by Adam Hartung | Dec 22, 2006 | Defend & Extend, General, In the Swamp, Leadership, Lifecycle, Lock-in
I’ve talked a lot about the business lifecycle, but not recently. For newer BLOG readers, I describe the business lifecycle as being like a river. Companies start out in the Wellspring, looking for a working Success Formula. After it hits on a functioning business model, it enters the Rapids where it uses innovation in all parts of its business to fully develop the Success Formula and make maximum returns while growing. Then the company hits a growth stall, and enters the Flats – where paddling suddenly becomes critical. Hoping that they can now extend their life by doing more of the same, they hope to stay in the Flats. But, unfortunately, in today’s economy there is no energy in the Flats and companies find themselves rapidly in the Swamp, where they become so obsessed with killing mosqitos and fighting alligators that they forget entirely what the Rapids were like and their real objective is to find fast moving water again. Finally, they fall into the Whirlpool when competitors simply pull them into failure.
I’m often asked how to identify transitions in companies across these sectors, and I point to how Lock-in during the Rapids leads to the stall in the Flats. Look at Lock-ins, and adherence to Lock-in even after the market has shifted and the Success Formula results are deteriorating. As focus becomes all about Lock-in adherence, even as results have become mired, and you see companies in the Swamp. Very few recover from the Swamp – the use up their resources as competitors push them toward the Whirlpool.
WalMart has exhibited all the traits of a company deeply in the Swamp. Despite their poor results, chronicled in this blog, Walmart rigidly sticks to its doctrine and hopes the market will bring them fresh water so the paddling isn’t so tough. A great example showed up recently, in the form of WalMart’s business cards. In the midst of it’s worst monthly and quarterly performance in over a decade, WalMart chose to react by reducing the physical size of their business cards (see Forbes article here.) Yep, amidst a crisis in growth this management team has reacted by cutting costs – it’s core Success Formula Lock-in – in the trivial area of business cards. WalMart is schrinking the cards in order to lower the paper cost and ink cost in printing employee cards. Give me a break – this is going to make any difference in the competitive problems with Target, Kohl’s and JCPenneys?
This joins the pantheon of key indicators that investors, employees and suppliers can use to identify a company in deep strategic trouble. I used to call it "the paper clip memo phenomenon." Look for the CEO of a troubled company to send out an email telling employees to be sure to save and reuse paper clips before discarding materials. This memo has come in many forms – such as "please start printing on the back side of paper as well as the front side", or "from here forward printing documents in color is forbidden," to "we are reducing all email archive space by 75% in order to save on server costs in IT." All real world examples of business leaders who are effectively telling the world they have no idea how to deal with the strategy problems they face, and they hope to survive as long as possible by adhering to Lock-in.
WalMart is huge and it won’t fail tomorrow. Heck, if we get a recession next year (predicted by several economists) WalMart might even see an up-tick in business and a jump in it’s stock price as customers go on a cost-saving binge. But, longer term, WalMart has demonstrated that it is out of touch with its customers and competitors – and it’s low cost no matter the consequences strategy is not the path to growth. Sometimes, the smallest things can demonstrate the biggest strategy problems. Just look at their business cards.
by Adam Hartung | Dec 4, 2006 | Defend & Extend, General, In the Swamp, Leadership, Lifecycle, Lock-in
So what business is Sears in? I don’t think anyone knows any more. But it is certain that without a direction, Sears will burn through its cash and leave shareholders with nothing soon enough.
After months of whipping Sears management in this blog for extending its Lock-in to failing retailing practices, in my last Sears post I recognized that I finally could see the management team was milking Sears and KMart of cash. They weren’t trying to actually compete with Target, JC Penneys, Kohl’s and WalMart. They are interested in pulling as much cash out of Sears and KMart as possible. Recently the Chicago Tribune reported (see article here) that Sears was in fact using its "excess cash" to invest in derivatives. Buying into the equities of other companies in a fashion so that no one, not even Sears’ investors, would know what Mr. Lampert and his team is buying.
