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!
by Adam Hartung | Nov 5, 2009 | Current Affairs, Disruptions, In the Rapids, Innovation, Leadership, Music, Web/Tech
$150billion. That's a lot of money. And that's how much shareholder value has increased at Apple since Steve Jobs returned as CEO. Can you think of any other CEO that has aided shareholder wealth so much? Do any of the cost cutting CEOs in manufacturing companies, financial services firms, or media companies see their share prices rising like Apple's?
Fortune has declared this "The Decade of Steve" in its latest publication at Money.CNN.com. Such over-the-top statements are by nature intended to sell magazines (or draw page hits). But the writer makes the valid point that very few leaders impact their industry like Apple has the computer industry, under Jobs leadership (but not under other leaders.) Yet, under his leadership Apple has also had a dramatic impact on the restructuring of two other industries – music and mobile phones/computing. And a company Mr. Jobs founded, Pixar, had a major impact on restructuring the movie business (Pixar was sold to Disney, and has played a significant role in the value increase of that company.) So with Mr. Jobs as leader, no less than 4 industries have been dramatically changed – and huge value created for shareholders.
No cost-cutting CEO, no "focus on the core" CEO, no "execution" CEO can claim to have made the kind of industry changes that have occurred through businesses led by Steve Jobs. And none of those CEO profiles can say they have created the shareholder value Mr. Jobs has created. Not even Bill Gates or Steve Ballmer can claim to have added any value this decade – as Microsoft's value is now less than it was when the millenia turned. Despite the relative size difference between the market for PCs and Macs (about 10 to 1) today Apple has more cash and marketable securities than the entire value of the historically supply-chain driven Dell Corporation.
Mr. Jobs is constantly pushing his organization to focus on the future, about what the markets will want, rather than the past and what the company has made. It was a decade ago that Apple created its "digital lifestyle" scenario of the future, which opened Apple's organization to being much more than Macs. Jobs obsesses about competitors and forces his employees to do the same, to make sure Apple doesn't grow complacent he pushes all products to have leading edge components. Mr. Jobs embraces Disruption, doesn't fear seeing it in his company, doesn't mind it amongst his people, and works to create it in his markets. And he makes sure Apple constantly keeps White Space projects open and working to see what works with customers – testing and trying new things all the time in the marketplace.
Following these practices, Apple pulled itself away from the Whirlpool and returned to the Rapids of Growth. Almost bankrupt, it wasn't financial re-engineering that saved Apple it was launching new products that met emerging needs. Apple showed any company can turn itself around if it follows the right steps.
As companies are struggling with value, people should look to Apple (and Google). Value is not created by cost cutting and waiting for the recession to end. Value is created by seeking innovations and creating an organization that can implement them. Especially Disruptive ones. Whether he's the CEO of the decade or not I can't answer. But saying he's one heck of a good role model for what leaders should be doing to create value in their companies is undoubtfully true.
by Adam Hartung | Nov 4, 2009 | Current Affairs, Defend & Extend, Disruptions, Food and Drink, General, In the Swamp, Leadership
Walgreens is apparently going through a dramatic change in leadership. Drug Store News reported that the top 2 folks, including the top merchandiser, have left Walgreens in "What it Means and Why It's Important: Wlagreens confirms departure of Van Howe." The article discusses the "old guard" departure and arrival of younger, new leaders. The magazine clearly paints this as a Disruption.
But I have my doubts. There's no discussion of future scenarios in which Walgreens is going to be a different company – not even a different retailer. There's no discussion about competitors, and how more prescription medications are being purchased on-line from new competiors, or even how Walgreens intends to be very different from historical brick-and-mortar competitors like CVS or Rite-Aid. No discussion about how the company might need to change its real estate strategy (being everywhere.)
