by Adam Hartung | Mar 11, 2007 | Defend & Extend, General, In the Swamp, Innovation, Leadership, Lifecycle, Lock-in
When companies Lock-in they quit looking at the marketplace, instead focusing on running their Success Formula. In a very real way, if markets were highways and companies were autos we could say management starts driving the car looking in the rear view mirror rather than looking out the windshield.
A great example of this is at Ford (see chart here). Ford has been Challenged for several years. Like GM, Ford sales have struggled as the marketplace has shifted away from their great trucks and large SUVs (top sellers, and considered great products in their categories) toward less expensive to operate vehicles. Several years ago customers found higher mileage vehicles preferable, and began looking at hybrids and other innovations rather than more size and more towing capacity.
During this market shift Ford "retired" the Taurus. In the early 1980s Ford was swimming in red ink (much like today) when the company launched the revolutionary aerodynamic Taurus. The design changes, in body shape as well as transverse-mounted engine, front wheel drive and high-mileage overdrive transmission met customer desires and the Taurus became the #1 selling car in the world (right – not just hte U.S. but the world.) Ford had to open new plants to meet demand, and losses turned to substantial profits.
But as time passed Ford Locked-in on its #1 selling, and very profitable F-Series trucks and the SUVs spun off that platform. Few enhancements were made to the Taurus, and as the Toyoty Camry grew in sales eventually Ford stopped the Taurus. The car had a great 20 year run. But ,of great importance, Ford did not replace the Taurus with another revolutionary passenger car. Instead, they remained Locked-in to their trucks and SUVs.
Then the market shifted, and Ford was caught flat footed. Sales dropped, and the fortunes at Ford turned as bleak (possibly worse) than GM.
Now Ford has announced its solution. The company will rename an existing vehicle, the Five Hundred, the Taurus (see article here). The company hopes that better name recognition will sell more cars, and help turn around the struggling auto company.
Never has there been a better case of driving the vehicle by looking in the rear view mirror. Ford isn’t competing for the future, they are firmly trying to recapture the past! Management is hoping that somehow a name associated with past success will create future success. Managment isn’t even redesigning the Five Hundred. They are just renaming and re-launching it. Instead of looking at the direction the market is going, and driving the company toward future market needs, Ford is looking at what worked 20 years ago and hoping miracles will happen to produce that result again. Even though the market and competition has completely changed.
That’s what Lock-in to an old Success Formula can do for you. Make you so fixated on what previously worked that you quit looking forward and start spending your time dreaming about the past. Bill Ford, Jr. is a young guy. But he keeps looking at the past – the Mustang, the F-Series truck and now the Taurus – to try and save the company his family founded. Too bad. Instead of ripping off the Taurus name he would be better served to capture the spirit of the Taurus by developing and launching a new car that meets new market competitive demands.
by Adam Hartung | Feb 17, 2007 | Disruptions, General, In the Swamp, Leadership, Lifecycle, Lock-in
Dell Computer has had a rough go the last couple of years. They’ve had some batteries catch fire – not good for marketing. And they’ve had some SEC investigators looking through their books – not good for investors. But neither of these problems are really that unusual or monumental for a company the size of Dell. The big problem has been that the company isn’t making the money it once did, and it’s sure not growing like it once did. That has stripped the company of 40-50% of its value, or about $43 billion in market loss for investors (see chart here.)
So what’s the response? At the beginning of this month the Chairman and namesake, Michael Dell, announced he was removing the CEO and taking back the reigns (see full article here.) Should we now expect a turnaround?
Michael Dell pioneered the Success Formula that made Dell Computer famous. Simply put, Dell sold directly to customers, outsourced everything they could, used other people’s technology (no R&D), focused on the supply chain to shorten manufacturing and distribution cycles and kept prices low. And anything that wasn’t part of that Success Formula does not exist at Dell. This Success Formula produced great results, and Michael Dell locked it in with every conceivable software product, metric and decision process he could. There was/is no variation at Dell, just execution.
