirdly, WalMart has to be willing to Disrupt itself. Instead of all the incessant "rah rah" about the great "WalMart way" of doing things top management has to start saying that it is going to attack some lock-ins. It is going to force some changes. Then, "project impact" needs to be implemented in White Space. It needs to report outside the existing WalMart operations, have its own buyers, merchandisers, employees (maybe even allowing a union!). It needs permission to violate old Lock-ins in order to develop a new Success Formula, and the resources committed to really do the implementation – including testing and changing.
WalMart is Locked-in and its Defend & Extend Management approach is not good news for investors, vendors or employees. We can see that competitors, from on-line to the traditional Target, are taking shots at the bullseye Walmart has so proudly worn. Market shifts are happening. But WalMart is not establishing White Space to develop a new solution, and as a result the leadership is confusing everybody about "What is WalMart"? The company doesn't need to go back to its old ways – instead it really needs to apply The Phoenix Principle. But so far, D&E Management seems to be leading.
by Adam Hartung | Mar 8, 2010 | Defend & Extend, In the Rapids, In the Swamp, Leadership, Web/Tech
Two tech giants are Microsoft and Google. The former has been around for over 30 years. The latter about a decade. Which is the company you should work for, or invest in? The one that has demonstrated a long history and great record of earnings, or the newer one participating in new markets still not well understood with a slew of new – but largely unproven – products? You might think the older one is less risky, and feel more comfortable backing.
But we know that Microsoft is losing market share, especially in growing markets. Although its products have been dominant, the market for those products (personal computers used as servers, desktop machines and laptops) has seen substantial slowing. New solutions are emerging that compete directly with Microsoft (new operating systems like Linux and others) and compete indirectly (cloud computing and thin applications on mobile devices.)
Source: Silicon Alley Insider
In just 18 months Microsoft Internet Explorer has lost 13 market share points – dropping from 68% of the market to 55%. Almost all of that has gone to Safari (Macintosh) and Google Chrome. Chrome has risen from nothing to 7% of the market. And since internet usage is growing, while desktop usage is shrinking, this is the "leading edge" of the market.
Also, the Chrome operating system will be launching later in 2010. It also will go directly after the "Windows" franchise which had a very unexciting launch of System 7 in 2009.
Let's look at valuation: First Microsoft – which has gone basically sideways. Huge peak to trough, but overall not much gain for investors despite launching two major upgrades during the period (Vista and System 7 as well as Office 2007). Obviously, upgrade products have produced very little growth for Microsoft, or its valuation.
Now we can look at Google. Google investors have doubled their money, while employment has grown. All those new products have helped Google to grow, and investors have an optimistic view of future growth.
Do you make decisions looking in the rear view mirror, or out the windshield? It can be tempting to be influenced by a great past. But that really isn't relevant. What's important is the future. And we can see that Microsoft, which keeps trying to Defend & Extend what it knows is rapidly falling behind the market changer, Google, which is rapidly moving toward where markets are heading.
D&E Management never creates growth. By trying to recapture the past, new market moves are missed and growth opportunities lost. Companies have to move forward, with new products, into new markets. And if you have any doubt, just compare the results of Defend & Extend Management at Microsoft the last 5 years with Phoenix Principle management using White Space at Google.
by Adam Hartung | Feb 16, 2010 | Current Affairs, Defend & Extend, In the Swamp, In the Whirlpool, Leadership
About 30 years ago Roberta Flack hit the top of the record charts (remember records anybody?) with "Killing Me Softly" – a love song. Today we have 2 examples of CEO's softly killing their shareholders, employees and investors. Definitely NOT a love song.
Sears has continued its slide, which began the day Chairman Lampert acquired the company and merged it with KMart. I blogged this was a bad idea day of announcement. Although there was much fanfare at the beginning, since day 1 Mr. Lampert has pursued an effort to Defend & Extend the outdated Sears Success Formula. And simultaneously Defend & Extend his outdated personal Success Formula based on leveraged financing and cost cutting. The result has been a dramatic reduction in Sears stores, a huge headcount reduction, lower sales per store, less merchandise available, fewer customers, empty parking lots, acres of unused real estate and horrible profits. Nothing good has happened. Nobody, not customers, suppliers or investors, have benefited from this strategy. Sears is almost irrelevant in the retail scene, a zombie most analysts are waiting to expire.
Today Crain's Chicago Business reported "Sears to Offer Diehard Power Accessories for Sale at Other Retailers." Sears results are so bad that Mr. Lampert has decided to try pushing these batteries, charges, etc. through another channel. At this late stage, all this will do is offer a few incremental initial sales – but reduce the appeal of Sears as a retailer – and eventually diminish the brand as its wide availability makes it compete head-to-head with much stronger auto battery brands like Energizer, Duralast, Optima and the heavily advertised Interstate. Sears has attempted to "milk" the Diehard brand for cash for many years, and placed in retail stores head-to-head with these other products it won't be long before Sears learns that its competitive position is weak as sales decline.