There's really no discussion about changing the Walgreens' Success Formula. It's Identity has long been tied to being first and foremost a "drug store" (or pharmacy). A market which has been attacked on multiple fronts, from grocers and discounters like WalMart entering the business to the insurance mandates of buying drugs on-line. To be the biggest, Walgreens' strategy for several years has been tied to opening new stories practically every day. It was shear real estate domination – ala Starbucks. Although it's unclear how profitable many of those stores have been. Tactically Walgreens has moved heavily into cosmetics as a high turn and margin business, then items it an bring in and churn out very quickly – such as holiday material (Halloween, Thanksgiving, Christmas, Valentines Day, St. Patrick's Day, etc.), shirts, sweatshirts, on and on – stuff brought in then sold fast, even if it had to be discounted quickly to get it out the door. Churn the product because the goal is to sell the customer something else when they come in for that prescription.
There is no discussion of these executive changes creating in White Space to develop a new Walgreens. Without powerful scenarios drawing people to a new, different future Walgreens – and without a strong sense of how Walgreens intends to trap competitors in Lock-in while leveraging new fringe ideas to grow – and without White Space being installed to develop a new Success Formula to make Walgreens into something different —– this isn't a Disruption. It's a disturbance. Yes, it's a big deal, but it's unlikely to change the results.
Reinforcing that this is likely a disturbance the article talks about how the company is starting to obsess about store performance – down to targeting every 3 foot section for better turns and profits. The new leaders plan to work harder on supply chain issues, and store plannograms, to increase turns. They intend to put more energy into prioritization and reworking promotions. In other words, they want to execute better – more, better, faster, cheaper. And that's not a Disruption. It's just a disturbance. This may make folks feel better, and sound alluring, but experience has shown that this is not a route to higher growth or higher sustained profitability.
I don't expect these management changes to remake Walgreens. Walgreens has been a pretty good retailer. The Success Formula worked well until competitors changed the face of demand, and market shifts wiped out access to very low cost capital for building new stores. The Success Formula's results have fallen because the market shifted. Refocusing energy on being a better merchandiser won't have a big impact on growth at Walgreens. The company needs to rethink the future, so it can figure out what it needs to become in order to keep growing!
Real Disruptions attack the status quo. They don't focus on better execution. They attack things like "we're a pharmacy" by perhaps licensing out the pharmacy in every store to the pharmacist and changing the store managers. Or by selling a bunch of stores to eliminate the focus on real estate. Or by promoting the Walgreens on-line drug service in every store, while cutting back the on-hand pharmacy products. Those sorts of things are Disruptions, because they signal a change in the Success Formula. Coupled with competitive insight and White Space that has permission to define a new future and resources to develop one, Disruptions can help a stalled company get back to growing again.
But that hasn't happened yet at Walgreens. So expect a small improvement in operating results, and some financial engineering to quickly make new management look better. But little real performance improvement, and sustainable growth, will not occur. Nor will a sustained higher equity value.
by Adam Hartung | Oct 20, 2009 | Current Affairs, Disruptions, In the Rapids, In the Swamp, Leadership, Openness, Web/Tech
Can you believe a BusinessWeek headline like "Dell's Extreme Makeover"? We read about turnarounds and makeovers all the time. Only most of the time they don't turn, and they don't get made over. Most companies cut a lot of costs, make a lot of promises, but keep on doing the same stuff. They get worse. They get acquired, or they fail. And readers of this blog know that I've long chastised Dell as an example of a Locked-in company with little hope of turning around.
But, I'm changing position today. There's a LOT of the right stuff happening, and the seeds are being sown, doing what really works, for Dell to be a good future story.
Scenario planning for the future:
- Michael Dell admits in the article that he stuck to his original Success Formula of supply chain expertise feeding direct sales too long. He admits that future success requires a new Success Formula. Specific future scenarios aren't disclosed, but it is apparent that the company does not expect future markets to look like the markets of 1995-2005.
Focus on Competition:
- Management says Dell is "not trying to become like the competition"!! That is great, because winners do new and different things. They don't try to copy/catch existing competitors.