Unfortunately, this Success Formula was not impossible to copy. Competitors not only matched the supply chain expertise of Dell, but added onto it with product innovations, credit terms for corporate buyers, and enhanced peripheral products that expanded the total customer purchase. They matched Dell, and did the company one better. So customers migrated to these competitors. Dell didn’t suddenly lose its Midas touch. Execution hasn’t faltered. Competitors just kept getting better in this dynamic market, and execution wasn’t enough to maintain sales growth and margins.
Now the king of execution is returning. What can we expect? More of the same, of course. The implication, and stated objective, of Michael Dell’s return is to get Dell "back on track." That’s back on track to what they did a decade ago. Is that likely to turn around their fortunes, in a more competitive marketplace with yet more competitive variables?
Dell doesn’t need more Dell. They need more innovation. There are no Disruptions at Dell. And this change of leaders will not create an internal Disruption demanding change. There is no White Space at Dell. I blogged on this previously, and a PR employee responded (you can read the comment by going to that blog) that Dell is a great company. But even he could not identify any White Space in Dell. Despite my emails to him asking for any examples of White Space he could provide — any at all. Without White Space, how is Dell to develop a new Success Formula to produce results in 2009 like they had in 1999?
Michael Dell and his company was a fantastically successful pioneer. His vision helped create a Success Formula that greatly assisted putting a PC on nearly every working desk and in nearly every home, not to mention in the hands of most students, salespeople, and other mobile worker in America. But that Success Formula has already passed the point of diminishing returns. Unless Dell learns to Disrupt and implement White Space, look for the future to be more of the recent past. Results included.
by Adam Hartung | Feb 12, 2007 | Disruptions, General, Innovation, Leadership, Lock-in, Openness
Is a Tattoo art? Can a tattoo style drawing sell a product? These are two questions I really never asked myself before, but now I’m asking them a lot.
Sometimes we can’t see what’s right in front of our faces. We all suffer from BIAS – Beliefs, Interpretations, Assumptions and Strategies – that we carry around in our heads. As we develop our Success Formulas, we Lock them in with our BIAS and we often start missing things. And some of these can be really big trends.
The Chicago Tribune ran an article in the Business Section (yes the Business section) about the use of tattoo art in mainstream ads (see full article here). Now, I have to admit that tattoos are not something I think about at all. But this article pointed out that they are getting to be pretty much everywhere, on everybody. And, as importantly, the artists are downright cheap compared to typical graphic artists used in ad production. That really caught my attention.
Then I started to notice, and think. The images of Anna Nicole Smith all over the TV following her untimely death showed a tattoo on her leg. Many (maybe most?) of the performer’s at this week’s Grammy award seemed to have visible tattoos. Then I realized that I see tattoos increasingly on the young people that associate with my high school and college age sons. I had "seen" these tattoos before. But my mind hadn’t "seen" them. Why, it was startling how popular tattoos are. I noticed last weekend going to run errands that I identified at least a half dozen tattoo parlors within 10 miles of my northwest suburban Chicago home. No matter what I thought, or better said what I didn’t think, about tattoos they are a lot more popular and part of popular culture than I realized.
My Success Formula had never thought about tattoos. I have held the top marketing job in a $3B manufacturing company, and worked at PepsiCo a top marketing company, and I am heavily involved in advertising graphics with clients today — and from that I had developed a Lock-in about commercial graphics. And that Lock-in left me completely BIASed to ignore tattoo art as a commercial graphics product. The Tribune article showed me a market Challenge – a new art form that is growing in popularity and cheap. And as a result I’ve had to Disrupt my Lock-in. Now I’m looking for White Space to explore the possibilities this might open up for advertisers. (As long as it doesn’t include putting ink into my 50 year old white, less than menacing forearms – lol.)
We all have Success Formulas, and we Lock them in. We develop a BIAS around them that can blind us to opportunities. That’s why it is critical that we use external stimuli to help identify market Challenges we otherwise will completely miss. Don’t become BIAS blinded to opportunities.
by Adam Hartung | Feb 9, 2007 | Defend & Extend, In the Swamp, In the Whirlpool, Leadership, Lifecycle
Because most companies never build a capability to internally Disrupt, and they don’t regularly implement White Space, they develope a Re-Invention Gap between what they do and what the market wants. This leads businesses to milk a Success Formula too long, and not start developing a new Success Formula until too late.