What’s wrong with this picture? Well, to start with, businesses no longer have some extended lifetime where they can sit back and "clip the coupons" as they rake in the cash. Sure that was possible in the less dynamic era from the 1940’s through the 1970s when competition was dominated by huge players (like Sears) who grabbed market share and then simply held onto it by erecting barriers to competition. But today the flow of products, money and information is so fast that no barrier actually holds back the tide of competition. Sears and KMart have to contend with all the old competitors, all the emerging new traditional retailers, and all the on-line retailers. And they are doing so without the benefit of a powerful supply chain like WalMart. When you go to "milk" the business, the poor cow finds itself malnourished and no longer producing a lot faster than most people predict. WalMart is too busy cutting prices to feed its machine, while Target and Kohls are out finding the latest new products and fashion goods. There isn’t much of a storehouse of value in a brand when everyone can see the number of stores declining, the costs and prices rising, and the employees less satisfied than at competitors. "Milking" the business was a strategy for the 1980’s and before – not really applicable today.
And is Mr. Lampert’s team using this cash flow to invest in something where they can achieve competitive advantage? Well, we simply don’t know. All we know is he’s investing in lots of derivatives – and hiding his investments from anyone to see. What’s wrong with this picture? Well, firstly, do investors have a right to know how their money is invested? I seem to recall investor information being a bedrock of importance to publicly traded companies.
"But what about Warren Buffett and Berkshire Hathaway?" you may ask. Alas, we know that the go-go era of Berkshire Hathaway was at a time when Mr. Buffett and his cash stockpiles could be used to rescue situations where management was somewhat desperate. He offered a White Knight approach to helping those with cash needs to rebuild their business. But today, with the flourishing of Private Equity and Hedge Funds the marketplace is awash in dealmakers with lower capital costs hunting for the kinds of opportunities that were delivered to Mr. Buffett for most of the 1980s and 1990s. The value of such opportunities has shrunk so low that even Mr. Buffett himself, in the Berkshire annual reports, has stated that there are insufficient opportunities for him to keep Berkshire’s capital effectively employed for investors.
Beyond deals, Berkshire Hathaway has made almost all its money in insurance. Berkshire is a primary player in the sophisticated, and highly analytical, world of insurance underwriting and re-insurance (that’s insuring the insurers). Several times Mr. Buffett has explained that the primary profit generator for Berkshire comes from understanding risk and insurance products and knowing how to be the low-cost player in the insurance business. Something Berkshire has mastered and maintained for over 20 years. His investments in other companies, such as Pier One, have done no better than the overall marketplace – and at times far worse. In the end, his whole acquisitions of companies such as Dairy Queen have produced cash for investing into insurance – a target business where Berkshire Hathaway is not only low cost but also the most innovative company in the industry.
So where does that leave Sears? Their plans to "milk" the Kmart and Sears stores for cash I don’t buy into at all. As every quarter has demonstrated, revenues are falling and costs are rising faster than management can predict. Opportunities to sell the real estate into a REIT or other cash producer have not developed, and the real estate market has long ago peaked. Its plan to be a public "hedge fund" holds little promise of long-term above average returns or growth in an ever increasingly competitive world for "deals" where they are no better than any other sharp team of MBAs with a lot of cash from a pension fund or elsewhere. And there is no business, like Buffett’s insurance, where Sears management team claims to have any leadership or innovation.
Otherwise, Sears is a great company. The fact is, management has not really stepped up to any of the Challenges which faces the company in retailing, or in hedge fund investing or in identifying a new business which can grow and return above average profits for years into the future. There is no White Space at Sears, no effort to find a new business with advantage. Right now, Sears is just a vainglorious story of a CEO who wants to spend other people’s money. As Cramer says on Mad Money "You buy Sears to buy into my friend Eddie Lampert." With a below market average Return on Equity of 10.7%, a low Return on Assets of 3.9% and an above average Price/Earnings multiple of 22 – that’s a very risky buy.
by Adam Hartung | Nov 30, 2006 | General, In the Swamp, Innovation, Leadership, Lock-in
WalMart prides itself on great execution. For years management has bragged about the company’s ability to get things done quickly and cheaply. But now the company has run into problems. Revenue growth has slowed, and the future is very unclear. A five year stock chart shows declining equity value of about $80billion. WalMart is finding out that when innovating, it’s execution skills are greatly lacking.