- Dell did not chase Apple into opening its own stores. Good move. Dell isn't Apple, and can't win trying to be like Apple.
- Dell was previously obsessed with its top, big customers. Big corporate accounts. It slavishly built a business trying to please the top 10%. Now Dell is winning by putting considerably more attention on customers it previously ignored: consumers, small business, medium business and government. This not only balances the company, it keeps Dell from chasing Locked-in customers into the same old fox holes.
Disruptions:
- Michael Dell has replaced 7 of his top 10 direct reports. That's a huge step in the right direction. GM should follow that lead!
- Dell has defied its old "direct to customer" mantra by taking consumer products into retail stores! The added cost to do that, and new skills required, must have shaken buildings at the Texas headquarters campus.
- A new head of design developed options customers could specify for their consumer computers. Manufacturing said it would violate the supply chain efficiency so "NO." Michael Dell over-rode the manufacturing group and said "do it." He reinforced that efficiency would not save Dell. Manufacturing would have to adjust to innovations for Dell to succeed.
- The company has reorganized away from products (how almost all tech companies structure – including Apple) and installed a new structure organized around MARKETS!! What a great way to quit being product-push and become market-learn!
White Space:
- A board member said that after eating dinner with Michael Dell he could see that this"journey at Dell is just in its first or second inning." Although not much White Space was discussed, this implies some big things are being discussed and planned for the future.
- The article says Dell is preparing to launch smart phone sales soon. This is critical, because smart phones are part of the market shift away from PCs. Dell has a lot of learning to do in that market to be part of the shift.
This is not a "done deal." I wish I knew more about Dell's scenario planning – to be sure the company has switched to planning for the future and away from planning from the past. And I really wish I knew more about what White Space is being planned. Because we know you can't transition by changing the big organization all at once. The behemoth needs some wins it can use to lead the migration. And seeing White Space projects, with a group shepherding them into the lifecycle, is a really critical step to follow-up the many Disruptions.
So things could still go badly for Dell. But they WON'T go as badly has they went from 2005 to 2007. From this one article, the first interview with Michael Dell since he took the reigns back in 2007, it is clear lots of the right things are happening to move Dell from the Swamp backinto the Rapids. There is improvement happening, and The Phoenix Principle looks to be in early implementation stages. If Michael Dell and his team stick with it, this could be a big winner for your portfolio!
by Adam Hartung | Oct 19, 2009 | Defend & Extend, Disruptions, General, Innovation, Leadership, Web/Tech
The McKinsey Quarterly just published a new report "Where Innovation Creates Value." I think the consultant got paid by the word for this really long article, which boils down to a simple argument. It doesn't matter what kind of innovations are developed, or where innovations are created. What does matter is who implements them. The implementers gain the vast majority of the value from innovation. More than the patent holders or the countries where inventors live.
Historically America has been a hotbed for trying new things. America was advantaged over Europe because it didn't have the regulations and other innovation testing roadblocks. America was advantaged over Africa and much of South America because it didn't have a legacy of dictator governments and corruption that kept things from moving forward – blocking innovation. America was advantaged over China and India because it's per capita GDP has been very high, meaning there were ample resources to invest in trying new innovations. Thus, America has historically been an innovation testing grounds that has paid enormous dividends by keeping its companies on the leading edge of competitiveness.
But there is cause to worry. Recently I blogged about how companies were blocking employee access to social networking sites ("Letting the Bogeyman Hurt Your Business"). Concerned about employee efficiency, managers were blocking these sites so employees kept their fingers on the keyboards performing designated, approved tasks. Sort of Taylor-ish sounding, don't you think? In today's economy the value of smart employees is pretty high, but how do you know if they are smart if you block their access to tools. Is success more about how fast they do the tasks, or if they can figure out a better way that is inherently cheaper? Do you want employees doing the same thing better, faster, cheaper – or do you want them developing new solutions that are more competitive?