Mr. Lampert needed to "fix" Sears – not try to cut costs and drain it of cash. He needed to rebuild Sears as a viable competitor by rethinking its market position, obsessing about competitors and using Disruptions to figure out how Sears could compete with the likes of WalMart, Target, Kohl's, Home Depot, JC Penneys and other strong retailers. Now, his effort to further "milk" Diehard will quickly kill it – and make Sears an even less viable competitor.
Simultaneously, Chairperson Barnes at Sara Lee has likewise been destroying shareholder value, employee careers and supplier growth goals since taking over. During her tenure Sara Lee has sold buisinesses, cut headcount, killed almost all R&D and new product development, sold real estate and otherwise squandered away the company assets. Sara Lee is now smaller, but nobody – other than perhaps herself – has benefited from her extremely poor leadership.
As this business failure continues advancing, Crain's Chicago Business reports "Sara Lee to Spend $3B on Stock Buyback." In 2009 Sara Lee announced it was continuing the dismantling of the company by selling its body-care business to
Unilever and its air-freshener products and assets to Procter & Gamble Co. for approximately $2.2 billion. As an investor you'd like to hear all that money was being reinvested in a high growth business that would earn a significant rate of return while adding to the top line for another decade. As a supplier you'd like to hear this money would strengthen the financials, and help Sara Lee to invest in new products for growth that you could support. As an employee you'd like this money to go into new projects for revenue growth that could help your personal growth and career advancement.
But, instead, Ms. Barnes will use this money to buy company stock. This does nothing but put a short-term prop under a falling valuation. Like bamboo poles holding up a badly damaged brick wall. As investors flee, because there is no growth, low rates of return and no indication of a viable future, the money will be spent to prop up the price by buying shares from these very intelligent owner escapees. After a couple of years the money will be gone, Sara Lee will be smaller, and the shares will fall to their fair market value – no longer propped up by this corporate subsidy. The only possible winner from this will be Sara Lee executives, like Ms. Barnes, who probably have incentive compensation tied to stock price — rather than something worthwhile like organic revenue growth.
Both of these very highly paid CEOs are simply killing their business. Softly and quietly, as if they are doing something intelligent. Just because they are in powerful positions does not make them right. To the contrary, this is an abuse of their positions as they squander assets, and harm the suburban Chicago communities where they are headquartered. That their Boards of Directors are approving these decisions just goes to show how ineffective Boards are at looking out for the interests of shareholders, employees and suppliers – as they ratify the decisions of their friendly Chairperson/CEOs who put them in their Board positions. The Boards of Sears and Sara Lee are demonstrating all the governance skill of the Boards at Circuit City and GM.
It's too bad. Both companies could be viable competitors. But not as long as the leadership tries to Defend & Extend outdated Success Formulas unable to produce satisfactory rates of return. Lacking serious Disruption and White Space, these two publicly traded companies remain on the road to failure.
by Adam Hartung | Feb 9, 2010 | Defend & Extend, In the Swamp, Innovation, Leadership, Lock-in, Web/Tech
Sustaining growth is really hard. Consulting firm Bain & Company just published the statistic that only 12% of companies were able to grow revenues and profits more than 5.5% from 1998 to 2008 (read more in the Harvard Business Review downloadable book excerpt Profit from the Core.) Given that all companies want to grow, it seems remarkable so many stall.
But while most managers blame lack of growth on the economy, truth is we can learn a lot from those who DID sustain growth. What doesn't work, and what does, can be found by starting with a great OpEd column about Microsoft published in The New York Times "Microsoft's Creative Destruction." Former Microsoft Vice President Dick Brass provides insight to why Microsoft has become a market laggard in new products – despite enormous revenues, profits and new product development spending. Calling Microsoft "a clumsy, uncompetitive innovator," he says products are "lampooned" and the company is "failing." Harsh words.
He points out that profits are almost entirely from legacy products Windows and Office. "Microsoft has lost share in Web browsers, high-end laptops and smartphones. Despite billions in investment, its Xbox line is still at best an equal contender in the game console business." He explains how internal managers set up false hurdles, often claiming quality was the primary issue, for ClearType and a tablet PC. He claims the internal executives "sabotaged" new projects and he blames inability to meet market needs on "internecine warfare."
But all of that could be said about Apple as well. It once was just like Microsoft. In the 1990s Apple stopped everything but new Macs from making it to market. Remember that the first PDA (personal digital assistant) was Apole's Newton? Killing that product became a priority for several Apple executives, and caused the ouster of then CEO John Scully
So the Microsoft described behaviors can happen anyplace. When organizations begin to focus on Defending & Extending their "core" business it leads to hurdles and growth stalls. "Operational improvements" leads to "focusing" on doing what the business always did, perhaps just a touch better (like a next generation operating system [Vista], or a new variation on Office [2007].) The culture, decision-making processes and operating cost model all are geared to doing more of the same. Without intending any downside, in fact in pursuit of improved competitiveness in the "core" products, the business begins erecting hurdles to doing anything new, or different.