This week it was reported (see Tribune article here) that WalMart is going to report that it’s November sales actually FELL for the first time in a decade. This is just the latest in a string of bad news. Included is the fact that WalMart is planning to cut back its expansion plans in response to its declining year-over-year same store sales. The company’s foray into more trendy fashion goods has flopped, with those products being pulled. It’s taking on the drug retailers with flat price generic pharmaceuticals – largely to a market yawn. Net – WalMart monthly sales are up only half of Target‘s (who’s 5 year chart shows they found the $80B Walmart lost).
Readers of this blog know I’ve long stated that WalMart‘s future is dicey for investors and employees. Totally Locked In to its strategy of low cost, management has pruned any skills at innovation. Long gone are the people who in the 1960s helped Sam Walton pioneer the innovations to drive the low cost strategy. So now, when it needs to innovate, WalMart doesn’t have the right people to do the job. To paraphrase an old southern expression "even if the mind is willing, the flesh is weak."
WalMart desperately needs to change. But to do that the company needs to implement White Space. It needs to first own up to its Challenges. It needs to tell employees, vendors, investors and customers that they see a need to change and fully intend to. Then management needs to put in place a team that has the permission to develop a new Success Formula, reporting directly to the CEO (outside the existing management system), and fund that team with enough resources to really try something different. All these piecemeal ideas are getting lost in failed implementations by an organization too massive and tightly directed to do anything more than run the old Success Formula. The White Space group needs permission to develop a new store concept. To test things their own way and prove out the new Success Formula – not just a new tactic here or there. And then, instead of trying to push the tactic into the massive WalMart the company must migrate the traditional stores toward what works in the new Success Formula.
WalMart has done this right before. Sam’s Club is a huge success – a pioneer in the club store concept. There WalMart followed all the rules of White Space and created a Success Formula that worked.
If they will hire some new managers, and give them the kind of White Space they gave the Sam’s Club team, WalMart could migrate toward a more successful future in a matter of months. But if management keeps doing all these tactical actions they’ll only succeed in confusing everyone. Much to all of our dismay.
by Adam Hartung | Nov 22, 2006 | Disruptions, In the Rapids, Innovation, Leadership, Openness
When asked about companies that are great examples of Phoenix Principle companies I like to discuss Virgin. For years Virgin was considered a small company, but it is a great example of a small company that has become very, very big by following The Phoenix Principle. There is no doubt that the company founder, Richard Branson, had a lot to do with the company’s enormous success (just as Steve Jobs has had a huge impact on the success of Apple and Pixar). But we can look beyond the flamboyance of Branson to see that the success has had everything to do with avoiding Lock-in to a particular Success Formula and instead accepting Disruptions to constantly create and then manage White Space.
Virgin was founded as a "publishing" company, putting out its first magazine in 1968. In 1970 I guess you could say it became a "media" company as that’s when it entered mail-order music sales. By 1971 Virgin expanced into hard assets by opening its first retail record store, and then in 1972 opening its own studio to actually produce its own content, leading to the Virgin label introduction in 1973. In 1976, Success Formula expansion continued with the opening of a nightclub in 1977. In 1979 Virgin ignored the thinking of everyone else in the "music" industry by signing on The Sex Pistols – an outrageous band which made Virgin a well known label and very wealthy. By 1980, Virgin was pretty well established as a publishing/media/music company with enormous profits and great success. This could easily have Locked-in Virgin.
Then, in 1984 the company realized it had to expand or stagnate. But it didn’t select just one project. The company opened a potpouri of new White Space. Virgin Atlantic Airways was opened to haul passengers, and Virgin Cargo to haul goods. A hotel was opened in Deya, Mallorca. And Virgin Vision opened shop with a 24 hour satellite music channel. What do these have in common? Nothing more than each was a new opportunity to expand the company into high growth industries. The businesses did not even share the goodness of being in high margin businesses – as practically all were markets where profits were extremely rare to nonexistent. Thus, the second great Phoenix Principle axiom was applied. Virgin did not dictate how these projects would succeed. Rather, they were each given resources and permission to find a new Success Formula in markets where Locked-in competitors did poorly.