Consider the smart phone market, led today by the iPhone. And the new publishing media like Kindle and Sony's eReader. Soon we'll have plenty more of these products available that will increase knowledge access and speed of information flow making those who are connected even more competitive. According to SeekingAlpha.com, "Verizon's Droid is the Real Deal." New phones from Motorola with Google's Android operating system (get that, an operating system for your phone. Does that phrase not surprise at least a few people – some of whom might remember when phones had no intelligence – not even a dial tone?) will have an explosion of new applications and uses raising productivity and results.
Yet, how many companies are providing these devices and data access for employees? Most of the early adopters I see are paying for this out of their own pocket. The obvious concern is that American companies will remain focused on efficiency in this downturn. They will block access to parts of the web, and avoid technology investments for employees and customers. Meanwhile competitors in countries growing at 6-8%/year like China, India and Brazil will make these investments. If so, they become the early innovation implementers. And if that happens….. well that could be a very serious game changer. We can't assume the American economy will recharge if we don't apply innovations, and we can't assume competitiveness if companies from other places increase their adoption rates to exceed America's.
I don't see a lot of Disruption or White Space in America right now. Even top economists are bemoaning how businesses keep cutting employees and costs while the overall GDP does better. Business leaders seem stuck trying to Defend & Extend past business practices which aren't producing better results – and won't. They remain focused on cutting costs rather than innovating new solutions. But what we know is that the greatest return comes from a willingness to Disrupt and open up White Space to implement new solutions – in the process of making your own business a market disruptor that can grow and achieve superior rates of return.
by Adam Hartung | Oct 7, 2009 | Current Affairs, Disruptions, General, In the Rapids, Innovation, Leadership, Web/Tech
"Amazon Cuts Kindle Price to $259" is the USAToday headline. This $40 whack is the second price cut this year. Sony is selling its ePocket for $199. Of course Kindle is pushing that it has more content available and easier wireless access than Sony,- even internationally. Expectations are for 3 million e-Readers to be sold in 2009 (about 1 million around the holidays.) Obviously, if you aren't paying attention this is a big deal. It is changing publishing (books, magazines and newspapers.) But the impact goes far beyond publishing.
Simultaneously, The Wall Street Journal reports "Just a Touch Away, the Elusive Tablet PC." According to this article, new devices are being tested that will allow you to do everything from classic PC applications to web interconnection to watch movies – or read books – on a keyboard-less new tablet. Something that is a cross between an iPhone/iTouch (with a bigger screen) and a PC. As iPhone users are learning (quickly) you don't need a keyboard or mouse to have an interface to your machine and the world.
So what will be the future solution? Will it be one of these, or yet something different? I don't know. Do you have a crystal ball? But the answer to that question really doesn't matter to us today. We don't need to know that sort of specific to begin growing our businesses.
Not being widget nuts, or platform forecasters, should not stop us from planning for a different sort of future and changing our approach today. Scenarios for 2013 (you do have scenario plans for 2013, don't you?) should be planning on practically everybody having one of these devices. And perhaps these devices being so cheap they could be included with sales of every major appliance (like a car, or refrigerator). If that sounds silly, just look at how cheap a flash (or thumb) drive is now. Remember when we thought floppy disks were expensive? Now people exchange flash drives that have more capacity than a 2004 laptop without thinking about cost. These made tapes, floppy drives, zip drives and a lot of other technology obsolete in a hurry.
How can your business take advantage of this shift? Can you replace paper manuals, maybe even user instructions with a tablet? Or a tablet app? Can you use an interactive device that grabs input from your appliance to do diagnostics, recommend maintenance, report on failures? Would this help customers pop for the new frig – say if it helped lower electric bills? Or could it encourage that new washer by helping set the cycles to lower water cost? Could you build it right into the console on a washer or dryer? Or could you encourage someone to buy a new car by telling them to forget about maintenance logs and just track the car's performance on a tablet?