Take for example Kodak. Founded in 1881, this venerable company was synonymous with photographic film. The company grew like mad as its founder made photography cheaper, better and available to everyone. But then the market "matured" (that famous euphemism for slow growth) in the 1970s. Kodak missed the digital photography wave, and in the 1990’s was kicked off the Dow Jones Industrial Average. Kodak has recently layed off nearly 30,000 employees – reaching a smallness not seen since the 1930s (see more on layoffs here.)
Like most companies, Kodak waited too late to Disrupt and implement White Space. The company was actually a pioneer in digital photography. It holds over 1,000 patents. R&D efforts in the field were strong going back nearly 30 years. But Kodak waited to Disrupt until the film market was already long-past its peak, and the digital market was well developed and full of competitors (it was 2001 when Kodak finally introduced a digital camera line). And because the Re-invention gap between their business (film) and the market direction (digital) had become huge, the company almost didn’t survive (note Palaroid, also once a leader now no longer exists). The jury is still out on Kodak’s survivability, which has had 8 consecutive quarters of losses as it has attempted to turn itself around.
The simple fact is that companies pay too little attention to the market, and too much attention to the existing Success Formula. By trying to Defend & Extend the Success Formula, they delay the necessary Disruptions and avoid White Space. Far too many companies are stuck in the Swamp, spending all their time battling aligators and swatting mosquitos while completely forgetting their main objective was to drain the darn thing. Before they know it, they are caught in the Whirlpool spinning down the drain when competitors open the plug in the swamp where they are stuck.
To avoid being too late in reacting to market Challenges, it is critical businesses implement a program of regular Disruption. You have to practice the ability to Disrupt yourself. And regular Disruptions create openings for multiple White Space projects which breed new Success Formulas. Just look at Jack Welch at GE. GE could easily have spent the 1980s and 1990s milking their businesses. But with the aid of Neutron Jack, GE constantly Disrupted itself (some might even say "unnecessarily"), and it kept putting in place White Space projects. (remember "Destroy Your Business.com" teams that every business was required to have?) That led to an incredible string of growth and above average returns that is almost unprecedented for a company of any size. Institutionalized at GE is the notion that Disruptions are good and White Space projects are normal – and that is why the company keeps itself constantly ahead of competitors and out of the Swamp.
Don’t wait. Start Disrupting your organization today. Set up some White Space. The more you practice, the better you become. And you’d sure prefer finding yourself in the position of GE than Kodak.
by Adam Hartung | Feb 8, 2007 | Disruptions, General, Innovation, Leadership, Lifecycle, Lock-in, Openness
It’s easier to recognize a problem than it is to find a solution. I’m sure you’ve noticed this. In practically everything we do we can see the need for improvement, but we often find that nothing happens to make things better. Even when a crisis happens,we often see lots of people discussing the problem – and some talk about potential solutions – but not much progress is made.
Take for example the U.S. health care situation. We now have a country where 20% to 40% of the population has no health care coverage with between 30% and 50% are significantly under-insured (ranges are offered because it depends on what study you read.) Virtually everyone agrees that this is a big problem, because the U.S. health care system is not designed to deal with the uninsured. We hear stories of people waiting for hours in hospitals for basic care that is often poorly administered. We hear about total health care costs rising because the uninsured drive up costs that are then born by insured patients. And the medicare and medicaid system we are told is nearly bankrupt, unable to meet many basic needs and not providing necessary life-sustaining assistance. Increasingly, doctors, clinics and even some hospitals refuse to take uninsured patients.