In 1994 Virgin Cola was launched as a company to compete with Coke and Pepsi. In 1996 Virgin opened Virgin Bridal, the first mass-retail approach to the formerly cottage industry of bridal shop goods. Virgin also partnered with a company winning the contract to build the Channel Tunnel rail link between the UK and Europe. In 1997 the company got into the rail business full bore with 15 lines in England and plans to expand. That year the company also launched Virgin Vie – a cosmetics company. And Virgin Direct banking was opened in the U.K. Why do I mention these? Because they were just some of the projects launched in the 1980s and 1990s that did not become wildly well known successes. Part of creating and managing White Space is trying things that don’t work out. Portfolio management says that we need a mix of projects, yet most organizations cannot stand the thought of investing in something that does not succeed. At Virgin, managing White Space does not just mean starting new things – it also means knowing when to sell or otherwise get out.
This all got my attention recently because Virgin America will be going into service soon, carrying air passengers across the U.S. (See full article in CIO Magazine here.) The project is a marvel at how to manage White Space, culled from decades of doing it well. Simplification is a cornerstone, as the new enterprise is ignoring long-held "beliefs" about what works with airlines – an industry in which 160 air carriers have gone bankrupt since the deregulation in 1978. Virgin relies heavily on vendors and contractors/consultants to get things done in the early days. Rather than use "industry standard" software packages for critical applications like bookings/reservations and scheduling they are literally building their own; and using Linux open source code rather than proprietary source from companies like Oracle or Microsoft. And much of the work is being done in India by companies that has never worked previously for an airline. Virgin is demonstrating that competing means doing what your competitors don’t – in order to be more flexible and develop a new competitive advantage.
Great companies are no accident. What they have in common is a willingness to Disrupt their Lock-in and use White Space to create new Success Formulas. Long-term, success does not come from understanding your "core competency" and optimizing it (if that were true Virgin would likely have followed the path of Playboy magazine or Sun records – the fabled company that launched Elvis but is now gone), but rather from overcoming market Challenges and developing new solutions to compete. To this day Virgin follows this path, fearing no new markets and entering with their own unique Success Formula developed in White Space. And anyone can participate, on the company web site is a link where you an submit your own Big Idea for consideration – always on the lookout for Disruptions and opportunities.
by Adam Hartung | Nov 3, 2006 | Defend & Extend, In the Swamp, Leadership, Lock-in
OK, I guess I’m dense. For months I’ve been asked what I thought of the management at Sears. And I have been pretty brutal, saying that Sears was not a viable long-term competitor against Wal-Mart, Target, Kohl’s and other major retail players. Especially as that competition intensifies. Why Sears can’t even get it’s own partners in Canada to go along with an acquisition of that unit (see article here).
But in October, I finally "got it" regarding Sears. Many newspapers reported that Sears equity value was jumping on the notion it would buy Home Depot, or another big company (see Chicago Tribune article here.) And I realized that Mr. Lampert wasn’t trying to develop a strategy to have Sears compete Sears long-term. Nor was he converting Sears into a Real Estate Investment Trust for long-term value. Instead, he’s "draining the Swamp" to get all the cash out of it he can before it rots.
Sears and KMart are at the end of their lives. Years of bad management has locked them into weak operations. But in American business, we never know how to deal with a business once it’s trapped in the Swamp – too busy killing mosquitos and fighting alligators to remember the primary mission. What we need to do is get the cash out. And that is clearly what Mr. Lampert is doing. He’s getting the cash out of Sears and its many holdings.
So, does that mean I’ve changed my mind on investing in Sears? Not really. It’s certainly OK to decide to exit a business in a fashion that actually creates a positive return (rather than keep running the business badly until Chapter 13 wipes out the investors and creditors). But Sears Holdings’ value has to be based upon what Mr. Lampert will do with this cash he plans to get out of Sears. That we don’t know. What will Lampert’s team do to create growth? He can’t create a positive future merely as the grim reaper. There has to be growth for investors to create long term value. Today, you would pay a heady 23x earnings for a company who’s future we know nothing about. That’s quite a premium to place on an unknown horse.