This problem isn't limited to Microsoft Although we can clearly see the impact and feel pessimistic about Microsoft's future. It has afflicted many companies, and is why they cannot adjust to market shifts. Even if loaded with executives and enormous budgets for R&D, technology or marketing. Don't forget how Apple looked even worse than Microsoft in 2000.
And that's why so few companies maintain growth. The desire to do more, better, faster, cheaper of what we've always done is overwhelming. Defending & Extending the existing business always looks marginally better, and marginally less risky, than doing something new, or different. In trying to maintain growth by getting better at what you've always done – you kill it.
Why? Because Defend & Extend management does not take account of market shifts. New products, new competitors, new technologies, new business models, new customer approaches — the list is endless of variations which competitors bring to the marketplace. And these variations change the market. Trying to stay on the same course becomes suicide when customers begin moving on.
And that's where Apple has excelled. When Steve Jobs took over he quit trying to Defend & Extend the Mac platform. To the contrary, he reduced the number of Mac models. Instead of planning based on old market share and sales, he pushed a rigorous scenario planning exercise to create a robust view of future markets – and what needs customers would like solved. He then led Apple to study competitors, both in-kind and on the fringe, to identify new markets being developed and new solutions being tested. He then Disrupted Apple – by cutting the Mac platforms and investing heavily in other market opportunities like music (iPod and iTunes). And he encouraged product managers to rush new products to market in order to obtain market feedback, using White Space teams to rapidly learn what would sell. And he repeated this again and again, agreeing to a joint development project with Motorola before entering into mobile phone testing and launch (iPhone.)
Microsoft's proclivity toward D&E management is putting its future at grave risk. All signs are it will become another fateful, negative statistic. But it doesn't have to be that way. Microsoft can learn a lesson from its resurrected competitor and follow The Phoenix Principle. It can escape from xBox, and other new product, second-tier status if it will get a lot more robust about scenario planning, quit acting like the only game in town and start obsessing about competition. Disrupt its culture and decision making, and start using White Space to rapidly get new products in the market and learn how to match them with market needs to succeed!
by Adam Hartung | Jan 15, 2010 | Disruptions, eBooks, In the Swamp, Innovation, Leadership, Lock-in
Many people think the best way to grow is by setting big goals – even Big Audacious Hairy Goals (BHAGs). But increasingly we're learning that goal setting is not correlated with success. At AmericanPublicRadio.org there's a partial text, and MP3 download, of a recent interview between General Motors leaders and a University of Arizona Professor titled "It's not always good to create goals."
The story relates how about a decade a go, with market share hovering at 25%, GM set the goal of moving back to 29%. It became a huge, multi-year campaign. Lapel pins with "29" were made and all kinds of motivational programs were put in place. The GM organization had its goal, and it was highly aligned to the goal. But it didn't happen. Despite the goal, and all the energy and talent put into focusing on the goal, GM continued to struggle, lose share – and eventually file bankruptcy. The goal made no difference.
Worse, the interview goes on to discuss how goals often lead to decidedly undesirable, sometimes unethical – even illegal – behavior. Instances are cited where goal obsession led company employees to falsify documents, even ship bricks in place of products to meet sales targets. No executive wants this, but goals and goal obsession – especially when there is a lot of reinforcement socially and monetarily on the goal – can become a serious problem.
Results are exactly that. Results. They are an outcome. They are the way we track our behaviors and activities – our decisions. When we focus on goals – usually some sort of result – we lose track of what is important. We have to focus on what we do. And for most organizations a big goal merely leads people to try working harder, faster,better, cheaper. But when the Success Formula is mis-aligned with the market – even when the whole organization is aligned on maximizing the Success Formula results will still struggle – even falter. Goals don't help you fix a Success Formula returning poor results. Just look at GM.
In fact, it can make matters worse. In "White Bears and Other Unwanted Thoughts" (available on Amazon.com) the authors point out that when you try to turn a negative (a problem) into a positive (a challenge, or goal), you often achieve a rebound effect making people obsess about the problem. Tell somebody not to think about a white bear – and it's all they think about. When your company has a problem and you try to tell employees "hey, don't think about the problem. Go do your job. Work harder, increase your focus, and all will work out. Sure share is down, but don't think about lost share, instead think about the goal of higher market share" frequently the employees will start to become obsessive about the problem. It will reinforce doing more of the same – perhaps manicly. Instead of becoming innovative and doing something new, obsessive devotion to trying to make the old methods produce better results becomes the norm. Goals don't produce innovation – they produce repetition.