The problem has been easy to see. In America, the system has been based upon employer-provided health care. But, as employees have changed jobs they have lost insurance due to "pre-existing condition" clauses that deny coverage. And people who lost jobs to downsizings lost all coverage completely. Employment has shifted dramatically from manufacturing to services in the U.S., yet a far higher percentage of service employers offer very limited insurance, or no insurance at all. And the vast army of those who work part-time (under 40 hours per week), have no access to insurance as employers limit their hours and limit access to coverage as a cost saving measure. Employer-provided health insurance worked in the far more stable employment practices of the 1940s to 1970s, but the program simply isn’t sufficient to meet the needs of nearly half of Americans today.
Yesterday, Wal-Mart agreed with the largest service union in the USA (their bitter enemy, the Service Employees International Union) that dramatic changes were needed in health care coverage (see article here.) Obviously, Wal-Mart does not believe it can provide universal coverage to its 1.3 million employees and compete. But interestingly, the unions which have fought hard to get employees health benefits agree that far too many employers cannot be expected to offer health care and compete in a global economy. Democrats have easily joined the ranks of those asking for a different system, but interestingly now noteworthy Republicans agree – including Howard Baker former Chief of Staff to Ronald Reagan.
So, what is to be done? There is no shortage of opinions about the solution (see article here). Many people want universal coverage from the federal government – but that has many detractors as well. Some states say a universal program should be implemented state-by-state, and Massachusetts has taken this direction. The President has offered to push for universal coverage with a series of changes to taxation of health care benefits. Lots of ideas – but most of these have existed for well over a decade. So it hasn’t been a lack of ideas that has stopped progress toward a different solution.
What we have with Wal-Mart’s announcement is a Disruption inside the business community. A Disruption saying "stop, we have to do something different here. The old way won’t work. We’re Locked-in to an outdated health care solution that must change." Having the country’s largest employer, in tandem with one of the largest unions, make this admission serves as a Disruption.
But this will make no difference if we don’t find White Space to actually create, test, pilot, learn, and define a new Success Formula for health care. Politicians often say "we need a debate on the options." Debates we’ve had. What we need is to try new solutions, and see if they work. We need to begin variations of the multiple scenarios so we can see what works, and what doesn’t. Massachusetts, for example, is a great experiment in a state-implemented program. But we also need to experiment with changes to the federal systems (Medicare and Medicaid) to see what they can actually do. And we need to experiment with subsidies and tax changes in the workplace to see what private programs can be developed. In the end, only in White Space do we actually test possible answers and thereby develop a new solution to which people migrate. The best solution is not the one debated to success, but instead the solution which is proven to work – and that is the solution to which people migrate. Anyone will change when they can see a better result, and that can only happen in White Space.
This is exactly what businesses have to do as well. The Phoenix Principle has demonstrated that whether a problem needs to be solved at the macro level (like national health care coverage) at an industry level (like national access to broadband telecommunications) or at a company, or function, work team or even an individual level Disruptions must be supplemented with White Space if a solution is actually to be developed and implemented. New solutions don’t come out of the universities or other "brain trusts". They come out of White Space where new Success Formulas that include strategies and tactics are actually tested and demonstrated to work. Then these new Success Formulas don’t have to be foisted upon people, because the better results attract people to them. Of course there are laggards, but we see that migration to a better result works far better than trying to debate, design, declare and then demand change – a model that almost never gets implemented nor works well.
So, we need White Space for experiments in health care coverage. And the state programs fit as one example. Let’s hope this Disruption will lead to more experiments. And we need more White Space in our companies, our departments and our lives so that we can experiment and find ways to produce better results. In the end, we can equate long-term success with White Space – and we’ve never needed more of it than we do today.
by Adam Hartung | Jan 28, 2007 | Disruptions, General, In the Rapids, Leadership, Openness
How can we recognize a Phoenix company? One that will sustain its success for a prolonged period? We can start by looking at the one and only company which has been on the Dow Jones Industrial Average ever since it was created. The one company that has overcome Schumpeter’s dire predictions of individual company failure, and demonstrated it is possible to earn above average rates of return for extended time and simultaneously grow. That company is General Electric.