If you provide content – are you planning for this? Recently The Economist sent me an email (I've registered on their web site) telling me they were going to start charging for web content. I've heard News Corp. properties, like the Wall Street Journal, intend to do the same. I guess they haven't noticed the world is moving in a direction that makes such a plan – well, impossible. In a recent Harris poll (reported on Silicon Alley Insider "People Won't Pay for News Online") 74% of web users said they'd simply switch sites before paying. With one of these eReader/Tablets in hand, why would they ever pay for content when another provider is a finger streak away? As access becomes easier and easier, the willingness to pay will go down and down. Publishers had better start figuring out how to get paid a different way than subscriptions!
Now is about when executives like to say "so I want to know which format will win before I start doing this. I only want to do this once." That old cry for efficiency. Unfortunately, while waiting for a winner to emerge, the waiter becomes the laggard. The early adopter, that recognizes the value provided to consumers, gets out there and starts using these innovations to drive better customer value. And to capture more sales. When you are part of making the market – like Apple in music – you gain huge advantages. You don't have to know all the answers to compete. You just have to be willing to Disrupt old notions and use White Space to experiment and learn.
I have drawers filled with obsolete electronics. How many obsolete cell phones do you own? How many big old monitors are you recycling to replace with flat screens? Do you still have a fax machine? I have an old keyboard that used something called "sideband technology" to allow me to interact with people and get news and sports info years before the internet was popular – and before wireless internet was available. Obsolete now, that device taught me how valuable the internet was going to be when Congress made it available for commercial use. Fear of throwing away a few products or software – maybe a betamax machine or copy of visicalc – is no reason not to get into the market and learn!
Markets are marvelous things. As these articles discuss, nobody knows how we will be using technology in the future. Not exactly. It will be some combination of eReader – computer – music player – television – telephone. But we do know the broad theme. And if you want to get out of this recession, you can start playing to this market shift now. You'll never grow if you sit on the sidelines watching and waiting. Get in the market. Participate. Use this technology to create new solutions! There are countless applications (as the expanding iPhone app base is proving.) Want to get into the Rapids of growth? You'll never succeed if you don't become part of the marketplace. Nothing creates learning like doing!
by Adam Hartung | Oct 5, 2009 | Current Affairs, Defend & Extend, Disruptions, In the Whirlpool, Leadership, Lifecycle, Lock-in
"Saturn Done in Four Months" is the Autoweek.com headline. The next time somebody brings up the short life cycle of tech products, remember Saturn. GM started the company, grew it, and now is shutting it down on a timeline that roughly corresponds with the life of Sun Microsystems. Clearly manufacturing companies can do just as poorly as techs.
When Penske lost itsmanufacturing deal, the purchase of Saturn fell through. And GM leadership can't wait to clear out inventory. Production has already stopped. Soon, the products and dealers will disappear. Along with the brand name. Another experiment that failed. So it is very important our post-mortem teaches us the right lessons from Saturn.
I was appalled when Harvard Business School Publishing posted "Why Saturn Was Destined to Fail." According to the author, Saturn was an anchor that drug down a hurt GM!!!! Reporting that the successful Saturn launch came at the loss of $3,000 per car sold (a new factoid I've never before heard), he claims that GM should have been more focused on fixing its old business. The implication is that GM wasn't trying to fix its old business, instead being diverted by the very successful operations at Saturn! Pretty illogical. GM was doing everything it could to compete, but improving its old Success Formula simply wasn't enough given the market shifts already in place. To meet changing market requirements GM needed to develop a new Success Formula, and that was the purpose of Saturn!
Saturn was the best chance GM had to succeed! The Success Formula at Chevrolet and the other GM divisions had been created in the 1950s when GM dominated the industry. But by 1980 the market had shifted dramatically. Design cycles had dropped, customer tastes had changed, production methods had moved from long assembly lines to just-in-time, quality requirements were redefined and rising, and impressions of auto dealers had tanked. Saturn was established to teach GM how to compete differently.