Will he invest wisely like Warren Buffet – the person he loves to be compared with? Will he invest in growth oriented enterprises like Buffet did in insurance, and later in public investments such as Coca-Cola? We don’t know. All we know is that like Berkshire Hathaway – which is named for the textile mill Mr. Buffet bought decades ago – Sears will soon enough stop being a brand name retailer and instead become something else.
In being smart about draining the Swamp – getting out of KMart and Sears with maximum cash – the Sears management team is doing something few business people in America do. For that, they are to be applauded.
If you’re a supplier to Sears, you’d better start looking for new customers to grow. For customers, they would be wise to realize that Sears and KMart will never again be what they once were – and we don’t know what they will be. For investors, the story is yet to be told. Will Sears pay out massive dividends giving investors a great return? Or will they invest in businesses at very low valuations that show great growth opportunities? Or will they invest the money poorly? Only time will tell. But we can be certain that Sears is no longer a retailer – it is now a diversified investment vehicle for Mr. Lampert and his management team. And only one of those kinds of companies has done well – a tough act to follow.
by Adam Hartung | Oct 25, 2006 | Defend & Extend, General, In the Swamp, Lifecycle, Lock-in
Wal-Mart has started selling prescriptions priced at $4 for a month’s supply (see article here.) Why? To get more people into the stores, silly. As I’ve blogged before, the world’s biggest retailer has the world’s biggest Lock-in, and they will do anything they can think of to keep their Success Formula unchanged. Now they are looking to drastically cut prescription prices.
This is good news for consumers. But what about Walgreens? After all, they have prescription sales as a central part of their Success Formula. What was their reaction? To say they aren’t worried, because Wal-Mart is a small player in prescriptions. In other words "we’re Locked into our Success Formula, and we don’t intend to change it no matter how large the Challenge." In the face of mounting pressure by insurance companies to force insureds to order medicine on-line, and corporate support for mail-based prescription delivery, and now a frontal assault by the world’s biggest retailer Lock-in allows Walgreens to blithely look the other way.
This is bad for investors in both companies. We now have two large companies planning to club each other to the bitter end in a battle to see who’s Success Formula can survive. Along the periphery of this fight are other retailers, like CVS, Target and KMart each ignoring the Challenge to their future (according to Associated Press [see here]some have said they don’t think this is an issue because customers with insurance only care about the co-pay and not the price) holding their own clubs and planning to defend themselves while putting in a few good licks as they seek to protect their individual Success Formulas.
This is simply bad management. There is nothing but hubris in undertaking such tactics. Smart management sees the Challenges, and reacts early. They avoid the club fight altogether, seeking out new markets where they can prosper. Only competitors who are Locked-in, and would rather take hits and possibly die would take on such a fight. The result of fighting is someone eventually falls into the Whirlpool and is swept away.
Again, for consumers such club fights can be a great cost saving opportunity. But for investors, it’s time to get out of the way! You don’t want to be an idle participant in the latest bloody version of business WWF Crackdown. You’ll most likely come out a bloody mess yourself.
by Adam Hartung | Oct 16, 2006 | Defend & Extend, In the Swamp, Leadership, Lock-in
I hear frequently about the conflict between management and investors. The argument typically goes along the lines that management could do many exciting and strategic things if it wasn’t for those pesky investors who want a consistent return on their equity. It sounds like somehow investors know too little, and they hamstring managment’s ability to succeed. In too many occasions, however, the opposite seems to be true.
Readers of this blog know I see McDonald’s as hurting its own future. The company has systematically been selling off its best growth prospects to protect itself from an outside investor who would like to make changes. Recently, a number of other investors voted that sentiment. As I blogged a few weeks ago, McDonald’s offered to investors that they could trade their McDonald’s stock for Chipotle shares – in an effort to finalize the sale of Chipotle and bring back in more McDonald’s stock to protect itself from a hostile investor. Last week Bloomberg reported that 262.7 million shares were tendered for the mere 18.6 million shares of Chipotle available. The offer was 14X oversubscribed. Indicating that a lot of investors knew a good deal when they saw it – swapping shares of a low-growth, Locked-in McDonald’s for the high growth innovative Chipotle – even though its profits were lower and its P/E much higher.