So what should you do when facing a problem? Disruptions. GM didn't need a big goal. GM needed to Disrupt its broken Success Formula. GM needed to attack a Lock-in (or two). GM leaders needed to admit the market had shifted, and that competitors were changing the game. GM needed to recognize, admit and encourage employees to engage in attacking old assumptions – and recognize that market share would continue eroding if they didn't do things differently. Setting a big goal reinforced the old Lock-ins and even an aligned organization – working it's metaphorical tail off – couldn't make the outdated Success Formula produce positive results.
Only a Disruption would have helped save GM. After attacking some Lock-ins, like the desire to move all customers to bigger and more expensive cars, or the desire to focus on long production runs, GM should have set up White Space teams to discover new Success Formulas. Instead of putting all its management energy and money into growing volume at Chevrolet, Cadillac, Buick and GM nameplates, General Motors leadership should have revitalized the innovative Saturn and Saab to do new things – to develop new approaches that would be more competitive. Instead of pushing Hummer to have 3 identical cars in 3 sizes, GM leadership should have unleashed Hummer to explore the market for truly unique, limited production vehicles. GM should have allowed Pontiac to really take advantage of the design breakthroughs happening at the Australian design studio – to change the nameplate into a performance car segment leader. By attacking Lock-ins, Disrupting, and using White Space GM really could have turned around. Instead, by creating a BHAG GM reinforced its focus on its Hedgehog concept – and drove the company into bankruptcy.
You can see a 40 second video about the value and importance of Disruptions on YouTube here.
A 75 second video on White Space effectiveness on YouTube here.
Read free ebook on "The Fall of GM: What Went Wrong and How To Avoid Its Mistakes"
by Adam Hartung | Jan 12, 2010 | Defend & Extend, In the Swamp, Innovation, Leadership, Lock-in
Do all good ideas originate outside the organization? Of course not. Motorola understood all the critical technologies for smart phones, and taught Apple how to use them in a joint development project that created the ROKR. That's just one example of a company that had the idea for growth, but didn't move forward effectively. In this case Apple captured the value of new technology and a market shift.
On the Harvard Business Review blog site one of consulting firm Innosight's leaders, Mark Johnson, covers two stories of companies that had all the technology and capability to lead their markets, but got Locked-in to old practices. In "Have You Already Killed Your Next Big Thing" Mr. Johnson talks about Xerox and Kodak – two stories profiled in my 2008 book "Create Marketplace Disruption." Both companies developed the technology that replaced their early products (Xerox developed desktop publishing and Kodak developed the amateur digital camera.) But Lock-in kept them doing what they did rather than exploiting their own innovation.
One of the causes is a fascination with metrics. Again on the Harvard Business Review blog site Roger Martin, Dean of the Rotman School of Management at the University of Toronto, tells us in "Why Good Spreadsheets Make Bad Strategies" that you can't measure everything. And often the most important information about markets and what you must do to succeed is beyond measuring – at least in the short term.
Measurements are good control tools. Measurements can help force a focus on short term improvements. But measurements, and the concomitant focus, reduces an organization's ability to look laterally. They lose sight of information from lost customers, from small customers, from fringe customers and fringe competitors. Measurement often leads to obsession, and a deepening of Defend & Extend behavior. It's not accidental that doctors often find anorexia patients measure everything in (liquids and solids) and everything out (liquids and solids).
Measurements are created when a business is doing well. In the Rapids. Like Kodak during the 1960s and Xerox in the 1970s. Measurements are structural Lock-ins that help "institutionalize" the behavior which makes the Success Formula operate most effectively. And they help growth. But they do nothing for recognizing a market shift, and when new technology comes along, they stand in the way. That's why a powerful Six Sigma or Total Quality Management (TQM) or Lean Manufacturing project can help reduce costs short term, but become an enormous barrier to innovation over time when markets shift. These institutionalized efforts keep people doing what they measure, even if it doesn't really add much incremental value any longer.
To overcome measurement Lock-ins we all have to use scenario planning. Scenarios can help us see that in a future marketplace, a changed marketplace, measuring what we've been doing won't aid success. And because we don't yet know what the future market will really look like, we can't just swap out existing metrics for something different. As we proceed to do new things, in White Space, it's about learning what the right metrics are – about getting into the growth Rapids – before we tie ourselves up in metrics.
Note: To all readers of my Forbes article last week – there has been an update. The very professional and polite leadership at Tribune Corporation took the time to educate me about the LBO transition. As a result I learned that what I previously read, and reported in my column as well as on this blog, as being an investment of employee retirement funds into the LBO was inaccurate. Although Tribune is in hard times right now, the very good news is that the employee retirement funds were NOT wiped out by the bankruptcy. The Forbes article has been corrected, and I am thankful to the Tribune Corporation for helping me report accurately on that issue.