The reason Saturn lost money had everything to do with accounting. GM forced all kinds of costs onto GM – which were not representative of a normal start-up. Without those costs, Saturn would have been much leaner and profitable. Further, after Saturn proved it could move faster and outsell expectations, GM quickly moved to force Saturn to act like other GM divisions. Forced sharing of components severely hampered the design cycle and flexibility. Union contract consistency pushed Saturn into old employee agreements which the union had previously agreed to wave. And forcing Saturn to allow traditional GM dealers to sell the Saturn brand tarnished the changed customer relationship Saturn worked hard to create.
When Roger Smith created GM he set it up seperately. His scenario of the future demanded GM figure out a new way to compete. Saturn, was a White Space project with permission and resources to figure out that new way. But Chairman Smith did not Disrupt the old GM auto management. He did not replace the Division presidents with leaders from EDS or Hughes (businesses he had acquired) who were willing to move in a new direction. He did not change the resource allocation system to give Saturn more clout over its own decisions and those at other divisions. Thus, when he left the larger divisions moved fast to change Saturn into their mold – rather than vice-versa. Instead of Chevrolet learning from Saturn, Saturn managers were forced to adopt Chevrolet practices.
Saturn proved that even a stodgy, Locked-in company can use White Space to develop new solutions. And it also proved that if you aren't willing to Disrupt the old Success Formula – if you aren't willing to attack old Lock-ins – White Space (regardless of its success) is unlikely to convert the company into a better competitor. The lesson of Saturn is NOT that it diverted GM's attention, but rather that GM was unwilling to Disrupt its Success Formula to learn from Saturn.
As investors, the question is pretty easy. Would you rather own Saturn, Pontiac and Hummer – the divisions of GM that had loyal customers and some reputation for innovation, quality and customer satisfaction – or Cadillac, Buick and Chevrolet? Would you rather have businesses that are looking forward with early plans for hybrids, and exciting cars like the G8, or a high volume business in cars that most people find ho-hum, at best? Do you want designers that take chances and bring out cars quickly, or that move slowly seeking the "lowest common denominator" in design? If you were an entrepreneur, would you rather be given pemission to lead Saturn, or Chevrolet?
Learning the right lessons from Saturn is important, or else our business leaders are doomed to repeat the GM mistakes. If you don't challenge your Success Formula, White Space project will be met with great resistance by the organization. They will be saddled with unnecessary costs and requirements that strip them of permission to do what the market demands. And they will not achieve the goals which they established to accomplish, including acting as a beacon for migrating a business forward.
For a deeper treatment of this topic please download the free ebook "The Fall of GM: What Went Wrong and How To Avoid Its Mistakes."
by Adam Hartung | Sep 29, 2009 | Current Affairs, Defend & Extend, Disruptions, General, In the Swamp, Leadership, Lock-in, Web/Tech
Last week was big news for technology. Hewlett Packard announced it was killing the EDS brand name, pushing to make HP more of an integrated solutions company (like IBM). And Dell bought Perot Systems to launch itsfirst push into services. According to Washington Technology "HP, Dell Know They Have to Change or Die." The article talks about the dramatically shifting marketplace (love that language!), and how these two hardware oriented companies are trying to avoid the Sun Microsystems finality by getting into services. The author says the companies must "adapt or die," and "there's no sitting still." He goes on to say "it may take years," but he thinks they will transition and eventually be successful. His success forecast hinges on his belief that they must change to survive – and that will be sufficient motivation.
I love the awareness of shifting markets, and the recognition that shifts are demanding changes in these former leaders. But I don't agree with the conclusion that future success is highly likely. Because even with big acquisitions and name changes – HP and Dell haven't laid the groundwork to change. They have taken some rifle shots, but they haven't followed The Phoenix Principle and that means the odds are less than 10% they will successfully transition.
Lots of companies have tried to transition via acquisition. Heck, GM once bought EDS (and Hughes Electronics) – and look what it did for them. Just because a company buys something doesn't mean they'll change. McDonald's bought Chipotle, and then sold it despite double digit growth to fund acquisition of additional McDonald's. Just because a company needs to change its Success Formula to succeed – or even survive – is a long way from proving they will do it.