A recent article on GE’s Medical Devices business (see article here) highlights key characteristics of how to overcome Lock-in to an existing Success Formula by internally Disrupting and using White Space. Mark Morita is the Manager for Disruptive Technologies within this GE business. Mark is not an engineer, nor is he in product development. GE recognizes that it must maintain a powerful group always focused on making incremental improvements in their products and markets. But, they simultaneously must have a Disruptive focus that can produce breakthrough results.
And that is where Mark comes in. Mark Disrupts the engineers by introducing technologies from entirely other fields. While they attend medical equipment conferences, Mark attends gaming and consumer electronics conferences. While they try to make sonogram machines that are 10% lighter or 10% cheaper, Mark looks for ways to make them the size of a GameBoy at less than half current cost. His role is not only tolerated in GE – it is mandated. All across the many GE businesses they maintain roles which are dedicated to attacking Lock-In and Disrupting the existing Success Formula. Mark and his counterparts constantly keep the GE businesses operating White Space to create new Success Formulas leading to growth.
Jack Welch, the famed former CEO of GE, had the nickname "Neutron Jack." This referred to his willingness to Disrupt GE in order to seek above average results and growth. No business was sacred in GE, and no market was beyond their reach. Welch constantly Disrupted GE from within, and kept Lock-in from leading to deteriorating performance. It wasn’t mere goal-setting that kept GE dynamic, it was an institutionalized practice of internal Disruption and extensive use of White Space. New CEO Jeffrey Immelt is now continuing that practice, with dramaticly large recent acquisitions of about 2/3 of Abbott Labs (medical diagnostic equipment) and Smiths Group (aerospace) while indicating he plans to sell the $10B plastics business (see article here).
Even a huge company, such as GE, can operate according to The Phoenix Principle and sustain success. The Phoenix Principle does not apply only to small companies, nor those in high-tech markets. Any company can achieve and sustain success if they are willing to identify their Success Formula and Lock-ins, attack those Lock-ins with programs designed to generate internal Disruptions, then fund White Space in which permission is given to develop new Success Formulas. These steps may seem mundane, but those who follow them can become the next GE – and that would not be a bad thing.
by Adam Hartung | Jan 9, 2007 | Defend & Extend, General, In the Swamp, Leadership, Lock-in
If you aren’t tuned-in to ad agencies, and if you don’t live in Chicago, you might well have missed a furor that erupted in early December regarding America’s largest retailer. Wal-Mart made a switch in ad agencies last fall, moving their $500million account to DraftFCB. But then, shortly after making the switch, Wal-Mart fired the company’s head of marketing and fired the agency. Wal-Mart then, and now, was unwilling to offer an explanation. They hid behind a veiled claim of "ethics violations," using besmirching language to imply wrong-doing while offering no facts.
Since then, Susan Chandler at The Chicago Tribune has unearthed a pretty good explanation of what went on (see article here.) [Like lots of news stories, it takes some time and research to start piecing together what really happened.] Seems more than a year ago Wal-Mart hired a new 35 year old marketer to help change the Wal-Mart image and promotion program. Given how Wal-Mart’s growth prospects, and stock price, had stagnated since 2000 this appeared like a very good idea.
The new marketer started moving Wal-Mart away from selling on Price, Price and Price. As my old marketing professor said "Price is nothing but a blunt club that has no meaning. Skilled marketers use other tools to create customer value and over time make a lot more money." So this new marketer’s actions looked like a good move to actually help Wal-Mart get back on the growth track.
She actually had Wal-Mart underwriting fashion shows. And launched advertising in Vogue magazine. And she moved much trendier merchandise into the stores. She also started Wal-Mart selling higher margin products, such as wine, gourmet coffee and sushi. She did this in selected stores, testing her ideas. In effect, she set up her own White Space and began working on a new Success Formula to replace the old, tired one at Wal-Mart.
But, she made a small mistake. She didn’t really have Permission to use Market Challenges to create a new Success Formula. Wal-Mart had not (and still has not) Disrupted itself. The company has not agreed that it’s Success Formula needs to change, and its leaders have not expressed any need for a new Success Formula. Operating in denial of the marketplace Challenges which have let Target, Kohl’s and JCPenney take away customers and sales, Wal-Mart really wanted the new marketing head to Defend & Extend the old Success Formula. She may have thought she had White Space, but she didn’t. While she had resources, she lacked Permission – Permission to attack old Lock-ins and Permission to develop new solutions.