But now Wendy’s has decided to join the act. As reported on 10/13, Wendy’s is offering to sell its Baja chain in order to get cash to —– buy back more Wendy’s stock. Apparently influenced by the fast run-up in McDonald’s shares (which have had a very nice run this last year), Wendy’s is willing to sell off its new growth machine in order to protect its aging hamburger franchise. Rather than look to Baja as a replacement for the sagging Wendy’s, which has had declining same-store revenues for 6 of the last 8 quarters, they are going to sell it in order to buy back stock to prop up the equity value in a concept that has little growth opportunity left. In order to maximize its short-term value, Wendy’s is literally trading in its White Space future.
Too often, management behaves like Lemmings. One competitor follows another. Lock-in doesn’t exist just at the company level, but at the industry level as well. In several industries (steel, airlines, automobiles to name a trio) we’ve seen competitors simply walk off the cliff as they follow a Locked-in industry paradigm that does not produce returns. Management should listen to investors, and recognize that their chorus is not just for short-term profits. Rather, they seek growth and a market or higher rate of return on their equity. No private owner would expect less. But to meet this hurdle requires creating and maintaining White Space rather than letting Lock-in turn you into a Lemming.
by Adam Hartung | Oct 7, 2006 | Defend & Extend, General, In the Swamp, Leadership, Lock-in
If you don’t live in Chicago or Los Angeles you might have missed a recent set of stories about problems in the newspaper industry. The Tribune company (owner of Chicago Tribune and 9 other papers) also owns the LATimes. Like the New York Times company, Dow Jones and many other newspaper companies, the last 2 years has seen the equity value of Tribune plummet. Newspaper margins have been narrowing, caused by rising competition from new entrants, such as Google and other on-line sources as well as more nimble local competitors and brazen new business models from the likes of oil and railroad billionaire Philip Anschutz (articles here, here, and here). All traditional competitors have been cutting costs, including big layoffs.
Recently, this created an enormous bruhaha between the publisher and top editor at the LATimes and the owners in Chicago. This week things took another difficult step as the Tribune fired the LATimes publisher (article here) for outspokenly disagreeing with top management. The newspapers are reporting on themselves as they discuss the difficulties being encountered inside the executive suite – as well as by competitors (additional coverage here).
The problem is that these companies are following other large newspapers in trying to wring more blood out of the proverbial stone. Margins are down, and the answer they’re trying to implement is "more, better, faster" of what they always did. But, as the fired Times publisher recognized, when you try to get more out of a broken business model by working it faster and harder, all you get is worse results quicker. You can’t fix a failing Success Formula by trying to operate it better, or faster, or with fewer resources. Those actions just help you fail faster.
The problems in these newspapers, like all newspapers, relate to more competition for readership from the internet and other targeted news products. The old big-city newspaper "natural monopoly" has been erased by these new players. As a result, subscribers are declining – especially in coveted younger demographics (see article on shifting readershipfrom 2005! here). That leads to lower advertising rates and dollars, because who will pay for declining readership? Why pay $75 for a classiifed ad for your used cars when you get one, with pictures, from Vehix.com for $39? Why buy full page movie ads for one shot at viewership when you can get a week of repeated hits on Yahoo!? So ad dollars have been moving to on-line media, and other new competitors. All the fighting inside the newspaper companies about how many writers, or copy-editors or salespeople to lay off this quarter or next does not address the broken Success Formula. It only creates a huge opportunity for the new competitors to continue stealing customers and growing.
Lock-in can kill any business. Even the most venerable. When market Challenges emerge that create a need to redefine the Success Formula, only the companies that Disrupt themselves and move into White Space will re-create success. More, Better, Faster just creates more problems, and a vicious cycle that eventually leads to the Whirlpool of failure. The LATimes has had 12 publishers in 120 years – and now 3 of those have been put in place in the last 5 years by the Tribune company. Changing the captain will not change the destiny of a ship Locked-in on a course headed right for an iceberg.
by Adam Hartung | Oct 2, 2006 | Disruptions, In the Swamp, Leadership, Lifecycle, Openness
Two very unlikely companies demonstrated this week that anyone can Disrupt and create White Space to develop a new Success Formula. IBM and General Motors both showed signs of what any company can do.