Neither HP or Dell show they are building a company for the future. Unfortunately, they look to be chasing a model built by IBM in the 1990s. Taking action in 2009 to recreate "best practices" of 15 – 20 years ago is far from creating a company positioned for success. There is no discussion of future scenario planning from either company – about technology use or changing business practices. No description of their scenarios for 2015 and 2020 – scenarios that would demonstrate very high growth and payoff from their action. To the contrary, all the discussion seems to be defensive. They are getting into services – finally – because they realize their growth has slowed and profits are declining. It's not really about the future, it's action taken by studying the rear view mirror.
Additionally, there is no discussion of any Disruptions at either company. To change organizations must attack old Lock-ins. Embedded processes – from hiring and reviews to product development and resource allocation – all exist to Defend & Extend past behavior. If these aren't attacked head-on then organizations quickly conform any potential change into something like the past. In the case of these companies, lacking a clear view of what future markets should look like, they have opted to forgo Disruptions. Mr. Gerstner attacked the sacred cows around IBM viciously in his effort to transition the company into more services. But the CEOs at HP and Dell are far less courageous.
And there's no White Space here for developing a new Success Formula aligned with market needs as they are emerging. Instead of creating an environment in which new leaders can compete in new ways, these businesses are being instructed on how to behave – according to some plan designed by someone who clearly thinks they are smarter than the marketplace. Without White Space, "the plan" is going to struggle to meet with markets that will continue to shift every bit as fast the next 2 years as they did the last year.
I have very limited expectations that these actions will increase the performance of either company. I predict organic growth will slow, as "integration" issues mount and "synergy" activities take more time than growth initiatives. They will not see a big improvement in profits, because competition is extremely severe and there is no sign these companies are introducing any kind of innovation that will leapfrog existing competitors – remember, mere size is not enough to succeed in today's marketplace. They will largely be somewhat bigger, but no more successful.
It's easy to get excited when a company makes an acquisition off the beaten path. But you must look closely at their actions and plans before setting expectations. These companies could make big changes. But that would require a lot more scenario planning, a lot more focus on emerging competitors (not the existing, well known behemoths), much more Disruption to knock back the Lock-in and White Space for building a new Success Formula. Without those actions this is going to be another acquisition followed by missed expectations, cost cutting and discussions about size that cover up declining organic growth.
by Adam Hartung | Sep 18, 2009 | Current Affairs, Disruptions, In the Rapids, Innovation, Leadership, Lifecycle, Openness, Web/Tech
This week The Economist reviewed the innovation processes at Google. In "Google's Corporate Culture – Creative Tension" the magazine overviews several recent innovations, and actions senior leaders are taking regarding innovation management.
While Mr. Anthony recently chastised Google for its "immature" innovation management in a Harvard Business School blog post, and somewhat The Economist does as well, for not producing more revenue from its innovations – nobody can refute that the company released yet 3 more very important innovations this week – an updated Chrome web brower, new software that allows viewing on-line newspapers in a more natural way (Fast Flip) and Google Wave for collaborative project development. For most companies any one of these would be vaunted to market on piles of ad and PR sending. Products less significant cause Microsoft to throw their Marketing/PR machine into overdrive. But innovative launches are frequent enough at Google that you can completely miss some of them. Even when they continue to change whole industries – like Google has been doing to newspaper publishers and continues.
The best line in the article says that senior Google leadership is very actively trying to counter "the conservatism that can set in as companies mature." The good news is that even though it has 20,000 employees, Google is not "mature." Thankfully, it remains in the Rapids of growth. Size does not equal "maturity." That word is more applicable to companies that begin truncating ideas and activities to optimize their existing business. This is the direction Scott Anthony recently proposed on his HBS blog. And it gets companies into serious trouble.