So the top brass at Wal-Mart fired her. And they fired the ad agency. It’s easier to deny Challenges, and fire those who take on Lock-ins, than it is to Disrupt your thinking and commit to White Space. It’s easier to live in Lock-in than use White Space to find a new and better Success Formula.
Wal-Mart has had many "industry experts" support these actions. According to the Tribune, once the firings were done the Chairman of a retail consulting company (Howard Davidowitz) said "Wal-Mart’s lifestyle advertising is all wrong. It shows in the sales." Uh, with 99% of the company stuck in doing wat it’s always done, you don’t suppose the weak results are dure more to a failing Success Formula than some new White Space efforts? The consultant is as Locked-in as Wal-Mart’s maangement. Even this outsider was willing to give the new marketer permission to try new things. Supporting management may help him get future fees, but it isn’t doing the investors or vendors much good.
Or, take this quote from George Whalin, another "industry expert," – "They [Wal-Mart] don’t attract 25-year-old trendy women. Their customers are older women. They’re not skinny-jeans buyers…. They [Wal-Mart] lost their minds." Maybe the need for new customers is the problem, George. You think it’s a poor idea to attract younger customers? It’s bad to expand your customer base? To upgrade your product lines to higher margin items and to improve your competitiveness against your fastest growing and most successful competitors is "losing your mind"? Not only is Wal-Mart Locked-in, so are the "experts." If they won’t support White Space, with Permission to develop a new Success Formula, how do they suppose Wal-Mart is to turn-around its sales trends?
As this firing happened, Wal-Mart had its worst November sales in a decade. How does Wal-Mart talk about this performance? According to the company spokesperson, "We have found the thing that appeals to everyone is price… We will continue to emphasize price leadership."
Reinforcing the old Success Formula isn’t going to solve Wal-Mart’s competitive problems. If you keep doing what you just did, you’re going to get what you just got. Without Permission to Disrupt Lock-ins and create a new Success Formula, all the size and resources of even a Wal-Mart won’t create success. Too bad for Wal-Mart’s top marketer, too bad for the agency, too bad for shoppers looking for an improved Wal-Mart, too bad for vendors that want Wal-Mart to do more than beat them up for lower prices, and too bad for investors.
by Adam Hartung | Jan 3, 2007 | General, In the Rapids, Innovation, Leadership, Lifecycle, Lock-in
Did you buy any CDs this Christmas? If you did, the odds re you didn’t buy as many as you did in previous years. A freefall in sales of physical music products (CDs and music DVDs) has been going on since 2000. (For more data see Chicago Tribune article here.) That year CD sales peaked at 942 million units. By 2005, the volume was down to 705 million – a full 25% decline! And sales were off an additional 15.7% in the first six months of 2006.
Meanwhile, according to the Recording Industry Assocition of America, Sales of digital singles increased 71.3% in the first half of 2006. Since inception in 2003, sales of iTunes have reached a staggering 1.5BILLION songs – making Apple Computer Company the 4th largest music seller in the U.S. According to ComScore networks (see more data here), sales at iTunes increased a whopping 84% in the first 3 quarters of 2006. According to the V.P. of communications at RIAA, Jonathan Lamy, "This is a markeptlace that went from nothing 3 years ago to this year surpassing a billion dollars in retail revenue" (quote from Tribune.)
You have to wonder, why is Apple capturing all these sales and all this value? After all, they didn’t invent MP3 technology – the format that made digital music possible had been around for several years before Apple created its iPod version of the music storage and playback device. Likewise, Napster had gone on to great infamy demonstrating the huge demand for a digital music site years before iTunes was launched. Obviously it wasn’t a technology breakthrough that gave Apple this big success.