Last spring the leaders of IBM Disrupted their product development process when they opened it up to all employees, suppliers and their family members (read article here). As a result, they involved 53,000 people and generated 37,000 ideas. How, by simply asking for their input. CEO Palmisano attacked hierarchy and sacred notions of product development in high-tech, and as a result he achieved a breakthrough in the potential to redefine IBM’s Success Formula. Now IBM is creating White Space to develop those ideas, committing (in advance!) $100million for operation InnovationJam to see what can work. When Louis Gerstner wrote "Who Says Elephants Can’t Dance" about IBM’s turnaround he demonstrated that size does not preclude innovation and growth. And now that legacy is living on in a tremendous example of just what any company can do.
Even more surprising is what is happening at GM – a company I have unabashadly beat up on the last year. Yet, within the confines of a horribly Locked-in organization we now can see the use of White Space in product design (see complete article here.) As recently as 2001 the hierarchy gave vehicle line executives the say on a car’s appearance – the kind of analytical, cost saving process that produced such great autos as the Pontiac Aztek (don’t remember it? – that’s the point!). "Design had been relegated to putting a wrapper on something that everyone else had decided what the dimensions, the proportions and the interior package were going to be", according to design head Bob Lutz.
What’s different now? "Tom Peters, a GM designer for 22 years called Lutz a ‘breath of fresh air’ because he lets designers start with a fresh sheet of paper." Lutz was brought in, at almost age 70 mind you, by CEO Waggoner as a Disruption to the old hierarchy. As head of design, he reports outside the old hierarchy and directly to the CEO. And his dedicated budget was carved out of the old product groupls. Thus permission and resources were both granted up front, and Lutz has made the most of it.
Many people accept the notion that older companies are unable to change. Like somehow organizations are destined to Lock-in and eventually fail. Unfortunately there is no data to support that notion. The ability to Lock-in and fail is just as apparent in start-ups as in behemoths. And, behemoths can Disrupt and use White Space just as well as a start-up. IBM has shown it’s ability to do so, and we can hope they will keep up their efforts to again be reborn – continuously, like a Phoenix. GM has a much longer and tougher road, but it can be done. If they can just get the rest of the company to behave like Bob Lutz and his design group!
by Adam Hartung | Sep 21, 2006 | Defend & Extend, General, In the Rapids, In the Swamp, Innovation, Lifecycle, Lock-in, Openness
On my web site I have a case study comparing Motorola and McDonald’s (download paper here.) As a reader of this BLOG, it won’t surprise you to guess that I think Motorola is a company for the future, and one into which you should consider investing, while McDonald’s is so horribly Locked-in to its past that I see precious little chance it will remain a great company.
Just look at today’s newspaper for further verification. Motorola has announced the launch of a new vending machine to sell mobile phones and accessories (see article here.) Now this might seem pretty bizarre. Who would buy a mobile phone from a vending machine? Honestly, I don’t know who and I know it won’t be me. But, I am impressed. It takes organizational flexibility, a willingness to see market challenges to conventional distribution, an openness to Disrupting old behaviors and the capability to experiment with changes to the Success Formula to try this. The idea had to be created, it had to move through the organization, receive permission for testing and get funding to make it to market. These are all traits of a company trying to stay in the Rapids, trying to maintain its growth, and organized to create and use White Space. While not all projects in such companies succeed, long term the companies do generate higher growth and long-term above average rates of returns.
Meanwhile, today McDonald’s announced their next big idea was to start selling Egg McMuffins all day (see article here.) Now there’s a big dash of creativity! The epitome of Defend & Extend Management, the company is so Locked-in to its old Success Formula it actually considers it exciting, newsworthy and innovative to simply consider expanding the hours it sells an existing, and decades old, product. I doubt Starbucks is quaking with worries about this change impacting their growth. Even by a consultant’s best estimate this will be considered a success if it adds a mere 3% to 5% to the bottom line. What tremendous ambition!
Motorola is Disruptive, willing to create White Space and test new ideas. Who knows what the value of alternative distribution for mobile phones is – such as a point of purchase vending machine. But they are willing to test the idea and see. Maybe it will turn out to be something that young people, or travelers, or some segment really wants. Meanwhile, McDonald’s is doing more of the same, and bragging about how hard it is to actually pull off this simple time-of-day extension for an existing product.