Instead, Google is working hard to keep ideas from being truncated by hierarchy or people who are focused on narrow opportunities. Senior leaders are making themselves available to everyone in order to make sure ideas get attention – rather than vetted. Through this they are giving permission for ideas to be developed, even when many in the company aren't supportive. This top-level focus on granting permission to new ideas which are unconventional is a CRITICAL component of innovation success. Second, they aren't relying on a priority process for funding (something Mr. Anthony recommends). Instead they are making ample dollars available for ideas to push them to market quickly – and see if the innovation is accepted by the market or needs more work.
By personally engaging at the top levels in this process, Mr. Schmidt and his team are being Disruptive. They aren't allowing structural impediments like strategy formulation, hiring practices, tight IT systems, large historical investments or internal "experts" to Lock-in Google to its past. This is demonstrably exceptional behavior that pushes Google into new markets and growth. Then, by focusing on granting permission – even for things the "organization" may not initially support – and adding resources from outside normal resource allocation systems they are doing the 2 things necessary to keep White Space alive and thriving at Google.
Google has been growing, even in this very tough economy. More importantly, it has not slowed down its releases of innovation on the marketplace that can generate future growth. Mobile phones using its Android software are just now getting to market, and offer (along with other innovations) potentially very large revenue gains in new areas. With smart phones and Kindle-like e-readers to outsell PCs in late 2010 Google is squarely positioned to be part of the "next wave" of personal digital productivity (along with Apple.) And this can be explained by the company's willingness to remain Disruptive and push White Space projects — even with 20,000 employees.
by Adam Hartung | Aug 27, 2009 | Current Affairs, Disruptions, General, Leadership, Lifecycle, Openness, Quotes
Brilliant. A word we rarely use in the USA, the British will hear of a good idea and respond "brilliant." When I saw "Motel 6 Offers Free Rooms to 3 Rock Bands" in USAToday I simply thought "brilliant."
Do you remember the old Motel 6 ads? "We'll keep the Light on For You" was how Tom Bodett, a National Public Service radio announcer from Alaska enticed people. Using a very rural, almost corny approach to undersell the rooms, this tied to 1950ish thoughts about visiting distant relatives. It wasn't a bad ad. And it probably worked really well (I still remember the ads) for years after release in 1986. But that tone doesn't have much appeal to the younger generation. 29 years after being launched, the under 35 crowd doesn't remember this ad – nor did they grow up in a rural America – nor do they know the origins of looking for reliable, clean motels on a cross-country trip during the early days of interstate highways. And they simply don't care. That ad program ran its course, to be polite. Motel 6 might be a good product, but it was slipping away into the oblivion of brands you forget – like Howard Johnson's. Or Ovaltine.
Hand it to management of Motel 6 and parent Accor, they Disrupted the old approach by offering free rooms to rock bands. If you've read my previous posts on the music business you know that musicians end up covering their own cost for travel – and as the USAToday article points out, many band members spend most nights sleeping in the van or on the floor of someone's house. It's definitely not free booze and hooliganism in a 5-star property. So these band members are quite pleased to have someone offer them free rooms – clean, tidy and comfortable.
Now those band members can reach out to their followers via Twitter and Facebook with positive comments and thanks for these rooms. A medium where you can't buy ads, but where reputations can be created and expanded. Not only promoting Motel 6, but promoting to an audience the company wasn't even reaching before. And catching one of the most highly prized, and valued, demographics in the ad business – age 24 to 34. Who knows how long these young folks might remain customers, after they discover the wonders of clean, affordable lodging.
Anybody can do what Motel 6 just did to help re-invigorate your business. It would have been very easy for sleepy Motel 6 brand to have remained where it was, doing what it always did. And continue losing mind-share, as well as profitability. But this move, at an amazingly low cost (literally, advertising in exchange for product, is an incredible deal – and a lot cheaper than those old radio ads), will revive the brand among a new group of customers – and a group that is not well served by the hotel industry. It's hard to find anything in this move that doesn't come off like a big win for everybody!