Furthermore, before Apple launched either iPod or iTunes Sony had already been a long-term leader in consumer electronics. Sony’s famous Walkman, Discman and other products had pioneered portable music. Sony had a global distribution for its products in stores of all types, including its own. And Sony was a brand synonymous with quality in consumer electronic devices and music playback. Sony even owned its own music label, and a huge archive of popular songs as well as contracts with several popular artists. Sony had all the pieces to create and dominate the digital music business. But it didn’t.
Sony was, and is, trapped in its Lock-in. The company had two separate division for hardware and software (music), and the two didn’t talk to each other. Worse, both divisions committed to the old music industry Success Formula, and had Locked-in on the physical distribution method for selling music (CDs). [For White Paper on music industry Success Formula and Lock-in visit here.] Both feared cannibalization more than they sought breakthrough solutions, as Sony joined EMI, RCA and others in suing Napster into oblivion during 2000, hoping it would stop digital music sales and help them regain sales and profits.
Today the traditional music companies are still Locked-in, and Apple is making enormous profits. Like Southwest in the airline industry, Apple is simply doing what the market wants and is reaping huge benefit because the most likely, and most powerful, competitors are more interested in preserving Lock-in than succeeding. Just because competitors are large, and well funded, and full of good product development does not mean you can’t effectively compete against them. When markets shift Lock-in often means that the most logical activity – that of existing competitors reaping the benefit – is often NOT what occurs. And it makes enormous markets available for new competitors to develop new Success Formulas that create above average returns.
by Adam Hartung | Dec 31, 2006 | Defend & Extend, General, In the Swamp, Innovation, Leadership, Lock-in
I’m almost 50, and if you’re age is anywhere near mine, and you’ve lived in the U.S.A., you probably have a really bad attitude toward electricity created by nuclear power. Back in the 1970s electric utilities set about building nuclear power plants which cost up to 10 times (not 10% more, 1,000% more) than they forecast. As a result, electric rates were shooting up beyond everyone’s expectations in order to pay for these enormous cost overruns. Additionally, construction timelines were extended out 2x to 5x expectations, causing power shortages which further drove up rates. And then, on top of all of this, serious concerns about safety developed as we saw various problems in nuclear operations – not the least of which was the core exposure at Three Mile Island which put a scare in everyone across the U.S.A. as we all genuinely feared a Chernobyl-style meltdown and radiation leak.
The electic utility leaders of the 1970s made a series of mistakes when they went about implementing nuclear power. Not the least of these was a complete lack of standardization. As a famous study at the time reported, in the U.S.A. no two nuclear power plants were the same. Successful nuclear programs in France, Germany and Japan had demonstrated that by utilizing the same engineering, the same plans, and learning from each and every build then improving those plans, they had developed extremely cost effective nuclear powered electricity which was proving to be extremely safe. As a Harvard Professor (definitely not a hotbed of support for nuclear power) reported, the French program was producing electricity at rates so low that you could completely encase the spent fuel rods in platinum 3 foot thick and blast it into outer space, or bury it into a core hole 15 miles below the earth surface, and the added cost would still make their cost per kilowatt hour a fraction of the cost of fossil fuel generators in the U.S.
But, that was then. What about now? As recently reported (see Chicago Tribune article here), nuclear power is starting to make a U.S. comeback. Fossil fuels are more expensive than ever. And, this time the industry seems to be intent upon utilizing all the lessons from the past 50 years. Yes, that’s right, we’ve been making electricity from nuclear fuel for 50 years (the U.S. wasn’t first, but even here nuclear power is over 40 years old). But will this program move forward?
That all depends upon our Lock-in. As a country, we can choose to remain locked-in to our previous assumptions about nuclear power. Assumptions based upon a single history (the U.S. experience versus the global experience), and based upon a very poor implementation. Or, we can view recent world events as a Disruption to our thinking. We can view the 5 year old war in Iraq as at least partially connected to our need for secure fossil fuel reserves. We can view the breakdowns in domestic offshore supplies from storms in the Gulf of Mexico as indicative of the risks inherent in our fossil fuels based supply system. We can view the ongoing reports of global warming as having at least the potential of being accurate (and if so, potentially deadly). We can utilize these market challenges to our energy supply strategy as creating within us a need to disrupt our approach to energy production in the U.S.A.
If we do this, we then can see the validity in using White Space to restart a nuclear energy program domestically. We should not wholesale change strategy – we need to learn. We should set aside Permission for a handful of companies to utilize all the accumulated knowledge on nuclear power to begin implementing some new plants. We should observe these projects closely. Monitor their progress and results. Learn from them as much as possible. And ADAPT in these White Space projects to develop solutions which work. Then, we can begin to MIGRATE toward a nuclear power as an effective part of our national energy policy.
As a nation, we’ve been Locked-in to an "anti-nuclear" energy strategy. But, 30 years have passed since Three Mile Island, and a lot has been learned. Our approach, our strategy, is being Challenged by a range of forces. What we must do now is see these Challenges as reason to Disrupt ourselves – our approach – and realize we must move beyond our Lock-in. We can use White Space to give Permission for trying a new solution, and potentially develop a new Success Formula for American energy supply.
by Adam Hartung | Dec 31, 2006 | Defend & Extend, Ethics, General, Leadership, Lock-in
Do you ever wonder how people get so locked in to doing something that they end up doing the wrong thing? Do you think they are all bad people? My experience has shown me that rarely do people do things because they have no internal moral compass. Rather, it’s the systems we use to Lock-In behavior which causes behavior to end up creating negative "unintended consequences."
Take for example compensation for attorneys. As everyone knows, attorneys charge by the hour. As do plumbers, electricians, retail store clerks and a raft of other occupations. On the face of it, this makes complete sense. But, as the Chicago Tribune recently reported (see article here), when you couple this simple billing process directly to compensation, you can get some pretty bad outcomes. By "promoting" what is seen by top management as a key success factor, your Lock-in can lead well-meaning people to do things which are less than…… shall we say….. positively correlated with customer success?
As the Tibune reported, by Locking-in on the metric, billable hours, what starts to happen in law firms is people "fudge" their billing. What appears to be a good thing, tieing compensation to a key firm growth metric, leads everyone up and down the firm to do unnecessary work, take longer time to do work than is necessary, utilize resources on projects that are hard to justify, and even outright exagerate the time spent on client efforts. As a result, some clients are finding they need to challenge their attorney’s bills – not an activity you want to spend time doing with someone who is supposedly your advocate, hopefully looking out for your best interest. And some judges have been considering attorney’s bills too high, and refusing to force the payment of those bills.
I don’t mean just to pick on attorneys here. More than a dozen years ago I took a leading position with the consulting firm of Coopers & Lybrand (later merged with Price Waterhouse and then later acquired by IBM.) I had worked at the firm only 6 months when I was in a meeting with the top officers of the firm to discuss "firm direction." As the meeting droned on, talking about nothing but billable hours per type of project, I finally said "you know, I’m getting the sense that no one here cares what kind of work we do. I could have armies of MBAs operating jack hammers and no one would care as long as it generated thousands of billable hours at market hourly rates." One of the top 5 firm officers turned to me and said "you know Adam, now you’re starting to get it."
What we all have to be careful about is Locking-in on metrics which can lead to behavior that does not serve our customers well. This Lock-in, often a key sign of good implementation of strategy or quality (locking-in metrics is a cornerstone of Six Sigma), can become deadly when disassociated from market conditions and customer needs. Yes, billable hours are good – but only when those hours are serving the client’s best interest.
That’s the problem with Lock-in, at first it seems like a really good idea. You use a metric to help drive repetition of behavior which has proven to lead to success. Locking in on the metric improves results. It clearly is beneficial, and a good thing. But these same locked-in metrics can prove problematic, even disastrous, if we don’t regularly Challenge them in the face of market requirements. We need to alter our metrics in order to keep ourselves aligned with customer needs. Metrics must be seen as guideposts, not ends into themselves. And all of them need to be viewed as flexible and alterable – before they lock us in to a tour of the Swamp and eventually failure.
